Let's talk about Spectre's torture scene

1246713

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    One of the best scenes in the film. Love it.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,224
    Man that drill sound gave me the shivers. :D
  • RC7 wrote: »
    One of the best scenes in the film. Love it.

    Me! Too! Dear @RC7!
    It's gooood to see you around again :-).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    It's there to reveal what a sadist Blofeld is. It followed a similar mental torture of Swann being forced to watch video of White's death.

    It served the purpose, given they needed to convey something about Blofeld's menace in a short time. I would have preferred a different approach though....perhaps the torture of a henchman who dropped the ball (something that has been done many times before in a Bond film admittedly, and which likely wouldn't have been as effective).

    Again, I realize the need to show that this is deeply personal for Blofeld (both with Swann and with Bond) but something didn't quite sit well with me.

    Going directly from being a gentleman offering champagne and talking about meteors to torture of both seemed odd. There had to be another scene where Blofeld loses it with both of them for some reason. That would make the torture more relevant.
  • Posts: 3,336
    Was really suprised how graphic this scene was the first time i saw. The second time i liked it more.

    The second time i was at the cinema though, i sat next to a kid around the age of 12 and his parents asked him to cover his eyes during this scene and the scene where Hinx is introduced. And yea that drill sound is freaky, oh man!
  • Was really suprised how graphic this scene was the first time i saw. The second time i liked it more.

    The second time i was at the cinema though, i sat next to a kid around the age of 12 and his parents asked him to cover his eyes during this scene and the scene where Hinx is introduced. And yea that drill sound is freaky, oh man!

    I would say to that kid: "You really need to open your eyes now. You will get a good lesson of soul-searching from Mr Blofeld >:) "

    By the way, Madeleine's question really answers everything: "Why are we doing this?"

    Because. It. Is. A. Lovely. Experiment. MS SWANN :-)! Because some people want to see what happens how long a person can handle such a torture. Blofeld is not Le Chiffre. He doesn't need answers from Bond. He does it because he...sincerely. likes. IT :-)! And Christoph Waltz portrays that wonderfully
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    Going directly from being a gentleman offering champagne and talking about meteors to torture of both seemed odd. There had to be another scene where Blofeld loses it with both of them for some reason. That would make the torture more relevant.

    Its a Bond film. Just rewatch "Doctor No". And within 10 minutes, from a lovely, luxury dinner scene, Dr No gets a bit mad, plays around with his metal hands and lets his goons torture Bond :-). Always loved that scene as well by the way.

    By the way, at times Madeleine Swann also reminded me of Honey Rider. Both were at times coming across as very innocent, frightened little girls. It's the type of Bond girl I haven't seen in the Craig-era yet.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    Going directly from being a gentleman offering champagne and talking about meteors to torture of both seemed odd. There had to be another scene where Blofeld loses it with both of them for some reason. That would make the torture more relevant.

    Its a Bond film. Just rewatch "Doctor No". And within 10 minutes, from a lovely, luxury dinner scene, Dr No gets a bit mad, plays around with his metal hands and lets his goons torture Bond :-). Always loved that scene as well by the way.
    And that's just it I think. We're missing a reported dinner scene that was deleted. That could very well have been the 'connecting' scene.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Going directly from being a gentleman offering champagne and talking about meteors to torture of both seemed odd. There had to be another scene where Blofeld loses it with both of them for some reason. That would make the torture more relevant.

    Its a Bond film. Just rewatch "Doctor No". And within 10 minutes, from a lovely, luxury dinner scene, Dr No gets a bit mad, plays around with his metal hands and lets his goons torture Bond :-). Always loved that scene as well by the way.
    And that's just it I think. We're missing a reported dinner scene that was deleted. That could very well have been the 'connecting' scene.

    No

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Going directly from being a gentleman offering champagne and talking about meteors to torture of both seemed odd. There had to be another scene where Blofeld loses it with both of them for some reason. That would make the torture more relevant.

    Its a Bond film. Just rewatch "Doctor No". And within 10 minutes, from a lovely, luxury dinner scene, Dr No gets a bit mad, plays around with his metal hands and lets his goons torture Bond :-). Always loved that scene as well by the way.
    And that's just it I think. We're missing a reported dinner scene that was deleted. That could very well have been the 'connecting' scene.
    No
    You know that for a fact? I have not read the script.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Going directly from being a gentleman offering champagne and talking about meteors to torture of both seemed odd. There had to be another scene where Blofeld loses it with both of them for some reason. That would make the torture more relevant.

