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
On MI and the team thing, Bond films are not meant to have a team concept. Support, yes, but James Bond is the one who is the focus. I also pointed out the when you have a star-driven, big-budget film series that the star is going to get the focus. I also mentioned the lack of team concept was criticism aimed at the first 2 or 3 MI films and not so the past 3, which have seen the series growing in popularity.
When you say "people absolutely loved Q's extended appearance in LTK" what criteria are you using: An audience you saw the film with, reviews, fan reviews on IMDB or something? I ask because I've seen on here and other forums/message boards many fans point out Q's extended appearance in LTK as a liability and a problem in a film that takes a more serious direction.
On a personal level, I enjoyed it and it didn't bother me. But I can understand that point of view. And I personally have never liked the Dench M's extended appearances because I don't particularly like the way the character is written, often bashing Bond but needing his skills to right her mistakes.
when it comes to extended Q in LTK, i enjoy it because it's something - for the time - we never really saw.. yes there was the whole hot air balloon business at the end of OP, and him and Vijay posed as fishermen - which is a bit corny and even i am not a big fan of, but i can roll with it...
i guess my annoyance comes from a concern that what we got in SP is going to be the norm for Bond movies going forward.. because looking back on the series.. yes there are times where Q or M have ventured beyond their regulations so to speak in order to assist 007.. and the whole team concept (M, Q, Moneypenny, Tanner) all working together to thwart a plot was really only in SP... so i've come down off that a little - but like i said, based on that, and what i've seen elsewhere, i'm just worried that that will become the norm now... IMO, narratively speaking, it overcrowds the plot if you got too many things going on to keep track of.
I've never seen anyone complain about Q's appearance in that film; where have you seen them complain? You and I both enjoyed it, as did Haserot.
That's like being annoyed in 1984 after Octopussy that Q would appear in a hot air balloon at the end of every one from then on :)
in the context of just Bond... yes.. but gaging based on Bond, plus every other movie / show i see that does the same.. maybe not so much lol.
Whishaw is undoubtedly a decent actor. But his Q isn’t my idea of the middle aged civil servant that Llewelyn brought to life. It’s just a personal preference as you say.
I thought even less of Cleese’s slapstick ‘Carry on’ style Q though.
AVTAK?.. do you mean LTK?
:)) its all good.. i'm sitting hear thinking.. 'was Q even a big part of AVTAK? i thought he just popped in at the beginning then at the end?.. and whats this bar fight?" :))
I don't know if I want the same thing every time. I'm happy for them to do different things with these characters.
I'll agree with you on that. I really like John Cleese, he's a funny and very smart man. Sadly he's been type cast as Basil Fawlty from around the 90's onwards.
I respect your reasons regarding Whishaw, but I like that he's not trying to emulate Desmond and has his own take on the character. Albeit with the same disdain for OO7 that Llewelyn's Q had. But with a young mans perspective perhaps. Good thing that neither of us are wrong in our opinions.
Count me in. LTK is the one film of the '80s I didn't need so much Q in. Bond is operating outside the secret service anyway. And he's pissed. The film consistently tries to maintain a hard-boiled, serious mood. The last thing we need then is explosive toothpaste, Q dressed as an old local (moustache and all), "I hope you don't snore, Q"... It's a little too HAHA! for me in a film that seems eager to walk away from lighter comedy. I love LTK, but I also find the film a little uneven. Each time I have adjusted myself to the tougher, bleaker mood, a redundant scene (the bar fight, MP crying, Q's laser camera, ...) pulls me out of the movie again. I guess they got cold feet and demanded comedic inserts. It's just too bad in my opinion that Q was used for that. His scenes, for the most part, just don't resonate with the tone of the film.
I still love LTK; it's one of my favourites. But Q in this movie is a false note for me, almost as bad as the entire MI6 crew attending horse races in AVTAK...
Isn't it also LTK where Q has some high-tech undercover rake he can do something with (I don't remember) and after he is done he just throws it into the bushes?
Yes. That's in LTK. He's also dressed like a local poor man. Sandals, dirty shirt, hat, moustache (that moustache!!),... I know they were playing for laughs, but this feels like the wrong movie for that.
Would be hilarious, if they did an homage to that with Whishaw! It would fit any of the Craig movies even less and people today would see it as highly problematic, but just imagine Ben Whishaw with a huge fake mustache :))
These are interesting points. LTK is easily a top 7 Bond film for me, and I feel so much nostalgia for Desmond and the expansion of his role while he was still young enough to do it.
But would LTK have been even stronger if Bond didn't have the "crutch" of MI6?
