Should Moneypenny and Q Have Returned?

245

Comments

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    They never should have left, one of the worst things happening to the franchise.

    :-@
  • Posts: 582
    echo wrote: »
    Oh, dear. Perhaps this thread title should be changed to "Is Tanner suddenly losing his gloss and appeal?" ;)

    I like that :) I hadn't expected such a long discussion about Rory Kinnear/Tanner. I love that they've brought these characters back and do like how they were used in both SF and SP but feel they need smaller roles for awhile. I don't mind these roles being increased but not all the time. Bernard Lee got more screentime sort of TMWTGG-Moonraker. Desmond Llewelyn had varying screen time used quite a bit in LTK and not even appearing in LALD. I just think there should be that variety. It gets a bit boring when M is constantly out in the field, just as the Bond goes rogue shtick has been played one too many times. I'm sympathetic to the sentiment that Bond just gets a mission from M and away he goes.
  • Posts: 1,098
    In answer to the question.............YES of course, they are part of the Bond story.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    echo wrote: »
    Oh, dear. Perhaps this thread title should be changed to "Is Tanner suddenly losing his gloss and appeal?" ;)

    I would say Tanner has gained some 'gloss' since QoS. Hairloss is a b*tch! :))
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I'm not too keen to be honest. They pale in comparison to the originals (at least MP does for me). Q is a new interpretation and he's funny, but he's also very derivative of Chloe from 24 & Benji from MI.

    I would prefer they remain in the lab & behind their desks. Their involvement in the first 30 minutes of SP (up to when Bond nicks the Aston) was just about right. Everything beyond that was just too 24/MI for me.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm not too keen to be honest. They pale in comparison to the originals (at least MP does for me). Q is a new interpretation and he's funny, but he's also very derivative of Chloe from 24 & Benji from MI.

    I would prefer they remain in the lab & behind their desks. Their involvement in the first 30 minutes of SP (up to when Bond nicks the Aston) was just about right. Everything beyond that was just too 24/MI for me.

    True, while I like Spectre as it is, the Scooby Gang should stay in the background next time around.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,425
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Are we blind to the fact that it's all about the team these days and that the Bond films too try to hop on trends?

    - Single superhero films have been replaced by team films like Avengers, JLA (eventually), Suicide Squad, ...
    - The last couple of M:I films shared a few team members
    - The Nolan Batman films made Batman bigger than merely one man
    - ...

    The way I see it, it fits modern television sensibilities. Build a larger cast and especially a returning one and you tickle our geek genes--which is why The Walking Dead isn't merely Rick's story and why 24 became the story of Jack AND Chloe AND Audrey ...

    I think the reason some people disagree with giving MP, Q and M so much screen time is that they feel like these characters are, in their current form, a betrayal of the Lee/Brown, Llewellyn and Maxwell versions of M, Q and MP. Some people wish that we could resurrect our 1963 cast from the dead and continue along the traditional path. My personal view on the subject is that if you alter the characters slightly without altering them too much, you can legitimately proceed while honouring the old crew by not blatantly mimicking them. A tech guy like Wishaw's Q, a clever and independent woman like Harris' MP and a part bureaucrat part diplomat like Fiennes' M is exactly the bunch I'd expect to find in a modern MI6. As for Kinnear as Tanner, a humourless British by-the-numbers guy? Perfect.

    The fact that in SPECTRE
    we give these characters an active role to play in the climax of the movie, doesn't spoil the fun for me at all and neither does it feel "not right".
    The 1950-something Fleming would never have gone there. A 2015 Fleming, however, might have done this himself. Also, I still think they do a better job here than in one of my favourite Bond films, LTK, where old Q was put in a situation that did not suit his character one . bit! When they had M pull a McGuyver on us in TWINE, I cringed. At least our current M earns our respect on screen. And no matter how strong they started with Samantha Bond in GE, they ended with having her go dirty with VR goggles on. Clearly they didn't know what to do with her. The modern woman will gravitate more towards Harris' MP. She might not send Bond away if he opened the box of Pand007a for her, but he'd still have to work for it.

