The James Bond Questions Thread

1178179181183184199

Comments

  • Posts: 19,339
    At least he wasn't a 'toe sucker' like Prince Andrew's ex-wife,Fergie !
  • Posts: 1,009
    Re. the whole Bond sucking Vesper's fingers scene; how is that a comforting and soothing thing? I never understood it.

    I found the moment to be reassuring and comforting.

    If you found a broken woman fully-dressed sitting in a cold shower, conventional logic would dictate that you would pull her out and warm her up. Perhaps throw a towel over her and dry her off. Maybe say a few words to inspire her not to be downcast by what she just witnessed. Whether you believed your own words or not.

    However, Bond decided to join her in the shower. He understands how she's feeling, because he's feeling that way too. You don't need dialogue, instead you have a simple elegant moment that is complex and interesting. The finger thing is his way of helping and there is a certain masculine vulnerability to the moment.

    It's one of the best and most complex scenes in the Bond series. Aside from the themes and character work; there is Campbell's terrific decision to shoot in one take, Craig and Green's performance and David Arnold's beautiful score.

    A+

    I understand Bond joining her in the shower and all that (indeed a clever way of showing the two characters connecting), but the finger sucking thing just struck me as odd. I've never once connected with that as anything comforting or natural.
    Re. the whole Bond sucking Vesper's fingers scene; how is that a comforting and soothing thing? I never understood it.

    I found the moment to be reassuring and comforting.

    If you found a broken woman fully-dressed sitting in a cold shower, conventional logic would dictate that you would pull her out and warm her up. Perhaps throw a towel over her and dry her off. Maybe say a few words to inspire her not to be downcast by what she just witnessed. Whether you believed your own words or not.

    However, Bond decided to join her in the shower. He understands how she's feeling, because he's feeling that way too. You don't need dialogue, instead you have a simple elegant moment that is complex and interesting. The finger thing is his way of helping and there is a certain masculine vulnerability to the moment.

    It's one of the best and most complex scenes in the Bond series. Aside from the themes and character work; there is Campbell's terrific decision to shoot in one take, Craig and Green's performance and David Arnold's beautiful score.

    A+

    I understand Bond joining her in the shower and all that (indeed a clever way of showing the two characters connecting), but the finger sucking thing just struck me as odd. I've never once connected with that as anything comforting or natural.

    It’s odd in retrospective, I agree. However, in the moment it feels organic. It’s certainly one of the more interesting aspects as there is the overtones of Vesper’s ultimate betrayal and the Lady Macbeth connotations.
    I think in the commentary, they say he sucked all of them, but they thought it was too creepy afterwards.

    Impossible.

    I think they were likely just speaking about the point broadly. If you watch the clip and the positioning of the fingers and Craig's mouth, you can see that there was no editing involved. It's a single take.

    So they couldn't make direct cuts. It be a very expensive bit of CGI to give Eva Green a new hand and Craig a new mouth. However, they could reposition and delete some fingers. Which is likely what has happened.

    Impossible what? I'm confused.

    It’s ‘impossible’ from a technical perspective. The scene is shot in a single take. Therefore, you can’t get around adding CGI through editing. So the only options you have is to replace Green’s hands and Craig’s mouth via CGI. Clearly, they did not do that as the scene would look massively wonky. CGI today has not advanced to that degree and it would tip the moment into the uncanny valley (just watch Henry Cavill’s mouth in Justice League).

    However, what they likely did was delete some fingers and move Craig’s hand a little to disguise the deletion. I think Craig sucked one finger first and then three/fingers at once, but the CGI made it look like he sucked two fingers individually. There’s a moment in the sequence where the fingers do creep oddly out of shot and Craig’s hand covers most of his mouth. That is the CGI moment, it is literally a second.

    Along with Daniel Craig’s CGI hands in SF, it’s definitely some of the oddest uses of CGI. However, I’m sure there are 1000s of other instances of discreet CGI that we have yet to be made aware of in these films.

    In fact, I’ve never quite understood the CGI hands story from SF. They look real to me.



    They got the wrong scene for this video. It's actually the scene where Bond goes up against Patrice in Shanghai. He is wearing gloves in the publicity stills released from the movie but in post-production they realised that the gun is programmed to Bond's fingerprints so they had to remove the gloves digitally.

    Bond wouldn't wear gloves to a casino.
  • retrokittyretrokitty The Couv
    edited June 2019 Posts: 380
    TR007 wrote: »
    They got the wrong scene for this video.



  • St_GeorgeSt_George Shuttling Drax's lovelies to the space doughnut - happy 40th, MR!Moderator
    Posts: 1,699
    retrokitty wrote: »

    Well, I did know the reports that Craig couldn't 'drive stick' were baloney. They used more than two Aston Martins for CR, though. A handful, I believe. I mean, they wrote-off one or two for the crazy barrel-roll stunt, which was pulled off by launching
    retrokitty wrote: »
    TR007 wrote: »
    They got the wrong scene for this video.



    Clang! Clang-a-lang-a-lang-a-lang, lang-a-lang!
  • retrokittyretrokitty The Couv
    Posts: 380
    St_George wrote: »

    Clang! Clang-a-lang-a-lang-a-lang, lang-a-lang!

    Almost my favourite bit of Bond... Certainly of Bond Camps. :D

  • ChulaChula New York
    Posts: 16
    What was the fifth item in Bond's desk drawer in OHMSS?

    When Bond retires in OHMSS, he cleans out his desk. They are just props from previous films. We are clearly shown three of them:

    1. Honey's knife from DR. NO
    2. Grant's wrist watch from FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE
    3. the re-breather from THUNDERBALL,

    And there are two other things seen on top of the desk but Bond was not shown removing them from the drawer. (Edited out for time, I suppose).

    One of them, after freezing the frame, I was able to decipher. It is the shoe heel in which Bond hides the homing device from GOLDFINGER. The other...I can't figure out.

    All the other previous films were covered (DN, FRWL, GF, TB....) so logic would dictate that the other prop on top of the desk is from YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. I didn't post a screenshot (go watch the scene if you must) but the item is a white curly cord with something attached to it. Anybody know what the fifth item is that Bond kept in his desk?
  • PropertyOfALadyPropertyOfALady Colders Federation CEO
    Posts: 3,496
    Re. the whole Bond sucking Vesper's fingers scene; how is that a comforting and soothing thing? I never understood it.

    I found the moment to be reassuring and comforting.

    If you found a broken woman fully-dressed sitting in a cold shower, conventional logic would dictate that you would pull her out and warm her up. Perhaps throw a towel over her and dry her off. Maybe say a few words to inspire her not to be downcast by what she just witnessed. Whether you believed your own words or not.

    However, Bond decided to join her in the shower. He understands how she's feeling, because he's feeling that way too. You don't need dialogue, instead you have a simple elegant moment that is complex and interesting. The finger thing is his way of helping and there is a certain masculine vulnerability to the moment.

    It's one of the best and most complex scenes in the Bond series. Aside from the themes and character work; there is Campbell's terrific decision to shoot in one take, Craig and Green's performance and David Arnold's beautiful score.

    A+

    I understand Bond joining her in the shower and all that (indeed a clever way of showing the two characters connecting), but the finger sucking thing just struck me as odd. I've never once connected with that as anything comforting or natural.
    Re. the whole Bond sucking Vesper's fingers scene; how is that a comforting and soothing thing? I never understood it.

    I found the moment to be reassuring and comforting.

    If you found a broken woman fully-dressed sitting in a cold shower, conventional logic would dictate that you would pull her out and warm her up. Perhaps throw a towel over her and dry her off. Maybe say a few words to inspire her not to be downcast by what she just witnessed. Whether you believed your own words or not.

    However, Bond decided to join her in the shower. He understands how she's feeling, because he's feeling that way too. You don't need dialogue, instead you have a simple elegant moment that is complex and interesting. The finger thing is his way of helping and there is a certain masculine vulnerability to the moment.

