SKYFALL: FANS' REACTIONS - GUARANTEED SPOILERS

1525355575899

Comments

  • The Bond/Moneypenny/Q relationships do feel fresh and interesting again for me. Been a long, long time since that happened.
  • Posts: 11,425
    This is a positive of SF going forward. With some good writing I think the DC - NH relationship could develop quite nicely. She was looking the part by the end of SF any way. I'm happy with Mallory - frankly just glad to see the back of Dench. Not sure about Q. Reserving judgement for the next one.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I'm intrigued to see where they take the Moneypenny arc. They'll have trouble juggling, M, Q, Moneypenny and Tanner without one or another taking a significant back seat.
  • Getafix wrote:
    This is a positive of SF going forward. With some good writing I think the DC - NH relationship could develop quite nicely. She was looking the part by the end of SF any way. I'm happy with Mallory - frankly just glad to see the back of Dench. Not sure about Q. Reserving judgement for the next one.
    I am looking forward to Mallory as M, but I'll miss Dench in the role. I very much enjoyed what she was able to do with that role.

  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    RC7 wrote:
    I'm intrigued to see where they take the Moneypenny arc. They'll have trouble juggling, M, Q, Moneypenny and Tanner without one or another taking a significant back seat.

    This occured to me as well. You don't employ Ralph Fiennes and give him a 2 minute scene. Plus Wishaw is an up and coming star in his own right. Should prove interesting.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote:
    This is a positive of SF going forward. With some good writing I think the DC - NH relationship could develop quite nicely. She was looking the part by the end of SF any way. I'm happy with Mallory - frankly just glad to see the back of Dench. Not sure about Q. Reserving judgement for the next one.
    I am looking forward to Mallory as M, but I'll miss Dench in the role. I very much enjoyed what she was able to do with that role.

    She was okay I suppose. In my mind she is always that woman from the sitcom with Geoffrey Palmer. I associate her with what I always felt was the 'TV movie' B-list cast feel of the Brosnan era. Dench, Coltrane, Salmon, Palmer, Hatcher, Richards etc etc.

    For me she never had the stature I associate with the role. Would have liked to see Mirren to a female M. The sexual dynamic that wasn't really there with Dench would have been entertaining.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    This is a positive of SF going forward. With some good writing I think the DC - NH relationship could develop quite nicely. She was looking the part by the end of SF any way. I'm happy with Mallory - frankly just glad to see the back of Dench. Not sure about Q. Reserving judgement for the next one.
    I am looking forward to Mallory as M, but I'll miss Dench in the role. I very much enjoyed what she was able to do with that role.

    She was okay I suppose. In my mind she is always that woman from the sitcom with Geoffrey Palmer. I associate her with what I always felt was the 'TV movie' B-list cast feel of the Brosnan era. Dench, Coltrane, Salmon, Palmer, Hatcher, Richards etc etc.

    For me she never had the stature I associate with the role. Would have liked to see Mirren to a female M. The sexual dynamic that wasn't really there with Dench would have been entertaining.

    Dench, Coltrane and Sean Bean originate from TV but have all had fairly distinguished careers in film outside of Bond - so they must have some cinematic charm that you simply fail to grasp ;)

    Personally, having never seen As Time Goes By, I always associate Judi Dench with Bond now. Geoffrey Palmer I know mainly from Fawlty Towers, Grumpy Old Men and Tomorrow Never Dies.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Nah, Brozza was definitely TV Bond. I know Rog was as well, but he had more old-school charm.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote:
    Nah, Brozza was definitely TV Bond. I know Rog was as well, but he had more old-school charm.
    Personally I think Dalton was a bit "highbrow TV Bond". He has that kind of manner about him during some of his scenes (something I noticed that when I last watched TLD). Craig has some of this too but not as much.
  • BAIN123 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Nah, Brozza was definitely TV Bond. I know Rog was as well, but he had more old-school charm.
    Personally I think Dalton was a bit "highbrow TV Bond". He has that kind of manner about him during some of his scenes (something I noticed that when I last watched TLD). Craig has some of this too but not as much.
    Mr. Dalton's second movie suffered, I thought, from a lot of quality control issues that left it feeling in many points like a made for TV movie as opposed to a blockbuster. That said, I thought his performance inside that movie was wonderful.

