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
Madeleine knew the risks, but wanted to face her past, and the end of her father's future. People that have a problem with Bond bringing her along should complain about the majority of the films where Bond brings an innocent woman face to face with a villain, and for less important reasons to the narrative.
Why does Bond allow Honey to face Dr. No with him, when she has no involvement in anything he's doing?
Why does Bond allow Tania to keep with him when she's almost died already and, with the death of Grant fresh, he knows SPECTRE are going to be coming for his head?
What use are the likes of a Dr. Jones for helping Bond at the end of his mission where they're not needed, and always end up as damsels in distress almost every single time?
If we're going to smash SP over the head with a led pipe for this, let's do it for all the films that do the exact same thing. This series is predicated on Bond and a beautiful women of some specific nationality (and corny name) facing a baddie together, no matter how bonkers the reasons.
SP actually made a character arc out of this trope in the series, and gave Madeleine a greater drive and importance as a woman than the ex-Miss America types EON used to cast for the same roles to do a third less, besides standing around and looking pretty (which some still couldn't manage).
The #1 for me is GE. I thought that Natalya was quite pivotal in assisting Bond during the finale. Wai Lin & Dr (cough) Jones were quite enterprising at the end of their respective films. NSA operative Jinx less so.
In Craig's run, Camille stepped up to the plate, although Bond did have to save her from the exploding hotel.
During Dalton's time, Kara and Pam weren't damsels, despite my finding them both very annoying. Rog certainly had his share of 'girl' saving, but Holy & Melina were effective associates. Despite loving TSWLM, I'm disappointed that Anya was relegated to a damsel at the end. Having said that I can understand Stromberg wanting her for a trophy, and she did save Bond's life several times during the film.
During the Connery era, Pussy & Kissy were quite 'forward' for their time. DN & FRWL were way back, when this sort of 'girl saving' thing was more expected.
So Bond films have had some reasonably strong female characters who have been instrumental in helping Bond out at the end.
It would have been totally against character if he had just shot Blofeld.
He not only states in Morocco that he came there to kill Blofeld, but he also believes he killed him with the watch explosion (and ensuing explosion of the crater base), shoots at him in the MI6 ruins AND shoots his helicopter down (which could've easily killed Blofeld).
Not doing a very good job if his goal throughout the entire film was to arrest Blofeld.
Sorry I'm out of bullets pretty much explains why he doesn't shoot Blofeld, he has decided to live a different life now.
Also remember the speech he gives Camille after they made the parachute jump.
It all makes perfect sense.
That end bit with Bond choosing not to kill Blofeld has to possibly be Craig's most unconvincing scene as Bond. Not because of the acting as such but because the scenario has been so overdone. Craig's even done it once before with QoS. He should have just said flat-out "I'm not going to kill you".
You knew it wouldn't do it before he even walks up to Blofeld.
I suppose that's why I really don't care for Swann, because here we are, back to Bond quitting yet again (which obviously won't stand in 'Bond 25,') so why they felt this was an appropriate way to end the movie is beyond me, as now we will get to look forward to them spending time convincing Bond to return.
But of course Craig can continue, they might bring Swann back for the PTS or they will not mention her by name but make some comment about her.
Bond never was about continuation so Bond 25 with Craig could just be a stand alone mission.
CR-QOS-SP work perfectly as a trilogy. If you omit Silva's picture in the old MI6 building and omit his name of Blofeld's dialogue it would even be THE PERFECT TRILOGY.
Craig's Bond character has made a natural progression from CR-QOS-SP.
He has not killed Yusef because he had to prove to M he is capable of making decisions based on logic. Yusef was too valuable alive.
Furthermore he gives Camille a great speech about how it would make her feel once she killed her parents murderer.
Craig Bond early understood the psychological consequences of being a killer.
With Craig Bond's character development P+W have got right at least one thing.
It would have been awful had he killed Blofeld. For starters Blofeld always got away or was only presumed dead.
Secondly it would have been completely illogical to kill him for the same reason he left Yusef alive. Furthermore he realised it would give him no personal pleasure at all to kill him and he would possibly risk losing Swann.
Bond is trying out something new and unfamiliar to him.
Remember Moneypenny telling Bond on the phone "it's called having a life"?
Everything worked towards Bond "getting it" in the end.
Sure he intended to kill Oberhauser/Blofeld during the film. And why not. But in the end after all that happened the motivation and reason changed.
I got this on the first viewing by the way, it doesn't take much thinking in my opinion.
But yes, as I am in favour of Spectre anyway from the first viewing on, I might not be completely objective about things.
Concerning the character development of Craig Bond though I'm pretty certain it fit the films to a T.
I don't and so I had trouble understanding why he decided not to put a bullet in Blofeld at the end, given that this was his stated objective all along.
If one did buy the relationship however, then his 'sudden' decision to empty the gun, throw it in the river, and walk away makes more sense.
I could have imagined Bond not killing Yusef because he 'loved' Vesper and that was made clear. The same goes for Bond and Tracy. I didn't feel that with Maddy and Craig Bond. I always thought she was just a way out for him and not the 'love of his life'.
Yes, I can agree to the theory that he found Swann to be convenient to be able to "get a life" and that he wasn't sure yet, if she could be the second love of his life.
