Spectre : Torture scene

Torture scene

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.

Re: Torture scene

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.

Re: Torture scene

Actually 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.

Re: Torture scene

Sorry, but no. The brain isn't something simple that you can plan exactly to have a certain result by hitting a certain spot.

Re: Torture scene

No, 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.

Re: Torture scene

Your 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.

Re: Torture scene

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

Re: Torture scene

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.

Re: Torture scene

So let's all do a lobotomy and see what happens seriously?

Re: Torture scene

A lobotomy wasn't being depicted.

Re: Torture scene


A lobotomy wasn't being depicted.


It was comparable to it.

Re: Torture scene

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

Re: Torture scene

[quoteBlofeld said if he hit the right spot, Bond's memory would be affected.]

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.


Would that be the watch he was given at the start of the movie and then hey presto here was an opportunity to use it?

Re: Torture scene

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.

Re: Torture scene


So can anyone tell me why Blofelds torture didn't affect Bond?


Because the producers wanted a "classic" torture scene in the film without putting much thought into how it should be properly included/shown. Horrible scene and just one of many that had promise but was just not fully realized before they went with it.

But fanboys should give you some interesting responses, or at the very minimum, the "He's James Bond, he can do anything! Who cares!!" response.

Oh I travel, a sort of licenced troubleshooter.

Re: Torture scene

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!

Re: Torture scene

I don't remember a torture scene in Skyfall.

My IMDB Profile
http://www.imdb.com/board/25604673/?ref_=tt_cl_t13

Re: Torture scene

Bond was tied to a chair while Silva teased him sexuallysomething he wasn't trained for!

Re: Torture scene

Lol. 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/board/25604673/?ref_=tt_cl_t13

Re: Torture scene

Learn the meaning of irony

Re: Torture scene

Learn that over text, you come off a number of different ways, not just one.

My IMDB Profile
http://www.imdb.com/board/25604673/?ref_=tt_cl_t13

Re: Torture scene

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

Re: Torture 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/board/25604673/?ref_=tt_cl_t13

Re: Torture scene

My god you are dumb.

Re: Torture scene

We concur.

A score a day keeps the doctor away.

Re: Torture scene


Bond was tied to a chair while Silva teased him sexuallysomething he wasn't trained for!


But Bond says: "What makes you think it's my first time", or something like that. Which got me thinking that he, being a spy, should be prepared to do whatever it takes to complete a mission, just like he can information from women, he is supposed to get information from men, don't you think?

"And he who controls the battlefield, controls history."

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Torture scene

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!

Re: Torture scene

This exact science defence of this lame torture scene ive been hearing is already bullcrap enough.

how do you fail a torture scene ?

Re: 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!

Re: Torture scene

Because bad writing. It was one of the worst scenes in the entire movie.

Re: Torture scene

Agreed. 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.

Re: Torture scene

Not only that. It was build up as such a devilish, horrible torture device and then.no effect, nothing. Really bad writing.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Torture scene

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.

Re: Torture scene

No.

Perhaps something original to show the evil and menace that is Bloefeld. The drill wasn't anything but a bloody boor.

Re: Torture scene

It is alien to this modern retelling.


Film Reverie: http://filmreverie.blogspot.com.au/
My film diary: http://letterboxd.com/filmreverie/

Re: Torture scene

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

Re: Torture scene

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

Re: Torture scene

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!

Re: Torture scene


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!


His escape was the stupidest thing i've seen in the Bond franchise the explosive watch isn't even discreet, you can see the timer going off clearly, and they had the nerve to make fun of the explosive pen in Skyfall.

Re: Torture scene

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.

Re: Torture scene

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.

Re: Torture scene


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.

But they actually do (must) return to fantastical roots AND try to make it seem original rather than an idea from an older filmat the same time. That's not the easiest thing in the world to come up with.

I don't really like the SP torture eitherthough not becuase they are giving me the "Bond is in captured calamity but will use his gadget to escape" scenario; that stuff I want to see. That's why I go to Bond movies.

To be "original" I wouldn't want them to stop capturing, stop threatening while monologuing, stop allowing Bond an implausible escape. That's what Bond does. Every story.


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.

SP didnt give you much detail after all.

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 Blofeldbut White was a middle man.


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.

You don't have enough info yet. And you likely never will get it.




Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.

Re: Torture scene

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 Blofeldbut White was a middle man.
Or maybe not. I prefer to go with what the film tells us rather than your speculations.

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? Blofeld is bad enough as he is. He doesn't also need to be the source of all Bond's pain!

