34 replies to this topic

[Surrie]

When I first watched SPECTRE I couldn't help but notice some similarities between it and GoldenEye - I re-watched GE again last weekend and made a note of some of the things I picked up on that SPECTRE seems to reference to. I did see all sorts of references to previous Bond films as well, but there were a number relevant to GE: 

 

 

1. Blofeld sets the timer to 3 minutes in MI6, just like Trevelyan did to Bond in the Armoured Train
2. The helicopter loop in SPECTRE had been filmed previously for GE but was cut from the final edit. However, it does appear in one of the trailers
3. The Plane chase scene in Austria reminds me of the Tank chase in GE. Especially when Madeleine keeps turning around in the back of the car to see where Bond is, Natalya does the same thing
4. The wings of the plane in Austria break off and the same happened when Wade's plane was hit by a missile coming from the hidden dish in GE
5. The SPECTRE watch explosion caused by Bond ended up disfiguring Blofeld. The same happens to Trevelyan when he is scarred by the explosion in Arc Angel Weapons Facility
6. SPECTRE's PTS helicopter nose dive/GE PTS plane nose dive
7. Bond see's Hinx approaching on a reflecting surface at dinner, the same happens when Bond is on the yacht in GE and see's the sailor approaching in the brass fittings

Let me know if you guys picked up on any I may have missed!

[Dustin]

There is of course also the general premise that Bond and the villain share history the audience never was aware of. In GE the PTS is supposed to give this credibility, in SPECTRE it's the old faded photograph. Both villains emerge from the shadows when Bond meets them. The fate of both villains remains largely a mystery over a stretch of time.

[Surrie]

Good point Dustin. I hadn't thought of the shadowy reunion, which actually is more similar than I originally appreciated. The villain (Blofeld/Trevelyan) both have the upper hand in this meeting, on both occasions Bond doesn't know who to expect and they are both prepared for his arrival.

[thecasinoroyale]

And both always blame Bond for their troubles! Poor James.

 

Nice obs there Surrie. 

 

If only Lucia was a villainess like Xenia.

[Surrie]

If only Lucia was a villainess like Xenia.

 

Now that would have been good!!

[RMc2]

Nice spots, Surrie!

 

Hard to believe GoldenEye is now 20 years old. Watched it the other day to celebrate, and missed all these similarities

 

Guess it makes sense for Mendes to concentrate on GE, CR and SF when trying to make a good modern Bond!

[Single-O-Seven]

I wonder how many - if any - of the similarities were placed intentionally?

I tried to watch my DVD of GE on the 20th anniversary and introduce it to my 8 year old son, who has been watching all the films with me again. It was to be his introduction to the Brosnan era. However, we barely made it past the title sequence before the disc broke down. Both of us were disappointed. I'm going to have to go out and buy it again as he's eager to watch it, I'm happy to say.

[Surrie]

Nice spots, Surrie!

 

Hard to believe GoldenEye is now 20 years old. Watched it the other day to celebrate, and missed all these similarities

 

Guess it makes sense for Mendes to concentrate on GE, CR and SF when trying to make a good modern Bond!

 

I have to say I think Martin Campbell makes an excellent Bond film, and perhaps he could return for Bond 25 and continue championing the formula used for GE and CR??

 

I wonder how many - if any - of the similarities were placed intentionally?

I tried to watch my DVD of GE on the 20th anniversary and introduce it to my 8 year old son, who has been watching all the films with me again. It was to be his introduction to the Brosnan era. However, we barely made it past the title sequence before the disc broke down. Both of us were disappointed. I'm going to have to go out and buy it again as he's eager to watch it, I'm happy to say.

 

That's a big shame! GE was the first Bond film I was introduced to at the age of 6 and still remains my favourite. I hope your son enjoys!

[Single-O-Seven]

Nice spots, Surrie!

Hard to believe GoldenEye is now 20 years old. Watched it the other day to celebrate, and missed all these similarities

Guess it makes sense for Mendes to concentrate on GE, CR and SF when trying to make a good modern Bond!

I have to say I think Martin Campbell makes an excellent Bond film, and perhaps he could return for Bond 25 and continue championing the formula used for GE and CR??

