691 replies to this topic

[JCRendle]

I remember when I was in the cinema watching Skyfall. When the DB5 was unveiled, a cheer came from round the cinema

[Matt_13]

I mean it's always great to see it, but I'm definitely surprised they brought it back, especially following its symbolic destruction last time around.

[JCRendle]

Flashbacks? Maybe they've snuck Judi back under cover of darkness to film a scene we didn't see in Skyfall - M tells something to Bond that drives this story?

[Royal Dalton]

As if they would.

[marktmurphy]

It always looks nice though, dunnit? It is surprising after it got blown up, but to be honest given the price of them nowadays I'm not sure it's possible to write one off- always more economic to restore it even if a helicopter's sat on it!  

 

I imagine his insurance is quite good, and you'd have hoped he'd have got a decent payout after his country house exploded (probably best not to tell the investigator that he blew it up himself).

[Tiin007]

Is anyone else afraid that SP is trying too hard to ride the success of Skyfall? It made some sense for the 50th anniversary, but this is just ridiculous (especially considering the car was destroyed in Skyfall).

 

I miss the good ol' days when the series was able to function without constantly self-referencing itself. Yes, the Bond films are iconic, but why the incessant need to shoehorn in nods to the 60s era? I was equally distraught with Fields covered in oil (not to mention QoS's handful of other references), but the fact that this is now continuing in both Skyfall and SP detracts from the whole experience, as if these films are unable to stand on their own merit. Enough with the homages.

[Call Billy Bob]

I, for one, am glad to see it. I'll never NOT want it in a Bond film!

[x007AceOfSpades]

Is anyone else afraid that SP is trying too hard to ride the success of Skyfall? It made some sense for the 50th anniversary, but this is just ridiculous (especially considering the car was destroyed in Skyfall).

 

I miss the good ol' days when the series was able to function without constantly self-referencing itself. Yes, the Bond films are iconic, but why the incessant need to shoehorn in nods to the 60s era? I was equally distraught with Fields covered in oil (not to mention QoS's handful of other references), but the fact that this is now continuing in both Skyfall and SP detracts from the whole experience, as if these films are unable to stand on their own merit. Enough with the homages.

So just because there's a DB5 it's a homage? Unless an ejector seat/button, bullet proof screen, and water jets pop out (which I highly doubt) I don't see it as "self-referencing." It's definitely one of the most recognizable vehicles solely because of Bond. Who says Bond isn't allowed to get another DB5 and who says it isn't someone else driving? If it's on screen for twenty seconds, is it going to be awful?

 

And it should be riding on the success of Skyfall, as should any major sequel/continuation in a major franchise. Skyfall is the billion dollar Bond film, why wouldn't Spectre continue onwards from that success, while still adding in some new tricks.

[Call Billy Bob]

And it should be riding on the success of Skyfall, as should any major sequel/continuation in a major franchise. Skyfall is the billion dollar Bond film, why wouldn't Spectre continue onwards from that success, while still adding in some new tricks.

 

Well said.

[Tiin007]

The series went until 1989 without the need to wink at the audience. The Brosnan era was not too bad either (with the possible exception of DAD, but I can forgive that as it was really the first time).

 

I sometimes just feel as if the Craig era cannot simply move on and create exciting adventures for us without having to constantly remind us of iconic elements of the series from decades ago. Until Brosnan, this never really happened.

[graric]

The series went until 1989 without the need to wink at the audience. The Brosnan era was not too bad either (with the possible exception of DAD, but I can forgive that as it was really the first time).

 

I sometimes just feel as if the Craig era cannot simply move on and create exciting adventures for us without having to constantly remind us of iconic elements of the series from decades ago. Until Brosnan, this never really happened.

 

How about FYEO having the quick shot of Moore's Bond throwing a hat onto the stand in Moneypenny's Office? (Right after dealing with the mysterious villain with a cat after visitng Tracey's grave)- or Living Daylight's being released on the series 25th Anniversary, and being the first since OHMSS to feature Bond with an Aston Martin (which featured laser tyer slashers as an updated reference to Goldfinger's DB5.)?

Or OHMSS little references to each of the prior films?

While I do get the argument that the return of the DB5 (again) can be abit to reliant on the past, I think arguing that the series never winked at the audience about iconic elements before 1989 is a bit misguided- (why else does Moore introduce himself as 'Bond, James Bond' at least once a film? It certainly seemed to be used more as a wink to the audience than as a geniune greeting...heck, Connery only used it 3 times in his tenure and his final use of it was a blatant wink at the audience.)

[thecasinoroyale]

My only issue with the DB5 is logic.

 

We saw him win a car from Dimitrios in 'CR' but I assume that was just left when he bailed for Maimi. That wouldn't be the same one seen in 'SF' as MI6 wouldn't just modify a civilian car with all those gadgets, especially a vintage model such as this.

 

So in the space of two films, he's come across two DB5s. The second was destroyed and I'm sure in nearly 10 years the first would have been taken. Bond isn't going to faff with shipping over a car he won just by playing cards that he didn't REALLY set out to have.

 

So why now is there ANOTHER DB5 floating around? 3 different DB5s in the space of 4 Bond films? That's a little too much for unless this is a really concrete addition and it makes sense and not, as people say, just there so producers can bring out the 007 theme for another little nod at the nostalgia.

[graric]

My only issue with the DB5 is logic.

 

We saw him win a car from Dimitrios in 'CR' but I assume that was just left when he bailed for Maimi. That wouldn't be the same one seen in 'SF' as MI6 wouldn't just modify a civilian car with all those gadgets, especially a vintage model such as this.

 

So in the space of two films, he's come across two DB5s. The second was destroyed and I'm sure in nearly 10 years the first would have been taken. Bond isn't going to faff with shipping over a car he won just by playing cards that he didn't REALLY set out to have.

 

So why now is there ANOTHER DB5 floating around? 3 different DB5s in the space of 4 Bond films? That's a little too much for unless this is a really concrete addition and it makes sense and not, as people say, just there so producers can bring out the 007 theme for another little nod at the nostalgia.

Definetly agree with this (also by including a DB5 in this film, it would have appeared in more Craig films than it has with any other Bond...unless we count the deleted scene in World is not Enough, in which case Brosnan and Craig both used it in 3 films.)
And while I'm fine with abit of logic bending for the 50th Anniversary, I do think something like the DB5 should be kept to a minimum if its not being used for a special occasion- havin it appear just for the sake of appearing does ruin alittle of its mystique.

[marktmurphy]

The series went until 1989 without the need to wink at the audience. 

 

 

Are you talking about the fish?

 

 

The Brosnan era was not too bad either (with the possible exception of DAD, but I can forgive that as it was really the first time).

 

 

But he drove this very same car in his second scene...?

 

My only issue with the DB5 is logic.

 

We saw him win a car from Dimitrios in 'CR' but I assume that was just left when he bailed for Maimi. That wouldn't be the same one seen in 'SF' as MI6 wouldn't just modify a civilian car with all those gadgets, especially a vintage model such as this.

 

So in the space of two films, he's come across two DB5s. The second was destroyed and I'm sure in nearly 10 years the first would have been taken. Bond isn't going to faff with shipping over a car he won just by playing cards that he didn't REALLY set out to have.

 

So why now is there ANOTHER DB5 floating around? 3 different DB5s in the space of 4 Bond films? That's a little too much for unless this is a really concrete addition and it makes sense and not, as people say, just there so producers can bring out the 007 theme for another little nod at the nostalgia.

 

Well, if you need it to make sense (and I don't! ) you could say he won the car in the Bahamas, got it shipped to the UK (not very much trouble; we even see him going back there with M) where he asked a man he's friendly with in Q Branch to modify it to right hand drive. And because he was grateful to Bond for not killing/sleeping with his family members, the Q Branch man also slipped a few gadgets from an old decommissioned Q car (say an old Jaguar or something) he had in the garage onto the Aston (this would explain how M knew about the ejector seat button).

Then it gets blown up, but we still see that it's not actually blown to bits completely- it looks like it would be burnt out, and as it's worth at least £700,000 it's well worth restoring. Plus James has come into some insurance money now his huge house has burnt down.

 

 

(Or alternatively you could believe that Bond actually pulled a clever switch and it wasn't his car at all but in fact an old Porsche he found in the gardens. Look at it from another angle: )

[sharpshooter]

I, for one, am glad to see it. I'll never NOT want it in a Bond film!

This. If this is SPECTRE's biggest 'problem', we're going to be alright. The DB5 is a great looking car and audiences roared with enthusiasm when it appeared in Skyfall.

[Simon]

Even the least demanding of audiences will be asking Why, or at least How it could be sewn back together again after being pulverised in Sf.

 

Anniversary self referencing is fine.  But every film...?

[marktmurphy]

Even the least demanding of audiences will be asking Why, or at least How it could be sewn back together again after being pulverised in Sf.

 

Anniversary self referencing is fine.  But every film...?

 

How? It just got rebuilt. Not that hard; cars get rebuilt all the time, especially ones as valuable. Rowan Atkinson destroyed his McLaren (tore it in half!) but it's back in perfect condition because it's worth an absolute shedload. If you look at it in Skyfall it doesn't even really get blown apart; just burnt out.

 

And is it self-referencing now? Surely it's just James Bond's car?

[Jim]

The old reliable argument that Bond adventures could be stand-alone and not really matter tends to turn to dust given the attempts at continuity lately seen.

 

Does seem a bit odd to include it - if it ends up being included. I suppose anything's potentially a victim to subsequent editing decisions. Possibly too expensive to set up and cut out.

 

Would be funny if it's M's car.

 

Maybe it's not a reference to earlier Bonds but to that episode of The Saint in which the DB5 with that registration appeared. So it's not Bond's car but that of whatever character it was Anthony Quayle played, impounded when he was arrested (sorry if that's a spoiler of a fifty-odd year old tv episode).

[marktmurphy]

I doubt Bond folk worry very much about things being too expensive! And they own the car anyway, don't they? No cost to Eon.

[Jim]

Sound point! I suppose if you've got it, flaunt it. And no harm in suggesting it was rebuilt, as you say. Possibly rebuilt "but it's not the same", hence the issuing of the DB10 instead.

 

Someone managed to build a whole space station without it being noticed, after all. One car isn't a wholesale stretch of credibility in such august company.

[marktmurphy]

Although as you mention continuity, this is looking like the most continuity-heavy Bond film ever, really. Mr White's in there, the bulldog, all the new MI6 staff dealing with the events of the last film etc.

[Simon]

I understand that we, the intensely interested forum members, would be able to explain anything away, given the time and the need to believe.

 

I believe I am trying to distance myself from this niche and perhaps see it from a general audience's point of view whose reaction will be one of,

 

'Didn't that get blown up in the last one, thingummyFall?  What the F***?  Fancy a pint?'

[JCRendle]

But we don't know what context the car turns up in, Simon, you're saying that the audience will be like "wasn't it blown up" - If the car appears with no explanation at all then sure, I could understand the audience being nonplussed, but I doubt they would include the car without a little bit of explanatory dialogue on how or why it was rebuilt or whether it was the same car or a different one. 

 

And before anyone says "The DB5 in Skyfall wasn't explained", it didn't need to be, it hadn't been seen engulfed in a fireball before, just last seen in the Bahamas, with a different number plate so it could have been a different car or it could have been tinkered with by Q branch - they allowed the audience to interpret that one.  

[sharpshooter]

But we don't know what context the car turns up in, Simon, you're saying that the audience will be like "wasn't it blown up" - If the car appears with no explanation at all then sure, I could understand the audience being nonplussed, but I doubt they would include the car without a little bit of explanatory dialogue on how or why it was rebuilt or whether it was the same car or a different one.

