Breaking down 007 casino scenes
Poll
 | 2 votes (13.33%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 4 votes (26.66%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 3 votes (20%) | ||
| | 3 votes (20%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 1 vote (6.66%) | ||
| | 2 votes (13.33%) |
15 members have voted
October 13th, 2021 at 12:57:45 PM
permalink
I'll probably see it later this week. Is there a casino scene? It would be a shame if there isn't.
Have you tried 22 tonight? I said 22.
October 13th, 2021 at 9:04:07 PM
permalink
Quote: GialmereI'll probably see it later this week. Is there a casino scene? It would be a shame if there isn't.
link to original post
There is not.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
October 14th, 2021 at 8:40:35 AM
permalink
We saw No Time to Die last night. It is definitely edgier and more avant garde in cinematography than any of the past Bond movies I have watched (almost entirely Connery/Lazenby/Moore films, haven’t bothered with much else besides Craig’s Casino Royale).
It’s a bit long and drags at times but worth watching.
It’s a bit long and drags at times but worth watching.
Bond dies at the end. But I think it’s a stretch to believe that this means that James Bond is a character versus any particular man. Reading too much into it to think such a thing, in my opinion.
007, yes, I’ll buy that 007 could be more than one agent. Indeed in No Time to Die, Bond is retired and a female takes over his position for a period of time as Agent 007. And Q and M might also be designations or ranks versus specific persons. But no, I don’t think that the point of the movie is that “James Bond” is not even any particular person and is a recurring moniker for various agents.
Consider the continuity in many of the Bond movies. Lazenby/Bond’s wife is killed in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Avenged by Connery/Bond in Diamonds are Forever. Mourned by Moore/Bond in For Your Eyes Only. This continuity between Bonds means that they are the same person.
Incidentally the notation on Teresa Bond’s gravestone “We have all the time in the world” (which is what Lazenby/Bond says to Teresa both as they drove off after their wedding, and as he cradles her dead body, and Craig/Bond said to Madeleine during happier times near the beginning of No Time to Die), is the closing theme in this latest Bond movie, when Bond repeats a form of this line ("You have all the time in the world”) to Madeleine after she tells him that Mathilde is his daughter, and he knows that his death is imminent. This recurring "all the time in the world" line, connects both the promise of happiness, and resulting ultimate tragedy, through two different Bonds, in two different movies.
As far as future Bonds, I assume they’ll just Reboot it with yet another character playing James Bond without necessarily addressing his death in No Time to Die.
CIA agent Felix Leiter, another recurring role in Bond films, is killed off too. Leiter, like Bond, is definitely a particular person, with recurring character familiarities. Let's see how he returns.
In general the entire Daniel Craig Bond series was a Reboot (for example Bond meets Leiter for the first time in Casino Royale - versus in other Bond films they come across as old friends since the Dr. No days) so the Craig series might just end up being a separate Bond reality that is closed, with an entirely new Reboot due for the future.
007, yes, I’ll buy that 007 could be more than one agent. Indeed in No Time to Die, Bond is retired and a female takes over his position for a period of time as Agent 007. And Q and M might also be designations or ranks versus specific persons. But no, I don’t think that the point of the movie is that “James Bond” is not even any particular person and is a recurring moniker for various agents.
Consider the continuity in many of the Bond movies. Lazenby/Bond’s wife is killed in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Avenged by Connery/Bond in Diamonds are Forever. Mourned by Moore/Bond in For Your Eyes Only. This continuity between Bonds means that they are the same person.
Incidentally the notation on Teresa Bond’s gravestone “We have all the time in the world” (which is what Lazenby/Bond says to Teresa both as they drove off after their wedding, and as he cradles her dead body, and Craig/Bond said to Madeleine during happier times near the beginning of No Time to Die), is the closing theme in this latest Bond movie, when Bond repeats a form of this line ("You have all the time in the world”) to Madeleine after she tells him that Mathilde is his daughter, and he knows that his death is imminent. This recurring "all the time in the world" line, connects both the promise of happiness, and resulting ultimate tragedy, through two different Bonds, in two different movies.
As far as future Bonds, I assume they’ll just Reboot it with yet another character playing James Bond without necessarily addressing his death in No Time to Die.
CIA agent Felix Leiter, another recurring role in Bond films, is killed off too. Leiter, like Bond, is definitely a particular person, with recurring character familiarities. Let's see how he returns.
In general the entire Daniel Craig Bond series was a Reboot (for example Bond meets Leiter for the first time in Casino Royale - versus in other Bond films they come across as old friends since the Dr. No days) so the Craig series might just end up being a separate Bond reality that is closed, with an entirely new Reboot due for the future.
Last edited by: MDawg on Oct 14, 2021
I tell you it’s wonderful to be here, man. I don’t give a damn who wins or loses. It’s just wonderful to be here with you people.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/
October 16th, 2021 at 5:44:13 PM
permalink
I've been reading through your 007 casino scene analysis newsletters and I even watched the "Alex Honnold Breaks Down Iconic Rock Climbing Scenes" video on YouTube for reference to what inspired you to start the scene analyses, and I love your idea. Looking forward to reading more.
OFFICIALLY and justifiably reclaimed my title as SuperHotBlonde!
October 21st, 2021 at 9:56:40 AM
permalink
Quote: MDawgBond dies at the end. But I think it’s a stretch to believe that this means that James Bond is a character versus any particular man. Reading too much into it to think such a thing, in my opinion.
007, yes, I’ll buy that 007 could be more than one agent. Indeed in No Time to Die, Bond is retired and a female takes over his position for a period of time as Agent 007. And Q and M might also be designations or ranks versus specific persons. But no, I don’t think that the point of the movie is that “James Bond” is not even any particular person and is a recurring moniker for various agents.
Consider the continuity in many of the Bond movies. Lazenby/Bond’s wife is killed in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Avenged by Connery/Bond in Diamonds are Forever. Mourned by Moore/Bond in For Your Eyes Only. This continuity between Bonds means that they are the same person.
Incidentally the notation on Teresa Bond’s gravestone “We have all the time in the world” (which is what Lazenby/Bond says to Teresa both as they drove off after their wedding, and as he cradles her dead body, and Craig/Bond said to Madeleine during happier times near the beginning of No Time to Die), is the closing theme in this latest Bond movie, when Bond repeats a form of this line ("You have all the time in the world”) to Madeleine after she tells him that Mathilde is his daughter, and he knows that his death is imminent. This recurring "all the time in the world" line, connects both the promise of happiness, and resulting ultimate tragedy, through two different Bonds, in two different movies.
As far as future Bonds, I assume they’ll just Reboot it with yet another character playing James Bond without necessarily addressing his death in No Time to Die.
CIA agent Felix Leiter, another recurring role in Bond films, is killed off too. Leiter, like Bond, is definitely a particular person, with recurring character familiarities. Let's see how he returns.
In general the entire Daniel Craig Bond series was a Reboot (for example Bond meets Leiter for the first time in Casino Royale - versus in other Bond films they come across as old friends since the Dr. No days) so the Craig series might just end up being a separate Bond reality that is closed, with an entirely new Reboot due for the future.
link to original post
I bounced my theory off my son, who is a bigger Bond fan than me. He scoffed at it. When I pressed him with my argument, he said he viewed the Bond movies in a universe like the Simpsons, where time rolls on, but Bond doesn't age.
After some thinking, I am changing my position on that. At least I think I am. What gives me pause is the end of the credits of No Time to Die says, "James Bond will return." How could that happen? Maybe Bond didn't really die. Maybe he found a bunker to hide in. If anyone is good at cheating death, it's Bond.
As to your reboot theory, I interpreted the Daniel Craig movies as prequels to the other Bond movies. Or at least Casino Royale was. I'm a little confused about the two Blofelds though.
The more I write, the more I am confusing myself. I'll shut up now.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
October 21st, 2021 at 11:59:05 AM
permalink
Quote: Wizard... What gives me pause is the end of the credits of No Time to Die says, "James Bond will return." How could that happen? Maybe Bond didn't really die. Maybe he found a bunker to hide in. If anyone is good at cheating death, it's Bond.
link to original post
We saw "No Time to Die" almost two weeks ago. The next day I had a thought that is similar to what the Wizard posted and perhaps even more extreme. I suspect this is just my sarcastic perspective and is far from the true future of Bond.
Daniel Craig was quite open that this would be his last Bond film, I think even before they started filming. How about this scenario: That "my last Bond film" claim by Craig was no more valid than Connery's claim of "Never again" before he came back and played Bond once more in "Never Say Never Again" outside of the EON franchise. By the end of No Time to Die, most viewers assume that Bond died in the explosions, in spite of the "James Bond will return" announcement which has become the norm for the end of these films.
How about if in the next film Craig appears at least long enough to show how he survived? He (possibly) could appear/star throughout the entire film, presenting the "last Bond film" statement as a joke. Or he could be in scenes that show Bond significantly injured and disfigured, so that reconstructive surgery is required that leaves him looking like whatever actor (actress?) the Broccoli clan decide should take the lead in the next several films.
Daniel Craig was quite open that this would be his last Bond film, I think even before they started filming. How about this scenario: That "my last Bond film" claim by Craig was no more valid than Connery's claim of "Never again" before he came back and played Bond once more in "Never Say Never Again" outside of the EON franchise. By the end of No Time to Die, most viewers assume that Bond died in the explosions, in spite of the "James Bond will return" announcement which has become the norm for the end of these films.
How about if in the next film Craig appears at least long enough to show how he survived? He (possibly) could appear/star throughout the entire film, presenting the "last Bond film" statement as a joke. Or he could be in scenes that show Bond significantly injured and disfigured, so that reconstructive surgery is required that leaves him looking like whatever actor (actress?) the Broccoli clan decide should take the lead in the next several films.
October 21st, 2021 at 1:33:45 PM
permalink
Quote: DocThat "my last Bond film" claim by Craig was no more valid than Connery's claim of "Never again" before he came back and played Bond once more in "Never Say Never Again" outside of the EON franchise.
I don't think I need to hide this comment.
My reply is I thought the movie Connery returned in was Diamonds are Forever. He would return, yet again, in Never say Never Again.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
October 21st, 2021 at 3:18:52 PM
permalink
I guess I don't really know when it was that Connery made the "Never Again" claim rejecting future Bond roles. There was only a four-year gap between "Thunderball "and "Diamonds are Forever", with the one Lazenby film stuck in between. After "Diamonds are Forever", there was a dozen-year gap and six intervening films before Connery came back one more time for "Never Say Never Again", and that is what I considered his revoking his won't-do-it-any-more position, whenever it was he took that stance.
