Replace Dame Judi?

SeanConnery007 · January 2007

Having just read the following article;
http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=4668

With the replacement of Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the real life head of the security service, with new male 'M' Jonathan Evans - is it time our own Dame Judi Dench retired from the part of 'M' and be replaced by a male?

This would obviously cause some inconsistencies with CR and Bond22, but Dame Judi's 'M' was one of the major problems I had with CR and I would have had liked a male 'M' introduce Bond. Perhaps Bond22 could introduce a male 'M'?

emtiem · January 2007

No- she was brilliant; best she's ever been as M. And Bond's respect for her when he has no respect for anyone else was great. I wouldn't want her replaced just as she's finally showing what she actually do.

Dan Same · January 2007

SeanConnery007 wrote:

This would obviously cause some inconsistencies with CR and Bond22, but Dame Judi's 'M' was one of the major problems I had with CR and I would have had liked a male 'M' introduce Bond. Perhaps Bond22 could introduce a male 'M'?

I too had a major problem with Judy Dench's being in CR, but I think that with her being in CR wether I like it or not, it would be even more inconsistent for her not to be in Bond 22. The best scenario IMO would be for Dench to see out the Craig era and then be replaced by a (male) M when Craig himself ceases being 007.

Moore Not Less · January 2007

I was originally not best pleased with the idea of Judi Dench as M in Casino Royale. If Eon were going to do the re-boot then they should do it properly. But while watching the film her appearance did not distract me in the slightest, I thought she was good.

As for being replaced as M in Bond 22? No, I wouldn't wan't that to happen unless Judi herself decided to step aside.

heartbroken_mr_drax · January 2007

I think the direction of her in CR was fantastic, I would not like to see her replaced, maybe in less of a pivotal position, almost how much we saw of her in GE was good.

She was great in CR, best shes been.

bigzilcho · January 2007

Replace Dame Judi?

Shocking!

taity · January 2007

Why would it be time? The original M stayed on for 11 films.

And just because MI5 is getting a new boss, doesnt mean that the SIS would.

Loeffelholz · January 2007

Well...realistically speaking, she's 72 years old...assuming she serves out Craig's three-picture contract, she'll be pushing 80, but as far as I'm concerned she can have it as long as she wants it. I didn't have a problem with her playing M in the recalibrated Bondiverse.

As I've often said, I'm not at all sure she's the same M as in the previous four pictures, and I'm not bothered either way. In fact, I tend to agree with those who say that CR represents her best work in the role.

The only way they should change Ms any time soon would be to kill her off---which actually isn't a bad idea, from a 'plot propellant' standpoint... :v

James F E · January 2007

Please replace her! Can't stand her as M...she would be better cast as our Lads housekeeper May. M should never be female, I don't care if the real life service chief is female either. Michael Cain would be a fantastic bit of casting...& the sooner the better.

Fiona Volpe: Some men just don't like to be driven.

Bond: No, some men don't like to be taken for a ride.

Pendragon · January 2007

I love Judi, don't get me wrong. I've said this before, but I would have loved the return of a Robert Brown type M in CR, just for consistancy's sake, but if they do that right before 22, it'd kinda confuse people, IMHO.

~Pen -{

heartbroken_mr_drax · January 2007

Fish1941 wrote:

Dench has a better screen chemistry with Craig than she did with Brosnan.

Certainly did. Like a real mother figure, with full authority, which i liked.

Tee Hee · January 2007

If you're going to do a reboot EON do a complete reboot. If you are going to dispose of Moneypenny and Q but insist on keeping M, cast a male. As we all know, the first female head of MI6 is appointed at a time when Bond is very much a veteran agent, in 1995's "Goldeneye." I very much enjoy Judi Dench's M, but including her seemed unnecessary considering everything else they threw out. But since they have decided to use her in the Craig saga, replacing her now would just be foolish. Let her carry on as long as they need to fill the role of M. She did give a phenomenal performance in CR, but I just simply cannot overlook the mistakes in continuity on the part of the filmmakers. Just my opinion, so let's not raise the sabres folks.

heartbroken_mr_drax · January 2007

Tee Hee wrote:

But I just simply cannot overlook the mistakes in continuity on the part of the filmmakers. Just my opinion, so let's not raise the sabres folks.

How do you mean? Do you mean its to do with Craig and PB or what?

Tee Hee · January 2007

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

How do you mean? Do you mean its to do with Craig and PB or what?

