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
Not even 007 on the basis of SF
If I hadn't gone into the film knowing who she was in the end, I would have probably expected that her and Bond would somehow team up again towards the ending and she would finally show her competent side by saving him.
That woman was so incompetent I am surprised it was ONLY Silva coming after her.
Plus, she was competent driving, competent in communicating with Bond and M, competent in the casino, even saving Bond let's not forget, and competent in the board room shoot out. She eyeballed Bond communicating for him to slide the gun over.
She's not a bad field agent, like @NicNac said, she was only inches off her target, which happened to be a moving human on top of a train going 30-40 mph.
@Baltimore's point is good in the real world however if she had just shot the other guy, there wouldn't have been a movie.
To me, it was very obvious, that she was just shocked about shooting Bond and hence, didn't shoot Patrice, while she still could. This MIGHT make her a lesser agent, but that's a human explanation.
1051..and counting :))
She knocked a mirror off and knocked a
bunch of market stalls over if I remember
right.
Yea, but she didn't lose Patrice, did she? It's not like she was grinding gears.
I think some of us just want to not like her.
though and I didn't want a
big backstory for Moneypenny of all people.
I just didn't think, your argument was valid and still don't. That's all...
Uh, Craig's Bond has directly been specified as having been in the SBS during his time in the Royal Navy. It was even on the official Casino Royale movie site. Perhaps you're a stubborn Fleming purist or don't understand the nature of the 'reboot' and the potential changes that can be made to a protagonist's history.
This is my view completely. Just wondering how you square this with enjoying the film though? Didn't you find it intensely annoying that practically everyone within MI6 is depicted as utterly incompetent. M, Moneypenny, Q and even Bond are all pretty useless throughout, making weird decisions and not really being very effective.
It makes the whole Tennyson thing seem like total bluster. M has totally cocked up but she's so arrogant she thinks she can lecture the committee on steadfastness (that coming from the woman who happily stabs her loyal agents in the back at the first opportunity). It comes across as monumentally arrogant that a civil servant (which is effectively what she is) shows such disdain to the politicians who are asking valid questions about her performance. I couldn't work out whether the script intended you to really dislike the M character or whether it was just Purvis and Wade being typically incompetent.
I don't think so. I think it depends on how the movie deals with it's subject. Balancing a serious tone with moments that require you to suspend your disbelief is incredibly difficult. If a movie is flagged up as one or the other you know what you're getting but if it mixes the two you have to be aware that audiences now are more astute, more familiar with the film making process and as a result, expect more.
I just expect some consistency. The fact that M is suddenly cast as this arrogant, incompetent and not very sympathetic harpy breaks all the Bond traditions. And it makes it even more difficult to understand Bond's loyalty to her. The other characters are also equally off-key in my opinion. The tone just reminded me of the Brosnan era where nothing seemed to make much sense. 'It says here that Bond is x' and it 'says here that M is a y' so it must be true, except what you actually get on screen is the complete opposite.
If that happened, the next two hours of the film would involve her scanning the railroad and subsequent cliffs for the drive. Hilarity ensues.
It might actually have been more interesting...
Only joking. Sort of.
It just looks this way Tobester - most here are actually able to enjoy the film, as does the rest of the world - they are just done with arguing with the few you read here. ;)