Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

SPOILERS: The most disturbing scene in a Bond movie. EVER!


137 replies to this topic

#61 dogmanstar

dogmanstar

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 446 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 30 December 2008 - 11:25 PM

Eloquently said, Mr. Blofeld. Well said.

#62 Sniperscope

Sniperscope

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 294 posts

Posted 31 December 2008 - 12:23 AM

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.

Wel said Mr Blofeld - you have eloquently expanded upon the point I was making. This is where Forster, Haggis and Craig have introduced an entirely unique sensibility to the Bond franchise that is, as you say, more in line with Fleming's vision. It will be fascinating to see where Bond 23 takes us...

Edited by Sniperscope, 31 December 2008 - 12:24 AM.


#63 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 31 December 2008 - 01:25 AM

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.


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.


This is where Forster, Haggis and Craig have introduced an entirely unique sensibility to the Bond franchise that is, as you say, more in line with Fleming's vision. It will be fascinating to see where Bond 23 takes us...


Lovely stuff, and in a thread designed to 'dump' on the movie.

:(

#64 byline

byline

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 31 December 2008 - 05:28 PM

Lovely stuff, and in a thread designed to 'dump' on the movie.

:(

Snippage only to save space; every point is eloquently made, and I'm very much in agreement with both Sniperscope and Mr. Blofeld.

#65 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 31 December 2008 - 09:36 PM

Thanks, everybody! :(

#66 Double-Oh Agent

Double-Oh Agent

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4325 posts

Posted 03 January 2009 - 09:13 AM

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.

I agree Byron. This scene gets two :( :) from me. About the only thing I was fine with was Bond taking Mathis' money which made sense because he could use the cash and as he said Mathis wouldn't care.

What didn't I like?

1) Mathis shouldn't have died. It's a completely wasted death on a great character who was given next to nothing to do in QOS and is an un-Fleming death at that. Mathis is one of Bond's three closest friends and survived Fleming's tenure and still lives on in the novel series. He is the European Felix Leiter. He deserved a better fate. Besides, if Fleming had wanted to kill off Mathis, surely he would have devised a bigger, better, and more emotional death than this. Just look at what nearly happened to Leiter in the novel Live And Let Die and compare. The LALD near-death is much better.

2) It's a completely stupid way for Mathis to die. Two worthless crooked cops who get surprised that Mathis is alive and start firing blindly and hit Mathis in the back but somehow miss Bond even when he drops Mathis. Bah!

3) The stupid codename talk. It made no sense in the scene and extremely superfluous.

4) Maybe it's because I so detest the scene, but I didn't like/buy the Mathis/Bond talk during the death scene either. It was too sappy for me. (It's like, "I'm dying, but all I can think of is that you need to forgive Vesper." Suddenly, the Bond series has become the Lifetime Channel. ;) )

5) Dumping Mathis' body in the dumpster. COMPLETELY un-Bondian and un-Fleming. While it's true that Mathis may not have cared that his dead body was treated that way, there is NO WAY that Bond would treat a friend like that under any circumstances. Plus, in the film, it made absolutely no sense to do that. I don't buy the argument that he did it to throw off the crooked Bolivian cops. No thugs or robbers would discard a victim's body like that. They would just leave him in the street. Besides, the Bolivian cops already knew he was in Bond's vehicle so they wouldn't have been confused at all. If Bond wasn't at the scene, then he obviously did the deed, particularly since Mathis was in the dumpster and without a gun. It would have made MUCH more sense and been believable had he propped Mathis up AGAINST the dumpster and given him the gun that he used to shoot the motorcycle cops. That would have bought him more time making the crooked cops question whether Bond had ever gotten in the car at all and if Mathis had revived enough to drive away in the first place before shooting the cops.

6) I also don't buy the time element leading up to this scene. Bond leaves Mathis talking to the colonel while he goes up to see Greene. Then five minutes later (or less) Bond leaves the party with Camille and gets into his car that just so happens to be parked right out in front of the entrance. How and when did Mathis get beaten to near death in that five minutes or so time frame?

No, this scene is a terrible, terrible scene. Probably my least favorite of the series. :)

#67 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 04 January 2009 - 03:53 AM

2) It's a completely stupid way for Mathis to die. Two worthless crooked cops who get surprised that Mathis is alive and start firing blindly and hit Mathis in the back but somehow miss Bond even when he drops Mathis. Bah!


In order to dislike something it helps to understand what's happening, and it appears you do not. The cops didnt fire blindly, they purposely shot Mathis in the back. The intent was to kill him, and not hit Bond. Then they could arrest Bond for the murder of Mathis.

#68 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 04 January 2009 - 04:23 AM

2) It's a completely stupid way for Mathis to die. Two worthless crooked cops who get surprised that Mathis is alive and start firing blindly and hit Mathis in the back but somehow miss Bond even when he drops Mathis. Bah!


In order to dislike something it helps to understand what's happening, and it appears you do not. The cops didnt fire blindly, they purposely shot Mathis in the back. The intent was to kill him, and not hit Bond. Then they could arrest Bond for the murder of Mathis.


LOL!

Brilliant, Jimmy! Brilliant. :(

Leave it to a Texan to lay down the law!

:)

#69 Sniperscope

Sniperscope

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 294 posts

Posted 04 January 2009 - 04:36 AM

3) The stupid codename talk. It made no sense in the scene and extremely superfluous.

