1

Topic: "Did you just move in? No, why..?"

This exchange annoys me. If "SPECTRE" takes place immediately after the events of "Skyfall", which we know it does, then, in fact Bond HAS just moved in. If Moneypenny never posed the question, we'd have assumed that he was just settling in to his new flat. So why does Bond deny this?  Irritating lapse in continuity...

2

Re: "Did you just move in? No, why..?"

How do we know how long after Skyfall Spectre takes place? The SIS Building wouldn't have been set for demolition immediately. Since not much of the building was damaged in Skyfall, time had to be taken to clear out the building first.

3

Re: "Did you just move in? No, why..?"

In my opinion.... It's not a lapse in continuity but a gag. Bond's flat looks untidy and disordered, and from a female perspective it appears to Moneypenny that Bond must just have moved in... but of course he hasn't, he just has a man's ability to ignore untidiness  ajb007/biggrin

Where's May when you need her?  ajb007/lol

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

4

Re: "Did you just move in? No, why..?"

Charmed & Dangerous wrote:

In my opinion.... It's not a lapse in continuity but a gag. Bond's flat looks untidy and disordered, and from a female perspective it appears to Moneypenny that Bond must just have moved in... but of course he hasn't, he just has a man's ability to ignore untidiness  ajb007/biggrin

Where's May when you need her?  ajb007/lol

I thought it looked more Spartan than anything else as befits the 'man without qualities' vibe.

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

5

Re: "Did you just move in? No, why..?"

It was clearly meant to be a joke, EMP is being conversational, Bond comes back with a deadpan response.

Sadly, Mendes again demonstrates that as a Bond fanboy, his skill is lacking. Bond's flat is a wonderful opportunity to get some insight on the man from his home style. Unlike Dr No or LALD, we are given an empty living room with pictures leaning on the walls, the telly (for a plot device, no more) and a few boxes. - These minimalist approaches work in one act plays on the stage. They leave a film fan - and a Bond one at that, wanting. Coupled with the ruined and forgotton Skyfall lodge, paint the image of someone empty and linear. A shame, amd somewhat lazy set design for a one liner.

Look at the scenes in M-Manf's flat in CR-06 for a comparrison. A bit oppulant for Mr Craig's 007, but beautifully done!

Last edited by Thunderbird 2 (17th Feb 2017 20:39)

This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?

6

Re: "Did you just move in? No, why..?"

As I've said before this dialogue whilst in the flat proves sp is set some time after Skyfall, even bonds line of " I've been tracking him ever since " adds to this. Also tanner telling bond q didn't feel happy in Whitehall also puts more emphasis on a longer timescale.

It was either that.....or the priesthood

7

Re: "Did you just move in? No, why..?"

Although I suppose it is possible that SP takes place months after SF, I assumed, based on Bond's having just received the video from M (however long it took for that to happen) along with the condition of MI6 HQ, that it was pretty shortly after SF. And I agree with Thunderbird that an opportunity was lost to learn just a little about Bond based on his dwelling. Perhaps the gag is all a set-up to introduce a new character to the series- his "Scottish treasure" housekeeper May.

8

Re: "Did you just move in? No, why..?"

We know that Bond's old flat was sold during Skyfall. So he definitely moved in between films. We also know that some time has elapsed between the two films for the reasons pointed out by Matt above. We also know he's been tracking Sciarra during his spare time. Further, Moneypenny comments during the car chase that Bond should try "getting a life."

Viewing all of this information together, the filmmakers are obviously trying to drive home the point that Bond is a total workaholic who takes no time to indulge in anything other than the most basic needs (sleep, food, drink, sex). So Bond has indeed been living there a while, but hasn't found the time to do anything with the place. He knows it looks like hell, but doesn't care because his focus is so singular. I believe this is consistent with Craig's interpretation of Bond, although it's inconsistent with every other version of the character. Coincidentally, it's also the thing I most dislike about Craig's Bond. Surely a man who keeps such a home would not be so well put together in his dress. It also runs contrary to his military background.

9

Re: "Did you just move in? No, why..?"

What I got out of my viewings is that Bond had been busy with more important things in his life than getting all his belongings out of storage and into his new flat (which may also have taken time for him to find - anyone go looking for flat or house they are going to be in for years do not usually find one right away).  In this case, he had probably only put in some necessities at that point and why a few things were still not in their proper place  (which is why the picture wasn't hung up).  I also agree that his reply was just meant as a satirical retort to her.  Yes, Mendes could have shown Bond's flat fully moved in and stuffed with enough things to keep fans picking them apart for years, but at this point he chose to show it as sort of in transition - just as Bond's life was at that point - and left just as an opaque background in the scene in order that the focus remained on her and Bond and the plot.

