What I find the most laughable is in CR M specifically tells Bond "don't ever break into my house again", yet in SF he does it again. How Craig's Bond remains employed is the greatest mystery of all.
I think Bond his missionreports after he's back at the office are just too enjoyable to let him go. They must be great to read
Don't confuse me with the other DutchBondFan, but be sure to follow his YouTube account. You can read my articles on James Bond Nederland: www.jamesbond.nl/author/gosse/
Her weak point was ordering Moneypenny to fire that gun into the back of Bond, and his demise into the river. Granted, she was working blind, through a speaker phone, but there has to be a different way..
And also when she met up with Bond. No apology."Well, your not staying here" Judi Dench's M wasn't very likeable
Fiennes' M is not off and running to great start either. He manages to get himself shot, then apparently doesn't know Bond is off to Mexico until after the fact, then doesn't know that Bond really is in Rome after having stolen the DB10, then doesn't know that C is monitoring his every move, then sits with his back to the door in a public restaurant so his own agents sneak up on him, then doesn't know that Spectre exists or has this huge "secret" base in a crater visible from satellites, then doesn't know somebody left a boat in the apparently abandoned MI6 headquarters, and then apparently doesn't know Bond comes back to pick up his DB5 after seemingly leaving the Secret Service and having it restored on the taxpayer's dime.
Her weak point was ordering Moneypenny to fire that gun into the back of Bond, and his demise into the river. Granted, she was working blind, through a speaker phone, but there has to be a different way..
And also when she met up with Bond. No apology."Well, your not staying here" Judi Dench's M wasn't very likeable
Fiennes' M is not off and running to great start either. He manages to get himself shot, then apparently doesn't know Bond is off to Mexico until after the fact, then doesn't know that Bond really is in Rome after having stolen the DB10, then doesn't know that C is monitoring his every move, then sits with his back to the door in a public restaurant so his own agents sneak up on him, then doesn't know that Spectre exists or has this huge "secret" base in a crater visible from satellites, then doesn't know somebody left a boat in the apparently abandoned MI6 headquarters, and then apparently doesn't know Bond comes back to pick up his DB5 after seemingly leaving the Secret Service and having it restored on the taxpayer's dime.
Oh but he has a scene in "Rules", so all is forgiven... ) ) )
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
Fiennes' M is not off and running to great start either. He manages to get himself shot, then apparently doesn't know Bond is off to Mexico until after the fact, then doesn't know that Bond really is in Rome after having stolen the DB10, then doesn't know that C is monitoring his every move, then sits with his back to the door in a public restaurant so his own agents sneak up on him, then doesn't know that Spectre exists or has this huge "secret" base in a crater visible from satellites, then doesn't know somebody left a boat in the apparently abandoned MI6 headquarters, and then apparently doesn't know Bond comes back to pick up his DB5 after seemingly leaving the Secret Service and having it restored on the taxpayer's dime.
Fiennes' M is not off and running to great start either. He manages to get himself shot, then apparently doesn't know Bond is off to Mexico until after the fact, then doesn't know that Bond really is in Rome after having stolen the DB10, then doesn't know that C is monitoring his every move, then sits with his back to the door in a public restaurant so his own agents sneak up on him, then doesn't know that Spectre exists or has this huge "secret" base in a crater visible from satellites, then doesn't know somebody left a boat in the apparently abandoned MI6 headquarters, and then apparently doesn't know Bond comes back to pick up his DB5 after seemingly leaving the Secret Service and having it restored on the taxpayer's dime.
Fiennes' M is not off and running to great start either. He manages to get himself shot, then apparently doesn't know Bond is off to Mexico until after the fact, then doesn't know that Bond really is in Rome after having stolen the DB10, then doesn't know that C is monitoring his every move, then sits with his back to the door in a public restaurant so his own agents sneak up on him, then doesn't know that Spectre exists or has this huge "secret" base in a crater visible from satellites, then doesn't know somebody left a boat in the apparently abandoned MI6 headquarters, and then apparently doesn't know Bond comes back to pick up his DB5 after seemingly leaving the Secret Service and having it restored on the taxpayer's dime.
Every single point here is a good one. I was hoping that Ralph Fiennes would be more like the Bernard Lee M (in my opinion the best) and not get too involved with Bond's missions, but I was a bit disappointed with him in SPECTRE. Perhaps in the next one...
I think they needed to get the new m out and about a bit to try and build bonds respect for him, the original m was an admiral to bonds commander and bond had huge respect for the old man with the intelligent grey eyes.
