›

Does Spectre actually make any sense?

12357…10

Comments

  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,842
    boldfinger wrote: »
    OHMSS69 wrote: »
    Sorry guys...

    In regard to DN, they could not just say Strangeways had run off as Mi6 had the attempted transmission and that is what set off the bells and whistles. M was going to send an agent to look into this right away.

    The bad guys could have cleaned up the mess after they killed her and attempted make it look like she had run off by packing a bag, making flight reservations but there was always the issue of the radio going dark...
    They could have intended to kill Strangways and the lady before the radio call was initiated. Since that was a reliable time Strangways would be at a certain place, the general timing would fit. Mediocre hitmen who mess up the time could still be more preferable to Dr. No than professionals, because he might be of the opinion that laymen are easier to get rid of, while he would take care that the official investigation would go nowhere. Of course he couldn´t know that MI6 would send such a brilliant agent as James Bond ;-).

    Beside villains are not omniscient. They make do and the murder and coverup operation was a work done by many actors, with different approaches that could be conflict use: the three blind mice, Dent, etc. It is Dent who shrug it off as a love affair. The three blind mice only had to murder then hide the bodies.
  • sirseanisbondsirseanisbond
    Posts: 2,189
    If we are examining Dr. No in this way, hear is what I see as its biggest flaw: A lack of coordination between the "Three Blind Mice" taking out Strangways, and the men taking out his secretary. What these men should have done was waited until both Strangways and his secretary were asleep, kill them with poison so as not to leave blood patches, then make it look like they had done some hasty packing, put their bodies and their luggage into Strangways car, and either drive it into the sea somewhere that no one would find it, or make it look like they had died in a crash. Its really simple, and this plan would have drawn little attention to itself in the aftermath.
  • BeatlesSansEarmuffsBeatlesSansEarmuffs
    edited August 2016 Posts: 3,564
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Regarding Dr No's murder of Strangways and Tess Trueblood

    Who?

    Tess Trueblood is Dick Tracy's girlfriend (later his wife.) Why @Ludovico made that particular logical leap I can't guess but that's who she is...
    PS: Ah, I see @Gerard has answered the question as well. Nevermind, carry on...
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    What do you all think about Bond's escape from his cell in Dr. No's lair? I wonder if they could have made it a bit differently. It is not a bad idea. But given that Bond was a big risk for Dr. No wasn't the escape a bit too simple for a special agent. He did not even need a specific gadget to escape, as for example Moore in Octopussy.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,842
    sirseanisbond wrote: »
    If we are examining Dr. No in this way, hear is what I see as its biggest flaw: A lack of coordination between the "Three Blind Mice" taking out Strangways, and the men taking out his secretary. What these men should have done was waited until both Strangways and his secretary were asleep, kill them with poison so as not to leave blood patches, then make it look like they had done some hasty packing, put their bodies and their luggage into Strangways car, and either drive it into the sea somewhere that no one would find it, or make it look like they had died in a crash. Its really simple, and this plan would have drawn little attention to itself in the aftermath.

    It is a flaw of the henchmen not the movie.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,571
    Why was Quarrel not killed sooner? He was clearly a lead for Bond as he had taken |Strangways in his boat to collect samples. Dr No may as well have bumped him off while he was at it to try and tie up loose ends.
  • IncompetentHenchmanIncompetentHenchman
    edited September 2016 Posts: 1,817
    GBF wrote: »
    What do you all think about Bond's escape from his cell in Dr. No's lair? I wonder if they could have made it a bit differently. It is not a bad idea. But given that Bond was a big risk for Dr. No wasn't the escape a bit too simple for a special agent. He did not even need a specific gadget to escape, as for example Moore in Octopussy.

    I know, he escapes through the vent. I mean, the vent? Seriously? Can we all agree that escape by ventilation is the most unoriginal and braindead means of escape ever in any form of mainstream fiction...?
    sirseanisbond wrote: »
    If we are examining Dr. No in this way, hear is what I see as its biggest flaw: A lack of coordination between the "Three Blind Mice" taking out Strangways, and the men taking out his secretary. What these men should have done was waited until both Strangways and his secretary were asleep, kill them with poison so as not to leave blood patches, then make it look like they had done some hasty packing, put their bodies and their luggage into Strangways car, and either drive it into the sea somewhere that no one would find it, or make it look like they had died in a crash. Its really simple, and this plan would have drawn little attention to itself in the aftermath.

    I do think that is sort of nitpicking, I mean yes, it probably would have worked better, but still, I don't find that to be a deficiency in the plot.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,721
    The issue with Bond escaping from the vent is that they took it directly from the novel BUT the novel has Dr No intentionally leave the vent as the only escape so he can put Bond through an obstacle course as a test of endurance. It's quite outlandish - especially with a giant squid waiting at the end so I can see why they changed it - yet they still kept in the hot vent and rushing water - as random elements, whereas they are by design in the novel. It was a sequence I always liked in the book when I first read it as a kid.
  • BeatlesSansEarmuffsBeatlesSansEarmuffs
    Posts: 3,564
    Major_Boothroyd wrote: »
    The issue with Bond escaping from the vent is that they took it directly from the novel BUT the novel has Dr No intentionally leave the vent as the only escape so he can put Bond through an obstacle course as a test of endurance. It's quite outlandish - especially with a giant squid waiting at the end so I can see why they changed it - yet they still kept in the hot vent and rushing water - as random elements, whereas they are by design in the novel. It was a sequence I always liked in the book when I first read it as a kid.

    The giant squid was probably left out of the movie because they couldn't afford one. Or maybe it froze on the way to the shoot (like the crabs that were supposed to menace Honey) and just got blue penciled out at the last moment. Don't even get me started on Dr. No's death under the mountain of guano.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,842
    I actually like how Bond escapes. Why not the vent? It was electrified. Another sign of No's overconfidence which causes his fall.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,816
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I actually like how Bond escapes. Why not the vent? It was electrified. Another sign of No's overconfidence which causes his fall.

    And it's in the novel too.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    BeatlesSansEarmuffs wrote: »
    Don't even get me started on Dr. No's death under the mountain of guano.

    What is wrong with this?

    Just because it sounds ridiculous to bury the villain in birdshit doesnt mean its not credible.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11156842

    This seems to basically the same outfit going on as Crab Key and I reckon if a crane dropped a massive pile of that on you it would kill you.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,816
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    BeatlesSansEarmuffs wrote: »
    Don't even get me started on Dr. No's death under the mountain of guano.

    What is wrong with this?

    Just because it sounds ridiculous to bury the villain in birdshit doesnt mean its not credible.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11156842

    This seems to basically the same outfit going on as Crab Key and I reckon if a crane dropped a massive pile of that on you it would kill you.

    Of course it would! And I do agree that it is a brilliant death - Dr. No is buried under his own bullshit. Quite symbolic really and a bizarrely original way to kill off the main villain.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,842
    I think a lot of criticism regarding the plot of DN seems to be complaints about the villains and the good guys not being infallible.
  • BeatlesSansEarmuffsBeatlesSansEarmuffs
    Posts: 3,564
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    BeatlesSansEarmuffs wrote: »
    Don't even get me started on Dr. No's death under the mountain of guano.

    What is wrong with this?

    Just because it sounds ridiculous to bury the villain in birdshit doesnt mean its not credible.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11156842

    This seems to basically the same outfit going on as Crab Key and I reckon if a crane dropped a massive pile of that on you it would kill you.

    NOTHING'S wrong with it. I'm annoyed because they didn't film it that way!
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,842
    Don't think it would have been received as well then. Beside they went for a quick and neat climatic scene to wrap things up fast.
  • BeatlesSansEarmuffsBeatlesSansEarmuffs
    Posts: 3,564
    The movie worked just fine for what it was. I would have enjoyed a little more prolonged finale...as it was, I get the sense that once Bond gets through the obstacle course, the bean counters blew a whistle and said, "We're almost through our budget! Wrap this thing up now & let's all go home!"
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,816
    BeatlesSansEarmuffs wrote: »
    The movie worked just fine for what it was. I would have enjoyed a little more prolonged finale...as it was, I get the sense that once Bond gets through the obstacle course, the bean counters blew a whistle and said, "We're almost through our budget! Wrap this thing up now & let's all go home!"

