82 replies to this topic

[Guy Haines]

I've only just discovered this thread, and I must say I am quite surprised that this wasn't brought up earlier.

I like the scene, but I think it's amazing they decided to pay homage to such a famous scene. Using the name Robert Sterling is one thing, but having an oily version of one of the most famous moments in the series is another.

The only thing I don't like about the scene is how quickly it comes after we've only just met Fields; as we were just starting to really like her.

And just as Bond had got to like her, in a manner of speaking! And yet he carelessly leaves her at Greene's place as he goes dashing off with Camille - never gave the other girl a second thought after that, until she turns up dead in his hotel room. That, and Bond's callous disposal of Mathis' body in a skip were two aspects of the character in QoS that jarred a bit. But, they are part of the beginning of Bond, I suppose.

Thinking about the scene in GF though, Bond didn't exactly have Jill Masterton's health and welfare in mind either, did he? - disrupting her assistance of Goldfinger's cheating at cards. But then, at that point Goldfinger just appeared to be another wealthy card sharp, not the murderous character he turns out to be.

[Aris007]

The only thing I don't like about the scene is how quickly it comes after we've only just met Fields; as we were just starting to really like her.

I think that it should have been at this point of the film, because maybe if they waited for a quarter or more the film would wear out! The problem perhaps was that Fields entered the story a bit late!

[DaveBond21]

Thinking about the scene in GF though, Bond didn't exactly have Jill Masterton's health and welfare in mind either, did he? - disrupting her assistance of Goldfinger's cheating at cards. But then, at that point Goldfinger just appeared to be another wealthy card sharp, not the murderous character he turns out to be.

Bond not only got Jill killed, but also her sister Tilly!

"Go and run over there, and you'll be OK.....Doh!".

It reminds me of that Simpsons episode when Bart hires a "Bigger Brother" called Tom. When Homer and Tom fight at the end, Tom rescues the sea creatures from a smashed aquarium by placing them in the pool, where they are immediately eaten by the killer whale!

[Guy Haines]

Thinking about the scene in GF though, Bond didn't exactly have Jill Masterton's health and welfare in mind either, did he? - disrupting her assistance of Goldfinger's cheating at cards. But then, at that point Goldfinger just appeared to be another wealthy card sharp, not the murderous character he turns out to be.

Bond not only got Jill killed, but also her sister Tilly!

"Go and run over there, and you'll be OK.....Doh!".

It reminds me of that Simpsons episode when Bart hires a "Bigger Brother" called Tom. When Homer and Tom fight at the end, Tom rescues the sea creatures from a smashed aquarium by placing them in the pool, where they are immediately eaten by the killer whale!

Well, if he didn't exactly kill Tilly Masterton, Bond certainly put her in harmsway, although unlike Jill she knew the risks she was undertaking in trying to assassinate Goldfinger in the first place. But if Bond hadn't interrupted that card game and seduced Jill, she wouldn't be dead, so Tilly wouldn't be trying to assassinate....... yes, it is a bit like that Simpsons episode!

[Lachesis]

It was only film 3 in the series, the fate of Jill was a shock in many ways, killed right under the nose of Bond, neither he nor the audience were expecting that and it really works to solidify the threat of Goldfinger himself. Today its an established part of the formula but there was an acceptable nieve innocence in the fun Bond was having with this rotund criminal back then. The film goes on the show the consequence of this event in Tilly's quest for revenge, but I don't think there's any real doubt Bond is working to protect Tilly in his own way...again the real threat of Goldfinger is hammered home at the end of a sequence where Bond and the audience are seen to be having fun...good storytelling imo.

[dodge]

There was no single thing in QOS that put me off more than this blatant ripoff. It would have been more tolerable if it appeared in DAD, in which even the kitchen sink had been thrown in. Here, exhausted imaginations tried to score points by cheap theft.

[Harry Potter]

Certainly not a rip off, more a Bond trend like the Martini no one ever complains he had a Martini in the film before

Everyone keeps banging on about the gun barrel scene a the begining of the film; Im sure if we get it in Bond 23 you wont be say its a rip off from the early Bond's

What is WRONG about the scene is there was oil in her lungs. Ye the oil on the bed suggests it was poured in the one body position

any views OR is it just part of the franchise

[MarkA]

But Bond is a franchise that has been self-aware since day one (janitors whistling the GOLDFINGER tune, Sylvia Trench returning etc). You could argue that the returning M office scene alone is a nod to the formula.

Homages or nods to what went before are entirely creative choices. And why did so many people harp on about the lack of the gunbarrel when putting that at the start of SOLACE would have been as much about homaging the past as any oil covered agent lying like Ms Eaton. Yet EVERYONE seems to want that one repeated time and time again. I personally don't see FIELDS oily grave as a direct homage to GOLDFINGER (though the intent is blatant on that front) but more in keeping with the production design of black and white and the notions of chess and oneupmanship that play out throughout SOLACE and really come into play in those hotel scenes.

