The James Bond Questions Thread
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,003
    With the permission of the MI6 mods ofcourse, I'd like to start this thread for MI6 board members to ask questions of instances that they either didn't undertstand in the films, aren't clear to them, or just any question about the history of the Bond series. I've got a few I'd like to ask.

    1)In OHMSS, were Blofeld's henchmen still agents of Spectre? Because I'd read a review stating that after YOLT Spectre had more or less fallen apart and that Blofeld was forced to hire thugs and mercenaries to do his future bidding. Then again Bond also mentions Spectre in the film so it probably still exists.

    2)Is Daniel Craig's rebooted version of James Bond a commander in the Royal Navy? Not once in CR or QOS is he ever referred to as Commander Bond and is the only actor to not have that distiction made clear. Afterall it's a reboot so maybe they left that out. However he is referred to as Commander Bond in Bloodstone but that's a videogame.

    3)In LALD, after Bond is dropped down through the trap door in The Fillet of Soul, Felix comes back and asks what happened to his friend. The bartender than says "this" and makes a quick hand movement before the camera abruptly cuts away. I never understood what that was about. Can someone clarify?
  • X3MSonicXX3MSonicX
    Posts: 2,560
    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    2)Is Daniel Craig's rebooted version of James Bond a commander in the Royal Navy? Not once in CR or QOS is he ever referred to as Commander Bond and is the only actor to not have that distiction made clear. Afterall it's a reboot so maybe they left that out. However he is referred to as Commander Bond in Bloodstone but that's a videogame.



    As i know, Yes, Bond is a commander. He always were, since he got '00' status. I think that is also given when the '00' status is given to the agents. I first saw that at TND, when Bond arrived into a Military Base dressed like a Royal Navy commander.
    BUT, i don't actually know if my answer is correct.

    After all his questions are answered, i'd like to do one too.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,003
    X3MSonicX said:

    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    2)Is Daniel Craig's rebooted version of James Bond a commander in the Royal Navy? Not once in CR or QOS is he ever referred to as Commander Bond and is the only actor to not have that distiction made clear. Afterall it's a reboot so maybe they left that out. However he is referred to as Commander Bond in Bloodstone but that's a videogame.



    As i know, Yes, Bond is a commander. He always were, since he got '00' status. I think that is also given when the '00' status is given to the agents. I first saw that at TND, when Bond arrived into a Military Base dressed like a Royal Navy commander.
    BUT, i don't actually know if my answer is correct.

    After all his questions are answered, i'd like to do one too.


    Feel free. Maybe I can answer them.
  • DiscoVolanteDiscoVolante
    Posts: 1,035
    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    3)In LALD, after Bond is dropped down through the trap door in The Fillet of Soul, Felix comes back and asks what happened to his friend. The bartender than says "this" and makes a quick hand movement before the camera abruptly cuts away. I never understood what that was about. Can someone clarify?


    I always thought he got the same thing, i.e. going through the trap door, but not joining Bond and the others on the other side :P

    Good idea for a thread, by the way.
  • X3MSonicXX3MSonicX
    Posts: 2,560
    Ok then :)

    Well there is a fact which i'd wanna know, if any of the Bond movies could be remade, just like that Total Recall movie. Would it be possible?
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,003
    X3MSonicX said:

    Ok then :)

    Well there is a fact which i'd wanna know, if any of the Bond movies could be remade, just like that Total Recall movie. Would it be possible?



    Technically yes. EON (Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Brocolli) own the rights to every James Bond novel except Thunderball. And naturally they own the rights to all of the films and can re-work them in any way they please (for instance the Goldeneye Wii videogame starring Daniel Craig instead of Pierce Brosnan).

    However they've made it clear that they're not interested in going backwards. So a any remakes or period peice films likely won't be happening any time in the forseeable future.
  • Samuel001Samuel001
    Posts: 10,182
    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    EON (Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Brocolli) own the rights to every James Bond novel except Thunderball.



    I've always thought due to court cases EON now own the rights to every Fleming Bond novel.

    I'm sure they are a few links I can find to back this up, if you wish.
  • X3MSonicXX3MSonicX
    Posts: 2,560
    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    X3MSonicX said:

    Ok then :)

    Well there is a fact which i'd wanna know, if any of the Bond movies could be remade, just like that Total Recall movie. Would it be possible?



    Technically yes. EON (Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Brocolli) own the rights to every James Bond novel except Thunderball. And naturally they own the rights to all of the films and can re-work them in any way they please (for instance the Goldeneye Wii videogame starring Daniel Craig instead of Pierce Brosnan).

