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
In all seriousness, no: Mallory isn't a mole.
A man that is so determined in his cause that he gets captured and questioned by the IRA isn't a traitor of any sort. Ralph/Mallory is here to fill the M position for a long time coming, and he isn't a double agent in any way, shape or form.
I think you are just getting paranoid, considering that Voldemort is technically now the head of MI6. :P
Please, edify me.
They needed to come up with an actor that fill those shoes considerably after Dench's departure and I can't think of a better actor for the job, I can't wait to see him in that office behind the desk in Bond 24.
Whilst it might be funny to you, I would quite like to hear your view as to why the character couldn't be a mole.
The burden of proof lies on the side making the assertion. You need to show evidence of your claims.
I agree, they do need to come up with "something" to fill Dudi Jenches shoes.
But there really is no reason as to why Gareth Malorey couldn't pull the string from behind the desk, posing as "M".
Maybe that argument works in a courtroom, but this isn't a courtroom and I've simply asked you to edify me as to why you so arbirarily stated "No, he isn't". (as opposed to Shardlakes, reply, which at least attempted to enter into some kind of dialogue.)
There is no reason why he should be a mole. Not a hint of evidence in the movie. And that the actor played Voldemort, or that he was rumored to play Blofeld, is no evidence at all.
Have you watched The Godfather?
[And as if I'd attempt to cite the fact that he played Voldemort as a reason he could be a mole, that's just childish]
It is not an argument, it is the starting point of any serious research and debate. I won't debate Bond being gay, Moneypenny being Bond's long lost sister, Q being a Timelord, unless one shows what evidence he found to back up such claims.
Numerous time, but this is non sequitur. What does it have to do with it?
So you are aware of the film theory behind the usage of oranges in scenes being a precursor to someone being murdered or killed?
Yes, and still non sequitur, however dismissive you want to be. So far you have present not a shred of evidence abcking your claim.
Until you do, you can try to show me why Moneypenny is not Bond's long lost sister and the love child between M and Robinson.
No it is only a non sequitur because of your indifference to actual conversation and discussion, you're trying to oppose me in an attempt to ridicule and intellectualize this point, to the point of absurdity. You can attempt to be as harsh as you want, but all I can see is someone attempting to rile and portray the role of antagonist.
I'm attempting to discuss something with you and you are being obnoxious, arrogant and stupid. (With regard to your attempts to derail me with moneypenny's sister bollocks).
EDIT: In fact, I've attempted to enter into discussions with you twice now and each time you have replied like a trumped up little teenager out to prove something to someone. Even from your first boring and troll-like post, I've surmised that in no way are you interested in discussion, but out for an argument. In that case, I think I'd rather save this adult conversation for Student Union Film Theory on Wednesday after University; a place where people are not arbitrarily rude and obnoxious, or hidden behind a veil of anonymity, i.e the internet. A place, I might add, where if you happened to be, when I bring this up, that your response would be very different, and if it weren't, (Unlikely), I (and most adult's) would already have you looking for the nearest exit.
Now, tres bien, your daft attempt to solidify your position in the forum hierarchy have more or less shown how welcoming members with a moderate amount of posts, are to new users. Ultimately; I think I would rather discuss this theory with an adult, rather than a Call of Duty playing wanker, armed with one of three things:
1. Textbook, novelty arguing tactics and a few buzzwords.
2, Autism.
3. Insecurity.
Any of which, I couldn't give a rats ass about my friend.
I was wondering the same thing.
Might as well be locked.
A) this is isn't news?
B) this went from nothing to zero in two posts' time?
C) this needs a lock?