I agree with a lot of your article, but I still have reservations about expanding the role of M and the senior characters at MI6. I know the films are different from the novels and have taken off on their own and are meant to reflect todays reality, and I don't mind giving time to these characters (especially M and Tanner since Bond reports directly to them and Tanner is his best friend) while Bond is at headquarters or conversing with them while in the field. I just dont think they should be near the center of any future plots - at least for a while. I enjoyed Skyfall personally, it's fairly realistic, gives Bond and M and Mallory their character arcs and allows Dench to leave the series with a lasting impression. As far as how the Dench/Craig relationship was written over these three films, I thought it was done realistically and thought Dench acted with great authenticity in the role.
BIG TAMWrexham, North Wales, UK.Posts: 773MI6 Agent
Well, the SKYFALL honeymoon period didn't last long. Its haters seem to be coming out of the woodwork! I'm bemused by some of the vitriol thrown at the film. But then I'm also confused by the disliking of DIE ANOTHER DAY in some quarters. Two films poles a part, but like Russian Caviar & Peking Duck, I love them both.
I'm in the camp that, bottom line, just likes James Bond films. Okay, obviously some more than others, but whether serious, jokey, Dalton, Moore, whoever, whatever, they all get a spin on the DVD player. Yes, even dear old A VIEW TO A KILL.
Part of the pleasure from CASINO ROYALE to date is seeing the producers attempt something a bit different with 007. Surely this can't be a bad thing. For me, SKYFALL felt quite fresh & original whilst still embracing the elements one associates with Bond. I can't really ask for more than that.
Well, the SKYFALL honeymoon period didn't last long. Its haters seem to be coming out of the woodwork! I'm bemused by some of the vitriol thrown at the film. But then I'm also confused by the disliking of DIE ANOTHER DAY in some quarters. Two films poles a part, but like Russian Caviar & Peking Duck, I love them both.
I'm in the camp that, bottom line, just likes James Bond films. Okay, obviously some more than others, but whether serious, jokey, Dalton, Moore, whoever, whatever, they all get a spin on the DVD player. Yes, even dear old A VIEW TO A KILL.
Part of the pleasure from CASINO ROYALE to date is seeing the producers attempt something a bit different with 007. Surely this can't be a bad thing. For me, SKYFALL felt quite fresh & original whilst still embracing the elements one associates with Bond. I can't really ask for more than that.
I agree with much of Richard W's post, and it's a good read, however don't agree with any of the praise he dishes out to the film frankly! I think it was that bad. If the other directors can mess about with the final act (Tamorhi changing DAD to an aeroplane climax and inserting the parasurfing scene, Foster changing climax from ice to desert) then Mendes could have intervened here.
I agree with much of Richard W's post, and it's a good read, however don't agree with any of the praise he dishes out to the film frankly! I think it was that bad. If the other directors can mess about with the final act (Tamorhi changing DAD to an aeroplane climax and inserting the parasurfing scene, Foster changing climax from ice to desert) then Mendes could have intervened here.
Agreed. The ending of Skyfall was completely anti-climactic. M's death should've been grandiose. I would've wished a giant half hour chase in urban environment with Bardem as the cat and Bond+M as the mice. They could've done something really cool with Bond & M trying to survive and, at the same time, trying to avoid civilian casualties.
I also disagree with Richard W about Skyfall's action scenes. The pre-title sequence was amazing and I remember thinking that if the whole movie was like that, it was going to be excellent. Unfortunately, it went downhill after the title. I almost fell asleep during the subway scene and Berenice Marlohe was shamefully underused.
Well, the SKYFALL honeymoon period didn't last long. Its haters seem to be coming out of the woodwork! I'm bemused by some of the vitriol thrown at the film. But then I'm also confused by the disliking of DIE ANOTHER DAY in some quarters. Two films poles a part, but like Russian Caviar & Peking Duck, I love them both.
I'm in the camp that, bottom line, just likes James Bond films. Okay, obviously some more than others, but whether serious, jokey, Dalton, Moore, whoever, whatever, they all get a spin on the DVD player. Yes, even dear old A VIEW TO A KILL.
Part of the pleasure from CASINO ROYALE to date is seeing the producers attempt something a bit different with 007. Surely this can't be a bad thing. For me, SKYFALL felt quite fresh & original whilst still embracing the elements one associates with Bond. I can't really ask for more than that.
I agree..they did a great job for the anniversary film.
Well, the SKYFALL honeymoon period didn't last long. Its haters seem to be coming out of the woodwork! I'm bemused by some of the vitriol thrown at the film. But then I'm also confused by the disliking of DIE ANOTHER DAY in some quarters. Two films poles a part, but like Russian Caviar & Peking Duck, I love them both.
I'm in the camp that, bottom line, just likes James Bond films. Okay, obviously some more than others, but whether serious, jokey, Dalton, Moore, whoever, whatever, they all get a spin on the DVD player. Yes, even dear old A VIEW TO A KILL.