10

Re: "Did you just move in? No, why..?"

Bond's life is always in transition in the Craig films. He can never be perfectly settled. The character development of Craig's first two films never paid off, and the fact that Bond can never just be Bond makes any further attempts at character development less meaningful.

11

Re: "Did you just move in? No, why..?"

I read somewhere that it was Daniel Craig himself who chose what was going to be in Bond's flat. I actually really liked the scene and thought they did a great job with his flat.
It's not messy, it's just unpacked, still neatly in boxes.
It doesn't represent Bond as a workaholic, but someone who doesn't take lots of time with furniture and unpacking boxes, when his work probably meant he spends a lot of time abroad. You have that risque print of a woman, and some academic looking books around, plus a bottle of wine. That's all Bond needs.

(Though it would have been a pretty cool reference if there were some golf clubs and a coffee machine around)

“The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nauseating at three in the morning. "
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming

12

Re: "Did you just move in? No, why..?"

Matt S wrote:

Bond's life is always in transition in the Craig films. He can never be perfectly settled. The character development of Craig's first two films never paid off, and the fact that Bond can never just be Bond makes any further attempts at character development less meaningful.

Very well put. Craig is perpetually ' becoming Bond' and never quite being Bond. The possible exception is SP but that film is so weak and mired that it never quite lands (not Craig's fault) If we're to see his flat in SP I think it would be different. As it stands I think it's perfect for the film and a deliberate statement and not an oversight in my view.

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

13

Re: "Did you just move in? No, why..?"

I thought Bond's apartment in SP was a nice snap shot into the life of Craig's interpretation of Bond because I never really saw him as a guy who really cares about hanging artwork or unpacking any sentimental belongings. As the previous films showed he's definitely a workaholic and we rarely see him actually enjoying himself. His flat alludes to a very lonely and empty life brought on by his job but also someone whose probably rarely home.

14

Re: "Did you just move in? No, why..?"

There is my point exactly.

Bond's home would not be full of arty farty stuff ot sentimental clutter.
It should be functional, practical a place where he would keep resources and material of use.
EMP's reaction shows it is a place Bond does not share. - If this is because he is never there to use it, why not lease it out?
  In short, in context it doesn't make sense. It also (dare I say it) makes the character less interesting.

Re Bond's journey into becoming 007, that was completed at the end of CR-06, with that epic 'The names Bond, James Bond.' While Mr White's leg bleeds in shattered pieces off screen. 
The promise of solid character evolution just hasn't been followed up to with QoS's 'Vesper Vendeta,'  SF 'Momy issues' and SP 'cuckoo cronicles.' SP also doesn't help with the unwaranted 'tie a ring around it' routine.
  A spiral of woe, woe and more woe. We need writers and a director to say Woah! Enough already!
Bond should be someone who revils in what he does, because life is short. An unstarted flat (yes, flat not fart) is a metaphor for an un incomplete character.

Last edited by Thunderbird 2 (18th Feb 2017 18:54)

This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?

15

Re: "Did you just move in? No, why..?"

Bond is never home, he's either on a mission or round some major babes pad ! ajb007/wink

“I didn’t lose a friend, I just realised I never had one.”

16

Re: "Did you just move in? No, why..?"

Bond's home is very clearly described in the Fleming books.  He loves his flat and takes care in how he arranges everything.  In FRWL, he even decided not to inform SIS and security that the enemy was checking up on the flat just in case they made him move somewhere else.

..................http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a77/darkcrown_1969/Asp9mmSIG-1-2.jpg...............

17

Re: "Did you just move in? No, why..?"

While I agree with what Asp9mm says about Fleming, I could hardly imagine Craig-Bond being like that.

Closest to Fleming's portrayal in that point would be Dalton - but only in that!!
And he'd also take good care for his doll collection  ajb007/shifty

President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
-------Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!------
FIRST TO DISCOVER substantial evidence that Chew Mee is in fact not totally nude in the TMWTGG pool scenes!

18

Re: "Did you just move in? No, why..?"

Asp9mm wrote:

Bond's home is very clearly described in the Fleming books.  He loves his flat and takes care in how he arranges everything.  In FRWL, he even decided not to inform SIS and security that the enemy was checking up on the flat just in case they made him move somewhere else.

Great point. I just don't think Craig's Bond's flat was consistent with the character.

19

Re: "Did you just move in? No, why..?"

I love Craig's Bond, but it's far removed from Fleming's Bond now.   It's about as far as I want cinematic Bond to deviate from the literary original.  Time to draw it in a little and get back on track as much as is possible for the era we now live in.

