318 replies to this topic

[DaveBond21]

Yes, me too. Everything being inter-related means that Mr White would know all about Bond before the events of Casino Royale.

 

Yet in QOS, he said he was 'always very interested to meet" Bond, because he had heard so much about him from Vesper. So are we now to assume that he was lying and already knew everything about Bond?

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[JCRendle]

I agree with all previous: Mr. White had never met Bond. Any contact is coincidental.

[DaveBond21]

I love Mr White's voice.

 

The trailer starts the same way that the QOS one did - with Mr White talking to Bond.

[Odd Jobbies]

Yeah, I don't buy that. It's bit soapy, everybody being interrelated.

If it were coincidence, then yes. But if Bond's career had been 'helped' along by SPECTRE, then no, it's not coincidence, it's planning.

 

RE everyone's point that Bond should've recognised White if he were indeed Hans Oberhauser: I've already suggested brain washing/conditioning as a plausible rationale to this. If SPECTRE had indeed instigated and arranged young Bond's placement with one of their own assets, then it certainly wouldn't be so that they could make him a happy wee chappy and pat him on the back at the end of his happy fostering with some fond childhood memories... It'd be so they could condition and prime the child to be their future asset, which obviously entails brain washing and memory manipulation.

 

This could involve initiating and keeping the child into adulthood, to take up the 'family business', but this would require the child being theirs from an earlier age than 12 (which Bond was at the time). This 'family business' profile could fit Blofeld.

 

With a 12 year old Bond, already in an emotionally fragile state after his parents deaths SPECTRE could very plausibly condition, brain-wash the boy, planting seed and directives that are buried in the sub-conscious, memories of this brain washing replaced with cliche, happy images of skiing and first female encounters.

 

The sinister directives now wait to be woken by the correct prompt. This prompt could be musical - it could be the 007 theme tapped out on the rim of a champagne glass as perhaps Waltz did at the end of the teaser trailer. This sets up a thrilling story in which Bond takes Blofeld's orders and the audience are left to dangle in the hurricane wondering when/how/if Bond's conditioning will be broken.

 

In this scenario it's entirely plausible that Bond's memory of Oberherhauser had been manipulated and supplanted with another. Perhaps that's a fake photo - part of the conditioning given to teenage Bond when he returned to England. It would be a nice moment for White to prove this unbelievable story to Bond (who's in denial) by showing Bond the original photo in which White is the figure in the middle.

 

Even if it's not White in the photo, the rest of my plot idea would still work very well. After all Bond's brain washing was a story line used by Fleming himself.

 

ETA: Just seen the comment about White having been interested to meet Bond. That's a very good point indeed. I'm sure Logan could post rationalise this if he wanted to - White hadn't met Bond face to face since that brief fostering. However, as an alternative (which i've suggested on a previous page of this thread) White could've been the 'foster-fixer', as i'd already just said, he could've placed young Bond with the sinister Oberhauser family on behalf of SPECTRE - i can see the creepy Mr White as a Fleming-esque Kiddy-Catcher.

 

I think it's pretty obvious this story revolves around that fostering period and that's too random for my liking if SPECTRE didn't play a part in it. Blofeld has to be the other child in the photo - the torn image of the other child obviously signals the film's big question: Which of the character's we'll meet in this film will ultimately reveal themselves to be that child - who is Blofeld?

 

That suggests there could be a twist at the end and instead of Waltz it's Scott, or even Bellucci (the other child in the photo could be a girl). Or they could pull a total shocker and have an unannounced star reveal, such as Mendes collaborator Spacey (i doubt and hope that doesn't happen)

 

I do like the idea of Bond's mission being helped along by Scott's seemingly sympathetic character, only to find out that Scott was having Bond do his dirty work for him; removing Waltz from the head of the table so that Scott could fill SPECTRE's power vacuum as the rightful heir. This would create a great springboard from which to dive into the next movie, as Bond hunts Scott's Blofeld.

