137 replies to this topic

[The*SPY*]

I thought it was appropriate for Camille to have made her comment about "how you treat your friends", and Bonds response. I'm sure many people in the audience who are not so in tune with the Bond world, would have thought the same thing and it helps to explain it.

As for a more disturbing scene, I have two. It stayed with me long after the movie how Bond leaves Greene in the middle of the desert with a can of motor oil. While I do find it amusing, it seems rather brutish. The other scene is in LTK when Bond throws the suitcase of money to Killifer as he tries to hold onto the rope over the shark tank. Always struck me odd for what I had grown up to know as a "gentleman spy".

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

The other scene is in LTK when Bond throws the suitcase of money to Killifer as he tries to hold onto the rope over the shark tank. Always struck me odd for what I had grown up to know as a "gentleman spy".

Yes, totally agree, as I said earlier, LTK have several gorish scenes, pretty unsuitables for Bond, IMO (I guess they were trying to compete with the likes of Rambo, on that matter).

[sharpshooter]

It’s one of my favourite moments from the film, and one of the best moments from the series. Fleming would be proud.

[HildebrandRarity]

The other scene is in LTK when Bond throws the suitcase of money to Killifer as he tries to hold onto the rope over the shark tank. Always struck me odd for what I had grown up to know as a "gentleman spy".

Yes, totally agree, as I said earlier, LTK have several gorish scenes, pretty unsuitables for Bond, IMO (I guess they were trying to compete with the likes of Rambo, on that matter).

Um, how is that any different than MooreBond kicking a helpless Locque's Mercedes over the edge of the cliff and seeing his mangled and twisted corpse getting spewed out over the rocks...Or 'blowing up' Mr Big/Kananga to be splattered all over the pool...or shooting Stromberg directly in the balls first?

[tdalton]

It’s one of my favourite moments from the film, and one of the best moments from the series. Fleming would be proud.

It's one of my favorite scenes as well, and I thought it was, with the possible exception of the shootout at the opera, one of the best scenes of not only the entire film, but of the entire franchise as well.

[Byron]

It was indeed a disturbing scene, and even if Bond wanted to make it look like a robbery, there was no need to toss the body into a dumpster. Totally out of character for Bond.
Bill

I totally agree with MkB and Bill. Very poor dialogue and the subsequent dumping of the body made Craig's Bond look like a blue collar thug even more.

Another example of how the entire QOS production seems extremely rushed, with a poor script and editing. The producers were fast running out of time to complete this picture and it shows.

I'm all for a 3 year gap if the quality of the final film is an improvement over a rather ad hoc, hastily thrown together QOS.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

The other scene is in LTK when Bond throws the suitcase of money to Killifer as he tries to hold onto the rope over the shark tank. Always struck me odd for what I had grown up to know as a "gentleman spy".

Yes, totally agree, as I said earlier, LTK have several gorish scenes, pretty unsuitables for Bond, IMO (I guess they were trying to compete with the likes of Rambo, on that matter).

Um, how is that any different than MooreBond kicking a helpless Locque's Mercedes over the edge of the cliff and seeing his mangled and twisted corpse getting spewed out over the rocks...Or 'blowing up' Mr Big/Kananga to be splattered all over the pool...or shooting Stromberg directly in the balls first?

The answer it's pretty simple... All the scenes from Moore's Bond movies, that you mentioned weren't gore-like. I mean, Loque's corpse didn't get a close up, and Kananga's death were fantasy spoof at best, but they weren't trying to be realistically bloody, like in LTK.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 29 December 2008 - 05:46 AM.

[Tarl_Cabot]

It was indeed a disturbing scene, and even if Bond wanted to make it look like a robbery, there was no need to toss the body into a dumpster. Totally out of character for Bond.

Tarl_Cabot, I respectfully take issue with your statement that Bond is probably an atheist. Just check this own site at http://commanderbond.net/article/4894

Bill

Fair enough but I don't think he's burdended by christian issues.

