Spectre (Bond 24)

Sad Professor

Here’s my theory which I’m spoilering because I think it’s very plausible.

Oberhauser is Bond’s step-brother. That part is all true. The twist is that he’s not the head of Spectre. He’s a decoy à la Iron Man 3 and a very carefully chosen one. Bond doesn’t discover this until the end just as Oberhauser dies. However when he heads back to MI6 to tell them he’s detained and stripped of his 007 status under suspicion of being a Spectre agent due to his personal connection to the apparent head of Spectre which he kept secret all these years. Then comes the twist: the real head of Spectre is Mallory/Ralph Fiennes, who in space of two films has orchestrated the death of the former M, replaced her, destroyed Bond’s reputation and is now the head of the newly empowered British intelligence service. End credits.

the_monkey

Can't wait for this new Bond, with the cold war raging on as it is it will be great.... :rolleyes:

Adamantium

Sad Professor wrote: »

Here’s my theory which I’m spoilering because I think it’s very plausible.

Oberhauser is Bond’s step-brother. That part is all true. The twist is that he’s not the head of Spectre. He’s a decoy à la Iron Man 3 and a very carefully chosen one. Bond doesn’t discover this until the end just as Oberhauser dies. However when he heads back to MI6 to tell them he’s detained and stripped of his 007 status under suspicion of being a Spectre agent due to his personal connection to the apparent head of Spectre which he kept secret all these years. Then comes the twist: the real head of Spectre is Mallory/Ralph Fiennes, who in space of two films has orchestrated the death of the former M, replaced her, destroyed Bond’s reputation and is now the head of the newly empowered British intelligence service. End credits.

I await the 007 and Harry Potter meet up movie with crossed fingers. A homeless Daniel Craig awaits at Platform 9 and 3/4 for further instructions, but police drag him away and arrest him for shouting and defecating at an innocuous plain brick wall.

FloatingVoter

....well, the crew of the movie seem to be having fun;)....rumours of Jeremy Clarkson being on board are unfounded (I think).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3016327/Skybrawl-British-crew-new-Bond-film-drunken-riot-private-plane-trigger-international-air-safety-alert.html

BuilderPlumber

From looking at the credits, Blofeld does not appear to be in the film !! Is this the case or is Blofeld the real identity of some other character. What seems obvious from already is the following:

1. That SPECTRE and Quantum are the same or very related. Perhaps like al Qaeda in Iraq and ISIS?
2. That it has infiltrated the secret service. We know this from the previous 3 films.

I found something not quite right about Mallory in Skyfall and was thinking he was the bad guy on the inside for a long time. In that film's close, he becomes M and is not revealed as a bad guy. But will we see him become a bad guy or be compromised by bad guys in SPECTRE.

On a humorous note: Jeremy Clarkson in Bond? Fighting in hotel rooms and wining and dining after driving fast cars!! He's perfect for the job!!

Iranoutofideas

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

From looking at the credits, Blofeld does not appear to be in the film !! Is this the case or is Blofeld the real identity of some other character. What seems obvious from already is the following:

1. That SPECTRE and Quantum are the same or very related. Perhaps like al Qaeda in Iraq and ISIS?
2. That it has infiltrated the secret service. We know this from the previous 3 films.

I found something not quite right about Mallory in Skyfall and was thinking he was the bad guy on the inside for a long time. In that film's close, he becomes M and is not revealed as a bad guy. But will we see him become a bad guy or be compromised by bad guys in SPECTRE.

On a humorous note: Jeremy Clarkson in Bond? Fighting in hotel rooms and wining and dining after driving fast cars!! He's perfect for the job!!

They just reacquired the rights to the Blofled character before making Spectre after years of legal wrangling. Blofeld is the head of Spectre. In his previous depictions he was often shown from the neck down, or his face was sometimes obscured. Which is exactly what we see in the trailer with Waltz.

There are other things too from the leaks...

Emails from execs discussing the script identify Waltz as Blofeld

eviltimeban

FunLover18 wrote: »

I looks to me, from the charred and very badly photoshopped photo we see him looking at, that

Bond may have a brother

I think more likely that he is

his childhood friend

, played by

Waltz

, as referenced in the Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectre_(2015_film)

Iranoutofideas

eviltimeban wrote: »

I think more likely that he is

his childhood friend

, played by

Waltz

, as referenced in the Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectre_(2015_film)

But that clearly states that Bond is fostered by Hannes Oberhauser and that Waltz plays a Franz Oberhauser. We saw a photo of a young Bond with a man and a boy. Presumably they being Hannes Oberhauser and his son Franz.

Bond is Blofelds foster brother.

BuilderPlumber

Iranoutofideas wrote: »

But that clearly states that Bond is fostered by Hannes Oberhauser and that Waltz plays a Franz Oberhauser. We saw a photo of a young Bond with a man and a boy. Presumably they being Hannes Oberhauser and his son Franz.

Bond is Blofelds foster brother.

Seems likely that Bond was fostered by Hannes and Blofeld the same. Franz Oberhauser is not his real name, that would be Blofeld. But Blofeld adopted his foster parent's name and the name Franz.

mzungu

I don't want to get my hopes up, but that trailer whetted the appetite quite nicely.

Simon2015

I notice on Spectre they have gone back to shooting on 35mm film anyone know why they dropped digital ?