 

ETA2: Yep, just watched the teaser again and i'm definitely going with Sleeper Agents theory... I think that meeting includes members of MI6 and Waltz is confidently welcoming someone he assumes is under his influence having been successfully activated and has come 'home'.

 

I'm really hoping that tapped out Bond theme we hear is his 'Manchurian Cndidate'  activation method - played on a glass, or perhaps the chimes of a clock?  It's a damn clever way of making the theme - an intangible part of the Bond meta-verse - a tangible part of his reality; just like they did by having CR's pre-titles toilet fight end with Bond doing the iconic gun barrel turn, shooting the man aiming his gun barrel at Bond.

 

The central theme throughout this reboot has been that of the original novel - identity crises. Brain washing Bond in his childhood takes identity crises to the Nth degree and that in itself, as much as the clues in the teaser lead me believe that it's Logan & Mendes obvious conclusion to Craig's incarnation.

[Victor Zokas]

 

Bond needs to stop moping around and get himself a girlfriend. Or a hobby he really enjoys.

 

I think he has a hobby he really enjoys. Killing people

 

 

 

 

I thought his hobby was resurrection. But he might have made that up whilst he was having his thighs fondled.

 

Does anyone know who did the music for the teaser trailer?

[Alex Zamudio]

I liked the teaser quite a bit, I like the mysterious and unsettling tone, a corrupt and dark spy world, but why does it have to have a personal connection to James Bond's past? I hate this, SPECTRE the organization should only be a mission and a Target for Bond, why does he have to be linked to it? it bores me a little bit, I know the movie will kick ass nonetheless, but it should only get personal if Tracy is ever involved again...

[Vauxhall]

SPECTRE the organization should only be a mission and a Target for Bond, why does he have to be linked to it? 

 

I'm going to predict now that this exact sentiment is going to be the major headache around these parts in November. The teaser has pretty much confirmed what many of us were suspecting about the links between Bond and Waltz's character.

[tdalton]

 

SPECTRE the organization should only be a mission and a Target for Bond, why does he have to be linked to it? 

 

I'm going to predict now that this exact sentiment is going to be the major headache around these parts in November. The teaser has pretty much confirmed what many of us were suspecting about the links between Bond and Waltz's character.

 

 

I'd say that's a pretty fair prediction.  It really is a connection that, unless they do something completely off the grid with it that manages to be a cool twist or if it just turns out to be a red herring, should have been left out of the script going into production.  If they wanted to tie things to Bond's past, they could have just as easily explored the idea of Bond being forced to ally himself with Mr. White, someone that's caused him a great deal of personal pain, in order to find a way to penetrate SPECTRE.  The idea of SPECTRE, Oberhauser, and possibly even Blofeld being tied back to Bond's childhood is just way over the top.

[Odd Jobbies]

I wasn't keen on yet more delving into Bond's past at first, but i do think the Oberhauser fostering idea is pretty elegant.

 

I just hope it's tied to SPECTRE in an integral, equally historical way, or else it is just slapping story elements together and calling it coincidence to fill 120 minutes.  For me having SPECTRE be the fostering organisation and the puppet masters of Bond career is superbly sinister and twisted in a very Fleming-esque way.

 

It also requires something that epic and foundation shifting to justify another dive into the past.

[tdalton]

I wasn't keen on yet more delving into Bond's past at first, but i do think the Oberhauser fostering idea is pretty elegant.

 

I just hope it's tied to SPECTRE in an integral, equally historical way, or else it is just slapping story elements together and calling it coincidence to fill 120 minutes.  For me having SPECTRE be the fostering organisation and the puppet masters of Bond career is superbly sinister and twisted in a very Fleming-esque way.

 

It also requires something that epic and foundation shifting to justify another dive into the past.

 

While I'd have to say that there would be a part of me that would really respect EON for having the nerve to actually do something that radical, at the end of the day it's just an idea that I can't really get behind, at least for SPECTRE.  Had EON decided to try this in a film that was just a one-off, or where the whole idea of the villain pulling the strings to get Bond to do his bidding, then that would be great.  I've actually called for such a plot on several occasions, even going so far as to have the twist at the end being Bond realizing that he's been doing the villain's bidding all along.