[HildebrandRarity]

It was indeed a disturbing scene, and even if Bond wanted to make it look like a robbery, there was no need to toss the body into a dumpster. Totally out of character for Bond.
Bill

I totally agree with MkB and Bill. Very poor dialogue and the subsequent dumping of the body made Craig's Bond look like a blue collar thug even more.

I'm afraid that's a minority opinion.

The majority don't share your view, Byron. On the contrary, they think it's shocking in a good way with dialogue and acting which shows a more human FlemingBond.

[Byron]

It was indeed a disturbing scene, and even if Bond wanted to make it look like a robbery, there was no need to toss the body into a dumpster. Totally out of character for Bond.
Bill

I totally agree with MkB and Bill. Very poor dialogue and the subsequent dumping of the body made Craig's Bond look like a blue collar thug even more.

I'm afraid that's a minority opinion.

The majority don't share your view, Byron. On the contrary, they think it's shocking in a good way with dialogue and acting which shows a more human FlemingBond.

Minority opinion or not - i simply didn't like or enjoy anything about this scene.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

It was indeed a disturbing scene, and even if Bond wanted to make it look like a robbery, there was no need to toss the body into a dumpster. Totally out of character for Bond.
Bill

I totally agree with MkB and Bill. Very poor dialogue and the subsequent dumping of the body made Craig's Bond look like a blue collar thug even more.

I'm afraid that's a minority opinion.

The majority don't share your view, Byron. On the contrary, they think it's shocking in a good way with dialogue and acting which shows a more human FlemingBond.

I don't think is out of characther (although, I feel it's just on the edge), and it's a powerful scene, overall.

But dumping Mathis's corpse in the trash, definitely doesn't show a 'more human FlemingBond', what it really display it's quite the opposite, it shows a coldhearted professional Bond (unlike the one from most of CR).

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 29 December 2008 - 06:05 AM.

[Sniperscope]

In agreement with most of the posters above.
It was an amazing sequence which juxtaposed so dramatically with the moving scene when Mathis is dying. I couldn't help but wonder if the dumpster scene was some kind of echo of the car boot scene from CR. Perhaps that's why Mathis would understand... after all he was not below such tricks himself.
It seems we are quite happy to see the bodies of random thugs treated in a cavalier fashion in CR but when it's a main character we admire and emotionally invest in some people get shocked... QoS had a remarkably mature attitude to cinematic depictions of violence: unique for a Bond film. There has always been a vicarious aspect to action films: violence is frequently glorified and stylised to the point where we forget that these characters are supposed to be actual people. QoS challenges our expectations and, like any worthwhile film, takes us out of our comfort zone.

Edited by Sniperscope, 29 December 2008 - 10:27 AM.

[HildebrandRarity]

The majority don't share your view, Byron. On the contrary, they think it's shocking in a good way with dialogue and acting which shows a more human FlemingBond.

But dumping Mathis's corpse in the trash, definitely doesn't show a 'more human FlemingBond', what it really display it's quite the opposite, it shows a coldhearted professional Bond (unlike the one from most of CR).

I meant the dialogue exchange and Craig's facial expressions during and after the death scene shows a more human and gentle side of Bond, before he dumps the body in the trash container.

There's more to Craig's acting than merely the final walk-over to the dumpster. Why are people missing the nuanced and quite brilliant acting by DC here? And even after he's placed Mathis there, you can clearly see the meloncholy on Bond's face, can't you?

And, I like this post:

It was an amazing sequence which juxtaposed so dramatically with the moving scene when Mathis is dying.

There has always been a vicarious aspect to action films: violence is frequently glorified and stylised to the point where we forget that these characters are supposed to be actual people. QoS challenges our expectations and, like any worthwhile film, takes us out of our comfort zone.

[baerrtt]

The scene is very in character for Bond and reminds us that the job these men and women do(in the real world) isn't some cartoonish wonderland .

Bond is putting the mission first above the welfare of a dead(read:dead) friend(which is what he continues to correctly do when he doesn't kill Yusef or Greene in the film's final moments). That is more realistic than the 'personal vendetta' portrayals of Bond that have persisted since the end of Dalton's tenure. That angle was conceived by producers as a way to 'humanise' the character when ironically, in QOS, it's his refusal to give into impulses that are selfish is what makes him human and even more heroic in a way.

