108 replies to this topic

[AMC Hornet]

They're saving the big finale for the next one.

[DaveBond21]

 

I know Bond tossed his gun away on the bridge and that Q says that he'd thought Bond had gone, but I still don't think it's necessarily implied that he has left the service. I look at it as him going away on leave with Madeleine and the filmmakers are being purposefully coy about the issue particularly with the possibility of SPECTRE being Daniel Craig's last 007 film (although I believe he will do 1 more) 

I agree. I think Bond's seeing where it goes with Madeleine, if stopping is a good idea for him - ala the conversation on the train. If Craig doesn't return, that's his ending. And if he does, they can elaborate on it. 

 

 

I was thinking this. If it turns out to be Daniel's last 007 adventure, then this is a fitting final scene.

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

[tonyvenhuizen]

I just saw SPECTRE again today.  I took note of a few questions that I noticed.  Please forgive me if any of these have been raised:

 

1 - When Bond is talking to Mr. White:  Given the security camera in the house, isn't it very foolish for Mr. White to tell Bond out loud where to find Madeleine?  Both of them knew the camera was there.  It could be that neither realized that Blofeld was tapped into the camera - Mr. White may have used it just to monitor the house from his basement control room.  Even then, wouldn't he be concerned that the recording would fall into SPECTRE's hands?  I assume that is house Hinx found Madeleine at the clinic.

 

1a - And who is it that Mr. White plays in chess?  

 

2 - Did anyone else notice, at the Sciarra funeral scene, that Bond and Blofeld were wearing identical sunglasses?  They were distinctive because of the gold stripe on the sides.  I suppose it was a device to suggest a connection between them - but quite a coincidence.  It would have made more sense if one of the old childhood photos had shown them both wearing the sunglasses or something.

 

3 - Just curious - What on earth is that gun that Hinx shoots at Bond's plane with in the Austria chase?  It looks like a double-barrel shotgun pistol?

 

4 - When Bond is showing Madeleine how to use a handgun, she tells him the story about "a man coming to my house to kill my father," and explains that she used a Beretta he had hidden under the sink.  Later, Blofeld tells Madeleine that he had first met her as a little girl, when he came to meet her father.  He asks Madeleine if she remembers, and she says she doesn't.  I assume these two stories are unconnected, but in that case it is striking how similar they are.  Could it be that Blofeld was the visitor Madeleine remembered, and she shot him but didn't kill him?  And denied remembering when he asked?

 

5 - Blofeld tells Bond "all the women in your life end up dead."  He then states two examples - Vesper and M.  Are those the only two he is taking credit for, or is he just mentioning the two most painful examples?  Because other women have wound up dead also - Solange, Fields, and Severine occur to me.  If Blofeld is taking credit for those as well, it begs the question:  Why was Camille Montes spared?

 

6 - Finally, why is the old MI6 Vauxhall Cross building in such dilapidated condition?  In SKYFALL, there is an explosion in M's office, but it appears to be very localized to that one portion of the building - and the small number of casualties confirms that.  Why, then, is the entire building basically trashed now?  Even if they decided to abandon it after Silva's attack, most of the building would still appear to be in normal condition.

[S K Y F A L L]

 

 

4 - When Bond is showing Madeleine how to use a handgun, she tells him the story about "a man coming to my house to kill my father," and explains that she used a Beretta he had hidden under the sink.  Later, Blofeld tells Madeleine that he had first met her as a little girl, when he came to meet her father.  He asks Madeleine if she remembers, and she says she doesn't.  I assume these two stories are unconnected, but in that case it is striking how similar they are.  Could it be that Blofeld was the visitor Madeleine remembered, and she shot him but didn't kill him?  And denied remembering when he asked?

 

 

 

 

I assumed there was a loose connection there too. Have to see it again and again but I believe you are right.

[SecretAgentFan]

I think those two stories are completely unrelated.  Mr. White was visited by Blofeld once.  And he, of course, was also visited by an assassin at some point.

[Dustin]

I'm currently wondering, were the crows at White's hut originally meant as a reference to Hugin and Munin, the ravens of Odin, his 'intelligence service'? I believe in a later shot there are more than just two, so maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree.

[Vauxhall]

I think those two stories are completely unrelated. Mr. White was visited by Blofeld once. And he, of course, was also visited by an assassin at some point.

Blofeld's reply when Madeleine says she doesn't remember is very creepy, almost seedy - "oh, but I do..."

