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

He should have


53 replies to this topic

#31 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 03 November 2009 - 05:34 PM

Not everything does of course, however this case DEMANDED a better closing scene for Greene. Even if it was a mere shot of him drinking the can of oil and collapsing, with an ascending crane shot finishing the deal.

But the case with Quantum (and even GREENE) is not closed yet. And SOLACE is about a different sort of closure - that of BOND himself. The story cannot and need not tidy itself up with blatant and dull images of GREENE downing oil. And why attach yet more hollow importance to that unecessary moment by using a "crane shot"?


That's trivial, and the use of the crane shot would be to embellish the gravitas of Greene's comeuppance, at the hands of a bigger fish. Which is Quantum's M.O. from what we've seen so far. Since we haven't seen Mr. White for such a long time, it would be an effective turn of fate, for him to appear again and dispatch Greene, as death incarnate.

And Zorin the how the hell would you know the shots would be blatant and dull? It's a an odd comment to make from two sentences.

And yes everything we need to know is there in the final film, doesn't necessary make the scene any more interesting just because it serves some pretentious less is more mantra.

Edited by The Shark, 03 November 2009 - 05:35 PM.


#32 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 03 November 2009 - 05:40 PM

Charmed I'm sure.

I have a little awareness of what shots in a film are suitable and what tone, importance and story information they convey. I'm just saying I know when a crane shot is necessary. And from my experience "less is always more". But I'm really not that bothered, to be honest, especially if you find that "pretentious" and just want everything you are presented with to be on the nose, clean and without interpretation.

#33 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 03 November 2009 - 06:10 PM

Charmed I'm sure.


√Čvidemment.

I have a little awareness of what shots in a film are suitable and what tone, importance and story information they convey. I'm just saying I know when a crane shot is necessary. And from my experience "less is always more". But I'm really not that bothered, to be honest, especially if you find that "pretentious" and just want everything you are presented with to be on the nose, clean and without interpretation.



No, want I'm against is following the less is more path for the sake of it, rather than seeing if that approach is right for the story at that point. What I AM asking for is interpretation and nuance, I just don't think verbal exposition was right for right in this particular circumstance. Maybe at other points in the film, but not here.

No cause for offence...

Edited by The Shark, 03 November 2009 - 06:11 PM.


#34 Skudor

Skudor

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9286 posts
  • Location:Buckinghamshire

Posted 03 November 2009 - 06:14 PM

The only think I would have done different with Bond leaving Greene in the desert is to perhaps spend a bit more time on it. Zoom out wide while Bond drives off and leaves Greene alone, with the desert expanding around him to show just how far he is from anything. Emphasise what has been done a bit more...

#35 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 03 November 2009 - 06:41 PM

No cause for offence...

And none here.

#36 Sark2.0

Sark2.0

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 332 posts
  • Location:Station C

Posted 04 November 2009 - 02:53 AM

1. My problem with this scene is that it's reminiscent of the many scenes where villains neglect to kill Bond quickly and straightforwardly, instead insisting on his death being a particularly unpleasant and humiliating one. And what happens? He gets away. Wouldn't Bond have seen this gaping hole in his plan?

2. As for Bond being a man of his word and thus cannot kill Greene... LOL. So he gets off on a technicality? "Well, I didn't kill him. It was the conditions that I purposely put him in that killed him." I imagine that Stromberg didn't kill his secretary either?

3. Greene should have thrown that motor oil away as soon as he got it, so he wouldn't be tempted.

#37 Tybre

Tybre

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 04 November 2009 - 03:15 AM

1. My problem with this scene is that it's reminiscent of the many scenes where villains neglect to kill Bond quickly and straightforwardly, instead insisting on his death being a particularly unpleasant and humiliating one. And what happens? He gets away. Wouldn't Bond have seen this gaping hole in his plan?

2. As for Bond being a man of his word and thus cannot kill Greene... LOL. So he gets off on a technicality? "Well, I didn't kill him. It was the conditions that I purposely put him in that killed him." I imagine that Stromberg didn't kill his secretary either?

