45 replies to this topic

[Judo chop]

Both deaths had so much to do with Bond's development and personal story that I can't see how QOS would have not suffered had they lived.

Fields, R.I.P.
Mathis, R.I.P.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Both deaths had so much to do with Bond's development and personal story that I can't see how QOS would have not suffered had they lived.

Fields, R.I.P.
Mathis, R.I.P.

I can (with Mathis at least).

[Double-Oh Agent]

I think they should have kept Mathis...one more person watching 007's back and there when he might need them.

I guess there's an argument that the films could risk giving Bond far to many allies. Bond, M, Tanner, Leiter, Mathis, plus demands for Q and Moneypenny...

With all that lot in the mix you risk making the one-film characters - good and bad - one-dimensional simply due to lack of screen time. Not to mention the difficulties of GETTING actors like Giancarlo Giannini to keep coming back.

We're not talking about having Mathis in every film, just that he shouldn't have died (like his novel namesake). I don't want him to be in every film--or Leiter for that matter--but I want both of them available if need be. What would people have said had EON killed Leiter in Licence To Kill or in Quantum Of Solace rather than Mathis? To me there is little difference in the characters' relationship with 007. Mathis is the European Leiter of the Bond series.

Well, I think they should have killed Leiter in Licence to Kill!

I like the movie a great deal, but the motivation of Bond over the death of some girl we'd barely met - coupled with that ghastly final Leiter scene where the jolly CIA mono-ped cheerily suggests some fishing within days of his bride's brutal murder...it's clumsy stuff that preserves the status quo over fighting for real drama. Kill Leiter! For Licence to Kill, let that be the motivation of our hero to quit his job and go on the rampage. It's better.

As I said before, I don't believe a protective bubble around Fleming originals is at all dramatically useful. It's almost damaging to the creative process and risks banal, tick-box movies. I don't see the virtue of keeping an extended set of guest characters - who would eventually be recast everyone - hanging around off-screen.

Double-Oh Agent insert comment: I disagree with the above paragraph. By that line of thinking, EON should either not give Bond any allies in the films or just kill off all of them so they don't have to keep the characters around.

Mathis played by another actor is someone else - as the multiple Leiters proved. Let's find another agent to befriend when we need one. Why not? Just because Wade was weak doesn't mean they all will be. Movie audiences don't need a protective ring around one agent and not another. They're all equal in the movies - Fleming originals and new inventions.

Done right, at least.

I'll give you that Leiter shouldn't have been so jovial at the end of Licence To Kill, but he shouldn't have died either. I think they got that part with his injuries right.

And Bond wasn't just pissed off that Della was killed, but that his best friend was seriously maimed and virtually left for dead--and on his wedding day no less. He was just as pissed off in Live And Let Die leading up to his confrontation with The Robber.

As for protecting Fleming originals--my feeling is keep those alive that he kept alive. For instance, I love Kerim Bey in the film (shoot, he's my favorite ally), but I have no problem with him dying because he died in the novel. That is not the case with Mathis who has continued to live throughout the novel series.

If EON wants to kill off allies who mean something to Bond, then have them create new ones who leave an indelible impression as they've done or attempted to do for every film since The Living Daylights excluding Casino Royale. They killed off Valentin Zukovsky who was great--particularly in GoldenEye--so they can do it again. By the way, I thought Jack Wade was great in GoldenEye, but, yes, in Tomorrow Never Dies, he was weak.

[sorking]

Well, I think they should have killed Leiter in Licence to Kill!

I like the movie a great deal, but the motivation of Bond over the death of some girl we'd barely met - coupled with that ghastly final Leiter scene where the jolly CIA mono-ped cheerily suggests some fishing within days of his bride's brutal murder...it's clumsy stuff that preserves the status quo over fighting for real drama. Kill Leiter! For Licence to Kill, let that be the motivation of our hero to quit his job and go on the rampage. It's better.

As I said before, I don't believe a protective bubble around Fleming originals is at all dramatically useful. It's almost damaging to the creative process and risks banal, tick-box movies. I don't see the virtue of keeping an extended set of guest characters - who would eventually be recast everyone - hanging around off-screen.

