Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
The existence of the 00 branch
There is a scene in SF where M is in the enquiry she says it may appear to onlookers that her organisation and the "00 section may seem rather quaint". Does this line sit right with everyone? In the context of the film and at that moment it works extremely well, but practically if a 00 section did exist and it's existence was public knowledge wouldn't people be up in arms? We presume that spy's can kill, but it's far from common knowledge that Britain have a select elite group of killers at that disposal. Or am I being thick...
^ 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
Now, to call agents killers isn't exactly accurate. You see, the licence to kill or the go ahead to kill given to you by your government or agency boss/director is only in cases where there is no other avenue. Agents can't just go galavanting around killing anyone they please. If anyone dies it is a high priority target who poses a danger to the nation or world, or someone who uses deadly force to get in the way of you completing your mission. At those times certain actions have to be taken, even if it means taking a life in the service of your country.
Now, whether it is outlandish, I would say no. M makes a great point when she states that our enemies are no longer known to us. Anyone with an internet connection can cause an issue, pose a threat, and the increase in technology only makes the world more of a danger as firewalls to very secret information are at danger of being broken and pilfered. Spying use to be more of a gentlemen's game. Just man to man, one agency's smarts against the other to get at each other's intel. Now, your enemies aren't just the other countries' agencies trying to survey you, it is anyone with an internet connection and a grudge. Enemies now have no affiliation to an agency or country.
The point is, we need humans in the field. We can use SIGNT (signal intelligence) at times when it is needed, but I find more trust and efficiency in the job getting done if it is by a human being. Granted, there are possible sleepers in agencies acting as moles, but technology isn't completely reliable either. It can malfunction, the tech can get scrambled and do something it wasn't supposed to do, and the enemy can steal it and try to improve the tech to get back at you. Humans on the other hand, have emotion. Fear, regret, compassion, pain: Things no piece of machinery can ever have. Those kinds of things are what is important in the field. Humans have instincts that help them decide how to act, and they care about the work they do and understand the costs of their work, things a bot or drone never begin to feel.
When M asks of those in the inquiry, how safe they feel, it all becomes more apparent. Technology is all right and dandy, but when it malfunctions or wires get crossed, what good is it all? Their is no concrete reliability, no trust, no ability to act against what it was programmed to do if things go differently or if the enemy changes tactics. If you have tangible human agents on call to protect you there is a sense of tactical strategy and reason. There is communication and teamwork. The ability to adapt at the last second if the objective changes or if the enemy tricks you. Relying on technology to help you out is a risk not worth taking, and humans will always be there, through network outages or EMPs. They don't need a connection to work, or programming to run. They have no wires that could get crossed or systems that can be over-riden and hacked. You need people you know and trust on your side when things cock up, to know that when you lay your life into another's hands they are people with the ability to feel pain, fear, and understand human reason. For all this and more I feel safer being cognisant that there are agents with real feelings and real fears doing the kind of work that is required in the intelligence communities that make up our world.
Benghazi, anyone?
I love Bond movies for the fantasy of a human caring link in the chain, but that is as real as a knowledgeable electronics expert at a big retail chain, kinda few & far between- still, a possibility.
8-|
This makes perfect sense, I completely overlooked that this would have been a private inquiry, after all it does deal with issues of national security.
The movies have glamorously painted Bond as somewhat of a super-hero. Portraying the life of a field agent as sexy, colorful and exciting. While really it can be quite depressing, highly dangerous, gruesome ,deceiving, dishonorable, distrustful and most importantly brutal.
Casino Royale was the perfect blend , it showed the brutal side of Bond and his work at times, while still maintaining somewhat of the franchises formulaic routines.
Now here is a quote from Daniel Craig back in 2006 that can be found on Casino Royales Wikipedia page.
"A year beforehand, Craig rejected
the offer, as he felt the series had
descended into formula: only when
he read the script did he become
interested. Craig read all of
Fleming's novels to prepare for the
part, and cited Mossad and British
Secret Service agents who served
as advisors on the set of Munich
as inspiring because, "Bond has
just come out of the service and
he's a killer. [...] You can see it in
their eyes, you know immediately:
oh, hello, he's a killer. There's a
look. These guys walk into a room
and very subtly they check the
perimeters for an exit. That's the
sort of thing I wanted."
