I'm guessing they were caught between a rock and a hard place: don't make the switch obvious and Trevelyan turning out bad comes as much more of a surprise. Make the switch obvious and the audience starts thinking.
Again I ask why it had to be a blank. Alec's scars are way more than powder burns, they look more like flesh was peeled away. I think it was a glancing bullet wound. The gun switch, while interesting, is just a product of multiple takes, IMO.
Again I ask why it had to be a blank. Alec's scars are way more than powder burns, they look more like flesh was peeled away.
A blank at close range, ejecting the paper/cardboard patch *could* produce a pretty good skin tear, and, if infected, could easily leave a very nasty scar. Just sayin'.
I believe Alec's scars were from the explosion because Bond reset the timers and took em by surprise.
Given how he obsesses about switching the timer from 6 minutes to 3 in conjunction with "It was you who gave me this face", I would say that's almost obvious.
There's nothing they could have done to keep Trevelyan's return a secret. I missed the Goldeneye trailers, before seeing it ON GLORIOUS VHS! And as soon as I saw Sean Bean get second billing, it's obvious they're going to bring him back as the villain. I say obvious because there has to be a reason Orumov doesn't kill him in the chemical facility, after so obviously shooting him in front of Bond. He couldn't have missed, so obviously he and Orumov have to be in cahoots.
There's no way they're going to give second billing to an actor who plays a character that dies in the PTS. Even Anthony Hopkins would get "And Anthony Hopkins" rather than being billed after whoever is Bond if they were in a brief role.
They do what they can, but there was no surprise to the reveal, especially when they kept going out of their way to make him a "Faceless villian".
I've seen too many murder mysteries. And like I said, the billing, to me, was a dead giveaway. Giving Sean Bean second billing for playing a five minute role didn't make any sense to me. Especially not in a Bond film, where if they have a major actor in a walk-on, they get special acknowledgement, rather than 2nd lead billing.
Also, if you watch a horror film, and the credits give a star, and then the rest of the cast, and then you see "And Gabriel Byrne" or "And Wilford Brimley", or "And some other semi-famous actor slumming in a horror film" they ain't gonna survive to the end.
Something that bothers me about Goldeneye is the "9 years later" tag after the PTS. Hmm Brosnan doesn't look nine years older. It took 9 years for Ourumov and 006 to plan their big scheme? That's a long time to work on something. One year later might be more appropriate. In fact, why include a time stamp at all?
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
I believe Alec's scars were from the explosion because Bond reset the timers and took em by surprise.
Given how he obsesses about switching the timer from 6 minutes to 3 in conjunction with "It was you who gave me this face", I would say that's almost obvious.
Good point, forgot about that line. It's been a while since I've seen GE
Beg your pardon, forgot to knock...
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
This theme could apply also to Skyfall. What goes around comes around, as they say!
Yes, let's open a 2011 topic to slag off Skyfall... 8-)
Don't get me wrong - I loved Skyfall. I've not criticised it - only pointing to a similarity between difficulties with the PTS. I'm sure you understand.
Good point. I think this old thread is relevant precisely because of the "slagging" SF is receiving regarding its plotholes among other things and the other movie being discussed, GE, stars another Bond whose rabid fanbase has been typically anti-Craig (and vice-versa, where rabid Craig fans are typically anti PB). The reason why this is significant? It hopefully helps make it an objective exercise for everyone, and again, hopefully.
So...why should we expect 007 to find plausible 006's apparent execution? How exactly does Bond survive a 100-foot plunge while wounded and unconscous? These are about who is the better Bond (c'mon folks, for some of you be honest and accept that is what this is about) but whether or not there are warranted concerns about the plots in those movies. If there are plot-holes and implausibilities, can't we just accept the fact they exist?
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Yes, let's open a 2011 topic to slag off Skyfall... 8-)
Don't get me wrong - I loved Skyfall. I've not criticised it - only pointing to a similarity between difficulties with the PTS. I'm sure you understand.
Good point. I think this old thread is relevant precisely because of the "slagging" SF is receiving regarding its plotholes among other things and the other movie being discussed, GE, stars another Bond whose rabid fanbase has been typically anti-Craig (and vice-versa, where rabid Craig fans are typically anti PB). The reason why this is significant? It hopefully helps make it an objective exercise for everyone, and again, hopefully.