It wasn't at all stupid if you actually think a bit about it. I thought this was a very interesting aspect to the scene. It can be taken several ways - at death what do Mathis and Bond really know about each other? Or It could also refer to Bond himself (which is perhaps the topic for another thread...): do we really "you know my name"?

2) It's a completely stupid way for Mathis to die. Two worthless crooked cops who get surprised that Mathis is alive and start firing blindly and hit Mathis in the back but somehow miss Bond even when he drops Mathis. Bah!


In order to dislike something it helps to understand what's happening, and it appears you do not. The cops didnt fire blindly, they purposely shot Mathis in the back. The intent was to kill him, and not hit Bond. Then they could arrest Bond for the murder of Mathis.

Well said JimmyBond!! That is exactly what transpired in the scene. As I've said in other forums QoS is a rare and subtle creature. It seems you either get it or you don't.

Edited by Sniperscope, 04 January 2009 - 04:39 AM.


#70 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 04 January 2009 - 04:52 AM

6) I also don't buy the time element leading up to this scene. Bond leaves Mathis talking to the colonel while he goes up to see Greene. Then five minutes later (or less) Bond leaves the party with Camille and gets into his car that just so happens to be parked right out in front of the entrance. How and when did Mathis get beaten to near death in that five minutes or so time frame?


O for heavens sake!

How long does it take for 4 or 5 healthy and corrupt cops to nearly beat an old man to death?

I'm sure you've seen the videos of real pistol-whippings/cop beatings on tv.

I imagine it takes no more than 3 minutes for 5 bad :( to beat the living :) out of a 67 year old.

#71 Byron

Byron

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1377 posts

Posted 04 January 2009 - 09:34 AM

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.

I agree Byron. This scene gets two :( :) from me. About the only thing I was fine with was Bond taking Mathis' money which made sense because he could use the cash and as he said Mathis wouldn't care.

What didn't I like?

1) Mathis shouldn't have died. It's a completely wasted death on a great character who was given next to nothing to do in QOS and is an un-Fleming death at that. Mathis is one of Bond's three closest friends and survived Fleming's tenure and still lives on in the novel series. He is the European Felix Leiter. He deserved a better fate. Besides, if Fleming had wanted to kill off Mathis, surely he would have devised a bigger, better, and more emotional death than this. Just look at what nearly happened to Leiter in the novel Live And Let Die and compare. The LALD near-death is much better.

2) It's a completely stupid way for Mathis to die. Two worthless crooked cops who get surprised that Mathis is alive and start firing blindly and hit Mathis in the back but somehow miss Bond even when he drops Mathis. Bah!

3) The stupid codename talk. It made no sense in the scene and extremely superfluous.

4) Maybe it's because I so detest the scene, but I didn't like/buy the Mathis/Bond talk during the death scene either. It was too sappy for me. (It's like, "I'm dying, but all I can think of is that you need to forgive Vesper." Suddenly, the Bond series has become the Lifetime Channel. ;) )

5) Dumping Mathis' body in the dumpster. COMPLETELY un-Bondian and un-Fleming. While it's true that Mathis may not have cared that his dead body was treated that way, there is NO WAY that Bond would treat a friend like that under any circumstances. Plus, in the film, it made absolutely no sense to do that. I don't buy the argument that he did it to throw off the crooked Bolivian cops. No thugs or robbers would discard a victim's body like that. They would just leave him in the street. Besides, the Bolivian cops already knew he was in Bond's vehicle so they wouldn't have been confused at all. If Bond wasn't at the scene, then he obviously did the deed, particularly since Mathis was in the dumpster and without a gun. It would have made MUCH more sense and been believable had he propped Mathis up AGAINST the dumpster and given him the gun that he used to shoot the motorcycle cops. That would have bought him more time making the crooked cops question whether Bond had ever gotten in the car at all and if Mathis had revived enough to drive away in the first place before shooting the cops.

6) I also don't buy the time element leading up to this scene. Bond leaves Mathis talking to the colonel while he goes up to see Greene. Then five minutes later (or less) Bond leaves the party with Camille and gets into his car that just so happens to be parked right out in front of the entrance. How and when did Mathis get beaten to near death in that five minutes or so time frame?

No, this scene is a terrible, terrible scene. Probably my least favorite of the series. :)


I'm glad you're not indulging in any "fan-wanking". Apologists for QOS are making up all sorts of ridiculous explanations to try and justify the reasons behind action/dialogue in this film and even worse try and force their misguided opinions down people's throats.

Yes we can all throw ideas out there but until we all hear Forster's reasoning, these are only ideas. Unfortunately some people here are convinced their ideas are God's honest truth.

#72 Sniperscope

Sniperscope

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 294 posts

Posted 04 January 2009 - 10:13 AM

Yes we can all throw ideas out there but until we all hear Forster's reasoning, these are only ideas. Unfortunately some people here are convinced their ideas are God's honest truth.


And you, sir, are equally misguided if you think that Forster, and Forster alone, has the honest truth on QoS. He may have been trying to achieve something specific, in his mind, in the scene, but each an every one one us may see it a different way. That's the beauty of being a free-thinker, wouldn't you agree. Maybe we're all wrong, but you seem to care enough to be reading all of this "fan-wanking," as you so charmingly put it. (I wonder, sir, what you are doing on a fan forum at all if you find any speculation distasteful.) Instead of deriding others, why don't you propose an idea about the scene of your own rather than tossing it out of hand as an intellectual jack-off. Oh sorry I forgot, you're waiting for Forster to explain it to you. =P

Edited by Sniperscope, 04 January 2009 - 10:22 AM.


