Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Does QOS contradict CR?


27 replies to this topic

#1 Iroquois

Iroquois

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 114 posts

Posted 06 November 2010 - 11:36 PM

First of all I apologise for the quality of my writing atm, I'm on my iPod :)

Now, I love QOS, But I've had this question knocking about in my head all day. Campbell stated numerous times during interviews that the Bond at the end of CR is the Bond we all know and love. The music and the name introduction clearly support this idea. However, as evident in QOS this is not the case. It's a rather dark film.

But at the same time, Craig plays Bond consistent to how we last saw him. Craig chose bond to have a rifle because "he's in the mood to hurt someone". Bonds last words before the name intro are "the bitch is dead" and from seeing the sea shell in vespers bag he's clearly conflicted about Vesper's motivation. Craig also delivers the "it's time to get out" line with the cool smile of his "bond James bond". He's perfect.

Is it just two directoral styles at odds with each other? I doubt it, since both films have the same writers and Bond's incompleteness is the focal point of QOS.

What are your thoughts? I can't seem to decide :o

Edited by Iroquois, 06 November 2010 - 11:39 PM.


#2 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 07 November 2010 - 12:24 AM

Don't listen to The Shark, if and when he posts; it's consistent.

In hindsight, the producers wanted to continue constructing Bond; the ending of Casino Royale the novel is certainly abrupt -- but it's a novel. Such an ending doesn't work quite so well onscreen, and the fact that said adventure is barely mentioned in Live and Let Die... well, the producers felt continuity would keep the audience interested, and so did Forster.

Campbell seemingly left before this decision was made; as such, he's not in tune with the realigned storyline... but it works either way, really. :)

#3 PrinceKamalKhan

PrinceKamalKhan

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11139 posts

Posted 07 November 2010 - 01:01 AM

First of all I apologise for the quality of my writing atm, I'm on my iPod :)

Now, I love QOS, But I've had this question knocking about in my head all day. Campbell stated numerous times during interviews that the Bond at the end of CR is the Bond we all know and love. The music and the name introduction clearly support this idea. However, as evident in QOS this is not the case. It's a rather dark film.

But at the same time, Craig plays Bond consistent to how we last saw him. Craig chose bond to have a rifle because "he's in the mood to hurt someone". Bonds last words before the name intro are "the bitch is dead" and from seeing the sea shell in vespers bag he's clearly conflicted about Vesper's motivation. Craig also delivers the "it's time to get out" line with the cool smile of his "bond James bond". He's perfect.

Is it just two directoral styles at odds with each other? I doubt it, since both films have the same writers and Bond's incompleteness is the focal point of QOS.

What are your thoughts? I can't seem to decide :o


I think QOS contradicts CR. CR is entertaining while QOS.....

Anyway, the writers may be the same but Forster's directorial style contrasts sharply to say the least with Campbell's. In retrospect, it's too bad Campbell didn't stay on. I think QOS would've been a much more satisfying sequel.

#4 jamie00007

jamie00007

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 555 posts
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 07 November 2010 - 01:32 AM

I dont think it contradicts CR. I think it could have easily gone in either direction. I think Bond 22 could have followed CR's ending with the Bond we all know without a problem, but it could also have gone the direction of QoS with a Bond still transitioning into that Bond without there being any contradiction.

#5 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 07 November 2010 - 03:04 AM

Don't listen to The Shark, if and when he posts; it's consistent.

In hindsight, the producers wanted to continue constructing Bond; the ending of Casino Royale the novel is certainly abrupt -- but it's a novel. Such an ending doesn't work quite so well onscreen.


'Quite' isn't the same as tacking on a superfuclous, poorly lit, poorly scored, poorly directed and narratively redundant shootout in a sinking Venetian apartment.

#6 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 07 November 2010 - 03:24 AM

I wouldnt say the Venice shoot out is narratively redundtant. In it we get to see Bond improvise for the first time. Up until this point in the film Bond was always getting the drop on by the people he was going up against. This sequence was set up to show that Bond finally learned to "up his game."