    However they've made it clear that they're not interested in going backwards. So a any remakes or period peice films likely won't be happening any time in the forseeable future.


    Oooh. Thanks :D
  • Samuel001Samuel001
    Posts: 10,182
    DiscoVolante said:

    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    3)In LALD, after Bond is dropped down through the trap door in The Fillet of Soul, Felix comes back and asks what happened to his friend. The bartender than says "this" and makes a quick hand movement before the camera abruptly cuts away. I never understood what that was about. Can someone clarify?


    I always thought he got the same thing, i.e. going through the trap door, but not joining Bond and the others on the other side :P

    Good idea for a thread, by the way.


    I would have thought he told Felix, "if you don't go now, you'll get what Bond did", so he left. Either would get the desired end result, mind.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,003
    Samuel001 said:

    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    EON (Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Brocolli) own the rights to every James Bond novel except Thunderball.



    I've always thought due to court cases EON now own the rights to every Fleming Bond novel.

    I'm sure they are a few links I can find to back this up, if you wish.


    The thing is I distictly remember reading an article in early 2006, back when people were complaining about Daniel Craig's casting, Kevin McClory was considering making yet another remake of Thunderball, this time starring the recently rejected Pierce Brosnan as James Bond, who had sympathy with the public at the time. It seemed like he loved the idea of using pissed off ex-Bonds in his Thunderball remakes. However I assume that after CR was released to great success and Daniel Craig was received even better than Pierce Brosnan, the idea quickly lost steam.
  • Samuel001Samuel001
    Posts: 10,182
    Kevin McClory didn't have the rights and lost them in a 1999 court case, anyway, so it would only have ever been a wish. McClory died in November '06, days before the opening of Casino Royale, too. It's all explained in the, very good, book 'The Battle for Bond'.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,003
    ;
    Samuel001 said:

    Kevin McClory didn't have the rights and lost them in a 1999 court case, anyway, so it would only have ever been a wish. McClory did in November '06, days before the opening of Casino Royale, too. It's all explained in the, very good, book 'The Battle for Bond'.



    Ah I see. Than I guess the writer of the article was misinformed. And you're right, McClory died on Nov. 20th 2006 but that was 6 days after CR premiered in London. For some reason I thought he died the following year. Either way I've heard of the book and now I'll definatly check it out.
  • Samuel001Samuel001
    Posts: 10,182
    It cover everything Thunderball related and had so documents that we so good in it, they were taken out and the book was reprinted. It now carries the subtitle 'The Book They Tried To Ban'.

    http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/literature_the_battle_for_bond_preview2.php3
  • 007RogerMoore007RogerMoore
    Posts: 1,051
    Here is a question: Exactly what is Whitaker´s and Koskov´s plan in TLD?
    They have Pushkin´s money, which they buy diamonds for. They buy opium with the diamonds as payment. Then they sell the opium for more than they paid for and can give Pushkin his weapons and make a profit.

    That is my guess, and I have though about this plot many times.
  • AgentJamesBond007AgentJamesBond007
    Posts: 1,265
    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    ;

    Samuel001 said:

    Kevin McClory didn't have the rights and lost them in a 1999 court case, anyway, so it would only have ever been a wish. McClory did in November '06, days before the opening of Casino Royale, too. It's all explained in the, very good, book 'The Battle for Bond'.



    Ah I see. Than I guess the writer of the article was misinformed. And you're right, McClory died on Nov. 20th 2006 but that was 6 days after CR premiered in London. For some reason I thought he died the following year. Either I've heard of the book and now I'll definatly check it out.


    I thought the 1999 court case was over getting the rights of Casino Royale for MGM...

  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,003
    Samuel001 said:

    It cover everything Thunderball related and had so documents that we so good in it, they were taken out and the book was reprinted. It now carries the subtitle 'The Book They Tried To Ban'.

    http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/literature_the_battle_for_bond_preview2.php3



    Thanks for the recommendation. I'll definatly be getting myself a copy.
    :)

    AgentJamesBond007 said:

    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    ;

    Samuel001 said:

    Kevin McClory didn't have the rights and lost them in a 1999 court case, anyway, so it would only have ever been a wish. McClory did in November '06, days before the opening of Casino Royale, too. It's all explained in the, very good, book 'The Battle for Bond'.