October 27th, 2021 at 4:16:14 PM
permalink
Hey, so when does the new newsletter for this week get posted? I'm eager to read it! :D
OFFICIALLY and justifiably reclaimed my title as SuperHotBlonde!
October 28th, 2021 at 1:23:01 PM
permalink
I’m loving this week’s newsletter! 😉
OFFICIALLY and justifiably reclaimed my title as SuperHotBlonde!
October 30th, 2021 at 8:41:09 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardQuote: darkozI haven't seen the film but I assume the reason he is the same age is because James Bond and 007 are just code names and there have been different James Bonds?
I agree.
As evidence, there is a scene with the current M in a hallway with paintings of the two previous M's. As I recall, the Judi Dench M died, but the original M seemed to be replaced with a different actor without comment. I also think M was referred to by a different first name than that from Moonraker. If there can be multiple M's, why not multiple 007's. What about the name though? I assume it is a working name. Bond is a lonely person, who no family and few friends, so I assume it wasn't hard to walk away from another name and identity.
I will admit that working against this theory is the scene in For Your Eyes Only of the Roger Moore bond putting flowers on the grave of Teresa Bond, who the Lazenby Bond married. Why would Bond #3 care about the ex-wife of Bond #2?
Working in favor of my theory that there is real world chatter of the next 007 being female.
That's enough for now.
link to original post
I don't think the codename theory works. Up through Dalton the Bond's all clearly had the same deceased wife (along with other links). Bronson's Bond did not share this think, but made comments to M about her predecessor, making it clear that she was new (Q was the same and was already knowledgeable of his personality quirks, granted Goldeneye had a 10 year time lapse from its pre-credit scene to "present"). I think up through Bronson they pretty much just rolled with the same character and people had to adjust disbelief about not aging. Really M and Q are the only characters who seems obviously replaced (with referenced to their predecessors, or in Q's case training in the new one). Moneypenny (through the Bronson era) seems to be the same character with different actresses portraying her. Same thing with Felix Leiter.
I think the most likely answer is Connery-Bronson same character. Craig was a total reboot showing him from the beginning (starting with the original novel), and modernizing the series (which if they had the rights to Spectre since the start could have been much better done, but they had limited material and then later tried to bullhorn it in when they finally got it which messed with the whole Quantum thing, but I guess that cannot be helped).
The next actor, who knows. It will have to be a reboot. I still think a period reboot would be best (to take place in the 1950s). There is a lot of current events that could be interesting to cover with a modern Bond, but the movie series seems to strive away from covering anything that would be politically sensitive (except stuff that is black and white like the Soviet Union and North Korea, even if that got backlash), and I know its a big deal for them to get a release in China now because that is important for some reason, I guess because they want more viewers, so that automatically cuts out a lot of current current conflicts (very strict censorship on what can be published based on content which limits a lot of conflicts and even regions)....
November 11th, 2021 at 12:07:20 PM
permalink
007 Car Trivia Quiz (Part One)
:strip_icc()/pic6505292.png)
"Well 007? Where exactly is the rest of this piece of equipment?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
001) Before receiving his Aston Martin DB5, what make of car does Bond drive?
002) In which film is Bond chased by the police while driving a Ford Mustang Mach 1?
003) Identify the film by the cars Bond drives: Lotus Esprit Turbo, Citroën 2CV?
004) In which film does Bond flip his Aston Martin V12 Vanquish right-side up using the ejector seat?
005) When Bond does a "barrel roll" jump in an AMC Hornet, what musical instrument accompanies the stunt?
006) In "GoldenEye", Bond, driving his DB5, races Xenia Onatopp who's driving what make of car?
007) What silly, non-car Bond vehicle has embarrassingly never sold at auction?
"Well 007? Where exactly is the rest of this piece of equipment?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
001) Before receiving his Aston Martin DB5, what make of car does Bond drive?
002) In which film is Bond chased by the police while driving a Ford Mustang Mach 1?
003) Identify the film by the cars Bond drives: Lotus Esprit Turbo, Citroën 2CV?
004) In which film does Bond flip his Aston Martin V12 Vanquish right-side up using the ejector seat?
005) When Bond does a "barrel roll" jump in an AMC Hornet, what musical instrument accompanies the stunt?
006) In "GoldenEye", Bond, driving his DB5, races Xenia Onatopp who's driving what make of car?
007) What silly, non-car Bond vehicle has embarrassingly never sold at auction?
Have you tried 22 tonight? I said 22.
November 23rd, 2021 at 11:49:35 PM
permalink
**This post will contain spoilers for No Time to Die and the last two Fleming Books**
I have finally watched No Time to Die, and my quick review is it was a great summation of the Daniel Craig Bond films, one of the best Craig films and worth watching.
My longer review and theory on the continuity is as follows:
The movie dovetails with Spectre, which in my view is not a great point, as that was the weakest Craig film by far (one of the weakest Bond films by far), a film which squandered their many decades fight to get back the rights to use the Spectre characters (and this film further squanders them, luckily its a minor point in this film, which this film seems to realize by their quick elimination). I think the Craig series would have been better if they saved Spectre for the next Bond and kept Quantum as the overarching organization. Spectre (The Film) was a terrible shoehorn of an attempt to link all of the prior craig films, which led to a terrible film.
That being said, we are where we are. And, Spectre (the characters/org) is mostly used as a plot device in this film, being (**Spoiler alert for the last time**) eliminated early on, by Safin, who takes over as the primary villain (along with his organization which is not really fleshed out in its structure, but appears powerful).
The film has themes to On Her Majesty's Secret Service (OHMSS), throughout, with no so subtle soundtrack pulls (and even the final theme over the credits being We Have all of the Time in the World from the 1969 film) and even direct quotes ( "We Have all of the time in the world").
However, what immediately struck out to me in the second half was the similarities to You Only Live Twice (The Novel, not the movie). In my view this plot was a modern adaptation of this novel. During this Novel Bond if is kind of fired (in this film he is retired) and assigned to a diplomatic role (and loses his number) and has some tension with M. Blofeld turns out to be the main villain of the novel (in disguise in his poison castle), in any case the conflict ensues and Bond escapes the destructed castle, badly damaged with no memory, and is rescued and has a child (against his will), which leads to him wanting to escape and is presumed dead. (This is a gross simplification). However, after escaping this Japanese island he is taken captive by the Soviets (we do not learn this until the following Novel Man with the Golden Gun).
The following Novel starts with Bond being missing for some time, eventually turning up years later in an unrecognizable state (physically and mentally) after years of torture and brainwashing by the Soviets. He returns, and convinces MI6 to have a meeting with M after a series of tests to establish his identity and history, and it is built into his head that he has to kill M to right the wrongs from what M did to him (which in the case of the movie, my guess will be to right the wrongs of what M did in general). He of course fails to kill M and gets assigned a suicide mission (find and kill the Man with the Golden Gun), the details from this point do not matter as this just shows the change of the character. This plot device (being presumed dead after disputes with M and leadership) and returning years later physically and mentally totally different would allow and new character to seamlessly take over the role if they want to continue the story (the infection can easily be written out into the Soviets -or whoever in the modern version- found a treatment, or Safin lied about the effects being permanent).
We know "James Bond Will Return" (it even says exactly that at the end of the credits), it is just a matter how. And, my view is they will do a similar scenario to You Only Live Twice - The Man With The Golden Gun transition (Novels) as this will allow an actor who is completely different physically and mentally to take over the role and continue to story. I did not think this would be the case, until I saw the film, and saw the obvious Parrells of it being a modern You Only Live Twice (again the Novel, forget, the movie), everything from the child, to the poison island (the island even being located in disputed Russian territory), to the ending, the conflict with M. It is setting up a perfect return for Bond to end up returning years later from a stint in a Russian prison attempting to kill M and having to redeem himself (which could be the perfect introduction for a new actor as well).
Of Course, they can always go a fresh reboot. But, now seeing the film and the literary basis for it, I think both are equally likely (and in any case even the above would be a reboot of sorts and allow a new actor to continue to story without too many questions about massive personality or physical differences).
I will say this is one of the best Craig films. If I had to do a quick ranking it would be: Casino Royale> No Time to Die > Skyfall > Quantum of Solace > Spectre
I tend to think Spectre is overrated (a very poor use of finally obtaining the legal rights, in fact I would go as far to say one of the worst Bond Movies of all) and Quantum of Solace is underrated (it touches a lot of real-world political issues that most Bond films steer clear of, and is less of a "Bond Movie" than many Bond movies which is why I suspect many dislike it, but it also builds up Leiter's character). Skyfall was solid (even if far-fetched at times), Casino Royale is easily the best (this unlike Spectre is a great example of modernizing a classic story after finally regaining the rights to it), though No Time to Die lags not far behind (most of the points working against it are carry-overs from Spectre).
I have finally watched No Time to Die, and my quick review is it was a great summation of the Daniel Craig Bond films, one of the best Craig films and worth watching.
My longer review and theory on the continuity is as follows:
The movie dovetails with Spectre, which in my view is not a great point, as that was the weakest Craig film by far (one of the weakest Bond films by far), a film which squandered their many decades fight to get back the rights to use the Spectre characters (and this film further squanders them, luckily its a minor point in this film, which this film seems to realize by their quick elimination). I think the Craig series would have been better if they saved Spectre for the next Bond and kept Quantum as the overarching organization. Spectre (The Film) was a terrible shoehorn of an attempt to link all of the prior craig films, which led to a terrible film.
That being said, we are where we are. And, Spectre (the characters/org) is mostly used as a plot device in this film, being (**Spoiler alert for the last time**) eliminated early on, by Safin, who takes over as the primary villain (along with his organization which is not really fleshed out in its structure, but appears powerful).
The film has themes to On Her Majesty's Secret Service (OHMSS), throughout, with no so subtle soundtrack pulls (and even the final theme over the credits being We Have all of the Time in the World from the 1969 film) and even direct quotes ( "We Have all of the time in the world").
However, what immediately struck out to me in the second half was the similarities to You Only Live Twice (The Novel, not the movie). In my view this plot was a modern adaptation of this novel. During this Novel Bond if is kind of fired (in this film he is retired) and assigned to a diplomatic role (and loses his number) and has some tension with M. Blofeld turns out to be the main villain of the novel (in disguise in his poison castle), in any case the conflict ensues and Bond escapes the destructed castle, badly damaged with no memory, and is rescued and has a child (against his will), which leads to him wanting to escape and is presumed dead. (This is a gross simplification). However, after escaping this Japanese island he is taken captive by the Soviets (we do not learn this until the following Novel Man with the Golden Gun).
