56 replies to this topic

[MHazard]

Having bought the DVD and watched QOS a few more times, I find that I like it better than I did on initial viewing, though I still think it has some major flaws (which I've discussed elsewhere). But, having watched it again, there are some questions that are bothering me:

1. The biggest one. Why, when Mitchell shoots M, does Bond chase Mitchell instead of either: protecting M/getting her medical care or guarding White, both of which would seem to be far more important that chasing and killing Mitchell. I mean really, why let White escape like that?

2. When Bond goes on his own after disarming an elevator of MI-6 agents, M tells Tanner to track him because he's on to something. Yet, they don't do any tracking. Bond goes to a bar where an body armored assault team tries to kill him and then goes to the Perlas de las Dunas and MI-6 seems to have no clue he's either place.

3. Who builds a luxury hotel in the middle of the desert?

Anyone explain any of these.

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

I can answer number three:
That hotel is built for astronomers. The location is near an observatory, so the scientists/astronomers/whatever you want to call them need a place to live while they do their scientific studies.

[Vauxhall]

I can answer number three:
That hotel is built for astronomers. The location is near an observatory, so the scientists/astronomers/whatever you want to call them need a place to live while they do their scientific studies.

I think MHazard means in the film though.

My guess would simply be for the purpose eco-tourism; I'm sure many people would welcome the solitude of the desert for a holiday.

[DamnCoffee]

1. The biggest one. Why, when Mitchell shoots M, does Bond chase Mitchell instead of either: protecting M/getting her medical care or guarding White, both of which would seem to be far more important that chasing and killing Mitchell. I mean really, why let White escape like that?

From where Bond was, it looked like White was shot in the chest, it was only when he came back and saw White was gone, that he realised he was alive. (I haven't a clue why, because a back up team could've easily came in and took the body)

As for M, well Bond saw her running to safety, so he was good to go.

[Destro]

Yeah, like maybe Bond though White was in no condition to escape.

Edited by Destro, 08 April 2009 - 06:16 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

Mitchell's first shot kills the other Mi6 man, his second shot hits the metal rod holding the intrevenus being pumped into White (which, thus, misses M) and the third shot hits White in the arm.

You can clearly see M going up the stairs to safety. So does Bond. Only then does he chase the traitor.

[MHazard]

I still don't get chase the traitor instead of guard White. If he thinks White's been hit, all the more reason to get him medical attention so he doesn't bleed out before he can be properly questioned.

[Judo chop]

#2. This line is much more about the fact that M has made the conscious decision to trust Bond. Forster and writing team probably figured M couldn’t say, “He’s my agent. I trust him. He’s on to something. Let’s go home.” and so they a dropped in some talk to “secret service” it up.

It’s a ‘flaw’. But the flaw I don’t think is as relevant as it real point that scene makes.

[Loomis]

Why, when Mitchell shoots M, does Bond chase Mitchell instead of either: protecting M/getting her medical care or guarding White, both of which would seem to be far more important that chasing and killing Mitchell. I mean really, why let White escape like that?

Perhaps it's supposed to be a continuation of the idea that Bond is still a bit wet behind the ears and impulsive, a blunt instrument who shoots first and asks questions later and often hotheadedly makes the wrong decision (see also CASINO ROYALE).

When Bond goes on his own after disarming an elevator of MI-6 agents, M tells Tanner to track him because he's on to something. Yet, they don't do any tracking.

Simple: MI6 is incompetent (one of the major themes of the film).

Some more questions:

1. Why is M present at White's interrogation and indeed at many other locations throughout the film? Surely her seniority would make such drop-of-the-hat travel a major security concern, and, besides, doesn't she have any other work to do beyond trailing Bond around like a puppy dog?

2. It is implied that White will be tortured if he refuses to cooperate. It is ludicrous that such a threat should come from M's lips or that she should be anywhere near the scene.

3. We're told that Bond is starved of sleep at the start of the film, but he looked wide awake and energetic at the end of CASINO ROYALE. Or did the car chase go on all night?

4. Why does Bond ask Mathis to accompany him to Bolivia? Sure, he needs his help in getting there, but what does Mathis end up doing for Bond in South America that Bond isn't capable of doing himself? And why does Mathis' lover so instantly trust Bond?

[blueman]

I still don't get chase the traitor instead of guard White. If he thinks White's been hit, all the more reason to get him medical attention so he doesn't bleed out before he can be properly questioned.

It's Bond, he chases bad guys.