[tonyvenhuizen]

I think those two stories are completely unrelated. Mr. White was visited by Blofeld once. And he, of course, was also visited by an assassin at some point.

Blofeld's reply when Madeleine says she doesn't remember is very creepy, almost seedy - "oh, but I do..."

The whole thing is weird. Madeleine never says that she killed the visitor but it's implied. Then he mentions this story in an odd way and doesn't tie it back to everything. They should have either tied them together more explicitly or left Blofeld's remark out.

[RMc2]

 

 

 

4 - When Bond is showing Madeleine how to use a handgun, she tells him the story about "a man coming to my house to kill my father," and explains that she used a Beretta he had hidden under the sink.  Later, Blofeld tells Madeleine that he had first met her as a little girl, when he came to meet her father.  He asks Madeleine if she remembers, and she says she doesn't.  I assume these two stories are unconnected, but in that case it is striking how similar they are.  Could it be that Blofeld was the visitor Madeleine remembered, and she shot him but didn't kill him?  And denied remembering when he asked?

 

 

 

 

I assumed there was a loose connection there too. Have to see it again and again but I believe you are right.

 

 

Yeah, I'm pretty sure this is an attempt to make a personal connection between Blofeld and Madeleine too. Hence the "reunion" remark.

 

I'm currently wondering, were the crows at White's hut originally meant as a reference to Hugin and Munin, the ravens of Odin, his 'intelligence service'? I believe in a later shot there are more than just two, so maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree.

 

I thought that too. But maybe I'm too used to looking for Marvel easter eggs.

[Jim]

 

 

I think those two stories are completely unrelated. Mr. White was visited by Blofeld once. And he, of course, was also visited by an assassin at some point.

Blofeld's reply when Madeleine says she doesn't remember is very creepy, almost seedy - "oh, but I do..."

The whole thing is weird. Madeleine never says that she killed the visitor but it's implied. Then he mentions this story in an odd way and doesn't tie it back to everything. They should have either tied them together more explicitly or left Blofeld's remark out.

 

 

I took it as an in-reference back to the nature of the childhood encounter between Rapey General Thingy and Camille in Quantum of Solace.

 

There are no original ideas.

[Wronschien]

Just a quick question, I didn't quite understand why Denbigh was nicknamed "C", first by Bond, then by the others. Did Bond choose a random letter ?
Maybe because, as a French man, English is not my native language, or I missed something…

[sharpshooter]

Just a quick question, I didn't quite understand why Denbigh was nicknamed "C", first by Bond, then by the others. Did Bond choose a random letter ?

C as in 'see', I think. Given Denbigh's role was all about surveillance. 

[tonyvenhuizen]

 

Just a quick question, I didn't quite understand why Denbigh was nicknamed "C", first by Bond, then by the others. Did Bond choose a random letter ?

C as in 'see', I think. Given Denbigh's role was all about surveillance. 

 

 

I could be wrong - I assumed Bond chose "c" as a cheeky reference to a rather profane c-word.  That's why it's a laugh line when M says "Now we know what 'c' stands for - 'careless.'" 

 

Also - and this may or may not have been intentional.  In the real Secret Service, the top official during the WWII era was called "C."  Ian Fleming chose to mirror that convention by calling the Secret Service boss "M," picking a different letter for fiction.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

 

 

I know Bond tossed his gun away on the bridge and that Q says that he'd thought Bond had gone, but I still don't think it's necessarily implied that he has left the service. I look at it as him going away on leave with Madeleine and the filmmakers are being purposefully coy about the issue particularly with the possibility of SPECTRE being Daniel Craig's last 007 film (although I believe he will do 1 more) 

I agree. I think Bond's seeing where it goes with Madeleine, if stopping is a good idea for him - ala the conversation on the train. If Craig doesn't return, that's his ending. And if he does, they can elaborate on it. 

 

 

I was thinking this. If it turns out to be Daniel's last 007 adventure, then this is a fitting final scene.

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Agreed. And Craig's suffering Bond would get to live "happily ever after" as far as we know. If in fact, SPECTRE is Craig's final turn as 007, I hope they don't "reboot" it again with the next actor. I'd rather they go back to the Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan tradition where the next actor is basically supposed to be playing the same character as the previous Bond actor.

[Guy Haines]

Just a quick question, I didn't quite understand why Denbigh was nicknamed "C", first by Bond, then by the others. Did Bond choose a random letter ?

C as in 'see', I think. Given Denbigh's role was all about surveillance.

