Controversial opinions about Bond films

1599600602604605705

Comments

  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    Posts: 554
    suavejmf wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Might be starting a new topic here, but one thing I can never understand/forgive about the Craig era is how each film ends with some sort of emotional closure, only for them to inexplicably make the decision to open up the next storyline with the wounds/story threads still hanging.

    CR and SF end perfectly, and could have taken us into an exciting new era with Craig's Bond let loose to do his thing. Except in each film he is over laded by baggage from the previous film (SF is the closest thing to just letting him get on with it, and even then he has to contend with coming back from the dead and dealing with his relationship to M).

    It's the main reason I am not really looking forward to NTTD (just as well, it turns out!).

    I don't think I will ever be able to look at this era as anything other than a lost opportunity. Despite the popularity of Craig and the commercial success, I still feel like each film has been compromised, heavily laden with baggage, and feels somehow dragged down, as if Bond himself is operating with one hand tied behind his back.

    Agreed. Albeit, I like the QoS continuity, but not the Step Brother...link all the films ‘bolted on’ rubbish from SP.

    Yes I quite like how QoS starts. But there was never any real need to drag him down with all the emotional baggage. "The bitch is dead" should have been the last word on Vesper imo.

    But literally all four films have used their final images to draw a line under what has gone before...only to take two steps backwards with the next film.

    To be fair, "the bitch is dead" wasn't Fleming's last word on Vesper.

    A lot of people simply don't like Dench as M because she's female and his boss. Pure sexism. She's clearly a better actor than any of the others who portrayed M, including Lee. Fiennes is the only one who comes close to Dench in acting ability.
    echo wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Might be starting a new topic here, but one thing I can never understand/forgive about the Craig era is how each film ends with some sort of emotional closure, only for them to inexplicably make the decision to open up the next storyline with the wounds/story threads still hanging.

    CR and SF end perfectly, and could have taken us into an exciting new era with Craig's Bond let loose to do his thing. Except in each film he is over laded by baggage from the previous film (SF is the closest thing to just letting him get on with it, and even then he has to contend with coming back from the dead and dealing with his relationship to M).

    It's the main reason I am not really looking forward to NTTD (just as well, it turns out!).

    I don't think I will ever be able to look at this era as anything other than a lost opportunity. Despite the popularity of Craig and the commercial success, I still feel like each film has been compromised, heavily laden with baggage, and feels somehow dragged down, as if Bond himself is operating with one hand tied behind his back.

    Agreed. Albeit, I like the QoS continuity, but not the Step Brother...link all the films ‘bolted on’ rubbish from SP.

    Yes I quite like how QoS starts. But there was never any real need to drag him down with all the emotional baggage. "The bitch is dead" should have been the last word on Vesper imo.

    But literally all four films have used their final images to draw a line under what has gone before...only to take two steps backwards with the next film.

    To be fair, "the bitch is dead" wasn't Fleming's last word on Vesper.

    A lot of people simply don't like Dench as M because she's female and his boss. Pure sexism. She's clearly a better actor than any of the others who portrayed M, including Lee. Fiennes is the only one who comes close to Dench in acting ability.

    Can't remember who said it on these boards, but they wrote that Bond's demons should be like a scar - not an open wound. Craig's Bond barely mentions Vesper, or any of his demons to be fair, it's just that all the other characters keep going on about them.

    Fleming gets used as a blunt instrument on here to help people win arguments. If Fleming has written something, they bring it up and say 'here, this is what Fleming does, so everything that resembles it is justified'. And if something from the movies goes against Fleming but that they happen to like, they say 'Fleming is outdated', 'the movies are different', or 'we need to move on and reflect the times'. You've only got to go on the 'who could be Bond' board whenever the prospect of a non-white Bond turns up. You see that argument played out again and again.

    I don't think many of us would particularly relish some of the racial and ethnic discussions the books engage in from time to time, so clearly Fleming's choices have limits.

    Fleming for me is the touchstone for the character traits, and overall mood of the Bond universe. But some of what he wrote should remain in the books.