In one moment Bond realises that his ultimate flaw has been assuming what murdered friends/lovers want('The dead don't care about vengeance'. 'He wouldn't mind') when he realises that it's only what he wants (Camille's evident obsession helps this).

The Craig era of Bond so far has taken aim at the fact that intelligence/the military/governments have dropped the ball in saving/protecting lives post 9-11 because of a maelstrom of personal interests and personal vendettas overriding the actual brief. Bond angers at the former and finally learns that the latter ultimatley is no better.

Edited by baerrtt, 29 December 2008 - 03:19 PM.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

Yeah, disgusting! Bond should've taken the money, gone to the nearest Tom Ford and then when Camille gives him a look as he returns to the car with three boxed (and clearly brand labeled) shirts he says --Mathis left me these in his will ---then bows his head solemnly for a moment.

Audience goes crazy.

DC3 scene.

[Professor Pi]

I'm still not sure what I think about this scene. On the one hand, there's the parallel with the African bodies in CR dumped in a trunk, the line "I don't think the dead care about vengeance," and Bond's comments to M at the end where he has "no regrets," and neither does she concurring, "that would be unprofessional." There's also that poignant scene where Bond holds Mathis as he dies in his arms. And also Camille's comments, though she still continues on with her vendetta--and with Bond's help too.

Though there are many scenes in Bond films that should be more disturbing--Bond throwing 006/Janus to his death "for me", the "you earned it, you keep it" scene in LTK, to say nothing of the countless others who die in climactic battles--they don't bother me that much. Even the de-pressurization chamber and whip scenes in LTK because they show that the bad guy is a bad man.

Does the dumpster scene portray Bond as a bad man? What else is he to do with Mathis' body?

As for Bond tossing the motor oil to Greene, I thought that was very Fleming. It called to mind the short story Octopussy where he gives a man a day to "get his affairs in order", a fact which the film Octopussy character thanks him for. Plus, there's poetic justice to Bond stranding Greene in the desert after the drought Greene has created.

[HildebrandRarity]

Yeah, disgusting! Bond should've taken the money, gone to the nearest Tom Ford...

---------

....then bows his head solemnly for a moment.

LOL

Well, the thread-starter obviously feels that bowing one's head - as good 'ole George does in OHMSS - is the only way to display grief when someone close gets fatally shot.

What the thread-starter doesn't realize is that DC can actually act, allowing the writers to tread nicely beyond the Bond-Bows-His-Head-Solemnly moment!

[Daddy Bond]

It was indeed a disturbing scene, and even if Bond wanted to make it look like a robbery, there was no need to toss the body into a dumpster. Totally out of character for Bond.

Tarl_Cabot, I respectfully take issue with your statement that Bond is probably an atheist. Just check this own site at http://commanderbond.net/article/4894

Bill

Fair enough but I don't think he's burdended by christian issues.

Just to clarify a few things, true Christianity is not a heavy burden, it is joyful, liberating reality. As Jesus said, "My yoke is easy and My burden is light."

Sin , however, is presented in the Bible as a burden, a slavemaster, deception, darkness, that has nothing to offer (ultimately) but hopelessness.

With that said, I would certainly not label Bond as Christian. However, it is absolutely necessary for Bond to function within a worldview that views certain things as wrong and right. Bond could not even exist without a framework that views certain things as good/right and others as wrong/evil. Absolute reality, truth, right and wrong, MUST ultimately exist, or Bond would make absolutely no sense. Why fight the bad guys? What makes the bad guys bad? Why is it wrong to murder, steal, etc.? Complete moral ambiguity (which ultimately has no basis for calling anything right or wrong) would destroy the world of Bond. Fleming understood this. I'm not saying Bond is a completely moral man, however, there IS a morality to much of what he does. If there were not, Bond and the need for Bond would cease to exist - completely.

And, as a Christian, who knows the Bible very well, I see no biblical or moral objection (properly understood) to doing what Bond did to Mathis' body. So, I can see no moral objections to Bond's decision at that point - to put Mathis' body in the dumpster. It makes sense, for many of the reasons others have already pointed out. No burdens from a Christian perspective whatsoever. A dead body is a dead body. The soul has left the body. Mathis would either be in heaven or hell and couldn't look back on what Bond was doing anyway.

As a matter of fact, it was Camille who misunderstood what Bond was doing. So too, others (who have seen the movie), seem to have shared Camille's misunderstanding, something Bond briefly explains, but his reasoning is something which he saw, at the time, as practical and reasonable. As a matter of fact, in an odd way, the way Bond places Mathis in the dumbster is, in my opinion, with sadness, yet determined practicality, a greater commitment to the mission at hand.

[HildebrandRarity]

It was indeed a disturbing scene, and even if Bond wanted to make it look like a robbery, there was no need to toss the body into a dumpster. Totally out of character for Bond.

Tarl_Cabot, I respectfully take issue with your statement that Bond is probably an atheist. Just check this own site at http://commanderbond.net/article/4894

Bill

Fair enough but I don't think he's burdended by christian issues.

And, as a Christian, who knows the Bible very well, I see no biblical or moral objection (properly understood) to doing what Bond did to Mathis' body.

A dead body is a dead body. The soul has left the body. Mathis would either be in heaven or hell and couldn't look back on what Bond was doing anyway.

I thought he would neither be in Heaven nor Hell. I thought that happens on Judgement Day.



PS

Daddy, religion/politics and CBn.net do not make good bed fellows...but I think you already know that from your considerable experience here.

[YOLT]

There have been a few Bond scenes over the years that have been perplexing, confusing, embarrassing, or just inane, but ... the worst ... scene ever in a Bond movie...

Well it was more shocking to see Lazenby cleaned away by the blood in the gunbarell scene. That also never happened. The producers just knew something

The worst single scene ever in a Bond movie is when Lazenby turns to the camera and says "This never happened to the other fella..."

Junk!

The worst and most cringe-worthy of the in-joke one liners and the single worst moment ever in a Bond movie!!!

Ah yes. He had too manyyy off-sides

It was indeed a disturbing scene, and even if Bond wanted to make it look like a robbery, there was no need to toss the body into a dumpster. Totally out of character for Bond.

Tarl_Cabot, I respectfully take issue with your statement that Bond is probably an atheist. Just check this own site at http://commanderbond.net/article/4894

Bill

Fair enough but I don't think he's burdended by christian issues.

Just to clarify a few things, true Christianity is not a heavy burden, it is joyful, liberating reality. As Jesus said, "My yoke is easy and My burden is light."

Sin , however, is presented in the Bible as a burden, a slavemaster, deception, darkness, that has nothing to offer (ultimately) but hopelessness.

With that said, I would certainly not label Bond as Christian. However, it is absolutely necessary for Bond to function within a worldview that views certain things as wrong and right. Bond could not even exist without a framework that views certain things as good/right and others as wrong/evil. Absolute reality, truth, right and wrong, MUST ultimately exist, or Bond would make absolutely no sense. Why fight the bad guys? What makes the bad guys bad? Why is it wrong to murder, steal, etc.? Complete moral ambiguity (which ultimately has no basis for calling anything right or wrong) would destroy the world of Bond. Fleming understood this. I'm not saying Bond is a completely moral man, however, there IS a morality to much of what he does. If there were not, Bond and the need for Bond would cease to exist - completely.

And, as a Christian, who knows the Bible very well, I see no biblical or moral objection (properly understood) to doing what Bond did to Mathis' body. So, I can see no moral objections to Bond's decision at that point - to put Mathis' body in the dumpster. It makes sense, for many of the reasons others have already pointed out. No burdens from a Christian perspective whatsoever. A dead body is a dead body. The soul has left the body. Mathis would either be in heaven or hell and couldn't look back on what Bond was doing anyway.

