M from now on ( SKYFALL SPOILERS!)

edited November 2012 in Bond 26 & Beyond Posts: 72
Hello everybody.

I've been thinking on the past days how will be the relationship between Bond/ Fiennes' M. Will it be somewhat paternal, like the M of the novels / Lee's M? Will be strictly professional ( like Robert Brown's M). Or will it be more like an older brother relationship, seeing the supposedly Mallory is only a few years older than Bond?

My guess is in the third option. It seems to me that Mallory was a bit of a "Bond" himself in the past, evaluating his backstory ( being held cative by the IRA, being an Lt. Colonel,...), that was pulled out of the field due to something ( an injury, maybe?) and went to office working? Maybe he can contribute with some of his experience as a field agent to help Bond.

So, what are your ideas?
«1

Comments

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,858
    I'd guess that it will start out prickly (as opposed to chummy), so that they can have somewhere to go with the relationship over the years.
  • It's very interesting. It's hard to know where they're going to go with it. Immediately one would think the Bernard Lee/Robert Brown route, but when you have an actor like Ralph Fiennes in the role, you want to be able to take full advantage of his talents.
  • Posts: 3,333
    I'm sure others won't agree, but I'm hoping that Ralph Fiennes' role is simply a guest appearance and that they give the mission more depth and importance from now on. Casting "big name" actors in minor roles shouldn't mean that it becomes necessary for them to have their roles expanded. The story should always take presidence. If I have a complaint about the modern Bonds it's that we see too much of MI6 (SIS) and not enough of 007 in the field.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    There are already hints of their future relationship in Skyall. I for one think they couldn't have picked a better M than Fiennes.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited December 2012 Posts: 3,497
    bondsum wrote:
    I'm sure others won't agree, but I'm hoping that Ralph Fiennes' role is simply a guest appearance and that they give the mission more depth and importance from now on. Casting "big name" actors in minor roles shouldn't mean that it becomes necessary for them to have their roles expanded. The story should always take presidence. If I have a complaint about the modern Bonds it's that we see too much of MI6 (SIS) and not enough of 007 in the field.

    How did this Bond not get "in depth" missions?
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited December 2012 Posts: 4,383
    I hope there wil first a bit of trust thing between them. In meaning that Bond stil have a litle bit of trouble with the death of Dench M. In the case of Fienes M that means his M think that Bond can vergot past M, that this not going to be a problem we get already see a bit in Skyfall. Because of this his M should get first simalar time as in Skyfall/pop up twice or three times, but with Bond 25 and later it wil be more a guest appearance (1 or 2 times).

    Of course it is based on how it is done and i personaly for Bond 24 think there should more focus on Quantum, Felix and Camile.
  • RC7RC7
    edited December 2012 Posts: 10,512
    JamesCraig wrote:
    bondsum wrote:
    I'm sure others won't agree, but I'm hoping that Ralph Fiennes' role is simply a guest appearance and that they give the mission more depth and importance from now on. Casting "big name" actors in minor roles shouldn't mean that it becomes necessary for them to have their roles expanded. The story should always take presidence. If I have a complaint about the modern Bonds it's that we see too much of MI6 (SIS) and not enough of 007 in the field.

    How did this Bond not get "in depth" missions?

    I think what @bondsum is referring to is that, the new films, in particular SF are character heavy. The plots in QoS and SF are in themselves McGuffins really. It's the character arcs that come to the fore. In a TV series this is fine and usually the way they work (particularly in the US) but a film a plot should ideally be as nuanced and interesting as a character study because it has to be resolved within the duration.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 3,333
    JamesCraig wrote:
    How did this Bond not get "in depth" missions?
    That's exactly what I mean, @RC7. I also include some of Brosnan in the modern equation, it's not a case of "this Bond" as you put it, @JamesCraig. I feel there's too much exposition between M and Bond and not enough of 007 in the field being allowed to make mistakes without M stepping in and making herself heard at almost every turn. I much prefer it when M's role is low-key and 007's adversaries and companions are given more time to expand the story and connect the dots. In other words, less screen-time for M means more screen-time for other characters and their motives. It's a direction I'd like to see for Bond 24.

    I also don't see Skyfall as a mission-led plot as it's more about Bond being M's protector.

  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Well, we won't get another "M is close to Bond"-story.

    I'm betting Mallory won't even trust him that much.
  • I remember reading in an interview with BB and MGW that they thought that Fiennes resembled Bond rather than the other M's. I can see that- Mallory is a sort of equivalent to Bond, except he has self-control and maturity that Bond probably will never have. He gave up the exciting field life for a more business oriented job. It's kind of a yin and yang sort of thing.
    'Course there was the "don't cock it up" comment that could very well be a double entendre. Obviously Mallory knows Bond's reputation. It'll be interesting to see how he'll keep him in line.
  • Posts: 3,333
    I hope you're right, @JamesCraig, as I feel they've explored that particular avenue and now need to move on with Bond doing what he does best out in the field.

    Hopefully John Logan will keep their relationship on an even keel this time and allow 007 the benefit of the doubt.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited December 2012 Posts: 3,497
    But... the ending of SF (The way M gives Bond his next job & the "With Pleasure") is utter greatness imho. And yes, it has become one of my favourite moments of the franchise.

    What do you think about SF btw, @Bondsum?
  • Posts: 3,333
    I'm still undecided, @JamesCraig. I've only seen it once so will need to see it more before I can gather my thoughts on what I liked and didn't care much for. My immediate impression is that I think it had a strong first half which contains the majority of my favourite scenes. As of yet I'm not totally sold on the new Q and I await to see how MP fits into future stories, so again I reserve judgement on her portrayal. My main gripe is mostly with the second half and how much it becomes about M. To be honest, I'm not sure I care that much about her as to dedicate the whole picture to her character. I almost felt the line "The bitch is dead" more applicable to M than it was to Vesper, and felt more aggrieved at her parting than Dame Judi's.

    I think the pre-end credits sequence was my favourite part out of the final act, and what a great line to end the film on... "With pleasure." I've always wanted to see an ending done this way and at last I got to see one.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,413
    jackdagger wrote:
    I remember reading in an interview with BB and MGW that they thought that Fiennes resembled Bond rather than the other M's. I can see that- Mallory is a sort of equivalent to Bond, except he has self-control and maturity that Bond probably will never have. He gave up the exciting field life for a more business oriented job. It's kind of a yin and yang sort of thing.
    'Course there was the "don't cock it up" comment that could very well be a double entendre. Obviously Mallory knows Bond's reputation. It'll be interesting to see how he'll keep him in line.

    Bond has a "blunt instrument" and can be quite provoking when he wants to, but he's always in control. Which is lost, quite understandingly, with CR and QoS, but is regained in SF.

  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    Posts: 2,629
    I think it will go back more towards Lee's M. M's office was similiar to Lee's. I also got the impression that Mallory is going to have Bond's back like Lee did. My reasoning is that when Bond asked Q to lay the crumb trail for Silva, Mallory was privy to it and didn't object, although he did acknowledge the consequences This was similiar to Lee in case of MR.
  • Posts: 12,506
    I hope there will be sardonic humour between them, and also for M to step back a little and go for a more focused Bond doing his job again?
  • royale65 wrote:
    jackdagger wrote:
    I remember reading in an interview with BB and MGW that they thought that Fiennes resembled Bond rather than the other M's. I can see that- Mallory is a sort of equivalent to Bond, except he has self-control and maturity that Bond probably will never have. He gave up the exciting field life for a more business oriented job. It's kind of a yin and yang sort of thing.
    'Course there was the "don't cock it up" comment that could very well be a double entendre. Obviously Mallory knows Bond's reputation. It'll be interesting to see how he'll keep him in line.

    Bond has a "blunt instrument" and can be quite provoking when he wants to, but he's always in control. Which is lost, quite understandingly, with CR and QoS, but is regained in SF.

    Not when it comes to his vices, though. That's his character's flaw (in a good way, of course)

  • Kerim wrote:
    I think it will go back more towards Lee's M. M's office was similiar to Lee's. I also got the impression that Mallory is going to have Bond's back like Lee did. My reasoning is that when Bond asked Q to lay the crumb trail for Silva, Mallory was privy to it and didn't object, although he did acknowledge the consequences This was similiar to Lee in case of MR.

    As far as the Bond/M relationship, I agree. But I don't think we are going to see Fiennes as a limited player like Bondsum is hoping. That isn't the MO of this new regime or they would have picked someone like Harris or Whishaw with far less star power. Fiennes is a star like Dench, and I can pretty much guarantee to Bondsum that unless EON negotiated a very sweet and generous deal for his services, he will command as much if not more money than Dench and we've already seen that they will not pay big money without the appropriate amount of screen time that earns it.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Kerim wrote:
    I think it will go back more towards Lee's M. M's office was similiar to Lee's. I also got the impression that Mallory is going to have Bond's back like Lee did. My reasoning is that when Bond asked Q to lay the crumb trail for Silva, Mallory was privy to it and didn't object, although he did acknowledge the consequences This was similiar to Lee in case of MR.

    As far as the Bond/M relationship, I agree. But I don't think we are going to see Fiennes as a limited player like Bondsum is hoping. That isn't the MO of this new regime or they would have picked someone like Harris or Whishaw with far less star power. Fiennes is a star like Dench, and I can pretty much guarantee to Bondsum that unless EON negotiated a very sweet and generous deal for his services, he will command as much if not more money than Dench and we've already seen that they will not pay big money without the appropriate amount of screen time that earns it.

    Precisely. And Mallory is quite capable in the field, so who knows what that may mean. It would be cool to see an awkward transition for him from his dangerous past to having a position where he needs to be more secure and drawn back from the action.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 11,425
    bondsum wrote:
    JamesCraig wrote:
    How did this Bond not get "in depth" missions?
    That's exactly what I mean, @RC7. I also include some of Brosnan in the modern equation, it's not a case of "this Bond" as you put it, @JamesCraig. I feel there's too much exposition between M and Bond and not enough of 007 in the field being allowed to make mistakes without M stepping in and making herself heard at almost every turn. I much prefer it when M's role is low-key and 007's adversaries and companions are given more time to expand the story and connect the dots. In other words, less screen-time for M means more screen-time for other characters and their motives. It's a direction I'd like to see for Bond 24.

    I also don't see Skyfall as a mission-led plot as it's more about Bond being M's protector.

    I agree @bondsum. Bond hasn't had much a mission in quite a long time. I guess CR is the last time and before that they were a bit all over the place during the Brosnan era.

    Unfortunately casting Fiennes means M is likely to remain a major character in future stories. However, we do at least know that there won't be any more mummy issues. I'm hopeful future films will tone the M role down though. I mean, Mendes has gone on record saying SF is a film about M rather than Bond, so we can only go up from there, unless the next one's about Moneypenny ...

    @RC7, your comment about TV and film story arcs is interesting and hadn't occured to me before but makes total sense. You're completely right that the plot and narrative is totally secondary in SF to some (not very interesting) character arcs. It's a good point and well made.
  • Posts: 3,333
    As far as the Bond/M relationship, I agree. But I don't think we are going to see Fiennes as a limited player like Bondsum is hoping. That isn't the MO of this new regime or they would have picked someone like Harris or Whishaw with far less star power. Fiennes is a star like Dench, and I can pretty much guarantee to Bondsum that unless EON negotiated a very sweet and generous deal for his services, he will command as much if not more money than Dench and we've already seen that they will not pay big money without the appropriate amount of screen time that earns it.
    Alas, I fear you're probably right @SirHenryLeeChaChing. As you say, it depends on what sort of deal Fiennes struck with the producers and whether it was for a heavily reduced role so he can direct and work on other projects or whether he sees the part as an opportunity to rival Dame Judi for more screen time. I'd hate to think that John Logan has to build a story around Whishaw, Harris and Fiennes just because they're considered better actors than what's gone before. It seems a restriction too far. To be honest, I'd rather the producers had cast lesser names in the roles so the writers felt less obliged to over extend their parts.

    And I agree, @Getafix, I thought CR struck the right balance and is still my preferred choice of Craig's mission-led stories.
  • Posts: 11,425
    CR is a much better film all round than SF, not least due to a proper story at its heart.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Getafix wrote:
    CR is a much better film all round than SF, not least due to a proper story at its heart.

    Yes, we know that, thank you.
  • i think Ralph Fiennes will be an awesome M
  • I think that they established fairly clearly in SF that Bond and Mallory have already developed respect for each other. I think we'll see the relationship lean more towards Bernard Lee/Connery than any other pairing, although without the paternal aspect.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,176
    I think that they established fairly clearly in SF that Bond and Mallory have already developed respect for each other. I think we'll see the relationship lean more towards Bernard Lee/Connery than any other pairing, although without the paternal aspect.

    That's what I was thinking. I love the little wink Bond gives Mallory in the shootout before he shoots the fire extinguisher. They definitely develop a respect for one another by the end of the film.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Getafix wrote:
    CR is a much better film all round than SF, not least due to a proper story at its heart.
    How doesn't Skyfall have that?
  • Posts: 820
    Well all the Ms were great Bernard Lee, Robert Brown, & Judi Dench were all good. For Ralph Fiennes to play will have to be own way. I was surprise to see the M office back where it was like the M office Lee/Brown like. Judi Dench off was different. But I judge the office or the Secret Service.
  • Creasy47 wrote:
    I think that they established fairly clearly in SF that Bond and Mallory have already developed respect for each other. I think we'll see the relationship lean more towards Bernard Lee/Connery than any other pairing, although without the paternal aspect.

    That's what I was thinking. I love the little wink Bond gives Mallory in the shootout before he shoots the fire extinguisher. They definitely develop a respect for one another by the end of the film.

    I agree with everything above.

    Btw I was thinking the other day about Fiennes as M ... and I just really realised how awesome it is that Ralph Fiennes is M. It's such a great and surprising choice! I think we are really lucky. I too hope they don't overdo his role, but for now, I am looking excited into the future of Bond!

    I love the last scene in Skyfall!
  • Posts: 14,750
    I agree with the posters saying we will have a relationship closer to Connery/Lee. I will also add something I don't think I have seen before: it may be akin to Sherlock/Mycroft Holmes, with M being able to see things Bond has missed.
Sign In or Register to comment.