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
The characters in QoS left me with some questions (for example, who is Camille really? I don't know much about her, is she really an agent? But she's Greene's mistress and if so, how long she'd been like that?, And her character left me asking more questions, I don't understand her motives: is she doing what she's doing because of a covert work, does she wants revenge, or what?, The same for Dominic Greene, I know the plot, but his intention was not just clarified, and was Mathis really a villain? Did Bond killed Yusef?)
Like what I've said earlier, QoS had some missed opportunities, we've never got to see Bond giving a full resolution to Vesper's death, and we're instead, saddled with this convoluted of a plot about Dominic Greene, that's why Vesper's ghost still haunted Bond for the films where Bond should have already moved on: SP and NTTD (it's not until NTTD where Bond had given a full closure to her death, something that we should've gotten way back then in QoS), I mean, unlike Tracy (whose apparent references in further films got justified because she's his wife and they've got to know more of each other), for Vesper, as much as I know it's his first love, but he never knew her that much, they've just been together in a short period of time, and still have doubts towards each other, so, I've expected QoS to be Bond coming in a full circle to give Vesper a resolution or a closure and moved on, lesson learned, he had changed.
With LTK, it's all straightforward, the characters there knew their purposes and roles, that's why they're all fleshed out, because they only have single motives, nothing more, nothing less, it's not a film that's compressed with many scenarios (which we've got in QoS), it's not all too complicated that even the viewers have a hard time watching because they keep analyzing some aspects in the film.
The characters were more stronger in LTK than in QoS (give me Dario over Elvis, and most of all, give me Sanchez over Greene), has a more stronger narrative, and never detracts from the film's main intention: have Bond avenge what happened to Felix and his wife.
So, for that matter, I'm giving my nod to LTK.
You are... problematic...
It's his opinion, let's respect it 😊
The funny thing is that Bond doesn’t actually go rogue in QoS and he’s not out for revenge, M just thinks he is those two things!
With these two neither are my favourite really, and it comes down to which I’m more in the mood for now- I’d probably go QoS.
And I will echo this statement!
And Dalton is a much better casting of James Bond to me.
Some more comparisons between the two films: Strong Leiter presence; Bond reads a message on paper; escapes from a seedy dive bar; a fiery climax; a vehicle flies off a cliff; a lizard on a rock and some rocks on a lizard!
They’re both films with different attitudes towards revenge as well. In LTK revenge is Bond’s goal. Even when he messes up the Hong Kong narcotics team operation they’re framed as antagonists. We get a rather vague subplot about stinger missiles where Pam says there’s more at stake than Bond’s personal vendetta, but that’s the extent to any sort of introspection.
In QOS, Bond is somewhat motivated by Vesper’s death (or at least the long term idea of tracking down Yussief is on his mind) but revenge really isn’t his main goal, and he’s simply doing his job. Camille’s certainly motivated by revenge though, and even fulfils it. But even then there’s a kind of emptiness to it - Camille effectively asks Bond whether killing the General matters, and Bond says he doesn’t think the dead care about vengeance. It’s telling that a scene later when he confronts Yussief he doesn’t kill him (as if he’s realised it wouldn’t make a difference anyway).
Anyway, out of the two films I’d say LTK is my favoured one, but QOS has its moments despite its flaws. I prefer how the latter handles revenge at any rate (though both do better than FYEO in this regard!)
Yes it has a good story and is trying to say something: it's a story about revenge, as you say, but Bond isn't the one looking for it.
I always think it's interesting that folks think Bond goes rogue in it, despite him literally telling us "I never left". I think the film does fudge it a bit: stuff like him stealing the photo of Yusef from M sticks in the audience's mind longer than the 'dead don't care about vengeance' stuff and muddles the message somewhat.
I think it makes sense within the film. Again, Bond isn't 'blinded by inconsolable rage' as M puts it, but Vesper's death is very much on his mind. It wouldn't make sense that Bond go on a revenge spree for the actual mission. There's no single figure he can kill or track down apart from Yussief that would satisfy that goal, and the fact that he's a honey trap agent is simply a hunch Bond presumably has until Green confirms it by the end. But definitely tracking Yussief down is something I got the sense he was thinking about despite him saying to M he wouldn't. Perhaps more as a long term goal/something uncovering Quantum would eventually lead him to, but something he wanted to do nonetheless.
