Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

No Time to Die **Spoilers from post #1449 onward**

1232426282932

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,666 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    so hear me out, a dastardly plot involving a dirty nuke in a racing car.... , Im not predicting, just who would peak my interest

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Fassbender is a "gentleman driver" - e.g. he pays to be on the team as opposed to being paid.

    The class of cars that he's in (LMGTE) would not be the one of the prestigious classes and he's in the second team.

    Apparently he wants to get to race at Le Mans 24 hours and will most likely stop there if he manages it I would say.

    The plan is to do that in June 2022.

    After that he'll be back to acting full time.

    It's being documented in a Netflix series "Michael Fassbender: Road to Le Mans"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭santana75


    Roger Moore was 48 when live and let die, his first bond outing, was released. Liam neeson was making the Taken films in his 60s. So I wouldnt be counting an actor out based on age.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I don't see them looking back to the way of the 1970's though in that respect though

    And they are not going for the grandad Bond look a la Neeson so not really relevant.

    Fassbender is a more grizzled-looking 44 than Hardy who is also 44 but who (Hardy) I would see as having a much better chance at the role.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,023 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Another I hear mentioned is Richard Madden. Certainly looks the part but pretty much the same problems as above



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Actually the Regé-Jean Page guy (current favourite) has possibly a good look for the next Bond

    haven't watched Brigerton but does seem that he could do the requisite "edge" aspect from clips

    and certainly does fit the "modern narrative" but with possibly broad appeal which is key

    https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/culture/article/rege-jean-page-james-bond



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,023 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Im not advocating for the guy or anything as I have never seen him act but he certainly looks the part in photos. Yes obviously his skin is darker but everything else about his face and frame isn't that different to previous Bonds and probably more like most of them than Craig looked and as a black Bond wouldn't be as jarring as someone like Elba who really looks nothing at all like any previous Bond.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    yes that's why I say "broad appeal" which I would say that his look has.

    "tall, dark(er) and handsome"

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,268 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Interesting to go through the other actors people are backing, some utterly mad ones there... Emilia Clarke?! May as well burn your money. Even if they were going to go female, she wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell. Barely even has the acting chops to play a Bond Girl in the Moore era!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,807 ✭✭✭micks_address


    The only way I can see Hardy in the role is if Christopher Nolan takes on directing duties



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    No I get that; it's a good shout as he can be at once charming one moment, cold the next; just mentioning that as actors go, Fassbender seems to have Other Projects that, unfortunately, would potentially complicate his interest.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,171 ✭✭✭Declan A Walsh


    Roger Moore was in fact 45 when Live and Let Die was released in June 1973 - he was born October 1927. He was 57 when his last Bond film was released in May 1985 - A View to a Kill - and had turned 58 when he announced his retirement later that year. You would have had him aged in his sixties! Although, given his age, Roger did last a long time as Bond.

    Ideally, I think the new James Bond should be in their late thirties, or, failing that, early forties.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,595 ✭✭✭✭siblers


    If they go down the 'classical' route I think James Norton would fit the bill quite well.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 60,877 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson


    That was a complete load of bollix.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    He did himself no favours in McMafia - he was about as compelling as a plank of wood in that miniseries.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,542 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Yes, but by the time Moore was making 'For Your Eyes Only' he was already saying, himself, that he was too old for the part. Fassbender in his mid 40's is just beyond the age he needs to be to start into a franchise like Bond and I'd say that he has zero interest in being Bond anyway. Ditto for Tom Hardy who's been touted. Just cannot see that happening.

    That being said, Daniel Craig is going to be a really tough act to follow no matter who takes up the mantle. His Bond, for me, is easily the best iteration of the character, even with the variable quality of the movies with 'Spectre' being the only true dud however.

    The bigger problem the producers have with Bond, though, is just what to do next storywise.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Long time since I've enjoyed a Bond movie, probably Casino Royale. I think is about as good as its going to get for modern Bond. Some of the recent ones really were garbage, and I had seen better finales in episodes of the A-Team.

    Very hard to fault this in my opinion apart from the ungainly 007 who looked about as nimble as a prop forward, a Grace Jones' esque cat like female is what is needed there. But fantastic action, continuity, clever story line, Malik who seems to be getting a lot of stick online delivered his role brilliantly. The DNA's stuff was very clever.