    Fleming is a good guide. Perhaps the only guide. But it is clearly a balancing act. Vesper doesn't dominate Live and Let Die, Moonraker, or Diamonds are Forever. Can't remember if she is mentioned in those books. Probably at some point, but it's not at the forefront.

    I don't think you are in any position really to decide people's motives for not liking a character or actor. It could just as easily be turned back on you and claimed that you only like Dench because she's a woman.

    I like Dench as an actor and her portrayal as M (I think it is one of the strongest elements of the Craig and Brosnan films), but I have no insight to determine the motifs of those who don't like her turn as M.

    Vesper is mentioned in the DAF novel indirectly. Bond is unserved by a song that reminds him of her.

    I don’t particularly like the female M because it changes Fleming’s character and tradition for no apparent reason other than a ‘stunt’ to be PC and reflect the real MI6.

    I think it great to do a female M. It’s not like it’s the same character with a sex change.
    Agreed.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    suavejmf wrote: »
    I don’t particularly like the female M because it changes Fleming’s character and tradition for no apparent reason other than a ‘stunt’ to be PC and reflect the real MI6.

    I think once you replaced Lee with someone who wasn't playing the 'same' M as him i.e. they weren't Miles Messervy, that ship had set sail at a high rate of knots.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    suavejmf wrote: »
    I don’t particularly like the female M because it changes Fleming’s character and tradition for no apparent reason other than a ‘stunt’ to be PC and reflect the real MI6.

    I think once you replaced Lee with someone who wasn't playing the 'same' M as him i.e. they weren't Miles Messervy, that ship had set sail at a high rate of knots.

    True. But why not just have another Sir Miles Messervy, just as you have another, but the same, James Bond.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    suavejmf wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    I don’t particularly like the female M because it changes Fleming’s character and tradition for no apparent reason other than a ‘stunt’ to be PC and reflect the real MI6.

    I think once you replaced Lee with someone who wasn't playing the 'same' M as him i.e. they weren't Miles Messervy, that ship had set sail at a high rate of knots.

    True. But why not just have another Sir Miles Messervy, just as you have another, but the same, James Bond.

    I'm not sure why they didn't simply recast the part when Lee died. It would have been better than giving us Robert Brown. But at the same time, Dench was great in the part later and I also like Fiennes in the part. Maybe they'll bring back Miles Messervy for the next Bond.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    Also remember they replaced Boothroyd with a new character. The only recasting as far as MI6 characters go is Tanner and Moneypenny.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    suavejmf wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    I don’t particularly like the female M because it changes Fleming’s character and tradition for no apparent reason other than a ‘stunt’ to be PC and reflect the real MI6.

    I think once you replaced Lee with someone who wasn't playing the 'same' M as him i.e. they weren't Miles Messervy, that ship had set sail at a high rate of knots.

    True. But why not just have another Sir Miles Messervy, just as you have another, but the same, James Bond.

    I'm not sure why they didn't simply recast the part when Lee died. It would have been better than giving us Robert Brown. But at the same time, Dench was great in the part later and I also like Fiennes in the part. Maybe they'll bring back Miles Messervy for the next Bond.

    It was never stated that Brown wasn t Messervy. He might well have been.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    suavejmf wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    I don’t particularly like the female M because it changes Fleming’s character and tradition for no apparent reason other than a ‘stunt’ to be PC and reflect the real MI6.

    I think once you replaced Lee with someone who wasn't playing the 'same' M as him i.e. they weren't Miles Messervy, that ship had set sail at a high rate of knots.

    True. But why not just have another Sir Miles Messervy, just as you have another, but the same, James Bond.

    I'm not sure why they didn't simply recast the part when Lee died. It would have been better than giving us Robert Brown. But at the same time, Dench was great in the part later and I also like Fiennes in the part. Maybe they'll bring back Miles Messervy for the next Bond.

    It was never stated that Brown wasn t Messervy. He might well have been.

    I think he was meant to be the same character, but it’s ambiguous enough you can see it either way.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    suavejmf wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    I don’t particularly like the female M because it changes Fleming’s character and tradition for no apparent reason other than a ‘stunt’ to be PC and reflect the real MI6.

