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
Why be a dick about it? I've explained the flaws in what you're saying but because you can't admit to them you have to be abusive. It's a very familiar pattern with you.
This was just a fun conversation where we were coming up with theories, but you have to turn it into a battle. Life with you must be very tiring.
Again: he has her boyfriend (Le Chiffre does not). She's evidently not over him.
I'm sorry if you find that 'inane', but it's all in the bloody film. I'm tending to agree with Makeshift here, you're making problems where there aren't any.
One is the lock and one is the key. What do you think his plan might possibly be when he's trying to get the key?
Your idea for LC to let Vesper go free and then enter his account details at some indeterminate point in the future (which, let's not forget: does not happen- so much for adding ideas not even in the film) would require some kind of mind control. Or are you saying he'd torture her and then, when that moment comes to enter the number, he would kindly ask her to remember how painful that torture was a few days ago? Bond is free, he can't threaten him; Vesper is free, he can't threaten her. LC doesn't even know about the Algerian as far as we know. She would have zero reason to do as LC has told her. And once she's told Bond about what LC is trying to do, he would tell her that LC would need to go into protective custody and would be powerless: even less reason to enter the account number.
If you think stealing a man's suitcase is more implausible than mind control, or LC finding some ruse to access it... well I can't help you to understand how 'inane' that is.
I'm not interested in talking to you on this any further because you had to make it unpleasant.
Why do you interpret my post as disputing what you just said?
Ah I interpreted your post as Vesper being a Quantum true believer, but I suppose you’re right. I don’t necessarily believe she’d been working for them for years, though. My feeling is that her boyfriend was a kind of sleeper agent who they had form a relationship with Vesper, and when they found out Bond would be in the game with Le Chiffre, they switched her on through the kidnapping plot. But it doesn’t make much of a difference for CR.
It is very vague, indeed. I guess the focus on the Love Knot in both CR and QoS would give weight to the idea that Vesper and the boyfriend had been together for quite a while - otherwise it wouldn't mean much to her. SPECTRE were playing a long game with her, evidently.
Sidebar: I think implicating Mathis was a narrative mistake in the film, as good as I think it is. And that mistake is compounded further by the decision to kill him off in QoS.
Also I think you’re right re: Vesper. Long game for sure, wait until there’s an opportunity to use her. That’s why it only makes sense that she actually works for the Treasury.
The first time I saw it, when Le Chiffre makes his comment, I thought they were flipping the story around to make it fresh for readers of Fleming...
Having made it as murky as they did in CR, whether intentionally or not, I wouldn't have minded if that uncertainty continued into the direct sequel.
I think it would have had to been much longer than that. Because enough time had passed between the “kidnapping” and the casino job, she was at a point where she was open enough to fall in love with Bond even if she had no intention. Had her boyfriend just been “kidnapped” when LeChiffre set up the tournament, I don’t think she would have tried saving Bond from death both times because her boyfriend’s kidnapping was still fresh.
That’s why Fleming implied it had been years she was a double for SMERSH. Falling in love with Bond had to coincide with her resigning to the likelihood that her boyfriend was probably dead after all those years. The film just kept it vague enough for anyone to view it how they prefer.
So, if she was a wrong 'un the whole time why bother saving Bond's life from the poisoning?
With him out of the way the correct people would get the money, from her point of view, as Le Chifre was the likely poker winner.
Why complicate it by risking Bond winning only to then have to steal the money?
It's for that reason I assumed she was turned sometime around the torture scene.
True, it certainly helped with the novel.
Anyways, I’ve made my long posts about what I feel the film is communicating happens throughout the story. It works for me and leaves no loose ends so I’ll let you all continue the discourse. Good luck!
She saved his life because she was already in love with him. That’s partly why she was refusing to buy him in as well because she didn’t want to put him in any more danger now that he was out of the game.
Controversial opinion from Brosnan for sure. :P
Very beginning:
You might say overanalyzing a Bond film is quite… controversial?
True, it is the right thread for it. But your discussion gave me a headache... ;)
:)) Well at least we got to the bottom of it! ;)
I agree about Mathis. If Mathis weren't implicated in CR, this particular section of the film could focus more on the romance and be a bit shorter. The viewer starts to figure her out once Vesper sees Gettler on the dock in Venice, anyway.
Say hello to Felix Leiter from me ;)
Then again, I didn't see anything in this that makes it any more interesting than any other superhero film out there. At least not from this glimpse. In fact, I probably won't recall this project until it comes out.
Even if she'd hated him, Vesper is not a murderer: she's a mole who is the subject of blackmail. She must make sure Le Chiffre wins, I don't think she'd be able to have Bond's death on her conscience. When he recovers, she tries to dissuade him to play.
Yes, but I’m not sure how much it would weigh on her conscience if Valenka poisoned Bond, and Bond went to save himself, and failed to do so. If anything, that *might* be criminal negligence causing death, but not really murder, I don’t think. I tend to agree with @MakeshiftPython; I think they’re communicating some feelings Vesper has for Bond at that point.