So...why should we expect 007 to find plausible 006's apparent execution? How exactly does Bond survive a 100-foot plunge while wounded and unconscous? These are about who is the better Bond (c'mon folks, for some of you be honest and accept that is what this is about) but whether or not there are warranted concerns about the plots in those movies. If there are plot-holes and implausibilities, can't we just accept the fact they exist?
You make a good point here, super. Perhaps I haven't given Craig a fair shake for exactly that reason, the fact that Brosnan got shafted during his tenure. I will keep this in mind when I rewatch Craig's films soon.
These are about who is the better Bond (c'mon folks, for some of you be honest and accept that is what this is about)
I don't know... for ME it's about the film-making choices... I love Brosnan, but I dislike DAD, I like Craig, but I love QOS... I think I can be pretty objective when I say SF is like a less entertaining version of TWINE.
I don't know... for ME it's about the film-making choices
Same here. I've always viewed Brosnan's Bond and Craig's Bond as very different, albeit not in a bad way. Loved GE, liked TND, TWINE was a mix that had some truly great moments and some truly horrendous ones (I've come to the conclusion that it was the most uneven Bond film I've ever watched save possibly FYEO), DAD stunk on ice. With Craig, I loved CR, I loved SF, and I abjectly despised QoS. But that's just my opinion.
And a valid one for it all comes down to personal taste in the end, does it not?
Although I recognize that FRWL is a great movie, I'm not particularly a big fan of it. But I get a kick out of DAF- go figure. However, Dalton is my favourite Bond. And I like Brosnan a whole lot anyway.
My logic is in question, where my Bond is concerned. )
The jump after the plane was stupid exaggerated and silly especially for a Bond fan..(still loved it but a quick to the point cut would have been better) but they knew what they were doing..they were setting up that what you were about to watch was a load of fun nonsense..so the audience had time to deal with that during the title credits, so anything absurd after that would be accepted and loved. People don't like going into a movie expecting something serious and getting camp you need to prep them for it then they will appreciate it.
I dunno what you're talking about. I love the opening scene in GOLDENEYE, one of the best. Perfectly introduces Bond and Trevelyan's relationship (yes his death was staged, leave it at that) and I love the airplane stunt. So what if it's impractical, it's a James Bond film. Half the things he does in these films are completely impractical. You think in SKYFALL, Bond could have seriously survived a gunshot off a high-speed railroad falling into the river?
When you look back at Goldeneye, there are serious issues/flaws within the PTS, yet seem to go unnoticed in many fans reviews. The opening despite having suspense and action is almost enough to fail the film! What with Trevelyan being shot at point-blank with the facility blown up - survives for later in the story. Also the most stupid scene ever with Bond flying into the plane, literally impossible. total nonsense. I mean granted the sky-dive on the dam was a great stunt. But why is this film liked by so many? For me it is not even a top-10 Bond film.Probably 14th on my list. I actually prefer TWINE to this film. Goldeneye is a middle of range action film.
I can't answer your question, because I don't share your feelings about the opening sequence for "GOLDENEYE".
it's a James Bond film. Half the things he does in these films are completely impractical. You think in SKYFALL, Bond could have seriously survived a gunshot off a high-speed railroad falling into the river?
I'm quite new to this forum so I'm sure I'll take heat for reviving this old thread for the second time! Oh well...
Before reading the forums I always assumed that Trevelyan surviving the bullet from Ourumov was an accident. He gets left behind by a government he's already not so keen on and that is the straw that breaks the camel's back, leading to nine years of careful planning and rising through the ranks of the criminal underworld.
Now I come to learn that most fans seem to agree that the execution was staged, and was perhaps the first step in a nine year long plan to get revenge on the British. I'm still not so convinced, though...
If Alec was planning on betraying Bond all along - indeed, if he planned on Bond getting killed that day, then why does Alec seem to be sooooooooo hung up on the fact that Bond switched the timers from 6:00 to 3:00? How can you be upset at someone for "betraying" you when you were right in the process of betraying them?!