    Point well made but for me it's not that they are different from Lois, Desmond or Bernard, it's that they take up too much screen time and the films feel less like they're about Bond. I've felt that for a while and is one of many reasons I disliked TWINE.

    However your comment about ensemble superhero films is a very good one and although I made the Nolan and Batman connections, this added influence had not occurred to me before.
  • Posts: 2,341
    I like seeing M, Moneypenny and Q doing more than what we were treated during the early years. Times has changed, Bond has constantly evolved and seeing the actors out of the office and about is a good thing.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    I would prefer they remain in the lab & behind their desks. Their involvement in the first 30 minutes of SP (up to when Bond nicks the Aston) was just about right. Everything beyond that was just too 24/MI for me.

    Spot on. Their screen time in SP was way more than anything that Bernard, Lois and Desmond ever had but once Bond goes to Rome that should be it. If you must they can have about 5 minutes at the end like SF but Q turning up in Austria is completely nonsensical.

    And another thing - for a bloke who Q has met once before in SF, why is Q (who is presumably fresh out of university and has just got himself his dream job) so keen to risk his career for Bond?

    I can only imagine Bond must've covered for him in SF and said he didnt gormlessly hook up Silva's laptop to the MI6 mainframe and ultimately cause M to die.
  • Posts: 15,106
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Are we blind to the fact that it's all about the team these days and that the Bond films too try to hop on trends?

    - Single superhero films have been replaced by team films like Avengers, JLA (eventually), Suicide Squad, ...
    - The last couple of M:I films shared a few team members
    - The Nolan Batman films made Batman bigger than merely one man
    - ...

    The way I see it, it fits modern television sensibilities. Build a larger cast and especially a returning one and you tickle our geek genes--which is why The Walking Dead isn't merely Rick's story and why 24 became the story of Jack AND Chloe AND Audrey ...

    I think the reason some people disagree with giving MP, Q and M so much screen time is that they feel like these characters are, in their current form, a betrayal of the Lee/Brown, Llewellyn and Maxwell versions of M, Q and MP. Some people wish that we could resurrect our 1963 cast from the dead and continue along the traditional path. My personal view on the subject is that if you alter the characters slightly without altering them too much, you can legitimately proceed while honouring the old crew by not blatantly mimicking them. A tech guy like Wishaw's Q, a clever and independent woman like Harris' MP and a part bureaucrat part diplomat like Fiennes' M is exactly the bunch I'd expect to find in a modern MI6. As for Kinnear as Tanner, a humourless British by-the-numbers guy? Perfect.

    The fact that in SPECTRE
    we give these characters an active role to play in the climax of the movie, doesn't spoil the fun for me at all and neither does it feel "not right".
    The 1950-something Fleming would never have gone there. A 2015 Fleming, however, might have done this himself. Also, I still think they do a better job here than in one of my favourite Bond films, LTK, where old Q was put in a situation that did not suit his character one . bit! When they had M pull a McGuyver on us in TWINE, I cringed. At least our current M earns our respect on screen. And no matter how strong they started with Samantha Bond in GE, they ended with having her go dirty with VR goggles on. Clearly they didn't know what to do with her. The modern woman will gravitate more towards Harris' MP. She might not send Bond away if he opened the box of Pand007a for her, but he'd still have to work for it.

    This.

    And for people who think they take too much screen time, they seem to forget that in both DN and FRWL, Bond appears quite a while into the movie. in the novel FRWL, he is absent for far longer. And let's not forget that he needs to interact with people and not only his enemies and the Bond girls.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And for people who think they take too much screen time, they seem to forget that in both DN and FRWL, Bond appears quite a while into the movie. in the novel FRWL, he is absent for far longer. And let's not forget that he needs to interact with people and not only his enemies and the Bond girls.
    I don't have a problem with less Bond. I have a problem with more of the MI6 team just because EON has casted 'name' actors and needs to give them something to do. The FRWL time away from Bond was very usefully spent imho. I didn't feel the same way about the SP time away from Bond (Nine Eyes etc.).

    I suppose if it had been done better......but it wasn't so I can't really tell.

