Mathis returns in QoS
Loeffelholz
The United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
According to MI6, Giancarlo Giannini has tipped an Italian magazine that his character will return in the next Bond film:
http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid-4692
He says he's signed to do it. As always, a pinch of salt should be added to the recipe, but...
If they can confirm Jeffrey Wright as Felix, we'll know for sure we're in a brave new world B-)
http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid-4692
He says he's signed to do it. As always, a pinch of salt should be added to the recipe, but...
If they can confirm Jeffrey Wright as Felix, we'll know for sure we're in a brave new world B-)
Check out my Amazon author page! Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
It will be a long wait until November '08, however it's a refreshing return to two year intervals between Bond films! {[]
-Roger Moore
I'm looking forward to finding out what happens reguarding Mathis is Bond 22
of grade z actors in the continuing supporting roles, other than M, Moneypenny, Q and major villains. Hopefully we will be hearing of the resigning of Jeffrey Wright as Felix soon. I actually thought the few scenes that Wright had with DC in CR were quite compelling. Wright appeared to portray Felix as Bond's more cerebral and experienced counterpart. There is great potential IMO to develope interesting relationship between the two charactors. I also
thought it was a great touch having Bond being bailed out financially by the deep pockets of the
US CIA. Lent a certain sense of reality to the film.
I think it's entirely plausible that he would know the general direction of his character, just as Eva Green would know why she was returning in Bond 22. Bond 22 being a direct sequel to CR, it seems unlikely W&P wouldn't at least have an outline of 22's plot already in the can. I've said several times that I believe the ambiguous, untidy ending that annoyed some people about CR was deliberate and that it will all come together in 22. I would guess W&P set up the whole CR-Bond22 story arc long ago. They might not know all the details, but the general drift is already there, I'm sure.
Personally, it's one of the most exciting aspects of Bond 22 for me: not only do we have another Bond film to look forward to, but the resolution of a multi-layered plot as well. Finally, some real "continuity." That's a first for 007.
I think this is excellent news, as he's an excellent actor and just what a Bond film needs to show us how 007 continues to develop panache. I think it would work, too, to have Mathis fill in some of the blanks about Vesper, perhaps through his own investigation into what happened. Perhaps Mathis was pretending to be a double agent to get closer to what he suspected was a double agent in Vesper, only things got out of hand before he could reveal this. Whatever the case, my only hope is that the producers don't make him the standard sacrificial lamb that Bond films want to have; let this one survive.
"He [Giannini] also mentioned that the 'double agent' status of Mathis with Mr White's organisation would ultimately be a lynch pin to Bond's success."
So maybe Le Chiffre really did think Mathis was working with them, but truly Mathis is good?
Who knows... we'll find out in a year.
I'm pretty sure Mr White will either be in jail or in the ground.
I agree that the ambiguous untidy ending was deliberate. Martin Campbell made it clear in one interview (which I saw) during the filming of CR that it was a two part story. This would indicate that W&P are likely to at least have an outline for Bond 22's plot. And it gives some credence to Giancarlo Giannini's reported quotes about the direction of Mathis' character.
After the success of CR expectations will be high for Bond 22. A good deal of that expectation will revolve around the answers to the questions that CR posed. My message is do not expect all the answers (and do not expect them all to be answered satisfactorily) or you are likely to be disappointed.
Well, call me a cockeyed optimist, but I see absolutely no point in borrowing trouble, MNL. When I joined AJB a year ago next month, the forum was filled with dire predictions about CR, the script, Craig, Campbell, etc ... For some of the more egregious hand-wringers, the film realized their worst fears (what a surprise). But not for me. I loved the movie and became a Bond fan all over again. So I'm not going to assume the worst now. I'm willing to trust the filmmakers to do right by Bond 23, until they demonstrate otherwise. And as I've said before, that means answering the questions. But you're right in one sense: it's a lead-pipe cinch that the answers will not satisfy all the questions; but then again, in some cases, the "questions" themselves were questionable -- in my opinion, of course. But hey -- it'll give us something to argue about until Bond 24.
Someone here said that when LeChifre said, "It would seem that your friend Mathis, is actually MY friend Mathis." He just said it to throw Bond off the trail of Vespers double cross.
When I read that I was in total agreement. I couple days later I was telling my wife that Mathis was coming back in the next movie and it turns out that he may actually be an ally of Bonds. I told her the theory about the line mentioned aboved. To which she promptly asked, "Well, if LeChifre was covering for Vesper by lying about Mathis why would LeChifre plunk her down in the middle of the road so Bond would run her over?"
Any thoughts board? Please dont answer with a "LeChifre knew Bond would see her..." It was night time, he was speeding, very unlikely. The novel makes more sense as LeChifre used spikes to cause Bond's accident.