..................http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a77/darkcrown_1969/Asp9mmSIG-1-2.jpg...............

20

Re: "Did you just move in? No, why..?"

Asp9mm wrote:

I love Craig's Bond, but it's far removed from Fleming's Bond now.   It's about as far as I want cinematic Bond to deviate from the literary original.  Time to draw it in a little and get back on track as much as is possible for the era we now live in.

I think a lot of people feel this way. I wonder if EON has its finger on the pulse?

21

Re: "Did you just move in? No, why..?"

Thunderpussy wrote:

Bond is never home, he's either on a mission or round some major babes pad ! ajb007/wink

I respectively disagree about Bond never being home and being a workaholic based on the appearence of his flat - even with Craig's Bond.  In the novels Bond has a normal office job with regular hours most of the year and normally was sent off on a mission once or twice a year.  When you look at the life or death missions he went on and how many times he had to recover from being wounded it's not surprising his field work was limited to that.  Bond's department was a highly specialized one (which is one of the reasons it had only a handfull of 00 agents).  Though he was sent on some fantasy adventures by Fleming, the author tried to keep Bond's fictional work week existance grounded in reality and one of the ways he did this was by telling his readers that just as how most of the men and women who work in the intelligence field most of the time have pretty routine lives (even though the work itself is interesting), Bond's was also like that.  Most audiences can easily take away from the films the false idea that Bond spends most of his time globe trotting and seducing throngs of women and blowing things up, because that's precisely the only thing they see him do.  Even if one examines the missions in his films and placed them in real time, they actually would only take place over small periods of not more than a week or two. 

So, if the premise that Bond only is out on missions for a few weeks a year, how to explain the flat in the film?  Easily - as  I mentioned in my previous post, it can take weeks or months to find a new home and different amounts of time to actually move in.  The state of his flat in the film more or less suggests that - and again, though it may have been done to suggest the state of flux Bond was in following SF and his mission in Mexico, it could also have been shown just to show some continuity from the last film - his flat had been sold and his possessions put in storage and we see he's found a new flat since then and is beginning to move in.  To take from that the idea that Bond is a workaholic and has an empty life outside his work is IMO uninformed and innacurate.

Last edited by CmdrAtticus (23rd Feb 2017 15:05)

22

Re: "Did you just move in? No, why..?"

Disagree away CmdrAtticus  ajb007/martini  my point was light hearted in intent  ajb007/wink  I perhaps should have
Said Craig's Bond is never at home etc.

“I didn’t lose a friend, I just realised I never had one.”

23

Re: "Did you just move in? No, why..?"

the scene is character revealing, as others have pointed out above it demonstrates he is a lifeless workaholic, and I suspect a bit Asperger-y
it is also completely inconsistent with Fleming's Bond and all previous interpretations
Fleming's Bond knew where all his towels and shampoos came from, there was page after page describing this stuff, he may have had a maid to keep it clean but he was obsessive about the consumer goods he used and filled his flat with
Moore's Bond looks to be quite consistent, from what we see in Live and Let Die, look at that espresso machine he uses to fix M a coffee (M mocks him for this unmanly affectation)
I think the scene in Dr No is too brief (and maybe budget limited) to really show us how Connery's Bond lives while he's at home, but since he's bringing a chick home he probably wants it presentable

the others we don't see their apartment, I would guess Brosnan's Bond had some tasteful décor, conversation pieces even, he just seemed very Yuppy-ish.
Lazenby's Bond was probably more of a slob (and I bet Tracy would have not been into the housewife scene had she lived).
Dalton actually may also be too focussed on his crazy hunches and missions of revenge to care about what his apartment looks like (but if he's bringing that cellist home, one'd hope he'd clean up a bit first: Connery already  knew his apartment was good enough for some babe action when he left the casino with Sylvia Trench, Dalton probably would rush to clean the bathroom while the cellist was distracted by his CD collection)

also Fleming's and Moore's Bond both were shown to know their way round the kitchen ... I bet Craig's Bond has some frozen TV dinners he's forgotten about and piles of takeout containers he hasn't thrown out yet

nothing wrong with that, its a different interpretation of the character and this scene helps to flesh that out

24

Re: "Did you just move in? No, why..?"

When you also consider Bonds familiarity with both moneypenny and Q it also adds to a significant timescale between sf and sp,  at the end of sf bond doesn't even know her first name,  by sp she a trusted friend. The tape from m arrived after her funeral and following her instructions has taken up bonds time,  so after acquiring a new flat he has simply not put his place together due to time constraints,  any man who dresses like he does, wears driving gloves and matches a vintage watch with a vintage car would not have a home in disarray given the chance.

It was either that.....or the priesthood