142 replies to this topic

[Zorin Industries]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='694855' date='29 January 2007 - 18:10']Moneypenny: I thoroughly enjoy what they

[JCRendle]

If they have gadgets can't they just be "sent up from Q-Branch", or, like in From Russia with Love, have Q come into the room during the briefing, giving a quick explanation and leaving.

[Zorin Industries]

If they have gadgets can't they just be "sent up from Q-Branch", or, like in From Russia with Love, have Q come into the room during the briefing, giving a quick explanation and leaving.

I'm not going to win this 'Q' one, am I? ;o)

[Jackanaples]

William Faulkner used to say, "Kill your darlings." I'm sure it's an old writer's adage and probably did not originate with him.

Here's my take on the whole bringing back Moneypenny and Q thing: Don't.

Why?

Both characters serve dual functions. They have their function within the story (Moneypenny is M's secretary, Q equips Bond with gadgets for his latest mission), and they have a narrative function (Moneypenny flirts with Bond and shows the audience how attractive he is, Q in contrast to most characters does not defer to Bond and actually holds little regard for him because he never returns Q Branch items in good order --this was softened over the years).

The problem with Moneypenny is her narrative function. We've seen her flirt with Bond for what, nineteen or twenty films already? Regardless of how much people want to see her (and I don't believe most people really care all that much), there isn't much that can be done that's interesting or useful. I will concede that she has a much better chance of coming back than Q does though.

Q's problem is the opposite: It's his function as gadget master that is unnecessary now. Any gadgets Bond uses for the forseeable future will be on the order of the defribilator or a hidden camera. Things that don't need explanation. Because anything more elaborate than that actually detracts from Bond's character and makes him look weak.

Where we used to get gadgets we're now going to get creativity and resourcefulness on the part of 007. Happily, this solution is always satisfying and never gets old.

So instead of Q and Moneypenny what do we get? I think Villiers is the replacement for both of them. He combines the useful parts of both characters: Moneypenny's function within the story as M's secretary, and Q's narrative function of having disdain for 007 (because he's a rogue who flouts the rules and gets M into hot water). Granted, we haven't seen Villiers talk down to Bond yet. But I'd say look for that in Bond 22.

As for bringing in a recurring character to take over the flirting with Bond requirement whilst continuing in an exciting new direction, the solution is simple. Bring back Sylvia Trench and some Terence Young's intention for the character.

Introduce her as a wealthy unhappily married woman Bond romances between missions. She's determined and used to getting what she wants. Every time she finally gets Bond all to herself --he brushes her off to go away on "business." After this happens for two movies, she becomes the main Bond girl in her third movie appearance.

This would offer far more story possibilities in my opinion.

[quote name='Zorin Industries' post='694857' date='29 January 2007 - 10:17'][quote name='Judo chop' post='694855' date='29 January 2007 - 18:10']Moneypenny: I thoroughly enjoy what they

[K1Bond007]

[quote name='neversaynever' post='694633' date='28 January 2007 - 23:50']Closing the book on [the Risico] rumour, Wade said it is

[Double-0-Seven]

Great news. Glad to hear that they are taking some risks again and not including Q or Moneypenny. I wonder what the title will end up being.

[dodge]

Great news. Glad to hear that they are taking some risks again and not including Q or Moneypenny. I wonder what the title will end up being.

This just came in and should please one and all. The title will be:

Jack the Scripter Kills Two Icons!

[Zorin Industries]

Great news. Glad to hear that they are taking some risks again and not including Q or Moneypenny. I wonder what the title will end up being.

This just came in and should please one and all. The title will be:

Jack the Scripter Kills Two Icons!

Better that than killing One Series...!

;o)

[FullMetalJacket]

I won't really miss Q or Moneypenny. Q isn't in LALD at all, and in DAF Moneypenny's appearance as a customs agent is little more than a cameo. The only elements of the "formula" that I really want Bond 22 to have are the James Bond Theme and the opening gunbarrel.

[Qwerty]

Kind of interesting how they shut down the Risico plot rumour, but don't comment on Vesper's Algerian boyfriend.

[Jackanaples]

I won't really miss Q or Moneypenny. Q isn't in LALD at all, and in DAF Moneypenny's appearance as a customs agent is little more than a cameo. The only elements of the "formula" that I really want Bond 22 to have are the James Bond Theme and the opening gunbarrel.

I want both of those things back too, and have no doubt we'll see (and hear) them in Bond 22. I'd wager that after CASINO ROYALE, both elements are going to have a luster and pull for audiences that they've not held since the Connery glory days of Bond.

Edited by Jackanaples, 29 January 2007 - 07:42 PM.