3. Greene should have thrown that motor oil away as soon as he got it, so he wouldn't be tempted.


1. Bear in mind this is a new Bond. He hasn't been left to die in all this intricate and humiliating fashions yet.
2. C'est la vie
3. He should have, but not everyone would. Perhaps, too, he didn't move for a long time, and the heat drove him mad. Perhaps he drank the oil and then started moving. Or perhaps he never moved at all. If I recall M only said they found him in the middle of the desert, which is pretty much where Bond dumped him.

#38 00Twelve

00Twelve

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7706 posts
  • Location:Kingsport, TN

Posted 04 November 2009 - 04:27 AM

2. As for Bond being a man of his word and thus cannot kill Greene... LOL. So he gets off on a technicality? "Well, I didn't kill him. It was the conditions that I purposely put him in that killed him." I imagine that Stromberg didn't kill his secretary either?

It was all over M's tone of voice that she knew Bond made it possible for Quantum to eliminate Greene. She couldn't officially say so, but she coyly approved of Bond getting his answers from Greene (whom she knew killed Fields) before "innocently" leaving him to either die or be killed. She's obviously being cheeky when she asks Bond about it.

#39 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 04 November 2009 - 10:40 AM

And those that don't like the scene where GREENE is left or the fact that he is have clearly not watched the rest of the film or noticed one of its most pressing themes - i.e. that BOND cannot keep killing people at will when a greater purpose can be served in the long run by letting them live for a while anyway.

#40 double o ego

double o ego

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1261 posts
  • Location:London, England

Posted 04 November 2009 - 07:17 PM

Shot Greene instead of letting him go. It ruined the ending for me


Killing Greene would have been stupid and made no sense. First of all, it would have undone the "leaning" curve we the audience are supposed to share with Bond in understanding the biger picture. Secondly, Greene essentially became useless once he divulged all the necessary info to Bond. Bond would have had nothing to gain by killing him and that's why he gave Greene the motor oil (retribution for Fields as well as an act of ironic cruelty in itself) and left him in the desert, knowing full well, Quantum members would hunt down Greene anyway.

And those that don't like the scene where GREENE is left or the fact that he is have clearly not watched the rest of the film or noticed one of its most pressing themes - i.e. that BOND cannot keep killing people at will when a greater purpose can be served in the long run by letting them live for a while anyway.


Bingo!

#41 Sark2.0

Sark2.0

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 332 posts
  • Location:Station C

Posted 04 November 2009 - 07:34 PM

And those that don't like the scene where GREENE is left or the fact that he is have clearly not watched the rest of the film or noticed one of its most pressing themes - i.e. that BOND cannot keep killing people at will when a greater purpose can be served in the long run by letting them live for a while anyway.

Having only seen the film two times my memory is somewhat fuzzy, what exactly was the greater purpose of letting Greene die in the desert instead of killing him?

#42 00Twelve

00Twelve

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7706 posts
  • Location:Kingsport, TN

Posted 04 November 2009 - 11:18 PM

And those that don't like the scene where GREENE is left or the fact that he is have clearly not watched the rest of the film or noticed one of its most pressing themes - i.e. that BOND cannot keep killing people at will when a greater purpose can be served in the long run by letting them live for a while anyway.

Having only seen the film two times my memory is somewhat fuzzy, what exactly was the greater purpose of letting Greene die in the desert instead of killing him?

1. He had promised Greene he'd let him go once he'd gotten answers about Quantum. This was Bond's way of being truthful, resourceful, and still yet ruthless.

2. A small payback for Fields.

#43 bond 16.05.72

bond 16.05.72

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1068 posts
  • Location:Leeds, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom

Posted 05 November 2009 - 08:31 AM

To have seen Greene's execution wouldn't have been paticularly original, having this play out with no definite answer to Greene's demise is much better.

