55 replies to this topic

[deth]

...who was he working for? I'm not clear on that... it wasn't one of Greene's guys...

[jimbo bond 007]

He was the bodyguard of an English political minister. The minister was a member of Quantum.

[MkB]

The guy was a Special Branch agent, that is a "good guy", just like Bond, but who was working for a "bad guy" (Haines) who is also an official (British politician). The Special Branch guy was just doing the government job he had been assigned to do, i.e. protecting an official.
IMO, this scene hasn't been emphasized enough. In this sequence, Bond does something we have never seen him doing: he kills a "good guy" (of course, he is covered by the script, since it's not "technicaly" him who kills the Special Branch agent, but still...). Yes, one can argue that he doesn't know exactly who the man is when he throws him off the roof in cold blood (and one can argue that this in itself is a problem), but I think it is an important moment in the building up of his psychological profile during QoS. It's certainly the pivot moment, when he stops killing first and thinking after.

[Daddy Bond]

The guy was a Special Branch agent, that is a "good guy", just like Bond, but who was working for a "bad guy" (Haines) who is also an official (British politician). The Special Branch guy was just doing the government job he had been assigned to do, i.e. protecting an official.
IMO, this scene hasn't been emphasized enough. In this sequence, Bond does something we have never seen him doing: he kills a "good guy" (of course, he is covered by the script, since it's not "technicaly" him who kills the Special Branch agent, but still...). Yes, one can argue that he doesn't know exactly who the man is when he throws him off the roof in cold blood (and one can argue that this in itself is a problem), but I think it is an important moment in the building up of his psychological profile during QoS. It's certainly the pivot moment, when he stops killing first and thinking after.

Yes, again, I think there's some serious division over QoS because there's some serious, highly thoughtful plot development going on in QoS. No offense to anyone, but if you're a thinker, the plot and various plot points are glaringly obvious and hit you like a brick between the eyes, but if subtlety and analytical thinking are not your strong point, you may be confused and fail to see what's going on and therefore be turned off by the movie. Some actually haven't been able to pick up on such points like how Bond knew Camille was to be killed or how the motorbike flipped and did a wheelie. I'm just scratching my head thinking, "You've got to be kidding, does someone need to explain this???" Please, no offense, just exercise that gray matter and QoS is clear as a bell.

[mario007]

exactly well said daddy bond. this should be labelled a 'thinking mans 007 movie'. The more I think about this movie the more I like it! Last night I did not know what to think now I am salavating at the thought of seeing it again. the ending was perfect with the same background as the begining of CR (coming full circle) ... I hope the action scenes come off better the second time around ... in the small screen (trailers on the computer, clips, etc) the action looks great but on the big screen they looked less spectacular ... especially the rope/reaching for the gun sceen ... very confusing and muddled! I am also mad they showed the climax of that scene in the trailer :-(

Edited by mario007, 15 November 2008 - 09:42 PM.

[Mr_Wint]

Yes, again, I think there's some serious division over QoS because there's some serious, highly thoughtful plot development going on in QoS. No offense to anyone, but if you're a thinker, the plot and various plot points are glaringly obvious and hit you like a brick between the eyes, but if subtlety and analytical thinking are not your strong point, you may be confused and fail to see what's going on and therefore be turned off by the movie.

I have picked up on all plot points (it's a fairly simple thing) and still think the film is rubbish. No offense, but maybe you will do the same if you think a little bit more about it

Bond killing Haine's boydguard felt really poor and gave us the clichéd: "Who do you work for?... I said, who do you work for?". Lame.

[Bucky]

exactly well said daddy bond. this should be labelled a 'thinking mans 007 movie'. The more I think about this movie the more I like it! Last night I did not know what to think now I am salavating at the thought of seeing it again. the ending was perfect with the same background as the begining of CR (coming full circle) ... I hope the action scenes come off better the second time around ... in the small screen (trailers on the computer, clips, etc) the action looks great but on the big screen they looked less spectacular ... especially the rope/reaching for the gun sceen ... very confusing and muddled! I am also mad they showed the climax of that scene in the trailer :-(

exactly my thoughts mario. i liked it a lot when i saw the movie at the midnight showing thursday night but didnt know exactly what to think. the more i think about the movie the more i like it, which is a new experience for a bond movie. i cannot wait to see the movie again, maybe next friday.

[marktmurphy]

Yes, again, I think there's some serious division over QoS because there's some serious, highly thoughtful plot development going on in QoS. No offense to anyone, but if you're a thinker, the plot and various plot points are glaringly obvious and hit you like a brick between the eyes, but if subtlety and analytical thinking are not your strong point, you may be confused and fail to see what's going on and therefore be turned off by the movie. Some actually haven't been able to pick up on such points like how Bond knew Camille was to be killed or how the motorbike flipped and did a wheelie. I'm just scratching my head thinking, "You've got to be kidding, does someone need to explain this???" Please, no offense, just exercise that gray matter and QoS is clear as a bell.

So people who didn't like it are stupid? Or perhaps you're not clever enough to realise tha it's bad, no? Not saying that you are, just that you leave yourself open when you start saying stuff like that.
Was it you who was saying that Bond pops the clutch on the bike causing it to flip? Because I'm not sure that's right- he's standing on the wrong side. I just took it as him giving it gas. So even from that it would seem it's not entirely clear as to what's happened and even those calling others stupid for not understanding aren't actually 100% clear on it. How did he cause the other plane to crash, for instance? I have an explanation worked out for it- do you? How does the other boat flip? I know what I think must have happened, but do our ideas agree? If even simple action stuff isn't communicated effectively you've got to wonder if it's really the audience's fault.

This whole guy Bond kills thing is yet another undercooked, unexplored, quickly swept under the carpet moment. It's a film which feels rushed and thrown together full of half-formed ideas and concepts for action scenes which are nearly good but needed more work.

[Mr. Blofeld]

It's a more realistic, thoughtful version of Bond and Sandor in TSWLM.

[eddychaput]

I think Bond killing the Special Branch man resonates at the end of the film, when he decides not to kill Yussef. He,s learned his lesson that wildly offing people doesn't bring him any closer to want needs to be done.

I will admit that upon first viewing I didn't quite understand why a Special Branch person was protecting one of Greene's partners. I don't know why though. I really do like intelligent stories that making the viewer think a little bit. I suppose I'm so used to seeing easy going Bond movies that a little bit of subtlety just blew over my head.

My bad...

[Pierce - Daniel]

I hate the fact that people in mi6 may beleive that Bond killed Mathis, that was pretty upsetting.

[Daddy Bond]

Yes, again, I think there's some serious division over QoS because there's some serious, highly thoughtful plot development going on in QoS. No offense to anyone, but if you're a thinker, the plot and various plot points are glaringly obvious and hit you like a brick between the eyes, but if subtlety and analytical thinking are not your strong point, you may be confused and fail to see what's going on and therefore be turned off by the movie. Some actually haven't been able to pick up on such points like how Bond knew Camille was to be killed or how the motorbike flipped and did a wheelie. I'm just scratching my head thinking, "You've got to be kidding, does someone need to explain this???" Please, no offense, just exercise that gray matter and QoS is clear as a bell.

So people who didn't like it are stupid? Or perhaps you're not clever enough to realise tha it's bad, no? Not saying that you are, just that you leave yourself open when you start saying stuff like that.
Was it you who was saying that Bond pops the clutch on the bike causing it to flip? Because I'm not sure that's right- he's standing on the wrong side. I just took it as him giving it gas. So even from that it would seem it's not entirely clear as to what's happened and even those calling others stupid for not understanding aren't actually 100% clear on it. How did he cause the other plane to crash, for instance? I have an explanation worked out for it- do you? How does the other boat flip? I know what I think must have happened, but do our ideas agree? If even simple action stuff isn't communicated effectively you've got to wonder if it's really the audience's fault.

This whole guy Bond kills thing is yet another undercooked, unexplored, quickly swept under the carpet moment. It's a film which feels rushed and thrown together full of half-formed ideas and concepts for action scenes which are nearly good but needed more work.

No, I don't think they're stupid. Note that I never once said they are stupid, just that they were not as attentive as they should be and that this film requires real thought. Even the smartest of us can fail to pay attention at times. Most people do not go into a movie with their brains working hard, they relax and take it in. This is a movie that requires thinking to truly enjoy it for what it is. In one post I was careful to point out that I understand people disliking the film for other reasons, but several of the objections have been over plot points that seem obvious to a lot of us, but seemed to have escaped the notice of several others. Also, some people think more analytically than others, that doesn't mean they're stupid.

No, I didn't say Bond popped the clutch. However, it is clear that the movie makers intended to imply that when Bond knocked the other killer off the motorcycle, his strength did not cause the bike to lurch, but rather something mechanical in the bike caused it to take off and flip up briefly. And it didn't go that far. I thought the move was brilliant.

Regarding the plane, with some skillful flying Bond got the other plane underneath him and was forcing him down into the rocks, the other pilot got out from under the larger plane at the last moment, but too late, he veered off and crashed.

The small boat flips because it is anchored to whatever heavy item Bond threw into the water at the other end of the rope. I'm actually surprised more people haven't brought this up, because this one is more problematic, but not problematic enough to make this great film a bad film.

And, I thought the pacing was great, everything was concluded to my satisfaction at least.

[Bonita]

Um, Bond doesn't kill the Special Branch agent.

Thought it might be helpful to point this out.

keep dancing...

[MkB]

Um, Bond doesn't kill the Special Branch agent.

Thought it might be helpful to point this out.

keep dancing...

You're right, Bonita!
Though, he throws him down a high building, so the guy could clearly have been killed by this fall only, it's only by chance that he survives first. But as I said, IMO it's clearly intentional to have the Special Branch agent finally "technically" finished off by the bad guys: this way, the script gives us a take at Bond making the move to kill an agent on his own side, without overburdening him with the actual responsibility for this death. It gives depth to his character, leading him to think differently, without having to deal with the issues of guilt that would be off topic here.

[eddychaput]

Um, Bond doesn't kill the Special Branch agent.

Thought it might be helpful to point this out.

keep dancing...

Wow, you're right. Sorry about that. Man, I really didn't put on my thinking cap today.

Thanks for pointing that out. I was fooled just like MI6 was!

[JimmyBond]

No, I didn't say Bond popped the clutch. However, it is clear that the movie makers intended to imply that when Bond knocked the other killer off the motorcycle, his strength did not cause the bike to lurch, but rather something mechanical in the bike caused it to take off and flip up briefly. And it didn't go that far. I thought the move was brilliant.

Bond may not, but I'm pretty sure he makes the baddie do it. My buddy next to me even pointed it out at that point, that Bond knocked the guy while his hand was on the clutch, making the bike take off, but with the guys feet still on the ground, the bike went up instead of forward.

[stamper]

I don't get it, isn't the bodyguard one of Greene's men who is ordered to pursuit Bond ? (if not, what he would do here in pursuit). Then why is Greene asking who it is when he falls on the car, and get him shot for looking at him ?

Also when Bond is told by M he killed him, why doesn't he protest (ie technically he just got rid of a guy who was after him with a gun).

[Bonita]

I don't get it, isn't the bodyguard one of Greene's men who is ordered to pursuit Bond ? (if not, what he would do here in pursuit). Then why is Greene asking who it is when he falls on the car, and get him shot for looking at him ?

Also when Bond is told by M he killed him, why doesn't he protest (ie technically he just got rid of a guy who was after him with a gun).

There are lots of members of Quantum at the opera. One of them is a British minister. The minister's guard, like many others, chases Bond. Being Special Branch, he survives before Bond traps him on the roof. Bond asks him who he works for. The SB agent naturally does not talk. Bond, fed up, knocks him off the building onto the hood of Greene's car, thinking he's sending a message to Greene. Alas, Greene has no idea who this guy is and as a result, one of Greene's men kills him. When M confronts Bond on this, what is he going to say?

M: The man you killed in Austria was Special Branch.

BOND: OMG! Wait. Did you say, "killed"? I know the guy ended up dead, but technically, I was just being a jerk. I didn't actually kill him. I knew he would likely survive the fall and it really irritated me that he was trying to kill me, and I didn't want to slow down my pursuit of Greene in order to bring the guy in, fill out paperwork, wait for him to be interrogated, etc. Further, since I can't really figure out who to trust at MI6 after the way the last interrogation went, well, I thought I'd just push the guy off the roof. I mean, what was he going to really tell us? How was I to know this would end up being a bad idea?

I think just shutting up was probably 007's best bet here. You know, don't sweat the small stuff, and it's all small stuff. Or, as Bond might say, "the little fish I throw back on to the hood of a car below, now move!"

keep dancing...

[stamper]

Hmm, Bond probably doesn't know who's guy M's talking about, as he shot several others. He probably doesn't connect it is the last one.

Anyway, why would this bodyguard pursue Bond, if he wasn't one of Greene's men ? Makes no sense. All I remember is Greene ordering guys to pursue Bond, and him being one of them, (I think he is in the trailers the guys behind Greene). Now, why would he then not being recognised by Greene when he falls down the roof ? We almost never have a clear shot of his face...

Just like the rest of the movie, this isn't about the script being intelligent and trying to draw us in by making us think, it's just confusing, idiotic, gratuitous sub-plot so that Bond can get next to Mathis for help. It makes no rational, editing or story sense.

But if anyone can point me EXACTLY where do this guy come from, and that it fits Greene not recognising him, you are welcome.

[1q2w3e4r]

I'd be interested to see the demographic of CBn as of late. I think it's changed somewhat dramatically over the last 24-36 months.

Far too much bickering going on, some people like the film, others don't. No one else's opinion is more valid than anyone else's guys. Just be happy there is a new film for us to dissect and enjoy/ or not. But debate is good. And if you liked it great, if you didn't be happy this one is successful enough you'll get another one in a few years that may in fact be more to your liking.

[MkB]

Hmm, Bond probably doesn't know who's guy M's talking about, as he shot several others. He probably doesn't connect it is the last one.

Anyway, why would this bodyguard pursue Bond, if he wasn't one of Greene's men ? Makes no sense. All I remember is Greene ordering guys to pursue Bond, and him being one of them, (I think he is in the trailers the guys behind Greene). Now, why would he then not being recognised by Greene when he falls down the roof ? We almost never have a clear shot of his face...

Just like the rest of the movie, this isn't about the script being intelligent and trying to draw us in by making us think, it's just confusing, idiotic, gratuitous sub-plot so that Bond can get next to Mathis for help. It makes no rational, editing or story sense.

But if anyone can point me EXACTLY where do this guy come from, and that it fits Greene not recognising him, you are welcome.

I think it does make great sense, story wise, and is very important for the development of Bond's character (cf. my other post earlier in this thread).

To answer your question "Anyway, why would this bodyguard pursue Bond, if he wasn't one of Greene's men ? [...] Now, why would he then not being recognised by Greene when he falls down the roof ?", I'd say that:

1 - Greene doesn't recognizes him because he was not Greene's bodyguards, but a civil servant whose mission was to protect a British official, who happened to be one of Greene's allies. I haven't spotted this man before his final scene in the film, so I can't say whether he was seen with Greene or not, but my guess is that it makes sense if Greene doesn't know him, because apparently the Quantum members attending the Tosca meeting took a lot of precautions to avoid being connected and didn't interact with each other, so their respective bodyguards had no reason to know each other either.

2 - he chases Bond because it's what would be expected of anyone concerned with security in this opera, don't you think? An unidentified guy with a guns wreaks havocs in the place, what are you gonna do if you're a Special Branch agent in charge of the security of an official? Certainly make sure your guy is safe, then go after the suspect.

Does it make sense to you?

[The Admiral]

I'd like to know why Tanner tells M that Bond threw the guy off the roof, and shot him twice.

He has a CCTV picture taken a little while after the agents death on his screen.

How would Tanner have known he was thrown off the building, had he not seen it from CCTV footage/shots? We have to assume that he had seen more footage than just the one shot of the agent dead on the road?

In which case, surely he'd have seen that Bond may have let him fall, but that one of Greene's men actually shot him and not Bond.

Maybe I missed something?

[MkB]

I'd like to know why Tanner tells M that Bond threw the guy off the roof, and shot him twice.

He has a CCTV picture taken a little while after the agents death on his screen.

How would Tanner have known he was thrown off the building, had he not seen it from CCTV footage/shots? We have to assume that he had seen more footage than just the one shot of the agent dead on the road?

In which case, surely he'd have seen that Bond may have let him fall, but that one of Greene's men actually shot him and not Bond.

Maybe I missed something?

One can suppose that there was nt only one Special Branch agent in charge of protecting Haines, so maybe Tanner's intel came not only from a CCTV shot, but also from a report from British agents on the field, who may have concluded, after finding their colleague's body, that he was killed by the man he was after?

[Zorin Industries]

...who was he working for? I'm not clear on that... it wasn't one of Greene's guys...

The last time I saw him he was aboard RENARD's submarine in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.

[stamper]

Thanks MKB, you have to admit, there's no clear view during the chase of where this guy come from (assuming he isn't one of the guys with Greene).
My guess is he was in the restaurant when Bond goes by, and is sent in pursuit, thought this isn't clear unless probably we do a frame by frame review of the scene. Thus it would fit Greene not knowing who he is. I "loved" how the scene was edited, so that we never get a clear shot of his face (thus preventing us from asking too many questions until after the movie is over).

[stromberg]

...who was he working for? I'm not clear on that... it wasn't one of Greene's guys...

The last time I saw him he was aboard RENARD's submarine in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.

Oh boy. I thought I'd started seeing things.
Glad I'm not the only one who noticed this.

[Zorin Industries]

...who was he working for? I'm not clear on that... it wasn't one of Greene's guys...

The last time I saw him he was aboard RENARD's submarine in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.

Oh boy. I thought I'd started seeing things.
Glad I'm not the only one who noticed this.

Stuntman. I've seen him in loads...including my local gym.

[MkB]

...who was he working for? I'm not clear on that... it wasn't one of Greene's guys...

The last time I saw him he was aboard RENARD's submarine in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.

Oh boy. I thought I'd started seeing things.
Glad I'm not the only one who noticed this.

Stuntman. I've seen him in loads...including my local gym.

Oh it was serious? I thought you were kidding. One more guy in the long tradition of reappearing actors for different characters in different Bond films, then!

[deth]

...who was he working for? I'm not clear on that... it wasn't one of Greene's guys...

The last time I saw him he was aboard RENARD's submarine in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.

continuity! lol

[stromberg]

...who was he working for? I'm not clear on that... it wasn't one of Greene's guys...

The last time I saw him he was aboard RENARD's submarine in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.

Oh boy. I thought I'd started seeing things.
Glad I'm not the only one who noticed this.

Stuntman. I've seen him in loads...including my local gym.

Oh it was serious? I thought you were kidding. One more guy in the long tradition of reappearing actors for different characters in different Bond films, then!

In TWINE, he was a member of the submarine crew - I caught the ending of TWINE on TV when I got home from watching QoS at the cinema and he was literally the first person to be seen on the screen. I thought that I was just seeing things, especially as an IMDb research brought no results.

He did uncredited stuntwork on GE, TND and TWINE, credited stuntwork on DAD, and now uncredited again in QoS (not certain on the last one, could well be that he's in the credits - but he's not on IMDb). Fellow's name is Derek Lea, btw.

Funnily, I heard that this scene was rehearsed with Marvin Campbell, the guy who doubled for freerunner Sebastien Foucan in CR. Not exactly a striking resemblance