    Would love to know how to do spoiler tags, since all the options have disappeared from the interface to do such things, so don't read any further if you have not seen it....

    I would have no problem with Bond being done now, they decided when they brought Craig in to do a story arc and have continuity, and with that he has to die at some point so they made their own bed there. Theres not a single character worth hanging onto apart from him in that film, and the little girl. So maybe it is Time to Die for Bond.

    But we can be fairly sure since originality in writing is being phased out of popular film whatever they return with will be extremely predictable and formulaic. It will be very hard it to be anything else. A marvelesque origins story is predictable and formulaic before it even begins. I don't have an ounce of hope for the future of Bond. But am very satisfied they concluded this instalment with such class.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,233 ✭✭✭✭MisterAnarchy


    Amazon recently spent $8.45 billion buying MGM yet people are saying Bond is done.

    James Bond is going nowhere.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Bond as the mega-blockbuster might be done though - speculating on the broader topic of whether the modern blockbuster can exist in the coming cinema landscape.

    Meanwhile, the Broccolis might have denied it would ever happen, but I'd not rule out a pivot to TV in some form either.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,004 ✭✭✭conorhal


    The Man from UNCLE was probably the best Bond movie of the last decade IMO, but I'm a sucker for a more period Bond in which nobody is 'hacking to the extreme! and everything revolves around Bourne-esque computer nonsense'. Is there anything less cinematic then a bunch of people standing around computer monitors?

    If I had my way Bond movies would return to less dreary, more stand alone affairs, in a period setting and I'd let directors like Tarantino, Nolan (who has long expressed a desire to make a bond Movie) and even Guy Ritchie make one-shots that are intended to be little more then fun crowd pleasers.

    Of course the big reason you'll never get a period bond movie is a) period films are expensive and b) offer little opportunity to get money up front from BMW, sony, Samsung and whichever advertisers pay for a good chunk of the explosions budget.



  • Posts: 8,856 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I think the JB franchise will lose a lot of loyal fan base, as in the older generation. Once you kill off James Bond it’s essentially ended the current nearly 60 reign of replacement bonds- they can do what they like next time but it doesn’t mean the loyal following will support. They’ve caused a lot of angst and upset ( strong words I know) amongst some fans out there, if you look at some of the JB forums.

    for me, the James Bond series of films that I knew and loved had ended- it was probably time to ditch that approach anyway - and that’s fine but I won’t be looking forward to a new JB film like I was in the past- it will just be another blockbuster action film like most others - in some respects they’ve done away with part of what made these series of films special



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,268 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Your last point is, I think, a major problem for the Bond franchise. With a bit of creativity though, surely they could work out product placement deals with many of their existing advertisers? A re-release of a vintage Omega Seamaster, a launch of a tie-in retro Heineken bottle that matched their 50's era branding etc.

    The model of Aston Martin being used doesn't hugely matter (as seen in this one, the hero cars were the DB5 and 80's Vantage - we barely saw the DBS Superleggera and similarly with the Land Rovers - it was the vintage ones we actually saw Bond driving). For the purposes of this kind of advertising, it's the association of the brand with James Bond that's far more important than actual product. Few enough movie-goers can afford an Aston Martin but hundreds of thousands of them might buy the associated Lego Model or other Aston Martin merchandise on the basis of that association...

    Realistically I think the only advertising tie-ins you'd have trouble with in a period setting would be the mobile phones etc. and I'm sure alternative advertisers could be found to plug that gap (e.g. using vintage Coca Cola or Pepsi signage in background scenery / as a billboard Bond smashes his DB5 through etc.)



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    No Time To Die needs $900m box office just to break even (reportedly),

    due to both big production and marketing costs and taking into account the Box Office split (which some stupid reporters fail to take into account)

    No film this year has come close to a figure of $900m

    Although probably can count on $100m of product placement (some of which like Nokia phones went out of date with release delays and had to be edited digitally) which is not mentioned here

    That would bring it down to $700m or so for break-even

    Of course there is longer-term revenue from streaming etc also but that's further down the line




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,233 ✭✭✭✭MisterAnarchy


    Just because a budget is $350m though, does not mean that $350m was spent to make the film.

    This is the cost the production would incur if they had to pay for everything. In reality, tax credits and product placements quickly whittle the real number down.