The following Novel starts with Bond being missing for some time, eventually turning up years later in an unrecognizable state (physically and mentally) after years of torture and brainwashing by the Soviets. He returns, and convinces MI6 to have a meeting with M after a series of tests to establish his identity and history, and it is built into his head that he has to kill M to right the wrongs from what M did to him (which in the case of the movie, my guess will be to right the wrongs of what M did in general). He of course fails to kill M and gets assigned a suicide mission (find and kill the Man with the Golden Gun), the details from this point do not matter as this just shows the change of the character. This plot device (being presumed dead after disputes with M and leadership) and returning years later physically and mentally totally different would allow and new character to seamlessly take over the role if they want to continue the story (the infection can easily be written out into the Soviets -or whoever in the modern version- found a treatment, or Safin lied about the effects being permanent).
We know "James Bond Will Return" (it even says exactly that at the end of the credits), it is just a matter how. And, my view is they will do a similar scenario to You Only Live Twice - The Man With The Golden Gun transition (Novels) as this will allow an actor who is completely different physically and mentally to take over the role and continue to story. I did not think this would be the case, until I saw the film, and saw the obvious Parrells of it being a modern You Only Live Twice (again the Novel, forget, the movie), everything from the child, to the poison island (the island even being located in disputed Russian territory), to the ending, the conflict with M. It is setting up a perfect return for Bond to end up returning years later from a stint in a Russian prison attempting to kill M and having to redeem himself (which could be the perfect introduction for a new actor as well).
Of Course, they can always go a fresh reboot. But, now seeing the film and the literary basis for it, I think both are equally likely (and in any case even the above would be a reboot of sorts and allow a new actor to continue to story without too many questions about massive personality or physical differences).
I will say this is one of the best Craig films. If I had to do a quick ranking it would be: Casino Royale> No Time to Die > Skyfall > Quantum of Solace > Spectre
I tend to think Spectre is overrated (a very poor use of finally obtaining the legal rights, in fact I would go as far to say one of the worst Bond Movies of all) and Quantum of Solace is underrated (it touches a lot of real-world political issues that most Bond films steer clear of, and is less of a "Bond Movie" than many Bond movies which is why I suspect many dislike it, but it also builds up Leiter's character). Skyfall was solid (even if far-fetched at times), Casino Royale is easily the best (this unlike Spectre is a great example of modernizing a classic story after finally regaining the rights to it), though No Time to Die lags not far behind (most of the points working against it are carry-overs from Spectre).
November 27th, 2021 at 6:41:55 PM
permalink
Answers
:strip_icc()/pic6514670.png)
"It only took a few seconds Q."
------------------------------------------------------------
In the Fleming novels, Bond, for the most part, dives a Bentley and the films do reflect this. In "From Russia With Love" Bond has a Bentley Mark IV on his date with Sylvia at the beginning of the film. In the Q scene from "Goldfinger" Bond asks where his Bentley is. Q tells him it's had its day and introduces him to the Aston Martin DB5. In "Thunderball", Bond drives his Aston Martin to the Health Clinic. In the remake "Never Say Never Again", however, Bond drives a 1937 Bentley.
In "Diamonds Are Forever" Bond races through the streets of Las Vegas in a 1971 Mustang Mach 1. It's a mediocre car chase somewhat marred by all the people standing around obviously watching the filming. Also it seems like they're doing doughnuts in front of The Mint casino considering how many times they seem to pass in front of it. Still, who doesn't love a view of old school Glitter Gulch? If you watch the above clip, see if you can spot one of the bigger Bond movie bloopers.
In "For Your Eyes Only", after his Lotus explodes, Bond must escape in Melina's Citroën. (The look on Bond's face when he first sees the Citroën is classic.) With no speed or gadgets, Bond must rely on his driving skills alone in what becomes one of the better car chases in the series.
This event takes place during the ice lake chase in "Die Another Day". Mathematician Bond fans still debate if the force needed to actually flip the Aston Martin over would, in reality, break the the car apart.
The stunt takes place in "The Man with the Golden Gun" and is accompanied by (of all things) a slide whistle. Many Bond fans are still furious that the music turns one of the greatest stunts of the franchise into a punchline. Composer John Barry admitted it was a blunder and regretted the decision. In the extras section of home video versions you'll often find the stunt scored differently to show how much the soundtrack can add or detract from a scene.
Xenia drives a Ferrari F355 GTS. Bond observes that the French registration plates for that year's model start with the letter "L", even the counterfeit ones. Xenia's car has license plate 437 NAC 75 (75 is the French license plate code for the Paris region).
It's true. The moon buggy from "Diamonds Are Forever" failed to sell after several auction attempts, including on Ebay. It was eventually discovered rusting away in a field by some Bond fans who decided to restore it. The damage was so extensive and so much of it had to be replaced, however, that the final result is considered more of a reproduction than a restoration.
"It only took a few seconds Q."
------------------------------------------------------------
In the Fleming novels, Bond, for the most part, dives a Bentley and the films do reflect this. In "From Russia With Love" Bond has a Bentley Mark IV on his date with Sylvia at the beginning of the film. In the Q scene from "Goldfinger" Bond asks where his Bentley is. Q tells him it's had its day and introduces him to the Aston Martin DB5. In "Thunderball", Bond drives his Aston Martin to the Health Clinic. In the remake "Never Say Never Again", however, Bond drives a 1937 Bentley.
In "Diamonds Are Forever" Bond races through the streets of Las Vegas in a 1971 Mustang Mach 1. It's a mediocre car chase somewhat marred by all the people standing around obviously watching the filming. Also it seems like they're doing doughnuts in front of The Mint casino considering how many times they seem to pass in front of it. Still, who doesn't love a view of old school Glitter Gulch? If you watch the above clip, see if you can spot one of the bigger Bond movie bloopers.
In "For Your Eyes Only", after his Lotus explodes, Bond must escape in Melina's Citroën. (The look on Bond's face when he first sees the Citroën is classic.) With no speed or gadgets, Bond must rely on his driving skills alone in what becomes one of the better car chases in the series.
This event takes place during the ice lake chase in "Die Another Day". Mathematician Bond fans still debate if the force needed to actually flip the Aston Martin over would, in reality, break the the car apart.
The stunt takes place in "The Man with the Golden Gun" and is accompanied by (of all things) a slide whistle. Many Bond fans are still furious that the music turns one of the greatest stunts of the franchise into a punchline. Composer John Barry admitted it was a blunder and regretted the decision. In the extras section of home video versions you'll often find the stunt scored differently to show how much the soundtrack can add or detract from a scene.
Xenia drives a Ferrari F355 GTS. Bond observes that the French registration plates for that year's model start with the letter "L", even the counterfeit ones. Xenia's car has license plate 437 NAC 75 (75 is the French license plate code for the Paris region).
It's true. The moon buggy from "Diamonds Are Forever" failed to sell after several auction attempts, including on Ebay. It was eventually discovered rusting away in a field by some Bond fans who decided to restore it. The damage was so extensive and so much of it had to be replaced, however, that the final result is considered more of a reproduction than a restoration.
Have you tried 22 tonight? I said 22.
December 22nd, 2021 at 5:32:30 PM
permalink
Still waiting for the big kahuna analysis of the Casino Royale (2006) poker scenes. In the meantime...
Both the Ocean Club poker game and the Casino Royale poker game have a player at the table who appeared in a previous Bond film. Who are these two cameo actors and what 007 films did they appear in?
Both the Ocean Club poker game and the Casino Royale poker game have a player at the table who appeared in a previous Bond film. Who are these two cameo actors and what 007 films did they appear in?
Have you tried 22 tonight? I said 22.
December 25th, 2021 at 12:14:10 PM
permalink
Yes, it's a tough but fun bit of trivia if you're a fan of Bondom...
At the Ocean Club game, where Bond wins his Aston Martin, the lady sitting to the right of Dimitrios is played by Diane Hartford. Her first film appearance was a small part in "Thunderball" (1965). She played the girl at the Kiss Kiss Club who Bond whisks onto the dance floor trying to elude SPECTRE agents. This 41 year gap is the longest stretch between Bond film appearances.
At the big Casino Royale game, the lady sitting between Bond and Leighter (Madam Wu who briefly appeared earlier in the film) is played by Tsai Chin. She played Ling, the girl who helps to "kill" Bond in the pre-title sequence of "You Only Live Twice" (1967). This 39 year gap is the second longest stretch between Bond film appearances.
I should mention that Fans still argue about the YOLT scene. Who exactly is in on it? If Ling and the gunman are SPECTRE agents, why isn't Bond dead? If they're part of the set up, why act out the entire ruse? Oh well, Ling does have one of the raunchiest lines of the series ... "Darling, I give you very best duck."
---------------------------------------------------------
And now, 007 Christmas trivia...
001) Which Bond film prominently takes place at Christmas time?
002) Which film has a character named Christmas?
003) In which film does Bond refer to his gadget laden attache case as "a nasty little Christmas present"?
004) After receiving a gun and a radio from Q, a disappointed Bond says "It's not exactly Christmas" in which film?
005) Q says he built a voice modulator "for the kids last Christmas" in which film?
006) A contact agent tells Bond she's going "To take care of supervisor. When PIG goes his panel will light up like Christmas tree," in which film?
007) Bond quips to Q that he must get his "very novel" poison darts "in the stores for Christmas" in which film?
At the Ocean Club game, where Bond wins his Aston Martin, the lady sitting to the right of Dimitrios is played by Diane Hartford. Her first film appearance was a small part in "Thunderball" (1965). She played the girl at the Kiss Kiss Club who Bond whisks onto the dance floor trying to elude SPECTRE agents. This 41 year gap is the longest stretch between Bond film appearances.
At the big Casino Royale game, the lady sitting between Bond and Leighter (Madam Wu who briefly appeared earlier in the film) is played by Tsai Chin. She played Ling, the girl who helps to "kill" Bond in the pre-title sequence of "You Only Live Twice" (1967). This 39 year gap is the second longest stretch between Bond film appearances.
I should mention that Fans still argue about the YOLT scene. Who exactly is in on it? If Ling and the gunman are SPECTRE agents, why isn't Bond dead? If they're part of the set up, why act out the entire ruse? Oh well, Ling does have one of the raunchiest lines of the series ... "Darling, I give you very best duck."
---------------------------------------------------------
And now, 007 Christmas trivia...
001) Which Bond film prominently takes place at Christmas time?
002) Which film has a character named Christmas?
003) In which film does Bond refer to his gadget laden attache case as "a nasty little Christmas present"?
004) After receiving a gun and a radio from Q, a disappointed Bond says "It's not exactly Christmas" in which film?
