Like any sensible man, I would happily give up physics in a heartbeat if I could be James Bond. Sure, the hot foreign spies, the perfect martinis and the miraculous tailoring are all part of the draw. But, of course, it’s all about the gadgets really.
Now I’ve always assumed that the gadgets in Bond movies aren’t real – I just thought that well thought out special effects and some fake blades/bullets/electronics made them look like they were doing the jobs they were supposed to do. So I was amazed to read an article in The Guardian reporting that the Aston Martin used in Goldfinger and Thunderball just sold for over $2 million, partly because most of its gadgets are in working order!
Driven by Sean Connery, the car boasts built-in Browning machine guns, tyre slashers, an oil slick ejector and a retractable rear bullet-proof screen.
Really? These are actually features of the car? (I had a model of this particular car as a kid and so am very familiar with the features). Apparently so: the guy who demonstrated it fired blanks from the machine guns and said
“If there had been real bullets in the guns I would have taken out the whole front row of these people who have more money that most countries do.”
(and don’t pretend you weren’t tempted).
Well, now I’ve got to figure out how to get me one of these Bond cars (Clifford, I’ll ask around to see if they’ve got a Bond bike that folds up into a watch for you). And it’s got to be a good one – not one of those stupid 70s car/boats that Roger Moore drove – it’s a Connery or a Brosnan for me.
Lest you be thinking that all the original features can’t have been real, I’ll leave you with this
Other gadgets include three revolving number plates including the registrations 007JB and JB007.
But a passenger ejector seat with removable roof panel has been replaced with a standard seat.
Mum, Dad, Sara – if you read this and you’re stuck for what to buy me next Christmas …
One thing’s for sure; if I do decide on this career change, having been a scientist will give me remarkable options when choosing my Q.
January 21st, 2006 at 11:33 am
http://content.sema.org/content/?id=27664
http://ultimategto.com/xxxcars1.htm
Not being a British car, its electrical system probably works. Being a Detroit car, very little else sustainedly works. “8^>)
January 21st, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Although the Aston Martins are lovely and would be my first choice, as always, if offered, I would certainly take the Lotus Espirit from the 70s too. I particulalry like the anti-break-in security system. What about the little helicopter that folds up? Or the plane? Those are very cvj. The ‘copter would be very useful for LA. Everybody’s doing it now.
-cvj
January 21st, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Oooooh ooooh me! I wanna be Q! I *am* Q!
–Q.
January 21st, 2006 at 1:32 pm
The fold up helicopter, aka, “Little Nellie” would come in very handy anywhere!
I agree about the Bond’s, Connery or Brosnan. If you have ever read any of Ian Flemming’s Bond books you can see how well they fit the Bond that Flemming created.
My opinion, Thunderball and Goldfinger are probably two of the best Bond movies ever made. They have gadgets/girls/action. And thank goodness they didn’t keep that guy who did “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, OHMSS was a dissapointment to Bond fans.
January 21st, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Deep down inside, I am loyal to Flemming’s other clever-gadget creation creation — Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Anyone know if that one’s on sale?
–Q.
January 21st, 2006 at 4:09 pm
I don’t know if it is easy to see these days, but the one film George Lazenby did was also excellent and in the spirit of the old classics. Sometimes one or other of the cable channels does a “seven days of 007″ showing of endless bond movies in the summer. You can just dip in and out at any point and see some….In this way, last Summer, I caught for the first time the one where George Lazenby takes over from Connery. I like it a lot….It is far from perfect, but it is gritty, he gets hurt, he can’t do everything, and it feel more realistic than several bond fims by far…(also because Diana Rigg is in it, and she’s simply too marvellous for words.) I especially love the opening scenes, since it starts immediately in the spirit of the classic old ones, and there is an opening scene where he screeches up in his car, chases after a beautiful woman who he sees trying to drown herself on the beach, and then some people appear and beat him up (basically) and meanwhile she runs away and steals his car. (I thinkit’s his car…I might have mis-remembered.) Anyway, he looks after the car driving away in a a sort of resigned way…The camera comes more close-up to him and he just slightly breaks character, looks directly into the camera and says “This never happened to the other fella”….and then the Bond-esqe title sequence begins…. I love that!
-cvj
January 21st, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Also, the two Timonthy Dalton films were excellent. He was very good, as were the films themselves… They were world-class reasonalby dark, watchable spy thriller movies that the Bond series had forgotten how to make until the Dalton era. As for the later ones, there were good points, but frankly, I found the constant smirk on Brosnan’s face almost as annoying as that on Roger Moore’s.
-cvj
January 21st, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Ah, we almost perfectly disagree. I didn’t enjoy the Lazenby film particularly,although I did think it was better than the Dalton ones, which I hated (Dalton is a better actor than all the rest, but I just didn’t like him as Bond). After Connery, I liked Brosnan – smirk and all – that’s what Bond is all about
January 21st, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Oh…. I’m saying Lazenby was brilliant…just not as bad as everyone recalls….. and that line makes the film for me…..
-cvj
January 22nd, 2006 at 12:42 am
Although I have always been a Connery man, OHMSS is my favourite Bond film of all time. Why? Partly because it has some fantastic set pieces (I like the opening bit too, but my favourite single scene is probably during the helicopter assault on Blofeld’s mountain fortress, when Bond is sliding along the ice on his stomach firing his submachine gun) and all the usual elements, girls/guns/gadgets (though the latter aren’t over-emphasised) but it’s also a love story, in its own misogynistic way, something Bond normally never goes near. It makes it a bit more intense than usual. So anyway, yeah, I disagree with the blanket statement that “OHMSS was a dissapointment to Bond fans”, it’s a very divisive film – some fans love it, some hate it.
January 22nd, 2006 at 7:01 am
Has anyone else noticed that plucking Timothy Dalton’s eyebrows
http://www.timothydalton.com/
yields Steve Giddings:
http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~giddings/sbg.html
?
Mmmmmm….