Controversial opinions about Bond films

1681682684686687705

Comments

  • Posts: 1,394
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    There hasn’t been a good Bond film since CR.

    That’s just another way of saying “I don’t like Skyfall”.

    Is that your way of agreeing with me that QOS and SP are bad?

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited September 2021 Posts: 7,526
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    There hasn’t been a good Bond film since CR.

    That’s just another way of saying “I don’t like Skyfall”.

    Is that your way of agreeing with me that QOS and SP are bad?

    Maybe he's just saying that disliking QoS and SP aren't controversial opinions?

    My lifelong controversial opinion is my love of Spectre that grows with every watch (despite all the bad things and missed opportunities).
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,021
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    There hasn’t been a good Bond film since CR.

    That’s just another way of saying “I don’t like Skyfall”.

    Is that your way of agreeing with me that QOS and SP are bad?

    Maybe he's just saying that disliking QoS and SP aren't controversial opinions?

    Ding ding ding.

    It’s like saying you don’t like TMWTGG or LTK. They’ve always been polarizing films and still are, even though QOS has a bit of a cult following in these parts I’ve noticed.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,931
    Yes there's quite a lot of fans of QoS nowadays. I don't get it myself, but I'm not going to tell someone they're wrong to enjoy something.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,965
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Pfft. But the car won’t start. It’s not desperately exciting: all he uses the jet pack for is to just get *down there*.

    At least it worked for real, and thus fit Bond. The re-breather was so realistic even real-world parties believed it could work. But on the other hand there's the 'smart blood' and an invisible car......

    Well Scaramanga's flying car worked: I don't think the rebreather was ever terribly realistic. But I don't require the gadgets to be realistic (where is the DB5 storing that much water?!)- I just need them to be fun and interesting and used in a witty way. Using a jetpack to just go over there a bit isn't all that exciting. Neither is an underwater camera (yawn), a watch with a geiger counter in it (snooze) or a pill which requires 007 to just have a sit down and wait for someone else. They really dropped the ball with TB and missed that sense of the bizarre and larger-than-life that Goldfinger got right. Presumably McClory's influence, as the script had the same problem- it's not Fleming enough.

    I guess the jetpack might be less fantastic now than it was in the sixties, as mentioned by others above. Same goes for the flying car. They both did work but were for the general public the stuff of science fiction.
    The re-breather was convincing enough for the military to call in to the studios to ask where to get it. The special forces were quite interested. I think the tb gadgets were quite spectacular for their day. Of course many of them didn't age that well. BTW that water tank could also be underneath the car, or even under the back seat.

    The smart blood may be a simple update from CR"s tracker (which itself is already pushing it a bit) but technically it"s a completely different ball game, and thankfully still as far-fetched as the 'vanish'.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,988
    mtm wrote: »
    But that trunk space! In the boot!
    The one he puts his jetpack in which should be filled with the bulletproof shield that slides out of it a couple of seconds later? :D

    Well that underestimates Q Branch doesn't it.

    So obviously the bulletproof shield neatly retracts between the propellant tanks of the jetpack. Plus the floor of the boot lowers. And the shield collapses accordion-style. (But really it's at the back edge of the trunk.)

    james-bond-007-jet-pack_1_884e3630e994657aa14efe52b291051e.jpg
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,931
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Pfft. But the car won’t start. It’s not desperately exciting: all he uses the jet pack for is to just get *down there*.

    At least it worked for real, and thus fit Bond. The re-breather was so realistic even real-world parties believed it could work. But on the other hand there's the 'smart blood' and an invisible car......

    Well Scaramanga's flying car worked: I don't think the rebreather was ever terribly realistic. But I don't require the gadgets to be realistic (where is the DB5 storing that much water?!)- I just need them to be fun and interesting and used in a witty way. Using a jetpack to just go over there a bit isn't all that exciting. Neither is an underwater camera (yawn), a watch with a geiger counter in it (snooze) or a pill which requires 007 to just have a sit down and wait for someone else. They really dropped the ball with TB and missed that sense of the bizarre and larger-than-life that Goldfinger got right. Presumably McClory's influence, as the script had the same problem- it's not Fleming enough.