005) Q says he built a voice modulator "for the kids last Christmas" in which film?
006) A contact agent tells Bond she's going "To take care of supervisor. When PIG goes his panel will light up like Christmas tree," in which film?
007) Bond quips to Q that he must get his "very novel" poison darts "in the stores for Christmas" in which film?
Last edited by: Gialmere on Dec 25, 2021
Have you tried 22 tonight? I said 22.
December 25th, 2021 at 12:28:25 PM
permalink
Quote: GialmereYes, it's a tough but fun bit of trivia if your a fan of Bondom...
At the Ocean Club game, where Bond wins his Aston Martin, the lady sitting to the right of Dimitrios is played by Diane Hartford. Her first film appearance was a small part in "Thunderball" (1965). She played the girl at the Kiss Kiss Club who Bond whisks onto the dance floor trying to elude SPECTRE agents. This 41 year gap is the longest stretch between Bond film appearances.
At the big Casino Royale game, the lady sitting between Bond and Leighter (Madam Wu who briefly appeared earlier in the film) is played by Tsai Chin. She played Ling, the girl who helps to "kill" Bond in the pre-title sequence of "You Only Live Twice" (1967). This 39 year gap is the second longest stretch between Bond film appearances.
I should mention that Fans still argue about the YOLT scene. Who exactly is in on it? If Ling and the gunman are SPECTRE agents, why isn't Bond dead? If they're part of the set up, why act out the entire ruse? Oh well, Ling does give one of the raunchiest lines of the series ... "Darling, I give you very best duck."
---------------------------------------------------------
And now, 007 Christmas trivia...
001) Which Bond film prominently takes place at Christmas time?
002) Which film has a character named Christmas?
003) In which film does Bond refer to his gadget laden attache case as "a nasty little Christmas present"?
004) After receiving a gun and a radio from Q, a disappointed Bond says "It's not exactly Christmas" in which film?
005) Q says he built a voice modulator "for the kids last Christmas" in which film?
006) A contact agent tells Bond she's going "To take care of supervisor. When PIG goes his panel will light up like Christmas tree," in which film?
007) Bond quips to Q that he must get his "very novel" poison darts "in the stores for Christmas" in which film?
link to original post
1) On her Majesties secret service
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
December 25th, 2021 at 3:43:22 PM
permalink
Quote: GialmereYes, it's a tough but fun bit of trivia if you're a fan of Bondom...
At the Ocean Club game, where Bond wins his Aston Martin, the lady sitting to the right of Dimitrios is played by Diane Hartford. Her first film appearance was a small part in "Thunderball" (1965). She played the girl at the Kiss Kiss Club who Bond whisks onto the dance floor trying to elude SPECTRE agents. This 41 year gap is the longest stretch between Bond film appearances.
At the big Casino Royale game, the lady sitting between Bond and Leighter (Madam Wu who briefly appeared earlier in the film) is played by Tsai Chin. She played Ling, the girl who helps to "kill" Bond in the pre-title sequence of "You Only Live Twice" (1967). This 39 year gap is the second longest stretch between Bond film appearances.
I should mention that Fans still argue about the YOLT scene. Who exactly is in on it? If Ling and the gunman are SPECTRE agents, why isn't Bond dead? If they're part of the set up, why act out the entire ruse? Oh well, Ling does have one of the raunchiest lines of the series ... "Darling, I give you very best duck."
---------------------------------------------------------
And now, 007 Christmas trivia...
001) Which Bond film prominently takes place at Christmas time?
002) Which film has a character named Christmas?
003) In which film does Bond refer to his gadget laden attache case as "a nasty little Christmas present"?
004) After receiving a gun and a radio from Q, a disappointed Bond says "It's not exactly Christmas" in which film?
005) Q says he built a voice modulator "for the kids last Christmas" in which film?
006) A contact agent tells Bond she's going "To take care of supervisor. When PIG goes his panel will light up like Christmas tree," in which film?
007) Bond quips to Q that he must get his "very novel" poison darts "in the stores for Christmas" in which film?
link to original post
001: On Her Majesty's Secret Service (it even features an original Christmas Song).
002: The World is not Enough.
003: I am not positive, but I would guess From Russia With Love based on the gadget.
004: Skyfall
005: I am not sure and do not have a good guess.
006: The Living Daylights
007: Moonraker
December 25th, 2021 at 11:13:56 PM
permalink
The voice modulator must refer to Diamonds Are Forever and Blofeld's use of it to imitate the voice of Willard Whyte. Later Q builds one for Bond to use to imitate Whyte's (now Blofeld's) right hand man Bert Saxby's voice to fool Blofeld into giving up the location of where Whyte was being held captive.
And the reason I know that answer cold is that I actually like Diamonds are Forever, a lot. The Vegas genre, you quite understand. I've watched and rewatched that Bond flick more than a few times.
I tell you it’s wonderful to be here, man. I don’t give a damn who wins or loses. It’s just wonderful to be here with you people.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/
December 26th, 2021 at 7:40:27 PM
permalink
Quote: darkoz1) On her Majesties secret service
link to original post
Quote: Gandler
001: On Her Majesty's Secret Service (it even features an original Christmas Song).
002: The World is not Enough.
003: I am not positive, but I would guess From Russia With Love based on the gadget.
004: Skyfall
005: I am not sure and do not have a good guess.
006: The Living Daylights
007: Moonraker
link to original post
Quote: MDawg
The voice modulator must refer to Diamonds Are Forever and Blofeld's use of it to imitate the voice of Willard Whyte. Later Q builds one for Bond to use to imitate Whyte's (now Blofeld's) right hand man Bert Saxby's voice to fool Blofeld into giving up the location of where Whyte was being held captive.
And the reason I know that answer cold is that I actually like Diamonds are Forever, a lot. The Vegas genre, you quite understand. I've watched and rewatched that Bond flick more than a few times.
link to original post
Correct!!!
Although, surprisingly, several Bond films reference Christmas, only "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" actually dwells on the holiday. There's Christmas trees, presents, lots of snow, a Christmas carnival and (as Gandler points out above) its own Christmas song. Even Blofeld takes some time away from his plans to kill millions of people to enjoy the season.
After OHMSS, "The World is Not Enough" is probably the second most Christmasy Bond film. It has snow, skiing and a character named Christmas who doesn't like jokes about her name.
"From Russia With Love" contains the first 007 Christmas reference as Q gives Bond what is arguably the most useful all around gadget of the series.
Q finally shows up to the Daniel Craig era in "Skyfall". As Bond notes, he isn't your dad's quartermaster.
A quick Q joke in a hard to find (on youtube) scene from "Diamonds Are Forever". (Cued Video)
This Christmas tree line comes from one of the funnier scenes in "The Living Daylights".
The quip takes place in M's office during Bond's "Moonraker" briefing. (Cued Video)
Have you tried 22 tonight? I said 22.
March 8th, 2022 at 5:43:16 AM
permalink
sorry to step on your quiz but I would have to try to look all that up, which, I dunno ...
for a different subject, the actress who was painted gold in the movie 'Goldfinger' died a year or two ago. All of my friends at the time went around saying if you covered someone in paint like that, it would kill them, and that is what the movie intended us to believe is what happens in the story. I was thinking about that and now wonder about it. If it would suffocate her, there would be signs of struggle, and there isn't. So, did the movie fail to show struggle because they didn't care about that, or did they intend us to realize she was already dead? Maybe it was the latter and just said nothing to counter the notion that painting a person kills them. It was certainly brilliant. I don't know if painting her is in the book. If no one knows, Wizard, maybe you could bring this up on ask-me-anything.
I looked it up. It won't kill you.
https://people.howstuffworks.com/culture-traditions/body-art/can-full-coat-body-paint-kill.htm
for a different subject, the actress who was painted gold in the movie 'Goldfinger' died a year or two ago. All of my friends at the time went around saying if you covered someone in paint like that, it would kill them, and that is what the movie intended us to believe is what happens in the story. I was thinking about that and now wonder about it. If it would suffocate her, there would be signs of struggle, and there isn't. So, did the movie fail to show struggle because they didn't care about that, or did they intend us to realize she was already dead? Maybe it was the latter and just said nothing to counter the notion that painting a person kills them. It was certainly brilliant. I don't know if painting her is in the book. If no one knows, Wizard, maybe you could bring this up on ask-me-anything.
I looked it up. It won't kill you.
https://people.howstuffworks.com/culture-traditions/body-art/can-full-coat-body-paint-kill.htm
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
March 8th, 2022 at 6:23:09 AM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitMaybe it was the latter and just said nothing to counter the notion that painting a person kills them. It was certainly brilliant. I don't know if painting her is in the book. If no one knows, Wizard, maybe you could bring this up on ask-me-anything.
link to original post
I've heard that if using body paint, you should leave a little spot, like once square inch, without paint, so the body can breathe. However, the link you give seems to refute that myth. I can't add anything more to the topic than your article already does.
Last edited by: Wizard on Mar 8, 2022
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
March 8th, 2022 at 6:38:46 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardQuote: odiousgambitMaybe it was the latter and just said nothing to counter the notion that painting a person kills them. It was certainly brilliant. I don't know if painting her is in the book. If no one knows, Wizard, maybe you could bring this up on ask-me-anything.
link to original post
I've heard that if using body paint, you should leave a little spot, like once square inch, without paint, so the body can breathe. However, the link you give seems to refuse that myth. I can't add anything more to the topic than your article already does.
link to original post
It's the line Sean Connery gives to M right after he discovers the girl painted in gold. It sounds quite reasonable. But always be wary of Hollywood mumbo jumbo
In the audio commentary for Oceans Eleven DVD, the director discusses the requirements that the amount sufficient to cover everyone's bets be on the premises which on a major weekend fight night will be huge is an actual mandatory requirement of Las Vegas gaming regulations.
The screenwriter suddenly corrects the director and admits that's NOT true and that he made it up. The director is shocked. He honestly believed that the whole time.
The screenwriter laughs, points out the casino wouldn't be able to confirm who or how many wagers would be taken in advance, that most table games are oppositional games where one sides losing pays the winners on the opposite side and if some situation occurred where patrons needed to be paid in excess of cash reserves the casino would just write a check.
The director seems upset he got fooled and says he thought the writer had done the research. The screenwriter replies he did the research and found out the majority of the casinos money is kept safely in the bank and not on the premises where it's in danger but he was asked to write a casino robbery, not a Bank heist so he concocted the facts accordingly.
