The Quantum Syndicate will Return!

Colonel Shatner · October 2008

This sounds very exiting it has so-far given the current run of Bond movies a wider scope and deeper creative depth that was somewhat lacking in the Moore/Dalton/Brosnan films (after Fleming and McClory forced SPECTRE down a hole over copyright BS).

discovolante · October 2008

Cool. I just hope that they get back to turning out a film every 2 years. If there's a 4 or 5 year gap until Bond 23, the audience might forget all about Quantum as a deadly organization.

Loeffelholz · October 2008

We're talking about it here, as well:

http://www.ajb007.co.uk/index.php?topic=31346&cpage=2

I think it's great news.

Colonel Shatner · October 2008

Quantum is a perculiar name and I'm puzzled what it actually means or how it reflects the group of crimiminals its representing. I wonder how they weren't spotted and shutdown so soon by the Western powers, if they're so omnipresent and well funded.?

You know what? Maybe we could have SMERSH again as well as secondary villains or grudging allies (properly, not that lame **** tease we had in the lame TLD) but make them an inverted Russian version of 'the Company' (the covert US cabal from Prison Break) in that they're a private spy agency for a consortium of fictional Russian Oligarchs, not a fictional KGB/GRU style Soviet agency on steroids like in Fleming's novels.

Fitzochris · October 2008

Colonel Shatner wrote:

Quantum is a perculiar name and I'm puzzled what it actually means or how it reflects the group of crimiminals its representing. I wonder how they weren't spotted and shutdown so soon by the Western powers, if they're so omnipresent and well funded.?

You know what? Maybe we could have SMERSH again as well as secondary villains or grudging allies (properly, not that lame **** tease we had in the lame TLD) but make them an inverted Russian version of 'the Company' (the covert US cabal from Prison Break) in that they're a private spy agency for a consortium of fictional Russian Oligarchs, not a fictional KGB/GRU style Soviet agency on steroids like in Fleming's novels.

The problem is, the Russians are no longer 'the enemy' as it were. In terms of western politics, the real threat now comes from the Middle East and Islamic fundamentalists. Unfortunately we now live in such a PC world that they wouldn't dare send up the Middle East on Bond the way they did Russia previously.
I mean, even the X Factor isn't safe {[]
I read in the papers they've had threats and have been branded 'anti-muslim'.
Sad society we've created for ourselves.

Seahawk · October 2008

Russia's actions in Georgia (And Western responses to it) have made relations more confrontational than they have been since the immediate aftermath of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
In CR it is explicitly made clear that Le Chiffre had advance notification of, & profited from, 911.
Such information could only have come from Al Qaeda thereby explicitly identifying them as existing as an active, hostile force within the context of the Bond "continuum."

Fitzochris · October 2008

Yeah, it's hinted at in CR, but I mean they couldn't have a big camp middle eastern version of bad guys like General Golgo, or Ourumov, or Orlov etc or there'd be an outcry.

Seahawk · October 2008

Fitzochris wrote:

Yeah, it's hinted at in CR, but I mean they couldn't have a big camp middle eastern version of bad guys like General Golgo, or Ourumov, or Orlov etc or there'd be an outcry.

I see where you're going with that but remain unconvinced. Roger Moore ad libbed the "Egyptian builders!" line in TSWLM in which he conveys a very dim view of Egypt, simply because their Government were so excessive in their attempts to prevent the film showing anything negative about their country.
The line made the final cut.
It is true that the humour of TLD's first draft was radically excised, but this was due to a change of lead rather than any faintheartedness.
(The film still depicts some members of the Mujahadin as being less devout in some of their interests & habits, than they would wish to be considered & does so when many in the west behaved as though they were above criticism)
The films do satirise General Gogol on occasions & it is worth remembering that for most of the period in which that character appears in the films, his real world equivalent was Yuri Andropov.
In the film version of LALD the strong parallels between Mr Big & Papa Doc Duvalier are retained from the book, even though the TonTon Macoute were more than happy to butcher anyone who even slightly criticised their beloved leader & even though EON knew that some would choose to interpret ANY negative depiction of ANY non-white character as "racist".

Their are strong parallels between LTK's "Isthmus City" & Noriega's Panama & though most people pick up on the allusion to Robert Maxwell in the death of TND's Elliot Carver, many don't notice how much Carver has in common with Rupert Murdoch.
I do tend to the view that the satirical elements in the series have, in the past, been glib & overdone. But It has never shied away from legitimate targets, however intimidating they may seem. I am strongly optimistic that that aspect of the "Tradition" will continue.

Fitzochris · October 2008

Good points and all true, but I still believe the post 9/11 world is a very different place to anything that's gone before.
I don't want to sound melodramatic but anything in Bond that could be taken as 'anti-muslim' could lead to threats against anyone involved in the film or, worse, further threats against Britain as a whole.
Like I said, we've become far too PC in our approach to other cultures and things should never have come to this, but when you read about police having to change community posters because the dogs featured in them offend muslims, you know you're doing something wrong somewhere as a society.
I just feel the Bond franchise wouldn't risk a big Abu Hanza character, with hooks and all, chasing Daniel Craig across Afghanistan.

Seahawk · October 2008

I haven't come across the police dogs story, but I am aware that the "banning" of piggy banks story & the embargo on sandwiches being eaten in workplaces during Ramadan both transpired to be urban myths.
(As for PC, though I've always loved Bond, I find the way in which both Fleming & EON have, historically, used physical impairment as a visual shorthand for "evil" to be, at best,, lazy & at worst offensive. Many would consider that as being "Politically Correct" but more than anything else it's about not wishing to have my intelligence insulted.)
The Islamic world, like Christendom & Humanism, contains within it some of Humanity's best & worst advertisements. I have seen this implicitly acknowledged in Bond films in the past & hope that this will continue in the future. I am confident that this will not be a forlorn hope.

Colonel Shatner · October 2008

Fitzochris wrote:

The problem is, the Russians are no longer 'the enemy' as it were. In terms of western politics, the real threat now comes from the Middle East and Islamic fundamentalists. Unfortunately we now live in such a PC world that they wouldn't dare send up the Middle East on Bond the way they did Russia previously.

Russia were hardly central villains in the Bond movies, more often grudging allies, and my idea of the new SMERSH is that they're not really an official extension of the Russian state like Fleming's SMERSH, they're instead mercenary agents working for multi-billionaire criminals.

So they would have no qualms in killing FSB agents that have taken Bond into protected custody, for example, and are more interested in extending or protecting Russian business interests, so they're not too much like Cold War spies.

And not only was 9/11 referenced and implied that Quantum operatives like Le Chiffre have profited from it, but also the Quantum syndicate was directly dealing with the Lord's Liberation Army as well, an existing present day evil organization. The spy than Bond killed in the toilet was most probably an Iranian operative, if he was in Pakistan, while Carlos could've likely been and ex-member of any given ME terrorist group.

Fitzochris · October 2008

'Could', 'maybe'...exactly my point. It's not overt. It's not in your face. Not like the Russian generals of the earlier Bonds. Golgo was a gruding ally perhaps, but Berkoff et al certainly weren't.

Colonel Shatner · October 2008

Good, that's how I like it, having bad guys from real life countries and organizations, but not beating you over the head with that.

Abd I don't think Golgo was anywhere near as OTT and campy as General Berkoff.

yodboy007 · October 2008

I have always wanted to see a new crime syndicate like SPECTRE play a big part in a series of Bond films. Pierce Brosnan, the Bond of my generation, never got one and I am glad to hear Craig will get one. Maybe the leader of the syndicate can be played by the same actor in more than one film (unlike Blofeld). It would also be nice to see it carry over to the next Bond after Craig if they have enough ideas to carry it that long. It is a shame SPECTRE can never be again. McClory = epic fail.

