72 replies to this topic

[Quantumofsolace007]

Ok so wanswer me this hwat is the difference between Royale's Tracker Scene (Villers nearly threw up not Q) and Die another day's Q scene there is only one the metion of the man's name. they are both the same sort of scene


Bond is in the field Q comes in gives bond the gadget and exits.

are you that dense that you need his name actually metioned the producers have to scream out each time " HEY THIS IS Q HE IS GONNA GIVE BOND GADGETS THEN GO AWAY!!!!!"

I mean jeez it's called being suttle


Trust me i'm not the only person who felt those 2 scens screamed of Q my uncle who is not into bond as us but watches the film was suprised when someone told him there was Q Scene in Casino royale he argued there was.

Zroin T you can think i'm wrong nuts or weird but your not changing my mind Q was in casino Royale and Quantum. and the way those scenes played out is exactly how future Q scenes should play out

[tdalton]

[edit]

[Zorin Industries]

Ok so wanswer me this hwat is the difference between Royale's Tracker Scene (Villers nearly threw up not Q) and Die another day's Q scene there is only one the metion of the man's name. they are both the same sort of scene


Bond is in the field Q comes in gives bond the gadget and exits.

are you that dense that you need his name actually metioned the producers have to scream out each time " HEY THIS IS Q HE IS GONNA GIVE BOND GADGETS THEN GO AWAY!!!!!"

I mean jeez it's called being suttle


Trust me i'm not the only person who felt those 2 scens screamed of Q my uncle who is not into bond as us but watches the film was suprised when someone told him there was Q Scene in Casino royale he argued there was.

Zroin T you can think i'm wrong nuts or weird but your not changing my mind Q was in casino Royale and Quantum. and the way those scenes played out is exactly how future Q scenes should play out

I disagree but love your enthusiasm more than a lot of other people I disagree with on CBN. Time will tell. Though I am old fashioned in the way I assume a character with a certain name is meant to be that character and not others by stealth.

You will have me double-taking at everyone on screen wearing tweed now...

[Quantumofsolace007]

Ok so wanswer me this hwat is the difference between Royale's Tracker Scene (Villers nearly threw up not Q) and Die another day's Q scene there is only one the metion of the man's name. they are both the same sort of scene


Bond is in the field Q comes in gives bond the gadget and exits.

are you that dense that you need his name actually metioned the producers have to scream out each time " HEY THIS IS Q HE IS GONNA GIVE BOND GADGETS THEN GO AWAY!!!!!"

I mean jeez it's called being suttle


Trust me i'm not the only person who felt those 2 scens screamed of Q my uncle who is not into bond as us but watches the film was suprised when someone told him there was Q Scene in Casino royale he argued there was.

Zroin T you can think i'm wrong nuts or weird but your not changing my mind Q was in casino Royale and Quantum. and the way those scenes played out is exactly how future Q scenes should play out

I disagree but love your enthusiasm more than a lot of other people I disagree with on CBN. Time will tell. Though I am old fashioned in the way I assume a character with a certain name is meant to be that character and not others by stealth.

You will have me double-taking at everyone on screen wearing tweed now...

Good Zorin, T, I like a lot of both of your ideas and you both seem like decent people (i'd be thrilled if A whisper of hate was used as a titlefor a bond film) But I can't be Mr. Popular on these boards, if I was I wouldn't be allowend to metion any American actress, location, or actor save for Jeffery Wright's Felix Leighter I wouldn't be allowed in a director thread and I would only go for shirley bassey sound alikes with the theme (I'm making a joke here people please don't take this to be literal or bashing or anything like that)


Now on this matter of Q i just find people expect certain things (wrongly) but they do for a "Q" scene to work there has to be a joke From either Q (like Lincence to kill "Everything for a man on holiday Explosive Alarm clock garunteed never to wakeup anybody who uses it") or Bond (so many to choose from hmm "Stinging in the Rain" "We all have to pay the piper" well you get the idea) then bond gets the gadgets The Scene is played for laughs and not much else I was literaly shocked when i read the Q scene that never was in Dalton's third film (Q gets drunk with i believe Tiger Tanaka cause Bond is assumed dead and both are sadened by this it's a dark sceen that would of forever alterled the definiton of a Q scene)

By not naming the character and merely placing a character some like myself assume is Q others just figure he's some tech you remove what the fans dictate has to happen and allow for bond to get the gadget/information and move on. It's freeing for both the writers (no more having to come up with over the top bad puns) and let's face it the audience I think only a few people want the jokes back.


it would be interesting if Q or mi6 tech number 3 or mr tweed jacket or whatever you want to call him comes back for bond 23 and is called Q will that vindicate me or will that make you all even more on the look out for tweed jackets and future characters


to me (and others) both the tracker scene in Casino Royale and the "We have doen a complete forensic anaylsis of every note in Mitchel's history" scene play out like From russia with love styled Q scenes. Both are well done and move the plot along. That is all i want out of a Q scene yes humour is important to the bond franchise but i don't want the Q sc ens to get to the point of brosan's bond films (i'm not sure which Q scene is worse The World is not enough with "r" or the poor Invisable car nonesense in Die another Day)


Oh and my moneypenny doing a differnt job any thoughts on that.

I have tons of enthusiaism. And if your looking for someone to blame blame Daniel Craig and thos behind CR and QOS they gave us a dark gritty bond i can be excited about for the first time since LTK. I'm 22 and full of enthusiasim and eagly await The Hildebrand Rarity (bond 23)

[dee-bee-five]

MONEYPENNY is not necessary anymore. Neither is Q. The series has moved on. We are not in that era of nods to the past - which is why the series has finally progressed at last. Bringing back deadwood represents regression the series does not need anymore. Nor can it perhaps survive much more of.

We are not in that 1960's debutante world anymore where the country was inadvertently run by MONEYPENNYS and ex-Army chaps handy with concealing a knife in a cigarette box.

I couldn't agree more. The charcaters were of their time and both are now redundant. Leave us with our fond memories of Lois and Desmond, both of whom I loved (and, yes, Sam Bond, too, actually) and move on. I see nothing to be gained by bringing back either character to clutter up proceedings when, as the last two films have ably demonstrated, they are just not needed anymore.

[dee-bee-five]

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.

And the film was all the stronger in my opinion for not givin them what they expected.

Perhaps Q asnd Moneypenny scenes should be shot separately from the main film from now on and available as an optional extra on the DVD or Blu Ray releases?

If the writers can't be bothered, than that shows a tremendous disrespect for fans, and the British Institution.

Therein lies the rub. The writers of Bond films these days can be bothered, which is why they won't resort to the lowest common demoninator, crowd-pleasing tricks of old. Furthermore, "the fans" are the last people the writers should be writing for. When films or TV shows are made for "the fans", that sounds the death knell because they are the very last people producers and writers should be listening to.

And when any creative endeavour becomes an institution, it's time for it to be put in another British Institution - the British Museum.

[The Shark]

Therein lies the rub. The writers of Bond films these days can be bothered, which is why they won't resort to the lowest common demoninator, crowd-pleasing tricks of old. Furthermore, "the fans" are the last people the writers should be writing for. When films or TV shows are made for "the fans", that sounds the death knell because they are the very last people producers and writers should be listening to.

And when any creative endeavour becomes an institution, it's time for it to be put in another British Institution - the British Museum.

What kind of arrogant **** is that? "lowest common denominator", I'd agree that they'll aren't essential, but throwing out everything but the essentials is missing the trick to Fleming's novels entirely.
If the writers or indeed producers are too happy to sit in their billion dollar ivory towers, hiring some pseudo-art-house director, a Hollywood-elite slime-ball writer, and not care about pleasing the "crowds" or fans, casual or more devoted, then the series is indeed dead, and for it's own good.

And the film was all the stronger in my opinion for not givin them what they expected.

There's a large difference between not giving what people expect or are accustomed too, and not giving them what they want. Sometimes a nice surprise can be very effective, yet when fans expect something more traditional the second time round (a softer blow), they get a bigger surprise than the previous one, provoking a negative response, particularly at the beginning of a recession.

Perhaps Q asnd Moneypenny scenes should be shot separately from the main film from now on and available as an optional extra on the DVD or Blu Ray releases?

To stop anally retentive anti-EON-Bond fans from being offended by their sheer presence?

Edited by The Shark, 15 July 2009 - 11:52 PM.

[plankattack]

Therein lies the rub. The writers of Bond films these days can be bothered, which is why they won't resort to the lowest common demoninator, crowd-pleasing tricks of old.

Sorry Shark, I'm with DB here. The last two films (regardless of how one feels about he end result) have made every effort to not just stick in moments/characters because they're "supposed" to be there. I've said before I wouldn't mind the return of Q but am indifferent to Moneypenny returning, but ultimately the issue is not whether they return, but how they return. If it's just wedging in scenes like (pick any you like from Bonds 1-20, because they're basically all the same) then yes, we've been there and done that. And just doing it again has been a fault in the series far too often. And it is a series, not a bi-annual pantomine.

[DaveBond21]

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

Exactly. There's a nod to the audience there.

And what's Zorin going on about that this guy threw up. Clearly it's Villiers who throws up! Remember Villiers? The one-shot Moneypenny replacement?

[dee-bee-five]

Therein lies the rub. The writers of Bond films these days can be bothered, which is why they won't resort to the lowest common demoninator, crowd-pleasing tricks of old. Furthermore, "the fans" are the last people the writers should be writing for. When films or TV shows are made for "the fans", that sounds the death knell because they are the very last people producers and writers should be listening to.

And when any creative endeavour becomes an institution, it's time for it to be put in another British Institution - the British Museum.

What kind of arrogant **** is that? "lowest common denominator", I'd agree that they'll aren't essential, but throwing out everything but the essentials is missing the trick to Fleming's novels entirely.
If the writers or indeed producers are too happy to sit in their billion dollar ivory towers, hiring some pseudo-art-house director, a Hollywood-elite slime-ball writer, and not care about pleasing the "crowds" or fans, casual or more devoted, then the series is indeed dead, and for it's own good.

And the film was all the stronger in my opinion for not givin them what they expected.

There's a large difference between not giving what people expect or are accustomed too, and not giving them what they want. Sometimes a nice surprise can be very effective, yet when fans expect something more traditional the second time round (a softer blow), they get a bigger surprise than the previous one, provoking a negative response, particularly at the beginning of a recession.

Perhaps Q asnd Moneypenny scenes should be shot separately from the main film from now on and available as an optional extra on the DVD or Blu Ray releases?

To stop anally retentive anti-EON-Bond fans from being offended by their sheer presence?

I think your replies demonstrate perfectly why Eon are right to disregard bleatings from "fans". (And, incidentally, my last comment you quote about Q and Moneypenny scenes being shot separately was a joke. Though, God knows, it was so obvious, I really shouldn't have to point that out).

[The Shark]

Therein lies the rub. The writers of Bond films these days can be bothered, which is why they won't resort to the lowest common demoninator, crowd-pleasing tricks of old. Furthermore, "the fans" are the last people the writers should be writing for. When films or TV shows are made for "the fans", that sounds the death knell because they are the very last people producers and writers should be listening to.

And when any creative endeavour becomes an institution, it's time for it to be put in another British Institution - the British Museum.

What kind of arrogant **** is that? "lowest common denominator", I'd agree that they'll aren't essential, but throwing out everything but the essentials is missing the trick to Fleming's novels entirely.
If the writers or indeed producers are too happy to sit in their billion dollar ivory towers, hiring some pseudo-art-house director, a Hollywood-elite slime-ball writer, and not care about pleasing the "crowds" or fans, casual or more devoted, then the series is indeed dead, and for it's own good.

And the film was all the stronger in my opinion for not givin them what they expected.

There's a large difference between not giving what people expect or are accustomed too, and not giving them what they want. Sometimes a nice surprise can be very effective, yet when fans expect something more traditional the second time round (a softer blow), they get a bigger surprise than the previous one, provoking a negative response, particularly at the beginning of a recession.

Perhaps Q asnd Moneypenny scenes should be shot separately from the main film from now on and available as an optional extra on the DVD or Blu Ray releases?

To stop anally retentive anti-EON-Bond fans from being offended by their sheer presence?

I think your replies demonstrate perfectly why Eon are right to disregard bleatings from "fans". (And, incidentally, my last comment you quote about Q and Moneypenny scenes being shot separately was a joke. Though, God knows, it was so obvious, I really shouldn't have to point that out).

You're perfectly right, EON shouldn't let fans occlude their creative decisions, Christ the last time we got that would have to be in the dreaded Brosnan era.

All I was trying to say, was that EON should try and seriously look back at Fleming's works, and try to see where they've gone wrong. Q and Moneypenny were never consistent characters like in the Broccoli and Saltzman films, but they were there, nether the less.

If you can't make a period piece, then adapt the various characters for current times, to respect the source material, rather than callously throw them away.

P.S. I'm sorry about my previous response, the alcohol interacted with my medication...

[volante]

The DC films both have Fleming titles, and feature Fleming characters; but that's it. M is female, simply because Dame Judi had the gig. So why can't Moneypenny be a man?

One rumour I read was that Angelina Joliee was looking for a big franchise to make appearences in now that she is being replaced in Tomb Raider.

She would bring sexual tension to the role of Moneypenny, either as M's secratary or maybe an informer on the Quantum organisation.

I dunno, maybe I'm just clutching at straws wanting to see her on screen.

[dee-bee-five]

P.S. I'm sorry about my previous response...

That's okay. We can all - myself included - get carried away on the internet when we feel passionate about something. But not everyone has the courtesy to apologise, so many thanks for that.