Darrenhat and Mrs Dalloways views, which i do respect them not liking CR seem to be very 'looking at the very minor details to bag the film' seriously you could do this with any bond movie and i happen to think that CR is a triumph.
Seriously this makes no ****ing sense?! Sorry to swear but its pretentious bull-**** Dalloway.
Its ok that you dont like it, but your evidence is not concrete enough to justify your views.
You seem to be taking life (and Bond films) very seriously, Mr Drax. My gripes were mere quibbles, intended only to stir a little good-natured debate. If you take a look at my profile you'll notice that Casino Royale is currently riding at No.5 in my list of personal favourites and could easily rise higher soon.
Pointing out flaws in the films is intended to be nothing more than a little fun; in fact my series favourite, OHMSS, is one of the most notoriously flawed films in the series, which does nothing to diminish it's status in my view.
I thought it was fun, but hey -- probably not as much fun as the invisible cars and steel-teethed villains we've been slapping our knees to for the last 40 years.
You're right. A villain who crys blood and needs to win a poker game in order to survive is much more fun than a steel-teethed villain.
Seriously, IMO CR is just as ridiculous as any other Bond film. The only difference is that it's presented as a more 'realistic' film as opposed to those other less 'realistic' films which (DAD aside) I don't actually think are less ridiculous. Afterall in FRWL and OHMSS, we have a woman with a poison-tipped shoe and a villain who utilises hypnosis.
I personally think the film is excellent but understand that some people dislike it and respect their opinions, I just happen not to agree. I hate LOTR and Harry Potter with a passion but I am in the minority who just doesn't get it. A lot of Bond fans feel the same about CR but I think this boils down more to personal choice than any major flaw in the film's plot, direction, production or script.
I like CR as well, however I don't think that CR is nearly that good that criticisim goes down to personal taste rather than a flaw in the film itself. IMO the film is in fact quite flawed; it is just less flawed than most other Bond films.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Its ok that you dont like it, but your evidence is not concrete enough to justify your views.
With all due respect, why does Mrs Dalloway need 'evidence' to justify her point of view?
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Its ok that you dont like it, but your evidence is not concrete enough to justify your views.
With all due respect, why does Mrs Dalloway need 'evidence' to justify her point of view?
Welcome to the AJB Crown Court. MrsDalloway is the accused in this trial. Dan Same represents the Defence and heartbroken_mr_drax represents the Prosecution. I am the Judge and I hang 'em high.
Welcome to the AJB Crown Court. MrsDalloway is the accused in this trial. Dan Same represents the Defence and heartbroken_mr_drax represents the Prosecution. I am the Judge and I hang 'em high.
) Tell me MNL, will the judge accept any bribes?
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
This particular Judge is open to all bribes......er, I mean offers. And all previous offences are taken into account, especially those involving sticky buns.
Bill Tanner"Spending the money quickly" iPosts: 261MI6 Agent
You see, Mrs D? I told you it would all end in tears.
I feel like we must've seen a different movie, "poorly done" isn't something I think of for CR...but oh well.
I know that we've discussed this before. Let me amend my statement to be more explanatory (even though I know we will still disagree) that I consider CR to be "poorly written". Not all aspects of the film were poor. I give credit to Craig, and even Campbell for excellent work. The script IMO was awful.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,757Chief of Staff
I've read some things about CR but that's the first time I've read anyone bash the script, darenhat.
I managed to read the script (or a version thereof) a few weeks before I saw the film and, after reading it, my hopes soared - I thought it was one of the best scripts for decades.
I thought it was fun, but hey -- probably not as much fun as the invisible cars and steel-teethed villains we've been slapping our knees to for the last 40 years.
You're right. A villain who crys blood and needs to win a poker game in order to survive is much more fun than a steel-teethed villain.
Yes -- but at least when you shoot blood-crying villains in the forehead, they die. Steel-teethed villains have a tendency to survive all manner of destruction, only to run off and get married to 4-foot-tall blondes with pig tails.
I don't know if I've brought up this chestnut before but why would Daniel Craig be mistaken for a car-parking valet? That, I suspect, was written for the '28 year old' James Bond that Paul Haggis and Martin Campbell touted around for a while. A "Hey kid, park my car" moment with a Henry Cavill would have been a funny in-joke.
