The films are providing all I need to know about that particular iteration of the character, and most of the stuff I've been discussing that is actually relevant to the film franchise itself centers on things that can be easily gleaned from even the most rudimentary of research about it.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Hmm.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
So not much respect for the films or books then ? ,They don't have to be read
or the films watched, to give an opinion ? Isn't that a bit like being a witness
to a car crash, giving details and facts, even though you weren't there but a
Mate had told you about it. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,845MI6 Agent
So not much respect for the films or books then ? ,They don't have to be read
or the films watched, to give an opinion ? Isn't that a bit like being a witness
to a car crash, giving details and facts, even though you weren't there but a
Mate had told you about it. )
Well this thread is certainly becoming a car crash for those who initiated it.
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
What is the genesis of this idea that not having read the books or participating in discussions about the films themselves while still in the process of experiencing most of them for the first time indicates a lack of respect for the character?
This is the second time in as many threads where the issue's been brought up completely out of the blue, and I really don't understand why.
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
What is the genesis of this idea that not having read the books or participating in discussions about the films themselves while still in the process of experiencing most of them for the first time indicates a lack of respect for the character?
This is the second time in as many threads where the issue's been brought up completely out of the blue, and I really don't understand why.
Because you make comments based on knowledge you don't have. Thus making them pointless. As this very thread proves. Go watch the film, then come back and make a reasoned response instead of blundering in making random comments that don't make any sense to the conversation at all.
It's like you and a mate having a conversation about your pet cats, then I come along and say "cats shouldn't have legs, so you should both go out and buy snakes instead".
You haven't, up till this point I though you were the world's leading authority on it ! )
Most of the stuff that I've figured out about the pre-Craig films (specifically about how they relate to each other) has been discovered without actually having seen the vast majority of those films.
.
Bangs head against wall
Where is the little bugger who started this discussion off?
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
This thread has got be a P take or trolling effort surely
.................................
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited October 2015
Let's all take a breath and step back. Digi, I think we all look forward to your actually seeing the rest of the films, and reading your opinions once you have.
Let's steer away from the ditch and back onto topic, shall we?
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
What is the genesis of this idea that not having read the books or participating in discussions about the films themselves while still in the process of experiencing most of them for the first time indicates a lack of respect for the character?
This is the second time in as many threads where the issue's been brought up completely out of the blue, and I really don't understand why.
Because you make comments based on knowledge you don't have. Thus making them pointless. As this very thread proves. Go watch the film, then come back and make a reasoned response instead of blundering in making random comments that don't make any sense to the conversation at all.
All of the comments I've made here have been unrelated to the actual topic of the thread, so how have I been "making comments based on knowledge I don't have"?
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
All of the comments I've made here have been unrelated to the actual topic of the thread, so how have I been "making comments based on knowledge I don't have"?
Exactly.
.................................
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
All of the comments I've made here are unrelated to the actual topic of the thread
That in itself is a bit of a problem; what we're trying to do here is have conversations about the topics being discussed, so let's stick to the opening of OHMSS in this one, and see if we can avoid incivility.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
Yeah, to join in a conversation that we are all having. Your really do need to know what we are talking about before you come along and make random posts not based on anything we're talking about.
The films are providing all I need to know about that particular iteration of the character, and most of the stuff I've been discussing that is actually relevant to the film franchise
But you've only seen 5 movies - most of them (4) show Bond after the reboot , so most of the filmwork is obviously no-known-land for you )
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
The films are providing all I need to know about that particular iteration of the character, and most of the stuff I've been discussing that is actually relevant to the film franchise
But you've only seen 5 movies - most of them (4) show Bond after the reboot , so most of the filmwork is obviously no-known-land for you )
I've actually seen 7 so far (4 from the Old!Bond Continuity as well as all 3 from the New!Bond Continuity), and have tried to only comment on them in any great specificity AFTER I've actually watched them.
What is the genesis of this idea that not having read the books or participating in discussions about the films themselves while still in the process of experiencing most of them for the first time indicates a lack of respect for the character?
There was no mention of lack of your respect for the character - only of the films and books, of which you admittedly don't have much knowledge. You call an answer to a question 'a silly complaint' - it's not the lack of reading the novels or seeing the films which invalidates your response, but maybe your attention-grabbing tactics.
Back on topic: I always assumed Tracey fainted. Because of the cold water or her angst. -{
I made a comment in this thread about how an adaptation of a book isn't actually the book, and that if somebody wants the book they should go read the book (a comment that, as I noted, wasn't actually intended to be hostile), and suddenly I'm getting attacked for "not respecting the novels" or making comments in this thread that are "based on knowledge I don't have". How is that in any way justifiable?
