It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Let me clarify. I am not saying that Beam or the CIA gave Fields her orders. What I am saying is that the CIA wanted Bond out of the picture--and nobody wanted that more than Beam. Remember M's orders from her own superior to pull Bond in "or the Americans will put him down." This order came well AFTER Fields was sent in; so if M had been the one to send in Fields on orders, that conversation would have already taken place. Furthermore, there would have been no need to go to Bolivia; if M was the one in charge of Fields, then why go? She'd need to call in and get a report. No, M went to Bolivia on the orders to pull him in. So Fields was operating outside that scope.
The CIA was applying the pressure on this, not MI6. And Beam would have been the one to report on Bond's interference. I've always concluded that the order to use Fields came from above M, due to serious arm-twisting from the U.S. And the first reports of Bond being a "pest" would have come from Beam. As point man, Beam also would have had a say in how that job was done. "Throw a woman at him, get him off Greene's trail." That sort of thing. So by saying the CIA was the one pulling the strings, I mean it was supposed to be their show, and the Brits were supposed to back off. Problem is, nobody told Bond, and M would hear none of it, either.
I don't buy it. It is far simpler and fitting to think that MI6 found out where Bond was going, Fields was the station agent available, they told her to give him orders to get back to London as quietly as possible. He was already suspected of killing someone from Special Branch, he had violated direct orders, they had already cancelled his cards, etc. Furthermore, M never complained that Fields was sent to Bond without her knowledge or consent.
I second that.
For some reason I never mind that line. I don't know why people dislike it so much.
I'm not saying M didn't know, either. She knew. She told Bond what Fields was supposed to do. I just don't think it was her directive.
Another thing to throw out there: is it possible that it wasn't Greene, but rather the CIA, that had Fields killed? I only mention this because the whole "caked in oil" message doesn't seem to make sense. It's too convenient for Greene. We never got Fields's actual cause of death. Her lungs are filled with oil...but this would likely be post-mortem, because the rest of the hotel room is clean. You don't force oil down someome's throat without there being signs of struggle. I think she was killed elsewhere and brought to the room, were she was painted and dowsed in oil as a "message." That kind of message just isn't something Greene would do. He hires hitmen, like Slate, to take care of the job, not send a message.
It's possible in the sense that it's physically possible. It is not, however, within the realm of possibility.
I'm not a doctor, but how would oil get in her lungs post mortem from being painted in oil?
It may not make sense for Greene's character, but I think it's more likely that EON shoe-horned a 'homage' in that didn't make sense than that the CIA killed her.
Yes. I think it was Forster's idea. And it never made sense, so forgive me for trying to make sense of it within the structure of the plot. We're (I'm) probably spending more time on this than what it's worth. :)>-
If the oil were injected down her throat, would it show up in her lungs? That's a good question. In any event, even if drinking or swallowing the oil (think Mark Wahlberg in Three Kings), I'd think that that would be somewhere else. She wasn't killed in the room. And the use of oil as the cause of death (Bond correctly calls it misdirection) still has CIA written all over it, rather than Greene/Quantum.
Besides, she was drowned in oil to throw the intelligence services off sent. Clearly a Quantum/Greene tactic. Let's nor forget Beam is protecting Greene only because he thinks there is petrol in Bolivia. Not water, petrol. But is is water Greene is after. Hence, using petrol as a red herring.
As for how Fields was murdered, nothing says she was murdered in the hotel room. She may have been kidnapped, drown in a petrol barrel, brought back to the hotelin a bag or whatever and thrown on the bed.
Or vice versa. Not literally anyway, but they do have a "Special Relationship" that is very important.
As for QoB's story I would agree with the fans of the movie that it was indeed one of the more original ones and actually very good. The problem lies in my opinion not in the story or even the actors, even if I consider the dead of 007's ally Mathis stupid and making no sense at all and pisses all over Fleming, but in the director and his execution of a movie. The man was clearly more taken with his own vision and adding an excess in influences from the competing movie series (in a 2nd director and editor) that he forgot that the 007 franchise is more than his personal outlet of arty farty. If the man had made a great actioner with great visuals I would be a fan. The movie ends up being inferiour to any of the Bourne movies and that I blame solely on EON & director. It could have been great...............
In that one takes its orders, practically speaking from the other, or at least its politically fed talking points ;)
I think so too. CIA and MI6 are like brothers. They fight sometimes, but overall not only they are on the same team, but they love each other. The Sandbaggers and Queen&Country explored the Special Relationship very thoroughly.
And it appears in QoS that Quantum and the CIA have a "special" relationship too. Does this bring us back to SPECTRE? Bottom line is, when it comes to espionage, you never quite know who your friends are. M warns Bond of this, doesn't she?
Actually, she warns him about not being able to identify his friends from his enemies, that he would then be unable to do his job.
And I am not sure what you are trying to say.
Freedom of speech gives one's the right to say anything he wants. It does not mean that what he says is intelligent.
Intelligence goes both ways, who says your version is not just your personal taste speaking instead of facts. ;)
What I like on this site is the playful banter towards each other, the blatant hatred towards certain opinions which are not yours generally turns my stomach.
I like Craig and find his movies going downhill from CR, the same applies towards Brosnan in my humble opinion.
Found Dalton severely miscast, Lazenby and interesting experiment with a bloody brilliant director that failed to live up to his promise with OHMSS.
Roger Moore is a bloody Saint and a brilliant 007 and Connery is great too, even if he is a bit of a dick.
the Fleming novels are required reading imho.
Believe it or not, film is subjective and people have different opinions on what is good or bad.Its not madness, it is a fact of life.If you cant handle that, thats your problem.
In my personal opinon, Daniel Craig is terribly miscast as Bond.He does not have the looks or charisma to portray the character effectively.If you think hes great, then thats fine.That is your opinion and you are welcome to it.
But acting is not completely subjective. There are good actors, bad actors, amazing actors, etc. Of course a great actor can be miscast. But to say Craig does not have the look or charisma is pushing it.