We can come up with an explanation which fills in the blanks but if the story was well written we wouldn't have to

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

Re: Torture scene


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.

Bond (on screen) has never been against Russians, or Chinese, or Koreans. Not really. He's only against fantasy rogues that are manipulating them. Or, if he must get his hands sullied with the cold war, its about macguffin pretend devices, not the war per se.

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 . Justit might be tricky.

Bond is symbolically good (anti-heroic good, but higher plane than thou "good" nonetheless) vs evilnot tribe vs. tribe.

It seems potentially belittling (or something to that effect) for Bond to take down, say, an al-Baghdadi type rather than a fantasy.


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?

Hmmm. Have you been watching all these? The Bond villain always struggles with knocking Bond off his game. From Dr. No "flattering" Bond to Bond not allowing himself to be Silva's "first time" that's the way it must go.

To be followed of course by the villain lowering himself with beatings, shootings, drillings


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.

Re: Torture scene


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 . Justit 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 evilnot 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

Many Bond films have plots grounded in reality which extrapolate events into fantasy because this makes the fantastical elements more believable. 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!

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.

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!

If we later find out he was lying/exaggerating I will be delighted but I doubt this will be the case

Re: Torture scene


Yeah, so why even bother, right?
I said they could, but it might be tricky.

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. But sure, if they tried I'd want more power to them.


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.

There are multiple Bond traits Fleming wrote that are eschewed by the movies, even today (when they've had time to add more than they added earlier).

It's not hard to add them. It's hard to add them and satisfy current expectationwhich is mainly informed by decades of movie formula.


CR was about winning a high stakes poker game to again leverage over a known criminal.
Which is fantasy, of course.

Not a slog through Raqqa or taliban caves or taking sides in Crimea or something like that. You claim to want it to be realbut likely what you mean is you don't, not really. You want the Bond fantasy twist on some setting informed by some real event.


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.

The point is: you said "believable" but your basis is manufactured by omitting the unbelievable stuff from your examples.

Nowif you're saying SP doesn't include believable basisyou're not listening (or, again trying the tactic of omitting the whole story).

What were S.P.E.C.T.R.E.'s operations?

Well, we heard of human trafficking and counterfeit pharma. Two believable crimes.

If we extend ourselves to the "overarching reach of the octopus" they also have a hand in stuff like, potentially: destabilize a multinational by manipulating stocks. Interrupt transmissions from a spy satellite over Kabul. Rig an election in Uganda.

All explicit. All "believable."


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 saidis merely your choice.

But it doesn't impact the story provided.


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.

Though to be clearneither Silva nor Blofeld (who both do the "fringe of society" thing unlike LeChiffre or Greene) want downfall.

They both want profit from continued exploitation.

The only real "downfall" Bond villains have been Stromberg and Drax. Everyone else wants less than that.


The writers wrote the script. Were they lying to us?
Yes, of course.

But they weren't lying about your projectionsonly about stuff that, due to retrofitweren't the whole story. HmmmWhite was in another org, beyond Quantum. White's subsidiary was "Quantum" Silva was not wholly independent. Blofeld maybe didn't puppetmaster (or could even know) whether Vesper killed herselfbut would certainly play it up as if he did to hurt Bond's feelings.

Stuff like that. Obvious stuff like that.

Sorrybut the "a character said A therefore A must be an in story fact" is really a dubious way to interpret stories, period, let alone stories about fantasy spies.


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.

You don't think M sent Bond out to die because Silva said so, do you?
You don't think Greene really thought Bond and Camille made a charming couple? That Bond was tragically going to cause Camille's death? Did the writers "lie" to you there too?
You don't think Dr. No failed to kill Bond in the swamp because he was intrigued, do you (instead of the stuff shown, that Bond avoided and killed minions)?

You're just not going to interpret stories on the dot often if you selectively use literalism.

And it seems you know a lot about Bond and storiesso I believe you know this as well and are now just digging in your heels to "argue" rather than be seen ceding points.


No, I don't. Also, you claiming something doesn't make it true, so yeah, whatever..
Like this.

Don't heel dig so deeply that you end up absurd. To disagree with my examples is to claim that there's no tone change between FRWL and GF or MR and FYEOwhich are perhaps the two most well known tone changes in the franchise.

It happens. You don't like it (this time). But don't bother telling us that the franchise doesn't do such stuff. That's part of the deal; they have parameters they stay within, but the ricochet tone to keep it fresh. Every movie reacts to the short stick given to the prior. If you think Bond is too goofy, don't worry some future one will be too serious. Etc etc etc.


