There isn't actually anything in the press conference that suggests M will be in trouble. They didn't even put out a synopsis at the junket - that was in the press release accompanying it.I have not seen the press conference (and yes, Nic, I know you posted it on FB), but from what everyone here seems to be saying, it does seem like something will happen to Judi Dench's M.
'Skyfall' Plot Synopsis.
#151
Posted 06 November 2011 - 06:42 AM
#152
Posted 06 November 2011 - 01:09 PM
Number of letters in abbreviation:
2: DN GF TB MR OP GE CR
3: DAF TLD LTK TND TND QOS
4: FRWL YOLT LALD FYEO
5: OHMSS TSWLM AVTAK TWINE
6: TMWTGG
As you can see the lesser the number of letters, the better the movie. OK, you do have a MR and OP in the 2's but the fact that you have the best of Sean, Pierce, and Daniel in it makes a strong case. At the other side of the spectrum, the longer the abbreviation, the more in trouble we are. OHMSS and TSWLM cannot make up for the 3 worst of Roger. Yes, the 4's do mess up this theory a bit (with great ones like FRWL and FYEO), nevertheless the 3's show how bad Bond can get with clunkers like DAF in it. So whenever Babs and Michael (and their Pops in the past) feel threatened they go back to the safety of the 2's and make a great movie.
Q.E.D.
So by this logic, we can rest assured that SF will be a great one. Unless Fiennes is playing Drax with Javier as Jaws. Or unless Daniel gets into a gorilla and a clown suit.
Anyway all this is moot, as even if there are 100 letters in the abbreviations, Babs and Michael know that we will be watching it and discussing about it until the next one is announced.
#153
Posted 06 November 2011 - 01:55 PM
Yes, very convincing...Adding to the muddle, I have another theory about the title. Theory based on the abbreviations that we fans use for the films.
Number of letters in abbreviation:
2: DN GF TB MR OP GE CR
3: DAF TLD LTK TND TND QOS
4: FRWL YOLT LALD FYEO
5: OHMSS TSWLM AVTAK TWINE
6: TMWTGG
As you can see the lesser the number of letters, the better the movie. OK, you do have a MR and OP in the 2's but the fact that you have the best of Sean, Pierce, and Daniel in it makes a strong case. At the other side of the spectrum, the longer the abbreviation, the more in trouble we are. OHMSS and TSWLM cannot make up for the 3 worst of Roger. Yes, the 4's do mess up this theory a bit (with great ones like FRWL and FYEO), nevertheless the 3's show how bad Bond can get with clunkers like DAF in it. So whenever Babs and Michael (and their Pops in the past) feel threatened they go back to the safety of the 2's and make a great movie.
Q.E.D.
So by this logic, we can rest assured that SF will be a great one. Unless Fiennes is playing Drax with Javier as Jaws. Or unless Daniel gets into a gorilla and a clown suit.
Anyway all this is moot, as even if there are 100 letters in the abbreviations, Babs and Michael know that we will be watching it and discussing about it until the next one is announced.
#154
Posted 06 November 2011 - 01:59 PM
There isn't actually anything in the press conference that suggests M will be in trouble. They didn't even put out a synopsis at the junket - that was in the press release accompanying it.
I have not seen the press conference (and yes, Nic, I know you posted it on FB), but from what everyone here seems to be saying, it does seem like something will happen to Judi Dench's M.
Well Dench did say that she was very very nervous and excited. Why should she be so nervous? She's done this job for nearly 20 years.
#155
Posted 06 November 2011 - 02:14 PM
oh yes, they also had a fire engine dolling out puddles becuase clearly London was not rainy and grey enough!
#156
Posted 06 November 2011 - 10:37 PM
Maybe she always feels nervous in the build-up to filming, then feels fine once shooting begins. Kind of like a job interview. Or maybe she's nervous because production has been on hold for so long, and she wants to get back into the swing of things.Well Dench did say that she was very very nervous and excited. Why should she be so nervous? She's done this job for nearly 20 years.
There could be any number of reasons. And yes, she could be nervous because her character is going to die. But I think that people are reading too much into things - they're sick of the current M-Bond relationship and want Judi Dench gone in such a way that she can never come back.
