tannertan36
🪼
Today's Document
One Nice Bug Per Day
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
No title available
KIROKAZE
d e v o n
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
No title available
Interview Vampire Daily
macklin celebrini has autism
ellievsbear
Cosimo Galluzzi
No title available
Color Me Curious
Game of Thrones Daily
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
Sweet Seals For You, Always
seen from Ecuador
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Spain
seen from Russia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Russia
seen from Pakistan
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Italy
seen from United States
seen from Netherlands
@fuckno00q
Weisz would much rather see new stories created about women instead of a female-centric James Bond.
THANK YOU! SOMEONE HAD TO SAY IT!!!!
Coming out of permanent hiatus to say this. Piggybacking off another’s success via female Bond only serves to weaken the character by implying that she needs 50+ years of help to propel her into stardom.
Daniel Craig remains undecided, but long-time Bond scribes Neal Purvis and Robert Wade could help lure him with a Trump-inspired story.
This already sounds like an abysmal idea.
How TJLC handles being politely disagreed with.
Can’t wit for our turn
Bond Air as in BOND Air *gnashes teeth*
DISCLAIMER: I don’t really write meta and I haven’t read all meta and this may all be hogwash/old news, plus I tend to confuse things and misremember.
BUT.
Ever since I sort-of watched TFP, I’ve been bothered by what I see as the similarity between Musgrave Hall and Skyfall in the Bond movie of the same name: the ancestral home, out in the middle of nowhere, the destruction, the fire…
(That’s the villain watching it burn, btw)
But even though this has been at the back of my mind since then, I haven’t bothered to look into it. Maybe someone else has. That’s not what this post is about, even though I’m sure it would be an interesting thread to pull (and someone probably already did). But it does encourage associating Sherlock with Bond, which is the point of this post. And which, as we all know, Mark Gatiss went out of his way to drive home in that poetic response to a review that complained about Sherlock being too Bond-y.
So anyway, with all these Bond associations floating around in my brain pretty much CONSTANTLY, today as I was out walking, something struck me. “What other final instalment in a rebooted movie series that I loved made me grievously disappointed, had glaring plot holes, and introduced a random super-duper villain from the hero’s childhood who no one had ever heard of before?” And the answer (for me, personally) is Spectre.
There should always be a spectre at the feast, right?
Well, I know Spectre came out just a half year before Sherlock s4 started filming, but they could have been “inspired” to cobble together the mess that is TFP in that time. So what are the plot holes in Spectre? Many people loved the movie, but others saw it as a regression to earlier Bond incarnations with ridiculous gadgets being prioritised above plot. One relevant question comes from http://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/43844/why-didnt-the-machine-affect-bond-in-spectre:
“There is a scene where Bond is hooked up to a torture machine. He is told that the first action will damage his eyesight and the the second action will cause him to forget all the faces he knew. Both these actions occurred, but he still remembers everyone’s face, and 5 minutes later he is making precision shots from a large distance. So it seems like the torture device had literally no effect on him. Is there a reason for this, or is it just poor movie making?”
Like introducing, say, a memory-altering drug for no reason at all and not following up on it.
A few other Spectre plot holes according to http://whatculture.com/film/spectre-6-stupid-plot-holes-that-ruined-the-movie?page=2:
“Bond accidentally shoots a suitcase filled with explosives, which blows up half a building. Aaaaand nobody notices…. Seriously: an explosion goes off in a packed city during the busiest day of the year, and there’s not a single acknowledgement from anybody anywhere. Bond returns to the street to pursue his target and the festivities are still going on as normal. Surely somebody would have seen a building collapsing right in the middle of everything? Nope. It’s just ignored, which makes no sense given that the explosion happened in plain sight. What gives?“
Yeah, what gives?
Continuing:
“As Bond enters MI6 in an attempt to track down whatever waits for him inside (it’s Blofeld, by the way), he realises that the building has been set up as a kind of “James Bond Funhouse.” Firstly, he sees his name sprayed onto a wall of deceased secret agents, and arrows have been placed around the building to guide him towards his goal. Pictures of former Bond villains – Silva, LeChiffre – and former love Vesper have been pinned to the walls. And then Bond reaches Blofeld, who is (somehow) concealed behind a wall of bulletproof glass. The question is, though: how did Blofeld know that Bond would kill those agents and thus enter the building to see his name, the arrows and the photos of the deceased? He had no reason to suspect that Bond would be able to free himself and kill two agents whilst handcuffed, and yet he went to the trouble of drawing arrows and putting up pictures!”
A grey bunker filled with clues and rooms with pictures of the hero’s past - remind you of anything?
