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
One subtle line conveyed the same depth/meaning/morale it took the entire shitty plot of Skyfall to do.
Quality of writing took a big hit after QoS.
Agree on that and following points. As presented on screen it fits fine across the five films.
Spectre was just a big collection of henchmen of Blofeld’s where muscle and brains were interchangeable. Tying Quantum and Silva to Spectre was a desperate attempt and cheapened the quality of the entire Craig era. Spectre is so cartoonish, being evil is in the very name of the organisation.
Q always finding a way to hack something makes for a terrible plot mechanism and makes for even shittier dialogue. NTTD handled tech better than SF and SP.
It makes sense to me banker-to-terrorists Le Chiffre, the Quantum organization and its Greene Planet effort, and Silva as operative for hire are only a few of the revealed tentacles Spectre has in play.
I must stop there.
I also think of SPECTRE being involved in CR rather than Quantum, since they go unnamed.
For what it’s worth, Purvis & Wade referred to Quantum as a South American branch that Greene was in charge of. Once Greene was killed, Quantum was liquidated.
And if I had things my way, Quantum would have never been name dropped in SPECTRE. In fact, the two instances they were mentioned by name in QOS could easily be replaced by ADR, since all the lines uttering “Quantum” were spoken in ADR. No one actually speaks it on screen. As if the name was inconsequential. Kinda fitting for an inconsequential entry.
Whether you view it as lazy or not, it's canon. It is what it is. It's being suggested "in the aftermath" because the films confirmed it. There's nothing to suggest, as it is undeniable. The only thing to argue is how one feels about that creative decision.
@ByRoyalDecree, does it? I think you can read a wide berth into Silva and his connection to SPECTRE, and I like that they kept much of it a mystery. I don't entirely love the idea of him being involved in SPECTRE, as I enjoyed him just being a loose cannon on a revenge mission against M, but I don't despise it either, because it makes a lot of sense and strengthens parts of SF that weren't as buttressed by logic beforehand.
There's a lot of angles through which Silva ends up involved with SPECTRE, and they make conceivable sense. First off, Silva would've definitely built a reputation for himself in the criminal underworld, and someone at such a height as Blofeld would've known who he was before long and probably would've made moves to suggest a partnership or contract based relationship with him, if he didn't outright try to recruit him into SPECTRE immediately. A partnership would benefit both parties, because if Blofeld could help donate men and resources to Silva's revenge mission against M, he's not only giving Silva what he wants, but also gets to take advantage of the destabilization inside MI6 that would result from Silva's onslaught because he'd be weakening the leadership and infrastructure of the intelligence agency while also making James Bond's life harder if his surrogate mother got taken out on top of it all. It's a win, win, win, win.
And Blofeld either enlisting Silva or funding his mission leads perfectly into SP, because with M dead and MI6 shaken, it's the perfect time for Blofeld to try and execute the Nine Eyes operation and seize more control within the intelligence service all while Mallory is dealing with the pressures of being the new leader and the domestic wounds of SF's finale are still fresh within London. Silva showed just how dangerous a man can be when he has the power of technology on his side, which would make the UK based intelligence services rally for more surveillance and protections to fend off future copycats of the man and to defend themselves against outside enemies with similar reach. In effect, through supporting Silva, Blofeld created a demand for more surveillance and he was able to deliver on that demand under the guise of the Nine Eyes program, giving SPECTRE even more oversight and power than they ever had before.
I don't view any of this as lazy or convenient or sloppy writing at all. It makes SF lead into SP more effectively, and also explains how Silva was able to have as many resources and connections as he had. Viewing him as being supported by SPECTRE, which is now undeniable, makes it far easier to imagine him pulling off what he was able to, as opposed to him just being a rogue operator with a smaller crew.
