110 replies to this topic

[Sir James Molony]

Just listened to Sam's commentary on the Skyfall blu-ray. WOW! This was the single best director's commentary that I have ever heard. He talks in depth about shooting the movie, themes, character motivations, Fleming influences, lighting, etc. I often turn off commentaries b/c they are mundane, but this one is absolutely essential. 

 

A few tidbits:

- The gunbarrel is at the end for thematic reasons. But he also points out that first shot in the movie has Bond walking and pulling out a gun, so having the gunbarrel first would have seemed repetitive.

- The Macallan scotch at Silva's island is from 1962 - the same year as Dr. No.

- Good commentary about how Skyfall relates to the character in the final 3 Fleming Books (OHMSS/YOLT/TMWTGG)

- Bond and Moneypenny do NOT become lovers in Macau. (This was an important point for him.)

- Fun tidbits about how much was actually shot in the UK.

- He even jokes about Home Alone!

 

There is lots more. I came away with a new appreciation for the degree of thoughtfulness and craftsmanship that went into Skyfall.

 

 

 

 

 

[Bucky]

It was a very good listen. What I found interesting was the fact that Bond missed shooting the glass on Severine's head on purpose, did not pick up on that.

Edited by Bucky, 17 February 2013 - 02:19 AM.

[Shaun Forever]

Just get the man back for the next film!

[thecasinoroyale]

Briliant - can't wait to have a listen!

[deth]

It was a very good listen. What I found interesting was the fact that Bond missed shooting the glass on Severine's head on purpose, did not pick up on that.

 

 

Well how could we pick up on that... it wasn't made clear at all. If that was the intention, they should have made it so.

[Orion]

It was a very good listen. What I found interesting was the fact that Bond missed shooting the glass on Severine's head on purpose, did not pick up on that.

 

 

Well how could we pick up on that... it wasn't made clear at all. If that was the intention, they should have made it so.

I thought it was obvious Bond missed on purpose, trying to undersell his skills to get the jump on Silva and his men. Hence his aim seemingly improving between shooting at Severine and killing Silva's henchmen less than 5 minutes later.

[thecasinoroyale]

I thought he missed on purpose, in a way admitting defeat that Silva is better (or making him think so) and thus trying to avoid Silva taking a shot also, but I dont think he counted on Silva being so quick to shoot Severine...

[Odd Jobbies]

- Good commentary about how Skyfall relates to the character in the final 3 Fleming Books (OHMSS/YOLT/TMWTGG)

 

Sounds like a real fan   The tonal similarities were very apparent in the psych review - a superb part of the movie. But i hope they use the brain washed Bond trying to assassinate M another time.

 

- Bond and Moneypenny do NOT become lovers in Macau. (This was an important point for him.)

 

In which case this part of the film was a total fail. In their repartee in the casino about 2 hands being better than one etc. the suggestion was definitely that they'd just been very intimate. 

 

Did Mendes mention the logic behind M and Finney inexplicably using a torch to give away their position on the moors (as they approached the church) ?

 

And what did he say about the Roger Moorish moment of the old couple's gag as Bond jumped on the back of the train?

 

Or how Silva managed to know exactly where Bond would catch him when he detonated the bomb that brought an empty train crashing down on him ?  (odd that it was empty, since Q had just told Bond it was rush hour!).

 

I'm just knit picking  Skyfall was fantastic and i hope Mendes returns, but these iffy moments are the ones i'm eager to hear about (i hopefully be convinced that they are in fact good..... (i won't hold my breath, though)

[winstoninabox]

Did Mendes mention the logic behind M and Finney inexplicably using a torch to give away their position on the moors (as they approached the church) ?

He said it was dark, they were old, M was dying and they thought everyone else had died in the explosion.
 
And what did he say about the Roger Moorish moment of the old couple's gag as Bond jumped on the back of the train?

He said that in the 50th anniversary it was a wonderfully funny tribute to the Moore years.
 
Or how Silva managed to know exactly where Bond would catch him when he detonated the bomb that brought an empty train crashing down on him ?  (odd that it was empty, since Q had just told Bond it was rush hour!).

He said that Silva was making a joke in reference to Bond's joke about the radio and that he was using it as a distraction of opportunity against Bond. Although it had always been his plan to derail the train, it had never been part of his plan that Bond was to be standing right there. Silva had hoped to have dead and dismembered bodies too, but even he can't defeat the censors.

