'Skyfall' Trailer 3

AMC Hornet wrote:

One (villainous) character referring to M as 'Mommy' is hardly an acknowledgement of a Mother-son relationship. It's one character trying to win over another by exaggerating a point - wound Bond's pride, then offer him a chance to regain it by joining forces.

Fortunately, we know Bond is too intelligent and loyal to be seduced that way (but he might play along for a while).

Precisely. I'm a bit surprised there's even any discussion, let alone debate, about this.

James Bond has never really had a mother, and M doesn't have a son (not that I know of). So it makes sense probably that there'd be a bit of a maternal feeling to the relationship with them seeing each other so often.

Then there's the paternal relationship with the male Ms, though the emphasis isn't as strong.

Pussy Riot wrote:

James Bond has never really had a mother, and M doesn't have a son (not that I know of). So it makes sense probably that there'd be a bit of a maternal feeling to the relationship with them seeing each other so often.

It's also possible that M handles all of her agents the way she handles Bond. If Silva worked with her in the past, it's possible she did the same things with him as she has Bond.

Pussy Riot wrote:

James Bond has never really had a mother, and M doesn't have a son (not that I know of). So it makes sense probably that there'd be a bit of a maternal feeling to the relationship with them seeing each other so often.

Bill Tanner: Seems your hunch was right, 007. It's too bad the Evil Queen of Numbers wouldn't let you play it...
[M walks in]
M: You were saying?
Bill Tanner: No, no, I was just... just um...
M: Good. Because if I want sarcasm, Mr Tanner, I'll talk to my children, thank you very much.


If you had two children but no sons, wouldn't you say "I'll talk to my daughters..."?

(Just sayin'.)

AMC Hornet wrote:

If you had two children but no sons, wouldn't you say "I'll talk to my daughters..."?

In the context of that particular conversation, I honestly don't think so. In fact, I'd say that any writer worth their salt would use the term "children", as it's a key part of M's retort, implying that even a child could manage better humour than Tanner. Using the term "daughters" wouldn't quite have the same impact, as her daughters could be in their 20s, 30s, whatever. I think it's still vague regarding how many kids M has and of what sex they are. If I were to guess, I'd say she's possibly got a son, but it's in no way been proven in the films that this is the case. It could easily be two or three daughters. Hell, knowing the current writers, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Bond and Silva turned out to be her sons.

By George I think Lazenby's got it!

This is an unofficial remake of TWINS, with Bond and Silva as Arnold and Devito, and Judi Dench as the character who carried their genetic info t term, played by the actress who was the baddie at the end of the FIREFLY pilot and was a regular on ST ELSEWHERE.

(just stopped in for a minute but couldn't believe the timing. Actually, the Bond and Silva as sibling thing is the vibe I got most from the trailer, and it creeped me out. Kinda think Silva will take an acid bath and come out the other end as Blofeld, sort of like the way Moriarty was 'created' by the end of YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES, if you want to reach back to some 80s hokum.)

trevanian wrote:

By George I think Lazenby's got it!

This is an unofficial remake of TWINS, with Bond and Silva as Arnold and Devito, and Judi Dench as the character who carried their genetic info t term, played by the actress who was the baddie at the end of the FIREFLY pilot and was a regular on ST ELSEWHERE.

(just stopped in for a minute but couldn't believe the timing. Actually, the Bond and Silva as sibling thing is the vibe I got most from the trailer, and it creeped me out. Kinda think Silva will take an acid bath and come out the other end as Blofeld, sort of like the way Moriarty was 'created' by the end of YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES, if you want to reach back to some 80s hokum.)

:lol!:

Pussy Riot wrote:

James Bond has never really had a mother, and M doesn't have a son (not that I know of). So it makes sense probably that there'd be a bit of a maternal feeling to the relationship with them seeing each other so often.

Could have fooled me, the way she followed him around the world to wipe his nose in QoS...

Salomé wrote:

Could have fooled me, the way she followed him around the world to wipe his nose in QoS...

Yeah, that didn't happen at all. She was sent to stop Bond investigating Greene because the Prime Minster was upset that Bond was threatening any trade partnership with Medrano's regime.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Could have fooled me, the way she followed him around the world to wipe his nose in QoS...

Yeah, that didn't happen at all. She was sent to stop Bond investigating Greene because the Prime Minster was upset that Bond was threatening any trade partnership with Medrano's regime.

Miss the point much?

The issue is that they needlessly expanded the M role to something that it was never meant to be. What was wrong with the early entries in the series, in which Bernard Lee more or less was limited to one or two scenes (at the beginning of and the conclusion of Bond's mission)? If the issue is that Dench needs more screen time, than that just proves she was miscast in the role from the outset.

Let's also remember that Craig's movies are reboots, which means it's not the same M from Goldeneye.

About Dench, if they really wanted to show her character often (wheter it is because she wants that or the screenwriters do), they wouldn't let her die in Skyfall. And she is also half-blind (or something, I don't really know the exact term, but you can find everything here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L_T20hCU4o)

Salomé wrote:

The issue is that they needlessly expanded the M role to something that it was never meant to be.

I don't think they did that at all in QOS.

Greene's scheme only worked because he was able to manipulate governments and intelligence agencies into doing his bidding. Bond threatened to undo all of that. With plenty of unanswered questions lingering over Bond's role in the death of a Special Branch agent, the Prime Minister clearly thought that Bond was becoming a liability and M was losing her grip on MI6. Acting through the Foreign Secretary - which is a clear expression of no confidence in M - the Prime Minister has her pull him back in line as a way of dealing with both problems. M went to Bolivia to do it personally as a statement of intent to the Prime Minister.

Salomé wrote:

What was wrong with the early entries in the series, in which Bernard Lee more or less was limited to one or two scenes (at the beginning of and the conclusion of Bond's mission)?

Nothing - but if Judi Dench was playing that role, you'd be complaining that she was just playing Bernard Lee's character and that EON didn't have the creative integrity to come up with someone new.

Quote :

Nothing - but if Judi Dench was playing that role, you'd be complaining that she was just playing Bernard Lee's character and that EON didn't have the creative integrity to come up with someone new.

Given she's female, I think they've proven that they can shake things up. Besides, no one is complaining about Brown's M.

I actually enjoyed the Brosnan - Dench relationship, imo it fitted the tone and the history of the character and the desire to put him in a modern context. Somehow with Craig it all seems to fall apart (well for CR and QoS), the maternal elements become intrusive and the whole thing plays very inconsistent with Bond being given the slack he couldn't possibly have accumulated in his two less than successful missions granted him yet still superficially wielding this acerbic indifference. couple that with the reliably abysmal dialogue of the P& W era and I for one will be very glad to have it all put to rest.

FieldsMan wrote:

Quote :

Nothing - but if Judi Dench was playing that role, you'd be complaining that she was just playing Bernard Lee's character and that EON didn't have the creative integrity to come up with someone new.

Given she's female, I think they've proven that they can shake things up. Besides, no one is complaining about Brown's M.

Correction, both my cousin and I claimed Brown's M as our less favourite.

Yeah, he's my least favourite too. Nothing to particularly complain about though. And like lachesis, the dynamic was fantastic in Brosnan's years. Craig's, while I think it works, it's getting a bit ridiculous. I mean you can't really fault the performances - Dench and Craig are doing great jobs - but I'm yearning for M gives mission and that's the end of it. Or maybe a scene towards the end...

Python wrote:

Then there's the paternal relationship with the male Ms, though the emphasis isn't as strong.

Right. I think this comes over a bit more clearly in Fleming's novels.

trevanian wrote:

By George I think Lazenby's got it!

This is an unofficial remake of TWINS, with Bond and Silva as Arnold and Devito, and Judi Dench as the character who carried their genetic info t term, played by the actress who was the baddie at the end of the FIREFLY pilot and was a regular on ST ELSEWHERE.

(just stopped in for a minute but couldn't believe the timing. Actually, the Bond and Silva as sibling thing is the vibe I got most from the trailer, and it creeped me out. Kinda think Silva will take an acid bath and come out the other end as Blofeld, sort of like the way Moriarty was 'created' by the end of YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES, if you want to reach back to some 80s hokum.)

Glad to see you again, trev.

To be honest, I have always quite enjoyed Judi Dench's portrayal of M, although I do agree that she has been vastly overused in the past couple of Bond films. I do not mind the use of M as a main character if it is an important part of the overall story (such as in TWINE and SF for example), but I do not like it when they just stick her in the middle of the filM for the sake of more screentime (CR and QOS). I was hoping that we would see a Bond film where Dench's M just gives Craig's Bond his mission briefing and that is the end of it (with maybe just one or two more scenes afterwards) but unfortunately that does not look very likely to be happening now.

Still, this is looking like it is going to be Dench's last film as M anyway and so those who dislike Dench's M should soon be put out of their misery. I highly doubt that the next M will be nearly as forthright as Dench's, simply because people will just see it as copying Dench's M and, if the next M is a man (which I think he most probably will be), then I also doubt that many people would buy the interfering/nurturing aspect.

Walecs wrote:

Let's also remember that Craig's movies are reboots, which means it's not the same M from Goldeneye.

About Dench, if they really wanted to show her character often (wheter it is because she wants that or the screenwriters do), they wouldn't let her die in Skyfall.

They have no choice, have you seen how old she is and how ineffective she is at her job? They have no choice but to end her reign with this film, which is why she's being stupidly made central to the plot and being given a big hero's death. This is the Dench, Mendes, P&W and Babs show, complete with all the ridiculous "drama" this would suggest.

Lazenby. wrote:

They have no choice but to end her reign with this film, which is why she's being stupidly made central to the plot and being given a big hero's death.

How would you feel if one of the Connery films had been made with Bernard Lee's M being central to the plot?

Lazenby. wrote:

This is the Dench, Mendes, P&W and Babs show, complete with all the ridiculous "drama" this would suggest.

You do know that your conspiracy theory of Babs subtley influencing the direction of the films is rapidly expanding to be a conspiracy among everyone involved in making the film influencing the direction of the film (therefore making it a film and not a conspiracy) ... right?

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Lazenby. wrote:

They have no choice but to end her reign with this film, which is why she's being stupidly made central to the plot and being given a big hero's death.

How would you feel if one of the Connery films had been made with Bernard Lee's M being central to the plot?

I read COLONEL SUN as a teen and imagined Connery and Lee in my mind as I read it. I'd've welcomed slightly large doses of Lee's M (indeed, that bit where he and his cronies are listening to a tape of Bond and Tatiana in FRWL with MP is one of my favorite bits) ... but that M. didn't have such a crappy track record. Even assuming (as I MUST) that the Broz M is not the Craig M (since we're not in an AbramsTrek reboot of 007 yet), we've got her first incarnation of M simply pimping Bond out in TND ala FRWL, then her having WAY too much screen time in TWINE and NOT helping the story a jot. And of course she has a double under her nose (and in her confidence) in DAD.

Then you get into the 'I lost an acid fight but still got cast as Bond' Craig era and she hasn't a clue what is going on ... not in her own government (doesn't she have spies, or at least 'ears' inside the UK, or are they all working for QUANTUM because the pay is better and they get fringe benefits like Tosca concerts?), not about longterm TRUSTED players in her own department, plus she apparently didn't have Vesper well-vetted (and wouldn't a treasury agent's behavior be subject to as much scrutiny as any gov't worker, given the POTENTIAL for disaster? - does this mean her relationship with MI-5 is more real-world like than the idealized relationship in the Fleming books, so antagonistic that -5 would let the events of CR go down as they did just to screw over -6.)

That Dench M is someone I would have had Q (played by the Dyson vacuum cleaner guy) feed an exploding cigar to at the earliest opportunity.

They've just gone a bit too far with the character in a bid to use the casting coup of Judi Dench as much as possible. Every time she becomes overly-involved, there usually seems to be some act of treachery from one of her employees or friends involved to give her that screentime, and that amount really racks up when it happens in almost each film at some point, which has made her character look as if she couldn't run an egg and spoon race by now, let alone an organisation as supposedly watertight and important as MI6.

There's also the age issue which I can't really argue with Lazenby about, which alone makes it a bit unlikely that she'd convince in any way if she were to appear in Bond 24 with all this water under the bridge. I think the producers know that Skyfall will be her last outing, so they'll probably play Judi Dench to the max as much as possible to the point where only James Bond will really have more of a say in this film than M.

Looking back at Bernard Lee and Robert Brown's incarnations of the character, I can't think off-hand of a single traitor under their employ, nor of any kind of real major balls-up or misjudged personal involvement in cases on the part of either of them, and this is during a combined tenure of SIXTEEN films. Dench's M has a traitor to deal with, personal involvement or big dramatic "look what M's just done" thing going on in at least five of of her seven films by comparison. Why? It makes the character look, as Lazenby said, ineffective over a long period of time, so one can only assume that the problem is the casting of Dench provoking a need for the producers to exploit that casting, but having writers who really aren't capable of doing much else with the character beyond chucking some personal plot point at her.

A strong argument could be made that this now rather stale "M over-involved" procedure had run it's course BEFORE Skyfall, or even before Casino Royale, where the reboot would have provided a perfect point to wipe the slate clean and give us a new and better M. But Skyfall is instead choosing to go the complete opposite direction and throw the character in our face perhaps moreso than in any other film. It's not as big a deal to me as it is to Lazenby, but I can definitely understand his point when it comes to M's involvement in this film, given the already iffy track record of the character as a supposedly-qualified leader of MI6 and the writers being prone to making the character seem even more ineffective, and I personally would feel even more excited than I am now about Skyfall if the character was on the sidelines and this plot was more just an ingeniously written piece of espionage with Bond as the main focal point. I'd love to see more of the villains, as some potentially really good ones have been wasted perhaps at the expense of more Dench time in recent films (Renard and Greene to name two, both played by really fine actors but both really underused or wasted) so, given the choice, I'd rather have 20 more minutes of the potentially brilliant villainy of Javier Bardem in Skyfall than 20 more minutes of M.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Lazenby. wrote:

They have no choice but to end her reign with this film, which is why she's being stupidly made central to the plot and being given a big hero's death.

How would you feel if one of the Connery films had been made with Bernard Lee's M being central to the plot?

As long as he was brandishing a bazooka and drunk on every mission, I think it would have worked well.