When Bond decides to chase Mitchell, and there's a clear moment when he does make that decision, M is presumably running to safety and White is incapacitated/maybe dead. Given M's flight and White's immobility, Bond chasing the bad guy makes sense IMO, as a stand-alone decision and within the film's storyline.

Bigger gap: why does Bond save Camille in Haiti? She's obviously just a pawn, and served her purpose in that she led him to "Dominc," and Bond uses the business card trick to get "Greene Planet" (shows up on Bond's cell phone like that). If he wants an underling, why not motorcycle guy, whom he just kicked the snot out of? Stuff dude on a plane and interrogate the sweet Jesus outta him in London. But Bond doesn't even want Camille for any business-related purpose, he simply saves her to be saving her, then hands her off when it's convenient. Compelling, but certainly not necessary. Of course there's always -

It's Bond, he saves girls.

[Judo chop]

3. We're told that Bond is starved of sleep at the start of the film, but he looked wide awake and energetic at the end of CASINO ROYALE.

This is definitely a failure on Martin Campbell's part.

[Harmsway]

3. We're told that Bond is starved of sleep at the start of the film, but he looked wide awake and energetic at the end of CASINO ROYALE.

This is definitely a failure on Martin Campbell's part.

Why do you say that?

[MHazard]

An interesting discussion. Here's what I've gleaned so far. # 1. Bond chases Mitchell because Bond is stupid and impulsive. If this is really the answer (and nobody has a good reason why a cool, calculating, experienced agent would do that) then it's a serious flaw. Putting aside my well known preference for things Fleming (and that kind of impulsive stupidy is inconsistent with Fleming's Bond) it also seems inconsistent with any prior movie Bond portrayal. In CR Bond is somewhat impulsive but has supposedly learned his lesson emotionally and strategically and ends as the more polished agent we're supposed to recognize. Moreover, I don't think its even consistent with the "raw" Bond of Cr. As to # 2, some people, possibly astronomers want to hang out in the desert in a luxury hotel. Seems like a poor business model but o.k. As to # 3 MI-6 is incompetent or there's no continuity control by the director and/or screenwriters who liked the sound of the line. Again MI-6 being incompetent is a radical departure from any of the Bond movies except NSNA. With the exception of Loomis' point about what is M doing at White's interrogatoration.

And, in my view, Loomis is absolutely right, but this has been a flaw of Bond movies going back to YOLT when M (and Moneypenny!) meet Bond on a submarine off the coast of Hong Kong and contines throughout the other actor's tenure, particularly in the Moore movies. It's a real weak point and one that I had hoped would be eliminated in the more realistic Craig Bond movies, but remember M goes to the Bahamas for no good reason in CR.

[Loomis]

3. We're told that Bond is starved of sleep at the start of the film, but he looked wide awake and energetic at the end of CASINO ROYALE.

This is definitely a failure on Martin Campbell's part.

Why do you say that?

Uh, yeah. Campbell ought to have foreseen that the next director would choose (for some reason) to make Bond sleep-starved at the beginning of the next flick, which would pick up right after CASINO ROYALE left off. Campbell should have made Craig act tired.

And, in my view, Loomis is absolutely right, but this has been a flaw of Bond movies going back to YOLT when M (and Moneypenny!) meet Bond on a submarine off the coast of Hong Kong and contines throughout the other actor's tenure, particularly in the Moore movies. It's a real weak point and one that I had hoped would be eliminated in the more realistic Craig Bond movies, but remember M goes to the Bahamas for no good reason in CR.

Well, as you point out, it doesn't quite work in the more realistic Craig era - it just sticks out like a sore thumb. But most of the earlier films were just campy fun, so I didn't mind that MI6 seemed to have drop-of-the-hat temporary HQs (which also served as Q Branch R&D facilities!) all over the globe, which the foreign governments concerned presumably were either ignorant of or not concerned about - in fact, it all was part of the, uh, campy fun.

[Vauxhall]

Speaking cynically, I think the main reason for M turning up in all these exotic locales is the fact that the producers are still feeling pleased with themselves for having Judi Dench as part of the Bond franchise and want to use her as much is as humanly possible.

[Royal Dalton]

You're not being cynical, Vauxy. Forster admitted exactly that in an interview a few weeks ago.

This is definitely a failure on Martin Campbell's part.

[blueman]

An interesting discussion. Here's what I've gleaned so far. # 1. Bond chases Mitchell because Bond is stupid and impulsive. If this is really the answer (and nobody has a good reason why a cool, calculating, experienced agent would do that) then it's a serious flaw. Putting aside my well known preference for things Fleming (and that kind of impulsive stupidy is inconsistent with Fleming's Bond) it also seems inconsistent...