Also they've twigged that Craig's Bond is more appealing as part of an ensemble. Rather like Hugh Grant, he is an actor who doesn't quite have the charisma to carry a film on his own, or as the main star, he needs other characters to spar with. Hence, Fiennes, Ben Wilshaw and Harris, also Kinnear, aka the Scooby gang.
I miss the old days where M and Moneypenny would appear shortly after the titles, Q a bit later, Bond would do his thing, and maybe, just maybe, M and the gang might appear at the end.
I miss the old days where M and Moneypenny would appear shortly after the titles, Q a bit later, Bond would do his thing, and maybe, just maybe, M and the gang might appear at the end.
I miss the old days where M and Moneypenny would appear shortly after the titles, Q a bit later, Bond would do his thing, and maybe, just maybe, M and the gang might appear at the end.
How about M popping up in a submarine off the coast of Japan, Q in Nassau in a Hawaiian shirt, and Moneypenny in an Egyptian tomb
Let alone the workers outing to the wedding in OHMSS?
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
I miss the old days where M and Moneypenny would appear shortly after the titles, Q a bit later, Bond would do his thing, and maybe, just maybe, M and the gang might appear at the end.
How about M popping up in a submarine off the coast of Japan, Q in Nassau in a Hawaiian shirt, and Moneypenny in an Egyptian tomb
Let alone the workers outing to the wedding in OHMSS?
M popping up in a submarine off the coast of Japan is "shortly after the titles". Q in Nassau in a Hawaiian shirt is "a bit later". M and Moneypenny in an Egyptian tomb is an exception, but they still have a minor role in the film. The wedding in OHMSS counts as "maybe, just maybe, M and the gang might appear at the end." They still have a very small role in the film, despite attending the wedding.
Perhaps her greatest display of incompetence was to allow Bond to take her to Skyfall Lodge when her life was under threat (no mention of the fact that she would have been overruled by the PM via the JIC - the body to whom MI6 reports). Had this situation been allowed to develop then there would have been many places where she would have been secure (the SAS HQ for example) but no - she goes off to the middle of nowhere with one man & a caretaker for protection. That she gets killed as a result of this decision says it all about it's validity.
Hers and Bond's. Quite possibly the stupidest tactical decision in any Bond film, a bafflingly dumb decision the writers hamfistedly tried to justify in the context of the story. There's risk, and then there's just stupidity. This move was very much the latter.
Fiennes' M is not off and running to great start either. He manages to get himself shot, then apparently doesn't know Bond is off to Mexico until after the fact, then doesn't know that Bond really is in Rome after having stolen the DB10, then doesn't know that C is monitoring his every move, then sits with his back to the door in a public restaurant so his own agents sneak up on him, then doesn't know that Spectre exists or has this huge "secret" base in a crater visible from satellites, then doesn't know somebody left a boat in the apparently abandoned MI6 headquarters, and then apparently doesn't know Bond comes back to pick up his DB5 after seemingly leaving the Secret Service and having it restored on the taxpayer's dime.
Every single point here is a good one. I was hoping that Ralph Fiennes would be more like the Bernard Lee M (in my opinion the best) and not get too involved with Bond's missions, but I was a bit disappointed with him in SPECTRE. Perhaps in the next one...
{[] It's the abysmal writing. They have the best cast for a Bond film since the Connery era, and they squander it with some of the worst writers, and, one might argue, directors, whose overconcern about the visuals and underconcern about the integrity of the story too often shows.
I miss the old days where M and Moneypenny would appear shortly after the titles, Q a bit later, Bond would do his thing, and maybe, just maybe, M and the gang might appear at the end.
How about Octopussy and Licence to Kill? Q does has a lot of screentime in those films.
Don't confuse me with the other DutchBondFan, but be sure to follow his YouTube account. You can read my articles on James Bond Nederland: www.jamesbond.nl/author/gosse/
Especially with Mendes. But since Craig has influence on the productions, I have to assign some blame to him, too. His job as the lead actor on this multi-million-dollar franchise is to protect the integrity of his character. Yet, he seems clueless, too. People who say, "well, he's just an actor" forget how much favor he curries with BB, enough that he got to bring in directors and actors he wanted. He has some say in how things turn out. So, he's not innocent in the results, either, especially if at the end of the day all anyone is concerned with is the film made money.
