319 replies to this topic

[The Shark]

* Would the Bond of today hesitate to undermine his boss' requirement that he change preferred firearms?
* Can anyone imagine the Bond of today saddled to desk duty as punishment he'd respect from this M?

I think he could. I was reading the great chapter in GF - "Night Duty", and I imagined Craig in the role perfectly. Other good elements - Bond writing "Stay Alive", an MI6 self-defence manual, researching notes from manuals stolen from the KGB, Mossad, Chinese Secret Service etc... Rejecting a cup of tea and asking for coffee, forwarding calls from British Embassies and MI6 stations abroad for a box of mangoes (limpet mines) and ordering a shipment from Q Branch, using the Identicast etc....

Craig needs more dialogue scenes and less action.

[Tybre]

* Would the Bond of today hesitate to undermine his boss' requirement that he change preferred firearms?
* Can anyone imagine the Bond of today saddled to desk duty as punishment he'd respect from this M?

I think he could. I was reading the great chapter in GF - "Night Duty", and I imagined Craig in the role perfectly. Other good elements - Bond writing "Stay Alive", an MI6 self-defence manual, researching notes from manuals stolen from the KGB, Mossad, Chinese Secret Service etc... Rejecting a cup of tea and asking for coffee, forwarding calls from British Embassies and MI6 stations abroad for a box of mangoes (limpet mines) and ordering a shipment from Q Branch, using the Identicast etc....

Craig needs more dialogue scenes and less action.

Indeed. That chapter is just waiting to be put to film. Mind, I doubt it'll happen any time soon.

[Judo chop]

Is either response really founded in intelligence?

I just meant that I think the burden of explanation falls upon those who would give a ‘no’ response.

We’re all Bond fans here, and so I have made the assumption that since we’ve had a male M for about three quarters of the series (a portion which contains of some of the most popular films of the series) we’d all be okay with another male M again. Perhaps I’m being hasty, but I don’t feel the need to imagine a reason why a male M would be welcomed.

On the other hand, to stand apart from the crowd and respond “NO. I definitely DON’T want a male M”, would, to my mind, require some kind of particular justification. A justification that an intelligent person could at least understand, if not sympathize with. And I can’t imagine one.

[Zorin Industries]

I think they'll have to just simply in order to provide a contrast: any similar woman would just be compared negatively to Judi.

Totally agree.

A male M would nice, when Judi Dench leaves the role. But no James Fox or Edward Fox type M. More in the way or just as good as Bernard Lee and Robert Brown when they did the role of M.

Yes, if they can find such an actor.
I would love this bloke from Spooks (MI-5)

Actor: Peter Firth
but already in a spy series, that's the problem. Unless they could "promote" the character of Harry. Interesting crossover there from series to film. Might be a novel idea.

No, might be an awful idea.

[Trident]

I think they'll have to just simply in order to provide a contrast: any similar woman would just be compared negatively to Judi.

Totally agree.

A male M would nice, when Judi Dench leaves the role. But no James Fox or Edward Fox type M. More in the way or just as good as Bernard Lee and Robert Brown when they did the role of M.

Yes, if they can find such an actor.
I would love this bloke from Spooks (MI-5)

Actor: Peter Firth
but already in a spy series, that's the problem. Unless they could "promote" the character of Harry. Interesting crossover there from series to film. Might be a novel idea.

No, might be an awful idea.

Seconded. Please, no crossovers...

[danslittlefinger]

I think they'll have to just simply in order to provide a contrast: any similar woman would just be compared negatively to Judi.

Totally agree.

A male M would nice, when Judi Dench leaves the role. But no James Fox or Edward Fox type M. More in the way or just as good as Bernard Lee and Robert Brown when they did the role of M.

Yes, if they can find such an actor.
I would love this bloke from Spooks (MI-5)

Actor: Peter Firth
but already in a spy series, that's the problem. Unless they could "promote" the character of Harry. Interesting crossover there from series to film. Might be a novel idea.

No, might be an awful idea.

Seconded. Please, no crossovers...

Fair enough, so Firth as a completely different bloke playing M.

[DaveBond21]

I think they'll have to just simply in order to provide a contrast: any similar woman would just be compared negatively to Judi.

Totally agree.

A male M would nice, when Judi Dench leaves the role. But no James Fox or Edward Fox type M. More in the way or just as good as Bernard Lee and Robert Brown when they did the role of M.

Yes, if they can find such an actor.
I would love this bloke from Spooks (MI-5)

Actor: Peter Firth
but already in a spy series, that's the problem. Unless they could "promote" the character of Harry. Interesting crossover there from series to film. Might be a novel idea.