As a matter of fact, it was Camille who misunderstood what Bond was doing. So too, others (who have seen the movie), seem to have shared Camille's misunderstanding, something Bond briefly explains, but his reasoning is something which he saw, at the time, as practical and reasonable. As a matter of fact, in an odd way, the way Bond places Mathis in the dumbster is, in my opinion, with sadness, yet determined practicality, a greater commitment to the mission at hand.

Well if we are going to look at who has played 007 I can say that he is agnostic and a bit social democrat. I just cant see Bond being portrayed by Bruce Willis or Mr. Terminator.

[Daddy Bond]

It was indeed a disturbing scene, and even if Bond wanted to make it look like a robbery, there was no need to toss the body into a dumpster. Totally out of character for Bond.

Tarl_Cabot, I respectfully take issue with your statement that Bond is probably an atheist. Just check this own site at http://commanderbond.net/article/4894

Bill

Fair enough but I don't think he's burdended by christian issues.

And, as a Christian, who knows the Bible very well, I see no biblical or moral objection (properly understood) to doing what Bond did to Mathis' body.

A dead body is a dead body. The soul has left the body. Mathis would either be in heaven or hell and couldn't look back on what Bond was doing anyway.

I thought he would neither be in Heaven nor Hell. I thought that happens on Judgement Day.



PS

Daddy, religion/politics and CBn.net do not make good bed fellows...but I think you already know that from your considerable experience here.

Thank you for your input. I was addressing the wrong assumption that someone raised that Christianity would have created some sort of moral burden for Bond in deciding what to do with Mathis' body, which it would not.

Oh, and as a quick note, no, souls do not wait for Judgement Day to go to either heaven or hell, but go immediately either to heaven or hell and are reunited with their resurrected bodies at judgment (on Judgement Day) and are then returned back (soul and body) to heaven or hell (from whence their soul came) after final judgement on Judgement Day.


Another wrote:

"Well if we are going to look at who has played 007 I can say that he is agnostic and a bit social democrat. I just cant see Bond being portrayed by Bruce Willis or Mr. Terminator."

Yes, I would agree. And no, it would be horrible if either Bruce or Arnold played Bond.

Neither Bruce nor Arnold would have thought to dispose of Mathis' body as Bond did. Hey, they probably would have left Mathis for dead without spending time with a dying Mathis as Bond did.

[dodge]

Yea, I know how you feel, many people at theater started to murmur and so, but like Tarl_Cabot said, Bond had a reason, and Mathis died happy for being in peace with 007.

Yes, it's not every man who gets to die in CraigBond's arms...though I still suspect that Mathis would have rather been back in bed with his honey.

[HildebrandRarity]

Yes, it's not every man who gets to die in CraigBond's arms...though I still suspect that Mathis would have rather been back in bed with his honey.

I dunno 'bout that. He seemed rather bored with Gemma. Didn't like the fact that she suggested he (Mathis) should thank Bond for providing the villa as compensation for imprisonment and torture.

I actually strongly think he lusted for adventure moreso than he did his honey.

I think he relished the idea of going out on a secret mission and wasn't keen on domestic life, rubbing tanning lotion on a woman, that sort of thing.

I feel he died "better" than he imagined he would/could have, given the profession he'd decided to pursue when he was young.

WHAT BETTER WAY TO DIE THAN IN THE MIGHTY ARMS OF CRAIgBOND, eh?



Hey, fancy that! We came up with the new spy movie title to be directed by Tarantino and staring Brosnan:

"What Better Way To Die?"

[00Twelve]

The other scene is in LTK when Bond throws the suitcase of money to Killifer as he tries to hold onto the rope over the shark tank. Always struck me odd for what I had grown up to know as a "gentleman spy".

Yes, totally agree, as I said earlier, LTK have several gorish scenes, pretty unsuitables for Bond, IMO (I guess they were trying to compete with the likes of Rambo, on that matter).

I've got to disagree, only because I don't see Bond as so much of a "gentleman spy." The Killifer scene, like the Leiter maiming and shark attack in general, is lifted straight from LALD. Only in the novel, Bond doesn't throw a suitcase of money at the bad guy responsible for feeding Leiter to the shark-- In the book, the guy is hanging by his hands at the edge of the trapdoor and Bond, in a momentary fit of rage, kicks him in the face, twice, and sends him to the same gory death.

