83 replies to this topic

[cvheady007]

The best way to play this one off if it is in fact before everything we know is have Dench as the Brosnan M's mother. Otherwise, there will be some error in continuity...not that the producers necessarily care.

[SecretAgentFan]

So where is the reinvention Mr. Campbell? 

Campbell doesn't even seem to know what a restart is, let alone trying to "pull it off". 

You can either take this as good news that EON and Campbell has been blatantly lying to us (restart/origin film) for the past year (if that is a good thing) or a bad news because Campbell has no conceptual idea of what a restart is despite harping about it. Take your pick.

Sigh... here we go again with Campbell bashing. Please, Stratus - consider how the movie business works.

EON wanted a new start. A reboot. Campbell was chosen as a director and liked the idea to bring in the new Bond (again).

After lots of young Bonds were considered, Daniel Craig was chosen. Craig is not a 28 year old, so this part of the reboot had to be changed again. This is not Campbell

[Skudor]

Yawn. As much as I'd like to get rid of Dench from that role, reboot or no reboot, I really don't care much anymore. She'll be on the screen for a handful of minutes - no biggie to me. I'm sure they are looking to use her for future bond films as well, which is probably the overriding reason for just keeping her in rather than complicating things with a separate M in Casino Royale.

Take GoldenEye out of the equation, and M is just M, not necessarily that new woman M.

[Streetworker]

Dench Claims to be Cast in 'Casino Royale'
Is she or isn't she?

Dame Judi was interviewed by Simon Mayo on BBC Radio 5Live on Friday. At the end of the interview she says she's CR will definitely be her next film appearance (then again, she also says that Will Young's career "will go from strength to strength" ...)

http://www.bbc.co.uk...live/judi_dench

The best indication we've yet had that the idiotic reboot idea has been jettisoned. Let's pray that it's true...

[SecretAgentFan]

It.Is.A.Reboot.

[Streetworker]

It.Is.A.Reboot.

Maybe now. But there's still time - even at this late stage - for common sense to prevail...

[Stratus]

[quote name='SecretAgentFan' date='22 November 2005 - 07:37']Sigh... here we go again with Campbell bashing. Please, Stratus - consider how the movie business works.

EON wanted a new start. A reboot. Campbell was chosen as a director and liked the idea to bring in the new Bond (again).

After lots of young Bonds were considered, Daniel Craig was chosen. Craig is not a 28 year old, so this part of the reboot had to be changed again. This is not Campbell

Edited by Stratus, 22 November 2005 - 04:10 PM.

[Streetworker]

[quote name='Stratus' date='22 November 2005 - 16:09'][quote name='SecretAgentFan' date='22 November 2005 - 07:37']Sigh... here we go again with Campbell bashing. Please, Stratus - consider how the movie business works.

EON wanted a new start. A reboot. Campbell was chosen as a director and liked the idea to bring in the new Bond (again).

After lots of young Bonds were considered, Daniel Craig was chosen. Craig is not a 28 year old, so this part of the reboot had to be changed again. This is not Campbell

[Sanchez]

I say EON would do well to hire Edward Woodward as "M" he'd be great, just the ticket!

[Stratus]

Er, it's only a movie, my friend...

...and this is a forum that deals with a movie. What's your excuse for posting here?

You either discuss or you don't.

[Bon-san]

Er, it's only a movie, my friend...

...and this is a forum that deals with a movie. What's your excuse for posting here?

You either discuss or you don't.

"Lightly, Lightly!"


Guy Hamilton, 1974

[Streetworker]

Er, it's only a movie, my friend...

...and this is a forum that deals with a movie. What's your excuse for posting here?

You either discuss or you don't.

My orginal sentiment was to write that you need to get a sense of perspective. But I thought that too rude, which was why I expressed it in a lighter, more oblique manner.

Clearly, I was wrong so to do...

[Stratus]

If you are talking about the criticism/scape goating of Martin purely, I also imply a lot on EON - EON both influence and screen the final output product.

In my past posts, I have criticized EON more than anyone, I think Martin should just step down if his authority keeps being erodded by EON. I am well aware of the fact that he said wanted a 28-32 year old for Bond and suddenly they cast a 37 year old for the role. He is also the one aiming for a reboot - now EON may not want it (which in this case is the better thing). This conflict of consistency is discouraging because it shows they are not on the same paper creatively. My implied point is, why waste your time if you are being a puppet?

Babs and Michael should just direct the film themselves, I mean afterall they already are prepping a 22nd script/film WITHOUT any official talk or negotiations with a new director to have a hand on it creatively, like they do in the Harry Potter franchise at least.

[Streetworker]

If you are talking about the criticism/scape goating of Martin purely, I also imply a lot on EON - EON both influence and screen the final output product.

In my past posts, I have criticized EON more than anyone, I think Martin should just step down if his authority keeps being erodded by EON. I am well aware of the fact that he said wanted a 28-32 year old for Bond and suddenly they cast a 37 year old for the role. He is also the one aiming for a reboot - now EON may not want it (which in this case is the better thing). This conflict of consistency is discouraging because it shows they are not on the same paper creatively. My implied point is, why waste your time if you are being a puppet?