No, might be an awful idea.

Seconded. Please, no crossovers...

Fair enough, so Firth as a completely different bloke playing M.

Do those saying "no crossovers" mean no crossovers as in the Saint or Remington Steele never becoming Bond?

[Matt_13]

CGI Judy FTW!

[Tybre]

CGI Judy FTW!

Mayhaps Brown body, Lee voice, Dench head?

[Trident]

Do those saying "no crossovers" mean no crossovers as in the Saint or Remington Steele never becoming Bond?

No, I meant here no crossovers as in connecting Bond to some other film/TV/comic/whatever series. Peter Firth would have made a great M, as can be seen at Spooks, where he plays the role in all but name. I would have welcomed him very much as replacement for Dench. But as Firth's Harry Pearce has had considerable impact on public perception during the last years, I'm afraid he'd always be seen as 'So Harry Pearce has become Chief of SIS' by audiences, which effectively would count him out in my view, much as I hate to say it.


I think most of us fans would welcome a male M, once Dench decides to leave the role (I suspect it may actually be her decision). But as things in the recent past often came unexpected, I tend to think about another female replacement, perhaps even after a film without M. I missed Lee in FYEO, but for the films plot his absence wasn't much of a hindrance. I don't know any better than the next fellow member what plans EON has for coming changes in the casting of this role, but from experience I'd say they will most likely try to give it a little twist, if it's possible.

[Trident]

Peter Firth - Scmirth - he got no charisma. I don't give a monkey's if its a man or a woman as long as whoever it is has gravitas and credibility. Watching Dame Judy in 'As Time Goes By', it occurred to me Geoffrey Palmer wouldn't be half bad in the role, which would be a sort of crossover I spose.

No charisma? Cannot say he's lacking charisma IMO, but his M would actually have been somebody from 'within', not the typical Whitehall politician. Perhaps not a good idea to have an M who might come across as even more of a loose cannon than Bond. For some reason I would like to have an M who is more of a negotiator between service affairs and politics (as the real head of SIS must undoubtedly be). Not necessarily a scheming Borgia, but someone who's first and foremost responsible for the gathering of intelligence. Reliable intelligence, not that kind muck politicians have recently come to order from their lackeys to make their already made decisions seem more digestible to the public. A figure handling these murky affairs would have to be an extremely rational and experienced person and I would like to see a bit of that in Bond's chief. The role isn't a big one, but it's usually a defining moment for the tone of the coming film.

[elizabeth]

i think m should have stayed male from the beginning. seeing all those films with a male m and then suddenly, here comes goldeneye with a female m...just doesn't seem right to me.

[DaveBond21]

Do those saying "no crossovers" mean no crossovers as in the Saint or Remington Steele never becoming Bond?

No, I meant here no crossovers as in connecting Bond to some other film/TV/comic/whatever series. Peter Firth would have made a great M, as can be seen at Spooks, where he plays the role in all but name. I would have welcomed him very much as replacement for Dench. But as Firth's Harry Pearce has had considerable impact on public perception during the last years, I'm afraid he'd always be seen as 'So Harry Pearce has become Chief of SIS' by audiences, which effectively would count him out in my view, much as I hate to say it.


I think most of us fans would welcome a male M, once Dench decides to leave the role (I suspect it may actually be her decision). But as things in the recent past often came unexpected, I tend to think about another female replacement, perhaps even after a film without M. I missed Lee in FYEO, but for the films plot his absence wasn't much of a hindrance. I don't know any better than the next fellow member what plans EON has for coming changes in the casting of this role, but from experience I'd say they will most likely try to give it a little twist, if it's possible.

I don't think it would be a problem. I would guess that 80% of the people watching a Bond movie have never seen Spooks. I've certainly never seen it.

[Trident]

I don't think it would be a problem. I would guess that 80% of the people watching a Bond movie have never seen Spooks. I've certainly never seen it.

Good point. May very well be that I overestimate Firth's and the 'Spooks' popularity. Still I'm not convinced it would be a good idea to bring Firth into the Bond picture. But what about Robert Glenister or his brother Philip? I think either of these two could make a new male M a very original character.

[Trident]

I thought of a true Whitehall mandarin who is playing both fields, politics and intelligence with equal fervour, somebody not immediately on Bond's side, someone Bond doesn't trust like a father/mother figure. Someone who always has another file on his desk, his mind already occupied with the next problem, with hardly any time to dwell with Bond on his recent merits or his next mission or, God forbid, his feelings. Someone who uses Bond as an instrument as he would push a button. And their relationship only gradually change over an arch of several films.

