I love Judi Dench's M, and TWINE was okay, BUT.....

chrisisall

Bringing her into the CR reboot was a grave error IMO.
It set us, the fans, up for a strange sense of the past intruding into the present, and also called for her death, dictating the events in SF (an extrapolation of ideas ALREADY explored in TWINE & DAD).
I've been trying to work up the gumption to watch SF a second time, and I've been failing. Logan's added dialogue is good-to-great, but the basic Purvis/Wade story is SO tired that I'm having a hard time carving out nearly three more hours of my life to waste on it again...

At this point, the only difference I can see between DAD & SF is that DAD is at least a bit more fun.

IF Craig's reboot had been started TOTALLY fresh, without Judi's anchor to past movies, and the Purvis/Wade malaise (basing it on Fleming's book was the saving grace for them with CR), I feel that we would be SO much closer to REALLY good Bond movies at this point.

It's NO coincidence that QOS is my favourite 21st century Bond movie in that Dench has the smallest role in it & the script was mostly hammered out on the fly by Forster & Craig.
Only Campbell's great direction & the source material made CR a good flick.
SF just kinda sucks, despite the excellent message that PEOPLE count for more than expedient & so-called 'efficient' technology.

Shoot me down or join me on this?
Or somewhere in between?

Blackleiter

chrisisall wrote:

Bringing her into the CR reboot was a grave error IMO.
It set us, the fans, up for a strange sense of the past intruding into the present, and also called for her death, dictating the events in SF (an extrapolation of ideas ALREADY explored in TWINE & DAD).
I've been trying to work up the gumption to watch SF a second time, and I've been failing. Logan's added dialogue is good-to-great, but the basic Purvis/Wade story is SO tired that I'm having a hard time carving out nearly three more hours of my life to waste on it again...

At this point, the only difference I can see between DAD & SF is that DAD is at least a bit more fun.

IF Craig's reboot had been started TOTALLY fresh, without Judi's anchor to past movies, and the Purvis/Wade malaise (basing it on Fleming's book was the saving grace for them with CR), I feel that we would be SO much closer to REALLY good Bond movies at this point.

It's NO coincidence that QOS is my favourite 21st century Bond movie in that Dench has the smallest role in it & the script was mostly hammered out on the fly by Forster & Craig.
Only Campbell's great direction & the source material made CR a good flick.
SF just kinda sucks, despite the excellent message that PEOPLE count for more than expedient & so-called 'efficient' technology.

Shoot me down or join me on this?
Or somewhere in between?

Admit it - you've lost your mnd! The only difference between DAD and SF is DAD is more fun? Only Campbell's direction and the source material made CR a good flick? And yet QOS was great? No doubt about it, my friend - you've lost it!

DieAnotherDay

chrisisall wrote:

Bringing her into the CR reboot was a grave error IMO.
It set us, the fans, up for a strange sense of the past intruding into the present, and also called for her death, dictating the events in SF (an extrapolation of ideas ALREADY explored in TWINE & DAD).
I've been trying to work up the gumption to watch SF a second time, and I've been failing. Logan's added dialogue is good-to-great, but the basic Purvis/Wade story is SO tired that I'm having a hard time carving out nearly three more hours of my life to waste on it again...

At this point, the only difference I can see between DAD & SF is that DAD is at least a bit more fun.

IF Craig's reboot had been started TOTALLY fresh, without Judi's anchor to past movies, and the Purvis/Wade malaise (basing it on Fleming's book was the saving grace for them with CR), I feel that we would be SO much closer to REALLY good Bond movies at this point.

It's NO coincidence that QOS is my favourite 21st century Bond movie in that Dench has the smallest role in it & the script was mostly hammered out on the fly by Forster & Craig.
Only Campbell's great direction & the source material made CR a good flick.
SF just kinda sucks, despite the excellent message that PEOPLE count for more than expedient & so-called 'efficient' technology.

Shoot me down or join me on this?
Or somewhere in between?

