The James Bond Debate Thread - 336 Craig looks positively younger in SP than he does in SF.

16465676970190

Comments

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    IMO the best chemisty between Bond and Q was in LTK. Their friendship really worked, and it was the most humane relationship between them.
  • Posts: 1,407
    IMO the best chemisty between Bond and Q was in LTK. Their friendship really worked, and it was the most humane relationship between them.

    Nothing more needs to be said. Disagree with this thesis
  • Posts: 4,813
    Tricky question again-- I believe OFFICIALLY, Q obviously shouldn't be going out there into the field, since that's totally not his job.
    However as mentioned above, when he did so in Licence to Kill he actually said he was 'on leave' and coming to help on his own accord- to 'help a friend'.
  • Posts: 12,526
    IMO the best chemisty between Bond and Q was in LTK. Their friendship really worked, and it was the most humane relationship between them.

    Well put DC! fully agree with you and disagree withthe thesis. If anyone does agree? Why not apply the same logic to M?
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    RogueAgent wrote:
    If anyone does agree? Why not apply the same logic to M?

    Why not indeed. Stay in your office for once woman - pleeeease.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited May 2012 Posts: 13,355
    If the situation is right, then it's OK that Q does. Otherwise, stay well clear. I think his use in Licence To Kill is case in point, even though he was on leave. As said it can become another M problem.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited May 2012 Posts: 6,304
    Disagree with the thesis.

    I think occasional departures from the norm are interesting--e.g. Bond at M's estate in OHMSS, or even in her flat in CR.

    Fascinating that the Dalton movies saw (attempted) expanded roles for series regulars for the first time. TLD would have had a big role for Gogol (which eventually morphed into Pushkin), and LTK did have one for Q.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 12,837
    Disagree. As long as they don't overdo it like they have with M. It worked really well in LTK.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Q should never be in the field, the knowledge and secrets he carries with him makes him far to valuable to put him in the field. That was one of my problems with LTK that MI6 was so casual about Q being in danger even if he was actually befriended with a rogue agent.

    Stupid move which takes the reality level of LTK to subterean levels, were it presides with Daltons charisma.
  • Imo, only when accompanied by other MI6 staff e.g. M like in TMWTGG, TSWLM, MR and OP. I'll make an exception for YOLT with Little Nellie and FYEO

    Agree with thesis
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Absolutely disagree. The best Q moments are when he is in the field. Desmond was brilliant in LTK, and that is one of my favorite appearances from his because one of my favorites got to stick around for a lot longer.
  • Posts: 228
    34g0j79.jpg
  • Posts: 5,634
    I didn't mind too much when Llewelyn was given an opportunity to roam or make himself more available in License to Kill, that's just one example, he was also more present in Octopussy but not on such a level as 1989. Thesis is wrong I say with all things considered, but I hope this new kid in Skyfall is kept to a minimum
  • Posts: 228
    DarthDimi wrote:
    Yes, it was. Riding on the coattails of Star Wars, Bond tried to bring in some $$$, and failed. Bond should be on Earth, and only Earth.

    I wouldn't say he failed. MR made buckets of money.
    It failed as a Bond film for me, because Moore wasn't ever Bond to me.

    amen..Moore was never bond to me either, everytime I watch a Moore outing I feel as if Im watching a old man pretending to be a cliched secret agent , I have absolutely no idea how his movies raked in millions, but im glad they did to keep the series alive still.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,184
    I must confess: I do not like the Q moments in LTK. Allow me to specify:

    1) Q may hold a military rank but it feels to me like he hasn’t had any training for several years. Specifically the Llewellyn Q looks like a fairly seasoned guy who by this point spent too many years in his lab in order to effectively conduct field missions.

    2) In essence, Q wasn’t even allowed to participate in Bond’s little rogue adventure. And as I’ve always thought of him as a dutiful man with a sense of responsibility, it came as a surprise that he’d just travel to South America, on MP’s request no less, in order to assist Bond in a mission that urged their mutual bosses to drag him back against his will. Since when has Q turned dark? It’s simply incredulous given the character’s previous moments in the series.

