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
Fair enough. Except this is not explained in the film so the joe public are expected to know this already are they?
I assumed maybe his job title was chief of something so I paid attention this time but it's not its joint head. The letter C has no context at all in the film or the world of Bond. The only reason Bond looks so smug is he's basically calling him a c**t to his face.
1.) How does the hotel that Sciarra is meeting the other SPECTRE guys in blow up? Obviously Bond does a little shooting, but I never saw anything in the place that looked remotely explosive (not to mention his surprise when it does blow up), and the whole thing is over so quickly I didn't get a good look at any possibles source of it either of the two times I've seen it.
2.) Sciarra's ring. How exactly did the DNA of Le Chiffre, Greene and Silva get on it? Are we supposed to believe that after Le Chiffre died Greene took his place, and after Greene's death Silva did the same, despite the massive multi-year gap between Greene's death and Silva's destruction/dismantling of M and MI6 long after? Then of course, Sciarra would've had to take over for Silva following his demise. This is the only thing that makes sense to me, but also doesn't feel at all sound in logic, especially considering Le Chiffre, Greene and Silva would've had those rings on in their respective movies, which they don't. This is partly why I'm critical of how EON and the writers have connected the past films in SP. It reeks of a retcon at moments like this and just doesn't "fit" when sometimes thought over. Anyone else curious about all this? The Quantum/SPECTRE connection isn't explained that thoroughly in the movie so a lot of this is up to interpretation. I just feel there was a better way to make Quantum and SPECTRE connected than this.
What does this mean for the future, then? George Lucas-esque alterations to the Craig era so that Le Chiffre, Greene and Silva wear CGI SPECTRE rings in their movies? X_X
Question 1: Wasn't there a bomb in the suitcase? I always took it as that's what it was.
@Birdleson
I probably spend a great amount of time here through my workday. Actually, I spend more time here at work than I do at home.
Err no. He doesn't. And that's after 4 viewings.
Sorry but this 'C is what the real life guy is called' might be ok for us fans on here but your average cinemagoer would not have a clue about that.
1) There's a briefcase with the bomb in it which Bond shoots. More to the point how does Sciarra survive the massive blast? The moment it all kicks off he must have really scarpered quick smart and even then he's very lucky to get away.
2) The ring is made of some rare metal (Zirconium or some such) traces of which were found on all three bodies. So it's not so much that there is DNA on Bond's ring more that all 3 show traces of the same rare metal in the post mortem.
That it said it's taken me 4 viewings to get that far. It's astonishingly bad storytelling by Mendes. He's happy to waste 5 mins of screen time on some pretentious opening shot but this, which while not completely crucial is still an important plot point, is dealt with in a shot on Qs laptop that lasts less than 3 seconds.
However there is some mention of Franz Oberhauser's DNA which I haven't been able to piece together yet. Maybe it's a cunning ruse by Mendes to get you to pay to see the film more times?
If it reeks of a retcon it's because it is one. And a pretty hamfisted one at that.
They invented Quantum because they didn't have the rights to SPECTRE then all of a sudden the fact that they did and no one remembers Quantum means they just want to airbrush it out of history.
As far as I recall (apart from the little Q lapel badges) the only mention by name of Quantum is by Greene at the end. The rest of the time it's 'what is this shadowy organisation we know nothing about Bond?'
Personally I think I'm going to ignore the existence if Quantum and pretend the shadowy organisation is SPECTRE. I just need to remember to cough every time during Greene's final speech.
I always hated the fact they called it Quantum anyway just to try and make the title make sense to the average retards who go to the cinema when it actually referred to the small crumb of comfort that Bond and Camilla got from their revenge.
My initial thought; Bond called him "C" because he's the head of "CNS", indirectly telling Denbigh that "M" was called "M" because he's the head of "MI6", thereby using some misdirection to throw Denbigh off M's identity as a precaution because who the hell is this Denbigh guy, anyway.
/overthinking it
Fair enough, but honestly, I'd rather watch that amazing opening sequence 100 times before watching a bunch of ring-science exposition.
