Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » a novice's quetions
a novice's quetions [message #215910] Fr, 03 Februar 2006 01:52
noonehasthatname  
hello. last night, while i was working on something, i had the tv on
and 'on his majesty's secret service' was on. i saw the last half of
it and it was pretty good. to my surprise, james bond actually marries
diana rigg! what a lucky b [at] $tard!!! but not long after that, she's
killed by telly's gang! what a bummer! i thought those final 5
minutes were GREAT! being a newbie (i know, this is old hat to all of
you hard core fans) i never saw james bond being so sincere (with
rigg), so polite and his willingness to leave his old profession was
amazing. so when diana rigg's character was killed, i thought, "man,
this will be a great way to drive the following bond movie" but to my
knowledge, this is NOT the case, correct? if so, i can't understand
it! it doesn't make much sense. (i think i can see some of your
eyes rolling and thinking, 'since when did any bond film make
sense?!?!?)

but you know what i mean, right?

so anyway, if you have any info that would help this newbie understand
how a tragic event could hardly be addressed in the subsequent
movie(s), i'm all ears.

and thanks for your help!
Re: a novice's quetions [message #215911 ] Fr, 03 Februar 2006 02:02
WQ  
noonehasthatn... [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> hello. last night, while i was working on something, i had the tv on
> and 'on his majesty's secret service' was on. i saw the last half of
> it and it was pretty good. to my surprise, james bond actually marries
> diana rigg! what a lucky b [at] $tard!!! but not long after that, she's
> killed by telly's gang! what a bummer! i thought those final 5
> minutes were GREAT! being a newbie (i know, this is old hat to all of
> you hard core fans) i never saw james bond being so sincere (with
> rigg), so polite and his willingness to leave his old profession was
> amazing. so when diana rigg's character was killed, i thought, "man,
> this will be a great way to drive the following bond movie" but to my
> knowledge, this is NOT the case, correct? if so, i can't understand
> it! it doesn't make much sense. (i think i can see some of your
> eyes rolling and thinking, 'since when did any bond film make
> sense?!?!?)
>
> but you know what i mean, right?
>
> so anyway, if you have any info that would help this newbie understand
> how a tragic event could hardly be addressed in the subsequent
> movie(s), i'm all ears.
>
> and thanks for your help!

--- In the intro to FYEO, Bond visits Tracy's grave site to plant some
flowers on it. It's a brief scene and about the only acknowledgement
of her since OHMSS. There might've been a passing oblique comment or
two about her since FYEO, I don't remember.
Re: a novice's quetions [message #215914 ] Fr, 03 Februar 2006 03:47
Will Traynor  
<noonehasthatname [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138927949.652993.241200 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> hello. last night, while i was working on something, i had the tv on
> and 'on his majesty's secret service' was on. i saw the last half of
> it and it was pretty good. to my surprise, james bond actually marries
> diana rigg! what a lucky b [at] $tard!!! but not long after that, she's
> killed by telly's gang! what a bummer! i thought those final 5
> minutes were GREAT! being a newbie (i know, this is old hat to all of
> you hard core fans) i never saw james bond being so sincere (with
> rigg), so polite and his willingness to leave his old profession was
> amazing. so when diana rigg's character was killed, i thought, "man,
> this will be a great way to drive the following bond movie" but to my
> knowledge, this is NOT the case, correct? if so, i can't understand
> it! it doesn't make much sense. (i think i can see some of your
> eyes rolling and thinking, 'since when did any bond film make
> sense?!?!?)
>
> but you know what i mean, right?
>
> so anyway, if you have any info that would help this newbie understand
> how a tragic event could hardly be addressed in the subsequent
> movie(s), i'm all ears.
>
> and thanks for your help!
>

In the opening sequence in the following film, Diamonds Are Forever, James
Bond, as portrayed by Sean Connery, is hunting Blofeld, who had a hand in
Tracey's death. It's understood that Bond is quite motivated in finding
Blofeld at this point. Although Bond believes he has killed Blofeld, it
turns out not to be the case, as evidenced later in the film. It is never
explained what actually happened to Blofeld at the end of DAF. Other than
that, there are very few references to Bond's wife. AS WQ noted, Bond is
shown visiting his dead wife's grave in a much later film, For Your Eyes
Only. Also, it appears as though Blofeld is alive in FYEO, but he is
seemingly put to his death by Bond.
Re: a novice's quetions [message #215915 ] Fr, 03 Februar 2006 04:22
Rich Handley  
"Will" <willt65 [at] comcast.net> said:
>In the opening sequence in the following film, Diamonds Are Forever, James
>Bond, as portrayed by Sean Connery, is hunting Blofeld, who had a hand in
>Tracey's death. It's understood that Bond is quite motivated in finding
>Blofeld at this point. Although Bond believes he has killed Blofeld, it
>turns out not to be the case, as evidenced later in the film. It is never
>explained what actually happened to Blofeld at the end of DAF. Other than
>that, there are very few references to Bond's wife. AS WQ noted, Bond is
>shown visiting his dead wife's grave in a much later film, For Your Eyes
>Only. Also, it appears as though Blofeld is alive in FYEO, but he is
>seemingly put to his death by Bond.

A passing reference to Tracy is also made in License to Kill.
Re: a novice's quetions [message #215917 ] Fr, 03 Februar 2006 05:14
Camille  
And in TSWLM, Anya's reciting Bond's dossier when she says "Wife
killed. . ." and Bond abruptly cuts her off.
Re: a novice's quetions [message #215926 ] Fr, 03 Februar 2006 08:08
Blofelds Cat  
<noonehasthatname [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138927949.652993.241200 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> hello. last night, while i was working on something, i had the tv on
> and 'on his majesty's secret service' was on. i saw the last half of
> it and it was pretty good. to my surprise, james bond actually marries
> diana rigg! what a lucky b [at] $tard!!! but not long after that, she's
> killed by telly's gang! what a bummer! i thought those final 5
> minutes were GREAT! being a newbie (i know, this is old hat to all of
> you hard core fans) i never saw james bond being so sincere (with
> rigg), so polite and his willingness to leave his old profession was
> amazing. so when diana rigg's character was killed, i thought, "man,
> this will be a great way to drive the following bond movie" but to my
> knowledge, this is NOT the case, correct? if so, i can't understand
> it! it doesn't make much sense. (i think i can see some of your
> eyes rolling and thinking, 'since when did any bond film make
> sense?!?!?)
>
> but you know what i mean, right?
>
> so anyway, if you have any info that would help this newbie understand
> how a tragic event could hardly be addressed in the subsequent
> movie(s), i'm all ears.
>
> and thanks for your help!

The videoclip on this page might be of some interest to you:

http://www.ohmss.ohmss-007.com/screening_room_fhmeo.html

If you can't get to the page directly, go to http://www.ohmss.ohmss-007.com/
enter the site and follow the path: Screening Room (top menu) > For Her
Majestys Eyes Only.

The clip follows-up Bond's loss in a 'far more' fitting manner than that
seen in DAF.

cheers.
Re: a novice's quetions [message #215927 ] Fr, 03 Februar 2006 08:21
Garmt de Vries  
Camille wrote:
> And in TSWLM, Anya's reciting Bond's dossier when she says "Wife
> killed. . ." and Bond abruptly cuts her off.

And one that you'd easily miss: in TWINE, Elektra asks Bond: "Have you
ever lost a loved one?"

--
Garmt de Vries.
Re: a novice's quetions [message #215985 ] Fr, 03 Februar 2006 22:54
Draugnar  
"Rich Handley" <rhandley [at] optonline.net> wrote in message
news:k2j5u1dcnga69tlskns66tq85qitstci2k [at] 4ax.com...
> "Will" <willt65 [at] comcast.net> said:
>>In the opening sequence in the following film, Diamonds Are Forever, James
>>Bond, as portrayed by Sean Connery, is hunting Blofeld, who had a hand in
>>Tracey's death. It's understood that Bond is quite motivated in finding
>>Blofeld at this point. Although Bond believes he has killed Blofeld, it
>>turns out not to be the case, as evidenced later in the film. It is never
>>explained what actually happened to Blofeld at the end of DAF. Other than
>>that, there are very few references to Bond's wife. AS WQ noted, Bond is
>>shown visiting his dead wife's grave in a much later film, For Your Eyes
>>Only. Also, it appears as though Blofeld is alive in FYEO, but he is
>>seemingly put to his death by Bond.
>
> A passing reference to Tracy is also made in License to Kill.
>

Yes, Leiter says "He was married once" to his new wife. Also, The Spy Who
Loved Me has XXX (the ORIGINAL XXX, not Vin Diesel) refer to "married once"
when 007 looking very hurt, cuts her off with a comment about they obviously
know enough about each other.

Draugnar
Re: a novice's questions [message #215987 ] Fr, 03 Februar 2006 23:51
Kent  
<noonehasthatname [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138927949.652993.241200 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> hello. last night, while i was working on something, i had the tv on
> and 'on his majesty's secret service' was on. i saw the last half of
> it and it was pretty good. to my surprise, james bond actually marries
> diana rigg! what a lucky b [at] $tard!!! but not long after that, she's
> killed by telly's gang! what a bummer! i thought those final 5
> minutes were GREAT! being a newbie (i know, this is old hat to all of
> you hard core fans) i never saw james bond being so sincere (with
> rigg), so polite and his willingness to leave his old profession was
> amazing. so when diana rigg's character was killed, i thought, "man,
> this will be a great way to drive the following bond movie" but to my
> knowledge, this is NOT the case, correct? if so, i can't understand
> it! it doesn't make much sense. (i think i can see some of your
> eyes rolling and thinking, 'since when did any bond film make
> sense?!?!?)
>
> but you know what i mean, right?
>
> so anyway, if you have any info that would help this newbie understand
> how a tragic event could hardly be addressed in the subsequent
> movie(s), i'm all ears.
>
> and thanks for your help!


Welcome to the group.

With On Her Majesty's Secret Service (OHMSS) not being a great threatrical
success (at least not compared to Connery's previous few outings), it's been
theorised that a lot of fans, returning for Diamonds Are Forever (DAF) after
skipping the previous film, might not be aware Bond had married and then had
his wife murdered in OHMSS (to this day, I understand the American
television networks often skip OHMSS, going straight from You Only Live
Twice to Diamonds Are Forever). So as to not confuse a majority of people,
EON decided at the time to not focus too much on the events of OHMSS,
starting with a middle-of-the-road pre-credit sequence in DAF that didn't
explain why Bond was looking for Blofeld (was it to avenge his wife's death,
or just part of his on-going pursuit of SPECTRE's leader?). Subsequent
films have made reference, but not really dwelled on the subject (For Your
Eye's Only is probably the most lingering, though I think that was about
giving the finger to Kevin McClory).

Hope that helps.

cheers

Kent
Re: a novice's questions [message #215989 ] Sa, 04 Februar 2006 01:38
noonehasthatname  
thank you ALL for your comments. i, of course, appreciate the time and
explanations but for the life of me, i still can't understand it.
it's not your fault, obviously. these were decisions made by
executives, directors, script writers, the studiio, etc and i just have
to say that i HATE it!

i'm sure i'm in the minority here (and it's certainly a reflection of
my perverse nature!) but had i been bond (man, talk about a fantasy!)
and had i been given the opportunity to write the script myself, the
plot would have naturally followed the story as established in OHMSS
with REVENGE as the central theme. there would have been at least one
scene involving Bond in some debriefing where he states coldly
something to this effect: "gentlemen, make no mistake about it, my
life's mission now is the assasination of _________ and __________
(the telly savales character and the woman who actually shot his wife).
You may help me, in which case, I am prepared to proceed or if you
oppose, you may have my resignation immediately."

as a newbie, i don't even know the name of the actor who played bond in
OHMSS but i thought he played the last scene brilliantly. i loved
it. i thought it was very well done. and for what it's worth, in
my mind, revenge would have been the most logical theme of the
subsequent movie. (and i must admit here, if i were given free
license, the revenge scenes would be quite drawn out. death in a
second with a single shot? no way!!!! i guess the general public
would not have liked it but i would prefer bond tortue and then kill
those two characters!! did i not tell you that i have a perverse
nature???)

anyway, thanks again for filling me in on some info that i was not
aware of!




Kent wrote:
>
> Welcome to the group.
>
> With On Her Majesty's Secret Service (OHMSS) not being a great threatrical
> success (at least not compared to Connery's previous few outings), it's been
> theorised that a lot of fans, returning for Diamonds Are Forever (DAF) after
> skipping the previous film, might not be aware Bond had married and then had
> his wife murdered in OHMSS (to this day, I understand the American
> television networks often skip OHMSS, going straight from You Only Live
> Twice to Diamonds Are Forever). So as to not confuse a majority of people,
> EON decided at the time to not focus too much on the events of OHMSS,
> starting with a middle-of-the-road pre-credit sequence in DAF that didn't
> explain why Bond was looking for Blofeld (was it to avenge his wife's death,
> or just part of his on-going pursuit of SPECTRE's leader?). Subsequent
> films have made reference, but not really dwelled on the subject (For Your
> Eye's Only is probably the most lingering, though I think that was about
> giving the finger to Kevin McClory).
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> cheers
>
> Kent
Re: a novice's questions [message #216446 ] So, 05 Februar 2006 23:22
Mike Feeney  
Kent wrote:
>
> So as to not confuse a majority
> of people, EON decided at the time to not focus too much
> on the events of OHMSS, starting with a
> middle-of-the-road pre-credit sequence in DAF that didn't
> explain why Bond was looking for Blofeld (was it to avenge
> his wife's death, or just part of his on-going pursuit of
> SPECTRE's leader?).


I don't think there can be any doubt, Kent: in the pcs of
DAF James Bond is clearly on a personal revenge mission
against Blofeld. How do we know it is personal and not
just
an on-going assignment to capture the leader of SPECTRE?
Two key pieces of evidence:

1. "Welcome to hell, Blofeld." That's a pretty personal
remark. And 007 has never gotten personal like that when
dispatching any of his other major villains. He never said
"Welcome to hell, Goldfinger." Or "welcome to hell,
Stromberg." Or "welcome to hell, Zorin." This time its
different, because its personal. Its about revenge for
Tracy.

2. Back in London, we learn that Bond had been on a
personal leave of absence. He is asked "I trust you had a
relaxing time?" He replies "Oh, it was hardly relaxing, but
most satisfying." This can leave no doubt. Bond was not
on assignment during the events of the pcs, but was on a
personal leave of absence.

As to your wishes that the entire film had been devoted to
revenge, well... go watch 'License To Kil'l and see how well
that turned out. Revenge movies are a dime-a-dozen, and
I'm glad DAF didn't go down that rather boring route.

--Mike
"There's something I want you to get off your chest."
Re: a novice's questions [message #216448 ] Mo, 06 Februar 2006 01:50
phil.gerrard1  
Mike wrote:

> 1. "Welcome to hell, Blofeld." That's a pretty personal
> remark. And 007 has never gotten personal like that when
> dispatching any of his other major villains. He never said
> "Welcome to hell, Goldfinger." Or "welcome to hell,
> Stromberg." Or "welcome to hell, Zorin." This time its
> different, because its personal. Its about revenge for
> Tracy.

I think that's ambiguous at best, since Blofeld had been the head of
SPECTRE for four if not five of Bond's previous adventures (he's not
depicted as the head of the organisation in DN, although one could
reasonable assume that he was). IMHO Bond would particularly relish
the thought that he'd finally got rid of this guy regardless of any
personal involvement.

> 2. Back in London, we learn that Bond had been on a
> personal leave of absence. He is asked "I trust you had a
> relaxing time?" He replies "Oh, it was hardly relaxing, but
> most satisfying." This can leave no doubt. Bond was not
> on assignment during the events of the pcs, but was on a
> personal leave of absence.

This and the other dialogue in the scene suggest (a) that MI6 are
perfectly happy for one of their agents to trot around the world on an
inedfiinite personal crusade and kill or rough up anybody he pleases in
pursuit of revenge, and perhaps more seriously (b) that MI6, despite
knowing that Blofeld is still alive and active, are no longer putting
any of their time or resources into tracking down one of the world's
most dangerous terrorists, so Bond has to take personal leave and do
the job himself. Neither option seems particularly credible to me.

> As to your wishes that the entire film had been devoted to
> revenge, well... go watch 'License To Kil'l and see how well
> that turned out. Revenge movies are a dime-a-dozen, and
> I'm glad DAF didn't go down that rather boring route.

I think using LTK as an example of how a Bond revenge movie would work
is a bit of a red herring, and I'm not just talking as a fan of that
film here. There's no doubt in my mind that the end of OHMSS
*demanded* an emotionally satisfactory resolution to the Bond/Blofeld
conflict, something which Fleming managed to achieve in YOLT - a novel
which is as different from the film LTK as one could imagine. It's not
as if there's only one way to tell a revenge story.