    Norway gave tax breaks to shoot in the country and I'm sure there were other similar deals.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    production budget is normally quoted as net budget (e.g. after tax breaks)

    and it's $314 million for NTTD, not $350 million and that figure of $314 million was bloated by interest costs of about $35 million due to the long release date delays

    e.g. Spectre cost over $300 million to make but was about $250 million after tax breaks

    Spectre broke the bank: it’s rumored to be among the most expensive films in history at a reported $250 million budget “after tax breaks.” (The upside of that stunning Day of the Dead opener is that Mexico reportedly coughed up $20 million in tax breaks to help keep the budget down.) 

    Spectre cost over $300 million to make, according to leaked Sony emails from 2014. That makes it nearly twice as expensive as Skyfall - the previous Bond film in the long-running franchise, which cost between $150 million to $200 million. However, Sony Pictures need not be too worried about Spectre’s budget if the box office revenue is anything like Skyfall’s, which brought in $1.1 billion.




  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Much as I hate to say it, those of us who love Bond after watching Roger's movies as a kid, are not the target audience. Bond will always be a recognisable brand, but they won't be afraid to go after the cash if it comes from the next-gen bums on seats.

    Think of The Force Awakens; basically a $2B grossing reboot for the next generation of Star Wars fans. Rise of Skywalker then shat all over the preceding movies and still made a billion.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Jeez Bond to TV? I find that hard to envisage.

    I think us 40+'s are going to have to come to terms with the idea that Bond as we know it is gone. Its a bit sad really. I am probably doomed now to bitter nostalgic posts forever more on whatever they do with it. I hope to be surprised but I can't see it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,670 ✭✭✭StevenToast


    "Bond as we know it"...what is that?

    Have you watched the Roger moore films lately....most of the old bonds are cringe...

    one of the best bonds is actually the one with george lazenby..great soundtrack and diana rigg....

    Timothy daltons ones are very watchable, brosnan..only goldeneye is worth watching again...

    Daniel Craigs ones are all solid entertainment especially Casino Royale...

    They should go back and do one off stories with one off Bonds, something like a Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy feel...

    "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining." - Fletcher



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    The Bond franchise is a very archaic beast in Blockbuster Cinema; if this film "flops", or some set of conditions make the films more hassle than they're worth, then it's not beyond the bounds of possibility Bond could pivot to a medium that has - in the last few years - itself become more accommodating towards adult, high-budget entertainment. Game of Thrones is the obvious comparison here, with its many international shooting locations, FX heavy set-pieces and so on. Bond wouldn't look out of place or incongruous on a big budget station.

    What's "Bond as we know it" anyway?. The franchise has been a famously moveable feast. With each actor has come a huge variation in tone and execution. Beyond the lead character, could you really draw a line between something like The Spy Who Loved Me, and Casino Royale? Heck even within a single actor's run - Same question re. Live and Let Die, and Moonraker!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,023 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    I think every generation of 40+ year olds have had to come to that realization.

    I wouldn't mind a 60s set OO series with other OOs. That way it doesn't have to clash with any OO7 movies and can do its own thing



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Bond in a tv series just will not compute in my brain. Flat out refuses to accept it!

    Perhaps Bond as we know it, should have been "Bond as I know it". Its probably a personal thing for everyone because its one of the few mainstays of film, the only one I can think of right now that have kept going from a small kid until now. Bond coincides with many great family memories, and moments in life. All of the different actors and movies had their place at the time. Sure they were different (with a few v dodgy ones scattered here and there), but there was a formula that worked. I feel like it changed with the story arc they input to the Craig era. I had almost given up on it after the last few disappointments, but I feel like they nailed it with NTTD, a modern version of the bond formula that I know and love(d). It brought me back, not for a second watching it during the long run time was I bored, or wishing it was something else. It was as good as James Bond could ever been in 2021. Now they killed him, it does feel like that mainstay has ended, it can't be what it was before whatever they do in the future. I could well be being overly dramatic, but that's my gut feeling. Sure its worth too much money, there have been buyouts, but I just feel what comes next will be something different, and what was special about James Bond will be gone.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,506 CMod ✭✭✭✭The Black Oil


    I was thinking back on this because of

    The opening sequence.


    The harshness of the climate there and Safin's actions were a good watch, I thought. Whilst he's a bit creepy later on e.g. Madeleine's office, we don't get enough of sense of him more so in the meat of the film or towards the end. It's a pity. 