Part of the pleasure from CASINO ROYALE to date is seeing the producers attempt something a bit different with 007. Surely this can't be a bad thing. For me, SKYFALL felt quite fresh & original whilst still embracing the elements one associates with Bond. I can't really ask for more than that.
I agree..they did a great job for the anniversary film.
Plus there's some other rubbish responses; how can Skyfall in any way complete some arc that precedes Connery's Dr No? Craig's Bond is over the hill in SF, that's the theme. It almost mirrors NSNA in that respect. Connery in Dr No is fresh faced, or are we meant to be so taken with Bond as an iconic figure that none of that matters?
And yes, horribly, I think M is meant to be a mother figure in the film, never before have I heard her referred to as Maam in the Bonds, and often it does sound like 'Mum' and I had a horrible forboding come over me when I realised this. Even Craig referring to her as a bitch suggests mommy issues, as if it's meant to be redolent of a petulant six year old boy in conflict.
Plus there's some other rubbish responses; how can Skyfall in any way complete some arc that precedes Connery's Dr No?
Connery's Bond is not so "fresh faced" in Dr. No. He's been a 00 for some time and Moneypenny is already there. There's even an equivalent of Q with major Boothroyd.
Craig got his licence to kill in Casino Royale and Moneypenny arrived in Skyfall. That's how his Bond precedes Connery's.
The only contradiction is Felix Leiter who doesn't appear the same way.
I didn't mean to say that CR, QoS, and SF happened before Dr. No, just that Craig's Bond has caught up with Connery's. And in SF, Bond is not as old as in NSNA.
Bond certainly used the term "ma'am" in QoS and I'm pretty sure it even appeared in the Olympics sketch with the Queen. Not quite sure where the issue is, as it's regarded & very much still used as a term of respect to a female superior officer (particularly in thd police or armed forces).
Because it's used about 100 times more in Skyfall, and by everyone all the time. It actually started to get on my nerves. But my point is: I think it is deliberate by the director to focus on the whole mommy theme.
Connery is 32 in Dr No, okay he's not a novice. He doesn't look over the hill the way Craig is and is referred to in SF. There's in fact nothing in common at all, you can't pretend that Major Boothroyd is the same guy as the Q in SF. Though I suppose the gadgets are low key enough, that's what they have in common. Or that the M is the same character at the end of it. The timeline in any sense just makes no sense.
As far as the 'Bond timeline'; there is no timeline. The films are not a continuation of one person's career in MI6. How do I explain/understand it? I don't, it's a bloody film. The closest I get to an explanation is that 'James Bond' is a cover name. Case closed.
As for the whole 'M being the mother figure', this theme has been around as long as Dench has played M. For it to be fully 'admitted', 'acknowledged' etc is no big deal for me. It's just part of the characters relationship and the plot, so what's the big deal? M acts as a mother figure to orphan James.... AND? Big deal.
To avoid a coma inducing blurb, I'll summarise SF into some bullet points;
Plot; Great, twists and turns and not everything being laid out.
Craig; Great, shows a good spectrum of emotions from baddass, sulking, knackered out, finding his feet, fighting back, dealing with loss. DC can't act? Bollocks.
Dench; Great, anything this woman applies herself to she really does it justice. M has evolved with Bond over the years and I'm glad they gave enough involvement for Dench to really show what she can do in a Bond film. It was time to go, but I was sad to see it happen. Top marks.
Bardem; Possibly the best villain since Hugo Drax or Max Zorin. Believably scary and psychotic.
Whishaw; No it's not Des in his younger years, and I'm glad. Nothing like our old more familiar beloved Q, but I think this new younger version will grow on people in time. Capable of Des' level of fame? Long way to go yet.
Harris; I personally wish she wasn't so scrawny but a very capable actress. As a field agent, crap, as Moneypenny, like Q I think she's a grower.
Mahone; Beautiful, great class and style but why wasn't she used more? What a waste of a fantastic actress.
Props; Cool stuff, not over the top and yet still some cool items in there.
SFX; Wow! Bike chases, choppers, gun fights, the DB5 :..( , tube train and that firework display at the end, great true bondian action.
Cinematography; Brilliant! No more shaky cameras or epileptic editing, some great shots and stunning visuals.
Score; Ok, but not typically bond. There were way too many moments where I was hoping for a bond theme to sound out, and yet all we got was a guitar riff at the end of Komodo dragons and Breadcrumbs.
So basically,
Good; Craig, Dench, Bardem, Mahone, SFX
Bad; Mahone's lack of screen time, Newmans mediocre score.
Because it's used about 100 times more in Skyfall, and by everyone all the time. It actually started to get on my nerves. But my point is: I think it is deliberate by the director to focus on the whole mommy theme.
Connery is 32 in Dr No, okay he's not a novice. He doesn't look over the hill the way Craig is and is referred to in SF. There's in fact nothing in common at all, you can't pretend that Major Boothroyd is the same guy as the Q in SF. Though I suppose the gadgets are low key enough, that's what they have in common. Or that the M is the same character at the end of it. The timeline in any sense just makes no sense.