    It's one of the best and most complex scenes in the Bond series. Aside from the themes and character work; there is Campbell's terrific decision to shoot in one take, Craig and Green's performance and David Arnold's beautiful score.

    A+

    I understand Bond joining her in the shower and all that (indeed a clever way of showing the two characters connecting), but the finger sucking thing just struck me as odd. I've never once connected with that as anything comforting or natural.

    It’s odd in retrospective, I agree. However, in the moment it feels organic. It’s certainly one of the more interesting aspects as there is the overtones of Vesper’s ultimate betrayal and the Lady Macbeth connotations.
    I think in the commentary, they say he sucked all of them, but they thought it was too creepy afterwards.

    Impossible.

    I think they were likely just speaking about the point broadly. If you watch the clip and the positioning of the fingers and Craig's mouth, you can see that there was no editing involved. It's a single take.

    So they couldn't make direct cuts. It be a very expensive bit of CGI to give Eva Green a new hand and Craig a new mouth. However, they could reposition and delete some fingers. Which is likely what has happened.

    Impossible what? I'm confused.

    It’s ‘impossible’ from a technical perspective. The scene is shot in a single take. Therefore, you can’t get around adding CGI through editing. So the only options you have is to replace Green’s hands and Craig’s mouth via CGI. Clearly, they did not do that as the scene would look massively wonky. CGI today has not advanced to that degree and it would tip the moment into the uncanny valley (just watch Henry Cavill’s mouth in Justice League).

    However, what they likely did was delete some fingers and move Craig’s hand a little to disguise the deletion. I think Craig sucked one finger first and then three/fingers at once, but the CGI made it look like he sucked two fingers individually. There’s a moment in the sequence where the fingers do creep oddly out of shot and Craig’s hand covers most of his mouth. That is the CGI moment, it is literally a second.

    Along with Daniel Craig’s CGI hands in SF, it’s definitely some of the oddest uses of CGI. However, I’m sure there are 1000s of other instances of discreet CGI that we have yet to be made aware of in these films.

    In fact, I’ve never quite understood the CGI hands story from SF. They look real to me.



    Did I say suck her whole hand? I meant all of her fingers.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 9,878
    Chula wrote: »
    What was the fifth item in Bond's desk drawer in OHMSS?

    When Bond retires in OHMSS, he cleans out his desk. They are just props from previous films. We are clearly shown three of them:

    1. Honey's knife from DR. NO
    2. Grant's wrist watch from FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE
    3. the re-breather from THUNDERBALL,

    And there are two other things seen on top of the desk but Bond was not shown removing them from the drawer. (Edited out for time, I suppose).

    One of them, after freezing the frame, I was able to decipher. It is the shoe heel in which Bond hides the homing device from GOLDFINGER. The other...I can't figure out.

    All the other previous films were covered (DN, FRWL, GF, TB....) so logic would dictate that the other prop on top of the desk is from YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. I didn't post a screenshot (go watch the scene if you must) but the item is a white curly cord with something attached to it. Anybody know what the fifth item is that Bond kept in his desk?

    Yes, it is indeed a YOLT prop. The metallic box with white spiral cords, is Bond's safe cracker, which he used to steal Osato's documents.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 29,630
    Nice catch @Chula and @QBranch , I didn't know that.
  • ChulaChula New York
    edited June 2019 Posts: 16
    QBranch wrote: »
    Yes, it is indeed a YOLT prop. The metallic box with white spiral cords, is Bond's safe cracker, which he used to steal Osato's documents.

    Ah, that's it. Yes. Thanks.

    safe-cracker.jpg

    The five items Bond kept in his desk:

    1. Honey's knife
    2. Grant's wristwatch
    3. Bond's shoe heel
    4. Bond's re-breather
    5. Bond's safe cracker

    3 and 5 requires a sharp eye to figure out. I love finding out goofy stuff like this from the films. Thanks again for item 5.


    This item below is already on the desk when Lazenby starts going through his desk drawer. Why Bond would save it is really odd...but what other prop could they have used from GOLDFINGER?