I could be wrong - I assumed Bond chose "c" as a cheeky reference to a rather profane c-word. That's why it's a laugh line when M says "Now we know what 'c' stands for - 'careless.'"

Also - and this may or may not have been intentional. In the real Secret Service, the top official during the WWII era was called "C." Ian Fleming chose to mirror that convention by calling the Secret Service boss "M," picking a different letter for fiction.

You are not wrong about the profanity - just about every reviewer in the UK picked up on it, as did the audiences I watched the film with. I can't recall a Bond movie where the one liner with the biggest chuckles came from M.

And wasn't Denbigh supposed to be head of MI5 - the home security service - as well as the Centre for National Security, in which case he would be "C", as per the wartime convention mentioned above.

[Guy Haines]

I know Bond tossed his gun away on the bridge and that Q says that he'd thought Bond had gone, but I still don't think it's necessarily implied that he has left the service. I look at it as him going away on leave with Madeleine and the filmmakers are being purposefully coy about the issue particularly with the possibility of SPECTRE being Daniel Craig's last 007 film (although I believe he will do 1 more)

I agree. I think Bond's seeing where it goes with Madeleine, if stopping is a good idea for him - ala the conversation on the train. If Craig doesn't return, that's his ending. And if he does, they can elaborate on it.

 
I was thinking this. If it turns out to be Daniel's last 007 adventure, then this is a fitting final scene.
 
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

 
Agreed. And Craig's suffering Bond would get to live "happily ever after" as far as we know. If in fact, SPECTRE is Craig's final turn as 007, I hope they don't "reboot" it again with the next actor. I'd rather they go back to the Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan tradition where the next actor is basically supposed to be playing the same character as the previous Bond actor.

If SPECTRE is Craig's final film then if I was writing the next one I'm not sure I'd even bother explaining what happened to Madeleine. It's nice just that Craig's Bond has ended a movie, nine years later, on a relationship "high" - he's got over Vesper and the girl survived to the end. It wouldn't be the first time Bond has ended a film with the girl, only to return next movie single with no explanation of what happened to his previous lady - it happened all the time to Craig's predecessors and some relationships such as the one between Bond and Kara in TLD seemed more romantic than others.

Also a new Bond actor means, to an extent, wiping the slate clean so far as Bond in previous films is concerned. There might be the occasional reference to Vesper Lynd - just as there was to Tracy Bond between 1971 and 2002 - but that would be about it, I think.

If, however, Daniel Craig does return next film I imagine for continuity's sake there might be some explanation of what's happened to Madeleine, given they became close. And if SPECTRE and Oberhauser/Blofeld are also involved, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Madeleine returns too for a while and is a key to Bond's motivation in the story.

[Wronschien]

Thank you for the replies, I understand better now, I didn't know about the real historic "C".

[Vauxhall]

The real-life head of MI6, currently Alex Younger, is known as C - a tradition which started with the first chief Mansfield Smith-Cumming.

 

Fleming used his other initial M in his novels for the equivalent role, and Judi Dench's M was named Olivia Mansfield in SKYFALL after the same real-life figure.

[Professor Pi]

 

 

 

 

I know Bond tossed his gun away on the bridge and that Q says that he'd thought Bond had gone, but I still don't think it's necessarily implied that he has left the service. I look at it as him going away on leave with Madeleine and the filmmakers are being purposefully coy about the issue particularly with the possibility of SPECTRE being Daniel Craig's last 007 film (although I believe he will do 1 more)

I agree. I think Bond's seeing where it goes with Madeleine, if stopping is a good idea for him - ala the conversation on the train. If Craig doesn't return, that's his ending. And if he does, they can elaborate on it.

 
I was thinking this. If it turns out to be Daniel's last 007 adventure, then this is a fitting final scene.
 
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

 
Agreed. And Craig's suffering Bond would get to live "happily ever after" as far as we know. If in fact, SPECTRE is Craig's final turn as 007, I hope they don't "reboot" it again with the next actor. I'd rather they go back to the Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan tradition where the next actor is basically supposed to be playing the same character as the previous Bond actor.

If SPECTRE is Craig's final film then if I was writing the next one I'm not sure I'd even bother explaining what happened to Madeleine. It's nice just that Craig's Bond has ended a movie, nine years later, on a relationship "high" - he's got over Vesper and the girl survived to the end. It wouldn't be the first time Bond has ended a film with the girl, only to return next movie single with no explanation of what happened to his previous lady - it happened all the time to Craig's predecessors and some relationships such as the one between Bond and Kara in TLD seemed more romantic than others.