Dude, it's a REBOOT! If the timeline was supposed to make sense, then all the Craig films would've been set in the fifties, wouldn't they?
Let's see it that way: none of what we've seen with Craig had ever been on film before. His first 2 kills, his meeting with Q, Moneypenny lands her desk job...
I said SF "ties the knot" with a pre-Dr No Bond. Don't take it so f...ing literally.
Well, yeah, just responding to that post 'explaining' that Skyfall 'ties the knot' with pre-Dr No Bond... ties it around its neck more like. Anyway, yeah, it's a reboot but doesn't really make sense anyway. Hang on, which is a reboot. Skyfall or CR? Cos even with a reboot in CR, it doesn't make sense.
With a film this grim, it does sort of demand to be taken literally, or were you referring to your post?
OK, I didn't realize who I was talking to. Sorry about that. Of course, you're right. And good for you, too. Never let something you don't understand contradict your opinions. Good for you.
As far as the 'Bond timeline'; there is no timeline. The films are not a continuation of one person's career in MI6. How do I explain/understand it? I don't, it's a bloody film. The closest I get to an explanation is that 'James Bond' is a cover name. Case closed.
As for the whole 'M being the mother figure', this theme has been around as long as Dench has played M. For it to be fully 'admitted', 'acknowledged' etc is no big deal for me. It's just part of the characters relationship and the plot, so what's the big deal? M acts as a mother figure to orphan James.... AND? Big deal.
To avoid a coma inducing blurb, I'll summarise SF into some bullet points;
Plot; Great, twists and turns and not everything being laid out.
Craig; Great, shows a good spectrum of emotions from baddass, sulking, knackered out, finding his feet, fighting back, dealing with loss. DC can't act? Bollocks.
Dench; Great, anything this woman applies herself to she really does it justice. M has evolved with Bond over the years and I'm glad they gave enough involvement for Dench to really show what she can do in a Bond film. It was time to go, but I was sad to see it happen. Top marks.
Bardem; Possibly the best villain since Hugo Drax or Max Zorin. Believably scary and psychotic.
Whishaw; No it's not Des in his younger years, and I'm glad. Nothing like our old more familiar beloved Q, but I think this new younger version will grow on people in time. Capable of Des' level of fame? Long way to go yet.
Harris; I personally wish she wasn't so scrawny but a very capable actress. As a field agent, crap, as Moneypenny, like Q I think she's a grower.
Mahone; Beautiful, great class and style but why wasn't she used more? What a waste of a fantastic actress.
Props; Cool stuff, not over the top and yet still some cool items in there.
SFX; Wow! Bike chases, choppers, gun fights, the DB5 :..( , tube train and that firework display at the end, great true bondian action.
Cinematography; Brilliant! No more shaky cameras or epileptic editing, some great shots and stunning visuals.
Score; Ok, but not typically bond. There were way too many moments where I was hoping for a bond theme to sound out, and yet all we got was a guitar riff at the end of Komodo dragons and Breadcrumbs.
So basically,
Good; Craig, Dench, Bardem, Mahone, SFX
Bad; Mahone's lack of screen time, Newmans mediocre score.
I also think a huge travesty was Mahone's lack of screen time. I was absolutely blown away by her in the casino, only for her to be dead a few moments later.
I didn't like the new Moneypenny at all, and saw it coming a mile off.
I am still at a loss to explain why Mallory was in a position to fire M, and then takes M's job, as M. Sounds like a demotion to me.
"It is better to be as well dressed as possible to stave off, at least for a very little bit, the total collapse of civilization"
the new bond franchise, has restarted ! the Bond films,, as far as they are concerned,, James Bond Started with DC in CR, all new,, no previous conections
As for the whole 'M being the mother figure', this theme has been around as long as Dench has played M. For it to be fully 'admitted', 'acknowledged' etc is no big deal for me. It's just part of the characters relationship and the plot, so what's the big deal? M acts as a mother figure to orphan James.... AND? Big deal.
That's not the way the character was written by Fleming. Hell, M isn't even supposed to be a woman! At least if the producers are going down that route in the name of political correctness, then at least make her every bit Bond's boss as Bernard Lee was, as opposed to an overbearing mother.
As for the whole 'M being the mother figure', this theme has been around as long as Dench has played M. For it to be fully 'admitted', 'acknowledged' etc is no big deal for me. It's just part of the characters relationship and the plot, so what's the big deal? M acts as a mother figure to orphan James.... AND? Big deal.
That's not the way the character was written by Fleming. Hell, M isn't even supposed to be a woman! At least if the producers are going down that route in the name of political correctness, then at least make her every bit Bond's boss as Bernard Lee was, as opposed to an overbearing mother.
Ok, hold on a minute and you might wanna sit down.
Ian Fleming is dead.