I don't know if I've brought up this chestnut before but why would Daniel Craig be mistaken for a car-parking valet? That, I suspect, was written for the '28 year old' James Bond that Paul Haggis and Martin Campbell touted around for a while. A "Hey kid, park my car" moment with a Henry Cavill would have been a funny in-joke.
I hear the original plan was to have him be mistaken for a plumber from Denham )
I've read some things about CR but that's the first time I've read anyone bash the script, darenhat.
I managed to read the script (or a version thereof) a few weeks before I saw the film and, after reading it, my hopes soared - I thought it was one of the best scripts for decades.
Each to his/her own I suppose.
Agree, an excellent, excellent script. Could've used more sticky buns, and not so many plumbers, but still...
Yes -- but at least when you shoot blood-crying villains in the forehead, they die. Steel-teethed villains have a tendency to survive all manner of destruction, only to run off and get married to 4-foot-tall blondes with pig tails.
I consider Jaws to be a brilliant character but there is no way I can defend his ending up with Dolly.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Like in the original novel, Felix Leiter is sort of a deus ex machina device in which, at the point it appears Bond has lost all hope, the CIA swoops in and gives Bond one more chance to defeat Le Chiffre at the gaming table.
I felt the scene was handled much better in the book, simply for the reason that you felt a chill when Bond lost. He made a mistake and it looked like it was all over. Then an envelope mysteriously appears with the additional money.
There's no lengthy conversation, Bond takes the money and meets Leiter later, which creates an instant warm friendship. In the film, there's no nice 'surprise' moment where Bond suddenly is back on his feet. There's too much talk before hand with Felix about the CIA staking a buy-in - which doesn't have the same amount of drama.
That's pretty much the whole purpose of Leiter in the original CR. It sets up his role as Bond's aide de camp for the rest of the novels.
Sorry guys, but the scene where Bond grabs a knife in the casino and makes to stab Le Chiffre -what's that about? Doesn't seem Bond-like at all...
For a moment it was the smartest thing to do. I thought Bond was coming to his senses. He shook the cobwebs from his head and said "Why are we playing cards with this guy? He's a wanted terrorist? Whose silly plan was this, anyway?"
M was exactly wrong when she said this was more than a blunt instrument job. That's exactly what it was. Bond's job as a spy is to infiltrate, gather information, and invariably crush the burgeoning scheme. This was a case where A) They knew the target knew the time and place C) and knew the consequences if he got away. Instead of sending a double-0 to actually take out a bad guy, they send him to play games with him instead.
What Bond should have done was bash his head into the CR toilet like he did the guy at the beginning.
I had the same frustrating moment in TWINE when Bond had a gun to Renard's head and stood there sputtering and fuming while Renard chuckled. Bond had Renard, had offed Renard's supposed insider Davidov, and was right there ready to stop him from stealing the nuclear weapon. His mission was complete as far he knew, but he just stood there.
Ah no, I quite liked that, as it referenced back to the books, where Bond doesn't like killing in cold blood (contradicted in the first novel CR but never mind...) He has to steel himself for it a bit.. In theory I know what you mean, but I thought the dialogue was good: "A man tires of dying."
Le Chiffre was worth more to MI6 alive than dead, because of the info he has on other terrorists. That's why the plan to bankrupt him and offer him asylum instead of just killing him.
Sometimes, a double-0 can do more than just kill...
Funny, but if the movie had introduce Leiter as the book did, I imagine there'd be comments like "How boring--sure it works in the novel but this is a movie, couldn't they come up with something more cinematic and dramatic?" 8-) I thought Bond dropping back to being a blunt instrument when he thought he had no other choice was great, and Leiter stepping in when he did and resetting the table was great as well. It put the original plan back into action, which Bond then succeeds at. Very well plotted, IMO.
I don't see CR as perfect but I think it is more intelligent than many action movies in the last few years, in terms of providing a dramatic impetus for the action, and in terms of surprising you. God, I remember XXX being touted as a James Bond for modern times, and CR is miles ahead of that flick in terms of intelligence. (I doubt I'll get too many arguments on that.) The nods to the previous flicks served to increase the shock value of what was different, ie Bond doesn't get to kill Le Chiffre, those types of things.
