The 'Risico' rumour, Vesper's Algerian boyfriend, shooting timetable, Q and Moneypenny... *Plot Spoilers*
Neal Purvis And Robert Wade Discuss 'Bond 22' Details
#1
Posted 29 January 2007 - 05:46 AM
#2
Posted 29 January 2007 - 05:50 AM
#3
Posted 29 January 2007 - 07:22 AM
#4
Posted 29 January 2007 - 07:46 AM
And Monica Belluci as MoneyPenny.
#5
Posted 29 January 2007 - 08:25 AM
#6
Posted 29 January 2007 - 10:17 AM
No Q, no Moneypenny. This is fantastic news. When the filmmakers seek to make use of real strengths like the considerable talents of their star rather than falling back on boring formula, that only bodes well for the series. I never thought I'd see the day James Bond became took chances again.
I agree completely. MONEYPENNY could have a narrative function (albeit in a very small scene or two), but Q should not return just because he always has. That turns BOND into a circus of recurring elements with no eyes on the bigger picture - i.e. the success of the narrative.
#7
Posted 29 January 2007 - 10:36 AM
It all got a bit tiresome, didn't it?
#8
Posted 29 January 2007 - 11:17 AM
I disagree with you. If they have a good solid storyline with strong characters... then 30 sec with Moneypenny and 1 min with Q doesn't make much difference at all.I agree - there has to be some evident purpose to having these characters there other than "...and now it's time to flirt - you have two minutes" and "...and now it's time for Q - you have four minutes".
It all got a bit tiresome, didn't it?
#9
Posted 29 January 2007 - 11:52 AM
I disagree with you. If they have a good solid storyline with strong characters... then 30 sec with Moneypenny and 1 min with Q doesn't make much difference at all.I agree - there has to be some evident purpose to having these characters there other than "...and now it's time to flirt - you have two minutes" and "...and now it's time for Q - you have four minutes".
It all got a bit tiresome, didn't it?
Mr Wint, I'd disagree. But more so with your "1 min with Q" thoughts. Whilst I am a big fan of the old Bernard Lee leather-embossed office scenes (and even the fantastical Roger Moore "let's take the office to Rio, or India or Kowloon" scenes) I think the Brosnan era let down the character of 'Q' - and in turn some of the MI6 scenes. In what was a worthy gesture to Desmond Llewelyn and his involvement since 1963 with the part, the role of 'Q' soon became a caricature of itself. CASINO ROYALE has swept away all of that - for good or bad.
The MI6 office scenes of the Brosnan era were set in this weirdly corporate, shoulder-padded Ken Adam-lite world that was always probably London, but you weren't sure. The most effective of the M / BOND / MONEYPENNY scenes were in TOMORROW NEVER DIES where the vintage car, the castle walls and the pace of the speeding motors lent the whole scene - and indeed the film - a great old school 'management at work' device. And Q's scenes in the very same film seemed to work a lot better too. Llewelyn wasn't reading dummy cards over Brosnan's shoulders either. The film has a superb immediacy about it - which is propelled early on by the MI6 scenes.
However, the office scenes that followed not only hampered the pace of THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and DIE ANOTHER DAY, they threatened to derail the logic - i.e. M being kidnapped, MONEYPENNY's fantasy grope with BOND (a great scene, but a stupid one too) and Q with inflatable anoraks and Basil Fawlty mugging to camera.
The narrative of BOND 22 really has to need MONEYPENNY and Q. CASINO ROYALE worked so well as it dumped the deadwood and the ship still floated. Having Q turn up and explain some gadgets smacks of nostalgia - which has a place in BOND by all means, but doesn't always help forge an airtight screenplay (and I say that from experience).
Edited by Zorin Industries, 29 January 2007 - 02:20 PM.
#10
Posted 29 January 2007 - 04:04 PM
#11
Posted 29 January 2007 - 04:08 PM
Watch out world!
#12
Posted 29 January 2007 - 04:10 PM
#13
Posted 29 January 2007 - 04:16 PM
I disagree with you. If they have a good solid storyline with strong characters... then 30 sec with Moneypenny and 1 min with Q doesn't make much difference at all.I agree - there has to be some evident purpose to having these characters there other than "...and now it's time to flirt - you have two minutes" and "...and now it's time for Q - you have four minutes".
It all got a bit tiresome, didn't it?
Mr Wint, I'd disagree. But more so with your "1 min with Q" thoughts. Whilst I am a big fan of the old Bernard Lee leather-embossed office scenes (and even the fantastical Roger Moore "let's take the office to Rio, or India or Kowloon" scenes) I think the Brosnan era let down the character of 'Q' - and in turn some of the MI6 scenes. In what was a worthy gesture to Desmond Llewelyn and his involvement since 1963 with the part, the role of 'Q' soon became a caricature of itself. CASINO ROYALE has swept away all of that - for good or bad.
The MI6 office scenes of the Brosnan era were set in this weirdly corporate, shoulder-padded Ken Adam-lite world that was always probably London, but you weren't sure. The most effective of the M / BOND / MONEYPENNY scenes were in TOMORROW NEVER DIES where the vintage car, the castle walls and the pace of the speeding motors lent the whole scene - and indeed the film - a great old school 'management at work' device. And Q's scenes in the very same film seemed to work a lot better too. Llewelyn wasn't reading dummy cards over Brosnan's shoulders either. The film has a superb immediacy about it - which is propelled early on by the MI6 scenes.
However, the office scenes that followed not only hampered the pace of THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and DIE ANOTHER DAY, they threatened to derail the logic - i.e. M being kidnapped, MONEYPENNY's fantasy grope with BOND (a great scene, but a stupid one too) and Q with inflatable anoraks and Basil Fawlty mugging to camera.
The narrative of BOND 22 really has to need MONEYPENNY and Q. CASINO ROYALE worked so well as it dumped the deadwood and the ship still floated. Having Q turn up and explain some gadgets smacks of nostalgia - which has a place in BOND by all means, but doesn't always help forge an airtight screenplay (and I say that from experience).
What if the Q had turned up in Casino Royale? A very short dialog that establish his character follow by a scene were Q inject that thing in Bonds arm. Would the whole world go out screaming "OH MY GOD. IT IS THAT TIRED OLD FORMULA AGAIN!!!". I doubt that.
Would TWINE be a far better film without Q or Moneypenny? No. Would it be worse? No. I cant see it.
With Q and Moneypenny we have two small cameos that is part of Bond's film-history. As I see it, they dont affect the overall quality of the film at all. The writers shouldn't waste too much valuable time on these two characters as there has to be other, far more important, things to focus on when creating a good Bondfilm. However, I see no reason to remove them either. If our main writers dont have enough fantasy to create a small cameo, then I dont think they're suitable to write the rest of the film.
Edited by Mr_Wint, 29 January 2007 - 04:17 PM.
#14
Posted 29 January 2007 - 04:28 PM
#15
Posted 29 January 2007 - 04:35 PM
I disagree with you. If they have a good solid storyline with strong characters... then 30 sec with Moneypenny and 1 min with Q doesn't make much difference at all.I agree - there has to be some evident purpose to having these characters there other than "...and now it's time to flirt - you have two minutes" and "...and now it's time for Q - you have four minutes".
It all got a bit tiresome, didn't it?
Mr Wint, I'd disagree. But more so with your "1 min with Q" thoughts. Whilst I am a big fan of the old Bernard Lee leather-embossed office scenes (and even the fantastical Roger Moore "let's take the office to Rio, or India or Kowloon" scenes) I think the Brosnan era let down the character of 'Q' - and in turn some of the MI6 scenes. In what was a worthy gesture to Desmond Llewelyn and his involvement since 1963 with the part, the role of 'Q' soon became a caricature of itself. CASINO ROYALE has swept away all of that - for good or bad.
The MI6 office scenes of the Brosnan era were set in this weirdly corporate, shoulder-padded Ken Adam-lite world that was always probably London, but you weren't sure. The most effective of the M / BOND / MONEYPENNY scenes were in TOMORROW NEVER DIES where the vintage car, the castle walls and the pace of the speeding motors lent the whole scene - and indeed the film - a great old school 'management at work' device. And Q's scenes in the very same film seemed to work a lot better too. Llewelyn wasn't reading dummy cards over Brosnan's shoulders either. The film has a superb immediacy about it - which is propelled early on by the MI6 scenes.
However, the office scenes that followed not only hampered the pace of THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and DIE ANOTHER DAY, they threatened to derail the logic - i.e. M being kidnapped, MONEYPENNY's fantasy grope with BOND (a great scene, but a stupid one too) and Q with inflatable anoraks and Basil Fawlty mugging to camera.
The narrative of BOND 22 really has to need MONEYPENNY and Q. CASINO ROYALE worked so well as it dumped the deadwood and the ship still floated. Having Q turn up and explain some gadgets smacks of nostalgia - which has a place in BOND by all means, but doesn't always help forge an airtight screenplay (and I say that from experience).
What if the Q had turned up in Casino Royale? A very short dialog that establish his character follow by a scene were Q inject that thing in Bonds arm. Would the whole world go out screaming "OH MY GOD. IT IS THAT TIRED OLD FORMULA AGAIN!!!". I doubt that.
Would TWINE be a far better film without Q or Moneypenny? No. Would it be worse? No. I cant see it.
With Q and Moneypenny we have two small cameos that is part of Bond's film-history. As I see it, they dont affect the overall quality of the film at all. The writers shouldn't waste too much valuable time on these two characters as there has to be other, far more important, things to focus on when creating a good Bondfilm. However, I see no reason to remove them either. If our main writers dont have enough fantasy to create a small cameo, then I dont think they're suitable to write the rest of the film.
I see no reason why Q and Manypunny can't be successfully rebooted along with the rest of the franchise. Q needn't be a doddering old uncle. MP needn't be a embarrassing old maid. The first draft of a script or book is the right time to experiment, boldly and creatively. Whether a Q/MP scene shows up in 22 is anybody's guess. But, frankly, if the screenwriters are unable to come up with a rousing new reintroduction to two beloved characters--and make two short cameos both work and fit...then I'm not sure either they've got the right stuff. Make it new, make it fresh, make it rock!
#16
Posted 29 January 2007 - 04:38 PM
No Q, no Moneypenny. This is fantastic news. When the filmmakers seek to make use of real strengths like the considerable talents of their star rather than falling back on boring formula, that only bodes well for the series. I never thought I'd see the day James Bond became took chances again.
Whilst the interview implied quite strongly that Q wasn't returning, I thought it left it open whether Monnypenny would return. I wouldn't mind Monneypenny, even if it's just "M will see you now, James" and an exchange of smiles.
#17
Posted 29 January 2007 - 04:48 PM
I disagree with you. If they have a good solid storyline with strong characters... then 30 sec with Moneypenny and 1 min with Q doesn't make much difference at all.I agree - there has to be some evident purpose to having these characters there other than "...and now it's time to flirt - you have two minutes" and "...and now it's time for Q - you have four minutes".
It all got a bit tiresome, didn't it?
Mr Wint, I'd disagree. But more so with your "1 min with Q" thoughts. Whilst I am a big fan of the old Bernard Lee leather-embossed office scenes (and even the fantastical Roger Moore "let's take the office to Rio, or India or Kowloon" scenes) I think the Brosnan era let down the character of 'Q' - and in turn some of the MI6 scenes. In what was a worthy gesture to Desmond Llewelyn and his involvement since 1963 with the part, the role of 'Q' soon became a caricature of itself. CASINO ROYALE has swept away all of that - for good or bad.
The MI6 office scenes of the Brosnan era were set in this weirdly corporate, shoulder-padded Ken Adam-lite world that was always probably London, but you weren't sure. The most effective of the M / BOND / MONEYPENNY scenes were in TOMORROW NEVER DIES where the vintage car, the castle walls and the pace of the speeding motors lent the whole scene - and indeed the film - a great old school 'management at work' device. And Q's scenes in the very same film seemed to work a lot better too. Llewelyn wasn't reading dummy cards over Brosnan's shoulders either. The film has a superb immediacy about it - which is propelled early on by the MI6 scenes.
However, the office scenes that followed not only hampered the pace of THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and DIE ANOTHER DAY, they threatened to derail the logic - i.e. M being kidnapped, MONEYPENNY's fantasy grope with BOND (a great scene, but a stupid one too) and Q with inflatable anoraks and Basil Fawlty mugging to camera.
The narrative of BOND 22 really has to need MONEYPENNY and Q. CASINO ROYALE worked so well as it dumped the deadwood and the ship still floated. Having Q turn up and explain some gadgets smacks of nostalgia - which has a place in BOND by all means, but doesn't always help forge an airtight screenplay (and I say that from experience).
What if the Q had turned up in Casino Royale? A very short dialog that establish his character follow by a scene were Q inject that thing in Bonds arm. Would the whole world go out screaming "OH MY GOD. IT IS THAT TIRED OLD FORMULA AGAIN!!!". I doubt that.
Would TWINE be a far better film without Q or Moneypenny? No. Would it be worse? No. I cant see it.
With Q and Moneypenny we have two small cameos that is part of Bond's film-history. As I see it, they dont affect the overall quality of the film at all. The writers shouldn't waste too much valuable time on these two characters as there has to be other, far more important, things to focus on when creating a good Bondfilm. However, I see no reason to remove them either. If our main writers dont have enough fantasy to create a small cameo, then I dont think they're suitable to write the rest of the film.
I see no reason why Q and Manypunny can't be successfully rebooted along with the rest of the franchise. Q needn't be a doddering old uncle. MP needn't be a embarrassing old maid. The first draft of a script or book is the right time to experiment, boldly and creatively. Whether a Q/MP scene shows up in 22 is anybody's guess. But, frankly, if the screenwriters are unable to come up with a rousing new reintroduction to two beloved characters--and make two short cameos both work and fit...then I'm not sure either they've got the right stuff. Make it new, make it fresh, make it rock!
There's a screenwriters phrase (or cliche....) that says "throw your babies out with the bath water" (or something akin to that). It means that what is often holding back a script, stalling its pace and hampering the narrative is often the very elements you like the best (in this case - Q and MONEYPENNY). I agree that there is scope for either character to return, but - as a writer - I know how even a decision like replacing VILLIERS with Q for that injection scene in CASINO ROYALE can derail the drama, the exposition and the pace.
It's a bit like a successful sketch show that is returning for a third series. It writes itself. The audience know the gags. They like to know where it's going. Audiences like familiarity. But after a while, the third series then becomes stale and the prospect of getting a fourth commissioned becomes slim.
Audiences are a great deal more savvy with their expectations. TV has upped the bar a bit when it comes to what cinema can get away with. Why have series like LOST, THE SOPRANOS and 24 been so successful with the critics and the viewers? It's because they are relentless in their storytelling and take no prisoners. I think Eon are demonstrating how they operate in exactly the same creative decisions.
Do you think Paul Greengrass and the BOURNE films would keep a much loved character from before just for the sake of it? I seemed to remember that in THE BOURNE SUPREMACY, Matt Damon's girlfriend from the whole of IDENTITY is murdered and immediately the film ups its game to its benefit.
I would add to your view that if "our main writers don't have enough fantasy to create a small cameo, then I don't think they're suitable to write the rest of the film" by saying I am not 100% happy that Purvis & Wade ARE writing BOND 22. The chances of getting Paul Haggis back are remote (though not maybe for an equally rewarding three week polish). However, the pair obviously have a working relationship with Eon - that from the latter's perspective - is vital for a returning series of films.
Edited by Zorin Industries, 29 January 2007 - 04:54 PM.
#18
Posted 29 January 2007 - 04:57 PM
Though not sure how critical that might be since I also still feel that M has never been suitably replaced since Bernard Lee passed away in 1980.
#19
Posted 29 January 2007 - 04:58 PM
I believe it's "kill your babies", and it's good advice.There's a screenwriters phrase (or cliche....) that says "throw your babies out with the bath water" (or something akin to that). It means that what is often holding back a script, stalling its pace and hampering the narrative is often the very elements you like the best (in this case - Q and MONEYPENNY).
I'd be happy with an appearance by Moneypenny. As JCRendle suggests, even if it's just a smile as Bond goes into M's office. Doesn't need to be anything more.
I don't need Q.
I think we all knew the plot of Risico wasn't going to be used (because it already was) but I hope this doesn't mean the title is off the table.
#20
Posted 29 January 2007 - 05:01 PM
I believe it's "kill your babies", and it's good advice.There's a screenwriters phrase (or cliche....) that says "throw your babies out with the bath water" (or something akin to that). It means that what is often holding back a script, stalling its pace and hampering the narrative is often the very elements you like the best (in this case - Q and MONEYPENNY).
I'd be happy with an appearance by Moneypenny. As JCRendle suggests, even if it's just a smile as Bond goes into M's office.
I don't need Q.
I think we all knew the plot of Risico wasn't going to be used (because it already was) but I hope this doesn't mean the title is off the table.
It might be "kill your babies" Stateside, but we are a lot more civilised here in Blighty..!!
I agree. RISICO has scope for a title - even an organisation's moniker. And MONEYPENNY has more validity - both in terms of story and the series heritage - than Q. After all, BOND's history didn't see him bed the Quartermaster...
#21
Posted 29 January 2007 - 05:11 PM
There's a screenwriters phrase (or cliche....) that says "throw your babies out with the bath water" (or something akin to that). It means that what is often holding back a script, stalling its pace and hampering the narrative is often the very elements you like the best (in this case - Q and MONEYPENNY).
ZI,
I agree with the susbtance of your post, but I think you're a little confused on the old cliche. 'Don't throw the baby out with the bath water' means don't throw out what is good (the baby) when you get rid of what isn't (the used bath water)...
#22
Posted 29 January 2007 - 05:23 PM
#23
Posted 29 January 2007 - 05:29 PM
There's a screenwriters phrase (or cliche....) that says "throw your babies out with the bath water" (or something akin to that). It means that what is often holding back a script, stalling its pace and hampering the narrative is often the very elements you like the best (in this case - Q and MONEYPENNY).
ZI,
I agree with the susbtance of your post, but I think you're a little confused on the old cliche. 'Don't throw the baby out with the bath water' means don't throw out what is good (the baby) when you get rid of what isn't (the used bath water)...
I may have got my cliches mixed up here (there's never a cliche check alongside the spelling one, is there?!)
But - if I take Zencat's better phrase ("kill your babies") the sentiment of my point is still the same. What often holds a script back are the very elements a writer's been trying to shoe-horn in left, right and centre because you feel you have to keep them (or want to). But the writing is better served when you are brave enough to throw it all out. A script will often improve instantly if you remove what your instincts are fighting you to keep. It's a painful lesson I re-learn once a month!
#24
Posted 29 January 2007 - 05:30 PM
I disagree with you. If they have a good solid storyline with strong characters... then 30 sec with Moneypenny and 1 min with Q doesn't make much difference at all.I agree - there has to be some evident purpose to having these characters there other than "...and now it's time to flirt - you have two minutes" and "...and now it's time for Q - you have four minutes".
It all got a bit tiresome, didn't it?
Mr Wint, I'd disagree. But more so with your "1 min with Q" thoughts. Whilst I am a big fan of the old Bernard Lee leather-embossed office scenes (and even the fantastical Roger Moore "let's take the office to Rio, or India or Kowloon" scenes) I think the Brosnan era let down the character of 'Q' - and in turn some of the MI6 scenes. In what was a worthy gesture to Desmond Llewelyn and his involvement since 1963 with the part, the role of 'Q' soon became a caricature of itself. CASINO ROYALE has swept away all of that - for good or bad.
The MI6 office scenes of the Brosnan era were set in this weirdly corporate, shoulder-padded Ken Adam-lite world that was always probably London, but you weren't sure. The most effective of the M / BOND / MONEYPENNY scenes were in TOMORROW NEVER DIES where the vintage car, the castle walls and the pace of the speeding motors lent the whole scene - and indeed the film - a great old school 'management at work' device. And Q's scenes in the very same film seemed to work a lot better too. Llewelyn wasn't reading dummy cards over Brosnan's shoulders either. The film has a superb immediacy about it - which is propelled early on by the MI6 scenes.
However, the office scenes that followed not only hampered the pace of THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and DIE ANOTHER DAY, they threatened to derail the logic - i.e. M being kidnapped, MONEYPENNY's fantasy grope with BOND (a great scene, but a stupid one too) and Q with inflatable anoraks and Basil Fawlty mugging to camera.
The narrative of BOND 22 really has to need MONEYPENNY and Q. CASINO ROYALE worked so well as it dumped the deadwood and the ship still floated. Having Q turn up and explain some gadgets smacks of nostalgia - which has a place in BOND by all means, but doesn't always help forge an airtight screenplay (and I say that from experience).
What if the Q had turned up in Casino Royale? A very short dialog that establish his character follow by a scene were Q inject that thing in Bonds arm. Would the whole world go out screaming "OH MY GOD. IT IS THAT TIRED OLD FORMULA AGAIN!!!". I doubt that.
Would TWINE be a far better film without Q or Moneypenny? No. Would it be worse? No. I cant see it.
With Q and Moneypenny we have two small cameos that is part of Bond's film-history. As I see it, they dont affect the overall quality of the film at all. The writers shouldn't waste too much valuable time on these two characters as there has to be other, far more important, things to focus on when creating a good Bondfilm. However, I see no reason to remove them either. If our main writers dont have enough fantasy to create a small cameo, then I dont think they're suitable to write the rest of the film.
I see no reason why Q and Manypunny can't be successfully rebooted along with the rest of the franchise. Q needn't be a doddering old uncle. MP needn't be a embarrassing old maid. The first draft of a script or book is the right time to experiment, boldly and creatively. Whether a Q/MP scene shows up in 22 is anybody's guess. But, frankly, if the screenwriters are unable to come up with a rousing new reintroduction to two beloved characters--and make two short cameos both work and fit...then I'm not sure either they've got the right stuff. Make it new, make it fresh, make it rock!
There's a screenwriters phrase (or cliche....) that says "throw your babies out with the bath water" (or something akin to that). It means that what is often holding back a script, stalling its pace and hampering the narrative is often the very elements you like the best (in this case - Q and MONEYPENNY). I agree that there is scope for either character to return, but - as a writer - I know how even a decision like replacing VILLIERS with Q for that injection scene in CASINO ROYALE can derail the drama, the exposition and the pace.
It's a bit like a successful sketch show that is returning for a third series. It writes itself. The audience know the gags. They like to know where it's going. Audiences like familiarity. But after a while, the third series then becomes stale and the prospect of getting a fourth commissioned becomes slim.
Audiences are a great deal more savvy with their expectations. TV has upped the bar a bit when it comes to what cinema can get away with. Why have series like LOST, THE SOPRANOS and 24 been so successful with the critics and the viewers? It's because they are relentless in their storytelling and take no prisoners. I think Eon are demonstrating how they operate in exactly the same creative decisions.
Do you think Paul Greengrass and the BOURNE films would keep a much loved character from before just for the sake of it? I seemed to remember that in THE BOURNE SUPREMACY, Matt Damon's girlfriend from the whole of IDENTITY is murdered and immediately the film ups its game to its benefit.
I would add to your view that if "our main writers don't have enough fantasy to create a small cameo, then I don't think they're suitable to write the rest of the film" by saying I am not 100% happy that Purvis & Wade ARE writing BOND 22. The chances of getting Paul Haggis back are remote (though not maybe for an equally rewarding three week polish). However, the pair obviously have a working relationship with Eon - that from the latter's perspective - is vital for a returning series of films.
I am familiar with such concepts as pacing, exposition, etc. In the course of four published novels, I managed to learn a few things. I have no emotional attachment, really, to either Q or Moneypenny. They'd both become tired cliches trotted out for easy laughs. My point was simply that bold, inventive writers can play with audience expectations. If I have to choose between Q and MP, I guess I'd side with Zencat in preferring her. Just bring her back in a new way that doesn't hold up the story. Hell, I'd go one step further than Zencat to keep things moving in 22: a shot of MP at her desk, frantically typing away, with her face turned away from the camera.
We can keep taking new prisoners without throwing the tub out with baby and bath.
#25
Posted 29 January 2007 - 05:34 PM
Sorry, Risico lovers! Well, I will say this, if the pressure was ever on P&W to prove that they can be consistently good at writing Bond movies, it is now. Let's see where the road takes us. (New York? Florida? The Carribbean? No? Just me? K.)
It can be set in Bognor Regis or Coney Island if the character dynamics work. Whilst a Bond film still has unchartered territories (Australia, South Africa, Luton), the days of the Alan Whicker travelogue backdrops have hopefully been thrown out with the bath water (!).
Hell, I'd go one step further than Zencat to keep things moving in 22: a shot of MP at her desk, frantically typing away, with her face turned away from the camera.
Now, we're talking! She always had better legs than 'Q'...
Edited by Zorin Industries, 29 January 2007 - 05:40 PM.
#26
Posted 29 January 2007 - 05:45 PM
I see no reason why Q and Manypunny can't be successfully rebooted along with the rest of the franchise. Q needn't be a doddering old uncle.
Agreed.
I think it's refreshing that they're absent from CASINO ROYALE, and I can do without them perfectly well for another couple of films if necessary.... but I'd be saddened to think they'd never, ever return.
Eventual reappearances by Moneypenny and Q - is it wrong for a Bond fan to want this?
#27
Posted 29 January 2007 - 05:55 PM
#28
Posted 29 January 2007 - 05:58 PM
Sorry, Risico lovers! Well, I will say this, if the pressure was ever on P&W to prove that they can be consistently good at writing Bond movies, it is now. Let's see where the road takes us. (New York? Florida? The Carribbean? No? Just me? K.)
Remember Purvis and Wade is the same team that gave us the abysmal The World is not Enough and tired Die Another Day. The reason Casino Royale is so good owes a lot to Ian Fleming and (to a lesser degree) Paul Haggis.
They still have to prove themselves in my eyes.
#29
Posted 29 January 2007 - 06:04 PM
I'm still confused as to why they didn't just use Moneypenny instead of Villiers in CASINO ROYALE. The kid who plays Villiers annoys the hell out of me.
That could be the intention? I don't know... The pomposity and bureaucracy of the character (BOND is dying of heart failure, VILLIERS: "Can you hold the line?") is something polluting British society and governing bodies at the moment. The pathetic and spineless VILLERS is VERY instrinsic to big institutions such as MI6. I was surprised how apt the character was and quite relieved it didn't jar too much with the franchise. BOND will no doubt hold a good grudge when they next meet...?
Some other poster on another thread suggested VILLIERS could have been a mole. It makes a certain narrative sense, but just how many more MI6 moles can 'M' let slip through the net? (MIRANDA FROST, VESPER....)
Edited by Zorin Industries, 29 January 2007 - 06:05 PM.
#30
Posted 29 January 2007 - 06:10 PM
Edited by Judo chop, 29 January 2007 - 06:11 PM.