#73 Harry Fawkes

Harry Fawkes

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2229 posts
  • Location:Malta G.C

Posted 04 January 2009 - 11:58 AM

Imagine this: You're part of a Special Forces team operating behind enemy lines. You've been compromised.

You are now on the run (If you don't run you will be captured and only God knows what'll happen to you then!).

Your mate gets shot.

You deal with the person who has shot him.

You are still compromised.

Your mate is dying and after trying to save him the poor bugger kicks the bucket (Dies that is).

What do you do?

Do you take his body with you?

(No it'll slow you down too much).


Do you burry him and say a quick prayer for the poor git (or was it bugger)?

(No the enemy is on your heels like the hounds of hell so time is not on your side).

What you do is dump the body somewhere the enemy won't find him so you have more time to get away.

Which is exactly what Bond did!

He dumped the body in the skip to buy him enough time to get the hell out of there and in the hope they wouldn't find the only lead that would point to him.

In my own humble opinion, the skip, therefore, was the obvious choice for Bond who was operating behind enemy lines and who suddenly found himself compromised.

Bond reasoned in that split second that if he left Mathis lying in the street someone was bound to find him and it would only be a matter of time before the security service linked Mathis to Bond which would make his sittuation even worse.

Little did he know (or realise) then that it was in fact the Chief of Police who was behind Mathis' demise and that Bond's fate was already drawn.

As for Mathis bringing up Vesper - well, I think it was nice of him considering what they all went through in the Casino Royale affair. Mathis liked Vesper a lot and he liked Bond too. He had felt for her too, strongly, and in those words he was finding his own measure of comfort of sorts.

Besides who can tell what people come up with the moment before they die, eh? :(

#74 Harry Fawkes

Harry Fawkes

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2229 posts
  • Location:Malta G.C

Posted 04 January 2009 - 12:10 PM

As for the police already knowing Mathis was in the booth I beg to differ. They had a tip that Bond had something in the booth but not that there was a man who'd been beaten up badly. I believe they were expecting to find drugs or something else and when they saw a man's body they panicked.

But all this bollocks appart.

What a wonderful film QOS is, eh, in that so many people discuss it long after they have left the cinema. That's why I love Bond films. You go watch a movie like, say, Ghost Town or the Bourne Ultimatum and, heck, the film dies as soon as the lights in the theater go on.

Bond is the best, by far and high!!!! :(

#75 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 04 January 2009 - 12:14 PM

Well said, Harry! :(

#76 Lazenby

Lazenby

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 107 posts

Posted 04 January 2009 - 02:34 PM

As for the police already knowing Mathis was in the booth I beg to differ. They had a tip that Bond had something in the booth but not that there was a man who'd been beaten up badly. I believe they were expecting to find drugs or something else and when they saw a man's body they panicked.

But all this bollocks appart.

What a wonderful film QOS is, eh, in that so many people discuss it long after they have left the cinema. That's why I love Bond films. You go watch a movie like, say, Ghost Town or the Bourne Ultimatum and, heck, the film dies as soon as the lights in the theater go on.

Bond is the best, by far and high!!!! :(





I'm afraid you are wrong on your first point. The officers drew their guns before the trunk was completely open.

As for the intense discussion, this is people like me who had high hopes that were disappointed, and people like you who intensely defend this mediocre movie


Imagine this: You're part of a Special Forces team operating behind enemy lines. You've been compromised.

You are now on the run (If you don't run you will be captured and only God knows what'll happen to you then!).

Your mate gets shot.

You deal with the person who has shot him.

You are still compromised.

Your mate is dying and after trying to save him the poor bugger kicks the bucket (Dies that is).

What do you do?

Do you take his body with you?

(No it'll slow you down too much).


Do you burry him and say a quick prayer for the poor git (or was it bugger)?

(No the enemy is on your heels like the hounds of hell so time is not on your side).

What you do is dump the body somewhere the enemy won't find him so you have more time to get away.

Which is exactly what Bond did!

He dumped the body in the skip to buy him enough time to get the hell out of there and in the hope they wouldn't find the only lead that would point to him.

In my own humble opinion, the skip, therefore, was the obvious choice for Bond who was operating behind enemy lines and who suddenly found himself compromised.

Bond reasoned in that split second that if he left Mathis lying in the street someone was bound to find him and it would only be a matter of time before the security service linked Mathis to Bond which would make his sittuation even worse.

Little did he know (or realise) then that it was in fact the Chief of Police who was behind Mathis' demise and that Bond's fate was already drawn.

As for Mathis bringing up Vesper - well, I think it was nice of him considering what they all went through in the Casino Royale affair. Mathis liked Vesper a lot and he liked Bond too. He had felt for her too, strongly, and in those words he was finding his own measure of comfort of sorts.

Besides who can tell what people come up with the moment before they die, eh? :)






I absolutely love you guys who give us a lesson in espionage from your vast knowledge, but conveniently omit a critique on the skydiving scene, or ludicrous boat chase. Then you are empowered by those other geniuses who can’t agree with your espionage acumen enough. In your esteem opinion, what were the faults of those scenes?

