Hmm; seems like you're asking for the moon on a stick. You want the old, but in a new way, but you also don't like the new way; so if they can do the old in a new way -but not the new way that you don't like, but some other 'new way'- only then will you be happy. It sounds pretty unachievable.
You know, if you want to know what I want, read Tee Hee's latest post. What I want is pretty achievable. I do not expect to be given the exact Q and Moneypenny that I like, but I would like one that is relatively faithful to the traditional version. If that doesn't appear realistic to you, that isn't my concern.
Either way, you seem to have decided to not like whatever they do.
Give me a break. You have no idea what I have decided, that is if I have even decided anything, so perhaps you could limit your judgements on my views to only what I actually post.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I think forcing elements of the Bond movies for the sake of 'tradition' as opposed for the sake of good storytelling and character development is a mistake.
With CR, they ignored tradition and focused on story and character development and the result was the most acclaimed bond in 40 years.
Babs is a smart woman...
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
I for one believe that the Craig Bond films can perfectly manage the characters of Q and Moneypenny without veering off the gritty, humorless course that the series has taken, one that you so obviously enjoy.
Do you really think CR was 'humourless'? I thought they got it exactly right. True, it isn't Dinner Theatre Bond...but we've got plenty of those in the can already, as far as I'm concerned.
To be honest, I find it blatantly irresponsible of EON to have omitted these beloved characters from CR when they could have easily been written in.
I don't know; I like the Q and Moneypenny characters just fine, but I'd just as soon see May or Loelia Posonby at this point. Having read the CR and LALD novels, don't you think they 'work' without Q? And Moneypenny's bits are so small that she needn't be there at all.
I have feeling that 2008 is going to be another disappointing year for Cinematic Bond Traditionalists everywhere…
Golly, that's dire. I guess I'm not a Cinematic Bond Traditionalist, then---rejected by yet another club!
Hang in there, Mr. Hee...only another six or seven Craig Bond pictures, and the Bond scales will be perfectly rebalanced... :v
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
It's funny, the one thing that's consistent about the new Bond is that he doesn't satisfy--like Brosnan before him, Dalton, Moore, Laz...they all (and their films) were "different" in some way, either the approach to the character or the world of whichever film, and some fans invariably don't care for the changes.
Fleming wrote a character vague enough in appearance yet clearly defined enough as a hero archetype to be widely appreciated; EON fleshed out that archetype multiple times over the decades, and has found ways to go with the times and keep Bond popular (if not artistically vibrant). The current incarnation harkens back to the basics, by design, and has struck a mass-market chord. Happens. My one hope would be that EON not run this Bond into the ground as they did Moore's, and as it happens I don't have that fear that they will. Craig will like as not do his three then move on, and EON will recast/revamp the franchise accordingly.
Doubt we'll see either Q or Moneypenny in a Craig/Bond film, if they aren't bringing them back for the next one they won't at all IMO. They've become a joke anyway, much like Bond had, unless they want to spend some time with them like the character of Bond they should stay dead, at least for a while. I'm very happy EON is spending such time and focus on Bond, IMHO it's long overdue and most welcome, and should help keep the series fresh for another good long while. I'd also put out there that stock characters like Q and Moneypenny fit a certain type of film, which EON are pointedly not making currently. Wanting good old Q and Moneypenny back is akin to wanting a Moore-type Bond back, understandable but not gonna happen, at least for a while. Maybe post-Craig?
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
My one hope would be that EON not run this Bond into the ground as they did Moore's, and as it happens I don't have that fear that they will. Craig will like as not do his three then move on, and EON will recast/revamp the franchise accordingly.
I think you're probably right, of course; I was being strictly tongue-in-cheek above. Historically (aside from the notably short tenures of Lazenby and Dalton) Bond has pretty much always 'reset' itself after four or five pictures with a particular actor and a particular style---or they should have done... I'm hoping they'll successfully negotiate a fourth and fifth film with Craig---provided, of course, that everything's still firing on all twelve cylinders at that point...
Wanting good old Q and Moneypenny back is akin to wanting a Moore-type Bond back, understandable but not gonna happen, at least for a while. Maybe post-Craig?
I'd rather they didn't...which means they probably will, at some point
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I like the Q and Moneypenny characters just fine, but I'd just as soon see May or Loelia Posonby at this point.
I dunno; like you I'm happy for Moneypenny and Q not to return as I can't really think of their purposes anymore (and the gadgets can surely be introduced in a slightly more sophisticated way than having one scene where they're all dumped on him, surely?), but I can't see the point of introducing Loelia as she'd just be Moneypenny in a different name, wouldn't she? And if you don't do anything different you may as well use the established Moneypenny name as that's what people would call her anyway. I can't think what the difference would be; have Bond shag her? Kill her? Nothing seems very exciting. Actually: killing off Moneypenny... that'd be a good shock for the series, wouldn't it? And I'm only half-joking...
As for May; not sure that I'm hugely interested in Bond's home life and the idea of a maid seems a bit silly: Craig's Bond can save the world in a gunfight but can't look after his own ironing? Bond's supposed to be sexy, and a man who can cook is a lot sexier than it was in the 50's- I think he'd be in danger of being laughed at if they showed his maid making him toasted soldiers.
I'm just not sure that we need more peripheral characters- I'm all for having other members of the intelligence services who impact Bond's mission, but a parade of secretaries and lab assistants doesn't interest me. Does Jason Bourne bother stopping the film to have a witty light-hearted conversation with the CIA car parking attendant?
Does Jason Bourne bother stopping the film to have a witty light-hearted conversation with the CIA car parking attendant?
This isn't a Bourne film though. Why does it have to be compared to that? Plus Bourne would be too paranoid that the attendant would be a conspirator!
There were never characters in earlier Bourne films to create the comic relief.
I always loved the break from the story for a bit of banter with Q or Moneypenny, I don't see why it would be a problem for them to appear. I agree that if they are crowbarred in and it is forced then it is wrong, especially the way the series in heading now.
Surely it is not too much of a stretch to have a specialist visit an agent in the field to deliver something that may help though, sort of like Thunderball.
1- On Her Majesty's Secret Service 2- Casino Royale 3- Licence To Kill 4- Goldeneye 5- From Russia With Love
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
Does Jason Bourne bother stopping the film to have a witty light-hearted conversation with the CIA car parking attendant?
This isn't a Bourne film though. Why does it have to be compared to that?
Well, we're all trying to help em through his Bourne Obsessive Disorder, ) with admittedly mixed results
As for peripheral characters---all films have them. The key is to make them distinctive, and hopefully not too obviously repetitive. Personally, I'm intrigued by the anachronism of Bond having a housekeeper, but I'm sure that's not in the offing.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Does Jason Bourne bother stopping the film to have a witty light-hearted conversation with the CIA car parking attendant?
This isn't a Bourne film though. Why does it have to be compared to that?
Because it's a pacy, effective thriller; just like Bond is aiming for. If you have a paranoid fear of Bourne being mentioned, how about 'does Indiana Jones stop the film every time to chat with the man who cleans museum?' etc. Peripheral characters should be involved with the plot or reveal something about characterisation; Moneypenny and Q do nothing. At least Loeff's idea of May appearing would show us a side of Bond we didn't know was there.
Well, we're all trying to help em through his Bourne Obsessive Disorder, ) with admittedly mixed results
Loeffelholz everyone!
<silence>
Give me a Bond film to talk about and I'm there. Not sure I'm supposed to apologise for having talked about Bourne in threads about the new Bourne movie.
Does Jason Bourne bother stopping the film to have a witty light-hearted conversation with the CIA car parking attendant?
This isn't a Bourne film though. Why does it have to be compared to that?
Because it's a pacy, effective thriller; just like Bond is aiming for.
I don't get this Bourne comparison at all, the films are about spies, thats where the similarity ends for me!
Let Bourne be Bourne and Bond be Bond, both sets of films are fantastic. I really like them both.
I think the media has a lot to answer for in this matter, pitching the films against each other.
Also when cast members of the Bourne films start bringing Bond into their interviews! Why? To what end? to say they are dissimilar?!? I mean why bother. The Bourne films would do just as well without mentioning Bond, it really baffles me.
