No Time To Die: Production Diary

1115311541156115811592507

Comments

  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Yann Demange looks set to do another series of "Top Boy' for 2019.
    http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/netflix-british-drug-dealer-drama-top-boy-1202609880/
    Does this rule him out?
    Demange will only executive-produce the series, not direct. This doesn't rule him out as far as I'm concerned.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited November 2017 Posts: 4,399
    jake24 wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    Will Monica Bellucci Return as ‘Bond Girl’ Along With Daniel Craig?
    variety.com/2017/film/news/will-monica-bellucci-return-bond-girl-bond-25-1202609803/

    On Tuesday evening in Rome, where she was feted with the Virna Lisi lifetime achievement award, Bellucci smiled at reporters who asked her to comment on the rumors, telling them: “I can’t say anything.”
    Very interesting. If she simply wasn't asked to return, I don't see a reason for her to be coy.

    This is a weird one if true. I thought she was underused in SP but definitely didn't expect or particularly want her to return.

    I'm thinking that @bondjames might be right on the approach they're taking. Not a direct sequel (can't see Blofeld featuring at all) but will start a few years down the line with an older retired Bond. Maybe Lucia is in some sort of trouble and seeks him out? Or maybe he just bumps into her as sort of a reminder of the past? I doubt they'll reference SP explicitly, all the audience would need to know is she's someone from Bond's past. Probably going with her rather than a new character to address complaints that she wasn't used enough in SP after all the "oldest Bond girl ever" hype.

    I should probably watch Logan to get a better idea of the road they might be heading down as I'm sure that was what inspired them if this is the route they're taken, but an Unforgiven sort of story with James Bond is definitely something I can get excited for.

    Or maybe she was just keeping shut just in case but hasn't actually been asked back and I'm reading way too much into it.

    i dont disagree.. but that would make how many films now in a row that we are calling into question Bond's age?.. 3?.. never in the entirety of the series have they've been so fixated on Bond's age/relevance than they are now with Craig, my god - even when Sir Rog was nearly at senior citizen age in AVTAK, it was never addressed... i thought it worked well with SF - as it was the 50th anniversary, Bond's place in the modern world being called into question, and by the end cemented the fact that now more than ever we need a James Bond.. then SP rehashed all of that, poorly... and if they go down that same road again for Bond 25, that would be beating a dead horse..
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    HASEROT wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    Will Monica Bellucci Return as ‘Bond Girl’ Along With Daniel Craig?
    variety.com/2017/film/news/will-monica-bellucci-return-bond-girl-bond-25-1202609803/

    On Tuesday evening in Rome, where she was feted with the Virna Lisi lifetime achievement award, Bellucci smiled at reporters who asked her to comment on the rumors, telling them: “I can’t say anything.”
    Very interesting. If she simply wasn't asked to return, I don't see a reason for her to be coy.

    This is a weird one if true. I thought she was underused in SP but definitely didn't expect or particularly want her to return.

    I'm thinking that @bondjames might be right on the approach they're taking. Not a direct sequel (can't see Blofeld featuring at all) but will start a few years down the line with an older retired Bond. Maybe Lucia is in some sort of trouble and seeks him out? Or maybe he just bumps into her as sort of a reminder of the past? I doubt they'll reference SP explicitly, all the audience would need to know is she's someone from Bond's past. Probably going with her rather than a new character to address complaints that she wasn't used enough in SP after all the "oldest Bond girl ever" hype.

    I should probably watch Logan to get a better idea of the road they might be heading down as I'm sure that was what inspired them if this is the route they're taken, but an Unforgiven sort of story with James Bond is definitely something I can get excited for.

    Or maybe she was just keeping shut just in case but hasn't actually been asked back and I'm reading way too much into it.

    i dont disagree.. but that would make how many films now in a row that we are calling into question Bond's age?.. 3?.. never in the entirety of the series have they've been so fixated on Bond's age/relevance than they are now with Craig, my god - even when Sir Rog was nearly at senior citizen age in AVTAK, it was never addressed... i thought it worked well with SF - as it was the 50th anniversary, Bond's place in the modern world being called into question, and by the end cemented the fact that now more than ever we need a James Bond.. then SP rehashed all of that, poorly... and if they go down that same road again for Bond 25, that would be beating a dead horse..

    That is perhaps my biggest problem with skyfall ( which is saying something) and spectre. The nonsense story line that goes something like “ BOND IS OLD- SO OLD- OMG- SHUT DOWN THE DOUBLE Os- THEY ARE IRRELEVANT”
    I think that is such a shit storyline to have in a bond film and they’ve had it twice. This next one better not have anything to do with age. Because okay we’ve come to see a bond film I’m sure we don’t think he’s played out and should quit, so we don’t want to hear that agents are irrlevant and bond is old and should retire after his third mission for 2 and a half hours.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,792
    Bond films are great for publicity, real or imaged, whether an actor/actress has appeared in a previous film or otherwise.
    I'd love to see Monica Bellucci return, good or bad.
    giphy.gif
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    HASEROT wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    Will Monica Bellucci Return as ‘Bond Girl’ Along With Daniel Craig?
    variety.com/2017/film/news/will-monica-bellucci-return-bond-girl-bond-25-1202609803/

    On Tuesday evening in Rome, where she was feted with the Virna Lisi lifetime achievement award, Bellucci smiled at reporters who asked her to comment on the rumors, telling them: “I can’t say anything.”
    Very interesting. If she simply wasn't asked to return, I don't see a reason for her to be coy.

    This is a weird one if true. I thought she was underused in SP but definitely didn't expect or particularly want her to return.

    I'm thinking that @bondjames might be right on the approach they're taking. Not a direct sequel (can't see Blofeld featuring at all) but will start a few years down the line with an older retired Bond. Maybe Lucia is in some sort of trouble and seeks him out? Or maybe he just bumps into her as sort of a reminder of the past? I doubt they'll reference SP explicitly, all the audience would need to know is she's someone from Bond's past. Probably going with her rather than a new character to address complaints that she wasn't used enough in SP after all the "oldest Bond girl ever" hype.

    I should probably watch Logan to get a better idea of the road they might be heading down as I'm sure that was what inspired them if this is the route they're taken, but an Unforgiven sort of story with James Bond is definitely something I can get excited for.

    Or maybe she was just keeping shut just in case but hasn't actually been asked back and I'm reading way too much into it.

    i dont disagree.. but that would make how many films now in a row that we are calling into question Bond's age?.. 3?.. never in the entirety of the series have they've been so fixated on Bond's age/relevance than they are now with Craig, my god - even when Sir Rog was nearly at senior citizen age in AVTAK, it was never addressed... i thought it worked well with SF - as it was the 50th anniversary, Bond's place in the modern world being called into question, and by the end cemented the fact that now more than ever we need a James Bond.. then SP rehashed all of that, poorly... and if they go down that same road again for Bond 25, that would be beating a dead horse..

    That is perhaps my biggest problem with skyfall ( which is saying something) and spectre. The nonsense story line that goes something like “ BOND IS OLD- SO OLD- OMG- SHUT DOWN THE DOUBLE Os- THEY ARE IRRELEVANT”
    I think that is such a shit storyline to have in a bond film and they’ve had it twice. This next one better not have anything to do with age. Because okay we’ve come to see a bond film I’m sure we don’t think he’s played out and should quit, so we don’t want to hear that agents are irrlevant and bond is old and should retire after his third mission for 2 and a half hours.

    it didn't bother me in SF, the topic of Bond's place in the world post cold war came up during the late 80s and early 90s, and even made it's way into GE, when M is dressing him down - calling him a 'relic of the cold war'... but even now in modern age, and with the series turning 50, it was a relevant topic (it just seemed off, because Craig was what, mid 40s? and they were talking about him like he was mid 50s?).. but it was proven that we need Bond today more than we probably ever did before....