    Bottom line: these are repeating characters, and the more we see of them each time, the more these films start to look like team efforts. That was not the case before, and call me old fashioned, but I'd prefer if that is not the case going forward. This is not Mission Impossible or 24.
  • Posts: 582
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And for people who think they take too much screen time, they seem to forget that in both DN and FRWL, Bond appears quite a while into the movie. in the novel FRWL, he is absent for far longer. And let's not forget that he needs to interact with people and not only his enemies and the Bond girls.
    I don't have a problem with less Bond. I have a problem with more of the MI6 team just because EON has casted 'name' actors and needs to give them something to do. The FRWL time away from Bond was very usefully spent imho. I didn't feel the same way about the SP time away from Bond (Nine Eyes etc.).

    I suppose if it had been done better......but it wasn't so I can't really tell.

    Bottom line: these are repeating characters, and the more we see of them each time, the more these films start to look like team efforts. That was not the case before, and call me old fashioned, but I'd prefer if that is not the case going forward. This is not Mission Impossible or 24.

    I agree and this is something Fleming said when asked if he felt the general public looked on spying as a dirty trade, I'm paraphrasing

    'People don't consider it to be a dirty job. They see it as a romantic thing, one man going up against a whole army or police force.'
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And for people who think they take too much screen time, they seem to forget that in both DN and FRWL, Bond appears quite a while into the movie. in the novel FRWL, he is absent for far longer. And let's not forget that he needs to interact with people and not only his enemies and the Bond girls.
    I don't have a problem with less Bond. I have a problem with more of the MI6 team just because EON has casted 'name' actors and needs to give them something to do. The FRWL time away from Bond was very usefully spent imho. I didn't feel the same way about the SP time away from Bond (Nine Eyes etc.).

    I suppose if it had been done better......but it wasn't so I can't really tell.

    Bottom line: these are repeating characters, and the more we see of them each time, the more these films start to look like team efforts. That was not the case before, and call me old fashioned, but I'd prefer if that is not the case going forward. This is not Mission Impossible or 24.

    I love the fact that they are around like they are in SPECTRE. I read it as 'we didn't have Q/MP for two films, so now they're back we're going to give them something to do.'

    I saw it is a one off, and enjoyed it with that understanding during the film. I wouldn't want them to hang around in every Bond film from here on. I missed them, as did many, for years so I loved every minute they were on screen in SPECTRE. Hopefully, they will return to normal business in B25, one proper scene each and perhaps a couple more moments in the film, especially the end.

  • edited November 2015 Posts: 5,767
    They never should have left, one of the worst things happening to the franchise.
    CR and QoS managed very well without them. I´m all for having them back, but they should have built more on what they started so solidly with CR and QoS, instead of having this weak mixture of nostalgia and pseudo-modernism.
    And as I said before, MP´s charater is wasted as long as she is presented as some kind of inferior Bond girl.

    Ludovico wrote: »
    And for people who think they take too much screen time, they seem to forget that in both DN and FRWL, Bond appears quite a while into the movie. in the novel FRWL, he is absent for far longer.
    You can´t meaningfully compare novels and films, they work completely differently.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And let's not forget that he needs to interact with people and not only his enemies and the Bond girls.
    That´s exactly the point. Make them interesting people and not empty shells, give them meaningful scenes.



  • Posts: 11,425
    boldfinger wrote: »
    They never should have left, one of the worst things happening to the franchise.
    CR and QoS managed very well without them. I´m all for having them back, but they should have built more on what they started so solidly with CR and QoS, instead of having this weak mixture of nostalgia and pseudo-modernism.
    And as I said before, MP´s charater is wasted as long as she is presented as some kind of inferior Bond girl.

    Ludovico wrote: »
    And for people who think they take too much screen time, they seem to forget that in both DN and FRWL, Bond appears quite a while into the movie. in the novel FRWL, he is absent for far longer.
    You can´t meaningfully compare novels and films, they work completely differently.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And let's not forget that he needs to interact with people and not only his enemies and the Bond girls.
    That´s exactly the point. Make them interesting people and not empty shells, give them meaningful scenes.



