70 replies to this topic

[TheREAL008]

It's impossible for me to say at this point considering we know very little about the movie.

Point.

My guess is there will be a progression of all the elements that Bond's world was before. Someone mentioned not adding Moneypenny for 22 but would it be all that bad? WHat about other 00's into the service then?

[yolt13]

Someone mentioned not adding Moneypenny for 22 but would it be all that bad?

Of course it wouldn't. The problem is, some folks just can't see past the past. They automatically assume that the addition of M's secretary, who has a flirtatious but platonic relationship with Bond, will mean the film will invariably feature scenes of her fantasizing in virtual reality and such. Worse, they appear to see no harm in the prospect of the series going forward without this and other Fleming-created characters, as though those characters played no role whatsoever in both the literary and cinematic franchises becoming so iconic. Half are simply too afraid to imagine that a filmmaker might be able to integrate Moneypenny into a "serious" Bond film without hurting the tone (a terrible way to "enjoy" a series of movies!), and the other half are content with the series becoming less and less "Bond" as long as the tone stays as dark and grim as possible (a questionable way to show one's love of the franchise as a whole). When I hear people fretting over the possible return of Moneypenny and Q, it sounds an awful lot like people pulling their hair out over Texas Hold 'Em and a blond 007. Funny how things sometimes don't end up being as bad as they sound in the heat of fan hysteria.

I'll stop before I stir up any trouble. Suffice it to say, if the inclusion of Moneypenny and Q in future entries is the last straw for some fans, those people are destined for a very short run as fans, because those characters will be back sooner or later.

[JimmyBond]

I'll stop before I stir up any trouble.

Too late for that. Your rash generilazations are downright offensive. So some people don't want Q or Moneypenny to return, who are you to say they're wrong?

[Zorin Industries]

I'll stop before I stir up any trouble.

Too late for that. Your rash generilazations are downright offensive. So some people don't want Q or Moneypenny to return, who are you to say they're wrong?

Now come on boys, break it up. No-one can really be offended by any character in any film, can they? (apart from maybe Sean Bean in GOLDENEYE - okay, I'll shut up...).

I think there is a discussion though about what MONEYPENNY and Q represented and whether or not there is room for either figure in BOND's future. I have been very much against either of them returning post ROYALE as they were not missed by anyone. Bringing them back needs to work in the narrative of any future films - and part of that world is based on tone, pace and on screen chemistry. I am not sure there is space in Craig's world of Bond for Angel Delight flirtations with a home counties throwback and a colonial quartermaster. That is not part of the world we live in. BUT - to be fair - neither is James Bond 007. It is a fantasy.

Too many fans recently have got far too bothered by the MONEYPENNY and Q debate (but at least it shows real passion and knowledge). I think fans need to separate the two characters though from their nostalgia (and, believe me, being a fan of anything is 90% nostalgia).

In the last 15 years MONEYPENNY and Q have been included for reasons of nostalgia, not narrative sense. Because CASINO ROYALE has been the first Bond film in years to concentrate on the narrative more than the nostalgia, then suddenly all deadwood gets left at the roadside. This is how BOND evolves. And it will be how BOND survives.

MONEYPENNY and Q will be referenced or reinstated, but not for the sake of it every time. That is what some die-hards have to accept.

[plankattack]

I think there is a discussion though about what MONEYPENNY and Q represented and whether or not there is room for either figure in BOND's future. I have been very much against either of them returning post ROYALE as they were not missed by anyone. Bringing them back needs to work in the narrative of any future films - and part of that world is based on tone, pace and on screen chemistry.



Great point. Moneypenny and Q aren't the real issue - it's how they're used which is the crux of it. Moneypenny in OHMSS is crucial, as is Q in LTK. But Q in OP really seems to be inserted to give Vijay a chance to giggle at a female assistant's cleavage.

It's always apparent when someone's making an obligatory appearance - I think the greatest thing about the reboot is that nothing's obligatory. Instead let the story be the star. No-one should be inserted if their only function is kill time.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

Could something really drastic transform you from a passionate fan into a tooth-and-claw critic, come November 2008?

Forget preferences: I strongly prefer Martin Campbell. I'd prefer Dan to keep his hair short. I'd prefer the second film to be a direct followup to CR. Etc.

Forget even burning desires.

What bottom line, if it's crossed, would send you into a furious state?

Me? A C or a C-minus script, lacking the wit and the sparkle we all loved in CR. A script that failed to develop Bond's unfinsihed business.

You?

Bond casually allowing the government to plant a microchip on his person without even a peep might do it for me. I can't imagine the Bond of Licence to Kill ever allowing that, the only part of Casino Royale I really disliked. Also, having Bond get all "sensitive and romantic" over his Bond 22 leading ladies. We had way too much of that in the Brosnan era.

I think Bond 22 will probably be more of a challenge to hit the ball out of the park for the filmmakers than CR was. Connery era excepted, every Bond actor's 2nd Bond film has made less money than his debut.

[yolt13]

I'll stop before I stir up any trouble.

Too late for that. Your rash generilazations are downright offensive. So some people don't want Q or Moneypenny to return, who are you to say they're wrong?

"Rash generalizations"(I corrected your spelling for you)? Considering we are talking about the possibility of some people turning tooth-and-claw on Bond 22 if it were to feature these two characters, I'd say I'm hardly the one being rash. If I'm making generalizations, they are based on the specific statements made by individuals here on this board. I suppose my taking people's words at face value is a cause to be offended. On the other hand, asking people to calm down and be a bit less reactionary when they post their opinions about what might appear in the next film or wording their posts in such a way that they don't sound quite so perturbed might also defuse any conflict. But why bother with that, eh?

I believe if you read what I wrote, you'll see that my issue is with the silly assumption that these characters cannot be reintroduced without reducing the series to cartoonish spoof, not with the the preferences of some that they shouldn't be included. Since it is indisputable that it is possible that Q and Moneypenny could appear in Bond 22 and the film still be as good as CR, I'd say I'm right in considering such outright fretting pointless and inane.

If you're offended, you're awfully sensitive. Considering the fact that I posted a response to a comment about James Bond films, not some racial or ethnic slur, your degree of righteous indignation seems a bit excessive. At worst, I was accusing a handful of people of overreacting and not having a positive outlook - hardly cause to take offense. Getting all red-faced and hot over my comments is roughly akin to sitting around two years before the next film comes out, worrying that one scene with Miss Moneypenny will somehow doom the entire franchise...

[Santa]

Generalisations.

[dodge]

Generalisations.

General who? Where'd he come from? And whose side is he
on?

[Santa]

Generalisations.

General who? Where'd he come from? And whose side is he
on?

She is on my side

[JimmyBond]

Nope sorry, I spelt it right. They're both right