I think Judy Dench has a much larger part in QoS than CR in my opinion and I think she is completely overused in it. Sure, she is an amazing actress and makes the debriefing scenes more entertaining than they should be but there is no need to use her constantly throughout the film when she wasn't as integral to the plot as say TWINE or SF. She haunted him wherever he went in QoS and frankly started to annoy me but I think she was fantastic in every other film in the series and it was certainly NOT a mistake to keep her in after the Brosnan era because the rest of Mi6 were away as we knew it....no moneypenny, no tanner, no Robinson or Q. We needed Judy Dench's M in CR to keep it recognisably related to the Bond films of the past in some way.
I know that the time line is seriously screwed up now but when did the Bond films really ever care about keeping continuity; I think if they ended SF with M dying and no replacement on the cards I could maybe agree that it was a bad idea but now that they have Ralph Fiennes at the helm I think everything is saved. He is an excellent actor with - hopefully - a long career as M ahead of him, which I look forward to

Thunderpussy

I hope "M" has a lesser role in the rest of the series. I do hope
R Fiennes is so busy on other projects that he simply can't do
large parts in the series.
I'd love to see M set up the story and send Bond on his way.

Moore Than

Thunderpussy wrote:

I hope "M" has a lesser role in the rest of the series. I do hope
R Fiennes is so busy on other projects that he simply can't do
large parts in the series.
I'd love to see M set up the story and send Bond on his way.

I like the idea of M being more in the background, with the occasional foray into the field. It will be interesting to discover what sort of chemistry/relationship there will be between Fiennes' M and Daniel Craig's Bond.

Sir James Moloney

chrisisall wrote:

Bringing her into the CR reboot was a grave error IMO.
It set us, the fans, up for a strange sense of the past intruding into the present

I think it bears repeating that the Bond films aren't made for hardcore fans like us. We don't reckon into Eon's thinking. I imagine that we account for less than 0.01% of the viewing audience. (Even franchises like Star Trek and Doctor Who tend to largely ignore the wants of their fans. And their fanbases are relatively huge and far more active.)

chrisisall wrote:

...and also called for her death, dictating the events in SF (an extrapolation of ideas ALREADY explored in TWINE & DAD).

I'm not really sure what you mean by this, chrisisall. Why did bringing Judi Dench back to play M call for the character's death?

chrisisall wrote:

At this point, the only difference I can see between DAD & SF is that DAD is at least a bit more fun.

Be honest. Had you had a few drinks when you wrote that?

DieAnotherDay

chrisisall wrote:

At this point, the only difference I can see between DAD & SF is that DAD is at least a bit more fun.

I will certainly join you on this part though, chrisisall. DAD surpasses SF by a hell of a lot if you base the two films on pure entertainment alone.

That's a few complements I've seen people give DAD on here....are the tables beginning to turn?

ZorinIndustries

Has anyone felt that SF comes after DAD? For some reason, that's what I like to think, since the MI-6 crew is back, yet Moneypenny is just introduced....

I'm contradicting myself again

ZorinIndustries

DieAnotherDay wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

At this point, the only difference I can see between DAD & SF is that DAD is at least a bit more fun.

I will certainly join you on this part though, chrisisall. DAD surpasses SF by a hell of a lot if you base the two films on pure entertainment alone.

That's a few complements I've seen people give DAD on here....are the tables beginning to turn?

I enjoy DAD and I'm proud of it!

But I do think SF is leaps and bounds above DAD.

chrisisall

Sir James Moloney wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

...and also called for her death, dictating the events in SF (an extrapolation of ideas ALREADY explored in TWINE & DAD).

I'm not really sure what you mean by this, chrisisall. Why did bringing Judi Dench back to play M call for the character's death?

Because Dench was getting older and clearly wouldn't have made it through two more decades of movies as M, and merely retiring her was no option dramatically, so they were always gonna give her the Spock Wrath Of Khan treatment sooner or later...

chrisisall wrote:

At this point, the only difference I can see between DAD & SF is that DAD is at least a bit more fun.

Be honest. Had you had a few drinks when you wrote that?

One martini only!
Look, it's been said before that if a story clicks with you, you tend to overlook plot holes & narrative inconsistencies, and it's true. SF has a fairly tight story as Bond movies go, but I don't LIKE it very much. TMWTGG, for example, is way less consistent, but I LIKE it.