No. The problem I have is that Judi Dench is playing M at the beginning of Bond's career despite the fact that she plays M during Pierce's films when he was much so a veteran agent. Bond was already an established agent when the first woman was appointed head of MI6. We know this because there is talk of predecessors and Valentine jokes about it in GE. Yet now we have to believe that Bond's first boss was a woman? See how it contradicts with the rest of the series?

emtiem · January 2007

Fish1941 wrote:

Dench has a better screen chemistry with Craig than she did with Brosnan.

Definitely- she was good back then but is even better now. Somehow she actually seems more dangerous and serious and the new relationship is so much more interesting than it was.

Tee Hee wrote:

The problem I have is that Judi Dench is playing M at the beginning of Bond's career despite the fact that she plays M during Pierce's films when he was much so a veteran agent. Bond was already an established agent when the first woman was appointed head of MI6. We know this because there is talk of predecessors and Valentine jokes about it in GE. Yet now we have to believe that Bond's first boss was a woman? See how it contradicts with the rest of the series?

GE was set in 1995. This is a reboot. All previous continuity swept away- GE didn't/is never going to happen in this new Bond series. I'll never understand why people worry about this.

Solaris · January 2007

Exactly, Reeboot of the series, not prequel to, so M can be Male or Female. I myself have no problems with Dame Judi as M, I think she did best in CR anyway, and I love the scene where she's walking down the corridor with her aides talking about how she misses the Cold War. and the scene in the apartment for that matter.

I also think that replacing her now would be pointless, they've built up this relationship between her and Craig's Bond and should keep that going at least until Craig steps down.

DEFIANT 74205 · January 2007

I have always felt that for originality's sake, M should be a man. This is how it was written in Fleming's novels - M isn't just a position, it is derived from Admiral Sir Miles Messervy - M's real name in Fleming's books. To cast a woman to play that role, no matter how good she is - seems wrong.

As for the new M? Michael Caine would play a good M, I think ... and dare I say it, how about Sean Connery as M?

Dan Same · January 2007

Solaris wrote:

Exactly, Reeboot of the series, not prequel to, so M can be Male or Female.

I don't think it's such a big deal that there was a female M in CR, but I do think it is a huge deal (and a point of great annoyance to me) that the same actress who played M in the 'original series' is now playing a different M in a reboot. It may seem weird to other people but I really wish that Dench, regardless of how good she was in CR (and I do think she was very good), had never been cast in the first place.

emtiem · January 2007

DEFIANT 74205 wrote:

I have always felt that for originality's sake, M should be a man. This is how it was written in Fleming's novels - M isn't just a position, it is derived from Admiral Sir Miles Messervy - M's real name in Fleming's books. To cast a woman to play that role, no matter how good she is - seems wrong.

Odd logic there. The director of SIS (MI6) in the real world is 'C'- named after the original holder of the office. But all of the people who were in charge of the service after him were known as 'C' too.

darenhat · January 2007

I don't think it would hurt at all to see a new M in Bond 22. In fact, I think it would be great. And I'm not saying that becuase I want to see Dench go. But from the standpoint of seeing Dench as M at the 'beginning' of Bond's tenure, and seeing Dench at the 'latter' of Bond's tenure, having a new M (not necessarily Messervy) would introduce a proper disjointedness. This would actually separate completely Craig's Bond from the rest of the series, making its own timelessness. Dench was a nice connection (maybe even a homage) to the previous Bonds, but maybe it's time to cut to the apron strings and give Craig's Bond free rein without having to muck around too much with trying to 'insert' Bond into some sort of timeline.

Tee Hee · January 2007

emtiem wrote:

GE was set in 1995. This is a reboot. All previous continuity swept away- GE didn't/is never going to happen in this new Bond series. I'll never understand why people worry about this.

It's not that we're worried (pointless considering it's already been done), but some of us would have just preferred that all prior Bond data had not been erased to start a "second Bond series" not subject to the events of the first. Ultimately they are rewriting the Bond story. Bond can have a female boss even though the first female head of MI6 wasn't appointed until GE. Bond can meet Felix Leiter even though he meets him for the first time in DN. It's upsetting to us that over forty years of Bond history is being ignored.

emtiem · January 2007

Tee Hee wrote:

emtiem wrote:

GE was set in 1995. This is a reboot. All previous continuity swept away- GE didn't/is never going to happen in this new Bond series. I'll never understand why people worry about this.

