Where does Bond go after Craig?

1543544546548549584

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,682
    If you have the right actor, a course correction is not a big problem.

    Someone like a young Hugh Jackman could sell any course

    That's not what I'm getting at though. You don't just course correct because you have a different face in front of the camera. I don't even know that there's a "correction" to be made. I'm talking about the inherent direction they go in for the next era, which, yes, would be heightened and amplified by selecting the right actor for the job.

    I'm talking about the segue from DAD to the "Bond Begins"-type beginnings the Craig era had. I doubt we'll get a retread of that yet again, so it makes me think on what bigger storyline or character ideas they might come up with to really shake things up all over again, if they don't take an easier approach of standalone adventures yet again, which I suspect won't be the case.
  • Posts: 3,367
    Yeah, I think in the post Craig era they won’t be in ‘course correction’ mode (similar to CR following on from DAD with a very specific creative direction in mind) but instead will be thinking about where and how to start afresh.

    And to be fair, it’s not as obvious as it was in 2004. Bond doesn’t have any rival series outshining it creatively or financially. It’s not a given that something more lighthearted will automatically prove successful (in fact going too far in this direction might not be beneficial). Same for something darker or grittier. Both the Craig and ‘classic’ eras are in the past, and we’re likely not returning to them. So this is truly about reinventing Bond as BB likes to say.

    It’s one of the tougher jobs the Bond series has had to be honest.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,682
    007HallY wrote: »
    Yeah, I think in the post Craig era they won’t be in ‘course correction’ mode (similar to CR following on from DAD with a very specific creative direction in mind) but instead will be thinking about where and how to start afresh.

    And to be fair, it’s not as obvious as it was in 2004. Bond doesn’t have any rival series outshining it creatively or financially. It’s not a given that something more lighthearted will automatically prove successful (in fact going too far in this direction might not be beneficial). Same for something darker or grittier. Both the Craig and ‘classic’ eras are in the past, and we’re likely not returning to them. So this is truly about reinventing Bond as BB likes to say.

    It’s one of the tougher jobs the Bond series has had to be honest.

    Very good points here. I also see it being a lot harder now, since it's not like NTTD was a box office bomb or absolutely loathed by critics and fans alike. It won't be an easy task at all, making me even more curious as to whether they go in a radical new direction or play it somewhat more safe instead.
  • Posts: 3,291
    peter wrote: »
    @Reflsin2bourbons … I quit the continuation novels many years ago, but one that has stood out to me was Icebreaker. I have to admit, I love the setting, the bleakness of the snowy terrain, and I accepted the double (triple, quadruple?) crossing that Gardner planted in the story.
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I haven't read all that much Gardner though to be honest. Some of them sound a bit mad, but entertaining! I'm more clued up on Benson and the more recent novels (although been a while since I've read most of them).

    I haven't read one in years but I'm currently going through Mark Edlitz's book on the continuation novels, and the synopses of the Gardners are kind of exhausting. Bond usually meets two agents from other countries' defence forces, one of whom will turn out to be a traitor, then the other will turn out to be a traitor, only at the end to be revealed as a triple agent, or vice versa. Sometimes also vice versa. You can really tell even from the synopses he was making them up as he wrote them and had no idea where the story was going.

    I've read one (or possibly two) Gardner Bond books and that sounds very familiar!

    I don’t know if it’s my memory exaggerating, but the double crosses seem to repeat themselves in further Gardner novels, and maybe he was ahead of his time as it seems we don’t have a lot of trust in governments and their agencies recently, but it felt repetitive and was one of the reasons I fell off Gardner.

    I’ve attempted the other books, but the character doesn’t feel like James Bond in these stories. It’s a man, with the same name, but I just can’t “feel” James Bond there.

    So, I shrug my shoulders and resign myself to enjoying the Fleming books only (they always give me a jolt, a “buzz” an authentic happiness every time I start to re-read the opening pages).

    Totally agree. I'm the same.

    I have tried various different authors books - Colonel Sun, Zero Minus Ten, Devil May Care, Cart Blanche, Solo, followed by the Horowitz trilogy, but none of them really capture the true essence of Fleming, even though all these writers have tried to do so.