Bottom line, I want good drama, or pure fun. SF isn't very accomplished at either IMHO.

Hmmmm.... maybe if I watch it drunk I'd appreciate it better....

chrisisall

DieAnotherDay wrote:

That's a few complements I've seen people give DAD on here....are the tables beginning to turn?

As a comic book/sci-fi Bond, DAD has gotten a raw deal on Bond sites IMO- and Moneypenny virtually bopping Bond is way less offensive to me than the way they killed off Severine in SF.

Napoleon Plural

I can see what the OP is driving at. The themes of DAD and OP are quite similar, all this betrayal by M of an agent and cocking a snoot at England's imperialism, plus Bond going AWOL and returning when needed. Both are quite London centric.

Even if Fiennes' M doesn't pop up so much, the new Moneypenny surely will and there's the feeling that we've seen it all before really.

Not sure though how much of SF is Logan's work.

Muston

Thunderpussy wrote:

I hope "M" has a lesser role in the rest of the series. I do hope
R Fiennes is so busy on other projects that he simply can't do
large parts in the series.
I'd love to see M set up the story and send Bond on his way.

Agree 100% with Thunderpussy.

For me, Judi Dench was fine in her first two Bonds but in TWINE she had way too much of a say in the plot. She bloody got on my nerves throughout DC's reign and she was the weakest element in SF. I thought the scene where see reads out the poem was great as it reads over DC running in panic which was a good scene. But I almost cheered when she died in DC's arms as I like my M to have a say at the beginning of the film, then turn up at the end just in time to catch Bond filling his boots with the love interest.

"Bond what do you think you're doing?"
"Keeping the British end up sir!"

Sir James Moloney

chrisisall wrote:

Sir James Moloney wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

...and also called for her death, dictating the events in SF (an extrapolation of ideas ALREADY explored in TWINE & DAD).

I'm not really sure what you mean by this, chrisisall. Why did bringing Judi Dench back to play M call for the character's death?

Because Dench was getting older and clearly wouldn't have made it through two more decades of movies as M, and merely retiring her was no option dramatically, so they were always gonna give her the Spock Wrath Of Khan treatment sooner or later...

That makes sense (ignoring the fact that Bernard Lee was in the same situation in the late-70s... the series' attitude towards character was different then) but I don't see why bringing her back for the reboot made a difference to that. Surely you could make exactly the same argument if the reboot hadn't happened? i.e. if the original continuity had continued, Judi Dench would have continued ageing...

chrisisall

Sir James Moloney wrote:

I don't see why bringing her back for the reboot made a difference to that. Surely you could make exactly the same argument if the reboot hadn't happened? i.e. if the original continuity had continued, Judi Dench would have continued ageing...

I feel it wouldn't have gone that way had Brosnan stayed. They'd already explored M being haunted by her past a bit, had the disgruntled ex-agent thing... I think they might have retired her in THAT reality, or at least have her die in a sacrifice to save others MORE like in Wrath Of Khan.
BUT, since this was a reboot, they felt we could forget about Alec & Elektra & recycle some ideas for Craig in SF. And the public at large ate it up, because they DID forget. Only hardcore fans like us can even tell you Alec's last name, or that M was held prisoner in TWINE. Most of the folks responsible for that billion dollar box office take probably don't even own more than one or two Bond movies, much less ever read a Fleming novel.
I heard SO much advance word of mouth that SF was this grand return to the Connery era Bond, and when I saw it I was like "Huh??" It had nice moments, but REALLY?? It truly boggles my mind that it shows up on so many fan's lists as # 1 or 2... 8-)

bailorg

I only ever really enjoyed Dench's M in CR and QoS. I suppose that is part of why I rate those two movies so highly. Craig and Dench have a chemistry together that Brosnan and Dench just never had.

I also agree on SF. I went in with such high expectations, but I am also still wondering exactly what movie did the people who seemingly love it see.

I'm also somewhat jaded on the whole Fiennes' M thing because on first viewing of SF I was basically assuming that Mallory (or at least SOMEONE) had to be in on Silva's plan in order for the film to even make the slightest bit of sense.