    Its a Bond film. Just rewatch "Doctor No". And within 10 minutes, from a lovely, luxury dinner scene, Dr No gets a bit mad, plays around with his metal hands and lets his goons torture Bond :-). Always loved that scene as well by the way.
    And that's just it I think. We're missing a reported dinner scene that was deleted. That could very well have been the 'connecting' scene.
    No
    You know that for a fact? I have not read the script.

    No, I found it as good as it was.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Going directly from being a gentleman offering champagne and talking about meteors to torture of both seemed odd. There had to be another scene where Blofeld loses it with both of them for some reason. That would make the torture more relevant.

    Its a Bond film. Just rewatch "Doctor No". And within 10 minutes, from a lovely, luxury dinner scene, Dr No gets a bit mad, plays around with his metal hands and lets his goons torture Bond :-). Always loved that scene as well by the way.
    And that's just it I think. We're missing a reported dinner scene that was deleted. That could very well have been the 'connecting' scene.
    No
    You know that for a fact? I have not read the script.

    No, I found it as good as it was.
    Ah, ok. Good to know.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Going directly from being a gentleman offering champagne and talking about meteors to torture of both seemed odd. There had to be another scene where Blofeld loses it with both of them for some reason. That would make the torture more relevant.

    Its a Bond film. Just rewatch "Doctor No". And within 10 minutes, from a lovely, luxury dinner scene, Dr No gets a bit mad, plays around with his metal hands and lets his goons torture Bond :-). Always loved that scene as well by the way.
    And that's just it I think. We're missing a reported dinner scene that was deleted. That could very well have been the 'connecting' scene.
    No
    You know that for a fact? I have not read the script.

    No, I found it as good as it was.
    Ah, ok. Good to know.

    ;-).

    I was less fond of the London sequence. But that's not what this topic is about. Did you....read my review already @bondjames?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I was less fond of the London sequence. But that's not what this topic is about. Did you....read my review already @bondjames?
    No. Where is it? In the review thread?
  • bondjames wrote: »
    I was less fond of the London sequence. But that's not what this topic is about. Did you....read my review already @bondjames?
    No. Where is it? In the review thread?

    Here it is, one more time ;-):
    REVIEW “SPECTRE”: MICKEY MOUSE IS BACK WITH A BANG

    Earlier this year reviewers were positive about Matthew Vaughn’s new comic book adaptation vs. spy spoof “Kingsman: The Secret Service”. Some critics applauded the more comedic approach of the film. It was a return to Roger Moore-esque suaveness and cheesy, though violent, comedy. It was an element that was greatly missed in the recent Bond films with Daniel Craig. Then “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation” premiered and it got hailed as the best spy-action film of the year. Critics uttered sentences like "Tom Cruise remains the action star without equal”, thus no critics mentioned Cruise’s age of 53, that he was doing his 5th “M:I”-film already (he signed up for a 6th), and what will happen to the franchise when he leaves. Review by Gert Waterink


    It’s a pretty damn old thing
    With Bond it’s an entirely different thing. It’s a 53-year old franchise which formula got shaken and stirred during a whopping portfolio of 24 films, of which “SPECTRE” is the 24th. But like Bond’s past haunting him more than ever in this new adventure, the actual franchise is equally haunted by all its previous films and many other newer franchises who borrow from it. No matter how successful and gracefully old the franchise is, it’s therefore prone to much more criticism and comparisons. Compared to relatively new franchises like “Mission: Impossible”, “The Dark Knight” and “The Fast And The Furious”, the “James Bond”-franchise’s reference point around which criticism –both positive and negative-- is build, is its own past. It’s logical if you are 53 years old, though at times not entirely fair. For a “Mission: Impossible”-film it’s usually a compliment to be compared with a Bond film, but ‘godfather’ Bond doesn’t have that privilege. Critics will never say “This actually is a better Marvel-film!”. It always needs to battle itself, in good and bad times.

    Actor Ben Whishaw commented during the Royal World Premiere in London: “You know what you're going to get, but you know it's also going to be slightly different every time”. And that’s again the case with “SPECTRE”. Sadly, because of the age of the franchise many people have forgotten that adage, and don’t ask themselves anymore what to expect from a new Bond film. Obviously, you have to be prepared for a familiar and slightly formulaic film, of which all ingredients are being blended differently. That was the case with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall”. So when people call “SPECTRE” an uninspired, sapid copy of its own past, they either hail –-though not really watch-- the oldest Bond films, or they tend to forget the implications of the franchise’s age of 53 (in comparison, “Mission: Impossible” is now 20 years old).

