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
Comments
Draco in his monologue to Bond made it seem that Tracy wasn't in touch with him, but if Che Che was indeed assigned to her as a bodyguard that wouldn't be the case. Or am I reading too much into what Draco shares with Bond in their fireside chat?
Draco's men seemed to be in a bit of a confusing situation, really 😅.
Remember, we haven't taken into an account here of what are they doing in the beach, if they're there to save Tracy, why put a knife on her neck? Why threatened her more? Then when Bond fought them, they've just ignored Tracy at one side, and Che Che was also in the beach scene.
Maybe I could understand Che Che's motivations more the next time I rewatch OHMSS again.
Yeah I have often thought the beach sequence was really done for cinematic reasons. Tracy would know the men that Draco sent. The men wouldn't treat her so roughly or risk her complaining to Draco. That whole scene is really designed to get Bond into some action and to set up Tracy being a troubled soul.
Seen OHMSS again (after all of the debates about Lazenby and the talks of this film), I think it helped me re evaluate the film more, I still liked it, but the actions of Draco's men in the beach just didn't makes sense, still why threatened her of putting a knife on her neck if they're there to guard her and protect her? True, it's mostly done for cinematic reasons and for Lazenby to showcase his fighting skills, but in narrative, just didn't makes sense at all.
It could've been better had they've threatened Bond not to come to Tracy and that's where the action starts.
It all made Che Che's presence in Tracy's room all the more confusing because he was there in the beach, I think Draco was somewhat in touch with Tracy through his men watching her, but it's Tracy who was not in touch with her father, so I would've bought Che Che as a bodyguard, if that beach scene turned out differently, but they've threatened Tracy and put a knife on her neck, maybe Che Che was threatening Tracy that's why Tracy had a gun when she welcomed Bond? Because Tracy might've thought that Bond was probably another of Draco's men who's out for her?
Like why Tracy aimed a gun at Bond, knowing that this was the same man who have saved her in the beach? She even knew his name, maybe Tracy thought that Draco sent him, and Che Che was there to threatened Tracy (maybe to return back to Draco?) But Tracy threatened Che Che with a gun, and when Bond arrived, Che Che was already on his way out, thinking of him as threat because of the beach scene, the two had a fight again?
Here is one that was recently brought to my attention and for this one we are going back to DN.
Bond meets Sylvia Trench at the casino. Some mild flirting ensues and soon Bond is giving Miss Trench his business card. Though if one looks closely we will see that Miss Trench might actually be Mrs. Trench. Yes a diamond on the third finger of her left hand.
What is our theory here?
What is your theory is Miss Sylvia Trench really Mrs. Sylvia Trench?
Some actors and actresses refuse to take off their wedding bands. I suppose Eunice Grayson may have been married and that ring may have been her wedding ring. Or do we think the backstory of Sylvia Trench is that she is a married woman looking for some fun?
If she is married what is she doing at a casino in the wee hours of the morning flirting with a stranger?
It'd fit with Bond's predilection for married women.
Yes it might be just an engagement ring, which would leave her in a grey area? Or once engaged you are basically betrothed?
Trench disappeared after FRWL because upon their marriage, her husband's business moved them to some other country (for tax benefits or something). That explains why she was so desperate for Bond's company in that scene (it would be her last time seeing him).
As for real life, Eunice Gayson was between marriages at this point (divorce in 1959, and another marriage in 1968). 6/7 years would be quite a long time to be engaged, but I don't know enough to rule out the fact that it was hers (could have been an engagement broken off in the between period for example)
Yes, I'd easily buy that. She's engaged, but doesn't mind playing the field. She might not seriously think she'll marry her betrothed, but she likes to lead him on.
Maybe she did marry him in the end, between the events of FRWL and GF. Hence her disappearance.
Ms. Trench is Bond's type. Single.
He's really, really old and really, really, really wealthy. She was at the club the night she met Bond because the old guy was already in bed - as every night - by 7:30. When she was rolling and rowing with Bond at the start of FRWL the old guy was being taken around to his monthly round of doctor appointments. He kicked off post-FRWL and she asked Bond if he'd like to travel the world with her. Not much for being a kept man, as well as liking the excitement of his job and the variety of ladies he met, he declined...as she expected. Off she went....heyyyyy, you're right ! She's prime for a series of stories of her own in some books/comic books, video games, movies ! Who'd be a fine Eunice these days on film ? For the sake of slimming down casting even just a little, I'd say stick with the dark and the arched eyebrow when appropriate. She's got the cool, after all, it was SHE who used the self-introduction of "Last Name. First name last name." When Bond said it, he was following her lead. So...who'd be a fine Eunice these days ? Anya Taylor-Joy ? Nope. Someone British. Bono's daughter Eve Hewson ? Yup. She's my suggestion. Period films, going back to timeframe where her character left off ? Yup. My suggestion on that. She goes off on her wealthy widow adventures, something happens, she gets recruited by Miss Moneypenny and M and off we go...
Okay another thought popped into my head. The tenure of a Bond actor and how we have never seemed to hit the "Goldilocks" amount of films. In other words the actor played the part for just the right amount of time or films.
So what is your theory on why we have never seemed to achieve a Goldilocks moment where the end of the tenure was as good as the start? The theories may be varied and complex given different actors and producers. Given the timelines and outside events. But I am curious, why you think within the range of each actor that they either left too soon or that they overstayed their welcome?
Or give me a theory on why the ending of an actor in the role tends to be on a less successful film. Certainly the case for Connery, Moore, Brosnan and Craig.
As for why we didn't get it for the actors, I suspect it goes like this: if an actor is successful in a role, we try to replicate it in the next entry, until it fails. Then you either try a new approach, or cast another actor and see if it can work better with it. If you do option 1, you repeat it until it fails. Which then leads you eventually to option 2, recast.
Brosnan didn't know it was his last film, Connery knew or thought he knew it was the last time playing James Bond. Craig knew and demanded a death of his Bond.
Dalton didn't know LTK was his final film, I think the time gap conspired against him, though some have posited that this in fact was a way for him and Cubby to save face and cut bait.
@Ludovico I guess NTTD is the best of the Swan songs. It certainly tied up all loose ends and character arc for Bond.
I still maintain no actor has gone out as good as when they came in. Funny that.