Should we get a new M / Q / Moneypenny for BOND 26 and beyond ?

12830323334

Comments

  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    edited January 10 Posts: 2,641
    emma-mackey-attends-the-14th-angouleme-french-speaking-film-news-photo-1657276632.jpg?crop=0.88745xw:1xh;center,top&resize=1200:*
    Emma Mackey - Moneypenny
    Age 27, Sex Education, Barbie.
    She's a young up and coming actor. I think she could be a warm presence (like Naomi) but still be sexy. She has a nice voice too

    242c447976ac421a0086b4fc1b697c8a.jpg
    Shaun Evans - Q
    Age 43, Endeavour.
    Best known as a young inspector Morse, he's also a great theatre actor. He's a brilliant actor, not well known in films, so he could embody Q really well. He's very scouse though, so he'd have to do his Endeavour accent 😅

    chiwetel-ejiofor-salt-006.jpg?width=465&dpr=1&s=none
    Chiwetel Ejiofor - M
    Age 46, 12 Years Of Slave, Salt, American Gangster
    Very similar to Ralph Fiennes as M, he has a great sense of gravitas, also has an intense energy. His performance in Salt could be a glimpse of his M, he has a presence of authority on screen.

    I have an idea of Bond 26 being similar to Goldeneye, with a new M coming into an already established team, M having to learn to trust Bond's instincts. Leo Suter would be my choice as Bond, as he'd be younger than M and Q, but a little bit older than Moneypenny.
  • Posts: 1,880
    Yes! Replace the whole bunch. I liked them all, but time to move on. A clean slate should be exactly that. Cast, director, writers.
  • Jordo007 wrote: »
    I have an idea of Bond 26 being similar to Goldeneye, with a new M coming into an already established team, M having to learn to trust Bond's instincts.

    This is an interesting dynamic. The only risk of such a status quo is precisely to have a situation similar to GoldenEye (or to NSNA) with an already established Bond and therefore whose relevance in the contemporary world is questioned by a new M.

    After GoldenEye and the second half of the Craig era, I think it's important that Bond 26 doesn't reiterate the trope of Bond needing to prove that he's still useful today. Not only because this trope has been revisited many times, but also because by justifying itself, the series risks giving the impression that it is an antique trying by all means to survive. The best way, in my opinion, to introduce Bond to a new audience and to show that he is still as relevant is precisely not to question his relevance but to directly show that this type of operative is more necessary than ever in today world.

    I very much like your idea of having a new M having to learn to trust Bond's instincts, but it should not lead to M calling into question the relevance of the Double-O Section as it was the case with NSNA, GoldenEye or Skyfall. It could be interesting that the Section, in this new continuity, was put on hold after the end of the Cold War and is revived in the 2020s as part of hybrid warfare and to face the return of high intensity warfare in Europe. Bond, in this context, is the embodiment of the operative needed by MI6 to face these new threats.
  • Jwview008Jwview008 Ohio
    Posts: 11
    New everything
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    That's good point @Herr_Stockmann I didn't think about that mate. The is Bond/spying still relevant did become repetitive
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,324
    Yeah, @Herr_Stockmann , that’s a really solid concept- and you’re showing, not telling us why Bond is relevant. The Double-0 section, and its agents, should be seen by their superiors in a positive light, and it’s because of these anonymous men and women, that keep us safe in our day to day… And of course there’s one Double-0, who rises to the top, the one that M trusts most….
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,615
    peter wrote: »
    Yeah, @Herr_Stockmann , that’s a really solid concept- and you’re showing, not telling us why Bond is relevant. The Double-0 section, and its agents, should be seen by their superiors in a positive light, and it’s because of these anonymous men and women, that keep us safe in our day to day… And of course there’s one Double-0, who rises to the top, the one that M trusts most….

    The Bond-M. dynamic is a great framing device for a new Bond: by proving himself to M. he proves himself to us.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,533
    I would love to see Ralph Fiennes comeback as Sir Miles as M, but the writing on M TRULY needs to change. I feel that EON was making M’s SF death more of a tribute to Dench herself than M as a character. Silva should have seen it happen. Judi Dench’s M just got to about repeating herself. She created 2 villains based on her personal opinions. She also threw James Bond under the bus multiple times, based on him following her orders on assignment. The biggest offender of her M is when she criticized Bond. Then she would ALWAYS say he was the best in MI6 and that she always believed in him. No sympathy from me when she died. Just a poorly overused character. Judi Dench shouldn’t be considered as high in Bond royalty. Bad writing. Ralph Fiennes M had this happen to him in NTTD. Enough from me.
  • Posts: 1,880
    Prefer in media res. Let's dispense with the getting to know you and trust you routine and get back to where the series started in 1962. Everyone knew everyone. There was no period of adjustment for the purpose of trotting out the usual cliche of not liking each other until the obligatory kiss and make up scene. Instead we got quick opening: an agent and his secretary have gone missing. A well oiled machine swings into gear. The tension came from the mission instead of clashing office personalities.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,324
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Prefer in media res. Let's dispense with the getting to know you and trust you routine and get back to where the series started in 1962. Everyone knew everyone. There was no period of adjustment for the purpose of trotting out the usual cliche of not liking each other until the obligatory kiss and make up scene. Instead we got quick opening: an agent and his secretary have gone missing. A well oiled machine swings into gear. The tension came from the mission instead of clashing office personalities.

