It is indeed one of those quotes that could have been written down by Fleming and you can almost hear Goldfinger, or Drax, saying this triumphantly to Bond, with a thinly veiled arrogance and contempt.
2 Likes
With EON apparently struggling with where to take Bond in this new age, and the last couple of films being a prime example for this struggle, I really wish that they would find the courage to come back and revisit Tomorrow Never Dies in some way. Not a remake, mind you, but an updated take on the themes and ideas presented in it. That film was so far ahead of its time, predicting the future unlike any other Bond film. Whereas Bond is usually reacting to what is happening around him, this was one of the few times that the franchise was really looking towards the future, the only problem being that this forward-facing Bond outing was wrapped up in all of the tired and mundane trappings of what had already come before and what was already becoming stale in terms of its 90s-era action leanings.
A new and updated take on this kind of story could be exactly the kind of Bond film that is needed now. They keep asking the damn question about whether Bond is relevant in this day in age. We’ve apparently answered the question about whether Q and the rest of Bond’s Double-oh colleagues are relevant, but Bond’s relevance is still an open ended question. The current issues happening in the information warfare arena and how that’s being weaponized for geopolitical gain across the globe is the exact scenario that proves Bond’s relevance in this time. Just like EON missed their opportunity for a timely and compelling backstory for Casino Royale by focusing on an already tired and old hat motivation like global terrorism instead of using Le Chiffre’s background from the novels and expanding that out to look at human trafficking, EON may very well miss yet another opportunity to tell a compelling and timely story by not doing what they’ve done in the past (hello YOLT and TSWLM, GF and AVTAK) and double back to Tomorrow Never Dies for inspiration for where to take Bond heading into this new wave of films, should there be any more of them.
4 Likes
September 8.
Diamonds are Forever special! (Not words you regularly find in close association).
- Something to explain Blofeld’s obvious ejection from SPECTRE, pensioned off to an oil rig with a few bits of SPECTRE bric-a-brac kicking about.
- Something to explain how the diamonds become false in between Amsterdam and Las Vegas.
- Something to explain how Tiffany Case doesn’t realise who Bond is so very much earlier.
- Something to explain why Blofeld is making doubles.
- Something to explain why Blofeld’s escape route is through the Casino floor in drag rather than from the separate WW basement that we’ve been shown. Although possibly still in drag.
- Something to explain why Blofeld doesn’t target Britain given that it’s Britain that’s the source of foiling every prior plan.
- Something to explain why years of reclusiveness appears to have no effect whatsoever on Whyte.
0
voters
4 Likes
The great thing about DAF (so I have learned on this board) is that it does not care about logic. Which makes every Bond film great, of course.
But the enjoyably insane aspect about it is that every question can be answered in an enjoyably insane way, too.
Every point you make is valid and would destroy any other film outside the „franchise“ - Feldman‘s „Casino Royale“ excepted.
But the most logically explainable element may be Blofeld becoming too unhinged even for the organization he built, and SPECTRE giving him the illusion to still rule the world from that, um, hotel and the golf- um, oil rig, surrounding him with some expendable loyalists, despite Blofeld completely losing his mind.
Yes, these Bond films are really „the Simpsons“ before they were born.
7 Likes
I’m fine with everything else in the movie, for some reason the diamonds bother me… Presumably it’s alimentary and I’m just a little congested fnar
5 Likes
My private theory is that Bond indeed killed the real Blofeld in the pts - who kept making doubles because his first effort was so successful that this Blofeld 1.1 started to believe he really was Ernst Stavro Blofeld and caused all manner of mischief and confusion in the organisation.
After Bond rid him of the only person to challenge his claim, Marty Blimpman from Hoboken (his real name and origin) set out to conquer the world. This also explains why Bond isn’t simply shot at first sight throughout the film - subconsciously Blimpman is grateful to Bond - and why Britain doesn’t feature in his scheme at all: Marty Blimpman’s plans have never been foiled by the UK. 
5 Likes
He also might have made another copy for FYEO.
4 Likes
As for cloning himself, I always assumed that Blofeld did this to get rid of Bond, because Bond probably wouldn’t rest until he tracked down and eliminated Blofeld, especially after killing his wife and that would mess up all of Blofeld’s plans.