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.

To me, it would seem clear that Blofeld didn't puppetmaster things so that he could cause Bond's true love to kill herself. Bond's heart stopped before that which means we were all a hairbreadth away from a very different outcome. And it stopped not because of Blofeld but because of LeChiffre. And no, Blofeld didnt order LeChiffre to want to win money at cards to pay off terrorists in his room with machetes. LeChiffre did that.

Blofeld didn't puppetmaster Silva to kill M to bother Bond. Obviously Silva wanted to kill M for his own reasons. At best Blofeld funded Silva, period.

Ratherit played out the way it did.Blofeld WAS involved "in the shadows"and now Blofeld is trying to get under Bond's skin by recounting it in the most self aggrandizing/personal way possible.

But the interpretation that all the agency of the prior villains has been erased and they were mere puppetslooks more like a ruse than an accurate description of events.



Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.

Re: Torture scene


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 expectationwhich 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.

Ergo, the formula is always changing, usually with each new Bond. What is important is that the character remains true to Fleming's original and the films remain true to their genre roots. Both MR and DAD deviated so far away from these that they precipitated substantial changes in subsequent films.

You claim to want it to be realbut 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 projectionsonly about stuff that, due to retrofitweren't the whole story. HmmmWhite was in another org, beyond Quantum
I'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.

Quantum is more sophisticated than SPECTRE. It's an cabal of international elites with shared interests who pool resources to steer events in a desired direction from the shadows. It doesn't need a leader, it doesn't need a base, it doesn't even need a name! 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!

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 FYEOwhich 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.

Re: Torture scene

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 eastnot a rehash of earlier unbelievable fantasiesor 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.

Spectre tells a story with grounding in reality then extends into fantasy. This is a fact of the story. This is how Bond starts out tailing killers and preventing stadium explosions rather than discovering hidden crater bases and improbable shadow cabals. Stuff like that.

It's common in IMDb-level board "criticism" to misdescribe story content to make points. But that doesn't make such behavior accurate.


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.

If you want to argue (more than communicate, which might work better) at least stick to your arguments, don't say "no" but argue something else that doesn't apply.


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.

Seeyou don't have enough information. You only have a projection from your imagination. Not even Blofeld tried to spell out the nature of all relationshipsonly that he was a power broker.

In factthe only player we know for sure even knew of Blofeld's existencewas White.

Sorry; them's the in story facts. Don't conflate additional assumptions with them. That's my point.

Of course, your assumptions might be just as valid. But you're coming to conclusions about the story using the assumptions rather than the story. That's all.

Again, we don't have enough info yet. And we likely won't get it.


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.

What's happening here is you didn't like a movie. So you say things that are inaccurate about the story. And some detail from the story that corrects what you said are presented. That's all. I know you still don't like the story.

Justit can no longer be because S.P.E.C.T.R.E. doesn't do believable modern crime like human trafficking. Perhaps you mean: its because Bond doesn't battle a believable modern crime like human trafficking.

Which of course would take me back to my "that could be done but in would be tricky" as the closer Bond gets to thatthe more we'll hear "Bond copies Taken" or whatever. Haven't we heard enough "Bond does Bourne" or when LTK came out "Bond does Scarface" etc.?

Bond is sort of obligated to battle something on a higher/less believable plane of existencewhich means fantastic stuff. Which I can tell you agree with me on, even if you're an argue-pants.


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.

They do so from FRWL to GF. And from TB to YOLT. And from either YOLT or if we get to bend rules, OHMSS to DAF.

And they do so from TMWTFF to TSWLM. And from MR to FYEO. Then back again from FYEO to OP.

And yes, I agree with you that they do so on recasts tooOHMSS and TLD and GE and CR.

But count them up. I could probably add morebut we're basically now saying they shift tone more often than not. Cuz they do.

So its just baseless to portray a Craig tone shift as out of character for the franchise.

You're right that its "unncessary."

But here's a tip: "unnecessary" is the weakest criticism ever. Because it's ALL unnecessary. The next Bond movie could be Bond dying in the gunbarrel sequence, then roll credits. Nothing's necessary.

More seriouslyit implies that they shouldn't make changes until "necessary" which is nonsense. Orthe "good" Bond fantasy/serious plotpoints are "necessary" which is more nonsense. Or the movies you prefer have more "necessary" stuff in themwhich is


If he didn't really do those things then he is either lying or exaggerating, which we've already discussed.
Yes.

Or more to the pointhe might be. We don't have enough info yet to know.



Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.
Top