    Yes, I think the much more restricted budget of DN reigned in any excesses that would later become much more common as the Bond films went on and the budgets got bigger and bigger. Perhaps this was an early saving grace but it also meant that the more fanciful elements of the 1958 source novel had to be excised from the shooting script. This was probably for the best to avoid going into science fiction territory too soon in the Bond film series.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    BeatlesSansEarmuffs wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    BeatlesSansEarmuffs wrote: »
    Don't even get me started on Dr. No's death under the mountain of guano.

    What is wrong with this?

    Just because it sounds ridiculous to bury the villain in birdshit doesnt mean its not credible.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11156842

    This seems to basically the same outfit going on as Crab Key and I reckon if a crane dropped a massive pile of that on you it would kill you.

    NOTHING'S wrong with it. I'm annoyed because they didn't film it that way!

    Apologies for doubting you Sir.
  • DRush76DRush76
    Posts: 533
    Regarding Dent's killing: I doubt the Professor had much to give Bond and as I think after being the target of many assassination attempts Bond felt vindictive. A reckless action maybe but in line with his state of mind at the time. Why wouldn't Bond make mistakes sometimes?


    I thought it was very unprofessional of Bond to kill Dent. Regardless of whether Dent had to give, the right thing to do would have been to ensure that any "suicide pills" were removed from Dent's person before interrogating him for more information. Instead, Bond allowed his personal feelings to commit murder.

    As for the rest of the plot for "Doctor No", I pretty much understood it. Regardless of how Strangeways and his secretary had "disappeared", MI6 would have investigated. Besides, wasn't the secretary in the process of contacting London before she was killed?
  • IncompetentHenchmanIncompetentHenchman
    Posts: 1,817
    Dr. No's film death is one of the best villain deaths and laid a template to follow, so I can't say that I would change that. His hands turn against him and he can't pull himself out of the boiler. Then Grant is strangled by his own garotte, Oddjob is electrocuted by the conductivity of his own hat, etc.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,333
    Dr. No dying in his own reactor is more iconic. He died from his own creation.
  • IncompetentHenchmanIncompetentHenchman
    Posts: 1,817
    Murdock wrote: »
    Dr. No dying in his own reactor is more iconic. He died from his own creation.

    Yes, iconic and ironic, great stuff.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,816
    IncompetentHenchman wrote: »
    Dr. No's film death is one of the best villain deaths and laid a template to follow, so I can't say that I would change that. His hands turn against him and he can't pull himself out of the boiler. Then Grant is strangled by his own garotte, Oddjob is electrocuted by the conductivity of his own hat, etc.

    Yes, hoist by his own petard as they say.
  • vzokvzok
    Posts: 4,026
    Murdock wrote: »
    Dr. No dying in his own reactor is more iconic. He died from his own creation.

    Serves him right for having an open pool nuclear reactor.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    I always find the Bond v Dr No climactic fight very underwhelming and over before it began.
    Waaaay too easy a fight for Bond,after all that build up.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,842
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    BeatlesSansEarmuffs wrote: »
    The movie worked just fine for what it was. I would have enjoyed a little more prolonged finale...as it was, I get the sense that once Bond gets through the obstacle course, the bean counters blew a whistle and said, "We're almost through our budget! Wrap this thing up now & let's all go home!"

    Yes, I think the much more restricted budget of DN reigned in any excesses that would later become much more common as the Bond films went on and the budgets got bigger and bigger. Perhaps this was an early saving grace but it also meant that the more fanciful elements of the 1958 source novel had to be excised from the shooting script. This was probably for the best to avoid going into science fiction territory too soon in the Bond film series.

    That as well. Sometimes I wonder what Ray Harryhausen would have made of the squid fight. But then DN would have become a Ray Harryhausen movie and not a Bond movie.

    And the fight between Dr No and Bond is full of b movie charm. I wouldn't trade it for anything more elaborate.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,571
    Anyone have a burning desire to deconstruct a particular Bond film? Thinking about swapping it around a little, and maybe plunge in to the 90s.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,691
    @NicNac you should make GE the next film. I am still waiting for an explanation, for the last 21 years, on the sequence of the stealing of the helicopter in Monaco. Who is posing as the admiral? Why did no one hear the gunshots? Why did no one notice one of the pilots was now a woman (Xenia)?
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,571
    OK, let's do it.

    For all of DC's reasons above, and many more I'm sure, we are going to ask the question...

    Does GOLDENEYE actually make any sense?
Sign In or Register to comment.