    I think once you replaced Lee with someone who wasn't playing the 'same' M as him i.e. they weren't Miles Messervy, that ship had set sail at a high rate of knots.

    True. But why not just have another Sir Miles Messervy, just as you have another, but the same, James Bond.

    I'm not sure why they didn't simply recast the part when Lee died. It would have been better than giving us Robert Brown. But at the same time, Dench was great in the part later and I also like Fiennes in the part. Maybe they'll bring back Miles Messervy for the next Bond.

    It was never stated that Brown wasn t Messervy. He might well have been.

    Not explicitly, no. But I believe it to be the same character he played in The Spy Who Loved Me. I would hope it was, at least. If he was playing Messervy, that makes the casting even worse as he possesses almost none of Lee's qualities.
  • Posts: 17,280
    Of all the recastings in the series, the various Ms are the ones that I feel they did best actually. Not the most difficult role to recast, but still.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    suavejmf wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    I don’t particularly like the female M because it changes Fleming’s character and tradition for no apparent reason other than a ‘stunt’ to be PC and reflect the real MI6.

    I think once you replaced Lee with someone who wasn't playing the 'same' M as him i.e. they weren't Miles Messervy, that ship had set sail at a high rate of knots.

    True. But why not just have another Sir Miles Messervy, just as you have another, but the same, James Bond.

    I'm not sure why they didn't simply recast the part when Lee died. It would have been better than giving us Robert Brown. But at the same time, Dench was great in the part later and I also like Fiennes in the part. Maybe they'll bring back Miles Messervy for the next Bond.

    It was never stated that Brown wasn t Messervy. He might well have been.

    Not explicitly, no. But I believe it to be the same character he played in The Spy Who Loved Me. I would hope it was, at least. If he was playing Messervy, that makes the casting even worse as he possesses almost none of Lee's qualities.

    He seems similar enough to me with little things like having a pipe, which has never carried over to later Ms. We just never got an instance of his name being dropped. I think the fact that they don’t give him an introduction but have him in his first scene seem like he’s always been a part of the series is supposed to tell you this is the same M, much like how Caroline Bliss was treated as the same Moneypenny.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    suavejmf wrote: »
    That opinion is surely not controversial at all!

    True. I was agreeing with you and expanding on the point.

    Yeah I know you were. Sorry, I have never used an emoji so my meaning can often be lost!
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    suavejmf wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    I don’t particularly like the female M because it changes Fleming’s character and tradition for no apparent reason other than a ‘stunt’ to be PC and reflect the real MI6.

    I think once you replaced Lee with someone who wasn't playing the 'same' M as him i.e. they weren't Miles Messervy, that ship had set sail at a high rate of knots.

    True. But why not just have another Sir Miles Messervy, just as you have another, but the same, James Bond.

    I'm not sure why they didn't simply recast the part when Lee died. It would have been better than giving us Robert Brown. But at the same time, Dench was great in the part later and I also like Fiennes in the part. Maybe they'll bring back Miles Messervy for the next Bond.

    It was never stated that Brown wasn t Messervy. He might well have been.

    Not explicitly, no. But I believe it to be the same character he played in The Spy Who Loved Me. I would hope it was, at least. If he was playing Messervy, that makes the casting even worse as he possesses almost none of Lee's qualities.

    He seems similar enough to me with little things like having a pipe, which has never carried over to later Ms. We just never got an instance of his name being dropped. I think the fact that they don’t give him an introduction but have him in his first scene seem like he’s always been a part of the series is supposed to tell you this is the same M, much like how Caroline Bliss was treated as the same Moneypenny.

    I never really read it that way, myself. Coincidentally, but not controversially, Bliss was pretty terrible as well.

