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
This is James Bond - that and the fact it's so woefully executed. The scheme was 'BORING' and the very fact it's plausible does not give it credence. Chinatown is a wonderful piece of cinema and the fact you're using it to justify the inadequacies of QoS is quite frankly disturbing.
I'm sure that if the right actor was hired it would certainly go a long way in easing my mind about the situation but it's still somewhat disappointing. Oh QUANTUM, you had so much potential.
But its the same darn scheme! Sure QOS is no Chinatown but what's wrong, intrinsically, with the water supply scheme? Not the execution, the motive.
I don't think it works contextually in a Bond movie. The 'idea' of the scheme is fine but the narrative of a Bond movie doesn't allow for it to take on any dramatic weight. Thus it just becomes a boring McGuffin. Nothing is at stake for anyone individually, just a faceless group of crooks screwing over several million people with whom we have no connection. In CR we see Le Chiffre gradually lose his grip as Bond's persistence really take its toll on him. Even the rip-roaring action scenes that make up the first half of the movie essentially feed into the Le Chiffre narrative.
Whether or not the 'idea' of it is theoretically decent, what narrative purpose did the water plot serve? To highlight Quantum's ruthlessness? To try and cleverly mirror the corporations in real life? It just ends up half baked. This is why it's wrong. If I wrote a film based around the rise and fall of a gangster, does it make my film theoretically sound because Scarface was a good film?
Like I say, I just think it's too realistic. It's effectively what privatised utilities companies do. There's nothing to grasp on to, no jeopardy in the scheme because the people it affects are of no consequence in the movie.
You COMPLETELY make my point clear in just a few sentences. I 100% agree with you. Thanks @RC7. What if this 'sinister' water scheme of QUANTUM wasn't discovered? Not much really. By the way, I was referring to one of my posts. Have a read if you like. Curious what you think:
Because despite General Medrano's assertion that his country is not some 'flyspeck in the ocean' who gives a toss if Quantum's plan was even to wipe Bolivia off the map? Not I.
Bond should be defending Queen and country, or at least western civilisation, not flyspecks. What would actually happen if tomorrow Bolivia ceased to exist? The price of coffee and cocaine might go up a bit but apart from that....?
I take my coffee very seriously, Wiz...
...and my copious amounts of cocaine.
;-)
I agree here again @TheWizardOfIce. It's something I've been missing lately. A villain's scheme that could cause death and destruction to such an extend, that we actually would be delighted to see 'the savior of Queen, Countries and the entire Civilized World' win from it all. Because in the end Bond is not just a modern-day spy. He's a Shakespearian larger-than-life hero figure too, that later inspired even the guys from MARVEL and DC Comics :-).
Well then you would be entitled to be most disgruntled if Quantum planned to destory Bolivia. But they didnt - they just had the evil scheme to make a few villagers in funny hats thirsty.
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/0/77/1682942-dr.evil.jpg
A whole country becomes a kleptocracy and Quantum gets huge, huge, huge amounts of money. Hence more power, more influence... I have friends in the military, the supply of water is now a matter of strategic, geopolitical and economic concerns for the Western world. Even if what happens in Bolivia does not directly involves the UK or the US, having the Bolivian government a puppet in the hands of Quantum (an organization responsible of at least one terrorist attack in the USA) can have terrible consequences.
Have you actually read the.novels? Among the villains Blofeld is one of a kind. As for the influence of Moriarty, read The Final Problem.
Far too old now. Too predictable too. In the early 90s, he would have been a great choice.
I know he's a bit old, but why couldn't Blofeld also be? Besides, if you are a good actor I don't really think it would matter if it is "predictable"...
It would re-unite Craig and Strong from 'Our Friends in the North' days, which started their careers. I think Strong is perfect as a Bond villain.
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/9269/chiwetel-ejiofor-tops-eon-s-list-for-new-bond-villain
Hmmm, I heard this name here on the forum a few times. But it's really the first name being mentioned then. I am....not that enthusiastic about Chiwetel Ejiofor yet. He hasn't got the CV that, let's say, Javier Bardem has. Not to mention Christoph Waltz, Daniel-Day Lewis, Michael Shannon and Michael Fassbender.
It is of my opinion, that the sheer name of Javier Bardem resulted in extra cinema audiences, hence the 1 Billion Dollar Bond. Brand recognition, even among actors, is important.
On the other hand, I love Ejiofor's face. He has this unique, original, menacing face, that also Bardem has. And he did have a great role in "American Gangster".
I am sure the new Man From Uncle will still be fighting the forces of Thrush in the new film.
Bond versus Blofeld and Spectre need never die. I'm not sure Eon would have even killed off Ernst in FYEO, if McClory hadn't been such a thorn in their side.
Eon made a point of keeping Blofeld's fate ambiguous at the end of DAF, no doubt planning on bringing him back down the line. In fact as we all know, Ernst was touted for a return in TSWLM. What could have been.
And please, no bald actor either.
So...simply forget about Ian Fleming's legacy? Simply throwing away iconic characters? Perhaps not a return of "Q" and "Moneypenny" after all, because "we need to do it different" and "we need to move on"?
For me, Blofeld is an iconic character in the Fleming-universe that, like Bond, 'M', 'Q' and Moneypenny, can be molded into a perfect fresh character into today's geopolitical environment.
Blofeld isn't Fleming's legacy JAMES BOND is. Blofeld has seen his day and it's long passed. I think it's nice that Bond has new adventures and new enemies. Not rehashed stories that we've seen. If Blofeld returns, others will start clamoring for other villains to return. First people complain about the DB5 having weapons yet Blofeld coming back is okay? Hypocritical if you ask me.
Why not just create a new arch enemy? Bond isn't Sherlock Holmes, Holmes has had less enemies than Bond has. James T. Kirk's Moriarty must be Khan yet has fought others more times than he has Khan. (yet was done horrible in Star Trek into darkness.) Stay original and no rehash of old characters. Blofeld was done right in OHMSS. Leave him be with dignity and not bring him back just for nostalgia.
Well, I think for a series that is now running officially for 23 Bond films (unofficially 25), you can stay original by returning the name of a character. If you only use an argument for the sake of originality, then why bother bringing back "Q" and Moneypenny?
Also, if you are forcing yourself to stay "original", things can also go wrong. Just simply embrace your own legacy man. There's nothing wrong with that.