[Judo chop]

I agree. Though I don't think the future Bond films are going to be too concerned with the 'origins' of various facets of BOND's character (well, they certainly shouldn't be in my opinion). I don't think it will be a joining up of the dots to get everything up to scratch as if DR NO is the reset film where the chronology really starts.

Well, I guess each to his own here. Personally I

Edited by Judo chop, 29 January 2007 - 07:56 PM.

[jaguar007]

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.

Perhaps Bond is supposed to have been with MI6 longer than Moneypenny.

[DamnCoffee]

On a completly different note does anyone think Villiers looks like Rob Brydon?

[Zorin Industries]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='694926' date='29 January 2007 - 19:54'][quote name='Zorin Industries' post='694857' date='29 January 2007 - 12:17']I agree. Though I don't think the future Bond films are going to be too concerned with the 'origins' of various facets of BOND's character (well, they certainly shouldn't be in my opinion). I don't think it will be a joining up of the dots to get everything up to scratch as if DR NO is the reset film where the chronology really starts.[/quote]

Well, I guess each to his own here. Personally I

Edited by Zorin Industries, 29 January 2007 - 08:46 PM.

[Judo chop]

Unless Paul Haggis' contribution wasn't all that far-reaching. We'll probably never know...

If Haggis does not return to assist with the script of Bond 22, and we are treated to "yo mamma" talk, then we'll know.

Point agreed though. P&W at the helm is still an unnerving thought. CR does not absolve them. Even if they come up with a real gem all on their own this next time around, they're still only shooting .500.

[DaveBond21]

Interesting news.


Am I the only one who thought that Carter in Madagascar was a bumbling character with no purpose? Or that Villiers could have been replaced by Moneypenny? Or that the guy putting the chip into Bond's arm could have been Q?

[00Twelve]

I think the best opinion I can offer on the subject of what's to come in Bond 22 is avoid cliches. The "feel good" moments of familiarity will inevitably be the death knell for any film or series of films that seek to be thrillers. Lack of predictability is is the key to the setup for thrills.

Tradition for tradition's sake is not something I agree with, but that's only a personal opinion. If a tradition is effective to the desired critical response to the film, which is, in Bond's case, an action thriller, then great. If it is little more than dead weight reminding us we're in a world we knew we'd be in before the lights went down, then it is relatively invaluable. In the early years, devices such as the gunbarrel were adrenaline primers, saying, "Bond is dangerous and unpredictable," thus the surprise turn and shot. After 21 films, however, it serves more as a device that says, "Smile, it's Bond - the agent you know and love. This is gonna be fun." Casino Royale wasn't great because it was fun. It was tense.

That's why I prefer sparse usage of the Bond theme, "the line," quips, and other similar familarities. That's how I interpret Faulkner's statement "Kill your darlings." To each his own.

[Gobi-1]

I've proposed this before but this is a good thread to do so again.

I have decided that I don't want the character of Q to return. At least not the character Desmond Llewelyn played. I would rather see them introduce a new character "The Armorer", MI6's resident weapons expert and supplier. He would provide Bond with all of his weapons and train him in the use of new firearms.

"The Armorer" would be a former "00" who was shot in the line of duty and is unable to return to "00" status. He would be Bond's closet friend at MI6.

[MR. BOND 93]

I've proposed this before but this is a good thread to do so again.

I have decided that I don't want the character of Q to return. At least not the character Desmond Llewelyn played. I would rather see them introduce a new character "The Armorer", MI6's resident weapons expert and supplier. He would provide Bond with all of his weapons and train him in the use of new firearms.

"The Armorer" would be a former "00" who was shot in the line of duty and is unable to return to "00" status. He would be Bond's closet friend at MI6.

I'm not sure about this whole "Armorer" thing (I think Bond knows his weapons enough), but I concur that Q should not return.

[Publius]

Good news if Q and Moneypenny don't return. I like this leaner, meaner approach to Bond.

Still, if either were to return, I'd definitely like to see changes made to both characters. Q (who I prefer to Moneypenny) should be renamed, should be played by someone about Bond's age or slightly older (say, no more than mid-50s), should only supply Bond with gear appropriate to this new Bond (which also rules out the wacky lab), and the banter between them should be humorous in a darker way and not necessarily (probably never) directed at each other.

Basically, the "grow up 007" schtick was dried up ages ago (okay, I make an exception for TND ), and I'd like to see them go in a direction where the two men can joke together, often about work (think in terms of the "along with the rest of him" bit in GE). Not quite war buddies, but I do like Gobi-1's idea of a former 00 who's been disabled. Hell, make him a cynical chain-smoker for complete and proper effect. Maybe even have Bond briefly mention how he only gave up the practice to meet physical standards.

Moneypenny I'm not so sure about. The flirting that we know leads nowhere has been old hat since 1969. Possibly have her be a near-fling for Bond...only he later finds out she's now working for his boss. Bond's professionalism (sadly) puts an end to it then and there. Or maybe the "infatuated, hopeless bookworm" style Caroline Bliss never got the chance to flesh out could be used. Whatever. Just something other than the ever-annoying Lois Maxwell-lite, as portrayed by Samantha Bond and post-OHMSS Lois Maxwell.

Unlike Q, however, (and in emphatic disagreement with P&W on this point) I don't see a way to squeeze Moneypenny in at all without it jarring the tone of a film remotely like Casino Royale, which I hope and expect Bond 22 to be.

As for Risico, I don't care either way. As long as the title is cool and creative, which equally means not sounding like TOO much thought was put into it (You Only Kill to Live Another Day), I'll be happy.

[Qwerty]

Unless Paul Haggis' contribution wasn't all that far-reaching. We'll probably never know...

If Haggis does not return to assist with the script of Bond 22, and we are treated to "yo mamma" talk, then we'll know.

I'd love to see Haggis return. The first scene between Bond and Vesper is absolutely stunning and I'm interested to know how much each of the writers contributed to it.

[Odd Job]

I won't really miss Q or Moneypenny. Q isn't in LALD at all, and in DAF Moneypenny's appearance as a customs agent is little more than a cameo. The only elements of the "formula" that I really want Bond 22 to have are the James Bond Theme and the opening gunbarrel.

I want both of those things back too, and have no doubt we'll see (and hear) them in Bond 22. I'd wager that after CASINO ROYALE, both elements are going to have a luster and pull for audiences that they've not held since the Connery glory days of Bond.

Agreed. As much as I liked the way they rebooted the series in CR, I can't wait to see Bond 22 start with the dots, then see DC walking across the screen in his tux - turn toward the gunbarrel and give the sniper what's coming to him.

As for Moneypenny and Q, yes, as long as it doesn't get in the way of the plot. It might be nice to see Bond and MP meet for the first time outside of M's office. As for Q, only if they have a decent enough gadget worthy of Q's explanation and whichever actor they choose, he can't play the part like the late, great, Desmond Llewellyn.

Regards

Odd Job

[Harmsway]

And a well written opinion it is too. My only concern is that it's Purvis and Wade's call and they don't have a very good reputation for letting "a film breathe".

It's not P&W's call. P&W have stated that before they start writing, the whole film gets mapped out with Babs and Michael in meetings in near outline form. They don't have much freedom at all.

[DavidSomerset]

Me want Hugh Laurie as Q (or some Quatermaster) who is scientist but not a buffoon like in TWINE or DAD.
Moneypenny is no longer required. I dont think M would have a female secretary nowadays. M can do her own typing. They can do some product placement and show M typing a mail in Outlook.

[tdalton]

I think that I could do without either Moneypenny or Q in future installments of the Bond franchise. I think that Villiers was a nice change of pace from the norm in Casino Royale, and I think that the Q character would have to undergo a major transformation to become viable in this rebooted Bond universe. I think that keeping Bond 22 very similar in style to Casino Royale is the best way to go, and that may mean not diving back into the normal Bond "conventions" like Q and Moneypenny, unless they become absolutely essential to the storyline.

[DavidSomerset]

What if they merge the Q and MoneyPenny characters and made the quatermaster into a nubile woman who has a crush on Bond? So this will make MI6 into a all woman's club except for 007 and Villiers.

[Zorin Industries]

I'd love to see Haggis return. The first scene between Bond and Vesper is absolutely stunning and I'm interested to know how much each of the writers contributed to it.

I think the fact we haven't witnessed a scene like that in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and DIE ANOTHER DAY is testament to who wrote the train scene.

[Zorin Industries]

[/quote]
It's not P&W's call. P&W have stated that before they start writing, the whole film gets mapped out with Babs and Michael in meetings in near outline form. They don't have much freedom at all.
[/quote]

That's not entirely true. The boundaries between creative inputs are always blurred on any production. And the supposed 'interference'/'input' from producers (which is completely the norm on any project, believe me) would have also been there during production on CASINO ROYALE - but that film turned out okay, didn't it? Purvis and Wade's role must be incredibly difficult, but the responsibility is ultimately theirs - especially the script's main drive, plot and tone. The "mapped out" bits are more about second unit considerations, location logistics and cast and crew availability.

[Rolex]

I think Q & MP are characters are a good backhand held in reserve , if the next Bond film does not hit home critically or financially they can bring them back and the old formula for Bond 23.