I don't have a paranioa about Bourne being mentioned, I just don't see why it's relevant. The two series can exist together harmoniously, people (the media, amongst others) don't seem to want them to though for some reason. A great example is the fool who posted here last month slamming Bond, Bourne100 was it? More fool them I guess.
1- On Her Majesty's Secret Service 2- Casino Royale 3- Licence To Kill 4- Goldeneye 5- From Russia With Love
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
Give me a Bond film to talk about and I'm there. Not sure I'm supposed to apologise for having talked about Bourne in threads about the new Bourne movie.
You forgot your smiley!
It's probably your working Bourne into every new Bond #22 thread that he's referring to---at least, that's what I was kidding you about...
...honestly, everyone, that's quite enough...I'm overwhelmed...please sit down now, and we'll get on with the show...
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Seriously though, I don't understand why Dan Same and Tee Hee are jumped on or get the sarcasm brigade every time they simply express their desires for some old Bond touches. It's not a huge leap to think Q should make an appearance or have them show how Moneypenny came to be. The slate doesn't need to be wiped clean entirely. What other film franchise in history has lasted 44 years? Apparently we're not the only 3 in the world who would like some...the dreaded C word.. continuity!
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
edited September 2007
Mo's right, of course, and I hope none of the CBTs* feel put upon by us radicals in the Flemingist community. It certainly wasn't my intent...cheers! -{
I have a strong feeling Eon will bring them in at some point...but I don't mind that they're taking their time about it. Moneypenny certainly seems more workable than Q at this point...
* Cinematic Bond Traditionalists TM (Tee Hee)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Tee HeeCBT Headquarters: Chicago, ILPosts: 917MI6 Agent
Mo's right, of course, and I hope none of the CBTs* feel put upon by us radicals in the Flemingist community. It certainly wasn't my intent...cheers! -{
* Cinematic Bond Traditionalists TM (Tee Hee)
I don't see any reason why our respective camps cannot co-exist, engaging in warfare by day, smoking the peace pipe at night...
{[]
"My acting range? Left eyebrow raised, right eyebrow raised..."
-Roger Moore
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
Mo's right, of course, and I hope none of the CBTs* feel put upon by us radicals in the Flemingist community. It certainly wasn't my intent...cheers! -{
* Cinematic Bond Traditionalists TM (Tee Hee)
I don't see any reason why our respective camps cannot co-exist, engaging in warfare by day, smoking the peace pipe at night...
{[]
Here here! {[] At least the party affiliations are now better defined...
Like politics---only more fun B-)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
IMO, Daniel Craig's movies are starting to drift away from James Bond to big budget action films like every other film being made today. Bond films need originality with original characters like Moneypenny and Q. Otherwise, it is just a guy running around shooting people and causing explosions just like the Bourne movies. Honestly, when I was watching CR for the first time, I was disgusted. It was a great film but not a great Bond film. It didn't even feel like a bond movie to me, if felt like any normal action film you watch today.
I very much dislike the direction EON is going with Bond 22 and I dislike Craig's bond. James Bond died imo after GE. There was a shred of hope inside me that CR and Bond 22 could save it but after this announcement, that shred of hope is long gone.:'(
Mo's right, of course, and I hope none of the CBTs* feel put upon by us radicals in the Flemingist community. It certainly wasn't my intent...cheers! -{
* Cinematic Bond Traditionalists TM (Tee Hee)
I don't see any reason why our respective camps cannot co-exist, engaging in warfare by day, smoking the peace pipe at night...
Yeah, Arthur Conan Doyle lacked a lot of imagination everytime he wrote a Sherlock Holmes story with that pesky Watson in it. He must have been in a real rut...
I think it's a mistake cutting out Q and Moneypenny. I'm not saying a movie without them in it would be bad, but they're just as much a part of the Bond cinema as M. Why not get rid of her...after all, Judi Dench's M is less Fleming than either Moneypenny or Boothroyd.
Tee HeeCBT Headquarters: Chicago, ILPosts: 917MI6 Agent
I can corroborate this. During our AJB Summit at Hooters, I was the only one at the table drinking -{
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Why must you always be a pain in everyone's side blueman?
That was meant uber-sarcastic, hence the smiley attached. I'm in total, total agreement with you, different opinions can be expressed and discussed, even sometimes playfully and it should be alright. My post wasn't intended as a jab, sorry if it came across like that, you're post was kinda comical so I (attempted...and failed ) to build on it: peace pipe, drugs, get it?
And anyway, I thought I was only a pain in some folks' sides (and then only at times, it seems), not everyone's? Mostly this has been a pretty decent conversation this thread has, I get the various POVs and while I have a preference I wouldn't be sad to see Q and Moneypenny back in Bond 22 at all. And I suppose my preference for Bond 22 is shaded by how well CR turned out--without Q or Moneypenny. Doesn't mean they can't come back, but to say Bond isn't Bond without them doesn't ring true for me (or for a heckuva lotta other people) post-CR. I did kinda like the more anonymous supernumeraries in CR, just seemed to fit the general proceedings IMO. More of the same makes sense, I guess to EON/Sony too. And like I and others have said, likely Q and Moneypenny will return to the series at some point. Wait long enough, your Bond wish will come true--mine did. ;%
Tee HeeCBT Headquarters: Chicago, ILPosts: 917MI6 Agent
That was meant uber-sarcastic, hence the smiley attached. I'm in total, total agreement with you, different opinions can be expressed and discussed, even sometimes playfully and it should be alright. My post wasn't intended as a jab, sorry if it came across like that, you're post was kinda comical so I (attempted...and failed ) to build on it.
And anyway, I thought I was only a pain in some folks' sides, not everyone's? Mostly this has been a pretty decent conversation, this thread has, I get the various POVs and while I have a preference I wouldn't be sad to see Q and MOneypenny back in Bond 22 at all.
Fair enough blue, apparently I don't know you well enough to determine when you're joking and when you're not.
The pain in my side seems to have subsided. But is this relief only temporary?
Good to know that you wouldn't be crushed should Moneypenny and Q eventually return.
"My acting range? Left eyebrow raised, right eyebrow raised..."
It's probably your working Bourne into every new Bond #22 thread that he's referring to---at least, that's what I was kidding you about...
Where have I done that elsewhere? Have there even been many 22 threads recently? The hypersensitivity that surrounds mentioning The Other Spy Guy is quite funny! I already clarified my statement by saying that I could have asked the same question using Indy Jones, and got jumped on again by someone who's scared of Bond and B***ne being mentioned in the same place!
Does John McClaine stop the film to swap repartee with his desk sergeant in every film?
The slate doesn't need to be wiped clean entirely. What other film franchise in history has lasted 44 years? Apparently we're not the only 3 in the world who would like some...the dreaded C word.. continuity!
For the first time since FRWL we're actually getting some continuity! Bond could quite easily have been a different man in each of the movies since- if you were starring in Moonraker wouldn't you have wondered out loud why everything seems so similar to that thing that happened to you a couple of years ago with that guy with the webbed fingers?
Yeah, Bond's wife died, but that was mentioned in only about three movies in the seventeen that followed for half a second each time, and it didn't affect his character at all. Now we have the full implications of Vesper's death and the organisation behind it to explore- that's continuity!
Having Q and Moneypenny turn up where they're not needed is baggage, not continuity. Besides, wasn't that guy who injected Bond from Q Branch?
It's probably your working Bourne into every new Bond #22 thread that he's referring to---at least, that's what I was kidding you about...
Where have I done that elsewhere? Have there even been many 22 threads recently? The hypersensitivity that surrounds mentioning The Other Spy Guy is quite funny! I already clarified my statement by saying that I could have asked the same question using Indy Jones, and got jumped on again by someone who's scared of Bond and B***ne being mentioned in the same place!
This thread would be one, and the Mr. White thread would be another...it just struck me as mildly amusing; not at all scary Yes, clearly, we must all work on our hypersensitivity
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
This thread would be one, and the Mr. White thread would be another...it just struck me as mildly amusing; not at all scary Yes, clearly, we must all work on our hypersensitivity
Heh; fair enough. I didn't mean to imply that you were finding it scary, but others do seem to knee jerk away from it in this thread, as if I'm saying 'Macbeth' to an actor or something!
Comments
Give me a break. You have no idea what I have decided, that is if I have even decided anything, so perhaps you could limit your judgements on my views to only what I actually post.
With CR, they ignored tradition and focused on story and character development and the result was the most acclaimed bond in 40 years.
Babs is a smart woman...
Do you really think CR was 'humourless'? I thought they got it exactly right. True, it isn't Dinner Theatre Bond...but we've got plenty of those in the can already, as far as I'm concerned.
I don't know; I like the Q and Moneypenny characters just fine, but I'd just as soon see May or Loelia Posonby at this point. Having read the CR and LALD novels, don't you think they 'work' without Q? And Moneypenny's bits are so small that she needn't be there at all.
Golly, that's dire. I guess I'm not a Cinematic Bond Traditionalist, then---rejected by yet another club!
Hang in there, Mr. Hee...only another six or seven Craig Bond pictures, and the Bond scales will be perfectly rebalanced... :v
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Fleming wrote a character vague enough in appearance yet clearly defined enough as a hero archetype to be widely appreciated; EON fleshed out that archetype multiple times over the decades, and has found ways to go with the times and keep Bond popular (if not artistically vibrant). The current incarnation harkens back to the basics, by design, and has struck a mass-market chord. Happens. My one hope would be that EON not run this Bond into the ground as they did Moore's, and as it happens I don't have that fear that they will. Craig will like as not do his three then move on, and EON will recast/revamp the franchise accordingly.
Doubt we'll see either Q or Moneypenny in a Craig/Bond film, if they aren't bringing them back for the next one they won't at all IMO. They've become a joke anyway, much like Bond had, unless they want to spend some time with them like the character of Bond they should stay dead, at least for a while. I'm very happy EON is spending such time and focus on Bond, IMHO it's long overdue and most welcome, and should help keep the series fresh for another good long while. I'd also put out there that stock characters like Q and Moneypenny fit a certain type of film, which EON are pointedly not making currently. Wanting good old Q and Moneypenny back is akin to wanting a Moore-type Bond back, understandable but not gonna happen, at least for a while. Maybe post-Craig?
I think you're probably right, of course; I was being strictly tongue-in-cheek above. Historically (aside from the notably short tenures of Lazenby and Dalton) Bond has pretty much always 'reset' itself after four or five pictures with a particular actor and a particular style---or they should have done...
I'd rather they didn't...which means they probably will, at some point
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I dunno; like you I'm happy for Moneypenny and Q not to return as I can't really think of their purposes anymore (and the gadgets can surely be introduced in a slightly more sophisticated way than having one scene where they're all dumped on him, surely?), but I can't see the point of introducing Loelia as she'd just be Moneypenny in a different name, wouldn't she? And if you don't do anything different you may as well use the established Moneypenny name as that's what people would call her anyway. I can't think what the difference would be; have Bond shag her? Kill her? Nothing seems very exciting. Actually: killing off Moneypenny... that'd be a good shock for the series, wouldn't it? And I'm only half-joking...
As for May; not sure that I'm hugely interested in Bond's home life and the idea of a maid seems a bit silly: Craig's Bond can save the world in a gunfight but can't look after his own ironing? Bond's supposed to be sexy, and a man who can cook is a lot sexier than it was in the 50's- I think he'd be in danger of being laughed at if they showed his maid making him toasted soldiers.
I'm just not sure that we need more peripheral characters- I'm all for having other members of the intelligence services who impact Bond's mission, but a parade of secretaries and lab assistants doesn't interest me. Does Jason Bourne bother stopping the film to have a witty light-hearted conversation with the CIA car parking attendant?
This isn't a Bourne film though. Why does it have to be compared to that? Plus Bourne would be too paranoid that the attendant would be a conspirator!
There were never characters in earlier Bourne films to create the comic relief.
I always loved the break from the story for a bit of banter with Q or Moneypenny, I don't see why it would be a problem for them to appear. I agree that if they are crowbarred in and it is forced then it is wrong, especially the way the series in heading now.
Surely it is not too much of a stretch to have a specialist visit an agent in the field to deliver something that may help though, sort of like Thunderball.