    Fleming had a unique way of writing, an unusual way of weaving his inner feelings, thoughts and personality onto the page, so we were getting an insight into Fleming's head, rather than reading a fictional story about an English spy.

    This is what separates the Fleming books from everything that followed.
  • edited May 23 Posts: 1,707
    I, as a few others who visit this site, have been with the Bond films since DN was released in 1962. There has been a great deal of change both good and not so good throughout. My generation was the first to experience the trauma of a casting change. That was quite a blow. Unforgivable at the time. But time has a way of changing things and GL has earned his spot as a fine Bond in a great film. For some time now, the change of leads has been a matter of routine. We've long been used to it.

    For me the Bond formula is more than a script. It's a combination of elements best defined by GF. The PTS, the gun barrel opening, the bombastic title song, the car, and a Bond so casual and relaxed on screen you weren't sure if he were acting or not. Peter says Bond films are an event. For me they once were. Today a Bond film is another film that I hope will entertain me. They usually do, even when they are mucked up. But they don't appeal to me the way they used to.

    I suspect the next iteration of Bond will not be for me. It will be for today's adolescent brought up in a world of technology and whose idea of Bond may be from a video game rather than a novel, and who may never see an old Bond film. Yesterday I was on a flight that offered a menu of a couple of hundreds films. It took some time to find one I wanted to watch. Plenty of F&F, Marvel, DC universe, and animation. Lots of stuff I didn't want to see. Frankly, nothing seemed new. Stylistically there is a sameness to so many action, thriller, and adventure films. Will what will ring the bell of a younger audience resonate with me?

    The image of Craig's last outing as Bond that sticks with me is his wearing suspenders (braces.) I know it wasn't intended, but it had a grandad feel to it. The passing of a generation. The old guy, the old ways, blown to bits. Hello next generation.
  • edited May 23 Posts: 3,367
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Yeah, I think in the post Craig era they won’t be in ‘course correction’ mode (similar to CR following on from DAD with a very specific creative direction in mind) but instead will be thinking about where and how to start afresh.

    And to be fair, it’s not as obvious as it was in 2004. Bond doesn’t have any rival series outshining it creatively or financially. It’s not a given that something more lighthearted will automatically prove successful (in fact going too far in this direction might not be beneficial). Same for something darker or grittier. Both the Craig and ‘classic’ eras are in the past, and we’re likely not returning to them. So this is truly about reinventing Bond as BB likes to say.

    It’s one of the tougher jobs the Bond series has had to be honest.

    Very good points here. I also see it being a lot harder now, since it's not like NTTD was a box office bomb or absolutely loathed by critics and fans alike. It won't be an easy task at all, making me even more curious as to whether they go in a radical new direction or play it somewhat more safe instead.

    Yeah, they could easily do either one.

    If I were a betting man, I’d say there’s more likely to be elements from the later Craig films that will remain. Then again that’s not saying much as his last three films slowly reintroduced ‘traditional’ Bond story elements and became more fantastical. I can see maybe Bond 26 maybe having similar tonal variances between darker, more horrifying moments alongside comparatively lighter ones that we got in NTTD. I can see perhaps the villain having more sympathetic motives, certain things being more fantastical alongside comparatively grounded moments, and a personal element to Bond’s involvement in the story (not to say we’ll get a rehash of Brofield or that Bond will know someone connected personally, but there’ll likely be something that Bond is conflicted about during the film). I could be wrong but I also can see them being more willing in this era to lean into some of those older Bond tropes than they were at the beginning of the Craig era - gadgets, the gun barrel, a more traditional M briefing etc.

    At the end of the day I don’t know though, and there’s a million different directions they can go in. There’ll no doubt be big differences from the Craig era even if just story wise, but I don’t know about a complete creative departure from what came before.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    The image of Craig's last outing as Bond that sticks with me is his wearing suspenders (braces.) I know it wasn't intended, but it had a grandad feel to it. The passing of a generation. The old guy, the old ways, blown to bits. Hello next generation.