Note: Mendes probably hasn't said these, but he could have.

[Iceskater101]

That makes a lot more sense.. I still hope that the next gun barrel is at the beginning.

[Invincible1958]

Or how Silva managed to know exactly where Bond would catch him when he detonated the bomb that brought an empty train crashing down on him ?  (odd that it was empty, since Q had just told Bond it was rush hour!).

 

The empty train had a sign on it saying "not in service". So it should be clear, that there were no passengers on board. Silva would not kill hundreds of innocent Londoners just to scare Bond.

[Matt_13]

It was a very good listen. What I found interesting was the fact that Bond missed shooting the glass on Severine's head on purpose, did not pick up on that.

 

 

Well how could we pick up on that... it wasn't made clear at all. If that was the intention, they should have made it so.

It's made clear on a repeat viewing. You see Bond weigh the option before he fires by taking one quick glance at Silva, as if saying " He's the mission, not her." It's a ruthless move but he had warned her. Someone does usually die.

[Sir James Molony]

 

It was a very good listen. What I found interesting was the fact that Bond missed shooting the glass on Severine's head on purpose, did not pick up on that.

 

 

Well how could we pick up on that... it wasn't made clear at all. If that was the intention, they should have made it so.

It's made clear on a repeat viewing. You see Bond weigh the option before he fires by taking one quick glance at Silva, as if saying " He's the mission, not her." It's a ruthless move but he had warned her. Someone does usually die.

I didn't pick up that Bond missed on purpose, but it makes sense upon rewatching and hearing the commentary and noticing his glance at Silva.

 

However, I still think there should have been a quick scene of Bond showing some sadness at Severine's death. The Bond of Fleming and the movies always had a thing for a girl with a wing down. I just think there should have been a quick nod, kind of a Goldfinger moment when Bond pauses at Jill Masterson's body (or her sister, for that matter).

[Sir James Molony]

- Good commentary about how Skyfall relates to the character in the final 3 Fleming Books (OHMSS/YOLT/TMWTGG)

 

Sounds like a real fan   The tonal similarities were very apparent in the psych review - a superb part of the movie. But i hope they use the brain washed Bond trying to assassinate M another time.

 

>- Bond and Moneypenny do NOT become lovers in Macau. (This was an important point for him.)

 

In which case this part of the film was a total fail. In their repartee in the casino about 2 hands being better than one etc. the suggestion was definitely that they'd just been very intimate. 

 

Did Mendes mention the logic behind M and Finney inexplicably using a torch to give away their position on the moors (as they approached the church) ?

 

And what did he say about the Roger Moorish moment of the old couple's gag as Bond jumped on the back of the train?

 

Mendes mentioned the Moore connection. He also said the actor was an old friend from the British theater (as was the train conductor).

Or how Silva managed to know exactly where Bond would catch him when he detonated the bomb that brought an empty train crashing down on him ?  (odd that it was empty, since Q had just told Bond it was rush hour!).

No explanation, but a very interesting description of how they did the stunt. It wasn;t a moidel or CGI - they spent 2 million pounds to build a subway station and a them rammed a 14-ton train through it!

 

I'm just knit picking  Skyfall was fantastic and i hope Mendes returns, but these iffy moments are the ones i'm eager to hear about (i hopefully be convinced that they are in fact good..... (i won't hold my breath, though)

 

Mendes did mention a few plot points. When M gets in the car that Bond is driving, Mendes discusses how viewers must accept a big leap of logic to set up the third act. He's quite funny about the Home Alone comparison, even discussing that he noticed it during the filming!

 

He also talked about overlooking logic to create a better screen story, such as the decryption of Silva's computer. He didn't want everyone huddled around small screens and wanted Bond to have a hand in decoding things (even it is illogical). He didn't explain other nitpicks, like, why did Q plug the computer directly into the MI6 network? 

Or how Silva managed to know exactly where Bond would catch him when he detonated the bomb that brought an empty train crashing down on him ?  (odd that it was empty, since Q had just told Bond it was rush hour!).

 

The empty train had a sign on it saying "not in service". So it should be clear, that there were no passengers on board. Silva would not kill hundreds of innocent Londoners just to scare Bond.

The timing and location of the subway car crash is completely illogical, so I just chalked it off to the "omnipotent Joker" aspect of Silva's character.

[plankattack]

I must confess - I'm never put off by the Underground crash. If you take the line that Silva planned the whole thing - well, he purposefully led Bond to that point - even waiting for him when he turns the lights on. And trains are coming every 150 seconds on the Underground, so sure, there is some dramatic license with one coming right after the explosion. But other than that, once you accept the more unlikely circumstance of Silva pre-planning everything from his capture on, then the train is just a small detail, no?

[delfloria]

First off I like SKYFALL.

 

But most of these story points could have been solved within the film itself but they were not which surprises me. 

 

!. Kinkade switches on the torch and M admonishes that they could be seen and switches it off. But Silva has seen the moment.

 

2. Ala Goldfinger, Bond's transmitter could have been better hidden so we don't question why an agent like Silva would have missed taking it. The way it is in the film Bond should be questioning why this special Q device was not confiscated. By the way though sunglasses could have been xray devices as well.

 

3. The dialog in the casino could have been different between Bond and Eve so as not to CONFUSE the audience. I thought they slept together.

 

4, The train OK. Silva is timing the chase by leaving door open and waiting until he decides to activate the explosive.

 

5. Explain the DB5 and weapons from Goldfinger. Especially when he indicates it's NOT a company car.

 

There's a lot of other nitpicky stuff that could have been corrected while they were shooting but it's still a cool film. You can rip into Thunderball, YOLT and dozen other Bond films this same way.

[tuttle300]

I agree that it was one of the better audio commentaries. I especially liked the detail that went into the title sequence and how- through the visuals- Sam took us on a tour through Bond's mind ( especially where he mentioned that he wanted the camera to be always moving forward as the visuals unfold-- very interesting)

 

Has anyone heard the producer audio as yet? Hopefully it has just as much detail

 

And while helming a Bond film is a huge undertaking I certainly hope Sam signs up for the next one.

 

IF and this is a big IF.... If Craig signs off from the role after # 25 we can at minimum look forward to having 5 solid films in the franchise that explored Bond the way none of the other films ever did- and I include Connery in there too. While he was the template for the series, his tenure was done in such rapid succession there was - arguably- no time to fully explore the character the way they have been doing with Craig. And yet a good deal of praise must be paid to Connery and the filmmakers who manned those films because they did accomplish a great deal within the crunched time period in which those films came out to meet the demand

 

And yet.... here we are literally in the middle of a 5 film exploration of the character AFTER FIFTY YEARS and the producers have finally been able to take the time to dig far deeper into the psyche of this character then ever before. I find myself wondering if any other studio or producers would have dared to do the same. I think most other producers would have simply stuck to milking the poor franchise into the ground by now.

 

And if so, we the fans would have no doubt missed out on a fascinating ride ( even having Quantum of Solace on the table since people do not seem to find it up to the same caliber as Casino or Skyfall)

[K1Bond007]

First off I like SKYFALL.

 

But most of these story points could have been solved within the film itself but they were not which surprises me. 

 

!. Kinkade switches on the torch and M admonishes that they could be seen and switches it off. But Silva has seen the moment.

 

2. Ala Goldfinger, Bond's transmitter could have been better hidden so we don't question why an agent like Silva would have missed taking it. The way it is in the film Bond should be questioning why this special Q device was not confiscated. By the way though sunglasses could have been xray devices as well.

 

3. The dialog in the casino could have been different between Bond and Eve so as not to CONFUSE the audience. I thought they slept together.

 

4, The train OK. Silva is timing the chase by leaving door open and waiting until he decides to activate the explosive.

 

5. Explain the DB5 and weapons from Goldfinger. Especially when he indicates it's NOT a company car.

 

There's a lot of other nitpicky stuff that could have been corrected while they were shooting but it's still a cool film. You can rip into Thunderball, YOLT and dozen other Bond films this same way.

 

#5 can be explained later or an assumption can be made based on what is in Skyfall. When Bond and M are in the car, he jokingly threatens to eject her. She didn't seem surprised or anything that Bond had the ability to do so. One can assume that Bond brought his car in for Q (whomever preceded the Q in the film) to "trick out" and M was likely aware.