    Ah I see. Than I guess the writer of the article was misinformed. And you're right, McClory died on Nov. 20th 2006 but that was 6 days after CR premiered in London. For some reason I thought he died the following year. Either I've heard of the book and now I'll definatly check it out.


    I thought the 1999 court case was over getting the rights of Casino Royale for MGM...



    I thought the same thing. But I trust @Samuel.


    007RogerMoore said:

    Here is a question: Exactly what is Whitaker´s and Koskov´s plan in TLD?
    They have Pushkin´s money, which they buy diamonds for. They buy opium with the diamonds as payment. Then they sell the opium for more than they paid for and can give Pushkin his weapons and make a profit.

    That is my guess, and I have though about this plot many times.



    That is a good question. If that's so why didn't they just use the money to pay for the drugs rather than buying diamonds first. Kind of a convaluted plot for a Bond film. Or maybe they could've just executed it better.
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,052
    007RogerMoore said:

    Here is a question: Exactly what is Whitaker´s and Koskov´s plan in TLD?
    They have Pushkin´s money, which they buy diamonds for. They buy opium with the diamonds as payment. Then they sell the opium for more than they paid for and can give Pushkin his weapons and make a profit.

    That is my guess, and I have though about this plot many times.



    Oh goodness, this plot, parts of TWINE's, parts of CR's, and parts of QoS's drive me up the wall to try and figure out!
  • Samuel001Samuel001
    Posts: 10,182
    AgentJamesBond007 said:

    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    ;

    Samuel001 said:

    Kevin McClory didn't have the rights and lost them in a 1999 court case, anyway, so it would only have ever been a wish. McClory did in November '06, days before the opening of Casino Royale, too. It's all explained in the, very good, book 'The Battle for Bond'.



    Ah I see. Than I guess the writer of the article was misinformed. And you're right, McClory died on Nov. 20th 2006 but that was 6 days after CR premiered in London. For some reason I thought he died the following year. Either I've heard of the book and now I'll definatly check it out.


    I thought the 1999 court case was over getting the rights of Casino Royale for MGM...



    It was about McClory claiming he had rights to the Bond character. He and Sony teamed up but lost the case against MGM/EON. From this MGM/EON got the Casino Royale, something the case was never about! In 2005 when Sony bought part of MGM, who still with McClory had the rights to Thunderball. This meant EON now owned all the rights to film any Bond novel and reclaimed the Thunderball novel. Even today EON buy the rights to the continuation novels. They have the recent ones Devil May Care and Carte Blanche, I'd imagine, just so someone else can't film them!

    That's the short version, from a quick read of 'The Battle for Bond'. As I've said, a first rate book, it really is and explains all the McClory and more, that even the most hardcore Bond fans likely didn't know. I can't recommend it enough.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,003
    Thanks for the prompt answers everyone. So I guess I can assume that Blofeld's men in OHMSS and DAD are indeed Spectre agents as no one has answered. It just seems that they're less efficient then they were in FRWL, TB, and YOLT. Plus Blofeld is no longer referred to as #1.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 4,675
    Is there any evidence that the producers take note of fan reactions to their films? For instance, trying to change the gun barrel in Casino Royale, but not keeping with it. (I liked the new way, it was a creative change after fifty years).
  • BennyBenny
    Posts: 1,629
    One of the gripes I have with TMWTGG (and there are many) is, at the films conclusion when Bond has killed Scaramanga, and destroyed the island. How does M firstly know Bond succeeded, but secondly, have the number to Scaramangas junk?
    The only answer I can come up with is poor storytelling from Guy Hamilton.
    All the Bond films have mishaps and the like, but with TMWTGG you notice them instantly.
    Hip driving off without Bond - So we can have a boat chase.
    JW Pepper turning up in Thailand - To add some so called humour.
    The Solex / Scaramanga storylines coming together...conveniently for all. I'm so glad this was Hamiltons final Bond film.
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 2,329
    00Beast said:

    007RogerMoore said:

    Here is a question: Exactly what is Whitaker´s and Koskov´s plan in TLD?
    They have Pushkin´s money, which they buy diamonds for. They buy opium with the diamonds as payment. Then they sell the opium for more than they paid for and can give Pushkin his weapons and make a profit.

    That is my guess, and I have though about this plot many times.



    Oh goodness, this plot, parts of TWINE's, parts of CR's, and parts of QoS's drive me up the wall to try and figure out!


    You have it right about the TLD villain plot, Beast. Bond explains this to the letter to Kamran Shah while the diamonds for opium transfer is occurring on screen. I would be happy to answer your other question about TWINE, CR, and QOS if you like.