    Also, I kind of wish they had Dench's M smoke a pipe. That would have been quite intense.
  • Posts: 1,571
    I thought the bit with papers flying about in his on-air office was unfair to him. He is not a dummy. The office would have been in the cabin, not the open rear. They did it for levity, I suppose. Like so much of the "levity" in that era, I found some of it just dumb. I got the whole "going with a lighter touch" change, but that did not call for so much dumb, low-level "humor" as they chose to include.
  • Posts: 1,571
    That was in reference to Robert Brown's M...
  • Posts: 1,571
    As for my "that era" I was mixing...the dumb jokes were in Moore's era, not Dalton's. Brown's M crossed over.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    I’d call it John Glen’s era.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    suavejmf wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    I don’t particularly like the female M because it changes Fleming’s character and tradition for no apparent reason other than a ‘stunt’ to be PC and reflect the real MI6.

    I think once you replaced Lee with someone who wasn't playing the 'same' M as him i.e. they weren't Miles Messervy, that ship had set sail at a high rate of knots.

    True. But why not just have another Sir Miles Messervy, just as you have another, but the same, James Bond.

    I'm not sure why they didn't simply recast the part when Lee died. It would have been better than giving us Robert Brown. But at the same time, Dench was great in the part later and I also like Fiennes in the part. Maybe they'll bring back Miles Messervy for the next Bond.

    I see no evidence in Octopussy to suggest that Robert Brown isn’t Sir Miles Messervy. The first ‘new M’ was featured in GE.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    suavejmf wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    I don’t particularly like the female M because it changes Fleming’s character and tradition for no apparent reason other than a ‘stunt’ to be PC and reflect the real MI6.

    I think once you replaced Lee with someone who wasn't playing the 'same' M as him i.e. they weren't Miles Messervy, that ship had set sail at a high rate of knots.

    True. But why not just have another Sir Miles Messervy, just as you have another, but the same, James Bond.

    I'm not sure why they didn't simply recast the part when Lee died. It would have been better than giving us Robert Brown. But at the same time, Dench was great in the part later and I also like Fiennes in the part. Maybe they'll bring back Miles Messervy for the next Bond.

    It was never stated that Brown wasn t Messervy. He might well have been.

    Not explicitly, no. But I believe it to be the same character he played in The Spy Who Loved Me. I would hope it was, at least. If he was playing Messervy, that makes the casting even worse as he possesses almost none of Lee's qualities.

    He seems similar enough to me with little things like having a pipe, which has never carried over to later Ms. We just never got an instance of his name being dropped. I think the fact that they don’t give him an introduction but have him in his first scene seem like he’s always been a part of the series is supposed to tell you this is the same M, much like how Caroline Bliss was treated as the same Moneypenny.

    My thoughts exactly.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    As far as I’m concerned, Brown’s M is Admiral Hargreaves. Makes perfect sense.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,330
    As far as I’m concerned, Brown’s M is Admiral Hargreaves. Makes perfect sense.

    That's my thinking as well.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    Murdock wrote: »
    As far as I’m concerned, Brown’s M is Admiral Hargreaves. Makes perfect sense.

    That's my thinking as well.

    And mine, too.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,014
    suavejmf wrote: »
    I see no evidence in Octopussy to suggest that Robert Brown isn’t Sir Miles Messervy. The first ‘new M’ was featured in GE.
    That's how I see it, @suavejmf. Brown was never presented as a separate or new character from 1983, and I enjoy the crusty retired naval admiral Sir Miles Messervy continuing in the films. To me that's the intent of the filmmakers.

  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,973
    Robert Brown's M seems in tone and behaviour Hargreaves, and it makes sense he had the assignment in becoming M. So yes, definately not the same person. Moreover it woud make sense for Bond, who's living the double-oh lifelongern than is healthy, to outlive the appointments of his superiors.

    The only thing that nags me in Dench's time is her incompetance. Making the wrong judgement on Elektra is one thing, but in Craig's time she seems increadably accident-prone. I had to agree with the chair(wo)man at the hearing. First she is too quick with promoting Bond (CR), then she misunderstands his drive and professionalism (QoS), she's got MI6 infiltrated by an unknown (Quantum) organisation (QoS), consequently she has Bond shot (SF), and it turns out one of her hand-picked top agents she left to rot (poor judgement!) and is willing to kill/have killed British agents to take revenge (SF). Only to not mention her wound to Bond which leads her to die.

    All in all, by far the worst performance of any M (not acting wise!).

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    suavejmf wrote: »
    That opinion is surely not controversial at all!

    True. I was agreeing with you and expanding on the point.

    Yeah I know you were. Sorry, I have never used an emoji so my meaning can often be lost!

    No need to apologise at all mate.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,979
    suavejmf wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Might be starting a new topic here, but one thing I can never understand/forgive about the Craig era is how each film ends with some sort of emotional closure, only for them to inexplicably make the decision to open up the next storyline with the wounds/story threads still hanging.

    CR and SF end perfectly, and could have taken us into an exciting new era with Craig's Bond let loose to do his thing. Except in each film he is over laded by baggage from the previous film (SF is the closest thing to just letting him get on with it, and even then he has to contend with coming back from the dead and dealing with his relationship to M).

    It's the main reason I am not really looking forward to NTTD (just as well, it turns out!).

    I don't think I will ever be able to look at this era as anything other than a lost opportunity. Despite the popularity of Craig and the commercial success, I still feel like each film has been compromised, heavily laden with baggage, and feels somehow dragged down, as if Bond himself is operating with one hand tied behind his back.

    Agreed. Albeit, I like the QoS continuity, but not the Step Brother...link all the films ‘bolted on’ rubbish from SP.

    Yes I quite like how QoS starts. But there was never any real need to drag him down with all the emotional baggage. "The bitch is dead" should have been the last word on Vesper imo.

    But literally all four films have used their final images to draw a line under what has gone before...only to take two steps backwards with the next film.

    To be fair, "the bitch is dead" wasn't Fleming's last word on Vesper.

    A lot of people simply don't like Dench as M because she's female and his boss. Pure sexism. She's clearly a better actor than any of the others who portrayed M, including Lee. Fiennes is the only one who comes close to Dench in acting ability.
    echo wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Might be starting a new topic here, but one thing I can never understand/forgive about the Craig era is how each film ends with some sort of emotional closure, only for them to inexplicably make the decision to open up the next storyline with the wounds/story threads still hanging.

    CR and SF end perfectly, and could have taken us into an exciting new era with Craig's Bond let loose to do his thing. Except in each film he is over laded by baggage from the previous film (SF is the closest thing to just letting him get on with it, and even then he has to contend with coming back from the dead and dealing with his relationship to M).

    It's the main reason I am not really looking forward to NTTD (just as well, it turns out!).

    I don't think I will ever be able to look at this era as anything other than a lost opportunity. Despite the popularity of Craig and the commercial success, I still feel like each film has been compromised, heavily laden with baggage, and feels somehow dragged down, as if Bond himself is operating with one hand tied behind his back.

    Agreed. Albeit, I like the QoS continuity, but not the Step Brother...link all the films ‘bolted on’ rubbish from SP.

    Yes I quite like how QoS starts. But there was never any real need to drag him down with all the emotional baggage. "The bitch is dead" should have been the last word on Vesper imo.

    But literally all four films have used their final images to draw a line under what has gone before...only to take two steps backwards with the next film.

    To be fair, "the bitch is dead" wasn't Fleming's last word on Vesper.

    A lot of people simply don't like Dench as M because she's female and his boss. Pure sexism. She's clearly a better actor than any of the others who portrayed M, including Lee. Fiennes is the only one who comes close to Dench in acting ability.

    Can't remember who said it on these boards, but they wrote that Bond's demons should be like a scar - not an open wound. Craig's Bond barely mentions Vesper, or any of his demons to be fair, it's just that all the other characters keep going on about them.

    Fleming gets used as a blunt instrument on here to help people win arguments. If Fleming has written something, they bring it up and say 'here, this is what Fleming does, so everything that resembles it is justified'. And if something from the movies goes against Fleming but that they happen to like, they say 'Fleming is outdated', 'the movies are different', or 'we need to move on and reflect the times'. You've only got to go on the 'who could be Bond' board whenever the prospect of a non-white Bond turns up. You see that argument played out again and again.