    4669146B00000578-5088531-image-a-35_1510830489650.jpg



  • Posts: 4,381
    In a few months, that will make a good question for the Bond Movie Trivia Quizz. ;)
  • goldenswissroyalegoldenswissroyale Switzerland
    Posts: 2,129
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Nice catch @Chula and @QBranch , I didn't know that.

    +1 , thanks for that
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 3,559
    @Chula I suppose they could have had him have Oddjob's hat. After all he has Grant's wristwatch. Another pick could be the seagull re-breather! :)

    I joke! I find the whole thing of Bond having these "keepsakes" rather much. Might have been better if he has remembrances of the women he had relations with:

    DN Honey's knife
    FRWL Tatiana's choker
    GF Pussy's ????
    TB Domino's starfish...though he did give it to her
    YOLT Aki's kimono?
  • Posts: 1,795
    What exactly did Gustav Graves want to accomplish with Icaras?
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    What exactly did Gustav Graves want to accomplish with Icaras?

    To let North Korea invade the South unchallenged.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    edited June 2019 Posts: 3,126
    did fleming copy the saint writer for simon templar and put his own spin for his own character from his background in world war 2 or is it two separate unrelated? i was listening to roger commentary on moonraker and he said something like simon templer author thought fleming copied him by creating bond simon works for himself and bond works for the government i think both just happened to be unrelated i think both were just original no copy.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 29,630
    I've read several of the Leslie Charteris original THE SAINT stories, and I find the two characters to be very different in temperament, in morality, in skill sets, in voice, and, as you note, allegiances, and in just about every other way. Except that, this being the early '70s, I pictured Roger Moore in my head whilst reading both. The Saint was created over a decade before WWII began, so I don't know what all that's about. And the war factors in very little into Bond's origin, except in the most broad manner.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I've read several of the Leslie Charteris original THE SAINT stories, and I find the two characters to be very different in temperament, in morality, in skill sets, in voice, and, as you note, allegiances, and in just about every other way. Except that, this being the early '70s, I pictured Roger Moore in my head whilst reading both. The Saint was created over a decade before WWII began, so I don't know what all that's about. And the war factors in very little into Bond's origin, except in the most broad manner.
    Ok thanks @Birdleson
  • BennyBenny spammer bannerModerator
    Posts: 10,796
    I saw this mentioned on Facebook the other day, so apologies in advance if I'm borrowing someone else's question here.
    In TSWLM the Liparus supertanker captures a British and Russian submarines in the PTS. Later in the film the Liparus captures an American submarine. After Bond escapes capture the British and American crews are released. But what happens to the Russian submarine crews? It's left unclear.
  • Posts: 4,381
    They also do their parts. In fact, in the novellization, the american captain says, with admiration in his voice, that they fight like demons. I presume that the survivors took place with the other survivors in the remaining sub.
  • Posts: 4,238
    Just thinking about it today mainly as I watched the film United 93 recently, but does anyone else in hindsight think the decision to have Bond thwart a terrorist attack at an airport as slightly brave. Almost too brave..........

    latest?cb=20161208171407

    Especially as Claudio Santamaria could pass for Middle Eastern.

    This seems rather political and dangerous a sentiment to have in a film.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Just thinking about it today mainly as I watched the film United 93 recently, but does anyone else in hindsight think the decision to have Bond thwart a terrorist attack at an airport as slightly brave. Almost too brave..........

    latest?cb=20161208171407

    Especially as Claudio Santamaria could pass for Middle Eastern.

    This seems rather political and dangerous a sentiment to have in a film.

    Considering it was only 5 years after 9/11 i have to agree with you.
    Certainly a gamble,especially as it is US airport as well.
  • edited July 2019 Posts: 4,238
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Just thinking about it today mainly as I watched the film United 93 recently, but does anyone else in hindsight think the decision to have Bond thwart a terrorist attack at an airport as slightly brave. Almost too brave..........

    latest?cb=20161208171407

    Especially as Claudio Santamaria could pass for Middle Eastern.

    This seems rather political and dangerous a sentiment to have in a film.

