It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
On the other hand, the only thing I see that would suggest that a fair amount of time passed between CR and QoS, is that Mathis was already set up and living comfortably in the villa that MI6 game him after mistakenly accusing him of being a double-agent. I would think it would take more than a week to: 1) prove Mathis is innocent and 2) find, prepare and move Mathis into a villa of that size.
Some things just don't add up. It's a movie, after all. It's fiction. Not real life. Heck, even in real life things just don't add up. Nothing to do but go with it and enjoy. :-)
QOS takes place in 2006, there's no 2 year gap.
The time period between the boat scene and the moment Bond takes down Mr White is likely a matter of weeks if not days, not 2 years.
Furtermore theres no way that Bond would be alone by himself for 2 years 'getting over Vesper' when M has yet to even tell him about Yusef or ask him when he last slept. Also why would Bond be talking about Le Chiffre if all that business was sorted 2 years ago?
The 2008 ticket is clearly a mistake and it would likely be in our service to overlook it, the same way that this clearly isn't Daniel Craig: http://screenmusings.org/CasinoRoyale/pages/CR_0131.htm
But you just go with it.
I don't know the answer I'm just offering theories. Unlike you I am far too humble to boldly state 'I am quite sure' when I have a distinct gap in my knowledge.
Not religious by any chance are you?
Anyway since you are ruling out with your certainty there being a 2 year gap between Ms call and shooting White I assume you think that QOS therefore takes place in late 06?
Well I'm pretty certain I'm as close to certain as we're ever going to get.
I care about the gun barrel, just not about whether it goes before or after the film. Why does it really matter? That's why I find it all so 'stupid'.
And again, what makes you so cocky and sure of yourself?
It just makes sense in terms of the story being a direct follow-on, the fact that the films were made in different years by different directors is probably a bigger discrepancy than the fact the ticket mentions 2008. For all we know there may have been a problem at the printers and they accidently put 08 on the ticket instead of 06. Who cares?
http://www.cracked.com/article_20298_6-huge-movie-plot-twists-that-caused-even-bigger-plot-holes.html
Again, by that logic, you may as well stick the theme song at the end. I think the gunbarrel works best as an opening sequence, I always loved it at the start and I see no reason to change it.
You can't begin to compare a short gun barrel sequence to a 3 to 4 minute song that has ALWAYS been at the start. It makes sense to have it at the start because it truly can open the film by including references for the action ahead, but the gun barrel is just a gun barrel, and doesn't clue you in on what is coming for the film (except that it's Bond, which you would know anyway) and isn't consistently at the start of the films like the theme song always is.
It isn't consistently at the start of the films because they moved it! It WAS always at the start until they moved it, which is what so many of us are angry about. So by your logic, the title sequence at the end would be fine because it would no longer always be at the start.
You get the gunbarrel, the PTS, the title sequence. Not sure why Forster and Mendes didn't understand that (as I said, I can let Campbell off).
In SF when M commented on Bond ejecting her, that was awesome. Little things count for a lot. The gunbarrel is a little thing as well, why treat it like it's a second class element?
:-?
If Bond really is back in #24 with the gunbarrel starting the film, I'll agree with you. But I thought at the end of Casino Royale, Bond was back and I think Martin Campbell would agree. But then with Quantum of Solace I was surprised to see he wasn't back and then at the end of Quantum I thought Bond was back. Then at the beginning of Skyfall Bond wasn't back. Bond can't be gone at the beginning of every movie and come back at the end. Craig has to do at least one film that has Bond there the whole time.
Quantum and Skyfall needed the gunbarrel at the beginning. Bond had to earn the elements of a Bond movie throughout Casino Royale, which is why it was at the end of the PTS. I still think Bond should have just been back at the end of Royale.
I missed it terribly.
In QOS, I rationalized it because the whole flick was simply a coda for CR.
I do miss the gunbarrel sequence, but wasn't totally upset when it wasn't in SF. Perhaps next time.
I know this is incredibly random, but I'm still really curious as to what word Eve whispers as she unloads her weapon at Patrice as he jumps off the bridge. I'm sure of the context, I would just enjoy knowing the word.
Okay, I shed a tiny bit O' tear my own self... just don't tell anyone!
Am I the only one that sometimes forgets that the profile pics here aren't of the person posting? They're so small that often I can't tell that they are of Brosnan or Connery, or whoever...It looks like some people have quite cool ones; it's too bad they aren't a little bigger or could at least be embiggened by clicking on them.
@thelordflasheart, I start placing profile pics with usernames, so in all honesty, if I was to see any of you in person one day, I would immediately expect to see Connery, Craig, Brosnan, etc. I would enjoy having the profile pictures a tad bigger.
I have a question that I know has been asked and answered numerous times, and while I accepted an answer for a while, I don't quite believe it's true: where does Eve shoot Bond at? Someone said the shoulder: when he is taking the pills during his enjoyment of death, you see a scar on his shoulder, directly above where Patrice hits him. But, why does Bond rub his hand around his gut when he is telling Eve about the damage she did to him? Did she hit him closer to the abs?
Also, how does Silva continuously fire the hybrid-type sniper rifle at Bond before and during the fight in the Shanghai skyscraper? It was a bolt-action rifle.
2. After seeing at home, I put more attention to the gloves in Shanghai. Obviously is a big goof because sometimes he wears them and other time he doesn't. It really doesn't bother me. After all, Bond movies are full with goofs and they've become something as a tradition (as with the DVD restoration when the respected the visible crew in TMWTGG.)
@Creasy47 Perhaps the damage in the ribs is due to the fall and not the bullet. By the way, when Tanner says he was lucky it wasn't a direct hit, does it means that he was hit by grapeshots or what?
I always assumed Bond's first lines to Eve after his return are not to be taken literally as regards the physical damage - it's just so he gets to whine a bit about minor things like ribs and less vital organs, and then say "nothing major" by the end of it. Obviously he needs to refer to the gut area and the nearby area before that - anywhere near shoulder would be too far up. ;)
Are you sure there's some big goof? He takes his gloves off in the car, we see that. We don't see him put them back on, that's all, but we don't need to, do we? He has them on by the time he's approaching Patrice. It's not like he has them on/off/on/off/on/off/on or something. Anyway, I don't have the film yet, so maybe I remember it wrong.
I think you've answered your own question there. Patrice had seen Bond already, so the sunglasses *and* cap disguised him much better than just being in civilian clothes with sunglasses on. Also, there were several chauffeurs there so blending in with them was a good way of being lost in the crowd. No one really notices chauffeurs unless you're looking for yours (and didn't Patrice take a taxi?).
I just checked again. He's without gloves when he gets off the car, in the elevator and when he's getting closer to Patrice. Then, when he fight it's hard to tell but obviously he has them on he Patrice falls. Then they are gone when he checks the suitcase. My conjecture is that he puts his gloves on when he holst the gun approaching Patrice.
Another question, why if the new digs are that well-guarded, M's flat is not?