    ..... repeating basically the same thing again in SP is where it got tiresome... we already proved Bond's and the 00 section's relevancy in the last film - why are we retreading over the same ground again? and in back to back films no less... that bothered me.
  • edited November 2017 Posts: 11,425
    Totally agree. Also, have I missed something but has anyone in the real world since 9/11 been saying we don't need undercover agents? The premise they set up in SF and SP just seemed like a straw man. Clare Dower in SF and C in SP just didn't have the ring of truth about them. The actual issue in SF was more M's incompetence but that seemed to be forgotten pretty quickly.
  • Posts: 12,467
    If they bring Blofeld back, I hope the cat does as well. I'd also like to see the death from the YOLT book when Bond strangles him to death; that could be a really good scene.
  • If the next Bond film doesn't start with a bad bastard villain doing something diabolical, then Tanner saying to M ..."there's only one man who can help, we need him back, sir"...

    ...then I'm not watching it.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    shamanimal wrote: »
    If the next Bond film doesn't start with a bad bastard villain doing something diabolical, then Tanner saying to M ..."there's only one man who can help, we need him back, sir"...

    ...then I'm not watching it.
    I feel like we've been missing this for decades.
  • Getafix wrote: »
    Totally agree. Also, have I missed something but has anyone in the real world since 9/11 been saying we don't need undercover agents? The premise they set up in SF and SP just seemed like a straw man. Clare Dower in SF and C in SP just didn't have the ring of truth about them. The actual issue in SF was more M's incompetence but that seemed to be forgotten pretty quickly.

    @Getafix. I think the could thing about "Skyfall" was the ambivalence of the characters. There's something to say for the points that "M" was making, but also for the arguments from Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes), the successor to Emma Mawdsley (Judi Dench):

    "M" no1 (Emma Mawdsley, played by Judi Dench): Yes, she fucked up big time. I mean, are you really globetrotting with taxpayer's money that much, to contain just one rogue agent named James Bond? Not to mention the fact that she compromises the secrecy of MI6 on so many occasions, including the loss of the McGuffin from "Skyfall" (the stolen harddrive) under her leadership. So that shows her incompetence. Still, I do agree heavily with "M"s speech in the Committee Room. It's still necessary to have an intelligence community. And it still is necessary that this should be secret. And in order to counter-attack those people with intentions to destroy a nation, we should indeed realize that they are operating in the shadows. You cannot just accuse nations anymore....the villains have indeed become more opaque. And in order to fight such threats, it is necessary to do battle in the shadows, in uttermost secrecy, and with only a minimum of democratic influence. The more transparency there is about secret intelligence services, the more they are compromised. "M" no1 realized that.

    "M" no2 (Gareth Mallory, played by Ralph Fiennes): Yet, I also agree with "M" no2. There is a reason Mallory started this discussion about democratic accountability. "M" no1 fucked up, screwed up badly. There's no other way to say it. Even MI6 is Her Majesty's Government institution. As such it is dependent on the money, direct or indirect, from taxpayers. Under her watch the terrorist attacks in London took place. And it's only normal in a well functioning democracy that there will be a transparent hearing about the disfunctioning MI6, led by "M" no1. But it shows that there's something to say for both arguments from both "M"s, "M" no1 and "M" no2.

    That's why "Skyfall" was so fascinating to me. It really tells you something about the intelligence communities and all its complexities. Because it's a matter of what you want: Having a well-functioning secret intelligence service with less democratic accountability? Or having even more democracy and transparency (WikiLeaks-style), and by doing so that the secret intelligence services are functioning less effectively? In the United States this discussion currently is very topical. Trump doesn't give shit about the CIA, nor do his voters. Yet the adament supporters of the CIA -many Republicans- completely disagree.

