It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
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
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 - 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.
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.
The Bond-M. dynamic is a great framing device for a new Bond: by proving himself to M. he proves himself to us.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Yes, he’s one of the best actors in the MCU right now.