83 replies to this topic

[Stax]

They've been saying it will be Bond's early mission for over a year now. It's not going to be dropped in the next couple of weeks. This is the story they've set out to tell. It's an idea Michael Wilson has had since after View to a Kill.

And I agree with Lounge Lizard's theory on M's scenes. I bet the post-torture scene is M's instead of Mathis, unless of course M isn't exactly M in this film. Maybe a pre-M Dench whose character's real surname is Mathis. Have they ever revealed what her M's real name is?

Edited by Stax, 25 November 2005 - 04:07 AM.

[deth]

Have they ever revealed what her M's real name is?

Didn't one of the Benson books do it?

[Qwerty]

Have they ever revealed what her M's real name is?

Didn't one of the Benson books do it?

In the Benson novels, M is Barbara Mawdsley.

[Double-Oh Agent]

With Judi Dench returning, I sure hope Casino Royale is a continuation film.

But on the chance that it is not, and is instead "an early" (read Bond Begins) film, I think the reasons for her being in Prague and the Bahamas are this:

Bahamas is seen in the pre-titles sequence and is where Bond makes his second assassination to earn his Double-Oh status. Shortly afterwards, 'M' arrives on the scene and promotes Bond to 007.

As for Prague, that will either be--as Lounge Lizard said--where her MI6 office scenes will be shot or where she will actually meet with Bond on his mission or drop him off (after giving him his mission) at Casino Royale.

[Double-Oh Agent]

They've been saying it will be Bond's early mission for over a year now. It's not going to be dropped in the next couple of weeks. This is the story they've set out to tell. It's an idea Michael Wilson has had since after View to a Kill.

And I agree with Lounge Lizard's theory on M's scenes. I bet the post-torture scene is M's instead of Mathis, unless of course M isn't exactly M in this film. Maybe a pre-M Dench whose character's real surname is Mathis. Have they ever revealed what her M's real name is?

The only problem with having Judi Dench return in a pre-M role is that her character was, as described in GoldenEye, a "bean counter". I don't see why a "bean counter"-type of bureaucrat would have anything to do with a potentially young, up-and-coming secret service agent. No, the only logical way Dench can return is if Casino Royale is a continuation film. Otherwise, you're just making a mockery of Bond's timeline.

[Streetworker]

They've been saying it will be Bond's early mission for over a year now. It's not going to be dropped in the next couple of weeks. This is the story they've set out to tell. It's an idea Michael Wilson has had since after View to a Kill.

An idea which Cubby stamped on. And rightly so because it's pure self-indulgence given the general audience for a Bond film couldn't give a flying why Bond started wearing a tux, shaking, not stirring his martinis, or driving an Aston Martin. They just want to be entertained[I]. Some of the more anal fans might like this nonsense, but Ian Fleming managed very nicely without resorting to any cod backstory. And as a fan of nearly forty years standing, I have to say I couldn't care less about Bond's origins either. To me, the pure James Bond character is Fleming's "blunt instrument" and "silhouette". Whatever one feels about Daniel Craig's casting, I think there's no doubt he could convey those qualities perfectly.

But, maybe you're right; maybe they will still go ahead and do the early mission, despite the prevailing wisdom in the industry that the trend for rebooting prequels

Edited by Streetworker, 25 November 2005 - 08:55 AM.

[Loomis]

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.

Some interesting points there, Lounge Lizard. Yeah, I can also see it happening that way - and M zipping about all over the globe is very much in keeping with the Eon tradition, as opposed to the Fleming novels (not 100% on this, but I don't think M ever turns up in the field in Fleming).

Funnily enough, I thought I'd be appalled by news of a Dench return, but I'm not. Yes, she's getting on a bit - but it's called acting. Yep, it's odd from a continuity point of view, but, hey, we can (as I think someone has pointed out here on CBn) just pretend that the same actress is playing a different M this time round. Yes, I'm not exactly a huge fan of Dench as M, but, well, I'll just have to get over it.

But I agree with Streetworker that a BOND BEGINS-type origin story reboot could seem old hat a year from now. Heck, it looks a bit old hat now. That's my only "worry" with CASINO ROYALE - well, along with the possibility that the critics will give it a lot of flack for "ripping off" Batman (and Bourne). Otherwise, I still have a lot of faith in the people behind CR, and am confident that it will be a splendid film.

[Loomis]

[quote name='Streetworker' date='25 November 2005 - 08:52']To me, the pure James Bond character is Fleming's "blunt instrument" and "silhouette". Whatever one feels about Daniel Craig's casting, I think there's no doubt he could convey those qualities perfectly.

[Streetworker]

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.

Some interesting points there, Lounge Lizard. Yeah, I can also see it happening that way - and M zipping about all over the globe is very much in keeping with the Eon tradition, as opposed to the Fleming novels (not 100% on this, but I don't think M ever turns up in the field in Fleming).

It depends how you define "in the field". For example, I would suggest that M taking Bond to Blades to observe Sir Hugo Drax at close range in "Moonraker" could be interpreted as M operating in the field.

[Loomis]

Okay, but what I'm driving at is that the books (the Flemings, at least) are unlike the films insofar as they don't tend to feature M popping up all over the world (usually with Moneypenny and Q in tow), operating out of various highly improbable temporary HQs for the British secret service (inside Egyptian ruins, sunken ships in Hong Kong, etc.).

The ideal film version of CASINO ROYALE would be a blend of both the Fleming tradition and the Eon tradition, and it looks as though that's what we'll be getting. I remain in agreement with you that the reboot idea may be perceived as old hat, although I don't dislike it as much as you do.