I wonder how many - if any - of the similarities were placed intentionally?

I tried to watch my DVD of GE on the 20th anniversary and introduce it to my 8 year old son, who has been watching all the films with me again. It was to be his introduction to the Brosnan era. However, we barely made it past the title sequence before the disc broke down. Both of us were disappointed. I'm going to have to go out and buy it again as he's eager to watch it, I'm happy to say.

That's a big shame! GE was the first Bond film I was introduced to at the age of 6 and still remains my favourite. I hope your son enjoys!

I became a Bond fan in 1991 when I was 12, and GE was the first one I got to see in the theatre at 16. I still remember that night so well. I wasn't disappointed for a moment and I still love that film for a number of reasons. If Spectre was deliberate in its nods to GE then I'm pleased.

[Surrie]

I like to think despite the flaws within SPECTRE, it was a deliberate nod to GE and many other Bond movies. I think Broccoli was quoted saying she couldn't use a lot of the old 'James Bond Formula' because of what Mike Myers had done with Austin Powers. However, once Craig settled into the role and proved he was a great Bond they could dip in and out of that format. 

[Professor Pi]

Maybe that's their way of honoring GoldenEye's 20th anniversary.  Definitely noticed the similar PTS of both films, Bond chasing the girl in a car.  There's also the villain taunting Bond about his women dying in both films.  I'm glad someone else noticed the "3 minute" timer too, Surrie. 

 

I didn't know about the helicopter loop being filmed for GE.  I knew there was a more complicated bit in the script with Bond shooting off the rotors, but they deemed that too expensive to film. 

 

One contrast:  Trevelyan uses computer hacking (via Boris) to erase all data, whereas Blofeld wants to collect it all.

[Surrie]

Interesting contrast there Professor Pi! Despite Blofeld also having a past connection to Bond I do find Trevelyan far more menacing! 

[PrinceKamalKhan]

And both always blame Bond for their troubles! Poor James.

 

Nice obs there Surrie. 

 

If only Lucia was a villainess like Xenia.

 

 

I wish Lucia would've been a villainess like Volpe. Same nationality and I wouldn't mind her being a rebooted version of Thunderball's femme fatale as Oberhauser turned out to be a rebooted Blofeld.

 

As fro the main topic, in both GE and SPECTRE Bond has a discussion with the leading lady concerning whether she knows how to fire a gun.

[Surrie]

As fro the main topic, in both GE and SPECTRE Bond has a discussion with the leading lady concerning whether she knows how to fire a gun.

 

 

Great spot! I suppose this might be worth mentioning as well:

 

Madeleine (SPECTRE, 2015): Is this really what you want? Living in the shadows? Hunting, being hunted? Always alone?

 

Natalya (GoldenEye, 1995): You think I'm impressed? All of you with your guns, your killing, your death. For what? So you can be a hero? All the heroes I know are dead. How can you act like this? How can you be so cold? ... No it's what keeps you alone.

[Dustin]

Indeed, doesn't happen too often Bond is forced into a discussion of his working ethics. This looks more and more like a GOLDENEYE remake...

[Guy Haines]

There is of course also the general premise that Bond and the villain share history the audience never was aware of. In GE the PTS is supposed to give this credibility, in SPECTRE it's the old faded photograph. Both villains emerge from the shadows when Bond meets them. The fate of both villains remains largely a mystery over a stretch of time.

But the comparison isn't exact. Bond/Trevelyan is a professional friendship which breaks, with Bond for nine years seeking to avenge the death of 006, only to find that Alec had faked his death, was no friend at all and loathed his adopted country. Bond seemed genuinely shocked at this turn of events.

By contrast Bond/Oberhauser relies on "two winters" - just over a year? - in which we are told that James stayed with Franz and his father, during which Franz apparently grew jealous of James. After wich, nothing for decades. The Oberhausers apparently die, except one of them doesn't, fakes his death, and re-emerges with a new name and a life of big time crime behind him when Bond has his re-union. But unlike the shock that Bond has at Trevelyan's re-appearance, Bond in SPECTRE doesn't seem appalled - he doesn't have time to be, chased from the Rome meeting. But there are no "why did you do this?" moments from Bond when they meet properly in Morocco. It's as if, by the time they do meet, Bond is reconciled to the fact that his former childhood companion is a villain. Whereas the emotional impact when Bond meets Alec Trevelyan again is greater - he truly wasn't expecting the man stepping out of the shadows, Janus, to be the late 006.