    I guess the jetpack might be less fantastic now than it was in the sixties, as mentioned by others above. Same goes for the flying car.
    Neither of those are exactly common! :D Unless you have one each? :)

    The jet pack is fantastical, but it also looks silly and is used for an incredibly boring purpose. He could have used a ladder and got the same effect. It’s as wild as the film ever gets, and it’s still not very good. It’s just missing the point of what Goldfinger achieved.
    I’d have less problem with it if he used it in an interesting or exciting way.
    They both did work but were for the general public the stuff of science fiction.
    The re-breather was convincing enough for the military to call in to the studios to ask where to get it. The special forces were quite interested. I think the tb gadgets were quite spectacular for their day.

    I don’t think real = spectacular though. A small air tank being believable doesn’t make it exciting. Neither does an underwater camera.
    Of course many of them didn't age that well. BTW that water tank could also be underneath the car, or even under the back seat.

    Not the amount of water it fires out, no. And the car would have been undriveable with that weight. Why’s James Bond shooting people with water anyway? It’s a bit tame.
    The smart blood may be a simple update from CR"s tracker (which itself is already pushing it a bit) but technically it"s a completely different ball game, and thankfully still as far-fetched as the 'vanish'.

    It’s as far-fetched as a car with a water tank that’s bigger than the car itself. Far-fetched isn’t the problem.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,965
    Personally I find it less jarring when there's too much water coming out of a system that could technically work-like all those guns in all those films that never need new ammo clips-than something that's technically impossible. Bond should always stay close to what is feasible. I think they put the jetpack in because the audiences in the sixties would be in awe, because as you say, the escape it's used for makes little sense. Why go through all that effort to put a jetpack out there in the first place? A ladder would indeed be (a lot) quicker - but far less spectacular (to the audience).
  • I’d have preferred it, I think, if the chateau had blown up. That would have been an ending.

    The way they use the jet pack is lame, yes. On the other hand if the chateau had been surrounded by a large moat (as some are) then it kind of makes sense as the quickest way to escape, Bond can get across the moat and to the car in literally seconds.

    Shame there’s no moat in the film, then.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2021 Posts: 14,931
    Personally I find it less jarring when there's too much water coming out of a system that could technically work-like all those guns in all those films that never need new ammo clips-than something that's technically impossible.

    That’s something else entirely though, that’s got nothing to do with what we’re talking about.
    Depending on the film you’re talking about (you don’t specify) I find that much less jarring because I don’t know how much ammo they had to start with or whether they changed magazines while the camera has cut away. But being a human being, I do know how water works and how it can’t magically appear :D
    Bond should always stay close to what is feasible. I think they put the jetpack in because the audiences in the sixties would be in awe, because as you say, the escape it's used for makes little sense. Why go through all that effort to put a jetpack out there in the first place? A ladder would indeed be (a lot) quicker - but far less spectacular (to the audience).

    Yes, and yet they film in a very unspectacular way, it looks silly, and it’s over in seconds. Obviously I get why they wanted to put it in, I’m just saying they did it badly.
    It doesn’t even give him an advantage: it takes so long to take off that the baddies catch up with him at the car anyway.
    I’d have preferred it, I think, if the chateau had blown up. That would have been an ending.

    The way they use the jet pack is lame, yes. On the other hand if the chateau had been surrounded by a large moat (as some are) then it kind of makes sense as the quickest way to escape, Bond can get across the moat and to the car in literally seconds.

    Shame there’s no moat in the film, then.

    Yeah that’s a really good point, that would have worked. Maybe they could have chased him to the top of a tower, and we then see it from the baddies’ POV: Bond disappears up the stairs; they say to each other that they have him cornered. Then suddenly he blasts off above them. That way you don’t have to show him putting his helmet on and strapping in etc. which makes him look a bit uncool.

    It’s actually quite fixable: have him disappear up the tower, the baddies enter as he’s blasting off and get knocked back by the flames, he soars over the moat, the lady we met earlier is outside (perhaps we had cut to her earlier, seeing the drawbridge go up as alarms ring out, worried about how James will escape) driving along in a convertible car which he lands in as it’s moving (you can do the landing with Sean on a crane). Maybe some car baddies are giving chase, he drops the jet pack on the road and then shoots it, blowing them up. Then as they’re driving along there are some more baddies shooting at them at the gate, Bond shoots a water tank they’re standing under (I dunno, I’m making this up) and washes them away, transition to titles.

    I think if they were desperate to use it he maybe should have used it as a method of getting in somewhere rather than escape: it’s kind of ridiculous that he’s strapping it on with baddies chasing him. I like silly stuff in Bond movies, but being silly and underwhelming at the same time is a crime.