#77 Byron

Byron

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1377 posts

Posted 04 January 2009 - 02:54 PM

Imagine this: You're part of a Special Forces team operating behind enemy lines. You've been compromised.

You are now on the run (If you don't run you will be captured and only God knows what'll happen to you then!).

Your mate gets shot.

You deal with the person who has shot him.

You are still compromised.

Your mate is dying and after trying to save him the poor bugger kicks the bucket (Dies that is).

What do you do?

Do you take his body with you?

(No it'll slow you down too much).


Do you burry him and say a quick prayer for the poor git (or was it bugger)?

(No the enemy is on your heels like the hounds of hell so time is not on your side).

What you do is dump the body somewhere the enemy won't find him so you have more time to get away.

Which is exactly what Bond did!

He dumped the body in the skip to buy him enough time to get the hell out of there and in the hope they wouldn't find the only lead that would point to him.

In my own humble opinion, the skip, therefore, was the obvious choice for Bond who was operating behind enemy lines and who suddenly found himself compromised.

Bond reasoned in that split second that if he left Mathis lying in the street someone was bound to find him and it would only be a matter of time before the security service linked Mathis to Bond which would make his sittuation even worse.

Little did he know (or realise) then that it was in fact the Chief of Police who was behind Mathis' demise and that Bond's fate was already drawn.

As for Mathis bringing up Vesper - well, I think it was nice of him considering what they all went through in the Casino Royale affair. Mathis liked Vesper a lot and he liked Bond too. He had felt for her too, strongly, and in those words he was finding his own measure of comfort of sorts.

Besides who can tell what people come up with the moment before they die, eh? :(


Sorry but i call BS on this post. Total conjecture and nothing else.





As for the police already knowing Mathis was in the booth I beg to differ. They had a tip that Bond had something in the booth but not that there was a man who'd been beaten up badly. I believe they were expecting to find drugs or something else and when they saw a man's body they panicked.

But all this bollocks appart.

What a wonderful film QOS is, eh, in that so many people discuss it long after they have left the cinema. That's why I love Bond films. You go watch a movie like, say, Ghost Town or the Bourne Ultimatum and, heck, the film dies as soon as the lights in the theater go on.

Bond is the best, by far and high!!!! :)





I'm afraid you are wrong on your first point. The officers drew their guns before the trunk was completely open.

As for the intense discussion, this is people like me who had high hopes that were disappointed, and people like you who intensely defend this mediocre movie


Imagine this: You're part of a Special Forces team operating behind enemy lines. You've been compromised.

You are now on the run (If you don't run you will be captured and only God knows what'll happen to you then!).

Your mate gets shot.

You deal with the person who has shot him.

You are still compromised.

Your mate is dying and after trying to save him the poor bugger kicks the bucket (Dies that is).

What do you do?

Do you take his body with you?

(No it'll slow you down too much).


Do you burry him and say a quick prayer for the poor git (or was it bugger)?

(No the enemy is on your heels like the hounds of hell so time is not on your side).

What you do is dump the body somewhere the enemy won't find him so you have more time to get away.

Which is exactly what Bond did!

He dumped the body in the skip to buy him enough time to get the hell out of there and in the hope they wouldn't find the only lead that would point to him.

In my own humble opinion, the skip, therefore, was the obvious choice for Bond who was operating behind enemy lines and who suddenly found himself compromised.

Bond reasoned in that split second that if he left Mathis lying in the street someone was bound to find him and it would only be a matter of time before the security service linked Mathis to Bond which would make his sittuation even worse.

Little did he know (or realise) then that it was in fact the Chief of Police who was behind Mathis' demise and that Bond's fate was already drawn.

As for Mathis bringing up Vesper - well, I think it was nice of him considering what they all went through in the Casino Royale affair. Mathis liked Vesper a lot and he liked Bond too. He had felt for her too, strongly, and in those words he was finding his own measure of comfort of sorts.

Besides who can tell what people come up with the moment before they die, eh? :)






I absolutely love you guys who give us a lesson in espionage from your vast knowledge, but conveniently omit a critique on the skydiving scene, or ludicrous boat chase. Then you are empowered by those other geniuses who can’t agree with your espionage acumen enough. In your esteem opinion, what were the faults of those scenes?


Right on Lazenby! I'm glad you're not being brainwashed by these "apologists".

Apologising and trying to cover up some dreadful parts of a mediocre film but not others like the boat chase or skydiving scene as you mention.

#78 byline

byline

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 04 January 2009 - 08:00 PM

2) It's a completely stupid way for Mathis to die. Two worthless crooked cops who get surprised that Mathis is alive and start firing blindly and hit Mathis in the back but somehow miss Bond even when he drops Mathis. Bah!


In order to dislike something it helps to understand what's happening, and it appears you do not. The cops didnt fire blindly, they purposely shot Mathis in the back. The intent was to kill him, and not hit Bond. Then they could arrest Bond for the murder of Mathis.

Good point. I actually had not thought of this. I assumed that they were going to claim that Bond tried resisting arrest, so the goal was to shoot and kill him, as well as Mathis and Camille. After all, who would be left to claim otherwise? And, given Bond's actions, resisting arrest wouldn't be such a stretch. The police could say (as they did) that Bond was the one who beat Mathis, and then when the cops stopped him and tried to arrest him for the beating, he and Camille tried to run. They shot them in pursuit, and probably would have managed to hit Mathis (as they did) in the process. All three deaths could be explained away.

