|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » Samantha Bond
| Samantha Bond [message #218884] |
Mi, 08 Februar 2006 18:10 |
|
I saw today an article in which Samantha Bond declared that returning
as Moneypenny in "Casino Royale" would be tantamount to a betrayal of
Pierce Brosnan, which is why she won't reprise her role. However, the
reports I've heard all last year held that neither Moneypenny nor "Q"
were even part of the script anyway. Do we have a case of a
publicity-seeking actress seeking some kind of revenge? Mind you, I
don't mean to belittle Bond.
I don't subscribe to the notion that "Casino Royale" is in jeopardy and
that with its inevitable failure the entire franchise will be buried.
I don't expect the movie to top "Die Another Day"'s grosses (though, to
be honest, I didn't expect "Die" to earn those grosses in the first
place), but I do expect the film will perform well. And, even if it
somehow doesn't, I don't think that spells the end of 007. In any
event, though, I have to admit it would be nice to hear some positive
news about the film's production. Every news article Google returns
has been negative: no Vesper, no villain; Omega unsure which watch Bond
will wear; Samantha Bond views reprisal as betrayal; Clive Owen
considers Connery the only "real" Bond; neighbors next to Prague
shooting complaining, and I haven't even mentioned the debate over
Daniel Craig.
Still, Craig has been given public support from a handful of "qualified
experts": Judi Dench, Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan
(whose encouraging comments struck me as a demonstration of maturity
and class). Given how much negative publicity has already surrounded
the picture, though, one wonders whether or not Barbara Broccoli and
Michael Wilson didn't call in some favors to get those statements to
the press...
|
|
|
| Re: Samantha Bond [message #218885 ] |
Mi, 08 Februar 2006 19:30 |
|
NEVER believe Contactmusic.com. They are the WORST! Here's the article
as it was originally posted in the Independent:
* Samantha Bond is stoical about the decision to axe her alter ego,
Miss Moneypenny, from the forthcoming James Bond film.
Unlike her famous predecessor Lois Maxwell - who reckons the whole
thing is "a travesty" - the comely actress says die-hard Bond, fans
ought to be delighted.
"If you read the original Casino Royale, you'll see that Moneypenny
didn't feature in the book, so it's natural that she's not in the film
either," I'm told.
As to rumours that she may return in future episodes, Ms Bond - who was
speaking at the launch of the BsquareB summer ball - is unequivocal.
"No. I've always been Pierce Brosnan's girl, and said that as long as
he was going to play Bond then so would I [play Moneypenny]. But no
longer.
"I've been the only modern Moneypenny to snog Bond, so to do it with
another leading man would be like being unfaithful."
Here's their version:
MISS MONEYPENNY STAYS LOYAL TO BROSNAN
JAMES BOND actress SAMANTHA BOND has refused to reprise her role as
MISS MONEYPENNY in forthcoming 007 movies, because she wants to remain
loyal to ousted Bond PIERCE BROSNAN.
The English actress played the sexy MI6 employee alongside Brosnan's
slick superspy in GOLDENEYE, TOMORROW NEVER DIES, THE WORLD IS NOT
ENOUGH and DIE ANOTHER DAY.
However, now blonde actor DANIEL CRAIG has taken over Brosnan's role
for CASINO ROYALE, Bond insists she has retired from the Moneypenny
role.
She says, "I've always been Pierce Brosnan's girl, and said that as
long as he was going to play Bond, then so would I. But no longer.
"I've been the only modern Moneypenny to snog (kiss) Bond, so to do it
with another leading man would be like being unfaithful."
Independent version:
http://news.independent.co.uk/people/pandora/article343906.e ce
Contact Music:
http://www.contactmusic.com/80257005003C9C59/activate?open&a mp;id=B3B6D3CB119B90058025710F00644551
|
|
|
| Re: Samantha Bond [message #218886 ] |
Mi, 08 Februar 2006 19:32 |
|
Oops.
Here is the Contact Music link. You can compare:
http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/miss %20moneypenny%20stays%20loyal%20to%20brosnan_08_02_2006
|
|
|
| Re: Samantha Bond [message #218888 ] |
Mi, 08 Februar 2006 20:12 |
|
NEVER believe "Contact Music." They are the WORST. Here's the actual
article they took the quote from yesterday, and it's NOTHING LIKE their
version:
Samantha Bond is stoical about the decision to axe her alter ego, Miss
Moneypenny, from the forthcoming James Bond film.
Unlike her famous predecessor Lois Maxwell - who reckons the whole
thing is "a travesty" - the comely actress says die-hard Bond, fans
ought to be delighted.