    And why’s he putting it in the car boot? Surely Bond’s style is to unclip it, let it drop to the ground, and then saunter off? Tidying up after himself, spraying water at baddies instead of fire: it just gets Bond wrong.

  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 13,894
    I love the TB gadgets. It interests me to see what kind of equipment Q assigns Bond for an underwater mission. Pocket breather device for emergency oxygen supply, camera with infrared film for doing some underwater detective work, twist-top grenade to dispatch enemy frogmen and scuba jetpack with harpoons. All bases covered.

    There were also 4 different explosive spear tips which I couldn't spot in the film:

    https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/desmond-llewelyn-as-q-in-thunderball-phillip-harrington.jpg
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2021 Posts: 14,931
    I would say the excitement of gadgets is Q giving him them and then seeing in what circumstances they’ll come in handy. He’s got the magnet watch- he uses it to grab a shark pellet. That’s fun. He’s got a sonic ring: he uses it to smash a glass floor and escape- that’s exciting and an unexpected use of it. But here: he gets an underwater camera and… takes some photos with it. The usual excitement of gadgets isn’t there. And they’ll all slightly dull ones you might get as stocking fillers for Christmas: they’re not mad and fun like Bond gadgets already had been by this point- there’s no rockets flying out of anything, they’re just straightforwardly useful. An emergency flare. One of them even requires him to sit still while other people find him. To find the boat he uses a bucket with a glass bottom!
    The rebreather is quite cool, at least.

    But then Largo has a boat which splits in two (!) and cool-looking underwater sleds. Bond doesn’t get the cool gadgets: the baddies do. Why doesn’t Q give Bond an underwater motorbike or something? Or a speedboat? No, he gives him a camera and a pill. How is Corgi supposed to sell them to kids? :D
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,021
    Funny thing occurred to me. In TB, Q mentions his presence on the field to be “highly irregular”.

    But I think from that point on the only time he wasn’t on the field for the rest of Cubby’s run was in OHMSS and LALD. It’s not until GE that he actually stays in HQ, and then has one more moment out in the field in TND for his brief cameo.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,931
    Ha! That's a great point.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Funny thing occurred to me. In TB, Q mentions his presence on the field to be “highly irregular”.

    But I think from that point on the only time he wasn’t on the field for the rest of Cubby’s run was in OHMSS and LALD. It’s not until GE that he actually stays in HQ, and then has one more moment out in the field in TND for his brief cameo.

    Does he stay at HQ in TLD? I suppose that inside the different Mi6 stations doesn't count as out in the field.
  • Posts: 14,816
    mtm wrote: »
    It's not very interesting to restrict it to things they've already thought of, though. I want new things.
    Not just for the sake of new things. Like I said: "in new and interesting ways".
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,931
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    It's not very interesting to restrict it to things they've already thought of, though. I want new things.
    Not just for the sake of new things. Like I said: "in new and interesting ways".

    I’m not sure what you’re saying. Bond is repetitive enough without restricting him to using the same things every time too.
  • Posts: 250
    Funny thing occurred to me. In TB, Q mentions his presence on the field to be “highly irregular”.

    But I think from that point on the only time he wasn’t on the field for the rest of Cubby’s run was in OHMSS and LALD. It’s not until GE that he actually stays in HQ, and then has one more moment out in the field in TND for his brief cameo.

    Does he stay at HQ in TLD? I suppose that inside the different Mi6 stations doesn't count as out in the field.

    He's at the end of the Koskov extraction.
  • Posts: 14,816
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    It's not very interesting to restrict it to things they've already thought of, though. I want new things.
    Not just for the sake of new things. Like I said: "in new and interesting ways".

    I’m not sure what you’re saying. Bond is repetitive enough without restricting him to using the same things every time too.

    The problem with gadgets is that they tend to quickly escalate into absurd devices thar are featured more for the cool factor than any true utility. I think they should be used sparingly and remain as plausible as possible. Logically, the gadgets should have multiple applications, should be adaptable to a number of missions and circumstances to be optimal. That's why the briefcase is one of my favourite. That does NOT mean the circumstances or the outcome should be repetitive. I really enjoyed the use of the DB5 in SF, not merely for nostalgic value, but because it was done differently than in GF: no fancy display of all its features, only good old machine gunning of unsuspecting henchmen. They seem to be going in this direction in NTTD.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2021 Posts: 14,931
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    It's not very interesting to restrict it to things they've already thought of, though. I want new things.
    Not just for the sake of new things. Like I said: "in new and interesting ways".