In fact, if people can name more intelligent movies of the previous few years, please tell me about them, and I don't mean that in a smart-ass way. I just like action movies where you care about the characters, and there is some interesting development, like L.A. Confidential for instance. So if there are some I've missed I want to know about them. (I don't really count the Bourne movies, which are okay but CR is better.)
On a Leiter note, I hate to say it but I am actually bothered sometimes when white characters are recast as black, it seems a bit too desperate to be politically correct or something. That being said, Wright was bland, but that actually that made him seem that more like a real spy. If you were actually a spy it would work against you to have a magnetic presence.
I don't know if I've brought up this chestnut before but why would Daniel Craig be mistaken for a car-parking valet? That, I suspect, was written for the '28 year old' James Bond that Paul Haggis and Martin Campbell touted around for a while. A "Hey kid, park my car" moment with a Henry Cavill would have been a funny in-joke.
Bond happens to be dressed in similar colours and style to the real valets who are going around in front of the hotel. When he bends down to tie his shoelace, covering his checking out the CCTV cameras, it's not apparent whether or not he has a staff ID badge, and he is mistaken for a valet by that charming teutonic fellow.
If I may be so bold I would like to go back to the original post as it was one I read with interest. I must confess that I do find some of the points lacking in justification, however I suppose all of this is just subjective opinion in which justification is not really necessary. Still, some of the points raised do have me figuratively scratching my head in bemusement. If I may I will highlight these points:
...my biggest criticism of the film is that the producers didn’t believe we could accept a new style of film, a new Bond and a loss of too many signature elements - in this case M. But this just leads to more confusion: did Dame Judy ever meet Brosnan? Is she still ‘the evil queen of numbers’ and did her predecessor keep an exceptionally fine single malt in the second drawer, or not? Presumably we’re going to have to have a new M soon; the poor old girl can’t go on forever. Heavens, how will we all cope?
I find it staggering that you think that the film-makers considered that we would not accept the loss of too many signature elements: almost all of them were jettisoned (thankfully)! Indeed, I worried that the 'family' would not have the courage of their convictions after the ridiculous reaction to the casting of Craig and would get cold feet during production, however they delivered to an extent I had not dared imagine. What they have created collectively, through eschewing the elements of formula, is a far more successful motion picture, one which happens to be about James Bond as opposed to a ‘Bond film’ necessarily shaped by formula.
As regards Dame Judi, I can understand fully the motivation of the producers in keeping her on. She is a big name, a highly respected actress and a woman of calibre; it is hardly surprising that they decided to maintain that element of class. Personally I am not bothered by this continuity issue *at all*: just forget about what happened during the Brosnan era when watching Casino Royale. This is a new start entirely, and as such the expectation would be that one should not attempt to analyse the aptness of Dame Judi in continuity terms in any great depth. A new creature altogether, divorced from the past, Craig's Bond and Casino Royale bear scrutiny as a fresh series with *no* links to the past.
Thinking about it a bit more in fact, I think this requires no more a suspension of disbelief than the notion that the chap in Die Another Day is he who fought off Rosa Klebb in 1963, or that the Bond of The Living Daylights alsot took on Zorin two years previously.
I didn’t understand the evening suit business – Bond plainly has no trouble in choosing his own Brioni (or tailored) suits, he seems to be wearing them with little trouble before and after he meets Ms Lynd – she even comments on his fine dress sense, so we’re not supposed to believe she somehow imbues him with new-found ‘style’. His budget is not in question; he can already afford the finest of everything an expense account will allow. Did Q-branch forget to issue him with a Brioni Tux? Did the budget not strech to eveningwear? Are we not supposed to notice how well dressed he is before being ‘Vesper-ised’? Or is this just ‘more fun’?
I do not think that we are supposed to believe Vesper imbues Bond with a sense of style. Vesper wants to make sure that he is dressed well to her satisfaction, and is part of the power-play between the two. A point is also being made, I think, about Bond's evident disdain for the clothing (as mentioned in the conversation on the train).
