Question: If the opening scene was staged to get 007 to surrender, then it seems it was a terrible plan. Look how many Russians got killed by Bond and 006. It seems very awkward that the whole thing was staged. Why did Bond need to surrender? Why couldn't 006 just shoot him (besides the usual reason that 007 must be executed through an overly involved and escape-riddled plan) What would they do with him once he was captured? Too many questions and a weird scenario.
Question: What is the translation of 006's words when he holds the gun to Bond's head in the dark toward the beginning of the movie?
Answer: "Don't even breathe. Where are the others?"
Question: How did Alec survive being shot at the start only to return later in the film. It's something that I can't figure out, as James saw him get shot.
Chosen answer: The real answer, which I believe was explained better in the game or in special features. Regardless, I did hear, is that Ourumov wasn't aiming directly at Alec's head, but to the side and shot the ground behind him. But made it look like he shot him in the head. Alec would have felt the bullet whiz by him.
Answer: He was shot with a blank cartridge. What that means is that the casing in the gun chamber didn't contain a live bullet; instead of killing him, the gun simply gave off a realistic flash that tricked Bond into thinking Alec had been shot. As explained later in the film, Alec's death was staged between himself and Ourumov.
Ourumov shot Alec and the Russian soldier with the same gun but, only the soldier was actually killed.
But that doesn't work, because even blanks can be deadly at close range.
Question: Was any reason ever given as to why Bond's gadget-filled car was barely used in this film? It seems odd to give the series a fresh start in many ways, make a big deal about his car with missiles inside the lights, and then he drives it for 30 seconds and gives it away. Why bother giving him a car at all?
Chosen answer: There hadn't been a Bond film for seven years, and it was a new Bond. They wanted to get away from the gadgets and show him at his best. It was a way to let people accept Pierce Bronsan, watching what he can do. He put a lot of Sean Connery into it.
I can see that, but it just seems weird to highlight the features the car has and then not use them. Would have been simpler to omit it entirely, but presumably BMW wanted some product placement.
According to Wikipedia, the deal with BMW came at the last stage in production, so they were only able to put the car in the movie but not make scenes where the gadgets are actually used. I can imagine they'd have to rewrite parts of the script and take more time filming to do that.
Question: Is Goldeneye a reboot? From what I remember, there's no clear evidence that it is a reboot like Casino Royale, but there's also no evidence that it's in the same universe as the previous movies. Licence to Kill is, because Tracy's death is mentioned, and it's clear that Bond and Felix have been close friends for decades.
Answer: It's definitely not meant as a reboot. While there may not be any explicit references to earlier Bond films, plenty of them lack those. It may feel like a reboot because, as the first Bond film made after the end of the USSR, it had to establish Bond's place in a post-Cold War world; hence his terse exchange with the new M (Judi Dench) early in the film about how he is a "relic", and the fact that this story has its origins in the Cold War and many of its villains are ex-Soviet officials and such. It's more a transitional film in the series than a reboot.
Question: In the Control scene in Cuba, where Bond notices Boris clicking and twirling the pen in his fingers, how does the grenade pen get into Boris' possession?
Answer: All of Bond's possesions were taken from him and put on the desk. Boris had his own pen at that point. Then there is a small ruckus, and Boris bangs into the table if I recall correctly. He picks up Bond's pen then.
Question: When Bond is confronting Trevelyan for the first time since the opening, the scene ends with Bond getting shot in the neck by a dart. But who shot it? Trevelyan had his hands in his pockets the whole time, and even if he had a dart gun, Bond was shot too quickly for him to have drawn, aimed and fired it. And Bond looked like he was shot in the side of the neck, so it doesn't seem possible he could have been shot by the figure from behind.
Answer: After Bond collapses, another person, I suppose one of Trevelyan's henchmen, emerges from the shadows after having fired the dart...apparently Trevelyan wasn't so sure of his ability to foresee Bond's every move that he didn't bring along some insurance. Maybe this third man is only visible in the widescreen version.
Question: What exactly happens between Trevelyan and Ourumov in the pre-title sequence? Is this just a staged hostage situation to get Bond's guard down? Or, if Ourumov really shot Trevelyan, how did he come back to life?
Answer: Yep it's a staged hostage situation. Trevelyan and Ourumov are in on it together and the gun was filled with blanks. The purpose of it was to get Bond to surrender, but it backfires and Bond sets the timers to 3 minutes instead of the planned 6 minutes - so Trevelyan and Ourumov have less time than they realise - hence the bad scarring on Trevelyan's face later in the film because presumably he got caught in the blast.
Question: Can somebody please explain to me HOW on earth Bond disengages the bungee cord wrapped around him after jumping off the dam without it flying back up the dam? Or could he have just secured it to something to stop it doing this very thing? I know it is possible that all this happens off-camera.
Answer: There's no indication or implication that the cord didn't bounce back up once Bond disengaged it from the loop on his ankle. As he reaches the bottom he fires a grappling hook into the concrete to stop himself from bouncing back up, then presumably would have disconnected the cord (which would have bounced up) and he would have dropped down to the concrete structure.
Question: At the beginning of the film, Trevelyan and Ourumov stage a hostage situation in front of Bond. Do we ever find out when they decided to set one up in the first place?
Chosen answer: No. It could have been at any time before he showed up in the film.
Question: This might sound stupid, but I'm just interested. When Ourumov hits Alec with the blank cartridge at the beginning, wouldn't the fact that it was shot at him from point blank cause at least some injury to Alec, like a bruise or something?
Question: Sean Bean's character is 006 in this film, 009 died in Octopussy, 003 died in A View to a Kill, and 007 is obviously James Bond. My question is this: have any of the remaining 00's been seen in other Bond films (or perhaps in the novels)?
Answer: 002 and 004 are both seen in the opening sequence to The Living Daylights. There are also numerous other 00 agents who appear in briefing scenes during both Thunderball and The World Is Not Enough, although their actual numbers are not revealed.
Question: In the James Bond universe, are 00 numbers unique, as in only one person can ever have them? For example, Sean Bean's character was 006. So after he died, would his designation be given to someone else, or is the number considered "retired"?
Answer: The numbers appear to be passed on to other agents: it is mentioned that Scaramanga killed 002, and another 002 is killed in "The Living Daylights".
Answer: The plan was not to capture 007, it was to stage 006's death. Trevelyan's long-term goal was to steal money from the Bank of England and cover it up using the GoldenEye satellite - he presumably did not have time to run the Janus Syndicate and implement this very elaborate plan whilst serving as a full-time MI6 officer. In fact, it was probably the intention that Bond should escape and tell the British government that 006 had died a hero's death.
Sierra1 ★