I don't know where this view of SPECTRE comes from. I don't get the point of the muscle and brains being interchangeable. If anything, it's clear that the Craig era SPECTRE was far more concerned with staying under the radar and making moves in ways that weren't explosive, meaning they didn't require all that much muscle. If anything, they worked best by prioritizing cerebral threats, and by having members who were smart and not physically strong. They were engaged in taking control of supply chains to create supply and demand, getting members in positions where they could use their influence to turn tides in the organization's favor, and leaned on a lot of indirect funding of terrorism, extortion and unrest through multiple different interconnected "tentacles" to get what they wanted. They definitely had moments where they were more aggressive, but by and large they played a very quiet but strong game, focusing less on overthrowing countries or trying to seize weapons like nukes and were far more focused on achieving power gradually and quietly in major industries that would net them a massive profit and give them a wider berth of influence through their increased anonymity.
I view them as not cartoonish at all, but very familiar to how operators would work in our own world. Those with the most power in our world don't start wars and blow up anyone that stands in their way, they lay low, build connections and plant allies who grow to be trusted partners inside companies or organizations who then use those positions as leverage to achieve the greater ends of their masters. The quieter SPECTRE operates, the wider their influence can grow and over time they are more and more protected from discovery and consequence.
What IS cartoonish is the 60s SPECTRE, who just have their agents ride out in the open and blow up enemies of the organization with their missile shooting motorcycles, have their own SPECTRE branded training facilities and hide away in hollowed out volcanoes from which they wreak havoc out in the world.
You're welcomed to your opinion, but we're using what the movies provide to gain a perspective and viewpoint. If you're going to make a big deal out how SPECTRE was used in the films, expect those who enjoy how they were used to defend those creative choices. It's not reading too much into it, it's people sharing their opinions, leaning on what the films give us.
Quantum was much more subtle and realistic than Spectre, and the difference in tonality is what makes the merging of the two organisations cheap as f*ck. Besides the bad writing of course.
If they would have pursued the characters and leads introduced in QoS instead of going right at Blofeld and making him Bond's brother, it wouldn't have been such a stretch. Surely even you who like these creative choices can see that.
You do realize that what Hinx did in SP wasn't actually planned, he just killed that guy to make a statement? That's not actually what SPECTRE do as a point of practice. Anyway...
I just don't think Quantum was this far more subtle and realistic thing that you're saying it was. I think that the ways it and SPECTRE were portrayed weren't that different, just that SPECTRE's presentation played up the fear of the organization more because Blofeld was introduced and it upped the ante of his villainy and presence. I just think it would be hard for you to argue that there's this wide berth of difference between how Quantum operated in their TOSCA meeting and how the SPECTRE Rome meeting went, just for starters. If anything, it was far more cartoonish for Quantum to meet in the middle of a public performance and do all their business within earshot of everyday rich folk than it was for SPECTRE to have a top secret meeting that only involved their own under the cover of night in a heavily guarded building. The Rome meeting was far, far more realistic and smart than what Quantum did in QoS, and that's exactly why Bond embarrasses the hell out of them. Quantum had an arrogance to it that was its ultimate downfall, whereas SPECTRE acted in more careful ways on the whole.
I understand your interest in the Quantum characters being pursued further in the films, but by the end of QoS what was there really to do? A lot of major Quantum people were already dead, those like White and those at the TOSCA meeting would've been hiding away and off in the wind after being exposed, and Yusef was captured and Bond got his closure for Vesper. I just don't see where they'd have gone from there, story wise, to purse anything remotely relevant. It made far more sense in-universe for Quantum to be swallowed up via SPECTRE because it was already too exposed to be of any use anymore, then let it sit out for a movie before the "ghost" of that organization comes back to haunt Bond. Gave it far more power, especially since Bond got to uncover the truth behind what Quantum was and who was running things.
You seem to not like the camp or cartoonishness, though, even though I don't even think that's a good way to describe anything in the Craig era. You're treating them like they're Moore films or something, and that's just out of field for me. But they certainly aren't meant to be "realistic dramas" either. The Craig films have a more earnest and grounded tone than a lot of Bond films, absolutely, but they're still Bond films at the end of the day and have those elements of the spectacular that make them exactly what they are. I may just be the more ardent Craig fan here, and treat them with a great earnestness myself, but even I'm not going to argue that they were realistic depictions of spy life. They were meaty and deep at times, and cut to the heart of a lot of human drama, but at the end of the day they are still entertainment vehicles and we get all the elements of a Bond film we expect on top of those things.
