While I respect your opinion on it, I can’t agree. If it takes more than Bond to make a Bond movie, then in theory one could make a Bond film without Bond. Can’t see that working.
And we’ve already seen instances of films where these characters do appear and Bond still makes what could be considered massive steps towards being something akin to a generic action hero. Tomorrow Never Dies comes to mind in this regard, even though I do enjoy the film, as do the other Brosnan films that follow it, although perhaps to a lesser degree.
Completely agree. Of course a Bond movie can be made without supporting characters and tropes, but as you say, something’s missing. And that’s personality. I think QoS was okay but I wouldn’t want that style being the norm, and I’m glad it wasn’t. From my point of view the Craig era really came alive with the introduction of Whishaw and Harris. If you have iconic characters it’s best to use them. It’s up to the writers to make them interesting or relevant.
Agreed for sure, but it took its personality from the Fleming original. While I love Quantum, imo it did feel like even more Bondness was stripped away than Casino. New films need to celebrate the Bond dna while not being constricted by it.
I wouldn’t agree necessarily. Casino Royale gets its personality more from some strong performances by its lead actors, especially Craig. The bare bones of Fleming’s novel are there, but much of it is original content created by the creative team behind the film.
It gets its personality from the fact that it focuses on the most interesting aspect of the franchise: Bond himself. While it indulges in some of the tropes of the franchise, it also turns a few of them on their head and omits some altogether. It’s in these elements that it finds its personality.
Agreed. QoS pushes things too far into generic territory for my liking. Classic characters are an asset, not a hindrance. Giving them a different spin is fine, but I can’t endorse running away from them altogether. Bond’s world is just as important as the man himself.
But it’s not Q, and everybody knows it. People were wondering when Q was going to appear in the Craig era, not a random background character in a coat who is given bare bones attention at best. A Q sequence brings banter. A relationship that grows and the audience looks forward to. Sure, it can be skipped, but I think it removes fun. I agree the backbone of Fleming’s story definitely helped with Casino Royale, with a longer length - not being shaped like a bullet, as Forster put it.
I don’t believe it’s something they could get away with for a sustained period of time (removing established characters like Q or Moneypenny) which says a lot I think.
And let’s also remember that Casino Royale had Felix Leiter and Rene Mathis. Those are classic Fleming characters, even though Mathis made his debut here. That’s what helped make it Bond without Q and Moneypenny.
There was a Q-like character in CR and QOS. The guy who gave him the chip in his arm in CR, and the bloke explaining the bank notes in QOS. There was also a Moneypenny type of character in CR. in Villiers. But it was great to see Q and Moneypenny properly back in Skyfall. Now yes, these characters have been omitted before (Q wasn’t in LALD) and also some of Moneypenny’s appearances are extremely short (see DAF and LTK), but there is something comforting about a scene in Q’s lab, or a chat with Moneypenny before entering M’s office.
In NTTD they had a bit of run with the “he’ll see you now” line, involving Bond and Nomi.
The Q character I agree is more essential. I mean you have M, and you have Q. Besides the personality / comic relief aspect, there is also the fact that we live in a technologically sophisticated world and there will always be a need for someone to create and disperse that technology. I mean look at how IT has been essential in this pandemic to keep remote workers connected alone.
Moneypenny I can live without. The term secretary itself is a bit of an anachronism anyway. (The proper term is “administrative assistant”. ) In these days of remote work, automation, and outsourcing, the notion of an AA parked outside of an office 8 hours a day, Monday through Friday, seems ludicrously quaint in itself. Surely the head of SIS can answer his or her own emails these days!
If you must have a female for Bond to flirt with (another trope which really should be retired anyway) then combine the two and make Q the female techie that gives Bond his goodies and shoos him out the door. Plenty of opportunity for banter there.