    I’m not sure what you’re saying. Bond is repetitive enough without restricting him to using the same things every time too.

    The problem with gadgets is that they tend to quickly escalate into absurd devices thar are featured more for the cool factor than any true utility.

    I don't really see that as a problem. I like the Bond films being big and crazy- that's why I'm a fan of them.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I think they should be used sparingly and remain as plausible as possible. Logically, the gadgets should have multiple applications, should be adaptable to a number of missions and circumstances to be optimal. That's why the briefcase is one of my favourite. That does NOT mean the circumstances or the outcome should be repetitive. I really enjoyed the use of the DB5 in SF, not merely for nostalgic value, but because it was done differently than in GF: no fancy display of all its features, only good old machine gunning of unsuspecting henchmen. They seem to be going in this direction in NTTD.

    I don't mind the occasional old one coming back, but that does sound a bit boring. A major part of the joy of the gadgets is to see what he's got this time and what clever inventive idea they've come up with. Just having the same ones, even if used in different ways, removes that moment of joy. I'm not sure what this idea adds.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    FourDot wrote: »
    Funny thing occurred to me. In TB, Q mentions his presence on the field to be “highly irregular”.

    But I think from that point on the only time he wasn’t on the field for the rest of Cubby’s run was in OHMSS and LALD. It’s not until GE that he actually stays in HQ, and then has one more moment out in the field in TND for his brief cameo.

    Does he stay at HQ in TLD? I suppose that inside the different Mi6 stations doesn't count as out in the field.

    He's at the end of the Koskov extraction.

    Yes, the Koskov defection definitely counts as in the field. He even has to climb up all those stairs! I misread @MakeshiftPython's comment, and thought he meant that we don't see him in the lab until GE.

    Is TB and LTK the only time he is 'behind enemy lines'? In other films he is on Mi6 owned ground, I think.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited September 2021 Posts: 8,021
    I think OP would count, both watching Octopussy’s Island and escorting Bond to Khan’s palace via hot air balloon.
  • Posts: 14,816
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    It's not very interesting to restrict it to things they've already thought of, though. I want new things.
    Not just for the sake of new things. Like I said: "in new and interesting ways".

    I’m not sure what you’re saying. Bond is repetitive enough without restricting him to using the same things every time too.

    The problem with gadgets is that they tend to quickly escalate into absurd devices thar are featured more for the cool factor than any true utility.

    I don't really see that as a problem. I like the Bond films being big and crazy- that's why I'm a fan of them.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I think they should be used sparingly and remain as plausible as possible. Logically, the gadgets should have multiple applications, should be adaptable to a number of missions and circumstances to be optimal. That's why the briefcase is one of my favourite. That does NOT mean the circumstances or the outcome should be repetitive. I really enjoyed the use of the DB5 in SF, not merely for nostalgic value, but because it was done differently than in GF: no fancy display of all its features, only good old machine gunning of unsuspecting henchmen. They seem to be going in this direction in NTTD.

    I don't mind the occasional old one coming back, but that does sound a bit boring. A major part of the joy of the gadgets is to see what he's got this time and what clever inventive idea they've come up with. Just having the same ones, even if used in different ways, removes that moment of joy. I'm not sure what this idea adds.

    That's why it's controversial I guess. I'm not against new gadgets, I just think they should not just be added for the sake of it, they should not be a sine qua non element in Bond films and they could reuse the gadgets they came up with.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited September 2021 Posts: 5,958
    FourDot wrote: »
    Funny thing occurred to me. In TB, Q mentions his presence on the field to be “highly irregular”.

    But I think from that point on the only time he wasn’t on the field for the rest of Cubby’s run was in OHMSS and LALD. It’s not until GE that he actually stays in HQ, and then has one more moment out in the field in TND for his brief cameo.

    Does he stay at HQ in TLD? I suppose that inside the different Mi6 stations doesn't count as out in the field.

    He's at the end of the Koskov extraction.

    Yes, the Koskov defection definitely counts as in the field. He even has to climb up all those stairs! I misread @MakeshiftPython's comment, and thought he meant that we don't see him in the lab until GE.