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,503 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    No ,he was forty five when live and let die was released



  • Registered Users Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Wedwood


    My first trip to the cinema as a kid was The Man with the Golden Gun and since then I’ve seen the various movies and Bond actors go in and out of fashion, so I wouldn’t pay too much heed to the debate either way on the new movie.

    Connery was always seen as the best, however Moore got the bragging rights in 1983 when his movie (Octopussy) outperformed Connery’s Never Say Never Again in the year of the battle of the Bonds. Lazenby and OHMSS were originally ridiculed and now lauded as one of the best, including the new movie taking pieces from it. Dalton was shown the door after License to Kill underperformed in 1989, it’s now considered one of the better movies.

    Brosnan was considered a return to form at the time and his 4 movies broke previous box office records for Bond movies. His movies are now considered among the worst (apart from Goldeneye).

    As for Craig? Time will tell where he eventually ranks among the other actors.

    Personally for me, the test of whether a Bond movie stands the test of time is if I want to watch it again over the Christmas holliers. The ones I never tend to select are Diamonds are Forever, Die Another Day and Craig’s movies. While Craig’s movies are decent enough, there’s something about them that deters you from wanting to watch them again, a bit like the MCU movies. Maybe that will change over time, or maybe its an age thing.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    There are more cinema goers under 40 than over 40

    Future Bond movies will not be seeking to pander too much to aging bond nostalgia nerds

    (comment a propos those in general talking about the bond heritage / past bond movies etc and not directed at you specifically at all Wedwood)



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    Well that was pretty much what I expected. The Craig era completes it's reversion to a more campy type of film with witty one liners and grand villain entrances (seriously the moving chair?) while trying to maintain a gritty serious tone. It just doesn't work for me and I have no problem with those classic Bond tropes in the old movies but with CR Craig's era tried to distance itself from that stuff which I was excited about. I have no intention of watching NTTD again but I would imagine if you watched CR and this back to back it would be very jarring. I don't think this or Spectre did nearly enough to sell the romance between Bond and Madeline either and if you don't buy into that it's not going to work. Finally the movie is just way too long and it doesn't need to be. You could have cut 5 minutes out with the moving chair mentioned above.

    Post edited by FunLover18 on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,542 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    The Craig (era) completes it's reversion to a more campy type of film

    Ugh...not good.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I thought that this movie deliberately abandoned two of the biggest Bond Tropes of all - Bond as the master seducer of all new nubile women on screen and secondly the obligatory casinos, both absent. Film felt more modern as a result.

    Having one scene where the villain goes down through the floor does not make a film campy and I wouldn't call it that.

    the only really campy scene I would have said was the AdA / Craig bar scene for the shootout in the bar in Cuba and that was certainly intentional

    Didn't buy the Lea Seydoux character or the relationship in Spectre at all but really worked for me in NTTD even though I thought in advance that it wouldn't at all - she was very good I thought and particularly in the key early part of the film to establish the credibility of it.

    Certainly a success for me overall.

    Would agree that the whole appreciation of the movie depends on if you're dismissive of Lea Seydoux's character or not.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    I have no problem with Bond not getting it off or not going to a casino but this film makes one major change to the character that the Craig era has been working towards, I can't get into without spoilers but it didn't work for me.

    Perhaps "camp" is the wrong word, but Bond makes a couple of one liners, there's a gadget that takes a very familiar form (and leads to one particularly egregious quip), I wasn't referring to the trap door but to one character's prolonged entrance which honestly felt like something out of an Austin Powers movie, we even got a lair with hazmat suits. As I said I don't mind camp but this film tries to cover it up with layers of grit and "darkness" and it's out of sorts with what we got in Craig's first two outings. I tend to be in the minority though when it comes to the Craig films.



  • Registered Users Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Wedwood


    Don’t worry, I’m getting to the age where you’re allowed say they don’t make em like they used to !!!



  • Posts: 8,856 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Oh absolutely Dades- I’m considered a dinosaur by the marketing people no less the movie business.

    I guess it’s just a bit sad and I’m not alone- I’ve looked at a few dedicated JB forums and there’s a lot of people around the world of my/our generation feeling similar.

    saying that I was happy with the original Star Wars trilogy,I watched some of the new stuff and some of it I liked but my interest waned and I stopped going to the new ones but that didn’t take away from my great experiences of the original series.