Stopped reading here, as you've obviously never read a Fleming Bond novel (Fleming has Bond do rash and impulsive things, especially in regards to women but not just in that realm, in every book, and most of the time he presents Bond as very self-aware he's doing something stupid, but that's just Bond - as Fleming wrote him).

(okay okay, I'm sure you've read Fleming, big duh, but stating Fleming never had Bond do anything stupid or impulsive is, well, wrong... don't know how else to say it, especially when Fleming has Bond himself self-aware of how stupid/impulsive he's being, time and time again - hell, most significant plot points in the novels, once the stpryline starts to follow Bond, turn on a Bond mistake, and usually cuz he's trying to save a girl... if Bond never made mistakes, the novels would be short and boring)

[BrozFan]

I still don't get chase the traitor instead of guard White. If he thinks White's been hit, all the more reason to get him medical attention so he doesn't bleed out before he can be properly questioned.

Is eveyone forgetting the extra MI6 guard we don't see?

Mitchell shoots an MI6 agent, nearly shoots M, and accidentally shoots White. M runs off. Chase ensues. Bond later tells M that the other guard was already dead when she passed him on the stairs.
So seeing as White was now double-wounded, M was ok (by the fact that her advanced years didn't stop her doing a runner) is it not reasonable to assume that Bond might assume the other MI6 agent would come in upon hearing this commotion and deal with White/M?

Plus who is to say there weren't other additional agents besides the one on the stairs hovering around this scene who might leap to the rescue if needed? Would M really travel for this extraction with just 3 agents (not including Bond who due to careless driving may not even show up!) She visited Bond's hotel with quite a posse, but then again this might have been after the earlier bungle, but then again, she's always surroundeded my MI6 extras when in the 'wild'.

White escaped not because Bond was crap at his job, but because Mitchell was good at his.

[BrozFan]

Why, when Mitchell shoots M, does Bond chase Mitchell instead of either: protecting M/getting her medical care or guarding White, both of which would seem to be far more important that chasing and killing Mitchell. I mean really, why let White escape like that?

Perhaps it's supposed to be a continuation of the idea that Bond is still a bit wet behind the ears and impulsive, a blunt instrument who shoots first and asks questions later and often hotheadedly makes the wrong decision (see also CASINO ROYALE).

When Bond goes on his own after disarming an elevator of MI-6 agents, M tells Tanner to track him because he's on to something. Yet, they don't do any tracking.

Simple: MI6 is incompetent (one of the major themes of the film).

Some more questions:

1. Why is M present at White's interrogation and indeed at many other locations throughout the film? Surely her seniority would make such drop-of-the-hat travel a major security concern, and, besides, doesn't she have any other work to do beyond trailing Bond around like a puppy dog?

2. It is implied that White will be tortured if he refuses to cooperate. It is ludicrous that such a threat should come from M's lips or that she should be anywhere near the scene.

3. We're told that Bond is starved of sleep at the start of the film, but he looked wide awake and energetic at the end of CASINO ROYALE. Or did the car chase go on all night?

4. Why does Bond ask Mathis to accompany him to Bolivia? Sure, he needs his help in getting there, but what does Mathis end up doing for Bond in South America that Bond isn't capable of doing himself? And why does Mathis' lover so instantly trust Bond?

1.Because its Judi Dench! She's a good actress and its cool to see the Head of MI6 as more that a desk-jockey paper-pusher. Plus, I'd wager Bond provided her with her more interesting work!

2. Why is it ludicrous? It would be a pretty damning thing to say, if it ever got out, but who's going to tell? And as you rightly point out, she doesn't say it, its only implied. Torture is the obvious conclusion, but I'm sure they can make this difficult without pulling toenails. Its all speculative as to EXACTLY what MI6 may/may not do to him. Also the non-specific nature may create a little more fear in White's mind because it doesn't reveal how nasty how MI6 are willing to get. Finally I'd point out that there is a big difference between threatening to do something and actually doing it, it could just be scare tactics.

3. Personally I am more annoyed the blue pin-stripe three-piece suit at the end of CR morphed into a black two-piece in QoS, thats bad continuity... Getting back on topic, I don't think there is a huge difference in Bond's apperance other than he looks clean, vs. dirty. You can be knackered but still polished looking as in CR - with Craig's craggy face I'd argue its harder to tell! If we were to follow the 'tired' motif though and its 'sudden' emergence at the start of QoS, would it not be reasonable to say the 99.9% of the population would look like after a not entirely unstressful car-chase/crash like that?