Instead we ended up with Charles Gray's 'wonderfully prissy' Blofeld
being bashed around a little in his bathosub, and ten years later a
bald-wigged comedy foreigner being dropped down a chimney in a PCS
which is line-for-line the worst-written scene in Bond movie history.

(A small challenge - Mike's very eloquent in his defence of MR, and I
try my best with LTK, but can anybody defend the really truly stupid
elements of the seemingly sacred cow which is FYEO: the parrot, the
Thatchers at home, almost everything in the PCS, the hockey game, the
umbrella, Bibi, 'a nose, not a banana', Q dressed as an Orthodox priest
when he has no business being in the field at that point, etc, etc,
etc...? Were people just so grateful for the slightest glimpse of
Fleming's Bond after MR that they'd forgive the serious silliness which
makes up a good quarter of that movie at least?)

Anyway, Tracy's death was *never* avenged to any satisfactory effect
for me - ironic, considering who played the role...

Best

Phil
Re: a novice's questions [message #216450 ] Mo, 06 Februar 2006 04:54
Mike Feeney  
Phil wrote:

> Mike wrote:
>
> > 1. "Welcome to hell, Blofeld." That's a pretty
> > personal remark. And 007 has never gotten personal like
> > that when dispatching any of his other major villains.
> > He never said "Welcome to hell, Goldfinger." Or
> > "welcome to hell, Stromberg." Or "welcome to hell,
> > Zorin." This time its different, because its personal.
> > Its about revenge for Tracy.
>
> I think that's ambiguous at best, since Blofeld had been
> the head of SPECTRE for four if not five of Bond's
> previous adventures (he's not depicted as the head of the
> organisation in DN, although one could reasonable assume
> that he was). IMHO Bond would particularly relish the
> thought that he'd finally got rid of this guy regardless
> of any personal involvement.
>

I agree that this remark, by itself, is insufficient
evidence. However, note how absolutely *bad-ass* Bond is
during the entire pcs. He is literally kicking ass and
taking names! "One chance: where's Blofeld?" That isn't
a question, it's a demand! And he all but strangles that
woman with her own bikini top to get the information he
seeks. This suggests, to me at least, that something more
than an MI-6 assignment is driving him in this sequence.
Something personal.


> > 2. Back in London, we learn that Bond had been on a
> > personal leave of absence. He is asked "I trust you had
> > a relaxing time?" He replies "Oh, it was hardly
> > relaxing, but most satisfying." This can leave no
> > doubt. Bond was not on assignment during the events of
> > the pcs, but was on a personal leave of absence.
>
> This and the other dialogue in the scene suggest (a) that
> MI6 are perfectly happy for one of their agents to trot
> around the world on an inedfiinite personal crusade and
> kill or rough up anybody he pleases in pursuit of revenge,
> and perhaps more seriously (b) that MI6, despite knowing
> that Blofeld is still alive and active, are no longer
> putting any of their time or resources into tracking down
> one of the world's most dangerous terrorists, so Bond has
> to take personal leave and do the job himself. Neither
> option seems particularly credible to me.

I disagree, Phil. I think it's just a case of "who's being
bad at the moment?" Surely Blofeld is still high on the
most-wanted list, but if he has managed to stay out of the
spotlight for a couple of years then its reasonable to
assume that MI-6 is spending its time and energy on more
recently active criminals. It's not like they have an
infinite supply of 00-agents. So if Blofeld has been quiet
since OHMSS then he has likely become a lower-priority
target by the time of DAF and MI-6 has simply re-assigned
its limited resources.

And why do you think Bond was on some sort of indefinite
leave? I always took it to mean he basically was using his
annual vacation time. Every employee is entitled to yearly
vacation. And yes, clearly M suspected how Bond planned to
spend his vacation, but what could he do about it? Nothing,
really.

The dialog here clearly indicates, to me at least, that Bond
was acting on his own during the pcs of DAF.


> > As to your wishes that the entire film had been devoted
> > to revenge, well... go watch 'License To Kil'l and see
> > how well that turned out. Revenge movies are a
> > dime-a-dozen, and I'm glad DAF didn't go down that
> rather boring route.