    @ Benny- Hamilton has to be the most flawed director the series ever had. It is amazing that Goldfinger managed to be iconic as it is, and it certainly had nothing to do with him as far as that.

    Kevin McClory ? Yeah, we needed a 3rd Thunderball remake after that abortion he tried to foist upon Bond fans and the general public in 1983. The movie is perfect the way it is. How was he possibly going to improve it when he claimed NSNA was the way he wanted the original to be? The answer is he was not, all he was looking for is to make a quick buck and stick it to EON again if he could. The news of his death was one I was not sorry to hear about.

  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,003
    Benny said:

    One of the gripes I have with TMWTGG (and there are many) is, at the films conclusion when Bond has killed Scaramanga, and destroyed the island. How does M firstly know Bond succeeded, but secondly, have the number to Scaramangas junk?
    The only answer I can come up with is poor storytelling from Guy Hamilton.
    All the Bond films have mishaps and the like, but with TMWTGG you notice them instantly.
    Hip driving off without Bond - So we can have a boat chase.
    JW Pepper turning up in Thailand - To add some so called humour.
    The Solex / Scaramanga storylines coming together...conveniently for all. I'm so glad this was Hamiltons final Bond film.



    Honestly most of the Guy Hamilton films have lots of plotholes and moments that are left unexplained. DAF, LALD, and TMWTGG probably raise the most questions out of the entire series. GF is the only film that is excused from this. I never really cared for Hamilton as none of his films are my favorites.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7
    Posts: 13,908
    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    Benny said:

    One of the gripes I have with TMWTGG (and there are many) is, at the films conclusion when Bond has killed Scaramanga, and destroyed the island. How does M firstly know Bond succeeded, but secondly, have the number to Scaramangas junk?
    The only answer I can come up with is poor storytelling from Guy Hamilton.
    All the Bond films have mishaps and the like, but with TMWTGG you notice them instantly.
    Hip driving off without Bond - So we can have a boat chase.
    JW Pepper turning up in Thailand - To add some so called humour.
    The Solex / Scaramanga storylines coming together...conveniently for all. I'm so glad this was Hamiltons final Bond film.



    Honestly most of the Guy Hamilton films have lots of plotholes and moments that are left unexplained. DAF, LALD, and TMWTGG probably raise the most questions out of the entire series. GF is the only film that is excused from this. I never really cared for Hamilton as none of his films are my favorites.

    No, from what I've seen GF is often scrutinized.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,003
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:

    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    Benny said:

    One of the gripes I have with TMWTGG (and there are many) is, at the films conclusion when Bond has killed Scaramanga, and destroyed the island. How does M firstly know Bond succeeded, but secondly, have the number to Scaramangas junk?
    The only answer I can come up with is poor storytelling from Guy Hamilton.
    All the Bond films have mishaps and the like, but with TMWTGG you notice them instantly.
    Hip driving off without Bond - So we can have a boat chase.
    JW Pepper turning up in Thailand - To add some so called humour.
    The Solex / Scaramanga storylines coming together...conveniently for all. I'm so glad this was Hamiltons final Bond film.



    Honestly most of the Guy Hamilton films have lots of plotholes and moments that are left unexplained. DAF, LALD, and TMWTGG probably raise the most questions out of the entire series. GF is the only film that is excused from this. I never really cared for Hamilton as none of his films are my favorites.

    No, from what I've seen GF is often scrutinized.


    How so? I understand if it gets criticized but what questions does it raise from a narrative standpoint?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7
    Posts: 13,908
    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:

    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    Benny said:

    One of the gripes I have with TMWTGG (and there are many) is, at the films conclusion when Bond has killed Scaramanga, and destroyed the island. How does M firstly know Bond succeeded, but secondly, have the number to Scaramangas junk?
    The only answer I can come up with is poor storytelling from Guy Hamilton.
    All the Bond films have mishaps and the like, but with TMWTGG you notice them instantly.
    Hip driving off without Bond - So we can have a boat chase.
    JW Pepper turning up in Thailand - To add some so called humour.
    The Solex / Scaramanga storylines coming together...conveniently for all. I'm so glad this was Hamiltons final Bond film.



    Honestly most of the Guy Hamilton films have lots of plotholes and moments that are left unexplained. DAF, LALD, and TMWTGG probably raise the most questions out of the entire series. GF is the only film that is excused from this. I never really cared for Hamilton as none of his films are my favorites.