In fact, he's been pushing up daisys for quite some time now. I know this is gonna be a right kick in the balls, so I'm sorry, but after his death, quite a few people have been writing bond books and films, and they've brought the character and the whole franchise into the 21st century.
I suppose you'll be tearful with the thought of no more "man talk (slap)" or "fetch my shoes" scenes?
So? That doesn't give the producers a free licence to mess up Fleming's work. And before some smartass replies that Fleming sold the rights to his books to EON, I'm not talking about a legal right, I'm talking about a moral right. The producers have a moral responsibility to maintain true to Fleming's original concept. Some films have done this better than others.
I have no problem with modernising the character to a (very) limited extent - such as incorporating modern technology and new cars in the films, for instance - but the major characters must remain faithful to the original concept. Yes, that means M should be a man, and he should be no more to Bond than a boss (and conversely, Bond should be no more to M than a subordinate, at least outwardly), and Bond should have a cigarette in his mouth on film every now and then, along with all the other Fleming Bond traits. The major characters in the films should remain recognisably similar to the characters that appear in the novels.
Sorry bub, but the Cold War era and the old ways of Fleming just wouldn't fit in with today's society, that's why all the arse slapping went out ages ago.
Ok, so bond was Fleming's creation, well he's gone and no one from his family took the torch, Cubby and Harry did, that got passed to Babs and Mike.
What would you prefer, Bond to continue into the brave new world or stop because Fleming ain't around to have any input?
Sorry bub, but the Cold War era and the old ways of Fleming just wouldn't fit in with today's society, that's why all the arse slapping went out ages ago.
There's a difference between altering the plot and the setting to make the film more contemporary, and messing around with the characters that Fleming created. I don't have a problem with the former (provided they remain somewhat true to Fleming's creation), but I do have a problem with the latter. The storylines can change, but the characters should not.
Sorry bub, but the Cold War era and the old ways of Fleming just wouldn't fit in with today's society, that's why all the arse slapping went out ages ago.
There's a difference between altering the plot and the setting to make the film more contemporary, and messing around with the characters that Fleming created. I don't have a problem with the former (provided they remain somewhat true to Fleming's creation), but I do have a problem with the latter. The storylines can change, but the characters should not.
The storylines change, and the characters have to!
When Dench started out in GE, it was becoming the social norm for women to have an equal standing in the work place (er, barbara?). It was perfectly reasonable and realistic for M to be a woman.
If the characters stayed the same, M would be a grumpy old man and bond would still be slapping girl's arses and demanding a black man fetch his shoes.
You have to take into account that not everything about the original Fleming characters is socially acceptable or realistic these days. Times change and so does bond, he and the whole franchise has to in order for the films to be relevent and successful. Can you imagine the backlash if at a press conference Babs and Mike announced Fiennes' role was due to women not being capable of such authority?
We'd love to live in the past wouldn't we, with arse slapping, chomby shoe fetchers and sexist comments a-pently, but I'm afraid that times have moved on, I suggest you attempt to do the same.
When Dench started out in GE, it was becoming the social norm for women to have an equal standing in the work place (er, barbara?). It was perfectly reasonable and realistic for M to be a woman.
That's no excuse for changing a fictional character that Fleming created. M is not written as a woman and should not be, regardless of what the social norms are. It's not about whether women can be equal to or better than men; nor is it about women in the workforce holding senior positions, it's about remaining true to the characters that Fleming created.
If the characters stayed the same, M would be a grumpy old man and bond would still be slapping girl's arses and demanding a black man fetch his shoes.
M is a grumpy old man.
But slapping a girl's arse and having Quarrel fetch Bond's shoes is a work of the early cinematic Bond. It did not come from Fleming.
You have to take into account that not everything about the original Fleming characters is socially acceptable or realistic these days. Times change and so does bond, he and the whole franchise has to in order for the films to be relevent and successful. Can you imagine the backlash if at a press conference Babs and Mike announced Fiennes' role was due to women not being capable of such authority?
Having a man play the role of M isn't beause a woman is not capable of authority; it's because the character was written as a man. Therefore, being male is a prerequisite for the role.
Can you imagine the backlash if they hire a woman to play James Bond??
Can you imagine the backlash if they hire a woman to play James Bond??
That's a straw man argument. James Bond is THE focus of the Ian Fleming novels; the other characters are just supporting players. It's not even remotely the same thing having M be a woman or Felix Leiter be Black as it would be to have James Bond be a female. Unless the Bond films are set in the past and totally ignore the contemporary world, I agree with minigeff that not only do the storylines have to change, but to a certain extent the characters have to change as well.
Sorry bub, but the Cold War era and the old ways of Fleming just wouldn't fit in with today's society, that's why all the arse slapping went out ages ago.
There's a difference between altering the plot and the setting to make the film more contemporary, and messing around with the characters that Fleming created. I don't have a problem with the former (provided they remain somewhat true to Fleming's creation), but I do have a problem with the latter. The storylines can change, but the characters should not.