#7 bribond

bribond

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 104 posts

Posted 07 November 2010 - 03:26 AM


Don't listen to The Shark, if and when he posts; it's consistent.

In hindsight, the producers wanted to continue constructing Bond; the ending of Casino Royale the novel is certainly abrupt -- but it's a novel. Such an ending doesn't work quite so well onscreen.


'Quite' isn't the same as tacking on a superfuclous, poorly lit, poorly scored, poorly directed and narratively redundant shootout in a sinking Venetian apartment.


I would argue that there a couple of continuity things between the two films which could constitute a contradiction.

Bond comments to M that the Americans "wanted Le Chiffre, they got Le Chiffre". M mentions that they got a corpse. Le Chiffre was dead probably three weeks before the end of Casino Royale but this is being discussed as if it is just happening which is clearly not the case.

The timeline of Mathis being put in jail and tortured, which was in the penultimate scene in Casino Royale, does not link up with Bond going to his villa in Quantum of Solace in what would only be at most a few days later. There is dialogue between the woman at Mathis' villa and Mathis which would suggest that he has been out of jail for sometime. The only way this would work would be if Bond took a lot of time between finding Vesper's phone at the end of Casino Royale and finding Mr. White, which could not have been too long since all he had to do was trace a cell signal. It at most would have been a couple of days.

#8 AndrewBond

AndrewBond

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 35 posts

Posted 07 November 2010 - 03:40 AM

I absolutely agree that Quantum Of Solace contradicts Casino Royale. It's actually my main complaint with QOS.

At the end of CR, we have Craig "learning the most important lesson", not to trust anyone, especially a woman, according to M. As the credits close, we have Craig, brutal-looking yet dashingly dressed in a classic three-piece suit a la Goldfinger, naming himself "Bond, James Bond" as the music starts to play. It was a triumphant moment. It was probably one of the top 10 cinematic moments of the decade. It's the birth of Bond.

Cut to Quantum of Solace, which takes place moments later. There's no gunbarrel scene, and Craig is angry, "looks like hell", and is distressed about Vesper the entire film. Only at the end does he seem to get over Vesper.

Now, don't get me wrong. We really can't blame EON for this. After the comic fiasco that was Diamonds are Forever as a followup to OHMSS, all Bond fans wanted a real, relevant revenge story. Yes, there was Licence to Kill, but that was years after the actual event had happened. I was just as excited as everyone else to see a lovelorn Bond tearing through the bad guys. It was only in hindsight that I realized CR was perfect as is, and the next movie should have been with a normal Bond (although he should still have chased after "Quantum", and perhaps he could show moments of reflection on Vesper).

If we're to take QOS as anything other than a contradiction of CR's perfect ending, it might be as a ruse. For instance, much of the drama of QOS focuses on M doubting Bond. His mental fitness, his professional temperament, his judgement of the situation. Yet by the end, he's proven himself, and he tells her he "never left". Bond was Bond all along, and he just had a little anger left to deal with. It would be unrealistic to expect the film to pick up moments after the last and not show Bond as angry. But was he not yet Bond?

Let's contrast the two film endings:

CR: Bond has learned to trust no one. He is cold, ruthless, and impeccable. He is following up on the lead of Vesper dispassionately (I mean, I guess you could assume that he was going to torture Mr. White and kill the [censored] out of him, but we don't know that).

QOS: Bond has encountered Vesper's former lover and betrayer Yusef, and has learned not to kill out of anger. He may have also learned to forgive and forget. Bond lets go of Vesper (symbolically by dropping her necklace).

See the contradiction? Which Bond do you prefer (or think is more accurate): the ruthless, cold-hearted Bond, or the cuddly "live and let live" Bond? The fact that CR made you feel like Bond had become who he was in the previous 20 films is a good sign in its favor.

What do you think?

#9 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 07 November 2010 - 08:25 AM

QoS never struck me as a pure "revenge" movie so much as a sequel, the first ever direct sequel in the series, in which Bond wants answers and closure of the events surrounding Vesper's death. Now, a perfectly good direct sequel could have been made starting where CR left off, with Mr White captured, in custody, escaping, and Bond sent on a mission to track down the people responsible for his escape, and the attempted assassination of M in the process.