> I think using LTK as an example of how a Bond revenge
> movie would work is a bit of a red herring, and I'm not
> just talking as a fan of that film here. There's no doubt
> in my mind that the end of OHMSS *demanded* an emotionally
> satisfactory resolution to the Bond/Blofeld conflict,
> something which Fleming managed to achieve in YOLT - a
> novel which is as different from the film LTK as one could
> imagine. It's not as if there's only one way to tell a
> revenge story.


I have read Fleming's YOLT novel. Not sure how well it
would have translated into a 2 hour motion picture, to be
truthful.


> Instead we ended up with Charles Gray's 'wonderfully
> prissy' Blofeld being bashed around a little in his
> bathosub, and ten years later a bald-wigged comedy
> foreigner being dropped down a chimney in a PCS which is
> line-for-line the worst-written scene in Bond movie
> history.

> (A small challenge - Mike's very eloquent in his defence
> of MR, and I try my best with LTK, but can anybody defend
> the really truly stupid elements of the seemingly sacred
> cow which is FYEO: the parrot, the Thatchers at home,
> almost everything in the PCS, the hockey game, the
> umbrella, Bibi, 'a nose, not a banana', Q dressed as an
> Orthodox priest when he has no business being in the field
> at that point, etc, etc, etc...? Were people just so
> grateful for the slightest glimpse of Fleming's Bond after
> MR that they'd forgive the serious silliness which makes
> up a good quarter of that movie at least?)


The humor in FYEO feels completely juvenile and out of
place. I blame it on director Glen, who couldn't make up
his mind if he wanted to do a serious picture or a comedy,
and who didn't have the talent to blend the two elements
together well as did Lewis Gilbert or Guy Hamilton.


> Anyway, Tracy's death was *never* avenged to any
> satisfactory effect for me - ironic, considering who
> played the role...
>


Well, I'm not disagreeing Phil. It was never avenged
satisfactorily for me, either. I would have liked the pcs
to have continued on a bit. After 007 dispatches the
henchman in the mud bath chamber, a longer confrontation
with Blofeld (or his duplicate as it turns out) would have
been nice. With some mention of Tracy, too. But I think an
extended pcs, rather than a two hour revenge flick, would
have been the way to go.

> Best
>
> Phil
>

--Mike
Re: a novice's questions [message #216454 ] Mo, 06 Februar 2006 12:49
Kent  
"Mike Feeney" <moonraker79 [at] excite.comPLICATE> wrote in message
news:43e730e5.63c.41 [at] news2...
>
> I don't think there can be any doubt, Kent: in the pcs of
> DAF James Bond is clearly on a personal revenge mission
> against Blofeld. How do we know it is personal and not
> just
> an on-going assignment to capture the leader of SPECTRE?
> Two key pieces of evidence:
>
> 1. "Welcome to hell, Blofeld." That's a pretty personal
> remark. And 007 has never gotten personal like that when
> dispatching any of his other major villains. He never said
> "Welcome to hell, Goldfinger." Or "welcome to hell,
> Stromberg." Or "welcome to hell, Zorin." This time its
> different, because its personal. Its about revenge for
> Tracy.

Yeah, but wouldn't, "This is for Tracy.... See you in Hell!" sound better?

The point I was getting at is the DAF pcs is ambiguous, because EON assumed
a lot of people wouldn't be aware Bond had been married and had his wife
murdered in OHMSS. If you've seen OHMSS, sure it's obvious why he's
tracking down Blofeld, but if you hadn't, you'd just assume Bond was out to
get the guy he'd been chasing for a number of years.

> 2. Back in London, we learn that Bond had been on a
> personal leave of absence. He is asked "I trust you had a
> relaxing time?" He replies "Oh, it was hardly relaxing, but
> most satisfying." This can leave no doubt. Bond was not
> on assignment during the events of the pcs, but was on a
> personal leave of absence.

Very true, but again, it's ambiguous. He might have just been hanging out
with dear old May in his apartment and working on his putting.

> As to your wishes that the entire film had been devoted to
> revenge, well... go watch 'License To Kil'l and see how well
> that turned out. Revenge movies are a dime-a-dozen, and
> I'm glad DAF didn't go down that rather boring route.