    The build-up to “SPECTRE”
    In any case, after the most violent shake-up of the Bond-franchise with the previous three Bond films, “Casino Royale”, “Quantum Of Solace” and “Skyfall”, Sam Mendes wisely settles the franchise down a bit with “SPECTRE”. During the final scenes of “Skyfall” we got prepared for that. Bond visits the new, more scaled down MI6-offices at Whitehall. He enters Miss Moneypenny’s small office, looks down on her desk and smiles with Connery-esque wit: “I’m looking forward to our time together Miss Moneypenny?!”. He then encounters Gareth Mallory, the new ‘M’, in an office that resembles Bernard Lee’s wooden panelled, dusty post-WW II-designed mission room.

    So is “SPECTRE” a blatant copy of its past? Again, it depends how you look at it. I’d go with a “No”. After “SPECTRE” Her Majesty’s Loyal Terrier has now been completely re-introduced to us. With slow nuance and credibility, with joyous and at times original re-imagined elements from the franchise’s past and with a better sense of continuity. All of which happened over a course of 4 films (which started in 2006, two years before Marvel decided to revel with their universe). Continuity though, has never been a very important element to the Bond franchise. Due to the big financial risks accompanied with the production of a film that wasn’t even a franchise yet (“Doctor No”, 1962), due to the production complexity of bringing Bond to the big screen with a few of Fleming’s earlier novels (“Moonraker”, “Live And Let Die”) and due to several of Fleming’s novels not being fully owned by EON Productions (the very first novel “Casino Royale” & aspects/characters from “Thunderball”), Fleming’s continuity and chronology were soon thrown away for the sake of giving us a Bond film in the first place. So back in 1962 (“Doctor No”) Sean Connery was already the fully rounded agent 007.

    Not with Daniel Craig. We saw Bond earning his 00-licence in (“Casino Royale”), falling in love with a complex girl (“Casino Royale”), battling his own emotions of revenge and anger (“Quantum Of Solace”), and then facing the importance of espionage by witnessing the fall and re-birth of MI6 (“Skyfall”). You almost wánt James Bond to face a little bit less death and destruction, no? A bit like Ethan Hunt’s less complex character, no? (“Skyfall”, “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” and “Casino Royale” are unique phenomena that are heavy on emotions, but wouldn’t it become a bit uninspiring and joyless to kill off a beloved character at the very end of every Bond film?).

    The organisation is back
    With “SPECTRE” all elements of the Bond-cocktail are in place now. Well, not quite. One important element from Ian Fleming’s novels had to be properly re-introduced: Bond’s antagonist S.P.E.C.T.R.E. (SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge & Extortion). While James Bond 007 has got his emotions in check now, makes us laugh a bit more, and is now more focused on his mission –rogue or not rogue-, people might have noticed the absence of a larger threat, a so called anti-MI6. So the return of Fleming’s mysterious crime syndicate S.P.E.C.T.R.E. is uttermost welcome. And in this particular film S.P.E.C.T.R.E and its tentacles are an emotional tour-de-force. It is most definitely the haunting ghost of both agent 007 and MI6. But it’s more than that.

    Because for all the good work of Protector Bond, we still live in an era of real-life hostility, intense geopolitical problems and villainous dictators. Not to mention the facilitators of big conflicts, like the crisis in Eastern-Ukraine or the escalating immigrant-crisis in Europe. Ian Fleming knew how to translate such events in a slightly larger-than-life context. And so does Sam Mendes. Hence the return of a slightly more realistic Bilderberg-inspired S.P.E.C.T.R.E. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group) that perfectly channels this reality (off course within a larger-than-life context). And since I am reviewing a film here and not a real-life conflict, “SPECTRE” is particularly an exciting spectacle for those who like to see more death and destruction from Bond’s biggest antagonist. The S.P.E.C.T.R.E.-meeting in Rome is therefore one of the highlights of the film, one that includes a particularly horrifying death, coldly witnessed by Oberhauser. And no, it isn’t a cheesy electrocution, or a moment of shark feeding.

