47 replies to this topic

[Vauxhall]

God I hope not, to have him a villain would be a major waste IMO.

It does seem a curious move to make. There must be more to this than meets the eye. I guess this is designed as being one of the major points for discussion between CASINO ROYALE and BOND 22 for those who haven't already read the script.

[Garth007]

They made a wise choise on picking Daniel Craig becase he brings the darkside of bond out and is going to show how asome he is and he want dissapoint us at all...,but i still think that Pierce Brosnen sould play bond one more time in the movie form of Everything of Nothing, that would be cool to watch bond in.

[size=7][size=6]"Your not going to let me in there,
you have your armor back on"
"I have no more armor...you striped it from me"[color=#66FF99]

[Robert Watts]

God I hope not, to have him a villain would be a major waste IMO.

It does seem a curious move to make. There must be more to this than meets the eye. I guess this is designed as being one of the major points for discussion between CASINO ROYALE and BOND 22 for those who haven't already read the script.

I think it will be a major point of discussion between Casino Royale and Bond 22 between those who have read the script too

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

Yeah I agree with you Robert. I would be extremely surprised if the situation with Mathis was left unresolved in BOND 22. Indeed, I suppose that Bond getting to the bottom of the plot and proving Mathis' innocence could be central to the plot of that film.

Bond is the one who thinks Mathis is dirty in the first place. Seems like a stretch to me. More like proving he's guilty. Perhaps they'll be forced to let him go.

I thought it was quite obvious that...

Spoiler

...Bond thought that Mathis had to be dirty because he could not believe that that Vesper betrayed him.

Yeah, but at the end M believes Mathis is cleared, except Bond doesn't believe so. I find it difficult to believe Bond would still be blind at that point - or still so wrong. I mean he could, but somewhere I gotta believe that his instinct was right - but perhaps for the wrong reasons. What if Mathis is the new Blofeld (not to be taken literally) and they just caught him on a hunch - a mistake. Interesting set up for Bond 22. All speculation though.

These are my views on the situation...

Spoiler

Vesper was working for White and Mathis was working for Le Chiffre, hence the "double-blind" theory. I don't think Mathis is innocent. There is alot to make me believe he sold Bond out. There was the bit where Bond reveals LC's tell to Mathis who then apparently relays this to LC and causes Bond to lose the first time. Also unlike the novel Vesper gets a text message from Mathis which gets her abducted and I think it would hard to fake a message unless it was sent from his phone and the bit about the emeny making Bond think Mathis is a traitor to create distrust for Bond doesn't make sense. When Bond finds out Mathis is a double it's when he's tossed into LC's car and he over hears LC talikng to Mathis on his cell phone. At the time Bond is semi-awake and why would LC want to make Bond think Mathis is a traitor to create distrust. It's obvious that LC intended to kill Bond either way so what would he gain to make Bond think Mathis is a traitor unless Mathis really was bent.

[Vauxhall]

All great points ASO, and I'm struggling to find anything to contradict your argument at present! I think you may be totally spot on. It will be interesting to note the level of detail retained for BOND 22 - whether it will explicitly be revealed who Vesper and Mathis were working for, thus referring back directly to CASINO ROYALE. I would certainly imagine so. I think I partly 'want' Mathis to be proved innocent, just because I love his character in the book so much, but if he can be used well in the movies, I won't complain too much about this change in direction.

[Harmsway]

ASO, that's how I've viewed it, and I think it's the best explanation. I don't mind the changes made there - in fact, I think it adds a whole layer of intrigue to the story.

[K1Bond007]

All great points ASO, and I'm struggling to find anything to contradict your argument at present! I think you may be totally spot on. It will be interesting to note the level of detail retained for BOND 22 - whether it will explicitly be revealed who Vesper and Mathis were working for, thus referring back directly to CASINO ROYALE. I would certainly imagine so. I think I partly 'want' Mathis to be proved innocent, just because I love his character in the book so much, but if he can be used well in the movies, I won't complain too much about this change in direction.

Well yeah, I was upset too, but I guess I don't care so long as his character isn't wasted. If Mathis turns out to be a henchman or just some crooked guy paid off by Le Chiffre then yeah, I'm going to be upset. If he's proved innocent, that's cool so long as he returns in future films. If he's a bad guy then they better make him one hell of a recurring villain - not just for Bond 22, but Bond 23 and etc. That's just my opinion as of now because Mathis was one of my favorite characters in the novels. I just don't want him to be wasted in one film or for his role to be cheapened.

I'm with ASO in that I don't think he's innocent. He appears to be a "henchman" of sorts. He's an enigma because he doesn't appear to be working for the same org that everyone else is. He appears to be exclusive to LC or to a still unknown third party. It's been too long since I've read the script so I can't really debate this too much and I'm honestly trying to stay away from it so that the film still can come off fresh enough when I see it.

[Robert Watts]

I haven't remembered much from the script, but didn't Vesper use Mathis' name a lot? Saying that Mathis told her the CIA are going to take in Le Chiffre and that he is hiding in his suit etc.

