No more personal stories

13

Comments

  • Posts: 15,124
    Birdleson wrote: »
    What I really don't like is that now we are left with the retro-fact that every mission that we have seen Craig connected with, aside from Dryden and Fisher at the start, was because of Blofeld, who more than implied in his own words is a villain because of a childhood jealousy of Bond. So Bond as a 00 and MI6 essentially exist because of this guy and his agenda.
    One could say that Connery's run was similar, but we had GF which also included one unrelated PTS. Plus, unrelated missions were referenced. In other words, we at least got the impression that Connery Bond had regular functions beyond Blofeld, SPECTRE and the past transgressions of MI6.

    In the novels pretty much all the early novels save DAF had SMERSH as the antagonist in one capacity or another. Then it became SPECTRE later for a shorter run... And Blofeld's jealousy was more a symptom than a cause.
  • Posts: 15,124
    Birdleson wrote: »
    But SMERSH was an arm of the Soviet Union , it really is why MI6 existed, it wasn't a rogue villainous organization. Not comparable. The Blofeld Trilogy worked and was (with the exception of a couple of name drops) self contained.

    It was a governmental organisation albeit a semi fictitious one (it did not exist anymore when Fleming started writing neither was it the super shadowy organisation depicted in the novels).
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    SP retro-actively connecting all the previous Craig films together is not a problem, IMO. It was clear to me, from the get-go, that the Craig era was going to be one big thing. The big gripe I have against SP's motivations of Blofeld, is that the way it is presented, and with the dialogue said, SP makes it feel like CR, QOS and SF are the only missions Craig Bond has been involved in. It doesn't sit right with me after SF has made it clear (to me) that Craig Bond has been in several operations since QOS and had now become a seasoned agent. I always like to think that Connery Bond/Moore Bond/Dalton Bond/Brosnan Bond were active in missions in-between their respective films, so I didn't like that SP is suggesting that Craig Bond's entire career was seen in CR, QOS and SF.

    I don't love the retcon but I suppose that if Eon had the rights to Spectre back in 2005, Quantum (or at least what became Quantum in QoS) would have just been Spectre in the first place. They could have done some shadowy figure briefly in CR, just nothing obvious like the cat.
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    Posts: 541
    Quantum was much more interesting than current Spectre. It was unique, more realistic, had a mysteriousness to it and some believeability.

    But of course, it had to be superceded because EON got the rights and making Quantum a shill organization beneath Spectre was an easy way to kill it of whilst giving the impression that each movie delves deeper.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    I was hoping Spectre would have been the Phoenix born from the ashes of Quantum. I was wishing that because of LeChieffre's, White's and Greene's failures and their operations mucked up and exposed someone within Quantum would want to change the foundation and move Quantum to more sinister and threatening levels. I would have liked to have seen Blofeld usurp Quantum's leader with an scene very similar to the Rome meeting scene from Spectre. Perhaps Blofeld could have been lower ranking and assassinate the head of Quantum and took control. Waltz was my ideal choice for the role so he could have pulled this off. So instead of the whole Franz Oberhauser background, that's what I would have liked to have seen instead.
  • Posts: 15,124
    To be fair it was never made clear in the movie whether Quantum was a section of SPECTRE or a proto-SPECTRE the way TARTAR and RAHIR were in the novels. It could also have been a semi-autonomous branch.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I always saw Quantum as a branch of SPECTRE.
  • Posts: 4,622
    Murdock wrote: »
    I was hoping Spectre would have been the Phoenix born from the ashes of Quantum. I was wishing that because of LeChieffre's, White's and Greene's failures and their operations mucked up and exposed someone within Quantum would want to change the foundation and move Quantum to more sinister and threatening levels. I would have liked to have seen Blofeld usurp Quantum's leader with an scene very similar to the Rome meeting scene from Spectre. Perhaps Blofeld could have been lower ranking and assassinate the head of Quantum and took control. Waltz was my ideal choice for the role so he could have pulled this off. So instead of the whole Franz Oberhauser background, that's what I would have liked to have seen instead.
    Yes, this would have been a splendid way to reintroduce Spectre.
    Blame Mendes. He wanted the brother angle and author of all your misery drama.

    Pantheon of Bond supervillains, ranked in order of most dastardly.

    1.Mendes
    2.Blofeld
    3. Goldfinger
    4.Dr No
    5. Drax



    >:)
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    edited December 2016 Posts: 7,314
    echo wrote: »
    SP retro-actively connecting all the previous Craig films together is not a problem, IMO. It was clear to me, from the get-go, that the Craig era was going to be one big thing. The big gripe I have against SP's motivations of Blofeld, is that the way it is presented, and with the dialogue said, SP makes it feel like CR, QOS and SF are the only missions Craig Bond has been involved in. It doesn't sit right with me after SF has made it clear (to me) that Craig Bond has been in several operations since QOS and had now become a seasoned agent. I always like to think that Connery Bond/Moore Bond/Dalton Bond/Brosnan Bond were active in missions in-between their respective films, so I didn't like that SP is suggesting that Craig Bond's entire career was seen in CR, QOS and SF.