Gassy Man · October 2008

Everything is retro nowadays, so it was only a matter of time for something SPECTRE-like to make a return . . . I'm glad because when Bond fought "real" enemies, the movies often had a higher cheese factor than when he fought mysterious organizations that had better resources and creepier minds than even MI:6, and by contrast, made the Bond films' fantasy MI:6 seem entirely plausible. If the enemies are equal to Bond in gadgetry and the like, it will make future films, which inevitably will start to return to the traditions of the franchise, more palatable, especially as Craig ages and the action sequences with him seem less and less palatable without his using technology as a crutch.

Colonel Shatner · October 2008

yodboy007 wrote:

McClory = epic fail.

Of course Kevin McClory was a mad idiot who never let go, but Ian Fleming was rather careless too if he published Thunderball without giving credit.

Quantum is a way of EON/MGM to clear the slate and avoid the spiteful copyright blockage surrounding SPECTRE and Ernst Stavro Blofeld. In some ways it could be better that way, since you won't have the now comical anachronisms like supervillains stroking cats, shark pools, shoes with spikes and volcano bases.

yodboy007 · October 2008

Colonel Shatner wrote:

yodboy007 wrote:

McClory = epic fail.

Of course Kevin McClory was a mad idiot who never let go, but Ian Fleming was rather careless too if he published Thunderball without giving credit.

Quantum is a way of EON/MGM to clear the slate and avoid the spiteful copyright blockage surrounding SPECTRE and Ernst Stavro Blofeld. In some ways it could be better that way, since you won't have the now comical anachronisms like supervillains stroking cats, shark pools, shoes with spikes and volcano bases.

You are quite right that Quantum will not have any comical anachronisms like SPECTRE did, but keep in mind that those things were not comical until Austin Powers came along and spoofed it to death. No one can deny that the stroking of the cat and the shark pools were quite menacing back in the 60s. I think those anachronisms still hold up well today. They are from FRWL and TB, two of the best 007 films.

But, I will give you the volcano lair. That is one of the elements that hurts YOLT so much. The film could have been up there with Sean's first four, but the volcano lair coupled with Blofeld's men all wearing the same uniform came off as kind of campy and OTT. However, that set has got to be one of Ken Adam's greatest achievements. YOLT is way better than MR and DAD, but I put them in the same category of Bond films: the ones that are OTT, too extravagant and sort of campy with plots that are way beyond disbelief while bordering sc-fi.

Colonel Shatner · October 2008

yodboy007 wrote:

But, I will give you the volcano lair. That is one of the elements that hurts YOLT so much. The film could have been up there with Sean's first four, but the volcano lair coupled with Blofeld's men all wearing the same uniform came off as kind of campy and OTT. However, that set has got to be one of Ken Adam's greatest achievements. YOLT is way better than MR and DAD, but I put them in the same category of Bond films: the ones that are OTT, too extravagant and sort of campy with plots that are way beyond disbelief while bordering sc-fi.

Going against common consent I actually prefer watching You Only Live Twice to the slightly overrated Goldfinger and the weirdly paced, dull towards the end Thunderball, mildly silly volcano rocket base staffed by marching henchmen in red jumpsuits and all, even though Blofeld's volcano lair (and the Crab Key or Atlantis lairs for that matter) has no place in a Bond movie past 1979. Moonraker is a retread of The Spy Who Loved Me but I prefer it to DAD, TLD, AVTAK, TMWTGG, LALD and DAF, so a grand scale and sci-fi elements do not necessarily mean bad.

Wearing matching uniforms is not unrealistic and seems perfectly in keeping with vast, well funded organizations like SPECTRE or Quantum; Quantum operativse either seem to be in suits or SWAT style BDUs (like the gunship occupants seen in the trailer) not unlike Carver's Germanic mercs from TND.

But maybe in a later movie you could have Quantum leaders having a summit within an eerie ruin somewhere in a vast castle/mansion estate and they're wearing monk style grey robes with 'Q' symbols embellished on them, with the conference area drapped with 'Q' banners and lit by urns. Sounds cheesy, but Quantum could emulate existing 'secret society' organizations such as the Freemasons, Scientologists and the Klu Klux Klan, which are known for these kinds of religious trappings (I hope the producers are reading this).

yodboy007 · October 2008

Colonel Shatner wrote:

yodboy007 wrote:

But, I will give you the volcano lair. That is one of the elements that hurts YOLT so much. The film could have been up there with Sean's first four, but the volcano lair coupled with Blofeld's men all wearing the same uniform came off as kind of campy and OTT. However, that set has got to be one of Ken Adam's greatest achievements. YOLT is way better than MR and DAD, but I put them in the same category of Bond films: the ones that are OTT, too extravagant and sort of campy with plots that are way beyond disbelief while bordering sc-fi.