Why muck about with a fine novel? Why change the location from France to Montenegro (I don’t think anyone has proposed a good reason for this yet). Why introduce a duplicitous Mathis? Why ignore the relationship with Felix (and why for that matter is he small, black and from Washington rather than tall, blond and Texan?). There are so many important details that have been lost from the original. Expansion of the story and updating the cold war aspect I can understand – the rest just annoyed me.
This would assume that the plot of the novel was anything special in the first place. Fleming may have been a brilliant writer for many reasons, however his plotting was risible! In one respect I think you are right: expansion of the story is understandable as an absolutely faithful adaptation of Casino Royale would last about an hour and be a rather tedious hour at that. To make the picture more exciting, more gripping and more engaging several key changes were introduced and all I can say is thank Heavens for that! (I should mention that I say that as a fan of Ian Fleming’s novels).
About the casting of Wright, one could make much the same case against Diana Rigg as Tracy. Why change her character from a blonde to a redhead? If you are going to castigate Casino Royale for this sort of thing one can only assume that you have severe difficulties with *all* of the adaptations of Fleming’s work. Take Dr No, for instance. Who is this Sylvia Trench? Why did they ignore the death by guano? Why did they change the centipede to a spider?
I can understand your objection to the change of locale from France to Montenegro. However, northern France holds nothing like the allure that it might have done half a century ago for British readers. A clapped-out seaside resort hardly exudes the mystery, intrigue and exoticism of Montenegro, a location which is filmed beautifully to fashion an Ambleresque travelogue feel of eastern Europe. Montenegro serves the purpose far better than the north of France in the current day, in my view.
As regards Dame Judi, I can understand fully the motivation of the producers in keeping her on. She is a big name, a highly respected actress and a woman of calibre; it is hardly surprising that they decided to maintain that element of class.
She is??? All I know her from is the Bond films (and some TV show she was in with Admiral Roebuck from TND that airs on PBS now and then). I guess she's a big name in the UK, but I don't think she's a big star here in the US (correct me if I'm wrong).
Maybe for us in the US keeping her on doesn't have the impact that it would in the UK.
She is??? All I know her from is the Bond films (and some TV show she was in with Admiral Roebuck from TND that airs on PBS now and then).
The TV show you are referring to is called 'As Time Goes By'. It's a comedy that ran for years in the UK. Judi Dench & Geoffrey Palmer (Admiral Roebuck - TND)were the stars.
As regards Dame Judi, I can understand fully the motivation of the producers in keeping her on. She is a big name, a highly respected actress and a woman of calibre; it is hardly surprising that they decided to maintain that element of class.
She is??? All I know her from is the Bond films (and some TV show she was in with Admiral Roebuck from TND that airs on PBS now and then). I guess she's a big name in the UK, but I don't think she's a big star here in the US (correct me if I'm wrong).
Maybe for us in the US keeping her on doesn't have the impact that it would in the UK.
I am afraid I really could not comment on how Dame Judi is perceived in the United States, however in the United Kingdom she is certainly regarded as one of best actresses, if not the best actress, of the post-war era. She did star in the (not very good) As Time Goes By with Geoffrey Palmer, however her credentials as an actress are built primarily on her stage work: in 1961 she joined the Royal Shakespeare Company and has won numerous Laurence Olivier Awards. Dame Judi continues to act on stage to this day. Without doubt one of Britain's most revered and respected actresses, she is held in the public's affection in a way that Maggie Smith; her contemporary and friend and a fellow excellent actress; is unfortunately not.
As I say I cannot comment on the United States, however I can certainly understand why the producers would want to keep someone of Dame Judi's stature on board, regardless of the ostensible problem this might cause for continuity (a problem I don't really see).
Comments
You seem to be taking life (and Bond films) very seriously, Mr Drax. My gripes were mere quibbles, intended only to stir a little good-natured debate. If you take a look at my profile you'll notice that Casino Royale is currently riding at No.5 in my list of personal favourites and could easily rise higher soon.
Pointing out flaws in the films is intended to be nothing more than a little fun; in fact my series favourite, OHMSS, is one of the most notoriously flawed films in the series, which does nothing to diminish it's status in my view.
I believe the current phrase is "lighten up."
Seriously, IMO CR is just as ridiculous as any other Bond film. The only difference is that it's presented as a more 'realistic' film as opposed to those other less 'realistic' films which (DAD aside) I don't actually think are less ridiculous. Afterall in FRWL and OHMSS, we have a woman with a poison-tipped shoe and a villain who utilises hypnosis.
I like CR as well, however I don't think that CR is nearly that good that criticisim goes down to personal taste rather than a flaw in the film itself. IMO the film is in fact quite flawed; it is just less flawed than most other Bond films.
Lol. Excellent advice for us all (certainly for me at any rate). {[]
Welcome to the AJB Crown Court. MrsDalloway is the accused in this trial. Dan Same represents the Defence and heartbroken_mr_drax represents the Prosecution. I am the Judge and I hang 'em high.
I only ask because there was an incident with a sticky bun...
Next time just take the Paracetamol.
I know that we've discussed this before. Let me amend my statement to be more explanatory (even though I know we will still disagree) that I consider CR to be "poorly written". Not all aspects of the film were poor. I give credit to Craig, and even Campbell for excellent work. The script IMO was awful.
I've read some things about CR but that's the first time I've read anyone bash the script, darenhat.
I managed to read the script (or a version thereof) a few weeks before I saw the film and, after reading it, my hopes soared - I thought it was one of the best scripts for decades.
Each to his/her own I suppose.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Yes -- but at least when you shoot blood-crying villains in the forehead, they die. Steel-teethed villains have a tendency to survive all manner of destruction, only to run off and get married to 4-foot-tall blondes with pig tails.
I hear the original plan was to have him be mistaken for a plumber from Denham
Agree, an excellent, excellent script. Could've used more sticky buns, and not so many plumbers, but still...
Hi Babs
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Like in the original novel, Felix Leiter is sort of a deus ex machina device in which, at the point it appears Bond has lost all hope, the CIA swoops in and gives Bond one more chance to defeat Le Chiffre at the gaming table.
I felt the scene was handled much better in the book, simply for the reason that you felt a chill when Bond lost. He made a mistake and it looked like it was all over. Then an envelope mysteriously appears with the additional money.
There's no lengthy conversation, Bond takes the money and meets Leiter later, which creates an instant warm friendship. In the film, there's no nice 'surprise' moment where Bond suddenly is back on his feet. There's too much talk before hand with Felix about the CIA staking a buy-in - which doesn't have the same amount of drama.
That's pretty much the whole purpose of Leiter in the original CR. It sets up his role as Bond's aide de camp for the rest of the novels.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
For a moment it was the smartest thing to do. I thought Bond was coming to his senses. He shook the cobwebs from his head and said "Why are we playing cards with this guy? He's a wanted terrorist? Whose silly plan was this, anyway?"
M was exactly wrong when she said this was more than a blunt instrument job. That's exactly what it was. Bond's job as a spy is to infiltrate, gather information, and invariably crush the burgeoning scheme. This was a case where A) They knew the target
What Bond should have done was bash his head into the CR toilet like he did the guy at the beginning.
I had the same frustrating moment in TWINE when Bond had a gun to Renard's head and stood there sputtering and fuming while Renard chuckled. Bond had Renard, had offed Renard's supposed insider Davidov, and was right there ready to stop him from stealing the nuclear weapon. His mission was complete as far he knew, but he just stood there.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Sometimes, a double-0 can do more than just kill...
Funny, but if the movie had introduce Leiter as the book did, I imagine there'd be comments like "How boring--sure it works in the novel but this is a movie, couldn't they come up with something more cinematic and dramatic?" 8-) I thought Bond dropping back to being a blunt instrument when he thought he had no other choice was great, and Leiter stepping in when he did and resetting the table was great as well. It put the original plan back into action, which Bond then succeeds at.
In fact, if people can name more intelligent movies of the previous few years, please tell me about them, and I don't mean that in a smart-ass way. I just like action movies where you care about the characters, and there is some interesting development, like L.A. Confidential for instance. So if there are some I've missed I want to know about them. (I don't really count the Bourne movies, which are okay but CR is better.)