I bet you're having a real problem with the Sherlock Holmes ouevre. Now we have a Watson who is female and Holmes who is gay/a drug addict/a possible sociopath.
This sort of thing can be done well or poorly, depending on the level of talent involved.
Eventually, when the copyrights expire, you may have films where the main character is Q or M or Felix Leiter (or maybe Leiter is female). Some of it may be good and some may be bad. Unfortunately, I won't be around to see it.
Plus there's some other rubbish responses; how can Skyfall in any way complete some arc that precedes Connery's Dr No?
Connery's Bond is not so "fresh faced" in Dr. No. He's been a 00 for some time and Moneypenny is already there. There's even an equivalent of Q with major Boothroyd.
Craig got his licence to kill in Casino Royale and Moneypenny arrived in Skyfall. That's how his Bond precedes Connery's.
The only contradiction is Felix Leiter who doesn't appear the same way.
I didn't mean to say that CR, QoS, and SF happened before Dr. No, just that Craig's Bond has caught up with Connery's. And in SF, Bond is not as old as in NSNA.
I don't think we can compare Craig's films with any of the others. CR was a complete reboot which means those other stories never happened in Craig's new universe and never will. They even changed his backstory - he's now an SAS vet or some such choice as opposed to Naval Intelligence. They only used CR because they finally got the rights and it was Bond's first job as a 00. I doubt if you'll ever see any reference to the past films in the future..they really wanted the audience to know that by blowing up the Aston at the end of SF.
I can see some point to the characters not changing had they not rebooted the series. Fleming did create them and there would have been no point in changing their identities and sexes or race in his world or if the old EON series had continued - you'd just get new actors. However, they decided to create a new Bond universe for this century and in doing so allows them to change these characters to suit their purposes. They just can't change their roles in the series. After all, Bond is now blonde (or light brown, whatever) and is more Steve McQueen than a Lord Byron figure. If they can change his looks that much and be accepted by most of the planet, then they can obviously change the other characters sexes, races, etc. to a certain degree to more reflect Englands more multi cultured mix. I don't think we'll ever see a black or asian or female Bond any more than you'd see a black or latin Batman, but most audiences (who really aren't familiar with Fleming's original work) seem okay with them fiddling with the supporting characters. We can either accept this is how it is now or just keep muttering our dissatisfaction with the change. Either way, it's how it is now and we have no say in it, only the box office has the vote.
I don't think we can compare Craig's films with any of the others. CR was a complete reboot which means those other stories never happened in Craig's new universe and never will. They even changed his backstory - he's now an SAS vet or some such choice as opposed to Naval Intelligence. They only used CR because they finally got the rights and it was Bond's first job as a 00. I doubt if you'll ever see any reference to the past films in the future..they really wanted the audience to know that by blowing up the Aston at the end of SF.
I can see some point to the characters not changing had they not rebooted the series. Fleming did create them and there would have been no point in changing their identities and sexes or race in his world or if the old EON series had continued - you'd just get new actors. However, they decided to create a new Bond universe for this century and in doing so allows them to change these characters to suit their purposes. They just can't change their roles in the series. After all, Bond is now blonde (or light brown, whatever) and is more Steve McQueen than a Lord Byron figure. If they can change his looks that much and be accepted by most of the planet, then they can obviously change the other characters sexes, races, etc. to a certain degree to more reflect Englands more multi cultured mix. I don't think we'll ever see a black or asian or female Bond any more than you'd see a black or latin Batman, but most audiences (who really aren't familiar with Fleming's original work) seem okay with them fiddling with the supporting characters. We can either accept this is how it is now or just keep muttering our dissatisfaction with the change. Either way, it's how it is now and we have no say in it, only the box office has the vote.
Yes, I get it. The idiot I was responding to thought I was suggesting Craig's films took place before Connery's Dr No. That's not what I meant. I think YOU know what I meant so I'm not gonna go over it again. However( 8-) ), I do think we can compare Craig's films to the others, the same way we can compare J.J. Abrams' Star Trek to the original series, or Cumberbatch's Sherlock Holmes to Conan Doyle's: in terms of what works and what doesn't. That's the challenge of a reboot and the beauty of it when it's successful.
The reboot thing is not new anyway, we all know it. Bond was 58 in A View to a Kill and 2 years later he's back to 43 years old. If that's not a reboot, I don't know what is. The Brosnan films were a kind of reboot as well (because the opposite would be that they're in continuity, and if that was the case Bond would be old and retired in those films).
With the CR, QoS and SF "trilogy", the Craig films gave us something we never had before: an origin story. Which, in a way, means it was still kind of unfair to compare Craig's performance to the other actors'. The Bond he played is not yet "the best we have" like M says in the World is not Enough. He's sort of a "prequel Bond" (let's say "from an alternate universe" to avoid any dumb questions about "timeline") and the comparison should really start with Craig's next film now that all the elements are there to make it a fair comparison.
I bet you're having a real problem with the Sherlock Holmes ouevre. Now we have a Watson who is female and Holmes who is gay/a drug addict/a possible sociopath.
You're right about that, I'll be boycotting Elementary because it doesn't have Dr John Watson in it. There's absolutely no need to make Watson a woman, and an Asian one at that - not because an Asian female in the real world couldn't possibly be the sidekick to one of the world's greatest and most eccentric detectives, but because Watson wasn't written as a woman. I don't mind change so long as it brings something positive to the series, but a change for the sake of change (which is what I'd call any change only to appease the politically correct crowd) is not something I would endorse.
But now that you mentioned Sherlock Holmes, I think the series Sherlock starring Benedict Cumberbatch is the prime example of how you can modernise the plot and the setting without changing too much of the character(s).
These are works of fiction. They're not meant to be real. I fail to see how "social norms" should have any impact on how fictional characters are depicted on screen.
most audiences (who really aren't familiar with Fleming's original work) seem okay with them fiddling with the supporting characters. We can either accept this is how it is now or just keep muttering our dissatisfaction with the change. Either way, it's how it is now and we have no say in it, only the box office has the vote.
Unfortunately, you're quite right.
As a film, I enjoyed Skyfall - it was a terrific film, one I'd place in my top 10. So yes, in that sense I do accept that the cinematic Bond and the literary Bond are different. However, there are certain elements of the film that makes me cringe, particularly the evolution of M from being Bond's boss to being someone more akin to Bond's mother. It makes me cringe because I'm unashamedly a "Fleming purist" who knows all too well what the literary M is meant to be, and Dench's portrayal in recent films have drifted away from the primary role of M as Bond's boss. Unfortunately, the voices of Fleming purists are buried under the pile of money that EON are rolling in.
Comments
I'm in the camp that, bottom line, just likes James Bond films. Okay, obviously some more than others, but whether serious, jokey, Dalton, Moore, whoever, whatever, they all get a spin on the DVD player. Yes, even dear old A VIEW TO A KILL.
Part of the pleasure from CASINO ROYALE to date is seeing the producers attempt something a bit different with 007. Surely this can't be a bad thing. For me, SKYFALL felt quite fresh & original whilst still embracing the elements one associates with Bond. I can't really ask for more than that.
Top marks
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Agreed. The ending of Skyfall was completely anti-climactic. M's death should've been grandiose. I would've wished a giant half hour chase in urban environment with Bardem as the cat and Bond+M as the mice. They could've done something really cool with Bond & M trying to survive and, at the same time, trying to avoid civilian casualties.
I also disagree with Richard W about Skyfall's action scenes. The pre-title sequence was amazing and I remember thinking that if the whole movie was like that, it was going to be excellent. Unfortunately, it went downhill after the title. I almost fell asleep during the subway scene and Berenice Marlohe was shamefully underused.
I agree..they did a great job for the anniversary film.
And yes, horribly, I think M is meant to be a mother figure in the film, never before have I heard her referred to as Maam in the Bonds, and often it does sound like 'Mum' and I had a horrible forboding come over me when I realised this. Even Craig referring to her as a bitch suggests mommy issues, as if it's meant to be redolent of a petulant six year old boy in conflict.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Connery's Bond is not so "fresh faced" in Dr. No. He's been a 00 for some time and Moneypenny is already there. There's even an equivalent of Q with major Boothroyd.
Craig got his licence to kill in Casino Royale and Moneypenny arrived in Skyfall. That's how his Bond precedes Connery's.
The only contradiction is Felix Leiter who doesn't appear the same way.
I didn't mean to say that CR, QoS, and SF happened before Dr. No, just that Craig's Bond has caught up with Connery's. And in SF, Bond is not as old as in NSNA.
Connery is 32 in Dr No, okay he's not a novice. He doesn't look over the hill the way Craig is and is referred to in SF. There's in fact nothing in common at all, you can't pretend that Major Boothroyd is the same guy as the Q in SF. Though I suppose the gadgets are low key enough, that's what they have in common. Or that the M is the same character at the end of it. The timeline in any sense just makes no sense.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
As for the whole 'M being the mother figure', this theme has been around as long as Dench has played M. For it to be fully 'admitted', 'acknowledged' etc is no big deal for me. It's just part of the characters relationship and the plot, so what's the big deal? M acts as a mother figure to orphan James.... AND? Big deal.
To avoid a coma inducing blurb, I'll summarise SF into some bullet points;
Plot; Great, twists and turns and not everything being laid out.
Craig; Great, shows a good spectrum of emotions from baddass, sulking, knackered out, finding his feet, fighting back, dealing with loss. DC can't act? Bollocks.
Dench; Great, anything this woman applies herself to she really does it justice. M has evolved with Bond over the years and I'm glad they gave enough involvement for Dench to really show what she can do in a Bond film. It was time to go, but I was sad to see it happen. Top marks.
Bardem; Possibly the best villain since Hugo Drax or Max Zorin. Believably scary and psychotic.