Let's dissect the Skyfall ending. Bond spirits M away, presumably under the pretense that the forces against her are too great in London. London -- where the secret service is headquartered. Where troops and police are at beck and call. Like so much in the Craig films, it's never given any dramatic address, so who knows? Then what? Retreat to a deserted house, where apparently he expected no help? To do what? Lure Silva to fight with comparatively primitive weapons that aren't even there when he arrives? What kind of plan is this? Remember, he wanted Silva to follow him. Why? To reduce the odds to his favor? How does this accomplish that? Again, the script doesn't address motivation in any clear way. Did he expect Silva to come alone? After witnessing a brutal assault on a parliamentary committee? Why would anyone think that, let alone a highly trained secret agent? M agrees, but gets killed in the process. So, how did Bond protect her? Sure, he stopped the bad guy, I guess, but wasn't his primary mission to protect M? Given that he failed in this miserably, how does he even have the gall to show up for duty later?
But we're supposed to ignore all this. After all, the feelings involved from the performances and so forth are supposed to make us turn off our brains. That's the problem. Weak writing almost always relies on something else, and in this case, it's the sentimentality of the moment. We like M. We feel sorry for Bond. Silva is a bad man. And Kincaid is a good ally. So long as we feel something for what happens to them, leave our brains at the door. And I'll refrain from once again going into just how silly and contrived Silva's entire ascent to power alone is in the movie . . . unbelievable.
Bad writing. It assumes the worst about the audience, even if those assumptions often turn out to be true. Too much in the last three Craig films has relied on us to make excuses for the dumb behavior of our heroes. Funny, the old Bonds didn't do this. We could argue over some choices, but they weren't whole-heartedly stupid.
Too much in the last three Craig films has relied on us to make excuses for the dumb behavior of our heroes. Funny, the old Bonds didn't do this. We could argue over some choices, but they weren't whole-heartedly stupid.
It's not just the last three films. In CR, Bond fails his mission for doing something stupid. He only loses the girl in the novel, not his mission. Bond wasn't established in CR as a new agent, he was established as a perpetually stupid agent with more luck than skills, judgement or knowledge. He hardly matured after CR.
Too much in the last three Craig films has relied on us to make excuses for the dumb behavior of our heroes. Funny, the old Bonds didn't do this. We could argue over some choices, but they weren't whole-heartedly stupid.
It's not just the last three films. In CR, Bond fails his mission for doing something stupid. He only loses the girl in the novel, not his mission. Bond wasn't established in CR as a new agent, he was established as a perpetually stupid agent with more luck than skills, judgement or knowledge. He hardly matured after CR.
Yeah, but the whole point of Casino Royale was that he was brash and arrogant and had to learn his place.
The real climax is not the defeat of LeChiffre -- that's incidental -- but finding that Vesper has betrayed him and he cannot do anything to save her. He has to fail in this regard, and the arc of his character is that by the end, he's learned this painful lesson.
The problem is that the films that follow all require him and everyone else to make dumb decisions in order for their plots to "work." They are just poorly conceived and executed.
I'm not calling for perfection. That's equally problematic. What I'm saying is the motivations of the characters are often muddled in what are generally poorly constructed plots. There has to be some reasonable understanding of why they do what they do -- and Occam's Razor is the best philosophical approach to understanding since we shouldn't have to do somersaults to understand motivation.
The result too often is not that the character, with flaws, makes reasonable errors of judgment from time to time but that the whole story starts to fall apart. The Craig Bonds are particularly bad about this. When people are distracted (Skyfall), they give it a big pass, but when they are not (Quantum of Solace; Spectre), they bristle. They should be bristling from all the bad writing.
Too much in the last three Craig films has relied on us to make excuses for the dumb behavior of our heroes. Funny, the old Bonds didn't do this. We could argue over some choices, but they weren't whole-heartedly stupid.
It's not just the last three films. In CR, Bond fails his mission for doing something stupid. He only loses the girl in the novel, not his mission. Bond wasn't established in CR as a new agent, he was established as a perpetually stupid agent with more luck than skills, judgement or knowledge. He hardly matured after CR.
Yeah, but the whole point of Casino Royale was that he was brash and arrogant and had to learn his place.
The real climax is not the defeat of LeChiffre -- that's incidental -- but finding that Vesper has betrayed him and he cannot do anything to save her. He has to fail in this regard, and the arc of his character is that by the end, he's learned this painful lesson.
I could accept if Bond had to learn his place in CR, but he hardly improves from there in future films. Bond continuing to be stupid takes away from CR.
And it's at the real climax of the film that he fails his mission: when Mr. White walks away with the money.