    Live and let die might be my attitude to any future JB outings - we’ll just have to wait and see



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Seems like some obligatory snark when talking about Bond "changing" from how people remember it...




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭greenspurs


    I felt it was about an hour too long....

    ZZZzzzzzz

    "Bright lights and Thunder .................... " #NoPopcorn



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,376 ✭✭✭facehugger99


    Despite some great set pieces and stunning cinematography I felt it was ultimately disappointing. There's no getting away from the runtime and it should have lost at least 40minutes, I'm really sick of the bloating of most franchises - if you can't tell a coherent story in 1hr 45mins max, you're doing something wrong.


    All the more ironic considering so much of the film felt so shallow - Malek's character was so underdeveloped it was next to impossible to figure out what his motivation was. The scriptwriters obviously considered it 'job-done' when they cast a black female replacement 007 because she was a charisma black-hole that was so under-written. The worst moment for me was when she suddenly says to a baddie, appros of nothing, "Hey, do you know what time it is? - It's time to die" - what garbage! I'm not sure what the point of bringing Christopher Waltz back was other than allowing them to do Silence of the Lambs parody - the bit where Bond grabs him around the neck felt so forced and out of character - but hey, the script needed Bond to touch Blofeld so that's what had to happen. The bionic eye was beyond preposterous too - genuinely some of the film felt like an Austin Powers send up of Bond and some of it was striving, beneath a heavy Zimmer score, of brooding realism - the tone was jarring and all over the place and boy did this film lag in the middle.

    You can tell this movie has been written and re-written and it's a right dogs dinner script-wise.

    I'd put NTTD behind both CR and Skyfall in the Craig era - probably just ahead of QOS.


    As for the future, a hard re-boot is the only option - get rid of the entire cast and start from scratch.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,233 ✭✭✭✭MisterAnarchy




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,719 ✭✭✭StupidLikeAFox


    "The worst moment for me was when she suddenly says to a baddie, appros of nothing, "Hey, do you know what time it is? - It's time to die" "


    I forgot about that bit. I've no strong feelings on a female bond/007 either way but some of the craic she came out with was very forced and crowbarred into the story for symbolism. He made some random comment about race and she just said "**** this" and killed him (?). What's she going to tell her superiors - "yeah we could have captured and interrogated the double agent but on the way out he insulted me so I threw him into a lake of acid"

    Also the big deal about her being the new 007 then halfway through an active mission she just gave it back to bond off her own back. And M was like "sure no problem", two of the sillier parts of the movie tbh



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,233 ✭✭✭✭MisterAnarchy


    Dalton was shown the door after License to Kill underperformed in 1989, it’s now considered one of the better movies.

    Thats not true, Dalton was contracted to do at least one more film and would probably have done 2 more but for the Danjaq-MGM legal case.

    Daltons 3rd film was due to be released in late 91 , pre production was well underway until the legal issue.

    By the time it was resolved in Dec 92 , Dalton was outside his 7 year contract and felt he didnt want to reprise the role.

    Broccoli reached out to Dalton, in hopes of convincing the actor to change his mind about quitting the series. He was apparently successful – in August 1993, Dalton told the Daily Mail that production on Bond 17 was expected to begin in early 1994.

    Then the new deal hit a snag: Dalton was keen to film just one more Bond film to cap off his run. Broccoli, though, was keen to ensure a continuity of lead actor after such a long gap between movies.

    Dalton recalled: "[Broccoli] said, quite rightly, 'Look, Tim. You can't do one. There's no way, after a five-year gap between movies, that you can come back and just do one.'"

    Unwilling to sign up for "four or five" more films, Dalton "respectfully declined" to continue in the Bond role and he officially resigned in April 1994.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,268 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Goldeneye was written for Dalton's bond and it definitely shows. It's by far Brosnan's strongest outing.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    The writing overall was just clunky and makes no sense. How many garages does Bond have around London with old Aston Martins stashed inside?

    Bond originally says no to Leiter's proposal before the Lynch character shows up to warn him not to take the job and gives him to phone to call M. When he does M is surprised to hear from him and clearly doesn't want Bond involved or even know that the scientist is still alive. So why was 007 there at all?

    Post edited by FunLover18 on


  • Advertisement
Advertisement