The James Bond Questions Thread

15455575960210

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited August 2015 Posts: 34,970
    In SF, Bond scolds M for telling Eve to take the shot. She says:

    "It was the possibility of losing you or the certainty of losing all those other agents."

    Now, the first part obviously means that she risked losing him so Eve could take the chance of putting Patrice down, but she then essentially states that if Eve didn't take the shot, Bond would've absolutely lost the fight against Patrice. How does this logic make sense whatsoever? Is there something I'm missing? Because, to me, I don't get it. Plus, the latter part of her statement doesn't work, either, for if Eve did miss the shot (which she did), she would've also certainly lost all the other agents.

    Also, when Bond begins his training to see if he is fit for duty, Tanner is giving him updates on what's been happening and he assumes that it's someone from her past, perhaps when she was running things in Hong Kong - which ends up being correct. I can understand they assume it's someone from the past, hence the 'THINK ON YOUR SINS' message, but what makes them surmise it's from her time in Hong Kong?
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    In SF, Bond scolds M for telling Eve to take the shot. She says:

    "It was the possibility of losing you or the certainty of losing all those other agents."

    Now, the first part obviously means that she risked losing him so Eve could take the chance of putting Patrice down, but she then essentially states that if Eve didn't take the shot, Bond would've absolutely lost the fight against Patrice. How does this logic make sense whatsoever? Is there something I'm missing? Because, to me, I don't get it. Plus, the latter part of her statement doesn't work, either, for if Eve did miss the shot (which she did), she would've also certainly lost all the other agents.

    It is simply bad writing as it is the case at so many points in Skyfall.
    A lot didn't make any sense that was said or done in SF, one of the main reasons I have Skyfall only at No 13 in my Bond ranking.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 34,970
    @BondJasonBond006, I edited my first comment with another question, any idea on that one, either? Your guess (or anyone's) is as good as mine.
  • SuperheroSithSuperheroSith SE London
    Posts: 578
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    In SF, when Bond begins his training to see if he is fit for duty, Tanner is giving him updates on what's been happening and he assumes that it's someone from her past, perhaps when she was running things in Hong Kong - which ends up being correct. I can understand they assume it's someone from the past, hence the 'THINK ON YOUR SINS' message, but what makes them surmise it's from her time in Hong Kong?

    There is a line in the move also about M having suspicions on Silva in the scene before
    she interrogates him.
  • Creasy47 wrote: »
    @BondJasonBond006, I edited my first comment with another question, any idea on that one, either? Your guess (or anyone's) is as good as mine.

    For all we know it could've been a very tumultuous time for her where she made alot of enemies. True the same could probably be said for her run in MI6 but it's probably a matter of the character's history that we don't know much about.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    Good question, I don't know I haven't seen Skyfall that much and it's nothing that caught my attention. Best guess, we (the audience) don't know how they came up with Hong Kong and maybe that was the best guess of MI6 too.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,209
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    "It was the possibility of losing you or the certainty of losing all those other agents."

    No, it doesn't make any sense to me at all. "You should have trusted me to finish the job." Quite right. How many fights had we seen Craig's Bond win at this point? I get it that M panicked but she says that she trusts him at the end of QoS so what has changed since then?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 34,970
    I think at that point in the Craig era, M should've trusted him in any situation, as there was a power struggle of trust between the two in both CR (he hacks into her computer/account, she bugs him so they know where he is) and QoS (she cancels his cards and puts alerts on his passports, has him taken in, and then trusts him as soon as he escapes and she realizes what he's up to.) I just think her statement doesn't flow with her actions in the PTS of SF, so it makes no sense to me, but I wanted to be sure I wasn't overlooking something obvious.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    It's a general problem with the Craig movies that the continuity is a shambles when it should not be! As they so desperately want to link those movies together. A shame really and a job not well done.
    At least the movies work if watched as stand-alone movies. Even QOS works as it is one roller-coaster action ride and the story (if there is one) is the least important part of it.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,057
    After Casino Royale, M was becoming more and more incompetent. In QoS She keeps thinking Bond was killing people on purpose. Well Jeez M, If I hadn't have shot Mitchell he would have shot me. Would you have wanted that? And then she just jumps to the conclusion that Bond killed Haines bodyguard. Didn't even ask him what happened. She just assumes Bond did it.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 34,970
    Bond guesses he has four million euros in the briefcase when he first meets Severine, and she says "not bad," as if he is correct. Is this stated somewhere else and I missed it, or is this really a correct assumption he makes from peaking inside the briefcase for two seconds? I could bump this thread all day with questions that SF puts in my head.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    In SF, Bond scolds M for telling Eve to take the shot. She says:

    "It was the possibility of losing you or the certainty of losing all those other agents."