    Having said all that, both "Skyfall" AND "spectre" are perhaps way much more about real current-day espionage than many forummembers in here realize.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Judi Dench's M is called Olivia Mansfield in the Craig era. And Barbara Mawsdley in the Brosnan era. No Emmas.
  • Judi Dench's M is called Olivia Mansfield in the Craig era. And Barbara Mawsdley in the Brosnan era. No Emmas.

    Okay, but Kincade clearly refers to "M" as "Emma":
    https://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/39509/line-from-kincade-spoiler/

    And in "Casino Royale" Bond says:
    "I thought "M" stood for Maw.....",
    quikcly interrupted by "M" saying:
    "Add one more syllable and I will have you killed!!!"

    So it's not that black-and-white @ClarkDevlin :-).

    Also, I typed a bit more about "M" in my posts besides that little detail hehe.
  • edited November 2017 Posts: 1,031
    Judi Dench's M is called Olivia Mansfield in the Craig era. And Barbara Mawsdley in the Brosnan era. No Emmas.

    Okay, but Kincade clearly refers to "M" as "Emma":
    https://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/39509/line-from-kincade-spoiler/

    And in "Casino Royale" Bond says:
    "I thought "M" stood for Maw.....",
    quikcly interrupted by "M" saying:
    "Add one more syllable and I will have you killed!!!"

    So it's not that black-and-white @ClarkDevlin :-).

    Also, I typed a bit more about "M" in my posts besides that little detail hehe.

    I think Kincade is supposed to have misheard 'M' for 'Emma'.

    In fact someone on that thread says the same thing

    'He does call her Emma. But why would he call her M? Nobody is called M! Kincaid doesn't even know that she and Bond work for MI6, so when Bond introduces her as M, Kincaid understandably assumes he mis-heard, and her name is Emma.'

  • I thought Kinkade's 'Emma' came from a miss-hearing of Bond saying 'M'.
  • Posts: 1,031
    shamanimal wrote: »
    I thought Kinkade's 'Emma' came from a miss-hearing of Bond saying 'M'.

    It is indeed.
  • shamanimal wrote: »
    I thought Kinkade's 'Emma' came from a miss-hearing of Bond saying 'M'.

    That can never be proved :-). You can think, but it can not be proven.
  • Posts: 1,031
    shamanimal wrote: »
    I thought Kinkade's 'Emma' came from a miss-hearing of Bond saying 'M'.

    That can never be proved :-). You can think, but it can not be proven.

    Oh dear ... watch the film again.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    shamanimal wrote: »
    I thought Kinkade's 'Emma' came from a miss-hearing of Bond saying 'M'.

    That can never be proved :-). You can think, but it can not be proven.

    You're having wind up now surely?

    And you think you should be writing the next script?

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited November 2017 Posts: 15,423
    Judi Dench's M is called Olivia Mansfield in the Craig era. And Barbara Mawsdley in the Brosnan era. No Emmas.

    Okay, but Kincade clearly refers to "M" as "Emma":
    https://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/39509/line-from-kincade-spoiler/

    And in "Casino Royale" Bond says:
    "I thought "M" stood for Maw.....",
    quikcly interrupted by "M" saying:
    "Add one more syllable and I will have you killed!!!"

    So it's not that black-and-white @ClarkDevlin :-).

    Also, I typed a bit more about "M" in my posts besides that little detail hehe.
    @Gustav_Graves Kincade refers to M as Emma, merely because he assumes M actually meant 'Em'. A shortened variation of Emma. It's plain and simple, and certainly doesn't require explanation.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Why are we even discussing this ?
    Em is a shortened version of Emma and Kincade thought that was what Bond was calling her.
    So,being an old fashioned gentleman ,he calls her Emma.

    I think M and Bond even smile slightly when he does it !!

    Case closed....next !!
  • edited November 2017 Posts: 11,119
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Why are we even discussing this ?
    Em is a shortened version of Emma and Kincade thought that was what Bond was calling her.
    So,being an old fashioned gentleman ,he calls her Emma.