    Considering it was only 5 years after 9/11 i have to agree with you.
    Certainly a gamble,especially as it is US airport as well.

    I've looked at his IMDB and Santamaria doesn't seem to have any Middle Eastern blood. He's only ever been primarily cast as Italian characters.

    Though maybe it's me but he looks a little like the leading terrorist in United 93. It's probably just my ignorance speaking there. Just would have been a little more comfortable if they cast someone without a Middle Eastern look. Though I suppose the character is called 'Carlos'. Creepy looking dude though....................

    However, the decision to have a terror threat at an airport is truly brave and gives a lot of real world texture to the film. It certainly brings Craig's film sharply into a post-9/11 world.

    I'm surprised this point isn't discussed more on these forums, especially considering people's "keep politics out of my escapism!" argument.

  • edited July 2019 Posts: 14,359
    I'm surprised this point isn't discussed more on these forums, especially considering people's "keep politics out of my escapism!" argument.

    I wouldn't be surprised to see Bond 25 (or future films) tackle the current events and/or political climate, in one way or the other. The Porton Down sequence might do so…?
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Let's stop with the politics on this thread right now. Seems harmless, but you all know where all of this leads. Some of you have been officially warned in the past. Don't push it.

    Edited! :-)
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 29,630
    Let's stop with the politics on this thread right now. Seems harmless, but you all know where all of this leads. Some of you have been officially warned in the past. Don't push it.
  • edited July 2019 Posts: 4,238
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Let's stop with the politics on this thread right now. Seems harmless, but you all know where all of this leads. Some of you have been officially warned in the past. Don't push it.

    Sorry.

    I wasn't trying to say anything negative about either of the political issues I mentioned. I've also deleted the gif.

    It was just that i was thinking after watching United 93 how brave it was for Eon to include the airport sequence.

    It's certainly a way to bring Bond into a post-9/11 world. There is certainly a timely, political context at play. Of course, it's divorced from the reality of the real world situation. In the film, we are witnessing European bombmakers for hire operating for financial gain over any ideological belief.

    However, it's certainly a bold notion to include such a sequence. Does anyone else think Claudio Santamaria's casting is a tad dubious?
  • edited July 2019 Posts: 2,040
    I don't think it was really brave. Shortly after 9/11 it would have been, but the first post 9/11 Bond film was Die Another Day. After the Iraq War (or rather occupation) began going south, movies finally began catching up to 9/11, including United 93 (which would have been condemned had it opened a year or two after 9/11). Casino Royale could therefore show a would-be terrorist at an airport, though it wouldn't have shown any planes flying into buildings, which would have been brave but not worth it.
  • Posts: 1,009
    I do think that CR owes a great debt to 24 and that show tackled the topic of post 9/11 terrorism week in and week out.
  • Posts: 4,238
    Revelator wrote: »
    I don't think it was really brave. Shortly after 9/11 it would have been, but the first post 9/11 Bond film was Die Another Day. After the Iraq War (or rather occupation) began going south, movies finally began catching up to 9/11, including United 93 (which would have been condemned had it opened a year or two after 2011). Casino Royale could therefore show a would-be terrorist at an airport, though it wouldn't have shown any planes flying into buildings, which would have been brave but not worth it.

    That i believe is a very good point. The fallout of the Iraq invasion certainly changed the feeling around the event itself. Also, CR makes a point to say that the terrorist has been hired as a middleman and isn't carrying out the event with any religious ideological in mind. The incentive for Carlos is purely financial. He's a hitman for hire.

    Though, on second thoughts, do we think Santamaria's casting is a little curious. He does resemble a bit the lead terrorist in United 93.

    casino-royale-movie-screencaps.com-5107.jpg?strip=all

    I'm not entirely comfortable the would-be notion that may be hinted at here. Though, it's a thought that's only just occurred to me after having seen this film numerous times over the last 13 years.
  • Posts: 4,238
    Is Claudio Santamaria a well known actor in Italy? MGW says in the commentary he's a heartthrob back in Italy.

    Surely not. He's a seriously creepy looking dude.
Sign In or Register to comment.