Going by the logic of the Matera sequence Blofeld wanted Bond to think Madeleine betrayed him, and he did. For a long time he’s living with that thought, off the board and directionless. Keeping him alive is what Blofeld would want. Which makes a martyr’s death better in comparison. If Felix didn’t come to town and subsequently die I don’t think Bond would have come back as he did in Skyfall, which was more pure duty. The longer his hiatus went, Bond became less 007 (the number was given to someone else) and more a tourist with a boat.
4 Likes
Interesting thought, that this is extended torture.
However doesn’t really explain exploding bits of Vesper all over him and then - having sown the seed of doubt about Dr Useless - surrounding the DB5 with gungoons who seem to be in it for the kill. But perhaps explanation is an expectation too far. The most they seem to achieve in five years is stealing his toothbrush, which is admittedly annoying. The rapscallions!
6 Likes
Without the tomb exploding there isn’t a serious hook for why Madeleine betrayed him. He was lured there. I guess it’s also the question of how did Ouromov and Alec think Bond would escape the facility in GE? It needed to happen even if it’s questionable he’d actually survive. I also think the toothbrush thing shows SPECTRE could have killed Bond whenever they wanted.
4 Likes
I´m shocking myself by choosing…proper.
Why? Not because all of these developments make sense in a logical way. And really, as @dustin pointed out, Satin waiting so long to make his move is probably the least logical of them all.
However, looking at the world right now, I must say illogical developments, strange stretches of time of inaction instead of an obvious use of opportunity, and an absurd confluence of events seem to be exactly how humanity is rolling.
Sometimes, the perfect storm just waits to gather, so to speak poetically on this Wednesday morning.
Of course, EON always went for effect, not for logic. So there you have it.
6 Likes
You’ve pre-empted tomorrow’s one, so will have to think of another!
5 Likes
That’s my problem with it: how can anybody outside a sandbox fall for such a cheap trick? It’s absolutely nonsense when she’s sitting right there beside him and the goons fire bazookas at them. Plus, none of the local mafia pull any punches, nobody indicates the boss wants this limey guy alive and torturing himself. That’s another example of Bloferhauser playground logic: You didn’t die because I wanted you to survive from the go! Hah! Evil chuckle!
5 Likes
I’m going with SAF and saying that it’s PROPER. Things have clearly been thought through (PROPER!) in a very sort of general way (slightly SLOPPER) but so long as you don’t get hung up on timeline, it does kind of work (PROPER).
And I’ll go with Dustin - how could anyone fall for a trick like that? (yes SLOPPER) but if we’re entirely fair, Bond has always been a little bit of a plonker along the way (see countless other entries in the franchise) so that’s PROPER!
So, with a 4-2 victory, PROPER wins!
4 Likes
Skyfall’s homeowner’s insurance payout (Bond was smart enough to purchase the evil-villain-rampage rider. Cost a bit more, but it was worth it).
Because Bond has to fall for it to have a movie. Also, he must not be fully recovered from being Robot Bond, and, therefore, susceptible to regressing back to his programming.
It is SLOPPER, since SP gave Craig Bond a perfect send-off. NTTD positing that Robot Bond reappears with minor provocation is a bigger retcon than Blofeld being Oberhauser.
4 Likes
On a side note: Should the Matera sequence, for reasons of authenticity and full circle balance, perhaps have been set at Royale? Fleming seemed to indicate his Vesper has been hastily buried on location (to save on expenses and avoid potential embarrassment with the Americans for nursing yet. Another. Traitor. at the teats of the organisation soon to be known as ‘House of the Cambridge Dozen‘?). Showing Eon‘s Vesper as having found her final resting place behind the Hotel Splendide in Monte Negro/Karlovy Vary might have added to NO TIME TO DIE‘s sense of…absurdity?
4 Likes
From a glimpse of a memory of a film I haven’t watched for some time, I think it’s suggested that’s the Lynd family tomb - but that aside, yes it is a bit odd. Also odd that Madeleine knows that she’s buried there. Unless her dad told her, I guess.
Or - Blofeld did! Duh-duh-duh.
4 Likes
That’s the core of the problem, the last few Bond films have been written by this Graf von und zu Bloferhauser-Oberfeld guy…
3 Likes
Spectre and No Time to Die have had me looking back very fondly at Skyfall.
Skyfall was (is) a very good Bond movie. It became overrated when people got all bent out of shape that it wasn’t nominated for Best Picture or any major Academy Awards. It’s story is largely based on coincidence and planning by Silva that is so masterful and omniscient that, if you’re there strictly for the story, it takes you out of the film at moments.