N'ah, the climax is when he tries and fails to save Vesper. The story was never about the money -- that's just the McGuffin. The story is about how Bond becomes the 00 we know.
The problem is, as you suggest, the rest of the films do nothing with this. They treat Bond more or less as a fledgling agent. That's one reason I liked Spectre better than most. He is closest to the Bond we know in that film . . . but in the myopic, amateurish style of today's writers, Bond goes into retirement -- yet again.
N'ah, the climax is when he tries and fails to save Vesper. The story was never about the money -- that's just the McGuffin. The story is about how Bond becomes the 00 we know.
The problem is, as you suggest, the rest of the films do nothing with this. They treat Bond more or less as a fledgling agent. That's one reason I liked Spectre better than most. He is closest to the Bond we know in that film . . . but in the myopic, amateurish style of today's writers, Bond goes into retirement -- yet again.
He fails his mission at the same time he fails to save Vesper. It all happens at the climax of the film. Vesper is dead, and then Mr. White walks away with the money. Both things that happen in that moment are about how Bond is a failure. I know the mission is not the most important part of the film, but it really bothers me that M doesn't seem to care that the British government not only lost $10 million but also gave $115 million to terrorists. M should be furious at Bond, but she treats him like a child who only needed to learn a lesson. And then she wants Bond back as soon as possible because she "needs" him? Is MI6 doing that poorly that they need an agent who makes many mistakes?
N'ah, the climax is when he tries and fails to save Vesper. The story was never about the money -- that's just the McGuffin. The story is about how Bond becomes the 00 we know.
The problem is, as you suggest, the rest of the films do nothing with this. They treat Bond more or less as a fledgling agent. That's one reason I liked Spectre better than most. He is closest to the Bond we know in that film . . . but in the myopic, amateurish style of today's writers, Bond goes into retirement -- yet again.
He fails his mission at the same time he fails to save Vesper. It all happens at the climax of the film. Vesper is dead, and then Mr. White walks away with the money. Both things that happen in that moment are about how Bond is a failure. I know the mission is not the most important part of the film, but it really bothers me that M doesn't seem to care that the British government not only lost $10 million but also gave $115 million to terrorists. M should be furious at Bond, but she treats him like a child who only needed to learn a lesson. And then she wants Bond back as soon as possible because she "needs" him? Is MI6 doing that poorly that they need an agent who makes many mistakes?
The climax is Vesper's death -- this is what is most at stake for him emotionally throughout the story and what ultimately hardens his heart. He isn't even aware that White is there, and White takes no action in the scene with Bond. White making off with the money, the discussion with M (about Vesper specifically and learning to not trust anyone, no less), and the eventual shooting of White are all part of the falling action.
The thing is, we don't know that the money was lost. Bond gets White -- he could have gotten the money, too. It's just never addressed, at least so far as I can remember. Quantum of Solace, in its shaky writing, does little to truly address the significant issues in Casino Royale except use them as a springboard to a lesser story. I would have preferred they have not made Quantum of Solace and gone right to Skyfall, except Skyfall would have shown Bond not tired of being a 00 (way too soon) but simply emotionally drained from his experiences. Then the gang that can't shoot straight could have made three films in the time it took to make two, the first of which could have been Spectre, and the other two the completion of a trilogy.
Comments
I think Bond his missionreports after he's back at the office are just too enjoyable to let him go. They must be great to read
Oh but he has a scene in "Rules", so all is forgiven...
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I do believe he was just making a joke.
If you watch Goldeneye, you will note that Xenia references the DMV when Bond corrects her on the licence plate.
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Still goes over my head - and I never watch Goldeneye
The Spy Who Left Me...
Every single point here is a good one. I was hoping that Ralph Fiennes would be more like the Bernard Lee M (in my opinion the best) and not get too involved with Bond's missions, but I was a bit disappointed with him in SPECTRE. Perhaps in the next one...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
How about M popping up in a submarine off the coast of Japan, Q in Nassau in a Hawaiian shirt, and Moneypenny in an Egyptian tomb
Let alone the workers outing to the wedding in OHMSS?
M popping up in a submarine off the coast of Japan is "shortly after the titles". Q in Nassau in a Hawaiian shirt is "a bit later". M and Moneypenny in an Egyptian tomb is an exception, but they still have a minor role in the film. The wedding in OHMSS counts as "maybe, just maybe, M and the gang might appear at the end." They still have a very small role in the film, despite attending the wedding.
And at the end....
Well, it still fits what ToTheRight said.
How about Octopussy and Licence to Kill? Q does has a lot of screentime in those films.