    No, from what I've seen GF is often scrutinized.


    How so? I understand if it gets criticized but what questions does it raise from a narrative standpoint?


    Why Tilly kept her head when Oddjob hit her, the plausibility of Goldfinger's plot, how Pussy was swayed from Lesbianism so easily, how Bond got so near water at the end climax on the plane, stuff like that.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,003
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:

    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:

    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    Benny said:

    One of the gripes I have with TMWTGG (and there are many) is, at the films conclusion when Bond has killed Scaramanga, and destroyed the island. How does M firstly know Bond succeeded, but secondly, have the number to Scaramangas junk?
    The only answer I can come up with is poor storytelling from Guy Hamilton.
    All the Bond films have mishaps and the like, but with TMWTGG you notice them instantly.
    Hip driving off without Bond - So we can have a boat chase.
    JW Pepper turning up in Thailand - To add some so called humour.
    The Solex / Scaramanga storylines coming together...conveniently for all. I'm so glad this was Hamiltons final Bond film.



    Honestly most of the Guy Hamilton films have lots of plotholes and moments that are left unexplained. DAF, LALD, and TMWTGG probably raise the most questions out of the entire series. GF is the only film that is excused from this. I never really cared for Hamilton as none of his films are my favorites.

    No, from what I've seen GF is often scrutinized.


    How so? I understand if it gets criticized but what questions does it raise from a narrative standpoint?


    Why Tilly kept her head when Oddjob hit her, the plausibility of Goldfinger's plot, how Pussy was swayed from Lesbianism so easily, how Bond got so near water at the end climax on the plane, stuff like that.


    I suppose you're right but those really seem like tame complaints when compared to what Hamilton would give us down the road.

    And I don't believe Pussy was ever declared a lesbian in the film. The novel yes but in the film it's only suggested.

    And as far as the plossibilty of the plot goes the majority of the plots to the Bond films are next to impossible. That's what makes them fun.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7
    Posts: 13,908

    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:

    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:

    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    Benny said:

    One of the gripes I have with TMWTGG (and there are many) is, at the films conclusion when Bond has killed Scaramanga, and destroyed the island. How does M firstly know Bond succeeded, but secondly, have the number to Scaramangas junk?
    The only answer I can come up with is poor storytelling from Guy Hamilton.
    All the Bond films have mishaps and the like, but with TMWTGG you notice them instantly.
    Hip driving off without Bond - So we can have a boat chase.
    JW Pepper turning up in Thailand - To add some so called humour.
    The Solex / Scaramanga storylines coming together...conveniently for all. I'm so glad this was Hamiltons final Bond film.



    Honestly most of the Guy Hamilton films have lots of plotholes and moments that are left unexplained. DAF, LALD, and TMWTGG probably raise the most questions out of the entire series. GF is the only film that is excused from this. I never really cared for Hamilton as none of his films are my favorites.

    No, from what I've seen GF is often scrutinized.


    How so? I understand if it gets criticized but what questions does it raise from a narrative standpoint?


    Why Tilly kept her head when Oddjob hit her, the plausibility of Goldfinger's plot, how Pussy was swayed from Lesbianism so easily, how Bond got so near water at the end climax on the plane, stuff like that.


    I suppose you're right but those really seem like tame complaints when compared to what Hamilton would give us down the road.

    And I don't believe Pussy was ever declared a lesbian in the film. The novel yes but in the film it's only suggested.

    And as far as the plossibilty of the plot goes the majority of the plots to the Bond films are next to impossible. That's what makes them fun.

    Precisely. I was simply giving evidence to my claim. And I agree, most Bond films are OTT to some extent.
  • 007RogerMoore007RogerMoore
    Posts: 1,051
    In GE, Does Ouromov have a loaded gun, which he misses Alec with? Or perhaps Alec survived a head shot like Renard? Or was Ouromov shooting blanks and Alec and the guard Ouromov shoots pretended to die?
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 2,177
    007RogerMoore said:

    In GE, Does Ouromov have a loaded gun, which he misses Alec with? Or perhaps Alec survived a head shot like Renard? Or was Ouromov shooting blanks and Alec and the guard Ouromov shoots pretended to die?



    He misses Alec because he works for him or his side while he shoots the guard for almost blowing them up.

  • NicNacNicNac
    Posts: 2,066
    As this is very much a Bond thread I have taken it out of General Discussion (which is non-Bond) and put it into Bond Movies - Trivea section.
Add a Comment

Categories

In this Discussion