Things you never want to see in a Bond film again

12325272829

Comments

  • Posts: 1,631
    CountJohn wrote: »
    dalton wrote: »
    Fiennes should absolutely continue on as M. If they could justify keeping Dench on despite the reboot, then Fiennes should be able to continue on when they change actors.

    I just find it hard to believe Fiennes is going to want to do the part for that long. I have a feeling that if Craig goes, he goes. Hope I'm wrong.

    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.

  • edited February 2017 Posts: 4,603
    There is a larger debate to be had regarding the value of continuity within Bond movies. I think many look back at the SC/RM era with fondness, not only because of the movies themselves but how "the team" remained pretty static. It creates a warmth and sense of "family" within the franchise and also provides for emotional engagement (when required). There is no way, for example SF would would have worked with a new M.

    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.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,767
    You can tell the SP writers were forced to expand the roles of the M, Q and Moneypenny. Their scenes add nothing, and slow the film down by the constant cutting back to them.
    Well, that's the idea of parallel action in play and it's not likely to go away anytime soon.
    patb wrote: »
    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.

    Skyfall-National-Gallery-The-Fighting-Temeraire-Q-James-Bond-Ben-Whishaw-Daniel-Craig.png

  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,767
    So be it.

    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.

    bond15.jpg
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I completely disagree. I found all of that to be to the detriment of the films.

    +1. Its a Bond film not Spooks.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I completely disagree. I found all of that to be to the detriment of the films.

    +1. Its a Bond film not Spooks.
    +2
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I completely disagree. I found all of that to be to the detriment of the films.

    +1. Its a Bond film not Spooks.
    +2
    +3. I say dump these clowns.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    The M and C scenes in SP were outrageously bad. Poorly scripted, poorly acted and dull. I'd go so far as to say they actually hurt the film - that's how poor they were for me.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 676
    CountJohn wrote: »
    I think part of the reason they cast such a young actor as Q is to have another long tenured actor in the part like Llewelyn.
    Unlike Llewelyn, however, Wishaw is a higher profile actor who appeared in some big name gigs, hence he won't be the next Desmond, just as Harris won't be the next Lois Maxwell, or Ralph Fiennes the next Bernard Lee. For that to achieve, they have to find unknown actors who would endure devoting their careers to long lasting tenure in playing the same character for three decades, or who knows maybe four.
    Neither Wishaw nor Harris are the "high profile actors" people on here like to claim. I am sure both would be happy to collect a regular paycheck for working a couple weeks on a Bond film every 3 years. And I doubt EON will hold onto either actor until they've gone gray, as Cubby did with Llewelyn and Maxwell.

    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.
    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.
    I thought this one was a big stretch in plausibility.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,767
    Hope that helps, Richard.
    Well, it doesn't in the sense I disagree. But thanks explaining your approach.
    Milovy wrote: »
    Not in a Bond film. For me, anyway.

    It sets up a great scene that builds up the Bond character on several sides.

    maxresdefault.jpg
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,275
    Milovy wrote: »
    CountJohn wrote: »
    I think part of the reason they cast such a young actor as Q is to have another long tenured actor in the part like Llewelyn.
    Unlike Llewelyn, however, Wishaw is a higher profile actor who appeared in some big name gigs, hence he won't be the next Desmond, just as Harris won't be the next Lois Maxwell, or Ralph Fiennes the next Bernard Lee. For that to achieve, they have to find unknown actors who would endure devoting their careers to long lasting tenure in playing the same character for three decades, or who knows maybe four.
    Neither Wishaw nor Harris are the "high profile actors" people on here like to claim.

    You must give me the name of your oculist.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    But he is right. They are not.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited February 2017 Posts: 6,275
    Birdleson wrote: »
    If Whishaw's Q and Harris' Moneypenny aren't involved in action scenes, their working days will most likely be a couple of days at most - not weeks. The pay wouldn't be huge.

    So, as a result EON should add irrelevant scenes to a major film form a major franchise just so those supporting actors earn their pay? That would be pretty damned weak, particularly coming form people who dropped their successful star abruptly by phone. Yet, I think you are right. They have become weak, bending to the whims of actors and directors that, aside from the significant compensation, don't appear to overly prioritize the franchise.

    Where did you get that from? I was replying to Milovy's post. I agree that EON shouldn't film irrelevant scenes with the supporting cast - look at my previous posts. That's what slowed SP down - the constant cutting to the MI6 team when there was nothing interesting to add.

    It might be different when the next director (if not Mendes) is directing actors he/she has not cast.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 6,844
    echo wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    If Whishaw's Q and Harris' Moneypenny aren't involved in action scenes, their working days will most likely be a couple of days at most - not weeks. The pay wouldn't be huge.