Sad Professor

Simon2015 wrote: »

I notice on Spectre they have gone back to shooting on 35mm film anyone know why they dropped digital ?

Different DPs. The Bond films have always been shot on anamorphic Panavision. Shooting Skyfall digitally was driven by Deakins who is pretty much digital only these days, where as Hoytema who just worked with Nolan is more in the celluloid camp. With Deakins not returning, I doubt anyone had much enthusiasm for shooting digitally again. 35mm is still the safe choice.

Simon2015

Sad Professor wrote: »

Different DPs. The Bond films have always been shot on anamorphic Panavision. Shooting Skyfall digitally was driven by Deakins who is pretty much digital only these days, where as Hoytema who just worked with Nolan is more in the celluloid camp. With Deakins not returning, I doubt anyone had much enthusiasm for shooting digitally again. 35mm is still the safe choice.

I don't think they used Panavision on a bond film until you only live twice.

BuilderPlumber

Adamantium wrote: »

I await the 007 and Harry Potter meet up movie with crossed fingers. A homeless Daniel Craig awaits at Platform 9 and 3/4 for further instructions, but police drag him away and arrest him for shouting and defecating at an innocuous plain brick wall.

This would be precisely the kind of mad idea that could have happened in the 1970s or 1980s era of Bond films (it would not be Harry Potter then of course but some other famous character) or maybe Harry Potter was responsible for that invisible car in Die Another Day!!

Wedwood

Simon2015 wrote: »

I don't think they used Panavision on a bond film until you only live twice.

Thunderball I think. Dr No, From Russia With Love and Goldfinger are 16:9, whereas Thunderball onwards are 2.25:1 aspect ratios.

Simon2015

aspect ratios

Wedwood wrote: »

Thunderball I think. Dr No, From Russia With Love and Goldfinger are 16:9, whereas Thunderball onwards are 2.25:1 aspect ratios.

Live and Let Die and The Man with the Golden Gun were shot on 1.66 aspect ratio which is about 16:9.

Wedwood

Simon2015 wrote: »

aspect ratios


Live and Let Die and The Man with the Golden Gun were shot on 1.66 aspect ratio which is about 16:9.

Yeah, your right of course, thanks. Incidently, I have the Bond 50 Blu Rays which are all 5.1 DTS, does anyone know when the Bond movies were first released in Stereo/Surround Sound?

My original Goldfinger DVD was mono which suggests the original theatrical release was also mono until remastered for the newer DVDs/Blu Rays.

Simon2015

Wedwood wrote: »

Yeah, your right of course, thanks. Incidently, I have the Bond 50 Blu Rays which are all 5.1 DTS, does anyone know when the Bond movies were first released in Stereo/Surround Sound?

My original Goldfinger DVD was mono which suggests the original theatrical release was also mono until remastered for the newer DVDs/Blu Rays.

I think Goldeneye was the first bond film to use Surround Sound.

The format didnt become mainstream until the 1990s.

Most big budget films of the 1980s only had a Stereo soundtrack.

EoinMcLovin

EoinMcLovin

Sad Professor

Ooooh the OHMSS theme!

pixelburp

Between this and Mission Impossible, are there any fictional spy agencies / agents that don't find themselves having to go rogue? Trailer definitely feels like it's getting back into the more 'traditional' mould of Bond films, and the set-pieces seem to be practical based, which is nice!

GavRedKing

Out of curiosity, how many more Bonds films has Daniel craig sined up for after this?

brianregan09

Looks extremely good

BuilderPlumber

Sad Professor wrote: »

Ooooh the OHMSS theme!

From watching the trailer, it is very good. The main enemy seems to be some former friend or colleague of Bond's and is the leader of an organisation like ISIS. Of course, we do not use the name ISIS (of course, it is Quantum/SPECTRE). From the trailer, it seems personal?

Now, I also get the feeling that this is some sort of an update on OHMSS and the music used further confirms this perhaps. This will continue the same storyline as Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace I am sure with perhaps Skyfall tied in some way too.

In OHMSS, we saw Bond do battle with SPECTRE and Blofeld and then getting married with a view perhaps to retire out of what he does until Blofeld and his girlfriend kill her. It was an ending more fitting with a Love/Hate finale than a Bond movie. And it BEGGED a revenge focused sequel.

Other franchises to emerge soon afterwards dealt with revenge much better. 1979's first pre-apocalypse Mad Max had a story similar to OHMSS with a cop who gives up fighting out of control drugged up bikers to spend more time with his beloved wife. But like Blofeld, the Toecutter kills Max's wife and family and Mad Max is born: he hunts down and kills those responsible and his depressed, burnt out condition is explored in the post apocalypse sequels. Likewise, another Mel Gibson series see cop Riggs find out his wife who died in a car crash was deliberately targetted by the bad guys of the second film (his wife died before the first film and in the first film, Riggs is suicidal) and this makes him again very focused on revenge against the South African gold smugglers of the second film. Another example is Miam Vice, where Crockett's wife is killed at the end of season 4, leading Crockett to hunt down and kill the criminal responsible and then leading him to get depressed, suffer amnesia as result of explosion and turn into his alter ego undercover Burnette.

Now, Bond went from the gritty OHMSS to the lighter Diamonds are Forever. Nothing wrong with the latter btw but it was poorly placed. But the world was not ready for a revenge focused sequel and the seriousness of OHMSS did not go down as well as the more lighter action flicks with Bond cool and calm and on top.

Bond loved and lost many women for sure. Unlike Mad Max for example, he seemed to have countless girlfriends. But Tracy I think meant a lot more to him than any of the others and she was totally loyal and committed to him (unlike Vesper, who he loved but noted was not loyal).

The Roger Moore films had their moments but I cannot see any other 1980s action hero be it Mad Max or Rambo or whoever go around acting like this. It was radically different to the Bond Connery perfected in films like From Russia with Love for sure. And indeed Dalton and Craig.

But, now things are different. A revenge focused Bond film perhaps with Bond even verging towards the dark side would be ultra-cool. Blofeld, Irma Bunt and anyone else directly or indirectly responsible for Tracy's death just disappeared out of the series after 1969/1971. The series moved on and I think the middle Bond films would have been a lot stronger if they had continued with the theme of revenge. I know that the Kevin McClory thing was going on, but there was nothing to stop a plot focusing on Irma Bunt married to someone like Stromberg and Bond going after this pair in revenge. Bunt was not part of the Thunderball. The audience then could make up their own mind who Stromberg really was! Bond could throw in a comment, without ever mentioning the B word, like 'you look familiar!'.

Corholio

It looks good, set pieces look decent. I hope they don't go too mad with the whole delving into Bond's past and the writers writing about trying to 'figure' him out as a man. Little bit of that is fine but sometimes I think they do it just to be modern or have it as a character piece.

FunLover18

Corholio wrote:

It looks good, set pieces look decent. I hope they don't go too mad with the whole delving into Bond's past and the writers writing about trying to 'figure' him out as a man. Little bit of that is fine but sometimes I think they do it just to be modern or have it as a character piece.

Given that this is the fourth film where Bond has personal issues to deal with, I think it's safe to say they've passed a "little bit".

I really just want Bond on an official MI6 sanctioned mission. The action and set pieces do look great though.

Skylinehead

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

From watching the trailer, it is very good. The main enemy seems to be some former friend or colleague of Bond's and is the leader of an organisation like ISIS. Of course, we do not use the name ISIS (of course, it is Quantum/SPECTRE). From the trailer, it seems personal?

It's nothing like ISIS - it's the same SPECTRE as the original, I'd imagine. A global criminal organisation. Not a localised radical Islamist group.

BuilderPlumber

Skylinehead wrote: »

It's nothing like ISIS - it's the same SPECTRE as the original, I'd imagine. A global criminal organisation. Not a localised radical Islamist group.

It will be based on the same SPECTRE of the earlier films but also will be Quantum. Of course, there is not going to be mentions of ISIS, etc. for rather obvious reasons. SPECTRE will I feel though be very much comprised of rogue ex secret service agents and the like as we have already seen.

Unfortunately ISIS are not localised though! Wish they were.

BuilderPlumber

FunLover18 wrote: »

Given that this is the fourth film where Bond has personal issues to deal with, I think it's safe to say they've passed a "little bit".

I really just want Bond on an official MI6 sanctioned mission. The action and set pieces do look great though.

Bond was not on a totally official MI6 sanctioned mission since The World Is Not Enough actually. Personalised issues came into all the subsequent films. Licence to Kill was the first of the most recent set of films with a personal theme.

Of the earlier films, OHMSS was the only personalised mission other than the openings for Diamonds are Forever and For Your Eyes Only. Interestingly enough, Bond personally hated Blofeld in OHMSS even before he killed his wife - enough to track him down himself against the wishes of the MI6 actually.

Sad Professor

Once the hero tells their superior to go fcuk themselves, it’s hard to go back to him taking orders from them. Similarly once you have a villain with a personal connection to the hero who gets under their skin and messes with their head, it’s hard to go back villains of the week. The stakes can only get so high. All film series have this problem.

mzungu

This is looking pretty good. Not a big fan of the recent Bonds, more the oldies. This has me interested though.

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Bond was not on a totally official MI6 sanctioned mission since The World Is Not Enough actually. Personalised issues came into all the subsequent films. Licence to Kill was the first of the most recent set of films with a personal theme.

Of the earlier films, OHMSS was the only personalised mission other than the openings for Diamonds are Forever and For Your Eyes Only. Interestingly enough, Bond personally hated Blofeld in OHMSS even before he killed his wife - enough to track him down himself against the wishes of the MI6 actually.

The one thing that kills me about OHMSS is that Bond and Blofeld came face to face in YOLT, yet Blofeld does not recognise him...at all.

BuilderPlumber

mzungu wrote: »

This is looking pretty good. Not a big fan of the recent Bonds, more the oldies. This has me interested though.

The one thing that kills me about OHMSS is that Bond and Blofeld came face to face in YOLT, yet Blofeld does not recognise him...at all.

OHMSS pretty much followed Ian Fleming's book version almost entirely and in the books, it was the first time Bond and Blofeld met. The book version of YOLT actually had Bond disguise himself as Japanese and then seek his revenge on Blofeld. Do not remember if Bond killed Blofeld's girlfriend in the book version or if she pulled the trigger as in the film.