Going against common consent I actually prefer watching You Only Live Twice to the slightly overrated Goldfinger and the weirdly paced, dull towards the end Thunderball, mildly silly volcano rocket base staffed by marching henchmen in red jumpsuits and all, even though Blofeld's volcano lair (and the Crab Key or Atlantis lairs for that matter) has no place in a Bond movie past 1979. Moonraker is a retread of The Spy Who Loved Me but I prefer it to DAD, TLD, AVTAK, TMWTGG, LALD and DAF, so a grand scale and sci-fi elements do not necessarily mean bad.

Wearing matching uniforms is not unrealistic and seems perfectly in keeping with vast, well funded organizations like SPECTRE or Quantum; Quantum operativse either seem to be in suits or SWAT style BDUs (like the gunship occupants seen in the trailer) not unlike Carver's Germanic mercs from TND.

But maybe in a later movie you could have Quantum leaders having a summit within an eerie ruin somewhere in a vast castle/mansion estate and they're wearing monk style grey robes with 'Q' symbols embellished on them, with the conference area drapped with 'Q' banners and lit by urns. Sounds cheesy, but Quantum could emulate existing 'secret society' organizations such as the Freemasons, Scientologists and the Klu Klux Klan, which are known for these kinds of religious trappings (I hope the producers are reading this).

I never meant to say that a grand scale and sci-fi elements always means bad, I just think that there are a few films that did not get the balance right. I do not dislike any Bond film and every time I watch YOLT, MR and DAD I am thoroughly entertained. But I feel those films go overboard with certain elements. I also feel that while similar TSWLM is far superior to MR because it gets the balance right and comes off as more realistic and plausible. As pointed out earlier almost all of the films have some sort of sci-fi element, but not all of them achieve the proper balance. The films that are more like "spy fantasy" Bond films are my favorites. The films that do not make me suspend by disbelief very much are the best ones.

Commander_Bond · October 2008

I am very Happy that they are bringing an equivilent to SPECTRE in the form of Quantum in the new film :007)

I had no idea about the copyright thing until i've just read these posts, I've always wondered if Blofeld was going to make a comeback in any film, obviously not now... By the way, slightly off topic in FYEO when Bond drops him down the chimney at the the start... do we think that is the death of Blofeld? I sincerely hope it isnt... But then again, Someone severly damaged, in a wheelchair, dropped from a helicopter, down a very long pipe... his chances of survival weren't exactly amazing... Haha, went well off topic then -{

Colonel Shatner · October 2008

yodboy007 wrote:

I never meant to say that a grand scale and sci-fi elements always means bad, I just think that there are a few films that did not get the balance right. I do not dislike any Bond film and every time I watch YOLT, MR and DAD I am thoroughly entertained. But I feel those films go overboard with certain elements. I also feel that while similar TSWLM is far superior to MR because it gets the balance right and comes off as more realistic and plausible. As pointed out earlier almost all of the films have some sort of sci-fi element, but not all of them achieve the proper balance. The films that are more like "spy fantasy" Bond films are my favorites. The films that do not make me suspend by disbelief very much are the best ones.

I agree; while hundreds of man hours and millions of dollars were doubtlessly poured into Die Another Day, the ice palace/Icarus segment looks very tacky and feels rather lightweight (alongside Halle Berry, script and characters), severly lacking the sense of genuine danger, polished presentation, artistic quality and dramatic scale that even Moonraker had.