Double-Oh Agent insert comment: I disagree with the above paragraph. By that line of thinking, EON should either not give Bond any allies in the films or just kill off all of them so they don't have to keep the characters around.

Well, not really. That's kinda massively over-simplifying my point. Kinda like me saying that your "Nobody Fleming didn't kill in the books should die in the films" is the same as saying "No character should die in the films unless Fleming did it first". Which clearly isn't what you're saying...and I'm pretty sure it's clear that I'm not saying 'no allies, or only ones that get killed'!

I'm saying you don't gain anything but a little fanboy glow from steadfastly protecting tertiary Fleming characters. And what you give up is a massive amount of dramatic usefulness.

I'll give you that Leiter shouldn't have been so jovial at the end of Licence To Kill, but he shouldn't have died either. I think they got that part with his injuries right.

I expected this was likely to be the case, since it's 'as Fleming'. And, as you've already said, you think these characters should be immune to death. I get it, but I disagree.

And Bond wasn't just pissed off that Della was killed, but that his best friend was seriously maimed and virtually left for dead--and on his wedding day no less. He was just as pissed off in Live And Let Die leading up to his confrontation with The Robber.

Sorry, I didn't mean to simplify the film to the point where it suggested I didn't understand it. I comprehend that reason, but I maintain 'You injured my friend' is weak compared to 'you murdered my friend'. I know you disagree, which is fair enough, but - as you know - I feel differently. Which isn't about not understanding the plot - though I concede I skipped the details for the sake of brevity. My bad.

As for protecting Fleming originals--my feeling is keep those alive that he kept alive. For instance, I love Kerim Bey in the film (shoot, he's my favorite ally), but I have no problem with him dying because he died in the novel. That is not the case with Mathis who has continued to live throughout the novel series.

If EON wants to kill off allies who mean something to Bond, then have them create new ones who leave an indelible impression as they've done or attempted to do for every film since The Living Daylights excluding Casino Royale. They killed off Valentin Zukovsky who was great--particularly in GoldenEye--so they can do it again. By the way, I thought Jack Wade was great in GoldenEye, but, yes, in Tomorrow Never Dies, he was weak.

I understand your meaning, but I think that's a 'fans running the franchise' move. Giving up the best possible creative choices in favour of a cheap glow of "Aww, Mathis is back". (See any number of franchises that bring back familiar faces for the sake of audience cheer, then struggle to do anything useful with them.)

Craig'll do four films, Giannini's done two. When the next Bond shows up, his allies would likely be recast anyway. Is it really so harmful to have a guy like Mathis not called Mathis? Aside from acolytes, who's harmed by that?

Edited by sorking, 19 December 2008 - 07:00 PM.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Well, I think they should have killed Leiter in Licence to Kill!

I like the movie a great deal, but the motivation of Bond over the death of some girl we'd barely met - coupled with that ghastly final Leiter scene where the jolly CIA mono-ped cheerily suggests some fishing within days of his bride's brutal murder...it's clumsy stuff that preserves the status quo over fighting for real drama. Kill Leiter! For Licence to Kill, let that be the motivation of our hero to quit his job and go on the rampage. It's better.

As I said before, I don't believe a protective bubble around Fleming originals is at all dramatically useful. It's almost damaging to the creative process and risks banal, tick-box movies. I don't see the virtue of keeping an extended set of guest characters - who would eventually be recast everyone - hanging around off-screen.

Double-Oh Agent insert comment: I disagree with the above paragraph. By that line of thinking, EON should either not give Bond any allies in the films or just kill off all of them so they don't have to keep the characters around.

Well, not really. That's kinda massively over-simplifying my point. Kinda like me saying that your "Nobody Fleming didn't kill in the books should die in the films" is the same as saying "No character should die in the films unless Fleming did it first". Which clearly isn't what you're saying...and I'm pretty sure it's clear that I'm not saying 'no allies, or only ones that get killed'!