[Surrie]

 

There is of course also the general premise that Bond and the villain share history the audience never was aware of. In GE the PTS is supposed to give this credibility, in SPECTRE it's the old faded photograph. Both villains emerge from the shadows when Bond meets them. The fate of both villains remains largely a mystery over a stretch of time.

But the comparison isn't exact. Bond/Trevelyan is a professional friendship which breaks, with Bond for nine years seeking to avenge the death of 006, only to find that Alec had faked his death, was no friend at all and loathed his adopted country. Bond seemed genuinely shocked at this turn of events.

By contrast Bond/Oberhauser relies on "two winters" - just over a year? - in which we are told that James stayed with Franz and his father, during which Franz apparently grew jealous of James. After wich, nothing for decades. The Oberhausers apparently die, except one of them doesn't, fakes his death, and re-emerges with a new name and a life of big time crime behind him when Bond has his re-union. But unlike the shock that Bond has at Trevelyan's re-appearance, Bond in SPECTRE doesn't seem appalled - he doesn't have time to be, chased from the Rome meeting. But there are no "why did you do this?" moments from Bond when they meet properly in Morocco. It's as if, by the time they do meet, Bond is reconciled to the fact that his former childhood companion is a villain. Whereas the emotional impact when Bond meets Alec Trevelyan again is greater - he truly wasn't expecting the man stepping out of the shadows, Janus, to be the late 006.

 

 

Again, I think this all boils down to the script writing in SPECTRE. It had so much potential to tell a great story like GE did, but lacked the finish to do so.

[Dustin]

Absolutely. As much trouble I had swallowing the 006/007 friendship* - it was still a shock and a major reveal for Bond and the audience that Trevelyan was not only alive but kicking ass inside that Janus thingy. Several weird implications, not the least of which is how Trevelyan's parents managed to have him when they were shot after the war. But the main surprise remained intact, a colleague of Bond was working against him on a major scale.

Compare to this a childhood acquaintance from a brief period who turns out to be a major megalomaniac - and Bond is perfectly fine to swallow this without batting an eye.

*This 'friendship' thing with 006 is so unsatisfactory because in all the films up until GOLDENEYE there is never even the slightest indication Bond greets other 00-agents with more than a nod in the canteen, let alone befriends them. The whole setup seems wrong; if you have 3 00-agents you don't risk two thirds of your potential on one single mission, no matter how important. Bond would have been with some soldier, not with another 00. The original idea seems to have been at some point to make Trevelyan's role that of an older agent and mentor - a father figure like Oberhauser. That would have worked better in the context, even if it had meant to make this an early reboot.

But if you were prepared to ignore such inconsistencies the inner logic of the relationship - ally turns against Bond - held water. While that of the James/Franz relationship never really works for me.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

Absolutely. As much trouble I had swallowing the 006/007 friendship* - it was still a shock and a major reveal for Bond and the audience that Trevelyan was not only alive but kicking ass inside that Janus thingy. Several weird implications, not the least of which is how Trevelyan's parents managed to have him when they were shot after the war. But the main surprise remained intact, a colleague of Bond was working against him on a major scale.

 

It wasn't a surprise for me thanks to the film's own official trailer:

[tdalton]

I don't remember the "twist" in GoldenEye ever being that much of a surprise.  I was 10 when I saw the movie in the theater and wasn't the least bit surprised by the reveal.  Seemed pretty obvious the whole time that Trevelyan was the villain.  I think the only way it could have been a surprise was if one hadn't viewed any of the trailers.

[Professor Pi]

And this is how EON can't handle twists...Goldeneye, TWINE, SPECTRE...they either give it away in the trailers or the title. 

 

I never bought the Trevelyan friendship...Bond's never befriended a 00 in any of the books, even the continuation novels.  But I took GoldenEye at the time as a repudiation of the Lethal Weapon/Die Hard with a A Vengeance action buddy films.  Bond works alone, always has, always will.  Yes there is a support team (Q, M, Moneypenny, Tanner) and allies (Leiter, Wade, Mathis), but Bond is an individiual action hero.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

And this is how EON can't handle twists...Goldeneye, TWINE, SPECTRE...they either give it away in the trailers or the title. 

