It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I find it hard to believe he'll want to continue on for too long as well. I just wouldn't let him walk easily if I were EON. I'd try to make it worth his while to stay on for a while, even if it meant overpaying him for what should be a relatively small role.
I agree that Harris does seem out of her depth but that could be due the character being asked to do too much. If she restricts her activities to the original Moneypenny, then she maybe fine. Going from M's PA to field agent is "a bridge too far" in my book and a wasted opportunity to create a new female 00 agent to work with Bond.
The point of the new Moneypenny is that she's NOT cut out to be a field agent. However capable she is, she's had a taste of that world and it's not for her. (She went from field agent to PA, not the reverse.)
Generally I think the support team should stick to the home office. But in execution, M showing up in Miami/Bahamas (her agent just avoided a major terrorist bombing), M showing up in South America (her agent had gone rogue, possibly killing every contact he came across, and the CIA were after him), and Q rabbiting around the ski lifts all are better for those films than Bond just being in his own in the field.
It was good for M to be confronted first-hand with the hard realities she knows but doesn't so often see, not least to be convinced Bond is her agent and she trusts him. That builds across films to the events of SKYFALL. I also like Q getting his taste of the world outside his pajamas and his cup of Earl Grey. And his cats. They're building that relationship in smart, entertaining ways.
Not everyone, but for the latest Bond films I see a modern response of speculating on improvements in an approach that is not applied to the older, very familiar films. Even DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER.
So my starting point: What is, is. What is not, is not. Is that it? It is.
And where I wouldn't support the original choice to establish a female M or expect a reboot to film CASINO ROYALE, the filmmakers did those things and I think did them very well. For the plot points of SPECTRE discussed here I was surprised, they work for the film, and overall it's a fun, classy mission that moves the franchise forward. Another well done film with Craig, they're building quite a body of work.
Not a very provocative view for discussion, but that's where I'm at.
+1. Its a Bond film not Spooks.
As for Fiennes - why wouldn't he be open to the same sort of "gig" that Judi Dench enjoyed? Hopefully in the vein of her GE, TND, DAD appearances rather than the films where she was a major player (TWINE, SF) or Bond's babysitter (CR, QoS).
I like Wishaw, Harris and Fiennes. Wishaw was easily one of the best things about both Skyfall and Spectre - he is fantastic opposite Craig - and has proven himself a great asset in the "reboot" era. Audiences enjoyed him, too. I'm not sure Harris or Fiennes have left as much of an impression - you don't see people talking about them. I thought Harris was far better in her second appearance, and Fiennes far better in his first. Neither have been 100% stellar or 100% crap.
What I will agree on is that all three of these characters need their screen time severely reduced. Maybe limit M, Moneypenny and Q to two scenes (shared or not) at the very most. I applauded the initial decision to cut Moneypenny and Q from the Craig films - they had become a stale, predictable bit of formula. Now the characters are being used for new purposes, assisting Bond in the field, but it's at the expense of seeing Bond headed into danger on a mission by himself. It will be up to the writers to present these characters in a fresh way without overexposing them.
I thought this one was a big stretch in plausibility.
It sets up a great scene that builds up the Bond character on several sides.
You must give me the name of your oculist.
It might be different when the next director (if not Mendes) is directing actors he/she has not cast.
Maybe. The increased MI6 staff screen time started with M in TWINE. I think at the time it was just an opportunity to do something different storywise, but from DAD onward, M and company have been featuring fairly heavily throughout every film. That's down to the producers asking this of the writers. It's not the directors making these calls. (Though I have no doubt Mendes fully rallied behind inserting Judi and Ralph and Ben and Naomi and Rory into every other scene.)
Sparingly in comparison to SP perhaps, but when MP shows up in Macau, joining Bond in the casino even, and Q joins him on earpiece in a pivotal second act action sequence, that's definitely more than sparingly, IMO.
Damn, I haven't watched QoS in a long time. Why is he covered in dust and soy sauce? Craig was wasted in that film.
=)) That's the funniest thing I've read all day!
One thing I did not like about Spectre was that he was dressed so perfectly on the train, had he not been on the way for quite some time. How many suitcases must he have carried with him?
What annoyed me more was that he got the s**t kicked out of him by Hinx and didn't have a mark on him ?
What happened to the bashed and bloody Bond from CR,QoS,SF ??!!
Lazy lazy lazy....
Yes I think consistant outfit / appearance is what I want to see in a future Bond film. If Bond is beaten his blood should be seen on his clothes even though this might look less elegant.
Fashion itself has nothing to do with Bond, nor his elegance. Bond is a man who has created his own style - one that’s outside fashion. He should be timeless.
The key to this elegance is choosing classics and keeping things simple. That applies to causal wear too. All the looks should be elegant and dapper.
A focus on the villain's plan. The villain's plan should be interesting and not some kind of a boring side plot that we don't really see on screne. The last Bond films did not really have so very exciting villain plans or the plans were not really visualized. I even think QoS water controll plot is really good. However, it could have been so much better if there had been a climax with some important water supply facility set piece (let's say a water reservoir) combined with a race against the clock in order to prevent a catastrophe. However, we don't even see any fresh water in the entire film. So the whole plan could have been about something completely different. That is lame.
In my eyes, the last Bond film with a great combination of set piece, climax and villain plan was Goldeneye.
As an alternative, I would like to see a modern MacGuffin story. Then the intensity comes from the competition between Bond and the villain to find an important device first.
More than a merely well-executed force of Bond's friend into a scene...it was actually plot-driven. Oberhauser has "checked out" according to MI6's records, Bond is breaking the rules in the wrong country (again) with another agent's car, and Q and Moneypenny are thinking their careers are on the line while 9 eyes has exposed their shenanigans not only to C and M but to the bad guys, to some degree, and so this plot progress could not have been made otherwise without a bit of a contradiction.
Q visiting allows the ring to be (admittedly, sillily) analyzed and proof of S.P.E.C.T.R.E. to be given to Bond and L'Américain to be successfully investigated, at least ostensibly -- the machinations of Hinx+ESB are never made transparent so its (intentionally) less than clear how much they are chasing vs. puppetmastering Bond on his adventure (which is really the point of this part of the story, even though it fuels plotpoint confusion and confusion fuels movie "fan" whinging).
To reduce it to Bond's supporting cast being forced into the field because of whim is to lose part of the story. It helps to submit oneself to the momentum of stories rather than try to "word-of-God" them from the peanut gallery. Meaning...to watch James Bond is to watch a man who sometimes has to do things that aren't what you would have him do, and seeing how he handles it. Sometimes, some of his missions involve helpers from London, sometimes not; that can be seen as the biography of JB when all is said and done. Rather than...they're doing it "wrong" when folks visit him from London.