It's not that we're worried (pointless considering it's already been done), but some of us would have just preferred that all prior Bond data had not been erased to start a "second Bond series" not subject to the events of the first. Ultimately they are rewriting the Bond story. Bond can have a female boss even though the first female head of MI6 wasn't appointed until GE. Bond can meet Felix Leiter even though he meets him for the first time in DN. It's upsetting to us that over forty years of Bond history is being ignored.

Nope- still do't get it. It's not real and there was hardly much 'history' in the films anyway- Bond met a few people and that's it. There's not even much to tell us that the films are even set within the same universe- if Moonraker had rebooted the continuity from TSWLM, how would we know? There's very little to link most of the films- it's hardly an evolving storyline about one man's journey through life- he never changes. The people around him never change. It's not one big long story, it's a collection of stories which happen to have a hero with the same name.

Tee Hee · January 2007

emtiem wrote:

Nope- still do't get it. It's not real and there was hardly much 'history' in the films anyway- Bond met a few people and that's it. There's not even much to tell us that the films are even set within the same universe- if Moonraker had rebooted the continuity from TSWLM, how would we know? There's very little to link most of the films- it's hardly an evolving storyline about one man's journey through life- he never changes. The people around him never change. It's not one big long story, it's a collection of stories which happen to have a hero with the same name.

"I don't expect you to understand, you're English."

I just don't understand why there had to be a reboot other than to fulfill the public's thirst for these "Beginning" pictures. The story could have easily been molded to fit a veteran Bond while adhereing to the usual formula and characters. You're right that we are not following Bond on his journey through life, but he does follow our world's timeline. He's been through the Cold War and now he's part of the post 9/11 world. But since he has been an established agent pre 9/11 he should remain so post 9/11.

Dan Same · January 2007

Tee Hee wrote:

I just don't understand why there had to be a reboot other than to fulfill the public's thirst for these "Beginning" pictures. The story could have easily been molded to fit a veteran Bond while adhereing to the usual formula and characters. You're right that we are not following Bond on his journey through life, but he does follow our world's timeline. He's been through the Cold War and now he's part of the post 9/11 world. But since he has been an established agent pre 9/11 he should remain so post 9/11.

I agree completely. But I'll add two other problems with this reboot. First, the casting of Judy Dench; if it had been a proper reboot, another actress (or preferrably actor) should have been cast in her place. The casting of Dench (the M to a veteran Bond in the original series, and now the the first M to a new Bond in a reboot) makes it really messy IMO.

Second, what will happen when Craig eventually leaves? Will the next actor's tenure fit into the continuity of the old series (will he, for example, be a widower?) or will it be yet another reboot?

MikeyRichards · January 2007

I imagine the next Bond will continue the story and character from Craig's films. And then 40 - 50 years in the future they'll reboot after the series hits another Die Another Day-like low.

heartbroken_mr_drax · January 2007

Dan Same wrote:

I agree completely. But I'll add two other problems with this reboot. First, the casting of Judi Dench; if it had been a proper reboot, another actress (or preferrably actor) should have been cast in her place. The casting of Dench (the M to a veteran Bond in the original series, and now the the first M to a new Bond in a reboot) makes it really messy IMO.

Second, what will happen when Craig eventually leaves? Will the next actor's tenure fit into the continuity of the old series (will he, for example, be a widower?) or will it be yet another reboot?

I dont see what the big deal is, should they have replaced Bernard Lee for OHMSS, LALD or Robert Brown for RM transition to TD?? Or what about Q and Moneypenny? The same thing applies for GE where they show a mission that took place 10 years ago? 10 Years ago was AVTAK?

Casino Roayle is a 'look back' bond movie similar to the beginning of GE, he will eventually catch up with himself and go back to normal. Yes it is called a reboot but thats like the newer Superman, Star Wars, Batman and Spiderman movies. They havent forgotten anything.

Padantic Bond fans back in 73 would have been saying this stuff about the difference with LALD, now its refered to as being one of the good ones.

They say the wont remake the old ones so they cannot forget the history they can do that for a few movies maybe CR and B22 but then jump back to normal.

But I dont see what the hell is the big deal between the reboot continuity of M?

The producers know how much history is before CR and they certainly wont forget it.

Stop worrying!

Dan Same · January 2007

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

I dont see what the big deal is, should they have replaced Bernard Lee for OHMSS, LALD or Robert Brown for RM transition to TD?? Or what about Q and Moneypenny? The same thing applies for GE where they show a mission that took place 10 years ago? 10 Years ago was AVTAK?