We assume that Greene only divulged the details of Yusef's location but Bond may well have got more out of him, for instance information on Haines, seeing Bond not shoot either Greene or Yusef showed his character had evolved, I thought that was the point of these 2 films to show the character grow.

The assumption is taken by many that the duration of QOS is a revenge film but by Bond closing words to M we know this is not true.

#44 double o ego

double o ego

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1261 posts
  • Location:London, England

Posted 05 November 2009 - 08:40 PM

And those that don't like the scene where GREENE is left or the fact that he is have clearly not watched the rest of the film or noticed one of its most pressing themes - i.e. that BOND cannot keep killing people at will when a greater purpose can be served in the long run by letting them live for a while anyway.

Having only seen the film two times my memory is somewhat fuzzy, what exactly was the greater purpose of letting Greene die in the desert instead of killing him?

1. He had promised Greene he'd let him go once he'd gotten answers about Quantum. This was Bond's way of being truthful, resourceful, and still yet ruthless.

2. A small payback for Fields.


Not to mention, Bond killing Greene who was unarmed and in no way a threat would have been a rather stupid murder. Bond knew full well Greene would die regardless, it would be less of a probelm and nothing for him to be bothered about to just have someone else do it.

#45 00Twelve

00Twelve

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7706 posts
  • Location:Kingsport, TN

Posted 05 November 2009 - 09:01 PM

And those that don't like the scene where GREENE is left or the fact that he is have clearly not watched the rest of the film or noticed one of its most pressing themes - i.e. that BOND cannot keep killing people at will when a greater purpose can be served in the long run by letting them live for a while anyway.

Having only seen the film two times my memory is somewhat fuzzy, what exactly was the greater purpose of letting Greene die in the desert instead of killing him?

1. He had promised Greene he'd let him go once he'd gotten answers about Quantum. This was Bond's way of being truthful, resourceful, and still yet ruthless.

2. A small payback for Fields.


Not to mention, Bond killing Greene who was unarmed and in no way a threat would have been a rather stupid murder. Bond knew full well Greene would die regardless, it would be less of a probelm and nothing for him to be bothered about to just have someone else do it.

Little less weight on the already heavy conscience as well, no doubt.

#46 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 05 November 2009 - 10:32 PM

And those that don't like the scene where GREENE is left or the fact that he is have clearly not watched the rest of the film or noticed one of its most pressing themes - i.e. that BOND cannot keep killing people at will when a greater purpose can be served in the long run by letting them live for a while anyway.

Having only seen the film two times my memory is somewhat fuzzy, what exactly was the greater purpose of letting Greene die in the desert instead of killing him?

1. He had promised Greene he'd let him go once he'd gotten answers about Quantum. This was Bond's way of being truthful, resourceful, and still yet ruthless.

2. A small payback for Fields.


Not to mention, Bond killing Greene who was unarmed and in no way a threat would have been a rather stupid murder. Bond knew full well Greene would die regardless, it would be less of a probelm and nothing for him to be bothered about to just have someone else do it.

Little less weight on the already heavy conscience as well, no doubt.



Also, if Bond had killed Greene, he would have been doing Quantum's job for them. It's far better for Bond to let the organisation catch up with Greene. It would also make the other members paranoid about how easily one particular member will give away information for their own good.

#47 00Twelve

00Twelve

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7706 posts
  • Location:Kingsport, TN

Posted 06 November 2009 - 02:28 PM

And those that don't like the scene where GREENE is left or the fact that he is have clearly not watched the rest of the film or noticed one of its most pressing themes - i.e. that BOND cannot keep killing people at will when a greater purpose can be served in the long run by letting them live for a while anyway.

Having only seen the film two times my memory is somewhat fuzzy, what exactly was the greater purpose of letting Greene die in the desert instead of killing him?

1. He had promised Greene he'd let him go once he'd gotten answers about Quantum. This was Bond's way of being truthful, resourceful, and still yet ruthless.

2. A small payback for Fields.


Not to mention, Bond killing Greene who was unarmed and in no way a threat would have been a rather stupid murder. Bond knew full well Greene would die regardless, it would be less of a probelm and nothing for him to be bothered about to just have someone else do it.

Little less weight on the already heavy conscience as well, no doubt.



Also, if Bond had killed Greene, he would have been doing Quantum's job for them. It's far better for Bond to let the organisation catch up with Greene. It would also make the other members paranoid about how easily one particular member will give away information for their own good.

Yes! Bond seems to be doing everything he can to weaken Quantum through their own ruthless nature. Which is the most Shakespearean way to go about it.

#48 Publius

Publius

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3225 posts
  • Location:Miami

Posted 31 December 2009 - 05:09 AM

What Bond did might have been the most sinister thing I've ever seen him do. Even if you could tell he would have much rather tried out that nifty gun he just found.

#49 volante

volante

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1926 posts
  • Location:GCHQ

Posted 31 December 2009 - 11:27 AM

Pulled over and put some plastic over the DBS door

Do you know how far it is from Lake Garda to Sienna?

#50 Major Tallon

Major Tallon

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2107 posts
  • Location:Mid-USA

Posted 31 December 2009 - 12:44 PM

Pulled over and put some plastic over the DBS door

Do you know how far it is from Lake Garda to Sienna?

At a guess, it would take three to four hours for Bond to have covered that distance. It's amusing to think that he could have driven that distance with his car in that condition and not have attracted a considerable amount of attention from the carabinieri.

#51 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 31 December 2009 - 06:44 PM

I think what really makes the ending work (and forgive me if someone else already brought this up) was that Bond left Greene to perish in exactly the same way that Greene had left the people of Bolivia to perish during the main body of the film, which was leaving them in the middle of the desert with absolutely no water. I love the irony of Bond's actions there, and it gives a fitting end to that particular subplot of the film as well.

#52 Tybre

Tybre

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 01 January 2010 - 01:33 AM

Pulled over and put some plastic over the DBS door

Do you know how far it is from Lake Garda to Sienna?


According to mapquest if he stuck only to back roads and traffic were light, that's eight hours and sixteen minutes from the town on the far north of the lake. Let him take highways and things and, still keeping traffic light (which it seemed to be), three hours and forty-two minutes from the far north town. Move his departure point to the south side and it's only about twenty minutes time saved.

So either Bond spent a bit of time between taking out those cars and arriving in Siena dodging the police, or THE DBS TURNS INVISIBLE. It all makes sense now.

#53 gkgyver

gkgyver

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1891 posts
  • Location:Bamberg, Bavaria

Posted 10 October 2010 - 02:59 AM

Maybe late to let my two cents be heard, but the only problem I have with the scene is that Arnold's music doesn't nearly encapsulate the cruelty well enough.

#54 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 10 October 2010 - 06:31 AM

Just shooting him in the head? Now that, for me, would have ruined Quantum of Solace. It is infinitely more satisfying to picture Greene alone, hot, struggling to find some sort of shelter from the sun while he deals with the agony of wounds incurred at the hotel. To picture him staggering, half-alive through the sands, every so often pausing, looking down at the little can of motor oil...he knows it's going to kill him, but he's so thirsty...And then, at long last, a helicopter or a car arrives, and there is the faintest glimmer of hope...


Yes that was fantastic, surely one of the best scenes in the film, starting with menacing whirling of the blades and the panning shot of the helicopter landing, with Greene finding himself at the end of Mr. White's pistol. What a brilliant scene. Pure Sergio Leone with a Forster touch of the lizard crawling across Greene's oil drenched body...

Oh yeah.. Sorry. That scene never existed. What a miscalculated and embarrassing cop-out.

I agree. That is how Greene's death should have been - not just leaving him in the desert, and then M explaining about two bullets in the head and motor oil in the stomach, with Russia and snow in the background. A misjudgement, I wonder, based on the producers wanting "twice as much action" as CR, and the director wanting the film to be under two hours in length. As described above, Greene's death would have been a memorable moment. As it is, we are left wondering.