But what does M do early on? Lets slip the fact that Yusef probably isn't dead. And that changes the motivation for Bond somewhat. His mind isn't entirely on the main task of following Le Chiffre's laundered money trail to find out who paid Mitchell to turn traitor. He knows that somewhere out there is the man who blackmailed Vesper in a particularly cruel way and, as M put it in CR, probably knew that Vesper would, in the end, be going to her death by dealing with Quantum.

Its a plot thread developed from the similar thread in CR the novel, except, of course, that in the book Vesper's Polish boyfriend was almost certainly dead and wasn't, so far as we know, in league with the Russians to make Vesper turn traitor. Bond's motivation thereafter, as mentioned at the end of the novel, is to take on SMERSH and the Russian intelligence services in general. In QoS the film, M's admission that Yusef probably isn't dead makes Bond's motivation personal again - the man who was to blame is still out there. That's why the "finished article" Bond we appear to have at the end of CR the film, standing over Mr White, suddenly looks less finished in QoS. He thought that M's explanation at the end of CR of Vesper's actions was the end of it, but she made sure it wasn't. He had to go "all around the houses", and in the process take down one of Quantum's top men, and compromise several others, and destroy a typical Bond villain plan, but his real target always was Yusef.

I have mixed feelings about this approach. I wonder if QoS should have either dropped the Vesper link altogether and concentrated on Bond taking on Quantum, or set up a story in which Yusef is a more prominent character and is clearly the target - perhaps with Bond discovering the "honeytrap" operation earlier, dealing with it, and extracting from Yusef information revealing Quantum's larger scale plans?

Either way, that's my take on the CR/QoS "contradiction" for now at least (unless I end up contradicting myself in a future post, of course :) .) As has often been argued on CBN, it's all down to the woman Bond works for!

#10 Iroquois

Iroquois

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 114 posts

Posted 07 November 2010 - 08:54 AM

Interesting thoughts, especially the ruse idea. I remember Craig saying that we're not meant to know Bonds motivation in the film until the end. In a sense, we are indeed seeing everything from M's point of view, but with more insight to show us Bond isn't rogue. For example, most his kills are in self defence, Bond remains commited to the mission while the government is willing to be in bed with Greene, Bond seems to extract more information from Greene about Quantum, maybe Yusef was his last question. Then there's obviously the "I never left" line. Bond is much more evolved in this film too. He wears more suits, is slimmer, has longer hair. He is very slick in his execution, quips frequently, and is certainly the most proactive character in the film. Hmm...this is certainly an interesting way to view the film, and no doubt it is the way it was intended to be viewed. I'll get back to you on that.

Edited by Iroquois, 07 November 2010 - 08:55 AM.


#11 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 07 November 2010 - 09:05 AM

I would certainly say that the iconic ending to Casino Royale - that moment with Mr White - loses its impact now that we know that Mr White easily escapes MI6 early in the next movie.



------------------------------------------------------------------

#12 Iroquois

Iroquois

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 114 posts

Posted 07 November 2010 - 09:09 AM

I would certainly say that the iconic ending to Casino Royale - that moment with Mr White - loses its impact now that we know that Mr White easily escapes MI6 early in the next movie.


------------------------------------------------------------------


I would say otherwise, in QOS we learn what a slippery character Mr White is, which makes it much cooler when Bond captures him so effortlessly in CR.

Edited by Iroquois, 07 November 2010 - 09:12 AM.


#13 sharpshooter

sharpshooter

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8996 posts

Posted 07 November 2010 - 02:42 PM

I dont think it contradicts CR. I think it could have easily gone in either direction. I think Bond 22 could have followed CR's ending with the Bond we all know without a problem, but it could also have gone the direction of QoS with a Bond still transitioning into that Bond without there being any contradiction.

Indeed. By going the QoS route, we get more character building. It was a far more interesting route to take.