I would argue that there is a huge difference between replacing Lee or any other M (especially since the transition to a female M was addressed) and using the same actress for a reboot that was used at the end of the original series. As for GE's PTS taking place in 1985, the exact date in which Bond films occured ahs never concerned me.

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

Casino Roayle is a 'look back' bond movie similar to the beginning of GE, he will eventually catch up with himself and go back to normal. Yes it is called a reboot but thats like the newer Superman, Star Wars, Batman and Spiderman movies. They havent forgotten anything.

Well, I don't like it. I don't see the point of it and I don't like IMO how it messes with the continuity and ignores history.

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

Padantic Bond fans back in 73 would have been saying this stuff about the difference with LALD, now its refered to as being one of the good ones.

The difference between CR and LALD is that LALD wasn't a reboot. Look, maybe I'm pedantic, but this is the way I look at Bond and I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

They say the wont remake the old ones so they cannot forget the history they can do that for a few movies maybe CR and B22 but then jump back to normal.

And then what? So the films of the next actor will go 'back to normal'? Again, I don't see any need for it (especially since it's an incomplete reboot.)

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

But I dont see what the hell is the big deal between the reboot continuity of M?

You're not alone. Emtiem agree with you. Look, the reality is that this is something which one either accepts or doesn't. I'm not going to go into why the Dench issue annoys some people (such as myself) so much but perhaps if you read some other posts on this thread, such as by myself or Tee Hee, you will understand. I don't expect you to agree; however hopefully you'll understand.

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

Stop worrying!

Drax, with all due respect, if I want to worry shouldn't I have the right to? This is a Bond site; what better place to express concerns about the future of Bond?

heartbroken_mr_drax · January 2007

Dan Same wrote:

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

Stop worrying!

Drax, with all due respect, if I want to worry shouldn't I have the right to? This is a Bond site; what better place to express concerns about the future of Bond?

I seriously dont think that Bonds future is in jeopardy.

It would be if it was Goldfiger type Bond after another.

Dan Same · January 2007

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

I seriously dont think that Bonds future is in jeopardy.

It would be if it was Goldfiger type Bond after another.

Of course not. I was simply reacting to your demand to 'Stop worrying!' as if I don't have a right to worry.

That said, if every Bond film was as good as GF, I would most certainly not be worrying.

-{

heartbroken_mr_drax · January 2007

Dan Same wrote:

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

I seriously dont think that Bonds future is in jeopardy.

It would be if it was Goldfiger type Bond after another.

Of course not. I was simply reacting to your demand to 'Stop worrying!' as if I don't have a right to worry. That said, if every Bond film was as good as GF, I would most certainly not be worrying. -{

Lol

Good Point.

But if every movie was as good as the whole bond series (Minus DAF, MWTGG, AVTAK, DAD) then ill be happy. And I am!

emtiem · January 2007

Tee Hee wrote:

emtiem wrote:

Nope- still do't get it. It's not real and there was hardly much 'history' in the films anyway- Bond met a few people and that's it. There's not even much to tell us that the films are even set within the same universe- if Moonraker had rebooted the continuity from TSWLM, how would we know? There's very little to link most of the films- it's hardly an evolving storyline about one man's journey through life- he never changes. The people around him never change. It's not one big long story, it's a collection of stories which happen to have a hero with the same name.

"I don't expect you to understand, you're English."

I just don't understand why there had to be a reboot other than to fulfill the public's thirst for these "Beginning" pictures. The story could have easily been molded to fit a veteran Bond while adhereing to the usual formula and characters.

Which would leave us where? With a fresh vital new series, or a Star Trek-like winding-down of the whole thing with constant 'I'm getting too old for this ****' lines? The series has somewhere to go now, CR as a last hurrah for Pierce or an old Bond would have taken us nowhere. And it's not as interesting, to be honest.

Tee Hee wrote:

You're right that we are not following Bond on his journey through life, but he does follow our world's timeline. He's been through the Cold War and now he's part of the post 9/11 world. But since he has been an established agent pre 9/11 he should remain so post 9/11.

So which world events did we see Bond effected by? 911? He was in a jail during that and was conspicuously outdated as soon as he stepped out. And no-one even mentioned it. At least in CR it's dealt with, is a factor behind the plot.
The only real-world event we saw Bond affected by was the wall coming down; so this precious continuity gave us neither a personal journey nor a historical one. So why not throw it out? The proof's in CR- hardly anything has been changed.

Replace Dame Judi?

Comments