#157
Posted 06 November 2011 - 10:39 PM
#158
Posted 06 November 2011 - 10:47 PM
Plus, when has EON ever come up with a storyline like that, one which could actually be perceived as taking a risk with the franchise. EON and their writers always play it safe (they even glossed over the ridiculously overhyped "reboot" in Casino Royale), and there's no reason to think that they'll actually do something particularly original this time around.
At this point, I'd be shocked if Dench is not back for Bond 24.
Edited by tdalton, 06 November 2011 - 10:48 PM.
#159
Posted 06 November 2011 - 10:48 PM
I'm hoping that if M has this deep, dark secret, it will shed new light on some of her actions in previous films. Like when Bond revealed that he knew her name and she threatened to have him killed - why would she do that? Because her name is a closely-guarded secret? Or because she was afraid that Bond could look a little deeper and find out her secret?
Of course, it would probably be a retroactive change, but I must confess that I love it when stuff like this happens, changign the meaning of everything that came before.
#160
Posted 06 November 2011 - 10:54 PM
#161
Posted 06 November 2011 - 11:24 PM
#162
Posted 06 November 2011 - 11:34 PM
Really? I get the sense that Bond is practically the only agent she oversees.I'm the same. I like that it has been consistent, and even if M mothers Bond a little bit, I get the sense that she does that to all her agents.
I have a number of grievances about the overuse of M in recent films, in the way that it's been done, but also the very notion itself of make M a bigger presence in the films.
Once of my main problems is that it completely flys in the face of the idea Bond as escapist entertainment, as sexy and dangerous. It's not escapism if your boss tags along for the ride. It's not sexy if your Mum constantly pops in every ten minutes with trite advice. It's not dangerous globetrotting if you're protected by a team monitoring your every step on a big screen back at the office.
Overbearing bosses, judgmental relatives, witless co-workers. These things aren't cool. These things aren't fun. These things aren't dangerous or sexy. Authority figures and office settings, the drab, mundane, sometimes depressing realities of "real life", of the workaday 9-to-5 routine; These things should be limited to five minutes at the beginning to the film, to serve as a quick reminder of what Bond, and we, are about to escape. But in the newer films SHE. JUST. WONT. GO. AWAY.
#163
Posted 06 November 2011 - 11:43 PM
Once of my main problems is that it completely flys in the face of the idea Bond as escapist entertainment, as sexy and dangerous. It's not escapism if your boss tags along for the ride. It's not sexy if your Mum constantly pops in every ten minutes with trite advice. It's not dangerous globetrotting if you're protected by a team monitoring your every step on a big screen back at the office.
Overbearing bosses, judgmental relatives, witless co-workers. These things aren't cool. These things aren't fun. These things aren't dangerous or sexy. Authority figures and office settings, the drab, mundane, sometimes depressing realities of "real life", of the workaday 9-to-5 routine; These things should limited to five minutes at the beginning to the film, to serve as a quick reminder of what Bond, and we, are about to escape. But in the newer films SHE. JUST. WONT. GO. AWAY.
If this were a petition I'd sign it. I liked Dench a lot in GoldenEye. Every film since then has overemphasized MI6. It's becoming grotesque. I especially agree with you about the "team monitoring your every step". I loathe this development. It's like Bond is being operated by remote control. Get rid of Dench, get rid of the nameless swarm of Keebler elves, and let Bond just go out on his own and deal with the mission.
#164
Posted 06 November 2011 - 11:50 PM
#165
Posted 07 November 2011 - 12:35 AM
#166
Posted 07 November 2011 - 12:48 AM
QFT.Once of my main problems is that it completely flys in the face of the idea Bond as escapist entertainment, as sexy and dangerous. It's not escapism if your boss tags along for the ride. It's not sexy if your Mum constantly pops in every ten minutes with trite advice. It's not dangerous globetrotting if you're protected by a team monitoring your every step on a big screen back at the office.
