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
Well both are very bitchy and call people with different views trolls, so I say they actually are quite similar.
The main difference is that EON does not give a sh&t about the "fans" or do not show it, as the DW community has had its nutters striking out in a most horrific way against one of the writers if I recall correctly. But perhaps that is one of the downfalls from the internet that people feel they can be horrible in some sort of anonimity.
That's a straw man. We never said we were experts. But I did learn a few things about real espionage in general and SIS in particular, because I find it a fascinating subject. And if C is a high ranking civil servant, he is not protected to the level of the Queen or the PM. If he was, he'd have an official residence too. Now after a terrorist attack against MI6 I am sure he gets more coverup, but security breaches and cock ups can happen in any organization and at any time.
As for how big a change it is between a two movies arc and a standalone movie, with the little information we have it is difficult to assess it. It really depends on what the two arcs were, doesn't it? Can plot A be completed without plot B, can plot B be understandable without plot A? CR stands very well on its own, QOS not nearly as much (and I like QOS), because it was constructed as a followup. In the novels, TB, OHMSS and YOLT are sometimes considered a trilogy, but they are all independent from one another. Until we have more information, we cannot really how big the change was, or if it was a good thing or on the contrary ill advised.
I think Skyfall DOES have plot holes (like most films) and gaps in logic in the script, and its supporters should accept that instead of trying to make the film out to be perfect and coming up with really convulted explanations for every little thing. But on the other hand some people are just grasping at straws, looking for new ways to slag off the film. Why does Bond breaking into M's flat matter? It's a film about a suave one liner cracking secret agent with a gadget filled Aston Martin fighing a bisexual, flamboyant psychopath with mummy issues. It's all fantasy anyway.
You're not going to change eachothers minds so just stop arguing. I think the whole debate is just boring now.
I think so too.
Do you and so many others here realize what it means to be the head of the British secret service? Most of all it means that your head is full with secrets and knowledge that would constitute a terrible blow to your country, if they fall in the hands of the enemy (btw the main reason why it was such a laughable and ridiculous idea that Bond would take M to Scotland, where she was helpless and exposed. Another point that was seen as plain logic by so many of yours)
Most certainly the head of the Secret Service (of just about any country )is always protected at quite the highest level,let alone right after an attack on MI6. Already in CR it was an annoying part of storytelling, that Bond just could break into Ms flat and use her password all over the world to his liking. In anything resembling the real world he would have been arrested from the moment on they knew about his knowledge of it, while in the movie and never even bothers to even ask him.
You see @Suivez_ce_parachute
is one of those, who back up their theories and opinions with solid reasoning or even facts and he deserves much better,than just get ridiculed by so many of yours in the "for crying out loud" fashion.
Thank you, @thelivingroyale. Always the gent. ;) And a big thanks to @Germanlady for understanding what I was trying to convey. And sorry I didn't get back to you on your questions about DC, I've been away for a long time and will address your question and thoughts on DC when I have more time on my hands.
Agreed and thus I will not reply to the troll. There are many Skyfall threads where we can move the "M's flat being broken in by Bond."
So... The new M in Bond 24, any idea how they can use it?
I imagine if you're paying good money for an actor the calibre of Fiennes, you're not going to relegate him back behind a desk for 2 minutes of screentime. I'm guessing he'll have a key role to play.
Needless to say I don't want him to follow Bond around averywhere either...
I think a lot has to do with stubborn fans unhappy about change. The M role has traditionally been a very minor character who typically only performs a few scenes in the first act to set up the plot of the movie. Dench performed a similar role in her early Bond films. However, the truth is she was wasted in those films, Dench is the best thing in GE and TND (alas she's typically the best thing in any movie she's in) and the prods where far from quick to capitalise on that. For me SF corrected the balance and finally placed Dench in the leading lady bracket, it was far more enjoyable and satisfactory seeing M play the 'Bond girl' opposed to having another faceless Halle Berry/Olga Kurylenko-type sapping the energy from the screen. Dench is a marvellous actress and the producers really put her through her paces in the Craig era to great effect. SF is Dench's Bond movie and hardly by coincidence also the best Bond film ever made.
I'm all for a larger Mallory role if it can be as perfectly integrated as Dench's M character. I don't think Mallory will (or should) ever go into the field with Bond. Bond does not have male partners on his missions, it seems to be an unwritten law of the Bond films and if he does they are typically older men who are either incompetent or die. Bond never has a 'Batman & Robin' relationship with anyone, Leiter has come close but he has never really stuck around long enough. I think Mallory should be given his own subplot back in London while Bond is out on his mission and of course not to mention Fiennes and Craig need some meaty scenes together.
Who else suspects that Rory Kinnear will get a bigger role in Bond 24? Mendes explicitly mentioned that he apparently 'cast Tanner' but just looking at recent award shows in the UK, Kinnear is consistently nominated for everything. Maybe Mendes has plans for Tanner the next time out.
Would make for a few interesting scenes if he was trying to go on the field, for whatever reason, giving his military background.
I don't think Judi Dench was always used to the best, that said using M more was and is a good idea. Of course how to do this is debatable. I mentioned it earlier on this thread, before it got derailed, that M was maybe underused and underdeveloped in previous movies. Imagine Bernard Lee being given some of the material M had in the novels MR, TB or TMWTGG. Too often I think he was wasted as someone giving exposition and giving a few orders.
Actually, thinking about it, M was the only M who received a proper send off.
Ooohh ... the bad, bad Matt Helm troll - Daring to use logic and reason. How utterly unfair of him!
Tell me, is smug ignorance as satisfying a substitute for intellect as it seems in your case?
(To Willy boy, don't bother replying. In your case I already know the answer.)
=))
The thing is, in every debate you end up blowing your own trumpet and it gets tiresome. I am all for using logic and reason, but boasting that you are using them is not the same as actually using them. This is a debate about Bond 24, not SF, which you seem to be obsessing about far more than its admirers. I think your desire to go back to slag off SF in a thread where SF is only peripheral to the main topic clearly shows your dishonesty and yes, shows you are a troll. N'enculons pas les mouches. (And that's rude, but that's from Fleming).
And yes, I am answering the troll, guilty as charged.
See ...
Wasn't it you,who ( based on some supposed knowledge )accused Suivez of clutching at straws,when he pointed out the weaknesses of your arguments?
I merely tried to show you the futility of your arguments ( and please don't hesitate to point out where I am wrong, BUT please base your opinion on some common sense and not on gut feeling.
Arguing
Bickering
This can be locked for a few hours.
For the parties who seem not to be able to conduct themselves in a manner suitable for the rules of this forum. Please think of your fellow posters, who do not wish to constantly read these posts.
If any mod feels like reopening this, please do so. Or I will reopen it in the morning.
Hopefully that will give everyone time to cool off. And grow up!
About the new M in Bond 24 : one question, do you think the writers will dare to show him as incompetent as her since the reboot ? "M's flat being broken in by Bond" happened not only in SF but also in CR, M's code were stolen by Silva in SF and Bond in CR, etc... It seems everyone knows what she plans next. Only Tanner seems to be impressed by her, I think her biggest act of movie cleverness is in QOS when she "explains" that Greene is the one to look at, despite the US spies claiming the contrary. Well, they had to show something "clever" to the viewers, after having revealed she was the one who had chosen to bring an agent from Quantum when going to see Mr White :) Even her big scene in SF is quoting a poem, and not an "epic" creation for her by the writers.
(PS : talking about what would happen in the "real word of espionage that I know very well and that you don't" is irrelevant here, we're talking about movie logic and movie characters...)
Well, I feel they won't dare to make Ralph Fiennes play someone as incompetent. Already in SF, the female M is killed by a kind of lost bullet during an escape, the future male M can survive a bullet he deliberately jumped at to save someone else... We also have already more "heroic background" for the male M in one movie (the IRA backstory), than for the female M in half a dozen (she's just described as someone who mostly worked on Excel, it seems !).
I think that in every Mendes movie except his only comedy, a high member of the cast on the hero's side, and even the hero sometimes, dies... and SF followed that rule. Mendes also said Kinnear's talent was not fully used in the Bond movies so far. In the "risky bet" category, I choose : Tanner dies (and not : Bond 24 will be a comedy :) ).
However, there is something about Fiennes that excites me a little. He is an excellent, edgy actor. And used well, with some good (within limits) exchanges between Bond and M, it could be the start of a beautiful relationship.
I want to see M return as a reassuring and competent presence at the head of MI6. And I want to see the return of real trust between M and his top agent. No more following him around the world or ordering him to be shot mid-mission. Let the man do his bloody job!
I liked @Suivez_ce_parachute 's comment from a few post back about how watching a lot of French cinema has given him immunity to seeing lots of pensive/serious dialogue as necessarily equating to quality or convincing drama. I do think as Bond fans we should actually expect more. Maiubaum's scripts were often witty, clever and funny. We haven't had a lot of that since his death. I don't know if Logan really measures up. On the evidence of his other films, I'd say probably not, but he is still a definite improvement on P+W and I'm confident that he'll deliver something decent for B24. I just hope Mendes hasn't messed things up by requesting too major a rewrite at the last minute, just so the film can be shoe-horned into his notions about what the 'themes' need to be.
I was thinking more of his other work - like Last Samurai and particularly Gladiator. It's derivative and highly unoriginal, but still a big improvement on P+W's writing, in my opinion.
He can at least craft a pithy phrase and do entertaining dialogue. His stories/plots are weak, but he makes up for it to an extent with his dialogue. At least, that's my point of view.
Then they should get a plot man like Wilson or Goyer
Yes. Although... there is a difference between letting Bond do his job and encouraging him to act in a completely unbelievable and reckless fashion.
They have to walk the line between depicting M as someone who is fundamentally a strict professional, but who recognises that rules sometimes need to be bent, and someone who is borderline incompetent (as Dench was so often portrayed).
Having Mallory allow Bond to take M off to almost certain death in SF was (IMO) an example of failing to walk the line. Mallory, Bond, Q, Tanner, all looked like hopeless incompetents, well out of their depth.
But I digress...
Essentially, we agree that we are all sick of the trust issues and just want to see a return to a more mutually respectful and professional relationship between Bond and M. At least, I think that's what most of us agree on.
Regarding the new M, he was depicted as perfectly capable if unorthodox and I expect to see him to continue like this.