40 replies to this topic

[AgentPB]

Without giving away the ending or plot of CR, can someone tell me if things are going back to normal? I would be really disappointed if Q, and Moneypenny, and the gun-barrel sequences and everything weren't normal. The changes the made for this film are just because were are meeting bond for the first time right? After this move things should go back to normal right? Does anybody know?

[Qwerty]

I would expect and hope the gunbarrel be back to the way Bond fans know it as.

[Vilain]

Yes, lets bring back all the tired dredge they cut to make Casino Royale fresh and unpredictable!

Surely we all want to see the those same scenes we've watched oh, about, twenty times before appear once more on the screen with new actors and those witty DAD one liners.

[AgentPB]

I don't know with the new character Craig brings i think he could make the Q scenes fun to watch again. If we get a Moneypenny with some sex appeal we could get some actual sexual tension between the two. I think these characters still have new stuff to bring to the series. At the very least Q could into the field again to assist Bond.

[Cody]

Character-wise, I would think that Q and Moneypenny will return at some point in the near future. But if "back to normal" includes going straight back to formula, where the same scenes and banter are repeated in every movie, I hope not. It gets kind of tedious when rewatching.

Edit: Yeah, what Vilain said while I was putting my post together.

Edited by Cody, 24 October 2006 - 11:11 PM.

[AgentPB]

Character-wise, I would think that Q and Moneypenny will return at some point in the near future. But if "back to normal" includes going straight back to formula, where the same scenes and banter are repeated in every movie, I hope not. It gets kind of tedious when rewatching.

Edit: Yeah, what Vilain said while I was putting my post together.

Exactly it does get boring but i hope they will be able to bring them back and inject some freshness into their characters. If your against the formula are you also against all gadgets? They got a little ridiculous near the end , but i'd still like to see some type of plausible gadget.

[Blonde Bond]

Although part of me wants things to get back to normal for bond 22 (Q,Moneypenny,gadgets etc), I'd like to wait and see how this reboot works.
If it works better than I hope, and without certain characters, I could manage without seeing familiar faces, familiar inventions of the previous 20 Bond movies.

Like someone pointed out in the gunbarrel thread, I could see a gunbarrel appearing before the credits, if it was done right for each movie and not look too much forced.


Although I always liked Bond/Q scenes in the franchise,I could also see Q and Moneypenny making their scenes, when necessary for the story. Again, if the storytellers feel their appearance forced in the story better leave them out. Same with the gadgets. Although, I want to see more of these too. Just keep them realistic.

[Jim]

I suspect that what Casino Royale will set in place will be the new normal.

[JimmyBond]

I suspect that what Casino Royale will set in place will be the new normal.

Promise?

Honestly, the door that's being opened with Casino Royale is not one that can be easily closed. And besides, it would be incredibly disappointing if after one "fresh" film, they put all the old things back in that made the more recent ones turn stale.

[Jim]

I suspect that what Casino Royale will set in place will be the new normal.

Promise?

Honestly, the door that's being opened with Casino Royale is not one that can be easily closed. And besides, it would be incredibly disappointing if after one "fresh" film, they put all the old things back in that made the more recent ones turn stale.

I can only hope so.

Since the incident with the kittens*, I only have so much influence with Eon.

But I'm with you on this one - to sink back into cliche would be odd.


*really nasty

[Cody]

If your against the formula are you also against all gadgets? They got a little ridiculous near the end , but i'd still like to see some type of plausible gadget.

I'm not against all gadgets (my favorite Bond movie is Goldfinger, and I love the Aston therein), but I don't think Bond necessarily needs to be outfitted with a new assortment of them in every film. I'm not a fan of gadget over-abundance and over-reliance.

[RazorBlade]

For myself I am more interested in story and character than in the staples of the older films. I read somewhere on this site that IF was in the process of re-booting Bond in TMWTGG when he unfortunately passed away. Change is necessary for anything to live and grow, even James Bond. Let's let JB change and grow. Let's take some chances and see where it takes us. Let's motor. Sorry that last bit was from the American Mini ads.

My favorite TV shows from the past few years were TWIN PEAKS, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER and ANGEL. In these stories the old rules didn't apply and the story tellers were free to create fresh material that entertained a discriminating audience. I'd love it if Eon did the same here. As it looks as though they are, let's motor, er, I mean, let's support them.

Now if you will excuse me I must go buy a Mini.

[Jackanaples]

Well, I for one hope that the filmmakers don't hesitate to drop traditions that worked better back in the 1960s in favor of creating new ones for audiences of today. James Bond movies should be spy thrillers that leave you on the edge of your seat --not a comfortable sock monkey to go to every couple years or so.

I'm sure we haven't seen the last of gadgets, but I expect any gadgetry will be scaled down to more believable and generally useful levels. The problem with gadgets like a car outfitted with missle launchers, oil slicks, etc. is that have a reverse effect of making Bond look weak. Jason Bourne beating living hell out of an assassin with nothing more than a rolled up magazine was thrilling to watch than any Q Branch creation of the past 25 years. Less is more (and more creative) when it's time to kick butt.

I think the next few Bond movies will be much more interesting for this. Instead of the tiresome "Get-out-of-trouble-free" card from Q, Bond is going to have to rely on his own skills, quick wits, and resourcefulness. I'm sure once audiences have gotten some of that, thoughts of gadgets will fade from their minds.

As for Moneypenny, again: If they opt not to introduce her again, I have no problem with that. I'm sure Craig would bring off those scenes extremely well, but I'd rather they just go for something new.

[SecretAgentFan]

I

[DamnCoffee]

I hope Eon will bring the old gunbarrel back in Bond 22 ( it will be interesting to see how craig walks and shoots) and i think Moneypenny and Q should return though i dont think cleese suited the Craig era

[Jericho_One]

I think we can be almost sure the gunbarrel will be back to the usual.
As for the rest, we'll have to wait and see...

[00Twelve]

Gunbarrel:

It's always nice to see the gunbarrel at the beginning, the immediate marking of Bond's territory. But, in the FUTURE GUNBARRELS http://debrief.comma...showtopic=32716 thread, I listed my ideas for freshness there.

Moneypenny: I'm with SecretAgentFan on the progression of Moneypenny, and my big concern with her is they drop the NOT-witty "cunning linguist" and "cigar tube" jokes. Next film was bound to have Samantha Bond photocopying her boobs and putting it in a file for Bond to see-"For Your Eyes Only". Moneypenny should have a small role, bring her back to the beginning when she didn't know Bond well and perhaps make her a little shy of openly flirting at this point, but make her longing for James internal, hinted at, as if she'd die if he'd only ask her to dinner. I'm saying, a 25-30 year old.

In fact, I'd also like to see Loelia Ponsonby in the 00 dept.

Q:

Um, I'm for having Major Boothroyd give Bond a practical gadget or two, but as Jackanaples said earlier, having Bond get out of a situation with his thinking and fighting skills is infinitely more interesting than watching him rocket away to safety. I don't think the obligatory 5 min.+ "Q scene" has to stay. Not in every film. I know, it's a warm fuzzy for a lot of folks, but in the end, if the story measures up, we won't really miss him. As for "him," I say take him back to hardly knowing Bond. It's the logical move to make, considering we're starting over. Who plays him doesn't matter to me.

Hey, I wanna see Bill Tanner again, though. I don't care if he's black or white, but he was more of a staple in Fleming than Q or Moneypenny, and I'd like to see him in his original form, as Bond's best friend in the service.

Edited by 00Twelve, 25 October 2006 - 02:01 PM.

[SecretAgentFan]

Next film was bound to have Samantha Bond photocopying her boobs and putting it in a file for Bond to see-"For Your Eyes Only".

Let

[DamnCoffee]

I could just imagine DC and Michael Kitchen (as Bond and Tanner)walking through Mi6, chatting casually, and yeah, it works

[mrweasley]

I would like to see the gunbarrel as always. It think that this would not interfere with the new way of the series. After all a Bond movie should "feel" like a Bond movie. That doesen`t mean they should go back to the old formula but keep the roots in mind.

[JimmyBond]

[quote name='SecretAgentFan' post='632995' date='25 October 2006 - 06:12']

Or should it be a man? Don

[killkenny kid]

I could just imagine DC and Michael Kitchen (as Bond and Tanner)walking through Mi6, chatting casually, and yeah, it works

Indeed, For some reason I dont see the old Q and Moneyenny scenes, working with Craig. They would seem out of place. imo.

[00Twelve]

I certainly hope the character of Bond doesn't go back to "normal" in the next film. I hope they don't have Craig's Bond "become the agent we all know and love" too soon. I like his Bond better. It's the original concept of Bond. And it ain't broke, so...

[JimmyBond]

From the news of Bond 22 (no spoilers, I promise), it sounds like Craig is keen on exploring more aspects of Bond's character. It seems that this "new" Bond we're getting in CR will continue on into the next film.

Not to mention the fact that the next film is more of a direct sequel to CR, something we've never had in the series before, yes, Bond 22 will not take things back to "normal."

[Bond_Bishop]

I would presume they bring back the good old gunbarrel like it is used to be. And I hope they bring back Moneypenny as well. I'll do fine without Q

[Mike00spy]

For Q and Moneypenny-

I hope they do appear in the series again and I'm all for making them different and fresh. After all, they weren't the problem.

[icecold]

I want the gunbarrel back. Period. The way it was. That's one thing that has never changed in any film before it and the only thing that irks me about Casino Royale.

As for Q and Moneypenny, I would enjoy seeing them back if they were done right and not just there for gimmick's sake. And bring in Bond's secretary!

Edit: someone up there mentioned Bill Tanner and I completely agree. I loved Michael Kitchen's portrayal and seeing the character back and in a bigger role like Fleming would be grand.

Edited by icecold, 10 November 2006 - 05:50 PM.

[00Twelve]

I wouldn't mind Q or Moneypenny returning, but NOT as the self-parodies they had become by the end of the Brosnan years!!

I mean, Cleese's casting was inspired, but I'd rather see a more downbeat Boothroyd, whether it's Cleese or not. (Even though he wasn't actually playing Boothroyd...)

[bill007]

Gunbarrel? Absolutely!! Moneypenny? She only had a few lines in Casino Royale (the book), so she is definately an explorable figure (pun). Boothroyd? He was in the book, and "Q" evolved later, such as it should be.

I see from earlier postings that Bond 22 might be an actual continuation of CR. THAT would be a welcomed experience. But here is the fork in the road.

Obviously, we can't remake the Fleming book series in order. Re-doing any Sean Connery film would be absolutely sacrilegious. Llewelyn's "Q" must be considered with the same considerations as Moneypenny. And "M"? Well, Dame Judy is the key continuation supporting figure here, isn't she.

So, we are left with the abilities of the host of legacy authors. 007 will have to go on completely new adventures.. Hmmm.... This could get good....

Oh shoot! Daniel Craigs on Letterman tonight. Gotta go!

[bill007]

Well, that was a let down. Letterman's joke about monkeys, and all. And only a short spot of Craig. But, I guess, he got his point across?