I know what you mean though. We could have had both.
I think it's been said before, but Quantum works fine as a regional branch of Spectre, headed by No. 2, Mr. White. They should have just left it at that; they didn't need to re-explain Silva and Le Chiffre and all that, they did that just fine in their respective movies.
There was a good deal of hamfistedness in Spectre really, but IMO it was still a great, tight Bond adventure, and I loved everything about Waltz/Oberhauser.
anyone?
Said the man in the orthopaedic shoe!
I don't think it would have. Dalton wasn't as popular as Connery.
:))
I'll be watching it for the second time later this week hopefully.
@TheWizardOfIce, thank heavens there was another reason for the ring/DNA matching. As you said, we get three seconds of looking at Q's laptop to interpret this for ourselves, which is beyond annoying when you don't have the leisure of rewinding and pausing.
One of the big things I was excited about for this film was its tying up of Quantum, but it honestly could have been done so much better, and with so much more clarity.
Even at this time, post SP's release, we don't know if Quantum was just a tentacle of SPECTRE that it used for specific kinds of missions or if it was another front to keep the intelligence agencies of the world looking at red herrings. We could've been clued into all this by White, but he's wasted for just one damn scene, which, though it was one I loved, could've been much more informational. And if we're all scratching our heads over this-a group considered clinically obsessed with 007-I can only imagine the experiences had by casual audiences, who probably had no memory of Quantum anyway.
So much of the enjoyment in SP comes from knowing the past Craig films very well, and if you're just going blind into SP after seeing none of the other three, or if you haven't seen them for years, you miss so much of the momentum the film is picking up over time. It's all about Bond uncovering the source behind his past trials, and if those trials are foreign to you, what enjoyment can you get from the film beyond the action? I'm actually surprised that EON, Mendes and co. relied on so much of the past films to tell the story of this one, as it's very much for the fans as opposed to the collective casual moviegoing audience, who don't know White from Greene or Le Chiffre from even Silva. I wonder how familiar the memories of some critics are with the past films; that might explain their lukewarm responses.
Later on, Oberhauser says he 'went to you house once and visited your father' or some such thing.
Does that mean Madeleine shot at Oberhauser?
Of course, I could be wrong about her saying that she did indeed shoot him, and it could've been Oberhauser who visited, but I don't believe so.
I think her uncomfortable body language suggests she may be somewhat 'coy' about remembering him. Perhaps she does, perhaps she doesn't.
That'd be very cool if it was a nod to 'Basterds'!
I was thinking that, as well; perhaps she doesn't want to admit that she shot at him, since he's obviously unhinged and crazy and who knows what he'd do if she admitted it, even though I'm sure he knows it was her who did it (if, indeed, it is him she's talking about.)
It could have been a hangover from previous scripts. From what Ive read the relationship between Mr White and Oberhauser was much more developed, and especially as to the origins of Spectre (which I thought was really cool) but it would add that extra bit of depth if Oberhause was responsilbe for Swann/White's relationship as seen in the film.
SPECTRE meeting in Rome.
What is the lady talking about with the "160,000" females in the leisure sector?
What is meaning of the discussion about vaccines?
They're discussing the nefarious projects Spectre are undertaking, along with the Nine Eyes Initiative. Prostitution/Human Trafficing and fake medical drugs.
I thought of such, but I wasn't sure. Thank you a lot! :D
It seemed fairly straightforward to me.
SPECTRE is responsible for trafficking 160,00 girls into prostitution and knocked out some dodgy vaccines which didn't do the job.
Would've been a nice touch for me a la the Great Train Robbery reference in TB if they had mentioned 'our consultation fee to FIFA for the World Cup going to Qatar'.
A cameo by Blatter sitting round the SPECTRE table would've been priceless!
Yeah, thought so. Lol!
How could Oberhauser think of himself as a "visionary" and making "beauty" from tragedy, with his organization involved in horrible projects such as trafficking and prostitution?
I guess, Oberhauser is insane?? :p
Did anyone else besides me get a The Third Man vibe off that part?