› ›

Craig Confirm Moneypenny? And B23 to be darker?

tqbtqb
edited July 2011 in Skyfall Posts: 1,022
Just found this short interview
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/joshw24/news/?a=42309
«1

Comments

  • JBFan626JBFan626
    Posts: 1,497
    He says "we've got all of it", which seems like a round about way of yes!

    Again, he calls the script "incredible"

    Looking good so far at least from DC's perspective

    [-O<
  • TrueMiracle85TrueMiracle85
    Posts: 300
    Sounds good to me. It'll be nice having Moneypenny back. ;)
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2011 Posts: 15,690
    I am simply TIRED of 'darker' films. This is a total disapointment, as I wanted a TB-esque adventure. How darker can they get ? I don't think I will watch B23 at all, if this continues the way it is... I wanted the fun back in B23. Atleast Moneypenny is back... This looks more and more like a film I'll download on the internet when it becomes available... No way I am paying 5 euros for another Bond film I'll probably not appreciate.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,459
    Can't wait to see how it turns out. With what DC said, Mendes directing, and the casting information and rumors we've had so far, it's shaping up to be an amazing Bond adventure.
  • commandbond007commandbond007
    Posts: 660
    Daniel Craig never INDICATED the movie will be darker so we dont need to worry about it
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    A DARKER take could mean a number of things. No need to stress DC. It could mean a darker Bond, a darker villain, or darker plot depending on the events of the film in its chosen locales.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited July 2011 Posts: 4,399
    @DaltonCraig

    at one point during preproduction, Die Another Day was touted as being darker than the previous Bond adventures - at least thats how i remember 007.com promoting it... "working outside of MI6, where no one is who they seem."

    and look what a laugher that turned out to be....... when pressing a film, it seems like the hip word to say all the time - "it's going to be darker" ..... really, in tone - i don't see it being drastically different than CR.... and thats fine with me.
  • alphadecalphadec
    Posts: 3
    hope they also can remove Judi Dench since she does not fit in a bond film M must be played by a male!.
  • dragonskydragonsky
    Posts: 2,491
    darker? i am not sure about that part u actually hope it wont be darker.but it might be good

  • Monsieur_AubergineMonsieur_Aubergine Top of the Eiffel Tower with a fly in my soup!
    Posts: 642
    A movie or the movie can be as dark as it wants, the key is to make it thrilling. Dark does not necceaarily mean uber violent or depressing it could mean that the subject matter or indeed the look of the film is more broody and affecting. Flemings novels are chock full of shadows and oppressive situations, if mendes can pull off a wonderful mix of FRWL (hitchcockesque thriller) TB(high stakes, high jinx action) and CR (craig's pitch perfect delivery) we are sure to have a winner. DC - don't get torrent blues just yet. This could just be the best nod to the legacy we have all been waiting for! Let's keep the faith guys and gals. :-)
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I second that and toast you and Bond 23, @Monsieur_Aubergine!
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    edited July 2011 Posts: 1,778
    Can't wait. Craig will follow the old tradition established by Connery and Moore of a Bond actor's 3rd film being the one that really defines them. The Brosnan era ruined that tradition with TWINE but then again Brosnan ruined alot of things.
  • thelordflasheartthelordflasheart
    Posts: 1,370
    hope they also can remove Judi Dench since she does not fit in a bond film M must be played by a male!.
    Why? Please elaborate.

  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,767
    Can't wait. Craig will follow the old tradition established by Connery and Moore of a Bond actor's 3rd film being the one that really defines them. The Brosnan era ruined that tradition with TWINE but then again Brosnan ruined alot of things.

    post of the week!
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,778
    Thanks Risico007 ;-)
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,767
    no prob. i laughed out loud very rarely do posts make me laugh out loud your definitly did.
  • commandbond007commandbond007
    Posts: 660
    It will be nice to see Miss.MOneypenny and Q back, but how do they introduce them to Craig Bond? Just appear out of nowhere? There must be some way to introduce the two characters because the first two of Craig Bond didnt have them, and you cant just have them appear with no explanation. I would think Moneypenny will have to get a bigger role in her first appearance in Craig Bond or it wont make sense to me. Q can just be introduce as the head of a new branch or something..
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    edited July 2011 Posts: 1,778
    Actually I think they can simply just have them there. I have feeling that the film will acknowledge the years that have passed. Also considering how QOS took place immediately after CR we can assumes QOS took place in late 2006 or early 2007. The security camera in Nassau confirms that the film is taking place in June 2006. I suppose Bond takes a few months to recover towards the end. However I doubt what happens in QOS can be anything more than a year after the Nassau scenes. As a matter of fact QOS the videogame states that Bond meeting Greene takes place 6 months after the Madagascar chase in CR. So assuming Bond 23 does indeed take place in 2012, Bond will have had 5 years of going on missions and gaining experience. I’m sure in this time M could've hired a new secretary and MI6 could've gotten a higher budget or something and made Major Boothroyd the head of Q branch. It wouldn't bother me if they're already a part of Bond’s universe as the beginning of the film.
  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    I think it would be better to explain their origins. Especially since the films have already taken the time to explore Bond and Leiter's beginnings. However, if they were to do it this way, it would be better to introduce Q and Moneypenny one at a time; one in BOND 23 and one in BOND 24.
  • AgentJamesBond007AgentJamesBond007 Vesper’s grave
    Posts: 2,630
    I think that as Bond goes into M's office, he notices both Moneypenny and Boothroyd in the area where Villers was once, Bond gets confused, Moneypenny and Boothroyd introduce themselves as M notices them, tell him she won't have to do as much, once Bond is briefed, he begins to flirt with Moneypenny and goes to Q branch.