This is of course pushing the nature of a character who hasn't that much screen time and hardly enough scenes to transport such a background and development. It would far better fit the literary Bond and I'm not entirely sure if EON's version has the room for such a constellation between Bond and M. But I would like to see them give it a try.

[Zorin Industries]

I don't think it would be a problem. I would guess that 80% of the people watching a Bond movie have never seen Spooks. I've certainly never seen it.

Good point. May very well be that I overestimate Firth's and the 'Spooks' popularity. Still I'm not convinced it would be a good idea to bring Firth into the Bond picture. But what about Robert Glenister or his brother Philip? I think either of these two could make a new male M a very original character.

Peter Firth will NOT play M in a Bond movie. Why? Not because he has played a similiar role before, but because he is not that an intriguing casting choice and - to be fair - would be a bit dull in the part.

[Trident]

I don't think it would be a problem. I would guess that 80% of the people watching a Bond movie have never seen Spooks. I've certainly never seen it.

Good point. May very well be that I overestimate Firth's and the 'Spooks' popularity. Still I'm not convinced it would be a good idea to bring Firth into the Bond picture. But what about Robert Glenister or his brother Philip? I think either of these two could make a new male M a very original character.

Peter Firth will NOT play M in a Bond movie. Why? Not because he has played a similiar role before, but because he is not that an intriguing casting choice and - to be fair - would be a bit dull in the part.

But it's certainly not all about intriguing casting choices, is it? I mean, while Dench was a quite spectacular hit she really only took off in CR and QOS for me. She had the line in Goldeneye declaring Bond a relic or something IIRC, but apart from that over several films her part was just nice. Which became a bit dull in its own right by DAD. So simple dullness alone wouldn't count anybody immediately out, it would seem.

Another intriguing choice was Edward Fox, but his three (or was that four???) sentences were the epitome of dullness to me, although they fiercely struggled to reach the shores of parody. Apparently alluringness in casting the part is not a safe bet to avoid dullness. So the question remains, who can keep us on the entertained side of M while avoiding the treacherous shoals and reefs of making him/her either boring or ridiculous?

[Zorin Industries]

I don't think it would be a problem. I would guess that 80% of the people watching a Bond movie have never seen Spooks. I've certainly never seen it.

Good point. May very well be that I overestimate Firth's and the 'Spooks' popularity. Still I'm not convinced it would be a good idea to bring Firth into the Bond picture. But what about Robert Glenister or his brother Philip? I think either of these two could make a new male M a very original character.

Peter Firth will NOT play M in a Bond movie. Why? Not because he has played a similiar role before, but because he is not that an intriguing casting choice and - to be fair - would be a bit dull in the part.

But it's certainly not all about intriguing casting choices, is it? I mean, while Dench was a quite spectacular hit she really only took off in CR and QOS for me. She had the line in Goldeneye declaring Bond a relic or something IIRC, but apart from that over several films her part was just nice. Which became a bit dull in its own right by DAD. So simple dullness alone wouldn't count anybody immediately out, it would seem.

Another intriguing choice was Edward Fox, but his three (or was that four???) sentences were the epitome of dullness to me, although they fiercely struggled to reach the shores of parody. Apparently alluringness in casting the part is not a safe bet to avoid dullness. So the question remains, who can keep us on the entertained side of M while avoiding the treacherous shoals and reefs of making him/her either boring or ridiculous?

Edward Fox was not in an Eon produced Bond film. It was a one off film where its casting was hardly superb.

You may think Judi Dench only came into the part since Craig but the wider audiences welcomed what she did in the role from that first scene where she offers Pierce Brosnan a drink in the office.

Eon is all about intriguing, fresh and wise casting choices.

[Zorin Industries]

I don't think it would be a problem. I would guess that 80% of the people watching a Bond movie have never seen Spooks. I've certainly never seen it.

Good point. May very well be that I overestimate Firth's and the 'Spooks' popularity. Still I'm not convinced it would be a good idea to bring Firth into the Bond picture. But what about Robert Glenister or his brother Philip? I think either of these two could make a new male M a very original character.

Peter Firth will NOT play M in a Bond movie. Why? Not because he has played a similiar role before, but because he is not that an intriguing casting choice and - to be fair - would be a bit dull in the part.

But it's certainly not all about intriguing casting choices, is it? I mean, while Dench was a quite spectacular hit she really only took off in CR and QOS for me. She had the line in Goldeneye declaring Bond a relic or something IIRC, but apart from that over several films her part was just nice. Which became a bit dull in its own right by DAD. So simple dullness alone wouldn't count anybody immediately out, it would seem.