And I hate to say it, but after 50 years of film making I think Eon Productions can sort of do exactly what they want with their films. Oh, and the producers are not "desperate to make money". You can trust me on that.

I agree wholeheartedly. But also this discussion is the very reason I have begun to pull away from these forums. Films have always been self-referential. It is a Bond film. Whether good or bad they are just Bond films. Really, would the world be a better place if QOS never existed! Show some perspective. These forums really need to lighten up. They are becoming increasingly banal.

[Zorin Industries]

But also this discussion is the very reason I have begun to pull away from these forums. Films have always been self-referential. It is a Bond film. Whether good or bad they are just Bond films. Really, would the world be a better place if QOS never existed! Show some perspective. These forums really need to lighten up. They are becoming increasingly banal.

I agree. Very much so. And you are not the first to say as such.

[dodge]

Certainly not a rip off, more a Bond trend like the Martini no one ever complains he had a Martini in the film before

Everyone keeps banging on about the gun barrel scene a the begining of the film; Im sure if we get it in Bond 23 you wont be say its a rip off from the early Bond's

What is WRONG about the scene is there was oil in her lungs. Ye the oil on the bed suggests it was poured in the one body position

any views OR is it just part of the franchise

Then call it a boring and pointless homage. It wasn't made new or refreshing. It wasn't clever in itself, just a scene that went after some impact by riding in on the coattails of an original and now-legendary scene. I certainly respect Eon's right to do whatever they want to do, but I don't subscribe to the opinion that whatever they do is beyond criticism because of their experience. Similarly, it seems to belittle the Bond franchise to claim that these are 'only' Bond films and we need to lighten up if we criticize. A few of the films have reached greatness and surely we'd all love to see more of that.

[SecretAgentFan]

It´s ridiculous to point to that short snippet of a scene and make such a fuss about it. If someone doesn´t like it, okay. Get on with it. Personally, I thought it was a nice touch. Nothing that had to be done. But it certainly did not hurt.

[Safari Suit]

I think it's a given subtext of every on-topic post that the world isn't any worse for whatever is being mentioned or debated in the post. OK, there may be the odd person who doesn't realise that, but I suspect very, very few. I also find the scene harmless, and think that much of the invective towards it is hyperbolic (although I find that notion that the Goldfinger scene its homaging is lame because it lacks "underlying substance" or is "unrealistic" even sillier personally), but if we're going to have a Bond forum I guess anything in those films, books etc., no matter how small, is fair game for praise or scorn.

[Major Tallon]

We're just a bit in the doldrums right now, with no new film, book, game, comic, or anything else to discuss. Still, the level of discourse on CBn is like the Roman senate compared to most other Bond sites.

[Guy Haines]

We're just a bit in the doldrums right now, with no new film, book, game, comic, or anything else to discuss. Still, the level of discourse on CBn is like the Roman senate compared to most other Bond sites.

Or, indeed, a few legislatures that still exist!

[Mr. Blofeld]

It is a good scene, in my opinion...

[jamie00007]

A few of the films have reached greatness and surely we'd all love to see more of that.

You will never see that. Some of us might, but you wont. If you carry on like that with so much drama over such a minor thing as the "oil girl" scene, something most people saw and simply went "hey cool, kind of like the golden girl!", then you will never be satisfied with any new movie and you should just continue watching the "perfect" Bond films of yesteryear through your rose tinted glasses.

Bond has always been self-referential. Calling that scene things like "blatant ripoff" and "theft" is both ridiculous and inaccurate. Its nothing more than a bit of a shout out to the fans as well as a tribute to the old films, and one that slides flawlessly into the story, unlike some other references to past films in other Bond movies.

Im with MarkA. These forums are becoming tedious and depressing. So much drama and bitterness over such tiny and inconsequential things. You'd think people on a Bond forum would be people who actually like Bond films, but it doesnt seem that way. I come on here when Im in the mood to talk about Bond films, but sometimes by the time I log off I feel like never watching another one again.

The saddest thing about it is that 007 seems to be having a kind of renaissance amongst the general public with a resurgence in popularity since the release of Casino Royale and films and books havnt been so popular in years. Everyones enjoying 007 except the "fans".

Edited by jamie00007, 28 March 2010 - 09:17 AM.

[Safari Suit]

So much drama and bitterness over such tiny and inconsequential things.

Like posts on a message board, for example.

[tdalton]

A few of the films have reached greatness and surely we'd all love to see more of that.

You will never see that. Some of us might, but you wont. If you carry on like that with so much drama over such a minor thing as the "oil girl" scene, something most people saw and simply went "hey cool, kind of like the golden girl!", then you will never be satisfied with any new movie and you should just continue watching the "perfect" Bond films of yesteryear through your rose tinted glasses.

Bond has always been self-referential. Calling that scene things like "blatant ripoff" and "theft" is both ridiculous and inaccurate. Its nothing more than a bit of a shout out to the fans as well as a tribute to the old films, and one that slides flawlessly into the story, unlike some other references to past films in other Bond movies.