I think Forster was a brave choice. I think QoS is the most daring film in the series. And in turn, progressive. It has a feeling of here and now. Whether people like that take is for them to decide. But it’s pretty evenly split. I appreciate what differences it has brought to the table. It’s a departure from the days when we knew what was coming. The tone is different to CR. But QoS is its own film with its own identity. It has traits unique to it. And I think that’s to be expected, and how it should be.

#14 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 07 November 2010 - 06:46 PM

Campbell stated numerous times during interviews that the Bond at the end of CR is the Bond we all know and love.


Never forget: at the time Campbell said this it was the common sales pitch for the movie. EON couldn´t know whether CR would actually succeed. When it did and EON decided to start QOS´ story immediately after CR´s ending it was clear that Bond still had some steps to go in order to become "the Bond we all know and love".

This is now complete.

And I wonder whether the four years between QOS and BOND 23 (if indeed that one will be released in 2012) are a blessing in disguise. Why? Because the next Bond film will have to acknowledge that time has passed. Therefore Craig-Bond will have definitely settled in and got used to being the classic Bond character.

#15 Matt_13

Matt_13

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5969 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 07 November 2010 - 07:19 PM


I would certainly say that the iconic ending to Casino Royale - that moment with Mr White - loses its impact now that we know that Mr White easily escapes MI6 early in the next movie.


------------------------------------------------------------------


I would say otherwise, in QOS we learn what a slippery character Mr White is, which makes it much cooler when Bond captures him so effortlessly in CR.



I rather like this. Agreed completely.

#16 byline

byline

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 07 November 2010 - 08:22 PM

Bond comments to M that the Americans "wanted Le Chiffre, they got Le Chiffre". M mentions that they got a corpse. Le Chiffre was dead probably three weeks before the end of Casino Royale but this is being discussed as if it is just happening which is clearly not the case.

Initially I did get that vibe, but I think that on further analysis, one could surmise that it's being discussed not as if it just happened, but as if this is the first time M has had the opportunity to confront Bond and tell him what's been on her mind. If he had been tailing Mr. White for weeks, then finally caught him and brought him to Palio, he likely would not have been in touch with MI6 during that time.

#17 Aris007

Aris007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3037 posts
  • Location:Thessaloniki, Greece

Posted 07 November 2010 - 09:51 PM

Well except the fact that QoS is the exact opposite of CR if you consider the plot, the locations etc. I really don't see why it contradicts its predecessor. I mean we may see at the end of CR that James becomes Bond, but that doesn't mean that he instantly forgetts everything about his past. Bond as every other human being has flashbacks of moments that hurt him. He can just push "delete" and move on just like that. And since we're talking about sequels here I think that it makes perfect sense. So in my opinion QoS doesn't contradict CR. For me the Bond who everybody loves comes at the end of QoS where he drops the necklace and his memries back for good.

#18 Mr. Arlington Beech

Mr. Arlington Beech

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1112 posts

Posted 08 November 2010 - 01:26 AM


Campbell stated numerous times during interviews that the Bond at the end of CR is the Bond we all know and love.


Never forget: at the time Campbell said this it was the common sales pitch for the movie. EON couldn´t know whether CR would actually succeed. When it did and EON decided to start QOS´ story immediately after CR´s ending it was clear that Bond still had some steps to go in order to become "the Bond we all know and love".

That's not correct. Campbell also stated- in the company of Michael G. Wilson- for the Blu Ray/DVD Collector's Edition commentaries, that the Bond at the end of CR is the Bond we all know and love; and that was recorded after the success of CR at the Box Office.

In fact, with the phrase "I never left", it's clear that 007 never left to be the Bond that we all know and love since the end of CR (when the formation of the charater was actually completed), even if M thought otherwise during most of QOS.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 08 November 2010 - 01:34 AM.


#19 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 08 November 2010 - 10:05 AM


Bond comments to M that the Americans "wanted Le Chiffre, they got Le Chiffre". M mentions that they got a corpse. Le Chiffre was dead probably three weeks before the end of Casino Royale but this is being discussed as if it is just happening which is clearly not the case.

