36 replies to this topic

[NotAnAcronym]

Actually, Q was featured quite prominently in Quantum of Solace...

(Sorry, could not resist!)

Edited by NotAnAcronym, 12 November 2008 - 10:03 AM.

[Zorin Industries]

What are the James Bond Trademarks™?

I need an exhaustive list in order to evaluate which are expendable and which aren’t.

As for MP and Q… bring ‘em back fresh and squeaky clean. Bring ‘em back with actors who are serious about what they’re doing.

I don’t really understand the ‘get rid of ‘em’ attitude. The Anti-Trademarkers™ seem to think that their absence from Casino Royale has everything to do with why Casino Royale was great. As if getting rid of something is the same as doing something new.

Casino Royale was great because the writing was (mostly) good, and the direction was good, and because the acting was all good, and because they found a real man to play Bond. Had a real actor shown up to play Q, with smart dialogue and a look as fresh as the one Bond was given, what harm would it have done?

You would have slowed down a very exposition heavy film even more - that's what harm would have been done. Q particularly is not necessary any more. There was a bookish tweed wearing MI6 staff member in SOLACE, he wasn't meant to be a Q but he stood out like a sore thumb. We don't need a gadget master when we all have gadgets. It's tiresome and plodding. I loved Desmond Llewelyn in the role but we have moved on. Audiences are more sophisticated - or at least I thought they were until SOLACE came out. They don't need the mission statements we used to have in every Bond film. The world knows how James Bond films work. They don't need those devices time and time again. The Bond films started to tell the audience how they worked and that is a big mistake. What is so necessary about ROYALE and SOLACE is that they mask the acoutrements of Bond. Think about SOLACE - Martinis, guns, the villain's party / exposition, exploding lairs, agile lovelies, big scoring, pyrotechnics and playful credit design. It's all there. How would a MONEYPENNY or Q scene improve any of that. These elements are about nostalgia. And the one thing the Bond series has never done is look back. When it does (for anniversary reasons) in DIE ANOTHER DAY, it falters.

Bond is not about the trademarks. We had the trademarks writ large in DIE ANOTHER DAY which caved in on itself as it was trying so hard to be a Bond film.

[avl]

I think to say Bond is not about the trademarks is revisionism. When you think of Bond - you think of the Gun barrel, the theme tune, Bond, James Bond, shaken not stirred. Ask any member of the public about Bond, I guarantee you one or more of these will come up.

They are a part If the cinematic identity of Bond. Even in the Craig era. CR plays with them - "do I look like I care" only works with 20 films worth of shaking, not stirring behind the line. QoS too - the position of the gun barrel is a deliberate use of the trademarks.

The truth is they are not disappearing - they are just being remixed, rested, and played with

[Captain Tightpants]

If and when they do introduce the likes of Q and Moneypenny, they're likely to do so only when the time is right, when the characters can be worked into the film properly, and one at a time rather than dumping them all in all at once and all in the same roles as the were before the reboot. EON will take their time, because time is what it takes to develop characters.

[BoogieBond]

I don't agree with the "Lose em" mentality. Characteristics have been built up for over 20 movies, and are famous for being part of the series. Some people look forward to seeing them.

They are only on screen for 30 seconds. Whats the harm, why are they so annoying and jarring to people ? QOS had scenes that felt out of place to me, it wasn't perfect, even CR had the airport scene, which could have been significantly trimmed. More important is that MP and Q are correct for the tone of the Craig Bond movies(think FRWL rather than DAD).

I don't agree with "Bring em back for every film" either. The Bond, James Bond line can start to be used when relevant, not in every film. Same for Q and Moneypenny. I wouldn't even mind not seeing them in Bond 23. But I would like to see them make an appearance at some point(Maybe B24/B25)

I would like the gunbarrel, Bondian music, action, locations, girls and all the other elements that were in previous entries to stay though. Oh and great though Judi is, I wouldn't mind M getting less screen time in the next one(compared to the last few entries) as well.

Edited by BoogieBond, 12 November 2008 - 11:22 AM.

[DR76]

Are the James Bond trademakes thing of past or slowly going away to become a thing of the past, like his famous lines "My names Bond, James Bond", "Bond, James Bond, Shaken Not Stirred. The famouse gun barrel is that going to be thing of the past, like how it was done in Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, For Yor Eyes Only, A Vew To A Kill, The Living Daylights, Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day. Maurice Binder was very smart at greating that in the James Bond movies. Hopfuly Q and Miss moneypenny will come back, but not reinvent them. As for Q, I like how he Bond interact with each other in Goldfinger, Thunderball, The Spy Who Loves Me, For Your Eyes Only, Licence To Kill, Tomorrow Never Dies and The World is Not Enough. Those shows the best of Q with Bond and not with Bond. As fof Moneypenny, the best of her is in Dr. No, Thunderball, Diamonds Are Forever, For Yor Eyes only, A View To A Kill and Tomorrow Never Dies. I hope they will make how Q and Miss Moneypenny look and act from those past movies on now Bond interact with them. What Daniel Craig wants done might not be a good thing. How Bond is in all those situation, is part of what makes James Bond, James Bond. It can also be said it is what makes a James Bond movie, a James Bond movie

I really don't care whether the James Bond trademarks might be disappearing. As long as the stories and acting are good and the production is first-class and swanky.

[sharpshooter]

The truth is they are not disappearing - they are just being remixed, rested, and played with

Precisely.