I'm saying you don't gain anything but a little fanboy glow from steadfastly protecting tertiary Fleming characters. And what you give up is a massive amount of dramatic usefulness.

I'll give you that Leiter shouldn't have been so jovial at the end of Licence To Kill, but he shouldn't have died either. I think they got that part with his injuries right.

I expected this was likely to be the case, since it's 'as Fleming'. And, as you've already said, you think these characters should be immune to death. I get it, but I disagree.

And Bond wasn't just pissed off that Della was killed, but that his best friend was seriously maimed and virtually left for dead--and on his wedding day no less. He was just as pissed off in Live And Let Die leading up to his confrontation with The Robber.

Sorry, I didn't mean to simplify the film to the point where it suggested I didn't understand it. I comprehend that reason, but I maintain 'You injured my friend' is weak compared to 'you murdered my friend'. I know you disagree, which is fair enough, but - as you know - I feel differently. Which isn't about not understanding the plot - though I concede I skipped the details for the sake of brevity. My bad.

As for protecting Fleming originals--my feeling is keep those alive that he kept alive. For instance, I love Kerim Bey in the film (shoot, he's my favorite ally), but I have no problem with him dying because he died in the novel. That is not the case with Mathis who has continued to live throughout the novel series.

If EON wants to kill off allies who mean something to Bond, then have them create new ones who leave an indelible impression as they've done or attempted to do for every film since The Living Daylights excluding Casino Royale. They killed off Valentin Zukovsky who was great--particularly in GoldenEye--so they can do it again. By the way, I thought Jack Wade was great in GoldenEye, but, yes, in Tomorrow Never Dies, he was weak.

I understand your meaning, but I think that's a 'fans running the franchise' move. Giving up the best possible creative choices in favour of a cheap glow of "Aww, Mathis is back". (See any number of franchises that bring back familiar faces for the sake of audience cheer, then struggle to do anything useful with them.)

Craig'll do four films, Giannini's done two. When the next Bond shows up, his allies would likely be recast anyway. Is it really so harmful to have a guy like Mathis not called Mathis? Aside from acolytes, who's harmed by that?

Because a guy like Mathis who is not called Mathis is not Mathis. You can dress up all sorts of Englishmen in tuxedos and have them charm women, acquit themselves well in a fight, and drive nice cars, but that doesn't make them James Bond.

I don't think letting Mathis live is a "fan's running the franchise" move. Not when it follows the author's creation. (I'm pretty certain that Fleming wouldn't have appreciated Mathis' demise--certainly as it transpired.) A lot of us waited a long time to see a faithful version of Casino Royale and one of the highlights of that--for me anyway--was finally getting to see Rene Mathis team up with Bond. While it was given us in that film, the potential for Mathis being a European Leiter--like he is the novels--was unceremoniously ripped away in Quantum Of Solace. Again, I don't expect Mathis or Leiter to be in every 007 film, but it is nice when they return. And I don't understand why EON can't create a real good character to bump off as a way to show that Bond's allies have a short life expectancy. Why do they have to kill a long-established, much-beloved character that remains alive in the original series? I just don't like it--a lot.

[sorking]

Because a guy like Mathis who is not called Mathis is not Mathis. You can dress up all sorts of Englishmen in tuxedos and have them charm women, acquit themselves well in a fight, and drive nice cars, but that doesn't make them James Bond.

I think there's a significant difference between the lead character of the franchise and a tertiary character that most people coming out of the cinema describe as "That one with the Italian accent. Or was it French? Anyway, him." To suggest that replacing Mathis is like replacing Bond is exactly the kind of fan-only perspective I'm talking about.

I don't think letting Mathis live is a "fan's running the franchise" move. Not when it follows the author's creation. (I'm pretty certain that Fleming wouldn't have appreciated Mathis' demise--certainly as it transpired.) A lot of us waited a long time to see a faithful version of Casino Royale and one of the highlights of that--for me anyway--was finally getting to see Rene Mathis team up with Bond. While it was given us in that film, the potential for Mathis being a European Leiter--like he is the novels--was unceremoniously ripped away in Quantum Of Solace.