    I think M and Bond even smile slightly when he does it !!

    Case closed....next !!

    Sjee man @Barryt007. At least I try to discuss something worthy here. No need to be so rude. Actually, no one has responded to this comment I made. And until we have some real news....we might as well have some deeper, more critical discussions. Instead of using this topic as a garbage dump for our irritations about certain crew members:
    Getafix wrote: »
    Totally agree. Also, have I missed something but has anyone in the real world since 9/11 been saying we don't need undercover agents? The premise they set up in SF and SP just seemed like a straw man. Clare Dower in SF and C in SP just didn't have the ring of truth about them. The actual issue in SF was more M's incompetence but that seemed to be forgotten pretty quickly.

    @Getafix. I think the could thing about "Skyfall" was the ambivalence of the characters. There's something to say for the points that "M" was making, but also for the arguments from Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes), the successor to Emma Mawdsley (Judi Dench):

    "M" no1 (Emma Mawdsley, played by Judi Dench): Yes, she fucked up big time. I mean, are you really globetrotting with taxpayer's money that much, to contain just one rogue agent named James Bond? Not to mention the fact that she compromises the secrecy of MI6 on so many occasions, including the loss of the McGuffin from "Skyfall" (the stolen harddrive) under her leadership. So that shows her incompetence. Still, I do agree heavily with "M"s speech in the Committee Room. It's still necessary to have an intelligence community. And it still is necessary that this should be secret. And in order to counter-attack those people with intentions to destroy a nation, we should indeed realize that they are operating in the shadows. You cannot just accuse nations anymore....the villains have indeed become more opaque. And in order to fight such threats, it is necessary to do battle in the shadows, in uttermost secrecy, and with only a minimum of democratic influence. The more transparency there is about secret intelligence services, the more they are compromised. "M" no1 realized that.

    "M" no2 (Gareth Mallory, played by Ralph Fiennes): Yet, I also agree with "M" no2. There is a reason Mallory started this discussion about democratic accountability. "M" no1 fucked up, screwed up badly. There's no other way to say it. Even MI6 is Her Majesty's Government institution. As such it is dependent on the money, direct or indirect, from taxpayers. Under her watch the terrorist attacks in London took place. And it's only normal in a well functioning democracy that there will be a transparent hearing about the disfunctioning MI6, led by "M" no1. But it shows that there's something to say for both arguments from both "M"s, "M" no1 and "M" no2.

    That's why "Skyfall" was so fascinating to me. It really tells you something about the intelligence communities and all its complexities. Because it's a matter of what you want: Having a well-functioning secret intelligence service with less democratic accountability? Or having even more democracy and transparency (WikiLeaks-style), and by doing so that the secret intelligence services are functioning less effectively? In the United States this discussion currently is very topical. Trump doesn't give shit about the CIA, nor do his voters. Yet the adament supporters of the CIA -many Republicans- completely disagree.

    Having said all that, both "Skyfall" AND "spectre" are perhaps way much more about real current-day espionage than many forummembers in here realize.

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited November 2017 Posts: 15,423
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Why are we even discussing this ?
    Em is a shortened version of Emma and Kincade thought that was what Bond was calling her.
    So,being an old fashioned gentleman ,he calls her Emma.

    I think M and Bond even smile slightly when he does it !!

    Case closed....next !!

    Sjee man @Barryt007. At least I try to discuss something worthy here. No need to be so rude. Actually, no one has responded to this comment I made. And until we have some real news....we might as well have some deeper, more critical discussions. Instead of using this topic as a garbage dump for our irritations about certain crew members:
    That's nothing worthy to discuss. It's like arguing about the colour of the sky which, to put it metaphorically, you assume isn't blue but something else, because "not everything is black and white."

    Ask yourself this: Kincade had no damn idea of what Bond does for living, let alone knowing what M would stand for. Bond refers to M by her codename when introducing her to maintain discretion. Kincade assumes Bond meant 'Em' as some sort of a pet name for the woman, he extended it to a more civilized reference by calling her 'Emma'. Both Bond and M are amused by that, so they went along with it. How would Kincade know that M isn't actually 'Emma'? It's not so hard to grasp.

    M's character in the Craig era is called Olivia Mansfield. Evident on many props. Including the Union Jack Bulldog.

    11773.jpg
    image.axd?picture=%2F2013%2F05%2Fzoom.png
  • Posts: 19,339
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Why are we even discussing this ?
    Em is a shortened version of Emma and Kincade thought that was what Bond was calling her.
    So,being an old fashioned gentleman ,he calls her Emma.

    I think M and Bond even smile slightly when he does it !!

    Case closed....next !!

    Sjee man @Barryt007. At least I try to discuss something worthy here. No need to be so rude. Actually, no one has responded to this comment I made. And until we have some real news....we might as well have some deeper, more critical discussions. Instead of using this topic as a garbage dump for our irritations about certain crew members:
    Getafix wrote: »
    Totally agree. Also, have I missed something but has anyone in the real world since 9/11 been saying we don't need undercover agents? The premise they set up in SF and SP just seemed like a straw man. Clare Dower in SF and C in SP just didn't have the ring of truth about them. The actual issue in SF was more M's incompetence but that seemed to be forgotten pretty quickly.

    @Getafix. I think the could thing about "Skyfall" was the ambivalence of the characters. There's something to say for the points that "M" was making, but also for the arguments from Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes), the successor to Emma Mawdsley (Judi Dench):

    "M" no1 (Emma Mawdsley, played by Judi Dench): Yes, she fucked up big time. I mean, are you really globetrotting with taxpayer's money that much, to contain just one rogue agent named James Bond? Not to mention the fact that she compromises the secrecy of MI6 on so many occasions, including the loss of the McGuffin from "Skyfall" (the stolen harddrive) under her leadership. So that shows her incompetence. Still, I do agree heavily with "M"s speech in the Committee Room. It's still necessary to have an intelligence community. And it still is necessary that this should be secret. And in order to counter-attack those people with intentions to destroy a nation, we should indeed realize that they are operating in the shadows. You cannot just accuse nations anymore....the villains have indeed become more opaque. And in order to fight such threats, it is necessary to do battle in the shadows, in uttermost secrecy, and with only a minimum of democratic influence. The more transparency there is about secret intelligence services, the more they are compromised. "M" no1 realized that.

    "M" no2 (Gareth Mallory, played by Ralph Fiennes): Yet, I also agree with "M" no2. There is a reason Mallory started this discussion about democratic accountability. "M" no1 fucked up, screwed up badly. There's no other way to say it. Even MI6 is Her Majesty's Government institution. As such it is dependent on the money, direct or indirect, from taxpayers. Under her watch the terrorist attacks in London took place. And it's only normal in a well functioning democracy that there will be a transparent hearing about the disfunctioning MI6, led by "M" no1. But it shows that there's something to say for both arguments from both "M"s, "M" no1 and "M" no2.

    That's why "Skyfall" was so fascinating to me. It really tells you something about the intelligence communities and all its complexities. Because it's a matter of what you want: Having a well-functioning secret intelligence service with less democratic accountability? Or having even more democracy and transparency (WikiLeaks-style), and by doing so that the secret intelligence services are functioning less effectively? In the United States this discussion currently is very topical. Trump doesn't give shit about the CIA, nor do his voters. Yet the adament supporters of the CIA -many Republicans- completely disagree.

    Having said all that, both "Skyfall" AND "spectre" are perhaps way much more about real current-day espionage than many forummembers in here realize.

    Sorry if I came across rude old chap,that wasn't my intention,just general frustration about the M/Em/Emma situation again .
  • edited November 2017 Posts: 11,425
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Why are we even discussing this ?
    Em is a shortened version of Emma and Kincade thought that was what Bond was calling her.
    So,being an old fashioned gentleman ,he calls her Emma.

    I think M and Bond even smile slightly when he does it !!

    Case closed....next !!

    Why not Emily or Emilia?

    But I agree it's obvious that Kincade is supposed to think M is short for one of these variations.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Getafix wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Why are we even discussing this ?
    Em is a shortened version of Emma and Kincade thought that was what Bond was calling her.
    So,being an old fashioned gentleman ,he calls her Emma.

    I think M and Bond even smile slightly when he does it !!

    Case closed....next !!

    Why not Emily or Emilia?

    But I agree it's obvious that Kincade is supposed to think M is short for one of these variations.

    Kincade is old and doddery and his hearing is going so he thinks he just didn't catch the 'a' on the end of 'Emma'.

    Why would he just pick a name out of the air like that otherwise?

    (Can't believe I've even lowered myself to getting involved in debating this which has to be the most pathetic discussion we've ever had on here. Apologies Wizard fans.)
  • Posts: 12,526
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    Will Monica Bellucci Return as ‘Bond Girl’ Along With Daniel Craig?
    variety.com/2017/film/news/will-monica-bellucci-return-bond-girl-bond-25-1202609803/

    On Tuesday evening in Rome, where she was feted with the Virna Lisi lifetime achievement award, Bellucci smiled at reporters who asked her to comment on the rumors, telling them: “I can’t say anything.”

    If true? You would expect Leiter to feature seeing as she was given his number by Bond in Spectre? So to me I would think Blofeld has already escaped? Belluci's Sciarra would know the network of Spectre which is why she was going to be killed in the first place. So from this I would expect Blofeld to feature?!

    Having said all that? That is my own theory on this rumour? As ever I will await something OFFICIAL as always.
  • I think Caroline should reappear as an insider mole who has secretly headed up SPECTRE all along. The stuttering and prudery were both a ruse. Campbell needs to finish what he started!

    How about Small Fawcett being behind it all?

    But only if there is an all in endfight as climax. The proverbial clash of the Titans!
  • Getafix wrote: »
    Totally agree. Also, have I missed something but has anyone in the real world since 9/11 been saying we don't need undercover agents? The premise they set up in SF and SP just seemed like a straw man. Clare Dower in SF and C in SP just didn't have the ring of truth about them. The actual issue in SF was more M's incompetence but that seemed to be forgotten pretty quickly.

    @Getafix. I think the could thing about "Skyfall" was the ambivalence of the characters. There's something to say for the points that "M" was making, but also for the arguments from Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes), the successor to Emma Mawdsley (Judi Dench):

    "M" no1 (Emma Mawdsley, played by Judi Dench): Yes, she fucked up big time. I mean, are you really globetrotting with taxpayer's money that much, to contain just one rogue agent named James Bond? Not to mention the fact that she compromises the secrecy of MI6 on so many occasions, including the loss of the McGuffin from "Skyfall" (the stolen harddrive) under her leadership. So that shows her incompetence. Still, I do agree heavily with "M"s speech in the Committee Room. It's still necessary to have an intelligence community. And it still is necessary that this should be secret. And in order to counter-attack those people with intentions to destroy a nation, we should indeed realize that they are operating in the shadows. You cannot just accuse nations anymore....the villains have indeed become more opaque. And in order to fight such threats, it is necessary to do battle in the shadows, in uttermost secrecy, and with only a minimum of democratic influence. The more transparency there is about secret intelligence services, the more they are compromised. "M" no1 realized that.

    "M" no2 (Gareth Mallory, played by Ralph Fiennes): Yet, I also agree with "M" no2. There is a reason Mallory started this discussion about democratic accountability. "M" no1 fucked up, screwed up badly. There's no other way to say it. Even MI6 is Her Majesty's Government institution. As such it is dependent on the money, direct or indirect, from taxpayers. Under her watch the terrorist attacks in London took place. And it's only normal in a well functioning democracy that there will be a transparent hearing about the disfunctioning MI6, led by "M" no1. But it shows that there's something to say for both arguments from both "M"s, "M" no1 and "M" no2.

    That's why "Skyfall" was so fascinating to me. It really tells you something about the intelligence communities and all its complexities. Because it's a matter of what you want: Having a well-functioning secret intelligence service with less democratic accountability? Or having even more democracy and transparency (WikiLeaks-style), and by doing so that the secret intelligence services are functioning less effectively? In the United States this discussion currently is very topical. Trump doesn't give shit about the CIA, nor do his voters. Yet the adament supporters of the CIA -many Republicans- completely disagree.

    Having said all that, both "Skyfall" AND "spectre" are perhaps way much more about real current-day espionage than many forummembers in here realize.

    The amount of things that those two movies having common with the real world of espionage is just about Zero and probably the only people that think otherwise are people like you. You know the type that hangs on to illusions of grandeur and a supposed higher understanding.
  • No wonder you have @noSolaceLeft :-).
  • Posts: 1,031
    Getafix wrote: »
    Totally agree. Also, have I missed something but has anyone in the real world since 9/11 been saying we don't need undercover agents? The premise they set up in SF and SP just seemed like a straw man. Clare Dower in SF and C in SP just didn't have the ring of truth about them. The actual issue in SF was more M's incompetence but that seemed to be forgotten pretty quickly.

    @Getafix. I think the could thing about "Skyfall" was the ambivalence of the characters. There's something to say for the points that "M" was making, but also for the arguments from Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes), the successor to Emma Mawdsley (Judi Dench):

    "M" no1 (Emma Mawdsley, played by Judi Dench): Yes, she fucked up big time. I mean, are you really globetrotting with taxpayer's money that much, to contain just one rogue agent named James Bond? Not to mention the fact that she compromises the secrecy of MI6 on so many occasions, including the loss of the McGuffin from "Skyfall" (the stolen harddrive) under her leadership. So that shows her incompetence. Still, I do agree heavily with "M"s speech in the Committee Room. It's still necessary to have an intelligence community. And it still is necessary that this should be secret. And in order to counter-attack those people with intentions to destroy a nation, we should indeed realize that they are operating in the shadows. You cannot just accuse nations anymore....the villains have indeed become more opaque. And in order to fight such threats, it is necessary to do battle in the shadows, in uttermost secrecy, and with only a minimum of democratic influence. The more transparency there is about secret intelligence services, the more they are compromised. "M" no1 realized that.

    "M" no2 (Gareth Mallory, played by Ralph Fiennes): Yet, I also agree with "M" no2. There is a reason Mallory started this discussion about democratic accountability. "M" no1 fucked up, screwed up badly. There's no other way to say it. Even MI6 is Her Majesty's Government institution. As such it is dependent on the money, direct or indirect, from taxpayers. Under her watch the terrorist attacks in London took place. And it's only normal in a well functioning democracy that there will be a transparent hearing about the disfunctioning MI6, led by "M" no1. But it shows that there's something to say for both arguments from both "M"s, "M" no1 and "M" no2.

    That's why "Skyfall" was so fascinating to me. It really tells you something about the intelligence communities and all its complexities. Because it's a matter of what you want: Having a well-functioning secret intelligence service with less democratic accountability? Or having even more democracy and transparency (WikiLeaks-style), and by doing so that the secret intelligence services are functioning less effectively? In the United States this discussion currently is very topical. Trump doesn't give shit about the CIA, nor do his voters. Yet the adament supporters of the CIA -many Republicans- completely disagree.

    Having said all that, both "Skyfall" AND "spectre" are perhaps way much more about real current-day espionage than many forummembers in here realize.

    The amount of things that those two movies having common with the real world of espionage is just about Zero and probably the only people that think otherwise are people like you. You know the type that hangs on to illusions of grandeur and a supposed higher understanding.

    The same could be said of every Bond film!
Sign In or Register to comment.