 

I think something like this could be used in the next film. It's kind of a joke, but honestly, instead of a pre-title sequence or anything relating to the villain, the villainous plot, or Bond finishing up an old mission, I think it would be cool to see him running something off-book. Essentially show Bond stealing a new Aston Martin DB5 or something from just "some guy". The PTS can end with everyone coming to realize the owner wasn't a villain or anything. Bond just stole his car. After the PTS he drops it off at Q-Branch - good segue to all that. And then have M get suspicious about Bond's activity. Good relationship - trust builder right there. "You have a licence to kill, not a licence to steal..." Sounds like an episode of Archer, but if done tastefully, I think it could work.

[Commander E]

First thing I watched when I got the blu ray, ahead of watching the film without the commentary. Great stuff, especially with this being the first commentary I've seen with any Bond film, and I'll soon visit the Barbara and Wilson Skyfall commentary. Time for me to catch up on all the other commentaries in the Bond 50 set as well.

[sharpshooter]

He also talked about overlooking logic to create a better screen story, such as the decryption of Silva's computer. He didn't want everyone huddled around small screens and wanted Bond to have a hand in decoding things (even it is illogical). He didn't explain other nitpicks, like, why did Q plug the computer directly into the MI6 network?

The way I see it, this Q no doubt has a brilliant mind but is a little scatterbrained, if that is the right word. He became engrossed in the puzzle. Just as it took him longer than it should have to spot Silva on the security monitors, which meant Bond had to run after the train and jump on the back. He's not a field agent, he's a schematics man. Case in point not viewing the subway door as a tough barrier. This Q will make things interesting for Bond and create some added drama. Which I got a feel of in Skyfall, and want to see more.

 

- Bond and Moneypenny do NOT become lovers in Macau. (This was an important point for him.)

 

In which case this part of the film was a total fail. In their repartee in the casino about 2 hands being better than one etc. the suggestion was definitely that they'd just been very intimate.

 

The director's word is final and I'm glad Mendes confirmed my thoughts regarding this scene. We didn't see what happened after the shave, but them not sleeping together is a lot better in my opinion. Sexual tension and teasing is a large facet of the Bond/Moneypenny dynamic.

[Odd Jobbies]

He also talked about overlooking logic to create a better screen story, such as the decryption of Silva's computer. He didn't want everyone huddled around small screens and wanted Bond to have a hand in decoding things (even it is illogical). He didn't explain other nitpicks, like, why did Q plug the computer directly into the MI6 network?

The way I see it, this Q no doubt has a brilliant mind but is a little scatterbrained, if that is the right word. He became engrossed in the puzzle. Just as it took him longer than it should have to spot Silva on the security monitors, which meant Bond had to run after the train and jump on the back. He's not a field agent, he's a schematics man. Case in point not viewing the subway door as a tough barrier. This Q will make things interesting for Bond and create some added drama. Which I got a feel of in Skyfall, and want to see more.

 

>>>>>> 

- Bond and Moneypenny do NOT become lovers in Macau. (This was an important point for him.)

 

In which case this part of the film was a total fail. In their repartee in the casino about 2 hands being better than one etc. the suggestion was definitely that they'd just been very intimate.

 

The director's word is final and I'm glad Mendes confirmed my thoughts regarding this scene. We didn't see what happened after the shave, but them not sleeping together is a lot better in my opinion. Sexual tension and teasing is a large facet of the Bond/Moneypenny dynamic.

 

 

I'm afraid the Director's word in not final - audience perception is final.  As someone whose dabbled a fair bit in writing & direction (and extensively as an editor) it matters not one jot what Mendes intended if the audience doesn't read your work the way it's intended to be read. Believe me, Logan, Mendes, Beaty, Craig & Newton will hope to hell that if the intention was for the audience to understand that Bond & Moneypenny did not sleep together then the audience read it that way. They will be devastated to find that this point is no more than opaque in the final cut of the film if their intention was complete clarity.

 

Mendes and Co. are very talented and smart, so since the scene is indeed opaque i assumed they intended that. It's a shame to learn that Mendes may believe otherwise. Do a poll of the man on the street and i'm betting, from the various conversations i've had, that very few if any will confirm that there's no way Bond and Monnypenny slept together. It was left hanging and then the flirtations in the casino ("Two pairs of hands are better than one...") pretty much sealed the deal in terms of reading the part in between bedroom and casino that we didn't see. So it seems the audience were given 'bad intel'!