It’s strengths, though, I think are elsewhere. Craig is great in the film, it’s nice to see them tweak the formula a bit and feature M as the Bond girl as opposed to having someone there just to have someone fulfill that part of the checklist just for the sake of it, and the cinematography is brilliant (the shot of Silva walking alongside Skyfall in the light of the helicopter is my favorite shot of the franchise).
Even if I don’t rank it as high as some do, although I do rank it quite a bit higher than I used to, Skyfall is a cinematic masterpiece compared to the two films that followed it. The final two films of the Craig era are right down there with the worst of the franchise.
2 Likes
December 4
Unnecessary acts of Villain that ultimately herald their demise. They might well be acts of overconfidence and through a misplaced sense of invulnerability but ultimately, with hindsight, which was the more serious mistake?
- Stromberg kidnaps a third submarine
- Graves invites Bond to the Icarus unveiling
0
voters
3 Likes
It‘s always hubris, and we hope this will also bring down real life villains (soon, please).
But Graves is even more daft by bringing Bond directly to the scene of the crime.
Maybe that gene therapy does have some side effects.
5 Likes
Graves has a Bond fixation, possibly aided by his daddy issues whose acknowledgment he seeks. Maybe his father spoke respectfully about the British in general and Bond in particular, but we don’t learn this. Graves attachment to vulgar bling and vulgar supercars with hidden weapons speaks of his vain attempts to imitate Bond. So inviting the object of his fixation to his triumph was just the logical conclusion of his character. He literally could not not do it.
Stromberg stealing a third attack sub would be utter lunacy even in a world without Bond; where strategists must be pondering the possible reasons, consequences and countermeasures to two disappeared submarines already. Stromberg cannot be sure what kind of answer he has to expect when taking the Wayne, for all he knows the captain might have orders to self-destruct the boat. And where would that leave Stromberg’s plan? Whereas having the third sub is nothing but bravado and doesn’t offer any strategic advantage to his plan (that would not see the other two destroyed in WWIII; he‘d still have them with plenty of destructive power to make him the last remaining superpower). One might even think of a way to pull it off with just one single submarine operating from the Arctic and hitting Leningrad and Boston or Seattle, depending on the reach of his missiles.
So there, having a triplet garage for submarines broke Stromberg’s neck…
3 Likes
I adore both of Moon/Graves actors so I tend to give the character a free pass, but both moments in DAD and TSWLM actually pass by unnoticed until you stop and think about it because both films put an emphasis on fun.
6 Likes
Stromberg not thinking/being ignorant that nuclear fallout will also destroy his underwater kingdom seems to point towards more than hubris…
6 Likes
For the life of me, I can’t see a serious mistake in kidnapping a third submarine. Why have only two submarines when you can have three submarines? Underwater life was soon to begin, with submarines sudeenly being in high demand… 
8 Likes
Graves inviting Bond to the Icky-thingy debut is clearly SLOPPER! (whoops, wrong day). Definitely far more stupid than Stromberg bagging a third (errmmm, the tanker is designed for 3 subs people!!!). Though to be fair on Graves, in the 40th Anniversary Nod Festival, he’s far from the first villain to “invite” Bond to stick around.
“….and you can watch it all on TV”
“Well, if I’m going to be forced to watch television, may I smokre” anyone?
On a more serious note, like Orion, I do love Toby Stephens, the radio Bond we never talk about! Would have been a terrific “Period” screen Bond IMHO. And I second SAF in that Stromberg really is a bit of buffoon, except without the sense of humor that Drax possesses. (sorry, our Stromberg).
3 Likes
I’ve always had a minor quibble about Karl Stromberg taking that third submarine thinking it unecessary, but upon reading this sideswipe thread I suddenly realized he probably took it because it was tailing the Liparus. He couldn’t proceed with his plan to unleash the other submarines with the U.S. Wayne following in his wake as the Wayne could theoretically take out one or both of the subs before they launched the missiles. He would have to deal with the Wayne first, so he disables it and captures it to get on with his plan without fear of anything to jeopardize it.
As for Tan-Gun Moon/Gustav Graves inviting James Bond to Iceland, I agree with secretagentfan in that it is hubris, but it’s also–as he tells 007 upon capturing him–that he enjoyed watching Bond hang around him and not even remotely suspect that Graves was Moon. He liked having that sense of superiority and seeing how long he could go before Bond was no longer left in the dark–and then rub it in his face.
I initially voted for Stromberg, but after having come to those conclusions, I think the better answer is Moon/Graves. But both “mistakes” make sense and are in character for both men.
5 Likes