    Talking about Oberhauser…..Christoph Waltz portrays a solid Bond villain. Obviously he isn’t Silva, but that poor guy was living in total rage, whereas Oberhauser seems to have his emotions better in check within his psychotic mindset. Oberhauser isn’t running around like Silva and isn’t gunning down people with core beliefs of that of an Islamic State terrorist. He is less motivated by his past and more motivated by his own psyche. Which makes him credible especially during a torture scene. It gives you the best introduction to an arch nemesis that was absent for such a long time. And this arch nemesis will give you dentist fever, trust me.

    More credible humour?
    “SPECTRE” is a good 4th part of this full-blooded Bond-quadrilogy. It’s Craig’s “Thunderball” or “The Spy Who Loved Me”, slightly more stripped down from unnecessary emotions and character’s complexities, and more upbeat with credible humour (an emotion too…) and larger action sequences as part of the plot. Craig himself though is never copying Sir Moore or Sir Connery. Yes, Bond’s dry wit is back and Daniel Craig utters a few witty one-liners, but they all sound a bit more “street”. Most of the humour works so well, because it’s part of the circumstances/events. When for instance Bond falls on a sofa during the pre-credits sequence, he’s not uttering an appallingly written Brosnan-one-liner. No, instead the audiences can observe a 007 who probably himself thinks “Hell, why couldn’t this be a clean kill”. Same thing occurs with some of the Mickey Mouse-references. Only Daniel Craig can belittle himself with such gusto by saying he’s the one and only Disney character (Did you caught the Topolino/Mickey Mouse references? I did count three). "SPECTRE" definitely is the funniest film of the quadrilogy.

    Action-heavy, in a good way
    Thanks in particular to editor Lee Smith (“The Dark Knight”), a good writing team and a more frivolous and improvising acting style from Daniel Craig, the action sequences top a few of the previous, more recent Bond stunts, and even those from competing 007-inspired spy-franchises. They don’t feel unrelated to the plot. A tense fight sequence between 007 and Monsieur Hinx, without music but with wonderful sound-editing from Oscar-winner Per Halberg ("Skyfall"), feels almost as gripping as the torture scene in "Casino Royale". And the rather long car chase among the banks of the river Tiber in Rome never feels long, due to some smart editing of some light-hearted phone conversation between Bond and Moneypenny.

    Some big but’s
    Still, for a 25th Bond film there are so many types of stunts available from the stuntman’s big hat that haven’t been used before in a Bond film. Free-running was something new in “Casino Royale”, and something as original as that “SPECTRE” won’t offer you.

    “SPECTRE” therefore isn’t a perfect film. Some other examples are the London-based sequences. They felt a bit too contrived at times. And that’s partially because Sam Mendes tried a bit too hard to focus on a 2nd storyline in which the entire MI6-staff played a role. One should not try forcefully to give great actors more screen time. I therefore think it’s inevitable that in the future ‘M’, ‘Q’, Moneypenny and Tanner shine a bit more from behind a desk.

    Moreover, the finale in London was exciting, though not entirely fulfilling. After the blow-up of Oberhauser’s lair, the CNS-program could have been destroyed entirely. By doing so, the personal story between Oberhauser and Bond could have felt a bit more ‘compact’, thus more effective. A dinner table sequence would have been good here, though I did think the ‘fun house’ sequence inside the old MI6-building (A very Fleming-esque sequence nonetheless) worked well enough. But London? We know you exist by now ok?

    Verdict
    Despite this and some other ‘minor caveats’, “SPECTRE” still holds as a ‘TOP 10 Best Bond Entry’ in the EON-led franchise. The film isn’t an ‘état fenomenale’ like its predecessors (“Casino Royale”, “Goldfinger”, “Skyfall”, “The Spy Who Loved Me” and “From Russia With Love”). But who knows, perhaps that can happen in the foreseeable future (“On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”?). Former “Goldfinger” director Guy Hamilton once quoted this: "We're going to take you to wonderful places, we're going to show you beautiful girls, we're gonna have some suspense, we're gonna have some laughs....but...let's enjoyy!" And that’s what I did immensely with possibly the best spy-themed action thriller of 2015.

    My rating: ■ ■ ■ ■ □
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Interesting review @Gustav_Graves. I'm glad that the London sequence seems to be one of the few sequences in this film that you have problems with. I can say that about MI-RN (London is the only weak part of that film for me).