Another intriguing choice was Edward Fox, but his three (or was that four???) sentences were the epitome of dullness to me, although they fiercely struggled to reach the shores of parody. Apparently alluringness in casting the part is not a safe bet to avoid dullness. So the question remains, who can keep us on the entertained side of M while avoiding the treacherous shoals and reefs of making him/her either boring or ridiculous?

Edward Fox was not in an Eon produced Bond film. It was a one off film where its casting was hardly superb.

You may think Judi Dench only came into the part since Craig but the wider audiences welcomed what she did in the role from that first scene where she offers Pierce Brosnan a drink in the office.

Eon is all about intriguing, fresh and wise casting choices.

[Zorin Industries]

I don't think it would be a problem. I would guess that 80% of the people watching a Bond movie have never seen Spooks. I've certainly never seen it.

Good point. May very well be that I overestimate Firth's and the 'Spooks' popularity. Still I'm not convinced it would be a good idea to bring Firth into the Bond picture. But what about Robert Glenister or his brother Philip? I think either of these two could make a new male M a very original character.

Peter Firth will NOT play M in a Bond movie. Why? Not because he has played a similiar role before, but because he is not that an intriguing casting choice and - to be fair - would be a bit dull in the part.

But it's certainly not all about intriguing casting choices, is it? I mean, while Dench was a quite spectacular hit she really only took off in CR and QOS for me. She had the line in Goldeneye declaring Bond a relic or something IIRC, but apart from that over several films her part was just nice. Which became a bit dull in its own right by DAD. So simple dullness alone wouldn't count anybody immediately out, it would seem.

Another intriguing choice was Edward Fox, but his three (or was that four???) sentences were the epitome of dullness to me, although they fiercely struggled to reach the shores of parody. Apparently alluringness in casting the part is not a safe bet to avoid dullness. So the question remains, who can keep us on the entertained side of M while avoiding the treacherous shoals and reefs of making him/her either boring or ridiculous?

Edward Fox was not in an Eon produced Bond film. It was a one off film where its casting was hardly superb.

You may think Judi Dench only came into the part since Craig but the wider audiences welcomed what she did in the role from that first scene where she offers Pierce Brosnan a drink in the office.

Eon is all about intriguing, fresh and wise casting choices.

[Trident]

Eon is all about intriguing, fresh and wise casting choices.

And never a wrong note!

[Aris007]

Call me crazy but he looks like the middle-aged-nearly-bald Craig!

[The Incredible Suit]

Hell yes. As has been mentioned before, Bond should respect M unquestionably, and Dench should have left at the time of the reboot.

For what it's worth, I'd have Terence Stamp, Ian McKellen, Martin Shaw, Anthony Head, Bernard Hill, Charles Dance, David Warner or Geoffrey Palmer in a promotion from his TND role.

I've been meaning to write a post about this on my blog, The Incredible Suit, for ages - this thread's given me the boost I need to do it this week!

[Mr. Du Pont]

TIS,

I like the Bernard Hill recommendation a lot. I detest the Ian McKellan suggestion. But I have to say I'm surprised nobody has mentioned my first choice yet...




C'mon! Tell me that's not M.

[DaveBond21]

I think Sam Neill is too well known. I am sure that the next actor to play M will only be as famous as Daniel Craig was 4 years ago - ie. not very.

[Mr. Du Pont]

Relatively well known, but still a versatile character actor. The choice wouldn't be like bringing on Harrison Ford or Sean Connery (megastar A-listers linked to iconic characters). I wouldn't say Neill is any more well known than Dench herself.

Besides, just picture him with hair combed back, that blue bowtie with white polka dots, maybe a pair of glasses, and tell me you don't see Bernard Lee come back to life.

[The Incredible Suit]

OK, I managed to do my blog post about this. Check it out if you're interested:

http://theincredible...gginboggle.html

Basically I ditched Mckellen and Head and plumped for a face off between Bernard Hill and David Warner. Those guys could seriously kick that young whippersnapper Bond into shape!

[scottbuster2000]

Roy Marsden

[DaveBond21]

OK, I managed to do my blog post about this. Check it out if you're interested:

http://theincredible...gginboggle.html

Basically I ditched Mckellen and Head and plumped for a face off between Bernard Hill and David Warner. Those guys could seriously kick that young whippersnapper Bond into shape!

Interesting suggestions. I wouldn't mind seeing Warner as some sort of Q-like character.

[jaguar007]

Michael Gambon could certainly be a Lee type M