    I don't love the retcon but I suppose that if Eon had the rights to Spectre back in 2005, Quantum (or at least what became Quantum in QoS) would have just been Spectre in the first place. They could have done some shadowy figure briefly in CR, just nothing obvious like the cat.

    Oh, without a doubt they would have. They obviously couldn't wait to use Blofled and SPECTRE again, but I could have tolerated it if they had been there from the start. Some people were disappointed with Quantum, but I loved how they were an updated version of SPECTRE to better fit modern times. I was really looking forward to seeing who Bond would find at the top of such an organization and then SP came along and retconned the hell out of everything.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    Lately (and especially perusing this thread) I really dislike how SP retcons everything in the Craig era. Points about other side missions are ignored, SF being its own thing and SPECTRE as rising from Quantum have all been things I've thought about and regretted that they didn't do.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Quantum still isn't explained how is it a subsidiary. I mean, is it conquered by Spectre and their chief answers directly to Blofeld? It still doesn't make sense. The latest film raised so many questions and left them unanswered. In other words, it was rushed.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Quantum still isn't explained how is it a subsidiary. I mean, is it conquered by Spectre and their chief answers directly to Blofeld? It still doesn't make sense. The latest film raised so many questions and left them unanswered. In other words, it was rushed.

    Rushed and bloated. Sadly, I fear we'll just have to accept whatever their explanation was, as I doubt we ever hear about Quantum again.
  • edited January 2017 Posts: 4,622
    Lately (and especially perusing this thread) I reall justy dislike how SP retcons everything in the Craig era. Points about other side missions are ignored, SF being its own thing and SPECTRE as rising from Quantum have all been things I've thought about and regretted that they didn't do.
    Spectre didn't need to be connected to anything that had gone on before, although it wasn't the worst idea, as Quantum was very Spectre like, but there was no need to connect Spectre with Silva and his ops.
    ALTHOUGH for Spectre to be believable, it couldn't very well have been unaware of Silva's operations, and at the very least would have been monitoring and allowing his activities.
    No, I think the bigger problem ties in with the thread title.
    ie there was no benefit (no need, I think is a given) to create any personal family history and/or animus between Chief-of-Spectre and Bond, other than natural exasperation with the agent's history with thwarting past ops.
    I completely blame Mendes for all the personal bs. Mendes insisted on yet another personal stake for Bond in Spectre, as a condition of his returning to helm a SF follow-up. He has said he needed this. Thus the foster bro history, and obsessed Ernst was served up.
    The key to being done with it all, begins with No More Mendes.
    However, I fear that what might be holding up future production, is that Babs may be holding out for an all-in, one last time, full blown Mendes-trilogy, big Craig-era-finale-send-off.
    This may not be the worst idea, as it will hopefully wipe the slate clean, begone with Mendes, and allow for a fresh new lead actor and a return to normal Bond movies.
    I do think Babs is biding time until her boys, Craig and Mendes, are ready to get back together for one epic final big Bond blowout follow-up to Spectre.
    I tremble at what may be in store, but at least when it's done, it will be over!!!!



  • Posts: 15,124
    tanaka123 wrote: »

    Great read and something I had noticed in many genre movies/tv series. It is not new, but it is now far more frequent. I enjoy SP and Blofeld in it very much, but his background and the Oberhauser connection were entirely superfluous. Him being head of Spectre was enough for Bond to find a personal stake in his mission (what with the death of Vesper and M) and Bond foiling the organization's operations in the past was enough for Blofeld to positively loathe 007.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Quantum still isn't explained how is it a subsidiary. I mean, is it conquered by Spectre and their chief answers directly to Blofeld? It still doesn't make sense. The latest film raised so many questions and left them unanswered. In other words, it was rushed.

    Rushed and bloated. Sadly, I fear we'll just have to accept whatever their explanation was, as I doubt we ever hear about Quantum again.

    Within the narrative of SP, explaining the link between Quantum and Spectre is extraneous. It's only fans that really care. Whatever one thinks of the story, it has no bearing on it.
  • Posts: 15,124
    The thing to remember as well is that had they had the rights to SPECTRE and Blofeld in 2006-2008, they would have used them already. Quantum was used as a name only because they could not use Blofeld. I understood it was reformed as Spectre and not a branch of it but it's a moot point.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    RC7 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Quantum still isn't explained how is it a subsidiary. I mean, is it conquered by Spectre and their chief answers directly to Blofeld? It still doesn't make sense. The latest film raised so many questions and left them unanswered. In other words, it was rushed.