It's one of the most memorable and genuine moments in an audio commentary I have ever listened too.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
March 8th, 2022 at 5:20:23 PM
permalink
On the gold paint issue, in the books it happens differently, Jill is killed off screen (off page?) (she goes back to work for Goldfinger after being with Bond at the hotel), and Bond later finds out about it through meeting her sister and learns that her sister thinks Goldfinger killed her sister by painting her gold (which with so many layers of hearsay, could just be a mobster rumor to inspire loyalty). -The book also makes her sister a larger character, she survives longer, including capture with Bond and they both work for Goldfinger (under duress), she does not get randomly killed by Odjob's hat during the first encounter.
Which makes more sense, why (in the movie) would Objob and his people after subduing both of them only murder Jill in such an extravagant way and let Bond live knowing who he was? The Bank of England was already on him, so its not like he was going to intimidate the British government out of following him, even if Bond quit. Nothing about it makes sense for such an organized person and planning. If he is going to kill one, why not just both? They were both subdued and knocked out, they would have both been killed in Miami, if anything in the movie, it just gave Bond more motive to return to London and get more involved with the Goldfinger case (which Goldfinger would have surely known). In the book neither were caught in the hotel room (and Jill was killed later after returning on her own), so this issue is not an issue. Its just such an over the top villain intimidation moment (even for a Bond movie) it makes no sense.
In the books Bond is hired by a rich hotel owner during a flight cancellation stranding him in Miami, who thinks one opponent (Goldfinger) he regularly plays against is cheating, and needs somebody good at cards to determine how. Of course Bond, does and meets Jill (somewhat like the movie), and Goldfinger pays the losses and Bond's fee. But, Goldfinger has no reason to think he is anymore than a random private investigator from the streets of Miami, trying to catch cheats for rich people, so why would he risk exposing himself (he is also a Russian agent in the books who is laundering money for Russia through Gold exchanges and jewelry -the books have a trend of the primary villain working for Russia or being a former Nazi-). IE during this whole encounter Bond is not working in his official capacity and is basically doing a random side-gig during a layover, and him working for England is irrelevant to both the situation and Goldfinger (there is no way he would know), so of course Jill did not think anything of it other than her employer got caught at some silly scheme (she though he had a winning complex despite the money they were playing for being irrelevant to him), so she had no fears of "returning to work" after they leave the hotel (in fact she wants to go back to working for Goldfinger as its such an easy gig).
So I suppose the movie, can be looked at the writers (of the film) trying to capture the blatant over the top rumor that is spread of her death in the book? (I don't know that is my best justification, though that still does not speak for motive in killing just one).
(Its been a while since I read this book or watched this film, despite its popularity, its not one of my favorites in book or movie, so some details may be off, but the general gist should be correct).
(Two books Goldfinger and Moonraker introduce Bond to the main villain through plot-unconnected gigs where Bond investigators them for cheating at cards, in both cases they are rich men who do not need the money, and it is a clue to some obsession about constantly winning, though in Moonraker to be fair it is technically a government assignment since they want to catch the Moonraker Director cheating before the public does to avoid bad publicity for the missile program).
Which makes more sense, why (in the movie) would Objob and his people after subduing both of them only murder Jill in such an extravagant way and let Bond live knowing who he was? The Bank of England was already on him, so its not like he was going to intimidate the British government out of following him, even if Bond quit. Nothing about it makes sense for such an organized person and planning. If he is going to kill one, why not just both? They were both subdued and knocked out, they would have both been killed in Miami, if anything in the movie, it just gave Bond more motive to return to London and get more involved with the Goldfinger case (which Goldfinger would have surely known). In the book neither were caught in the hotel room (and Jill was killed later after returning on her own), so this issue is not an issue. Its just such an over the top villain intimidation moment (even for a Bond movie) it makes no sense.
In the books Bond is hired by a rich hotel owner during a flight cancellation stranding him in Miami, who thinks one opponent (Goldfinger) he regularly plays against is cheating, and needs somebody good at cards to determine how. Of course Bond, does and meets Jill (somewhat like the movie), and Goldfinger pays the losses and Bond's fee. But, Goldfinger has no reason to think he is anymore than a random private investigator from the streets of Miami, trying to catch cheats for rich people, so why would he risk exposing himself (he is also a Russian agent in the books who is laundering money for Russia through Gold exchanges and jewelry -the books have a trend of the primary villain working for Russia or being a former Nazi-). IE during this whole encounter Bond is not working in his official capacity and is basically doing a random side-gig during a layover, and him working for England is irrelevant to both the situation and Goldfinger (there is no way he would know), so of course Jill did not think anything of it other than her employer got caught at some silly scheme (she though he had a winning complex despite the money they were playing for being irrelevant to him), so she had no fears of "returning to work" after they leave the hotel (in fact she wants to go back to working for Goldfinger as its such an easy gig).
So I suppose the movie, can be looked at the writers (of the film) trying to capture the blatant over the top rumor that is spread of her death in the book? (I don't know that is my best justification, though that still does not speak for motive in killing just one).
(Its been a while since I read this book or watched this film, despite its popularity, its not one of my favorites in book or movie, so some details may be off, but the general gist should be correct).
(Two books Goldfinger and Moonraker introduce Bond to the main villain through plot-unconnected gigs where Bond investigators them for cheating at cards, in both cases they are rich men who do not need the money, and it is a clue to some obsession about constantly winning, though in Moonraker to be fair it is technically a government assignment since they want to catch the Moonraker Director cheating before the public does to avoid bad publicity for the missile program).
March 8th, 2022 at 6:48:19 PM
permalink
I'd add that the book mentions the paint as being one of Goldfinger's kinks. He would hire prostitutes and have them painted gold before sleeping with them.
Also, the man who asks Bond to look into Goldfinger's card cheating was one of the players at the big baccarat game in the book "Casino Royale".
Yeah, I think they just wanted the awesome visual payoff. Essentially the film shows the start of a sequence, cuts out the middle and then shows the end result. So Bond is knocked unconscious and we see Oddjob's silhouette. He wakes up and we are treated to one of the most iconic visuals of the franchise (arguably in cinema). Very effective.
Compare that to a later scene when a mob boss wants no part of the Grand Slam operation. Goldfinger pays him his gold and has Oddjob drive him to the airport. We then have a long and rather boring sequence of Oddjob driving past the airport. Oddjob stopping on the side of the road and shooting the mob boss. Oddjob driving to an auto wrecking yard and getting out of the car. The car being picked up, placed in a crusher and reduced to a cube. The cube being placed on a small truck. Oddjob getting into the small truck and returning to the stud farm where Goldfinger quips he needs to separate the late mobster from his gold. I suppose that crushing cars was still a novelty in 1964 and the process is very cinematic, but how much more effective would it have been if Oddjob simply drove the mobster off in a car and then, a few scenes later, returned with the cube?
Consider the earlier scene again. Suppose Oddjob was shown entering the hotel room and knocking out both Bond and Jill Masterson. Then what? He puts a large tarp on the floor and places Jill on it. He then opens a case and pulls out a large jar of gold paint and some brushes. Then there's a lengthy montage of him painting her from head to foot. He then sits around waiting for her to dry with an occasional glance at Bond to make sure he's still out. Finally he tosses her on the bed, gathers his art supplies and exits. Somewhere during this, Jill dies of skin suffocation. Then Bond wakes up and finds her golden corpse. Suddenly it's not so iconic.
The scene is similar to the horse head scene in "The Godfather" from several years later. By cutting out the "how it's done" you not only get the horror of the discovery, but also the fear of realizing just how vulnerable you are when you start contemplating the "how".
Also, the man who asks Bond to look into Goldfinger's card cheating was one of the players at the big baccarat game in the book "Casino Royale".
Quote: odiousgambit...I was thinking about that and now wonder about it. If it would suffocate her, there would be signs of struggle, and there isn't. So, did the movie fail to show struggle because they didn't care about that, or did they intend us to realize she was already dead? Maybe it was the latter and just said nothing to counter the notion that painting a person kills them. It was certainly brilliant...
Yeah, I think they just wanted the awesome visual payoff. Essentially the film shows the start of a sequence, cuts out the middle and then shows the end result. So Bond is knocked unconscious and we see Oddjob's silhouette. He wakes up and we are treated to one of the most iconic visuals of the franchise (arguably in cinema). Very effective.
Compare that to a later scene when a mob boss wants no part of the Grand Slam operation. Goldfinger pays him his gold and has Oddjob drive him to the airport. We then have a long and rather boring sequence of Oddjob driving past the airport. Oddjob stopping on the side of the road and shooting the mob boss. Oddjob driving to an auto wrecking yard and getting out of the car. The car being picked up, placed in a crusher and reduced to a cube. The cube being placed on a small truck. Oddjob getting into the small truck and returning to the stud farm where Goldfinger quips he needs to separate the late mobster from his gold. I suppose that crushing cars was still a novelty in 1964 and the process is very cinematic, but how much more effective would it have been if Oddjob simply drove the mobster off in a car and then, a few scenes later, returned with the cube?
Consider the earlier scene again. Suppose Oddjob was shown entering the hotel room and knocking out both Bond and Jill Masterson. Then what? He puts a large tarp on the floor and places Jill on it. He then opens a case and pulls out a large jar of gold paint and some brushes. Then there's a lengthy montage of him painting her from head to foot. He then sits around waiting for her to dry with an occasional glance at Bond to make sure he's still out. Finally he tosses her on the bed, gathers his art supplies and exits. Somewhere during this, Jill dies of skin suffocation. Then Bond wakes up and finds her golden corpse. Suddenly it's not so iconic.
The scene is similar to the horse head scene in "The Godfather" from several years later. By cutting out the "how it's done" you not only get the horror of the discovery, but also the fear of realizing just how vulnerable you are when you start contemplating the "how".
Have you tried 22 tonight? I said 22.
March 8th, 2022 at 7:33:00 PM
permalink
Quote: GialmereI'd add that the book mentions the paint as being one of Goldfinger's kinks. He would hire prostitutes and have them painted gold before sleeping with them.
Also, the man who asks Bond to look into Goldfinger's card cheating was one of the players at the big baccarat game in the book "Casino Royale".Quote: odiousgambit...I was thinking about that and now wonder about it. If it would suffocate her, there would be signs of struggle, and there isn't. So, did the movie fail to show struggle because they didn't care about that, or did they intend us to realize she was already dead? Maybe it was the latter and just said nothing to counter the notion that painting a person kills them. It was certainly brilliant...
Yeah, I think they just wanted the awesome visual payoff. Essentially the film shows the start of a sequence, cuts out the middle and then shows the end result. So Bond is knocked unconscious and we see Oddjob's silhouette. He wakes up and we are treated to one of the most iconic visuals of the franchise (arguably in cinema). Very effective.