Overbearing bosses, judgmental relatives, witless co-workers. These things aren't cool. These things aren't fun. These things aren't dangerous or sexy. Authority figures and office settings, the drab, mundane, sometimes depressing realities of "real life", of the workaday 9-to-5 routine; These things should limited to five minutes at the beginning to the film, to serve as a quick reminder of what Bond, and we, are about to escape. But in the newer films SHE. JUST. WONT. GO. AWAY.
#167
Posted 07 November 2011 - 01:21 AM
1. He's going to have to kill her (and thereby face dilemma and "Ac-Ting").
2. He's going to have to kill her (and thereby face dilemma and "Ac-Ting") and it turns out he's mistaken / exploited by the villains (and thereby face further dilemma and "Ac-Ting"). Bit of a downer.
3. He's going to have to kill her (and thereby face dilemma and "Ac-Ting") and it turns out he's mistaken / exploited by the villains (and thereby face further dilemma and "Ac-Ting"). Bit of a downer until it turns out it was a fake assassination to draw out a coup to take over the British Government or Cheshire or something.
4. He's going to have to kill her (and thereby face dilemma and "Ac-Ting") and it turns out he's mistaken / exploited by the villains (and thereby face further dilemma and "Ac-Ting") until it turns out it was a fake assassination to draw out a coup to take over the British Government or Cheshire or something except in a final double-twist it turns out he intended to kill her all along anyway, and does. "Ac-Ting" ahoy.
It all sounds very jolly.
Except that this time, it's really, really personal and we mean it.
Of course, we could have a film without "Ac-Ting" but then that would be a "Doc-U-Ment-Tary"....
I would rather have some acting and avoid Doc-U-Ment-Tary if you please. First post after a couple of years!
#168
Posted 07 November 2011 - 04:06 AM
I especially agree with you about the "team monitoring your every step". I loathe this development. It's like Bond is being operated by remote control.
though it's probably fair to say that it is an indication of the way the intelligence world works these days. We saw when the americans went in and killed Bin Laden, that Obama and various military big wigs were all watching it as it happened and telling them what to do, just like we see in the new Bond movies
Pussfeller, exactly. d21089, Good point.
I've never been a huge fan of the call for the Bond adventures to "go period" and return to the 50s/60s, but it would mean a rollback of Information and Telecommunications Technology, I could be persuaded. Miniature spy cams are so much cooler than the latest Sony camera phone anyway, and there's nothing more boring than watching google do all the detective work. A quick crosscheck of the database for the uploaded photo, and we've got our man. Yawn! (and this is a database developer by trade saying that).
Having Bond constantly monitored and in contact changes the nature of his predicaments. It's not the same when there's someone on the other end of an ear piece. With him no longer on his own during the mission, we've lost classic exchanges like this...
BOND
You can't kill me, Professor Chaos. My superiors know where I am. I've sent them a complete report, about you, about this place, and if I don't report in to them by tomorrow, they're going to send the Army, Navy, RAF and LSO here to blow you sky high. You'll find this a lonely and naked little heavily-fortified and extremely well camouflaged billion dollar villain’s lair.
PROFESSOR CHAOS
Actually Mr. Bond, I know that you've made no such report, and that you haven't been in contact with your headquarters since you arrived in Addis Ababa three days ago.
BOND
Nutty fudgekins!
#169
Posted 07 November 2011 - 04:26 AM
But that doesn't automatically mean we can't have good exchanges. Just different ones:Having Bond constantly monitored and in contact changes the nature of his predicaments. With him no longer on his own during the mission, we've lost classic exchanges like this...
BOND
You can't kill me, Professor Chaos. My people know where I am at any given moment, and the minute they lose contact with me, they'll raze this place to the ground and salt the earth.
CHAOS
They can try. But all they will find is a shallow, unmarked grave - if you're lucky enough to be buried at all. And when they realise that, your people will not coming looking for you, Bond.
BOND
No, they won't. They'll come looking for you.
Just no Nutty Fudgekins, because Bond eats a different brand of candy bar thanks to a product-placement deal with a rival company.
#170
Posted 07 November 2011 - 04:50 AM
Any word on who's scoring the film? Would really hope it's Thomas Newman.I think the classic theme will come back for this movie, i'd be shocked if it wasn't in it.
#171
Posted 07 November 2011 - 05:04 AM
No. That's what this thread is for. If there is any information, that's where it will be.Any word on who's scoring the film?
#172
Posted 07 November 2011 - 05:41 AM
#173
Posted 07 November 2011 - 05:54 AM
#174
Posted 07 November 2011 - 05:57 AM
#175
Posted 07 November 2011 - 06:04 AM
Michael G Wilson has always said "you don't have an actress like Dame Judi Dench and not use her..."
-
Exactly. When she was cast as M in GE (1995), she was known and regarded in the UK, but was virtually unknown in the US and other countries. In 1998 she was nominated for an Oscar (and a gazillion since),she won one in 1999 and became one of the most respected actresses worldwide. EON wants to use her to their advantage. There is also the possibility that she would not continue as M unless her role was expanded upon.
#176
Posted 07 November 2011 - 06:14 AM
I do believe that SKYFALL is her last appearance as M. The plot hints at that. I even wonder why she appeared at the press conference (where she seemed as if she did not want to be at all) - could it be because her role in SKYFALL is bigger than usual in order to give her a potent farewell? After this the next films will not be able to play on M´s importance anymore anyway. So, my guess is: we will get a new M with Bond 24.
#177
Posted 07 November 2011 - 06:18 AM
Maybe. But I'd like it better if the role was expanded for SKYFALL in order to really rattle Bond to his core, given that M has clearly done something in the past.could it be because her role in SKYFALL is bigger than usual in order to give her a potent farewell?
I'd like it if the SKYFALL pre-titles (and possibly even the title sequence) bridged the gap between QUANTUM OF SOLACE and SKYFALL, showing Bond becoming a decorated agent on a veriety of missions (kind of a cross between the DAF and CR pre-titles), so that M's past has a greater impact when it comes to light.
#178
Posted 07 November 2011 - 07:12 AM
Bond's loyalty to M is tested as the person who fell from the sky comes back to haunt her in this latest 007 adventure. They were going to call this ICARUS but someone pointed out that this was already taken in DAD.
SKYLAB - LAB + FALL = SKYFALL
Theory 2: SKYFALL was Q BRANCH's solution to nightfall. M made it mandatory in the 90's (before Daniel was a 00) for all the 00's to take it to suppress their libido while in the field. This had an adverse side effect and made the 00's into raging lunatics (some joined KWANTEM with Dominic) and they had to be exterminated by "death by motor oil". Only one was left - Javier, and yes, he is very very angry - at M. Bond's loyalty to M is tested as her past mistake in nightfall control comes back to haunt her in this latest 007 adventure. This time its personal - again.
Theory 3 - Javier was the son abandoned by M because she was an unwed teenager (70'S Flashback with Chloë Grace Moretz as teenage M) and wanted to join MI6. Bereft of the love of a mother, he joins Fiennes who he considers as his mother (Fiennes does the cross dressing bit as a tribute to DAF). So he launches Operation Skyfall to make the sky fall on M. He is very very angry with his M-other. Bond's loyalty to M is tested as her past indiscretions as a teenager comes back to haunt her in this latest 007 adventure. It doesn't get more personal than this.
The crap title song by Lady Gaga goes like this:
I’m alive but tell me am I free
I’ve got eyes but tell me can I see
The sky is falling and no one knows
We shouldn’t be hard to believe
Shouldn’t be this difficult to breathe
The sky is falling and no one knows
from
http://www.poemhunte...sky-is-falling/
#179
Posted 07 November 2011 - 08:16 PM
Will Ralph Fiennes play the young Albert Finney in flashbacks?
I was thinking along those lines as well.
#180
Posted 07 November 2011 - 08:58 PM
I just want them to tie up Quantum before Craig leaves.I'd like it if the SKYFALL pre-titles (and possibly even the title sequence) bridged the gap between QUANTUM OF SOLACE and SKYFALL, showing Bond becoming a decorated agent on a veriety of missions (kind of a cross between the DAF and CR pre-titles), so that M's past has a greater impact when it comes to light.

