James Bond: 007 - Spectre - - Part 11

[Roose Bolton]

Fiennes has made it clear that he'll play M for as long as they'll have him. If Judi Dench can survive a complete reboot then there's no reason for Fiennes to go.

 

[The Guard]

I don't want to see Ben Whishaw's Q leave, either.

I'm fine with the "soft reboot" and keeping some familiar faces.

 

[Schlosser85]

5139]Making M a traitor would have been a TERRIBLE idea (and I've heard that Fiennes flat-out refused to do it).

-[/B]He's often typecast as villains anyway, so there wouldn't have been a big surprise there.
-No other M has done that.
-The big thing in Skyfall with his character was the whole "can they trust him or not?" And ultimately, it turned out that he could. So having him turn out to be an evil traitor in the very next film would have completely crapped all over that arc.

Exactly to both of these points.

You see Ralph Fiennes' name at the beginning of a Bond movie, and you almost expect him to be the villain.

And I think they kind of toyed with our expectations. Earlier in the movie, there's ambiguity about Mallory being either, best case scenario, an obstructionist bureaucrat, or worst case scenario, actively in league with Silva.

And then when he turns out to be trustworthy and not have as much of a stick up his ass as he seems, it's kind of refreshing, both because it subverts expectations, and it's Ralph Fiennes not being in stereotypical ominous Ralph Fiennes mode.

 

[Schlosser85]

I don't want to see Ben Whishaw's Q leave, either.

I'm fine with the "soft reboot" and keeping some familiar faces.

I find Fiennes as M, Whishaw as Q, and Harris as Moneypenny all very enjoyable.

I think they're all great new versions of those characters.

Whishaw's banter with Craig might be my favorite part out of the whole MI6 crew.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I hope all three stay, and at their ages I see no reason why they can't. If Desmond Llewelyn can play Q for FIVE different Bonds, the current crew can handle more than one.

 

[Gold Samurai]

I hope the new studio that handles bond won't recast everyone like "Spider-Man" did

 

[Roose Bolton]

The new studio has no authority on that; it's purely a distribution deal. MGM/EON still have the full control over the property.

 

[Smilodon]

I personally love how much more active Fiennes' M is compared to the other male M's. Of course, part of it is that he's sort of following the mold set by Judi Dench and the other part of it is that he is Ralph mothereffin Fiennes. He is Amon Goeth, Ramesses II, Francis Dolarhyde, Lord Voldemort, and most importantly, manager of the Grand Budapest Hotel, Monsieur Gustave.

But yes, considering how they've amped up the supporting cast of the Bond films like the Nolan Batman films, I don't think they'll be throwing out the current talent they have right now.

 

[Silvermoth]

To be honest he's not my favourite M. I just see Ralph Fiennes. I still prefer judi dench. She was steely and it was cool to see a woman in a James Bond movie who did something else except yell for help and have sex

 

[Roose Bolton]

Ralph was so good in Spectre's last act, really I'd watch a spinoff just following him, Moneypenny, Q and Tanner.

 

[Smilodon]

I definitely love the maternal aspect of M that was capitalized on with the Craig films. I think it added a fascinating dynamic to the Bond films and just made Craig/Dench's interactions all the more interesting and heartbreaking when it ended in Skyfall.

But I also do love Ralph in Spectre. I found some of the dialogue a bit tacky near the end, but I also would be down for a spinoff (maybe like a quick Marvel-esque short?) with him, Moneypenny, Q and Tanner. I think Fiennes' M's background as a soldier and a former prisoner of war also gives a great dynamic with Craig's Bond. M understands that he must work within the system, but deep down is still a soldier and I love how he can still kick butt when the time comes.

 

[Vaibow]

Yeah I really don't get where this sudden "awkwardness" is coming from? We had the same M and Moneypenny through the Connery, Lazenby, and Moore eras. We had the same Q from Connery to Brosnan, we had Blofeld be an enemy of multiple Bond actors. And heck, they even brought back Judi Dench despite a complete continuity reboot. And no one ever batted and eyelash for like FIFTY YEARS!!

But no, all of a sudden, it's "going to be awkward" if they keep the same cast when a new Bond actor comes in, why?

I guess some movie goers expect more these days. simple as that.

 

[Bruce Malone]

The "problem" with the Craig series is they introduced so many series mainstays late in the game. Aside from a new M, there's the new Moneypenny and Q.

In most other cases they'd have been introduced right from the first film or would have been all brought over from the previous Bond actor's tenure.

So it'd feel like a bit of a waste if they were all to be replaced again with a new actor coming on-board.

 

[Octoberist]

I guess some movie goers expect more these days. simple as that.

They'll (and I hate this saying) have to deal with it.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The "problem" with the Craig series is they introduced so many series mainstays late in the game. Aside from a new M, there's the new Moneypenny and Q.

In most other cases they'd have been introduced right from the first film or would have been all brought over from the previous Bond actor's tenure.

So it'd feel like a bit of a waste if they were all to be replaced again with a new actor coming on-board.

Especially since they are all good in the role. It isn't like Caroline Bliss or John Cleese where nobody would miss them.

I hope they go with the Robert Brown approach. He came on board at the end of Roger Moore's tenure and hung around through the Dalton pictures.

 

[Octoberist]

Don't diss Caroline Bliss like that!

She was a hottie Moneypenny and they should've stuck with her in Goldeneye

 

[Frodo]

I guess some movie goers expect more these days. simple as that.

I think to be fair, if the A- Cinemascore is any indication, most film goers liked Spectre, and kinda just take it as is .

It's mainly the online community who have major issues with the film and weren't satisfied.

It's very much the Dark Knight Rises, Age of Ultron, Star Trek Into Darkness internet backlash vs the average filmgoer who's looking for a good time and not an earth shattering film.

 

[Vaibow]

My point was, with the quality of production these days (the detail), the way stories are told, the way narratives unfold - we get invested, i guess thanks to the trilogies, we're more used to a beginning, middle and end where the overall miss en scene is unique and the quilibrium is restored.

What i think has been part of the appeal of Craig is that we are going on this journey with him, so, this reboot has honestly, in my opinion changed things. It's set the bar high, sure they can recast bond, leave the rest, but that would be unchattered waters - it would to me, feel, i guess lazy. Like, the actor can't be that important if they can just change him.

Where as, in my mind, they totally reboot, retcon or whatever you would like to call it and then it feels like we are going into a new era, where they have sat down and given everything some thought gone. Even if they haven't, it just sits better.

Does that make sense - like, 'oh craig is out, let's stick whats his name in, no one will mind'

 

[Roose Bolton]

I think EON made it more than clear that they find the actors who play Bond to be very important to the success of the series. They sign on and they help define the character for a certain amount of time within the minds of movie goers, and if they can, they'll try and keep those actors on as long as possible. That doesn't seem like a sign of disrespect to me.

 

[Loki882]

I like M. I'm not sure if I'd like to see a spinoff of him (but maybe). If we're talking spinoffs, then I'd like to see one with Felix Leiter doing his CIA thing (give me more Jeffrey Wright films). Or one of the previous Bond women (what's Camille up to these days, she was a cool character).

 

[Iceman]

Fiennes has made it clear that he'll play M for as long as they'll have him. If Judi Dench can survive a complete reboot then there's no reason for Fiennes to go.

I don't want to see Ben Whishaw's Q leave, either.

I'm fine with the "soft reboot" and keeping some familiar faces.

Good. And I don't want to see Q go either. They should both get a good number of films under their belt before that becomes necessary.

Miss Judi too

 

[Golgo-13]

There's no need to recast the supporting member whether there's a soft reboot or not. The actors that played the original Q and MoneyPenny remained throughout multiple incarnations of Bond.

And on a side note; i though 'M' stood for 'Mother' as hinted in CR, but according to 007 Wiki its the initial of her last name Barbara Mawdsley in the Bronson Era and Olivia Mansfield in the Craig movies.

 

[Golgo-13]

Good. And I don't want to see Q go either. They should both get a good number of films under their belt before that becomes necessary.

Miss Judi too

Miss her too. I like Fiennes but i get the sense that if she were in Spectre she would have elevated the movie a tad.

 

[Frodo]

My point was, with the quality of production these days (the detail), the way stories are told, the way narratives unfold - we get invested, i guess thanks to the trilogies, we're more used to a beginning, middle and end where the overall miss en scene is unique and the quilibrium is restored.

What i think has been part of the appeal of Craig is that we are going on this journey with him, so, this reboot has honestly, in my opinion changed things. It's set the bar high, sure they can recast bond, leave the rest, but that would be unchattered waters - it would to me, feel, i guess lazy. Like, the actor can't be that important if they can just change him.

Where as, in my mind, they totally reboot, retcon or whatever you would like to call it and then it feels like we are going into a new era, where they have sat down and given everything some thought gone. Even if they haven't, it just sits better.

Does that make sense - like, 'oh craig is out, let's stick whats his name in, no one will mind'

Well , in the end its all subjective and it really depends on what an individual wants from a film . I do think as far as the GA as a whole goes, they go to Bond films, and to alot of genre films, expecting first and foremost to have a good time and be entertained.

I think other expectations as to what the reboot needed to do or what this and that film needed to do really isn't a part of the average filmgoers calculation when they're going to see a film on a friday night.

Its what critics care about and people who discuss and analyze these films critically focus on ,but ultimately, the majority of people who see the film aren't looking at the Bond films with massive expectations, even with the Craig films.

I really don't think the Craig films have changed things so much that now the GA expects much more from Bond films than they did before, though I think films like Skyfall do help in appealing to more audiences then the run of the mill Bond adventure might.

The Craig films are reboots, but I don't think the average filmgoer really cares so much about it being totally separate and doing something radically different from the previous films, because most people haven't seen, or don't care about the 20 odd other Bond films made. They're going in to have a good time, and if the film offer's them something more than just another Bond film that's helps as well.

 

[Visceral]