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 believe the classic characterization can still be done in the future, but not now. Not with Craig's Bond.
I'm glad EON is moving by the drums of their own beat.
It's hilarious.
I started the thread and I'm not saying we should get rid of them. Although I did feel it was refreshing to have a break from them in CR and QoS
I disagree. I'm all for changing with the formula and like what they've done in SF and SP, I like variety - sometimes stick to the formula other times don't, then neither gets boring. I started the thread to have the discussion nothing more.
But it´s obvious they´re putting more emphasis on putting as many elements as they can into the films that people call for than on making a good film.
Sometimes with more success, recently with considerably less success.
I don´t even mind turning them into characters they weren´t before. In CR Bond was turned into a character he never was before. But Craig and the filmmakers pulled it off fearlessly. In QoS I felt that this Bond had nothing to do with anything of the Connery-Moore era, yet I totally wanted him to continue, because Craig f***ing owned the role. I don´t mind much how Bond turned out since then, but MP for instance I find a pitiful waste as long as she has to be Goodnight. As for the rest of the gang, my personal blame lies most of all with Mendes. With better storytelling a lot of screen time variations could be pulled off effectively.
Just out of Uni? The guys 35 ffs! I've heard of further education but that's taking it a bit far!
This. And we can get rid of the meatier roles for M, too.
Agreed.
I'll give you that one!
Nonetheless the point still stands - SF is painted as pretty much his first day on the job so why would he constantly keep risking the sack just for Bond who he hardly knows.
If I was 009 I'd raise a grievance that Bond always gets the Aston while I'm stuck with a Prius from Hertz. I guess maybe it feeds into the theory someone put about on another thread that Q is gay (simply because Wishaw is) - hes got a crush on Bond so goes out of his way to help him.
Besides that, Craig hasn´t been remotely as offensive towards Q as Connery or Moore used to be.
One thing that comes to my mind concerning M, MP, Q and Tanner is that there used to be a time when they represented certain kinds of polarity. They each had their short moments, yet they left an impression that lasted for the whole rest of the film. I don´t get this feeling anymore. It seems the more often they are on the screen in one film, the smaller the impression they leave. Everybody seems to do the same job. Maybe I am really conservative, but I find the old constellation much more colorful and interesting, where M did his job, MP did her job, Q did his job, Bond did his job.
Yes conveniently ignoring a previous Bond film which was very much M's story we're now having some whinging about M's participation in SP.
I didn't miss or need Q and Moneypenny in CR and QOS but now we have them, why not enjoy them. Other Bonds had the characters so I can't see why Craig's Bond universe can't be expanded either.
Whishaw really won me over in SP. He annoyed the hell out of me in SF but hit his stride with SP. He's a keeper IMO. Best performance of the whole movie as far as I'm concerned.
"Please don't." LOL!
In SF he came across as haughty, which is tough for a younger Q to pull off (although I love the "pajamas" lines).
I'm happy with Fiennes. Q I like too, he and Bond have some good banter. And even Tanner – I felt he and Bond were rather pally cruising down the Thames together.
My only complaint is Moneypenny. I though she improved on her SF appearance, but there is still some work to do. “He's seen us! REVERSE!!!”
If anything, I like to Tanner continuing indefinitely, if only for @TheWizardOfIce's similes on how dull Tanner can be. “about as dull as popping down B&Q for some grouting” is my personal highlight.