But your explanation is equally plausible.

6) I also don't buy the time element leading up to this scene. Bond leaves Mathis talking to the colonel while he goes up to see Greene. Then five minutes later (or less) Bond leaves the party with Camille and gets into his car that just so happens to be parked right out in front of the entrance. How and when did Mathis get beaten to near death in that five minutes or so time frame?


O for heavens sake!

How long does it take for 4 or 5 healthy and corrupt cops to nearly beat an old man to death?

I'm sure you've seen the videos of real pistol-whippings/cop beatings on tv.

I imagine it takes no more than 3 minutes for 5 bad :( to beat the living :) out of a 67 year old.

I agree. IMO, the whole thing was a setup to take care of all three "pests" who were bugging Greene.

#79 Harry Fawkes

Harry Fawkes

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2229 posts
  • Location:Malta G.C

Posted 04 January 2009 - 08:39 PM

Imagine this: You're part of a Special Forces team operating behind enemy lines. You've been compromised.

You are now on the run (If you don't run you will be captured and only God knows what'll happen to you then!).

Your mate gets shot.

You deal with the person who has shot him.

You are still compromised.

Your mate is dying and after trying to save him the poor bugger kicks the bucket (Dies that is).

What do you do?

Do you take his body with you?

(No it'll slow you down too much).


Do you burry him and say a quick prayer for the poor git (or was it bugger)?

(No the enemy is on your heels like the hounds of hell so time is not on your side).

What you do is dump the body somewhere the enemy won't find him so you have more time to get away.

Which is exactly what Bond did!

He dumped the body in the skip to buy him enough time to get the hell out of there and in the hope they wouldn't find the only lead that would point to him.

In my own humble opinion, the skip, therefore, was the obvious choice for Bond who was operating behind enemy lines and who suddenly found himself compromised.

Bond reasoned in that split second that if he left Mathis lying in the street someone was bound to find him and it would only be a matter of time before the security service linked Mathis to Bond which would make his sittuation even worse.

Little did he know (or realise) then that it was in fact the Chief of Police who was behind Mathis' demise and that Bond's fate was already drawn.

As for Mathis bringing up Vesper - well, I think it was nice of him considering what they all went through in the Casino Royale affair. Mathis liked Vesper a lot and he liked Bond too. He had felt for her too, strongly, and in those words he was finding his own measure of comfort of sorts.

Besides who can tell what people come up with the moment before they die, eh? :)


Sorry but i call BS on this post. Total conjecture and nothing else.





As for the police already knowing Mathis was in the booth I beg to differ. They had a tip that Bond had something in the booth but not that there was a man who'd been beaten up badly. I believe they were expecting to find drugs or something else and when they saw a man's body they panicked.

But all this bollocks appart.

What a wonderful film QOS is, eh, in that so many people discuss it long after they have left the cinema. That's why I love Bond films. You go watch a movie like, say, Ghost Town or the Bourne Ultimatum and, heck, the film dies as soon as the lights in the theater go on.

Bond is the best, by far and high!!!! ;)





I'm afraid you are wrong on your first point. The officers drew their guns before the trunk was completely open.

As for the intense discussion, this is people like me who had high hopes that were disappointed, and people like you who intensely defend this mediocre movie


Imagine this: You're part of a Special Forces team operating behind enemy lines. You've been compromised.

You are now on the run (If you don't run you will be captured and only God knows what'll happen to you then!).

Your mate gets shot.

You deal with the person who has shot him.

You are still compromised.

Your mate is dying and after trying to save him the poor bugger kicks the bucket (Dies that is).

What do you do?

Do you take his body with you?

(No it'll slow you down too much).


Do you burry him and say a quick prayer for the poor git (or was it bugger)?

(No the enemy is on your heels like the hounds of hell so time is not on your side).

What you do is dump the body somewhere the enemy won't find him so you have more time to get away.

Which is exactly what Bond did!

He dumped the body in the skip to buy him enough time to get the hell out of there and in the hope they wouldn't find the only lead that would point to him.

In my own humble opinion, the skip, therefore, was the obvious choice for Bond who was operating behind enemy lines and who suddenly found himself compromised.

Bond reasoned in that split second that if he left Mathis lying in the street someone was bound to find him and it would only be a matter of time before the security service linked Mathis to Bond which would make his sittuation even worse.

Little did he know (or realise) then that it was in fact the Chief of Police who was behind Mathis' demise and that Bond's fate was already drawn.

As for Mathis bringing up Vesper - well, I think it was nice of him considering what they all went through in the Casino Royale affair. Mathis liked Vesper a lot and he liked Bond too. He had felt for her too, strongly, and in those words he was finding his own measure of comfort of sorts.

Besides who can tell what people come up with the moment before they die, eh? :D






I absolutely love you guys who give us a lesson in espionage from your vast knowledge, but conveniently omit a critique on the skydiving scene, or ludicrous boat chase. Then you are empowered by those other geniuses who can’t agree with your espionage acumen enough. In your esteem opinion, what were the faults of those scenes?


Right on Lazenby! I'm glad you're not being brainwashed by these "apologists".

Apologising and trying to cover up some dreadful parts of a mediocre film but not others like the boat chase or skydiving scene as you mention.


Ok, I'll put it this way then sunshine. As a soldier myself, 19 years B.S.A.E -S.A.R and no :(ing less smart pants, I have often found myself in :)e sittuations as described in my imagine this bit.

