So can anyone tell me why Blofelds torture didn't affect Bond?
He said the first wound will mess up his sense of balance and the second wound will destroy his ability to recognize faces.
Yet he still recognizes everyone he meets later on and he can still walk/perform jumps and aim without any problems or missing something.
It's not an exact science. For instance, Blofeld said if he hit the right spot, Bond's memory would be affected. James cut short Blofeld's opportunity to do any lasting damage by ending the torture with the explosive watch.
shareActually it is an exact science because they are in a lab and Blofelds torture gadgets are an x-ray unit and a drilling machine with an accuracy in the micrometer range.
shareSorry, but no. The brain isn't something simple that you can plan exactly to have a certain result by hitting a certain spot.
shareNo, the brain is something super complex that you can have an exact and certain result by manipulating it in the right and exact manner, but we're still working on our tools to gain further knowledge as to how manipulate these certain right manners. We're good with what we got but we're not gods just yet.
shareYour sense of balance is in your ear and not in your brain, and no, it isn't complex.
If you destroy parts of the inner ear you cannot stay in balance anymore.
Well actually your vestibular system projects from your inner ears to your brainstem (and from there to the cerebellum, thalamus, etc), which is why people with posterior circulation strokes often present with vertigo. Also, "balance" is a triumvirate of three different sensory systems: your vestibular system, proprioception, and vision. So it is a little bit complex.
Sincerely,
A neurologist
I don't think we're necessarily in disagreement. That we don't yet have "further knowledge" is part of what was on my mind. But the brain is not perfectly predictable in terms of what damage will necessarily result in. We see people with brain injury, sometimes significant, that don't have all the negative results we'd expect, or are better functioning than we expect. So I can roll with a fictional movie torture not resulting in one, and only one, definite result.
shareSo let's all do a lobotomy and see what happens... seriously?
shareA lobotomy wasn't being depicted.
shareA lobotomy wasn't being depicted.
Not even close. In a lobotomy, a hook was pushed up a nostril, hammered through the base of the skull and was then swished around to separate the two hemispheres of the brain, and it also caused an enormous amount of collateral damage. Two tiny little drills inserted with micronic precision wouldn't cause anywhere like as much damage.
The restitution of life is no great feat. A variety of deaths may well enter into your punishment
[quoteBlofeld said if he hit the right spot, Bond's memory would be affected.][/quote]
So what was his master plan then? First drill then ask "Do you remember the girl?" Yes. Ok recalibrate the drill and drill second time - do you remember the girl? Yes. Ok . . . and so on. A bite tiresome for a "master criminal" don't you think?
James cut short Blofeld's opportunity to do any lasting damage by ending the torture with the explosive watch.
then the problem is that our genius-arch-master-villains whole plan is to drill holes randomly in Bonds head in the hope of damaging these faculties. Its remarkably inept.
shareSo can anyone tell me why Blofelds torture didn't affect Bond?
This torture scene simply doesn't compare to the one from Casino Royale or even Skyfall, both of which were some of the best ever!
shareI don't remember a torture scene in Skyfall.
My IMDB Profile
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5604673/?ref_=tt_cl_t13
Bond was tied to a chair while Silva teased him sexually...something he wasn't trained for!
shareLol. And who exactly was being tortured? I didn't know that being hit on by a possible homosexual was considered torture. At least you don't need to say too much more to sound like a total homophobe.
My IMDB Profile
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5604673/?ref_=tt_cl_t13
Learn the meaning of irony...
shareLearn that over text, you come off a number of different ways, not just one.
My IMDB Profile
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5604673/?ref_=tt_cl_t13
Learn to read rather than jump to the wrong conclusion and make false accusations.
There was nothing homophobic about my comments and that was the torture scene in Skyfall.
The point being that as an ex MI6 agent Silva knew there was no point trying to torture Bond anyway. He was looking for a way to get under his skin, to prove to Bond that he was unprepared, so he tried something unexpected which Bond wasn't trained for! It's a great scene...
Well, you have a drastically different definition of the word torture than the rest of the world does. Silva hit on Bond to mess with him. Bond was never in any kind of pain or discomfort. If anything he was amused. That's not a torture scene.
My IMDB Profile
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5604673/?ref_=tt_cl_t13
Bond was tied to a chair while Silva teased him sexually...something he wasn't trained for!
[deleted]
Yes indeed, Bond always rises to meet a challenge but I think he is just joking here.
This is a parody of the usual torture scene (Silva knows Bond won't talk so there is no point actually torturing him) but Silva doesn't want to kill him anyway. He wants to persuade Bond to join him!
This exact science defence of this lame torture scene ive been hearing is already bullcrap enough.
how do you fail a torture scene ?
"How do you fail a torture scene?". Good point. This is how:
(1) No investment in whether the character will actually be hurt/killed.
Bond almost always fails this test because he is BOND and we know that he won't actually be severely hurt or killed. He might be in pain for a bit but it's not like he's going to lose a limb or an eye or something critical. And in this scene Bond is in a little bit of pain but nothing too serious. He recovers instantly.
(2) No investment in the outcome of the torture.
Bond has no secrets to divulge. There is nothing that depends on the outcome of the torture besides Bond's health. The only point is pain/hurt/kill. So point number one covers this.
(3) No investment in the bad guy.
We just met Blofeld and just found out he's Bond's step-brother. There is no emotional investment in any of this. We can't be emotionally invested because we just met the dude and how bad could he be growing up with Bond? Blofeld SAYS he's done all of these bad things but we haven't SEEN him do squat. Now, he doesn't even do anything directly to Bond, he directs a machine to do it.
The torture scene would have had more impact if they had (a) tried to build it up a little and/or (b) tortured the girl and made Bond watch as we know nothing serious is going to happen to Bond.
Sig, you want a sig, here's a SIG-sauer!
Because bad writing. It was one of the worst scenes in the entire movie.
shareAgreed. Some fictional complex drilling device with a robotic arm that requires an elaborate explanation. Le Chiffe only needed a piece of rope and a chair with the ass cut out. It was a strange awkward scene.
shareNot only that. It was build up as such a devilish, horrible torture device and then....no effect, nothing. Really bad writing.
share[deleted]
Are you being sarcastic?
I just think they could have done better. I think a quick trip to the famous "London Dungeon" tourist trap in Jolly Olde could have given the writers of this film plenty of more menacing ideas to torture bond then this piece of surgical equipment. Go watch Scarface. The Columbians scared the hell out of the audience by simply pulling the chainsaw out. A much less expensive tool of the trade as well.
No.
Perhaps something original to show the evil and menace that is Bloefeld. The drill wasn't anything but a bloody boor.
It is alien to this modern retelling.
Film Reverie: http://filmreverie.blogspot.com.au/
My film diary: http://letterboxd.com/filmreverie/
I think this was a scene that is evidence of a rewrite at the last minute. One of the Bond writers came up with the torture scene, but another wrote over it to disregard any lasting 'icky' consequences it could have for the characters.
Personally, I would have loved to see an unbalanced James struggling to escape the facility with Swann. It sounds infinitely more suspenseful than what we got in the end.
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdlM2VZujOc&feature=related
I think the problem is deeper than that. Ultimately, SPECTRE doesn't know what kind of film it wants to be.
The film makers clearly wanted to harken back to Connery's classic era of meglomanical masterminds bent on world domination but these feel completely out of place in both today's world and (by extension) the world that Craig's Bond inhabits.
Blofeld is both a sociopath and psychopath. He dispatches Hinks to kill Bond on the train then sends a Rolls to collect him from the station! He asks for his Walther PPK then offers him Champagne! He provides them with hotel rooms and evening wear before making Swann watch her father commit suicide and strapping Bond to a "made for purpose" torture chair (what kind of nutcase has one of those just lying around?).
All of this with barely any explanation or background to his character other than a childhood jealousy which plenty of siblings experience without growing up into Machiavellian villains! The implication is that Blofeld is pure evil - always has been, always will be.
None of this would be out of place in a Connery (or even a Moore) era Bond film because back then the world was a "simpler" place with clearly drawn battle lines.
However, we've since experienced the fall of soviet communism, numerous failures of western foreign policy (particularly in the middle east), the rise of islamic terrorism and revelations about our own intelligence services spying on both us and our allies!
The world is grey, not black and white, yet, despite addressing this in Craig's previous 3 films, SPECTRE completely ignores it all to pretend we're back in 1965 again...
I think it was the worst scene in the movie!
Not only did the exploding watch manage to release the shackles, but there was a door behind him, which was UNLOCKED and led to a corridor straight to the outside of the complex!
Ridiculous.
I will not fear. Fear is the mind-killer!
Not only did the exploding watch manage to release the shackles, but there was a door behind him, which was UNLOCKED and led to a corridor straight to the outside of the complex!
I liked that Bond was rejoining the fantasy universe from his franchise's past, instead of staying on the surface as in QOS.
It even adds a "through the rabbit hole" vibe to it all. What looks like bureaucratic political "real" villainy is only a cover for something more fantastically nefarious.
You do know that Bond movies "ignore it all" to change tone theme style etc regularly, right? They will do so again, whether you like it or not.
Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.share
I have no problem with Bond returning to his fantastical roots but the scenario should be an original, believable modern one rather than a rehash of ideas from old films.
It also shouldn't contradict the preceeding films. There was no need to tie the events of CR and SF to SPECTRE because doing so diminished the involvement/achievements of Le Chiffre and Silva (to mere puppets) while adding nothing to the story.
As for regularly changing tone/theme/style they do this with every new Bond actor to help distinguish them from the previous one. They don't do it mid series!
Consequently, SPECTRE isn't a particularly bad Bond film but it's not a particularly good one either, which coming as it does after Skyfall, makes it a disappointment.
I have no problem with Bond returning to his fantastical roots but the scenario should be an original, believable modern one rather than a rehash of ideas from old films.Well that's the trick for Bond and not every try resonates for every viewer.
It also shouldn't contradict the preceeding films. There was no need to tie the events of CR and SF to SPECTRE because doing so diminished the involvement/achievements of Le Chiffre and Silva (to mere puppets) while adding nothing to the story.Well, maybe it doesn't contradict as much as you assume.
As for regularly changing tone/theme/style they do this with every new Bond actor to help distinguish them from the previous one. They don't do it mid series!Oh, yes they do. If you need Connery, Moore, or Brosnan examples, just ask.
Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.share
Bond films can be original while also remaining true to their roots. Today's unstable world provides plenty of ideas for new scenarios. The middle East is in turmoil. There is tension with Russia over Europe. Islamic terrorism is on the rise.
The problem is most writers lack imagination and talent to turn good ideas into screenplays.
Maybe, in fact, its more ruse/posture than anything else. Maybe back them, Blofeld didn't puppetmaster those folks. Maybe those folks didn't even KNOW Blofeld...but White was a middle man.Or maybe not. I prefer to go with what the film tells us rather than your speculations.
Oh, yes they do. If you need Connery, Moore, or Brosnan examples, just ask.Please do.
You don't have enough info yet. And you likely never will get it.I don't follow... share
Bond films can be original while also remaining true to their roots. Today's unstable world provides plenty of ideas for new scenarios. The middle East is in turmoil. There is tension with Russia over Europe. Islamic terrorism is on the rise.One root that would have to be avoided, then, would be the Bond tradition to not be too overtly mundanely political.
Or maybe not. I prefer to go with what the film tells us rather than your speculations.Perhaps unwise, when the film is a story about liars. I mean, spies. You'll be really confused by the end of Spartacus, just saying.
However, even if it was just posturing it didn't seem to have any effect on Bond, so what was the point in the end?So if a villain tries but fails to bother Bond via repartee, you want excised from the script?
Please do.If you don't see a change in tone from FRWL to GF. Or from TB to YOLT. Or a big ol arc of tone change from DN to DAF, you aren't looking. MR to FYEO. TWINE to DAD. It happens. There's not a lot of uniqueness in the franchise trying to go fantasy/traditional to support the reintro of S.P.E.C.T.R.E. It goes OTT every few episodes, period.
I don't follow.You don't have enough info to call Le Chiffre or Silva mere puppets. And you'll likely never get it all spelled out for you to know.
Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.share
One root that would have to be avoided, then, would be the Bond tradition to not be too overtly mundanely political.I disagree. Obviously Bond films have avoided being too political because their goal is to entertain, not critic regimes. My point was there is plenty of new "source material" around with which to construct a believable SPECTRE, which the film chose only to vaguely imply rather than focus on. Given that Craig's previous films have shared the common theme of uncovering not just the villain of the piece but also their methods and motivations, I feel this was a mistake.
Yes, I agree that they could and might come up with an original, contemporary Bond story using pragmatic tensions from the Middle East or Russia or <wherever flames up in the real world tomorrow>. Just...it might be tricky.Yeah, so why even bother, right? Coming up with an original story which remains true to the Bond formula is just too challenging!? And yet they managed it with Skyfall...
Bond is symbolically good (anti-heroic good, but higher plane than thou "good" nonetheless) vs evil...not tribe vs. tribe.These are not mutually exclusive and Fleming wrote him to be anti USSR!
It seems potentially belittling (or something to that effect) for Bond to take down, say, an al-Baghdadi type rather than a fantasy.CR was about winning a high stakes poker game to again leverage over a known criminal. TLD was about rogue arms dealers trying to start a spy war. L2K was a personal vendetta. LALD was about Opium smuggling. Octopussy was about a rogue russian general using smuggling as a cover to start WW3. GE was a satellite theft in order to enact revenge on the UK while robbing it's banks. I could go on...
Perhaps unwise, when the film is a story about liars. I mean, spies.The writers wrote the script. Were they lying to us? Blofeld's story is never redacted or debunked and according to you it never will be, yet you claim it's fabricated, or at least exaggerated. The latter possibility I can accept (given his arrogant overconfidence in himself) but I see no evidence supporting the former other than your speculation that he was lying.
Hmmm. Have you been watching all these? The Bond villain always struggles with knocking Bond off his game.Hmm, have you? The villain rarely does so by lying to Bond because, more often than not, the truth is more painful.
If you don't see a change in tone [...] you aren't looking.No, I don't. Also, you claiming something doesn't make it true, so yeah, whatever..
You don't have enough info to call Le Chiffre or Silva mere puppets. And you'll likely never get it all spelled out for you to know.The extent of Blofeld's intervention remains unclear but that he was involved somehow is almost certain, especially as QoS was (apparently) devoted to uncovering the existence of what turns out to be his organisation. My issue is that tying him to them is unecessary for the story and makes it less believable.
Yeah, so why even bother, right?I said they could, but it might be tricky.
These are not mutually exclusive and Fleming wrote him to be anti USSR!Yes, at least at first. This is an aspect of Casino Royale and From Russia with Love primarily avoided by the movies.
CR was about winning a high stakes poker game to again leverage over a known criminal.Which is fantasy, of course.
TLD was about rogue arms dealers trying to start a spy war.Right, not the KGB per se.
L2K was a personal vendetta.Involving entire fantasy nations, televangelism, and drug cartels that operate out of underground fantasy lairs.
LALD was about Opium smuggling.And supernatural magic.
Octopussy was about a rogue russian general using smuggling as a cover to start WW3.And not about Russia, per se. And it deserved fantasy paradise islands of jewel smuggling circus "lesbians" for Bond to play with.
Many Bond films have plots grounded in reality which extrapolate events into fantasy because this makes the fantastical elements more believable.They all do. Including Spectre. You asserting it doesn't by omitting what was explicitly said...is merely your choice.
With such a track record there was no need to return to the one dimensional arch nemesis who has turned his back on humanity to live on the fringes of society while trying to orchestrate its downfall. That's a bit too retro for 2015!For you, clearly.
The writers wrote the script. Were they lying to us?Yes, of course.
Hmm, have you? The villain rarely does so by lying to Bond because, more often than not, the truth is more painful.Wrong. The villains lie incessantly.
No, I don't. Also, you claiming something doesn't make it true, so yeah, whatever..Like this.
Specifically, Bond sharing history with Blofeld is an unnecessary coincidence and Blofeld being the architect of his pain is an unnecessary contrivance. These are also modern "additions" to the new version which were not true of the original!All true!
If we later find out he was lying/exaggerating I will be delighted but I doubt this will be the case.I think we already have.
Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.share
So obviously I'm saying they could bother. But if they end up with an adventure that makes Bond feel more like LeCarre or something, it would be bad. Your assertion that it would be good does not a good story make.I'm saying it's essential if they want the franchise to continue. Rehashing old ideas only buys them a little more time... Also I never implied it would be good per se although I don't share your reservations.
It's not hard to add them. It's hard to add them and satisfy current expectation--which is mainly informed by decades of movie formula.And yet they cast a woman as "M" (who turned out to be the best one yet) then took Bond back to his roots, disposed of his gadgets and even relocated his signature opening gun barrel sequence. More recently they've re-imagined Moneypenny as a field agent and Q as a computer nerd.
You claim to want it to be real...but likely what you mean is you don't, not really. You want the Bond fantasy twist on some setting informed by some real event.How condescending! Please quote me where I said I want it to be "real". I said exactly what I meant and I don't need you to tell me what I meant. You just chose to misunderstand/misquote me. I suggest you read more carefully.
They all do. Including Spectre.No, it doesn't. The backstory for SPECTRE is all the previous Craig films. It tells none of it's own. We only get backstory for Blofeld and even that is vague and incomplete. CNS is supposed to be orchestrated by SPECTRE but there is zero evidence for this until C's final scene when he inexplicably decides to confess all, condemning himself in the same breath. By rushing to it's conclusion this film fails to make these connections convincing. The irony is C was so obviously "rotten" from when we first see him that even his confession is redundant!
But they weren't lying about your projections...only about stuff that, due to retrofit...weren't the whole story. Hmmm...White was in another org, beyond QuantumI'm not projecting. I'm going on what the characters actually say in the film. As for there being yet another organisation beyond Quantum I suggest you re-watch QoS. Quantum IS SPECTRE re-imagined! That was the whole point... Adding yet another layer of manipulation without explaining why it existed or was even required adds nothing to the story at all. Infact, it detracts from it.
The point is: you said "believable" but your basis is manufactured by omitting the unbelievable stuff from your examples.No, it's not. I never denied the films had fantastical elements. However, I was pointing out that for these to be believable they needed to be grounded in a more realistic scenario. SPECTRE lacks this.
What were S.P.E.C.T.R.E.'s operations? Well, we heard of human trafficking and counterfeit pharma. Two believable crimes.Heard? You mean like someone mentioned something about it while sat around a table? Or maybe we saw a headline in a newspaper, or on TV? Yeah, sorry, that might've been sufficient 50 years go but it's not good enough for today...
Wrong. The villains lie incessantly.Except when they're telling the truth, which is almost always the case when they've captured Bond and have him at their mercy, which is what we're talking about here. They spill the beans on their plans and motivations before either torturing him or leaving him to an unpleasant death. SPECTRE handled this poorly.
Don't heel dig so deeply that you end up absurd.I suggest taking your own advice here.
To disagree with my examples is to claim that there's no tone change between FRWL and GF or MR and FYEO...which are perhaps the two most well known tone changes in the franchise.No, it's not. Most of the examples you gave didn't make any sense but these two do at least. However, that's 2 out of 23 films! Also, the second change was necessary because MR took Bond so far away from it's roots it was borderline sci-fi, while the first was so early in the series that no specific tone had yet been established. Neither apply to SPECTRE, coming as is did after Skyfall and with the proven success of Craig's films behind it.
It happens. You don't like it (this time). But don't bother telling us that the franchise doesn't do such stuff.Don't bother lying about what I said. It happens rarely, usually only when the actor changes and always with justification. SPECTRE has no justification for such a radical change in tone. It was unnecessary.
Blofeld didn't puppetmaster...If he didn't really do those things then he is either lying or exaggerating, which we've already discussed. share
I'm not interested in verbatim games to conceal your point when challenged. You either do want it to be a "believable modern one" based on what's really happening today such as your specific examples of the real middle east...not a rehash of earlier unbelievable fantasies...or you don't.
I don't want to lose your point. But I'm not interested in you playing "phrasing goal post shift" that believable about modern real events not fantasy does not equate to "real" simply because you are trying to argue rather than communicate.
No it doesn't.That's just wrong.
The backstory for SPECTRE is all the previous Craig films. It tells none of it's own. We only get backstory for Blofeld and even that is vague and incomplete. CNS is supposed to be orchestrated by SPECTRE but there is zero evidence for this until C's final scene when he inexplicably decides to confess all, condemning himself in the same breath. By rushing to it's conclusion this film fails to make these connections convincing. The irony is C was so obviously "rotten" from when we first see him that even his confession is redundant!None of this supports your assertion above, that Spectre has not grounding in reality that then extends into a fantasy story.
I'm going on what the characters actually say in the film.Already addressed. No need to repeat. If you can counter the addressing, then we will have progressed the argument/communication.
This film implies that Mr White and hence presumably every other Quantum member, was actually working for Blofeld, which is exactly what Quantum is NOT about!Hmmm. Maybe. Or maybe they were just manipulated by Blofeld, while independent. Or maybe one of them knew about Blofeld or served Blofeld but not the others.
Heard? You mean like someone mentioned something about it while sat around a table? Or maybe we saw a headline in a newspaper, or on TV? Yeah, sorry, that might've been sufficient 50 years go but it's not good enough for today...It's good enough to disprove your assertion that the Spectre crime story had no grounding in modern, believable crimes. Spectre simply did. You didn't credit it, perhaps because you didn't notice. But that doesn't impact the story itself.