    You make some good points about Bond having to compete with its long history. I agree that this is a burden that this franchise has to carry, which others do not have. However, I don't entirely see that as a negative. Being part of such a storied franchise offers some automatic benefits, which other franchises do not have. A benefit of the doubt, in many cases....an ability to forgive past missteps also

    I think that EON has been more successful in some instances with reimagining their past glories in new and interesting ways, and less so in other instances. For me, it wasn't handled all that well in SP, and after reading your review, two reasons may explain my impressions:

    1. I did an extensive pre-SP Bondathon and therefore the Bond universe (stunts, gadgets, quips, villains etc etc.) were quite fresh to me when I watched SP. This made inevitable comparisons more focused and pointed. If I hadn't seen the films recently, I may have had a more positive view of some of the obvious throwbacks (including Omega 'get me out of harm's way' gadget laden watch, Aston 'ejector seat' Martin, & Train fight with 'big tough guy' who gets thrown out). Then again, I may not have. It's just something that came to mind after reading your review.

    2. I realize now that one of the issues I have with the Mendes era is his attempt to reimagine the past and recreate characters from the past.
    -Campbell didn't do this in CR. He used Dench who was M already in the Brosnan era. Some say she is not the same M. It doesn't matter to me - she is the same actress playing the same named character. They smartly didn't focus on it, or attempt a backstory on M.....they just dropped right into the story like they have always done in previous films
    -Mendes howevever, brought back the office, a male M, Moneypenny, Q and Blofeld. Of all of them, only the 'Q' and 'M' characters work for me, because I don't see them as the old beloved 'Q' or' M'. I see them as new people, with new names. In fact, 'Dench M' mentions 'new Quartermaster' in SF if I'm not mistaken, and we know 'Fiennes M' is Mallory and not Lee Messervy.
    -However, MP is the same MP (since it's not a code name) and Blofeld is the same Blofeld.
    -So this reimagining of specific characters from a universe we have a lot of history with, including forced 'reintroductions', may not be going down so well with me. Not sure.
    -For me, that is the risk Mendes has taken with reintroducing the specific characters (MP & Blofeld) in to the 53 yr movie universe with a backstory, rather than just getting to it.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    the biggest problems with the torture scene (which was mostly well done) was the pointless 'reveal' of Blofeld's name. Pointless because the name Earnst Stavro Blofeld is completely meaningless to Bond. He could have said 'Micky Mouse' as Bond did earlier and it would have made as much sense.

    And because of the lack of effects on Bond. As others have pointed out, at least in CR he needed to recover. Imagine if immediately after le Chiffre is killed Bond shagged Vesper. How ridiculous would that have been?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 7,724
    boldfinger wrote: »
    The green screen helicopter scenes in Mexico gave DAD´s tidal wave a run for its money. That gave me an impression that they didn´t mean it so seriously this time. And overall there were more Moore-like jokes in the film than Connery-style humor, which, in a Craig film, for sure is a sign for me that they´re not out for sinister.

    I've seen this pop up a few times now. Having seen the film three times at this stage, I don't understand why it's an issue. It looked fine to me.

    Regarding the torture scene - if they had thrown in a bit of drowsiness on Bond's part afterwards it would have been perfect. It was still a great scene - it certainly made the lady that accompanied me squeeze the blood of my fingers.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Regarding the torture scene - if they had thrown in a bit of drowsiness on Bond's part afterwards it would have been perfect. It was still a great scene - it certainly made the lady that accompanied me squeeze the blood of my fingers.
    Someone suggested earlier that Swan be the one to assist him out and do the initial shooting while he recuperates (we know she knows how to handle a gun). That would have been perfect imho.
    Sark wrote: »
    And because of the lack of effects on Bond. As others have pointed out, at least in CR he needed to recover. Imagine if immediately after le Chiffre is killed Bond shagged Vesper. How ridiculous would that have been?
    In a way, that's what spoils the train shag for me. At least in TSWLM, there is some attention given to Bond's wound and it unwinds in a slower fashion. Here they just jump each other vigorously after getting the crap kicked out of themselves. I didn't mind the passion, but I would have preferred some recuperation.
  • Sark wrote: »
    the biggest problems with the torture scene (which was mostly well done) was the pointless 'reveal' of Blofeld's name. Pointless because the name Earnst Stavro Blofeld is completely meaningless to Bond. He could have said 'Micky Mouse' as Bond did earlier and it would have made as much sense.

    And because of the lack of effects on Bond. As others have pointed out, at least in CR he needed to recover. Imagine if immediately after le Chiffre is killed Bond shagged Vesper. How ridiculous would that have been?

