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
I do wonder where are the other 00 agents.
That's one of the stupid moments in SPECTRE right at the end when Bond was in the boat while chasing Blofeld in a Helicopter, in the CNS building, there's only M, Moneypenny and Q watching the scene.
Where are the other 00 agents?
Was M, Q, Moneypenny and Bond were the only workers at MI6?
It seems like it's only Bond who's personal issues always taking MI6 to a risk right?
But not the other 00 agents who were just doing their jobs peacefully.
I really liked the classic Era in that we at least saw the other 00 agents.
In the Craig era where are the other 00 agents?
I think the studio stuff was independent of the failure of LTK at the box office. However if Dalton had agreed to do more than one Bond upon return I think we may not have had the Brosnan films or at least some of them.
Does he serve in the military, does he have a rank like Bond?
I can find no reference to this. @Revelator or @Dragonpol ?
As I'm sure we know Felix Leiter in the Fleming novels was first seen in Casino Royale aspart of theJpint Intelligence Staff of NATO, then in the CIA and (after his shark mauling in LALD) worked for Pinkertons Detective Agency during DAF. He later returned to the CIA by the time of Thunderball. That much we do know. However, this question got me to thinking about his earlier career and on a hunch I lifted a paperback copy of Goldfinger off my bookshelf to check. Leiter first appears in the novel towards the end of Chapter 21. Fleming introduces Leiter thus:
"The straw-haired Texan, clad in his wartime Marine Corps battledress was pounding up the platform followed by a dozen men in khaki. He carried a one-man bazooka by the steel hook he used for a right hand."
So there we have it I guess. Leiter, at least in the original novels, was in the US Marine Corps (the Marines) during World War II. They fight on land and in amphibious operations. The men accompanying Leiter in Goldfinger respond to him as "Cap'n" which is a military rank so I assume that Captain was the highest rank he held in the Marines?
In Thunderball on boarding a US Navy submarine Leiter confirms to Commander Pedersen, USN that he's never been on a submarine before and his only prior experience of submarines was the one he played with in the bath as a child!
Yes, I remembered the bit where Leiter comes to try to save the day near the end of Goldfinger and thought it might mention his military past. Thankfully it did, but I must say I'd forgotten that detail.
a) Don't touch an asset under interrogation.
b) Don't strangle an asset under interrogation.
c) Don't kill an asset under interrogation.
d) Don't carry deadly nanobots on you when talking to an asset under interrogation.
e) Don't be the foster brother of an asset under interrogation.
f) Don't tell your colleagues not to lecture you.
g) None of the above.
I think it's A, B, and C, he shouldn't at least strangle an asset, Tanner said that outside when he saw Bond came near to Blofeld inside, "Be careful, Bond", even M didn't allowed Bond to visit Blofeld in Belmarsh, if not for Bond's insistence.
Blofeld was protected as both witness, and a prisoner, so what Bond did of strangling him was a violation against the rules of interrogation, you should talk to the asset calmly and with professionalism, not being outweighed by your emotions.
The interrogating officer is supposed to manipulate the asset. They cannot under any circumstances lose control of the situation and of themselves. Whether that means running an interrogation sub-optimally, providing a reason for the asset to sue the state (probably less of a problem for the 00 section, but still) and compromise the entire case, involuntarily providing information to the enemy or worst of all getting turned.
Or it's a)...
I haven't checked it thoroughly, but I got the impression Rami Malek himself played a relative of Safin in the photographs of the Norway house. I'm talking about the guy with the moustache (his father perhaps?). Could there be any truth to that or am I full of baloney?
That makes sense, it really looks like him.
Was it Roger Moore who really did those fight scenes by himself?
Or was it Jake Lombard? His stuntman who really looked liked him, who bore a strong resemblance to Moore (based on IMDb)?
If it's Moore, it's surprising that he did his own fight stunts here, because as we know him, he'd been always using a stunt doubles.
Can someone confirm me this? Thank you for your answers.....
I think in FYEO you can clearly see when it's not Moore. It undoes a lot of the action as you can clearly see it's not Moore doing some of the stunt work. Compared to TLD when it is the exact opposite with Tim.
Yes. But neither her nor Safin could have known, I think.
It is weird that from that point forward it's played as if Madeleine infected him. Bond also makes no effort to explain this to her later.
I guess him grabbing her arm and the focus on it is there to show how even if she doesn't want to touch him, at some point it just happens, so there's no way he could later have avoided passing the Madeleine-targeted Heracles on to her and Mathilde?
Nanobots could kill a relative by its DNA, it needs to be biologically related (hence the SPECTRE agents and their families, and Bond's fear of infecting both Madeleine and Mathilde).
So how could Bond killed Blofeld?
In my belief, it wouldn't work if not biologically related, right?
So, the passing of the nanobots is really of a headscratcher to me.
One vote that gets a proposition cancelled, even though everyone else is in favour, isn’t quite democratic though, is it?
Let's just say there isn't one set definition of what democracy entails today. Political scientists publish about 5 books a year about that topic.
It certainly isn't democracy as in "the will of the majority is what matters". However, we've moved past that definition a long time ago. The "tyranny of the mob/majority" is maybe the major argument against a true direct democracy and the main reason why a system in which it truly only comes down to a majority of the votes from the population exists basically nowhere. There are always some types of checks and balances and generally protections for minorities. Be it through courts, certain seat allocations in parliaments or the constitutional character itself (stuff like the US Senate protectiong small state's positions). We still consider these systems to be democracies.
Still, I think you are right that the comment is quite ill informed for someone like M, because I don't think a lot of people would describe our system (or any system) of international relations as "democracy" first and foremost. It's basically a category error. Depending on what school of international relations theory you adhere to, we'd more likely talk about "balancing", "cooperation" or "interdependence". That of course isn't good screenwriting and makes little sense to most of the audience.
What I think he is getting at is that the eight states in favour can't just force South Africa (and therefore the people of South Africa) into something they don't want. The government - democratically elected by the people - has to accept. That's a very strong position in international relations basically since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. States of course screw with each others' sovereignty all the time, but you generally try to avoid doing it in committee. You get someone like James Bond to do it...