The thing is, we don't know that the money was lost. Bond gets White -- he could have gotten the money, too. It's just never addressed, at least so far as I can remember.
At the time M talks to Bond, the money had been lost because Bond hadn't gotten Mr. White yet. So M should be mad about that, but she only mentions the money in the way Vesper used Bond. M should care about the money, not consoling Bond on his loss of Vesper and telling him he learned a lesson. Since Mr. White has proven to be smarter than Bond, I'd assume he would have deposited the money and not left it in a briefcase for Bond to find. It's not the same day when Bond finds Mr. White, so Mr. White would have had enough time to safely deposit the money.
I don't think we'll ever find out. We don't know how much time has passed between Vesper's demise and White showing up, presumably, at his house for Bond to shoot him. What we do know is that M and others have bigger fish to fry at that point, so it doesn't seem a concern. Perhaps something else is in the works to get the money back.
I've always found it strange that in the age of electronic transfers that paper money was even given to Vesper. It's more than $100 million dollars, too! How much currency would a bank branch in Venice have? That's a lot to fit in a small metal case. So, perhaps it was only a check. Maybe the bank immediately stopped payment on it. When White pulls up to his lake, gets out, and sighs, we're led to believe he's relieved to be home after a long and difficult mission. But maybe he just got chewed out for failing to get the money, and this is the starts of his steady animosity with Blofeld.
I'm mostly joking, but the issue is, we don't know. But we don't have to. Like I said, all that is just incidental to the real story about Bond falling in love and finding out he's not as tough or flawless as he thought -- finding out that arrogance alone is not a strength.
It would seem more so if the films that followed didn't in one way or another want to have a "do over" for the same idea, making Bond not simply a man who evolves as he ages but a brash, lucky rebel who seems to have to keep learning the same lessons over and over. Though I will maintain that the film needed 10 more minutes of romance to be truly convincing, Casino Royale is on the whole a brilliant movie; it's the films that follow that tarnish it by mucking up whatever loose ends might have resulted from its lesser plot elements. That takes us back to the bad writing.
Not to blow too much smoke, in a certain place, but I too enjoy your musings on Bond.
Infact on a couple of occasions you're steered me right on a few things. so indeed
Keep up the good work Gassy Man. {[]
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
This is kind of on topic... in SPECTRE when M is chewing out Bond over the Mexico 'event' and Bond is sort of smirking and doing the 'yes sir' thing, is that funny (I thought so) or bad writing, as in M should be more inquisitive than reprimanding?
Not to blow too much smoke, in a certain place, but I too enjoy your musings on Bond.
Infact on a couple of occasions you're steered me right on a few things. so indeed
Keep up the good work Gassy Man. {[]
Same here, thanks. I learn quite a bit from so many people's posts, including yours.
This is kind of on topic... in SPECTRE when M is chewing out Bond over the Mexico 'event' and Bond is sort of smirking and doing the 'yes sir' thing, is that funny (I thought so) or bad writing, as in M should be more inquisitive than reprimanding?
I was okay with it. Reminded me of the scene in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, just more Harry Palmer than James Bond. Craig is far more insolent than any other incarnation of Bond. Connery's Bond could be challenging, certainly, and Moore's was often flippant. But they still stayed within the realm of having a different point of view with the boss, and M always had the last word. which they respected. Craig, however, often plays his agent's relationship with a superior more like Michael Caine in The IPCRESS File. In that scene in particular, he was the child called to the principal's office who thought he had all the angles figured out.
In the old days the films placed the mission on Bond and didn't involve MI6 as much. Sure, M would often reappear after the initial briefing to re-evaluate the situation, but it was mainly Bond making the tough decisions in the field.
Now, we have a micro-managing M plus the "ensemble cast" and that opens MI6 up to more criticism such as this thread.
Skyfall PTS is a perfect example:
M giving orders thru an earpiece to agents. She ends up being responsible for Bond being shot.
Field Agent Moneypenny relying on these orders to make a tough judgement call. She ends up shooting Bond.
Bond also hears these orders in his earpiece. Many fans wondered why he didn't simply duck when he knew the shot was coming.
This approach to Bond movies reflects poorly on everyone.
Imagine if Roger Moore was fighting Gobinda on top of the train and Lois Maxwell was in the woods with a sniper rifle and Robert Brown was monitoring the situation closely via satellite. Lame )
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Craig is far more insolent than any other incarnation of Bond. Connery's Bond could be challenging, certainly, and Moore's was often flippant. But they still stayed within the realm of having a different point of view with the boss, and M always had the last word. which they respected.
Hmmm, yeah, even when Tim's Bond was told it wasn't a country club he seemed to really care about being chided.
The mood of these posts seems to be that while CR is a good film, the direction following it has been disappointing and so has Craig?
I for one have never really warmed to Craig's portrayal of Bond - because he isn't that likeable! This is in the sense that I wouldn't want to be his Bond - he makes too many mistakes and is brash, arrogant and a bit of a sad-sack.
So the question is, have the producers (and Craig) got Craig's Bond wrong??
I'm not disappointed with Craig's acting, nor the acting of anyone in the four films. No cast member has been weak, in my opinion, and this is the best set of casts they've had since the Connery days. They've scored big time by getting legitimate performers.
But I'm disappointed by the quality of the film making after Casino Royale. The combination of underwhelming writing, surface-level direction, and starts and stops that take years to turn out products leaves me wanting. Craig, as star, shares some of the blame for not protecting the integrity of his character more -- he could and should have demanded better scripts. But the problems are mostly on the production side. They've largely squandered the creative rebirth from Casino Royale, producing films of uneven quality whose success has, in my opinion, been largely the result of what that film did rather than their own merits.
So, is everyone here finally on board with the idea that Brosnan's films weren't so terrible after all-?
Yes! Well, except for GassyMan, Broadshoulder, and many others.
Skyfall is the epitome of the bias against Brosnan-era, since it blatantly ripped off major plot elements of GE and TWINE, and yet was hailed as a masterpiece. I am still stunned that SF was such a huge critical and commercial success. It should have been a box office bomb and considered the worst in the series. (and probably will someday)
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
I am still stunned that SF was such a huge critical and commercial success. It should have been a box office bomb and considered the worst in the series. (and probably will someday)
I think people loved it because it wasn't a Bond film, and it surprised people. It has Bond elements, but overall is moody, arthouse flick with a few Bond elements added to it.
People went along and probably got something that they didn't expect, and while it was an average Bond film, it was still a pretty good film otherwise...
Agree with your TWINE reference to the film, but it did it so much better because Brosnan rocks it!!
So, is everyone here finally on board with the idea that Brosnan's films weren't so terrible after all-?
Nope. They were ****. Invisible car anyone?
Just because a few people on a message board disagree with the direction the films were going it doesn't mean curtains for Craig. There are some posters on here who lap up anything going wrong for Craig
Looking forward to the Spectre DVD arriving today....
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
So, is everyone here finally on board with the idea that Brosnan's films weren't so terrible after all-?
Yes! Well, except for GassyMan, Broadshoulder, and many others.
Skyfall is the epitome of the bias against Brosnan-era, since it blatantly ripped off major plot elements of GE and TWINE, and yet was hailed as a masterpiece. I am still stunned that SF was such a huge critical and commercial success. It should have been a box office bomb and considered the worst in the series. (and probably will someday)
And now gentleman....the bias against the Brosnan
Since 2002 and the lamentable DAD he's been secretly worshipping the Broz. God help his successor because the wrath of Jove will be visited upon him. Anything going wrong with the Craig era (and how we laughed at QoS) is to be torn to pieces. Forget how Pierce was unceremonisly dumped from the role and how all media are guessing whether Craig is doing another one
Pierce envy is a terrible affliction...
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
This is kind of on topic... in SPECTRE when M is chewing out Bond over the Mexico 'event' and Bond is sort of smirking and doing the 'yes sir' thing, is that funny (I thought so) or bad writing, as in M should be more inquisitive than reprimanding?
I was okay with it. Reminded me of the scene in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, just more Harry Palmer than James Bond. Craig is far more insolent than any other incarnation of Bond. Connery's Bond could be challenging, certainly, and Moore's was often flippant. But they still stayed within the realm of having a different point of view with the boss, and M always had the last word. which they respected. Craig, however, often plays his agent's relationship with a superior more like Michael Caine in The IPCRESS File. In that scene in particular, he was the child called to the principal's office who thought he had all the angles figured out.
I think that this reflects the changing relationship with authority from Connery's 60's to Craig's now. I'm sure that Dissertations are being written about Transactional analysis and Parent Child dynamics in Bond as we speak...of course the IPCRESS file was also 60's it was very much the 'anti Bond' and Palmers was more of an outsider, working class, rebel than Bonds Eton educated insider establishment figure (quick Nurse the screens! I can feel another dissertation coming on)
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I question the decision to send Strawberry Fields out to collect rogue assassin Bond and bring him back to London. If i recall, she just worked at a desk prior to that point. Not surprisingly, she died.
I hate to see a fine-ass become a casualty.
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
I question the decision to send Strawberry Fields out to collect rogue assassin Bond and bring him back to London. If i recall, she just worked at a desk prior to that point. Not surprisingly, she died.
I hate to see a fine-ass become a casualty.
Perhaps there weren't any field agents available or stationed in Bolivia.
This is kind of on topic... in SPECTRE when M is chewing out Bond over the Mexico 'event' and Bond is sort of smirking and doing the 'yes sir' thing, is that funny (I thought so) or bad writing, as in M should be more inquisitive than reprimanding?
I was okay with it. Reminded me of the scene in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, just more Harry Palmer than James Bond. Craig is far more insolent than any other incarnation of Bond. Connery's Bond could be challenging, certainly, and Moore's was often flippant. But they still stayed within the realm of having a different point of view with the boss, and M always had the last word. which they respected. Craig, however, often plays his agent's relationship with a superior more like Michael Caine in The IPCRESS File. In that scene in particular, he was the child called to the principal's office who thought he had all the angles figured out.
I think that this reflects the changing relationship with authority from Connery's 60's to Craig's now. I'm sure that Dissertations are being written about Transactional analysis and Parent Child dynamics in Bond as we speak...of course the IPCRESS file was also 60's it was very much the 'anti Bond' and Palmers was more of an outsider, working class, rebel than Bonds Eton educated insider establishment figure (quick Nurse the screens! I can feel another dissertation coming on)
I think that's true, though the cliche of the employee not getting along with the boss/co-workers has been around for decades. This Bond not only latches on to those cliches but also cribs so much from other films -- Bourne, Dark Knight, Straw Dogs, previous Bond films, etc. -- that it's surprising it takes so long to write a script. A weekend of movie binging and a copy of Final Draft should be all it takes.
I question the decision to send Strawberry Fields out to collect rogue assassin Bond and bring him back to London. If i recall, she just worked at a desk prior to that point. Not surprisingly, she died.
I hate to see a fine-ass become a casualty.
Given what is at stake, it does seem rather absurd, though there is some precedent in the books. A Fields-like character shows up in "From a View to a Kill," though the universe there is nuanced to suggest that men fight the battles while women mostly act as noncombatant support. In Quantum of Solace, it's not professional spies but criminals that Bond is fighting, and the notion of gentlemanly agreements or whatever has long since disappeared. But it does make one wonder why someone more Bond's equal couldn't have been dispatched since he does not have a history of compliance.
Tim Weiner in his book "Legacy of Ashes" shows the history of the CIA to be a continuous series of one debacle after another. And it's not just the Yanks, MI6 has had its own problems (cough Burgess, Philby, MacLean).
The spy business is a tough one and mistakes will be made. Craig's films are more realistic in that way.
Tim Weiner in his book "Legacy of Ashes" shows the history of the CIA to be a continuous series of one debacle after another. And it's not just the Yanks, MI6 has had its own problems (cough Burgess, Philby, MacLean).
The spy business is a tough one and mistakes will be made. Craig's films are more realistic in that way.
This is a great point. The CIA, and the American intelligence apparatus in general, is woefully poor. Most recently, the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria was completely overlooked and/or misunderstood until the border between the two countries was entirely erased!
I think the Craig films actually do a good job of portraying just how far the institutions of government are lagging behind the events that shape our times.
But Craig's MI6 is a fantasy one, not the real thing. If it were, he wouldn't be thrown into a personal crisis with every mission, nor would there be gadgets of the nature we've seen. Most of his job would be sitting at a desk, talking on the phone, occasionally interviewing people, maybe trying to interrogate someone in a room somewhere, and going to get lunch.
Comments
At the time M talks to Bond, the money had been lost because Bond hadn't gotten Mr. White yet. So M should be mad about that, but she only mentions the money in the way Vesper used Bond. M should care about the money, not consoling Bond on his loss of Vesper and telling him he learned a lesson. Since Mr. White has proven to be smarter than Bond, I'd assume he would have deposited the money and not left it in a briefcase for Bond to find. It's not the same day when Bond finds Mr. White, so Mr. White would have had enough time to safely deposit the money.
I've always found it strange that in the age of electronic transfers that paper money was even given to Vesper. It's more than $100 million dollars, too! How much currency would a bank branch in Venice have? That's a lot to fit in a small metal case. So, perhaps it was only a check. Maybe the bank immediately stopped payment on it. When White pulls up to his lake, gets out, and sighs, we're led to believe he's relieved to be home after a long and difficult mission. But maybe he just got chewed out for failing to get the money, and this is the starts of his steady animosity with Blofeld.
I'm mostly joking, but the issue is, we don't know. But we don't have to. Like I said, all that is just incidental to the real story about Bond falling in love and finding out he's not as tough or flawless as he thought -- finding out that arrogance alone is not a strength.
It would seem more so if the films that followed didn't in one way or another want to have a "do over" for the same idea, making Bond not simply a man who evolves as he ages but a brash, lucky rebel who seems to have to keep learning the same lessons over and over. Though I will maintain that the film needed 10 more minutes of romance to be truly convincing, Casino Royale is on the whole a brilliant movie; it's the films that follow that tarnish it by mucking up whatever loose ends might have resulted from its lesser plot elements. That takes us back to the bad writing.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Infact on a couple of occasions you're steered me right on a few things.
Keep up the good work Gassy Man. {[]
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Now, we have a micro-managing M plus the "ensemble cast" and that opens MI6 up to more criticism such as this thread.
Skyfall PTS is a perfect example:
M giving orders thru an earpiece to agents. She ends up being responsible for Bond being shot.
Field Agent Moneypenny relying on these orders to make a tough judgement call. She ends up shooting Bond.
Bond also hears these orders in his earpiece. Many fans wondered why he didn't simply duck when he knew the shot was coming.
This approach to Bond movies reflects poorly on everyone.
Imagine if Roger Moore was fighting Gobinda on top of the train and Lois Maxwell was in the woods with a sniper rifle and Robert Brown was monitoring the situation closely via satellite. Lame
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I for one have never really warmed to Craig's portrayal of Bond - because he isn't that likeable! This is in the sense that I wouldn't want to be his Bond - he makes too many mistakes and is brash, arrogant and a bit of a sad-sack.
So the question is, have the producers (and Craig) got Craig's Bond wrong??
"Better make that two."
But I'm disappointed by the quality of the film making after Casino Royale. The combination of underwhelming writing, surface-level direction, and starts and stops that take years to turn out products leaves me wanting. Craig, as star, shares some of the blame for not protecting the integrity of his character more -- he could and should have demanded better scripts. But the problems are mostly on the production side. They've largely squandered the creative rebirth from Casino Royale, producing films of uneven quality whose success has, in my opinion, been largely the result of what that film did rather than their own merits.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Yes! Well, except for GassyMan, Broadshoulder, and many others.
Skyfall is the epitome of the bias against Brosnan-era, since it blatantly ripped off major plot elements of GE and TWINE, and yet was hailed as a masterpiece. I am still stunned that SF was such a huge critical and commercial success. It should have been a box office bomb and considered the worst in the series. (and probably will someday)
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
I think people loved it because it wasn't a Bond film, and it surprised people. It has Bond elements, but overall is moody, arthouse flick with a few Bond elements added to it.
People went along and probably got something that they didn't expect, and while it was an average Bond film, it was still a pretty good film otherwise...
Agree with your TWINE reference to the film, but it did it so much better because Brosnan rocks it!!
"Better make that two."
Nope. They were ****. Invisible car anyone?
Just because a few people on a message board disagree with the direction the films were going it doesn't mean curtains for Craig. There are some posters on here who lap up anything going wrong for Craig
Looking forward to the Spectre DVD arriving today....
And now gentleman....the bias against the Brosnan
Since 2002 and the lamentable DAD he's been secretly worshipping the Broz. God help his successor because the wrath of Jove will be visited upon him. Anything going wrong with the Craig era (and how we laughed at QoS) is to be torn to pieces. Forget how Pierce was unceremonisly dumped from the role and how all media are guessing whether Craig is doing another one
Pierce envy is a terrible affliction...
I think that this reflects the changing relationship with authority from Connery's 60's to Craig's now. I'm sure that Dissertations are being written about Transactional analysis and Parent Child dynamics in Bond as we speak...of course the IPCRESS file was also 60's it was very much the 'anti Bond' and Palmers was more of an outsider, working class, rebel than Bonds Eton educated insider establishment figure (quick Nurse the screens! I can feel another dissertation coming on)
I hate to see a fine-ass become a casualty.
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Perhaps there weren't any field agents available or stationed in Bolivia.
The spy business is a tough one and mistakes will be made. Craig's films are more realistic in that way.
This is a great point. The CIA, and the American intelligence apparatus in general, is woefully poor. Most recently, the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria was completely overlooked and/or misunderstood until the border between the two countries was entirely erased!
I think the Craig films actually do a good job of portraying just how far the institutions of government are lagging behind the events that shape our times.