It's as fundamentally "Bond" as it gets.

[Lazenby]

Well, the thread-starter obviously feels that bowing one's head - as good 'ole George does in OHMSS - is the only way to display grief when someone close gets fatally shot.

What the thread-starter doesn't realize is that DC can actually act, allowing the writers to tread nicely beyond the Bond-Bows-His-Head-Solemnly moment!


[/quote]

Look, I appreciate quality acting like anyone else does, I just feel that this was Bond just crossing over that line of humanity. When I heard that DC was being considered for CR, I rented a few of his movies and was entirely excited about the possibility. I think he is a great actor, and by far, the best to ever play the role.

Oddly enough, in reading the threads that were in favor of the scene, highlighting the nuisances that others of us have missed, I feel that the director and producers had no rhyme or reason for what they did in the scene. The posts made make a lot of sense, but I think you guys are giving EON and Forster too much credit. They rushed this one my friends

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

The other scene is in LTK when Bond throws the suitcase of money to Killifer as he tries to hold onto the rope over the shark tank. Always struck me odd for what I had grown up to know as a "gentleman spy".

Yes, totally agree, as I said earlier, LTK have several gorish scenes, pretty unsuitables for Bond, IMO (I guess they were trying to compete with the likes of Rambo, on that matter).

I've got to disagree, only because I don't see Bond as so much of a "gentleman spy." The Killifer scene, like the Leiter maiming and shark attack in general, is lifted straight from LALD. Only in the novel, Bond doesn't throw a suitcase of money at the bad guy responsible for feeding Leiter to the shark-- In the book, the guy is hanging by his hands at the edge of the trapdoor and Bond, in a momentary fit of rage, kicks him in the face, twice, and sends him to the same gory death.

It's as fundamentally "Bond" as it gets.

I don't going to discuss with you about whether Bond is 'gentleman spy' or not, that gives material for another entire thread....

But I think you're confusing realistic and justified violence in a film like the killing of Dryden's contact in CR (a faithful reflection of the type of action from the novels), with the gratuitous and rather unintentionally funny gore moments from LTK.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

The scene is very in character for Bond and reminds us that the job these men and women do(in the real world) isn't some cartoonish wonderland .

Bond is putting the mission first above the welfare of a dead(read:dead) friend(which is what he continues to correctly do when he doesn't kill Yusef or Greene in the film's final moments). That is more realistic than the 'personal vendetta' portrayals of Bond that have persisted since the end of Dalton's tenure. That angle was conceived by producers as a way to 'humanise' the character when ironically, in QOS, it's his refusal to give into impulses that are selfish is what makes him human and even more heroic in a way.

In one moment Bond realises that his ultimate flaw has been assuming what murdered friends/lovers want('The dead don't care about vengeance'. 'He wouldn't mind') when he realises that it's only what he wants (Camille's evident obsession helps this).

The Craig era of Bond so far has taken aim at the fact that intelligence/the military/governments have dropped the ball in saving/protecting lives post 9-11 because of a maelstrom of personal interests and personal vendettas overriding the actual brief. Bond angers at the former and finally learns that the latter ultimatley is no better.

Overall, I agree with your interesting view, my only disagreement is that I believe that Bond's refusal to give into impulses that are selfish is what makes him more heroic, but definitely not more human.

He shows that he's a consummated professional and a 'wonderful machine'. And being cold and less human (hence, less selfish) is a good thing in OO7's job.

[DaveBond21]

I liked it. I got it. These men are spies. They understand each other. They understand they live in a world of constant danger and can't afford a moment of sentimentality for their targets, or themselves. They both accept they will probably end up dead in a dumpster somewhere in South America and have no problems with it. To them, it would be a "spies death."

Bond needs to get on. He needs to get himself out of danger and back on the mission and needs to take whatever will help him. Mathis would understand, and "he wouldn't mind." That line that makes the scene work (for me at least). I actually find this one of best, ballsiest, and smartest scenes in the Bond film canon, and VERY Fleming.