Babs and Michael should just direct the film themselves, I mean afterall they already are prepping a 22nd script/film WITHOUT any official talk or negotiations with a new director to have a hand on it creatively, like they do in the Harry Potter franchise at least.

Provided he gets paid his due, what should he care if he's a hired help? Forgive me, but I'm a 40-something cynic who works in the industry and think the scenario you've just outlined is pretty much par for commercial filmmaking, so I don't see what there's to complain about. In any case, the vast majority of directors are best kept in their place; their ideas only tend to bugger everything up...

[Scorpion]

Martin should just step down .... He is also the one aiming for a reboot - now EON may not want it...

...the vast majority of directors are best kept in their place; their ideas only tend to bugger everything up...

My thread "FIRE CAMPBELL! NOW!" when I first joined CBn seems to have straightened Eon out. They stood to lose a -pile of money if they'd gone with Campbell's ideas. Thank goodness they at least took my thread to heart...it was too late to fire Campbell, really...But they've done the next best thing by muzzling him (which was also my suggestion in that thread)

:-)






;-)

Edited by Scorpion, 23 November 2005 - 06:05 PM.

[Arrant]

Streetworker " Provided he gets paid his due, what should he care if he's a hired help? Forgive me, but I'm a 40-something cynic who works in the industry and think the scenario you've just outlined is pretty much par for commercial filmmaking, so I don't see what there's to complain about. In any case, the vast majority of directors are best kept in their place; their ideas only tend to bugger everything up... "

Ah ha. A voice of reason. That can be a dangerous position to adopt on a fan site.
Your right of course. Campbell, Craig, all of them even Michael and Bab

[Mr Ashdown]

I posted this before, but it seems pertinent to say it again:

Regarding "continuity" in the Bond films.

There are two types of Continuity.

The first type is character/plot driven, and is used to establish a coherent uber-story for an ongoing series.

So Bond is married and swiftly widowed, and later Bond films refer back to this. It's all about keeping the character, and his "backstory" vaguely consistent. A sub-set of this is the use of witty, post-modern references which refer to the Bond series as a whole -- "Die Another Day" is full of these. Fans get the references and are (usually)charmed by them.

The second type of is "iconic continuity", which is a broad term which takes in everything from the gunbarrel opening to the actors playing major, continuing characters. This is continuity as glue: it keeps the series together, and smooths over any changes or transitions -- such as when a new actor plays Bond.

Judi Dench as M, and John Cleese as Q are examples of the latter type of continuity. Having these familar faces around, in their 'iconic' roles, will ease in the new 007.

An audience won't care if a return appearance by Judi Dench's M contradicts "GoldenEye". They just know that when Judi Dench is in a Bond film she's playing Bond's boss, and this *helps* in accepting that the new man in the tuxedo *is* James Bond. Similarly, if John Cleese is being rude to Bond in Q Lab, it all seems like familiar territory, and thus lessens the blow of an unfamilar James Bond.

So, in my view, that's the reason why it's sensible to have a new, younger James Bond *and* veteran actors playing Bond's support network.

Mr Ashdown

[Stax]

The film is an "early" story. Paul Haggis said as much when I saw him speak at The Screenwriters Expo in L.A. a few weeks ago. He said that CR would explain why Bond drives an Aston Martin, why he has his martini a certain way, and we see him wear a tux for the first time. So, as far as he is concerned, it is an "early Bond" story. He also said that he is still working on the script. So that does fly in the face of est. continuity, as far as Dench's M is concerned.

Edited by Stax, 24 November 2005 - 07:43 PM.

[Loomis]

The film is an "early" story. Paul Haggis said as much when I saw him speak at The Screenwriters Expo in L.A. a few weeks ago. He said that CR would explain why Bond drives an Aston Martin, why he has his martini a certain way, and we see him wear a tux for the first time. So, as far as he is concerned, it is an "early Bond" story. He also said that he is still working on the script. So that does fly in the face of est. continuity, as far as Dench's M is concerned.

So what's your gut instinct then, Stax? Dench back or not?

(Obviously, you could still have an "early" story with Dench as M; it'd annoy a lot of hardcore Bond fans, but you could still do it.)

[Andrew]

The film is an "early" story. Paul Haggis said as much when I saw him speak at The Screenwriters Expo in L.A. a few weeks ago. He said that CR would explain why Bond drives an Aston Martin, why he has his martini a certain way, and we see him wear a tux for the first time. So, as far as he is concerned, it is an "early Bond" story. He also said that he is still working on the script. So that does fly in the face of est. continuity, as far as Dench's M is concerned.

I'm not sure I like the sound of this. I get the martini thing cause that was in the novel, I'll let the Aston Martin slide but come on, see him wear a tux for the first time? Sounds incredibly cheesey.