 

For me the silver lining was that this adds a new twist to the relationship, but i'm glad to hear that in Mendes head they did not engage in anything naughtier than a shave. However, the scene, in that case, is a fail.... But just one a few defects in a diamond of a Bond movie.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 18 February 2013 - 09:44 AM.

[delfloria]

 

He also talked about overlooking logic to create a better screen story, such as the decryption of Silva's computer. He didn't want everyone huddled around small screens and wanted Bond to have a hand in decoding things (even it is illogical). He didn't explain other nitpicks, like, why did Q plug the computer directly into the MI6 network?

The way I see it, this Q no doubt has a brilliant mind but is a little scatterbrained, if that is the right word. He became engrossed in the puzzle. Just as it took him longer than it should have to spot Silva on the security monitors, which meant Bond had to run after the train and jump on the back. He's not a field agent, he's a schematics man. Case in point not viewing the subway door as a tough barrier. This Q will make things interesting for Bond and create some added drama. Which I got a feel of in Skyfall, and want to see more.

 

>>> 

- Bond and Moneypenny do NOT become lovers in Macau. (This was an important point for him.)

 

In which case this part of the film was a total fail. In their repartee in the casino about 2 hands being better than one etc. the suggestion was definitely that they'd just been very intimate.

 

The director's word is final and I'm glad Mendes confirmed my thoughts regarding this scene. We didn't see what happened after the shave, but them not sleeping together is a lot better in my opinion. Sexual tension and teasing is a large facet of the Bond/Moneypenny dynamic.

 

 

I'm afraid the Director's word in not final - audience perception is final.  As someone whose dabbled a fair bit in writing & direction (and extensively as an editor) it matters not one jot what Mendes intended if the audience doesn't read your work the way it's intended to be read. Believe me, Logan, Mendes, Beaty, Craig & Newton will hope to hell that if the intention was for the audience to understand that Bond & Moneypenny did not sleep together then the audience read it that way. They will be devastated to find that this point is no more than opaque in the final cut of the film if their intention was complete clarity.

 

Mendes and Co. are very talented and smart, so since the scene is indeed opaque i assumed they intended that. It's a shame to learn that Mendes may believe otherwise. Do a poll of the man on the street and i guarantee, from the various conversations i've had, that very few if any will confirm that there's no way Bond and Monnypenny slept together. For me the silver lining was that this adds a new twist to the relationship, but i'm glad to hear that in Mendes head they did not engage in anything naughtier than a shave. However, the scene, in that case, is a fail (but just one a few defects in a diamond of a Bond movie.

 

Perfectly put.

[SecretAgentFan]

Bond´s remark about "an extra pair of hands" is strictly referring to Moneypenny´s remark about his looks. Sure, it´s got a sexual innuendo in there - but that´s Bond. The scene between him and Moneypenny ends with her shaving him. I don´t think that this is enough for anybody to conclude that they have sex after the scene ends. 

 

If they had kissed - yep, then it would have been obvious. But apart from sexual tension between them - nope, nothing misleading here.

[Odd Jobbies]

 

 

I'm afraid the Director's word in not final - audience perception is final.  As someone whose dabbled a fair bit in writing & direction (and extensively as an editor) it matters not one jot what Mendes intended if the audience doesn't read your work the way it's intended to be read. Believe me, Logan, Mendes, Beaty, Craig & Newton will hope to hell that if the intention was for the audience to understand that Bond & Moneypenny did not sleep together then the audience read it that way. They will be devastated to find that this point is no more than opaque in the final cut of the film if their intention was complete clarity.

 

Mendes and Co. are very talented and smart, so since the scene is indeed opaque i assumed they intended that. It's a shame to learn that Mendes may believe otherwise. Do a poll of the man on the street and i guarantee, from the various conversations i've had, that very few if any will confirm that there's no way Bond and Monnypenny slept together. For me the silver lining was that this adds a new twist to the relationship, but i'm glad to hear that in Mendes head they did not engage in anything naughtier than a shave. However, the scene, in that case, is a fail (but just one a few defects in a diamond of a Bond movie.

 

Perfectly put.

 

Why, thank you, delfloria

 

 

Bond´s remark about "an extra pair of hands" is strictly referring to Moneypenny´s remark about his looks. Sure, it´s got a sexual innuendo in there - but that´s Bond. The scene between him and Moneypenny ends with her shaving him. I don´t think that this is enough for anybody to conclude that they have sex after the scene ends. 

