CommanderBond.net

Now on the CBn main page...

Neal Purvis And Robert Wade Discuss 'Bond 22' Details

The 'Risico' rumour, Vesper's Algerian boyfriend, shooting timetable, Q and Moneypenny... *Plot Spoilers*

Closing the book on [the Risico] rumour, Wade said it is �not the case.�

I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so.

Q not to return?

Me want Hugh Laurie as Q.
And Monica Belluci as MoneyPenny.

No Q, no Moneypenny. This is fantastic news. When the filmmakers seek to make use of real strengths like the considerable talents of their star rather than falling back on boring formula, that only bodes well for the series. I never thought I'd see the day James Bond became took chances again.

I agree completely. MONEYPENNY could have a narrative function (albeit in a very small scene or two), but Q should not return just because he always has. That turns BOND into a circus of recurring elements with no eyes on the bigger picture - i.e. the success of the narrative.

I agree - there has to be some evident purpose to having these characters there other than "...and now it's time to flirt - you have two minutes" and "...and now it's time for Q - you have four minutes".

It all got a bit tiresome, didn't it?

I disagree with you. If they have a good solid storyline with strong characters... then 30 sec with Moneypenny and 1 min with Q doesn't make much difference at all.

Mr Wint, I'd disagree. But more so with your "1 min with Q" thoughts. Whilst I am a big fan of the old Bernard Lee leather-embossed office scenes (and even the fantastical Roger Moore "let's take the office to Rio, or India or Kowloon" scenes) I think the Brosnan era let down the character of 'Q' - and in turn some of the MI6 scenes. In what was a worthy gesture to Desmond Llewelyn and his involvement since 1963 with the part, the role of 'Q' soon became a caricature of itself. CASINO ROYALE has swept away all of that - for good or bad.

The MI6 office scenes of the Brosnan era were set in this weirdly corporate, shoulder-padded Ken Adam-lite world that was always probably London, but you weren't sure. The most effective of the M / BOND / MONEYPENNY scenes were in TOMORROW NEVER DIES where the vintage car, the castle walls and the pace of the speeding motors lent the whole scene - and indeed the film - a great old school 'management at work' device. And Q's scenes in the very same film seemed to work a lot better too. Llewelyn wasn't reading dummy cards over Brosnan's shoulders either. The film has a superb immediacy about it - which is propelled early on by the MI6 scenes.

However, the office scenes that followed not only hampered the pace of THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and DIE ANOTHER DAY, they threatened to derail the logic - i.e. M being kidnapped, MONEYPENNY's fantasy grope with BOND (a great scene, but a stupid one too) and Q with inflatable anoraks and Basil Fawlty mugging to camera.

The narrative of BOND 22 really has to need MONEYPENNY and Q. CASINO ROYALE worked so well as it dumped the deadwood and the ship still floated. Having Q turn up and explain some gadgets smacks of nostalgia - which has a place in BOND by all means, but doesn't always help forge an airtight screenplay (and I say that from experience).

This post has been edited by Zorin Industries: 29 January 2007 - 14:20

I'd rather see Moneypenny back. But with Q I have no problem. Q died together with Desmond Llewelyn. Continue to explore James Bond is an excellent idea. CR, Bond 22 and Bond 23 will probably become a fantastic spy trilogy.

I think we are going to see this series evolve into some serious film-making. The carnival days are gone. BAFTA nominations obviously got their attention.

Watch out world!

Ditto. Thank God.

What if the Q had turned up in Casino Royale? A very short dialog that establish his character follow by a scene were Q inject that thing in Bonds arm. Would the whole world go out screaming "OH MY GOD. IT IS THAT TIRED OLD FORMULA AGAIN!!!". I doubt that.

Would TWINE be a far better film without Q or Moneypenny? No. Would it be worse? No. I cant see it.

With Q and Moneypenny we have two small cameos that is part of Bond's film-history. As I see it, they dont affect the overall quality of the film at all. The writers shouldn't waste too much valuable time on these two characters as there has to be other, far more important, things to focus on when creating a good Bondfilm. However, I see no reason to remove them either. If our main writers dont have enough fantasy to create a small cameo, then I dont think they're suitable to write the rest of the film.

This post has been edited by Mr_Wint: 29 January 2007 - 16:17