  • Posts: 3,333
    There's no mistaking, @BAIN, that Judi Dench was well known to British audiences firstly through her long running sit-com appearances in A Fine Romance and As Time Goes By before she took on the role of M. Like Dalton before her, she was mostly known for her stage roles outside of TV playhouse dramas that had pretty much gone unnoticed by the general public until she teamed up with her late husband on the hugely successful A Fine Romance. In fact it was her role as Queen Victoria in Mrs Brown that propelled her into the major league. A BBC film that had originally been planned for release on television only but was picked up by Harvey Weinstein and released at cinemas. So what @Getafix is saying isn't wrong as the majority of the cast of GE were popular TV actors and had yet to have their big screen breaks, discounting GE of course. Just because you were too young to notice this doesn't mean that it wasn't the case.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I'm not saying that wasn't the case @bondsum. Though I am a bit too young (27) to remember Dench in A Fine Romance and some of her early stage work I do remember seeing clips of her in As Time Goes By and later Mrs Brown (when she co-starred with Billy Connolly, who my dad is a big fan of, in 1997).

    Actually I remember good old Barry praising Mrs Brown on his Film programme.

    For me though she will always be M. That's when I first saw her and got to know her.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    The history of Bond on film is littered with actors who were famous TV faces. It's unusual for a top movie star to play second fiddle to James Bond...until now. Ralph Fiennes has upped the bar.

  • Posts: 11,189
    Robert Shaw was a good early example. Looking at his imdb page he was in a lot of tv stuff prior to FRWL.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Yeah, to be fair I think a lot of the Rog films probably had a similar vibe.

    I think Bernard Lee though had that background as a serious character actor in 1950s B+W movies - it just seemed to help convey a bit more gravitas.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Gravitas is what was sorely lacking through out the Brosnan era.
  • doubleoego wrote:
    Gravitas is what was sorely lacking through out the Brosnan era.
    I do think the Brosnan-era took the whole tongue-in-cheek, wink-wink thing a bit too far.

  • edited December 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I think Dench has quite a lot of screen gravitas. She is certainly someone you notice when she appears - despite her relatively small stature.

    She can upstage pretty much anyone too! Even in Craig's films quite a few of the laughs during the scenes between her and Bond came from Dench.
  • Posts: 11,425
    doubleoego wrote:
    Gravitas is what was sorely lacking through out the Brosnan era.
    I do think the Brosnan-era took the whole tongue-in-cheek, wink-wink thing a bit too far.

    It did with DAD. TWINE was just boring.
  • BAIN123 wrote:
    I think Dench has quite a lot of screen gravitas. She is certainly someone you notice when she appears - despite her relatively small stature.
    She had a very commanding presence in those films -- which is something I think people probably want in an actor playing a role like M's.
  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I think Dench has quite a lot of screen gravitas. She is certainly someone you notice when she appears - despite her relatively small stature.

    BAIN, you're right. She does have gravitas. I just think for some viewers she was always that old bird from the sitcom though because that's how you pictured her. She is a goood actress and likeable. I just hated the way her part ended up being written. The characterisation meandered all over the place. Trust issues, mysogynist dinosaur, then more trust issues. It just became tiresome. I found it more interesting and believable when she just allowed Bond to get on and do his job. The idea that this character - Bond - reaches where he is and is constantly undermined and doubted by his superiors struck a wrong note to me. Who knows, may be that made it all that bit more authentically Fleming. But they did it so many times it just became tedious.

    Am hoping Mallory lets our man get on with the job and stays behind his desk.
  • Getafix wrote:
    BAIN, you're right. She does have gravitas. I just think for some viewers she was always that old bird from the sitcom though because that's how you pictured her. She is a goood actress and likeable. I just hated the way her part ended up being written. The characterisation meandered all over the place. Trust issues, mysogynist dinosaur, then more trust issues. It just became tiresome. I found it more interesting and believable when she just allowed Bond to get on and do his job. The idea that this character - Bond - reaches where he is and is constantly undermined and doubted by his superiors struck a wrong note to me. Who knows, may be that made it all that bit more authentically Fleming. But they did it so many times it just became tedious.

    Am hoping Mallory lets our man get on with the job and stays behind his desk.
    Actually, that part of things is about as far from the Fleming books as one can get. M had great trust in 007. There were none of these "Bond's gone rogue again" moments in the Fleming books.

  • edited December 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN, you're right. She does have gravitas. I just think for some viewers she was always that old bird from the sitcom though because that's how you pictured her. She is a goood actress and likeable. I just hated the way her part ended up being written. The characterisation meandered all over the place. Trust issues, mysogynist dinosaur, then more trust issues. It just became tiresome. I found it more interesting and believable when she just allowed Bond to get on and do his job. The idea that this character - Bond - reaches where he is and is constantly undermined and doubted by his superiors struck a wrong note to me. Who knows, may be that made it all that bit more authentically Fleming. But they did it so many times it just became tedious.

    Am hoping Mallory lets our man get on with the job and stays behind his desk.
    Actually, that part of things is about as far from the Fleming books as one can get. M had great trust in 007. There were none of these "Bond's gone rogue again" moments in the Fleming books.

    See, that's why I need to read the books - so I can throw all that 'this is what Fleming would have done' nonsense back at the book obsessives. The main reason I've never completely warmed to LTK is that from the first time I watched it I never for one moment believed that Bond would act the way does in front of M at Hemmingway's house. And that kind of stuff has just become more and more common in the post Dalton era, to the extent that none of the key characters seem to trust each other any more. Frankly, SF made everyone seem so incompetent - M, Moneypenny, Bond - that you can't blame them either.

    If what you're saying is true then I think it goes some way to explaining why I'm so disappointed by this film. The fact that M does not trust Bond to get Patrice at the start of the film just hits a completely bum note. These characters are not M or Bond - they are weird distortions created by Purvis and Wade that just happen to carry their names.

    Those weird scenes of Bond moping around on the beach reminded me of the second Bourne movie and just seemed so out of character for Bond. The whole film seems out of character, but that's just me.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 803
    Getafix wrote:
    See, that's why I need to read the books - so I can throw all that 'this is what Fleming would have done' nonsense back at the book obsessives. The main reason I've never completely warmed to LTK is that from the first time I watched it I never for one moment believed that Bond would act the way does in front of M at Hemmingway's house. And that kind of stuff has just become more and more common in the post Dalton era, to the extent that none of the key characters seem to trust each other any more. Frankly, SF made everyone seem so incompetent - M, Moneypenny, Bond - that you can't blame them either.

    If what you're saying is true then I think it goes some way to explaining why I'm so disappointed by this film. The fact that M does not trust Bond to get Patrice at the start of the film just hits a completely bum note. These characters are not M or Bond - they are weird distortions created by Purvis and Wade that just happen to carry their names.

    I'll always recommend reading the books! :)

    One of the things I believe they did do a good job of translating from the books to the screen was the relationship between Dench and Craig, and how Bond looked at M as being a parental figure.

  • Posts: 3,333
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Robert Shaw was a good early example. Looking at his imdb page he was in a lot of tv stuff prior to FRWL.
    Indeed, Robert Shaw had huge TV success with The Buccaneers before he earned great reviews for his involvement with "The Caretaker" by Harold Pinter, both cinema and on Broadway. This was prior to FRWL. Though there's no mistaking Shaw's involvement in some of Hollywood's greatest films of all time such as The Sting, Jaws, A Man for All Seasons and the superior and original The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, it would seem that television was just too small a medium to contain Robert Shaw. The funny thing is when I watch Shaw in Jaws, etc, I don't think of him as Red Grant - unlike Judi Dench who always tends to remind me of her Laura Dalton with that mischievous twinkle in her eye.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote:
    I just hated the way her part ended up being written.

    For me, and this goes back to something I was talking about in another thread, I've always felt the sense that the creative team have either willingly or unwillingly had pressure put on them to include as much of Dench as they could muster. I imagine when sitting down to write they had the notion of including 'M' hanging over them like the sword of damacles. As much as P+W are roundly trounced on here I refuse to believe they'd have willingly written two films so heavily reliant on the personal issues of the main protagonist's boss.

    I don't know who was doing the perpetuating but somebody behind the scenes clearly felt obliged to give Dench as much screen time as possible. She's been an ever present figure in the Brosnan/Craig films to the point where I can only conclude they did so because of her status as British acting royalty and not because it was an interesting creative decision to explore her character. I'm glad the whole thing is concluded now and I hope and pray Fiennes adopts a Lee-esque role for the next couple. I want to see 'new' characters not re-imaginings of the staple ones.

    I'm not holding my breath.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 803
    RC7 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    I just hated the way her part ended up being written.

    For me, and this goes back to something I was talking about in another thread, I've always felt the sense that the creative team have either willingly or unwillingly had pressure put on them to include as much of Dench as they could muster. I imagine when sitting down to write they had the notion of including 'M' hanging over them like the sword of damacles. As much as P+W are roundly trounced on here I refuse to believe they'd have willingly written two films so heavily reliant on the personal issues of the main protagonist's boss.

    I don't know who was doing the perpetuating but somebody behind the scenes clearly felt obliged to give Dench as much screen time as possible. She's been an ever present figure in the Brosnan/Craig films to the point where I can only conclude they did so because of her status as British acting royalty and not because it was an interesting creative decision to explore her character. I'm glad the whole thing is concluded now and I hope and pray Fiennes adopts a Lee-esque role for the next couple. I want to see 'new' characters not re-imaginings of the staple ones.

    I'm not holding my breath.
    I pretty much agree with you here; it would be nice to see M less central to the plot.

    Of course, that doesn't really square with the next film adaptation I'd enjoy seeing: Colonel Sun.

    :\">
  • That's the problem I have with Fiennes as M.

    He's a fairly big actor so they'll probably give him lots of screentime like they did with Dench. I sort of wish they'd gone for a smaller name so we could have a normal M.

    He does seem more entertaining than Dench though so maybe I won't mind M being used more if it's him.
  • That's the problem I have with Fiennes as M.

    He's a fairly big actor so they'll probably give him lots of screentime like they did with Dench. I sort of wish they'd gone for a smaller name so we could have a normal M.

    He does seem more entertaining than Dench though so maybe I won't mind M being used more if it's him.
    How do you see him as being "more entertaining"?

  • edited December 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote:
    See, that's why I need to read the books - so I can throw all that 'this is what Fleming would have done' nonsense back at the book obsessives. The main reason I've never completely warmed to LTK is that from the first time I watched it I never for one moment believed that Bond would act the way does in front of M at Hemmingway's house. And that kind of stuff has just become more and more common in the post Dalton era, to the extent that none of the key characters seem to trust each other any more. Frankly, SF made everyone seem so incompetent - M, Moneypenny, Bond - that you can't blame them either.

    If what you're saying is true then I think it goes some way to explaining why I'm so disappointed by this film. The fact that M does not trust Bond to get Patrice at the start of the film just hits a completely bum note. These characters are not M or Bond - they are weird distortions created by Purvis and Wade that just happen to carry their names.

    I'll always recommend reading the books! :)

    One of the things I believe they did do a good job of translating from the books to the screen between Dench and Craig was how Bond looked at M as being a parental figure.

    It's odd. I never really got that with Dench. I found her quite interfering and matronly - rather cold and distant - but never motherly. There never seemed to be much warmth between her and Bond apart from perhaps in the early Brosnan era. From DAD onwards she seemed to be constantly back-stabbing Bond or undermining him. That's why the whole 'mummy' issues theme in SF fell so flat for me. I just didn't buy this supposedly close relationship. It was not close. It was purely professional. She didn't trust Bond and ultimately Bond was willing to sacrifice her in order to take out Silva.

    What makes it even odder though is that in the context of the film M and Kinkade are obviously supposed to represent Bond's absent parents and so you'd expect Bond to do everything to avoid their deaths (again). At least, that would have made a bit of sense to me. But he doesn't seem that bothered as he almost goes out of his way to put them both in danger (what has poor old Kinkade done to deserve being put through this little warzone?). Within the symbolism-laden context of the plot, it makes very little sense.
Sign In or Register to comment.