    I don't think many of us would particularly relish some of the racial and ethnic discussions the books engage in from time to time, so clearly Fleming's choices have limits.

    Fleming for me is the touchstone for the character traits, and overall mood of the Bond universe. But some of what he wrote should remain in the books.

    Fleming is a good guide. Perhaps the only guide. But it is clearly a balancing act. Vesper doesn't dominate Live and Let Die, Moonraker, or Diamonds are Forever. Can't remember if she is mentioned in those books. Probably at some point, but it's not at the forefront.

    I don't think you are in any position really to decide people's motives for not liking a character or actor. It could just as easily be turned back on you and claimed that you only like Dench because she's a woman.

    I like Dench as an actor and her portrayal as M (I think it is one of the strongest elements of the Craig and Brosnan films), but I have no insight to determine the motifs of those who don't like her turn as M.

    Vesper is mentioned in the DAF novel indirectly. Bond is unserved by a song that reminds him of her.

    I don’t particularly like the female M because it changes Fleming’s character and tradition for no apparent reason other than a ‘stunt’ to be PC and reflect the real MI6.

    Or to update, and dare I say freshen, the series with the times. "Tradition" often means "straight white male." The same argument is made against Elba, Berry, etc.
  • Posts: 15,818
    Controversial opinion:

    Until I see a script of OCTOPUSSY or a deleted scene that explicitly states Hargreaves was promoted to M, I'll believe Brown was playing Sir Miles.

    In addition:

    I found Robert Brown to be an outstanding M.
  • 007InAction007InAction Australia
    Posts: 2,353
    Controversial advertising ?
    Don't drink and play with your silencer...... :))

    EkEp9yJWoAEyZm6?format=jpg&name=900x900
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Of all the Ms whose name we know, it always starts with an M and for a reason. If Brown was Hargreaves, wouldn t he be called H?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    Of all the Ms whose name we know, it always starts with an M and for a reason. If Brown was Hargreaves, wouldn t he be called H?

    Good point.

    Also, EON had already made it a practice of reusing actors for different roles, the biggest one being Charles Gray as Henderson and then Blofeld.

    But like I said earlier, it's really just up to interpretation. If one wants to just view his M as Hargreaves, okay. I used to for awhile when I was first a fan, but over time it just made sense that EON was simply recasting and didn't put much thought beyond that.

    Has anyone ever tried asking someone like John Glen if Brown was intended to be Hargreaves as M? I doubt Wilson would care if you asked him.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited October 2020 Posts: 5,131
    Of all the Ms whose name we know, it always starts with an M and for a reason. If Brown was Hargreaves, wouldn t he be called H?

    Good point.

    Also, EON had already made it a practice of reusing actors for different roles, the biggest one being Charles Gray as Henderson and then Blofeld.

    But like I said earlier, it's really just up to interpretation. If one wants to just view his M as Hargreaves, okay. I used to for awhile when I was first a fan, but over time it just made sense that EON was simply recasting and didn't put much thought beyond that.

    Has anyone ever tried asking someone like John Glen if Brown was intended to be Hargreaves as M? I doubt Wilson would care if you asked him.

    Good point. Maud Adams is too totally different main characters too.

    As we know, after Lee's death in January 1981, Broccoli and the other producers, decided to leave M out of For Your Eyes Only out of respect for Lee (state he was ‘on leave’) and assigned his lines to M's Chief of Staff Bill Tanner. In 1983, Brown was hired to portray M (apparently) on the recommendation of Bond actor Sir Roger Moore.

    It was never clearly established if Brown was the same M as Lee's character, or not (but given that there is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary one would assume he is Sir Miles). So to assume otherwise is ‘fan interpretation’ based zero evidence in the 1983 plot.

    In 1995, Brown was succeeded as M by Judi Dench in GoldenEye (where the change of character is clearly stated in the plot; “Your predecessor kept some Cognac....”).
Sign In or Register to comment.