42 replies to this topic

[Mr. Szasz]

Hello.

I don't know if this is too soon for a newbie like me to be doing this, but I haven't seen any discussion on this point yet.

In a recent CBn article (Wilson Comments on 'Quantum of Solace' Gunbarrel, Craig makes the following comments:

"We

[Jim]

[quote name='Mr. Szasz' post='841709' date='22 February 2008 - 15:30']Hello.

I don't know if this is too soon for a newbie like me to be doing this, but I haven't seen any discussion on this point yet.

In a recent CBn article (Wilson Comments on 'Quantum of Solace' Gunbarrel, Craig makes the following comments:

"We

[DamnCoffee]

Spoiler

M is the villain

Could very well be, which would explain why Judi was kept in the dark over plot details.

[Daddy Bond]

I honestly hope not, although I have wanted to see someone new in the roll.

[tdalton]

Spoiler

M is the villain

Could very well be, which would explain why Judi was kept in the dark over plot details.

It's possible, although I certainly hope that it isn't the case. The way that I'd rather see a change in the role of M would be to have Judi Dench's M retire. Judi Dench's M has been one of the highlights of the past five films, and it would be a shame to ruin that by making her a villain.

[Judo chop]

Could very well be, which would explain why Judi was kept in the dark over plot details.

Or, it could be Jim attacking the precarious innocence of new recruits in order to convert disciples needed to refill the blood chalice on his Altar of the Flaming Skull.

As I said on the other thread based on this story, Craig always seems to be all over the place with his remarks. (It's frustrating, but amusing.)

I

[Jim]

Spoiler

It was a joke

Spoiler

...or was it?

Spoiler

Made you look

Spoiler

hee hee hee

[Judo chop]

Ha! I cheated and read the last one first! (After all, we are in the spoilers section.)

[Mr. Du Pont]

I just commented on this in the thread you mentioned, so I'll just copy/paste my response here.

...Craig's comment is worth noting:

[quote]

[HildebrandRarity]

I echo the sentiment.

I don't think the producers are going to be sending a political message but, if they are even remotely thinking about it, i'm requesting them to please not turn this James Bond film into a vehicle for an anti-global warming campain or something politically similar. Somehow I don't think they will...but i'm hoping they don't go that route.

James Bond is about semi-escapism and always has been.

[tdalton]

I don't mind if they want to send a political message in Quantum of Solace, just as long as it's not something that is so obvious that it feels like we're watching a public service announcement rather than a movie.

[Bryce (003)]

Or, it could be Jim attacking the precarious innocence of new recruits in order to convert disciples needed to refill the blood chalice on his Altar of the Flaming Skull.

Now you know too much, and far worse, stated it Judo.

I'm terribly sorry, but I received my orders from the Admiral this morning. He was originally going to have Joyce do it, but, as to all our exchanges, I told him that if it HAD to be done, I'd rather do it. You won't feel anything.

and it'll give Jim more blood. He actually finger paints with some of it.

NOW - BOT -

I'm not sure what Craig is implying and clearly (much like a real spy) he's only got so much info he can reveal and is choosing his wording carefully. He wants to give a good answer and does. OK, a "twist" in a spy film and the last line that boils down to truth being stranger than fiction with the way the Intel community works is actually pretty cool IMO.

We'll get more info, but I'm happy with the suspense right now. QoS is shaping up nicely.

[Mr. Blofeld]

The twist is:

Spoiler

The lemon peel in Bond's vodka martini.

[Royal Dalton]

Straight up?

[Publius]

Spoiler

The Organization succeeds in seizing control of the world's oil supply... but soon after a solar-powered satellite named Icarus is launched by the United Nations and is used to provide free energy to the whole world, thus crippling the petroleum industry and bringing mankind together in bliss and harmony. Halle Berry guest stars as Jinx, a spunky NSA agent who proves to be Bond's equal and a different kind of Bond girl.

[Loomis]

I think - and I'm being serious - that M will indeed be a villain. In a way.

I think that this will be tied to

Spoiler

the Latin American coup plot

, and it will be made clear that

Spoiler

M is ultimately on the side of big business and corrupt governments

rather than

Spoiler

on the side of the country's unfortunate people

.

Bond's loyalties will be torn, but in the end he's forced to

Spoiler

do what his government wants him to do

and not

Spoiler

what he feels is right

.

More than that

Spoiler

I cannot say

.

[Righty007]

I don't mind if they want to send a political message in Quantum of Solace, just as long as it's not something that is so obvious that it feels like we're watching a public service announcement rather than a movie.

Cubby always made it a point to stay away from political messages which is good until they started making up countries/cities like San Monique and Isthmus City.

Whenever I hear "political message" in a film, I think of anti-American films such as that garbage with Tom Cruise and Robert Redford.

I like when Bond films reference real world events such as Margaret Thatcher in For Your Eyes Only and 9/11 in Die Another Day and Casino Royale but do we really need a "political message" whatever that means in Quantum of Solace? Not really.

[Harmsway]

I think - and I'm being serious - that M will indeed be a villain. In a way.

You're not the first to speculate this, but I really don't think EON will go down that route for a number of reasons.

1. This is "Bond Begins." After CASINO ROYALE, Bond has effectively been "wed" to the service, and that means what has to happen in the next few films is that Bond's relationship to it has to be solidified. Not undermined.

2. Dench's M has been a staple of the franchise for years now. Do we really think they'll take a continuity-spanning element of the franchise and then corrupt it? I'm not sure they will. If there's any element of the franchise that will always, in some way, stand for good, I imagine it will be Dench's M.

3. Given the amount of corruption in MI6 and the CIA as presented in this film (moles all over the place), isn't it a little much to have M be corrupt too? What is this... Jason Bourne?

[tdalton]

I think - and I'm being serious - that M will indeed be a villain. In a way.

You're not the first to speculate this, but I really don't think EON will go down that route for a number of reasons.

1. This is "Bond Begins." After CASINO ROYALE, Bond has effectively been "wed" to the service, and that means what has to happen in the next few films is that Bond's relationship to it has to be solidified. Not undermined.
2. Dench's M has been a staple of the franchise for years now. She's like the Bernard Lee of our age. Do we really think they'll take a continuity-spanning element of the franchise and then corrupt it? I'm not sure they will.
3. Given the amount of corruption in MI6 and the CIA as presented in this film (moles all over the place), isn't it a little much to have M be corrupt too? What is this... Jason Bourne?

Agreed on all points. I think that having M be a villain in this film, especially given all of the other elements that you mention above, would be an absolutely terrible direction to go. I do think, though, that it's entirely possible that they'll go this direction, and perhaps even likely.

EDIT: Although, perhaps there is a way that it could work. Perhaps the mole that we have read about in the plot synopsis is someone that M has set up to take some kind of a fall in order to protect herself and her own identity as a villain. Doubtful, but one way that it could possibly work if they decided to go in that direction.

Edited by tdalton, 23 February 2008 - 05:47 PM.

[Harmsway]

I do think, though, that it's entirely possible that they'll go this direction, and perhaps even likely.

I don't, really. Firstly, because she's continuity-spanning... that screws up all kinds of stuff. Maybe they wouldn't care, but she also strikes me as the Pamela Landy type. She and Bond might not see eye-to-eye, but she'll always be good, even if she's swimming up to her neck in corruption.

[Royal Dalton]

I think - and I'm being serious - that M will indeed be a villain. In a way.

An interesting theory, Loomis.

2. Dench's M has been a staple of the franchise for years now. Do we really think they'll take a continuity-spanning element of the franchise and then corrupt it?

It wouldn't have to corrupt the character. She'd be following the government line, and would expect Bond to do the same (whether it pricked his conscience, or not).

I like when Bond films reference real world events

I don't. Keep the real world out of it, I say.

[DamnCoffee]

It would be a really interesting idea to have M be the villain but I really dont think that Michael and Barbara would do this, since she is a fully established character.

[Harmsway]

Honestly I think this twist has more to do with how they'll have America/CIA behave in QoS. Of course Leiter will be Bond's man throughout, but I can see them portraying the CIA as acting in a very shady fashion.

[Judo chop]

...very shady fashion.

That's it, Harms! You said it, in one word. "Shady". I think that's the key to quality for Bond these days. Obviously we've all had enough of the straight-up traitor in the midst type of scenario. Shadiness is what we need now. Gray areas between good and evil. Complexities in character. Bond needs to be asked to make very hard decisions (as opposed to the kind he made when he shot Elektra) to continue with the building of the character that started with the reboot in CR.

So, going back to what Loomis said. M is 'bad' in a way. Not in the old EON way. For example:

M: "I have no compunction about sending you to your death, double-oh-seven."
Bond: "Yeah, whatever. Sure you don't. Tell me another one why don't ya."

But in the new EON way. For example:

M: "I have no compunction about sending you to your death, double-oh-seven."
Bond: ". She really doesn't!"

[Loomis]

I think - and I'm being serious - that M will indeed be a villain. In a way.

You're not the first to speculate this, but I really don't think EON will go down that route for a number of reasons.

1. This is "Bond Begins." After CASINO ROYALE, Bond has effectively been "wed" to the service, and that means what has to happen in the next few films is that Bond's relationship to it has to be solidified. Not undermined.

2. Dench's M has been a staple of the franchise for years now. Do we really think they'll take a continuity-spanning element of the franchise and then corrupt it? I'm not sure they will. If there's any element of the franchise that will always, in some way, stand for good, I imagine it will be Dench's M.

3. Given the amount of corruption in MI6 and the CIA as presented in this film (moles all over the place), isn't it a little much to have M be corrupt too? What is this... Jason Bourne?

Sorry. Wasn't clear.

When I wrote "I think - and I'm being serious - that M will indeed be a villain. In a way.", I should have stressed the "in a way" bit and tried to clarify what I meant.

I don't mean that M will be a villain, as such. But I think it's possible that she will be shown as not quite whiter-than-white and on the side of the angels, either. Not corrupt in the Ward Abbott (THE BOURNE SUPREMACY) sense, but someone who, as befits the dirty business of espionage, is prepared to make choices that stink from a moral POV. We've had a hint of this already in CASINO ROYALE, indeed more than a hint - it's made clear that she would have given sanctuary to the horrible Le Chiffre in return for information. But pretty much always in the pre-Craig Bond flicks, M has been, effectively, a saint, and the British secret service portrayed as, like, totally righteous.

Seems to me that the Craig era may very well muddy the waters a bit.

[Harmsway]

If that's the idea, Loomis, then I'm fine with that. But giving her moral complexity (in other words, her willingness to make moral compromises for higher goals) does not equate her with a villain.

Some have suggested she'll be a full-blown baddie, and I can't see that happening.

[Loomis]

I do think, though, that it's entirely possible that they'll go this direction, and perhaps even likely.

I don't, really. Firstly, because she's continuity-spanning... that screws up all kinds of stuff. Maybe they wouldn't care, but she also strikes me as the Pamela Landy type. She and Bond might not see eye-to-eye, but she'll always be good, even if she's swimming up to her neck in corruption.

Nah, I don't think she's anything like as noble as Landy, even in the Brosnan era, although I note and agree with your point that she's "good".

I mean, who would you trust more, Landy or M? Who would you consider less likely to sell you a bill of goods or try to screw you over in some way?

[Righty007]

I do think, though, that it's entirely possible that they'll go this direction, and perhaps even likely.

I don't, really. Firstly, because she's continuity-spanning... that screws up all kinds of stuff. Maybe they wouldn't care, but she also strikes me as the Pamela Landy type. She and Bond might not see eye-to-eye, but she'll always be good, even if she's swimming up to her neck in corruption.

Nah, I don't think she's anything like as noble as Landy, even in the Brosnan era, although I note and agree with your point that she's "good".

I mean, who would you trust more, Landy or M? Who would you consider less likely to sell you a bill of goods or try to screw you over in some way?

I guess I'd trust Landy because I just remembered M betrayed Bond in Die Another Day before and after he was exchanged for Zao. Had Frost not been trying to frame Bond by giving away classified information, he'd still be in North Korea.

[HildebrandRarity]

The notion of "loyalty" in espionage, I imagine (imagine because i'm not involved in the activity), seems a romantic one. The 50s M would seem to have more of a sense of loyalty to a 00 than the current M. I imagine.

As a result, there may no longer be such a notion as a moral or whiter-than-white M. That the M of Fleming (written with the western anglo saxon reader in mind) is not the M of this era of Eon films (which makes movies for all points of the globe and, hence, has to paint M with shades of grey).

[Loomis]

If that's the idea, Loomis, then I'm fine with that. But giving her moral complexity (in other words, her willingness to make moral compromises for higher goals) does not equate her with a villain.

Well, it does if you're one of those people for whom someone like, say, Tony Blair is a villain. And I don't think that that would ruin continuity (if you see the Craig-era Dench's M going on to become the Brosnan-era Dench's M) or even jar particularly with how Dench's M has always been.

In fact, Fleming's QUANTUM OF SOLACE makes it clear that the British secret service is not some kind of purer-than-pure outfit dedicated to truth, justice and the, er, British way, but a machine that's sometimes used for no higher purpose than to help British big business keep those quids rolling in:

It had been a routine investigation job. Arms were getting to the Castro rebels in Cuba from all the neighbouring territories. They had been coming principally from Miami and the Gulf of Mexico, but when the US Coastguards had seized two big shipments, the Castro supporters had turned to Jamaica and the Bahamas as possible bases, and Bond had been sent from London to put a stop to it.

He hadn't wanted to do the job. If anything, his sympathies were with the rebels, but the Government had a big export programme with Cuba in exchange for taking more Cuban sugar than they wanted, and a minor condition of the deal was that Britain should not give aid or comfort to the Cuban rebels.

I think this could chime with a film script that involves a Latin American coup. Let's say Bond is assigned to an operation in the region to stop weapons smuggling and this alerts him to the coup plot.

Might be interesting if Bond were required to step in and save a regime that he and we the audience knew was incredibly corrupt and horrible and human rights-abusing, and that the coup might actually make things better. This would be a very Craig-era "shades of grey" moral dilemma-type element, with M shown as being more than at home in this murky world. Thus QUANTUM OF SOLACE could continue Bond's "education".

Looking back on CASINO ROYALE, it seems to me that the Bond of that film is still a little idealistic, in the way he talks about "terrorism", and in his apparent inability to consider the possibility that a bombmaker might be more useful alive (for the purposes of information) than dead. Perhaps by the end of QUANTUM he'll have been made (more) aware that he doesn't necessarily always work for good guys wearing white hats.