Whishaw; No it's not Des in his younger years, and I'm glad. Nothing like our old more familiar beloved Q, but I think this new younger version will grow on people in time. Capable of Des' level of fame? Long way to go yet.
Harris; I personally wish she wasn't so scrawny but a very capable actress. As a field agent, crap, as Moneypenny, like Q I think she's a grower.
Mahone; Beautiful, great class and style but why wasn't she used more? What a waste of a fantastic actress.
Props; Cool stuff, not over the top and yet still some cool items in there.
SFX; Wow! Bike chases, choppers, gun fights, the DB5 :..( , tube train and that firework display at the end, great true bondian action.
Cinematography; Brilliant! No more shaky cameras or epileptic editing, some great shots and stunning visuals.
Score; Ok, but not typically bond. There were way too many moments where I was hoping for a bond theme to sound out, and yet all we got was a guitar riff at the end of Komodo dragons and Breadcrumbs.
So basically,
Good; Craig, Dench, Bardem, Mahone, SFX
Bad; Mahone's lack of screen time, Newmans mediocre score.
MG -{
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Dude, it's a REBOOT! If the timeline was supposed to make sense, then all the Craig films would've been set in the fifties, wouldn't they?
Let's see it that way: none of what we've seen with Craig had ever been on film before. His first 2 kills, his meeting with Q, Moneypenny lands her desk job...
I said SF "ties the knot" with a pre-Dr No Bond. Don't take it so f...ing literally.
With a film this grim, it does sort of demand to be taken literally, or were you referring to your post?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I didn't like the new Moneypenny at all, and saw it coming a mile off.
I am still at a loss to explain why Mallory was in a position to fire M, and then takes M's job, as M. Sounds like a demotion to me.
the new bond franchise, has restarted ! the Bond films,, as far as they are concerned,, James Bond Started with DC in CR, all new,, no previous conections
That's not the way the character was written by Fleming. Hell, M isn't even supposed to be a woman! At least if the producers are going down that route in the name of political correctness, then at least make her every bit Bond's boss as Bernard Lee was, as opposed to an overbearing mother.
Ok, hold on a minute and you might wanna sit down.
Ian Fleming is dead.
In fact, he's been pushing up daisys for quite some time now. I know this is gonna be a right kick in the balls, so I'm sorry, but after his death, quite a few people have been writing bond books and films, and they've brought the character and the whole franchise into the 21st century.
I suppose you'll be tearful with the thought of no more "man talk (slap)" or "fetch my shoes" scenes?
Welcome to 2012.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
So? That doesn't give the producers a free licence to mess up Fleming's work. And before some smartass replies that Fleming sold the rights to his books to EON, I'm not talking about a legal right, I'm talking about a moral right. The producers have a moral responsibility to maintain true to Fleming's original concept. Some films have done this better than others.
I have no problem with modernising the character to a (very) limited extent - such as incorporating modern technology and new cars in the films, for instance - but the major characters must remain faithful to the original concept. Yes, that means M should be a man, and he should be no more to Bond than a boss (and conversely, Bond should be no more to M than a subordinate, at least outwardly), and Bond should have a cigarette in his mouth on film every now and then, along with all the other Fleming Bond traits. The major characters in the films should remain recognisably similar to the characters that appear in the novels.
Ok, so bond was Fleming's creation, well he's gone and no one from his family took the torch, Cubby and Harry did, that got passed to Babs and Mike.
What would you prefer, Bond to continue into the brave new world or stop because Fleming ain't around to have any input?
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
There's a difference between altering the plot and the setting to make the film more contemporary, and messing around with the characters that Fleming created. I don't have a problem with the former (provided they remain somewhat true to Fleming's creation), but I do have a problem with the latter. The storylines can change, but the characters should not.
The storylines change, and the characters have to!
When Dench started out in GE, it was becoming the social norm for women to have an equal standing in the work place (er, barbara?). It was perfectly reasonable and realistic for M to be a woman.
If the characters stayed the same, M would be a grumpy old man and bond would still be slapping girl's arses and demanding a black man fetch his shoes.
You have to take into account that not everything about the original Fleming characters is socially acceptable or realistic these days. Times change and so does bond, he and the whole franchise has to in order for the films to be relevent and successful. Can you imagine the backlash if at a press conference Babs and Mike announced Fiennes' role was due to women not being capable of such authority?
We'd love to live in the past wouldn't we, with arse slapping, chomby shoe fetchers and sexist comments a-pently, but I'm afraid that times have moved on, I suggest you attempt to do the same.
MG
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
That's no excuse for changing a fictional character that Fleming created. M is not written as a woman and should not be, regardless of what the social norms are. It's not about whether women can be equal to or better than men; nor is it about women in the workforce holding senior positions, it's about remaining true to the characters that Fleming created.
M is a grumpy old man.
But slapping a girl's arse and having Quarrel fetch Bond's shoes is a work of the early cinematic Bond. It did not come from Fleming.