I have, believe it or not, been trained to react in such a way in such scenarios. In other words, yep, if my best mate bit the bullet during an op B.E.L and I was on the run I'd 'dump' him in a skip (And I'm sure he'd do the same).

As for the cops reaching for their gun, I do admit in countries like the UK or the US they probably wouldn't cover a suspect with a gun whilst he opens the booth.

However, having said that, I have it from very reliable sources that if a cop is informed that the suspect may be dangerous then, yes, a cop in the UK or US would unholster his gun

Now if the cops in the movie were told by the corrupt police chief that Bond is a dangerous man, then reaching for their gun whilst he opens the booth is good for me. It is a natural reaction.

With regards to the boat chase - I liked it (nay I loved it).

As for the parachute jump - I also loved it. It was a thrill ride.

Now I also understand that you did not like the film yourselves (or parts of the film). That's ok. It's a free world over here and everyone is entitled to their say.

I had high hopes for this movie too. My hopes were met. I am defending this movie because I believe it was great.

#80 Sniperscope

Sniperscope

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 294 posts

Posted 04 January 2009 - 11:46 PM

I absolutely love you guys who give us a lesson in espionage from your vast knowledge, but conveniently omit a critique on the skydiving scene, or ludicrous boat chase. Then you are empowered by those other geniuses who can’t agree with your espionage acumen enough. In your esteem opinion, what were the faults of those scenes?

Based on that criteria, you must have a lot of trouble enjoying any Bond film, Lazenby! Every Bond film has two or three such moments where suspension of disbelief is required. So I really didn't have any problem with either of those scenes because, correct me if I'm wrong here, QoS is a movie and when I last checked it's fictional.

#81 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 05 January 2009 - 12:00 AM

I absolutely love you guys who give us a lesson in espionage from your vast knowledge, but conveniently omit a critique on the skydiving scene, or ludicrous boat chase.

Based on that criteria, you must have a lot of trouble enjoying any Bond film, Lazenby! Every Bond film has two or three such moments where suspension of disbelief is required. So I really didn't have any problem with either of those scenes because, correct me if I'm wrong here, QoS is a movie and when I last checked it's fictional.


Indeed. :(

As per the boat chase and the aerial hunt/free-fall sequence, what's wrong with them, lazenby?

Perhaps I can help?

On the third page of my 'Members Review' thread for Q0S in this section of the forums, I even go into how the 'boat flip' takes place.

The boat chase and the plane pursuit are helping the narrative and reveal plot details...as oppose to providing added padding like the action sequences in most action/adventure movies as well as Bond movies.

You have to suspend some disbelief, as per Sniperscope. It happens in all the movies. OHMSS also. But at least in Q0S there are very good reasons for these sequences existing.

#82 ImTheMoneypenny

ImTheMoneypenny

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1352 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 05 January 2009 - 12:12 AM

Ok, I'll put it this way then sunshine. As a soldier myself, 19 years B.S.A.E -S.A.R and no :(ing less smart pants, I have often found myself in :)e sittuations as described in my imagine this bit.

I have, believe it or not, been trained to react in such a way in such scenarios. In other words, yep, if my best mate bit the bullet during an op B.E.L and I was on the run I'd 'dump' him in a skip (And I'm sure he'd do the same).

As for the cops reaching for their gun, I do admit in countries like the UK or the US they probably wouldn't cover a suspect with a gun whilst he opens the booth.

However, having said that, I have it from very reliable sources that if a cop is informed that the suspect may be dangerous then, yes, a cop in the UK or US would unholster his gun

Now if the cops in the movie were told by the corrupt police chief that Bond is a dangerous man, then reaching for their gun whilst he opens the booth is good for me. It is a natural reaction.

With regards to the boat chase - I liked it (nay I loved it).

As for the parachute jump - I also loved it. It was a thrill ride.

Now I also understand that you did not like the film yourselves (or parts of the film). That's ok. It's a free world over here and everyone is entitled to their say.

I had high hopes for this movie too. My hopes were met. I am defending this movie because I believe it was great.


:)

Dumping Mathis may not have been sentimental, but that's the world Bond lives in. That is the way I'd expect an agent to react.

Sure I hated to see Mathis die, many know I'm a big Giancarlo fan. I still cry like a baby every single time, but the way the scene played out totally works for me dialogue and all. I would not have changed a frame, I would not have had Mathis live. It is an incredibly powerful moment when Bond loses Mathis, the one person at the time he trusted most. He stands there with blood on his hands literally and on his own. And he does what he should, he kept moving. He may have left Mathis behind but he didn't forget him.

I have no military experience of my own, but I remember my father talking about trying to seal off sucking chest wounds in the jungle and losing his comrades in Vietnam. he got out lucky wounded and sent home. He once said that there were things you just did in the jungle, there was a detached way about how he spoke when he said it that stayed with me. There was no right or wrong there was just that moment. This is what this scene felt to me.

#83 Kristian

Kristian

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 698 posts
  • Location:West Coast U.S.A.

Posted 05 January 2009 - 12:16 AM

There have been a few Bond scenes over the years that have been perplexing, confusing, embarrassing, or just inane, but the scene in QOS where Bond disposes of Mathis is most definitely the worst and most disturbing scene ever in a Bond movie.

