I seriously don't understand that "reboot" idea. Was M in Craig's movies a different character from the M in Brosnan's movies too?
Yes, a completely different character, with the name Olivia Mansfield. Raymond Benson called the Brosnan M Barbara Mawdsley. They have different backgrounds, and Dench plays them quite differently as well.
But it's about Brosnan's Bond, not Benson's - and Ms Dench not only plays M with both Bond actors she actually looks and behaves pretty much the same - compare her attitude to Bond in Goldeneye, Casino Royale and Skyfall.
I seriously don't understand that "reboot" idea. Was M in Craig's movies a different character from the M in Brosnan's movies too?
Yes, a completely different character, with the name Olivia Mansfield. Raymond Benson called the Brosnan M Barbara Mawdsley. They have different backgrounds, and Dench plays them quite differently as well.
But it's about Brosnan's Bond, not Benson's - and Ms Dench not only plays M with both Bond actors she actually looks and behaves pretty much the same - compare her attitude to Bond in Goldeneye, Casino Royale and Skyfall.
Thing is, you can't have film-makers check for continuity with all the Bond books - the movie Bond has never been the same as the literary Bond.
Okay. But I don't see how the Ms can be the same, especially since they live in worlds with different Moneypenneys and considerably different Bonds.
I suppose it's one of those things you accept, such as the fact that six men are or have been James Bond- ostensibly the same individual yet each with different qualities.
Going forwards, the Craig films have it slightly easier now that there's a new M, Q and Moneypenny. It firmly removes them from the Brosnan era so it will be a real test to see whether the changes bed in. It's probably one of the things I'm most looking forward to.
Thing is, once they have introduced the new M, Q and Monneypenny, it's almost time to move to a new Bond actor as well!
that's no reason to boot Daniel Craig!
I don't think he was suggesting that. It seems like once they've finally established Craig in the traditional Bond roles, he's already nearing the end of his tenure.
Tiresome thread but I do think Idris would make a fantastic Bond Villian, one who doesn't need to rely on a henchman to give someone a kicking, think he would be awesome at that either during Craigs tenure or the next fella! Also think Craig could easily do another two films after Spectre ( and I'm no fan of his) as there is no reason why they cannot make them every 2 years eon only waited for 3 because they wanted Mendes back and he had commitments!
Thing is, once they have introduced the new M, Q and Monneypenny, it's almost time to move to a new Bond actor as well!
As much as I love Judi Dench, it does feel that they should have done this earlier if Casino Royale is a reboot.
I don't see how any of this matters because CR is a reboot? Anything that happened in the 20 original Bond films is irrelevant.
It still has Judi Dench though as M. Even if you imagine that Craig era M is different from Brosnan era M, it's still the same actress and no wild change in character to make us believe that they are completely different figures. Also, whilst it's a reboot, the previous films will inevitably be in people's minds, particularly with introducing SPECTRE again and with bringing Q and Moneypenny back (as I recall Q wasn't in Casino Royale the novel and Moneypenny is only seen briefly so they probably didn't have much of a need to mention them but nevertheless). It just feels like it would be better to have done at the start as surrounding Bond with a lot of new elements/castings now will make some people think that a new Bond is imminent. I am looking forward to seeing the new dynamics but if they do work well and Craig doesn't do many more films, there's some lost potential.
If it was about a smooth transition, she could have been replaced in CR, not Skyfall. There must have been something more. And I still have not been convinced by the "reboot" camp. Instead, I see all the movies after Connery era as very loosely set in time.
If it was about a smooth transition, she could have been replaced in CR, not Skyfall. There must have been something more. And I still have not been convinced by the "reboot" camp. Instead, I see all the movies after Connery era as very loosely set in time.
I'll have to find the interview with Babs or Michael that talks about starting fresh and how they kept Dench because she's a great actress.
Thing is, once they have introduced the new M, Q and Monneypenny, it's almost time to move to a new Bond actor as well!
that's no reason to boot Daniel Craig!
I don't get all this clinging on to Bond actors. Change is good; you could say that Craig could do one more, two more or four more, but really he should stop once he's reached his peak so that he doesn't go out with a whimper. Craig's films seem to go in pairs so I imagine if he does more after Spectre he'll do two more.
It's not a question of booting; for a start, no actor is bigger than the series, and secondly, there's still many variations you could do on the character. I think the series is well established enough that they wouldn't just hire anyone so I wouldn't be surprised if they are thinking ahead as to who should play Bond after Craig. It's not an insult or an attempt to fire Craig; it's sensible planning ahead. The franchise has to evolve to stay fresh- at what point Craig moves on may not be known yet but the truth is that he will at some point.
Thing is, once they have introduced the new M, Q and Monneypenny, it's almost time to move to a new Bond actor as well!
that's no reason to boot Daniel Craig!
I don't get all this clinging on to Bond actors. Change is good; you could say that Craig could do one more, two more or four more, but really he should stop once he's reached his peak so that he doesn't go out with a whimper. Craig's films seem to go in pairs so I imagine if he does more after Spectre he'll do two more.
It's not a question of booting; for a start, no actor is bigger than the series, and secondly, there's still many variations you could do on the character. I think the series is well established enough that they wouldn't just hire anyone so I wouldn't be surprised if they are thinking ahead as to who should play Bond after Craig. It's not an insult or an attempt to fire Craig; it's sensible planning ahead. The franchise has to evolve to stay fresh- at what point Craig moves on may not be known yet but the truth is that he will at some point.
Dear Lady Ice,
of course the producers want to plan ahead but it's no good to talk about the next fella while DC is still planing to be around for some time. guess how he would feel!
therefore I'd say it's everything but "sensible planning"
besides I think of all this "planing ahead to stay fresh and competitive"-talk as bulls**t.
I think the franchise has an established fan-base that will stay around even without having groundbreaking innovations every new movie!
"You see Mr.Bond, you can't kill my dreams...but my dreams can kill you.Time to face destiny" - "Time to face gravity"
Thing is, once they have introduced the new M, Q and Monneypenny, it's almost time to move to a new Bond actor as well!
As much as I love Judi Dench, it does feel that they should have done this earlier if Casino Royale is a reboot.
I don't see how any of this matters because CR is a reboot? Anything that happened in the 20 original Bond films is irrelevant.
Thanks for the link! Even the filmmakers admit this:
"Strange enough, it doesn’t make any sense in the timeline. We simply said that you gotta suck that up, because you can’t really change Judi Dench at this point, she’s just too good. We did discuss it, because there’s no logic to it, of course, but we just thought she’s so perfect in the role."
If you like thinking in terms of reboots, every new Bond actor brings a reboot. You could not imagine that Connery and Brosnan are parts of the same timeline?
And just to show you that what the fimmakers say has to be taken with a barrel of salt, another quote from the same link:
"JBH!: Do you think they’ll eventually bring back Specter or Blofeld?
Campbell: I don’t think they’ll go as fantastical in that direction, if you know what I mean. You won’t get the huge room with 27 people sitting at the table and the man stroking a cat, and then #27 disappears into the shark tank. (laughs) or get electrocuted. Oh, no. Which is all wonderful stuff, actually. I don’t think you’ll see that, but you may see a more realistic interpretation of that."
Well, they have just done that - brought back SPECTRE!
And just to show you that what the fimmakers say has to be taken with a barrel of salt, another quote from the same link:
"JBH!: Do you think they’ll eventually bring back Specter or Blofeld?
Campbell: I don’t think they’ll go as fantastical in that direction, if you know what I mean. You won’t get the huge room with 27 people sitting at the table and the man stroking a cat, and then #27 disappears into the shark tank. (laughs) or get electrocuted. Oh, no. Which is all wonderful stuff, actually. I don’t think you’ll see that, but you may see a more realistic interpretation of that."
Well, they have just done that - brought back SPECTRE!
Martin Campbell didn't bring it back. And if you asked Barbara and Michael at the time, they would have said it wouldn't have been possible because they didn't own the rights. But now they did bring back the huge room with 27 people sitting at the table. So far, in the trailers, we haven't seen the cat. Perhaps we are getting the more realistic interpretation Campbell said we might get in the future. We still don't know if they're bringing back Blofeld.
Dear Lady Ice,
of course the producers want to plan ahead but it's no good to talk about the next fella while DC is still planing to be around for some time. guess how he would feel!
therefore I'd say it's everything but "sensible planning"
besides I think of all this "planing ahead to stay fresh and competitive"-talk as bulls**t.
I think the franchise has an established fan-base that will stay around even without having groundbreaking innovations every new movie!
I'm sure that Craig would be fine about it; it's not like the filmmakers are planning for a specific point in time but if Craig turned around after Spectre or some future film and said that he didn't want to do the next one (there could be any number of unforseeable reasons why he might), they'd want to have some contigency in place and an idea of the direction they would move the series in. If I was in his place, I'd much prefer that because it doesn't tie you down. The worst thing would be to push him beyond the amount which he wants to do- and we don't really know what that is. It's not like he's going to tell the press right before the film he wants to leave after that he's going to quit (and that could be for a few more years yet though I don't think he'll be doing the role when he's sixty). So yeah, throwing a few ideas around- and it's not like there's any real contenders- isn't a bad thing. As you say, the established fan-base will be loyal to the series; it won't live or die with one era.
It might be a bit of a contentious opinion but I like to speculate about the future and feel that it can be done without being disloyal to the present. I'm looking forward to Spectre and seeing what that opens up for future films, which looks like it could be quite a bit
Comments
But it's about Brosnan's Bond, not Benson's - and Ms Dench not only plays M with both Bond actors she actually looks and behaves pretty much the same - compare her attitude to Bond in Goldeneye, Casino Royale and Skyfall.
I always linked Benson's and Brosnan's Bonds because Benson wrote novelisations of Brosnan's films. Here it says the Mawdsley name is from the GoldenEye script: https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/movies/ge_trivia.php3?t=mi6&s=ge
Okay. But I don't see how the Ms can be the same, especially since they live in worlds with different Moneypenneys and considerably different Bonds.
I suppose it's one of those things you accept, such as the fact that six men are or have been James Bond- ostensibly the same individual yet each with different qualities.
Going forwards, the Craig films have it slightly easier now that there's a new M, Q and Moneypenny. It firmly removes them from the Brosnan era so it will be a real test to see whether the changes bed in. It's probably one of the things I'm most looking forward to.
that's no reason to boot Daniel Craig!
I don't think he was suggesting that. It seems like once they've finally established Craig in the traditional Bond roles, he's already nearing the end of his tenure.
As much as I love Judi Dench, it does feel that they should have done this earlier if Casino Royale is a reboot.
I don't see how any of this matters because CR is a reboot? Anything that happened in the 20 original Bond films is irrelevant.
It still has Judi Dench though as M. Even if you imagine that Craig era M is different from Brosnan era M, it's still the same actress and no wild change in character to make us believe that they are completely different figures. Also, whilst it's a reboot, the previous films will inevitably be in people's minds, particularly with introducing SPECTRE again and with bringing Q and Moneypenny back (as I recall Q wasn't in Casino Royale the novel and Moneypenny is only seen briefly so they probably didn't have much of a need to mention them but nevertheless). It just feels like it would be better to have done at the start as surrounding Bond with a lot of new elements/castings now will make some people think that a new Bond is imminent. I am looking forward to seeing the new dynamics but if they do work well and Craig doesn't do many more films, there's some lost potential.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I'll have to find the interview with Babs or Michael that talks about starting fresh and how they kept Dench because she's a great actress.
http://www.superherohype.com/features/92207-casino-royale-director-martin-campbell
I still don't understand why you don't accept the filmmakers' words that Casino Royale rebooted the story ?:)
Here, Babs says "we just decided that we would make it as if no Bond film had been made before":
http://www.gamesradar.com/decade-s-best-casino-royale/
I don't get all this clinging on to Bond actors. Change is good; you could say that Craig could do one more, two more or four more, but really he should stop once he's reached his peak so that he doesn't go out with a whimper. Craig's films seem to go in pairs so I imagine if he does more after Spectre he'll do two more.
It's not a question of booting; for a start, no actor is bigger than the series, and secondly, there's still many variations you could do on the character. I think the series is well established enough that they wouldn't just hire anyone so I wouldn't be surprised if they are thinking ahead as to who should play Bond after Craig. It's not an insult or an attempt to fire Craig; it's sensible planning ahead. The franchise has to evolve to stay fresh- at what point Craig moves on may not be known yet but the truth is that he will at some point.
Dear Lady Ice,
of course the producers want to plan ahead but it's no good to talk about the next fella while DC is still planing to be around for some time. guess how he would feel!
therefore I'd say it's everything but "sensible planning"
besides I think of all this "planing ahead to stay fresh and competitive"-talk as bulls**t.
I think the franchise has an established fan-base that will stay around even without having groundbreaking innovations every new movie!
Thanks for the link! Even the filmmakers admit this:
"Strange enough, it doesn’t make any sense in the timeline. We simply said that you gotta suck that up, because you can’t really change Judi Dench at this point, she’s just too good. We did discuss it, because there’s no logic to it, of course, but we just thought she’s so perfect in the role."
If you like thinking in terms of reboots, every new Bond actor brings a reboot. You could not imagine that Connery and Brosnan are parts of the same timeline?
"JBH!: Do you think they’ll eventually bring back Specter or Blofeld?
Campbell: I don’t think they’ll go as fantastical in that direction, if you know what I mean. You won’t get the huge room with 27 people sitting at the table and the man stroking a cat, and then #27 disappears into the shark tank. (laughs) or get electrocuted. Oh, no. Which is all wonderful stuff, actually. I don’t think you’ll see that, but you may see a more realistic interpretation of that."
Well, they have just done that - brought back SPECTRE!
Martin Campbell didn't bring it back. And if you asked Barbara and Michael at the time, they would have said it wouldn't have been possible because they didn't own the rights. But now they did bring back the huge room with 27 people sitting at the table. So far, in the trailers, we haven't seen the cat. Perhaps we are getting the more realistic interpretation Campbell said we might get in the future. We still don't know if they're bringing back Blofeld.
They will have to tell the story of how Blofeld gets his cat.
I'm sure that Craig would be fine about it; it's not like the filmmakers are planning for a specific point in time but if Craig turned around after Spectre or some future film and said that he didn't want to do the next one (there could be any number of unforseeable reasons why he might), they'd want to have some contigency in place and an idea of the direction they would move the series in. If I was in his place, I'd much prefer that because it doesn't tie you down. The worst thing would be to push him beyond the amount which he wants to do- and we don't really know what that is. It's not like he's going to tell the press right before the film he wants to leave after that he's going to quit (and that could be for a few more years yet though I don't think he'll be doing the role when he's sixty). So yeah, throwing a few ideas around- and it's not like there's any real contenders- isn't a bad thing. As you say, the established fan-base will be loyal to the series; it won't live or die with one era.
It might be a bit of a contentious opinion but I like to speculate about the future and feel that it can be done without being disloyal to the present. I'm looking forward to Spectre and seeing what that opens up for future films, which looks like it could be quite a bit