"If you read the original Casino Royale, you'll see that Moneypenny
didn't feature in the book, so it's natural that she's not in the film
either," I'm told.
As to rumours that she may return in future episodes, Ms Bond - who was
speaking at the launch of the BsquareB summer ball - is unequivocal.
"No. I've always been Pierce Brosnan's girl, and said that as long as
he was going to play Bond then so would I [play Moneypenny]. But no
longer.
"I've been the only modern Moneypenny to snog Bond, so to do it with
another leading man would be like being unfaithful."
http://news.independent.co.uk/people/pandora/article343906.e ce
|
|
|
| Re: Samantha Bond [message #218893 ] |
Mi, 08 Februar 2006 20:36 |
|
JHause wrote:
> NEVER believe "Contact Music." They are the WORST. Here's the actual
> article they took the quote from yesterday, and it's NOTHING LIKE their
> version:
>
> Samantha Bond is stoical about the decision to axe her alter ego, Miss
> Moneypenny, from the forthcoming James Bond film.
>
> Unlike her famous predecessor Lois Maxwell - who reckons the whole
> thing is "a travesty" - the comely actress says die-hard Bond, fans
> ought to be delighted.
>
> "If you read the original Casino Royale, you'll see that Moneypenny
> didn't feature in the book, so it's natural that she's not in the film
> either," I'm told.
--- Moneypenny may not have "featured" in the book, but she certainly
was in it, if in passing brevity.
> As to rumours that she may return in future episodes, Ms Bond - who was
> speaking at the launch of the BsquareB summer ball - is unequivocal.
>
> "No. I've always been Pierce Brosnan's girl, and said that as long as
> he was going to play Bond then so would I [play Moneypenny]. But no
> longer.
>
> "I've been the only modern Moneypenny to snog Bond, so to do it with
> another leading man would be like being unfaithful."
>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/people/pandora/article343906.e ce
|
|
|
| Re: Samantha Bond [message #218934 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 02:05 |
|
WQ wrote:
> --- Moneypenny may not have "featured" in the book, but she certainly
> was in it, if in passing brevity.
No in any way that can't be handwaved out. The character was more
mentioned than appeared.
It might be nice to just not have her in the film.
===
= DUG.
===
|
|
|
| Re: Samantha Bond [message #218935 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 02:16 |
|
"Duggy" <Paul.Duggan [at] jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1139533541.000774.61430 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> WQ wrote:
> > --- Moneypenny may not have "featured" in the book, but she certainly
> > was in it, if in passing brevity.
>
> No in any way that can't be handwaved out. The character was more
> mentioned than appeared.
>
> It might be nice to just not have her in the film.
She won't be missed. I never thought she added anything to the role except a
totally inappropriate sexual undertone to the established character.
|
|
|
| Re: Samantha Bond [message #218941 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 05:19 |
|
Carcharias wrote:
> She won't be missed. I never thought she added anything to the role except a
> totally inappropriate sexual undertone to the established character.
Because there was never a sexual undertone to Bond in any previous
film. Ever.
===
= DUG.
===
|
|
|
| Re: Samantha Bond [message #218952 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 12:27 |
|
"Duggy" <Paul.Duggan [at] jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1139545178.030922.190470 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Carcharias wrote:
> > She won't be missed. I never thought she added anything to the role
except a
> > totally inappropriate sexual undertone to the established character.
>
> Because there was never a sexual undertone to Bond in any previous
> film. Ever.
Um, talking about Moneypenny. As far as I know, Samantha Bond was never
cast as James Bond.
|
|
|
| Re: Samantha Bond [message #219119 ] |
So, 12 Februar 2006 09:22 |
|
"Carcharias" <carcharias_1966 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in
news:tPRGf.1064$Pb.514 [at] trndny08:
> "Duggy" <Paul.Duggan [at] jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:1139533541.000774.61430 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> WQ wrote:
>> > --- Moneypenny may not have "featured" in the book, but she
>> > certainly was in it, if in passing brevity.
>>
>> No in any way that can't be handwaved out. The character was more
>> mentioned than appeared.
>>
>> It might be nice to just not have her in the film.
>
> She won't be missed. I never thought she added anything to the role
> except a totally inappropriate sexual undertone to the established
> character.