Im with MarkA. These forums are becoming tedious and depressing. So much drama and bitterness over such tiny and inconsequential things. You'd think people on a Bond forum would be people who actually like Bond films, but it doesnt seem that way. I come on here when Im in the mood to talk about Bond films, but sometimes by the time I log off I feel like never watching another one again.

The saddest thing about it is that 007 seems to be having a kind of renaissance amongst the general public with a resurgence in popularity since the release of Casino Royale and films and books havnt been so popular in years. Everyones enjoying 007 except the "fans".

Completely agreed. Excellent post.

You're right when you say that the "oil girl" scene in QOS fits perfectly into the film. As Bond points out to M during the scene, that it's just more misdirection from Greene, as M/MI6 still consider oil as being what Greene is after, a point emphasized by his drowning of Fields with the oil. While it's also something that's done to send a message to Bond, it's also there to throw either him and/or his superiors off track by believing that his goals were still somehow linked to oil. I think that it's a brilliant scene, and one that works better than the scene it's a supposed "rip off" of (a claim that I don't really understand as being particularly valid, considering that there are several films in the series that are outright remakes of each other: YOLT, TSWLM, TND).

Also agreed on the state of the forums. I would add to what you said, but you said it so perfectly that I have nothing to add.

[Safari Suit]

I guess this has become a "state of the forum" address as much as one about a scene about an incidental character from QOS being covered in oil being a bit too much like a scene of an incidental character in another movie being covered in something else, and I'll say I agree too, despite my snide comment earlier, but I'm going to admit I'm part of the problem.

I apologise for my remark earlier. Indeed I apologise for any offence I've caused anyone. Looking through my recent posts I see I've become prickly, irritable and altogether rather snide. I have no one to blame for this but myself and I take full responsibility for it. But while in the past I have disagreed and even been annoyed by people talking about "the downfall of CBn" while rhapsodising about some mythical "golden age", I must admit I realise that I have become increasingly alienated from this site. The MGM situation leaves Bond news going round in circles and I have probably said anything remotely pointed I could possibly say about the existing films. The issue of QOS's quality seems, even more than a year after it's release, to still be about on par with a holy war for many on either side of the debate (I'm strongly pro, but I find a lot of the arguments on my "side" to be even more unpleasant those from the other side). There are a lot of posters who seem to want to beat the same drums over and over again, often with a minimum of grace and I must admit these days I find that trying. And is it just me or do some posters here have kind of a gang of creepy, cult-ish followers? There is nothing wrong with any of this, of course, it's an open forum, but much of it is not for me and obviously this has taken its toll on my manors and demeanour, which is not fair on the posters on the receiving end of my comments. I have to admit I'm no longer sure if I visit CBn for genuine pleasure, or out of habit, and as I've made the transition from scummy student with too much free time on his hands to 9-5 (and beyond) worker whose free time has suddenly become very precious that’s a question I really don't want hanging over me

I’m not going to say I'll never post here again, not least as I don’t want to make a big, pompous post like this and then inevitably come back here with my tail between my legs. But I do think it’s a good idea for me to “take a break”. And yeah, I do know it’s very vain, hubristic and pompous for someone to make a “leaving statement” for a bunch of people who’ve never met me and don’t even know my real name, but if there’s one thing I don’t like it’s to leave loose ends.

Cheers

[jamie00007]

Thanks tdalton

Safari Suit, I know what you mean about free time. In the years Ive been coming to this forum Ive gone from uni student (actually maybe even high school, I used to have a different username which I think dated back to about 2000) to full time worker and father of one, and where Bond was once the subject of nerdy study and obsession, he is now pure recreation, an escape when I can find some time to watch the films or chat on this forum. Time I dont wish to spend dealing with a seeming endless barrage of negativity and vitriol over every tiny aspect of the series, especially the new films. Its sad that I seem to find more enthusiasm and positivity for the films from my non-fan friends in the real world than on a Bond forum.

This thread, three pages of dramatics, hate, over-reaction and hyperbole over such a minor scene, a scene that seemed to be enjoyed by everyone else and was greeted with excitement on most forums when the pictures from it were leaked prior to the films release, just sums it all up really.

Edited by jamie00007, 29 March 2010 - 03:47 AM.

[B. Brown]

It was obviously a deliberate nod to GOLDFINGER.

That's great and all, but the writers didn't take into consideration the target audience. And therefore, the nod was pointless, as most teenagers would say, "lol wuts a goldfingur>?"

[Hockey Mask]

Really liked the scene.
Really liked the movie.

[007domanator]

That entire "golden girl" scene from goldfinger was pointlessly used in QOS. Why was it ever filmed for a rebooted Bond series? What was the reason for it?.Why did we need to be reminded that we were watching a Bond movie?

That scene completely kills the movie, very unoriginal and dour. If there were any way of redoing that scene I would really wish the film makers would maybe for the foreseeabale director's cut bluray or even perhaps just omit it.

What do you think?

It was used as one of the many stupid homages purvis and wade created