142 replies to this topic

[DamnCoffee]

I agree with the first point but not the second i'll think you'll have to expand on it a little more so i have a clearer picture of what you are saying but the Q idea rocks though!

[DaveBond21]

I like the idea of Moneypenny being introduced by voice first, as she was in Goldeneye.

[byline]

I'd rather see Moneypenny back. But with Q I have no problem. Q died together with Desmond Llewelyn. Continue to explore James Bond is an excellent idea. CR, Bond 22 and Bond 23 will probably become a fantastic spy trilogy.

But wasn't Moneypenny M's secretary? And wasn't that role filled in "Casino Royale" by Villiers (played by Tobias Menzies, who, ironically enough, also appeared in "Finding Neverland")? So it seems to me that the new template has been set. I would prefer that it be left as is, rather than resorting to nostalgic elements simply for the sake of nostalgia.

[tdalton]

I'd rather see Moneypenny back. But with Q I have no problem. Q died together with Desmond Llewelyn. Continue to explore James Bond is an excellent idea. CR, Bond 22 and Bond 23 will probably become a fantastic spy trilogy.

But wasn't Moneypenny M's secretary? And wasn't that role filled in "Casino Royale" by Villiers (played by Tobias Menzies, who, ironically enough, also appeared in "Finding Neverland")? So it seems to me that the new template has been set. I would prefer that it be left as is, rather than resorting to nostalgic elements simply for the sake of nostalgia.

Agreed. Unless there is a significant plot point for a future film that involves Moneypenny, I'd rather things just be left the way they are instead of putting another piece of the formula back into place just for the sake of the formula.

[byline]

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 not just for screenwriters; the phrase, "Kill your babies!" applies to all writers. And it's basically what you've stated. If a writer feels something is so precious that it absolutely cannot be cut, chances are that's the very thing that needs to be cut because in reality, it's holding the story back. Oftentimes, it's when a writer simply has to get a particular message across, so s/he thumps the reader/viewer over the head with it ad nauseam (just in case they don't get it) and goes from storytelling to editorializing through his/her characters. I enjoy Barbara Kingsolver's books, but she has an unfortunate tendency to resort to this tactic.

[byline]

But a passing MONEYPENNY (who visually screams MONEYPENNY, but may not even have a line) is certainly a way forward. I think maybe Q has been rebooted into VILLIERS - quietly, without fanfare and quite credibly too.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting things, but I got the impression that Moneypenny was rebooted as Villiers, while Q Branch was that group clustered around the computer screen talking Bond through the poisoning/injection scene.

[byline]

It would be interesting to see Bond introduced to Moneypenny and for Bond to be more attracted to her than she is to him, at first!

I actually think that the more likely scenario would be, should that character be brought back, that upon meeting Moneypenny, Bond would immediately be reminded of his exchange with Vesper on the train, and so would be unable to be more than superficially involved with Moneypenny because her name would serve as a constant reminder of who he lost.

[stamper]

It's not just for screenwriters; the phrase, "Kill your babies!" applies to all writers. And it's basically what you've stated. If a writer feels something is so precious that it absolutely cannot be cut, chances are that's the very thing that needs to be cut because in reality, it's holding the story back.

Tell that to the people who directed THE AVENGERS and got their movie butchered into nonsense financial disaster.

[byline]

Tell that to the people who directed THE AVENGERS and got their movie butchered into nonsense financial disaster.

Editing by a separate individual(s) is an entirely different function . . . one that can either be highly successful, or disaster, depending on the editor. What I'm referring to is self-editing; meaning that the writer is professional enough, and has enough self-discipline, to cut extraneous material even though s/he likes it. Just because the writer likes it doesn't mean it advances the story . . . and in some cases, it really can drag the story down.

Edited by byline, 20 June 2007 - 10:46 PM.

[zencat]

You know, with Haggis now rewriting and news that he will be working with Forster (on changes, no doubt), I don't think we can accept what P&W said in this interview as a given. Anything can change in rewrites.

[Harmsway]

You know, with Haggis now rewriting and news that he will be working with Forster (on changes, no doubt), I don't think we can accept what P&W said in this interview as a given. Anything can change in rewrites.

True, but they weren't particularly conclusive about anything, anyhow.

[Keir]

I agree Q died with Desmond Llewelyn. If they had to have the position back, I suggest they look to NSNA for a model. Moneypenny would be useful only insofar as offering a chance to put Craig's Bond in context and allow, perhaps indirectly and unconsciously, the character back in a world we grew up with over these past decades; to allow us a sigh of relief that he is not the fascist hero CR suggests.

Edited by Keir, 23 June 2007 - 06:39 AM.

[autquisest]

Wasn

[stamper]

I really fail to see the interest in keeping Q alive past good old Desmond passing.

I mean, Q was initially someone who would equip bond with dozens of gadgets in a world where gadget and miniaturisation and multi-usage tools were novelty.

We now live in a world where we all have about 10 times more gadgets on ourselves when we go to work, than Bond had in Dr NO.

Q as become a useless character, and therefore, should never be bought back, unless we go to the dark ages again.

[DaveBond21]

But wasn't Moneypenny M's secretary? And wasn't that role filled in "Casino Royale" by Villiers (played by Tobias Menzies, who, ironically enough, also appeared in "Finding Neverland")? So it seems to me that the new template has been set. I would prefer that it be left as is, rather than resorting to nostalgic elements simply for the sake of nostalgia

Have any of you actually been to the UK???? Villiers is a disgusting stereotype. The idea that this character could be working at M16 in place of a Moneypenny is as ridiculous as Jack Wade replacing Felix Leiter.

[JimmyBond]

Jack Wade was also a disgusting stereotype, but you don't see us Yanks getting upset over it.

[dodge]

Jack Wade was also a disgusting stereotype, but you don't see us Yanks getting upset over it.

Jack Wade did The Ugly American proud.

[Santa]

Have any of you actually been to the UK???? Villiers is a disgusting stereotype. The idea that this character could be working at M16 in place of a Moneypenny is as ridiculous as Jack Wade replacing Felix Leiter.

I'm afraid I don't understand this comment at all. Stereotype of what, exactly?

[Loomis]

A stereotype of a posh twit who's only got a high level Establishment job because of his background, presumably.

[zencat]

EVERYONE is a stereotype in a Bond film.

[stamper]

I actually like the inclusion of Villers, because I do adhere to the theory that Bond will kick his face and reveal him as some spineless spy somewhere along the way. When 007 will bash Villers face, and kill him, I will scream in joy in the darkness of the theater !

[Mr_Wint]

I really fail to see the interest in keeping Q alive past good old Desmond passing.

I mean, Q was initially someone who would equip bond with dozens of gadgets in a world where gadget and miniaturisation and multi-usage tools were novelty.

We now live in a world where we all have about 10 times more gadgets on ourselves when we go to work, than Bond had in Dr NO.

Q as become a useless character, and therefore, should never be bought back, unless we go to the dark ages again.

I dont know what you are working with (???), but I definitivly dont carry equipment designed to kill people or to save my life. I belive that this is the main difference between Bond-gadgets and everyday technology.

I feel that Bond's gadgets has a certain charm. Rolex watch with a laser, Aston Martin with Stinger Missiles, wrist dart-gun with cyanide-coated darts, a belt that can fire a high tensile wire etc. I dont think it would be a good idea to replace all this with SMS and mobile phones like they did in CR as this will only make the films look dated very fast. Do you think we use mobile-phones in 20 years?

There's another difference between everyday technology and the gadgets James Bond use. They are disugused. More often, they look like they are part of a well-dressed man's wardrobe... and that is why the audience may need Q (so we can understand the function).

[blueman]

Desmond had one good scene, in GF. EON simply repeated it ad nauseum. Agree with those who say it's time to back away from that particular stereotype. Sure didn't miss it in CR.