4. He uses Mathis as his inside man to get closer to his contacts in the area (Mathis tells Bond he spent 7 years stationed in South America, Bond is a jetsetter but I doubt he has the sort of local info Mathis has), one contact we see being the Poilce Colonel so Mathis is doing something useful.
As for Gemma, I wouldn't says she trusts him, she's just being polite to a guest. And as she points out to Mathis she's not looking a gift-horse in the mouth: yes, Bond did the dirty on Mathis, but only with the best intentions so you can't really fault him. Plus he inadvertantly landed them a villa! Also if Mathis would invite him into their home, surely that counts as some stamp of approval after all is said and done?

[Judo chop]

You're not being cynical, Vauxy. Forster admitted exactly that in an interview a few weeks ago.

Quite right. In fact, those comments had me psychologically prepared for an extra helping of M-time going in to QOS. However, Forster only suggested that M would be more prominently featured, time-wise. He didn't explicitly state (as far as I remember) that M would be on various locations with Bond.

This is definitely a failure on Martin Campbell's part.

Royal Dalton wins the free donut for realizing that I was joking.

Enjoy, Royal. Chocolate glazed, right?

[MHazard]

An interesting discussion. Here's what I've gleaned so far. # 1. Bond chases Mitchell because Bond is stupid and impulsive. If this is really the answer (and nobody has a good reason why a cool, calculating, experienced agent would do that) then it's a serious flaw. Putting aside my well known preference for things Fleming (and that kind of impulsive stupidy is inconsistent with Fleming's Bond) it also seems inconsistent...

Stopped reading here, as you've obviously never read a Fleming Bond novel (Fleming has Bond do rash and impulsive things, especially in regards to women but not just in that realm, in every book, and most of the time he presents Bond as very self-aware he's doing something stupid, but that's just Bond - as Fleming wrote him).

(okay okay, I'm sure you've read Fleming, big duh, but stating Fleming never had Bond do anything stupid or impulsive is, well, wrong... don't know how else to say it, especially when Fleming has Bond himself self-aware of how stupid/impulsive he's being, time and time again - hell, most significant plot points in the novels, once the stpryline starts to follow Bond, turn on a Bond mistake, and usually cuz he's trying to save a girl... if Bond never made mistakes, the novels would be short and boring)

I'm sure the part about me never having read a Fleming novel has made my friend Judo guffaw since he believes (with some evidence) that I'm too much of a Fleming literalist. Your point is actually well taken and had occured to me overnight (I don't actually bring my Bond books to work with me and some of my posts are whipped off quickly). Bond absolutely has an impulsive streak. The two examples that come to mind off the top of my head are missing Trigger in TLD (the short story) and showing off his gun-play in the nightclub at Scaramanga's hotel in TMWGG (see I have read the books many times and yes, I even know he was drunk at the time). There are, of course, many others. But, I still maintain that Bond is not also stupid and chasing Mitchell is just stupid. Obviously there is no MI-6 coverage of White or he couldn't escape with two bullet wounds. Moreover, Bond has no way to know if Mitchell has back up which would leave M in danger and White a flight risk. Chasing Mitchell is, quite simply, the stupidest thing he could do. The only explanation is either a: a director who doesn't understand the character or doesn't care for purposes of another nifty incomprehensible chase scene (my take) or b. Bond wants M killed so Sir Miles can get his job back (I reject this both because one assumes in the movies that Sir Miles is dead and because Bond seems rather fond of M). Frankly, the responses have confirmed what I suspected, which is that I wasn't missing anything, except a few more continuity errors, such as the wrong suit and lack of sleep, and the answer to this question and my question # 3 are sloppy scriptwriting and directing which they hope we won't notice and might not have if DVD's hadn't been invented.

[blueman]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about chasing Mitchell, seemed a very Fleming/Bond thing to do in the moment, and very in line with how Fleming's Bond moves through the novels, ie making snap decisions and when there's action to follow he follows it. He'd already engaged with Mitchell, threw a chair at him and got his gun away, Mitchell then got away from him and took off running, makes sense for Bond to give chase as White wasn't a threat and M was retreating to safety (er, not really, but we and Bond don't find out about that til later).