In the Bond series, sometimes the only thing that separated Bond from the villains was the few moments that he showed humanity. Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan showed it in their film either through anger or caring. Bond dumping a body in a dumpster and taking the money out of his wallet is just WRONG!

EON and Marc Forster just did something that has never been done before in 22 movies and approximately 10 directors: make James Bond into a common thug. There was absolutely no reason to dump the body in a dumpster. Whether the body was found lying next to 2 cops or in a dumpster did not matter. And taking Mathis’ money? Does Bond really need the cash? I know they cut off his credit, but he still managed to get to Italy and wear sharp suits.

Disgusting scene that served no purpose. Shame on you Marc Forster for giving James Bond a scene that dropped him to the level of a street gangster in a B movie.



Not sure what else he could have done. Considering Mathis was dying. And don't retort that he could have left Mathis's body at an ER entrance. Either way, he would have been leaving a dead body. More practical to leave it in a dumpster. Bond and Camille were on the lam from Greene's thugs. They would've been caught had Fields not tripped Elvis down the stairs.

Besides, you are missing the forest for the trees - the real respect lies in the Bond cradling Mathis as he died, and not leaving him alone. Granting Mathis his last wish.

#84 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 05 January 2009 - 01:03 AM

Sure I hated to see Mathis die, many know I'm a big Giancarlo fan. I still cry like a baby every single time, but the way the scene played out totally works for me dialogue and all. I would not have changed a frame, I would not have had Mathis live. It is an incredibly powerful moment when Bond loses Mathis, the one person at the time he trusted most.


Fantastic!

#85 Lazenby

Lazenby

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 107 posts

Posted 05 January 2009 - 02:34 AM

Imagine this: You're part of a Special Forces team operating behind enemy lines. You've been compromised.

You are now on the run (If you don't run you will be captured and only God knows what'll happen to you then!).

Your mate gets shot.

You deal with the person who has shot him.

You are still compromised.

Your mate is dying and after trying to save him the poor bugger kicks the bucket (Dies that is).

What do you do?

Do you take his body with you?

(No it'll slow you down too much).


Do you burry him and say a quick prayer for the poor git (or was it bugger)?

(No the enemy is on your heels like the hounds of hell so time is not on your side).

What you do is dump the body somewhere the enemy won't find him so you have more time to get away.

Which is exactly what Bond did!

He dumped the body in the skip to buy him enough time to get the hell out of there and in the hope they wouldn't find the only lead that would point to him.

In my own humble opinion, the skip, therefore, was the obvious choice for Bond who was operating behind enemy lines and who suddenly found himself compromised.

Bond reasoned in that split second that if he left Mathis lying in the street someone was bound to find him and it would only be a matter of time before the security service linked Mathis to Bond which would make his sittuation even worse.

Little did he know (or realise) then that it was in fact the Chief of Police who was behind Mathis' demise and that Bond's fate was already drawn.

As for Mathis bringing up Vesper - well, I think it was nice of him considering what they all went through in the Casino Royale affair. Mathis liked Vesper a lot and he liked Bond too. He had felt for her too, strongly, and in those words he was finding his own measure of comfort of sorts.

Besides who can tell what people come up with the moment before they die, eh? :)


Sorry but i call BS on this post. Total conjecture and nothing else.





As for the police already knowing Mathis was in the booth I beg to differ. They had a tip that Bond had something in the booth but not that there was a man who'd been beaten up badly. I believe they were expecting to find drugs or something else and when they saw a man's body they panicked.

But all this bollocks appart.

What a wonderful film QOS is, eh, in that so many people discuss it long after they have left the cinema. That's why I love Bond films. You go watch a movie like, say, Ghost Town or the Bourne Ultimatum and, heck, the film dies as soon as the lights in the theater go on.

Bond is the best, by far and high!!!! ;)





I'm afraid you are wrong on your first point. The officers drew their guns before the trunk was completely open.

As for the intense discussion, this is people like me who had high hopes that were disappointed, and people like you who intensely defend this mediocre movie


Imagine this: You're part of a Special Forces team operating behind enemy lines. You've been compromised.

You are now on the run (If you don't run you will be captured and only God knows what'll happen to you then!).

Your mate gets shot.

You deal with the person who has shot him.

You are still compromised.

Your mate is dying and after trying to save him the poor bugger kicks the bucket (Dies that is).

What do you do?

Do you take his body with you?

(No it'll slow you down too much).


Do you burry him and say a quick prayer for the poor git (or was it bugger)?

(No the enemy is on your heels like the hounds of hell so time is not on your side).

What you do is dump the body somewhere the enemy won't find him so you have more time to get away.

Which is exactly what Bond did!

He dumped the body in the skip to buy him enough time to get the hell out of there and in the hope they wouldn't find the only lead that would point to him.

In my own humble opinion, the skip, therefore, was the obvious choice for Bond who was operating behind enemy lines and who suddenly found himself compromised.

Bond reasoned in that split second that if he left Mathis lying in the street someone was bound to find him and it would only be a matter of time before the security service linked Mathis to Bond which would make his sittuation even worse.

Little did he know (or realise) then that it was in fact the Chief of Police who was behind Mathis' demise and that Bond's fate was already drawn.

As for Mathis bringing up Vesper - well, I think it was nice of him considering what they all went through in the Casino Royale affair. Mathis liked Vesper a lot and he liked Bond too. He had felt for her too, strongly, and in those words he was finding his own measure of comfort of sorts.