Let's dissect the Skyfall ending. Bond spirits M away, presumably under the pretense that the forces against her are too great in London. London -- where the secret service is headquartered. Where troops and police are at beck and call. Like so much in the Craig films, it's never given any dramatic address, so who knows? Then what? Retreat to a deserted house, where apparently he expected no help? To do what? Lure Silva to fight with comparatively primitive weapons that aren't even there when he arrives? What kind of plan is this? Remember, he wanted Silva to follow him. Why? To reduce the odds to his favor? How does this accomplish that? Again, the script doesn't address motivation in any clear way. Did he expect Silva to come alone? After witnessing a brutal assault on a parliamentary committee? Why would anyone think that, let alone a highly trained secret agent? M agrees, but gets killed in the process. So, how did Bond protect her? Sure, he stopped the bad guy, I guess, but wasn't his primary mission to protect M? Given that he failed in this miserably, how does he even have the gall to show up for duty later?
But we're supposed to ignore all this. After all, the feelings involved from the performances and so forth are supposed to make us turn off our brains. That's the problem. Weak writing almost always relies on something else, and in this case, it's the sentimentality of the moment. We like M. We feel sorry for Bond. Silva is a bad man. And Kincaid is a good ally. So long as we feel something for what happens to them, leave our brains at the door. And I'll refrain from once again going into just how silly and contrived Silva's entire ascent to power alone is in the movie . . . unbelievable.
Bad writing. It assumes the worst about the audience, even if those assumptions often turn out to be true. Too much in the last three Craig films has relied on us to make excuses for the dumb behavior of our heroes. Funny, the old Bonds didn't do this. We could argue over some choices, but they weren't whole-heartedly stupid.
It's not just the last three films. In CR, Bond fails his mission for doing something stupid. He only loses the girl in the novel, not his mission. Bond wasn't established in CR as a new agent, he was established as a perpetually stupid agent with more luck than skills, judgement or knowledge. He hardly matured after CR.
The real climax is not the defeat of LeChiffre -- that's incidental -- but finding that Vesper has betrayed him and he cannot do anything to save her. He has to fail in this regard, and the arc of his character is that by the end, he's learned this painful lesson.
The problem is that the films that follow all require him and everyone else to make dumb decisions in order for their plots to "work." They are just poorly conceived and executed.
I'm not calling for perfection. That's equally problematic. What I'm saying is the motivations of the characters are often muddled in what are generally poorly constructed plots. There has to be some reasonable understanding of why they do what they do -- and Occam's Razor is the best philosophical approach to understanding since we shouldn't have to do somersaults to understand motivation.
The result too often is not that the character, with flaws, makes reasonable errors of judgment from time to time but that the whole story starts to fall apart. The Craig Bonds are particularly bad about this. When people are distracted (Skyfall), they give it a big pass, but when they are not (Quantum of Solace; Spectre), they bristle. They should be bristling from all the bad writing.
I could accept if Bond had to learn his place in CR, but he hardly improves from there in future films. Bond continuing to be stupid takes away from CR.
And it's at the real climax of the film that he fails his mission: when Mr. White walks away with the money.
The problem is, as you suggest, the rest of the films do nothing with this. They treat Bond more or less as a fledgling agent. That's one reason I liked Spectre better than most. He is closest to the Bond we know in that film . . . but in the myopic, amateurish style of today's writers, Bond goes into retirement -- yet again.
He fails his mission at the same time he fails to save Vesper. It all happens at the climax of the film. Vesper is dead, and then Mr. White walks away with the money. Both things that happen in that moment are about how Bond is a failure. I know the mission is not the most important part of the film, but it really bothers me that M doesn't seem to care that the British government not only lost $10 million but also gave $115 million to terrorists. M should be furious at Bond, but she treats him like a child who only needed to learn a lesson. And then she wants Bond back as soon as possible because she "needs" him? Is MI6 doing that poorly that they need an agent who makes many mistakes?
The thing is, we don't know that the money was lost. Bond gets White -- he could have gotten the money, too. It's just never addressed, at least so far as I can remember. Quantum of Solace, in its shaky writing, does little to truly address the significant issues in Casino Royale except use them as a springboard to a lesser story. I would have preferred they have not made Quantum of Solace and gone right to Skyfall, except Skyfall would have shown Bond not tired of being a 00 (way too soon) but simply emotionally drained from his experiences. Then the gang that can't shoot straight could have made three films in the time it took to make two, the first of which could have been Spectre, and the other two the completion of a trilogy.