    Is TB and LTK the only time he is 'behind enemy lines'? In other films he is on Mi6 owned ground, I think.

    Yes, and I think popping the pills at the end of the Koskov extraction was the first attempt to set up his future absence.

    Miraculously with TWINE, they managed to give him a proper sendoff/tribute, something that neither Lee nor Maxwell nor any of the Bonds prior to Craig got (although I'd argue Moore kind of did, and Dench did).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2021 Posts: 14,931
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    It's not very interesting to restrict it to things they've already thought of, though. I want new things.
    Not just for the sake of new things. Like I said: "in new and interesting ways".

    I’m not sure what you’re saying. Bond is repetitive enough without restricting him to using the same things every time too.

    The problem with gadgets is that they tend to quickly escalate into absurd devices thar are featured more for the cool factor than any true utility.

    I don't really see that as a problem. I like the Bond films being big and crazy- that's why I'm a fan of them.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I think they should be used sparingly and remain as plausible as possible. Logically, the gadgets should have multiple applications, should be adaptable to a number of missions and circumstances to be optimal. That's why the briefcase is one of my favourite. That does NOT mean the circumstances or the outcome should be repetitive. I really enjoyed the use of the DB5 in SF, not merely for nostalgic value, but because it was done differently than in GF: no fancy display of all its features, only good old machine gunning of unsuspecting henchmen. They seem to be going in this direction in NTTD.

    I don't mind the occasional old one coming back, but that does sound a bit boring. A major part of the joy of the gadgets is to see what he's got this time and what clever inventive idea they've come up with. Just having the same ones, even if used in different ways, removes that moment of joy. I'm not sure what this idea adds.

    That's why it's controversial I guess. I'm not against new gadgets, I just think they should not just be added for the sake of it, they should not be a sine qua non element in Bond films and they could reuse the gadgets they came up with.

    How do you define ‘for the sake of it’, though? And where are you drawing the line where they can’t invent new ones? From the next film?
    echo wrote: »
    FourDot wrote: »
    Funny thing occurred to me. In TB, Q mentions his presence on the field to be “highly irregular”.

    But I think from that point on the only time he wasn’t on the field for the rest of Cubby’s run was in OHMSS and LALD. It’s not until GE that he actually stays in HQ, and then has one more moment out in the field in TND for his brief cameo.

    Does he stay at HQ in TLD? I suppose that inside the different Mi6 stations doesn't count as out in the field.

    He's at the end of the Koskov extraction.

    Yes, the Koskov defection definitely counts as in the field. He even has to climb up all those stairs! I misread @MakeshiftPython's comment, and thought he meant that we don't see him in the lab until GE.

    Is TB and LTK the only time he is 'behind enemy lines'? In other films he is on Mi6 owned ground, I think.

    Yes, and I think popping the pills at the end of the Koskov extraction was the first attempt to set up his future absence.

    Miraculously with TWINE, they managed to give him a proper sendoff/tribute, something that neither Lee nor Maxwell nor any of the Bonds prior to Craig got (although I'd argue Moore kind of did, and Dench did).

    Although it was weird. When did Q ever teach him not to let them see him bleed? :D
  • Posts: 1,556
    echo wrote: »
    FourDot wrote: »
    Funny thing occurred to me. In TB, Q mentions his presence on the field to be “highly irregular”.

    But I think from that point on the only time he wasn’t on the field for the rest of Cubby’s run was in OHMSS and LALD. It’s not until GE that he actually stays in HQ, and then has one more moment out in the field in TND for his brief cameo.

    Does he stay at HQ in TLD? I suppose that inside the different Mi6 stations doesn't count as out in the field.

    He's at the end of the Koskov extraction.

    Yes, the Koskov defection definitely counts as in the field. He even has to climb up all those stairs! I misread @MakeshiftPython's comment, and thought he meant that we don't see him in the lab until GE.

    Is TB and LTK the only time he is 'behind enemy lines'? In other films he is on Mi6 owned ground, I think.

    Yes, and I think popping the pills at the end of the Koskov extraction was the first attempt to set up his future absence.

    Miraculously with TWINE, they managed to give him a proper sendoff/tribute, something that neither Lee nor Maxwell nor any of the Bonds prior to Craig got (although I'd argue Moore kind of did, and Dench did).

