On Friday night, I joined Hubby at the Sheraton on the Gold Coast, for his work ‘Christmas’ do. It was SO lovely to be pampered in such a luxurious setting – and to not have cherubs saying ‘Mummy?’ every two or so minutes!
Anyway, on Saturday, we planned to watch Skyfall on the way back home. In a spare moment, I updated Facebook and twitter to this effect, relating that I hoped that it would be as good as I had heard. Later that evening, I was asked my opinion – and seeing as my opinion runs to quite a bit longer than the 140 characters of a tweet, or even the 420 limit of Facebook, I mentioned that I’d write something on my blog. Hence this post. (And sorry, Jo, yes I know it’s a day late!!!) Anyway, for those of you who are reading and haven’t yet seen it, and want to, stop reading now. This is your spoiler alert!
Okay. So this movie, Skyfall, stars Daniel Craig as Bond, his third time in this role. And seeing as Casino Royale – his first time – was touted as ‘the first ever Bond film’ (chronologically speaking, that is) and the plot of Quantum of Solace (which I maintain is one of the dumbest film names I’ve ever heard) follows on from Casino Royale, it is valid to think that this – his second time – was then ‘the second ever Bond film’ (again, speaking chronologically). So it makes sense to me, then that this latest Craig portrayal of Bond would be ‘the third ever Bond film’ – even though the filmmakers have been keen to position these latest three films as “a reboot of the series, establishing a new timeline and narrative framework not meant to precede or succeed any previous Bond film“. It still makes sense that Skyfall follows Quantum of Solace (dumb, dumb name!) just as Quantum of Solace (even typing it makes me lose IQ points, I reckon!) followed Casino Royale.
So this then, is my problem. In the end of Skyfall, the scriptwriters kill off Judi Dench’s “M” and replace her with a new “M”, played by Ralph Fiennes.
But this is the seventh time we’ve seen the great Dame Judi as “M”. Four prior to Casino Royale, and now these latest three.
So it makes ZERO sense to me, then, that they kill her off now – when (logical chronological sense prevailing) she’s going to ‘appear again’ when the timeline gets to the Brosnan flicks.
Is it just me, or does that bug the crap out of anyone else?
Anyway. That spoiled it for me. Really, really spoiled it. For crying out loud, if they’d wanted this to be her last film, fine. Let her finish off the film, without dying, and then in the next film, cast Fiennes as M and don’t explain it. Why wouldn’t that work?!! Seriously – it happens all the time with Bond (and Q, Moneypenny etc etc) and we don’t bat an eyelid. So WHY kill her off?!!! Bad writing, in my opinion. Bad, bad writing. Equivalent to the ‘let’s jump in the lake’ of Colin Firth’s Mr Darcy, in the 1995 BBC’s adaptation of Pride and Prejudice.
On a brighter note… anyone read “The Discrete Charm of Charlie Monk” by David Ambrose? Now THAT’S an interesting take on the ‘Bond’ concept!!!