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
I never bought the argument that M is inconsistent in SP vs. NTTD. Presumably, M is making high-level decisions on many sensitive projects, and he was willing to gamble on Heracles but not on NineEyes. Also, gambling *is* very much part of M's character.
@echo, I just think the Mallory of SP wouldn't agree with the Mallory of NTTD, and that's where I find a disconnect and where I wish the film did more to argue Mallory's side of the issue. Because without that, he just seems crazy and incompetent. It wouldn't have been as sore a subject if Obruchev wasn't already confirmed to be a corruptible/immoral person, but adding that onto the pile doesn't make Mallory look too good.
Nine Eyes and Heracles are very much of the same ilk, danger wise, and that's why I find it odd that Mallory so quickly denounced Nine Eyes, when, according to the timeline of the era, he had been secretly involved with developing the Heracles "weapon" when he took over as M in SF. He already looks hypocritical supporting Heracles in the wake of what happened with Nine Eyes, but looks all the worse when you find out he was developing the weapon at the same time as he was trying to stop Nine Eyes. Both Nine Eyes and Heracles would offer too much power and too much of a threat in the wrong hands, and both essentially allowed for anyone in the world at any time and for any reason or whim to be targeted and eliminated. Could you imagine the danger of both together? A surveillance apparatus that can track anyone anywhere and a virus that can then be targeted to eradicate that individual or individuals? The best solution for Heracles is what was done with the ATAC: destroy it so that it's of no use to anyone. That Mallory couldn't see the inevitable cataclysm is worrisome.
Granted, Mallory is perhaps inspired by the worse sides of the original M, who made his own management mistakes and had poor strategy at times. Both Ms are particularly oblivious to the danger they are putting their people in, Bond especially. Mallory's disregard for the danger he's putting people in isn't too far a cry from the literary M who kept sending a gradually broken down and fatigued Bond on more and more "ugly" jobs, not listening to others who had concerns for his agent's own wellbeing.
Your thoughts “echo” my own. I think it’s a lot easier to be cavalier and idealistic at the beginning of a job like this. Perhaps the reality of the job set in between SP and NTTD. Also I think it’s important to remember the sole purpose of Heracles was to eliminate collateral damage; a far cry from global surveillance and drone assassinations.
If anyone has Q cuff links and earpieces I’m game.
https://www.laopera.org/performances/202223-season/tosca/?gclsrc=aw.ds&gclsrc=aw.ds&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIgq3CouCp-wIV6hXUAR1R0w8hEAAYASAAEgLNE_D_BwE
Or throw a man off the roof. 😉
Each aspect of the story is clear but feel like we're here for no other reason than because of some money that was found on a person we didn't even know in the hopes we'll get where exactly? I just think with a little more direction in terms of where the script is going and where these characters should be going at this point, it could have been much better, especially when you're picking up right after Casino Royale.
Now, I'm not saying it should have been connected to Vesper specifically, but I just feel if you're gonna do a follow-up to Casino, go in on that and play off that more, not trying to relate a complete separate thing that has no bearings on where Bond is at emotionally The connection to Quantum and Mr. White feels too loose.
It's like this organisation is responsible for the pain Bond's suffered so we're gonna send him to one of their guys operating in Haiti and Bolivia because that somehow feels emotionally and narratively relevant for Bond right now. Really?
Now, of course, Bond goes on different missions all the time but if you wanted that, you don't bother having us start immediately afterwards, you let audience assume White was arrested and then move on to a mission regarding a mysterious villains operating a coup and controlling all the water supply. Golden. Now you've got plenty of time to explore that, with no trappings of Casino's baggage.
But otherwise, if you're gonna do a follow-up, really commit and have that thread extremely tight and present with every element working to explore that as opposed to trying to explore two things at once.
Apologies I started rambling and couldn't stop. Also, grievances with this film can be really hard to explore without commenting on the writer's strike which I know affected the film massively, but this stuff always runs through my mind when watching this film, as much as I do enjoy it despite my criticisms.
Personally I'd rather have this than a film where Bond is purely going after Yusef or something.
EDIT: I think I can sort of see what you're after, and it's fair enough; I think it all comes down to personal preference. Personally I thought QOS was executed excellently, and if no one had told me there was a writer's strike happening I probably wouldn't have noticed a difference really, except in running time.
Gotta disagree on this one. The fast pace and brevity of the movie is one of its unique appeals to me, especially within the context of four much longer Craig Bond films.
This. I'd gladly watch any deleted scenes they'd like to offer but the pacing and runtime is spot on perfect to me. It's one of the reasons why it's so easily rewatchable and wastes no time in moving along.
Most of all, knowing that Craig and Forster pretty much had to carry this project through to the end all on their own, with strikes and whatnot dropping big boulders in the road, I respect QOS as a film that probably turned out way better than it could have been. People can complain about Craig's involvement in these productions all they want, he's probably a big reason why QOS got made in the first place. The story may be simpler, the film shorter, and the climax less spectacular, but given what little time and freedom they had, I'd say the crew pulled together a nice little film with a powerful final scene as icing on the cake.
It's not a perfect film -- few Bonds are -- and something of an acquired taste to some (myself included), but it's an awesome film to come around to. It ends up giving a lot of interesting moments to Bond fans.
I've never given that bit a second thought until that huge debate happened on the forums a couple years back. Now it lingers in my brain (but still doesn't bother me) with each new viewing.
My friend just shipped me this. :)) See you never!