The James Bond Questions Thread
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,052
    @DoubleOhhSeven: Thanks! And yes, I do agree with you, it is a very haunting scene, and works very well. My only issue with it is simply the fact that there was a more logical get-away to be made, but oh well. Had she chosen the golf cart, we wouldn't have gotten one of the best scenes in the movie!
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce
    Posts: 2,423
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:

    echo said:

    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:

    echo said:

    It's been 55 years!



    What a dim excuse. I don't care if it has been two centuries, never spoil good books.


    Name calling is unnecessary.

    You're in a "James Bond questions" thread, not in a dedicated "film" or "novels" thread.

    I didn't call you a name. Just because I am in a questions thread doesn't mean I want parts of the novels ruined for me. Spoiling is spoiling, no matter what it is that you are ruining for someone else. This thread isn't labeled as "spoilers", so I expect to come here free of them in regards to the novels. It isn't hard to answer someone's question by saying, "well, in the novel FRWL, this happens", and then use a spoiler tag.



    How can you be getting irate over a spoiler for a novel almost 60 years old? SF fair enough but FRWL? We are discussing all matters Bond here, do we now have put spoiler warnings on everything we say because someone may not have seen a film or book that have spent decades in the public domain? Ludicrous.

    In case you ever get round to reading the bible Brady theres a shock twist - Jesus isnt dead! He comes back to life and flies off into the sky. Not very credible but I suppose its a fairly original twist although I prefer Keyser Soze in the Usual Suspects myself.

    Shit I should have put a spoiler alert there shouldn't I? Sorry old chap.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7
    Posts: 13,908
    TheWizardOfIce said:

    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:

    echo said:

    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:

    echo said:

    It's been 55 years!



    What a dim excuse. I don't care if it has been two centuries, never spoil good books.


    Name calling is unnecessary.

    You're in a "James Bond questions" thread, not in a dedicated "film" or "novels" thread.

    I didn't call you a name. Just because I am in a questions thread doesn't mean I want parts of the novels ruined for me. Spoiling is spoiling, no matter what it is that you are ruining for someone else. This thread isn't labeled as "spoilers", so I expect to come here free of them in regards to the novels. It isn't hard to answer someone's question by saying, "well, in the novel FRWL, this happens", and then use a spoiler tag.



    How can you be getting irate over a spoiler for a novel almost 60 years old? SF fair enough but FRWL? We are discussing all matters Bond here, do we now have put spoiler warnings on everything we say because someone may not have seen a film or book that have spent decades in the public domain? Ludicrous.

    In case you ever get round to reading the bible Brady theres a shock twist - Jesus isnt dead! He comes back to life and flies off into the sky. Not very credible but I suppose its a fairly original twist although I prefer Keyser Soze in the Usual Suspects myself.

    Shit I should have put a spoiler alert there shouldn't I? Sorry old chap.


    It doesn't matter how old something is, it shouldn't be spoiled. I don't expect everyone to understand this, because let's be honest, ignorance roams free in this world. Some aren't as old as others, or haven't been able to find the novels or films accessible as of yet, so does that make it okay for it to be spoiled for them? Hell no. Don't much care for the Bible myself. If I am going to read science fiction I'll pick up H.G. Wells. But if you feel cool spoiling things for others like a child, fine by me. As a matter of fact, this place looks more like a preschool day by day as of late.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce
    Posts: 2,423
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:

    TheWizardOfIce said:

    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:

    echo said:

    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:

    echo said:

    It's been 55 years!



    What a dim excuse. I don't care if it has been two centuries, never spoil good books.


    Name calling is unnecessary.

    You're in a "James Bond questions" thread, not in a dedicated "film" or "novels" thread.

    I didn't call you a name. Just because I am in a questions thread doesn't mean I want parts of the novels ruined for me. Spoiling is spoiling, no matter what it is that you are ruining for someone else. This thread isn't labeled as "spoilers", so I expect to come here free of them in regards to the novels. It isn't hard to answer someone's question by saying, "well, in the novel FRWL, this happens", and then use a spoiler tag.



    How can you be getting irate over a spoiler for a novel almost 60 years old? SF fair enough but FRWL? We are discussing all matters Bond here, do we now have put spoiler warnings on everything we say because someone may not have seen a film or book that have spent decades in the public domain? Ludicrous.

    In case you ever get round to reading the bible Brady theres a shock twist - Jesus isnt dead! He comes back to life and flies off into the sky. Not very credible but I suppose its a fairly original twist although I prefer Keyser Soze in the Usual Suspects myself.

    Shit I should have put a spoiler alert there shouldn't I? Sorry old chap.