I don't dislike cartooniness, I rather prefer it. But directors like Tarantino, Guy Ritchie and Edgar Wright pull it off in a consistent tone. Mendes and Fukanaga failed to do this in my opinion. Add to that, shitty dialogue, badly written overly simplistic plots, drama shallower than a puddle of dog pee, the films ended up big expensive piles of meeh.
You seem competent enough not to express a preference for such poor creative choices. I love CR and QoS, they are two of my top films. But I think SF is vastly overrated, and I think SP and NTTD were just plain lazy.
The whole point of me expressing Quantum being exposed is to argue why they went off the map. When you're exposed to that extent, you're going to go off the grid and lay low. It made sense for Quantum to disappear, and make way for it being swallowed up by SPECTRE.
Your viewpoint just doesn't make sense to me. You keep bringing up cartoonishness, but that wasn't the intended tone of any of these films. Why you are basing a criticism off of what they weren't even conceived to achieve is just beyond me. It would be like me crapping on every Moore movie for not being serious enough. That's not what those movies were going for, so it makes no sense to pretend otherwise and blame them for being what they weren't.
The point of the Craig era was to strip back a lot of franchise excess to get to a more human story and core in the Bond character, showing him in a far rawer, earnest light than he customarily is within the films, which I think brings the character's depiction a lot closer to Fleming's in a lot of ways. Where you see bad dialogue, I see very captivating and engaging character portraits and interactions that grew who Bond was as a man and developed him over time in relation to the other characters, I don't see the simplistic plots (though I don't even think simplistic plots are bad, as complex ones are far more ripe for issues in comparison), and I find the drama to be very engaging and biting. Clearly the rest of the world agreed, as the era was a rousing hit across the board, and Dan has forever changed the way that the character will be perceived.
It's just kind of amusing to me that you take certain issues with this era that I find to be big issues in the other Bond eras, which very truly did have all the problems you view in the Craig era. But what we're getting to the heart of here is what it's like to have two different viewpoints on what an era was and what it was going for. It's not your thing, but it was definitely mine, and I know for certain that no era in the future will ever come close to giving me the level of attachment to Bond's character that these films gave me. It was an absolutely beautiful emotional roller coaster seeing him start out so rough and incomplete as a man, and to go on to be a truly inspirational man that dies as complete as a man can be. It was a real treat to get a Bond that felt so human, relatable and real, and I don't think it would've been as successful and loved as it has been without Dan taking the lead with his amazing performances.
On a script level the films you like are less subtle and more fantastical, yet the execution was going for more realism. The inconsistency created disbelief. The lack of finesse in writing made Bond seem stupider, more childish, bitter, petty and immature.
But I do agree with you these films were better than the later films of any other era. I hold Daniel in the highest of esteems, but not so much the writers and directors. I am just disappointed because the first two films set such high expectations, and left me yearning for more on the same level.
@0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 how do we get that realism and air of melancholy back that was in the magic of Quantum of Solace? Keep in mind, the Mission Impossible series has had 60-100s range of important crew members who worked on QoS, notably the Tosca Opera scene in each of their subsequent films, with Rogue Agent being the most to pay homage/tribute to the beauty of the scene. The film was ahead of its time.
If the film series ever goes back to campiness/cartooniness then it might as well head to a death spiral and lose fans. Daniel Craig's movies had the ability to bring in more fans while keeping the original fans as well. Quality over quantity matters these days because people have to pay more to see movies in theatres where this series will live on at. Down to earth is always the best approach. Keeping a franchise in theatres rather than tv is harder than ever and can't afford to be risked at all. I still wish I never watched DAD or had walked away to save my time.
Waltz's character bears no resemblance to Blofeld, who is supposed to be a criminal mastermind and a visionary genius. He wants to false flag America and Russia into a war, or hijack nuclear bombs to hold NATO for ransom, or brainwash women to poison the world's crops, or build a giant space laser out of diamonds.
Waltz's character wants to, um... collect "information?" Huh? Why? And he's driven by daddy issues. This is just lame. That's not who Blofeld is. And it's not what SPECTRE is meant for. Like so much else in this era, characters and concepts were re-imagined to be made more mundane which the filmmakers mistook for realism.
100%. It would have been such a great reveal in Spectre, especially if Spectre had a different title. It could have been such a great moment
And we never got to hear that conversation! And Bond apparently does absolutely nothing with that information anyway so what was the point? Sums up the whole movie really.
It seems pretty obvious that Quantum was disbanded and done away with because by that point, after how much they were exposed via Bond in QoS, their utility was at an end. There's a reason why the use of the Quantum iconography was never seen again post-QoS, with the idea being that SPECTRE took complete hold and did away with it as a sort of subsidiary organization. I wish the films wouldn't have kept so much a mystery, and were more open about exactly what went down with Quantum in relation to SPECTRE, but them being done away with and SPECTRE taking complete forward control is the only way to look at it, as it's the only thing that makes logical sense. White can be viewed as Blofeld's trusted arm who clearly took leadership of Quantum, and it's telling that post-QoS White makes no mention of the organization and he has fallen progressively out of grace. I think part of Blofeld's motivation for bumping him off is not just for his flailing loyalty, but also because he botched the running of Quantum. But much of this is just speculation. As I said, I wish the details of how Quantum disappeared was more clear, and didn't require one to speculate about certain details and timelines.
We just have a big disagreement about what the tone of these films were, and what they were going for. I think it's fair to see them as a blend of a more grounded approach while still retaining some of the old flourishes of the Bond of old. So while you have a deeper, more analytical look at who Bond is and why he does what he does, where the story really stresses the importance of him as a man, you also have the cars, gadgets (more so over time, obviously), the flashy locations and clothes, and the tropes we've all come to expect from a Bond film from the flamboyant and dramatic villains and monologues to the explosive climaxes, the pre-titles, the characters of old re-imagined for a new age, etc.
I think the new and old were balanced well, and I think most of this success from my perspective (and from sheer raw data, honestly) is largely down to Dan, because he was always so damn good and made you believe in what was happening to Bond so much so that you could suspend disbelief where needed. And that's really the special sauce of the whole franchise: having a leading man that can make the world Bond exists inside believable enough to feel the risk and danger even though you know Bond will make it out at the end. Of course, Dan was so daring that that last part isn't even a guarantee anymore, and that's pretty special in my eyes. He is the absolute MVP, and has taken the cake for me as the Bond to end all Bonds. Across the board, he was just a man on fire.
All in all, I think the Craig era largely nailed its intended balance balance, oftentimes impressively, and is about as good a blend of the old and new as I could imagine getting in an era of filmmaking that is what it is now. Definitely not perfect, mind, but that's to be expected given what happened during the making of these films. When one is criticizing the story and writing, and the creative choices made, one must also realize and remember that each Craig film experienced a gigantic production hurdle that the filmmakers had to overcome unlike what we've seen before. Out of the gate with CR Craig was public enemy number 1 and had to be perfect as Bond for it to work (which he more than was, thankfully), QoS was made during and struggled under the weight of the writer's strike, SF was coming out of the storm that was the MGM bankruptcy and all the uncertainty of that period, SP had the leaks of private correspondences and a whole host of creative battles going on to dictate the direction of the film that were given sunlight, and NTTD had the pandemic to grapple with (which is as ironic as it gets, given what the big weapon of that film is) and even more creative starts and stops than any other time before.
It's a miracle the films came out as good and as well interconnected as they are, because no amount of planning ahead of time would've helped. Craig and co. had to deal with periods of time in between productions where they literally couldn't do a damn thing, the future was so uncertain and where the story could go far more opaque. They and Bond as a character had to adapt to an ever-changing world, and ever changing circumstances in the cinematic industry and market. And I think they did just as good as I could imagine anyone doing, if not better.