I have always loved the colourful frisson of sexual tension between Bond
and Moneypenny. I truly beleive it is one of the little elements that is
easily overlooked. There once was a time when that sort of atmosphere
was pretty much a given. There are still many places inthe business
world where, while the politics are different, the frisson remains in an
altered form where women get to play on more equal footing. Still, it's
there. And I think it's great. Especially in Bond films the last bastion
of the classy sexist rogue. No where else can a guy be suave and
germaine about his sexual appetites than in a Bond film. And no where
else is it understood that most of the women are willing to deal with
his sexual nature in a self-secure fashion.
Moneypenny is the cornerstone representation of what Bond cannot have so
long as he insists on being who is. She is a constant reminder that he
has to grow up and settle down someday. I love her being there. Bond
without Moneypenny isn't nearly as intersting to me, even if she isn't
always done right. I liked Samantha Bond's portrayal, and I loved Lois
Maxwell's take. Bond can live without the elaborate gadgets (though the
Q sequences are amusing and fun in their own way), but he cannot exist
without the constant reminder that his cavalier attitude towards sex
with women has a price; Moneypenny. I know it seems so unlikely that
they will ever be together, but in a very surreal sort of way, that is
the exact implicationof having her dangling before him all this time.
Who else is he going to go home to when it's all over?
Lee Edward McIlmoyle,
has thought about this perhaps too much
|
|
|
| Re: Samantha Bond [message #219129 ] |
So, 12 Februar 2006 13:03 |
|
"Lee Edward McIlmoyle" <leeinlimbo [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9768226388BBFleemcilmoylesympatic [at] 207.35.177.135...
>
> I have always loved the colourful frisson of sexual tension between Bond
> and Moneypenny. I truly beleive it is one of the little elements that is
> easily overlooked. There once was a time when that sort of atmosphere
> was pretty much a given. There are still many places inthe business
> world where, while the politics are different, the frisson remains in an
> altered form where women get to play on more equal footing. Still, it's
> there. And I think it's great. Especially in Bond films the last bastion
> of the classy sexist rogue. No where else can a guy be suave and
> germaine about his sexual appetites than in a Bond film. And no where
> else is it understood that most of the women are willing to deal with
> his sexual nature in a self-secure fashion.
>
> Moneypenny is the cornerstone representation of what Bond cannot have so
> long as he insists on being who is. She is a constant reminder that he
> has to grow up and settle down someday. I love her being there. Bond
> without Moneypenny isn't nearly as intersting to me, even if she isn't
> always done right. I liked Samantha Bond's portrayal, and I loved Lois
> Maxwell's take. Bond can live without the elaborate gadgets (though the
> Q sequences are amusing and fun in their own way), but he cannot exist
> without the constant reminder that his cavalier attitude towards sex
> with women has a price; Moneypenny. I know it seems so unlikely that
> they will ever be together, but in a very surreal sort of way, that is
> the exact implicationof having her dangling before him all this time.
> Who else is he going to go home to when it's all over?
You make good points, but I was talking more about the difference in
portrayals between Maxwell and Samantha Bond. I loved Maxwell's portrayal
precisely because it generated no heat -- it was the harmless little office
flirting that both enjoyed and knew wasn't going to go anywhere. Bond's
portrayal was gross and undignfied -- not worthy of the character Maxwell
had built. "Cunning Linguist" and, in DAD, the completely objectionable VR
sequence. I think it was an instance of Bond not respecting the character
and selfishly wanting to put her stamp on it without understanding anything
about the nature of their relationship. I hope when Moneypenney does return
they get an actress who can understand the basics of the character better
(and writers who show some restraint).
|
|
|
| Re: Samantha Bond [message #219132 ] |
So, 12 Februar 2006 13:27 |
|
Carcharias wrote:
> You make good points, but I was talking more about the difference in
> portrayals between Maxwell and Samantha Bond. I loved Maxwell's
> portrayal precisely because it generated no heat -- it was the
> harmless little office flirting that both enjoyed and knew wasn't
> going to go anywhere. Bond's portrayal was gross and undignfied --
> not worthy of the character Maxwell had built. "Cunning Linguist"
> and, in DAD, the completely objectionable VR sequence.
The VR sequence stripped the character of her dignity IMO. The
Moneypenny/Bond relationship is not built on crude gags involving
cigar tubes and FAST TIMES visual cues. There's respect and a
deep-seated love between them. Each is afraid to give in to the
other and so they skirt around the issue with playful flirtation.
That should never change.
Establishing the tag-team relationship between Dench's M and
Moneypenny also threw things off-balance somewhat.