    Now, the first part obviously means that she risked losing him so Eve could take the chance of putting Patrice down, but she then essentially states that if Eve didn't take the shot, Bond would've absolutely lost the fight against Patrice. How does this logic make sense whatsoever? Is there something I'm missing? Because, to me, I don't get it. Plus, the latter part of her statement doesn't work, either, for if Eve did miss the shot (which she did), she would've also certainly lost all the other agents.

    Also, when Bond begins his training to see if he is fit for duty, Tanner is giving him updates on what's been happening and he assumes that it's someone from her past, perhaps when she was running things in Hong Kong - which ends up being correct. I can understand they assume it's someone from the past, hence the 'THINK ON YOUR SINS' message, but what makes them surmise it's from her time in Hong Kong?

    Uh the point was that she was willing to risk Bond's life in order to kill Patrice. And she couldn't risk another second that other agents would be compromised. So she was wrong. And sure she didn't trust Bond in that moment but she was under stress and had to make a quick decision between many agents lives or Bonds. So her risks failed. That's all there is to it.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 34,970
    @dominicgreene, that fails to answer my question, though. If her decision was between many agents lives or the life of Bond, that equates to her deciding that if Eve never took a shot, Bond would've absolutely, 100% failed in stopping Patrice and Patrice would've given the hard drive to Silva, and if Eve did take the shot, there was a risk of Bond getting hit, which, again, reverts back to the point I made and still makes no sense.

    "I'll risk losing you, Bond, because I can see into the future and tell that you'll lose in your fight against Patrice. You've had machete fights with warlords, knife fights against skilled assassins, and you've taken out other MI6 operatives in an enclosed elevator, but I know you won't be able to beat Patrice."

    Makes zero sense.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @dominicgreene, that fails to answer my question, though. If her decision was between many agents lives or the life of Bond, that equates to her deciding that if Eve never took a shot, Bond would've absolutely, 100% failed in stopping Patrice and Patrice would've given the hard drive to Silva, and if Eve did take the shot, there was a risk of Bond getting hit, which, again, reverts back to the point I made and still makes no sense.

    "I'll risk losing you, Bond, because I can see into the future and tell that you'll lose in your fight against Patrice. You've had machete fights with warlords, knife fights against skilled assassins, and you've taken out other MI6 operatives in an enclosed elevator, but I know you won't be able to beat Patrice."

    Makes zero sense.

    That could be due to Moneypenny's bad description of the situation (making it seem more urgent and critical than it really was). Had M been there to see what was going on, she might have made different judgement. But Eve was making over-exaggerated calls, and M couldn't know how long she had. So yes, that's what ended up happening because maybe M's character can talk the talk (Goldeneye) but can't walk the walk. Hence her "retirement" for bad judgement.

  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,057
    Another reason why the Ear pieces to HQ idea wasn't good. Send your agents into the field and let them do their job. Don't be a backseat driver.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 34,970
    @dominicgreene, even still, she knew that they were fighting on top of a train, what other scenario could M have concocted in her mind? She knew Eve was about to lose sight of them, as well, and didn't have enough time to get into a better position.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,104
    Alec's Betrayal in Goldeneye

    Yesterday I watched again Goldeneye and I have a doubt that maybe has been covered but not sure
    Here is my question, did Alec betrayed them because James didn't do anything in the first scene of the film or was it because of the after WWII incident.

    In the cementary scene he says its because of the story sukovsy story told Bond on WWII but the scene in the train tells something else.

    When Alec ask your friend or the mission he latter says we go back to the beginning or something like that, so it implies we go back to the first scene where didn't rescue Alec in the opening sequence.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Enemy of the state
    Posts: 41,590
    Trevelyan had grudges going back half a century. The vile Brits betrayed the Lienz cossacks (specifically his parents) during WW2.

    I can buy that Magneto was a kid during the war even if the X-Men films are set a decade or so into the future. He is a mutant, but Alec is probably not. A stupid hangover from when 006 was meant to be someone like Anthony Hopkins.
  • Trevelyan had grudges going back half a century. The vile Brits betrayed the Lienz cossacks (specifically his parents) during WW2.

    I can buy that Magneto was a kid during the war even if the X-Men films are set a decade or so into the future. He is a mutant, but Alec is probably not. A stupid hangover from when 006 was meant to be someone like Anthony Hopkins.

    I remember discussing this on this thread a couple of years ago. Technically Trevelyn is 56 years old for the events of Goldeneye. That's one spry looking 56 year old.

    If memory serves me correctly, originally Trevelyn was supposed to be Bond's mentor rather than a partner. Which would've made alot more sense. I don't know why they changed their minds.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,209
    Alec said that his parents survived Stalin's execution squads so he could have been born some years after WWII. Then, his father killed his mother and committed suicide when Alec was very young. It might be a little too convenient but it technically could have worked out that he was around Bond's age during the events of GE.
  • pachazo wrote: »
    Alec said that his parents survived Stalin's execution squads so he could have been born some years after WWII. Then, his father killed his mother and committed suicide when Alec was very young. It might be a little too convenient but it technically could have worked out that he was around Bond's age during the events of GE.

    I can't imagine his father's suicide taking place too much longer after Britain's betrayal. Trevelyn himself says he was 6 years old. Any way you cut it Trevelyn would be in his 50s.

    It's a problem I've had with GE in recent years. The script wasn't as well thought out as people say.
  • In the exchange between Bond and Tiffany Case by the pool where Plenty's body is in the pool, how did Bond know about "that little old lady in Amsterdam" dying in Diamonds are Forever? Why was Plenty even looking for Tiffany Case to get herself in a position where she was killed anyway?
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 31,023
    Some of that is covered in the deleted scenes.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I guess on his travels Bond got a " Briefing "
  • TokolosheTokoloshe Under your bed
    Posts: 2,667
    It's all symptomatic of the appalling editing throughout DAF, as evidenced by the repeated part of Munger's speech, the tilted car changing direction in the alleyway and other sloppy errors like Tiffany's bikini switching colour. I find it a depressing film to watch because it could and should have been so much better.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    edited August 2015 Posts: 1,104
    Trevelyan had grudges going back half a century. The vile Brits betrayed the Lienz cossacks (specifically his parents) during WW2.

    yes but also talked about Bond's loyalty to the que queen instead to his friend(him), so could that mean he decided to change sides after Bond didn't save him before the place exploded.
    He said in the cementary scene i was thinking to make you Join me in my plan but i knew you were loyal to the queen not your friend.

    So that means he used to think James was his friend but that first scene we see before the opening credits changed everything.

    Obviously Bond would have never betrayed england since like Alec Pointed out his parents died in a plane accident not murdered by stalling or commiting suicide because of it but he was fond of James till he didn't save him in the mission we see them togeher.







  • AntiLocqueBrakesAntiLocqueBrakes The edge
    edited August 2015 Posts: 538
    SaintMark wrote: »
    In GE, Does Ouromov have a loaded gun, which he misses Alec with? Or perhaps Alec survived a head shot like Renard? Or was Ouromov shooting blanks and Alec and the guard Ouromov shoots pretended to die?

    He misses Alec because he works for him or his side while he shoots the guard for almost blowing them up.

    Exactly what I clicked on this thread to find out. Cross this question of my bucket list. Thanks.
  • BennyBenny ...OctobennyAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 11,946
    In the PTS of TMWTGG why did Rodney not just take the Golden Gun from the birds mouth, and or get into a better vantage point to take out Scaramanga?
    He knows where the gun is, why not take it out of the game.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Enemy of the state
    Posts: 41,590
    Maybe he thought he was payed for just a regular training exercise?
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing South Florida
    Posts: 3,784
    I assumed that he didn't want to reveal his position.
Sign In or Register to comment.