[Pussfeller]

I get the impression that Dench is very friendly with EON. The producers (especially Barbara) seem to give lots of priority to their friends when making casting decisions. I have no doubt that Pierce was on bad terms when he was dropped. And Craig's friendship with Barbara couldn't have hurt his chances. I really hope this is just a case of Dench being misinformed and overly confident (as she has been in the past), but I wouldn't rule out her return. It would be absolutely nonsensical and a major let-down, but it could easily happen. Dench seems to enjoy the role, and would probably return indefinitely. I just hope the producers are professional enough to replace her now, instead of two films down the line when she decides to retire.

I'm not worried about continuity, provided that Craig's films are all internally consistent. I'm just sick to death of Dench's M. She was novel and amusing in GE, but her possibilities were utterly exhausted by the time of TWINE. I don't see how her character could possibly be kept interesting.

[Royal Dalton]

Dench Confirms She's Back For Bond

[Loomis]

Cheers for that, Royal Dalton.

From the Denchmeister:

"And I heard today that I'm not going to be in London. I'm going to get to go to Prague and The Bahamas. They're getting me out of my box. It's a whole film there. I'm very much looking forward to working with Daniel, but I've not even read a script yet. All I know is that we're due to start in February."

Sounds like she has a major role in the film. I mean, Prague and the Bahamas? That's a pretty big change from the novel right there, it would seem (not that I ever expected a super-faithful adaptation, of course).

Obviously, M has to accompany Bond throughout the whole movie and hold his hand since this is an origin story reboot and he's new to MI6 and not yet the seasoned pro audiences have been familiar with for more than 40 years.

[Bon-san]

From the Denchmeister:

"And I heard today that I'm not going to be in London. I'm going to get to go to Prague and The Bahamas. They're getting me out of my box. It's a whole film there. I'm very much looking forward to working with Daniel, but I've not even read a script yet. All I know is that we're due to start in February."

I find this worrisome. Would rather have wiped the MI6 slate clean. But, keeping an open mind.....

[Hawkeye]

I think it's time she went to the old spy chiefs retirement village. New M I say. David Suchet.

Hawk

[SeanValen00V]

I see this as just reminding me of a parted Brosnan Bond. Having Dench as M interacting with a new Bond, it wouldn't be so bad, but the producers seemed to have gone out their way to have Dench as to give crediability, even expanding her role in TWINE which I thought was soppy, the movie is about Bond etc M has a function, here are your orders, that's it, not too personal.



I don't think the producers have really changed, same director who directed dench first time out as well, campbell. Worrying. If it wasn't the fact they've got the rights to Casino Royale, I seriously would be doubting them.

[Loomis]

Having Dench as M interacting with a new Bond, it wouldn't be so bad, but the producers seemed to have gone out their way to have Dench as to give crediability, even expanding her role in TWINE which I thought was soppy, the movie is about Bond etc M has a function, here are your orders, that's it, not too personal.

If this is an origin story, perhaps they feel the need to "introduce" M as well as Bond, to show us how Bond and his boss meet, how the latter makes the former a Double-O, how the former becomes loyal to the latter, etc. Perhaps they're going to great lengths to give backstory not just to Bond, but to the whole MI6 "family" (with Moneypenny and Q introduced in BOND 22, oops, BOND 2). To which end, Dench's M will have TWINE-style extended screentime in CASINO ROYALE.

[[dark]]

Dench Talks About Her Role in 'Royale'
Where will we see "M"?

[Lounge Lizard]

Dame Judi hasn't read the script yet, right? Since most of the studio work will be done in the Barrandov Studios, Prague, chances are that they'll shoot her London office scenes there as well. As for M in the Bahamas... maybe M shows up at Bond's post-torture sickbed instead of Mathis- maybe it's her having the whole 'good and evil' discussion with 007, that figures so prominently in the novel. From a screenwriter's perspective, overseeing the bigger story arc of the Craig-Bond films, it would make sense to have M saying 'Don't let me down and become human yourself, we would lose such a wonderful machine', instead of the supporting character of Mathis. Let's face it, Mathis does not really stand a chance of becoming a recurring character in the movies (I even doubt if he's in CR at all, they'll probably just use Felix), and stating the professional relationship between the new Bond and M is much more important at this stage. It also condenses the story. Just speculating of course, but I can see it happen this way.

[Streetworker]

The film is an "early" story. Paul Haggis said as much when I saw him speak at The Screenwriters Expo in L.A. a few weeks ago. He said that CR would explain why Bond drives an Aston Martin, why he has his martini a certain way, and we see him wear a tux for the first time. So, as far as he is concerned, it is an "early Bond" story. He also said that he is still working on the script. So that does fly in the face of est. continuity, as far as Dench's M is concerned.

That might very well have been the case "a few weeks ago". But if a week is a long time in politics, it's an age (or eon?) in the life of a script. I'm guessing - and certainly hoping - that little by little this silly self-indulgence will be eradicated from the script. I'm certainly hoping the confirmation that Judi Dench is returning as M (yay!), demonstrates they're moving in the right direction at last.

After all, whether we approve of the casting of Daniel Craig as Bond or not, I think we can all be agreed that he's a superb actor. But getting us to believe he's wearing a tux for the first time at nearly 40 would tax even his considerable talent.

Edited by Streetworker, 24 November 2005 - 10:20 PM.