    Hasn't there always been tension and clashes, in some way, between M and Bond?

    Didn't M spank Bond in Dr No because he was still using that damn Beretta? Wasn't Bond a little sulky with his superior and had the audacity to snap at the old man in Goldfinger? Wasn't M threatening Bond that if he didn't kill Pushkin, he'd look at another agent to do it?

    The best of these scenes drip character info to the audience, as well as showing the tension and clashes, the inner workings of these relationships...

    It's always been there, no?

  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    edited February 4 Posts: 902
    peter wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Prefer in media res. Let's dispense with the getting to know you and trust you routine and get back to where the series started in 1962. Everyone knew everyone. There was no period of adjustment for the purpose of trotting out the usual cliche of not liking each other until the obligatory kiss and make up scene. Instead we got quick opening: an agent and his secretary have gone missing. A well oiled machine swings into gear. The tension came from the mission instead of clashing office personalities.

    Hasn't there always been tension and clashes, in some way, between M and Bond?

    Didn't M spank Bond in Dr No because he was still using that damn Beretta? Wasn't Bond a little sulky with his superior and had the audacity to snap at the old man in Goldfinger? Wasn't M threatening Bond that if he didn't kill Pushkin, he'd look at another agent to do it?

    The best of these scenes drip character info to the audience, as well as showing the tension and clashes, the inner workings of these relationships...

    It's always been there, no?

    There have always been occasions where M and Bond don't see eye to eye, but until Golden Eye it was portrayed as two people who knew each other well and had respect for one another who occasionally had 'creative differences'. Crabkey is talking about what we've had with Judi Dench's M, where she was largely hostile towards Bond when we first see them together (both Brosnan and Craig) and seemed not to approve of him. M and Bond used to have something of a mentor/student relationship dynamic imo.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Yes! Replace the whole bunch. I liked them all, but time to move on. A clean slate should be exactly that. Cast, director, writers.

    With a heavy heart I would agree with this.

    I feel that Fiennes, Harris and Wishaw were every bit as wonderful as Lee, Maxwell and Llewelyn, despite the woefully short time they had together ( 2 and a bit films). But, this is going to be another re-boot so re-boot the entire cast as well. When this team toasted the late Bond they were effectively toasting the demise of the entire run.

    Bond now needs to be properly reinvented for a modern audience.
  • edited February 5 Posts: 3,902
    peter wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Prefer in media res. Let's dispense with the getting to know you and trust you routine and get back to where the series started in 1962. Everyone knew everyone. There was no period of adjustment for the purpose of trotting out the usual cliche of not liking each other until the obligatory kiss and make up scene. Instead we got quick opening: an agent and his secretary have gone missing. A well oiled machine swings into gear. The tension came from the mission instead of clashing office personalities.

    Hasn't there always been tension and clashes, in some way, between M and Bond?

    Didn't M spank Bond in Dr No because he was still using that damn Beretta? Wasn't Bond a little sulky with his superior and had the audacity to snap at the old man in Goldfinger? Wasn't M threatening Bond that if he didn't kill Pushkin, he'd look at another agent to do it?

    The best of these scenes drip character info to the audience, as well as showing the tension and clashes, the inner workings of these relationships...

    It's always been there, no?

    There have always been occasions where M and Bond don't see eye to eye, but until Golden Eye it was portrayed as two people who knew each other well and had respect for one another who occasionally had 'creative differences'. Crabkey is talking about what we've had with Judi Dench's M, where she was largely hostile towards Bond when we first see them together (both Brosnan and Craig) and seemed not to approve of him. M and Bond used to have something of a mentor/student relationship dynamic imo.

    To be honest, I’d say Brown’s M is way more hostile towards Bond in LTK than Dench’s M is in GE or the Craig films. In GE the new M is quite ‘by the books’ and she bluntly chides Bond for what she sees as his shortcomings, but she’s pretty clear she won’t send him to die on a whim, and indeed will send him to do his job (if anything that reminds me more of Fleming’s M in terms of attitude who, let’s be honest, could be a bit of a cold ba*tard about what missions he sent Bond on but did so for specific reasons). She even displays some warmth towards him by telling him to come back alive. On the whole she’s relatively open with Bond about all this, and other than that they’re more or less on the same page about the assignment, and aren’t at odds in this sense. Ironically that’s more a case of ‘creative differences’. By the Craig and later Brosnan films she’s even covering for Bond when he goes ‘off grid’.

    Brown’s M basically fires Bond, nearly has him shot, and in front of Moneypenny seems bizarrely unconcerned about his best agent running wild because he’s ’sent a man’ to deal with him. It’s Moneypenny who intervenes and gets Q involved. I never got a student/mentor dynamic from Brown’s M at all regardless.

    Lees’s M in TMWTGG is hostile to Bond for the majority of that film too, even telling him he wishes he had been killed by Scaramanga due to the embarrassment the mission is causing MI6. I’d say both those examples are way more about Bond being at odds with his superiors.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 902
    007HallY wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Prefer in media res. Let's dispense with the getting to know you and trust you routine and get back to where the series started in 1962. Everyone knew everyone. There was no period of adjustment for the purpose of trotting out the usual cliche of not liking each other until the obligatory kiss and make up scene. Instead we got quick opening: an agent and his secretary have gone missing. A well oiled machine swings into gear. The tension came from the mission instead of clashing office personalities.

    Hasn't there always been tension and clashes, in some way, between M and Bond?

    Didn't M spank Bond in Dr No because he was still using that damn Beretta? Wasn't Bond a little sulky with his superior and had the audacity to snap at the old man in Goldfinger? Wasn't M threatening Bond that if he didn't kill Pushkin, he'd look at another agent to do it?

    The best of these scenes drip character info to the audience, as well as showing the tension and clashes, the inner workings of these relationships...

    It's always been there, no?

    There have always been occasions where M and Bond don't see eye to eye, but until Golden Eye it was portrayed as two people who knew each other well and had respect for one another who occasionally had 'creative differences'. Crabkey is talking about what we've had with Judi Dench's M, where she was largely hostile towards Bond when we first see them together (both Brosnan and Craig) and seemed not to approve of him. M and Bond used to have something of a mentor/student relationship dynamic imo.

    To be honest, I’d say Brown’s M is way more hostile towards Bond in LTK than Dench’s M is in GE or the Craig films. In GE the new M is quite ‘by the books’ and she bluntly chides Bond for what she sees as his shortcomings, but she’s pretty clear she won’t send him to die on a whim, and indeed will send him to do his job (if anything that reminds me more of Fleming’s M in terms of attitude who, let’s be honest, could be a bit of a cold ba*tard about what missions he sent Bond on but did so for specific reasons). She even displays some warmth towards him by telling him to come back alive. On the whole she’s relatively open with Bond about all this, and other than that they’re more or less on the same page about the assignment, and aren’t at odds in this sense. Ironically that’s more a case of ‘creative differences’. By the Craig and later Brosnan films she’s even covering for Bond when he goes ‘off grid’.

    Brown’s M basically fires Bond, nearly has him shot, and in front of Moneypenny seems bizarrely unconcerned about his best agent running wild because he’s ’sent a man’ to deal with him. It’s Moneypenny who intervenes and gets Q involved. I never got a student/mentor dynamic from Brown’s M at all regardless.

    Lees’s M in TMWTGG is hostile to Bond for the majority of that film too, even telling him he wishes he had been killed by Scaramanga due to the embarrassment the mission is causing MI6. I’d say both those examples are way more about Bond being at odds with his superiors.

    I felt Lee's M always exuded a certain amount of warmth, even when he was annoyed by Bond. I'll admit I haven't watched a Moore Bond film for any years, but certainly the little scenes in the Connery films like in Dr. No, where he tells Bond not to use a Beretta, Bond surreptitiously picks the gun up when he goes to leave, only for M to tell him to leave the Beretta without even looking up from his work. It's a nice little scene where M is stern but obviously knows Bond well enough to know he'll try and take the Beretta, and doesn't make a big thing out of making sure he doesn't. I think it's a nice little touch. FRWL has the scene where Bond starts to recount to Tatiana an adventure he had with M, which M quickly silences on the recording. It's funny, but it also suggests a history between the two men. And of course in OHMSS M quietly thanks Moneypenny over the intercom for downgrading Bond's resignation to a request for leave, obviously glad she had intervened to prevent 007 from making a rash decision.

    Like CrabKey, I don't really want yet another scene with the new Bond and M where we have exaggerated friction between two people who don't really know or like each other before they learn to appreciate each other. Save that for the love interest or whatever, not the regulars. Occasional friction is fine, I just feel it tends to be overplayed these days.
  • edited February 5 Posts: 3,902
    007HallY wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Prefer in media res. Let's dispense with the getting to know you and trust you routine and get back to where the series started in 1962. Everyone knew everyone. There was no period of adjustment for the purpose of trotting out the usual cliche of not liking each other until the obligatory kiss and make up scene. Instead we got quick opening: an agent and his secretary have gone missing. A well oiled machine swings into gear. The tension came from the mission instead of clashing office personalities.

    Hasn't there always been tension and clashes, in some way, between M and Bond?

    Didn't M spank Bond in Dr No because he was still using that damn Beretta? Wasn't Bond a little sulky with his superior and had the audacity to snap at the old man in Goldfinger? Wasn't M threatening Bond that if he didn't kill Pushkin, he'd look at another agent to do it?

    The best of these scenes drip character info to the audience, as well as showing the tension and clashes, the inner workings of these relationships...

    It's always been there, no?

    There have always been occasions where M and Bond don't see eye to eye, but until Golden Eye it was portrayed as two people who knew each other well and had respect for one another who occasionally had 'creative differences'. Crabkey is talking about what we've had with Judi Dench's M, where she was largely hostile towards Bond when we first see them together (both Brosnan and Craig) and seemed not to approve of him. M and Bond used to have something of a mentor/student relationship dynamic imo.

    To be honest, I’d say Brown’s M is way more hostile towards Bond in LTK than Dench’s M is in GE or the Craig films. In GE the new M is quite ‘by the books’ and she bluntly chides Bond for what she sees as his shortcomings, but she’s pretty clear she won’t send him to die on a whim, and indeed will send him to do his job (if anything that reminds me more of Fleming’s M in terms of attitude who, let’s be honest, could be a bit of a cold ba*tard about what missions he sent Bond on but did so for specific reasons). She even displays some warmth towards him by telling him to come back alive. On the whole she’s relatively open with Bond about all this, and other than that they’re more or less on the same page about the assignment, and aren’t at odds in this sense. Ironically that’s more a case of ‘creative differences’. By the Craig and later Brosnan films she’s even covering for Bond when he goes ‘off grid’.

    Brown’s M basically fires Bond, nearly has him shot, and in front of Moneypenny seems bizarrely unconcerned about his best agent running wild because he’s ’sent a man’ to deal with him. It’s Moneypenny who intervenes and gets Q involved. I never got a student/mentor dynamic from Brown’s M at all regardless.

    Lees’s M in TMWTGG is hostile to Bond for the majority of that film too, even telling him he wishes he had been killed by Scaramanga due to the embarrassment the mission is causing MI6. I’d say both those examples are way more about Bond being at odds with his superiors.

    I felt Lee's M always exuded a certain amount of warmth, even when he was annoyed by Bond. I'll admit I haven't watched a Moore Bond film for any years, but certainly the little scenes in the Connery films like in Dr. No, where he tells Bond not to use a Beretta, Bond surreptitiously picks the gun up when he goes to leave, only for M to tell him to leave the Beretta without even looking up from his work. It's a nice little scene where M is stern but obviously knows Bond well enough to know he'll try and take the Beretta, and doesn't make a big thing out of making sure he doesn't. I think it's a nice little touch. FRWL has the scene where Bond starts to recount to Tatiana an adventure he had with M, which M quickly silences on the recording. It's funny, but it also suggests a history between the two men. And of course in OHMSS M quietly thanks Moneypenny over the intercom for downgrading Bond's resignation to a request for leave, obviously glad she had intervened to prevent 007 from making a rash decision.

    Like CrabKey, I don't really want yet another scene with the new Bond and M where we have exaggerated friction between two people who don't really know or like each other before they learn to appreciate each other. Save that for the love interest or whatever, not the regulars. Occasional friction is fine, I just feel it tends to be overplayed these days.

    I think because Lee was in the role for so long under different writers/directors his M changed somewhat. He goes from being a no-nonsense boss in the early Connery films to a bit of a curmudgeonly old git by the 70s who often lashed at Bond (albeit with traces of warmth, which was there sparingly in the scripts, but was also a quality Lee naturally had). By TSWLM and MR they defaulted to a more fatherly M who had confidence in his agent.

    I think there’s plenty that can be done with a new M/Bond. And I get what you mean, we don’t necessarily have to have the same kind of friction that the M of GE had with Bond, or indeed quite like the numerous examples from the earlier films we’ve mentioned. But there will be something between those two characters, something deeper than simply a boss and his agent.

    Personally, I’d like to see a version of M who is more prone to going ‘off the books’ and sending Bond, his best agent, to do a lot of dirty work that other agents wouldn’t normally get involved in. Bond genuinely trusts M and even shares that roguish quality with him (so more the relationship of a younger brother looking up to an older sibling if this M is younger), but at some point during the film he has to in some way defy one of M’s orders in order to save the day as it were. I think that’d be interesting to see play out.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 902
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Prefer in media res. Let's dispense with the getting to know you and trust you routine and get back to where the series started in 1962. Everyone knew everyone. There was no period of adjustment for the purpose of trotting out the usual cliche of not liking each other until the obligatory kiss and make up scene. Instead we got quick opening: an agent and his secretary have gone missing. A well oiled machine swings into gear. The tension came from the mission instead of clashing office personalities.

    Hasn't there always been tension and clashes, in some way, between M and Bond?

    Didn't M spank Bond in Dr No because he was still using that damn Beretta? Wasn't Bond a little sulky with his superior and had the audacity to snap at the old man in Goldfinger? Wasn't M threatening Bond that if he didn't kill Pushkin, he'd look at another agent to do it?

    The best of these scenes drip character info to the audience, as well as showing the tension and clashes, the inner workings of these relationships...

    It's always been there, no?

    There have always been occasions where M and Bond don't see eye to eye, but until Golden Eye it was portrayed as two people who knew each other well and had respect for one another who occasionally had 'creative differences'. Crabkey is talking about what we've had with Judi Dench's M, where she was largely hostile towards Bond when we first see them together (both Brosnan and Craig) and seemed not to approve of him. M and Bond used to have something of a mentor/student relationship dynamic imo.

    To be honest, I’d say Brown’s M is way more hostile towards Bond in LTK than Dench’s M is in GE or the Craig films. In GE the new M is quite ‘by the books’ and she bluntly chides Bond for what she sees as his shortcomings, but she’s pretty clear she won’t send him to die on a whim, and indeed will send him to do his job (if anything that reminds me more of Fleming’s M in terms of attitude who, let’s be honest, could be a bit of a cold ba*tard about what missions he sent Bond on but did so for specific reasons). She even displays some warmth towards him by telling him to come back alive. On the whole she’s relatively open with Bond about all this, and other than that they’re more or less on the same page about the assignment, and aren’t at odds in this sense. Ironically that’s more a case of ‘creative differences’. By the Craig and later Brosnan films she’s even covering for Bond when he goes ‘off grid’.

    Brown’s M basically fires Bond, nearly has him shot, and in front of Moneypenny seems bizarrely unconcerned about his best agent running wild because he’s ’sent a man’ to deal with him. It’s Moneypenny who intervenes and gets Q involved. I never got a student/mentor dynamic from Brown’s M at all regardless.

    Lees’s M in TMWTGG is hostile to Bond for the majority of that film too, even telling him he wishes he had been killed by Scaramanga due to the embarrassment the mission is causing MI6. I’d say both those examples are way more about Bond being at odds with his superiors.

    I felt Lee's M always exuded a certain amount of warmth, even when he was annoyed by Bond. I'll admit I haven't watched a Moore Bond film for any years, but certainly the little scenes in the Connery films like in Dr. No, where he tells Bond not to use a Beretta, Bond surreptitiously picks the gun up when he goes to leave, only for M to tell him to leave the Beretta without even looking up from his work. It's a nice little scene where M is stern but obviously knows Bond well enough to know he'll try and take the Beretta, and doesn't make a big thing out of making sure he doesn't. I think it's a nice little touch. FRWL has the scene where Bond starts to recount to Tatiana an adventure he had with M, which M quickly silences on the recording. It's funny, but it also suggests a history between the two men. And of course in OHMSS M quietly thanks Moneypenny over the intercom for downgrading Bond's resignation to a request for leave, obviously glad she had intervened to prevent 007 from making a rash decision.

    Like CrabKey, I don't really want yet another scene with the new Bond and M where we have exaggerated friction between two people who don't really know or like each other before they learn to appreciate each other. Save that for the love interest or whatever, not the regulars. Occasional friction is fine, I just feel it tends to be overplayed these days.

    I think because Lee was in the role for so long under different writers/directors his M changed somewhat. He goes from being a no-nonsense boss in the early Connery films to a bit of a curmudgeonly old git by the 70s who often lashed at Bond (albeit with traces of warmth, which was there sparingly in the scripts, but was also a quality Lee naturally had). By TSWLM and MR they defaulted to a more fatherly M who had confidence in his agent.

    I think there’s plenty that can be done with a new M/Bond. And I get what you mean, we don’t necessarily have to have the same kind of friction that the M of GE had with Bond, or indeed quite like the numerous examples from the earlier films we’ve mentioned. But there will be something between those two characters, something deeper than simply a boss and his agent.

    Personally, I’d like to see a version of M who is more prone to going ‘off the books’ and sending Bond, his best agent, to do a lot of dirty work that other agents wouldn’t normally get involved in. Bond genuinely trusts M and even shares that roguish quality with him (so more the relationship of a younger brother looking up to an older sibling if this M is younger), but at some point during the film he has to in some way defy one of M’s orders in order to save the day as it were. I think that’d be interesting to see play out.

    Yes, that would be nice. In these days of picking a recognisable 'name actor' for M, I wonder if they will have someone already in mind even before a script is done? I think a Tilda Swinton M, no matter how she would choose to play it, would feel very different to an Olivia Colman M, and both would feel different to a Hugh Laurie M, even if they were working from the same script. I guess the choice of actor might lead to small changes in the script to play to their strengths, but I don't know how these things work on a project that keeps on chugging from decade to decade.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited February 5 Posts: 4,533
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Prefer in media res. Let's dispense with the getting to know you and trust you routine and get back to where the series started in 1962. Everyone knew everyone. There was no period of adjustment for the purpose of trotting out the usual cliche of not liking each other until the obligatory kiss and make up scene. Instead we got quick opening: an agent and his secretary have gone missing. A well oiled machine swings into gear. The tension came from the mission instead of clashing office personalities.

    Hasn't there always been tension and clashes, in some way, between M and Bond?

    Didn't M spank Bond in Dr No because he was still using that damn Beretta? Wasn't Bond a little sulky with his superior and had the audacity to snap at the old man in Goldfinger? Wasn't M threatening Bond that if he didn't kill Pushkin, he'd look at another agent to do it?

    The best of these scenes drip character info to the audience, as well as showing the tension and clashes, the inner workings of these relationships...

    It's always been there, no?

    There have always been occasions where M and Bond don't see eye to eye, but until Golden Eye it was portrayed as two people who knew each other well and had respect for one another who occasionally had 'creative differences'. Crabkey is talking about what we've had with Judi Dench's M, where she was largely hostile towards Bond when we first see them together (both Brosnan and Craig) and seemed not to approve of him. M and Bond used to have something of a mentor/student relationship dynamic imo.

    To be honest, I’d say Brown’s M is way more hostile towards Bond in LTK than Dench’s M is in GE or the Craig films. In GE the new M is quite ‘by the books’ and she bluntly chides Bond for what she sees as his shortcomings, but she’s pretty clear she won’t send him to die on a whim, and indeed will send him to do his job (if anything that reminds me more of Fleming’s M in terms of attitude who, let’s be honest, could be a bit of a cold ba*tard about what missions he sent Bond on but did so for specific reasons). She even displays some warmth towards him by telling him to come back alive. On the whole she’s relatively open with Bond about all this, and other than that they’re more or less on the same page about the assignment, and aren’t at odds in this sense. Ironically that’s more a case of ‘creative differences’. By the Craig and later Brosnan films she’s even covering for Bond when he goes ‘off grid’.

    Brown’s M basically fires Bond, nearly has him shot, and in front of Moneypenny seems bizarrely unconcerned about his best agent running wild because he’s ’sent a man’ to deal with him. It’s Moneypenny who intervenes and gets Q involved. I never got a student/mentor dynamic from Brown’s M at all regardless.

    Lees’s M in TMWTGG is hostile to Bond for the majority of that film too, even telling him he wishes he had been killed by Scaramanga due to the embarrassment the mission is causing MI6. I’d say both those examples are way more about Bond being at odds with his superiors.

    I felt Lee's M always exuded a certain amount of warmth, even when he was annoyed by Bond. I'll admit I haven't watched a Moore Bond film for any years, but certainly the little scenes in the Connery films like in Dr. No, where he tells Bond not to use a Beretta, Bond surreptitiously picks the gun up when he goes to leave, only for M to tell him to leave the Beretta without even looking up from his work. It's a nice little scene where M is stern but obviously knows Bond well enough to know he'll try and take the Beretta, and doesn't make a big thing out of making sure he doesn't. I think it's a nice little touch. FRWL has the scene where Bond starts to recount to Tatiana an adventure he had with M, which M quickly silences on the recording. It's funny, but it also suggests a history between the two men. And of course in OHMSS M quietly thanks Moneypenny over the intercom for downgrading Bond's resignation to a request for leave, obviously glad she had intervened to prevent 007 from making a rash decision.

    Like CrabKey, I don't really want yet another scene with the new Bond and M where we have exaggerated friction between two people who don't really know or like each other before they learn to appreciate each other. Save that for the love interest or whatever, not the regulars. Occasional friction is fine, I just feel it tends to be overplayed these days.

    I think because Lee was in the role for so long under different writers/directors his M changed somewhat. He goes from being a no-nonsense boss in the early Connery films to a bit of a curmudgeonly old git by the 70s who often lashed at Bond (albeit with traces of warmth, which was there sparingly in the scripts, but was also a quality Lee naturally had). By TSWLM and MR they defaulted to a more fatherly M who had confidence in his agent.

    I think there’s plenty that can be done with a new M/Bond. And I get what you mean, we don’t necessarily have to have the same kind of friction that the M of GE had with Bond, or indeed quite like the numerous examples from the earlier films we’ve mentioned. But there will be something between those two characters, something deeper than simply a boss and his agent.

    Personally, I’d like to see a version of M who is more prone to going ‘off the books’ and sending Bond, his best agent, to do a lot of dirty work that other agents wouldn’t normally get involved in. Bond genuinely trusts M and even shares that roguish quality with him (so more the relationship of a younger brother looking up to an older sibling if this M is younger), but at some point during the film he has to in some way defy one of M’s orders in order to save the day as it were. I think that’d be interesting to see play out.

    Yes, there are other approaches for the Bond/M relationship. It's time to stop painting M in such a negative light: TWINE, DAD, SF, & NTTD. There is a bit more to do with them. Ralph Fiennes deserves some more positive moments as M. He's the one person I want back, as it would seem that EON has as much favoritism for Judi Dench as much as Daniel Craig. I still see SF as a tribute to Dench more than M or Bond. Let's see something new with the character(s).
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 902
    Benedict Wong could work for either Q or M, imo.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,533
    Benedict Wong could work for either Q or M, imo.

    Yes, he’s one of the best actors in the MCU right now.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited May 2 Posts: 4,491
    Moneypenny

    CM3A8953.jpeg?format=1500w&content-type=image%2Fjpeg
    Aoibheann McCann (Ireland) https://m.imdb.com/name/nm4994397/

  • Posts: 1,880
    I am all for wiping the slate clean. But properly reinventing Bond for a modern audience, what are the attitudes and characteristics of a modern audience? (Let's not revisit GF and TB.)
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,324
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I am all for wiping the slate clean. But properly reinventing Bond for a modern audience, what are the attitudes and characteristics of a modern audience? (Let's not revisit GF and TB.)

    Keep it simple:

    Write a great story.

    That's also the hard part.

    But there's no difference to what audiences have wanted over the decades: they go to the cinema to get lost in an adventure of some kind. That's it. I don't think attitudes and characteristics of a modern audience play into it, unless of course a modern Bond film steps over the line with things such as:

    Bond laying a hand on a woman (Fleming's Bond never struck a woman).
    Bond turning to a Quarrel-type character played by a non white actor and ordering: fetch my shoes.
    Audiences from twenty years ago or today, dont want to see Bond paragliding on a tsunami with the cheapest of special f/x; audiences don't want to "see" the f/x, so keep them invisible.
    I think Craig-Bond proved, audiences want to cheer on a three dimensional, flesh and blood character, who just so happens to be caught up in outrageous situations.

    So I don't think there's a lot of difference between audiences over the decades, and today. The job of a film is to entertain us. Simple. Don't over-think it and tell the best possible story.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,087
    M- Rosamund Pike
    ttzg41j890nu.jpg

    Q - Ben Whishaw
    ctwpv8o5xpdq.jpg

    Tanner - Jason Isaacs
    3x5qj9cbi0nc.jpg

    Eliminate the role of Moneypenny or cast an unknown.
    Alternatively, beef up the role of Tanner to make him not only Chief of staff, but also M's right hand / assistant giving him the opportunity to becoming a mentor / fellow field agent to Bond.

  • Posts: 15,035
    Benny wrote: »
    M- Rosamund Pike
    ttzg41j890nu.jpg

    Q - Ben Whishaw
    ctwpv8o5xpdq.jpg

    Tanner - Jason Isaacs
    3x5qj9cbi0nc.jpg

    Eliminate the role of Moneypenny or cast an unknown.
    Alternatively, beef up the role of Tanner to make him not only Chief of staff, but also M's right hand / assistant giving him the opportunity to becoming a mentor / fellow field agent to Bond.

    Pike and Jason Isaacs are a tad old for Moneypenny and Tanner. They should be closer to Bond's age imo. Pike is only marginally younger than Naomi Harris. And I'd rather see Jason Isaacs as a Bond villain. Or maybe M himself, if Fiennes doesn't want to come back.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 902
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    M- Rosamund Pike
    ttzg41j890nu.jpg

    Q - Ben Whishaw
    ctwpv8o5xpdq.jpg

    Tanner - Jason Isaacs
    3x5qj9cbi0nc.jpg

    Eliminate the role of Moneypenny or cast an unknown.
    Alternatively, beef up the role of Tanner to make him not only Chief of staff, but also M's right hand / assistant giving him the opportunity to becoming a mentor / fellow field agent to Bond.

    Pike and Jason Isaacs are a tad old for Moneypenny and Tanner. They should be closer to Bond's age imo. Pike is only marginally younger than Naomi Harris. And I'd rather see Jason Isaacs as a Bond villain. Or maybe M himself, if Fiennes doesn't want to come back.

    If you look at Benny's post again you'll see he was suggesting Rosamund Pike for the role of M, not Moneypenny.
  • Posts: 15,035
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    M- Rosamund Pike
    ttzg41j890nu.jpg

    Q - Ben Whishaw
    ctwpv8o5xpdq.jpg

    Tanner - Jason Isaacs
    3x5qj9cbi0nc.jpg

    Eliminate the role of Moneypenny or cast an unknown.
    Alternatively, beef up the role of Tanner to make him not only Chief of staff, but also M's right hand / assistant giving him the opportunity to becoming a mentor / fellow field agent to Bond.

    Pike and Jason Isaacs are a tad old for Moneypenny and Tanner. They should be closer to Bond's age imo. Pike is only marginally younger than Naomi Harris. And I'd rather see Jason Isaacs as a Bond villain. Or maybe M himself, if Fiennes doesn't want to come back.

    If you look at Benny's post again you'll see he was suggesting Rosamund Pike for the role of M, not Moneypenny.

    Oops. But that's worse: I'd argue that she's too good looking for M.
  • Posts: 1,626
    Considring that which occurred in the ending of NTTD I cannot figure HOW to bring back anyone who was in the earlier crew. The days of just continuing with an actor playing a new or the same role, but with a new Bond, I think, are done.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,533
    Since62 wrote: »
    Considring that which occurred in the ending of NTTD I cannot figure HOW to bring back anyone who was in the earlier crew. The days of just continuing with an actor playing a new or the same role, but with a new Bond, I think, are done.

    If Barbara, Michael, Rob and Neal are coming back behind the scenes, there is a flaw in this argument. There is no reason for someone in front of the camera to be back as well. Judi Dench proved this. Some of my suggestions for recurring allies.

    M-Idris Elba (Male M) Felicity Jones (Female M)
    Q-Phoebe Waller-Bridge (Female Q)
    Moneypenny-Daisy Ridley
    Felix Leiter-An unknown actor around the same age as Bond actor.
    May-Olivia Colman
  • SimonSimon Keeping The British End Up...
    Posts: 154
    Since62 wrote: »
    Considring that which occurred in the ending of NTTD I cannot figure HOW to bring back anyone who was in the earlier crew. The days of just continuing with an actor playing a new or the same role, but with a new Bond, I think, are done.

    If James Bond can return after utter annihilation at the end of NTTD, albeit with a different actor, the old crew coming back is a leap of faith that can be overcome as well. If the film is good enough, seeing the old crew come back will cause a few seconds of audience "Wait, what..." and then should grab your attention and run with it, if well implemented. Emphasis on 'should'. They shouldn't be characters prominent enough in the film to get more than a raised eyebrow and then forgotten. Many, many things (some) fans considered 'Bondian' have come and gone over the years, whereas plot inconsistencies and logical black holes have been here since day one and I don't see going away any time soon :D

    Saying that, I still say replace them all... eventually. I would happily cull Q and MP from the films for a bit. Q and MP scenes have often felt shoehorned in because they HAVE to be in a Bond film (see MP in DAD, Q in... also DAD :D ). CR just having M pop over to give Bond a case of continuity to the Brosnan era was well done, and Dench was written well enough for it to work.

    I'd also say there is a case for just not bringing back Q altogether. Lets face it, Desmond Llewelyn is Q. He was Q to every Bond except DC, and his films feel like a different continuity altogether. If DL had only done a couple of films and passed the torch for LALD for example, and then that actor did for TLD, then maybe keeping the character would be ok. It's at the point for me now that someone trying to be like DL is just an imitation, but being different wouldn't be the character I want. Lose-lose.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,207
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    Considring that which occurred in the ending of NTTD I cannot figure HOW to bring back anyone who was in the earlier crew. The days of just continuing with an actor playing a new or the same role, but with a new Bond, I think, are done.

    May-Olivia Colman

    "'ere's your scrambled eggs, guv'nr! Where's that bird from yest'day?"

    No.
Sign In or Register to comment.