72 replies to this topic

[Safari Suit]

Again, why? Why are they inherently bad? It's amazing that the Bond films have been so popular for nearly fifty years what with Moneypenny and Q supposedly dragging things down and making it impossible for the filmmakers to make good films.

But I think you and I are broadly in agreement. Neither of us thinks Moneypenny and Q are necessary for a Bond film (see LIVE AND LET DIE way back in '73 - for that matter, FOR YOUR EYES ONLY did just fine without M), and neither of us wants to see the same old same old "audience-pleasing" pantomime schtick purely for the sake of it. However, I just question your apparent belief that Moneypenny and Q would - by definition - sink the Craig era if they were introduced to it.

I think this point needs attention. Not that I want to be cited as a pro-Penny+Q fundamentalist, because I am definitely not.

[The Shark]

We can also say that Kinnear holds his own against Judi Dench which Colin Salmon certainly didn't do and began to have the cinematic gravitas of a HOLLYOAKS regular.

You're right about the Salmon comment, but I still the Kitchen should have been kept, just as Judi Dench was. He provides an important link between Bond and M, both as an office confidante and friend - and Kitchen fulfilled that role with far more panache and personality than Kinnear did.

Edited by The Shark, 14 July 2009 - 04:06 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

BOND trusts M throughout.

Not when he asks her: "How much oil did the Americans promise you?" The only character in QUANTUM OF SOLACE whom Bond seems to trust unconditionally right from the get-go is Mathis. He's even a bit sceptical with Leiter. Which is understandable, but it doesn't chime with the idea that 007 knows he has this rock-solid team of people around him. That's not the impression that the film creates.

He is called TANNER as the creatives behind the film want to reference Fleming. It is not their intent or necessity to have the audience "get that".

Well, that's fine, but why would it be a crime for them to want to reference Fleming by calling a character Moneypenny?

Because it is a loaded character with historical baggage who doesn't support the narrative anymore and hasn't for twenty odd years.

[Loomis]

Again, why? Why are they inherently bad? It's amazing that the Bond films have been so popular for nearly fifty years what with Moneypenny and Q supposedly dragging things down and making it impossible for the filmmakers to make good films.

But I think you and I are broadly in agreement. Neither of us thinks Moneypenny and Q are necessary for a Bond film (see LIVE AND LET DIE way back in '73 - for that matter, FOR YOUR EYES ONLY did just fine without M), and neither of us wants to see the same old same old "audience-pleasing" pantomime schtick purely for the sake of it. However, I just question your apparent belief that Moneypenny and Q would - by definition - sink the Craig era if they were introduced to it.

I think this point needs attention. Not that I want to be cited as a pro-Penny+Q fundamentalist, because I am definitely not.

Me neither. Actually, I do find it refreshing that the series is now a Moneypenny-and-Q-free-zone (the news that Q would not feature was one of the earliest pieces of news to get me truly excited about CASINO ROYALE).

Because it is a loaded character with historical baggage who doesn't support the narrative anymore and hasn't for twenty odd years.

Support the narrative (what was done over the past twenty-odd years is irrelevant)? Villiers had his place. Why could that place not have been taken by Moneypenny?

And there's another "loaded character with historical baggage" who has been a total joke figure to cinemagoers at various points, but who was recently given new life by brilliant writing and acting. That character's name is James Bond.

[Zorin Industries]

Again, why? Why are they inherently bad? It's amazing that the Bond films have been so popular for nearly fifty years what with Moneypenny and Q supposedly dragging things down and making it impossible for the filmmakers to make good films.

But I think you and I are broadly in agreement. Neither of us thinks Moneypenny and Q are necessary for a Bond film (see LIVE AND LET DIE way back in '73 - for that matter, FOR YOUR EYES ONLY did just fine without M), and neither of us wants to see the same old same old "audience-pleasing" pantomime schtick purely for the sake of it. However, I just question your apparent belief that Moneypenny and Q would - by definition - sink the Craig era if they were introduced to it.

I think this point needs attention. Not that I want to be cited as a pro-Penny+Q fundamentalist, because I am definitely not.

We are in an era of Bond films where everything is pared down. The deadwood has been lost. We don't need red buses and Westminster bridge to denote "London" (the grimy rain-soaked roads of the Barbican are our establishing shots now). We don't need the on the nose exposition of Q explaining how this special cigarette box sized communicator device can send textual messages to anyone else in the world. We don't need the frankly sexless never mind sexist banter between MONEYPENNY and BOND. We are in the realm of car chases that are two thirds over when we join them, one night stands who don't need five scenes of exposition before they die and we don't need new films told in the same style that 20 before have done...!

[The Shark]

Because it is a loaded character with historical baggage who doesn't support the narrative anymore and hasn't for twenty odd years.

That "baggage" is why a vast number of people like to watch Bond films, they aren't just a film series and franchise, they're a frickin British institution.

I don't see why she "can't" be fitted into the new narrative, as an important character, and not merely a plot device.

If the writers can't be bothered, than that shows a tremendous disrespect for fans, and the British Institution. Why not call Forster and Haggis back for another exiting case study on "The effects of American Corporate Interference in 3rd World nations, and the global benefits of Socıalısm - starring James Bond".

Maybe Sean Penn could play Felix Leiter - Good casting choice or what?

We are in an era of Bond films where everything is pared down. The deadwood has been lost. We don't need red buses and Westminster bridge to denote "London" (the grimy rain-soaked roads of the Barbican are our establishing shots now). We don't need the on the nose exposition of Q explaining how this special cigarette box sized communicator device can send textual messages to anyone else in the world. We don't need the frankly sexless never mind sexist banter between MONEYPENNY and BOND. We are in the realm of car chases that are two thirds over when we join them, one night stands who don't need five scenes of exposition before they die and we don't need new films told in the same style that 20 before have done...!

No we don't need Bond films do we? Despicable trash.

I'm sorry but just because "QOS did it" doesn't mean we need another set of clones, do we? Especially since the majority of reviews were unimpressed with Nu-Bond.

Edited by The Shark, 14 July 2009 - 04:19 PM.

[Mister Asterix]

VILLIERS cannot just be rewritten to be a MONEYPENNY. What is the point of that?

Well, you may as well ask what the point is of Villiers as a character in CASINO ROYALE. And why could the role not have been rewritten as Moneypenny?

Or, to put the question differently, why could CASINO ROYALE not have accommodated a female secretary for M? It accommodates a male secretary for M, but what in particular does Villiers bring to the film that could not have been accomplished by an actress in that role?

It’s just about baggage. With any female secretary of M the audience would have the expectations of the flirt scene. A male secretary tells the audience we’re putting that aside straight off.

That "baggage" is why a vast number of people like to watch Bond films, they aren't just a film series and franchise, they're a frickin British institution.

And here I thought it was James Bond.

[Zorin Industries]

Because it is a loaded character with historical baggage who doesn't support the narrative anymore and hasn't for twenty odd years.

That "baggage" is why a vast number of people like to watch Bond films, they aren't just a film series and franchise, they're a frickin British institution.

I don't see why she "can't" be fitted into the new narrative, as an important character, and not merely a plot device.

If the writers can't be bothered, than that shows a tremendous disrespect for fans, and the British Institution. Why not call Forster and Haggis back for another exiting case study on "The effects of American Corporate Interference in 3rd World nations, and the global benefits of Socıalısm - starring James Bond".

Maybe Sean Penn could play Felix Leiter - Good casting choice or what?

The Bond films are not made for the fans who want MONEYPENNY and Q back whether there is a reason or not.

"Fitted in" is exactly the problem. They need to have a purpose or they are not needed at all. The films weren't always British institutions. They were sleek thrillers, tailored within an inch of their lives and sexy in all sorts of ways. I agree that they should be preserved as British instutions by the public who consumes them but they shouldn't and aren't made that way. Certainly not now.

And that's interesting that you clearly have a problem with the take of the new films when the old classics were lead by the politics and concerns of the day - not Korean face-changing Bransons and lazy 1970's throwbacks called The Fox.

[Safari Suit]

Hmm, I still don't think you've explained how the characters are inherently terrible. You've given many of the (valid) reasons they weren't present in the last two movies certainly, and maybe also why they perhaps shouldn't have been in a handful or so before. But I don't think that makes them terrible. Indeed, I don't know why you're such a vocal supporter of the Sheen as Blofeld idea if you're against "loaded character[s] with historical baggage". For me reintroducing Blofeld would be even worse. I understand if they bring Blofeld back it's not going to be the same guy with the cat and the light bouncing off his forehead. But if you've got this exciting, intriguing new villain character played by such a good actor, why not just go ahead and not name him Blofeld? I can't think of any weightier or less necessary historical baggage than naming a "new" villain Blofeld.

[Zorin Industries]

Hmm, I still don't think you've explained how the characters are inherently terrible. You've given many of the (valid) reasons they weren't present in the last two movies certainly, and maybe also why they perhaps shouldn't have been in a handful or so before. But I don't think that makes them terrible. Indeed, I don't know why you're such a vocal supporter of the Sheen as Blofeld idea if you're against "loaded character[s] with historical baggage". For me reintroducing Blofeld would be even worse. I understand if they bring Blofeld back it's not going to be the same guy with the cat and the light bouncing off his forehead. But if you've got this exciting, intriguing new villain character played by such a good actor, why not just go ahead and not name him Blofeld? I can't think of any weightier or less necessary historical baggage than naming a "new" villain Blofeld.

I am not wholeheartedly against MONEYPENNY returning. I am not a million miles from Loomis here on that one.

BUT .... what would a MONEYPENNY do other than tip a hat to the past? What purpose could she hold when she was admin eye candy in the first place? If she was the main Bond Girl in a Bond film then that could work. But that character could not return so would not be the returning MONEYPENNY some people want.

BLOFELD has always had (except in EYES ONLY) a narrative function. Tell me one film or story cause and effect where MONEYPENNY has made a difference that either another character (namely M) or even the audience themselves couldn't have worked out.

[Loomis]

VILLIERS cannot just be rewritten to be a MONEYPENNY. What is the point of that?

Well, you may as well ask what the point is of Villiers as a character in CASINO ROYALE. And why could the role not have been rewritten as Moneypenny?

Or, to put the question differently, why could CASINO ROYALE not have accommodated a female secretary for M? It accommodates a male secretary for M, but what in particular does Villiers bring to the film that could not have been accomplished by an actress in that role?

It’s just about baggage. With any female secretary of M the audience would have the expectations of the flirt scene. A male secretary tells the audience we’re putting that aside straight off.

It does, but then again many "casual filmgoers" would have sat down to QUANTUM OF SOLACE expecting the gunbarrel at the beginning, "The name's Bond, James Bond", "Shaken, not stirred", crazy gadgets and so on.

[Zorin Industries]

VILLIERS cannot just be rewritten to be a MONEYPENNY. What is the point of that?

Well, you may as well ask what the point is of Villiers as a character in CASINO ROYALE. And why could the role not have been rewritten as Moneypenny?

Or, to put the question differently, why could CASINO ROYALE not have accommodated a female secretary for M? It accommodates a male secretary for M, but what in particular does Villiers bring to the film that could not have been accomplished by an actress in that role?

It’s just about baggage. With any female secretary of M the audience would have the expectations of the flirt scene. A male secretary tells the audience we’re putting that aside straight off.

It does, but then again many "casual filmgoers" would have sat down to QUANTUM OF SOLACE expecting the gunbarrel at the beginning, "The name's Bond, James Bond", "Shaken, not stirred", crazy gadgets and so on.

But they still went in their droves. The film didn't bomb and had got its box office with the additional help of repeat business the world over.

[Loomis]

BUT .... what would a MONEYPENNY do other than tip a hat to the past? What purpose could she hold when she was admin eye candy in the first place?

She could shed light on some aspects of Bond's character.

If we had Moneypenny as an attractive woman of more or less Bond's age whom Bond was clearly fond of and respected but did not wish to get into bed (a flaw of the Brosnan era's treatment of Moneypenny was that the films basically made it look as though 007 was pestering her for sex the whole time) - a female friend, basically, and nothing more (despite perhaps a little good-humoured flirting), it would reveal that Bond could think of women as more than just sausage-hiding devices.

[Safari Suit]

BUT .... what would a MONEYPENNY do other than tip a hat to the past? What purpose could she hold when she was admin eye candy in the first place? If she was the main Bond Girl in a Bond film then that could work. But that character could not return so would not be the returning MONEYPENNY some people want.

BLOFELD has always had (except in EYES ONLY) a narrative function. Tell me one film or story cause and effect where MONEYPENNY has made a difference that either another character (namely M) or even the audience themselves couldn't have worked out.

I don't actually want Moneypenny back so I can't answer those questions.

But seriously, I can't think of a single reason that any villain in a subsequent film should be Blofeld, other than using it as an unnecessary and kind of distracting nod to the past. It would be major "historical baggage".

[The Shark]

The Bond films are not made for the fans who want MONEYPENNY and Q back whether there is a reason or not.

Then who are they made for? No Ian Fleming, he wouldn't approve. Who? A small number of fans who hate the old world of Bond and want him to be more Le Carre and Ludlum and less Fleming?

"Fitted in" is exactly the problem. They need to have a purpose or they are not needed at all. The films weren't always British institutions. They were sleek thrillers, tailored within an inch of their lives and sexy in all sorts of ways. I agree that they should be preserved as British instutions by the public who consumes them but they shouldn't and aren't made that way. Certainly not now.

Why can't we go back to basics of the first 2 films, perhaps including the 4th? Moneypenny was there as a nice touch, and was "fitted in" in order to stay to the source. Fleming didn't include her much, and was more of a tangent, but again added to the world that he created. With the exception of CR, Fleming's novels were about the "excesses" and "frivolities", and cutting them off is just as bad as sending Bond to space, invisible cars or contrived sinking houses.

And that's interesting that you clearly have a problem with the take of the new films when the old classics were lead by the politics and concerns of the day - not Korean face-changing Bransons and lazy 1970's throwbacks called The Fox.

I agree entirely, yet the politics where Centre Right, and congruent to Fleming's own views, though were slightly shaped by the era of course. I hate the those Korean Bransons and The Fox just as much as you do, but I don't think bleeding-eyed middlemen are much of an improvement either.

But they still went in their droves. The film didn't bomb and had got its box office with the additional help of repeat business the world over.

People went in droves to see DAD, does that make it a great Bond film, adored by fans and critics alike?

But seriously, I can't think of a single reason that any villain in a subsequent film should be Blofeld, other than using it as an unnecessary and kind of distracting nod to the past. It would be major "historical baggage".

How about simply returning to Fleming's source material, just like they did with some of the critically praised Casino Royale? While not giving a damn about baggage from the past and people's Austin Powers-tainted perceptions?

Edited by The Shark, 14 July 2009 - 04:40 PM.

[Mister Asterix]

VILLIERS cannot just be rewritten to be a MONEYPENNY. What is the point of that?

Well, you may as well ask what the point is of Villiers as a character in CASINO ROYALE. And why could the role not have been rewritten as Moneypenny?

Or, to put the question differently, why could CASINO ROYALE not have accommodated a female secretary for M? It accommodates a male secretary for M, but what in particular does Villiers bring to the film that could not have been accomplished by an actress in that role?

It’s just about baggage. With any female secretary of M the audience would have the expectations of the flirt scene. A male secretary tells the audience we’re putting that aside straight off.

It does, but then again many "casual filmgoers" would have sat down to QUANTUM OF SOLACE expecting the gunbarrel at the beginning, "The name's Bond, James Bond", "Shaken, not stirred", crazy gadgets and so on.

Well, erm, as one example: The filmmakers used a device right off to tell the audience they wouldn’t get the gunbarrel at the beginning by starting the film without it. And I’d say Casino Royale served notice that you won’t always get what you expect. But if you try some time — to quote the great philosopher Jagger — you just might find you get what you need.

[Loomis]

But they still went in their droves. The film didn't bomb and had got its box office with the additional help of repeat business the world over.

Sure. I'm not disputing that at all. I'm merely trying to ask why Eon needs to shy away from Moneypenny because of her "baggage" when Bond has more baggage than Heathrow.

[Martini]

I would embrace the return of Moneypenny, Major Boothroyd/Q or even Blofeld. Moneypenny may not be dramaturgical nesessary, but I think a part of the fascination of Bond films is, that they are not written according to Syd Fields screenplay norms. You can cut out the helicopter chase in YOLT or the whole PTS of Octopussy without disturbing the plot of the film, but this luxury of scenes and characters that doesn´t strictly push the story forward is what Bond made unique.

Blofeld always seemed to me as Bonds great archenemy, like Moriarty or the Joker. He´s just part of Flemings Bond cosmos as well as Moneypenny, and not more "blast from the past" than Le Chiffre for example. Well written heroes and villains are never old-fashioned.

[The Shark]

I'd agree. Though to be fair, I think Zorin's point was that he thought characters such as Blofeld and Q have been so parodied and tired to death, that there wouldn't be any point in bringing them back, except for a forced death march down memory lane.

Though my counter-argument to that, would be that those character's could possibly be returned, and given moderately useful roles, though more for character than plot. Of course I'm thinking of Moneypenny and Q here, but an eerier, faceless Blofeld, speaking through a distorted speaker system (think of Dr No, in the eponymous film) would allow the character to avoid ridicule thanks to the Dr Evil stereotype. Moneypenny and Q could be given there roles in the novels, which are quite different to banal derivatives throughout the EON films, along with the other colourful characters such as Tanner (Chief of Staff, as usual), Moneypenny (Villier's replacement as M's secretary), Ponsonby (Bond's secretary in the novels, could be more of an IT assistant, managing Bond's files), May (she could be Bond's cleaner rather than a housemaid), Mary Goodnight (Could be a Case Officer, analysing intelligence at the HQ, working frequently with Bond) and Sir James Maloney (Bond's doctor, a highly respected neurologist employed by MI6 to ensure the welfare of it's officers, operatives and agents).

All of this adds to a rich and believable working environment from which Bond can interact with mainly for the purpose of character, though of course exposition is also necessary, but shouldn't be a "be all and end all" to a strong and enjoyable story. Fleming wanted to Bond to be just as much about the skin and muscle as it's about basic skeleton which drives the narrative. I'm not for a return of Q and Money, but instead I want - Ponsonby, Q, Moneypenny, Tanner, Maloney, Goodnight, Vallance etc...
Fleming's novels are like large gourmet meals, take away the excess and it loses it's identity. Remember I'm talking about the novels here, not the ridiculously over the top Bond films.

The Shark.

[tdalton]

Again, why? Why are they inherently bad? It's amazing that the Bond films have been so popular for nearly fifty years what with Moneypenny and Q supposedly dragging things down and making it impossible for the filmmakers to make good films.

But I think you and I are broadly in agreement. Neither of us thinks Moneypenny and Q are necessary for a Bond film (see LIVE AND LET DIE way back in '73 - for that matter, FOR YOUR EYES ONLY did just fine without M), and neither of us wants to see the same old same old "audience-pleasing" pantomime schtick purely for the sake of it. However, I just question your apparent belief that Moneypenny and Q would - by definition - sink the Craig era if they were introduced to it.

I think this point needs attention. Not that I want to be cited as a pro-Penny+Q fundamentalist, because I am definitely not.

We are in an era of Bond films where everything is pared down. The deadwood has been lost. We don't need red buses and Westminster bridge to denote "London" (the grimy rain-soaked roads of the Barbican are our establishing shots now). We don't need the on the nose exposition of Q explaining how this special cigarette box sized communicator device can send textual messages to anyone else in the world. We don't need the frankly sexless never mind sexist banter between MONEYPENNY and BOND. We are in the realm of car chases that are two thirds over when we join them, one night stands who don't need five scenes of exposition before they die and we don't need new films told in the same style that 20 before have done...!

Completely, 100% agreed. Fantastic post.

We don't need Moneypenny, we don't need Q, and the evidence of that is the last two films in the franchise. The films don't need them, as they don't really fit into the style and the tone of the two Craig films.

That doesn't change the fact, though, that they're going to shoe-horn them into BOND 23 anyway, but they're really not needed, especially as these new films are not, with the sole exception of overall tone of the films, faithful to Fleming in any way, shape, or form.

[Tybre]

Maybe we are missing a trick.

All the Quantum members proudly wear the letter Q on the lapels

Yes they work for Quantum, but perhaps the highest echelon of Quantum is in fact SPECTRE, the puppet masters of the Quantumers. Who pull the strings and get rid of any associates they deem traitorous.

No. Just... no.

Ditto on that sentiment. And anyway, SPECTRE = McClory estate.

[DaveBond21]

I'm with Loomis on this one.

And Villiers could have easily been replaced by Moneypenny.

Meanwhile, we have had two technical people in the last 2 movies, who easily could have been Q. The guy who put the chip in Bond's arm in CR, and the guy in the Q-like tweed jacket (complete with nerdy mannerisms) who held the door open for M before explaining about the bank notes. If they had been played by the same actor, and named as Q on screen, we would have a Q, and it wouldn't have been done in a jokey way at all.

[Mike00spy]

I would like to see a scene like the opening of the Moonraker novel. Perhaps that would be a good way of introducing Q without resorting to jokes.

[The Shark]

We don't need Moneypenny, we don't need Q, and the evidence of that is the last two films in the franchise. The films don't need them, as they don't really fit into the style and the tone of the two Craig films.

Why don't we need Moneypenny and Q? So we can another narcoleptic retread of the critically unsuccessful QOS?

[tdalton]

We don't need Moneypenny, we don't need Q, and the evidence of that is the last two films in the franchise. The films don't need them, as they don't really fit into the style and the tone of the two Craig films.

Why don't we need Moneypenny and Q? So we can another narcoleptic retread of the critically unsuccessful QOS?

Not having Q and Moneypenny doesn't mean that it will be a retread of QOS (although that would be fine by me if it was a retread of QOS).

By that same token, though, the inclusion of Moneypenny and Q would make BOND 23 a retread of the first 20 films.

[Orion]

We don't need Moneypenny, we don't need Q, and the evidence of that is the last two films in the franchise. The films don't need them, as they don't really fit into the style and the tone of the two Craig films.

Why don't we need Moneypenny and Q? So we can another narcoleptic retread of the critically unsuccessful QOS?

I tihnk critically average would be a more accurate description of QOS.

[The Shark]

We don't need Moneypenny, we don't need Q, and the evidence of that is the last two films in the franchise. The films don't need them, as they don't really fit into the style and the tone of the two Craig films.

Why don't we need Moneypenny and Q? So we can another narcoleptic retread of the critically unsuccessful QOS?

I tihnk critically average would be a more accurate description of QOS.

I'd say mixed or heavily polarising, but I get you're point, it was no was a disaster as some make it out to be.

[Quantumofsolace007]

very simple

Past villians including Spectre, Blofeld, Jaws, Odd Jobb

I don't want them back period
and before people scream "but the blofeld of the books was different from the blofeld of the films" physically yes but there are more then a few similaties. Jaws and other fan loves are just ridiculous. I spent abetter part of 5 months writign a 22 page essay on James bond being at the cutting age of the politcal social and movie trends and i'm NOT going back on everything i said for a few fans who want to relive the past. Spectre was the 60's Jaws was the 70's and there is no need to bring any of them I'd rather have quantum become an entirley different animal and do things spectre would never do.


Q and moneypenny

Q never left. He was in casino Royale and Quantum of solace. they didn't stop the progession of the movie to say "hey this is a Q scene" and they didn't need to. What scne am i reffering to

Casino Royale The man who brings the tracking device and the device to register the tracking device yeah that guy is Q! M even points out "Oh good your here" as a wink to the audience

Quantum of solace Glasses Tweed Jacket explaining Le chiffe's money scheme He should be Q from now on. It get's rid of the lewyllian comparisons and yet it's still "classic Q"

In my opnion both scenes work and are reminiscant of From Russia with love.


Moneypenny doesn't work. Sorry i've tried to figure out how it could and it just doesn't Unless they do something drastic like have her work in mi6's CSI unit (which appears in the past two films) or something like that. then they can have a few words about the case and their relationship can change. I know everyone is gonna say "But M can still work in this era why can't moneypenny" Ok you hit on your bosses secratary see how long you keep your job "But films are fantasy" yeah but Bond has to be apart of the world plus i want the films to keep break forumla after 20 films of doing everything by checklist i'm glad they tossed the check list out the window.

[Zorin Industries]

very simple

Past villians including Spectre, Blofeld, Jaws, Odd Jobb

I don't want them back period
and before people scream "but the blofeld of the books was different from the blofeld of the films" physically yes but there are more then a few similaties. Jaws and other fan loves are just ridiculous. I spent abetter part of 5 months writign a 22 page essay on James bond being at the cutting age of the politcal social and movie trends and i'm NOT going back on everything i said for a few fans who want to relive the past. Spectre was the 60's Jaws was the 70's and there is no need to bring any of them I'd rather have quantum become an entirley different animal and do things spectre would never do.


Q and moneypenny

Q never left. He was in casino Royale and Quantum of solace. they didn't stop the progession of the movie to say "hey this is a Q scene" and they didn't need to. What scne am i reffering to

Casino Royale The man who brings the tracking device and the device to register the tracking device yeah that guy is Q! M even points out "Oh good your here" as a wink to the audience

Quantum of solace Glasses Tweed Jacket explaining Le chiffe's money scheme He should be Q from now on. It get's rid of the lewyllian comparisons and yet it's still "classic Q"

In my opnion both scenes work and are reminiscant of From Russia with love.

In my opinion you couldn't be more wrong. Neither film had Q in them in any shape or form. What next? TILLY MASTERSON was actually SOLANGE in ROYALE as she met a sticky end via a ride in an Aston Martin? Or ANYA AMASOVA was SOLACE's airport girl as Cairo is mentioned in SPY and SOLACE?

But if there was a character called "T", that would certainly stand for "tenuous" in the world of your viewpoint.

Regarding ROYALE, I don't think a 'Q' would throw up at the sight of a dead girl and I don't think tweed jackets in SOLACE denote anything other than the costume department are rightfully dileanating the characters so not everyone looks the same.

[tdalton]

very simple

Past villians including Spectre, Blofeld, Jaws, Odd Jobb

I don't want them back period
and before people scream "but the blofeld of the books was different from the blofeld of the films" physically yes but there are more then a few similaties. Jaws and other fan loves are just ridiculous. I spent abetter part of 5 months writign a 22 page essay on James bond being at the cutting age of the politcal social and movie trends and i'm NOT going back on everything i said for a few fans who want to relive the past. Spectre was the 60's Jaws was the 70's and there is no need to bring any of them I'd rather have quantum become an entirley different animal and do things spectre would never do.


Q and moneypenny

Q never left. He was in casino Royale and Quantum of solace. they didn't stop the progession of the movie to say "hey this is a Q scene" and they didn't need to. What scne am i reffering to

Casino Royale The man who brings the tracking device and the device to register the tracking device yeah that guy is Q! M even points out "Oh good your here" as a wink to the audience

Quantum of solace Glasses Tweed Jacket explaining Le chiffe's money scheme He should be Q from now on. It get's rid of the lewyllian comparisons and yet it's still "classic Q"

In my opnion both scenes work and are reminiscant of From Russia with love.

In my opinion you couldn't be more wrong. Neither film had Q in them in any shape or form. What next? TILLY MASTERSON was actually SOLANGE in ROYALE as she met a sticky end via a ride in an Aston Martin? Or ANYA AMASOVA was SOLACE's airport girl as Cairo is mentioned in SPY and SOLACE?

But if there was a character called "T", that would certainly stand for "tenuous" in the world of your viewpoint.

Regarding ROYALE, I don't think a 'Q' would throw up at the sight of a dead girl and I don't think tweed jackets in SOLACE denote anything other than the costume department are rightfully dileanating the characters so not everyone looks the same.

Well said.