    Just my two cents.
  • TrueMiracle85TrueMiracle85
    Posts: 300
    @AgentJamesBond007 I wouldn't mind a scenario like that actually.

    I think the best thing to do is to not overplay the fact that these characters are reentering the Bond films. In fact if they do it in a way that it feels natural and perhaps even with a little sleight of hand, it could make for a rather fun and memorable scene.
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    Yes, it looks like classic Bond may be back in business!
  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    I think the characters need actual backstories; reasons for being there. They've been a part of the series for so long that they deserve as much.

    For example, Q: a retired (possibly on disability) Army quartermaster who gets a job running the technology division. He presents field equipment to Bond, but does not actually invent or construct it. That is instead performed by a small group of genius-level employees who all have various forms of autism spectrum disorders, most notably Asperger's Syndrome. For all their brilliance, they struggle with social situations and need highly-organised planning for their day. In this version, Q is more of a headmaster, who is able to organise their day in such a way that they are very comofrtable in what they do.
  • GoodfellaGoodfella
    Posts: 6
    This shouldn't be a mystery; her apperance should be expected.
  • ShorelineShoreline
    Posts: 251
    Can't wait. Craig will follow the old tradition established by Connery and Moore of a Bond actor's 3rd film being the one that really defines them. The Brosnan era ruined that tradition with TWINE but then again Brosnan ruined alot of things.
    Dalton ruined it first, he didn`t turn up for a third...

  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    This shouldn't be a mystery; her apperance should be expected.
    No, she should only appear if it's necessary to appear.
  • actonsteveactonsteve
    Posts: 1,492
    i am not too bothered by Moneypenny or Q. I didnt miss them in the last two films and shoving them in for the ubiquitous "gadget briefing" or flirting seems very un-Craiglike. But if they are rebooting them as they did Bond in CR then so much the better. For me, the characters of Q/R and MP reached their nadir with John Cleese and Samantha Bond.

    More interesting is the eagernes that Dan is showing for Bond 23. I believe as Rog did he is slowly falling in love with the role. The shock of MGM going under and having to be rescued must still be with him. He must have felt the feather hand of Dalton having only done two films.

    I am pleased for him and he does tend to raise the game of everyone working on the film if the last two efforts are anything to go by.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    edited July 2011 Posts: 1,778
    Can't wait. Craig will follow the old tradition established by Connery and Moore of a Bond actor's 3rd film being the one that really defines them. The Brosnan era ruined that tradition with TWINE but then again Brosnan ruined alot of things.
    Dalton ruined it first, he didn`t turn up for a third...

    I hardly see how that was his fault. His contract had expired and Unites Artists wanted to recast the character. I guess we'll never know if his third film would've been good. But what we do know for certain is that TWINE sucked.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited July 2011 Posts: 11,189
    "B23 is going to be darker", "this is going to peel back the layers and explore Bond's character", "I want to find out how this man ticks"

    YAWN! It's PR talk and we'll have to wait until the finished film to judge for certain. They promised a darker film for B22 and we got a dull action film instead with a few arty touches. I'm sure it will be "serious" and more in line with Craig's style of acting but I want to wait until the film comes out to make a judgement. Personally, I don't care if its dark/light/whatever. As long as its entertaining and satisfying.
    Can't wait. Craig will follow the old tradition established by Connery and Moore of a Bond actor's 3rd film being the one that really defines them. The Brosnan era ruined that tradition with TWINE but then again Brosnan ruined alot of things.
    I hardly see how that was his fault. His contract had expired and Unites Artists wanted to recast the character. I guess we'll never know if his third film would've been good. But what we do know for certain is that TWINE sucked.
    I enjoy TWINE. It's certainly not one of the best but it entertains me. Barbara Brocolli and co "ruined" the series when they comissioned DAD. They need to take just as much blame as Brosnan does.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    @hasterot - Yes, DAD was indeed touted as being a darker Bond. And is it even possible for Bond#23 to be darker than QOS?
Sign In or Register to comment.