 

 

FYEO as well. The official trailer gave away that Kristatos(Julian Glover) is the main villain:

 

[Professor Pi]

 

And this is how EON can't handle twists...Goldeneye, TWINE, SPECTRE...they either give it away in the trailers or the title. 

 

 

FYEO as well. The official trailer gave away that Kristatos(Julian Glover) is the main villain:

 

 

 

And I almost cited that as an example of something that was a surprise!

 

Does The Living Daylights trailer give up Koskov too?!

[PrinceKamalKhan]

 

 

And this is how EON can't handle twists...Goldeneye, TWINE, SPECTRE...they either give it away in the trailers or the title. 

 

 

FYEO as well. The official trailer gave away that Kristatos(Julian Glover) is the main villain:

 

 

 

And I almost cited that as an example of something that was a surprise!

 

Does The Living Daylights trailer give up Koskov too?!

 

 

Good question.  It certainly does(albeit very briefly):

Not that it bothered me too much. TLD remains my favorite post-1960s Bond film.

 

[Dustin]

I don't remember the "twist" in GoldenEye ever being that much of a surprise. I was 10 when I saw the movie in the theater and wasn't the least bit surprised by the reveal. Seemed pretty obvious the whole time that Trevelyan was the villain. I think the only way it could have been a surprise was if one hadn't viewed any of the trailers.

As I did; I just didn't have the time to hang out in theatres that year. I knew nothing beyond that Brosnan was 007 and Dench was a new M.

[DaveBond21]

 

As fro the main topic, in both GE and SPECTRE Bond has a discussion with the leading lady concerning whether she knows how to fire a gun.

 

 

Great spot! I suppose this might be worth mentioning as well:

 

Madeleine (SPECTRE, 2015): Is this really what you want? Living in the shadows? Hunting, being hunted? Always alone?

 

Natalya (GoldenEye, 1995): You think I'm impressed? All of you with your guns, your killing, your death. For what? So you can be a hero? All the heroes I know are dead. How can you act like this? How can you be so cold? ... No it's what keeps you alone.

 

 

Also Vesper says to him:-

 

" It doesn't bother you, killing those people?" and "Just because you've done something doesn't mean you have to keep on doing it". 

[Surrie]

Yes - it seems EON can't keep a secret, and Bond's women like to remind him that he is a cold-blooded killer!

[sharpshooter]

Madeleine (SPECTRE, 2015): Is this really what you want? Living in the shadows? Hunting, being hunted? Always alone?

Unrelated to this topic, but this scene made me sit up and take notice. I literally was thinking I could be watching Craig's last Bond movie. How he briefly stops to reflect on his future options with Newman's touching score playing. It was exactly at this point I hoped Craig would be back for at least another film.

[Surrie]

 

Madeleine (SPECTRE, 2015): Is this really what you want? Living in the shadows? Hunting, being hunted? Always alone?

Unrelated to this topic, but this scene made me sit up and take notice. I literally was thinking I could be watching Craig's last Bond movie. How he briefly stops to reflect on his future options with Newman's touching score playing. It was exactly at this point I hoped Craig would be back for at least another film.

 

 

Hmm good point. I always though he acted quite nonchalant, but obviously this could be his armor. Will be interesting to find out. 

[Professor Pi]

 

 

Madeleine (SPECTRE, 2015): Is this really what you want? Living in the shadows? Hunting, being hunted? Always alone?

Unrelated to this topic, but this scene made me sit up and take notice. I literally was thinking I could be watching Craig's last Bond movie. How he briefly stops to reflect on his future options with Newman's touching score playing. It was exactly at this point I hoped Craig would be back for at least another film.

 

 

Hmm good point. I always though he acted quite nonchalant, but obviously this could be his armor. Will be interesting to find out. 

 

 

" It doesn't bother you, killing those people?" and "Just because you've done something doesn't mean you have to keep on doing it".
 

"Well, it's not the sort of thing that looks good on a form!"