The films had YOLT before OHMSS and around 50% of YOLT was altered. I am unsure why they weren't done like the books. Perhaps, Connery was not going to risk the sad ending of OHMSS and in YOLT, Blofeld seemed to be introduced as a longterm villain of Bond's. But Lazenby came along and the exact same story as the book was adopted for OHMSS. Perhaps, Blofeld knew all along who Bond was and pretended not to? Bond also remember pretended not to know Blofeld was Blofeld here?

As said, I think the books worked out this part better. Perhaps, it could have been done this way. Reproduce the OHMSS and YOLT exactly as Fleming intended them. But end OHMSS happily with Bond married. Begin YOLT pretitle with Tracy's murder and continue Fleming's YOLT revenge story then. Then, move onto other things.

But the decision had been made around the later Connery films to move away somewhat from Fleming's original stories. Films like DAF, YOLT and Moore's first 2 were 50/50 Fleming/non-Fleming material. TSWLM was Fleming's least favorite book and he actually wanted it to be made as an original screenplay film. Moonraker pretty much followed suit but included the Fleming villain. Reason here was updated space situations. The firing of a missile plot of the book was less exciting in 1979 than space travel especially in the Star Wars and Star Trek era. The remaining Moore and the 2 Dalton films used Fleming's short storing as a basis for part of the script. Casino Royale pretty much succeeded as a modern fairly faithful adaptation of the book. Other modern Bond films are original.

SPECTRE and subsequent films will revisit those early SPECTRE-orientated films. It looks very good and exciting.

mzungu

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

OHMSS pretty much followed Ian Fleming's book version almost entirely and in the books, it was the first time Bond and Blofeld met. The book version of YOLT actually had Bond disguise himself as Japanese and then seek his revenge on Blofeld. Do not remember if Bond killed Blofeld's girlfriend in the book version or if she pulled the trigger as in the film.

The films had YOLT before OHMSS and around 50% of YOLT was altered. I am unsure why they weren't done like the books. Perhaps, Connery was not going to risk the sad ending of OHMSS and in YOLT, Blofeld seemed to be introduced as a longterm villain of Bond's. But Lazenby came along and the exact same story as the book was adopted for OHMSS. Perhaps, Blofeld knew all along who Bond was and pretended not to? Bond also remember pretended not to know Blofeld was Blofeld here?

Blofeld definitely was not aware it was Bond in OHMSS. Not until his cover was blown eventually at the mountain retreat. I suppose it was one of those scriptwritng that the fans just have to accept, even if we don't want to!

As said, I think the books worked out this part better. Perhaps, it could have been done this way. Reproduce the OHMSS and YOLT exactly as Fleming intended them. But end OHMSS happily with Bond married. Begin YOLT pretitle with Tracy's murder and continue Fleming's YOLT revenge story then. Then, move onto other things.

The ending of OHMSS is fine, but the less than serious conclusion in the DAF pre credits sequence comes off as being spoof like. Check out Blofelds one liners! Can you imagine Telly Savalas delivering those lines? Or even dressing up in drag like Blofeld does at the end of DAF. Its for these reasons that OHMSS is a real anomaly in the series. Its like sticking an episode of the Wire on the Nickelodeon morning TV line up!

BuilderPlumber

mzungu wrote: »

Blofeld definitely was not aware it was Bond in OHMSS. Not until his cover was blown eventually at the mountain retreat. I suppose it was one of those scriptwritng that the fans just have to accept, even if we don't want to!

The ending of OHMSS is fine, but the less than serious conclusion in the DAF pre credits sequence comes off as being spoof like. Check out Blofelds one liners! Can you imagine Telly Savalas delivering those lines? Or even dressing up in drag like Blofeld does at the end of DAF. Its for these reasons that OHMSS is a real anomaly in the series. Its like sticking an episode of the Wire on the Nickelodeon morning TV line up!

OHMSS was placed between what, filmwise, were 2 lighter Bond films. If it had been placed somewhere around FRWL, it would have been fine. When I saw it first in 1987, I would have actually placed it as the predecessor of The Living Daylights and the first move away from Moore's comedic films. I was surprised it was an early film then but not now of course. OHMSS would rest easy alongside the early Connery films along with Dalton's ones and Craigs.

The very start of DAF has Bond pursuing Blofeld back to what looks like Japan and onto perhaps Iran? and it all becomes pretty camp as the scenes develop. DAF was meant to recapture the feel of Goldfinger and the serious tone of OHMSS and any revenge-orientated sequel to it were shelved.

Although there were plans to reintroduce Blofeld in TSWLM and possibly others but the McClory lawcase forbid this. The uncertain fate of Blofeld at the end of DAF was deliberate and they wanted to use him again. Still, if Blofeld became the main enemy in say TSWLM, Moonraker, FYEO, Octopussy and/or A View To a Kill, I'd say they would still be similar to what we got as Moore's acting style had to be taken into account and a revenge focused film would not work for him.

mzungu

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

OHMSS was placed between what, filmwise, were 2 lighter Bond films. If it had been placed somewhere around FRWL, it would have been fine. When I saw it first in 1987, I would have actually placed it as the predecessor of The Living Daylights and the first move away from Moore's comedic films. I was surprised it was an early film then but not now of course. OHMSS would rest easy alongside the early Connery films along with Dalton's ones and Craigs.