Now where did this insight go for the making of Skyfall? Did Daniel Craig just sell out completely? I mean there are so many cliche's and gimmicks used in the film, it is hard for me to believe that this is only two films away from CR, which was miles above skyfall in terms of story,editing and just about everything els. I can only hope the next Bond outing is more seriously taken and less of a joke.
I reckon that's CR, but ignore @DRESSED_TO_KILL's anti SF rants, he'll probably be banned again soon enough.
I am just saying that the stakes are higher in Skyfall, innocent civilians are directly in danger, Bond almost dies more than usual and his pain shows, M's situation is dark and sad, there are Bond's own killed (the MI6 agents lost in the attack), MI6 has to go underground after having their idea of security shattered, and some other stuff comes to mind.
I guess it would be more even that one or the other. I mean, Vesper's death alone is a big part of not only CR but also the heart of QoS in some respects, so that must be noted too.
And I share your suspicions on you know who. And not Voldemort, I hear he hates Bond. Funnily enough he ends up being in a Bond film. Anyway, I am surprised his name for his (5th?) account wasn't @DRESSED_TO_KILL3 or something like that. What a dunce.
@whateverhewantstobecallednow Is actually trying to hide his identity this time. He didn't do a very good job of it though as lots of members quickly figured it out.
This is his 5th account. I'm honestly not sure why he continues to come back.
How Is M's situation dark and sad? She is director of MI6, Her salary is probably over $200,000 dollars, she lives in a very nice house/apartment. But you find her situation sad? I find the poor homeless unemployed citizens of the United Kingdom in a sad and dark position. Not an over-paid government intelligence director who's soul porpoise is to serve the New World Order.
Yea I understand that M is responsible for the leaking of agent's names, but the whole arc of this situation was written quite sloppily.
And Silva walking around London dressed as a cop running inside a government guarded court house, with a gang of henchman, shooting off hundreds of bullets while poor old M is crouching for cover while her protector and Knight in shining armour "Bond", fights to his death for his Boss ....Is this a Bond film or grade B afternoon soap opera? The relationship between M and Bond in skyfall was ridiculous. For god sakes Bond is a paid government hitman, and M is just a Boss, a source of authority that oversights Bond's brutal field of work.
but no no no....EON has to make Bond into a politically correct figure to appease the corporate globalist controlled media.
OH AND NOT TO MENTION ...the most boring, ridiculous finale between Bond and Silva at Bond's childhood home,"Skyfall". So you're telling me, you have a director of intelligence, a person of such high power and security interest, being driven to an abandoned old country house , being guarded by homemade explosives ,Bond's daddys hunting shotgun and a machine gun equipped Aston Martin (that never existed or was introduced in Craig's timeline ..yep thats some great writing :\ ...)
I know this is only a movie, but this isn't even plausible , it's so idiotic it absolutely is dumbfounding, why not have M escorted by 30 or so secret service and taken to a place of high government security?
ohhh and I just love how Bond and Silva meet up about 10 times in the movie, it's like watching an episode of Tom and Jerry, you know what the ending will be like, it's as if the producers basically said ,"Yeah we dont need a story, just feed them a generic cliched action script and they'll buy it, after all look how good die another day did".
No I'm sorry EON but I'm not as easily gullible as most of you're ticket holders are.
I'll happily be in line buying William Boyd's Bond novel next fall, appreciating the fact somebody understands what Bond's true roots are.
Unfortunately the protagonist had machine guns and an ejector seat in his personal car. Parts of the plot can be considered serious, as can 'the message' but as a whole CR is more serious in tone and nature. As noted many times, the sheer ludicrous accuracy with which the mechanics of Silva's plot play out ask you to suspend your disbelief much more than in the previous two outings. This is not necessarily a bad thing but it's certainly not something I would define as serious.
Well, Skyfall IS the most ambitious. But both CR and QoS have moments that are complete and utter over the top moments too, and I don't know why people try to pretend like they don't exist. Like I said before, if you want a serious and grounded film series, DON'T COME TO BOND. Craig's era is very straight faced and serious, but also retain that "only in Bond's world" mentality where disbelief must be suspended when you pay up for a ticket. Get over it or move on.