    I totally agree. I feel Mendes has frittered away a lot that was good about the reboot. what was fresh now feels a little stale and cliched again. I feel we've gone back to the Brosna era approach a bit - constant references back to the old films and lots of nostalgia.

    It's all a bit introverted, navel gazing type stuff.

    I want them to create new classic memories. The PTS in SP was great but after that there was nothing very original. We haven't had a truly amazing stunt or action sequence for years. I actually think if they stripped things back to basics and just choreographed and edited the action beautifully (dare I say in a John Glen style) then that would actually help Bond stand out from the crowd in the current frenetic action era.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    @Getafix

    CR certainly brought a lot of good and fresh stuff, as you said. MP + Q not in it, didn't really hurt the movie, but they could very well have been in it as well in one or two scenes.
    But overall CR still feels like a real Bond movie.

    QOS and SF do not. QOS is a common action-flick, that happens to have a character named James Bond in it. Change the name and omit M, and nobody would even think it could be a Bond movie.

    SF had exactly ONE Bond moment. The Macau sequence in the Casino.
    The rest is bland soap opera drama, Mommy was very bad, why Mother and Mother dies in her son's arms stuff, if packaged in nicest gift wrapping paper, shiny and glossy (cinematography).
    Of course that appealed to the mass audience. If that's a good thing can be debated.

    Spectre went back to the proper Bond themes. As you said it has quite a bit of Brosnan style in it and a lot of Moore-esque humour.

    Box office shows this approach also works (still works). Some people have difficulties accepting this (I don't mean you).

    After Spectre some more down to earth Bond movie à la FYEO or LTK would be a good thing. It sure has to have some decent action sequences but nothing too OTT.
    As you said stripped back to basics with good choreographed action would be perfect.
    Especially if it is anything like John Glen would have done.
    I'll never understand why Glen is so criminally underrated on this site.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Going back to the original post, I say no. Moneypenny was a secretary, they've turned her into something else, and whatever her position is, now she tends to get way too much screen time and interrupts the pacing drastically. Q, as well. A character named "Q" did not exist in the Fleming books; Major Boothroyd makes one appearance to give Bond his PPK, Q branch is mentioned a couple of times, that's it. I never liked the gadgets (which are a convention of the films, the only gadgets Bond uses in the original novels are the knives in his briefcase and the blade in his shoe).

    Those two characters, and M and Tanner, have highjacked the films.

    Moneypenny and Q were established at the beginning of the cinematic Bond, so they are a big part of it and omitting them after 40 years was just stupid.

    I agree though, we have seen enough of the Scooby Gang. Moneypenny I want to see only behind the desk in the next one.

    As for Q, I hated him in SF and the way they depicted him there was just plain stupid.
    In Spectre he is spectacular and with Whishaw there could be a worthy successor to Llewelyn. I sure hope he'll have as much screen time in the next one as in Spectre.
    M on the other hand should give Bond a mission and that's it.
    Dench was way too much in TWINE, QOS and especially SF, to an extend where it begins to hurt those movies.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited November 2015 Posts: 8,392
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Going back to the original post, I say no. Moneypenny was a secretary, they've turned her into something else, and whatever her position is, now she tends to get way too much screen time and interrupts the pacing drastically. Q, as well. A character named "Q" did not exist in the Fleming books; Major Boothroyd makes one appearance to give Bond his PPK, Q branch is mentioned a couple of times, that's it. I never liked the gadgets (which are a convention of the films, the only gadgets Bond uses in the original novels are the knives in his briefcase and the blade in his shoe).

    Those two characters, and M and Tanner, have highjacked the films.

    Er, the films have been different from the books since 1967. You're just realizing this now? :-?
  • brinkeguthriebrinkeguthrie Piz Gloria
    Posts: 1,400
    Wondered why they'd send Q into the field to bring Bond in- why not another 00- Q is no match for Bond.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    =bg= wrote: »
    Wondered why they'd send Q into the field to bring Bond in- why not another 00- Q is no match for Bond.
    I don't think they sent him. He went out there on his own to warn Bond to pack it in. It was an unsanctioned trip (M & Tanner thought Bond was in the UK).
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 15,106
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And for people who think they take too much screen time, they seem to forget that in both DN and FRWL, Bond appears quite a while into the movie. in the novel FRWL, he is absent for far longer.
    You can´t meaningfully compare novels and films, they work completely differently.

