1

Topic: Question about the Double-Os.......?

I just wondered wether this has been posted before but in SPECTRE the Double-Os (such as J.B. is 007) are referred to as being part of  the Double-O Programme where as in the past they have always been the Double-O Section of HMSS.  Just wondered wether this was a modern thing or part of the series reboot?

2

Re: Question about the Double-Os.......?

Fleming always wrote it as the Double-O Section.

It's also usually referred to that way in the films, and often as 'the department' too (e.g. In OHMSS, M tells Bond "This department is not concerned with your personal problems"). In Skyfall, when M is appearing at the Enquiry, she says "Today I've repeatedly heard how irrelevant my department has become. Why do we need agents? The Double-O Section?" So we can safely rule out that it was part of the reboot.

I'm not sure why it was changed in Spectre, but it's interesting that's M, Bill Tanner and Max Denbigh, all refer to it a single the Double-O Programme at various points.

MI6's own website refers to 'departments' rather than programmes or sections, so I can't believe it was written that way for accuracy.

The original Spectre script was written by John Logan, but later Purvis and Wade were hired rewrite or polish it. Why they didn't change it back - assuming Logan wrote it that way by accident - is a mystery.

"How was your lamb?" "Skewered. One sympathises."

3

Re: Question about the Double-Os.......?

The Double-O 'Programme' is what it's called at a planning and management level; the Double-O 'Section' is this programme put into effect.

Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.

4

Re: Question about the Double-Os.......?

At the start of Living Daylights just before the 3 Agents (inc James Bond) jump from the RAF Hercules M's speech was that:

" Gentlemen, This may only be an exercise so far as the Ministry of Defence is concerned, but for me it is a matter of pride that the DOUBLE-O SECTION has been chosen for this test!  Your objective is to penetrate the Radar Installations of Gibraltar.   Now the S.A.S. have been placed on full alert to intercept you but I know you won't let me down!   Good luck men!...……...

5

Re: Question about the Double-Os.......?

Watched it on TV last night. Pleasantly  surprised. It has some great elements. Its faults are well known and need no rehashing here.  It holds up very well but tanks everytime Waltz enters. It is going well until the lair and last act which unfortunately tarnishes everything that has come before. For me easily Daniel's best perfomance and unlike some others I think the lighter touches of humour are well handled by Craig who looks very good BTW and the clothes are much better. Fiennes and WIshaw are superb and their interactions with Bond really work for me. Still so much that I could do without but on balance a disappointment and not quite the disaster that I thought.
I m even finding some value in QOS!

Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.

6

Re: Question about the Double-Os.......?

Unknown007 wrote:

I just wondered wether this has been posted before but in SPECTRE the Double-Os (such as J.B. is 007) are referred to as being part of  the Double-O Programme where as in the past they have always been the Double-O Section of HMSS.  Just wondered wether this was a modern thing or part of the series reboot?

I guess off the back of the Bourne series' Treadstone, Blackbriar etc programmes. Unnecessarily IMO. Bond is Bond and it's 00 Section!

"Any of the opposition around..?"

7

Re: Question about the Double-Os.......?

Its always been the 00 Section in any previous movies and when M refers to the Department I have always taken this to mean MI6.  The 00 Programme is something new and as has been pointed out is probably one of the many influences from Bourne.  Continuity has never been one of the series strong points.

8

Re: Question about the Double-Os.......?

zaphod99 wrote:

Watched it on TV last night. Pleasantly  surprised. It has some great elements. Its faults are well known and need no rehashing here.  It holds up very well but tanks everytime Waltz enters. It is going well until the lair and last act which unfortunately tarnishes everything that has come before. For me easily Daniel's best perfomance and unlike some others I think the lighter touches of humour are well handled by Craig who looks very good BTW and the clothes are much better. Fiennes and WIshaw are superb and their interactions with Bond really work for me. Still so much that I could do without but on balance a disappointment and not quite the disaster that I thought.
I m even finding some value in QOS!

Mendes always has weak third acts in his actioners.  He seems to think reversing the expectation -- a more personal interaction rather than a big finish -- is the way to make his films.  It's bizarre.  I'm not sure if he think this is his way of adding something to the genre or if he just doesn't get it.  Even the escape from Blofeld's headquarters is remarkably, disappointingly minimalist.

9

Re: Question about the Double-Os.......?

Calling that enormous explosion "minimalist" is a bit wrong, but I still agree with your point.

10

Re: Question about the Double-Os.......?

Number24 wrote:

Calling that enormous explosion "minimalist" is a bit wrong, but I still agree with your point.

How something so big can make such a minimal impact is unbelievable.

11

Re: Question about the Double-Os.......?

Matt S wrote:
Number24 wrote:

Calling that enormous explosion "minimalist" is a bit wrong, but I still agree with your point.

How something so big can make such a minimal impact is unbelievable.

Quite.

Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.