Absolutely. Early Bonds were serious cold war thrillers with little to no slapstick. The proper place for OHMSS was definitely in that early era

The very start of DAF has Bond pursuing Blofeld back to what looks like Japan and onto perhaps Iran? and it all becomes pretty camp as the scenes develop. DAF was meant to recapture the feel of Goldfinger and the serious tone of OHMSS and any revenge-orientated sequel to it were shelved.

To be honest, I am glad they abandoned the tone of OHMSS. DAF, for me, continues pretty well from YOLT. The cheese factor is taken to extremes though, however I am a big fan of that:D

Although there were plans to reintroduce Blofeld in TSWLM and possibly others but the McClory lawcase forbid this. The uncertain fate of Blofeld at the end of DAF was deliberate and they wanted to use him again. Still, if Blofeld became the main enemy in say TSWLM, Moonraker, FYEO, Octopussy and/or A View To a Kill, I'd say they would still be similar to what we got as Moore's acting style had to be taken into account and a revenge focused film would not work for him.

I always get a laugh when Roger Moore's Bond dispatches of a Blofeld-esque villain at the start of FYEO. I suppose it was the producers giving the two fingers to McLory at the time. NSNA was in the pipeline so the Broccoli's did that as a way of saying, there is only one Bond series...so clear off with the imitations! Mind you, the very first scene of FYEO is Bond visiting Tracy's grave, a nice scene.

I am guessing Daniels Craigs Bond has his own Tracy in the form of Vesper dosen't he? Maybe Waltz's Blofeld was behind the events of CR. Bond has been on a revenge mission more or less since then IIRC.

FunLover18

BuilderPlumber wrote:

Bond was not on a totally official MI6 sanctioned mission since The World Is Not Enough actually. Personalised issues came into all the subsequent films. Licence to Kill was the first of the most recent set of films with a personal theme.

I know that there were off films with personal stakes and that doesn't bother me. But the fact that we haven't had an official MI6 sanctioned mission in so long (technically CR was sanctioned) does bother me. QoS was grand because it was a continuation of the arc in CR. But Skyfall and now this are just unnecessary imo. I don't think believe that personal stakes are even necessary in a Bond film, he's supposed to be a cold calculating killer, CR and QoS served their purpose in getting him to that point now I really just want to him doing his thang without it getting personal.

Sleepy

Looks like Q will be playing a major enough role. The Aston looks glorious too

Is there any word on a release date for this yet?

BuilderPlumber

mzungu wrote: »

Absolutely. Early Bonds were serious cold war thrillers with little to no slapstick. The proper place for OHMSS was definitely in that early era

To be honest, I am glad they abandoned the tone of OHMSS. DAF, for me, continues pretty well from YOLT. The cheese factor is taken to extremes though, however I am a big fan of that:D

I always get a laugh when Roger Moore's Bond dispatches of a Blofeld-esque villain at the start of FYEO. I suppose it was the producers given the two fingers to McLory at the time. NSNG was in the pipeline so the Broccoli's did that as a way of saying, there is only one Bond series...so clear off with the imitations! Mind you, the very first scene of FYEO is Bond visiting Tracy's grave, a nice scene.

I am guessing Daniels Craigs Bond has his own Tracy in the form of Vesper dosen't he? Maybe Waltz's Blofeld was behind the events of CR. Bond has been on a revenge mission more or less since then IIRC.

I agree. I liked both styles of early Bond. Dr No, FRWL, Thunderball and OHMSS as well as Goldfinger, YOLT, DAF and LALD all were excellent in my book. TMWTGG provided the weakest of the early Bonds but it is ok generally. I guess the fact that there was no bad guy in it meant there was no plot. Bond more or less playing the part of some kind of energy ombudsman rather than secret agent. The late Christopher Lee did well in his part as what I will call the alternative good guy! I do not see what he was doing wrong.

That's probably why they decided Blofeld was needed again and got him booked for TSWLM but Mc Clory would not have it. Nevertheless, Stromberg was Blofeld in all but name, and his successor villains Drax, Zorin and Carver ALL were Blofelds under another name.

The FYEO scene (FYEO was the last of the pre 1989 Bonds I got to see) was funny and that was the intention I was sure. When I saw Bond visiting the grave of Tracy at the start, I assumed this was all going to be the sequel to OHMSS (I had heard it was Moore's most serious outing) but that was the pretitle only. Clearly, it was Blofeld or a double. He knew Bond's grave visiting patterns and arranged to sabotage him.

I'd say they will use Vesper as Craig's answer to Tracy. In the books of course, Bond lost the 2: Vesper and Tracy. Vesper betrayed him in the book too but declared her love and was sorry in the book too. The sentiment of the book and film CR are actually the same. Both were the only 2 girls Bond wanted to alter his life for. Fleming in OHMSS revisited elements from his first novel clearly.

In the original films, Bond never really got over Tracy. The start of DAF show his desire for revenge and even though it is not a revenge film, Bond does go out of his way to really make Blofeld uncomfortable at the end. In LALD, there is a mention of Mrs Bond that leaves him curious, and in TSWLM, Bond gets upset about Tracy when reminded. Of course, then there is the FYEO scene and finally there is a mention of it in LTK. Felix suffers a similar fate and Bond's revenge mission on Sanchez obo Felix is motivated clearly by this.

In the new Bonds, which we can assume are a reboot in the order of CR, QoS, the 4 Brosnan films, Skyfall and SPECTRE, Vesper is the new Tracy. It is assumed he loved her deeply but her betrayal kind of helped him forget or so it seems. He finishes his job in QoS and moves on to deal with a crooked agent in Goldeneye, and then Carver, and the OTT villains of the last 2 Brosnan films. Because these were made before the Craig films, Vesper and Quantum are not mentioned. Skyfall comes after DAD and likewise, features a new villain.

Now, SPECTRE introduces Blofeld and he seems to personally hate Bond. Now, is Quantum a wing of SPECTRE? Probably. It's rogue agents like Mr White and the guy from Goldeneye perhaps members? Elliot Carver and the North Korean placed to annoy Bond further? Vesper compromised to make Bond unhappy? Bond's girlfriend killed in TND? Same with Elektra King? And finally M killed? Probably all done to avenge something.

In the 1962-1989 series, it was shown Bond always hated Blofeld even before Tracy's death. It was never explained why. SPECTRE will explain this more.

Wedwood

I think every Bond actor lives in their own universe, the Tracy reference is really the only common thing between them. Other then that, they are not really sequels, but rather standalone episodes.

The first two Craig movies were first true sequels, with Skyfall and Spectre now the second set of sequels. Trying to link all the movies since Dr No into some sort of sequence kind of sets you up for disappointment.

Every Bond era has its own charms, personally I miss Roger Moore's tongue in cheek movies.

Fuzzy_Dunlop

Wedwood wrote: »

I think every Bond actor lives in their own universe, the Tracy reference is really the only common thing between them. Other then that, they are not really sequels, but rather standalone episodes.

The first two Craig movies were first true sequels, with Skyfall and Spectre now the second set of sequels. Trying to link all the movies since Dr No into some sort of sequence kind of sets you up for disappointment.

Every Bond era has its own charms, personally I miss Roger Moore's tongue in cheek movies.

Casino royale and quantum of solace are also a sequel pair

BuilderPlumber

Wedwood wrote: »

I think every Bond actor lives in their own universe, the Tracy reference is really the only common thing between them. Other then that, they are not really sequels, but rather standalone episodes.

The first two Craig movies were first true sequels, with Skyfall and Spectre now the second set of sequels. Trying to link all the movies since Dr No into some sort of sequence kind of sets you up for disappointment.

Every Bond era has its own charms, personally I miss Roger Moore's tongue in cheek movies.

I think this is true especially as the series goes on. ALL of the Connery films, while maybe NOT strictly sequels, were certainly the same character and Lazenby's too. The Tracy link proves Moore is the same Bond too and Dalton as well. But albeit obviously being the same guy, a lot of the films are standalone too. They are not referenced again in subsequent films.

Some cars, some characters (Gogol, Jaws, Blofeld), etc. are carried across but each film as a rule did not complicate things by bringing in elements from its predecessor.

Brosnan's films were probably a different Bond that may or may not be the same Bond as Craig's. Judy Dench's M suggests they are the same but then those 4 films go after QOS and before Skyfall. Or maybe they are 2 rebooted Bonds. I do not believe either Craig's or Brosnan's Bonds are the same Bond as 1962-89. The Bond of NSNA of course was also another rebooted Bond. The Bond of the original books also was a separate Bond, having had WW2 experience and being 20 years older than Connery in 1962. Same character but transported for obvious reason to a different era! If Bond who appeared in 1953's CR book was still the Bond set in stone of that time, he'd be at least 90 today, probably much older as he had a high rank from WW2 in the books.

Yes, the Craig Bond's are the only set of direct sequels. And this was a new departure for the series. Each actor brought a different thing to the series I feel too. There is a tendency to underrate the Moore films. Ones like Octopussy and TSWLM are excellent action films and great entertainment. Many seem to say these are totally different to Connery's but in fact are very like YOLT (which is also very entertaining).

Craig's films all join the series together. Actually, Fleming himself did this many times too and almost each book did reference its predecessor. This was not done in the films of course.

Thinking of unused Fleming material, perhaps some of TSWLM book could be used. Fleming did not like it and said producers were free to use the title and make up their own story for this. But I recently reread the book and it is good. Not your typical Bond but it shows a good side of Bond helping out a female friend in trouble. She tells the story and Bond features in only 50% of it. There is good action in it that could be used as part of a new film. Interestingly enough, the Jaws character is in it but called Horror.

mzungu

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I agree. I liked both styles of early Bond. Dr No, FRWL, Thunderball and OHMSS as well as Goldfinger, YOLT, DAF and LALD all were excellent in my book. TMWTGG provided the weakest of the early Bonds but it is ok generally. I guess the fact that there was no bad guy in it meant there was no plot. Bond more or less playing the part of some kind of energy ombudsman rather than secret agent. The late Christopher Lee did well in his part as what I will call the alternative good guy! I do not see what he was doing wrong.

Agreed. Not the greatest Bond it has to be said, but Lee was a great villain. With a better script it could have been unreal.

That's probably why they decided Blofeld was needed again and got him booked for TSWLM but Mc Clory would not have it. Nevertheless, Stromberg was Blofeld in all but name, and his successor villains Drax, Zorin and Carver ALL were Blofelds under another name.

All meglomaniacs for sure, but only Stromberg was similar to Blofeld IMO.

I'd say they will use Vesper as Craig's answer to Tracy. In the books of course, Bond lost the 2: Vesper and Tracy. Vesper betrayed him in the book too but declared her love and was sorry in the book too. The sentiment of the book and film CR are actually the same. Both were the only 2 girls Bond wanted to alter his life for. Fleming in OHMSS revisited elements from his first novel clearly.

Maybe they should wheel in Diana Rigg as the love interest in SPECTRE. :pac:

In the original films, Bond never really got over Tracy.

This was one bit of continuity I always liked with the older Bond movies. On one occasion in TSWLM, Triple XXX mentions her which results in Bond snappily telling her to not to go any further with it. Moments like that made Moore's Bond a bit more human.

In the new Bonds, which we can assume are a reboot in the order of CR, QoS, the 4 Brosnan films, Skyfall and SPECTRE, Vesper is the new Tracy. It is assumed he loved her deeply but her betrayal kind of helped him forget or so it seems. He finishes his job in QoS and moves on to deal with a crooked agent in Goldeneye, and then Carver, and the OTT villains of the last 2 Brosnan films. Because these were made before the Craig films, Vesper and Quantum are not mentioned. Skyfall comes after DAD and likewise, features a new villain.

Would not agree there, if anything it seems that aside from Judi Dench, any events in Brosnan's era are completely discarded.

Now, SPECTRE introduces Blofeld and he seems to personally hate Bond. Now, is Quantum a wing of SPECTRE? Probably. It's rogue agents like Mr White and the guy from Goldeneye perhaps members? Elliot Carver and the North Korean placed to annoy Bond further? Vesper compromised to make Bond unhappy? Bond's girlfriend killed in TND? Same with Elektra King? And finally M killed? Probably all done to avenge something.

Definitely not. If I was I would demand my money back Quantum is more than likely a splinter of some sort of SPECTRE. If it has rogue agents it will just be from Craig's ark. Parachuting in random bad guys from Brosnan's days would make no sense.

In the 1962-1989 series, it was shown Bond always hated Blofeld even before Tracy's death. It was never explained why. SPECTRE will explain this more.

I would not be so sure. In this reboot they will jig it around a bit. Bond may not even be aware of Blofeld
.

Wedwood wrote: »

I think every Bond actor lives in their own universe, the Tracy reference is really the only common thing between them. Other then that, they are not really sequels, but rather standalone episodes.

The first two Craig movies were first true sequels, with Skyfall and Spectre now the second set of sequels. Trying to link all the movies since Dr No into some sort of sequence kind of sets you up for disappointment.

Every Bond era has its own charms, personally I miss Roger Moore's tongue in cheek movies.

When it comes to the arcs the hard and fast rule is to assume it ends with the actors run. Aside from George Lazenby (OHMSS) handing over the reigns again to Connery (DAF).

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I think this is true especially as the series goes on. ALL of the Connery films, while maybe NOT strictly sequels, were certainly the same character and Lazenby's too. The Tracy link proves Moore is the same Bond too and Dalton as well. But albeit obviously being the same guy, a lot of the films are standalone too. They are not referenced again in subsequent films.

It is little else that a mere nod to the past.

Some cars, some characters (Gogol, Jaws, Blofeld), etc. are carried across but each film as a rule did not complicate things by bringing in elements from its predecessor.

Legend. Walter Gotel was the bizz.

BuilderPlumber

mzungu wrote: »

Agreed. Not the greatest Bond it has to be said, but Lee was a great villain. With a better script it could have been unreal.

Agree. Lee played the part well. All the ingredients were there - recluse on an elaborate island, sinister appearance and a great actor - apart from, well, he planning something evil. Scaramanga was in that regard the most harmless Bond 'villain' along with Dominic Greene.

TMWTGG was the weakest of the 1962-89 set of films imo. It has its moments but lacks the action of earlier and later installments.

All meglomaniacs for sure, but only Stromberg was similar to Blofeld IMO.

Stromberg was actually supposed to be Blofeld and this and Moonraker may well have become the climax of Bond's battles with him and SPECTRE. Stromberg still looked the part however and was cast possibly as Blofeld before it was confirmed McClory would not allow it.

The others I mention agreed are very different in appearance and even attitude to Blofeld but are of that template. Kamal Khan too had some of the Blofeld traits too. Drax of course was based on Stromberg with space taking over from the oceans.

Maybe they should wheel in Diana Rigg as the love interest in SPECTRE. :pac:

This was one bit of continuity I always liked with the older Bond movies. On one occasion in TSWLM, Triple XXX mentions her which results in Bond snappily telling her to not to go any further with it. Moments like that made Moore's Bond a bit more human.

Yes. This clearly told us it was the same character. But each mission was standalone and did not follow up previous stories. In the real world, previous missions would bleed into new missions and may be focused on certain places only like Iraq.

Would not agree there, if anything it seems that aside from Judi Dench, any events in Brosnan's era are completely discarded.

The Brosnan films do not fit in with the early films imo. Judi Dench links them to the Craig ones but is it that she merely is M in both sets due to her contract? And are both sets of films a rebooted Bond? Seems to be the case.

Definitely not. If I was I would demand my money back Quantum is more than likely a splinter of some sort of SPECTRE. If it has rogue agents it will just be from Craig's ark. Parachuting in random bad guys from Brosnan's days would make no sense.

I think they will completely ignore anything from Brosnan's days. It will be largely up to the fans to place where these go: as part of the new Bonds or as part of the old ones. I prefer to think of them as a third set of films connected to neither, just like the non-official Never Say Never Again.

I would not be so sure. In this reboot they will jig it around a bit. Bond may not even be aware of Blofeld.

It seems like from the trailers that

Bond is totally unaware of Blofeld but when he finds out who Blofeld actually is, he knows him and was once close to him and is surprised

.

When it comes to the arcs the hard and fast rule is to assume it ends with the actors run. Aside from George Lazenby (OHMSS) handing over the reigns again to Connery (DAF).

It is little else that a mere nod to the past.

Legend. Walter Gotel was the bizz.

Kind of the case. Connery's and Lazenby's set of films more or less were focused on SPECTRE and Blofeld. Goldfinger mentions neither and is the exception.

The Moore films showed we had the same character. LALD though followed a similar style to DAF. The real Moore style was defined by TSWLM and that template also served Moonraker and Octopussy too. Now, others like FREO and AVTOAK moved things elsewhere to an extent. The detente era of the cold war was a focus throughout all the films from TSWLM right through to TLD, hence Gotel's character.

Dalton's first film marked the end of the classic cold war era Bond films in many regards. It also was the last film to feature many of the elements introduced in Moore's tenure, incl. Gotel's character, and the foreign minister. Just like LALD had Connery elements, TLD had Moore elements. LTK featured the new Dalton Bond. It was a big change for many reasons. Better West and USSR relations, an end to cold war issues and new threats inclusive of militant drug dealers as depicted here. Secret agents this film predicted would become important in opposing organised crime. But this was more Leiter's duty than Bond's and Bond here is out to avenge his friend's and his own loss here. LTK was violent and daring for its times as well.

Brosnan was the first actor to start into the role full of confidence as his own man. He was sort of like Moore but not totally. 6 years had passed since LTK and it seemed that introducing the new Bond as he was seemed the way to go. Craig also followed suit. Again, he is sort of like Connery and Dalton but again not totally.

mzungu

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

It seems like from the trailers that

Bond is totally unaware of Blofeld but when he finds out who Blofeld actually is, he knows him and was once close to him and is surprised

.

Indeed. Probably a long lost evil brother !:pac:

Kind of the case. Connery's and Lazenby's set of films more or less were focused on SPECTRE and Blofeld. Goldfinger mentions neither and is the exception.

Initially he was to be a SPECTRE agent, but producers decided against it. The correct call IMO. In the books he is an operative of SMERSH I believe.

Secret agents this film predicted would become important in opposing organised crime. But this was more Leiter's duty than Bond's and Bond here is out to avenge his friend's and his own loss here. LTK was violent and daring for its times as well.

It does feel like a high budget better acted version of a typical 80s revenge flick...but my god it was done in style. Fairly violent for its day too. There were tamer movies than LTK that had 18certs slapped on them back then.

JP Liz V1

Monica Bellucci at 50 looks stunning despite all the talk of her being the oldest Bond girl

BuilderPlumber

mzungu wrote: »

Indeed. Probably a long lost evil brother !:pac:

Initially he was to be a SPECTRE agent, but producers decided against it. The correct call IMO. In the books he is an operative of SMERSH I believe.

It does feel like a high budget better acted version of a typical 80s revenge flick...but my god it was done in style. Fairly violent for its day too. There were tamer movies than LTK that had 18certs slapped on them back then.

SMERSH were the main baddies in the early books but SPECTRE was created in the later ones. Bad guys like Dr No, Goldfinger, Mr Big, Le Chiffre, etc. were all SMERSH agents in the books but were either SPECTRE, Quantum or independent in the films.

SMERSH and Smiert Spionam interestingly enough is only mentioned in 2 films: From Russia With Love mentions that Rosa Klebb was ex-SMERSH but now in SPECTRE while Smiert Spionam is mentioned as Koskov's agenda in The Living Daylights.

The focus away from SMERSH towards SPECTRE was initialised by Fleming in an attempt to apoliticise the books after the USSR became more moderate post-Stalin. This was continued in the films.

Goldfinger not being in SPECTRE was a good call for sure. It showed early on that a Bond film could survive without it and it showed the series to continue if it was not in them. That said, Goldfinger may have been/probably was an ally of SPECTRE but not a member. It is implied the Kim dynasty to be was also behind him.

Licence to Kill indeed was one of the best revenge movies ever made. Bond did this for Felix and his wife and for Tracy as well. I would have liked to have seen Dalton in a few more and explore this side of Bond.

dastardly00

Is everyone avoiding this thread like I am so as not to see any spoilers? No posts in over a month! :eek:

Anyway, Sam Smith has been confirmed for the theme song for Spectre.

https://twitter.com/samsmithworld/status/641144368418693120

Simon2015

Not a fan of Sam Smith.

Noel Gallagher was linked with the bond theme awhile ago. He would of been a much better choice IMO.

loyatemu

Simon2015 wrote: »

Not a fan of Sam Smith.

Noel Gallagher was linked with the bond theme awhile ago. He would of been a much better choice IMO.

Would've said the same about Jack White, until I heard his song.