--
--Mac
"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"
"Vargas wants Judge Reinhold as Tanner."
|
|
|
| Re: Samantha Bond [message #219139 ] |
So, 12 Februar 2006 18:16 |
|
Carcharias wrote:
> Bond's
> portrayal was gross and undignfied -- not worthy of the character Maxwell
> had built. "Cunning Linguist" and, in DAD, the completely objectionable VR
> sequence. I think it was an instance of Bond not respecting the character
> and selfishly wanting to put her stamp on it without understanding anything
> about the nature of their relationship. I hope when Moneypenney does return
> they get an actress who can understand the basics of the character better
> (and writers who show some restraint).
Fair enough points and I agree the VR sequence was uncalled-for, but I
really don't think one can blame Bond: surely all she was doing was
playing the part as written?
Best
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Samantha Bond [message #219158 ] |
Mo, 13 Februar 2006 03:41 |
|
While I can't speak with certainty about the Cunning Linguist line (although
I suspect it was the writers and not a suggestion by Ms. Bond), I feel
pretty positive that blaming her for the VR sequence of DAD would be like
blaming John Cleese for giving 007 an invisible car. She took a scene and
did what she could with it. What was she supposed to do, say no and be in
breach of contract? Let's lay the blame where it belongs, on Purvis and
Wade, writers extraordinaire(extraordinarily bad, that is).
Draugnar
"Carcharias" <carcharias_1966 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tuFHf.2516$lG.2195 [at] trndny01...
>
> You make good points, but I was talking more about the difference in
> portrayals between Maxwell and Samantha Bond. I loved Maxwell's portrayal
> precisely because it generated no heat -- it was the harmless little
> office
> flirting that both enjoyed and knew wasn't going to go anywhere. Bond's
> portrayal was gross and undignfied -- not worthy of the character Maxwell
> had built. "Cunning Linguist" and, in DAD, the completely objectionable
> VR
> sequence. I think it was an instance of Bond not respecting the character
> and selfishly wanting to put her stamp on it without understanding
> anything
> about the nature of their relationship. I hope when Moneypenney does
> return
> they get an actress who can understand the basics of the character better
> (and writers who show some restraint).
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Samantha Bond [message #219159 ] |
Mo, 13 Februar 2006 03:45 |
|
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:458nukF5f4t3U1 [at] individual.net...
> "Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
> What do you do, Vargas?"
>
> "Vargas wants Judge Reinhold as Tanner."
And while we're at it, let's get the old, bald dude (don't recall his name)
who played his partner in the Beverly Hills Cop movies to be Felix... No
thanks. I actually like the current Tanner.
Draugnar
|
|
|
| Re: Samantha Bond [message #224823 ] |
Mo, 13 Februar 2006 23:50 |
|
Draugnar wrote:
>> "Vargas wants Judge Reinhold as Tanner."
>
> And while we're at it, let's get the old, bald dude (don't recall his
> name) who played his partner in the Beverly Hills Cop movies to be
> Felix... No thanks. I actually like the current Tanner.
Do you not think Vargas might be joking...?
--
--Mac
"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"
"Vargas had a medical condition called Ronnie Cox."
|
|
|
| Re: Samantha Bond [message #224824 ] |
Di, 14 Februar 2006 00:15 |
|
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:45cgpoF632t8U2 [at] individual.net...
> Draugnar wrote:
>
>>> "Vargas wants Judge Reinhold as Tanner."
>>
>> And while we're at it, let's get the old, bald dude (don't recall his
>> name)
John Ashton. Really good as "Marvin Dorfler" in one of my favorite films,
"Midnight Run."
> who played his partner in the Beverly Hills Cop movies to be
>> Felix... No thanks. I actually like the current Tanner.
>
> Do you not think Vargas might be joking...?
Dunno...Vargas has that eerie dead-pan look all the time. As if the only
thing he enjoys doing is trimming toenails. And not necessarilly his own.
> --
> --Mac
>
> "Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
> What do you do, Vargas?"
>
> "Vargas had a medical condition called Ronnie Cox."
I saw a bad case of that once. Worse even than the dreaded Count
Choculitis.
Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that he was thankful to have so far avoided the Government Created Killer
Nano Robot Infection..."
|
|
|
| Re: Samantha Bond [message #224826 ] |
Di, 14 Februar 2006 00:19 |
|
Tom Zielinski wrote:
> Dunno...Vargas has that eerie dead-pan look all the time. As if the
> only thing he enjoys doing is trimming toenails. And not
> necessarilly his own.
LOL
--
--Mac
"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"
"Vargas will get the clippers."
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Do Mai 24 21:20:27 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,06370 Sekunden |