    Names are names.

    People tend to forget that Bond actually thought that Franz Oberhauser has been dead for years..together with his dad Hannes Oberhauser. So it's entirely understandable that Bond reacts rather lacklustre to his introduction. Obviously the man is completely 'new' to him.

    The only thing that bind together Oberhauser and Bond are a few years together during teenage childhood...before the presumed death of the Oberhausers.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 7,724
    Sark wrote: »
    the biggest problems with the torture scene (which was mostly well done) was the pointless 'reveal' of Blofeld's name. Pointless because the name Earnst Stavro Blofeld is completely meaningless to Bond. He could have said 'Micky Mouse' as Bond did earlier and it would have made as much sense.

    And because of the lack of effects on Bond. As others have pointed out, at least in CR he needed to recover. Imagine if immediately after le Chiffre is killed Bond shagged Vesper. How ridiculous would that have been?

    Names are names.

    People tend to forget that Bond actually thought that Franz Oberhauser has been dead for years..together with his dad Hannes Oberhauser. So it's entirely understandable that Bond reacts rather lacklustre to his introduction. Obviously the man is completely 'new' to him.

    The only thing that bind together Oberhauser and Bond are a few years together during teenage childhood...before the presumed death of the Oberhausers.

    Names are for tombstones baby!
    Y'all take this honky out and waste him....now!
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 1,497
    The torture scene is one of the many reasons why the whole third act collapses on it's own bullsh**. It really has no purpose to the plot other than to have a torture scene. The last needle is supposed to kill off Bond's memory that he won't even recognize Madeleine, yet he still does! The movie suggests a "love conquers all" theme after she confesses she loves him. Why does she say this? The movie never built up a convincing relationship between the two for her to say this. Furthermore it would suggest that Bond really does feel love for her in return, otherwise he wouldn't recognize her. Where does the movie tells us that Bond loves her prior to this scene? Also, Bond after being tortured in his brain, has full and complete physical function and is able to run out of the base taking out a few baddies as if nothing happened to him before; and continue on the rest of the movie for that matter. So the torture scene has no impact or any stakes for Bond.
  • Posts: 369
    Did no one get it? Everything that happens after the torture scene is in Bond imagination.

    Bond is still tied to the chair, and will be at the beginning of B25. It's a nod to Inception, the ending of Dark Knight Rises, and Brazil.

    Maybe.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 16,830
    Interesting theory, @Stamper, but I for one don't buy it. That sort of thing was fine for DAD but is a bit too far-fetched for the current Craig era in my view.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    @Stamper I like that idea.

    It would make an interesting B25 pretitles. Bond is back strapped on the chair and it was all a dream/nightmare...

    A Total Recall or Dallas Bobby Ewing shower moment. However, as with Dallas, this ultimate retcon could probably kill off the franchise once and for all.
  • Posts: 485
    Stamper wrote: »
    Did no one get it? Everything that happens after the torture scene is in Bond imagination.

    Bond is still tied to the chair, and will be at the beginning of B25. It's a nod to Inception, the ending of Dark Knight Rises, and Brazil.

    Maybe.

    You could then tie that in with TMWTGG and an amnesiac Bond returning to London once he's finally escaped for real.

    I personally liked the torture scene and thank goodness Craig pulled it off as so much of the horror of the situation rested on him.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Am I the only one here who thinks that idea is utter bollocks?

    God knows the final reel wasn't brilliantly put together but I'm at a loss as to how this theory would improve upon anything.
  • Posts: 485
    Am I the only one here who thinks that idea is utter bollocks?

    God knows the final reel wasn't brilliantly put together but I'm at a loss as to how this theory would improve upon anything.

    It's a fun idea, and one I've read before, to kick around on here but yes I'd agree with BondJames. Commercial suicide in reality.

    I genuinely enjoy SP - and going for my final Imax viewing this Monday - but the London climax doesn't stand up much to repeated viewings so I'm inclined to agree that the Morocco scenes should have been extended.

  • I can't help it, but.......I love the torture scene.
  • StanKobraStanKobra Serbia
    Posts: 108
    Me too. Absolutely love it, whole scene. Moment when he opens his eyes and sees a pussy... And you KNOW Blofeld is in the house! Amazing!
    And that great watch-powered escape.
    Definitely one of movies highlights for me.
Sign In or Register to comment.