(That wasn't aimed at you, my dear @RC7)
And @Data_Thief/Imposter, If you don't understand why M was taken by Bond to Skyfall, you missed the complete point of the film, and one of its main themes. Of course you were probably too busy crying in a corner to see it more than once in theaters, and probably fell asleep during the viewing or got distracted when you saw a fly making its way across the isles. It's your opinion, but always your loss.
Couldn't have said it better myself,
Yes CR does have questionable moments and some over-the-top stunts, but RC is trying to say they are more easily believable than those of skyfall. In terms of comparing CR to SF in a whole, CR is definitely the more believable by miles on end.
Some questionable moments in CR and QoS:
Bond avoids being revoked of his licence to kill even though he storms an embassy while firing a gun and seriously injuring guards, breaking into his boss's apartment, hacking her secure laptop, killing leads that could be integral, and more.
As a plus, QoS's ending and all of Skyfall shows how much Bond grows from all this reckless behavior he had as a rookie.
In the Miami scene he is captured by police after being involved in the destruction of an airport and then is magically freed of charges and nothing is mentioned later in the film.
,"Bond avoids being revoked of his licence to kill even though he storms an embassy while firing a gun and seriously injuring guards,
breaking into his boss's apartment, hacking
her secure laptop, killing leads that could be
integral, and more."
1. There's a thing called Collateral Damage.
EXAMPLE BEING-
- Obama's filthy corrupt administration is constantly ordering illegal drone attacks overseas in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya and Yemen killing innocent men,women, and children due to a supposed threat called, "Al-Qaeda". Yet nobody is being brought to justice for these war-crimes.
So yes it is very believable Bond wouldn't be jailed, or penalized for the deaths at the Embassy.
Also to note, you said,
"In the Miami scene he is captured by police after being involved in the destruction of an airport and then is magically freed of charges and nothing is mentioned later in the film."
Yes this scene was a bit action packed, but just like you would say ,"ITS A BOND MOVIE".
And this particular scene is not as nearly far-fetched as skyfall's action. What's so hard to believe about this scene? After the Miami police apprehended Bond, its clearly common sense to just assume MI6 presumably contacted the CIA , Miami P.D and homeland security to inform them of Bond's identity , and matters would be cleared and hushed up immediately from the mainstream media.
That doens't make sense. Besides the impressive (which you call "silly") stunts, SF relies more on the deep emotional story. If not, why the museum scene? And the reading of Tennyson?
And how can the Barbara and Michael could have thought only in a general audience when SF is full of references and jokes aimed to the fans?
Maybe because they didn't want to put any more innocent agents at risk... Ever thought of that??
So tell me, @DressedToKill, how many Fleming novels have you read, if you know that well "Bond's true roots"?
And P.S.: There is a big difference between an operative who will be listed as never existing in the event of exposure and the leader of a country. And that kind of stuff (that you mentioned) has been happening since the presidential position was first created in some of the greatest/strongest terms in the history of the office. That's the reality of politics: Making a call that could be seen as controversial and morally questionable.
And great points, @0013. Skyfall is one of the most eloquently intelligent and thematic films out there. And nice point about the fan service too as well as M not wanting anyone (civilians or agents) to die for her anymore.
I'll gladly answer you're question if you stop calling me DressedToKill.
This so called DressedToKill you consistently are accusing me of being is somewhat of a legend around here from what others are telling me, so why am I being accused of such an identity? do I really sound like him or is this some kind of sick joke you people on here do to newly registered members? Because to be honest I am rather starting to feel somewhat unwelcomed, if you want me absent just say so !
To be honest, better safe than sorry. If you aren't him (let's not kid ourselves), you have the same personality about the same issues. I won't weep for you, that's certain. But yes, please answer our questions. Hahaha.
Also You were never a legend here, you like to think you are but you are not. So another tick on the box for exposing yourself even more.
And whatever is your name, as your predecesors you tend to ignore the substantial questions that people ask you after your controversial comments...
Haha, he's being an egotistical prat to himself using another account. Even Napoleon wouldn't go that far. =))
He certainly does have an inflated opinion of himself, he's like "Q" from Star Trek TNG although with no class. And when he's called out on his nonsense he's pretty much backed into a corner and attempts to buy you a chicken dinner so he can escape. So far me and Germanlady have been invited to said dinners, and gracefully declined. :))