Mr_Osato

Thunderpussy wrote:

I hope "M" has a lesser role in the rest of the series. I do hope
R Fiennes is so busy on other projects that he simply can't do
large parts in the series.
I'd love to see M set up the story and send Bond on his way.

Totally agree. It was for me the highlight of SF. To see a new M in his old navy office. A brilliant piece of nostalgia.

I like Judy mind you, but I always longed to the old Bernhard Lee. It was a shame Anthony Hopkins never took the role of M, he would have made a killer M, of course far under his capabilities. Would be great to see him in a cameo.

Fiennes seems fine, but lets reduce the role of M and the other allies to a minimum. Give him his plane ticket and send him on his way.

RogueAgent007

chrisisall wrote:

I heard SO much advance word of mouth that SF was this grand return to the Connery era Bond, and when I saw it I was like "Huh??" It had nice moments, but REALLY?? It truly boggles my mind that it shows up on so many fan's lists as # 1 or 2...

I couldn't agree more, man, the SF hype was way out of touch with the movie.

chrisisall wrote:

IF Craig's reboot had been started TOTALLY fresh, without Judi's anchor to past movies, and the Purvis/Wade malaise (basing it on Fleming's book was the saving grace for them with CR), I feel that we would be SO much closer to REALLY good Bond movies at this point.

Again, +1. That has been part of my problem with the reboot as well. It's wallowing about like a ship without a rudder. They should have left Dench out, as well as the weaponized DB5 and the PPK. If its a reboot, get on with it!

chrisisall

RogueAgent007 wrote:

I couldn't agree more, man

-{

L Jones

Bringing her into the CR reboot was a grave error IMO.

I don't think so. She had better chemistry with Craig than she did with Brosnan.

walther p99

I think Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies were the only films to use Judi sparingly in the same way as Bernard Lee in the Connery films, shows up to give Bond his mission and isn't seen till the very end. It did get pretty annoying having her follow Bond everywhere.

hehadlotsofguts

I think Judi Dench was a very good M. A tough no nonsense character who was also the only interpretation up to date to show a vulnerable side. None of the other interpretations showed a vulnerable side.

Blackleiter

hehadlotsofguts wrote:

I think Judi Dench was a very good M. A tough no nonsense character who was also the only interpretation up to date to show a vulnerable side. None of the other interpretations showed a vulnerable side.

+1

Thunderbird 2

A lot of this is down to interpretation I suppose.

The way I see it, Dame Judi was brilliant at playing two different characters in the same vein, but going in different directions.

Barbara Mawdsley. - A woman in a mans world, has to prove a lot to the sceptics, analytical, decisive, good connections not scared of putting the big picture first. Has a reputation for being ruthless. Gets results and quietly respected by the establishment. Taking risks herself when required, and a good chance of success. A stratagest through hard work.

Olivia Mansfield. - Been at the top a long time. People question her wisdom, government questions her tactics and a major blunder occurs at least once in each film during her tenure that she is held accountable for, in the cold stare of public aaccountability. Its aalluded to directly (unfortunately) that she favours Bond like a son. All of which errodes her ability to do her job over time.

I agree the dynamics used with the later character don't work after CR-06 because the establishment of Tanner, Q and Penny are rebuilt for a modern age. But it was a daring idea to create an M that was on a downward path, and Dame Judi did brilliant stuff with what she was given. The mother / son stuff was the only thing that bothered me, which was strengthened by the fact we have not seen any of the other 00s in the Craig era so far.

Miken Ayers

The easiest way for me to look at it is that despite being the same actor, the M introduced in Goldeneye and the one introduced in CR are two different characters. CR being a reboot and since the Dench M in each continuity seems to have a different backstory makes it all that much easier.

chrisisall

Makes sense. Still, I think a recast all around would have been better.

Miken Ayers

chrisisall wrote:

Makes sense. Still, I think a recast all around would have been better.

Me too. I also feel with Felix Leiter that if they couldn't get at most the third actor to come back for the role then they should've retired the character and just given him a different FBI liaison each time.