Besides who can tell what people come up with the moment before they die, eh? :D






I absolutely love you guys who give us a lesson in espionage from your vast knowledge, but conveniently omit a critique on the skydiving scene, or ludicrous boat chase. Then you are empowered by those other geniuses who can’t agree with your espionage acumen enough. In your esteem opinion, what were the faults of those scenes?


Right on Lazenby! I'm glad you're not being brainwashed by these "apologists".

Apologising and trying to cover up some dreadful parts of a mediocre film but not others like the boat chase or skydiving scene as you mention.


Ok, I'll put it this way then sunshine. As a soldier myself, 19 years B.S.A.E -S.A.R and no :(ing less smart pants, I have often found myself in :)e sittuations as described in my imagine this bit.

I have, believe it or not, been trained to react in such a way in such scenarios. In other words, yep, if my best mate bit the bullet during an op B.E.L and I was on the run I'd 'dump' him in a skip (And I'm sure he'd do the same).

As for the cops reaching for their gun, I do admit in countries like the UK or the US they probably wouldn't cover a suspect with a gun whilst he opens the booth.

However, having said that, I have it from very reliable sources that if a cop is informed that the suspect may be dangerous then, yes, a cop in the UK or US would unholster his gun

Now if the cops in the movie were told by the corrupt police chief that Bond is a dangerous man, then reaching for their gun whilst he opens the booth is good for me. It is a natural reaction.

With regards to the boat chase - I liked it (nay I loved it).

As for the parachute jump - I also loved it. It was a thrill ride.

Now I also understand that you did not like the film yourselves (or parts of the film). That's ok. It's a free world over here and everyone is entitled to their say.

I had high hopes for this movie too. My hopes were met. I am defending this movie because I believe it was great.




First, I salute you for your service, and have the utmost respect for those that do. I probably did not explain myself fully in that the issue I have is that the defenders of this film chastise me for not appreciating the brilliance of the realism. In all honesty, most people do not know tactics and what an actual operative goes through physically and mentally. I am a Police Officer in the United States and have been trained in the use of different assault weapons and fighting styles. I do not watch a Bond movie looking for tactical mistakes, I watch it for content, structure, and entertainment. But when the "defenders" start to explain to me the above realisms in life, then they have just taken the movie out of an entertainment light, and I will respond by pointing out the ludicrous scenes. Mind you, I have no problem watching a crappy, unrealistic, skydiving scene, but don't you dare tell me that this same movie is a materpiece.

#86 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 05 January 2009 - 03:21 AM

Mind you, I have no problem watching a crappy, unrealistic, skydiving scene, but don't you dare tell me that this same movie is a materpiece.


But if someone considers it a masterpiece, isnt your above statement a tad unfair? Art is subjective, just because you dislike it doesnt mean someone else isnt allowed to consider it a masterpiece.

#87 Mr. Arlington Beech

Mr. Arlington Beech

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1112 posts

Posted 05 January 2009 - 03:26 AM

I watch it for content, structure, and entertainment. But when the "defenders" start to explain to me the above realisms in life, then they have just taken the movie out of an entertainment light, and I will respond by pointing out the ludicrous scenes. Mind you, I have no problem watching a crappy, unrealistic, skydiving scene, but don't you dare tell me that this same movie is a materpiece.

I agree with you. That's the thing, some QOS fans don't realize that they are watching just a Bond movie. It's fine if they love this Forster's work, but from more than a century of filmmaking, pick this movie as masterpiece of cinema sounds a little bit exaggerated, to say the least.

#88 Mr. Arlington Beech

Mr. Arlington Beech

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1112 posts

Posted 05 January 2009 - 03:34 AM

Mind you, I have no problem watching a crappy, unrealistic, skydiving scene, but don't you dare tell me that this same movie is a materpiece.


But if someone considers it a masterpiece, isnt your above statement a tad unfair? Art is subjective, just because you dislike it doesnt mean someone else isnt allowed to consider it a masterpiece.

Following your predicate, I could even consider one of the Edward D. Wood Jr.'s work as a masterpiece.

Furthermore, my favourite Bond movie is CR, but I would never call it a masterpiece, and that definitely doesn't prevent me to love that movie.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 05 January 2009 - 03:39 AM.


#89 byline

byline

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 05 January 2009 - 06:27 PM

Mind you, I have no problem watching a crappy, unrealistic, skydiving scene, but don't you dare tell me that this same movie is a materpiece.


But if someone considers it a masterpiece, isnt your above statement a tad unfair? Art is subjective, just because you dislike it doesnt mean someone else isnt allowed to consider it a masterpiece.

Thank you.

#90 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 05 January 2009 - 08:41 PM

Mind you, I have no problem watching a crappy, unrealistic, skydiving scene, but don't you dare tell me that this same movie is a materpiece.


But if someone considers it a masterpiece, isnt your above statement a tad unfair? Art is subjective, just because you dislike it doesnt mean someone else isnt allowed to consider it a masterpiece.

Following your predicate, I could even consider one of the Edward D. Wood Jr.'s work as a masterpiece.


If you felt it was a masterpiece who am I to tell you you're wrong?

Furthermore, my favourite Bond movie is CR, but I would never call it a masterpiece, and that definitely doesn't prevent me to love that movie.


Fair enough, but just because you use the word far less than someone else does doesnt mean you're right and they're wrong.