And finally:
“Okay, then: the worst contender. Actually think about this for a second, because it’s quite insane when you try to piece it together: a plot hole to end all plot holes, if you will - and one that only succeeds in spoiling the Bond continuity for absolutely no reason at all. In the film’s big and unexpected “twist”, Bond discovers that Blofeld is his half-brother and that the villain has set out to make his life hell due to some very undeveloped and frankly ridiculous “daddy [friend] issues.” As a result, audiences are told that all of the villains in all of the Daniel Craig Bond movies were working for Spectre the whole time, which - in itself - makes no sense. Blofeld has been in the shadows the whole time, apparently, watching. How the hell could Blofeld have masterminded all of Bond’s pain when Bond was randomly assigned to most of his cases, or stumbled upon them by accident? Bond got involved with most of the villains as a result of other peoples’ actions. Le Chiffre didn’t plan to meet with Bond; Bond was sent after him. Dominic Green had other things on his plate long before Bond got involved. Silva was going after M and wanted revenge on her, Bond aside. Trying to shoehorn all four Bond movies into one continuity was a huge mistake on the writers’ part because it suggests that Blofeld somehow manipulated all the events that led Bond to each villain, which clearly wasn’t the case. But how could he have known that Bond would be assigned to each and every villain? How could he have even predicted that Bond would become a secret agent, thus drawing the pair into the scenario that Blofeld wanted? It’s all very, very tenuous and you could probably spend days and days combing through the movies, spotting all the moments at which “I am the author of all your pain” induces another plot hole. It’s retconning of the worst kind, and it’s crazy that the writers decided to go down a route that opened them up to relentless plot-based scrutinies.”
There’s nothing to add at this point, because we can all see the parallels with Eurus.
________________________________________________
Alright, just a few bonus details that aren’t plot holes, just… you know, too much:
- Receiving a posthumous message from the previous M, Bond carries out an unauthorised mission in Mexico City.
- Bond asks Moneypenny to investigate Oberhauser, who was presumed dead years earlier.
- At the end, Bond throws his gun into the Thames and leaves the bridge with Swann.
Ho hum.
_______________________________________________
Oh, bonus fun fact: look, it’s Andrew Scott! Playing E… I mean C! Being all up in arms about surveillance technology, incidentally.
Bonus fun fact 2: main characters apparently not wanting to film anymore
Bonus fun fact 3: “If I risk it all, could you break my fall?” (Spectre song)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jzDnsjYv9A
Bonus fun fact 4: beanie hell
Bonus fun fact 5: You know what, I give up.
And this time I can’t resist the urge to tag a few people. I’m sorry if you’ve already gone over this with a fine tooth comb or if you don’t like being tagged by total strangers, but it is a compliment. ;) @jenna221b @teapotsubtext @disregardedletters @holmesianscholar @tjlcisthenewsexy @love-in-mind-palace @inevitably-johnlocked @tjlc @the-7-percent-solution
The chessboard and the beanie oh my god, I need to re-watch Spectre @waitedforgarridebs @mollydobby @marcespot
Omg did mofftiss and the people of James Bond made a deal or what ?? This is extremely suspicious !
Well…that rung a bell with me so I just looked back and found this- a theory that the writer John Logan and Mark have talked about Bond before…telling timing re: where Bond and Sherlock’s at! @pawsoffmykitty
So… um… How to put this… My re-watch tonight yielded this little gem. Screaming on the inside, sir.
Don't forget how in both franchises the main character is turned from cold and efficient to OOC, emotionally wrecked woobie. It may have well been character development for Sherlock, but really, it's taken too far in s4. Craig's Bond, both in SPECTRE and Skyfall, is just embarrassing.
Tumblr 007 fans: I will reeeeeeee into the next dimension if Idris Elba isn't the next Bond.
Tumblr 007 fans: lol what if fucking jar-of-paste colored Loki is the next Bond
James Bond needs a new face for a new age, and these two are the perfect pair to do it.
All of Nolan’s films boast jaw-dropping, highly elaborate action sequences, filmed using practical stunt work rather than CGI. This was the man who turned a trippy idea about invading other people’s dreams into an action-packed heist movie full of tailored suits and machine guns. Clearly, Nolan needs to make a Bond film.
And Bond needs to be refreshed. The dark, gritty reboot (that Nolan ironically pioneered) is becoming stale. While there was technically nothing wrong with Spectre, it seemed more of a homage to a classic series rather than a standalone story. Skyfall was so perfect because it depicted Bond, with his brutal fists and casual misogyny, as an aging relic from another era. It’s time to make him relevant again.
Daniel Craig has been, in my view, an excellent Bond. Stony-faced and sociopathically cold, with a touch of sarcasm. But his portrayal is a little too serious, and Bond is not a serious character. He’s a secret agent happy to tell strangers his real name. He fistfights in a stifling suit with pockets full of explosive gadgets. He’s a workaholic, alcoholic womanizer who maintains an aura of perfection. It’s hard to delve into his inner pain without it coming across as a bit silly.
So maybe it’s time for Bond to be fun again. Leave the scowling and the camera shake to Bourne. Bond is supposed to be the kind of guy who livens up a party.
Nolan films aren’t particularly fun. But Tom Hardy is. Hardy may be approaching his forties now, but he has a cheeky immaturity to him. He is one of those celebrities that manages to maintain a “one of the guys” image, like Simon Pegg, or Martin Freeman. His Bond could be softer, more approachable, the opposite of Craig’s self-loathing assassin.
With Nolan’s capacity for outrageous action grounded in realism, and Hardy’s casual charisma, Bond could be reborn as a more relatable hero.