I believe Vesper was his first, he seemed at one point (in the recreation facility) to be madly in love with Vesper or maybe he just gave in to his true feelings.
But after the loss of Vesper it would have been unrealistic to just let himself fall madly in love again with another woman. The fear of loss is a great one.
I like the way the "love" between Swann and Bond develops in Spectre. She certainly realises her love in the torture scene. It may have been a natural reaction to just comfort him but surprisingly to herself she really meant it.
As I said, I love Spectre and for me everything makes perfect sense. If you dislike a movie it might be more difficult to see logic or sense.
To think too much about it also isn't really helping. It's not a drama trilogy, it is an action/thriller trilogy, but the amount of character development that is there makes sense to me.
I find that torture professing of 'love' somewhat contrived (and thought she was doing it to comfort him), but based on your explanation, I can see that it is possible to assume that she 'realized' her feelings in the moment on account of his torment. His similar nonchalance when she said she was leaving him didn't help either.
I guess Craig and Seydoux (and Mendes with his direction) just didn't sell it for me properly, but it worked for you.
Madeleine would have wanted the same thing. It's very much a repeat of the Vesper/Yusef situation. Bond didn't kill him because Vesper was in the back of his mind telling him not to, that killing him or anyone else would never bring her back. And of course, alive Yusef (and Blofeld too) would be useful to MI6. Dead, they both serve no purpose and don't suffer the consequences of the hell they've wrought.
Bond wanted Yusef to give him answers, not revenge. Bond got his Quantum of Solace.
Blofeld is crippled. He has no way out. The police were on it. Perhaps Blofeld could be of help to MI6. Coupled with Bond's "way out" and Dr. Swann's assertions that Bond is a good man, Bond let Blofeld live.
Absolutely. A lot of people here misrepresent QoS as a revenge movie from Bond's perspective, but it most certainly isn't. The whole idea and main driving force of the movie is Bond forgiving Vesper and realizing that revenge and vengeance can be dangerous and futile. He could soak his hands in the blood of thousands and Vesper would still be dead. Add to that how Bond is one of the only people in the movie without an agenda beyond his mission, and there you have it.
That's why, if Daniel returns for Bond 25 and they go with the angle of him against Blofeld after the villain brings tragedy to his door, I'll be fascinated with how Bond will react. It'd be great to use the movie as a test for Bond's will, of how much he can take before he reaches a breaking point. Can he resist the temptation to unleash himself for revenge only on Blofeld for all he's done, something he learned not to do, or can he reign himself in and chase Blofeld as the last good thing he does for queen and country and for the world as a spy?
Re. QoS
Perhaps the marketing has to take some share of the blame? Instead of a balls-to-the wall revenge flick, we had a rather somber, even thoughtful film, which moved with the pace of a bullet.
I just thought it was a retread of the Bourne Supremacy story though, and felt this scenario was addressed much better in that film right down to the "She wouldn't want me to, its the only reason you're alive". So I didn't find it as impressive as it could have been.
@royale65, I don't know how much the marketing of it had an effect. You could be right in some respects.
One of my favorite trailers of all time is the QoS one that shows Bond progressively walking across a dusty pile of rock, and it was packed with insane shots of the action from the big set piece scenes of the movie. The expectation was certainly there for an action fest Bond film.
I will say though that fans of crazy action and fans of drama and some interesting characterization had things they could both enjoy in the movie, or should be able to, I'll say. For action fans there's the great PTS, the Siena chase, Slate fight, opera bout, hotel finale and more, and the drama fans get to watch Bond deal directly with the events of the last film and experience the grieving process as he's faced with big character conflicts on his mission. I think at the time a lot of reasons for why QoS was looked down upon was because some felt it didn't feel like the sequel CR deserved.
I initially didn't look on it fondly either, and I think was guilty myself of following the crowd and not taking it as it was with clear eyes. When I saw the characters, saw the themes and what the film was doing with Bond, its pacing, visuals, sound and more, it really rose in my eyes and know it's an easy top 10 Bond film for me. It's a great little film that really explores who Bond is and also explores very human things through him and the story.
It's very much a movie about trust, and how valuable that trust is because it can be so easily de-valued. Everyone thinks Bond is going rogue and unleashing himself on Vesper's behalf throughout, when in reality Bond is the only one that has no agenda and is simply doing his best to mitigate Quantum's reach. M's trust in him in the end, allowing him to go off and stop Greene is a big moment, as is the complex relationship Bond and Felix have, the latter of whom is finding out how slimy his own country is when it comes to who they deal with.
It's also very much a movie about things not being what they seem. Quantum seems at first like a small threat, but in reality their reach is nearly unparalleled (and with SP now behind us, their scope truly was revealed as massive). Bond looks like he's going rogue in the movie, but he's really on top of his game and being loyal as can be. Felix thinks his government are fighting the bad guys, but in reality they hire them for positions in the CIA and do business dealings with other bad guys for profit and influence. Greene purports to being a smiley green earth icon, but in reality he's a schemer for Quantum worldwide and wants a leash put on resources so that he can extort money from the helpless. Mathis was thought to be a traitor, but he's is actually proven to be innocent. And the biggie, Vesper's betrayal is viewed as an endearing motion of loyalty to Bond, who realizes that she died with his best interests at heart, which allows him to forgive her and move on.