Exactly. And they clearly showed that Bond wasn't exactly happy about Mathis dying.

[baerrtt]

The scene is very in character for Bond and reminds us that the job these men and women do(in the real world) isn't some cartoonish wonderland .

Bond is putting the mission first above the welfare of a dead(read:dead) friend(which is what he continues to correctly do when he doesn't kill Yusef or Greene in the film's final moments). That is more realistic than the 'personal vendetta' portrayals of Bond that have persisted since the end of Dalton's tenure. That angle was conceived by producers as a way to 'humanise' the character when ironically, in QOS, it's his refusal to give into impulses that are selfish is what makes him human and even more heroic in a way.

In one moment Bond realises that his ultimate flaw has been assuming what murdered friends/lovers want('The dead don't care about vengeance'. 'He wouldn't mind') when he realises that it's only what he wants (Camille's evident obsession helps this).

The Craig era of Bond so far has taken aim at the fact that intelligence/the military/governments have dropped the ball in saving/protecting lives post 9-11 because of a maelstrom of personal interests and personal vendettas overriding the actual brief. Bond angers at the former and finally learns that the latter ultimatley is no better.

Overall, I agree with your interesting view, my only disagreement is that I believe that Bond's refusal to give into impulses that are selfish is what makes him more heroic, but definitely not more human.

He shows that he's a consummated professional and a 'wonderful machine'. And being cold and less human (hence, less selfish) is a good thing in OO7's job.

The 'human' observation came from the fact that from LTK onwards (particularly LTK itself) I get the impression that the production team thought that if they 'personalised' Bond's missions more the character would not be seen (or perceived) as the cold bastard model of yesteryear which they probably assumed was one of many possible reasons the franchise's box office numbers were declining. 'Oh look Bond actually gets emotional for someone else' they hope jaded, longtime viewers would think.

IMO if Bond looked more human in his reactions as opposed to Connery's subtle underplaying the character would appear more conventionally heroic (basically what started to pass for screen action heroes in the late 80s-90s such as John Mcclane, Indiana Jones, Martin Riggs etc). LTK basically tries to give justification for Bond doing what he does other than his boss telling him to do it all the time.

QOS doesn't delete the 'human' element (Craig's Bond's face during the scene with Mathis is a vital clue to those who believe he discarded a body of a friend coldly) but leads to the moral purpose that revenge shouldn't ideally be a normal human response or contemplation. And especially not in situations that the film presents.

In a way it justifies why Bond is more effective 'machine-like'.

[Mr. Blofeld]

It seems we are quite happy to see the bodies of random thugs treated in a cavalier fashion in CR but when it's a main character we admire and emotionally invest in some people get shocked... QoS had a remarkably mature attitude to cinematic depictions of violence: unique for a Bond film. There has always been a vicarious aspect to action films: violence is frequently glorified and stylised to the point where we forget that these characters are supposed to be actual people. QoS challenges our expectations and, like any worthwhile film, takes us out of our comfort zone.

I just want to respond to this. The thought that these are actual people, instead of nameless little dots to be blotted out of the world, is the point that Fleming was trying to make; this is the whole purpose behind his continued mentionings of "Cowboys and Indians" in the novels, as well as the sudden death of Tracy in OHMSS, which Blofeld in the book immediately following refers to as a surgical procedure, and so we see, almost, a mirror image of Bond, and who he could have become had he not been humanized by Fleming.

This is the point that the later films apparently did not take to heart, as we see in the "massive army climaxes" of TB, YOLT, DAF, TSWLM, MR, and the multiple incidents of Brosnan shooting down scores of soldiers and goons during his era, particularly in GE. Had the Bond of that film committed everything he did in the Bond world of Craig's era, he'd probably be in jail for 30 to life for malicious destruction of both public and private property and the mass murder of hundreds of Russian cadets and military scientists during his mission.

This, I think, is why the Mathis scene is so disturbing for some: The Bond series has finally learnt the value of human life, but certain fans simply do not wish to listen.