Babs confirms a thing or two
blueman
PDXPosts: 1,667MI6 Agent
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117971501.html?categoryid=2670&cs=1&nid=2562
No Q or Moneypenny. Not sad about that at all, like the focus on Bond in Craig's arc.
No Q or Moneypenny. Not sad about that at all, like the focus on Bond in Craig's arc.
Comments
I am really glad Moneypenny and Q won't be back for now! Hope the focus stays on Bond and not on "funny" additives.
WOW!
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
On CBn someone's had a fun thought: what if the end scene of CR at Mr White's Italian pad actually takes place halfway through 22? In the same way that the end scene of Bourne Supremacy actually takes place halfway through Ultimatum!
I don't really mind either way, though. Keep bringing the news!
Well, I think it is good news that they are going to continue on in the same vein but I do not know why they can't do that and still bring back Moneypenny and Q. Including them doesn't mean you can't have a more serious tone to the film, after all I believe Q and Moneypenny were both in FRWL. Those characters are "beloved" for a reason.
In the end if Bond 22 ends up being as good as CR it will be hard to complain, not that that will stop me.:D
"'Casino Royale' has set a new standard, and it's now a question of meeting those expectations for the next one and delivering a film that is emotional and dramatic as well as action-packed."
I think I'm in love with Babs. She's my favorite Bond girl.
Great story there, Blueman.
If original Fleming material has run dry, the author's spirit is very much present. "You're always looking back at Fleming for inspiration," notes Broccoli's EON partner Michael G. Wilson, "all the writers do. Without getting specific, maybe there will be references to certain episodes. The approach to it is that Fleming is very much in the fabric of it."
But then that was 44 years ago, and after that they never changed. They just did the same thing over and over again in every movie and the formula got stale. It's about time for a rest.
Indeed. Although I like the Q and Moneypenny that have become the norm, I don't see why the producers can't rejig them to keep up with the new tone of the reboot.
I appreciate that the new films are a 'reboot' of the film series and they are trying to take the series in a newish direction, but to take out characters like those 2 is disappointing.
I have always enjoyed the interplay between Bond and Moneypenny and Bond and Q. As much as I loved Casino Royale, I felt that this was an emelent that was missing. Although I realise that a newly promoted Double 0 might not be as familiar with Q and Moneypenny.
I sincerely hope that they are not being completely written out of the rebooted series. And hope we may even get to see Bond's relationships with Q and Moneypenny grow in future films
They could of brought Q back and have him act like Q on DN or FRWL, just walk in, give the gadgets, and walk back out. It wouldn't be that hard. Now I think they should bring back Moneypenny, but not with Samantha Bond, just go back to the traditional older Lois Maxwell type who only has a few lines.
The final proof of imagination/no imagination will be the finished film, if it's anything like CR I'll be very happy. And if CR proved anything, it proved a Bond film can be very imaginative--successfully so--with the focus being on just Bond.
I get that you're pining for the comfy old Bond staples of the past, Dan, but doesn't seem EON is gonna be making such a Bond film anytime soon. To me it means Bond is more on the edge, and I much prefer that to sit-com exchanges with Q or Moneypenny. JMHO.
AICN reports the working title of Bond 22 is Property of a Lady, but it's AICN, so take that with a grain or two of salt. Of the Fleming options, I think that's the one I prefer most, but I've also always thought they'd come up with a completely original title for Bond 22, guess we'll see.
Now how about developing on a character that wasn't really developed at all (although featured in TMWTGG) - Mary Goodnight.
(good lord Britt Ekland was hot)
Let's fix that by doing a little rewrite on the script:
Bond: Bond here. I've just had a word with Mr. White. I'm on my way to Algeria, Ma'am, to smash his organization. They're threatening to unleash nuclear weapons on London. Millions will be killed. I'll phone again later when I've tracked ...
M: Bond ...
Bond: Yes, Ma'am.
M: I have to ask you to put your plan on hold for the time being.
Bond: Ma'am? ...
M: I need you here in London. Just for a couple of days. Be a good sport now.
Bond: London? Did you say 'London?' But Ma'am, the organization is in Algeria. London is the target.
M: Yes, I understand that. But I need you here.
Bond: At HQ? ... but why? Every second counts. Didn't you hear me? It's London, Ma'am. It's on the verge of being incinerated ...
M: Yes, I know. But first things first, I always say. I need to introduce you to a couple MI6 employees ... An obnoxious old man who should have been pensioned off years ago, whom I'm sure you won't like. And my new secretary. She's seen your file and tells me she thinks you're yummy ... Might do you good to get 'lucky' after Vesper.
Bond: But ...
M: Now Bond -- More than few people felt I should have fired your arse when you broke into my apartment. Don't disappoint me on this ..."
Yep -- Bond22 just won't be the same without Q and Moneypenny.
No, I'm not pining for 'the comfy old Bond staples.' I'm pining for a good Bond film. :v Having Moneypenny and Q does not a great Bond make. For every Connery film, OHMSS, TSWLM and GE, there is a TMWTGG, AVTAK and a Dalton film. However Q and Moneypenny are important to me as simply two parts of a Bond film and I still don't see why they can be used in a different way to how they were used previously.
But why does it have to be a sitcom exchange? (Which in many of the films, I quite liked.) People always talk about good the reboot is, yet when it comes to utilising Q and Moneypenny in a different way, it seems like an impossible task.
~Pen -{
mountainburdphotography.wordpress.com
Did Villiers work as a new Moneypenny?
Did the guy who shot the homing device into Craig's arm work as a new Q?
Couldn't one say that CR did have Q and Moneypenny in it, they were just different?
I don't think so. I think that there should be an attempt to be faithful to teh characters yet also keep in touch with the new tone and approach.
I can accept that the Craig films are different to the other films, but one of my concerns is that Q and Moneypenny will be phased out completely. I very much hope that they won't be but lne of my fears is that when things return to 'normal' they won't return.
Yes, I agree that it won't be.
There never was a "Q" in the books. Moneypenny was "desirable", but not a shameless flirt - begging Bond to make love to her.
I am certain the Moneypenny charecter will return, but I hope they have the restraint to allow the charecter to be a professional, more in line with Villiers, not the cartoon in DAD.
Right now I am thankful that EON will continue to allow Bond to develop as a charecter, and the focus should rightly be on oo7.
Restoring the franchise to the formula rehash that spread from YOLT to DAD would defeat the whole purpose behind the "reboot".
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
The one liners that were not funny but seemed only to be there because there should be Bond one liners. The painful exchange with Q where you could see Q reading the 'Q' cards. The usual hidden massive operations of the bad guy, being captured and the need for him to explain in detail the entire plan so Bond can thwart it. It goes on and on. I couldn't tell if I was watching a Bond flick or Austin Powers.
I guess I'm a bigger fan of the books or at least the movies that were more faithful to the books. There was less of a formula and the more the reboot can avoid the old formula but drive the Bond character, the better.
CR shows that Bond is strong enough of a character that he can be developed now more than before. No need to rely on the equity of the previous movies to sell a lesser movie (ie - DAD)
Many where who've become familiar with me---since before, during and/or after The Craig Wars---probably won't be surprised, but...
[wait for it...]
I'm going to give Eon the benefit of the doubt. I have an overall, positive 'gut feeling' about #22's potential.
:007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Come on HH, this scenario you have dully created is absolutely ludicrous! I for one believe that the Craig Bond films can perfectly manage the characters of Q and Moneypenny without veering off the gritty, humorless course that the series has taken, one that you so obviously enjoy.
To be honest, I find it blatantly irresponsible of EON to have omitted these beloved characters from CR when they could have easily been written in.
Who is Villiers? Well, he's basically a wooden, uninteresting, male Moneypenny. He serves no real purpose and has no clear relationship with Bond. When the screenwriters provided M with a secretary, why didn’t they just go with Moneypenny? Why Villiers? Personally, I think that the film would have benefited if M’s secretary had been Moneypenny rather than Villiers. For one, including Moneypenny in the film would have brought some comfort to those troubled by the “reboot.” Second, as Moneypenny has consistently been a strong supporter and friend to 007, she would have been a great foil to M, who rides Bond’s coattail all throughout CR. Third, by flirting with Moneypenny, Craig would have had yet another outlet to showcase his charisma. This is one department where myself and others believe that Craig could use some work.
There were several places in CR where the screenwriters could have placed Q. Perhaps he could have been one of the men helping 007 combat the poison. Perhaps he could have heard about Bond’s stunt in Madagascar and, sharing in M’s delight, delivered the chip into Bond’s arm. Perhaps he could have made the call to M, instead of Villiers, informing her that Bond had logged into the MI6 database using her name and password. Either of these last two would have started the Bond-Q relationship off on the wrong foot, just as we all have come to know it! In spite of clear opportunity in CR, we didn’t get our Quartermaster.
This news would have been disappointing if I didn’t already expect it. No Moneypenny, no Q, a Bond that is still a “blunt instrument;” I have a feeling that 2008 is going to be another disappointing year for Cinematic Bond Traditionalists everywhere…
-Roger Moore
But you didn't like the idea of Bond being used differently before CR; why do I get the feeling that if they did say that Q and Moneypenny were returning in new, revamped forms in which they won't be doing the same old thing (the formula that you're so keen on) you'd be complaining?
I've often said that I have no objection to Q or MP, with two caveats:
1)The characters should be different than the stock characters we've had the last 40 years. They could even -- hold on to your seat, Dan -- be funny. In fact, I've even given some examples (OK -- I thought they were funny). I'm just not interested in the "beloved" characters. They're tired and worn out. But of course, my idea begs the question, just as your scenario does: why bother having a Q or Monneypenney at all if they don't act like the characters we know. They might as well be Bob and Debbie. I barely notice ole Des in FRWL. It's a walk-on that can be dispensed with pretty easily. Bond in CR was able to introduce his gadgets without Q's help.
2) And this is most important -- they have to fit organically into the story. You seem to want to shoehorn them in at all costs, which was the real point of my post. Babs has said they could be back in the future if they need to be. But they won't for 22. If Bond 22 begins "two minutes" after CR, it might not be practical to introduce two characters who really have no real purpose to the story.
Hmm; seems like you're asking for the moon on a stick. You want the old, but in a new way, but you also don't like the new way; so if they can do the old in a new way -but not the new way that you don't like, but some other 'new way'- only then will you be happy. It sounds pretty unachievable. Either way, you seem to have decided to not like whatever they do.