50 replies to this topic

[Captain Tightpants]

I don't think they're going to make M a villain. However, I could see Quantum using their political influence to put M on trial for treason. Look at her track record since CASINO ROYALE: Bond embarrassed England and MI6 at the embassy, the agency was infiltrated by two separate enemy agents, Bond lost the poker money in Venice, MI6 failed to recognise that Dominic Greene was a threat, M lost control of Bond and later ignored a direct order from the Foreign Secretary to rein him back in. Although MI6 was able to prevent a coup and the international red faces that would have arisen from it when they realised Greene had played them, and Bond was proven right, M's position has been plagued by failures. Given that she and Bond eventually get the job done, the Prime Minister might be willing to overlook her overights, but with Quantum in a position to directly influence the Prime Minister, they could easily have M detained and put on trial as a way of tying Bond's hands. Even if BOND 23 is a standalone film, seaprate from the Quantum stories, it would make for a nice little subplot to set up BOND 24, with Bill Tanner trying to find a way out for her and run an investigation into her interim replacement. It would also give M something to do without having to fly out to meet Bond, and force Bond into a situation where he has to work without over-reliance on MI6 (as so many people want him to). No doubt it would end with M being acquitted, but forced to step down from her position.

[DaveBond21]

I don't think they're going to make M a villain. However, I could see Quantum using their political influence to put M on trial for treason. Look at her track record since CASINO ROYALE: Bond embarrassed England and MI6 at the embassy, the agency was infiltrated by two separate enemy agents, Bond lost the poker money in Venice, MI6 failed to recognise that Dominic Greene was a threat, M lost control of Bond and later ignored a direct order from the Foreign Secretary to rein him back in. Although MI6 was able to prevent a coup and the international red faces that would have arisen from it when they realised Greene had played them, and Bond was proven right, M's position has been plagued by failures. Given that she and Bond eventually get the job done, the Prime Minister might be willing to overlook her overights, but with Quantum in a position to directly influence the Prime Minister, they could easily have M detained and put on trial as a way of tying Bond's hands. Even if BOND 23 is a standalone film, seaprate from the Quantum stories, it would make for a nice little subplot to set up BOND 24, with Bill Tanner trying to find a way out for her and run an investigation into her interim replacement. It would also give M something to do without having to fly out to meet Bond, and force Bond into a situation where he has to work without over-reliance on MI6 (as so many people want him to). No doubt it would end with M being acquitted, but forced to step down from her position.

Interesting idea, and it also highlights just how many failures M has had in the last 2 movies.

But even in the Brosnan movies she made mistakes – she was duped by Elektra King in TWINE and then employed yet another infiltrator, Miranda Frost in M16, in DAD.

------------

[Captain Tightpants]

But even in the Brosnan movies she made mistakes – she was duped by Elektra King in TWINE and then employed yet another infiltrator, Miranda Frost in M16, in DAD.

We're in a new timeline, remember? Judi Dench might still be playing M, but the history began with CASINO ROYALE. Anything that came before is inconsequential.

[SecretAgent007]

Maybe they will do the beginning of TMWTGG where Bond is brainwashed and trys to kill M?

[Captain Tightpants]

Maybe they will do the beginning of TMWTGG where Bond is brainwashed and trys to kill M?

No, because you need to show how Bond got into that state in the first place. Bond's actions at the beginning of TMWTGG originate from his condition at the end of YOLT - he was knocked unconscious and developed amnesia when escaping from the Garden of Death, and was sheltered from the world by Kissy Suzuki, but eventually began to become fixated on Vladivostok and made his way there to find answers (sorry if the details aren't quite right; it's been a while since I've read it). The point is that Bond cannot simply walk into MI6 at the beginning of BOND 23 and attempt to kill M for no reason. There has to be an antecedent, something that shows what set him off in the first place.

Besides, I think too many people are convincing themselves that Morgan's "big hook" has something to do with m's death simply because they do not like Dench as M and want to get rid of her.

[SecretAgent007]

Bond could be brainwashed in the 1st act. The assasination attempt could come in the 2nd, and the concequences in the 3rd act. His attempt would not have to follow the events at the conclusion of YOLT.
I never implied it would be at the beginning of the film, I mentioned this happened at the beginning of TMWTGG.

[triviachamp]

How about the assassination is the first act, the second act is a flashback showing the lead up and the third shows its effects?

[SecretAgentFan]

How about the assassination is the first act, the second act is a flashback showing the lead up and the third shows its effects?

Exactly. I could imagine that, too.

On the other hand, at the end of QOS we finally got a Bond who found his groove. To start of BOND 23 with him having lost it is kind of... depressing, don t you think?

[DaveBond21]

But even in the Brosnan movies she made mistakes – she was duped by Elektra King in TWINE and then employed yet another infiltrator, Miranda Frost in M16, in DAD.

We're in a new timeline, remember? Judi Dench might still be playing M, but the history began with CASINO ROYALE. Anything that came before is inconsequential.

Yes, I know. But what I mean is the idea of M making mistakes has been done to death in the last few movies. In fact it would be a novelty if M did everything perfectly and was only in 2 scenes.



-

[Captain Tightpants]

How about the assassination is the first act, the second act is a flashback showing the lead up and the third shows its effects?

Because it's a cheap tactic used to artificially generate tension.

[Zorin Industries]

Why is everyone hanging their trilby on M here? Just saying.

Why is M automatically involved in Peter Morgan's possibly retained 'hook'?

Might M not be a character you can play with? Having the current incarnation mixed up in any wrong doing surely s on the heritage of the Dench films, the heritage of M as a character in all the films and sticks two fingers up at the audience. That would not be 'shocking'. That would just be lazy.

[univex]

Why is everyone hanging their trilby on M here? Just saying.

Why is M automatically involved in Peter Morgan's possibly retained 'hook'?

Might M not be a character you can play with? Having the current incarnation mixed up in any wrong doing surely s on the heritage of the Dench films, the heritage of M as a character in all the films and sticks two fingers up at the audience. That would not be 'shocking'. That would just be lazy.

True. Although M hasn´t been the same person over the years, so you can´t really say it would have any effect on the heritage of M as a character, it´s not like in M:I, with Jim (he was supposed to be the same person).
But I do agree with you Zorin, it would be lazy and to tell ya the truth...boring. I say the "hook" is a different thing other than any M plot. Although I´d love for them to retire M and bring the Admiral and his secretary Miss Moneypenny in as substitutes - and that wouldn´t even have to be a central plot gimmick.

Edited by univex, 09 September 2011 - 10:21 AM.

[Captain Tightpants]

Why is everyone hanging their trilby on M here? Just saying.

Why is M automatically involved in Peter Morgan's possibly retained 'hook'?

Because people don't like Dench's M and her maternal - some would say coddling - approach to her agents. So they're looking for a way to write her out of the franchise entirely, either by having her killed off or by making her corrupt ("M is the head of Quantum" is the most ridiculous idea I've heard in a long time). Morgan's hook just gives them the excuse to do it.

[Ace Roberts]

My gut feeling is this will all revolve around the character that Javier Bardem plays. I think that this movie will center on his revenge for Bond's interference in CR & QoS, and if there is a death or assassination of M or someone close to Bond - that he will be at the center of it. I think the hints of this being a "classic" Bond film stem from just that - and is why I think it will be called Risico (like Goldfinger) after his character's name. Whatever shocking happenstance occurs, I think it will happen early and that the remainder of the film will focus on Bond seeking vengence. I'm sure all this is not original in thought process, but is the path I think will occur.

[Captain Tightpants]

My gut feeling is this will all revolve around the character that Javier Bardem plays.

Bardem is also unconfirmed.

[Shrublands]

Let’s say the part that Bardem was approached to play then (and I think will play).
I also imagine that this character will be pivotal to the main premise - a much more fruitful line of speculation than anything involving M, in my opinion.
As for this character being called Risico, I think it’s as good a bet as any right now. Just my feeling.

[Captain Tightpants]

I think an interesting way of doing things would be to have a Bond film with very little Bond in it. While on assignment, Bond disappears - not unlike the end of YOLT - and another Double-Oh (say the character intended for Bardem) is sent to find out what happened. Possibly with the reveal that the other Double-Oh is corrupt and the entire thing is a setup to flush him out. Parts of CR and QOS really shows how Bond sees the world, but we've never really seen Bond through the eyes of the world.

[Shrublands]

It seems that when Morgan was first formulating his pitch and central idea, the question he kept asking himself was, “Do I think it’s still believable that a British secret agent is saving the world?” and the answer was “No”.

Therefore, it’s reasonable to assume that his big, clever idea involves a way of making this credible in his eyes.

Umm… I need to think about this one…

[SecretAgentFan]

Why is everyone hanging their trilby on M here? Just saying.

Why is M automatically involved in Peter Morgan's possibly retained 'hook'?

Might M not be a character you can play with? Having the current incarnation mixed up in any wrong doing surely s on the heritage of the Dench films, the heritage of M as a character in all the films and sticks two fingers up at the audience. That would not be 'shocking'. That would just be lazy.

Hmmm, so M is not the big shocker, Zorin?

What might be the next logical step for CraigBond then?

We have a serious bloke, starting out in the service, going too far, losing control, falling in love, being betrayed, becoming bitter, experiencing another loss, learning from it, becoming a valuable asset for the Service.

Could the big shocker be: Craig totally lightens up? Enjoying his job like... OMG... like Sir Roger did, cracking jokes, going into outer space...

Naw.

Of course, Bond will be "funnier" next time. But the big idea Morgan was feeding into the PR machine must be something else.

Could it really be Bond falling into the villain´s hands and being brainwashed - "Golden Gun"-like?

Somehow, that might be too problematic, as well, after having established Bond really only at the end of QOS.

Zorin, could you give us one more tidbit to speculate on?

[SecretAgent007]

Maybe Morgan wanted some extra attention and is full of crap about the whole thing.

[SecretAgentFan]

Maybe Morgan wanted some extra attention and is full of crap about the whole thing.

I would not be surprised.