    Weird aside, but Craig seemingly favoured braces in his costumes (or was given them to wear). He wore them with his tuxedo throughout his films. Even crops up in some of his other costumes. I actually don’t have any major feelings about them, it’s just always stood out to me. I think he looks great in them with his tuxedo.

    I think Dalton may have worn them with his tuxedo too, but I could be wrong. To be honest I’d take them over Moore’s flares or Lazenby’s frilly tuxedo shirt…
  • TuxedoTuxedo Europe
    Posts: 257
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I, as a few others who visit this site, have been with the Bond films since DN was released in 1962. There has been a great deal of change both good and not so good throughout. My generation was the first to experience the trauma of a casting change. That was quite a blow. Unforgivable at the time. But time has a way of changing things and GL has earned his spot as a fine Bond in a great film. For some time now, the change of leads has been a matter of routine. We've long been used to it.

    For me the Bond formula is more than a script. It's a combination of elements best defined by GF. The PTS, the gun barrel opening, the bombastic title song, the car, and a Bond so casual and relaxed on screen you weren't sure if he were acting or not. Peter says Bond films are an event. For me they once were. Today a Bond film is another film that I hope will entertain me. They usually do, even when they are mucked up. But they don't appeal to me the way they used to.

    I suspect the next iteration of Bond will not be for me. It will be for today's adolescent brought up in a world of technology and whose idea of Bond may be from a video game rather than a novel, and who may never see an old Bond film. Yesterday I was on a flight that offered a menu of a couple of hundreds films. It took some time to find one I wanted to watch. Plenty of F&F, Marvel, DC universe, and animation. Lots of stuff I didn't want to see. Frankly, nothing seemed new. Stylistically there is a sameness to so many action, thriller, and adventure films. Will what will ring the bell of a younger audience resonate with me?

    The image of Craig's last outing as Bond that sticks with me is his wearing suspenders (braces.) I know it wasn't intended, but it had a grandad feel to it. The passing of a generation. The old guy, the old ways, blown to bits. Hello next generation.

    Great post!
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited May 23 Posts: 6,110
    Occam's razor tells me they will go back to Fleming, probably MR. Gives you a younger Bond and a new Bond/new M dynamic. Reminiscent of what they did with CR.

    I hope they can escape the shadow of Vesper and give us something/someone different. Eva Green was amazing but it's time to move on.

    Can you imagine if DAF-TSWLM all leaned heavily into Tracy? Not just the passing mentions but Tracy as a major plot device, over and over.

    As Vesper herself said when she removed the necklace, "It was time."
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 23 Posts: 8,236
    Bond died in the last film, they have to become more lighthearted almost by default.

    This bond lost the love of his life, his best friend, his boss, another friend, he had everything stripped from him. To not explore some lighter territory with the character now would be stale and redundant. The series only stays fresh by continually renewing itself, and I think after only releasing 1 film in the past decade (by the time Bond 26 is released) they will want to announce Bond is back with a capital B. There is so much more imagination and creativity to this series than has been on display in the last 20 years or so, and it's about time they dipped their toes into that again.

    And no, that doesn't mean I think we'll be getting slide whistles and tarzan yells either.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,048
    echo wrote: »
    Occam's razor tells me they will go back to Fleming, probably MR. Gives you a younger Bond and a new Bond/new M dynamic. Reminiscent of what they did with CR.

    I love this.

    And I’d love to see M needing Bond’s help and inviting “James” to his private club, Blades.

    This sequence in the book did reveal much of Fleming’s Bond (hence why this book is the only one from these early days that I love as much as his latter output). And I think this could also work for showing us this new cinematic Bond in action (after an explosive PTS, of course).

    We can see the energy of this younger 007 as he grows excited to trap this cheat in a card match (whether it’s Bridge or not doesn’t bother me, just make it fast and cinematic).

