›

The James Bond Questions Thread

1…7576788081…208

Comments

  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,840
    And I know Michael Apted explained why, but since it's a question thread, I will ask: what's his excuse?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited January 2016 Posts: 23,562
    I have no idea about his excuse but I like to compare it to CR: short but brutal introduction of Bond. Under three minutes of excellent film, then BOOM! - gunshot and the rock kicks in. After that, discounting LeChiffre's introduction for a minute, a big action sequence. By TWINE logic, we would have gotten Prague + men's room + parcours + embassy and then You Know My Name. After that we would cut to White and LeChiffre, M in London, LeChiffre on the boat, Bond at M's, ...

    I'm so glad we got the cut they gave us. The first 20 something minutes of CR were put together by the best!
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,840
    Oh how I long for a sober, smaller scale PTS!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,562
    The Craigs have done fairly okay in that respect. CR and QOS both had a relatively short PTS. SF's was longer but not a drag IMO and SP's was perhaps longer but also, at least IMO, the proper way to begin that movie.

  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 1,965
    TWINE's PTS had to extend into the boat chase. The escape from the bank scene wasn't enough of the story/an action scene IMO to start off the pre title sequence.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,588
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And I know Michael Apted explained why, but since it's a question thread, I will ask: what's his excuse?
    Apted's excuse was that test audiences were disappointed with the Bilbao sequence as the sole PTS and considered in lacklustre compared the action packed PTS's they were accustomed to. So ultimately, he decided to incorporate the MI6 attack/Thames chase into one consecutive sequence. It then ran overly long which resulted in some decent material being cut from the final film.

  • LudovicoLudovico
    edited January 2016 Posts: 14,840
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    The Craigs have done fairly okay in that respect. CR and QOS both had a relatively short PTS. SF's was longer but not a drag IMO and SP's was perhaps longer but also, at least IMO, the proper way to begin that movie.

    SF and SP needed to have a PTS like theirs, for QOS I always thought that, although short, it was too big and all over the place. They might as well have cut it and made the chase with Mitchell the PTS. I would like for Bond 25 a PTS like CR: one mano a mano confrontation, or something in similar scale.
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    TWINE's PTS had to extend into the boat chase. The escape from the bank scene wasn't enough of the story/an action scene IMO to start off the pre title sequence.

    I disagree. The boat chase was overlong and added to the Bilbao scene it made the whole PTS overlong. The Bilbao scene was short, efficient, it showed Bond as both professional and cool while being a pro, it also created an element of mystery (who saved him and why?). Sometimes less is more and the PTS of TWINE is a perfect example of this.
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 1,965
    jake24 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And I know Michael Apted explained why, but since it's a question thread, I will ask: what's his excuse?
    Apted's excuse was that test audiences were disappointed with the Bilbao sequence as the sole PTS and considered in lacklustre compared the action packed PTS's they were accustomed to. So ultimately, he decided to incorporate the MI6 attack/Thames chase into one consecutive sequence. It then ran overly long which resulted in some decent material being cut from the final film.


    The final cut of the MI6 attack turned out much better. That one right there just dragged
  • LudovicoLudovico
    edited January 2016 Posts: 14,840
    jake24 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And I know Michael Apted explained why, but since it's a question thread, I will ask: what's his excuse?
    Apted's excuse was that test audiences were disappointed with the Bilbao sequence as the sole PTS and considered in lacklustre compared the action packed PTS's they were accustomed to. So ultimately, he decided to incorporate the MI6 attack/Thames chase into one consecutive sequence. It then ran overly long which resulted in some decent material being cut from the final film.


    Thanks! I understand you need to listen to your target audiences, but this time I think it was a lack of vision by Apted. I wonder if the same audiences would have reacted the same to the PTS of CR.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    When Strutter says "Spades， James, every one." what the hell does he mean?
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    Ok, so a little dated slang. I'm not sure how it applies to that situation.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,423
    @Ludovico

    I don't think I've ever seen that deleted version before. It was have been so much better to have Bilbao, opening credits, then that. It was much more in depth and would have been very throwback-ish to the days in which meeting with M came right after the credits.
  • TR007TR007
    Posts: 1,165
    This has probably been asked and answered on these boards plenty of times, but for my sake...
    I was wondering why in the Connery - Moore era of Bond, they never had any recurring actors for Felix and Blofeld?
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,884
    I would imagine it possibly comes down to finding actors who are willing to commit to a bit part in a film series.
    M,Q and Moneypenny are small roles, but they do play a recurring role in each film. Felix and Blofeld do not. Any actor would have to commit to playing the role over too large a time frame. It would be nice for continuity purposes, but sadly unlikely to happen.
  • bigladiesmanbigladiesman
    Posts: 1,009
    Now that his birthday has passed and his new album has been released, I think it's a good time to ask this: Was really David Bowie even near to get the Max Zorin part? As long as I know, he showed absolutely no interest in the part. Then again, I read EON approached Mick Jagger, but I don't know if he refused or EON finally dismissed him.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,333
    I though Bowie turned it down because at the time he had a broken leg.
  • moneyofpropre2moneyofpropre2 France
    Posts: 850
    Bowie said that he dosn't want to see in double falling of a cliff during 5 month.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    edited January 2016 Posts: 45,489
    A little known fact is that Norwegian actor Sverre Anker Ousdal was also considered for the part of Zorin. Here he is in the 80s.
  • bigladiesmanbigladiesman
    Posts: 1,009
    Wow, he really looks psycho.

    I liked Sting in Dune. He really fits as a completely mental Nazi experiment.
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 1,965
    Walken was a great Bond villain. IMO Walken is the best part of AVTAK
  • BondBugBondBug
    Posts: 158
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    1 and 2 - suspension of disbelief.