    So, as a result EON should add irrelevant scenes to a major film form a major franchise just so those supporting actors earn their pay? That would be pretty damned weak, particularly coming form people who dropped their successful star abruptly by phone. Yet, I think you are right. They have become weak, bending to the whims of actors and directors that, aside from the significant compensation, don't appear to overly prioritize the franchise.

    Where did you get that from? I was replying to Milovy's post. I agree that EON shouldn't film irrelevant scenes with the supporting cast - look at my previous posts. That's what slowed SP down - the constant cutting to the MI6 team when there was nothing interesting to add.

    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.)
  • Q and Moneypenny were used sparingly in SF, and only because it aided the story. I'd say it's more a contractual agreement, so it's probably more EON than anyone else pushing for these characters to get more screen time. The writers and director are just on a leash.

    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.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Q and Moneypenny were used very sparingly in CR and QOS, though.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 676
    Q and Moneypenny were used sparingly in SF, and only because it aided the story. I'd say it's more a contractual agreement, so it's probably more EON than anyone else pushing for these characters to get more screen time. The writers and director are just on a leash.

    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.
    I actually don't even think of Harris as playing Moneypenny when I watch those scenes. She's Moneypenny in name only - and not even that, as she doesn't get named until the very end of the film. So to me, it doesn't "feel" like it's Moneypenny out in the field. (Your mileage may vary, of course.) I love that stretch of the film - when Bond leaves for Shanghai, up until he captures Silva. Feels like an old-school Bond film, where he's out on a mission without MI6 holding his hand. And "Eve" is just a Bond girl, another agent he's working with.
    It sets up a great scene that builds up the Bond character on several sides.

    maxresdefault.jpg
    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.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    Milovy wrote: »
    Q and Moneypenny were used sparingly in SF, and only because it aided the story. I'd say it's more a contractual agreement, so it's probably more EON than anyone else pushing for these characters to get more screen time. The writers and director are just on a leash.

    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.
    It sets up a great scene that builds up the Bond character on several sides.

    maxresdefault.jpg
    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!
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    Surprised so many people here care about how Bond is dressed. I don't mind him wearing a tshirt if this is apropriate. He is an undercover agent and should hide his identity. He should wear adequate clothes. That also means he should be dressed elegantly only if this is adequate, i.e. in a casino, an opera, etc..

    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?
  • Posts: 19,339
    GBF wrote: »
    Surprised so many people here care about how Bond is dressed. I don't mind him wearing a tshirt if this is apropriate. He is an undercover agent and should hide his identity. He should wear adequate clothes. That also means he should be dressed elegantly only if this is adequate, i.e. in a casino, an opera, etc..

    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....

  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    barryt007 wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    Surprised so many people here care about how Bond is dressed. I don't mind him wearing a tshirt if this is apropriate. He is an undercover agent and should hide his identity. He should wear adequate clothes. That also means he should be dressed elegantly only if this is adequate, i.e. in a casino, an opera, etc..

    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.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited February 2017 Posts: 5,131
    GBF wrote: »
    Surprised so many people here care about how Bond is dressed. I don't mind him wearing a tshirt if this is apropriate. He is an undercover agent and should hide his identity. He should wear adequate clothes. That also means he should be dressed elegantly only if this is adequate, i.e. in a casino, an opera, etc..

    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?

    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.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    What I also would like to see in Bond25:

    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.





  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    suavejmf wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    Surprised so many people here care about how Bond is dressed. I don't mind him wearing a tshirt if this is apropriate. He is an undercover agent and should hide his identity. He should wear adequate clothes. That also means he should be dressed elegantly only if this is adequate, i.e. in a casino, an opera, etc..

    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?

    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.
    Excellent post. I agree. He should also not look like he's trying too hard to look good. Bond must wear the clothes, and not the other way around.
  • AntiLocqueBrakesAntiLocqueBrakes The edge
    edited February 2017 Posts: 538
    Dudes dressed in leather jackets hijacking spaceships.
  • pking_3pking_3 Punting under the Bridge of Sighs
    Posts: 33
    Q rabbiting around the ski lifts all are better for those films than Bond just being in his own in the field.

    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.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Lee Tamahori Directing.

  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    Somewhere, if you look really hard, there is a good film hidden in DAD just wanting to get out. Instead we got an overblown piece of shit which is entirely Tamahori's fault IMO. There is no way he should ever be allowed anywhere near a Bond film again.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited February 2017 Posts: 16,351
    After his arrest in 2006 I doubt EON would ever want to work with him ever again.
Sign In or Register to comment.