But that is the answer, Smoke. Or rather, there was no reason for LeChiffre to believe that Bond would almost run Vesper over. He was in a different car, up ahead. He doesn't know how crazy Bond is driving. You have to remember that as a member of an audience, you're omniscient in this situation. It's the ultimate illustration that hindsight is 20/20. You saw Bond almost run her over, and you ask yourself, well -- why didn't LeChiffre know that? The answer seems obvious to me: he hasn't seen the movie.
Let me offer this analogy: I agree with you that the spikes idea in the novel is better. But only because I know how much difficulty some folks had with the way the movie had it. Again -- hindsight is 20/20.
He didnt use her to flip Bonds car, but to stop it. If Vesper died in the process, big deal -he had what he needed from her. As long as Bond stopped his vehicle to either avoid hitting her or stopped because he had hit her, Bond would have been jumped by LeChifre's men as soon as he got out of the car. And if he hit or missed Vesper you know Bond would have gotten out of his car to help her.
Makes sense now...thanks Double H.
And that's true. If he already had the number, she was expendable. But to tell the truth, I think the filmmakers just figured it was a plausible, but even more importantly, a spectacular way of getting Bond to stop. Certainly more fun than spikes in the road.
By the way, what's really a little hard to swallow is that an Aston Martin would have rolled like that on a simple swerve. So unlikely in fact that the stunt people had to use an air gun to get the damn thing to roll.
Assuming the Giannini story is correct...I'm certainly looking forward to the 'reconciliation' scene between Bond and Mathis---how it's written (and played) will be pivotal. Will Bond somehow convey regret over what happened? Or not?
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
hh, you are a cockeyed optimist.
I certainly wasn't suggesting that you (or anyone else) should assume the worst. I was suggesting that you should not set your expectations too high.
I wen't into the cinema to see Casino Royale with some optimism (after watching the trailers) but also an equal amount of apprehension. I was originally not best pleased about Daniel Craig or the re-boot, but I was always going to see the film because I believed that Babs/Mickey/Campbell/Craig were all innocent until proven guilty.
All my doubts were virtually swept away by the end of the breathtaking PTS. I very much enjoyed CR, it certainly exceeded my expectations. As for Bond 22, my expectations will naturally be higher, but I don't intend to go into the cinema expecting all the answers.
You should, though. If the filmmakers look at sites like AJB, I don't want them to think they can safely ignore something they started.
CR certainly did leave open some legitimate questions and I've defended the filmmakers -- applauded them, even -- for leaving behind a mystery for fans to chew on for the next two years. It's one of the most enjoyable facets of CR, IMO. Unlike some people, I thought we got a complete story arc with CR, in the sense that Vesper did betray Bond and break his heart -- that's what was important for "Part 1," so to speak. But CR also had a back story that wasn't fully explained: Where did Vesper go wrong? Who was she in league with? Who was Gettler? Who was Mr. White and how did he wind up with the suitcase? Who was allied with whom in the Casino Royale affair? The filmmakers owe us answers to these mysteries.
A whodunit that doesn't answer whodunit (and I'm talking about CR and Bond 22 as a single unit here) would be kind of a crock, IMO. From what Purvis and Wade and Giannini and Green have said, and the fact that all are returning in some capacity for Bond 22, the filmmakers do seem intent on continuing a story that is really unusually involving and complex for a Bond picture. I'm sure that Bond 22 will stand on its own, but will complement CR as well. Anyway those are my high hopes.
Firstly when watching the film I don't think Le Chiffre knew that Vesper was a double, I always believed it was people higher up that had got Vesper to do their bidding. Secondly le Chiffre wouldn't need an account number from Vesper because he would simply use his own account number and use Bond's password, so I think that Le Chiffre believed Vesper was turely expendable.
Secondly when thinking about this afterwards I believe it is highly likely that Le Chiffre also thought Mathis WAS his friend. hense the line. I thought afterwards, this is backed up by something mentioned in Giancarlo Giannini's interview, that Mathis had infiltrated the organisation Le Chiffre worked for and they believed he was a friend.
how I read the Interview with Giannini is that to get into the organisation Bond with Mathis' help, uses Mathis' credentials double agent status to get into the organisation.
{[]So do I. Something like that is exactly what I'm hoping for. Plots and counterplots, betrayals upon betrayals, doublecrosses. Something that actually sounds like a spy story -- which isn't always the case with Bond, even in the novels.
I think when the writers are confident enough to leave some parts of a story to the viewers imagination, we the viewer use that imagination to formulate some of our own personalities into the characters motives -and in doing so we find more enjoyment in the interperetation.
I say, "Good-bye spoon fed James Bond story lines with your neat and tidy, save the world from the meglomaniac, get the girl and everybody's happy endings -goodbye forever."
Predictability stinks.
There's something to be said for that, too. I'm a huge fan of The Sopranos and the writers there often leave things hanging. Their idea is "You gotta have an explanation for everything? -- fuggetaboutit."
I thought the release date was May 2nd, 2008.