How can Judi Dench as "M" be dead?

HOW can Judi Dench as "M" die in Skyfall, when she also appears as "M" in GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies, The World Is Not Enough, and Die Another Day which all come AFTER the early career of Bond in Skyfall :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:

Because CASINO ROYALE was a reboot of the franchise. The producers started over, moving Bond into a new timeline where everything from DR NO to DIE ANOTHER DAY never happened.

Forget all this 'reboot' and 'Bond Begins' nonsense. Each Bond is essentially on their own little floating timeline. Craig's films are no different.

M isn't really dead. She's going to come back in Bond 24. Sort of like Uncle Ben from Spider-Man. She'll give Bond a pep talk.

"Bond...with great power comes great responsibility." He'll wake up with his cock in his hand.

Tobin Bell from SAW also came back about a million times after he died. So the precedent's been set.

I agree that this Bond series is now on an entirely new timeline. We may see the earlier Bond stories with slightly new twist and turns.

I didn't see a funeral.

The bitch will be back.

lol....Good point!!!

nomand wrote:

HOW can Judi Dench as "M" die in Skyfall, when she also appears as "M" in GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies, The World Is Not Enough, and Die Another Day which all come AFTER the early career of Bond in Skyfall :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:

Perhaps the M Dench plays in the Brosnan films is a different character to the one she plays in the Craig films. Leastways, that's the way I look at it.

Loomis wrote:

nomand wrote:

HOW can Judi Dench as "M" die in Skyfall, when she also appears as "M" in GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies, The World Is Not Enough, and Die Another Day which all come AFTER the early career of Bond in Skyfall :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:

Perhaps the M Dench plays in the Brosnan films is a different character to the one she plays in the Craig films. Leastways, that's the way I look at it.

The characterisation is certainly different.

I like Pussfeller's explanation over at Cb.n.

Quote :

Compared to Bond #3 visiting the grave of the wife of Bond #2, this is only a minor paradox, and requires only a minor refinement to the theory. Obviously Dench is playing two different characters. From 1995 to 2002 she played Barbara Mawdsley, and from 2006 to 2012 she has played Barbara's twin sister Brenda Mawdsley, who used to run the Hong Kong branch, but who took over the London office after Barbara ran off and started a lesbian coven with Moneypenny #3.

Vesper wrote:

Forget all this 'reboot' and 'Bond Begins' nonsense. Each Bond is essentially on their own little floating timeline. Craig's films are no different.

This.

Largo's Shark wrote:

I like Pussfeller's explanation over at Cb.n.

Quote :

Compared to Bond #3 visiting the grave of the wife of Bond #2, this is only a minor paradox, and requires only a minor refinement to the theory. Obviously Dench is playing two different characters. From 1995 to 2002 she played Barbara Mawdsley, and from 2006 to 2012 she has played Barbara's twin sister Brenda Mawdsley, who used to run the Hong Kong branch, but who took over the London office after Barbara ran off and started a lesbian coven with Moneypenny #3.

... that is actually brilliant. Headcanon accepted.

I heard somebody in the theatre mention when the film ended that Skyfall was obviously a prequel to Dr No.

Arguing Bond canon is a surefire way to a major headache and ultimately is pointless. We are talking about a 50 year old franchise where the lead character has changed age multiple times and other supporting players have carried over from previous older Bond's.

Best to just accept loose references to continuity and roll with it.

One should also keep in mind that the Craig era Dench-M was running the show in Honkers during the transfer in '97 whilst the Brosnan era Dench-M was bossing it up in '95. So basically, fuggedaboutit.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

I heard somebody in the theatre mention when the film ended that Skyfall was obviously a prequel to Dr No.

\

Yeah, a friend said that as well... But Bond receives his mission at 3 a.m. in Dr. No

Best not to worry about continuity.

SKYFALL isn't related to any of the Brosnan films or the previous Craig films.

... I would say SKYFALL is certainly related to the previous Craig films.

I can see Brown's point, it doesn't carry on a lot of baggage from the last two, at most it's a distant follow-up with a fully formed CraigBond having dispatched certain characteristics like that anti-authoritarian attitude and his impulsive/arrogant manner.

Fae wrote:

... I would say SKYFALL is certainly related to the previous Craig films.

I'm wondering why. For me, it was as if the same actor was playing a whole different Bond.

None of the continuity works, either. Sure, ROYALE and QUANTUM are both modern Bond films, featuring the rebooted Bond and supporting characters, but that's about it.

I wish we would have been given SKYFALL back in 2006. In a way, I feel like it was more of a "Bond Begins" story than ROYALE was.

Control wrote:

I wish we would have been given SKYFALL back in 2006. In a way, I feel like it was more of a "Bond Begins" story than ROYALE was.

Maybe, but I think SKYFALL is about as far removed from the notion of what a traditional Bond film is. I think it's unlike any in the series to date, and that's a good thing - but if it had been made back in 2006, I think it would have alienated audiences a bit. Possibly more than a bit. EON were already taking a huge step by severing Craig's from the previous continuity, and they obviously wanted to keep some familiar elements in place in order to keep audiences in a world they could identify, and you can't blame them for that.

Besides, SKYAFLL probably wouldn't have worked as the first film in a new timeline given that so much of it hinges on M's past decisions. To present it as an entirely new take on the world would be jarring, primarily because the M in the Craig films is rather different to the M in the Brosnan films.

It does, however, work quite well as a sequel to CASINO ROYALE.

Control wrote:

For me, it was as if the same actor was playing a whole different Bond.

Keep in mind that QOS takes place straight after CR, i.e. presumably 6 years before the events of Skyfall. Plenty of time for a man to change one way or another, particularly due to the nature of the work.

I'd say the continuity works to an extent if you go along with the whole idea of SF taking place six years after CR/QOS so there was a lot of time for Bond to grow into the more professional character seen in earlier films and such, having gone through many adventures after the Bolivian water scheme. Works fine for me especially since this is overall a standalone story.

EDIT: Pretty much what CJB said.

A few things still bothered me with the continuity, though, as far as Bond's personality change goes.

I'll start a new thread for that tomorrow, as there's plenty to talk about.