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
I’m fine with M being a parental figure. Mainly because M is supposed to be just that. He was in the novels certainly. It’s a much more respectful/deferential relationship on Bond’s part, but the idea of M as this father figure - calling him ‘James’ during more personal moments, often taking a vested interest in his health/wellbeing even if his proposed solutions are a bit strange, seeing him as his best agent etc - is very much at the core of their relationship. It’s similar to Dench’s M despite her flaws as a leader. If anything Mallory’s the outlier. Bond often goes behind his back, and seldom seems to trust him. There’s little sense he even respects him going from NTTD (and quite right too - the man’s basically violated all kinds of international laws and it’s a silly and out of character thing for him to commission the Heracles project).
Ultimately what’s done with M and Bond is a different matter, but that paternal element of the relationship really should be there. Again, otherwise you get a Mallory. Or even worse an Edward Fox M from NSNA.
I’m fine with an M who makes morally questionable decisions. Hell, in the novels there’s definitely a sense of M as this puppet master when it comes to snapping Bond out of his PTSD, giving him a fake promotion and sending him on a mundane diplomatic job under the guise it’s important. He enlists Bond to assassinate someone due to his personal involvement (FYEO) and sends him on a mission he’s 95% sure he’ll be killed doing (TMWTGG). But all that’s in character and still has that paternal element there. It’s also easier to see where M is coming from rather than Mallory’s decision making in NTTD.
I think in SF and SP Mallory is shown to trust Bond, and Bond is happy to work alongside him against C, so I think the relationship is handled fine in those. It's just that he does something, as you say, out of character in NTTD. I do really like their confrontation scene in that film though, it's almost the most tense bit.
I'm fine with the tension: it's an extremely dangerous and high risk job, not just to lives but to international matters of great import. We've all rubbed up against our bosses but in a job that important there should be tension: M isn't his dad.
As for Charmian and May; well maybe, but only if there's an actual role for them to play in the story. If they're just turning up for the sake of it then it really does turn into a soap opera. I don't need to see Bond's home life.
Is it right that there was originally a scene in SF where Felix met with M, while Bond was still presumed dead, and told her that the CIA weren't going to help her any more as she kept making too many mistakes (although in rather blunter language!)?
I do think it's fair for it to be part of Mallory's M that he doesn't take certain actions taken by Bond lightly and that not all of the early tension between them from SF is lost, but I just think SP jumped the gun there when we should've been given something warmer and more traditional after SF.
Charmian could have easily taken Kincade’s place in SF. I’m glad she didn’t, as Albert Finney was wonderful in the role. Charmian and May would work well in an TRUE EON origin story for Bond.
I liked that the Craig-era DenchM had reached that point by the last act of QOS and was willing to go to bat for him against her own govt and the CIA. I'd like to see a bit more of that in the next guy's run, too - an M that's willing to get between the Whitehall suits and the 00s in order to give them the leeway they need to operate, rather than chewing them out because they were a bit generous with their initiative.
Yeah, setting up that traditional ending is a bright spot in SF for me but it's instantly undone come SP, one of the many, many problems I have with that film.
I guess it all comes back to how much can you change before it stops being Bond but I think after No Time to Die, the floodgates have opened, for better or worse. Besides EON have only got what 10 years until CR is public domain anyway.
Well, I don't know if they would- I'd have to see what their actual roles in the story were first. I don't think they're inherently interesting characters, and we never even met Charmian in the books.
I obviously wouldn't rule them as there might be a great idea for them out there somewhere, but I don't want to see them just because I'm a fan and can do the DiCaprio meme whilst saying 'ooh that's a reference to the books'.
Mallory does do that in the last act of each of his three appearances though: he is happy that Bond is out there on his own because he knows that's how he'll get the job done.
Maybe they could be just name dropped.
I think CR got it right: fewer MI6 regulars.
If the story fits Charmian, bring it on. Kind of like Kincaid. A one-off.
May I see as kind of pointless now, the at-home version of original Moneypenny.
Then promote Moneypenny to Chief of Staff for the end of SP/NTTD.
That would have been pretty cool.
Maybe for the next film they could do what Lois Maxwell always wanted and have Naomie Harris play M.
Yeah the most recent ones always get the most stick. And eventually what seems shocking in the context of the whole series becomes part of that context. When the next guy’s honeymoon period wears off and there’s another film that isn’t that well recieved among fans, I think we’ll see a lot of posts/comments along the lines of “looking back, I think there’s a lot to like in NTTD”. I remember thinking I might have been harsh on DAD after I saw QoS. But I can even find stuff to enjoy in Quantum now.
No one said the Craig films were bad.....................just all over the place. Trying to retrofit SPECTRE into the Craig era to take the place of Quantum, when Quantum didn't click with audience, was a painful example of shoehorning. Hmmm, I wonder if that is even a word?????? I would also say that another example would be the tone between the Paloma vs Bond's demise scenes on the island. No bad.............just scattershot.
I still wish either Mr White or Hinx would have been revealed to be Blofeld/head of Spectre, that would have been a great twist
I'm a proponent of this idea. She'd play a different character (like Dench in Brosnan/Craig) but it'd be a little tip to the past.
I wouldn’t mind a mention of Charmain (I think we get this in SP) but I do think an important part of Bond is that he’s a loner with no living relatives. I don’t see the point in him having an old aunt somewhere in Kent. It’s not even entirely clear how much affection the literary Bond had for her.
May’s another one that feels a bit pointless. A solid M and Tanner would be good with maybe a more hands on Moneypenny or Ponsonby thrown in.
And does DAF feel in tune with FRWL? Or were the Connery films all over the place? Does Jaws & Dolly match up with Bond kicking Loque's car off the cliff (in the very next movie)? Shoehorned?
Are you holding all of these films to the same standard?