Camille is kind of a mirror image character of a path Bond could have gone down in that sense. I always got the sense it was an important moment for Bond seeing how empty she was after avenging her family. It's not exactly an upbeat epiphany, but as Bond says the dead don't care about vengeance, and it means he can move on.
Agreed. Maybe a thing that could have been made clearer in QOS is Bond's hunch that Yussief is a honey trap agent. It may have hammered home that conflict Bond has about tracking him down, but it's there I guess.
The Mathis stuff I struggled a bit with in general when I first watched QOS. I think if anything the subplot in CR with Le Chiffre trying to frame Mathis is where the problems come in. Why Le Chiffre even does this is a bit of a mystery as presumably he's going to kill Bond after the torture anyway. If Bond had mistakenly presumed it was Mathis who betrayed him/Le Chiffre was perhaps a bit more vague about who betrayed him (ie. not naming Mathis specifically) it would have played out better. I actually presumed when I first watched it that Mathis was, all along, legitimately a Quantum agent who had been flung aside/was now helping Bond (the line 'is Mathis your code name' doesn't help. Apparently it's a joke about an Italian having a French name. Completely lost on me to be honest).
Otherwise I think it's just a case of Mathis repeatedly telling Bond not to get hung up on what happened with Vesper... admittedly it's all done with that opaque/dramatic dialogue as you said (it seems Mathis went a bit soft/sentimental in his final months, which is actually kind of interesting and a bit of a contrast to the character we saw in CR).
Bond getting up to go after Vesper I guess is one of things that didn't quite translate well from the book. From what I remember Bond thinks it odd that Mathis would give Vesper a note. In his mind he'd just join them or talk to them in the morning. It kinda falls apart considering Vesper gets a text from him IIRC, and it's really not an out of character thing for anyone to do nowadays... and I guess we don't have any sort of window into Bond's thought process (which has presumably been affected by the numerous strong martinis he's been drinking anyway... and perhaps the fact that his heart stopped earlier that night. Probably best not to think about it too deeply though, haha).
Dalton is my favorite Bond. QOS for me.
Ha! Right, I guess that's the intention: I think it's directed wrong if it is though. Bond says "Mathis!" as if he's worked out he's a baddie, whereas if he was questioning why Mathis would send a text rather than join them you'd think he'd be a bit more "Mathis...??", if you see what I mean.
It'd be interesting to see what the script says at that point.
Yes, I think that's what it is too, but it's quite a hard joke to get. Plus I think it kind of distracts the audience: we didn't expect to find out it's not his real name so we're half-distracted by that- it feels like an important bit of information but tossed away as a gag.
Regarding point 1, I also understood that Le Chiffre was covering his back, should for whatever reason he had to keep Bond alive and/or release him, and/or in the unlikely event of Bond's escape. He was not someone who left anything to chance. Maybe he also was a bit of a compulsive liar: why not deceive Bond even if (probably) it was ultimately inconsequential?
Anyway, back om topic, with all its flaws I choose QOS. Because I prefer the Craig era overall and never liked the look and feel of LTK. Also, the water scheme, if not really developed all that well, is more original and interesting than fighting a drug lord.
It's very vague as well in the script I just looked up. Here's the passage:
The shooting obviously omitted the waiter who Bond asks for another martini just before this/gives that confused response, as well as the others in the room (makes sense, they're things that could easily be cut as they serve no purpose, and the scene is more intimate by having them effectively alone). There's a bit more of Bond looking around here, whereas the actual scene just holds on Craig (again, makes sense. Less to shoot and Craig is a good enough actor to handle it). I think the idea in the script is that it's explained later anyway so it's purposely a bit vague in the moment.
I actually think the direction is better than the script in this case, and it effectively translates what's going on there with minor alterations (although this was a late December 2005 script so perhaps some of it was edited a bit later anyway which spurred some of those changes... I know they began shooting a few weeks later though).