With the later Craig movies I wouldn't mind sci-fi/fantasy elements at all, they're already steadily creeping in since CR, but give them a sense of heightened realism that is more palatable to danger and drama (like the Quantum leadership perhaps being closely modelled on Freemasonary). Give me hightech lairs and near future weaponry, but make them plausible and sinister, not overly florrid like that fecking ice palace and Robocop suit.

If we have henchmen in jumpsuits, most likely they're guarding industrial workings owned by one of Quantum's legimate business fronts.

DAWUSS · October 2008

I just hope that Quantum doesn't become overused to where it becomes the future of the Bond series. I hope the producers will know when it's time to move on from Quantum.

Gassy Man · October 2008

I suspect Quantum will more or less stay with the Craig films the way SPECTRE more or less stayed with the Connery ones. Expect the Craig films to get more fantastic as he ages; as with Connery, they'll probably opt to infuse future films with more and more gadgets to compensate for fears that the audience won't believe Craig capable of the outrageous stunts his Bond is doing now . . . it won't get quite the level of the Moore films, but I think it is inevitable.

Loeffelholz · October 2008

Gassy Man wrote:

I suspect Quantum will more or less stay with the Craig films the way SPECTRE more or less stayed with the Connery ones. Expect the Craig films to get more fantastic as he ages; as with Connery, they'll probably opt to infuse future films with more and more gadgets to compensate for fears that the audience won't believe Craig capable of the outrageous stunts his Bond is doing now . . . it won't get quite the level of the Moore films, but I think it is inevitable.

I agree...and here is where I veer wildly into the ditch: I say this every six months or so...but I think Craig's Bond should go into space---specifically, to the moon. Not like Star Wars, or Moonraker...but like Apollo 13.

Make it Craigger's fifth (and final) Bond outing. In Act 2, Bond should train for a moon mission, like the Naval commander he is, a 'Mission Specialist'---as a cover to pursue the head of Quantum...to their secret base on the dark side of the moon...

Hey, don't run away...I'm being serious! Kind of...

I want Craig's last bit of fisticuffs, as James Bond 007, to be with the ultimate head of Quantum---on the side of a steep and rocky moon crater, in one-sixth gravity...and the air supply running out...

I'll take all firebombs and anthrax envelopes here {:)

frostbitten · October 2008

Loeffelholz wrote:

I want Craig's last bit of fisticuffs, as James Bond 007, to be with the ultimate head of Quantum---on the side of a steep and rocky moon crater, in one-sixth gravity...and the air supply running out...

I can't believe that I read this line, especially from one of DC's strongest supporters like yourself.

I presume that you were joking, but in case you were serious, all I can say is: be careful what you wish for. Haven't you read the amount of hate and ridicule that has been heaped upon DAD by the legions of fans of the Craig regime? Don't tell me that you actually want to hear such condescending talk about Craig and his final Bond film from the masses of fickle fans who will have inevitably flocked to the camp of Bond #7, whoever he turns out to be

Colonel Shatner · October 2008

Going to the moon? Are you on drugs?! Although I wouldn't mind Craig Bond scaling the side of a mountain in the Andes, then finding a small hatchway installed into the sheer rockface nearly a mile above sea level, opening it up with a bomblet and climbing inside, into a vast hidden labyrinth, the last fortress of Quantum.

Daniel Craig aging would not have a big an impact as you'd think, since 'ole Sir Sean Connery was reasonably convincing in relatively recent 90s action movies such as The Rock, when he was already of advanced age.

Gassy Man · October 2008

Loeffelholz wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

I suspect Quantum will more or less stay with the Craig films the way SPECTRE more or less stayed with the Connery ones. Expect the Craig films to get more fantastic as he ages; as with Connery, they'll probably opt to infuse future films with more and more gadgets to compensate for fears that the audience won't believe Craig capable of the outrageous stunts his Bond is doing now . . . it won't get quite the level of the Moore films, but I think it is inevitable.

I agree...and here is where I veer wildly into the ditch: I say this every six months or so...but I think Craig's Bond should go into space---specifically, to the moon. Not like Star Wars, or Moonraker...but like Apollo 13.

