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
What about the laser table? That wasn't in the book.
Especially today when our phones can do so much more for us, it's entirely unnecessary to have exploding watches and the like. It just doesn't feel "real". The writers, producers and directors should do their homework and give us "tools" (vs gadgets) that actual spy agencies use today.
Like I say, Bond getting help and support including someone like Q with his gadgets, actually grounds his character more because it addresses the idea that one man could never complete these missions on his own. Bond is carrying equipment that he could have never thought up on his own, and it ends saving his life at some point. Its proves that Bond is being tested to and beyond his limits.
I'm certainly against overusing gadgets, though, and having too many of them in one film. In my opinion, the Q scenes should be more about the witty interplay between the characters than the endless stream of gadgets on display. Bond and Q should have a funny back and forth, clashing as they do, and then at the end Q says "Oh, by the way 007, I have this for you."
By the way, did anyone notice how the Bond and Q relationship has flipped over the years. In GF Bond was the cool young guy, and Q was the stuffy older man. Then during the Dalton era, they were like really good friends. Now, in the Craig era Bond is the old man set in his ways, and Q is the hipster young guy. A complete change up from how it started.
There were some in others (Gun for instance) but very, very few. And the villains had them as much as the good guys. If not more.
Now if there was a Major Boothroyd who was giving tactical equipment (guns, concealed knives, and the like), I think it would be far more grounded and less jarring than out-landish gadgets that sold well in the less tech-savy world of the 60s-80s.
One of the big pluses of being in such modern times with so much technology is that a lot of gadgets in these films would get phased out, not only because so much of what Bond would need in the field could be on a smartphone, but also because audiences of today seem to like certain things to be grounded. At least I know I do. Part of what made CR and QoS great was that there wasn't any of that. SF and SP brought some gadgetry back, but to my relief it wasn't a big deal. A palm-recognizing gun and radio are fine, especially since the latter was actually made the butt of a joke it was so lame, and the Aston in SP was close to crossing a line for me, but I've just settled on it over time as no big deal. The detonating watch also wasn't major, as it would actually not be a shocking thing to me for an agent to have a quick escape or diversion device contained inside a very obvious and recognizable style item such as a watch that their enemies wouldn't expect.
In the future I really would love to just see Bond doing his thing, with minor gadgets, or none at all. Bring back the way it was in Young's films, where Bond got field equipment, but they were all real world and sensible. Cameras, cases, guns, knives, surveillance trackers, etc. We all love Q, but I agree that at times his use is repetitive or very limited. I'd like to see a modern Boothroyd that was an ex-military man who set up Bond with military-like equipment, such as the above. They could have a cantankerous byplay if needed, but no gadgets would be out of this world and too much to take. Realistic, in a way. And he wouldn't have to be in every film, just ones where Bond would need something specific.
The big issue with the Q scenes is that they ultimately are all the same tired thing, as they can't avoid being that, just like the flirting with Moneypenny is always the same result. I hate to say it, but I think CR and QoS had the right idea of just letting it all go. I'm happy to see that Dan got to have his cake and eat it too with the MI6 team, but at the same time, was that change needed? I dunno. With the stories SF and SP told I guess it was, but it makes you wonder where the era would've gone if it remained stripped down. The way people called QoS an anti-Bond piece of garbage, maybe EON decided the experiment was over and the old way was needed again.
I imagine it would be like "here's all your equipment 007 - oh, and here's a little something I've been working on."
One proper gadget per film. That way they don't have to think up so many ideas for each one.
Kind of like how Villiers feels like a quasi-Tanner? I actually wish they'd kept him around, as I liked the byplay and snarky deliveries he and Bond had. The Tanner we have is essentially only there to either spout exposition or to be made fun of as Bond is constantly shown to be superior to him in every way. I don't mind characters that are meant to serve as comedic relief or that are meant to display the hero's proficiency in all things, but they missed a chance to actually make Tanner and Bond feel like mates. I never feel any of that though, and that's because it's just not there. I don't think Bond ever sees Tanner outside of work, and he doesn't seem like the kind of guy he'd enjoy going on a pub crawl with. Tanner would probably complain all night about what the calories in the beer would do to his non-existent diet plan or he'd just upchuck from a low tolerance to every drink Bond is chugging down.
I hope that the next time they think to use Tanner, he won't be milquetoast and feel so out of sorts.
This is exactly how it should be. Gadgets are part of film-Bond, and shouldn't ever be removed in my opinion. I don't require realism in Bond movies because they are fantasy at their core. Real spies never/rarely do anything like Bond, and one man simply can't take on as many enemies as Bond does and win. This, as you point out, actually underscores a need for Bond to use some helpful equipment. The ex-machina gadgets, like the cable-cutter BMW logo in TND, should be avoided. A singular use gadget for an unlikely purpose is nothing more than bad writing. However, many of the most extravagant gadgets, like the the submarine Lotus, are not ex-machina gadgets. There are amphibious military vehicles, and Bond was in a coastal area dealing with a business man known to have dealings on the sea; MI6 providing Bond with a watercraft was prudent. The fact that the watercraft was disguised as a sports-car is part of the awesome fantasy and glamour of sliver-screen Bond. It's disguise/dual-purpose as a car was also prudent for maintaining cover. I'd never want to see Bond end up permanently being without gadgets. They were the main thing that drew me to the series, and are a major part of my enjoyment of the films.
That said, I never want Bond to become ''techie". His gadgets should be clever, novel, ingenious things; not overly computerized. The worst cases of this line being crossed were the hacking scene in SF, and the "smart-blood" in SP; cheap, low-budget TV drama BS.
Good point. I never thought of the smart-blood as cheap before, but now you mention it, it is kind of a bog standard method used in most TV and movies nowadays. It's also true that "gadgets" seems to have become synonymous with "technology" over the years. Hopefully there are a few more "analogue" gadgets in future. Something more timelessly useful, rather than bleeding-edge tech.
My controversial opinion: I actually like Bill Tanner in the new continuity.
I don't mind him, but he really does nothing that would give him fans. This is best seen in the SF inquiry, where he just cowers while M faces possible death. If it wasn't for Mallory, the film would've ended there. He's never really had a moment where he proved he was useful beyond spouting information. He's an entertaining character, as Bond is embarrassingly superior to him in many scenes that give me laughs, but a Fleming original with such a big history in the books should've been used for more.
A younger, more charismatic and wittier version than what Rory Kinnear brings to the table wouldn't hurt either.
This is essentially what I'd like to see too. They could've kept Rory's character as is, as that's fine, but naming him Tanner just forces a very bad comparison on him when he's so unlike the man from the books. They could've kept the Fleming purists happy and just not made that guy Tanner. I think the only reason this happened is because of P&W, who took the Brosnan era Tanner and, like Dench's M, felt they had to reintroduce him with Craig too. It's weird that of all the holdovers the Craig films would keep from Brosnan, it's Tanner.
As far as I'm concerned EON kept the vital (and only truly consistent positive of the previous era) with Dench. That was enough for me.
(meekly) I kind of like the ring in DAD.
The problem with the new Tanner isn't the acting, it's the writing. He's more Basil Exposition than Bond's best friend in the service. And SP was the worst offender in that regard: he should have been warning Bond, not ratting him out to M.
I quite enjoy him in 'Game of Thrones,' as well. He's a solid actor.
They should bring him back, if they can get him.
I definitely think Dench's absence played a big role in what is seen by many as a big change in the era in SP. It was a big void, after all.
I like him a lot but is it only me or does he always play more or less the same character?