Compare that to a later scene when a mob boss wants no part of the Grand Slam operation. Goldfinger pays him his gold and has Oddjob drive him to the airport. We then have a long and rather boring sequence of Oddjob driving past the airport. Oddjob stopping on the side of the road and shooting the mob boss. Oddjob driving to an auto wrecking yard and getting out of the car. The car being picked up, placed in a crusher and reduced to a cube. The cube being placed on a small truck. Oddjob getting into the small truck and returning to the stud farm where Goldfinger quips he needs to separate the late mobster from his gold. I suppose that crushing cars was still a novelty in 1964 and the process is very cinematic, but how much more effective would it have been if Oddjob simply drove the mobster off in a car and then, a few scenes later, returned with the cube?
Consider the earlier scene again. Suppose Oddjob was shown entering the hotel room and knocking out both Bond and Jill Masterson. Then what? He puts a large tarp on the floor and places Jill on it. He then opens a case and pulls out a large jar of gold paint and some brushes. Then there's a lengthy montage of him painting her from head to foot. He then sits around waiting for her to dry with an occasional glance at Bond to make sure he's still out. Finally he tosses her on the bed, gathers his art supplies and exits. Somewhere during this, Jill dies of skin suffocation. Then Bond wakes up and finds her golden corpse. Suddenly it's not so iconic.
The scene is similar to the horse head scene in "The Godfather" from several years later. By cutting out the "how it's done" you not only get the horror of the discovery, but also the fear of realizing just how vulnerable you are when you start contemplating the "how".
link to original post
That could be true, I do not remember that. I remember one of the thing related to prostitutes, he was funneling Russian money into was brothels, but lost a bunch before when it was outlawed, which is why he needed to make up some of the losses (similar to Casino Royale in that regard, even if that was lost to a gambling issue) before the Russians noticed (which would be bad for the Soviet Agent), in an elaborate way.
The one "sexual" thing I do recall from that book is that both main females are same sex preference (Jill's sister, whose name I forget, and Pussy Galore). I do recall Bond thinking with one or both of them can be converted if they met a real man (this is kind of portrayed in the movie in a very rapey way). But, I can't even recall if Bond did sleep with either to be honest (in the book). I do know Jill's sister viewed Pussy Galore as kind of a hero (strong female mob leader with similar preferences to her). The book was fairly unmemorable as far as Bond's relations to females (past Jill). I am guessing if I had to bet, he got with Pussy Galore by the end simply because its a Bond book (but this expectation is sometimes breached), and they both live to the end.
But, I thought I recall Goldfinger being very asexual, but this could be wrong, or I could be mixing up book and movie. I know a lot of book Bond villains -with some exceptions like Drax- are portrayed as asexual (and no smoking and no drinking, etc... IE lifestyles that would make them look like a Nazi, even though Drax was a Nazi so that was a bit of a twist) so I could be getting this mixed up. I know in the movie Jill says the "Just seen" line (referencing why Goldfinger wants her with him at social events, and the movie definitely makes no hints at sexual kinks). I do recall that the book makes a big deal about his suntanning habits and mirroring so he at least some what cares about his orangish perception (maybe hinting at being attracted to gold colored stuff).
But, yes, that Casino Royale link is there (the books tended to have a lot more continuity than the movies, even if it was random character encounters and offhand comments), he wanted Bond because he remembered him from the game. It can be argued this breaks immersion, because what are the chances, but I tend to like encounters like this that don't require readers to have read the books in order, but subtly reward them for doing so.
April 7th, 2022 at 4:18:30 AM
permalink
I didn't know that the Wizard switched to his newsletter to analyze the poker game in the 2006 "Casino Royale" movie
here is the first installment. In the later installments, Anne Larson is the guest writer. I think I know her handle here btw
another btw: in the first analysis Dimitrios is said to have KK in the hole and also "Dimitrios’ hole cards are both hearts"
So I have quit reading that as it is a game I don't know that they are playing. Or can someone straighten me out? Reading the Larson contribution now.
https://wizardofodds.com/newsletter/October-21-2021/
here is the first installment. In the later installments, Anne Larson is the guest writer. I think I know her handle here btw
another btw: in the first analysis Dimitrios is said to have KK in the hole and also "Dimitrios’ hole cards are both hearts"
So I have quit reading that as it is a game I don't know that they are playing. Or can someone straighten me out? Reading the Larson contribution now.
https://wizardofodds.com/newsletter/October-21-2021/
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
April 7th, 2022 at 9:13:48 AM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitI didn't know that the Wizard switched to his newsletter to analyze the poker game in the 2006 "Casino Royale" movie
here is the first installment. In the later installments, Anne Larson is the guest writer. I think I know her handle here btw
another btw: in the first analysis Dimitrios is said to have KK in the hole and also "Dimitrios’ hole cards are both hearts"
So I have quit reading that as it is a game I don't know that they are playing. Or can someone straighten me out? Reading the Larson contribution now.
https://wizardofodds.com/newsletter/October-21-2021/
link to original post
You misunderstood what I was trying to say. While Dimitrios had two kings, Bond didn't know that mid-hand. The only way Bond could have been beaten is if Dimitrious had two hearts and if the river where the king of hearts.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
April 7th, 2022 at 11:24:05 AM
permalink
I haven't read through this whole thread but have you broken down the Baccarat scene in the Casino Royale (1957) TV movie?
Also there's some Bond movie, I think maybe with Roger Moore, where the dealer miscalls the player's hand, giving Bond the win, and it's totally ignored in the movie, like no one at the table saw it at all.
Also there's some Bond movie, I think maybe with Roger Moore, where the dealer miscalls the player's hand, giving Bond the win, and it's totally ignored in the movie, like no one at the table saw it at all.
April 7th, 2022 at 12:05:03 PM
permalink
OK, I get it now.Quote: WizardQuote: odiousgambitI didn't know that the Wizard switched to his newsletter to analyze the poker game in the 2006 "Casino Royale" movie
here is the first installment. In the later installments, Anne Larson is the guest writer. I think I know her handle here btw
another btw: in the first analysis Dimitrios is said to have KK in the hole and also "Dimitrios’ hole cards are both hearts"
So I have quit reading that as it is a game I don't know that they are playing. Or can someone straighten me out? Reading the Larson contribution now.
https://wizardofodds.com/newsletter/October-21-2021/
link to original post
You misunderstood what I was trying to say. While Dimitrios had two kings, Bond didn't know that mid-hand. The only way Bond could have been beaten is if Dimitrious had two hearts and if the river where the king of hearts.
link to original post
I went back to that. Wow, I don't remember the boat!
As for Anne Larson, kudos to her, that's some good stuff
These things are in fact found upthreadQuote: TigerWuI haven't read through this whole thread but have you broken down the Baccarat scene in the Casino Royale (1957) TV movie?
Also there's some Bond movie, I think maybe with Roger Moore, where the dealer miscalls the player's hand, giving Bond the win, and it's totally ignored in the movie, like no one at the table saw it at all.
link to original post
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
October 27th, 2022 at 7:45:48 PM
permalink
Sadly, there was no casino scene in "No Time To Die". There was, however, a gambling scene. About half an hour in Bond and Felix Leiter are shown playing the game "Spoof".
Spoof is a bar game usually played to see who buys a round of drinks. Each player has three coins and secretly conceals 0-3 of them in their closed fist which they then hold out before them. A randomly determined player begins the game by calling a number that he (usually) thinks is equal to the total number of coins held by all the players. Play then proceeds clockwise with each player calling a number with the caveat that numbers already called that round cannot be called again.
After all calls are made, players open their hands to reveal the actual total. If a player made the correct call he is out. The remaining players (which might be all the players if no correct call was made) then play another round. The last player left must buy the next round of drinks. Thus Spoof is unusual in that it's a game that doesn't determine a winner, only a loser.
Round #1 (0:45)
Bond calls 5
Leiter calls 4
Bond reveals 3 coins and Leighter has 2. Bond wins. (In the shooting script bond loses all three rounds perhaps symbolizing he's out of the spy business and off his game.)
Round #2 (1:00)
Bond calls 2
Leiter calls 3
Bond has 1 coin and Leiter has 2. Leiter wins. (With only two players it's not uncommon to play a "best of" series.)
Round #3 (1:34)
Bond calls 3
Leiter calls 2
Bond has 2 coins. Leiter's hand is empty. Leiter wins. (Bond buys the next round.)
Believe it or not, there are actual Spoof leagues and international tournaments for the game. "No Time To Die" certainly raised public awareness of it. There was also a recent episode of "The Brokenwood Mysteries" where a murder investigation takes place at a Spoof tournament. (Mild spoiler: The victim turned out to be a professional magician who had used a clever method to cheat and win. Bonus points if you can figure out how.) The game also has strict rules, dress codes and etiquette (such as no gloating) at the top levels. It's considered to be a gentleman's game, any breach of conduct might get you kicked out.
At 0:28. (This is the only Brokenwood video I could find with some spoof scenes. Note the required player jackets and that burnt matches are spun to determine the first caller.)
There are several optional ways to play such as the above mentioned "best of" series (as opposed to a single "shotgun" round). The number of coins used might also vary although 3 is by far the most common. The one option that seems to really split the community, however, is easily the "no bum shouts" rule. This rule simply states that you may not call a number that you know is mathematically impossible. For example, assume you held 2 coins in a round with three other players. You could not call spoof (zero) or 1 because you're already holding 2 coins. Nor could you call a full house (in this example 12) because your 2 coins make the highest result possible 11.
But why would you want to call a number that has no chance of getting you out? Well, that take us into both human psychology and the math of the game. For example, are you better off going first in a round when all the numbers are available or going last when there are fewer numbers but more clues as to how many coins are in play? (Observe how Leiter plays rounds 2 and 3 in the Bond clip above as an example of "mind reading" the opponent.) Say you were in the first round of a six player (usually considered the max) game. Why not make a crazy call, mess with peoples heads and get them off balance for later rounds? As for a math approach well, as one spoofer puts it...
"From personal experience I might also offer a word of warning to any scientists or mathematicians who may be reading this and think that their superior knowledge of probability might give them an automatic advantage. Beware, there is quite a lot to this game!"
Evidently, if you want to spoof you should bring your poker face.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So endeth the Danial Craig era of James Bond. Although others have played Bond in more films, with so many years between releases, Craig enters the books as the actor who was the official Bond for the longest period of time (15 years). How is the Bond community ranking his pentalogy of films? Two of them are considered top tier Bond. Another two are considered bottom tier Bond. The other is considered middle tier (and sinking). It's worth noting that the top tier films are the only two with casino scenes. Coincidence?
Have you tried 22 tonight? I said 22.