Which is what made it powerful, affecting drama. You can't deny the effect it had on an audience - every time I see the film, people gasp when his body his pulled from the boot. They're upset by his death. Which is as it should be.

The idea that the moment should have happened to a new character solely so Mathis could stay on some 'back in two film's time' list is sacrificing the dramatic quality of the rebooted series for the sake of a fan-fiction franchise that hasn't be written.

Again, I don't expect Mathis or Leiter to be in every 007 film, but it is nice when they return. And I don't understand why EON can't create a real good character to bump off as a way to show that Bond's allies have a short life expectancy. Why do they have to kill a long-established, much-beloved character that remains alive in the original series? I just don't like it--a lot.

He's not long-established to most people. To most he's just 'that guy from the Casino Royale movie'.

Still, I see what you're saying - you don't get it. I get it completely - how significant would Craig's 'more credible, more deadly' reboot be if, every time a Fleming-created friend showed up we'd already know his survival odds? How lame to know that, if Leiter got captured, there was literally NO way he'd be killed. How tedious to be aware that, if a different character is in the friendly-agent role usually reserved for Mathis or Leiter, then they're probably gonna be dog food.

What limp, mediocre drama that creates.

Bad enough that - unlike with the books - we have to know going in that James will always survive. However damaged, we know he lives. But now, thanks to a beautifully-crafted end to Mathis, that's not true for anyone else. And when Felix gets into trouble, he'll REALLY be in trouble. Someone points a gun at M? Could be game over.

I wouldn't give all that up - all the excitment, drama and danger in the films we've had and the films still to come - for the sake of a cameo character in two film's time.

[byline]

And I don't understand why EON can't create a real good character to bump off as a way to show that Bond's allies have a short life expectancy. Why do they have to kill a long-established, much-beloved character that remains alive in the original series? I just don't like it--a lot.

For me, that's like the security officer on every "Star Trek" episode. He wore a different color of uniform, so you knew he was dead meat. But none of the starring characters were ever really threatened, so there's no real sense of danger. The main characters are all invulnerable because, after all, they never die. So how dangerous is that, really? And, by extension to Bond, how dangerous is a spy's life, really? Not very, according to many of the Bond films I've seen. The danger seemed manufactured, but not terribly real.

However, when someone we care about dies, that's a whole different kettle of fish. Of course, filmmakers have to be careful with that device because, used too much, we in the audience don't care anymore because we don't want to take that emotional risk. But Vesper and Mathis were both part of that tragic arc, and as much as I liked them, I understood why it was necessary, from a narrative standpoint, that they die. It doesn't mean I wanted it to happen, but I did appreciate it on that level. And it makes me feel a greater sense of urgency on Bond's part, that maybe double-Os really do have a short life expectancy, and he's escaping that by a razor's edge, sometimes because of his own wits and ingenuity, and sometimes just through dumb luck.

Edited by byline, 20 December 2008 - 06:15 PM.

[Double-Oh Agent]

What about Kerim Bey and Quarrel? They were much-loved characters that appeared in one and two novels respectively, that died in the series and whose death had a big emotional impact. Whereas two other similar characters--Marc-Ange Draco and Tiger Tanaka survived their adventures. You can have danger and uncertainty over a character's living without killing off a much-loved recurring one who doesn't die in the novels. It's not that hard/impossible.

As for the Star Trek reference, the series had seven stars and obviously couldn't kill any one of them off so they had to create the red shirts to create that "danger". Bond, on the other hand, outside of his colleagues in the MI6 building, is predominantly a one-man team with some assistance from assigned allies, which may or may not include two recurring friends Felix Leiter and Rene Mathis. And of those non-Leiter/Mathis allies any one of them can survive or be killed on the mission depending on the author's preference.

[Colossus]

I would have accepted Marthis's death in QOS if it wasn't for him being wrongfuly shown as a traitor in CR, that was already a big screwup by Bond in CR so having another screwup felt excessively cold to me in the context, almost hilarious in the overkill of screwing a character. Also since they were aiming so much to make it like another FRWL, it felt like a replication of Kerim's demise only without the actual context of it in that movie, so it ended up being superfluous.

[sorking]

As for the Star Trek reference, the series had seven stars and obviously couldn't kill any one of them off so they had to create the red shirts to create that "danger".

Which resulted in a popular meme mocking that danger...because it's not remotely dangerous.

A cowardly show refuses to shake up the formula, a bold one encourages change. You've essentially made the point against your own argument - do we want Bond to be Trek, trapped by formula and fannish choices, or Buffy, where drama, surprise and impact rule?

[Professor Pi]

Mathis was great, and in the novels I think a more meaningful ally than Felix Leiter because it's Mathis who gives Bond the speech about surrounding yourself with people you love and going after the threat behind the threat. I was glad to see some of that speech resurrected for QoS, though it appears in the CR novel, and gives Bond his motive for the entire franchise series. But it's too short, and would have been better in CR giving it a great irony (Fleming meant communists were new enemies instead of Nazis, but today there's new enemies instead of Cold War opponents.)

Rewatching the end of CR, it occurs to me that it's Vesper who tells Le Chiffre about the 'tell', not Mathis. As for Le Chiffre saying "your friend Mathis is my friend Mathis", he's lying as part of the web White's organization trapped Vesper with. So Mathis is good all along. Plus, he's sort of a father figure to M's maternal figure.

As for Felix Leiter, even Fleming killed him off in the original draft of Live and Let Die, but one of his friends said he was too good a character to kill off, hence the loss of leg instead. So EON was faithful to Fleming in the LTK film.

But if each actor has his own franchise, Jake Wade should have been Felix Leiter anyway, what with all the other Brosnan Bond characters having new actors as well. In fact, the pre-title of GE takes place "9 years" earlier (i.e. 1986), thereby bypassing the whole Timothy Dalton era. That would have avoided the confusion of Joe Don Baker playing both a villain (Brad Whitaker) and an ally (Wade), though EON has screwed this up with the Blofeld character many times over.

[Quincy]

Fields was a good shock and integral to the story. Overall a good character and something not expected. I approve of her death.

Mathis not so much. He should have lived.

[Double-Oh Agent]

What about Kerim Bey and Quarrel? They were much-loved characters that appeared in one and two novels respectively, that died in the series and whose death had a big emotional impact. Whereas two other similar characters--Marc-Ange Draco and Tiger Tanaka survived their adventures. You can have danger and uncertainty over a character's living without killing off a much-loved recurring one who doesn't die in the novels. It's not that hard/impossible.

As for the Star Trek reference, the series had seven stars and obviously couldn't kill any one of them off so they had to create the red shirts to create that "danger".

Which resulted in a popular meme mocking that danger...because it's not remotely dangerous.

A cowardly show refuses to shake up the formula, a bold one encourages change. You've essentially made the point against your own argument - do we want Bond to be Trek, trapped by formula and fannish choices, or Buffy, where drama, surprise and impact rule?

TV and film are a little different. TV stars are under contract for a season(s) and are seen week after week after week. Characters almost always stay alive for entire run of the show unless the stars quit, their contracts aren't renewed, or they are fired. Film stars are largely signed by picture.

As for the Bond series being cowardly about not killing people off, look at my above post. Kerim Bey and Quarrel are killed as are several other allies whether much-beloved or not. How is that being cowardly? Marc-Ange Draco lives, Kerim Bey dies. Tiger Tanaka lives, Quarrel dies. Magda lives, Aki dies. In fact, if you look at the EON series, as many or more of Bond's allies die than live. (Paula Caplan, Tracy di Vicenzo, Shaun Campbell, Harold Strutter, Corinne Dufour, Vijay, Godfrey Tibbett, Chuck Lee, Saunders, Sharky, and Valentin Zukovsky just to name a few.) So you could make a case that it is more unusual to keep Bond's ally alive.

[sorking]

As for the Star Trek reference, the series had seven stars and obviously couldn't kill any one of them off so they had to create the red shirts to create that "danger".

Which resulted in a popular meme mocking that danger...because it's not remotely dangerous.

A cowardly show refuses to shake up the formula, a bold one encourages change. You've essentially made the point against your own argument - do we want Bond to be Trek, trapped by formula and fannish choices, or Buffy, where drama, surprise and impact rule?

TV and film are a little different. TV stars are under contract for a season(s) and are seen week after week after week. Characters almost always stay alive for entire run of the show unless the stars quit, their contracts aren't renewed, or they are fired. Film stars are largely signed by picture.

Sure.. But then I was only responding to your own Trek discussion. I didn't bring it up, just responded to your own use.

Not that the point differs. A cowardly film series does the same thing over and over, and holds adherence to convention more important that dramatic usefulness.

As you've read this thread, you already know that I consider the recasting issue to be precisely one of the reasons why the need to cling to a character name is massively unimportant.

As for the Bond series being cowardly about not killing people off, look at my above post. Kerim Bey and Quarrel are killed as are several other allies whether much-beloved or not. How is that being cowardly? Marc-Ange Draco lives, Kerim Bey dies. Tiger Tanaka lives, Quarrel dies. Magda lives, Aki dies. In fact, if you look at the EON series, as many or more of Bond's allies die than live. (Paula Caplan, Tracy di Vicenzo, Shaun Campbell, Harold Strutter, Corinne Dufour, Vijay, Godfrey Tibbett, Chuck Lee, Saunders, Sharky, and Valentin Zukovsky just to name a few.) So you could make a case that it is more unusual to keep Bond's ally alive.

Just as you could make a case that it's unusual to kill off long-running characters as opposed to bog-standard sacrificial lambs. (Indeed, Zukovsky's death mattered more than a lot that went before - to audiences I saw the TWINE with, at least - precisely because he wasn't created to die.)

Listing characters who died previously and using it as proof that a few characters should retain an invulnerability bubble around them ignores the points already suggested. You've said that you don't see why it's dramatically useful or important. Fair enough. Some people do. And those people include the filmmakers. I've made a lot of suggestions as why this may be the case. But I assume you've read those and don't feel they're enough - so I won't simply quote them and make the same point again. You're not required to address everything.

So, assuming you've taken all those points on board, here's another one: They've made more Bond films than Bond books. If Fleming had died before OHMSS you'd no doubt feel that the makers shouldn't allow Bond to marry. But we're so far beyond that basic form of adaptation now. QoS ain't a Fleming story.

This one point is not the entirety of the debate. But I think it's all covered in the thread. If there's a single real-world, non-fannish reason to make a few tertiary characters invulnerable, I've not heard it.

Edited by sorking, 24 December 2008 - 09:22 PM.

[001carus]

Both deaths were important to the development of James Bond, and I don't think it should really matter if Fleming kept the character or not. QOS tells a different story to the books, and therefore doesn't need to keep with the storylines (but simply keep to the style and character features of the books). No one ever complained when Two Face died in The Dark Knight, or when The Joker died in Batman 1989. It's a story based change set for the purpose of the film.

Besides, we shouldn't be saving Mathis up simply so he can appear in the next film. I think it was Christopher Nolan who said one shouldn't create a film and hold back on things with the intent of a sequel. One should simply make the best movie you can make at the time. I think that's true, and it shows in the killing of Mathis. It also shows in TDK, despite the fact that as far as I can see, the 3rd Batman film is sort of screwed now hehe.

[Willowhugger]

I'll give you that Leiter shouldn't have been so jovial at the end of Licence To Kill, but he shouldn't have died either. I think they got that part with his injuries right.

To be fair, I think Felix is delighted as Hell that Bond tracked down and murdered Sanchez in a horrible fashion. It's a laugh that's about vengeance and the joy that it brings. I actually liked his happiness because it underlighted that Felix, like Bond, is pretty damn vicious when it comes to revenge.

LTK is the opposite of QOS. Vengeance, yeah, REALLY DOES FEEL GOOD.

At least for Felix.