James Bond has proved himself to be a remarkably resilient character, changing face and tone every few years, and yet remaining much the same. It’s always fun to speculate on which direction this cultural icon will take. I’m crossing my fingers for this perfect pairing.
while i believe tom would actually make a fantastic bond villain, this is still interesting to read. i may be having a change of heart on this whole nolan/bond thing… i can’t believe i’ve evolved on this issue… lol… after all, skyfall was modeled on the dark knight and it’s no secret how much of a fanboy sam mendes is.
Can we please not? We have enough of these TDK style films as it is. Not everything has to be ~~~thought-evoking~~~, Edgy™, and realistic to be good. Escapism was what Bond was all about. And now in 2017, escapism is more important than ever as reality itself is quickly degenerating into a complete shitshow.
The head of MI6 has revealed that the real-life gadget inventor known as Q in the James Bond films is a woman. CNN's Brian Todd reports.
The head of MI6 has revealed that the real-life gadget inventor known as Q in the James Bond films is a woman. CNN’s Brian Todd reports.
When Triggermax forgets to read up on the cool new franchise xhe loves:
When Triggermax forgets to read up on the cool new franchise xhe loves:
Can't wait for the rumors that an Apahe attack helicopter is going to be the next Bond. Wherever will pandering take us next.
Share if you relate to this:
Rich fantasy lives… Our quests and our tribes and our Babylon Fives. Until something better than this world arrives, We’ll lead rich fantasy lives.
I would not eat those cookies, however.
This is why I hate the new James Bond and Mende's super gritty and realistic view on it. James Bond is sweet escapism into exotic lands and beautiful people, not a political rant about the human mind.
More hate in the 00Q tag so I’m just going to throw my two cents out there. The person who runs the blog starts the huge rant by saying that he is not a bigot, or a homophobe. But he goes on to say that he was “disgusted” by what he saw on Tumblr. “WHY ARE BOND AND Q GAY?? WHY THE HELL IS SILVA…
Just a comment.. I think some hate the whole Bond/Q thing because James Bond is a long standing Character from the 60’s with an established characterization. as is Q a long standing Bond character. So to have this new Fandom pairing Bond and Q as lovers I can see how it might upset. For some.. Some Characters shouldnt be messed with. and Many feel that way about Bond. He is old school character.. drinks..womanizes..kills a mans man as some say. I for one love the pairing but I have a real open mind about such things.
Then there are those who never want to see a character they love in a homosexual story . I just feel its best to ignore the haters. just like how you would in your personal life. Enjoy your blog and your stories how you see fit and ignore the hate. I personally love the stories.. well not the ones involving Silva and Bond as lovers.. but I dont spread hate. I just dont read them. but the ones of Q/Bond.. love!
Boo. It's me. Out of semi hiatus to haunt you folks talking shit about me. My hate of 00Q is not homophobia. Just like some people here's hate of Caitlyn Jenner is not transphobia. It's not the homosexual part at all. Seriously. It's the twisting of an, as you say, "established character" so far detached from the nerdy twink boy stereotype, a character who so much more than a beaten old trope. Q is a weapons specialist. He is not a computer hacker. He is not a boy genius. It's been established many times that MI-6 literally has a whole department dedicated to digital terrorism and such matters. Watch any old Brosnan film, and even Quantum of Solace and it is painfully obvious that the little computer nerd of MI-6 is a whole army of professionals. Even without Desmond Llewelyn or John Cleese to uphold the Quartermaster post in the earlier two Craig Bond films, it is clear such a role is a different beast. Weapons, even in such a technologically advanced era, are in a whole different pool from computer science and security. During development of complex gadgets, such as self-driving cars and such (which was done back in 1997), computer technology and gadget engineering will intersect, but both things will be handled by different departments of MI-6. There is literally no reason behind turning Q from former Navy weapons inventor to baby-faced stereotype. Q and Bond from the older eras share a unique worried-father/reckless-son dynamic that is both entertaining, and unique. In LtK, Q goes out into the field to protect Bond like a worried father, a very heartwarming moment in the character's film history. He seems absolutely broken when Bond forces him to return to HQ, playing out like a scenario where an adult son pushed away his doting father. The whole relationship is very touching, and very refreshing from simple romance. Turning Q into a cocky little hipster brat and making the relationship between him and bond (canonically) simple working coincidence and (fanonically) romantic is not making their relationship deeper, real or complex; in fact, it’s making it more shallow and simple. Despite what you teaboos think, romance, gay or not is not the deepest bond (hahaha) one can get into.
-mod boris
Q is pretty much a hipster in himself. Especially with that weird 'enzyme drink' from Spectre.
In the words of Bond himself: "Pour it into the toilet. Cut out the middleman".
can we talk for a minute about how attractive alan cumming is in goldeneye? if you’re trying to set me up and need a template, it’s this: programming nerd with a dark side and a passion for the internet. as a blanket statement i would marry alan cumming in any of his roles.
Better computer need than nu Q 1000000000fold
Ok but actually wasn't that the case before Whishaw with Llewelyn and Cleese???
When half the fandom ships your NOTP
Fandom: how can anyone not love this pairing??? :DDD
Me: very, very easily