    3 - He guaged it with his eyes. He is Bond after all.

    4. Because he attaches the other end to that bloke as a counterweight to lessen the impact.

    5. Because it is a good stunt. The shot from the top of the balcony as he goes over the edge is spectacular. I wish there was a single stunt as good as that in either Mendes film.
    I presume you prefer the realism of the spiral car jump which took a computer to work out the calculations to make it possible and the driving column having to be moved to the centre of the car to balance it?

    6. What makes you think Pierce had any influence over this? He's not Daniel 'exec producer' Craig. And given most of the same people on the set were there during DAD I guess the answer is people just don't speak up when things are going to shit.

    Also you seem to have omitted the least credible aspect off your list - namely a thin cord used for opening the blinds is unlikely to have the tensile strength to support a falling man.

    Thanks for your detailed reply. I don't want a fantastical comic strip cartoon character. I want a believable three-dimensional Bond, and to achieve that, I want him to rely on his own intelligence, not on Buster Keaton-esque stunts, like hanging off a fire engine ladder in the streets of San Francisco or slamming a motorbike into a wall on a bridge to fly off and land on a train below, or magically jumping out of a window. These kinds of stunts are cheap. They take little imagination by the writers. They undermine Bond as a thinking, emotional human being.

  • bigladiesmanbigladiesman
    Posts: 1,009
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Walken was a great Bond villain. IMO Walken is the best part of AVTAK
    I'm not saying the contrary, mind you...

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    BondBug wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    1 and 2 - suspension of disbelief.

    3 - He guaged it with his eyes. He is Bond after all.

    4. Because he attaches the other end to that bloke as a counterweight to lessen the impact.

    5. Because it is a good stunt. The shot from the top of the balcony as he goes over the edge is spectacular. I wish there was a single stunt as good as that in either Mendes film.
    I presume you prefer the realism of the spiral car jump which took a computer to work out the calculations to make it possible and the driving column having to be moved to the centre of the car to balance it?

    6. What makes you think Pierce had any influence over this? He's not Daniel 'exec producer' Craig. And given most of the same people on the set were there during DAD I guess the answer is people just don't speak up when things are going to shit.

    Also you seem to have omitted the least credible aspect off your list - namely a thin cord used for opening the blinds is unlikely to have the tensile strength to support a falling man.

    Thanks for your detailed reply. I don't want a fantastical comic strip cartoon character. I want a believable three-dimensional Bond, and to achieve that, I want him to rely on his own intelligence, not on Buster Keaton-esque stunts, like hanging off a fire engine ladder in the streets of San Francisco or slamming a motorbike into a wall on a bridge to fly off and land on a train below, or magically jumping out of a window. These kinds of stunts are cheap. They take little imagination by the writers. They undermine Bond as a thinking, emotional human being.

    I'm a little confused. Are you saying you'd have preferred Bond to just leg it down the fire escape in the above sequence? That would've made for thrilling cinema.

    Maybe in TSWLM he could have just skied down the blue run to a waiting Ford Mondeo?

    GE: why bungee when I'm sure he could have inched his way down the rockface at the side?

    If these stunts take so little imagination why has there not been a truly quality stunt since the crane jump in CR?

    Feel free to come up with a list of these 'cheap' and unimaginative stunts and send it to EON because I think they are struggling at the moment.

    You must love the Mendes era where he eschews anything approaching an impressive stunt in favour of more time devoted to Bond being a 'thinking, emotional human being.'

    Persinally I don't see why we can't have both and that's why OHMSS is the guvnor and the escape from Piz Gloria the daddy of Bond action.

    You have thinking Bond (using the inside of his pockets rather than a gadget to escape the cable car room), then Buster Keaton (if you will) Bond (hanging from the cable, skiing on one ski), then emotional Bond (scared for his life while he's strangling the guy on the cliff top and sitting by the ice rink).

    Never bettered.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,840
    Questions: was there any explanation from official sources why Madeleine Swann was named Swann and not White and why Le Chiffre got that name? (And I think I probably asked the second question before).

    In both cases I can think of many good reasons: you don't want to be associated with your father and you need a good nom de guerre in the line of work you have. I wonder if anything was said from EON shedding some lights about it.
  • TR007TR007
    Posts: 1,165
    Probably for cloak and dagger reasons to keep that plot point a secret for the audience. Mendes has a fondness for things like that.

    In regards to LeChiffre, I guess that was down to Fleming's penchant for peculiar names.

    As fans though we can always patch these things up in our heads. For example we can always assume that Madeleine changed her name so as she wouldn't be found by Quantum or Spectre, and LeChiffre is just a code name.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    keep that plot point a secret for the audience.

    Quite the naughty habit, that.

  • GerardGerard
    Posts: 5,821
    Or somebody in the writing room loved Proust a little too much.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Is White his real name, though? Probably not.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    edited January 2016 Posts: 45,489
    As for le Chiffre, he was found in Dachau in 1945 with apparently memory loss and damaged vocal chords. They never knew his name, so just gave him a number. He later used The Number in various languages as his cover name. Le Chiffre is of course the French variant.

    I am talking about the book here of course, that story wasn t adopted in the film.
  • Scaramanga12Scaramanga12
    Posts: 562
    In thunderball, I've heard of a continuity error where Bond is seen talking to Felix before he meets him. Watching on tv yesterday, it looks like that has been edited out as felix can only be seen behind Bond after the card game and they don't talk.

    Can anyone confirm this?

    Also, regarding the ending, has a bomb been planted in Miami? If so how was it transported there?
Sign In or Register to comment.