 

If they had kissed - yep, then it would have been obvious. But apart from sexual tension between them - nope, nothing misleading here.

 

Different strokes for different folks i guess.

 

Try polling acquaintances who are not Bond fanatics (like us). I've asked just a few this morning, but every one was surprised by Mendes revelation, having assumed that the 2 had in fact 'done it' before arriving at the casino. I thought it OK to let this fly as 'keeping the mystery alive' / 'did they or didn't they.....?'  I can live with that question hanging over their future relationship, since to be honest it always has done to some extent. But i too am surprised to learn that this was not intended to be vague. For many viewers it has now at least become a more tangible Question that will hang over the couple in their future flirtations....

 

Note, it would be very interesting to hear Logan's thoughts on this - also, has anyone listened to the Broccali/Wilson commentary at this point in the movie?

 

Of course asking my acquaintances is by no means representative of the masses who flocked to this great Bond movie. So how about we scratch the surface a little more here? Chip in with your assumptions regarding Bond & Moneypenny's  possible/not possible/definite  intimacy in this shave & casino scene:

 

1. Did you assume Bond & Moneypenny definitely 'did it' ?
2. Did you assume Bond & Moneypenny definitely did not 'do it'  ?
3. Did you feel it was vague and left unanswered ?

[Baccarat]

On first viewing, I understood completely why Bond missed the shot and why M and Kincade used the torch (both in the context of the scenes and as plot devices). Can't say I gave the timing of the Tube crash or whether Bond and Eve had a "romantic" interlude as much thought as some here. And won't now. I just think SF is superbly entertaining and absolutely works as a whole.

Edited by Baccarat, 18 February 2013 - 01:58 PM.

[delfloria]

Overall it is a very good film and any of the Bond films suffer when put under too much scrutiny. I enjoyed the ride and as a filmmaker look forward to hearing the commentary.

[winstoninabox]

But most of these story points could have been solved within the film itself but they were not which surprises me. 

 

!. Kinkade switches on the torch and M admonishes that they could be seen and switches it off. But Silva has seen the moment.

 

I agree, but I'd put them the other way around. It's far less likely that Kinkade, a man who has lived on these moors for at least 25 years, would be switching on the torch. Whereas M was shot and in dark and unfamiliar surroundings outdoors.

 

And the computer hacking really isn't that difficult.

 

As shown in the dead city part when Silva recounts Bond's medical history to him, Silva was already within MI6's computer system. He knew that they would go to the tunnels and had prepared for that by contingency by learning the old tunnel system. As soon as they went there he tapped into their cabling system. The laptop that Q plugs in was never plugged into the MI6 network, but a standalone system. Q would never make such an elementary mistake! That laptop was just a distraction to jerk them around while Silva made his escape using the access he already had to their system.

 

Now you're going to ask if that's the case why does Q unplug it. Easy, he was panicing and never realized that Silva was already in the system via other means. He did the only thing he could think of, which was to unplug the computer. Besides, it does no harm to do so, takes only a moment, and rules out the impossible of the laptop as the cause. The message that pops up from Silva is a jibe at him for not being as clever as he thought he was in not detecting Silva had been in the system all along.

[winstoninabox]

Oh, and about the shaving. Of course they did it. A sexy woman comes to Bond's hotel room at night, flirts and shaves him while bare-chested, and then shortly after makes innuendo about an extra pair of hands! Mendes must be making fun of the listener if he says that nothing happened.

 

Otherwise how does the scene continue after we leave? Bond thanks her for the shave, finally decides to put a shirt on, escorts her to the door and says see you later at the casino. We know Bond is bouncing back after a bad case of the blues, but still...

[Vauxhall]

I'm two minutes into the commentary and already hooked.

 

Further in, and I notice Sam makes a small mistake. The stolen painting is by Modigliani, not Giacometti. 

[Professor Pi]

RE: the alleged Bond-Moneypenny "hookup."

 

Bond and Eve did NOT do it.  First off, she thwarts him with the "tricky part" when he makes an overture toward her bra.  But more importantly, she wouldn't be so nonchalant with her flirtatious banter with him in the casino afterward.  "She's pretty...if you're into that sort of thing."  If they had been intimate and then he went off with another woman, even in the line of duty,  there would be some SERIOUS HELL TO PAY, gentlemen!