    3) It’s obvious they’re playing Q for laughs. This is wrong on two levels. First, in a film as dead serious as LTK I’m sure the gadgets Q brings could have surpassed the level of silly, childish thingies like explosive toothpaste, explosive alarm clocks, cigarette detonators and a Polaroid camera that combines laser with X rays (for whatever purpose). The palm reader gun is a good thing though. Still, I had hoped for more impressive gadgets, adjusted to the more down-to-earth style of LTK. Given the fact that they showed us a PC on Leiter’s desk, how about more computer based gadgets? Remember, it would have been very much ‘wow-ish’ for folks in ’89 (not so much anymore in ’95). Anyway, a microphone hidden in a broomstick? Seriously, this is where Austin Powers usually steps in…
    Secondly, LTK was the one film in a very long time to have the guts and balls for moving in very adult, realistic territory. Suddenly, out of the blue, appears the familiar face of Q, ready to spill some farcical jokes on an otherwise toned-down (in the sense of humour) Bond film. Why? Besides being inconsequential, LTK also seems to apologize for what it’s brought us thus far. The script almost appears to be cowering back at this point and compensate the drama and lack of lighter moments by throwing in easy-to-swallow “haha, Q’s so funny!” tricks. Those who are into this thing might already have been taken out of the film and would consider this too little too late. Those, however, who do appreciate the harder edged film LTK is, will find this sudden twist into Roger Moore land a bit awkward, borderline fun spoiling. Here’s where you find me. I love Q, really I do, but this isn’t the film for grandpa Q to invite himself in Bond’s hotel suite, throw open a bag full of toys, lecture Pam about Bond’s behavior with her calling BS on that, make funny eyes when Bond sends him away only to get excited like a virgin on her first night when Bond asks him back. This isn’t the film for Q to don a fake mustache and get dressed up like an extra from an El Mariachi film, bringing back the ‘microphone-in-purse’ gimmick, and so on. I’m sorry. For me, it’s a deep flaw and smelly stain in and on an otherwise superb Bond film – IMO.
  • Posts: 1,407
    @Dimi
    It's funny, I understand what you're saying, it just doesn't bother me. LTK is in my top 5 and I've always thought Q was a very enjoyable part of the overall film. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

    And I always get a chuckle out of Q throwing away the broomstick after using it. He assumes that's what Bond does I imagine!
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    I think it's supposed to be Central America (basically, "Panama"), not South America.

    I hate when they make up fake countries for Bond films, like San Monique.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,184
    echo wrote:
    I think it's supposed to be Central America (basically, "Panama"), not South America.

    I hate when they make up fake countries for Bond films, like San Monique.

    Thanks for that info, @echo. ;-)

    And so true you are, sir. I myself hate it too when they invent countries. Specific places, okay. But an entire country... Let's just say there's so much Earth Bond never visited in the films before (*ahum* Canada, Australia, ...), it feels a bit silly to create islands or states.

    That said, both Isthmus and San Monique were ruled by our villain. I guess it comes down to making a choice: either you invent a country and use its ruler for the plot, or you use a real country and invent a ruler. Perhaps the latter choice isn't necessarily the better. What do you reckon? ;-)

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited May 2012 Posts: 6,304
    Very much agreed, Darth Dimi.

    I think Eon is savvy to shy away from politics (making SPECTRE and not SMERSH the villain time and again). To make the villain the leader of an actual country could be viewed as a direct attack on that country and its politics. And taking sides in a political conflict can make that movie seem dated (as much as I love TLD, Bond allying with the proto-Taliban feels...odd).

    According to Babs, she and MGW are on different ends of the political spectrum. And that's probably to the benefit of the films, keeping them apolitical, which is what Cubby always strove to do, if I recall correctly. (Wasn't it Cubby who vetoed the SPECTRE coup plot in a draft of TSWLM as "too political"?)

    When they make up countries, it feels like a movie trick.

    I prefer the approach they took in the OP PTS. All signifiers are that it is in Cuba, but it's never explicitly stated. But maybe that dodge is hard to pull off for an entire movie as opposed to ten minutes.

  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    edited May 2012 Posts: 2,629
    I could see the fictional use of San Monique (Haiti) ruled by Kananga (Francois Duvalier) in LALD and Isthmus (Panama) ruled by Sanchez (Noriega perhaps, although others could apply) in LTK.

    LALD was filmed a year after the death of dictator Francois Duvalier. Duvalier was a Haitian dictator who was heavily into voodoo and ruined Haiti to the point that they never recovered. Understandable at the time that Haiti wasn't mentioned by named. Eerily similiar to Kananga's character.

    Isthmus most closely geographically resembles Panama. LTK was released months before Manuel Noriega was removed from power in Panama. Isthmus could also be based off of other Central/South American countries such as Columbia which was a big time country involved in drug trafficing. Again, easily to understand why an actual country wasn't named in LTK.

    I'm not a fan of using fictional country names myself, but given the events at the time, it's certainly understandable why a fictional country name was used. You could pull of scenes such as the GF or OP PTS where a country is implied but not mentioned by name, but you can't do it for a good chunk of the film.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited May 2012 Posts: 6,304
    Fascinating, Kerim. I didn't know that about Haiti.

    Do you think the GF PTS is Cuba? "Using heroin-flavored bananas to finance revolutions"? The proximity to Miami would also make sense.

    Are there other fake countries in Bond films that I'm forgetting?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,184
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 096</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>If SF fails financially, the Craig era will be over.</b></font>
  • Posts: 4,813
    I suppose it's possible, since if it fails after this much time Craig might not want to continue. BUT, I predict this will make more money than Casino Royale! Everyone wants this movie to come out and we haven't even seen a damn trailer yet! This will be one for the history books I think. I'd love to see Craig hang around for one or two more!
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Well interesting theory. It would certainly be curtains for Craig and would probably see a hiatus of about 5 years while they wondered what the hell to do next. If the next one with a new Bond failed then that would be the series over.

    But don’t worry SF will make a very healthy return. By October a day wont go by when you wont hear about something Bond related. You can shove your Olympics and jubilee up your arse. Its all about Bond 50 in Britain this year.

    Although you are right to ask the question; DC needs a hit quite badly. Both Cowboys and Aliens and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo had a lot spent on them and barely broke even.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    Agree. It would lead to a recast, and maybe a delay in the next film. It's hard for me to envision a scenario where Bond films would simply end.

    The genius of Fleming's creation--why I think it has endured--is that, aside from Bond and M, each story can have completely new characters and locations. Even Batman or Superman doesn't have that flexibility.
  • Posts: 1,497
    I don't see how it could fail. QOS was a smash hit financially on a global scale. All the publicity with the 50th anniversary will help. Also, having the Olympics in London, will make the boost for all things British, including 007.

    Even if the film underperforms to expectations, it sounds like EON is ready to crank out Bond24 two years from now. I doubt they would take such a risk with a new leading actor.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    Skyfall 'underperforming' would be more apt... but I can't see it happening. Bond is currently in a golden era (not as big as the 60's, but still quite big), and it would be a huge shocker for the film to underperform.... the movie would have to be pretty bad, and get pretty bad reviews for that to happen...
  • Posts: 12,837
    096- I think so yeah, but there's pretty much no way SF will fail at the box office anyway.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 1,497
    Skyfall 'underperforming' would be more apt... but I can't see it happening. Bond is currently in a golden era (not as big as the 60's, but still quite big), and it would be a huge shocker for the film to underperform.... <b>the movie would have to be pretty bad, and get pretty bad reviews for that to happen...</b>

    QOS got pretty lukewarm reviews and it did pretty well. And then there is the Transformers series...

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    JBFan626 wrote:
    Skyfall 'underperforming' would be more apt... but I can't see it happening. Bond is currently in a golden era (not as big as the 60's, but still quite big), and it would be a huge shocker for the film to underperform.... <b>the movie would have to be pretty bad, and get pretty bad reviews for that to happen...</b>

    QOS got pretty lukewarm reviews and it did pretty well. And then there is the Transformers series...

    Let's say SF has a bad word-of-mouth from the movie-goers :)

Sign In or Register to comment.