    Rushed and bloated. Sadly, I fear we'll just have to accept whatever their explanation was, as I doubt we ever hear about Quantum again.

    Within the narrative of SP, explaining the link between Quantum and Spectre is extraneous. It's only fans that really care. Whatever one thinks of the story, it has no bearing on it.

    It doesn't have a bearing on it, but yes, being such a big fan of QoS, I would've enjoyed having the link fleshed out just a little bit more.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    According to an interview with P&W, Quantum is retconned as a subsidiary of Spectre (not yet SPECTRE).
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited January 2017 Posts: 1,243
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Quantum still isn't explained how is it a subsidiary. I mean, is it conquered by Spectre and their chief answers directly to Blofeld? It still doesn't make sense. The latest film raised so many questions and left them unanswered. In other words, it was rushed.

    Rushed and bloated. Sadly, I fear we'll just have to accept whatever their explanation was, as I doubt we ever hear about Quantum again.

    Within the narrative of SP, explaining the link between Quantum and Spectre is extraneous. It's only fans that really care. Whatever one thinks of the story, it has no bearing on it.

    It doesn't have a bearing on it, but yes, being such a big fan of QoS, I would've enjoyed having the link fleshed out just a little bit more.

    QOS, when Mr White tells M that they have people everywhere was scary. For me the Craig era was the best in QOS, including his performance.

    Regarding SP, I hated how they were pulling things out of thin hair. I was surprised they did not reveal to us, that M is his mother. I resent the family link he has to Blofeld. It is pathetically presented and another nail in the coffin for the credibility of the franchise.

    They have demystified Bond too much.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    acoppola wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Quantum still isn't explained how is it a subsidiary. I mean, is it conquered by Spectre and their chief answers directly to Blofeld? It still doesn't make sense. The latest film raised so many questions and left them unanswered. In other words, it was rushed.

    Rushed and bloated. Sadly, I fear we'll just have to accept whatever their explanation was, as I doubt we ever hear about Quantum again.

    Within the narrative of SP, explaining the link between Quantum and Spectre is extraneous. It's only fans that really care. Whatever one thinks of the story, it has no bearing on it.

    It doesn't have a bearing on it, but yes, being such a big fan of QoS, I would've enjoyed having the link fleshed out just a little bit more.

    QOS, when Mr White tells M that they have people everywhere was scary. For me the Craig era was the best in QOS, including his performance.

    Regarding SP, I hated how they were pulling things out of thin hair. I was surprised they did not surprise us that M is his mother. I resent the family link he has to Blofeld. It is pathetically presented and another nail in the coffin for the credibility of the franchise.

    Nail in the coffin? Wonder how many times that's been said over the last 50+ years? Bond will outlive us all my friend.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    I think things were trucking along quite smoothly in the Craig era, until the horrid decision came about to try and connect the events from CR to SP retroactively. Didn't work for me at all, felt too forced and didn't make much sense.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    RC7 wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Quantum still isn't explained how is it a subsidiary. I mean, is it conquered by Spectre and their chief answers directly to Blofeld? It still doesn't make sense. The latest film raised so many questions and left them unanswered. In other words, it was rushed.

    Rushed and bloated. Sadly, I fear we'll just have to accept whatever their explanation was, as I doubt we ever hear about Quantum again.

    Within the narrative of SP, explaining the link between Quantum and Spectre is extraneous. It's only fans that really care. Whatever one thinks of the story, it has no bearing on it.

    It doesn't have a bearing on it, but yes, being such a big fan of QoS, I would've enjoyed having the link fleshed out just a little bit more.

    QOS, when Mr White tells M that they have people everywhere was scary. For me the Craig era was the best in QOS, including his performance.

    Regarding SP, I hated how they were pulling things out of thin hair. I was surprised they did not surprise us that M is his mother. I resent the family link he has to Blofeld. It is pathetically presented and another nail in the coffin for the credibility of the franchise.

    Nail in the coffin? Wonder how many times that's been said over the last 50+ years? Bond will outlive us all my friend.

    Bond will survive, but studios these days want huge returns. SP is a mess for $350 million. But when you over-explore a character like Bond, then where do you have to go?

    Look at the old days of Bond when budgets were smaller and some films could make 10 to 20 times their budgets back. SP is less than three times the ratio of budget to box office.



  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Birdleson wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Quantum still isn't explained how is it a subsidiary. I mean, is it conquered by Spectre and their chief answers directly to Blofeld? It still doesn't make sense. The latest film raised so many questions and left them unanswered. In other words, it was rushed.