DigificWriter: if you want to present an informed opinion, you have to have a knowledge base to work from. You do not have sufficient knowledge of James Bond to make an informed argument.
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
You're hardly being attacked. Everyone is answering the questions you are asking that's all.
You're all talking about behaviors that I've not actually engaged in, though.
Aside from getting the original M's character name wrong (which was a simple 'brain fart' since I'd just recently been reading about the character prior to making my first post in the thread in which I made said mistake), there's not a single post I've made that in any way qualifies as having been made based on knowledge that I don't actually have, or that is in any way indicative of not having respect for the books or the films.
I've been upfront about how far my knowledge about the character extends, and have, as I believe I noted earlier, tried not to make in-depth comments about the specifics of any particular film without having first seen said film. When I have commented specifically about films I haven't yet seen, I've done so purely in the abstract in relation to the extent of what I do already know about the franchise as a whole.
No, that isn't accurate and I'm through citing examples which you choose to ignore. I'm sending you a PM which I'd like you to read and respond to- by PM, in case that isn't clear.
Now, as my friend Loeffelholz said above, let's get back on topic shall we?
In the novel Bond sits watching the girl and thinks about his own childhood
happy days in the sand. Before going to help and being brought to Draco.
The film in my opinion sticks closley to the spirit of the scene, although moving
the location simply to move the story along, introduce a new Bond and provide an
Exciting PTS. -{ Only this fans opinion, but I think they did a great job -{
Ian didn't have to worry about a Pre Title Sequence or the pressure of having to
Introduce an unknown actor to the role of 007.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
In the novel Bond sits watching the girl and thinks about his own childhood
happy days in the sand. Before going to help and being brought to Draco.
The film in my opinion sticks closley to the spirit of the scene, although moving
the location simply to move the story along, introduce a new Bond and provide an
Exciting PTS. -{ Only this fans opinion, but I think they did a great job -{
Ian didn't have to worry about a Pre Title Sequence or the pressure of having to
Introduce an unknown actor to the role of 007.
Very true. OHMSS is, in my opinion, Fleming's best novel---at any rate, it's my personal favourite. I read it for the first time at age 11...and having read more cartoonish stuff up to that point (like The Executioner series, or the Nick Carter spy series), I wondered why Bond didn't just make a move and overcome the thugs (which of course he DOES in the film!)...but instead he's taken captive and brought to Draco. What a fantastic book.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
First, OHMSS ties with CR as my favorite novel, so good call, Loeff.
Second, it's correct that one shouldn't have to read a novel in order to understand a film. A film should have enough information to stand on its own.
Third, there is enough information in the beginning of OHMSS to understand the context. A woman Bond follows but hasn't met tries to kill herself, and Bond leaps into action to rescue her. Clearly he has followed her from somewhere posh, as she's dressed elegantly and he is in a tux. Clearly she is determined to do the deed and is resentful but curious when Bond stops her. Before he can do anything else, Bond is attacked, implying that there is more to the girl than meets the eye. She slips away, and he's left holding the bag (shoe) in what promises to be a mystery to be solved.
Fourth, do remember that when this film was made, the spy craze had been in full swing for a decade, with the hard-boiled private detective craze a decade before. Fans of the genre had seen movies and TV shows with just about every plot imaginable, and the set up here would have been familiar to many -- the mysterious girl and the put-upon hero. Watching it 40 years later and without that context, we may not have the collective sense to draw from. But audiences of the period -- as well as perceptive ones now -- would have gotten enough to understand the basic set up offered.
Fifth, literary fans, and that includes many Bond ones, would have gotten the allusion even if general fans didn't. The idea of walking out into the sea to commit suicide was not only more common in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but it's how the famous novella The Awakening ends, an all-but-required reading in many college literature courses.
Comments
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
or the films watched, to give an opinion ? Isn't that a bit like being a witness
to a car crash, giving details and facts, even though you weren't there but a
Mate had told you about it.
Well this thread is certainly becoming a car crash for those who initiated it.
This is the second time in as many threads where the issue's been brought up completely out of the blue, and I really don't understand why.
Because you make comments based on knowledge you don't have. Thus making them pointless. As this very thread proves. Go watch the film, then come back and make a reasoned response instead of blundering in making random comments that don't make any sense to the conversation at all.