Also a new Bond actor means, to an extent, wiping the slate clean so far as Bond in previous films is concerned. There might be the occasional reference to Vesper Lynd - just as there was to Tracy Bond between 1971 and 2002 - but that would be about it, I think.

If, however, Daniel Craig does return next film I imagine for continuity's sake there might be some explanation of what's happened to Madeleine, given they became close. And if SPECTRE and Oberhauser/Blofeld are also involved, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Madeleine returns too for a while and is a key to Bond's motivation in the story.

 

 

After watching SPECTRE a fourth time, I noticed some interesting things in the titles.  Near the end, there is a skull projected onto Madeleine's chest.  Also, as Bond reaches for her hand, it falls away and so does a ring, in this case the SPECTRE ring but the symbolism extends beyond.  Earlier in the titles when Bond and another woman are falling, when they reach for each other their hands don't quite touch. 

 

Foreshadowing?  Madeleine may not be around for long, or at least not attached to Bond.

[sharpshooter]

Here's a question:

 

Why did Bond have an official "Q" scene at all... he was grounded at the time, so they wouldn't send him to Q for any reason except to get the chip implanted. However he should have just left directly after that, surely.

On this - it's not an official Q scene per se. Q gives the watch to Bond on M's orders, to mock Bond's punctuality issues. The fact the watch has a noisy alarm is just a bonus. 

[SecretAgentFan]

How about this unanswered question?

 

Why give Bond an ending that could be read as him quitting the service?

 

This whole build-up only really would have made sense if it had been in fact designed as the last Bond film ever.

 

Why Mendes wanted to do this I cannot understand.

[Professor Pi]

Maybe he didn't like the new boss!?

[Walecs]

How about this unanswered question?

 

Why give Bond an ending that could be read as him quitting the service?

 

This whole build-up only really would have made sense if it had been in fact designed as the last Bond film ever.

 

Why Mendes wanted to do this I cannot understand.

 

Well, it may be the very last for Craig, and next movie might be a soft-reboot. Not as in "Bond is a rookie", but more like they did in the old days, new actor in the role, new story and leave Craig's movies as a standalone series. Which is what I'm hoping for, actually.

[Dustin]

How about this unanswered question?

Why give Bond an ending that could be read as him quitting the service?

This whole build-up only really would have made sense if it had been in fact designed as the last Bond film ever.

Why Mendes wanted to do this I cannot understand.

This is a very good question; indeed this undermines a lot of the previous work Mendes did on Bond.

But I think we're looking at it from the wrong angle; when I first saw SPECTRE I didn't immediately think this was a farewell to the SIS arms, not in so definite terms. And it looks as if the better part of the general audience didn't in fact embrace this - intentional, judging from Mendes' comments - reading either. The last few minutes were held vague enough to just see it as one of the 'traditional' endings. And one to mirror the unsurpassed original too, albeit not going the whole distance.

I tend to think this was Mendes' way of bidding his own farewell to the series. The one who really quit was the director here.

[Guy Haines]

Watching SPECTRE again quite recently;

Blofeld noted that Madeleine, as the daughter of an assassin herself, might be the only one who understands Bond - even though she questions why he took up his profession and even though she renounced her father. She's enough her father's daughter to know how to use a gun and defend herself. In that sense she's something of a match for Bond. And I think Bond knows it - but he also knows she doesn't want any part of that life any more. The "gun under the sink", the hiding from the bad guys and so on. If he really wants her he's got to make a choice and we are led to believe he's finally done just that on Westminster Bridge.

But....... it's done in such a way that it leaves things open ended. With Tracy we had the wedding and the assassination thereafter. With Vesper the all too brief love affair away from the cares of the Service, but clouded by the presence of Gettler and co in Venice and Vesper's knowledge that she has no choice but to betray Bond.

With this ending things could go several ways. Bond and Madeleine start a new life only for it to be shattered by her death at the hands of SPECTRE - and the inevitable mission of revenge against Blofeld. Madeleine in peril but not dead, but Bond having to return to the MI6 fold to save her. Madeleine the victim of an assassination attempt which leaves her wounded and not the woman she once was - either physically, or psychologically, and Bond losing her that way. Or she may realise that Bond will never change - some urgent mission needs his attention and they part, leaving Bond to muse on yet another love that got away, but at least alive.

Or come Bond 25 she might not even figure in the story at all - just another woman Bond rescued, and went off into the closing scene with, never to be seen again, whose fate we never learn - something, of course, which Ian Fleming did most of all in the novels.