Actually, Licence to Kill is my favourite serious Bond film. I love when
Tim says "This is for Sharkey" and shoots the guy with the spear-gun. I
find myself clenching a fist and saying "YEAH!" every time.

But don't freak out too much Mike, my favourite escapist Bond film is still
Moonraker, which includes my all-time favourite double entendre in a Bond
film, "My God! What's Bond doing?", "I think he's attempting re-entry sir!"

Speaking of Moonraker, I noticed Michael Lonsdale (Hugo Drax) had a small
roll in Munich. There's a bit where he's in the kitchen preparing some food
and I was so hoping he'd offer someone a cucumber sandwich, but alas....

cheers

Kent
Re: a novice's questions [message #218833 ] Mo, 06 Februar 2006 22:06
phil.gerrard1  
Mike wrote:

> I agree that this remark, by itself, is insufficient
> evidence. However, note how absolutely *bad-ass* Bond is
> during the entire pcs. He is literally kicking ass and
> taking names! "One chance: where's Blofeld?" That isn't
> a question, it's a demand! And he all but strangles that
> woman with her own bikini top to get the information he
> seeks. This suggests, to me at least, that something more
> than an MI-6 assignment is driving him in this sequence.
> Something personal.

To me he's a little too chipper for a guy who's hell-bent on revenge
for his murdered wife, but that's a matter of interpretation, and I
concede that one would read into the PCS that there's more at stake
than usual for Bond.

> I disagree, Phil. I think it's just a case of "who's being
> bad at the moment?" Surely Blofeld is still high on the
> most-wanted list, but if he has managed to stay out of the
> spotlight for a couple of years then its reasonable to
> assume that MI-6 is spending its time and energy on more
> recently active criminals. It's not like they have an
> infinite supply of 00-agents. So if Blofeld has been quiet
> since OHMSS then he has likely become a lower-priority
> target by the time of DAF and MI-6 has simply re-assigned
> its limited resources.

I don't know about this. Firstly it's a complete reversal of M's
position in OHMSS (his policy of putting the pursuit of Blofeld above
all else becomes a resigning issue for Bond). If M is still determined
that Bond should devote all his time to tracking Blofeld down two years
after the events of YOLT, why should he decide to make this less of a
priority the same length of time after the events of OHMSS? Certainly
if there were more important matters at hand then one could see M
reluctantly giving up the hunt, but if the choice is between chasing
down a still-active criminal who's spent most of the last decade
attempting to hold the world to ransom or threatening to start a
nuclear holocaust and getting to grips with some petty diamond
smuggling, I think it shows an odd sense of priorities to ignore the
former completely in favour of the latter.

> And why do you think Bond was on some sort of indefinite
> leave? I always took it to mean he basically was using his
> annual vacation time. Every employee is entitled to yearly
> vacation. And yes, clearly M suspected how Bond planned to
> spend his vacation, but what could he do about it? Nothing,
> really.

'Indefinite' was probably a badly chosen word on my part. However, M's
irritation with Bond seems to me to indicate that he regards Bond's
pursuit of Blofeld as a purely personal matter which has been
distracting him from more important duties. Again, I find that a bit
jarring and feel that either he should reprimand Bond, saying that he
should have left MI6 to deal with Blofeld in its own way and in its own
time, or perhaps grudgingly acknowledge some measure of gratitude that
Blofeld is now out of the picture. (The former seems more likely and
consistent than the latter.)

> The dialog here clearly indicates, to me at least, that Bond
> was acting on his own during the pcs of DAF.

Oh, no question about that.

> I have read Fleming's YOLT novel. Not sure how well it
> would have translated into a 2 hour motion picture, to be
> truthful.

A fair enough point: it would take some tweaking at least.

> The humor in FYEO feels completely juvenile and out of
> place. I blame it on director Glen, who couldn't make up
> his mind if he wanted to do a serious picture or a comedy,
> and who didn't have the talent to blend the two elements
> together well as did Lewis Gilbert or Guy Hamilton.

I'm no great fan of Gilbert's and Hamilton's Bond films for the most
part, but I agree that the shifts from humour to seriousness in FYEO
are far from deftly handled, and that something like TSWLM at least
knows the kind of Bond film it wants to be.