Isn't it possible that it is a mix of both, that a lot of the stuff was Vesper, and her using Mathis as a blind. But Mathis also being crooked to a far minor degree just to the point of giving Le Chiffre the occasional heads up?

Maybe I'm in denial.

[JimmyBond]

I know exactly where you're coming from. Finding out Mathis (might possibly) be a double-agent left me a little cold. I was hoping they'd keep his role as close to the Mathis in the book as possible...

...On the other hand, I just had a thought while reading this. What if EON are trying to throw off viewers and make everyone think Mathis is the double? Sure most of us have read the book, but (if we hadnt read the script) how are we to know they kept Vesper's role the same?

[Robert Watts]

Or rewrote parts of Mathis' role

Let us face it, that script did get around very easily, it is possible that the leak was given a little encouragement (More likely, someone paid/exchanged something with one of the script reviewers and then started passing it around as an e-mail attachment)

Edited by Robert Watts, 14 September 2006 - 04:09 AM.

[Harmsway]

Well, I *really* like the Mathis-isn't-a-good-guy angle. I know you guys don't, but I really do love what it contributes to CASINO ROYALE. Maybe it's because I wasn't *that* enamoured with his character to begin with, and maybe because a lot of the aspects of his character that I loved from the novel still get to come out. Furthermore, I love Giannini playing a character that's not so clean cut (see HANNIBAL).

The whole thematic material of CASINO ROYALE has to do with not being able to trust anyone at all, and the sense of alienation and mistrust that a "not all he seems" Mathis provides is really quite nice.

[Robert Watts]

Well, I wasn't a big fan of him in the novels, but I really liked the way he was written and the script (and judging from the trailer) the way he is played by Giannini.

Still, you're right on the whole thematic arguement

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

Some more observations....

Spoiler

I sure that Mathis did infact "burn" Bond. Burn is a real term used in espionage where an agent is deliberatly sacrificed to achive a greater objective. There is alot of questions that remained unanswered the main one is WHY did Mathis burn Bond? He is, like others have a said a big character and I don't think he was just another henchmen for LC. I don't think we will see Mathis true colors in CR. Also I think the main theme in CR is that you can't read people and not everyone has a tell. Sometimes you got to throw logic out the window and go with your instincts which is a lesson learned by Bond which is confirmed by M when she says that it appears Vesper's betrayal clears Mathis and Bond says no and to keep sweating him. You can't trust anyone and not everything is black and white or good and bad. Everyone has their own agenda and we have yet to learn what Mathis's was.

[Robert Watts]

Attempting to use Bond's tracking device to get Le Chiffre in a vulnerable place perhaps? (Was there reference to Mathis giving away the homer thingy)
Overall that seems a bit simple. Maybe he knew Mr. White was in town and was going to try and use the same idea to get him?

I think, as we've said dozens of times, that we won't know this until Bond 22, and will probably be discussing it for the next two years (Or until we get a leaked script for Bond 22 )

[Andrew]

After reading all this stuff about Mathis, I'm REALLY excited for this film. Sounds like we're finally getting an espionage film again.

[Simon Beavis]

Yeah I agree with you Robert. I would be extremely surprised if the situation with Mathis was left unresolved in BOND 22. Indeed, I suppose that Bond getting to the bottom of the plot and proving Mathis' innocence could be central to the plot of that film.

Bond is the one who thinks Mathis is dirty in the first place. Seems like a stretch to me. More like proving he's guilty. Perhaps they'll be forced to let him go.

By let him go, do you mean fire him from MI6, or let him go free?

I still see him as more of a Nina Myers or a Christopher Henderson than a Blofeld, though.

[K1Bond007]

Yeah I agree with you Robert. I would be extremely surprised if the situation with Mathis was left unresolved in BOND 22. Indeed, I suppose that Bond getting to the bottom of the plot and proving Mathis' innocence could be central to the plot of that film.

Bond is the one who thinks Mathis is dirty in the first place. Seems like a stretch to me. More like proving he's guilty. Perhaps they'll be forced to let him go.

By let him go, do you mean fire him from MI6, or let him go free?

I still see him as more of a Nina Myers or a Christopher Henderson than a Blofeld, though.

Yeah, scot-free. They have nothing on him that isn't circumstantial. I don't know about firing. He could be a Nina Myers. That's possible. You know people talk about the similarities between Bond and Bourne now, I understand the reasoning, but (I'm assuming) like you I think there is a better comparison between Bond and Bauer. Bourne would be more like Licence to Kill crossed with the end of Fleming's YOLT. That's not CR or this new Bond. Bauer, however, it's all there. You got the shady helper agent (Mathis / Meyers), the love interest whom dies in the end, the edgy and cool protagonist (and for Bond suave and sophisticated), and (for the most part) a villain who works for a guy who works for a guy. Plus the overall attitude with terrorists... etc.

[Simon Beavis]

God I hope not, to have him a villain would be a major waste IMO.

It does seem a curious move to make.

Actually, it's not all that curious. If you've read novels by John Le Carr