[Streetworker]

Okay, but what I'm driving at is that the books (the Flemings, at least) are unlike the films insofar as they don't tend to feature M popping up all over the world (usually with Moneypenny and Q in tow), operating out of various highly improbable temporary HQs for the British secret service (inside Egyptian ruins, sunken ships in Hong Kong, etc.).

Oh, I'm sorry, I see what you mean now. No, you're correct in that sense. I guess it all started started when Q popped up in Thunderball, finding it highly irregular to equip Bond in the field (Oh, if only he knew how his job description was about to change!), and this was followed up with M and Miss Moneypenny aboard M's sub in You Only Live Twice. But perhaps it was already the norm and we just hadn't seen it - after all, Bond did allude to Tatiana in FRWL that he'd spent some time in Tokyo with M...

[Bill Tanner]

Isn't it conceivable that CR will feature Dench as M and be a reboot/Bond Begins story:

Dench-M could feature in an early scene (similar to the start of OHMSS), pondering on 007's whereabouts. For whatever reason the scriptwriters contrive, she could take out the file on Bond's first mission, CR, and we have a cheesy, wobbly fade back to a time when men wore hats and spying was all about not trusting foreigners and avoiding red wine with fish.

It would then be possible to introduce an earlier incarnation of M and younger versions of Moneypenny and Q.

A lot of members here might not like the idea, but I don't see that there's a huge problem in having Dench and Craig in a backstory film.

[Bill Tanner]

Failing that, Dench shows Craig a time machine that MI6 have just seized from the Koreans. Just the job to nip back to the sixties and sort out those Johnny Foreigners who won all that money at Casino Royale.

Hmm, I think the first idea is more likely - but then P & W did bring us the invisible car...

[Lounge Lizard]

I'll be content if Dame Judi is allowed to play M as the ice cold matron we encountered in her first scenes in GoldenEye, before the character was softened.

[Stax]

"But, maybe you're right; maybe they will still go ahead and do the early mission, despite the prevailing wisdom in the industry that the trend for rebooting prequels

[Mr Malcolm]

I'll be content if Dame Judi is allowed to play M as the ice cold matron we encountered in her first scenes in GoldenEye, before the character was softened.

I agree. I do like Dame Judi a lot (in spite of the awful things I've said in the Judi Dench as Bond girl thread!) and would like to see her part written better. God knows how this is all going to fit in (if at all) with the reboot and the previous films, but it'll hopefully work out somehow. Roll on November 2006!

[blueman]

Don't get the thing about the other 20 films getting tossed out if Dench is M in CR. Huh? EON has always played fast and loose with minor (and sometimes major) character continuity, and they've always sold tickets. If the film is good, people will come and they won't give a snot about stuff like this (me neither ).

[Tanger]

Have they ever revealed what her M's real name is?

Didn't one of the Benson books do it?

In the Benson novels, M is Barbara Mawdsley.

And also in the GoldenEye screenplay.

[Gabriel]

There's always been continuity between the various Bond films, but it's always been kinda . . . sketchy . . . painted in broad strokes.

We know that there's a boss called "M", with a secretary called "Miss Moneypenny" and that "Q" runs Q branch.

Beyond that, there's little that we know about them. Beyond the excellent performances by Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell, Robert Brown, Judi Dench and (pre-GoldenEye, by which time, I'm afraid, he was too old!) Desmond Llewellyn, these characters are really ciphers. Samantha Bond (by DAD), Caroline Bliss and John Cleese, I'm afraid, proved that!

The characters exist in a constant background universe running parallel to the changing world and the various Bonds.

End of the day (and I have been a passionate supporter of bringing back Messervy and Boothroyd) we have a fine actress playing M who has moved the character beyond the token PC "feminist" cipher of GoldenEye. Okay, so she might not be the exact same M as the previous films, but, broadly speaking, the character is always the same, whatever era the films are set in. This has always been the case with these characters and always will be. And I suspect the first mission issue will be soft-pedalled in the final film.

They can imply that Bond is new at the job without directly mentioning it - the fact that there's a new actor as Bond will mostly cover the issue for them!

Edited by Gabriel, 25 November 2005 - 08:41 PM.

[blueman]

Didn't Bond in a couple of the novels think back to his 7777 days? I thought the difference was in how important the missions were, but not that they weren't equally dangerous. Anyway, Bond is Bond, I doubt they'll let us forget that for a second.

[mkkbb]

Just seen Mrs Henderson Presents with Judi Dench in playing yet another moody old lady (can she really act as she always portrays the same type of woman???).

Bob Hoskins too is in it, and looks like Benard Lee, even his posh voice in it reminds me of Bond's senior. Why couldn't the producers look for someone like Hoskins. Or even Ciaran Hinds from Rome, a very authorative presence too.

[Lounge Lizard]

Just seen Mrs Henderson Presents with Judi Dench in playing yet another moody old lady (can she really act as she always portrays the same type of woman???).

Well, M and Iris Murdoch are both moody old ladies, but they're worlds apart, aren't they? I think it's safe to assume that Dame Judi can act. It's just that the screenwriters for the last three Bond movies haven't given her much to go on, and have decided to progressively 'soften' the M character.

I love Bob Hoskins, he has played Churchill already- not exactly the worst training for playing M. I think Hinds is a little too young though. Appropriate villain material.

Edited by Lounge Lizard, 28 November 2005 - 06:58 PM.

[hartley_bond]

They would be fools if they didn't at least consider Ian Richardson and Nicholas Courtney for the next M.

[Niwram]

Do you guys think they have cast any of the other roles yet? And if not, do you think the film will be delayed?

It's been a long time since there was any news, and I'm starting to get bored.

Edited by Niwram, 02 December 2005 - 04:09 PM.