54 replies to this topic

[jrcjohnny99]

I would not be a fan of bringing back Cleese or indeed Q for that matter;
I dont really think the new films need that.

What I would like to see is a new M;
I'm just not such a big fan of Dench in that role (as amazing as she is in other things) and I never understood why , when they rebooted with CR they didnt bring in a new M, never made that much sense to me. Why not keep Colin Salmon who I really liked...

I always though Kenneth Branagh could make a great M...

[B. Brown]

What I would like to see is a new M;
I'm just not such a big fan of Dench in that role (as amazing as she is in other things) and I never understood why , when they rebooted with CR they didnt bring in a new M, never made that much sense to me. Why not keep Colin Salmon who I really liked...

I always though Kenneth Branagh could make a great M...

I'm with you there. Craig's character needed a male M.

It's not sexist, so don't jump the gun. It's just what it's supposed to be. Plain and simple. Ask Ian Fleming. Er...

As far as realism goes, has Mi6 ever had a female chief?

EON needs to ditch this politically correct or so-called "unique" experimentation. For reference, they should take a look at "From Russia With Love".

[Mr. Blofeld]

As far as realism goes, has Mi6 ever had a female chief?

Erm... yes; Stella Rimington.

[Syndicate]

John Cleese or who ever comes in as Q is need. That is the same for Miss Moneypenny, she is also need. It does not matter whoever did not miss them not being in the last two movies. They are part of the James Bond world, and what makes James Bond a super spy well at less Q,and not a close to the real world type spy. Without the super spy car, a watch that can shoot laser, a key that opens the world's lock and other stuff then he wouldn't be a super spy. The only other way to tell that James Bond is a Super Spy are the action scences. Of course we all don't want the James Bond movies to be like The Russia House, Fail Safe, The Siege, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and Clear And Present Danger.

[jrcjohnny99]

As far as realism goes, has Mi6 ever had a female chief?

Erm... yes; Stella Rimington.

Of course just because it has happened in the real world doesnt mean it needs to happen in Bond's...
I'm just over Dench's potrayal and I thought (along with Q) that it should have been left behind when we got Craig,...

[Mr. Blofeld]

John Cleese or who ever comes in as Q is need. That is the same for Miss Moneypenny, she is also need. It does not matter whoever did not miss them not being in the last two movies. They are part of the James Bond world, and what makes James Bond a super spy well at less Q,and not a close to the real world type spy. Without the super spy car, a watch that can shoot laser, a key that opens the world's lock and other stuff then he wouldn't be a super spy.

Bond is not a "super spy"; he's merely an ordinary one, albeit one with extraordinary taste in fine vodka and fast cars.

[Syndicate]

Bond is not a "super spy"; he's merely an ordinary one, albeit one with extraordinary taste in fine vodka and fast cars.

If Bond is not a super spy then he should not know how to use a MP5SD, arm a bomb, fly a small plane or a fighter plane, in a car chase like the police or federal agents, hang from a chopper and HALO jump to name some. Tom Clancy's John Clark and Jack Ryan are not super spies at all. Clark was a Navy Seal during the Vietname war and later was recurited in to the CIA. He work in the National Clandestine Service's(use to be called the Directorate of Operations) Special Activities Division. That is where a operation officer would be trained to use a M4A1 and arm a bomb. Clark has also done regular operations that has nothing to with the Special Activities Division's type operation.
If Bond not a super spy then he should be a regular operation kind those that go to Germany, Holland, Panama, Amsterdam and Poland. Bond not those that are in the front line of war where a opertion officer would sometime work with Special Operation Forces. So if Bond not a super spy then he should be like George Smiley, Andy Osnard and John Preston(from Fredrick Forsyth's Fourth Protocal).

Edited by Syndicate, 29 July 2009 - 02:17 PM.

[Gabriel]

Erm... yes; Stella Rimington.

Actually, she was the guv'nor at MI5.

Q and Moneypenny as characters were very much creations of their main actors: Desmond Llewellyn and Lois Maxwell. There was little about them on the printed page of consequence and they were far from essential Ian Fleming characters (indeed, Major Boothroyd, the armourer, was never called 'Q'.) None of the actors cast since has managed to bring anything worthwhile to the roles: Pamela Salem had one line played dippily, Caroline Bliss was wooden and had nothing really to do and Samantha Bond started out as an irritating PC, pseudo-feminist shoulderpad advert, before reverting to dippy type!

Desmond Llewellyn stayed too long and should have been cleared out along with everyone else when GoldenEye was made. John Cleese as a replacement was a joke and, unlike Basil Fawlty, not a funny one!

The Bonds don't need Q and Moneypenny. They were roles that were expanded to help smooth over the the shaky transition period between Connery, Lazenby and Moore. The scenes featuring those characters were ultimately perfunctory, smug and a waste of screentime, telegraphing action scenes and plot twists and killing the pace of the films stone dead.

Casino Royale managed very well without the dead wood from the past films and QoS was weak for reasons other than the lack of presence of Moneypenny and Q. Indeed, recasting those roles now as a reaction to complaints about QoS would be an extreme act of creative cowardice. Bond has left other characters behind down the years, such as the Minister and General Gogol, so why should Q and Moneypenny be any different?

Moneypenny and Q don't belong in the Daniel Craig era. The support team who helped resucitate Bond in CR are effectively Q branch, rather than just one senescent old duffer, and who cares who fields M's phone calls and writes her letters?

Maybe they'll be worth bringing back in the tenure of Daniel Craig's successor, if there's a reason for them to be in the films, but for now let them rest in peace.

Edited by Gabriel, 30 July 2009 - 02:01 PM.

[O.H.M.S.S.]

I would like John Cleese to return.

[De Bleuchamp]

John Cleese NEEDS to be in the next Bond film. His appearance was sorely missed in the last two films. Also this needs to be Bonds next car. Let's make these films great again.

Certainly not. The car is awful too. Sorry...

[RJJB]

If you want Q and Moneypenny, watch the earlier movies. Having them in the newer movies just because of tradition is unnecessary. They have done everything with the characters and a renewed presence would just be to satisfy the cookie cutter approach to the movie. The result would be stagnation and it's not necessary.

[col_007]

John Cleese NEEDS to be in the next Bond film. His appearance was sorely missed in the last two films. Also this needs to be Bonds next car. Let's make these films great again.

Neither of those things NEED to be in a Bond film

[Tybre]

Count me in for no for both. Cleese wasn't bad, he just wasn't good, and anyway the only relic of the Brosnan era worth carrying over was carried over: Dame Judi. And the Esprit I've always thought was a fugly car, but the classic definitely looks better than this...thing.

[Tybre]

Count me in for no for both. Cleese wasn't bad, he just wasn't good, and anyway the only relic of the Brosnan era worth carrying over was carried over: Dame Judi. And the Esprit I've always thought was a fugly car, but the classic definitely looks better than this...thing.

[Tybre]

Count me in for no for both. Cleese wasn't bad, he just wasn't good, and anyway the only relic of the Brosnan era worth carrying over was carried over: Dame Judi. And the Esprit I've always thought was a fugly car, but the classic definitely looks better than this...thing.

[Tybre]

Count me in for no for both. Cleese wasn't bad, he just wasn't good, and anyway the only relic of the Brosnan era worth carrying over was carried over: Dame Judi. And the Esprit I've always thought was a fugly car, but the classic definitely looks better than this...thing.

[jaguar007]

I agree with Gabriel 100%. Lois Maxwell had great chemistry with Connery and Moore, but the Moneypenny scenes in the Dalton and Brosnan films seem shoehorned in and unnecessary.

[Double-Oh Agent]

I'd like to see John Cleese return. I didn't like how his character was written in The World Is Not Enough, but I did like what was done with it and how Cleese acted the part in Die Another Day.

As for the Lotus question, I think the car looks great, although I think it may be a little too exotic looking for Bond himself to drive (certainly compared to the smart looking Aston Martin). Still, I wouldn't complain if it made in the next film.

[DAN LIGHTER]

I agree with Gabriel 100%. Lois Maxwell had great chemistry with Connery and Moore, but the Moneypenny scenes in the Dalton and Brosnan films seem shoehorned in and unnecessary.

You hit the nail on the head there.

[jamie00007]

Terrible Q and ugly car. No thanks.

[volante]

If Aston Martin don't put a car forward for Bond 23 it will be a travisty.
However Ford are out of contract, so we could see another major manufacturer getting in on the act.

Maybe Volkswagon, and Bentley

[The Shark]

I wouldn't mind a Bentley.

Moneypenny and Q don't belong in the Daniel Craig era

.

So far neither have particularly good scripts or scores "belonged", doesn't mean it needs to stay that way for the sake of tedious continuity.

and who cares who fields M's phone calls and writes her letters?

Ian Fleming. Even if they may have seemed trivial, he put a great deal of care into adding characters such as Ponsonby, May, Monepenny and Q Branch, since they were there to symbolise the tediousness of Bond's everyday life in London, as opposed to his fantastical and exotic adventures abroad. The first half of MOONRAKER illustrates this point pretty well.

Like it or not these old duffers were more interesting personalities, than the no-namers who helped Bond resuscitate himself, or trace tagged dollar bills.

God forbid Fleming knew far more how to write interesting memorable characters than the hacks who wrote the last 2 scripts.

[JimmyBond]

God forbid Fleming knew far more how to write interesting memorable characters than the hacks who wrote the last 2 scripts.

As opposed to the hacks who wrote the Brosnan films? I don't think the problem is the character's themselves, and that's not what people are against. What people are against is having the character's shoehorned into the film for the sake of having them. Ok, I admit John Cleese's scenes in DAD were essential to the plot (except for that VR sequence, which wasnt needed at all), but Moneyepnny was just forced into DAD. If it was a scene where Bond had a quick chat with her on the way to M's office that would have been different...but Bond doesnt even interact with Moneypenny at all in the film, and the writer's jumped through hoops to give her stuff to do.

If the characters could be integrated into the storyline without detracting from the flow of the film than I'm all for that, but judging by the Brosnan scripts I don't believe that to be the case.

And just because you didnt like the last two films doesnt mean they were written by "hacks." I (along with several others) felt the last two films had strong scripts, probably the strongest scripts we've gotten in quite a while when it comes to Bond.

[Prof. Numbers]

I miss Q, not for the character, but for Q Branch. Bond needs more gadgets!

[The Shark]

And just because you didnt like the last two films doesnt mean they were written by "hacks." I (along with several others) felt the last two films had strong scripts, probably the strongest scripts we've gotten in quite a while when it comes to Bond.

No, I was merely suffering to Paul Haggis.

P&W aren't as bad as many claim to be.