Furthermore, I assumed that not mentioning SPECTRE had to do with the rights issue with Kevin McClory and to avoid further difficulties it is simply not mentioned by name, but everyone knows which organization it is.
5 Likes
Would like to vote for all seven options 
6 Likes
While Willard Whyte’s time out of the spotlight would hold some fascination for me (strangely laid back for someone with the stated position of “What in the world’s been happening to me”) I’m voting for Blofeld doubles.
In classic Bond fashion, it’s not a bad idea - it just goes nowhere and other than providing Bond with this “mock heroic moment” you are left wondering what the point was. Yes, this is DAF and closer inspection is definitely not required but still, even within the general campiness of proceedings, it’s an idea that could have been fleshed out a bit more.
And no, I’m not talking about multiple Blofelds in drag…
3 Likes
I am verklempt.
A DAF sideswipe solo? Seven options? I am with stromberg, and wanted to vote for all seven, since, as SAF points out, every answer has a marvelously insane exegesis.
But special kudos to Dustin: “Bond does kill Blofeld in the pts” is bloody brilliant!! His insight makes a great film even greater.
Lastly, Spectre is mentioned visually (if obliquely):
Of course, Blofeld could have been awarded it as part of his exit package.
6 Likes
He slipped it into his handbag along with a stapler and his lucky mug, whilst flouncing out.
6 Likes
September 9.
- Something to explain why Stromberg needs to capture a third nuclear submarine given that the two he already has are sufficient for Armageddon.
- Something to explain why MoonGraves out of nowhere invites Bond to the Icarus launch.
0
voters
1 Like
MoonGraves motivation seems simple enough: have Bond in Iceland, boil his entrails with Icarus.
Stromberg’s third attack submarine meanwhile is entirely a mystery*. Even if he needed more than one nuke - unlikely given the state of tensions - these submarines carry the strategic capability to attack various targets, repeatedly if necessary. Getting himself a third one seems like overkill - unless he’s already thinking of his world order on day one after Armageddon and wants to set up a rotational nuclear deterrence scheme a la Polaris.
Still seems superfluous, given the few survivors will likely have to cower in his Atlantis sphere like hostages in a perverse club med.
*A mystery on par with bookDax’s Moonraker rocket. Why bother when he’s got a Russian warhead?
4 Likes
The result of an extended shopping tour. The plan was to first hijack one Russian and one British submarine, to find out which ones are better. And then get another one of the preferred brand. Besides, two submarines are good, three submarines are better. 
4 Likes
I always looked at Karl Stromberg going ahead and capturing the third submarine was because the USS Wayne had located the Liparus and was tracking it just before Stromberg was due to send out his other two captured submarines to start Armageddon. It was simply a matter of coincidence that he captured the Wayne as well as his eliminating one final threat from the board.
2 Likes
Conveniently, the architect also already built Stromberg the parking space for a third sub, so why not?
6 Likes
Our Stromberg is, of course, right about Bond‘s Stromberg: if you have two you cannot stop.
The alternative would be: he was more educated in all matters fishy than in the destructive power of nuclear bombs. („Oh, you need one for America, one for Russia, another one for Europe, and then of course many more for the rest of the world, and… what do you mean, fallout is bad for the fishes and seas, these bombs only shall explode above water, stupid!“)
6 Likes
This is a day that will live in infamy…as I am voting for something from DAD:
I’m going with “What was Gustav Graves thinking?” Maybe Miranda Frost had tipped him off about the existence of the invisible car, so Graves (who at the start of the film has already demonstrated his fondness for expensive western automotive products!!!) wanted to, ahem, see, for himself…
On the list of nonsensical things that occur in DAD, Graves being an arrogant so-and-so is, if nothing else, within character. A vote for DAD!
4 Likes
Stromberg does not make the mistake that Drax would make two years later, namely never assume that everything will work at the right time, always have one in hand. Drax had to quickly steal back that loaned shuttle and get Bond’s attention on him. So Stromberg takes a smarter approach and has a spare sub and already has Bond as a prisoner, to whom he can now easily unfold all his plans, because Bond never manages to escape and prevent them. After all, that is impossible and out of the question, right?
As for Graves, I always assumed that he invites Bond out of pure arrogance and gloating, to see if he really won’t recognize him as Moon.
6 Likes