On a Leiter note, I hate to say it but I am actually bothered sometimes when white characters are recast as black, it seems a bit too desperate to be politically correct or something. That being said, Wright was bland, but that actually that made him seem that more like a real spy. If you were actually a spy it would work against you to have a magnetic presence.
Bond happens to be dressed in similar colours and style to the real valets who are going around in front of the hotel. When he bends down to tie his shoelace, covering his checking out the CCTV cameras, it's not apparent whether or not he has a staff ID badge, and he is mistaken for a valet by that charming teutonic fellow.
I find it staggering that you think that the film-makers considered that we would not accept the loss of too many signature elements: almost all of them were jettisoned (thankfully)! Indeed, I worried that the 'family' would not have the courage of their convictions after the ridiculous reaction to the casting of Craig and would get cold feet during production, however they delivered to an extent I had not dared imagine. What they have created collectively, through eschewing the elements of formula, is a far more successful motion picture, one which happens to be about James Bond as opposed to a ‘Bond film’ necessarily shaped by formula.
As regards Dame Judi, I can understand fully the motivation of the producers in keeping her on. She is a big name, a highly respected actress and a woman of calibre; it is hardly surprising that they decided to maintain that element of class. Personally I am not bothered by this continuity issue *at all*: just forget about what happened during the Brosnan era when watching Casino Royale. This is a new start entirely, and as such the expectation would be that one should not attempt to analyse the aptness of Dame Judi in continuity terms in any great depth. A new creature altogether, divorced from the past, Craig's Bond and Casino Royale bear scrutiny as a fresh series with *no* links to the past.
Thinking about it a bit more in fact, I think this requires no more a suspension of disbelief than the notion that the chap in Die Another Day is he who fought off Rosa Klebb in 1963, or that the Bond of The Living Daylights alsot took on Zorin two years previously.
Out of interest, why would it cause your head to ache? I agree with your first sentiment: Who cares?
I disagree myself; for me this is a picture about James Bond rather than a 'Bond film'.
I do not think that we are supposed to believe Vesper imbues Bond with a sense of style. Vesper wants to make sure that he is dressed well to her satisfaction, and is part of the power-play between the two. A point is also being made, I think, about Bond's evident disdain for the clothing (as mentioned in the conversation on the train).
This would assume that the plot of the novel was anything special in the first place. Fleming may have been a brilliant writer for many reasons, however his plotting was risible! In one respect I think you are right: expansion of the story is understandable as an absolutely faithful adaptation of Casino Royale would last about an hour and be a rather tedious hour at that. To make the picture more exciting, more gripping and more engaging several key changes were introduced and all I can say is thank Heavens for that! (I should mention that I say that as a fan of Ian Fleming’s novels).
About the casting of Wright, one could make much the same case against Diana Rigg as Tracy. Why change her character from a blonde to a redhead? If you are going to castigate Casino Royale for this sort of thing one can only assume that you have severe difficulties with *all* of the adaptations of Fleming’s work. Take Dr No, for instance. Who is this Sylvia Trench? Why did they ignore the death by guano? Why did they change the centipede to a spider?
I can understand your objection to the change of locale from France to Montenegro. However, northern France holds nothing like the allure that it might have done half a century ago for British readers. A clapped-out seaside resort hardly exudes the mystery, intrigue and exoticism of Montenegro, a location which is filmed beautifully to fashion an Ambleresque travelogue feel of eastern Europe. Montenegro serves the purpose far better than the north of France in the current day, in my view.
She is??? All I know her from is the Bond films (and some TV show she was in with Admiral Roebuck from TND that airs on PBS now and then). I guess she's a big name in the UK, but I don't think she's a big star here in the US (correct me if I'm wrong).
Maybe for us in the US keeping her on doesn't have the impact that it would in the UK.
The TV show you are referring to is called 'As Time Goes By'. It's a comedy that ran for years in the UK. Judi Dench & Geoffrey Palmer (Admiral Roebuck - TND)were the stars.
As I say I cannot comment on the United States, however I can certainly understand why the producers would want to keep someone of Dame Judi's stature on board, regardless of the ostensible problem this might cause for continuity (a problem I don't really see).