 

But, having it be the case that Bond has been, for a span of four films and, ostensibly, all of his life, I can't get behind that.  To take the film adaptation of one of my favorite novels (Casino Royale, even with all the issues I have with the film as an adaptation of the novel), and to take another of my favorite Bond films (Quantum of Solace) and basically turn Bond from being the hero in them into something of a lackey for SPECTRE would take a bit away from both of those films, and it would have a similar (and maybe even greater) effect on Skyfall.

[Guy Haines]

Just one other thing. If the figure whose face we can't see in the photo is Franz Oberhauser, then Bond must have put on a growth spurt in his teens and Franz must have slowed down, because Christoph Waltz is slightly shorter than Daniel Craig in height. Or maybe I've got the figures the wrong way around, and it's Bond's face you can't see. But I doubt it. Watching the teaser several times over, the smaller figure looks like it has  the pre-or-early teen Daniel Craig's face to me.

[stromberg]

Just one other thing. If the figure whose face we can't see in the photo is Franz Oberhauser, then Bond must have put on a growth spurt in his teens and Franz must have slowed down, because Christoph Waltz is slightly shorter than Daniel Craig in height. Or maybe I've got the figures the wrong way around, and it's Bond's face you can't see. But I doubt it. Watching the teaser several times over, the smaller figure looks like it has  the pre-or-early teen Daniel Craig's face to me.

I'd say they're just children of a different age. One is twelve years old (Bond), the other maybe fourteen or even sixteen. When they'r grown men, the younger one may end up taller than the older one.

[stamper]

I don't get all these crazy theories. The plot of the film is available to read to all and as been since at least december.

Did no one read it? You can just google it and find numerous news about it.

[stromberg]

I don't get all these crazy theories. The plot of the film is available to read to all and as been since at least december.

Did no one read it? You can just google it and find numerous news about it.

November. We're not that stupid. But some people just don't want this. Reading the stuff now spoils the fun for the rest of the year.

[Vauxhall]

I don't get all these crazy theories. The plot of the film is available to read to all and as been since at least december.
Did no one read it? You can just google it and find numerous news about it.

This is the non-spoiler section, so most have chosen not to pursue those reports.

[tdalton]

 

I don't get all these crazy theories. The plot of the film is available to read to all and as been since at least december.

Did no one read it? You can just google it and find numerous news about it.

November. We're not that stupid. But some people just don't want this. Reading the stuff now spoils the fun for the rest of the year.

 

 

Agreed.  What's the point of going to the movie if you can read every minute detail about it a year in advance?  

 

Then there's the issue of looking over information that has clearly been stolen from EON and Sony's possession.  Doing so only further emboldens the hackers to continue doing this kind of nonsense in the future.

[stromberg]

Then there's the issue of looking over information that has clearly been stolen from EON and Sony's possession.  Doing so only further emboldens the hackers to continue doing this kind of nonsense in the future.

And it puts you in bed with Kim Jong-un.

[glidrose]

Just one other thing. If the figure whose face we can't see in the photo is Franz Oberhauser, then Bond must have put on a growth spurt in his teens and Franz must have slowed down, because Christoph Waltz is slightly shorter than Daniel Craig in height. Or maybe I've got the figures the wrong way around, and it's Bond's face you can't see. But I doubt it. Watching the teaser several times over, the smaller figure looks like it has  the pre-or-early teen Daniel Craig's face to me.

In fact that *is* the young real-life Daniel Craig's face. Also Waltz is twelve years older than Craig, so a 24 year old is bound to be taller than a twelve year old, presuming of course the real-life age carries on into the film.
 

I don't get all these crazy theories. The plot of the film is available to read to all and as been since at least december.
Did no one read it? You can just google it and find numerous news about it.

November. We're not that stupid. But some people just don't want this. Reading the stuff now spoils the fun for the rest of the year.

 
Agreed.  What's the point of going to the movie if you can read every minute detail about it a year in advance?

To see how it plays out onscreen! With all due respect, that's almost like saying what's the point of seeing a movie twice? I don't want to side-track the original topic, so for those interested, we do have a dedicated *non-spoiler* thread where people can discuss their own "to spoil or not to spoil" preferences at http://debrief.comma...ree-discussion/
 
 

This is the non-spoiler thread right?
 
How come there are spoilers on here?

"The white zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the red zone."

"No, the Red zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the White zone."

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit amphetamines!

[tdalton]

 

To see how it plays out onscreen! With all due respect, that's almost like saying what's the point of seeing a movie twice? I don't want to side-track the original topic, so for those interested, we do have a dedicated *non-spoiler* thread where people can discuss their own "to spoil or not to spoil" preferences at http://debrief.comma...ree-discussion/
 
 

 

Actually, it is in no way the same thing.  When I go to see a movie for the first time, I want to be surprised by it. I want to experience the story that the filmmakers are telling for the first time.  Reading the script and other bits of information the hackers stole would rob me of that experience.  With repeated viewings, sure, you're not getting that initial experience, but by reading the entire film before you actually see it, I'd be robbing myself of ever having that experience at all.

[Odd Jobbies]

Just one other thing. If the figure whose face we can't see in the photo is Franz Oberhauser, then Bond must have put on a growth spurt in his teens and Franz must have slowed down, because Christoph Waltz is slightly shorter than Daniel Craig in height. Or maybe I've got the figures the wrong way around, and it's Bond's face you can't see. But I doubt it. Watching the teaser several times over, the smaller figure looks like it has  the pre-or-early teen Daniel Craig's face to me.

The mystery kid isn't taller than the other, he's just standing on a big rock.

....by reading the entire film before you actually see it, I'd be robbing myself of ever having that experience at all.

 

Absolutamondo!

[DaveBond21]

 

 

To see how it plays out onscreen! With all due respect, that's almost like saying what's the point of seeing a movie twice? I don't want to side-track the original topic, so for those interested, we do have a dedicated *non-spoiler* thread where people can discuss their own "to spoil or not to spoil" preferences at http://debrief.comma...ree-discussion/
 
 

 

It's in no way the same thing.  When I go to see a movie for the first time, I want to be surprised by it. I want to experience the story that the filmmakers are telling for the first time.  Reading the script and other bits of information the hackers stole would rob me of that experience.  With repeated viewings, sure, you're not getting that initial experience, but by reading the entire film before you actually see it, I'd be robbing myself of ever having that experience at all.

 

 

Very true. And also this is the non-spoiler section, which is for those who are avoiding the plot details. We only have to wait 8 months - it's not that long!

 

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[stromberg]

Again (as with CR), there are two kinds of spoilers: the ones that come from a leaked script and the ones that come to the light of day while they are shooting. I haven't read the leaked information and I avoid all info that seems to origin from that source. Of course, this gets more and more difficult, especially as I watch every video, look at every picture and read every article eye can get my hands on. There'll be a point when it'll become virtually impossible to differ where something comes from, but by that time, I'll probably know as much about the movie that it won't matter, anyway. Traveling hopefully, sort of.

 

Certainly interesting, to watch the whole thing unfold with full knowledge of what's going to happen. Might want to try this the next time, but I doubt there'll be another opportunity anytime soon.

[MarcAngeDraco]

Perhaps the teaser is just misdirection and the Oberhausers aren't bad at all.

 

Maybe they're just here to pump Bond up.  

 

 

 Groaning at my own bad joke...  LOL

[Guy Haines]

I think we can take convoluted conspiracy theories about who is doing what too far. As far as I can make out from the teaser, Christoph Waltz is playing "the villain". Whether that villain is named Oberhauser, or Blofeld, or Oberhauser who is revealed as Blofeld (or the other way around for that matter!), or a villain who is neither Oberhauser or Blofeld we shall learn in November 2015.

