007 - Quantum of Solace (SPOILERS)

[TwistedBishop]

So? I'm not in the habit of basing my sentiments on what some alleged majority thinks.

You don't have to influence your opinion. Simply realize that your opinion has no merit in this discussion. Casino Royale was a huge success, and Quantum obviously wanted to repeat it. That means satisfying those customers first and foremost. You were never part of that group.

 

[Mark]

Enjoyed the movie but could do without the shaky cam. Kurylenko is hot and tough. Dench turns in another great M performance. Of course this new secret organization they have discovered could be spread out over a dozen movies. They seem to have used the Tosca scene to set the plate with a whole bunch of potential International villains for eventual Bond films. I like the idea of having the films more interdependent plot-wise. We need more new gadgets.

 

[Morrus]

Huh. Weird. Then I wonder why Ian Fleming called his one James Bond novel "On Her Majesty's Secret Service"...? Combined with the fact that the agency is actually called the "Secret Intelligence Service", I can understand why one might use the shortened-for-convenience "Secret Service" when discussing James Bond (though "MI6" is even shorter).

Either that, or the Brits simply don't know their own naming conventions, or are inconsistent! Mmm... pedantic internet discussion on a lazy and slow at the office Friday afternoon...!

No; "Secret Service" very clearly refers to the US American presidential guard. The phrase is never used in the context of British security forces.

And MI6 wasn't called "Secret Intelligence Service" back when Flamming wrote that book; that's a very modern name. It was simply "MI6".

The book title's just a catchy title.

If you notice my reply earlier, the official name for MI6 is SIS - Secret Intelligence Service. That's who Bond works for.

True; but as I said, it wasn't called that at the time, and that's still not "Secret Service" - and "The Secret Service" (like that) means the US presidential guard; plus it's referred to as "SIS" in colloquial conversation, not "Secret Service".

If you asked a member of MI6/MI5 (or SIS) about the "Secret Service" they'd think you meant those guys in black suits and sunglasses who hang around the US president's limousine.

SIS also performs a very different function to the US Secret Service. The role performed by the US SS is performed by civilian (police) agencies in the UK.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

No; "Secret Service" very clearly refers to the US American presidential guard. The phrase is never used in the context of British security forces.

The agents protecting the President of the United States are just the most high profile aspect of the Secret Service. The main job of the Secret Service is as a law enforcement agency that is concearned with currency issues such as counterfiting and fruad.

 

[Morrus]

The agents protecting the President of the United States are just the most high profile aspect of the Secret Service. The main job of the Secret Service is as a law enforcement agency that is concearned with currency issues such as counterfiting and fruad.

Yes, I know.

 

[Pbartender]

We need more new gadgets.

No. No we don't.

The thing I like best about the new Bond films is that A) the best parts of the movies are not necessarily the action sequences, and that B) the movies are no longer simply a vehicle for showing off fancy gadgets and special effects.

 

[Pbartender]

No; "Secret Service" very clearly refers to the US American presidential guard. The phrase is never used in the context of British security forces.

Except for the title of Ian Fleming's 11th Bond novel...

Of course, you're right... That's just a catchy title for a book, and in the real world "Secret Service" as an agency is a fairly uniquely American thing. Though, common parlance is has often been generalized to refer almost any secret governemt spy agency, referring to the KGB, for example, as the "Russian secret service".

 

[mmadsen]

Did I stutter?

No, but you didn't support your... unusual verdict.

The movie Casino Royale was overlong, overwrought, overhyped, and underwhelming. After about 3/4ths of it, I was ready for it to end. When it didn't, the disappointment only increased.

I found it head and shoulders above all the previous Bond films -- which I enjoyed immensely as a kid.

As a more discerning adult, I particularly enjoyed the way Casino Royale updated the original novel while managing to say true to it. That's why I asked if you'd read any of the original stories.

 

[Mark]

No. No we don't.

(. . .)

the movies are no longer simply a vehicle for showing off fancy gadgets and special effects.

Of course, we do. It's a staple of the genre and the franchise. We don't want the whole movie to be about the gadgets but their introduction allows for fun HQ scenes and some surprises during the action that keep it from being just another chase and fight movie.

 

[Morrus]

Except for the title of Ian Fleming's 11th Bond novel...

Of course, you're right... That's just a catchy title for a book, and in the real world "Secret Service" as an agency is a fairly uniquely American thing. Though, common parlance is has often been generalized to refer almost any secret governemt spy agency, referring to the KGB, for example, as the "Russian secret service".

Hmm... Maybe an American custom with which I'm not familiar. Fair enough.

But since my initial point was that MI6 wouldn't be delighted to be referred to as such (and they're not American), my point still stands, I think!