Main villain's name?
#31
Posted 12 January 2012 - 06:17 PM
#32
Posted 13 January 2012 - 01:09 AM
But something of actual relevance has just occurred to me: a lot of trains will be featured in SKYFALL. There are the train sequences planned for Turkey, and another sequence set in London. Since Bond villains are usually industrialists, I wonder if Javier Bardem isn't playing some kind of cargo entrepeneur, with his main source of income being train transit.
#33
Posted 13 January 2012 - 01:22 AM
#34
Posted 13 January 2012 - 01:49 AM
Very funny, you lot.
But something of actual relevance has just occurred to me: a lot of trains will be featured in SKYFALL. There are the train sequences planned for Turkey, and another sequence set in London. Since Bond villains are usually industrialists, I wonder if Javier Bardem isn't playing some kind of cargo entrepeneur, with his main source of income being train transit.
There is a tendency in Bond films for the villain to be a mogul of some industry which he secretly attacks, so that some harumphy elderly character can turn to Bond and demand, "Why would he blow up his own fizzlemajigs?" And then Bond has to find out why, but for heaven's sake be discreet about it.
#35
Posted 13 January 2012 - 02:09 AM
I don't really recall that in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, though. Dominic Greene ran Greene Planet, a utilities company that did some environmentally philanthropy. It gave him the perfect cover for the Tierra Projects.There is a tendency in Bond films for the villain to be a mogul of some industry which he secretly attacks, so that some harumphy elderly character can turn to Bond and demand, "Why would he blow up his own fizzlemajigs?" And then Bond has to find out why, but for heaven's sake be discreet about it.
I was actually thinking more along the lines of Bardem being part of some stay-behind force, like the Ergenekon or Counter-Guerrilla. If he were some kind of cargo transport baron, his trains would give him the perfect cover to move large stocks of weapons about undetected.
#36
Posted 13 January 2012 - 02:16 AM
True, and interesting enough. Well done.I was actually thinking more along the lines of Bardem being part of some stay-behind force, like the Ergenekon or Counter-Guerrilla. If he were some kind of cargo transport baron, his trains would give him the perfect cover to move large stocks of weapons about undetected.
#37
Posted 13 January 2012 - 02:30 AM
#38
Posted 13 January 2012 - 02:36 AM
#39
Posted 13 January 2012 - 02:52 AM
And if Bardem isn't playing a Turk, that just makes it harder to figure out.
#40
Posted 13 January 2012 - 03:03 AM
#41
Posted 13 January 2012 - 03:13 AM
#42
Posted 13 January 2012 - 03:24 AM
#43
Posted 13 January 2012 - 04:13 AM
#44
Posted 13 January 2012 - 04:47 AM
But that doesn't explain why Bardem wants them dead in the first place, and that is going to be the major plot driver in the film.
One possibility is that he kills them merely to incriminate M. The tidbit about "M's past" has been interpreted as a reference to something buried deep in the mists of the Cold War, but it might be something more recent. Suppose "Javier" is a foreign ally of MI6, somebody they armed to the teeth and gave loads of cash, ostensibly to work against a mutual enemy. But it's all been a sham, and Javier is really setting up a scheme to blackmail the government itself. Suppose this: When the bombs start going off and the country is in chaos, M personally arranges to fly Javier and his friends out of the country, bypassing the police, the air traffic lockdown, etc. Only later does she discover that she thereby provided the perpetrators with safe passage out of the country. She is now an accomplice in a heinous act of terrorism against her own country, and as long as the government fails to remove her from her position, they are complicit as well. Meanwhile, Javier and friends are planning another act of terrorism, as a way of increasing their leverage over MI6. What is Javier's motivation? It could be anything. Money, asylum for his associates, political influence for some pet cause, you name it. In fact, his motivation would be something of a mcguffin. The important thing is that he has M by the short hairs, as the scheme threatens to bring down the government. (Perhaps "Skyfall" is MI6-talk for the sudden collapse of the current government.)
#45
Posted 13 January 2012 - 04:47 AM
I could also see him trying to escape with the entire MI6 active case roster, so rather than plot another terror attack, he could hold MI6 to ransom by selling off all their case files to the people they are investigating unless MI6 do him a "favour" - maybe sending Bond to China to take out someone who poses a threat to him. Along the way, Bond starts working out the idea that M has been compromised, thus bringing the questioning-his-loyalty into play.
#46
Posted 13 January 2012 - 05:28 AM
And the more I think about it, the more I doubt that she'll die, though I can imagine her being fired or suspended and having to assist Bond unofficially. At the end of the film, I imagine that her fate will be left ambiguous, like Q's in TWINE. The producers know that she might not do another one, but they'll want to leave themselves open to the possibility. Even if someone like Fiennes is presented as her successor-in-waiting, they may prefer to introduce him gradually, a la Robert Brown.