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
I do wonder how the writers might have handled the hunt scene differently with another Bond. All the gags would be gone. I even think the wading out to the tourist boat would go. Only Moore and maybe Brosnan could get away with that. I do think the idea of a hunt for Bond could be done again with a more serious tone and a sense of danger. Danger from the villains and the wild animals roaming around.
The oldest trick in the business.
Even with the extra weight, Connery still looks strong. It's not the end of the world.
Over the top is a curious way of putting it; do you think Roger was being OTT because he showed a hint of panic? Like in the clown/bomb climax? He’s hardly bursting into tears. I don’t think that was OTT at all; I think that’s just acting, and compared to most other characters Bond is keeping quite cool. I think if we see Bond reacting like he knows he’s in trouble then it heightens the tension. For me Sean’s Bond could have done with a bit of that, he tends to veer towards being an invulnerable superman who knows he can get out of anything with a gadget and a quip.
Aside from the bomb sequence in this movie and the bomb sequence in Spy, I am struggling to recall a time where i felt Moore's Bond was in any real danger. That made the transition to Tim all the more jarring. We had over a decade of a lighter Bond.
People seem to claim that Connery's Bond just walked through things and never emoted. I don't think that is true. While it was subtle and below the surface often coming out in actions rather than words.
I am not saying one is better than the other. They are different portrayals of the same character. Sometimes I am in the mood for a light breezy Moore film over a more dark and dangerous Connery, Dalton or Craig film.
The closest ConneryBond comes to this sequence is maybe the junkanoo? And to be honest I'm not really feeling much desperation from Bond. He even suffers from a gunshot wound which has handily cleared itself up by the next scene. The jungle hunt did have too many gags which puncture its potential, but Bond still gets to show a little fear and panic, especially towards the end. Lazenby then had the icerink sequence, which lots of folks cite as him playing the vulnerability and fear of his predicament fairly well. It's a mild development of Bond's portrayal over the years, drifting in slightly more human elements as time goes along. NSNA shows the contrast, as Connery's Bond has been pickled in time in 1971 and revived in '83 without those additions.
Yeah, that's the point.
In any case, the Bond films had become more stunt-oriented than the earlier movies in the series. They had to give Moore something to do.
But I think Moore got more opportunity to play Bond in more vulnerable situations, and I think the way he played a lot of those scenes gave them the best results. Stuff like the mountain climb in FYEO, the alligator scene in LALD, the bomb scenes in TSWLM and OP, or even something like the python scene in MR.
Speaking of back or at least back on track lets move to another film and dive into the theories behind this.
What is your theory on on Grant's speech to Bond. Bravado or intended?
Our man on his knees, unarmed with a silenced PPK pointed at him. A SPECTRE assassin standing over him and lauding how much more intelligent SPECTRE has been. Bond nervously looking at the gun and watching Grant put on the gloves.
Grant delivers the main thrust of his speech to Bond.
"The first one won't kill you, not the second, not even the third...not until you come over here and you kiss my foot."
If Grant was to make it look like a murder-suicide how would it look if the suicide had at least three bullets in him? Or was this mere bravado from Grant who was getting off on how defeated and fearful Bond looked in that moment? Earlier Grant says that he has freedom to dispose of Bond and the girl in any way he sees fit, so maybe SPECTRE thinks British Intelligence will explain away the situation as a murder-suicide? Mind you they have a note and the film to lend credence to murder-suicide.
Lets hear your theories on this potent line of dialogue and the real intentions of Grant.
Grant has a strong disdain for Bond. He feels Bond is falsely having a great reputation, and he relishes himself in the fact that he has total control. The film and letter are enough for the press, the bodies aren't really necessary, so he can do anything he wants really. As long as Bond doesn't survive...
I suppose it'd just add to the mystery and cause the story to spread even further.
Bond as a rule doesn't attempt to injure civilians. He takes care to keep the targets away from the general public. But every so often whether it's unavoidable or unintended he does harm civilians.
One such case is in TND. Bond has led Carvers goons on a car chase in a car park. Bailing on the car Bond remote controls it up the top deck and promptly shoots the car off the garage where it lands perfectly into an Avis Car Rental shop.
Besides this being rather fortuitous that it landed in a shop without hitting a single pedestrian on the sidewalk, people in the shop might have been injured. We don't see the aftermath so I always assumed that no one was harmed in the rental agency.
What is your theory on why Bond decided to shoot the car off the top level of the parking garage?
Why not just stall the car on the top level? After all he was no longer inside. They would have the Q car but it is doubtful that anything would happen to it. This way the authorities are going to find the Q car. They will likely trace this back to Mi6 now that the car is abandoned in a shop. Wouldn't it been better to leave it somewhere in the parking garage? Further to why to his action, why does he celebrate it?
Curious what you think Bond was thinking with this rather careless action.
And MI6 are used to explaining/covering up/otherwise fixing 007's mischief.
https://en.parkopedia.com/parking/garage/saturn/20095/hamburg/?arriving=202509150130&leaving=202509150330
Yes, I also found that out recently. 😉
He wanted to return the car so much it hertz.
Haha good one :D
This is what the car park in Hamburg looks like on Sunday. When it's closed.
See the folks comforting themselves, must have thought it would be open.
The answer is actually in the film. 30 seconds prior to this clip gobinda runs into kamal's office, telling him Bond has escaped. Kamal then says 'he can't have gotten far, prepare the hunt'. So yes, they were after Bond, not the tiger.
LOL.
They were seen at the Auction together, then as the backgammon game. Later it is Magda that Kamal sends to retrieve the egg. Finally at dinner Magda is present and it's revealed that she has a suite at the Monsoon Palace.
At the attempted bombing it is Magda who reveals where Kamal is headed.
There is never a sign of affection between the characters, she has her own suite at the Palace which would seem to indicate a platonic relationship.
What is your theory of the relationship between Kamal and Magda?
Is she there to be a mole or a spy on Kamal? Maybe Octopussy trust her business partner? But then when they are preparing the shipment for smuggling Octopussy insists that Kamal's man be present. This would indicate she does trust him. Does Kamal need Magda to be a beauty on his arm for appearances sake? He never seems to show any affection for her. He pimps her out to Bond and seems Magda doesn't mind the assignment.
What is your theory on the relationship between Magda and Kamal in OP?
OK, that's my tongue-in-cheek interpretation. ChatGTP says this:
"In the James Bond film “Octopussy” (1983), Kamal Khan and Magda had a close but clearly hierarchical relationship:
Magda was Kamal Khan’s accomplice and lover. She worked for him as an intermediary and seductress, for example when she lured James Bond in India.
Her role went beyond that of a mere henchwoman – she was loyal to Khan and assisted him in his schemes (e.g., with the transport of the stolen jewelry and maintaining contact with Octopussy).
At the same time, the relationship remained more professional than truly intimate: Khan treated Magda as a valuable ally and confidante, but she was ultimately subordinate to him.
Over the course of the film, however, Magda shifted her loyalty. After recognizing Bond’s integrity and gaining Octopussy’s trust, she sided with them. This meant she effectively betrayed Kamal Khan.
In short: Kamal Khan and Magda were accomplices with a mix of romance and convenience, but Magda did not remain loyal to him until the end."