 

(Sorry if that was a bit convoluted! )

[bond_azoozbond]

SPECTRE is a big organization and their biggest enemy is Bond .. I guess they could be digging on his past to mix things up .. So his past could be against him and this is what the organization playing on .. Im thinking since many of us are not pleased with touching bond's past , the writers are using this point to build the connection between bond and spectre again ..

[sharpshooter]

To be honest, I'm not too fussed about the whole thing. At the end of the day, film is an elevated form of reality. I think that's an important point. We don't go to the movies, particularly Bond movies, to see the normal and routine. The Bond films may have harder violence and less gadgets these days. But they have never strived for any form of 'pure' reality, and that's not a putdown. Poetic licence and a sense of playfulness are some of the franchise's best assets. Tim Burton had The Joker as the killer of Batman's parents. I rolled with that, and if Mendes wants to make any other personal connections to our hero, I'll judge them accordingly.

[x007AceOfSpades]

To be honest, I'm not too fussed about the whole thing. At the end of the day, film is an elevated form of reality. I think that's an important point. We don't go to the movies, particularly Bond movies, to see the normal and routine. The Bond films may have harder violence and less gadgets these days. But they have never strived for any form of 'pure' reality, and that's not a putdown. Poetic licence and a sense of playfulness are some of the franchise's best assets. Tim Burton had The Joker as the killer of Batman's parents. I rolled with that, and if Mendes wants to make any other personal connections to our hero, I'll judge them accordingly.

Perfectly said, I couldn't agree more.

[Call Billy Bob]

Tim Burton had The Joker as the killer of Batman's parents.

IMHO, one of the only two or three flaws in an otherwise perfect film

[glidrose]

To see how it plays out onscreen! With all due respect, that's almost like saying what's the point of seeing a movie twice? I don't want to side-track the original topic, so for those interested, we do have a dedicated *non-spoiler* thread where people can discuss their own "to spoil or not to spoil" preferences at http://debrief.comma...ree-discussion/

 
Actually, it is in no way the same thing.

For you it isn't. For me it almost is.
 

When I go to see a movie for the first time, I want to be surprised by it. I want to experience the story that the filmmakers are telling for the first time.  Reading the script and other bits of information the hackers stole would rob me of that experience.  With repeated viewings, sure, you're not getting that initial experience, but by reading the entire film before you actually see it, I'd be robbing myself of ever having that experience at all.

But here's the thing. You want to be surprised. You want that initial "virgin" experience. I don't. Horses for courses, of course. Again, we hashed this out in the other thread. Some people love spoilers, others hate 'em. We all gave our reasons. It does seem that age is a factor.

 

I don't get all these crazy theories. The plot of the film is available to read to all and as been since at least december.
Did no one read it? You can just google it and find numerous news about it.

This is the non-spoiler section, so most have chosen not to pursue those reports.

I have to defend Stamper here. I presume that he doesn't understand why people will theorize about the story if they don't want to know the answer. I guess Stamper assumes - rightly or wrongly - that if a person openly theorizes about the film, that must mean they want to know, and if they want to know, why not just check out the spoilers? Other than showing off one's imagination, what good is openly theorizing? (Other than, "Well, because it's fun and this is an open forum and we can say what we like!")

Imagine a child excitedly discussing what he thinks he may have gotten for Christmas in front of his parents ad nauseum. Sooner or later one of the parents will tell the child, "You got a lump of coal in your stocking and a new pair of Y-fronts. Now sit down and finish your porridge."

[tdalton]

I can't even say that I understand the point of this post.  You come into the non-spoiler section of the forum, criticize those of us who don't want to read the stolen information and have the movie completely spoiled for us, and then dismiss the opinion opposite of yours by saying that we'd already hashed all of this out before, even though you were the one who instigated this round of the argument in the first place.  Then, to top it off, you condescend based on age, holding your opinion up as though it's more valid because, I'm presuming, you're older than those of us who don't want to have spoilers in the non-spoiler forum?

 

I'm not trying to pick an argument.  I'm really not.  I just simply don't understand the point of your post at all.