    I'm wracking what's left of my brain to come up with the proper sendoff/tribute which Moore "kind of did" receive...I'm thinking about the end of AVTAK...and I'm coming up with...nothin'...Help me out, please ! You have something clever in mind and I cannot guess it.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,988
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    It's not very interesting to restrict it to things they've already thought of, though. I want new things.
    Not just for the sake of new things. Like I said: "in new and interesting ways".

    I’m not sure what you’re saying. Bond is repetitive enough without restricting him to using the same things every time too.

    The problem with gadgets is that they tend to quickly escalate into absurd devices thar are featured more for the cool factor than any true utility.

    I don't really see that as a problem. I like the Bond films being big and crazy- that's why I'm a fan of them.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I think they should be used sparingly and remain as plausible as possible. Logically, the gadgets should have multiple applications, should be adaptable to a number of missions and circumstances to be optimal. That's why the briefcase is one of my favourite. That does NOT mean the circumstances or the outcome should be repetitive. I really enjoyed the use of the DB5 in SF, not merely for nostalgic value, but because it was done differently than in GF: no fancy display of all its features, only good old machine gunning of unsuspecting henchmen. They seem to be going in this direction in NTTD.

    I don't mind the occasional old one coming back, but that does sound a bit boring. A major part of the joy of the gadgets is to see what he's got this time and what clever inventive idea they've come up with. Just having the same ones, even if used in different ways, removes that moment of joy. I'm not sure what this idea adds.

    That's why it's controversial I guess. I'm not against new gadgets, I just think they should not just be added for the sake of it, they should not be a sine qua non element in Bond films and they could reuse the gadgets they came up with.

    How do you define ‘for the sake of it’, though? And where are you drawing the line where they can’t invent new ones? From the next film?
    echo wrote: »
    FourDot wrote: »
    Funny thing occurred to me. In TB, Q mentions his presence on the field to be “highly irregular”.

    But I think from that point on the only time he wasn’t on the field for the rest of Cubby’s run was in OHMSS and LALD. It’s not until GE that he actually stays in HQ, and then has one more moment out in the field in TND for his brief cameo.

    Does he stay at HQ in TLD? I suppose that inside the different Mi6 stations doesn't count as out in the field.

    He's at the end of the Koskov extraction.

    Yes, the Koskov defection definitely counts as in the field. He even has to climb up all those stairs! I misread @MakeshiftPython's comment, and thought he meant that we don't see him in the lab until GE.

    Is TB and LTK the only time he is 'behind enemy lines'? In other films he is on Mi6 owned ground, I think.

    Yes, and I think popping the pills at the end of the Koskov extraction was the first attempt to set up his future absence.

    Miraculously with TWINE, they managed to give him a proper sendoff/tribute, something that neither Lee nor Maxwell nor any of the Bonds prior to Craig got (although I'd argue Moore kind of did, and Dench did).

    Although it was weird. When did Q ever teach him not to let them see him bleed? :D
    Maybe not on screen, but there's office politics and bureaucracy all over that line.


  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,931
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    It's not very interesting to restrict it to things they've already thought of, though. I want new things.
    Not just for the sake of new things. Like I said: "in new and interesting ways".

    I’m not sure what you’re saying. Bond is repetitive enough without restricting him to using the same things every time too.

    The problem with gadgets is that they tend to quickly escalate into absurd devices thar are featured more for the cool factor than any true utility.

    I don't really see that as a problem. I like the Bond films being big and crazy- that's why I'm a fan of them.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I think they should be used sparingly and remain as plausible as possible. Logically, the gadgets should have multiple applications, should be adaptable to a number of missions and circumstances to be optimal. That's why the briefcase is one of my favourite. That does NOT mean the circumstances or the outcome should be repetitive. I really enjoyed the use of the DB5 in SF, not merely for nostalgic value, but because it was done differently than in GF: no fancy display of all its features, only good old machine gunning of unsuspecting henchmen. They seem to be going in this direction in NTTD.

    I don't mind the occasional old one coming back, but that does sound a bit boring. A major part of the joy of the gadgets is to see what he's got this time and what clever inventive idea they've come up with. Just having the same ones, even if used in different ways, removes that moment of joy. I'm not sure what this idea adds.

    That's why it's controversial I guess. I'm not against new gadgets, I just think they should not just be added for the sake of it, they should not be a sine qua non element in Bond films and they could reuse the gadgets they came up with.