October 28th, 2022 at 1:20:49 AM
permalink
wow, you really work on things ... serious time and effort on this one. That's to be appreciated, though I will have to catch up on it fully later.
We used to determine the guy who had to go get more beer by each tossing a coin, we called it "odd man out". If each of the three tossed heads [or tails] you tossed again. As must be easy to see, randomly one person was doomed to differ from the other two ...as you say, there was a loser instead of a winner.
We used to determine the guy who had to go get more beer by each tossing a coin, we called it "odd man out". If each of the three tossed heads [or tails] you tossed again. As must be easy to see, randomly one person was doomed to differ from the other two ...as you say, there was a loser instead of a winner.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
October 28th, 2022 at 4:37:28 AM
permalink
Quote: GialmereAbout half an hour in Bond and Felix Leiter are shown playing the game "Spoof"....
link to original post
Good post! I was wondering what they were playing when I saw the movie.
Any way to spin this to a math puzzle? Seems to me as long as your call has a chance to win and assuming the other player randomizes his number, it doesn't matter what you do.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
October 28th, 2022 at 4:45:47 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardQuote: GialmereAbout half an hour in Bond and Felix Leiter are shown playing the game "Spoof"....
link to original post
Good post! I was wondering what they were playing when I saw the movie.
Any way to spin this to a math puzzle? Seems to me as long as your call has a chance to win and assuming the other player randomizes his number, it doesn't matter what you do.
link to original post
With the “no bum call” rule it really gives an edge to the second player.
Example of two player game:
The first player can only call zero if the first player has zero coins in his hand. That really gives away the answer to the second player. Knowing that, the second player may put zero coins in his hand thinking it is safe the first player wouldn’t guess that.
ETA: Thinking about above, I would guess this game has a mixed Nash equilibrium for each coin and guess that is not equally weighted. Don’t have time to analyze today.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
October 28th, 2022 at 5:19:25 AM
permalink
Quote: unJonWith the “no bum call” rule it really gives an edge to the second player.
link to original post
Yes, you're right.
A first thinking of this suggests:
If player 1 guesses 0 or 6, it gives away his total as 0 and 3 respectively. Player 2 then has a 100% chance of winning, assuming player 1 didn't win.
If player 1 guesses 1 or 5, it narrows down player's total to two possibilities. Player 2 then has a 50% chance of winning, assuming player 1 didn't win.
If player 1 guesses 2 or 4, it narrows down player's total to three possibilities. Player 2 then has a 1/3 chance of winning, assuming player 1 didn't win.
If player 3 guesses 3, it narrows down player's total to four possibilities. Player 2 then has a 1/4 chance of winning, assuming player 1 didn't win.
Seems to me, with little sleep, player 1 should randomize his coins equally between 0 and 3 and then call 3. If player 2 knows player 1 will follow this strategy, then I don't see a positional advantage.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
October 28th, 2022 at 6:16:48 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardQuote: unJonWith the “no bum call” rule it really gives an edge to the second player.
link to original post
Yes, you're right.
A first thinking of this suggests:
If player 1 guesses 0 or 6, it gives away his total as 0 and 3 respectively. Player 2 then has a 100% chance of winning, assuming player 1 didn't win.
If player 1 guesses 1 or 5, it narrows down player's total to two possibilities. Player 2 then has a 50% chance of winning, assuming player 1 didn't win.
If player 1 guesses 2 or 4, it narrows down player's total to three possibilities. Player 2 then has a 1/3 chance of winning, assuming player 1 didn't win.
If player 3 guesses 3, it narrows down player's total to four possibilities. Player 2 then has a 1/4 chance of winning, assuming player 1 didn't win.
Seems to me, with little sleep, player 1 should randomize his coins equally between 0 and 3 and then call 3. If player 2 knows player 1 will follow this strategy, then I don't see a positional advantage.
link to original post
I agree with this as first cut. This assumes player 2 randomizes between 0-3 equally. What I’m not yet sure if is if player 2 can do better than that.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
October 28th, 2022 at 6:43:37 AM
permalink
Quote: darkozQuote: GandlerThat was poor wording by me. I guess it also makes more sense for a more skilled based game to be used. I don't have a huge problem with them switching to Texas Holdem.
I just like when they stick close to the books (which to be fair, that film was probably one of the most accurate to the books, scaling for modern times of course). Sadly, the Craig movies after that have virtually no connection, Quantum of Solace has a name in common with the short story but virtually no connection (which is probably good as the story is basically bond being told a story about an affair with a flight attendant at some event in the Bahamas and is nothing Bond related besides him being the one hearing the story, I am pretty sure Fleming just used it to write a short love story). And, after that basically no connection, other than Spectre returning in a clunky way.
Just something I heard:
Movies based on books are like women.
When they are faithful, they are not beautiful
When they are beautiful, they are not faithful
link to original post
The most recent Dune movie would disagree. It is largely faithful to the book and a very beautiful movie.
I also think the first Dune movie is beautiful but the effects are very dated.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
July 25th, 2023 at 2:27:46 AM
permalink
Quote: AitchTheLetterQuote: darkozQuote: GandlerThat was poor wording by me. I guess it also makes more sense for a more skilled based game to be used. I don't have a huge problem with them switching to Texas Holdem.
I just like when they stick close to the books (which to be fair, that film was probably one of the most accurate to the books, scaling for modern times of course). Sadly, the Craig movies after that have virtually no connection, Quantum of Solace has a name in common with the short story but virtually no connection (which is probably good as the story is basically bond being told a story about an affair with a flight attendant at some event in the Bahamas and is nothing Bond related besides him being the one hearing the story, I am pretty sure Fleming just used it to write a short love story). And, after that basically no connection, other than Spectre returning in a clunky way.
Just something I heard:
Movies based on books are like women.
When they are faithful, they are not beautiful
When they are beautiful, they are not faithful
link to original post
The most recent Dune movie would disagree. It is largely faithful to the book and a very beautiful movie.
I also think the first Dune movie is beautiful but the effects are very dated.
link to original post
Yes it's just a saying.
Rosemary's Baby is also quite faithful to the novel and a beautiful film.
BTW, James Bond trivia: True or false: James Bond's code name is the three digit number 007?
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
July 25th, 2023 at 9:02:54 AM
permalink
everybody knows the answer has to be 'false' , or why would you ask such a question?Quote: darkozJames Bond trivia: True or false: James Bond's code name is the three digit number 007?
link to original post
so you might as well tell us why the answer is 'false'
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
July 25th, 2023 at 10:02:53 AM
permalink
Quote: darkozQuote: AitchTheLetterQuote: darkozQuote: GandlerThat was poor wording by me. I guess it also makes more sense for a more skilled based game to be used. I don't have a huge problem with them switching to Texas Holdem.
I just like when they stick close to the books (which to be fair, that film was probably one of the most accurate to the books, scaling for modern times of course). Sadly, the Craig movies after that have virtually no connection, Quantum of Solace has a name in common with the short story but virtually no connection (which is probably good as the story is basically bond being told a story about an affair with a flight attendant at some event in the Bahamas and is nothing Bond related besides him being the one hearing the story, I am pretty sure Fleming just used it to write a short love story). And, after that basically no connection, other than Spectre returning in a clunky way.
Just something I heard:
Movies based on books are like women.
When they are faithful, they are not beautiful
When they are beautiful, they are not faithful
link to original post
The most recent Dune movie would disagree. It is largely faithful to the book and a very beautiful movie.
I also think the first Dune movie is beautiful but the effects are very dated.
link to original post
Yes it's just a saying.
Rosemary's Baby is also quite faithful to the novel and a beautiful film.
BTW, James Bond trivia: True or false: James Bond's code name is the three digit number 007?
link to original post
True for the movies.
True for the books, until the last one (that Fleming published) where he is demoted and stripped of his status) and gets assigned 777 (the diplomacy branch number).
He techically gets promoted back to 007 in Man with the Golden Gun, but this is published posthumously so it is debated if this should be counted as a Fleming book as it was clearly unfinished with various strange parts put in.
So you can techically say he ended his career as 777 with the diplomatic branch with his wife in Japan, never to return to England in his official character arc. (Not counting non-Fleming publications).
July 25th, 2023 at 10:12:25 AM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambiteverybody knows the answer has to be 'false' , or why would you ask such a question?Quote: darkozJames Bond trivia: True or false: James Bond's code name is the three digit number 007?
link to original post
so you might as well tell us why the answer is 'false'
link to original post
Okay false.
His code name is not the three digit number 007 but the two digit letters (double O or double letter O) and the number 7.
A lot of people think the double O is the same as two zeroes. Otherwise it would be secret agent double zero seven
(I am having a little fun here but he never is referred to anything other than "double O". And that isn't the same as double zero)
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
July 25th, 2023 at 1:49:44 PM
permalink
I assume everyone knows what the 00 designation indicates -Quote: darkozOkay false.
His code name is not the three digit number 007 but the two digit letters (double O or double letter O) and the number 7.
A lot of people think the double O is the same as two zeroes. Otherwise it would be secret agent double zero seven
(I am having a little fun here but he never is referred to anything other than "double O". And that isn't the same as double zero)
link to original post
license to kill
Last edited by: UP84 on Jul 25, 2023
July 25th, 2023 at 2:00:22 PM
permalink
Quote: darkoz
Okay false.
His code name is not the three digit number 007 but the two digit letters (double O or double letter O) and the number 7.
A lot of people think the double O is the same as two zeroes. Otherwise it would be secret agent double zero seven
(I am having a little fun here but he never is referred to anything other than "double O". And that isn't the same as double zero)
link to original post
Inconclusive, but evidence points to it being the number 0...
July 25th, 2023 at 2:24:44 PM
permalink
Quote: darkozQuote: odiousgambiteverybody knows the answer has to be 'false' , or why would you ask such a question?Quote: darkozJames Bond trivia: True or false: James Bond's code name is the three digit number 007?
link to original post
so you might as well tell us why the answer is 'false'
link to original post
Okay false.
His code name is not the three digit number 007 but the two digit letters (double O or double letter O) and the number 7.
A lot of people think the double O is the same as two zeroes. Otherwise it would be secret agent double zero seven
(I am having a little fun here but he never is referred to anything other than "double O". And that isn't the same as double zero)
link to original post
It is definitely the numbers 007 in the books. The "zeroes" even get referenced as being issued.
It is just a turn of phrase where some cultures pronounce 0 as "oh" Just like in some parts of America people will read their phone number as "4Oh....9" for no reason.
In the movies I would argue it is definitely the numbers as well, because several times when dealing with foreigners trying to speak English they refer to him as "Zero Zero Seven is here." Which seems to confirm that "Double Oh" is just an office colloquialism.