Make it Craigger's fifth (and final) Bond outing. In Act 2, Bond should train for a moon mission, like the Naval commander he is, a 'Mission Specialist'---as a cover to pursue the head of Quantum...to their secret base on the dark side of the moon...

Hey, don't run away...I'm being serious! Kind of...

I want Craig's last bit of fisticuffs, as James Bond 007, to be with the ultimate head of Quantum---on the side of a steep and rocky moon crater, in one-sixth gravity...and the air supply running out...

I'll take all firebombs and anthrax envelopes here {:)

It's all in the execution -- Casino Royale worked because Craig and the crew took it so seriously -- the script was good but not Oscar caliber; if Craig and team tackle even a fantastic idea like this one while giving it 100%, it could be pulled off, a la Connery with YOLT and DAF. I'm not opposed to a Craig film that pushes things to the extreme, but I do hope they stay more or less "grounded" (pun included) for a while because this is the Bond I've waited 30 years for. Sitting through so many formulaic Bonds in the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s made me yearn for a more Connery-esque figure, where the man and not the mythos dominated the screen; it helps, too, that Craig and I are nearly exactly the same age.

Loeffelholz · October 2008

frostbitten wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

I want Craig's last bit of fisticuffs, as James Bond 007, to be with the ultimate head of Quantum---on the side of a steep and rocky moon crater, in one-sixth gravity...and the air supply running out...

I can't believe that I read this line, especially from one of DC's strongest supporters like yourself.

I presume that you were joking

No, I'm quite serious.

frostbitten wrote:

...be careful what you wish for. Haven't you read the amount of hate and ridicule that has been heaped upon DAD by the legions of fans of the Craig regime? Don't tell me that you actually want to hear such condescending talk about Craig and his final Bond film from the masses of fickle fans who will have inevitably flocked to the camp of Bond #7, whoever he turns out to be

Bond #7's camp will of course be flocked to when the time comes, regardless---and the condescending talk about the outgoing Bond is part of the circle of life.

You seem to be assuming that it would be done badly, an assumption I don't share.

By the time a fifth film for Craig is in development, the moon will be very much back in the news, with a series of real-life moon missions being anticipated. It's not as crazy a notion as it seems

Loeffelholz · October 2008

Colonel Shatner wrote:

Going to the moon? Are you on drugs?!

Only beer B-)

frostbitten · October 2008

I think that although the Bond producers are much shrewder in handling their franchise than I, a mere fan, could ever hope to be, their tendency to make the films more and more fantastic, and more reliant on big special effects and futuristic premises as their leading man approaches the end of his tenure, is IMO a mistake. Instead of making the films bigger, they should make them smaller. As the lead actor ages and his ability to handle the physical demands of the role diminishes, they should give him films that are more psychological thrillers and character studies rather than big-budget action extravaganzas. These streamlined thrillers would still have some action set pieces, but they would be fewer in number, and would be shot in tighter confines. That way, with the proper camera work and editing, they can still be quite impressive (such as Connery's fist fight in DAF) without being overly taxing on the leading man. Other pluses with this approach are: (a) these smaller films will obviously cost less to make, so they won't need to be mega-hits at the box office to turn a handsome profit, and (b) they are perfect opportunities for the franchise to really go deep into the character of Bond and explore it simply because there will be more time to do so (without so many action set pieces). (Hey, I believe I'm doing DC a big favour by bringing up this proposal now

)

BTW, I like to dabble in writing fan-fics, and I've been thinking about making a screenplay for a tight, lean thriller that would be perfect for a Bond actor nearing the end of his tenure. It will be a small-scale adventure, with most of it taking place in only one location (a small, run-down B&B), and involving only Bond, his leading lady, and Quantum's most ruthless killer. There will be no gadget, unless a kitchen knife is considered a gadget

. I hope to have this story done by early next year.

Loeffelholz · October 2008

I like the counter-intuitive bent of your thinking, but it would be a hard sell in an era of flash and bang. Wouldn't necessarily have to be a Bond to get made...might be easier if it weren't.

It's a fascinating premise, frost, and I wish you the best of luck {[]

The Quantum Syndicate will Return!

Comments