Having a man play the role of M isn't beause a woman is not capable of authority; it's because the character was written as a man. Therefore, being male is a prerequisite for the role.
Can you imagine the backlash if they hire a woman to play James Bond??
That's a straw man argument. James Bond is THE focus of the Ian Fleming novels; the other characters are just supporting players. It's not even remotely the same thing having M be a woman or Felix Leiter be Black as it would be to have James Bond be a female. Unless the Bond films are set in the past and totally ignore the contemporary world, I agree with minigeff that not only do the storylines have to change, but to a certain extent the characters have to change as well.
I bet you're having a real problem with the Sherlock Holmes ouevre. Now we have a Watson who is female and Holmes who is gay/a drug addict/a possible sociopath.
This sort of thing can be done well or poorly, depending on the level of talent involved.
Eventually, when the copyrights expire, you may have films where the main character is Q or M or Felix Leiter (or maybe Leiter is female). Some of it may be good and some may be bad. Unfortunately, I won't be around to see it.
I don't think we can compare Craig's films with any of the others. CR was a complete reboot which means those other stories never happened in Craig's new universe and never will. They even changed his backstory - he's now an SAS vet or some such choice as opposed to Naval Intelligence. They only used CR because they finally got the rights and it was Bond's first job as a 00. I doubt if you'll ever see any reference to the past films in the future..they really wanted the audience to know that by blowing up the Aston at the end of SF.
I can see some point to the characters not changing had they not rebooted the series. Fleming did create them and there would have been no point in changing their identities and sexes or race in his world or if the old EON series had continued - you'd just get new actors. However, they decided to create a new Bond universe for this century and in doing so allows them to change these characters to suit their purposes. They just can't change their roles in the series. After all, Bond is now blonde (or light brown, whatever) and is more Steve McQueen than a Lord Byron figure. If they can change his looks that much and be accepted by most of the planet, then they can obviously change the other characters sexes, races, etc. to a certain degree to more reflect Englands more multi cultured mix. I don't think we'll ever see a black or asian or female Bond any more than you'd see a black or latin Batman, but most audiences (who really aren't familiar with Fleming's original work) seem okay with them fiddling with the supporting characters. We can either accept this is how it is now or just keep muttering our dissatisfaction with the change. Either way, it's how it is now and we have no say in it, only the box office has the vote.
Yes, I get it. The idiot I was responding to thought I was suggesting Craig's films took place before Connery's Dr No. That's not what I meant. I think YOU know what I meant so I'm not gonna go over it again.
However ( 8-) ), I do think we can compare Craig's films to the others, the same way we can compare J.J. Abrams' Star Trek to the original series, or Cumberbatch's Sherlock Holmes to Conan Doyle's: in terms of what works and what doesn't. That's the challenge of a reboot and the beauty of it when it's successful.
The reboot thing is not new anyway, we all know it. Bond was 58 in A View to a Kill and 2 years later he's back to 43 years old. If that's not a reboot, I don't know what is. The Brosnan films were a kind of reboot as well (because the opposite would be that they're in continuity, and if that was the case Bond would be old and retired in those films).
With the CR, QoS and SF "trilogy", the Craig films gave us something we never had before: an origin story. Which, in a way, means it was still kind of unfair to compare Craig's performance to the other actors'. The Bond he played is not yet "the best we have" like M says in the World is not Enough. He's sort of a "prequel Bond" (let's say "from an alternate universe" to avoid any dumb questions about "timeline") and the comparison should really start with Craig's next film now that all the elements are there to make it a fair comparison.
You're right about that, I'll be boycotting Elementary because it doesn't have Dr John Watson in it. There's absolutely no need to make Watson a woman, and an Asian one at that - not because an Asian female in the real world couldn't possibly be the sidekick to one of the world's greatest and most eccentric detectives, but because Watson wasn't written as a woman. I don't mind change so long as it brings something positive to the series, but a change for the sake of change (which is what I'd call any change only to appease the politically correct crowd) is not something I would endorse.
But now that you mentioned Sherlock Holmes, I think the series Sherlock starring Benedict Cumberbatch is the prime example of how you can modernise the plot and the setting without changing too much of the character(s).
These are works of fiction. They're not meant to be real. I fail to see how "social norms" should have any impact on how fictional characters are depicted on screen.
Unfortunately, you're quite right.
As a film, I enjoyed Skyfall - it was a terrific film, one I'd place in my top 10. So yes, in that sense I do accept that the cinematic Bond and the literary Bond are different. However, there are certain elements of the film that makes me cringe, particularly the evolution of M from being Bond's boss to being someone more akin to Bond's mother. It makes me cringe because I'm unashamedly a "Fleming purist" who knows all too well what the literary M is meant to be, and Dench's portrayal in recent films have drifted away from the primary role of M as Bond's boss. Unfortunately, the voices of Fleming purists are buried under the pile of money that EON are rolling in.