I agree. As marktmurphy said, this is going to be a continuity heavy film. If they mention the car has been repaired or replaced, ala FYEO's Lotus, that would be fine with me. Either way, I'm happy to have the car back.

Edited by sharpshooter, 09 March 2015 - 12:48 PM.

[Tiin007]

After I bemoaned the self-referencing in the Craig era, graric responded:

"How about FYEO having the quick shot of Moore's Bond throwing a hat onto the stand in Moneypenny's Office? (Right after dealing with the mysterious villain with a cat after visitng Tracey's grave)- or Living Daylight's being released on the series 25th Anniversary, and being the first since OHMSS to feature Bond with an Aston Martin (which featured laser tyer slashers as an updated reference to Goldfinger's DB5.)?

Or OHMSS little references to each of the prior films?

While I do get the argument that the return of the DB5 (again) can be abit to reliant on the past, I think arguing that the series never winked at the audience about iconic elements before 1989 is a bit misguided- (why else does Moore introduce himself as 'Bond, James Bond' at least once a film? It certainly seemed to be used more as a wink to the audience than as a geniune greeting...heck, Connery only used it 3 times in his tenure and his final use of it was a blatant wink at the audience.)" (My quote function is not working, so I merely copied and pasted his words.)

 

I do not think those examples are the type of thing I am talking about when I say self-referencing. "Bond, James Bond" is his introduction, much the same way as his drink of preference has been a "martini, shaken, not stirred." I would argue that that is part of the character and not a nostalgic wink.

 

Getting rid of Blofeld at the beginning of FYEO was a way at achieving closure for that storyline, especially with McClory's constant attempts to make his own film. That PTS also added continuity to the franchise, demonstrating that Moore's Bond was indeed the same Bond who lost Tracy (LTK and TSWLM's references to Tracy achieved the same effect).

 

The Aston Martin in TLD is a self-reference? Hardly. Bond is given fancy gadget-laden cars throughout the series (the Lotus and BMW being other examples). He was also given an Aston Martin in DAD and CR, yet I find no problem in that as none of these examples are 50-year old cars being shoehorned in to the film. GE and TND each included the DB5 also, but for such brief scenes that I can forgive it. And yes, I can understand Skyfall being the 50th anniversary film. I am just objecting to ANOTHER appearance in SP.

 

Bond throwing the hat in Moneypenny's office? This was way less blatant than anything done in Qos or Skyfall.

 

And as for OHMSS, we all know that EON felt they had to include such references as the Bond actor switched, and they needed to assure audiences that even without Connery, Bond was still Bond. Plus, it didn't turn into a habit-- that really only lasted one film, and was only a scene or two. With the Craig era, it feels like the need to shoehorn in innuendos has been replaced with a need to shoehorn in nostalgic elements.

 

Are you really telling me that the DB5's (possible) return for SPECTRE is the same as the Aston Martin in TLD?

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

I don't see the problem with the DB5. It's an iconic piece of the Bond Mythis. The films are all make believe, and perhaps those cars are much more common in the Bondiverse. Just my $.02. I rather see 007 in DB5 than in any other car.

[SecretAgentFan]

Also, how the DB5 is in it and why can only really be evaluated once we see the film.

[Simon]

If they mention the car has been repaired or replaced, ala FYEO's Lotus, that would be fine with me. Either way, I'm happy to have the car back.

 

That was a Moore joke.  He was again having fun at Q's expense.  Nothing was repaired.

 

And if you were already aware of that and was thinking the same sort of joke would work in the Craig era, I would tend to disagree.

[graric]

After I bemoaned the self-referencing in the Craig era, graric responded:

"How about FYEO having the quick shot of Moore's Bond throwing a hat onto the stand in Moneypenny's Office? (Right after dealing with the mysterious villain with a cat after visitng Tracey's grave)- or Living Daylight's being released on the series 25th Anniversary, and being the first since OHMSS to feature Bond with an Aston Martin (which featured laser tyer slashers as an updated reference to Goldfinger's DB5.)?

Or OHMSS little references to each of the prior films?

While I do get the argument that the return of the DB5 (again) can be abit to reliant on the past, I think arguing that the series never winked at the audience about iconic elements before 1989 is a bit misguided- (why else does Moore introduce himself as 'Bond, James Bond' at least once a film? It certainly seemed to be used more as a wink to the audience than as a geniune greeting...heck, Connery only used it 3 times in his tenure and his final use of it was a blatant wink at the audience.)" (My quote function is not working, so I merely copied and pasted his words.)

 

I do not think those examples are the type of thing I am talking about when I say self-referencing. "Bond, James Bond" is his introduction, much the same way as his drink of preference has been a "martini, shaken, not stirred." I would argue that that is part of the character and not a nostalgic wink.

 

Getting rid of Blofeld at the beginning of FYEO was a way at achieving closure for that storyline, especially with McClory's constant attempts to make his own film. That PTS also added continuity to the franchise, demonstrating that Moore's Bond was indeed the same Bond who lost Tracy (LTK and TSWLM's references to Tracy achieved the same effect).

 

The Aston Martin in TLD is a self-reference? Hardly. Bond is given fancy gadget-laden cars throughout the series (the Lotus and BMW being other examples). He was also given an Aston Martin in DAD and CR, yet I find no problem in that as none of these examples are 50-year old cars being shoehorned in to the film. GE and TND each included the DB5 also, but for such brief scenes that I can forgive it. And yes, I can understand Skyfall being the 50th anniversary film. I am just objecting to ANOTHER appearance in SP.

 

Bond throwing the hat in Moneypenny's office? This was way less blatant than anything done in Qos or Skyfall.

 

And as for OHMSS, we all know that EON felt they had to include such references as the Bond actor switched, and they needed to assure audiences that even without Connery, Bond was still Bond. Plus, it didn't turn into a habit-- that really only lasted one film, and was only a scene or two. With the Craig era, it feels like the need to shoehorn in innuendos has been replaced with a need to shoehorn in nostalgic elements.

 

Are you really telling me that the DB5's (possible) return for SPECTRE is the same as the Aston Martin in TLD?

 

I was just pointing out that winks to the series past, and its iconography, are a part of the series history since before 1989 - (which was your initial statement I was disagreeing with)- and they can even be quite fun...although I do agree with your suggestion that the DB5 in SPECTRE could be going over board.

 

(And TLD Aston was most certainly a reference to the series own past and iconography- a big emphasis was placed on Bond driving an Aston Martin for the 25th Anniversary, and the Laser tyre slashers was an overt nod the DB5's tyre slashers.)
And 'Bond, James Bond' and 'Shaken Not Stirred' are as much a part of the series iconography as the Aston Martin- and while not every use of the phrase is a nostalgic wink to the past Eon has frequently chosen to use it in a knowing way with the audience to either reference the past (like Brosnan's first use in GE in a Casino flirting with a reckless girl, or Moore in the casino in Octopussy)- or as a knowing wink to get a reaction from the audience (Sean Connery's reintroduction in Diamonds, the end of Casino Royale.)-

These moments are driven just as much by the producers anticipating the audience reaction (based on nostalgia for the franchise) as the re-use of the DB5 is.

 

There are plenty more moments of self-reference I could pick up if I was too think through the films in more depth- (VeeJay playing the Bond theme in Octopussy, or the Janitory whistling the Goldfinger theme in OHMSS came into my head while writing this)- so I stand by my initial point that this wasn't something the franchise started doing after 1989...it has been playing with its iconography since close too the start of the series.

And while it may go overboard (as the return of the DB5 in SPECTRE looks like it will)- it is part of the fun of the franchise, to see returning iconography and nods too the past.

[Vauxhall]

I, for one, am glad to see it. I'll never NOT want it in a Bond film!

This. If this is SPECTRE's biggest 'problem', we're going to be alright. The DB5 is a great looking car and audiences roared with enthusiasm when it appeared in Skyfall.

Agreed. I'm looking forward to it. Sure the reveal will be a great moment.