    It doesn't matter how old something is, it shouldn't be spoiled. I don't expect everyone to understand this, because let's be honest, ignorance roams free in this world. Some aren't as old as others, or haven't been able to find the novels or films accessible as of yet, so does that make it okay for it to be spoiled for them? Hell no. Don't much care for the Bible myself. If I am going to read science fiction I'll pick up H.G. Wells. But if you feel cool spoiling things for others like a child, fine by me. As a matter of fact, this place looks more like a preschool day by day as of late.


    Echo was helpfully answering someone's question about FRWL in a thread called 'The James Bond Questions Thread.'
    Now call me Mr Pedantic but that's a thread that suggests to me that things about James Bond are likely to be discussed.

    Just a thought but I would advise you to probably steer clear of such threads (and indeed such messageboards and websites) as you are likely to catch annoying snippets of information that might spoil your yet to be enjoyed enjoyment of whichever books and films that are not 'accessible' to you (although seeing as you have an Internet connection to come on here I don't see where you live that means you can't get Netflix or Amazon - the Antarctic, Amazon rainforest or an African village maybe?)

    But it's a bit rich to come on a thread about James Bond on a James Bond messageboard on a James Bond website and then whine when - quel surprise - people are discussing stuff about James Bond and, let's be honest, a pretty insignificant plot point at that!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7
    Posts: 13,908
    Hard to believe, but Fleming's books are hard to come by in the small town I live in, and have to wait until I travel nearer Pittsburgh to find them, and finally last summer I got lucky and found them after all this time. Shoot me for not wanting things spoiled about them. But, to make everyone happy, let's have a time every week where we all randomly spoil a great novel or film's ending to ruin the entire surprise for everyone, so nobody enjoys it! Sounds fun, huh? Some appear to have experience.
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 2,253
    LULZ

    image

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7
    Posts: 13,908
    Master_Dahark said:

    LULZ

    image



    I come here to discuss. The spoiler tags are here for a reason, not just for kicks and giggles. Everyone can toss off regardless.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007
    Posts: 4,831
    In that case every post on this website contains spoiler. Discussing Henderson's death in the YOLT film can spoil the film to someone who hasn't seen the film !

    Maybe next time we should put 'Ouromov dies in GE' under spoiler tags, in case someone hadn't seen GE yet !

    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.



    SPOILER ! Not everyone has seen the film and knows Koskov is a villain !!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7
    Posts: 13,908
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Gesture_raised_fist_with_middle_finger_lifted.jpg
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 4,578
    I was thinking about this the other day too, albeit for only a few moments

    such as, we talk extensively each day about the James Bond releases and elaborate on every detail and incident that occured since Connery first uttered the immortal line, but we never think for a moment about anyone who has yet to see every release or there are surely some out there who read these pages and who actually haven't seen every twenty-two of the official releases etc. So essentially, we are giving away important spoilers every now and again, even if it is, all rather unintentional. I kind of looked at things in a different light for a moment

    Spoiler:
    Die Another Day is a piece of crap. - Don't watch it
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce
    Posts: 2,423
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Gesture_raised_fist_with_middle_finger_lifted.jpg



    The mature response of a man who knows he's lost the argument and yet he has the chutzpah to berate others for turning the place into a 'pre-school'?

    Pathetic Sir.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007
    Posts: 4,831
    If you think there should be spoiler tags in posts regarding the novels you haven't read, evidently there should also be spoilers regarding the past films, since someone who hasn't seen GF, TSWLM or GE could be spoilt as well !

    If you start wanting spoiler tags for you, in that case everyone should have their spoiler tags for what they don't know yet.

    How funny it would be if you had to put
    Spoiler:
    006/Alec is the villain and return later in the film
    like that in order not to spoil the film for those who hasn't seen it yet.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007
    Posts: 494
    Benny said:

    I'm so glad this was Hamiltons final Bond film.



    I couldn't agree more (or should that be Moore!), overrated Bond director who didn't know the character - hell he even thought Burt Reynolds would have made a good Bond!
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,003
    Lancaster007 said:

    Benny said:

    I'm so glad this was Hamiltons final Bond film.



    I couldn't agree more (or should that be Moore!), overrated Bond director who didn't know the character - hell he even thought Burt Reynolds would have made a good Bond!


    Hamilton was very Hit-or-Miss. Goldfinger and Live and Let Die were 2 strong entries but TMWTGG and DAF were two of the weakest in the series. And yes Burt Reynolds as Bond would've been a disaster.
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,052
    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    Lancaster007 said:

    Benny said:

    I'm so glad this was Hamiltons final Bond film.



    I couldn't agree more (or should that be Moore!), overrated Bond director who didn't know the character - hell he even thought Burt Reynolds would have made a good Bond!


    Hamilton was very Hit-or-Miss. Goldfinger and Live and Let Die were 2 strong entries but TMWTGG and DAF were two of the weakest in the series. And yes Burt Reynolds as Bond would've been a disaster.


    Live and Let Die and Diamonds Are Forever are the two best of Hamilton in my opinion, with The Man with the Golden Gun being just all right, and Goldfinger being hogwash.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,003
    00Beast said:

    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    Lancaster007 said:

    Benny said:

    I'm so glad this was Hamiltons final Bond film.



    I couldn't agree more (or should that be Moore!), overrated Bond director who didn't know the character - hell he even thought Burt Reynolds would have made a good Bond!


    Hamilton was very Hit-or-Miss. Goldfinger and Live and Let Die were 2 strong entries but TMWTGG and DAF were two of the weakest in the series. And yes Burt Reynolds as Bond would've been a disaster.


    Live and Let Die and Diamonds Are Forever are the two best of Hamilton in my opinion, with The Man with the Golden Gun being just all right, and Goldfinger being hogwash.


    Although I do admit GF is overrated I still think it's great entertainment and has Connery in his prime. It's not at the top of my rankings but I still think it's miles ahead of Brosnan's films, Connery's ladder 3 films, and 3 of Moore's.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7
    Posts: 13,908
    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    00Beast said:

    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    Lancaster007 said:

    Benny said:

    I'm so glad this was Hamiltons final Bond film.



    I couldn't agree more (or should that be Moore!), overrated Bond director who didn't know the character - hell he even thought Burt Reynolds would have made a good Bond!


    Hamilton was very Hit-or-Miss. Goldfinger and Live and Let Die were 2 strong entries but TMWTGG and DAF were two of the weakest in the series. And yes Burt Reynolds as Bond would've been a disaster.


    Live and Let Die and Diamonds Are Forever are the two best of Hamilton in my opinion, with The Man with the Golden Gun being just all right, and Goldfinger being hogwash.


    Although I do admit GF is overrated I still think it's great entertainment and has Connery in his prime. It's not at the top of my rankings but I still think it's miles ahead of Brosnan's films, Connery's ladder 3 films, and 3 of Moore's.

    That's basically how I feel about it.
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,052
    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    00Beast said:

    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    Lancaster007 said:

    Benny said:

    I'm so glad this was Hamiltons final Bond film.



    I couldn't agree more (or should that be Moore!), overrated Bond director who didn't know the character - hell he even thought Burt Reynolds would have made a good Bond!


    Hamilton was very Hit-or-Miss. Goldfinger and Live and Let Die were 2 strong entries but TMWTGG and DAF were two of the weakest in the series. And yes Burt Reynolds as Bond would've been a disaster.


    Live and Let Die and Diamonds Are Forever are the two best of Hamilton in my opinion, with The Man with the Golden Gun being just all right, and Goldfinger being hogwash.


    Although I do admit GF is overrated I still think it's great entertainment and has Connery in his prime. It's not at the top of my rankings but I still think it's miles ahead of Brosnan's films, Connery's ladder 3 films, and 3 of Moore's.


    For me it's #21 right before On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which is my #22 easily. Hahaha, I know it sounds crazy, but neither GF or OHMSS get my Bond groove going. I don't see why people regard them as classics honestly.
  • BennyBenny
    Posts: 1,629
    Boys, boys, boys, we're drifting way off topic here.
    A question that I thought of the other day, although I have answered it myself later.
    In the film AVTAK, but gives Tibbett the cheque for 5 million dollars, and ask him to get M to put a trace on it.
    But, Tibbett is killed before he can do this.
    How then does Chuck Lee later discuss with Bond the number of S.Suttons in the US?

    Spoiler:
    Obviously Bond recalled her name. Though why go to the problem if you;re going to kill the character moments later?
  • Samuel001Samuel001
    Posts: 10,182
    @Benny that strengthens the idea that Tibbett and Lee's characters should have been merged into one, if only for the story to make a little more sense. Having both them and Mayday die in one film, I've always found too much anyway,
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,052
    May Day's kill count was quite considerable in AVTAK, at least three of Bond's allies all get murdered by her in some form or fashion. When talking about effective henchmen (or women), it's obvious that May Day should be up there with the best. Well, that is until she switches sides, haha.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 4,578
    I liked the elaborate way they did the deaths of the characters she killed, i.e Aubergine at the Eiffel Tower, Tibbett at a French Car Wash and Chuck Lee in his car as the stereo plays some movie related tune if I remember. But above all else, Grace Jones should never have been in it to begin with :-<
  • BennyBenny
    Posts: 1,629
    A reason I feel MayDay to be a weak character.
    After the murders of three of Bonds allies, she switches sides after Zorin leaves her to die.
    Being chased up the Eiffel tower and leaping off. Murdering Tibbett in the carwash and Chuck Lee in his car. As well as attempting to kill Bond at various points of the movie.
    And Bond sides with her too. Doesn't he seek some sort of vengence, at least for Tibbett, but the others also.
    Nope, AVTAK has alot to answer for.
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,052
    Benny said:

    A reason I feel MayDay to be a weak character.
    After the murders of three of Bonds allies, she switches sides after Zorin leaves her to die.
    Being chased up the Eiffel tower and leaping off. Murdering Tibbett in the carwash and Chuck Lee in his car. As well as attempting to kill Bond at various points of the movie.
    And Bond sides with her too. Doesn't he seek some sort of vengence, at least for Tibbett, but the others also.
    Nope, AVTAK has alot to answer for.



    You know I've never really thought of that, but you're right, that is dumb that she ever switched sides, because we should have gotten a proper Bond revenge for the death of three allies, one of them being very close! I mean, I never liked the fact that she switched sides, but I think that one of the finest scenes in all of Bond comes when May Day sacrifices herself. That alone probably can justify the unnecessary plot twist of her character.
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 2,253
    What would have awesome is if Bond was playing along and then at the last second he somehow tricked her into riding that bomb out without her realizing it was about to blow!

    Would have been dark as hell for Roger Moore but let me tell you: I would have cheered!

    Bomb blows up- "For Tibbet"- then the blimp shows up and the movie continues as normal

    What do you think??
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,052
    Master_Dahark said:

    What would have awesome is if Bond was playing along and then at the last second he somehow tricked her into riding that bomb out without her realizing it was about to blow!

    Would have been dark as hell for Roger Moore but let me tell you: I would have cheered!

    Bomb blows up- "For Tibbet"- then the blimp shows up and the movie continues as normal

    What do you think??



    You sir have made my day already!! Hahahahahahaha!! I think that's what might have actually happened! All we need now is a shot of Bond turning to the camera and letting out a big laugh!
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 4,578
    Roger Moore did worse than that during his Bond tenure, but it is a nice idea though

    But no turning to the camera and laughs please - that would surely have spoiled it

    It's a pity Sutton wasn't on the damn thing too when it blew up :-<
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,003
    I've got a question regarding Goldeneye's timeline. In the graveyard scene Trevelyn reveals that his father killed his mother and himself after they survived Stalin's execution squads when he was only 6 years old. Im assuming that this would've happened around the end of WW2 in 1945 meaning Trevelyn would've been born in 1939 making him 56 years old for the events of GE. Can that be right? Or maybe his father did so a number of years later (althought doubtful) but that would still make Trevelyn atleast pushing 50 if not in his early 50s already. Could someone shed some light on this?

    I understand the age of the actor and age of the character are 2 different things but surely EON couldn't have expected a babyfaced 34 year old Sean Bean to be able to pass for a man in his mid 50s and have the audience believe it. If they absolutly had to have Bean in the role they could've atleast aged him with makeup.
  • echoecho
    Posts: 1,185
    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    I've got a question regarding Goldeneye's timeline. In the graveyard scene Trevelyn reveals that his father killed his mother and himself after they survived Stalin's execution squads when he was only 6 years old. Im assuming that this would've happened around the end of WW2 in 1945 meaning Trevelyn would've been born in 1939 making him 56 years old for the events of GE. Can that be right? Or maybe his father did so a number of years later (althought doubtful) but that would still make Trevelyn atleast pushing 50 if not in his early 50s already. Could someone shed some light on this?

    I understand the age of the actor and age of the character are 2 different things but surely EON couldn't have expected a babyfaced 34 year old Sean Bean to be able to pass for a man in his mid 50s and have the audience believe it. If they absolutly had to have Bean in the role they could've atleast aged him with makeup.



    The role was originally written for Anthony Hopkins, which would have made a lot more sense, agewise.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 4,578
    I was more concerned at his lame attempt at an Irish accent in Patriot Games..

    Trevelyan was 27 years old at the time of the Severnaya incident and his presumed 'death', so we fast forward almost a decade, but at the time of his fathers suicide, the timeline would of been 21 years before, i.e, 1965 at the time of incident, supposing Severnaya took place in 1986, nine years before the actual Goldeneye timeline. It seems likely the event took place some years after WWII, his father lived with it for long enough before it came to a head and Trevelyan's plan for revenge on the British Government, or maybe there was a genuine mix up with years and ages. I wasn't aware of the Hopkins thing, but whatever is going on, it's best that Sean Bean got to play the role over the other (I'm tired btw)
Add a Comment

Categories

In this Discussion