Initially I did get that vibe, but I think that on further analysis, one could surmise that it's being discussed not as if it just happened, but as if this is the first time M has had the opportunity to confront Bond and tell him what's been on her mind. If he had been tailing Mr. White for weeks, then finally caught him and brought him to Palio, he likely would not have been in touch with MI6 during that time.


Really? That's strange because during QOS, M is constantly in touch with Bond and vice versa.

-

#20 Lachesis

Lachesis

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 394 posts
  • Location:U.K.

Posted 08 November 2010 - 01:54 PM

I would certainly say that the iconic ending to Casino Royale - that moment with Mr White - loses its impact now that we know that Mr White easily escapes MI6 early in the next movie.



------------------------------------------------------------------


I agree very much so, QOS for all its own appeal seems to exist to the detriment of CR. Its not so much a case of contradiction its more a case that CR depicted an inferred destination, QoS then demands a reassesment and labouring of something we were led to believe was done. The anal need to allow closure for Bond is ultimately far less persuasive imo than making that a motivation that drives the rest of his life...or at least till Tracy appears on the scene.

Moreover the arc of QoS is rather underwhelming when connected to CR - from the perspective of MI6 and M Bond delivers a succession of diminishing retruns White->Green->Yusseff, you could almost argue that Bond enhances Quantums security more than Mitchell by saiting their interest with the person least likely to be of much use.
In effect QoS takes what Bond has achievemed in CR undoes it and then redoes it to lesser significance.

Edited by Lachesis, 08 November 2010 - 01:58 PM.


#21 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 08 November 2010 - 03:07 PM


I would certainly say that the iconic ending to Casino Royale - that moment with Mr White - loses its impact now that we know that Mr White easily escapes MI6 early in the next movie.



------------------------------------------------------------------


I agree very much so, QOS for all its own appeal seems to exist to the detriment of CR. Its not so much a case of contradiction its more a case that CR depicted an inferred destination, QoS then demands a reassesment and labouring of something we were led to believe was done. The anal need to allow closure for Bond is ultimately far less persuasive imo than making that a motivation that drives the rest of his life...or at least till Tracy appears on the scene.

Moreover the arc of QoS is rather underwhelming when connected to CR - from the perspective of MI6 and M Bond delivers a succession of diminishing retruns White->Green->Yusseff, you could almost argue that Bond enhances Quantums security more than Mitchell by saiting their interest with the person least likely to be of much use.
In effect QoS takes what Bond has achievemed in CR undoes it and then redoes it to lesser significance.


EON should have left it after the "bitch is dead". Just as Fleming did. #22 should have started with Bond landing somewhere with a new problem to solve, mentally strong, however tangentally linked the new problem was to Vesper. Just as Fleming did with his #2. Okay, EON stuck on the unnecessary, anit-climatic (IMO) White controntation, but #22 could have started here in the vein of Fleming #2, Quantum in for SMERSH, but Bond sound, and fully formed, to go after them.

Sadly, I suspect EON were keen to flatter themselves after the unusually positive reviews of a human, emotional Bond, realising that Craig was a strong character actor (after what had come before) and decided to throw all the "fully formed" stuff away and do all the CR making of Bond stuff, again. Serious, emotional. Pretentious this time because it's already been done once.

Less is more would have been better.

#22 byline

byline

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 08 November 2010 - 05:38 PM



Bond comments to M that the Americans "wanted Le Chiffre, they got Le Chiffre". M mentions that they got a corpse. Le Chiffre was dead probably three weeks before the end of Casino Royale but this is being discussed as if it is just happening which is clearly not the case.

Initially I did get that vibe, but I think that on further analysis, one could surmise that it's being discussed not as if it just happened, but as if this is the first time M has had the opportunity to confront Bond and tell him what's been on her mind. If he had been tailing Mr. White for weeks, then finally caught him and brought him to Palio, he likely would not have been in touch with MI6 during that time.

Really? That's strange because during QOS, M is constantly in touch with Bond and vice versa.