    Like Drax of the novel, this new character will call on Bond a day or two after the embarrassment in Blades, to ask for his help. This will lead us into the bigger plot/story…

    The entire sequence could be ten to fifteen minutes after the PTS and used to firmly plant who this Bond is; we will see him slyly set a trap for the cheat; we will be shown how he’s a couple steps ahead; we will see his relish in embarrassing the antagonist (and also having a luxurious and celebratory bottle of champagne with M (maybe with M allowing Bond to choose the bottle— then regretting it right after as the price will be one of the highest on the menu!))…

    Nice call @echo
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 23 Posts: 8,236
    Honestly if they are planning on a loose adaptation of moonraker and the usual suspects are all tied down with their own projects they should bring back Martin Campbell. The man has proven he can launch a new Bond twice over, and he knows how to handle both sides of the character, the fantastical and the grounded. I don't care if the man is 80, I still believe he could direct a better bond film with his eyes closed than most young directors today.
  • edited May 23 Posts: 3,367
    A good starting point would legitimately be M sending Bond on some sort of off the books mission for personal reasons. It doesn't have to necessarily be a direct adaptation of MR though.

    I dunno, off the top of my head it could be something like this: a high profile British Government Official and friend of M's is being blackmailed into giving up top secret information by some sort of shadowy figure (what exactly they're being blackmailed for could be due to anything - corruption, something to do with gambling to preserve the Blades aspect with Bond having to tease out the mysterious figure during a card game, or even something a bit more mysterious/nefarious etc.) The Official has in confidence gone to M for help, and M has in turn sent Bond to investigate, uncover whoever this figure is, and assassinate them. Again, all very much off the record stuff. Bond accepts the mission but is seemingly uncomfortable about the whole matter.

    Think Bond meets the Sherlock Holmes story A Scandal in Bohemia I suppose (in the sense that Bond is working for someone morally grey, and of course he'll inevitably meet a woman during his investigations, as well as stumble upon something much larger). Much like, say, TLD, it'll also involve Bond saving the day by defying M's instructions in some form.
  • Posts: 520
    echo wrote: »
    Occam's razor tells me they will go back to Fleming, probably MR. Gives you a younger Bond and a new Bond/new M dynamic. Reminiscent of what they did with CR.

    Yes, please!! If we get that AND Nolan, I will literally faint.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,299
    My hope for M in the future is that EON stops the trust issues between Bond and M. Or M unintentionally creating a villain or part of the villain’s scheme. And then saying that they knew Bond was the best. Let’s move on, EON. A new writing style for Bond and M is desperately needed, no conflicting feelings between the two for awhile.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,236
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    My hope for M in the future is that EON stops the trust issues between Bond and M. Or M unintentionally creating a villain or part of the villain’s scheme. And then saying that they knew Bond was the best. Let’s move on, EON. A new writing style for Bond and M is desperately needed, no conflicting feelings between the two for awhile.

    Honestly the scooby gang should be played by solid but lesser known actors, then they don't need such meaty roles in each film. Having M, Q and Moneypenny more involved hasn't improved the stories IMO, I think "if it ain't broke don't fix it" applies here, and they should go back to one scene per film each.
  • Posts: 1,707
    Agreed, We don't need anymore conflicts between M and Bond. Been there, done that. If you're going to reinvent then reinvent. And that goes for stitching together a new Bond film with bits and pieces of old films and novels. I've seen two versions of YOLT now and neither version is as good as the novel. Either remake it as it should be, or leave it alone completely.
  • edited May 24 Posts: 3,367
    They’re gonna have to create a new M presumably, and with that they’ll have to create a new sort of relationship between him and Bond. That’s regardless of whether this M has a big part in the film or is only onscreen for a few scenes (I prefer the latter personally).

    To be honest, conflict between Bond and M is pretty common anyway, even when the latter has limited screen time. We see it during their first meeting in DN with M replacing Bond’s gun, when he admonishes Bond about starting a personal vendetta against Goldfinger/threatening to replace him with another 00. It’s there in OHMSS with M taking him off of Operation Bedlam, and in TMWTGG where he seems constantly annoyed with Bond being targeted/messing up the mission. It’s certainly there in the Dalton era between Bond being reluctant to assassinate Pushkin in TLD, and of course what happens in LTK goes without saying. It’s certainly there during every film of the Brosnan era (I’m sure I don’t even need to cite these). I’m likely missing other examples too…

    So yeah, there’ll most likely be conflict between Bond and M, however minor. And that’s fine. Without something deeper between the two men (or indeed people) M could potentially be a boring character.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,354
    It would be odd if M does not express frustration with 007.

  • Posts: 1,707
    It would be odd if M does not express frustration with 007.

    Therein lies the challenge of reinvention and originality.
  • edited May 24 Posts: 3,367
    It would be odd if M does not express frustration with 007.

    Same for if M didn’t consider Bond their best agent at some point.

    I feel if a Bond/M scene was just an exposition dump with nothing going on underneath that, it’d be a pretty worthless scene. We tend to be shown a lot of what’s happened prior to the briefings in the films anyway, as well as after, so rarely is the exposition completely integral. Without something deeper you may as well just have Bond get his info from one of those Mission Impossible briefing tapes (honestly though, even in MI they tend to give Hunt bosses with whom he has some sort of conflict with).

    I do agree that it’s mainly about what they do differently from the Craig era. But there are so many paths to take with a new M that I don’t think that’s a problem.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,261
    007HallY wrote: »
    A good starting point would legitimately be M sending Bond on some sort of off the books mission for personal reasons. It doesn't have to necessarily be a direct adaptation of MR though.
    I like the examples you've provided following that paragraph. Are you familiar with Solstice, the Dynamite comic short story? It's my favourite of the comics thus far, and sees M sending Bond on an off-the-books mission to assassinate a man (former FSB) who is romantically involved with a relative of an MI6 employee. M believes the man is trying to use the relative as leverage to compromise the MI6 worker. Initially, Bond brushes off the task as something domestic, but accepts the mission upon seeing the photo of the relative...
    (Bond realizes the relative is M's daughter)

    I envision this short story being adapted in a similar manner to TLD, playing out in the first act, and then building on from that.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 24 Posts: 15,580
    007HallY wrote: »
    It would be odd if M does not express frustration with 007.

    Same for if M didn’t consider Bond their best agent at some point.

    I feel if a Bond/M scene was just an exposition dump with nothing going on underneath that, it’d be a pretty worthless scene. We tend to be shown a lot of what’s happened prior to the briefings in the films anyway, as well as after, so rarely is the exposition completely integral. Without something deeper you may as well just have Bond get his info from one of those Mission Impossible briefing tapes (honestly though, even in MI they tend to give Hunt bosses with whom he has some sort of conflict with).

    I do agree that it’s mainly about what they do differently from the Craig era. But there are so many paths to take with a new M that I don’t think that’s a problem.

    Yes, if you don’t have conflict you don’t have drama. May as well have a robot if they agree perfectly, as you say. And also as you say, they’ve always conflicted in some way, it’s their dynamic. Off the top of my head I can’t think of a single Bond film where they don’t clash in some way.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 828
    One-note drama. Or two notes, if you throw in the inevitable "he's my best agent".

    The monotony is killing me. It is not exciting for me if it is every film.

    Some conflict is good, but since hiring high-profile actors like Judy Dench ironically we've been stuck with a lot of interactions where M is just losing their temper. There is more to M and Bond than conflict, there is more to drama than shouting.

    I don't expect full le Carré-style subtlety, but give me something with more tones than this.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 24 Posts: 15,580
    There is always more to Bond and M than conflict, but that is part of their relationship too. They've never 'just shouted' at each other. No one is saying it should be only conflict, but asking for none at all (as above) removes more shades than it adds. If all characters in a scene agree with each other then you're left with not much more than exposition.
    And honestly, when I think Dench's M and Bond together in the Craig films, I actually struggle to think of any where she's losing her temper with him. She's pissed off with him when he breaks into her flat in CR, but after that not many spring to mind. Usually they're having quite introspective conversations (including that one).

    You might as well say that we don't want any more scenes where Bond and the villain disagree; it's just part of the dynamic of the stories.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 828
    mtm wrote: »
    There is always more to Bond and M than conflict, but that is part of their relationship too. They've never 'just shouted' at each other. No one is saying it should be only conflict, but asking for none at all (as above) removes more shades than it adds.

    You might as well say that we don't want any more scenes where Bond and the villain disagree; it's just part of the dynamic of the stories.
    I didn't ask for none at all, I'm saying that there shouldn't be anger/shouting between Bond and M every single movie.

    In Dr No the interaction between M and Bond over his choice of gun doesn't involve M getting angry and/or shouting, and it's still good:

    Lots going on there, showing you that Bond likes to do things his own way, and that M knows him well enough to know he's going to try and walk off with the Beretta - he doesn't even look up when he tells Bond to leave it. Lovely scene, no voices raised.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 24 Posts: 15,580
    Sorry, when I said 'as above' I was referring to the post upthread which started this conversation, not yours. I should have been clearer there.

    But where are all these ones where
    we've been stuck with a lot of interactions where M is just losing their temper
    though? Really it's something we got more with Fiennes (maybe once each at the beginning of his two films as M?) than we did Dench, but those weren't the only interactions they had in the film, and as I think as 007HallY pointed out recently, it's something we probably got on percentage more from Robert Brown than either of the recent Ms: and I'd say he certainly shouted more than either of them. I can't recall Dench's M ever raising her voice at him, to be honest.

    Here's a nice M scene I'm sure we all like, where M gets annoyed at Bond, disagrees with him, gets prissy about him not following orders on the sniper mission, shouts at him and threatens to replace him. It's a lovely scene too and works well at this point in the movie as the stakes are raising.




    There's also been plenty of scenes between M and Bond in the last five or so films which haven't involved any serious disputes and more on the level of that beretta scene- look at most in Skyfall. Honestly, listing them would take too long.
  • edited May 24 Posts: 3,367
    QBranch wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    A good starting point would legitimately be M sending Bond on some sort of off the books mission for personal reasons. It doesn't have to necessarily be a direct adaptation of MR though.
    I like the examples you've provided following that paragraph. Are you familiar with Solstice, the Dynamite comic short story? It's my favourite of the comics thus far, and sees M sending Bond on an off-the-books mission to assassinate a man (former FSB) who is romantically involved with a relative of an MI6 employee. M believes the man is trying to use the relative as leverage to compromise the MI6 worker. Initially, Bond brushes off the task as something domestic, but accepts the mission upon seeing the photo of the relative...
    (Bond realizes the relative is M's daughter)

    I envision this short story being adapted in a similar manner to TLD, playing out in the first act, and then building on from that.

    I’ve actually never read a Bond comic before! I’ve heard others talk about that one before though. It sounds quite cool.
    One-note drama. Or two notes, if you throw in the inevitable "he's my best agent".

    The monotony is killing me. It is not exciting for me if it is every film.

    Some conflict is good, but since hiring high-profile actors like Judy Dench ironically we've been stuck with a lot of interactions where M is just losing their temper. There is more to M and Bond than conflict, there is more to drama than shouting.

    I don't expect full le Carré-style subtlety, but give me something with more tones than this.

    Well, to be honest Bond and M’s relationship in every version essentially boils down to conflict and then ‘he’s my best agent’. You can’t really avoid that.

    But I really think you’re underselling M in the Brosnan and Craig eras. Take Dench’s M in Craig’s first three - in CR she clearly sees Bond as a bit arrogant and a loose cannon, but a very effective agent. Clearly there’s an issue of trust there, but she lets Bond do his thing and even puts him on the case later when MI6 decides to take down Le Chiffre (albeit while putting a tracker in his arm and monitoring him). QOS is about M facing the possibility that Bond has gone off the rails with a personal vendetta. Not only that but she has to negotiate the idea of her superiors in Government doing deals with Green (incidentally this M seems much more impulsive/less by the books, much like this Bond, and clearly has a similar dislike of MI6 doing this). Obviously by the end of that film she sides with Bond and learns to trust him implicitly, letting him go off and complete the assignment. In SF Bond is definitely her top agent. Her impulsiveness, however, nearly gets him killed, and of course this mirrors what happened with Silva. Like the previous films you’ve got a similar kinship between M and Bond with both being the old guard at MI6, seen to be of questionable use in the modern world by their colleagues, and are effectively ‘played out’. After she fails to attain the list and MI6 is blown up, the film is about her trying to make things right in the context of losing her job, which is great character drama and points to the guilt she displays throughout the film. She lies to cover for Bond’s health too of course (it’s certainly development - I can’t see M in CR doing that!) It doesn’t end well for her obviously, but at least in her dying moments she claims she did one thing right, and even in death seemingly encourages Bond to stay on where he’ll do the most good.

    To be honest, I’d go as far to say all that’s actually more interesting than a lot of Le Carre I’ve read. It’s definitely not one note and shows actual character progression, not only between her and Bond, but with M as an individual character. I can only remember her shouting at Bond in CR when he breaks into her flat. Other than that it’s cold admonishments (ie. ‘Look at what your charms can do James’, ‘ran out of drink where you were?’), the occasional but somewhat distant heart to hearts, but more often than not it’s them being businesslike with each other.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,261
    007HallY wrote: »
    I’ve actually never read a Bond comic before! I’ve heard others talk about that one before though. It sounds quite cool.
    It's great, I rave on about it a lot. A good place to start if you've never read the comics since it's a short adventure. Stands out from others as quite Flemingesque; a classic feel with Bond tailing someone in Paris at night. Christmastime Bond too!

    https://readallcomics.com/james-bond-solstice-2017/
  • Posts: 3,367
    QBranch wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I’ve actually never read a Bond comic before! I’ve heard others talk about that one before though. It sounds quite cool.
    It's great, I rave on about it a lot. A good place to start if you've never read the comics since it's a short adventure. Stands out from others as quite Flemingesque; a classic feel with Bond tailing someone in Paris at night. Christmastime Bond too!

    https://readallcomics.com/james-bond-solstice-2017/

    Ah thanks, I’ll definitely give this a read when I can. Like I said it’s one I’ve heard a lot about here (I like the idea of the plot thread where Bond’s gadget malfunctions too. Great material to adapt for a film, even if very loosely).
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    edited May 24 Posts: 828
    mtm wrote: »
    Sorry, when I said 'as above' I was referring to the post upthread which started this conversation, not yours. I should have been clearer there.

    But where are all these ones where
    we've been stuck with a lot of interactions where M is just losing their temper
    though? Really it's something we got more with Fiennes (maybe once each at the beginning of his two films as M?) than we did Dench, but those weren't the only interactions they had in the film, and as I think as 007HallY pointed out recently, it's something we probably got on percentage more from Robert Brown than either of the recent Ms: and I'd say he certainly shouted more than either of them. I can't recall Dench's M ever raising her voice at him, to be honest.
    Dench's M raises her voice to Bond in Casino Royale and QoS, though you are right in that it's less than I thought. She tends to be exasperated all the time, though. Some of the scenes are really good, but I could do with a bit less hostility going forward.

    mtm wrote: »
    Here's a nice M scene I'm sure we all like, where M gets annoyed at Bond, disagrees with him, gets prissy about him not following orders on the sniper mission, shouts at him and threatens to replace him. It's a lovely scene too and works well at this point in the movie as the stakes are raising.

    Yes, Brown's M is angry and shouty, lacking Bernard Lee's warmth and subtle humour. I think he's really a product of Moore's era and just seems an obstacle to be overcome. I don't hate him, but perhaps the weakest M we've had. Of his films I only rewatch Licence to Kill regularly, so I tend to forget what he's like.
    mtm wrote: »
    There's also been plenty of scenes between M and Bond in the last five or so films which haven't involved any serious disputes and more on the level of that beretta scene- look at most in Skyfall. Honestly, listing them would take too long.
    I'm not sure I can think of any scenes that I feel are similar, as Dench's M feels so much more spikey to me. Perhaps near the end of Skyfall, I'll have to pop the Blu-ray in the player this weekend. Generally I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Sign In or Register to comment.