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
And these fans are? From the oddly similar account users to the cancer comment I don't know what to even think or believe at this bloody point.
Let get this thread back on track as I assure you we are not the same person... pierecuhhh i think has a sporting injury? perhaps during sportfit training ? TOFANA007 said he was injured in battle in Bosnia/Hrvatska but I cannot confirm. As i said i have cancer. Different experiences unfortunately... but now we make things better:
On track: Mathis: I seriously cannot remember anything he did in QoS except die, and that's only because I watched the video about an hour ago.
Perhaps you should watch it again then.
That is exactly what @Pierceuhhh says all the time. You aren't fooling anyone, old chap. I will never understand this desire to have multiple accounts that some members have...
So.................................
I think the argument that Bond threw Mathis's dead body into the trash as it would buy him a precious few hours to get out of La Paz opposed to leaving him on the street is not at all tenable. The fact is Bond only disposes of Mathis's body and leaves the policemen bodies on the road. The question then is why did Bond feel obliged to pick Mathis up and dump him; why not leave him? It is indeed arguable that Bond went out of his way to disrespect the body.
As someone explained it is the quickest burial that time will allow. Bond cared for Mathis as his face showed when he cradled his body but was in a very shutdown place. As he said, Mathis would have understood.
The fool Paul Haggis just did not think it thru.
speaking very literally, it is a very disrespectful thing Bond did. But given the situation; Mathis was already dead, Bond knew there was no point taking him to a hospital and he didn't want to leave his friend on the side of the road. So he had to make good of the bad situation; hence leaving him in the dumpster. It was a burial of sorts and the only one Bond could do with the time he had, it wasn't a particualry ceremonial thing to do but there was a slight ritual to it. Camille can't understand, but Bond knew Mathis would likely not have cared.
So why did Bond do anything?
All he did was desecrate a corpse...
was in war of independents for Croatia. 1991-95 Did lot of thing ill never forgot, meet good people..
didd some bad things too to chill yoursoul
back to Matthis.
just put yourself in Bonds posstion. if your good friend die, what would you do? dishonor his memory? throw him in garbagecan? No leave him for parameddics so they can propperly do whatever to his boddy.
oince again neal puurvis and whoevr else wrot it just don t think it thru and now we have lost beloved character that never will come back and return.. I have lot of ideas, if eon production is reeding this. PM me and il give you ideas for bringing it back to roots of series i am serious
sent from my verizon 3g
verizon- bringing the world together in peace
Many of you are getting all worked up over a scene that was likely constructed last minute and might not have been in the script in the first place. Don't dwell too much on it, folks.
I'm certain a lot of thought went into the sequence. Daniel Craig is not the sort of actor to just point and shoot, before he did Bond he made a name for himself in British art-house cinema. Say what you want about Forster's suitability to direct a Bond film, but I can assure you the guy is a clever filmmaker who likely would thought into the scene. his sentimentality just clearly doesn't match a lot of folks on these boards. This is one of the reasons I really want a director's commentary from Forster!
But chap... are we AS FANS not owed more than to have slap dash stuff with no reason or rhyhm put into it on our screens. The old movies had scrips bu Maibaum... Mankenwicz... giants of Bond writing. Why are old movies scorned... they never have scenes that poorly thought out...
What if the roles were reversed and it was Bond that was dead in Mathis arms, what would Bond want Mathis to do?
Well, as Bond has always put his love for country and the job before EVERYTHING else in his life I don't think it would be strange to expect him to not care what happened to his dead body. After all he would now see himself as completely useless, like a piece of rubbish/garbage. So for Bond to do this to Mathis does not seem strange to me at all.
The holding of Mathis in his arms I think has more to do with Bonds guilt over his mistreatment of Mathis and the friendship that had come after this, both professionally and personally.
That's my opinion on the scene, for what's it worth?
Very true, I think that was the idea. He couldn't do much for Mathis but at least he took him from the middle of the street.
One of the things that bother me most about QoS (although it is no secret to anyone here that I rate it highly) is the very fact that they killed Mathis. I love the character and was so excited when he was introduced in CR. Giannini had such a wonderful chemistry with Craig. I really wanted to see further of him in the films but what is done is done.
Exactly. You get that wonderful aura of the Craig-Mathis Chemistry which plays well on screen.
Yes I agree...when I saw Mathis interact with Daniel Craig first time I got chills..shaking
wow what a performance Mathis...this calls for a celebration
How am I disrespecting anyone's beliefs? I am voicing my opinion for Fleming's sake.
As for disrespecting religious beliefs, people who worship the creed and not the message do a fine job of that all by themselves.
When events change and present themselves to his complete disadvantage and people around him are killed, he as with any human will be torn, between complete sadness, regret and then the immediate sense of needing to survive before he ends with equal ill fate.
James Bond may appear to be cold and severed from the compassion, to which a situation deserves, the aloofness easily criticised, his character being compared to a sociopath, when in reality his decisions are forced, the conditions he is reacting to have very real and devastating consequences should he not detach and become pragmatic.
To deal with a friend as he did seems totally callous; analysing from another angle, it is possible Bond had several reasons for moving the body, not only to try to disassociate from the immediate connection with himself, and confuse the reasons surrounding Mathis death, but also to delay the police from finding him and perhaps even to create the illusion that Mathis hadn’t died so soon after being shot and was able to stagger to the industrial waste bin and fell in trying to evade being found in the vain hope he would survive long enough to reach medical help.
Bonds comment, “Mathis was not the sort to care”, suggests that he was reasoning that Mathis knew and clearly understood the ugliness of a clandestine existence and in the event of dire circumstances; survival would become the only choice.
Bonds dealing with the resulting set of unpalatable factors meant Camille and he could stay alive, the way in which he managed was a calculated resolution to having few options.
Mathis was a good character, one that could have remained in future films, I know this is pure conjecture, but this thread enjoys varied opinions.
So true. Some religions have gone around torturing and burning people for centuries but god forbid they carry on like they have nothing to atone for or be ashamed of. The Swedes made a saint out of one such murderer, if I could I'd dig his bones up and publicly piss on them. I just love these "glass housers".
This is something I spoke of in my QOS review on my originals thread. It's very controversial to say the least, maybe even more than Forster himself. I never much liked that and initially hated the idea. But then I thought about the situation. If you are Bond in this situation, your choices are (a) load him back in the car and drive off with his corpse. You don't have time to leave him at the hospital and have to get out of town A.S.A.P so while it's morally the right thing you would want to do, it's not an option if you want to survive. You certainly don't want to drive around with the corpse past a hospital trip. Or (b) leave him there like they did. Do you leave him like a bum in the street, easy to find for anyone especially the national police, or do you try to hide the body to buy time? It seems to be that the scene will forever be found in distaste but given the circumstances, it's hard to argue that Bond had a better move. I think some people want to believe anything bad about Craig's Bond and would run with this, but I don't think Craig's Bond was anything but sad for the loss of his friend and given another option would have never treated Mathis' corpse in this manner,
The death of Mathis was just one of those badly thought out moments in the script, a waste of a brilliant character and actor in a poor movie.
While I do enjoy QoS, I do agree that a lot of the script was rushed, and Mathis was just an absolute waste. Give us some terrible DAD like film (brush it under the rug, make it a two-minute supernatural film) that resurrects Mathis somehow. Like Brady and I spoke of before, it would have been great (and made sense) to put an action sequence there: have Camille drive while Bond lays in the back seat with Mathis and they talk. Then, they start being pursued, and Bond fights them off with his PPK. An action sequence that makes sense AND we keep Mathis around? Yes, please.