Most of the examples you gave didn't make any sense but these two do at least.Right, LOL. Because you can't see a tone shift between TWINE and DAD, or between DN and DAF. That would not make sense!
It happens rarely, usually only when the actor changes and always with justification. SPECTRE has no justification for such a radical change in tone. It was unnecessary.THere are only like 5 chances to change tone under Connery.
If he didn't really do those things then he is either lying or exaggerating, which we've already discussed.Yes.
Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.share
The world is grey, not black and white, yet, despite addressing this in Craig's previous 3 films, SPECTRE completely ignores it all to pretend we're back in 1965 again...
Absolutely. That was their aim with this film. I actually don't mind but I feel the execution was lacking. There is nothing wrong with returning to the spirit/tone of those early films but you still need to tell a new story. This film was just a rehash of old ones. Where is the creativity in that? It was especially noticeable coming as it did after Skyfall, one of the most original Bond films in decades!
shareI absolutely agree with you. I enjoyed the film because I'm a fangirl who likes to look at Daniel Craig. But I enjoyed Skyfall much more because it tried, at least.
It just goes to show how nowadays, where everybody's a critic on the interwebs, creators of entertainment really can't win. The producers and creators of Bond are caught between the old-school fans who've been whining since Daniel Craig was cast that he's too dark, too humourless, too whatever else, and other fans who might appreciate more daring, deeper stuff, that may (or may not!) change the franchise and keep it alive. Now they've made a campier movie, the whiners are STILL not happy (Daniel Craig's still in it), but more sophisticated (though I hate to use that word) viewers aren't either.
Well written my friend. I agree on all accounts. I think one thing that modern audiences have problem with that society didn't in 1965, is Blofeld's "pure evil". Now a days everyone wants to humanize and justify. "What made Blofeld so evil? Something must have happened to him to make him this way."
When truth be told some people are born good people, some people are born bad people. Blofeld is on the far right of bad. He is evil and was probably born that way.
@SgtHugoStiglitz Personally, I would have loved to see an unbalanced James struggling to escape the facility with Swann.
If there was a rewrite, maybe it was because of Mission:Impossible 5 - that had an action sequence where Ethan Hunt was not at his best, though it was played for laughs rather than suspense.
I would have loved to see an unblanced James struggling to escae the facility with Swann
I think the problem is deeper than that. Ultimately, SPECTRE doesn't know what kind of film it wants to be.
The film makers clearly wanted to harken back to Connery's classic era of meglomanical masterminds bent on world domination but these feel completely out of place in both today's world and (by extension) the world that Craig's Bond inhabits.
Blofeld is clearly both a sociopath and psychopath. He dispatches Hinks to kill Bond on the train then sends a Rolls to collect him from the station! He asks for his Walther PPK then offers him Champagne! He provides them with hotel rooms and evening wear then makes Swan watch her father commit suicide and straps Bond to a "made for purpose" torture chair (what kind of nutcase has one of those just lying around?).
All of this with barely any explanation or background to his character other than a childhood jealousy which many siblings experience without growing up into Machiavellian villains! The implication is that Blofeld is pure evil, always has been, always will be.
None of this would be out of place in a Connery (or even a Moore) era Bond film because back then the world was a "simpler" place with clearly drawn battle lines.
However, since then we've experienced the fall of soviet communism, numerous failures of western foreign policy (particularly in the middle east), the rise of islamic terrorism and revelations about our own intelligence services spying on both us and our allies!
The world is grey, not black and white, yet, despite addressing this in Craig's previous 3 films, SPECTRE completely ignores it all to pretend we're back in 1965 again...
[deleted]
It was creepy and cringe-worthy in a good way, at least to me... But makes absolutely no sense. Over the top Bond villain trap. Where did he get that machine? For what purpose? Did he test it before?
"You keep him in here, and make sure HE dosen't leave!"
yes, but I suppose it would be a bit boring if it was TOO realistic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6PkUXeJZ6k
Shackles automatically realeasing... that was insulting. I'd want to say its a safety precaution but considering what the contraption was designed to do that wouldn't make sense.
It would have been simple enough to write around this.
It's James Bond - deal with it!
The producers can't win. People complain the movies are too dour and serious. So they make one with more campy Roger Moore era humour and jokes, and they still complain
sharePeople complain the movies are too dour and serious. So they make one with more campy Roger Moore era humour and jokes, and they still complain