    Rushed and bloated. Sadly, I fear we'll just have to accept whatever their explanation was, as I doubt we ever hear about Quantum again.

    Within the narrative of SP, explaining the link between Quantum and Spectre is extraneous. It's only fans that really care. Whatever one thinks of the story, it has no bearing on it.

    But they dwell on it so much (we get the parade of Le Chiffre, Silva, Vesper and M four times verbally, visually or both) that the none fans are surely disinterested and bored by it.

    That's a separate point. It may well be boring, but verbally (or visually) explaining the minutiae of how Quantum interconnect with Spectre from a business perspective doesn't make that any better.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,399
    acoppola wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Quantum still isn't explained how is it a subsidiary. I mean, is it conquered by Spectre and their chief answers directly to Blofeld? It still doesn't make sense. The latest film raised so many questions and left them unanswered. In other words, it was rushed.

    Rushed and bloated. Sadly, I fear we'll just have to accept whatever their explanation was, as I doubt we ever hear about Quantum again.

    Within the narrative of SP, explaining the link between Quantum and Spectre is extraneous. It's only fans that really care. Whatever one thinks of the story, it has no bearing on it.

    It doesn't have a bearing on it, but yes, being such a big fan of QoS, I would've enjoyed having the link fleshed out just a little bit more.

    QOS, when Mr White tells M that they have people everywhere was scary. For me the Craig era was the best in QOS, including his performance.

    Regarding SP, I hated how they were pulling things out of thin hair. I was surprised they did not reveal to us, that M is his mother. I resent the family link he has to Blofeld. It is pathetically presented and another nail in the coffin for the credibility of the franchise.

    They have demystified Bond too much.

    I can't wait for Bond to become an enigma again, who uses irreverence to distance himself psychologically from the nature of his work. That will be so refreshing.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited January 2017 Posts: 18,281
    Yes, there is a danger in knowing too much too soon. Ian Fleming's genius was to slowly (over the series) drip-feed the reader Bond's background and motivations.
  • RC7RC7
    edited January 2017 Posts: 10,512
    His most valuable trait as a character is that he is two-dimensional. You don't need to see the third dimension - fleeting glimpses, that come and go, can suffice if necessary. It's why, however well made it is, this Han Solo movie will destroy the character.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Agreed. I want Bond to be two-dimensional again.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited January 2017 Posts: 1,243
    acoppola wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Quantum still isn't explained how is it a subsidiary. I mean, is it conquered by Spectre and their chief answers directly to Blofeld? It still doesn't make sense. The latest film raised so many questions and left them unanswered. In other words, it was rushed.

    Rushed and bloated. Sadly, I fear we'll just have to accept whatever their explanation was, as I doubt we ever hear about Quantum again.

    Within the narrative of SP, explaining the link between Quantum and Spectre is extraneous. It's only fans that really care. Whatever one thinks of the story, it has no bearing on it.

    It doesn't have a bearing on it, but yes, being such a big fan of QoS, I would've enjoyed having the link fleshed out just a little bit more.

    QOS, when Mr White tells M that they have people everywhere was scary. For me the Craig era was the best in QOS, including his performance.

    Regarding SP, I hated how they were pulling things out of thin hair. I was surprised they did not reveal to us, that M is his mother. I resent the family link he has to Blofeld. It is pathetically presented and another nail in the coffin for the credibility of the franchise.

    They have demystified Bond too much.

    I can't wait for Bond to become an enigma again, who uses irreverence to distance himself psychologically from the nature of his work. That will be so refreshing.

    Classic Bond was a fascinating man, precisely because he was a mystery. He revealed his past sparingly. And I have said this before, but CR being a reboot and Bond never existing before ; then why did they pull the Aston DB5 from the sixties and give him the previous M? Why did they take a sh*t on the so well created Goldfinger origin and try to change that?

    If I have a criticisms of the Craig era, it is that by trying to explain how classic Bond became classic, they forced themselves into a situation where they were trying to bang a square into a circle. They shot themselves in the foot. 2 plus 2 equals 10 audience!

    And if I want to see Bond in a DB5 car from the sixties, then I prefer it to be Connery and Connery only.



  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited January 2017 Posts: 8,399
    Also, what happened to Bond representing british values? Stiff upper lip, Keep Calm and Carry On, that sort of thing? The British have always had a deep and unwavering respect for authority, yet Craig disregards M's orders in order to fulfill a private objective. That's not James Bond. I can only hope that in the wake of Brexit and a renewed faith in conservative principles around the globe, we will see the next iteration of Bond much closer to how he was written in the Books, and not this new age, progressive figurehead we have today.
Sign In or Register to comment.