July 28th, 2023 at 8:30:18 AM
permalink
I'll throw some more trivia on the pile...
Double-Oh Trivia
1) In the original Fleming books, what is the mandatory retirement age for 00 agents?
a) 40
b) 45
c) 50
d) 55
2) In the original Fleming books, how many active 00 agents are there?
a) 3
b) 5
c) 7
d) 9
3) In the EON bond films, how many female 00 agents have been seen on the screen?
a) 1
b) 2
c) 3
d) 4
General Trivia
4) Which Bond film title has the same name as a type of duck?
5) Adjusted for inflation, 'Thunderball' was the highest grossing Bond movie of all time until it was surpassed by which film?
Double-Oh Trivia
1) In the original Fleming books, what is the mandatory retirement age for 00 agents?
a) 40
b) 45
c) 50
d) 55
2) In the original Fleming books, how many active 00 agents are there?
a) 3
b) 5
c) 7
d) 9
3) In the EON bond films, how many female 00 agents have been seen on the screen?
a) 1
b) 2
c) 3
d) 4
General Trivia
4) Which Bond film title has the same name as a type of duck?
5) Adjusted for inflation, 'Thunderball' was the highest grossing Bond movie of all time until it was surpassed by which film?
Have you tried 22 tonight? I said 22.
July 28th, 2023 at 8:46:02 AM
permalink
Quote: GialmereI'll throw some more trivia on the pile...
Double-Oh Trivia
1) In the original Fleming books, what is the mandatory retirement age for 00 agents?
a) 40
b) 45
c) 50
d) 55
2) In the original Fleming books, how many active 00 agents are there?
a) 3
b) 5
c) 7
d) 9
3) In the EON bond films, how many female 00 agents have been seen on the screen?
a) 1
b) 2
c) 3
d) 4
General Trivia
4) Which Bond film title has the same name as a type of duck?
5) Adjusted for inflation, 'Thunderball' was the highest grossing Bond movie of all time until it was surpassed by which film?
link to original post
1.__ a) 40
2.__a) 3
3.__c)3
4,__ Goldeneye
5. ___Skyfall
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.
July 28th, 2023 at 10:04:49 AM
permalink
Oh-oh seven, at Oceans Eleven
sounds so much better than
zero-zero seven, at Oceans Eleven.
Has anyone ever called M "1,000"?
sounds so much better than
zero-zero seven, at Oceans Eleven.
Has anyone ever called M "1,000"?
The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction is supposed to make sense.
July 28th, 2023 at 7:27:14 PM
permalink
Quote: GialmereI'll throw some more trivia on the pile...
Double-Oh Trivia
1) In the original Fleming books, what is the mandatory retirement age for 00 agents?
a) 40
b) 45
c) 50
d) 55
2) In the original Fleming books, how many active 00 agents are there?
a) 3
b) 5
c) 7
d) 9
3) In the EON bond films, how many female 00 agents have been seen on the screen?
a) 1
b) 2
c) 3
d) 4
General Trivia
4) Which Bond film title has the same name as a type of duck?
5) Adjusted for inflation, 'Thunderball' was the highest grossing Bond movie of all time until it was surpassed by which film?
link to original post
Most of these are total guesses except for 1 (I think.)
1. 45
(I feel like it ends in a 5, and it is young so either 45 or 55, I feel confident in 45)
2. 9
(No idea, I know it is single digits, but all of your choices are, I know 009 is referenced in the books, so this seems like a good guess.)
3. 2
(The most recent James Bond film has an agent assigned "007" who is a female. This is the only time that I can recall it being openly stated, but that the 00 table in Thunderball -film- there was a lady -presumably a 00- but I don't know if this would count, but this is one of the only times I can think of where there are multiple 00s on screen at the same time, and one of the group is a female. I think Moneypenny says something like "All the 00s are in there at the table" so maybe this counts as verbal confirmation.)
4. No idea, the only duck name I can think of is "mallard", and that is definitely not one. Yeah, I don't even have a good guess.
5. Goldeneye
(I just know it was the first return Bond film post cold-war and after a long gap, so it blew up -and prior to Goldeneye most of the films were commercial flops by James Bond standards-. So it would not surprise me if this was the first to beat Thunderball's record -and this record would not exist if it was beaten by one of the films immediately after Thunderball-. But this is mostly a guess. )
July 29th, 2023 at 1:58:44 PM
permalink
Trivia Answers
In the Fleming books, agents must give up their 00 status when they turn 45. Later books in the series, by other authors, increase this to 50 and eventually to whenever Bond decides to retire.
Note that Roger Moore was already 45 when they filmed 'Live and let Die' and 57 when 'A View to a Kill' came out.
Note that Roger Moore was already 45 when they filmed 'Live and let Die' and 57 when 'A View to a Kill' came out.
In the Fleming books there are only three active 00 agents. A 00 might get two missions a year, three if things get busy. Most of the time these agents just sit in their offices and read newspapers from around the world. They mark articles that the other 00s should read, such as an increase in airport security in such-and-such country.
For this one, either 2 or 3 is acceptable. The uncertainty comes from the 'Thunderball' briefing scene. Here, Bond enters and sits in the seventh chair suggesting we are looking at agents 001 through 009. The chairs are high-backed so it's hard to get a good look at them but 003 clearly has a smaller stature than the others. A reverse angle during the scene sadly does not show 003. An on set photo, however, does...
...revealing that 003 is indeed a woman. However, we can only go by what's on the screen so either two or three, but three is more correct. Note that Moneypenny tells Bond that all the 00s in Europe have been called in. Only Europe? In the Bond film universe, one wonders just exactly how many paid killers Her (now His) Majesty's Secret Service has stationed around the planet?
The second lady 00 is seen in "The World is Not Enough." Here we have another 00 briefing and things are much more straight forward. An unidentified female 00 sits amongst her colleagues drinking a cup of tea...
The third female 00 is obviously Nomi in 'No Time to Die' who is assigned the 007 number after Bond's retirement.
Like a mallard, a goldeneye is a type of duck. In the James Bond universe, Goldeneye was first the name of a pendant worn by a character in the 'James Bond Jr' cartoon. More famously it was the name of the 1995 film which features the goldeneye satellite. These were named after Ian Fleming's estate at Oracabessa Bay on the northern coastline of Jamaica.
Did Flemming name his home after a duck? After all, James Bond was the name of an ornithologist who wrote a book on birds in the West Indies. Did Fleming flip through the book, see an entry for the goldeneye and decide to use that name as well? Probably not. The Goldeneye house was built adjacent to the the Golden Clouds estate, but that doesn't seem to be the source either. Fleming himself claimed a number of origins for the name Goldeneye, including Carson McCullers's 1941 novel, 'Reflections in a Golden Eye' and (more likely) Operation Goldeneye, a Second World War era contingency plan Fleming had developed in case of a Nazi invasion of Gibraltar through Spain.
Here is the Goldeneye estate, now a hotel...
'Thunderball' might be considered the high water mark of the 60's spy genre. Adjusted for inflation it remained the top grossing Bond film for 47 years. In 2012 it was surpassed by 'Skyfall' which was the first Bond film to gross over 1 billion dollars worldwide. Here are the top top 10 grossing Bond films adjusted for inflation (which is easier to think of as the films that sold the most tickets)...
1) Skyfall $1,439,477,111
2) Thunderball $1,335,850,615
3) Goldfinger $1,200,699,961
4) Spectre $1,107,311,290
5) The Spy Who Loved Me $911,739,683
6) Casino Royale $911,335,643
7) You Only Live Twice $901,174,011
8) Moonraker $863,249,636
9) Diamonds Are Forever $853,565,234
10) No Time to Die $851,411,174
I should note that if you only look at US domestic gross, 'Thunderball' is still #1.
Have you tried 22 tonight? I said 22.
July 29th, 2023 at 2:59:23 PM
permalink
Quote: Gialmere
'Thunderball' might be considered the high water mark of the 60's spy genre. Adjusted for inflation it remained the top grossing Bond film for 47 years. In 2012 it was surpassed by 'Skyfall' which was the first Bond film to gross over 1 billion dollars worldwide. Here are the top top 10 grossing Bond films adjusted for inflation (which is easier to think of as the films that sold the most tickets)...
1) Skyfall $1,439,477,111
2) Thunderball $1,335,850,615
3) Goldfinger $1,200,699,961
4) Spectre $1,107,311,290
5) The Spy Who Loved Me $911,739,683
6) Casino Royale $911,335,643
7) You Only Live Twice $901,174,011
8) Moonraker $863,249,636
9) Diamonds Are Forever $853,565,234
10) No Time to Die $851,411,174
I should note that if you only look at US domestic gross, 'Thunderball' is still #1
link to original post
(I edited quote to focus on the list).
I get that all the Craig movies are going to be in the top 10 box office sales, this makes sense as they are more recent (so are dealing with higher populations, more people across the world with access to theatres, people can stream "movie tickets" now etc.....) But, putting these (Craig movies) aside the list is actually (more than) a bit surprising. For example, I would have guessed for sure Goldeneye would be on there.
Thunderball is a solid Connery movie (middle of the pack), not the greatest Connery (but definitely not the worst. I would say probably #3-4 of the Connery Bonds depending on how I am feeling about long underwater scenes that day.) But, it is nowhere near the best James Bond movie to the point where it should not just be #1 for decades by a wide margin, it should not even be close to the top.
I am pretty sure I will always see every James Bond movie in theaters at least once on principle (even if I know it will suck.) But, many I will happily see multiple times, Thunderball I cannot imagine watching more than once. The only reason I can see this movie being appealing is if you are fascinated with underwater stuff. And, while it does a pretty good job being loyal to the book (which it should because the Fleming -and McClory- book was literally written as a screen play, but turned in book after selling the rights to the screenplay became too drawn out.)
But for decades Thunderball, Moonraker, and Diamonds are Forever being so high for so long? Moonraker and Diamonds are Forever and probably two of the worst Bond movies of all time. Like I get box office numbers do not always correlate with critic and fan perspectives (and Bond is unique in being such a long running series over so many different cultural timelines), but this seems like a major disconnect between quality and sales (and Thunderball is a fine movie, but nowhere near the overwhelming top of all time.)
I am honestly surprised No Time to Die is not the highest of Craigs (not because it is the best -it is not-), but because of it's COVID release (and many delays), it had both a lot of hype (plus the natural hype of being the last Craig, which everyone knows means the last for at least several years), and because of COVID it was pushed that you can buy "tickets" to stream it at home during it's theatrical (which I am assuming counts towards ticket sales.)
