› ›

Anyone else find it jarring when M swore in Skyfall?

245

Comments

  • Quantum07Quantum07
    Posts: 135
    It must not have been that jarring to me because i don't ever remember her saying it. And I saw SF twice in theaters! Can someone please tell me the exact scene where she said it?
  • TuuliaTuulia
    Posts: 2,081
    Quantum07 wrote:
    It must not have been that jarring to me because i don't ever remember her saying it. And I saw SF twice in theaters! Can someone please tell me the exact scene where she said it?

    In Skyfall lodge, M sitting down, Bond by the window.

    M: I fucked this up, didn't I?
    James Bond: No. You did your job.
    James Bond: I read your obituary of me.
    M: And?
    James Bond: Appalling.

    etc.
  • BondWillReturnBondWillReturn
    Posts: 816
    Tuulia wrote:
    BondWillReturn wrote:
    Tuulia wrote:
    BondWillReturn wrote:
    If the writers had wanted to introduce it, they would have given the word a more prominent place.

    Really? Wow. I didn't realize the word is such a big deal.

    Normally, not at all. In normal action movies, not at all. But Bond has always been a franchise to shy away from heavy curse-words. At least, that's the way I've always seen it, I once insisted in reshooting a scene for a 007 fan film because on of the 'baddies' had said the word. What I'm saying is, it makes too less of an impact to have been scripted.

    Apparently not since people discuss it. ;)

    And that's because nobody expects it in a Bond film, which once again makes me believe (Note: believe, I'm not stating it as fact), that it would be something Dench would introduce, because she felt it was fitting, rather than the writers, who would have shied away from introducing it.

    Just my opinion, and as I've stated, I've no problem with it being there ;)

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,486
    I loved the usage of the line. It was just a culmination of all of the events throughout SF she was responsible for, all amounting to one line.
  • TuuliaTuulia
    Posts: 2,081
    BondWillReturn wrote:
    And that's because nobody expects it in a Bond film, which once again makes me believe (Note: believe, I'm not stating it as fact), that it would be something Dench would introduce, because she felt it was fitting, rather than the writers, who would have shied away from introducing it.

    Just my opinion, and as I've stated, I've no problem with it being there ;)

    Oh, ok, now I got what you mean. :) Makes sense, and you might be right. We know Craig and Bardem created stuff for their characters, Dench obviously could have done as well. On the other hand I don't know if Logan would have shied away from it, even being a fan he might not have known it had never been done before.

  • RC7RC7
    edited January 2013 Posts: 10,512
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    Kind of funny how M thinks she screwed everything up when she just did her damn job. It's Silva who is pathetic.

    It was left pretty ambiguous, which was one of the best things about the film. There was a sense that you genuinely felt for Silva at times, it's a question of morals and ethics and as such everyone will view M's decision making differently. To a liberal she dropped a bollock, to a conservative she was probably spot on.
    She isn't like a liberal or conservative and that is because she admitted a mistake.

    Again, I don't see how she is the one to blame. She isn't the problem, that would be Silva, the overly-obsessed prink.

    I'm not saying she is liberal or conservative. I'm implying that both liberals, and conservatives, would view her actions differently. To suggest Silva is the bad guy and 'M' the good guy, does a disservice to the ambiguity that Mendes clearly thought was necessary. I would agree with him. It elevated the story from good vs. evil to one that, more importantly, dealt with something very current. Good and evil are just alternative points of view, wholly dependent on which side of the glass you are standing.

    Oh, and I don't understand your comment about liberals and conservatives not admitting mistakes. Was that sarcasm?
  • BondWillReturnBondWillReturn
    Posts: 816
    Tuulia wrote:
    BondWillReturn wrote:
    And that's because nobody expects it in a Bond film, which once again makes me believe (Note: believe, I'm not stating it as fact), that it would be something Dench would introduce, because she felt it was fitting, rather than the writers, who would have shied away from introducing it.

    Just my opinion, and as I've stated, I've no problem with it being there ;)

    Oh, ok, now I got what you mean. :) Makes sense, and you might be right. We know Craig and Bardem created stuff for their characters, Dench obviously could have done as well. On the other hand I don't know if Logan would have shied away from it, even being a fan he might not have known it had never been done before.

    Yeah, sorry about that. English is not my native language, so sometimes when I need to make delicate points, I need a couple of posts to explain it the right way ;)

    I do see your point about Logan, but I would be willing to bet it didn't come from P&W. Either Dench or Logan, I think.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited January 2013 Posts: 28,694
    RC7 wrote:
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    Kind of funny how M thinks she screwed everything up when she just did her damn job. It's Silva who is pathetic.

    It was left pretty ambiguous, which was one of the best things about the film. There was a sense that you genuinely felt for Silva at times, it's a question of morals and ethics and as such everyone will view M's decision making differently. To a liberal she dropped a bollock, to a conservative she was probably spot on.
    She isn't like a liberal or conservative and that is because she admitted a mistake.

    Again, I don't see how she is the one to blame. She isn't the problem, that would be Silva, the overly-obsessed prink.

    I'm not saying she is liberal or conservative. I'm implying that both liberals, and conservatives, would view her actions differently. To suggest Silva is the bad guy and 'M' the good guy, does a disservice to the ambiguity that Mendes clearly thought was necessary. I would agree with him. It elevated the story from good vs. evil to one that, more importantly, dealt with something very current. Good and evil are just alternative points of view, wholly dependent on which side of the glass you are standing.

    Oh, and I don't understand your comment about liberals and conservatives not admitting mistakes. Was that sarcasm?

    No, it's bloody politics.

    I do like to think Mendes weaved in a little bit of inspiration from Bond's Good and Evil speech from CR into the plot. Both for the fact that heroes only exist because villains do and whether you are good or evil is completely different depending on how you view your side, as the person thought to be the villain may think he is doing a good or just act just as the hero may in hunting them down.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    Kind of funny how M thinks she screwed everything up when she just did her damn job. It's Silva who is pathetic.

    It was left pretty ambiguous, which was one of the best things about the film. There was a sense that you genuinely felt for Silva at times, it's a question of morals and ethics and as such everyone will view M's decision making differently. To a liberal she dropped a bollock, to a conservative she was probably spot on.
    She isn't like a liberal or conservative and that is because she admitted a mistake.

    Again, I don't see how she is the one to blame. She isn't the problem, that would be Silva, the overly-obsessed prink.

    I'm not saying she is liberal or conservative. I'm implying that both liberals, and conservatives, would view her actions differently. To suggest Silva is the bad guy and 'M' the good guy, does a disservice to the ambiguity that Mendes clearly thought was necessary. I would agree with him. It elevated the story from good vs. evil to one that, more importantly, dealt with something very current. Good and evil are just alternative points of view, wholly dependent on which side of the glass you are standing.

    Oh, and I don't understand your comment about liberals and conservatives not admitting mistakes. Was that sarcasm?

    No, it's bloody politics.

    I do like to think Mendes weaved in a little bit of inspiration from Bond's Good and Evil speech from CR into the plot. Both for the fact that heroes only exist because villains do and whether you are good or evil is completely different depending on how you view your side, as the person thought to be the villain may think he is doing a good or just act just as the hero may in hunting them down.

    Must be US politics.

    Yes, that's what I mean. I like fact M can be both right and wrong, depending on your POV.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    RC7 wrote:
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    Kind of funny how M thinks she screwed everything up when she just did her damn job. It's Silva who is pathetic.

    It was left pretty ambiguous, which was one of the best things about the film. There was a sense that you genuinely felt for Silva at times, it's a question of morals and ethics and as such everyone will view M's decision making differently. To a liberal she dropped a bollock, to a conservative she was probably spot on.
    She isn't like a liberal or conservative and that is because she admitted a mistake.

    Again, I don't see how she is the one to blame. She isn't the problem, that would be Silva, the overly-obsessed prink.

    I'm not saying she is liberal or conservative. I'm implying that both liberals, and conservatives, would view her actions differently. To suggest Silva is the bad guy and 'M' the good guy, does a disservice to the ambiguity that Mendes clearly thought was necessary. I would agree with him. It elevated the story from good vs. evil to one that, more importantly, dealt with something very current. Good and evil are just alternative points of view, wholly dependent on which side of the glass you are standing.

    Oh, and I don't understand your comment about liberals and conservatives not admitting mistakes. Was that sarcasm?

    No, it's bloody politics.

    I do like to think Mendes weaved in a little bit of inspiration from Bond's Good and Evil speech from CR into the plot. Both for the fact that heroes only exist because villains do and whether you are good or evil is completely different depending on how you view your side, as the person thought to be the villain may think he is doing a good or just act just as the hero may in hunting them down.

    Must be US politics.

    Yes, that's what I mean. I like fact M can be both right and wrong, depending on your POV.
    You couldn't be more correct.
  • TuuliaTuulia
    Posts: 2,081
    BondWillReturn wrote:

    Yeah, sorry about that. English is not my native language, so sometimes when I need to make delicate points, I need a couple of posts to explain it the right way ;)

    I do see your point about Logan, but I would be willing to bet it didn't come from P&W. Either Dench or Logan, I think.

    No need to be sorry about anything, and there's nothing wrong with your English, and it's not my native language, either. It wasn't a language issue, just a communication issue, happens all the time. :)

  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    The name's bored. Damn bored

    I'm sure I heard the F profanity used twice during Skyfall, but it was only on the second time of viewing that I actually picked up on what Dench said towards the end. It was hardly audible and many people would of missed it first time around

    If any character was going to use the word F--k, as a first for the James Bond franchise, then Judy Dench's M would of been the last person I would of envisaged. Once again, it wasn't so much a shock, as a surprise above all else. But also, it was so softly spoken, it would of gone over most people's heads. My only worry is, they may duplicate such profanities in subsequent releases. May only be one or two each release, but since they've started, what's to stop them ?

    This is something you never could of imagined even for Brosnan's tenure and certainly not before that. Clifton James did insinuate it during the Bayou chase of Live and Let Die, but there's a difference between that and actually being heard or spoken. Yes all said, it was a surprise to be heard in a James Bond release. Although they did say beforehand "one use of strong language", but even so. Maybe it was just the character above all else that aroused debate
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 13,943
    I guess M's F-bomb didn't bother me, as like others here have stated, I didn't remember her saying it- even after the second viewing. Now that I've been reminded where it was said in the film, and the context of the conversation, I do remember not reacting to it at all and let it linger in my thoughts. No big deal. It's the context of the conversation and that particular situation which sells it. Much different to if M had said to Eve "Take the f'n shot!" And although I don't class 'bloody' and 'bastard' as swear words, just knowing M has said them in the past- well it doesn't seem like a stretch for her to utter the F-word once in a blue moon. Also, I'm sure other respected professionals would drop a few swear words if put in M's position!
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    edited January 2013 Posts: 5,745
    God forbid! GOD FORBID! Fowl language in a film detailing death, espionage, treachery, treason, blood, beatings, chases, and explosions? Fowl language is ONE STEP TOO DAMN FAR. WHERE WILL IT END?!


    *sigh*
  • AnonAnon
    edited January 2013 Posts: 246
    It's appropriate for M to say 'I fucked it up didn't I?'
    Very matter of fact, and shows her letting her guard down to talk to Bond as a friend finally rather than a subordinate.
    Just wouldn't have worked with a milder oath. Imagine if she's said 'bollocks'd' or 'balls'd' or 'screwed' etc.
  • thelordflasheartthelordflasheart
    Posts: 1,370
    Anon wrote:
    It's appropriate for M to say 'I fucked it up didn't I?'
    Very matter of fact, and shows her letting her guard down to talk to Bond as a friend finally rather than a subordinate.
    Just wouldn't have worked with a milder oath. Imagine if she's said 'bollocks'd' or 'balls'd' or 'screwed' etc.

    I agree. Having done some writing in the past, one of the tests of using a swear word is if the severity or extremity of the situation would warrant such a word. The situation was so dire, the mistakes so big with such repercussions, that for M to say that she "messed" it up would not have had the impact needed to balance against what she did. And as Anon said, it shows she's letting her guard down as talking to Bond as James, not 007. Fantastic moment.

  • TuuliaTuulia
    Posts: 2,081
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    God forbid! GOD FORBID! Fowl language in a film detailing death, espionage, treachery, treason, blood, beatings, chases, and explosions? Fowl language is ONE STEP TOO DAMN FAR. WHERE WILL IT END?!


    *sigh*

    =))

    thelordflasheart wrote:
    Anon wrote:
    It's appropriate for M to say 'I fucked it up didn't I?'
    Very matter of fact, and shows her letting her guard down to talk to Bond as a friend finally rather than a subordinate.
    Just wouldn't have worked with a milder oath. Imagine if she's said 'bollocks'd' or 'balls'd' or 'screwed' etc.

    I agree. Having done some writing in the past, one of the tests of using a swear word is if the severity or extremity of the situation would warrant such a word. The situation was so dire, the mistakes so big with such repercussions, that for M to say that she "messed" it up would not have had the impact needed to balance against what she did. And as Anon said, it shows she's letting her guard down as talking to Bond as James, not 007. Fantastic moment.

    I agree with you both. I think it fitted perfectly. Very good point Anon about M not talking to Bond there as his boss.

    I don't understand the complaints, myself.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,721
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    God forbid! GOD FORBID! Fowl language in a film detailing death, espionage, treachery, treason, blood, beatings, chases, and explosions? Fowl language is ONE STEP TOO DAMN FAR. WHERE WILL IT END?!


    *sigh*

    Not one step too far - just unique in 50 years of bond. Just dragged me out of the moment a little because I wasn't expecting it. I don't give a **** if the ***** put ******* swearing in - just unusual and some place I wouldn't think the franchise would go, same with full frontal nudity. Guess that might be next. I have zero problem with it, just worth commenting on.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    I see what people are getting at, but the bottom line is, we don't need such language in James Bond, really. It's been that way for the last fifty years, so why start now ?

    Ok, it was just one (muffled) use of that profanity, but even so. Just from my perspective, thought it was unnecessary. I don't really have a problem with it, in the true sense, but was it really necessary to include ?
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,721
    Baltimore_007 wrote:
    I see what people are getting at, but the bottom line is, we don't need such language in James Bond, really. It's been that way for the last fifty years, so why start now ?

    Ok, it was just one (muffled) use of that profanity, but even so. Just from my perspective, thought it was unnecessary. I don't really have a problem with it, in the true sense, but was it really necessary to include ?

    This is the concept that some posters on here are struggling to come to terms with. So someone swears - it's not a big deal - yeah, I get that - I'm not offended by it at all. It fits the character or situation - well, I'd argue there are hundreds of similar situations in bond films that this could be applied to. Die Hard and Goodfellas are brilliant films packs with swearing - no problem - but why make what is clearly a very conscious decision to finally, after 50 years, include ****? Just curious.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    We move with the times, and James Bond is a part of that. We've come a long way since the sugar coated days of Connery and harmless humor of Moore for example, and now into the 21st Century, they've decided to become a bit bolder by putting strong language into a favorite film franchise, that hitherto, was unheard of before

    Like I said, I don't have a problem with it, as a one off, or one use of the word in Skyfall (or was it two), but the bottom line is, I just don't think it was necessary to include

    James Bond is not Casino, it's not Goodfellas, It's not a Scorsese picture, the two things are polar opposites. You would expect it with the said titles, but It's not really suitable for Bond I feel. I mean there's places for profanity, and there's places not. Bond is the latter

    But we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue it would appear
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I never understand these rants/arguments about how swearing is profane and completely unnecessary. We are all fans of a series that has featured tons of intense violence and one that has explored the themes of rape, depression, addiction, homosexuality and more. If the series can handle that very adult and mature material, why can't mature language be included? And the f-bomb wasn't just random, it was a reflection of what M thought of herself and didn't just get tossed in there for kicks.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    I never understand these rants/arguments about how swearing is profane and completely unnecessary. We are all fans of a series that has featured tons of intense violence and one that has explored the themes of rape, depression, addiction, homosexuality and more. If the series can handle that very adult and mature material, why can't mature language be included? And the f-bomb wasn't just random, it was a reflection of what M thought of herself and didn't just get tossed in there for kicks.

    They act like Bond will turn into The Departed. It will never get there. i can't believe some people like the language is Skyfall is a 'slippery slope'. It literally brings on a chuckle.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    I never understand these rants/arguments about how swearing is profane and completely unnecessary. We are all fans of a series that has featured tons of intense violence and one that has explored the themes of rape, depression, addiction, homosexuality and more. If the series can handle that very adult and mature material, why can't mature language be included? And the f-bomb wasn't just random, it was a reflection of what M thought of herself and didn't just get tossed in there for kicks.

    They act like Bond will turn into The Departed. It will never get there. i can't believe some people like the language is Skyfall is a 'slippery slope'. It literally brings on a chuckle.

    Yeah, I agree. And trying to watch The Departed on the TV is pointless. The dubbing in of "safe" words not only takes away from the atmosphere and attitudes/behaviors of the characters presented in the film, but it is also extremely annoying.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Some aren't implying that Bond will resemble Alpha Dog or Summer of Sam in a few years Mr Westbrook, for uses of strong language or the word F--k for example, but merely just further (very random) inclusions once again after Skyfall, that some don't think is necessary - Then again, there's every chance, we may never hear it again in our lifetimes

    I knew when Dench first said it, or realized, I knew that there would be a hive of activity on these pages surrounding it, although it did take a bit longer to come to the fore than before, with just random mentions, in now, we have an official thread for it, it would seem
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Can people please stop using the infantile expression 'f-bomb'? So irksome as if a mere word which is commonplace has some mystical explosive power to shock these days.

    Its just a word so why not write it? After all this is a discussion specifically about the word 'fuck' so its likely it might be mentioned.

  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,721
    TheWizardOfIce wrote:
    Can people please stop using the infantile expression 'f-bomb'? So irksome as if a mere word which is commonplace has some mystical explosive power to shock these days.

    Its just a word so why not write it? After all this is a discussion specifically about the word 'fuck' so its likely it might be mentioned.

    I just assumed rules of the forum would mean it'd get mod-ded out of existence.
  • TuuliaTuulia
    edited January 2013 Posts: 2,081
    TheWizardOfIce wrote:
    Can people please stop using the infantile expression 'f-bomb'? So irksome as if a mere word which is commonplace has some mystical explosive power to shock these days.

    Good to hear I'm not the only one who finds that expression silly and weird.
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

    And trying to watch The Departed on the TV is pointless. The dubbing in of "safe" words not only takes away from the atmosphere and attitudes/behaviors of the characters presented in the film, but it is also extremely annoying.

    They dub in "safe" words for tv? :-O Where? US? I've never heard of this before. Oh my goodness... =))
  • AnonAnon
    edited January 2013 Posts: 246
    Major_Boothroyd wrote:
    ... but why make what is clearly a very conscious decision to finally, after 50 years, include ****? Just curious.

    I doubt very much that the producers asked for a 'fuck' prescriptively - in the same way they might insist that a certain brand of champagne be mentioned.

    If there was a conscious decision at all, my guess is that it would have been the decision whether or not to censor the line after being presented with it in the script. A pretty easy decision to make given the obvious justification for it and the darker, less self-consciously cartoonish tone to the movie generally.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited January 2013 Posts: 11,189
    Surprisingly no.

    I've not always been a fan of her swearing but here it was nicely underplayed and sounded genuine.

    It took me a few seconds to realise what I'd heard.
Sign In or Register to comment.