    How do you define ‘for the sake of it’, though? And where are you drawing the line where they can’t invent new ones? From the next film?
    echo wrote: »
    FourDot wrote: »
    Funny thing occurred to me. In TB, Q mentions his presence on the field to be “highly irregular”.

    But I think from that point on the only time he wasn’t on the field for the rest of Cubby’s run was in OHMSS and LALD. It’s not until GE that he actually stays in HQ, and then has one more moment out in the field in TND for his brief cameo.

    Does he stay at HQ in TLD? I suppose that inside the different Mi6 stations doesn't count as out in the field.

    He's at the end of the Koskov extraction.

    Yes, the Koskov defection definitely counts as in the field. He even has to climb up all those stairs! I misread @MakeshiftPython's comment, and thought he meant that we don't see him in the lab until GE.

    Is TB and LTK the only time he is 'behind enemy lines'? In other films he is on Mi6 owned ground, I think.

    Yes, and I think popping the pills at the end of the Koskov extraction was the first attempt to set up his future absence.

    Miraculously with TWINE, they managed to give him a proper sendoff/tribute, something that neither Lee nor Maxwell nor any of the Bonds prior to Craig got (although I'd argue Moore kind of did, and Dench did).

    Although it was weird. When did Q ever teach him not to let them see him bleed? :D
    Maybe not on screen, but there's office politics and bureaucracy all over that line.


    Wow, I'm glad I don't work in the offices you work in! :)
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,786
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    It's not very interesting to restrict it to things they've already thought of, though. I want new things.
    Not just for the sake of new things. Like I said: "in new and interesting ways".

    I’m not sure what you’re saying. Bond is repetitive enough without restricting him to using the same things every time too.

    The problem with gadgets is that they tend to quickly escalate into absurd devices thar are featured more for the cool factor than any true utility.

    I don't really see that as a problem. I like the Bond films being big and crazy- that's why I'm a fan of them.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I think they should be used sparingly and remain as plausible as possible. Logically, the gadgets should have multiple applications, should be adaptable to a number of missions and circumstances to be optimal. That's why the briefcase is one of my favourite. That does NOT mean the circumstances or the outcome should be repetitive. I really enjoyed the use of the DB5 in SF, not merely for nostalgic value, but because it was done differently than in GF: no fancy display of all its features, only good old machine gunning of unsuspecting henchmen. They seem to be going in this direction in NTTD.

    I don't mind the occasional old one coming back, but that does sound a bit boring. A major part of the joy of the gadgets is to see what he's got this time and what clever inventive idea they've come up with. Just having the same ones, even if used in different ways, removes that moment of joy. I'm not sure what this idea adds.

    That's why it's controversial I guess. I'm not against new gadgets, I just think they should not just be added for the sake of it, they should not be a sine qua non element in Bond films and they could reuse the gadgets they came up with.

    How do you define ‘for the sake of it’, though? And where are you drawing the line where they can’t invent new ones? From the next film?
    echo wrote: »
    FourDot wrote: »
    Funny thing occurred to me. In TB, Q mentions his presence on the field to be “highly irregular”.

    But I think from that point on the only time he wasn’t on the field for the rest of Cubby’s run was in OHMSS and LALD. It’s not until GE that he actually stays in HQ, and then has one more moment out in the field in TND for his brief cameo.

    Does he stay at HQ in TLD? I suppose that inside the different Mi6 stations doesn't count as out in the field.

    He's at the end of the Koskov extraction.

    Yes, the Koskov defection definitely counts as in the field. He even has to climb up all those stairs! I misread @MakeshiftPython's comment, and thought he meant that we don't see him in the lab until GE.

    Is TB and LTK the only time he is 'behind enemy lines'? In other films he is on Mi6 owned ground, I think.

    Yes, and I think popping the pills at the end of the Koskov extraction was the first attempt to set up his future absence.

    Miraculously with TWINE, they managed to give him a proper sendoff/tribute, something that neither Lee nor Maxwell nor any of the Bonds prior to Craig got (although I'd argue Moore kind of did, and Dench did).

    Although it was weird. When did Q ever teach him not to let them see him bleed? :D

    I think that line is either meant to be metaphorical or referring to a mission we've not seen recorded on film. I'm going with it being metaphorical myself.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,931
    What's it a metaphor for? :)

    I think the weird thing is even the implication that Q has ever tried to teach Bond anything at all: other than wishing he had more respect that was never their dynamic.
Sign In or Register to comment.