My guess is that the Bond/Blofeld storyline isn't over, so a fate other than "never seen again" awaits Madeleine, but the ending is so open ended, as far as I could interpret it, that it could be any one of the other alternatives I've considered, or something I haven't thought of at all.

[AMC Hornet]

Bond doesn't have to marry Madeleine. He didn't even say anything about marrying Vesper, the first love of his life.

 

Bond didn't marry Honey. Spectre didn't seek revenge against Bond until FRWL, when Honey was no longer involved.

 

Bond didn't marry Tania. Spectre didn't seek revenge against Bond after Klebb died, so Tania remained in the clear.

 

Bond didn't marry Domino. Spectre didn't seek revenge, taking her out instead.

 

Bond didn't marry Kissy. By the time Spectre regrouped, she was no longer in the picture.

 

Bond didn't marry Tiffany. After Wint & Kidd bought it, Spectre gave up for a decade.

 

In fact, Tracy was not Spectre's target either. A failed drive-by shooting left Bond alive and Tracy dead, spurring his dull revenge.

 

Ergo:

 

All Bond has to do to ensure Madeleine's survival is to not marry her. As long as she doesn't kill herself like Vesper did,she's in the clear.

 

Simple. Bring on B 25 and 007's next love interest, please.

[SecretAgentFan]

 

How about this unanswered question?

Why give Bond an ending that could be read as him quitting the service?

This whole build-up only really would have made sense if it had been in fact designed as the last Bond film ever.

Why Mendes wanted to do this I cannot understand.

This is a very good question; indeed this undermines a lot of the previous work Mendes did on Bond.

But I think we're looking at it from the wrong angle; when I first saw SPECTRE I didn't immediately think this was a farewell to the SIS arms, not in so definite terms. And it looks as if the better part of the general audience didn't in fact embrace this - intentional, judging from Mendes' comments - reading either. The last few minutes were held vague enough to just see it as one of the 'traditional' endings. And one to mirror the unsurpassed original too, albeit not going the whole distance.

I tend to think this was Mendes' way of bidding his own farewell to the series. The one who really quit was the director here.

 

 

I guess that is the major weakness of SPECTRE: setting things up... and then not really following through on any of it.

 

My take: if you want to be bold - be bold.  Don´t chicken out and take the edge out of everything.

 

Of course, one can imagine how terrified all the involved parties were, how much pressure there was to deliver the next billion-dollar-film.

 

In the end, it´s never good for Bond to be too successful.  The next one will suffer for it.

 

Right now, it looks as if SPECTRE will crawl towards the 800 million plus-worldwide mark, falling short of SKYFALL´s box office by 200-300 millions.  Not a flop, yet - with the huge production costs - a minor disappointment.

[DaveBond21]

I can't imagine they will keep the character of Swann. One of the big announcements when they start filming a new Bond movie is who the Bond girls are going to be. I can't imagine they will bring out Lea Seydoux again and ask the casual cinema-goer to remember who she was. I thought she was excellent (especially her first 4 or 5 scenes), but she wasn't THAT memorable. It's the same with the other actors. Let's assume Waltz will be back, but let's also assume that Hinx is dead and they will be showing off another great henchman.

 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[Guy Haines]

Or lets assume Blofeld will be back - the facial injury allows for the "plastic surgery" excuse when casting a new actor. Personally I want to see Christoph Waltz return, but you never know.

That said - we've had continuity throughout when it came to casting regular characters so maybe as this is likely to be Craig's final movie, Bond 25 will feature not only the regular "Whitehall team" but the same actor back as the continuity villain.

[SecretAgentFan]

The more I think about it the weirder it is for me.  SPECTRE builds up Blofeld and a relationship between Bond and Madeleine.  He symbolically throws away his gun for her, tells Q to do one last thing for him, drives off with Madeleine.

 

Sure, he could come back not mentioning her at all.  But it was different with previous Bond girls - none made Bond actually want to quit the service before (Tracy being the exception).  To treat her as just another girl who gets forgotten in the next film would be as weird as recasting Blofeld.  Especially after tieing all the previous villains together with Spectre.

 

I just can´t get over it.  Mendes must have planned to make or at least prepare a OHMSS-ending for the beginning of BOND 25 (hence the stricken last line) - but EON/SONY decided against it late in the game.

 

And if Craig returns and no continuity is at least tried, it will be a major disappointment for me.