True, but I thought that was only after he personally re-established contact with her upon arrival in Palio. I'm guessing that prior to that, contact would have been very brief and perfunctory ("This is where you'll drop off Mr. White for interrogation," etc.). When she saw him face-to-face in Palio, that would have been the first time since the she last saw him in-person in "Casino Royale" (at the Ocean Club), and possibly the first time they'd really had a chance to speak since their phone conversation as Bond was leaving Venice. So I tend to think M was giving him a piece of her mind (as she is prone to do), not just giving him an update, and that lent more immediacy to her tone.

Just my take on it, anyway.

#23 Iroquois

Iroquois

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 114 posts

Posted 08 November 2010 - 06:06 PM

Through watching it again, there isn't actually anything in the film to say that James bond is incomplete. In fact, literally all the elements are there. The reason they are all muddled up is because we're meant to question Bond's motivation as it makes the film more engaging. The only time Vesper is mentioned is by other people, and Bond is quick to change the subject, and focus on the mission at hand. The scene with Bond drunk on the plane is there to make us, again, question Bond's motives rather than show how incomplete he is. Fleming's Bond has moments where he thinks about Vesper (such as in Goldfinger and OHMSS) and it's a nice Fleming like scene.

So my conclusion is that no, QOS does not contradict CR or undo any of Bond's development in CR. Instead, it builds the relationship between Bond and M in a unique way by putting the audience in M's position; Can we trust Bond?

The relationship between Bond and M was actually one of the things in CR that didn't get resolved. It would damage M's character if QOS was a standard adventure where she had full faith in Bond, despite the fact that in the previous film she had problems with Bonds recklessness. Then there's Bond resigning be with a woman who betrays him and kills herself, and Bond sounding pissed off and returning to MI6, eager to get back to hunting MI6. It would be idiotic of her to not be judging Bond's actions in QOS.

Overall, Bond is complete in QOS, the film is rather about building the relationship between Bond and M than a revenge story. Vesper is used as a sub plot so that this can happen.

Through watching it again, there isn't actually anything in the film to say that James bond is incomplete. In fact, literally all the elements are there. The reason they are all muddled up is because we're meant to question Bond's motivation as it makes the film more engaging. The only time Vesper is mentioned is by other people, and Bond is quick to change the subject, and focus on the mission at hand. The scene with Bond drunk on the plane is there to make us, again, question Bond's motives rather than show how incomplete he is. Fleming's Bond has moments where he thinks about Vesper (such as in Goldfinger and OHMSS) and it's a nice Fleming like scene.

So my conclusion is that no, QOS does not contradict CR or undo any of Bond's development in CR. Instead, it builds the relationship between Bond and M in a unique way by putting the audience in M's position; Can we trust Bond?

The relationship between Bond and M was actually one of the things in CR that didn't get resolved. It would damage M's character if QOS was a standard adventure where she had full faith in Bond, despite the fact that in the previous film she had problems with Bonds recklessness. Then there's Bond resigning be with a woman who betrays him and kills herself, and Bond sounding pissed off and returning to MI6, eager to get back to hunting MI6. It would be idiotic of her to not be judging Bond's actions in QOS.

Overall, Bond is complete in QOS, the film is rather about building the relationship between Bond and M than a revenge story. Vesper is used as a sub plot so that this can happen.

#24 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 08 November 2010 - 06:35 PM

Through watching it again, there isn't actually anything in the film to say that James bond is incomplete. In fact, literally all the elements are there. The reason they are all muddled up is because we're meant to question Bond's motivation as it makes the film more engaging. The only time Vesper is mentioned is by other people, and Bond is quick to change the subject, and focus on the mission at hand. The scene with Bond drunk on the plane is there to make us, again, question Bond's motives rather than show how incomplete he is. Fleming's Bond has moments where he thinks about Vesper (such as in Goldfinger and OHMSS) and it's a nice Fleming like scene.

So my conclusion is that no, QOS does not contradict CR or undo any of Bond's development in CR. Instead, it builds the relationship between Bond and M in a unique way by putting the audience in M's position; Can we trust Bond?