    Well, yes I can and so everybody, because however different they are... The movies are still based on a number of novels by a certain English writer.
    =bg= wrote: »
    Wondered why they'd send Q into the field to bring Bond in- why not another 00- Q is no match for Bond.

    That's the point: Q is not an operative and could have easily been killed by these three goons. And he went to Austria by his own initiative, not on orders.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    It comes down to how one does it. The execution / involvement of the recurring supporting characters was excellent arguably up to 1989., From then on, it just sort of went downhill.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    bondjames wrote: »
    It comes down to how one does it. The execution / involvement of the recurring supporting characters was excellent arguably up to 1989., From then on, it just sort of went downhill.

    I liked M and Q and Moneypenny a great lot in GE and TND.
    If anything then it's M that was just wrong in TWINE and DAD and Moneypenny in DAD.
    Q has some of the best moments in the Brosnan era.
    Of course R is just ridiculously bad in DAD.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    They are an institution for the series. Of course they should return, though with less screen time. Although MP having adage and Bond being shocked is quite a nice inversion of formula conventions. Q works well in the field, but MP and M should be mostly London bound. I love Kinnear's Tanner and he should also have a small role as M's assistant.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Going back to the original post, I say no. Moneypenny was a secretary, they've turned her into something else, and whatever her position is, now she tends to get way too much screen time and interrupts the pacing drastically. Q, as well. A character named "Q" did not exist in the Fleming books; Major Boothroyd makes one appearance to give Bond his PPK, Q branch is mentioned a couple of times, that's it. I never liked the gadgets (which are a convention of the films, the only gadgets Bond uses in the original novels are the knives in his briefcase and the blade in his shoe).

    Those two characters, and M and Tanner, have highjacked the films.

    Er, the films have been different from the books since 1967. You're just realizing this now? :-?

    Save "Er" for your playmates. My point being that CR greatly benefitted by returning to the roots of the character. By re-adding all of these unnecessary barnacles that have accumulated over the span of 50 years the films are already being adversely effected, in terms of both story and pacing.

    And my point being that with this purist way of thinking we wouldn't have made it to CR in the first place...
  • Posts: 2,491
    I hope they'll reduce their rolls....especially MPs....

    Q is fine but again..he shouldn't be too involved...

    I would like if MP's role is just "oh James...you done messed up now.."

    and Q is the guy that Bond phones to during troubles...(like once in the entire movie if then)

    M being in action roles....hmm.. Fiennes pulls it off so well that I wouldnt' mind more of him....but....I still think that the movies should be Bond movies and not Bond + friends movies.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I think it's more about the execution. If they execute well, then any plot element (well......almost any plot element) or character can work. If the execution is poor, then the audience (and fans) will scream bloody murder.

    I wanted the characters back, but I don't want them hogging the limelight or taking away from Bond.....I don't need team MI6. For me, it diminished Bond in this film.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    SF I suppose is OK as its in the context of the story but just look at the climax of SP - M (this is the guy in charge of protecting the nation remember) decides that rather than send say Bond and a load of other 00s he'll let a secretary (with a proven record of bottling it in the field), a computer geek and a man so dull his wife begs him to have an affair with other women just to make him even 1% interesting to all tag along to save the country.

    What logic is M employing there other than 'Well we've got all these actors on big money so we need to use them.'?
    Great point. I suppose they needed Q to shut down the program but it's hard to believe that Bond was the only "muscle" they brought with them. Surely he could have found someone else who was loyal to him? Whether it was more 00's or some old military friends or whatever connections he has made throughout the years, it doesn't matter. Then again, this is the same guy who decided that it was okay for Bond, Grandma and Grandpa to take on Silva and his army in the last film's climax. So I suppose there is some consistency in him making illogical decisions.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
Sign In or Register to comment.