Well, we're all trying to help em through his Bourne Obsessive Disorder,
As for peripheral characters---all films have them. The key is to make them distinctive, and hopefully not too obviously repetitive. Personally, I'm intrigued by the anachronism of Bond having a housekeeper, but I'm sure that's not in the offing.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Because it's a pacy, effective thriller; just like Bond is aiming for. If you have a paranoid fear of Bourne being mentioned, how about 'does Indiana Jones stop the film every time to chat with the man who cleans museum?' etc. Peripheral characters should be involved with the plot or reveal something about characterisation; Moneypenny and Q do nothing. At least Loeff's idea of May appearing would show us a side of Bond we didn't know was there.
Loeffelholz everyone!
<silence>
Give me a Bond film to talk about and I'm there. Not sure I'm supposed to apologise for having talked about Bourne in threads about the new Bourne movie.
Wow...points for originality duly awarded
You forgot your smiley!
It's probably your working Bourne into every new Bond #22 thread that he's referring to---at least, that's what I was kidding you about...
...honestly, everyone, that's quite enough...I'm overwhelmed...please sit down now, and we'll get on with the show...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Seriously though, I don't understand why Dan Same and Tee Hee are jumped on or get the sarcasm brigade every time they simply express their desires for some old Bond touches. It's not a huge leap to think Q should make an appearance or have them show how Moneypenny came to be. The slate doesn't need to be wiped clean entirely. What other film franchise in history has lasted 44 years? Apparently we're not the only 3 in the world who would like some...the dreaded C word.. continuity!
I have a strong feeling Eon will bring them in at some point...but I don't mind that they're taking their time about it. Moneypenny certainly seems more workable than Q at this point...
* Cinematic Bond Traditionalists TM (Tee Hee)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I don't see any reason why our respective camps cannot co-exist, engaging in warfare by day, smoking the peace pipe at night...
{[]
-Roger Moore
Here here! {[] At least the party affiliations are now better defined...
Like politics---only more fun B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I very much dislike the direction EON is going with Bond 22 and I dislike Craig's bond. James Bond died imo after GE. There was a shred of hope inside me that CR and Bond 22 could save it but after this announcement, that shred of hope is long gone.:'(
That is all I have to say.-{
You're on drugs.
But so help me, if that Jaws guy shows up ...
I think it's a mistake cutting out Q and Moneypenny. I'm not saying a movie without them in it would be bad, but they're just as much a part of the Bond cinema as M. Why not get rid of her...after all, Judi Dench's M is less Fleming than either Moneypenny or Boothroyd.
Really, because I'm pretty sure I'm not. 8-)
Why must you always be a pain in everyone's side blueman?
-Roger Moore
I can corroborate this. During our AJB Summit at Hooters, I was the only one at the table drinking -{
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
And anyway, I thought I was only a pain in some folks' sides (and then only at times, it seems), not everyone's?
Fair enough blue, apparently I don't know you well enough to determine when you're joking and when you're not.
The pain in my side seems to have subsided. But is this relief only temporary?
Good to know that you wouldn't be crushed should Moneypenny and Q eventually return.
-Roger Moore
Where have I done that elsewhere? Have there even been many 22 threads recently? The hypersensitivity that surrounds mentioning The Other Spy Guy is quite funny! I already clarified my statement by saying that I could have asked the same question using Indy Jones, and got jumped on again by someone who's scared of Bond and B***ne being mentioned in the same place!
Does John McClaine stop the film to swap repartee with his desk sergeant in every film?
Well, Mummy and Daddy Moneypenny decided that they loved each very much...
For the first time since FRWL we're actually getting some continuity! Bond could quite easily have been a different man in each of the movies since- if you were starring in Moonraker wouldn't you have wondered out loud why everything seems so similar to that thing that happened to you a couple of years ago with that guy with the webbed fingers?
Yeah, Bond's wife died, but that was mentioned in only about three movies in the seventeen that followed for half a second each time, and it didn't affect his character at all. Now we have the full implications of Vesper's death and the organisation behind it to explore- that's continuity!
Having Q and Moneypenny turn up where they're not needed is baggage, not continuity. Besides, wasn't that guy who injected Bond from Q Branch?
This thread would be one, and the Mr. White thread would be another...it just struck me as mildly amusing; not at all scary
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Heh; fair enough. I didn't mean to imply that you were finding it scary, but others do seem to knee jerk away from it in this thread, as if I'm saying 'Macbeth' to an actor or something!