If this was a movie version of ER, then administering first aid to White would be my expectation. As it's a Bond film I expect Bond to give chase to a bad guy (and sure, bring him in for questioning if possible, although shooting him is better ). If this were a novel, I'd expect Fleming to give Bond a rueful moment during the chase, "Did M get away safely? Was White dead? Ah well, these are things I can't be concerned about now, I've made my decision to chase this infernal monkey across these slippery rooftops, must focus on grabbing that railing - or falling to my doom..." Ah, rueful Bond, a dear friend indeed.

Which goes back to my big WTF? decision by Bond in QOS, saving Camille in Haiti. Cuz it's not really that silly referencing Fleming's Bond: sure it's not expedient in the least, yet it's still a very very Fleming Bond thing to do, saving the woman with a wing down at great risk, so old-fashioned it makes my back teeth ache. If there's a difference between Bond and every other spy out there (read, that dunderhead Bourne), it's that Bond would not just watch the poor thing sail off to her doom, then shrug and go about his job (tracking Greene, whom she led him to, so her usefulness is over and done with). And not like he saved her to get info from her about Greene, he just wanted to save her, end stop. It's a weirdly jurassic sequence in such a post-modern Bond film. Yet, again, very Bond as Fleming envisioned him, he just won't let the girl die, even at the cost of the success of the mission (the beauty of Fleming's plotting is that he finds ways for Bond to have his professional cake, and eat the personal frosting too).

[BrozFan]

Frankly, the responses have confirmed what I suspected, which is that I wasn't missing anything, except a few more continuity errors, such as the wrong suit and lack of sleep, and the answer to this question and my question # 3 are sloppy scriptwriting and directing which they hope we won't notice and might not have if DVD's hadn't been invented.

One thing you have missed/conveniently decided to ignore is the other guard on the stairs!
Maybe Bond even passed them on the stairs before the interrogation, and before he had been bumped off by Mitchell. Whilst we do not see him, he is mentioned later, so it isn't too much of a stretch to believe Bond was aware of their presence and if they are there as 'back-up' then he doesn't have to act as bodyguard. That would be job of the bodyguard on the stairs.

I mean what was the alternative? Babysit M who was ok, babysit White who was pretty messed up and stop for a quick chin-wag with the remaining MI6 agent we know WAS there, making a quick suggestion that he should pursue Mitchell.
OR
Save some time, chase the immediate threat (another piece of the ominous Quantum jigsaw), and let the other staff do their jobs while he does his?
I'll take the latter, not least because its much more entertaining.

As for this and #3 being proof of sloppy scriptwriting and directing, I think if you were to write a paper on this with the points you raise it would come back marked "Tenuous".
So at the end of Casino Royale we hear Bond talk slowly on a phone, then leisurely walk round a man on the floor, look down at said main and say a couple of words. What exactly is energetic about that? Sure he isn't covered in muck like after the QoS car chase but that doesn't mean he isn't tired. You seem to have remarkable powers of perception if you KNOW Bond was wide awake just because he cracked a smile and looked clean. Would it make any difference to you if Daniel Craig was actually tired when filming but assumed the air of confidence needed for this scene? Maybe Bond had a 30 minute power-nap to recharge because he was on the brink of exhaustion before going for White? The fact is we don't know what happened to Bond's sleeping patterns between getting Vesper's message and getting White. Maybe Bond hides tiredness well? Maybe its the adrenaline kicking in making him look more awake perhaps? Either way you are reading waaaaaaaaaay too much into a facial gesture in one scene and your interpretation of what tired MUST look like, trying to find faults that frankly are not there.

Yes Bond is visibly more distressed after the pre-title sequence. I don't know if you've ever been in a car crash but I imagine that white-knuckled ride in that DBS would leave anyone looking battered. Maybe it caused him to drop the spritely and energetic facade you claim he had at the end of CR? I'd go for that, but then again you shouldn't have to, maybe you could accept the possibility of him being tired in both scenes! Maybe just more tired in one than the other!

I agree the change of clothing is cringeworthy, but Joe public won't notice this and when all is said and done these are just films we are talking about. For all we know every single person on set was aware of this continuity error and maybe there was nothing they could do about it. I have no problems with Tom Ford kitting out 007, but dumped brand Brioni might. If Eon struck up a deal with Rolex for QoS you can bet your you wouldn't see an Omega adorning Craig's wrist in the car chase just because he sported one at the end of CR. These aren't just clothes they are products: products that companies pay a great deal of money to associate with Bond. I wish Bond could have kept the 3-piece suit, but I'd rather just have a rollicking film. Until we know Forster said "ditch the 3-piece" you should give him the benefit of the doubt. Unless of course you have a tape-recording which outlines his wardrobe choices?

