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
He was on the phone to Bond, not an Undertakers.
Come to think of it that would make lots of sense.
I agree. They're only films after all.
Leave it to the site owner to put it into perspective. Right. Back on topic, this isn't about LTK.
When I think about this, I think of the GE speech to Bond when Dench's M is introduced, where she says Bond is wrong if he thinks she doesn't have the balls to send a man to his death, but that she wouldn't do it on a whim. You can see her struggling with that thought in the PTS, but instead of trusting Bond like he rightly calls her out on upon her return, she instead trusts Moneypenny to take the shot. This is part of her character's motivation to opt for desk duty. Yes she does better later on in Macau and at the hearing, but it's obvious the thought of costing someone their life is not one she can internally handle in the manner Bond, and M for that matter, can.
On other occasions she has spoken about getting the facts before making informed decisions. In Silva's case, that ties in with the first statement. She ascertained the fact that Silva was causing trouble beyond his mission and although I'm sure you can assume she tried to control him as a valued asset, he couldn't be reined in. She got 6 agents back who were willing to follow orders, and the Chinese off of her back. Sacrificing Silva for what she felt was the greater good was the decision that made the most sense to her, to what she assumed would be his death. As she also determined he would likely not be completely sure she set him up to be captured, she also correctly determined he would take his pill rather than leak information. Otherwise a 00 would have put a bullet in his head, and then we'd have no story to be told.
It wouldn't be the first time she made a bad decision, but this one happened to cost her big time. Bond rescued her from a doozy in TWINE, and if she had not made the ultimate bad decision to fight rather than stay out of sight as Bond had told her to, she may well have lived through this. Even Tanner once called her the "evil queen of numbers". But there was the more practical matter of Dench not continuing the role going forward, so rather than giving her the normal amount of time, they obviously chose to give her M a big sendoff for her 17 years of contributions and a conclusive ending rather than suffer the humiliation of forced retirement, which seems to be where it was heading until Silva decided to shoot up her competency inquiry. You can't always please everyone as evidenced by people's personal preferences in these films indicate when polled, but most people both here and according to the good word of mouth driving the movie to heights not seen since the golden era of the 1960's, indicate most people understood the plot and were entertained.
The movie is more than just about M. It's also about introducing her replacement and reintroducing the new Q and Moneypenny. You simply can't just introduce them without looking cheap, they wanted to tell the story about how they came to be in their jobs and build the relationships they would have with Bond going forward. Bond still has the majority of screen time in number of minutes as he should but in this case, which is something I focused more on, it was ultimately about bringing him full circle from CR. Unlike QOS until the latter part of the film where he finally got the point, this time he knew what his job entailed right from the start and how to carry out in the manner he was expected to. Yes he was upset that he thought he had proved that to M and like Silva, felt betrayed by her lack of trust. It was pretty much normal, straight up Bond when he returned like I had hoped save for the physical issues and no mention of the prior two films. Yet there was still a feeling due to those issues and the reintroductions that he hadn't fully come circle that came across to me, whether or not it was intended is something only EON or the writers can answer.
No, that is just you being twisted ;)
Very nice post, Sir Henry.
On this occasion, I don't think I'm reading too much into it.
I don't think many people would have picked up on it in that way. Thinking about it perhaps a slight irony was indeed intended by the script writers.
The film even ends with Bond and Pam in water and a fish winking at the camera.
I hadn't taken it that far... all a bit fishy if you ask me. ;0
Thanks, it's appreciated :)
Sometimes I think people see M as only this infallible character based on the prior two, stiff upper lip and all. They weren't beyond making mistakes either, they just downplayed them and let Bond clean up the mess. Dench did a wonderful job of humanizing M. I'm thinking Fiennes will be going back more towards Lee and Brown, but still be heavily involved.
Wouldn't this qualify as commentary on the modern intelligence agencies?
The trouble with Bond, M, and Q was arrogance, and thinking they were 'on top of their game' when they really weren't.
M was getting the boot because of her actions. Bond wasn't going to be put back in the field if M hadn't lied about his performance. The filmmakers never addressed Q's slip-up. He'd probably be canned in reality. On the other hand, he is supposed to be one of the top techies in the entire world. It'd be foolish to lose an asset like that, even if he did mess up.
It's just a movie, though.
Yes that's what I thought as well. I just couldn't square everyone at MI6 being totally useless with it being a Bond film though. It kind of made it even more depressing. A sort of critique of modern Britain - arrogant, complacent, incompetent. Bond used to be an escape from the harsh realities of a Britain in decline. Now it feels like an even more depressing version of reality.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/13/libyan-dissident-mi6-aided-rendition
And who hired YOU? Just asking. You sound like some lunatic being on a war assignment.
Let me state again,that of all the MI6 Staff we get to know during the Movie she is doubtless the most competent by far so I really wonder what your comment is aiming at.
Woah buddy, keep those thoughts to yourself. Feel free to believe them, but don't post them.
Flagged.
I don't see why anyone feels comfortable posting such trash. You can be a disgusting person if you want, I shouldn't have to share the experience though.
I completely understand, mate. Part of the reason why this forum has fallen from grace as of late.
IMO, that is what brings this forum to the present low.
Freedom of speech. You'll just have to ignore it.
Yes freedom of speech, but when that speech is racist, and specifically against forum rules in this case, it's unacceptable.
Our governments ignore it, so it shouldn't be too hard for us to do so as well.
Question .... Just how is a Government minority program racist ? Or do you just think the word minority is racist if so in what way genius ?
The definition of racism makes no mention of minorities, this is an assumption of your own you are adding. If you wish to debate whether minorities can be racist, fine, but you cannot add a non-existent clause into a definition. All the definition mentions is members of other races.
Do you not think that the English empire in India held racist attitudes towards the Indians? The whites were the minority but they certainly considered themselves superior to the majority Indians. Therefore, according to the definition of racism you quoted above, they were racist. Which race was the majority/minority is not relevant according to your quoted definition.
Like your "review" of SF, what you write shows your own attitudes and opinions more clearly than you realize. No matter how much you try to punch up your writing with flowery prose or try to deflect by adding in other streams of conversation (like above) you reveal what matters to you by what you choose to say, be offended by, or repeat several times.
For example, your response to how Eve was hired as an agent in the first place is that "She must of been hired on some minority program the Goverment (sic) runs." The fact that your first thought ran to this is very revealing. Eve shows great competence in the film. Nowhere does she make a big mistake or show a lack of skill, the only thing that even remotely approaches that is when she is ordered to take a bad shot (against her own judgement and advice) and believes she has killed a fellow agent, leading to a few seconds of shock (her worst fear in that scene has come true) and the ultimate decision that she doesn't want to be out in the field where could be forced into a similar situation again.
The fact that you believe that a black character "must" have been hired because of a government (note the correct spelling) program shows what you believe about different races, hence the reason that the word "racist" was used. People aren't saying that such a government program is racist, they are saying that you believing that's the only way that Eve would be hired is such. Given the clear issues that you have revealed yourself to have with gays, women, manliness, and minorities I don't believe many posters will respond to you directly. Normally I would not, but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and hope that they can see the way that they are making themselves look once it's pointed out to them. Having been raised in a racist, misogynistic, and homophobic family I know better than anyone how people can grow, become more mature, and become better people if given a chance. But they also have to be willing to take it, and look at themselves with a critical eye and want to become a better person.
And BTW, freedom of speech does not equal freedom from criticism.