Also, I find it hard to believe that Alex would have been able to build a relationship with Ourumov and hatch this plan while still very much on MI-6's radar. It is much more plausible that he would be able to do that while everyone assumed he was dead.
There are certainly plenty of arguments to support the other theory as well, but I wanted to see if these thoughts changed anyone's mind.
Comments
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Given how he obsesses about switching the timer from 6 minutes to 3 in conjunction with "It was you who gave me this face", I would say that's almost obvious.
There's no way they're going to give second billing to an actor who plays a character that dies in the PTS. Even Anthony Hopkins would get "And Anthony Hopkins" rather than being billed after whoever is Bond if they were in a brief role.
They do what they can, but there was no surprise to the reveal, especially when they kept going out of their way to make him a "Faceless villian".
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Also, if you watch a horror film, and the credits give a star, and then the rest of the cast, and then you see "And Gabriel Byrne" or "And Wilford Brimley", or "And some other semi-famous actor slumming in a horror film" they ain't gonna survive to the end.
Something that bothers me about Goldeneye is the "9 years later" tag after the PTS. Hmm Brosnan doesn't look nine years older. It took 9 years for Ourumov and 006 to plan their big scheme? That's a long time to work on something. One year later might be more appropriate. In fact, why include a time stamp at all?
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Good point, forgot about that line. It's been a while since I've seen GE
Good point. I think this old thread is relevant precisely because of the "slagging" SF is receiving regarding its plotholes among other things and the other movie being discussed, GE, stars another Bond whose rabid fanbase has been typically anti-Craig (and vice-versa, where rabid Craig fans are typically anti PB). The reason why this is significant? It hopefully helps make it an objective exercise for everyone, and again, hopefully.
So...why should we expect 007 to find plausible 006's apparent execution? How exactly does Bond survive a 100-foot plunge while wounded and unconscous? These are about who is the better Bond (c'mon folks, for some of you be honest and accept that is what this is about) but whether or not there are warranted concerns about the plots in those movies. If there are plot-holes and implausibilities, can't we just accept the fact they exist?
You make a good point here, super. Perhaps I haven't given Craig a fair shake for exactly that reason, the fact that Brosnan got shafted during his tenure. I will keep this in mind when I rewatch Craig's films soon.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Same here. I've always viewed Brosnan's Bond and Craig's Bond as very different, albeit not in a bad way. Loved GE, liked TND, TWINE was a mix that had some truly great moments and some truly horrendous ones (I've come to the conclusion that it was the most uneven Bond film I've ever watched save possibly FYEO), DAD stunk on ice. With Craig, I loved CR, I loved SF, and I abjectly despised QoS. But that's just my opinion.
Although I recognize that FRWL is a great movie, I'm not particularly a big fan of it. But I get a kick out of DAF- go figure. However, Dalton is my favourite Bond. And I like Brosnan a whole lot anyway.
My logic is in question, where my Bond is concerned.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9PxJU3eIcA
See, it IS possible! :007)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Fantastic! What "flawed opening"?
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
" I don't listen to hip hop!"
I can't answer your question, because I don't share your feelings about the opening sequence for "GOLDENEYE".
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Before reading the forums I always assumed that Trevelyan surviving the bullet from Ourumov was an accident. He gets left behind by a government he's already not so keen on and that is the straw that breaks the camel's back, leading to nine years of careful planning and rising through the ranks of the criminal underworld.
Now I come to learn that most fans seem to agree that the execution was staged, and was perhaps the first step in a nine year long plan to get revenge on the British. I'm still not so convinced, though...
If Alec was planning on betraying Bond all along - indeed, if he planned on Bond getting killed that day, then why does Alec seem to be sooooooooo hung up on the fact that Bond switched the timers from 6:00 to 3:00? How can you be upset at someone for "betraying" you when you were right in the process of betraying them?!
Also, I find it hard to believe that Alex would have been able to build a relationship with Ourumov and hatch this plan while still very much on MI-6's radar. It is much more plausible that he would be able to do that while everyone assumed he was dead.
There are certainly plenty of arguments to support the other theory as well, but I wanted to see if these thoughts changed anyone's mind.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/skyfall-bluray-doesnt-match
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS