For the first time in franchise history, Agent 007 James Bond of Her Majesty's Secret Service FAILED his mission. Raoul Silva wanted to humiliate M (which he did), destroy her reputation (which he did), and ultimately kill her (which he's responsible for). Despite not delivering the killing blow, he's still ultimately to blame, and Bond's surrogate mother was killed by his surrogate brother at his childhood home inside the chapel where his parents are buried outside. That was a real personal blow--as was the destruction of the DB5--and solidifies why Bond is as cold, hard, emotionless, and ruthless as he is, and as such, his failure ensures his success in future missions. So how do you think this played out as a franchise first? Good or Bad?
Secondly, in "Die Another Day," fans will remember that Bond made it starkly clear to M that he'd engage on an angry vengeful vendetta against the person who sold him out for torture in North Korea, and he's seen as the hero for doing so, whereas Silva is vilified for engaging in his own angry vengeful vendetta against M who sold him out for torture in China. The principals of the matter are the same, except Bond was sold out by a traitorous MI6 agent, whereas Silva was sold-out by the clean cut leader of MI6 in exchange for 6 agents. So what's your take on this? I couldn't help but be slightly confused as to why Silva was such a bad guy, cause when you think about it, it doesn't really matter if the targets are classified as heroes or villains--as Bond decimated the ring of folks responsible for his betrayal--because the principals are the same. So essentially, what we have is a toss up with these two scenarios. So what's your take on this? Are they hypocrites or creative in this approach?
You think Pike and Sykes haven't been watchin' us. They know what this is all about - and what do I have? Nothin' but you egg-suckin', chicken stealing gutter trash with not even sixty rounds between you. We're after men - and I wish to God I was with 'em
You think Pike and Sykes haven't been watchin' us. They know what this is all about - and what do I have? Nothin' but you egg-suckin', chicken stealing gutter trash with not even sixty rounds between you. We're after men - and I wish to God I was with 'em
@slysnide I think a big difference is the way the two men went about it. Silva was name dropping, getting people who were for the most part innocent murdered for being associated with M. Where Bond went directly after the source, Silva purposely caused collateral damage.
@slysnide Yea Id have to agree with @ejk1 it would have been better if Silva just went directly after M instead of selling out inocent agents who werent involved in his sell out. But I like this forum you've made here, cuz if you do think about it, he did fail the mission unfortunatly but he did stop Silva from harming any other agents
For the first time in franchise history, Agent 007 James Bond of Her Majesty's Secret Service FAILED his mission. Raoul Silva wanted to humiliate M (which he did), destroy her reputation (which he did), and ultimately kill her (which he's responsible for). Despite not delivering the killing blow, he's still ultimately to blame, and Bond's surrogate mother was killed by his surrogate brother at his childhood home inside the chapel where his parents are buried outside. That was a real personal blow--as was the destruction of the DB5--and solidifies why Bond is as cold, hard, emotionless, and ruthless as he is, and as such, his failure ensures his success in future missions. So how do you think this played out as a franchise first? Good or Bad?
Secondly, in "Die Another Day," fans will remember that Bond made it starkly clear to M that he'd engage on an angry vengeful vendetta against the person who sold him out for torture in North Korea, and he's seen as the hero for doing so, whereas Silva is vilified for engaging in his own angry vengeful vendetta against M who sold him out for torture in China. The principals of the matter are the same, except Bond was sold out by a traitorous MI6 agent, whereas Silva was sold-out by the clean cut leader of MI6 in exchange for 6 agents. So what's your take on this? I couldn't help but be slightly confused as to why Silva was such a bad guy, cause when you think about it, it doesn't really matter if the targets are classified as heroes or villains--as Bond decimated the ring of folks responsible for his betrayal--because the principals are the same. So essentially, what we have is a toss up with these two scenarios. So what's your take on this? Are they hypocrites or creative in this approach?
To leave a comment, please sign in or use
Facebook or Twitter