These are all valid points. It would have been interesting to see a LTK where Bond and audience alike were severed from all ties to MI6, a more streamlined bullet from gunbarrel to end credits. There are definitely things I would change, but Q's extended and unsanctioned trip into the field is one of the parts I really do enjoy (obligatory gadget jokes aside—they're painful but brief, like pulling off a band-aid). I like how refreshingly warm Bond and Q's relationship is here: how Bond compliments Q's work in the field, how eager Q is to stay and help out knowing Bond is on his own out there among truly ruthless villains, and the fact he goes against orders to help Bond in the first place. It's refreshing to see the personal kindness, even camaraderie, in what had previously been to varying degrees merely a mutually vexing professional relationship. It provides a good contrast to Bond's mission of revenge. I find great comedy as well in Bond's annoyance over having to share a hotel room with his Quartermaster rather than the Bond girl.
But so help me I like the bar brawl, too, haha.
We've had a pretty darn great MI6 cast all around lately. I was sorry to hear Wishaw say he was retiring from the part after only 3 films (he could have continued for decades), but you never know—he could always change his mind.
Harris has been a great new Moneypenny with a unique yet familiar dynamic with Craig's Bond. I'd be happy to see her continue as well, but realistically she'll probably be about 50 by the time they get the next one going and potentially even in the range of 15-20 years older than the new Bond. Of course, it could be interesting to see the Bond/Moneypenny dynamic change. You could easily have a younger Bond and older Moneypenny exchanging the customary pre-/post-briefing quips, or theirs doesn't necessarily need to be a flirtatious relationship.
I like Kinnear perfectly fine as an actor, but the portrayal of Tanner lately (and this is probably more of a script problem than an actor problem) has been all wrong. Tanner should be Bond's best friend in the Service, and he isn't. Quite the opposite, it would appear: Bond is far chummier with both Q and Moneypenny. Tanner should also be capable of stepping in in M's absence and Kinnear just doesn't strike the same chord of confidence in that capacity as his predecessors, Villiers and Kitchen.
But yes, at the very least, it is reassuring to hear Fiennes may well be M for the long haul.
I enjoy all of the current players, but there is a wealth of talent available to join a new Bond.
Apart from the Goldfinger DB5 stuff, Craig's films can be viewed as their own closed universe, but I'd like to view them as an opportunity for future films to combine Bond's history with Tracy with his history with Vesper. They could pull from and reference both timelines as if they are one and the same. Wouldn't be any weirder than OHMSS following YOLT or DAF following OHMSS.
It would also be a shame, as others have noted, to break the MI6 staff chain of recurring actors dating all the way back to Dr. No.
I think the unspoken undertone to this conversation is that some people don't want the "scooby gang" to continue on in the next Bond iteration. I agree that the amount of time dedicated to the supporting cast could be toned down a bit. My arguement is to write the parts that way and if an actor finds it under them or would rather move on, let them do so. If they choose to stay, I say yes!
A 'clean slate' brings inherent risk, which is compounded by the lead actor changing. I just don't see those pulling the strings wanting to shake things up that far, given recent success and the nostalgia tightrope the Bond franchise has to walk.
Well they don't have to draw from any of the previous cinematic presentations. As has been said, 'go back to Fleming'; Vesper, Tracy, M, Q, Moneypenny can all be included, it will just be a completely new incarnation. I don't feel any need for an actor to continue as their same character portrayed in the Craig era.
Now, if they wanted to cast Fiennes, or any other actor as a new character than that's a different story. Fiennes as Scaramanga could be interesting.
We kind of, sort of, already got May as Kincaid in SF.
New May idea (and @mtm is absolutely right that this is supremely unnecessary):
After the credits we get a super short sequence of Bond's daily routine on his way to the office. During that montage he sits down at a café close to his flat where he gets breakfast every morning because in this day and age he doesn't have a live in housekeeper who does it for him and James Bond is clearly not eating a bowl of cereal every morning. Without having to order, a tray with coffee (very black) and scrambled eggs appears on his table right after he sits down and he says "Thank you, May" to the waitress/proprietor. And that's it. Sip of coffee. Cut. Bond in his car pulling into the MI6 garage. Cut. Bond steps into Moneypenny's office. Done. Tiny little easter egg for die-hard fans and nothing more.
And who plays May, you ask? Tilda Swinton. Or Billy Connolly.
I am constantly flip-flopping between the two positions, myself! On the one hand, I want as much background as I can get; I want TV series about every single background character; I want the MI6 org chart and the minutes to M's most boring meetings; I wish every film still opened with an attempt at a date between Bond and Sylvia Trench; I want Young Bond; I want Old Bond; I want a film about Andrew and Monique Bond. All of it. On the other hand, I know, that that would kill the series. So I use this forum to propose preposterous additional material while silently (well not so silently) hoping that none of it ever comes close to happening :))
I could be wrong, but I think people were annoyed by the presence of Ben Whishaw's Q on the field, while of all the MI6 regulars, he is probably the one who does not rub shoulders with Bond outside the MI6 building. Ideally, developing Bond's life outside the field would happen early in the story, at that moment maybe we could see Bond at Le Cercle with M, before he is assigned a new mission. But from the moment he is on the mission, I suppose the audience wants to see him alone, without the MI6 regulars.