Purvis & Wade vs. Richard Maibaum? That's a bit of an unfair comparision, isn't it? We now have story-tellers, a polisher... but who's gonna write the memorable one-liners? Oh, I forgot, we don't need those.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Purvis & Wade vs. Richard Maibaum? That's a bit of an unfair comparision, isn't it?
Well, of course. But it IS what they should bloody well be aspiring to achieve. I would certainly like to have a look at this script :v
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
For the record, Q was not in LALD because Desmond Llewelyn had a scheduling conflict with some TV show he was doing at the time and the producers decided to have his scenes rewritten so M gives Bond his watch rather than recast the character. That's a far cry from deliberately omitting the character, as they appear to be doing in CR.
For what it's worth, I think Q is being omitted because his character always brought a little comedy relief to the films (yes, even LTK) as well as the gadgets and that doesn't seem to be the tone they're going for with CR. I have a feeling humor (and gadgets) will be very limited commodities in CR.
TonyDP
Supoib, about time there was a Bond film like that.
And it doesn't matter what the reason was, he still wasn't in LALD, and personally I didn't care in the slightest. I would if he was never going to be in a Bond film again but not just the odd one or two.
I agree with Bladerunner here. To be honest, it never really dawned on me that Q wasn't actually in LALD until I read it somewhere - so it shows how much I missed him in that film.
Like Moneypenney, I always felt with the Q gadget scenes it sometimes brought too much comedy - something I could live without.
So the fact that there is no Q in CR again doesn't make me worried - in fact the opposite - it gives me hope!
But I think it would be a mistake to eliminate this character entirely from now on.
For the record, Q was not in LALD because Desmond Llewelyn had a scheduling conflict with some TV show he was doing at the time and the producers decided to have his scenes rewritten so M gives Bond his watch rather than recast the character. That's a far cry from deliberately omitting the character, as they appear to be doing in CR.
For what it's worth, I think Q is being omitted because his character always brought a little comedy relief to the films (yes, even LTK) as well as the gadgets and that doesn't seem to be the tone they're going for with CR. I have a feeling humor (and gadgets) will be very limited commodities in CR.
TonyDP
Supoib, about time there was a Bond film like that.
And it doesn't matter what the reason was, he still wasn't in LALD, and personally I didn't care in the slightest. I would if he was never going to be in a Bond film again but not just the odd one or two.
My, my, looks like somebody got a lump of coal in the stocking for Christmas.
A serious, humorless, gadgetless Bond movie may be your idea of a good time, I see things differently. And I'm not beholden to Fleming's vision of Bond, he hasn't been like that for decades.
In the end it comes down to what we find entertaining, you and I obviously have very different tastes. But that's no reason for your negative, condescending attitude. If somebody doesn't agree with you, try a little more civility and a little less trash.
For the record, Q was not in LALD because Desmond Llewelyn had a scheduling conflict with some TV show he was doing at the time and the producers decided to have his scenes rewritten so M gives Bond his watch rather than recast the character. That's a far cry from deliberately omitting the character, as they appear to be doing in CR.
For what it's worth, I think Q is being omitted because his character always brought a little comedy relief to the films (yes, even LTK) as well as the gadgets and that doesn't seem to be the tone they're going for with CR. I have a feeling humor (and gadgets) will be very limited commodities in CR.
TonyDP
Supoib, about time there was a Bond film like that.
And it doesn't matter what the reason was, he still wasn't in LALD, and personally I didn't care in the slightest. I would if he was never going to be in a Bond film again but not just the odd one or two.
My, my, looks like somebody got a lump of coal in the stocking for Christmas.
A serious, humorless, gadgetless Bond movie may be your idea of a good time, I see things differently. And I'm not beholden to Fleming's vision of Bond, he hasn't been like that for decades.
In the end it comes down to what we find entertaining, you and I obviously have very different tastes. But that's no reason for your negative, condescending attitude. If somebody doesn't agree with you, try a little more civility and a little less trash.
TonyDP
I think you are being a little over sensitive there Tony. I don't think Bladerunner was being condescending with what he wrote, or that it was trash. He was offering an opinion similar to mine on his thoughts on Q.
But I agree with you on having differing tastes. That's what makes Bond all the more interesting. He can appeal to all types, not just the Brosnan DAD-fans, or the hardcore Fleming fans.
I didn't like DAD but others did. I liked LTK and others didn't. So no doubt CR will have its divide too.
Supoib, about time there was a Bond film like that.
And it doesn't matter what the reason was, he still wasn't in LALD, and personally I didn't care in the slightest. I would if he was never going to be in a Bond film again but not just the odd one or two.
My, my, looks like somebody got a lump of coal in the stocking for Christmas.
A serious, humorless, gadgetless Bond movie may be your idea of a good time, I see things differently. And I'm not beholden to Fleming's vision of Bond, he hasn't been like that for decades.
In the end it comes down to what we find entertaining, you and I obviously have very different tastes. But that's no reason for your negative, condescending attitude. If somebody doesn't agree with you, try a little more civility and a little less trash.
TonyDP
I think you are being a little over sensitive there Tony. I don't think Bladerunner was being condescending with what he wrote, or that it was trash. He was offering an opinion similar to mine on his thoughts on Q.
But I agree with you on having differing tastes. That's what makes Bond all the more interesting. He can appeal to all types, not just the Brosnan DAD-fans, or the hardcore Fleming fans.
I didn't like DAD but others did. I liked LTK and others didn't. So no doubt CR will have its divide too.
Glidrose,
I didn't care for that "supoib" bit, nor the clipped, dismissive tone of his post. That could be my perception but there you are.
I think a little more netiquette would go a long way towards clearing up potential misunderstandings like that. You and I have not seen eye on eye on the direction of the next movie, but you've always taken the time to write thoughtful posts and to consider other people's views. Even if I don't always agree with your views, I respect them and I respect the way you present them. Unfortunately, I cannot always say the same for Blade.
Here's a nice little quote from Craig himself in a Sewdish interview:
DC about Q not being in the film: "We didn't need Q, there are less gadgets in this one. When Q is introduced, probably in the next film, we're going to make a big deal about it, but there wasn't time or space to do that in this one.
Here's a nice little quote from Craig himself in a Sewdish interview:
DC about Q not being in the film: "We didn't need Q, there are less gadgets in this one. When Q is introduced, probably in the next film, we're going to make a big deal about it, but there wasn't time or space to do that in this one.
So Q will be in Bond 22. Finally some good news. {[]
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Here's a nice little quote from Craig himself in a Sewdish interview:
DC about Q not being in the film: "We didn't need Q, there are less gadgets in this one. When Q is introduced, probably in the next film, we're going to make a big deal about it, but there wasn't time or space to do that in this one.
So Q will be in Bond 22. Finally some good news. {[]
im glad Q will be returning in Bond 22, do you tink the will introduce him as Q or Boothroyd as they did in Dr no?
Whoever he is, I hope he isn't some broad comedic actor, like Rowan Atkinson, Eddie Izzard, or even John Cleese. The wonderful Desmond Llewelyn worked so well precisely because he wasn't trying to be funny or grandstand with that great role.
I'm not sure who would make a good "Q," as that "type" of actor really isn't around anymore. Still, there are a few actors that might bring something interesting to a reimagined Q. He may seem an odd choice, as he is more a "heavy," but Brendan Gleeson could bring a balance of crotchety and exasperation, somewhat like the sheriff he played in the underrated "Lake Placid."
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Here's a nice little quote from Craig himself in a Sewdish interview:
DC about Q not being in the film: "We didn't need Q, there are less gadgets in this one. When Q is introduced, probably in the next film, we're going to make a big deal about it, but there wasn't time or space to do that in this one.
So Q will be in Bond 22. Finally some good news. {[]
I'm glad to hear this as well, as Q (like Moneypenny) represents part of the cinematic tradition of Bond. Whatever the overall tone of #22 and #23, I expect Eon to be judicious in how they add them to the mix.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I'm glad Q will be back in Bond 22. In my oppinion Hugh Laurie could be a great Q. He can do comedy very well, but also play a very inteligent man in a dramatic series. I'm thinking of "House", of course. That part in that series is the perfect "application" if you want to be Q!
I would be pleased to see Q return in Bond 22. If he does, it will be interesting to discover how he is introduced and in what context. For instance, will the re-boot theme be continued or not?
I'm glad Q will be back in Bond 22. In my oppinion Hugh Laurie could be a great Q. He can do comedy very well, but also play a very inteligent man in a dramatic series. I'm thinking of "House", of course. That part in that series is the perfect "application" if you want to be Q!
I completely agree. Hugh Laurie could be a great Q! {[]
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Whoever he is, I hope he isn't some broad comedic actor, like Rowan Atkinson, Eddie Izzard, or even John Cleese. The wonderful Desmond Llewelyn worked so well precisely because he wasn't trying to be funny or grandstand with that great role.
Quite- having a 'comedy' character would be just terrible. I don't mind a bit of a light edge, but nothing showy. He should be capable of realising that his job is to make things that kill people; not be a lovely bumbling old fella who gets worried about the state his items come back in. Malcolm in Spooks is probably the best Q around.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I would be pleased to see Q return in Bond 22. If he does, it will be interesting to discover how he is introduced and in what context. For instance, will the re-boot theme be continued or not?
I believe it will, and that this Bond will have a definite story arc over two or three pictures; CR merely sets the table for them...as the novel did for the series of novels.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I would be pleased to see Q return in Bond 22. If he does, it will be interesting to discover how he is introduced and in what context. For instance, will the re-boot theme be continued or not?
I believe it will, and that this Bond will have a definite story arc over two or three pictures; CR merely sets the table for them...as the novel did for the series of novels.
I am pretty certain that's what Eon are planning for right now. However, should Casino Royale turn out to be something of a disappointment at the box office might they possibly be forced to change direction?
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Anything's possible... but I have a gut feeling this one's going to be a winner :007)
If I'm wrong, and it pulls an 'LTK' at the box office, at least a Fleming-esque film will have been made---a not inconsiderable consolation B-)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I don't think LTK even did that badly did it? (Maybe it did- I don't bother reading the numbers; terribly boring) And even if it did, I think they would still have plowed on making more in tha same vein had it not been for the court business- possibly going back more TLD direction, but not a million miles off. I think it would have to take an absolute disaster for them to change the path of these new movies, and I simply can't imagine that happening with this movie- it's getting too much press and too much good word of mouth. We'll see how it goes after the press screenings next week.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited November 2006
American box office---rightly or wrongly, a benchmark for overall film success---was disappointing for LTK. The good news, this time round, is that the script is more focused (I think)...and, despite the fact that there is a planned multi-picture arc, Bond #22 will be about adding more traditional Precious Classic Formula elements into the mix.
When Q and Moneypenny return in #22, people may well bemoan the fact that they weren't in CR, but by then the strategic re-structuring of the franchise will have taken place, and (hopefully) those who've been alienated by the reboot will begin to feel more 'at home.'
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
Well, of course. But it IS what they should bloody well be aspiring to achieve. I would certainly like to have a look at this script :v
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I agree with Bladerunner here. To be honest, it never really dawned on me that Q wasn't actually in LALD until I read it somewhere - so it shows how much I missed him in that film.
Like Moneypenney, I always felt with the Q gadget scenes it sometimes brought too much comedy - something I could live without.
So the fact that there is no Q in CR again doesn't make me worried - in fact the opposite - it gives me hope!
But I think it would be a mistake to eliminate this character entirely from now on.
My, my, looks like somebody got a lump of coal in the stocking for Christmas.
A serious, humorless, gadgetless Bond movie may be your idea of a good time, I see things differently. And I'm not beholden to Fleming's vision of Bond, he hasn't been like that for decades.
In the end it comes down to what we find entertaining, you and I obviously have very different tastes. But that's no reason for your negative, condescending attitude. If somebody doesn't agree with you, try a little more civility and a little less trash.
TonyDP
I think you are being a little over sensitive there Tony. I don't think Bladerunner was being condescending with what he wrote, or that it was trash. He was offering an opinion similar to mine on his thoughts on Q.
But I agree with you on having differing tastes. That's what makes Bond all the more interesting. He can appeal to all types, not just the Brosnan DAD-fans, or the hardcore Fleming fans.
I didn't like DAD but others did. I liked LTK and others didn't. So no doubt CR will have its divide too.
Glidrose,
I didn't care for that "supoib" bit, nor the clipped, dismissive tone of his post. That could be my perception but there you are.
I think a little more netiquette would go a long way towards clearing up potential misunderstandings like that. You and I have not seen eye on eye on the direction of the next movie, but you've always taken the time to write thoughtful posts and to consider other people's views. Even if I don't always agree with your views, I respect them and I respect the way you present them. Unfortunately, I cannot always say the same for Blade.
TonyDP
DC about Q not being in the film: "We didn't need Q, there are less gadgets in this one. When Q is introduced, probably in the next film, we're going to make a big deal about it, but there wasn't time or space to do that in this one.
im glad Q will be returning in Bond 22, do you tink the will introduce him as Q or Boothroyd as they did in Dr no?
I'm not sure who would make a good "Q," as that "type" of actor really isn't around anymore. Still, there are a few actors that might bring something interesting to a reimagined Q. He may seem an odd choice, as he is more a "heavy," but Brendan Gleeson could bring a balance of crotchety and exasperation, somewhat like the sheriff he played in the underrated "Lake Placid."
I'm glad to hear this as well, as Q (like Moneypenny) represents part of the cinematic tradition of Bond. Whatever the overall tone of #22 and #23, I expect Eon to be judicious in how they add them to the mix.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Quite- having a 'comedy' character would be just terrible. I don't mind a bit of a light edge, but nothing showy. He should be capable of realising that his job is to make things that kill people; not be a lovely bumbling old fella who gets worried about the state his items come back in. Malcolm in Spooks is probably the best Q around.
I believe it will, and that this Bond will have a definite story arc over two or three pictures; CR merely sets the table for them...as the novel did for the series of novels.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I am pretty certain that's what Eon are planning for right now. However, should Casino Royale turn out to be something of a disappointment at the box office might they possibly be forced to change direction?
If I'm wrong, and it pulls an 'LTK' at the box office, at least a Fleming-esque film will have been made---a not inconsiderable consolation B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
When Q and Moneypenny return in #22, people may well bemoan the fact that they weren't in CR, but by then the strategic re-structuring of the franchise will have taken place, and (hopefully) those who've been alienated by the reboot will begin to feel more 'at home.'
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM