It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
I'd say a bit of both. The slip up probably made Blofeld suspicious and made him realize that the man in his lair is not Sir Hilary Bray, but it is probably Campbell who told Blofled Bond's name.
Exactly,Campbell would have been tortured for information,for sure.
So would I !!!
All of these films of course were released before the advent of VCR, DVD and BluRay. This was a time when you couldn't watch a Bond film whenever you liked, so such lines and occurrences weren't so noticeable. Characters are re-cast. Fleming novels filmed out of order. Many elements of the books tossed aside. To me, the film is whatever you want it too be. If you want too go with Campbell was tortured and gave up Bonds name, then that's fine. There's no answer given, so it's up to us the viewer.
I always think that Bond was being flippant re Tokyo in FRWL,just to wind M up,hence his reply to Henderson.
@Benny yeah you're right, I just wasn't sure if there were any little hints that I'd missed that might lead more to one conclusion over another. I thought Bond was always sailing a bit close to the wind with his interactions from the start e.g asking Bunt if she was from a naval family straight off, mentioning guns make him nervous, he wants to leave his mark on the world/characteristic ambition etc - almost as if he were challenging them to identify himself.
I find it quite an interesting game when watching the film to 'guess when Bond is sussed' ... and like you say, so many possible answers!
If Lazenby just hadn t gone to Connery s barbershop, and bought the same Rolex, he might have fooled him.
Yeah, Blofeld himself says Campbell is "such a brilliant conversationalist" - and I'm sure that, no matter how pain tolerant one may be, Blofeld surely has his way to make one talk.
A hypnotic tape is all it takes.
Ah ye, that’s a good spot, I reckon it’s probably the sum of all the clues but Campbell definitely dots the I’s and crosses the T’s. Blofeld really could have made a fortune out of his hypnotherapy DVDs and food intolerance pills ... much easier than hijacking all those nuclear missiles!
During the cold war the russians had missiles in Cuba for attacking the USA (Cuban missile crisis) so it could have been linked that way
Exactly. And Campbell cracking under pressure is what gives Bond away in the book as well. Bond's bedhopping clinched Blofeld's suspicions. As for the Augsburg mistake, it's the film's biggest continuity howler (Bond is not actually mistaken), and perhaps would have been eliminated if there had been more time in post-production.
@Revelator could you expand on that please as I’ve not heard that before.
However, Bond is only repeating the information about Augsburg from Sir Hilary.
Unless Bray is on the pay of Blowers, then it's a slip up on the writers part.
@Benny Yeah I thought that would be what Revelator is referring to, but that’s something I’ve checked in the past myself and Bond is only told to take him to Augsburg. So I assumed Bond has incorrectly assumed it’s the cathedral (or misremembered his research) rather than the St Anna Kirche - which is also in Augsburg (although there’s probably plenty of other St Anna Kirches in Switzerland). So rather than a goof it could be a valid slip-up on Bond’s part that Blofeld can pick up on.
That's the way I look at it,its a personal cock up by Bond himself .
He was too presumptuous as to where the location was and got caught out.
Yeah, but where would the fun be? :D
Indeed. Bond tries to convince Blofeld that Campbell has mistaken him for his cousin because the two of them were identical, but Blofeld doesn't seem to buy it and Bond decides to escape Piz Gloria before Blofeld eventually arrests him.
That’s my mistake, sorry I should have checked.
Well, it’s either a gaff or a plot point (that’s not been very well executed). Gaff doesn’t sit right with me - Bond invites him to Augsburg, but a specific building isn’t mentioned. However I tend to imagine there’s been some other interaction outside of the filmed scenes where Bond has erroneously mentioned the cathedral, or has made written reference to it in all the paperwork he’s supposed to be preparing.
But of cause it’s all the interpretation, and that’s down to the individual.
I think it’s been an interesting discussion so far, even if no conclusions can be drawn! Overall, for my own personal ‘solution’ I think I’m going with Blofeld having had his suspicions from the start and then shenanigans such as Angel seductions and Augsburg confusion has strengthened this. Campbell was then the perfect opportunity to confirm his suspicions for definite.
Thanks for all the replies, and if anyone has any other ideas keep them coming!
He definitely mentions ‘007 here’ when reporting in after the training mission incident in the pre-title sequence of TLD. I’m sure someone else will have the definitive answer tho.