Best

Phil
Re: a novice's questions [message #218872 ] Mi, 08 Februar 2006 01:39
Mac  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

> (A small challenge - Mike's very eloquent in his defence of MR, and I
> try my best with LTK, but can anybody defend the really truly stupid
> elements of the seemingly sacred cow which is FYEO: the parrot, the
> Thatchers at home, almost everything in the PCS, the hockey game, the
> umbrella, Bibi, 'a nose, not a banana', Q dressed as an Orthodox
> priest when he has no business being in the field at that point, etc,
> etc, etc...? Were people just so grateful for the slightest glimpse
> of Fleming's Bond after MR that they'd forgive the serious silliness
> which makes up a good quarter of that movie at least?)

FOR YOUR EYES ONLY and THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS are two peas in
a pod for me. Both offer a genuine sense of international intrigue and,
as a result, have a Bondian feel. They also have some wonderful
individual scenes, dazzling set-pieces and feature the best
performance as Bond from their respective leads. Yet both are
frustrating hampered by lapses into juvenilia and certain weaknesses
in production (castings, etc.).

Are they sacred cows? I don't know. For all their faults they remain
two of the best Bonds made outside the '60s IMO.
--
--Mac

"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"

"Vargas likes games that don't stop to accommodate beer
commercials every 30 seconds."
Re: a novice's questions [message #218874 ] Mi, 08 Februar 2006 02:31
phil.gerrard1  
Mac wrote:

> FOR YOUR EYES ONLY and THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS are two peas in
> a pod for me. Both offer a genuine sense of international intrigue and,
> as a result, have a Bondian feel. They also have some wonderful
> individual scenes, dazzling set-pieces and feature the best
> performance as Bond from their respective leads. Yet both are
> frustrating hampered by lapses into juvenilia and certain weaknesses
> in production (castings, etc.).
>
> Are they sacred cows? I don't know. For all their faults they remain
> two of the best Bonds made outside the '60s IMO.

I was probably being a bit defensive in using the phrase 'sacred cow',
since my impression is that I've seen TLD trashed a few more times on
this board than FYEO: an impression which could be totally mistaken.
As a Dalton fan, one tends to be on the defensive anyway :-)

I think there is a lot to be admired in FYEO and I agree that Moore was
probably never better. My main reason for rating either of Dalton's
outings above FYEO is that at least the silliness in those movies seems
to me to be fleeting, whereas FYEO contains a few daft sequences which
drag on for quite a while. Yes, the X-ray camera, winking fish, and
escape in the cello case are embarrassing, but at least they consist of
no more than a few seconds' screen time each. The Bibi / Thatchers at
Home / comedy Blofeld bits of FYEO offer no such relief IMHO.

Of course, I have to contrast all this against the fact that the film
contains one of my all-time defining Bond scenes, Bond pursuing Loque
by foot as dawn breaks. Not only is it wonderfully shot, acted, and
edited, but it feels more like a scene that Fleming would have written
than anything invented by EON's screenwriters before or since. That
counts for a lot in my book.

Best

Phil
Re: a novice's questions [message #218879 ] Mi, 08 Februar 2006 12:44
Mac  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

> I think there is a lot to be admired in FYEO and I agree that Moore
> was probably never better. My main reason for rating either of
> Dalton's outings above FYEO is that at least the silliness in those
> movies seems to me to be fleeting, whereas FYEO contains a few daft
> sequences which drag on for quite a while. Yes, the X-ray camera,
> winking fish, and escape in the cello case are embarrassing, but at
> least they consist of no more than a few seconds' screen time each.
> The Bibi / Thatchers at Home / comedy Blofeld bits of FYEO offer no
> such relief IMHO.

I don't have a problem with the Bibi Dahl character because she is
supposed to be a silly girl with a crush on Bond. In some respects,
she's not dissimilar to Ruby Bartlett in that she's not there to be
taken seriously. Both unwittingly bring Bond a step closer to his goal,
but have no real input. It's not as if Bibi is meant to be a smart operative
and suffers from Mankiewicz/ditz syndrome (a la Tiffany Case, Rosie
Carver and Mary Goodnight).
--
--Mac

"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"

"Vargas refuses to talk disparagingly of real football with the
tedious inevitability of an unloved Tom Zielinski."
Vorheriges Thema:New Bond?
Nächstes Thema:New Bond Watch?
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 01:38:26 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,09042 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered