How can Judi Dench as "M" be dead?

Control wrote:

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

I wouldn't go that far. I watched CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE shortly before seeing SKYFALL, and those films definitely seemed to work fairly well as preceding chapters, assuming that you bought that the six years following CASINO ROYALE had been packed with missions that had put a great deal of strain on Bond.

Judi Dench's M in Craig's films isnt the same character as in Brosnan's. That version considered Bond a relic of the Cold War whereas the current Dench M longs for the simpler days of the Cold War.

Craigs' films are a new series, not prequels, hence why they arent set before 1962.

Same as the new Batman movies, or did you think Batman Begins was a prequel to Batman and got confused when Heath Ledger wasnt Jack Nicholson and Aaron Eckhart wasnt Lando Calrissian?

If SKYFALL is a prequel to DOCTOR NO, please explain why Bond already has the DB5 he will be given in GOLDFINGER?
You cant. Its not the same car. Its an homage.

Why would they make closed loop prequels? Just means there would be nowhere to go from here.

Its a reboot, starting with CR

Christ almighty I thought we settled this BS back in 2006?

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 :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:

If this is your logic then I must point out that 2012 happens chronologically after 1962. You have no choice but for your head to explode.

nomand wrote:

Who knows

EON does.

nomand wrote:

so the next Bond movie should be an indication of what direction they are moving the Bond series.

They've made that direction quite clear since they announced the reboot in 2005.

What was their definition of "reboot" at that time and does it completely match what we have seen on the screen thus far?

The definition was "starting over from scratch, similar to Batman Begins" and other than Bond having his GF Aston Martin in SF it totally fits what we've seen so far --> And it's totally plausible that in the six years between QOS and SF Bond had Q Branch outfit the car with some gadgets.

I believe they incorporated both the traits of a prequel and reboot into the CraigBond series. CR and QOS are indeed prequels to the Bond series giving us background into the original Bond or early Bond movies. However, SF triggered the reboot (or new timeline) aspect of Bond with the death of Judi Dench as “M” indicating they are ignoring the previous Bond movies and are going down a new path with CraigBond and those to follow.

No. It was all reboot from the start. Or do you have a clever explanation for how in a post 9/11 world that CR is explicitly set in that the USSR could riae again for Bond to fight it in the Connery movies? Perhaps Bond and the Doctor are good friends?

EON (the people who make these movies) explicitly stated CR was a reboot, not a prequel. Its a new Bond with a new history.

After all if your logic is right, then why is Judi Dench M for a few movies only to be replaced by several men for a few decades only to be replaced by herself? That makes even less sense. The Craig movies are not prequels, nor do they explain or give background to the early Bond films. The closest thing is that CR is based on a book that is set before the book DN is based on, but since the film series ignored the order of the novels from the beginning it doesnt matter.

Is Batman Begins a prequel to Batman, nomand?

Yep, CR is a reboot pure and simple ... 'Bond Begins'. The DB5 being kitted out with 'original' timeline gadgets in SF can either be explained in the way F-S suggests, or you can just allow it as a 50th anniversary 'nod' and let it go.

I see it this way:

Bond rebooted, but M and the MI6 hasn't, so...

M is the same from the PB era, Bond is not.

Think that way and you'll feel hapy

:D

That makes my head hurt.

Judi Dench is playing a different 'M'. The characterisation is completely different. Even with the Elektra nonsense in TWINE, the Brosnan-era M was calm, straight talking and level-headed. The Craig-era M is still going through the hormonal see-saw of meonopause, babies her agents to fill the void of her fruitless ovaries, and is filled with an inconsolable need to insert completely unneccessary and flagrantly impressive words into her sentences in order to appear smart.

Nicolas Suszczyk wrote:

I see it this way:

Bond rebooted, but M and the MI6 hasn't, so...

M is the same from the PB era, Bond is not.

Think that way and you'll feel hapy

:D

A great way of explaining it, Nicholas!

Vesper wrote:

That makes my head hurt.

Judi Dench is playing a different 'M'. The characterisation is completely different. Even with the Elektra nonsense in TWINE, the Brosnan-era M was calm, straight talking and level-headed. The Craig-era M is still going through the hormonal see-saw of meonopause, babies her agents to fill the void of her fruitless ovaries, and is filled with an inconsolable need to insert completely unneccessary and flagrantly impressive words into her sentences in order to appear smart.

Are you defending something from the Brosnan era? :o


;)

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

if your logic is right, then why is Judi Dench M for a few movies only to be replaced by several men for a few decades only to be replaced by herself?

:lol!:

FieldsMan wrote:

Vesper wrote:

That makes my head hurt.

Judi Dench is playing a different 'M'. The characterisation is completely different. Even with the Elektra nonsense in TWINE, the Brosnan-era M was calm, straight talking and level-headed. The Craig-era M is still going through the hormonal see-saw of meonopause, babies her agents to fill the void of her fruitless ovaries, and is filled with an inconsolable need to insert completely unneccessary and flagrantly impressive words into her sentences in order to appear smart.

Are you defending something from the Brosnan era? :o


;)

I thought I was known as a moderate Brosnan apologist?

Pierce Brosnan doesn't need apologizing for.

Except around here, it seems...

Tubes wrote:

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.

So well said I have nothing further to add. This is my take on it all too - it would give you aheadache otherwise!

The bitch is dead. She's got all the time in the world, now. :D

Hell yeah, well, even when she's my favourite M, I think it was time to move on, it's nice to have Ralph Fiennes on the boat from now on.

We should lock this. Leaving it open only pronotes idiocy.

Might as well, I think three pages was sufficient enough to establish that Judi Dench played two different Ms.