The relationship between Bond and M was actually one of the things in CR that didn't get resolved. It would damage M's character if QOS was a standard adventure where she had full faith in Bond, despite the fact that in the previous film she had problems with Bonds recklessness. Then there's Bond resigning be with a woman who betrays him and kills herself, and Bond sounding pissed off and returning to MI6, eager to get back to hunting MI6. It would be idiotic of her to not be judging Bond's actions in QOS.

Overall, Bond is complete in QOS, the film is rather about building the relationship between Bond and M than a revenge story. Vesper is used as a sub plot so that this can happen.

Through watching it again, there isn't actually anything in the film to say that James bond is incomplete. In fact, literally all the elements are there. The reason they are all muddled up is because we're meant to question Bond's motivation as it makes the film more engaging. The only time Vesper is mentioned is by other people, and Bond is quick to change the subject, and focus on the mission at hand. The scene with Bond drunk on the plane is there to make us, again, question Bond's motives rather than show how incomplete he is. Fleming's Bond has moments where he thinks about Vesper (such as in Goldfinger and OHMSS) and it's a nice Fleming like scene.

So my conclusion is that no, QOS does not contradict CR or undo any of Bond's development in CR. Instead, it builds the relationship between Bond and M in a unique way by putting the audience in M's position; Can we trust Bond?

The relationship between Bond and M was actually one of the things in CR that didn't get resolved. It would damage M's character if QOS was a standard adventure where she had full faith in Bond, despite the fact that in the previous film she had problems with Bonds recklessness. Then there's Bond resigning be with a woman who betrays him and kills herself, and Bond sounding pissed off and returning to MI6, eager to get back to hunting MI6. It would be idiotic of her to not be judging Bond's actions in QOS.

Overall, Bond is complete in QOS, the film is rather about building the relationship between Bond and M than a revenge story. Vesper is used as a sub plot so that this can happen.

I think you may be right, although if M had any doubts about Bond's focus on the job in hand, she should have never mentioned Yusef or left those photographs of Vesper and Yusef with snatching distance of Bond. As soon as he got one of those, you just knew that there would be more to the mission than pursuit of Mr White's employers. "I need to know I can trust you" says M. "I won't go chasing after him, he's not important" replies Bond, yet we know very well that 007 isn't exactly being truthful when he says that.

Was M being overly confident in Bond's professionalism by letting him know that Yusef probably wasn't dead? Or just careless? Or was she testing Bond, to see if he could put personal feelings to one side and get on with the job. Who knows, but the knowledge certainly influences Bond's conduct. You are right about the Bond/M relationship being an important part of QoS. As I said before, all down to the lady Bond works for. If she hadn't left that photo lying around........

#25 Iroquois

Iroquois

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 114 posts

Posted 08 November 2010 - 10:22 PM

I think she was testing Bond, that's why right after she mentions Yusef to Bond she adds "but I do need to know that I can trust you". By preying on Bond's uncertainty about Vesper, she will (as we see in the end of the film) get her definitive answer.

#26 byline

byline

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 09 November 2010 - 01:08 AM

I think she was testing Bond, that's why right after she mentions Yusef to Bond she adds "but I do need to know that I can trust you". By preying on Bond's uncertainty about Vesper, she will (as we see in the end of the film) get her definitive answer.

I agree. I felt that much of what transpired in "Quantum of Solace" was a calculated risk on M's part to test Bond's mettle. Clearly he passed, and his "I never left" was a tip of the hat to M, because Bond knew what she was up to, but also a bit of a mea culpa to let her know that now he understands the big picture and accepts his place in it.

#27 Iroquois

Iroquois

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 114 posts

Posted 12 November 2010 - 06:13 PM

I think the problem was a lot of the way QOS was marketed; as if 007 was well and truly on a mission for revenge, when the film actually states otherwise...

#28 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 12 November 2010 - 06:15 PM

I thought SOLACE was a very good film. Check out my review on the Members Forum.

Sorry - I just thought the point of this thread has now become to drag out the same old musings, so Zorin Ind plc is doing the same...!