Edited by BrozFan, 09 April 2009 - 06:21 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

3. We're told that Bond is starved of sleep at the start of the film, but he looked wide awake and energetic at the end of CASINO ROYALE.

This is definitely a failure on Martin Campbell's part.

Why do you say that?

I drove from the Italian Lakes past the Carrara mountains to Siena last summer.

To think it's a just 5 or 10 minute drive would be silly.

[Mr. Blofeld]

3. We're told that Bond is starved of sleep at the start of the film, but he looked wide awake and energetic at the end of CASINO ROYALE.

This is definitely a failure on Martin Campbell's part.

Why do you say that?

I drove from the Italian Lakes past the Carrara mountains to Siena last summer.

To think it's a just 5 or 10 minute drive would be silly.

So... they went fast. So what?

[blueman]

3. We're told that Bond is starved of sleep at the start of the film, but he looked wide awake and energetic at the end of CASINO ROYALE.

This is definitely a failure on Martin Campbell's part.

Why do you say that?

I drove from the Italian Lakes past the Carrara mountains to Siena last summer.

To think it's a just 5 or 10 minute drive would be silly.

So... they went fast. So what?

[Mr. Blofeld]

3. We're told that Bond is starved of sleep at the start of the film, but he looked wide awake and energetic at the end of CASINO ROYALE.

This is definitely a failure on Martin Campbell's part.

Why do you say that?

I drove from the Italian Lakes past the Carrara mountains to Siena last summer.

To think it's a just 5 or 10 minute drive would be silly.

So... they went fast. So what?

Seriously, they were frickin' speeding fast enough to get the Italian police involved; what's not to say it actually did take only six minutes or so (supposing the length of the Casino Royale end titles and QOS opening logos accounts for Bond's departure from the villa and subsequent access to the highway) to get from White's villa to the MI6 safehouse in Siena?

[Jim]

Something I was thinking about this morning:

Bond's assertion that Dominic Greene is at threat from his own side because they will assume that he talked once captured. Mr White is captured. One of these people is allowed to live.

Why is the same not assumed of Mr White as of Mr Greene?

Admittedly, this is thinking too much about the whim of a fictional organisation.

Perhaps they tightened things up after the Mr White incident. I admire their quality assurance processes.

[Loomis]

Something I was thinking about this morning:

Bond's assertion that Dominic Greene is at threat from his own side because they will assume that he talked once captured. Mr White is captured. One of these people is allowed to live.

Why is the same not assumed of Mr White as of Mr Greene?

Perhaps because White is much higher up the ladder than Greene (in fairness, though, nowhere is such a thing stated, but it seems a widely-held assumption in "fandom" that White is one of the most senior men in Quantum, and possibly even its head).

Also, Greene's bungling must've cost Quantum a pretty penny. Have White's antics - regrettable though they may be - resulted in any financial loss to Quantum?

[Jim]

Something I was thinking about this morning:

Bond's assertion that Dominic Greene is at threat from his own side because they will assume that he talked once captured. Mr White is captured. One of these people is allowed to live.

Why is the same not assumed of Mr White as of Mr Greene?

Perhaps because White is much higher up the ladder than Greene (in fairness, though, nowhere is such a thing stated, but it seems a widely-held assumption in "fandom" that White is one of the most senior men in Quantum, and possibly even its head).

Also, Greene's bungling must've cost Quantum a pretty penny. Have White's antics - regrettable though they may be - resulted in any financial loss to Quantum?

Agreed that it's an assumption that White is higher up than Greene (although the Tosca conversation scene tends to suggest that White is the accountant and Greene is vision and Greene forces the issue in concentrating on Bolivia, so... dunno, really). And if White is higher up, query his management technique in not leading by example and... er... shooting himself in the back of the head.

White's capture =

Two written off Alfas and presumably some death in service benefits paid out to families of henchpersons, loss of guns etc., police investigations into the two crashes which may unearth all sorts of stuff about Quantum. I may be stretching this one a bit as my experience of driving in Italy means that the car chase is pretty much a documentary and the police wouldn't bother investigating.

The loss of a significant insider in whasshisface what gets shot by Bond.

Instigating the investigation that leads from a marked note in whasshisface's wallet (presumably Quantum used the Casino Royale winnings to pay their operatives) to thingummy in Haiti to Bond killing thingummy to Bond meeting whassherface etc.

Basically it's all Mr White's fault. His project management skills I despair at.