It's like you and a mate having a conversation about your pet cats, then I come along and say "cats shouldn't have legs, so you should both go out and buy snakes instead".
Bangs head against wall
Where is the little bugger who started this discussion off?
Let's steer away from the ditch and back onto topic, shall we?
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
All of the comments I've made here have been unrelated to the actual topic of the thread, so how have I been "making comments based on knowledge I don't have"?
Exactly.
That in itself is a bit of a problem; what we're trying to do here is have conversations about the topics being discussed, so let's stick to the opening of OHMSS in this one, and see if we can avoid incivility.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/45515/an-exploration-of-timeline-theories/ Well, here's one example where you get the original M's surname wrong, then wrongly cite the GE script for the female M's "Mawdsley" name.
And here's another, as discussed in that thread.
But you've only seen 5 movies - most of them (4) show Bond after the reboot , so most of the filmwork is obviously no-known-land for you
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
What does that have to do with anything?
This place has suddenly gone from inviting to hostile for apparently no reason.
I've actually seen 7 so far (4 from the Old!Bond Continuity as well as all 3 from the New!Bond Continuity), and have tried to only comment on them in any great specificity AFTER I've actually watched them.
Maybe because you were both hostile and rude first. That usually does it.
There was no mention of lack of your respect for the character - only of the films and books, of which you admittedly don't have much knowledge. You call an answer to a question 'a silly complaint' - it's not the lack of reading the novels or seeing the films which invalidates your response, but maybe your attention-grabbing tactics.
Back on topic: I always assumed Tracey fainted. Because of the cold water or her angst. -{
You're talking rubbish and when you are asking 'where did I talk rubbish' people point you to it and now they are hostile... ?:)
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Aside from getting the original M's character name wrong (which was a simple 'brain fart' since I'd just recently been reading about the character prior to making my first post in the thread in which I made said mistake), there's not a single post I've made that in any way qualifies as having been made based on knowledge that I don't actually have, or that is in any way indicative of not having respect for the books or the films.
I've been upfront about how far my knowledge about the character extends, and have, as I believe I noted earlier, tried not to make in-depth comments about the specifics of any particular film without having first seen said film. When I have commented specifically about films I haven't yet seen, I've done so purely in the abstract in relation to the extent of what I do already know about the franchise as a whole.
Now, as my friend Loeffelholz said above, let's get back on topic shall we?
happy days in the sand. Before going to help and being brought to Draco.
The film in my opinion sticks closley to the spirit of the scene, although moving
the location simply to move the story along, introduce a new Bond and provide an
Exciting PTS. -{ Only this fans opinion, but I think they did a great job -{
Ian didn't have to worry about a Pre Title Sequence or the pressure of having to
Introduce an unknown actor to the role of 007.
Very true. OHMSS is, in my opinion, Fleming's best novel---at any rate, it's my personal favourite. I read it for the first time at age 11...and having read more cartoonish stuff up to that point (like The Executioner series, or the Nick Carter spy series), I wondered why Bond didn't just make a move and overcome the thugs (which of course he DOES in the film!)...but instead he's taken captive and brought to Draco. What a fantastic book.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
First, OHMSS ties with CR as my favorite novel, so good call, Loeff.
Second, it's correct that one shouldn't have to read a novel in order to understand a film. A film should have enough information to stand on its own.
Third, there is enough information in the beginning of OHMSS to understand the context. A woman Bond follows but hasn't met tries to kill herself, and Bond leaps into action to rescue her. Clearly he has followed her from somewhere posh, as she's dressed elegantly and he is in a tux. Clearly she is determined to do the deed and is resentful but curious when Bond stops her. Before he can do anything else, Bond is attacked, implying that there is more to the girl than meets the eye. She slips away, and he's left holding the bag (shoe) in what promises to be a mystery to be solved.
Fourth, do remember that when this film was made, the spy craze had been in full swing for a decade, with the hard-boiled private detective craze a decade before. Fans of the genre had seen movies and TV shows with just about every plot imaginable, and the set up here would have been familiar to many -- the mysterious girl and the put-upon hero. Watching it 40 years later and without that context, we may not have the collective sense to draw from. But audiences of the period -- as well as perceptive ones now -- would have gotten enough to understand the basic set up offered.
Fifth, literary fans, and that includes many Bond ones, would have gotten the allusion even if general fans didn't. The idea of walking out into the sea to commit suicide was not only more common in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but it's how the famous novella The Awakening ends, an all-but-required reading in many college literature courses.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS