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
Well, I can understand. But then she always has the advantage that she had a large screen role as a "Bond girl", who has the luxury to continue appearing in the following Bond films as Miss Moneypenny. Most likely, Lea and Monica won't appear again in Bond 25 ;-).
This film is already the best Bond film ever!
You wanna join no? :P
that's Léa for you =))
From what Naomi says, I don't think we'll see Moneypenny in the field.
Definitely; I don't even need to think about it.
:D
In my humble opinion, Naomi Harris should be very grateful to be associated with Bond, even if she's relegated to being behind a desk.
"In my humble opinion, Naomi Harris should be grateful to be associated with Bond, even if she's relegated to being behind a desk."
I agree, seeing she can't act very well.
http://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=11604&t=mi6&s=news
Bond has to pass some kind of test. Now, this is pure Fleming! Like it!
please... you've done it plenty enough to others in your time here..
So why don't you - or anybody else for that matter - point out just once, when I used these kind of words. I have been called stupid, an idiot,imbecile and suffering from sexual hangups on this forum. Sensitive Shakennotstirred has called me a village idiot and then some. I never even felt the need to refer to these kind of words. Also how about showing just -again,only once- when my so called negativity has proven so and not just plain and and cold logic. You don't have to like my reasoning, but no one here has ever faulted my logic. If you can do so, do! But otherwise just keep your notions about me for yourself and accept them as opinions.
Hello @Matt_Helm. I tried to react to you. But you never respond. I think you're not a bad person. I'm actually interested in the real-life person behind your writings. Do you think I am a bad person? Please say so. If not, then let's discuss about our common passion: James Bond 007 :-).
James Bond should unite us, not dividing us.
"Wherever side the steering console is on is irrelevant."
No, it's not. It's actually an important feature of any car. It's not something you just say, "I'll switch the steering wheel to the other side."
" The PTS of QoS takes place 13 minutes after CR..."
Where did this come from? Michael G. Wilson, at the Quantum press conference said Quantum started "literally an hour" after Casino. In other interviews, two hours got mentioned. Where did 13 minutes come up?
"I still like to think the DB5 is the same one from CR. I like to think that within 6 years, MI-6 got tired of Bond smashing up multiple government issue DBS's so they forced him to get his DB5 modified OR, It was already armed to the teeth since Dimitros was an arms smuggler and likes to flaunt his wealth so he owns a suped up car for his own protection."
But, of course, there's no actual evidence any of this occurred.
"It's a fictional universe for crying out loud."
And one where the producers said things would be more realistic going forward.
"A universe where people can hollow out volcano's to live in them, buy underwater cities and space stations the size of Manhattan or even a seaplane with an obviously visible Gatling gun mounted to the bottom."
All of which ended with Die Another Day. Under the idea of a reboot, everything started over with Casino Royale. None of that is supposed to matter any more.
"if people get that bent out of shape and over analyze a rather insignificant continuity flaw in a film.... good god, they must be the saddest, most anal, and most boring person alive.."
Again the producers said, in effect, this was a more realistic take. MGW said Quantum started "literally an hour" after Casino yet Quantum took place in 2008 while Casino took place in 2006. It's not a matter of being anal. It's a matter of noting how the films have been marketed to the public.
More Realistic take. Not 110% realistic. If I wanted realistic I'd watch WWII documentaries or something. Which I won't
You have your opinion, I have mine. Let's agree to disagree on this one.
From what she says, she envies the others for going to Italy while she has to remain in London. I feel her pain.
- Seydoux - hoot!
- Newman - give him another chance!
- van Hoytema - style!
- the locations - desert, snow, Italy - couldn't be happier!
- Spectre returning
I'm ok with:
- the title - a one word title is much better than something weird like TMWTGG
- the car - not crazy about it, looks like the car somebody with a small penis would get
- Waltz - he will be evil.
- P & W script - Logan's SF script DID have holes (but the movie was still awesome)
I don't like:
- Monica Bellucci - she's not the best actress, IMO
- the plot point about M fighting another political battle...didn't we have that in SF?
110 % realistic is very unrealistic imo.
I'm with SuzanneStone on this one: Naomi Harris is a bit (a lot) too sexy IMO to be Moneypenny. Lois Maxwell was beautiful, but there was something that made her not quite Bond girl material, not so much her physique than her demeanor. The shaving scene in SF was one of my favorite scenes ever in the series, I found it very sensual and a perfect seduction scene... Almost too sexy and risqué for Moneypenny.
Then again, Lois Maxwell said in an interview that she discussed with Sean Connery about their character's reports and they'd agreed that they had a brief affair, but that it was behind them. Maybe this was what was hinted at in SF. I think it worked fine in this context.
When they talk about recent Bond girls they don't mention the last 3! Not even Eva Green. But they do mention Halle Berry!!! I hope they are not using her as a reference!
http://www.soelden.com/panorama-cams-winter
Ah good. I must have missed that. Will have to Watch it again and pay more attention!
For a re-boot that takes itself so seriously, the continuity errors are major.
There is no excuse for the steering wheel being on the wrong side. That makes the car a different car from the CR DB5. There is no sane reason to rebuild the core alignment of the car to that extent, if it could even be done.
The SF DB5 is a full-blown purposeful continuity error. Purposeful, because there is no way Mendes could not have known. I think what happened is that Mendes simply didn't care.
The whole notion that Bond would even have such a tricked- out relic is absurd anyway. But it's somewhat plausible, if the car is the CR car, but it can't be, because of the steering column. Otherwise, we could allow that Bond talked the Q people into outfitting the car the same way the 00 section did it, circa 1964, but this only works if it's the same car - but it isn't, so that's that.
As an aside, even though this is a re-boot, there's no reason, that the car itself (tricked out 1964 DB5), couldn't also exist in the new continuity, but there can't be two cars, and that's what we got.
What we are left with, is that the whole scenario is just a joke inserted independent of the broader film.
If Mendes had wanted the scenario to be taken even slightly seriously he would have insisted on using the same car from CR, but he wasn't serious, so he just jammed it in anyway. We all have a good laugh, just as we pretended that the obvious signs of a 2008 setting in QoS were not as jarring.
What I am hoping is that SP, might be a re-boot of the re-boot, in which the absurdities of the first three films (most greivous being the notion of a 38 year old guy, being passed off as a 00 rookie, and going from rook to old dog in a matter of 6 years) can be set aside, and we start fresh. What's done is done.
The original Craig-films, the last two at least, were pre-occupied with the thematic conceits of the directors, so continuity, and make-sense filmmaking suffered. The movies were all about the character drama and broader thematic pretensions, set within the Bond adventure context.
We will get more of the thematic stuff from Mendes in SP. That's how he rolls. But hopefully the film narrative will hang together better than it has so far in this re-boot era.
ie the DB5 has been blown to smithereens, so thats gone, and I guess Craig-Bond is still old-dog, but rejuvenated old-dog, so that drama can be set aside too.
And Craig did allow that the new script is better written, so maybe the whole movie will hang together, better than any of its three predecessors, and we won't get a film that is so easy to rip apart, even within the Bond fantasy context.
As @dimi pointed out, even films of an escapist nature, still need to be aware of their own interior logic, in order to be most effective.
Personally, I think both Forster and Mendes were hampered by Bond film convention, and struggled to make the film they wanted to make.
Maybe this time Mendes can pull it all together.
So far nothing to complain about. The road map as revealed thus far, not to mention casting, holds very exciting possibilities.
Hopefully they don't "cock it up"
I want an exciting, enjoyable film that is darker at times, more realistic at times and in overall tone, sure; but definitely a Bond film that includes things not so ordinary in this world, not exactly like our world, something that gives me more. Steering wheels, strict timelines (how soon did QOS start after CR?!!), etc. are not on my radar nor do I want them to be. I enjoy my Bond films in a different way from that. And that I think it is rather a tradition to have a new and different kind of car (or an updated model) for each Bond film.