› ›

Should we get a new M / Q / Moneypenny for BOND 26 and beyond ?

13567…34

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It would be a damned shame to break the link going all the way back to DN. I might not even want to follow. It may seem superficial, but as I have pointed out many a time, it is the only real continuity this franchise has ever had; at least one actor has carried on in the same role in the next film. Does this current team of producers really want to obliterate a tradition that they’re obviously aware of? Maybe, but I hope not.
    It’s always been a comforting part of this experience.

    I agree. It has to be done. Whishaw would be my preferred choice.
  • QuestioningManQuestioningMan US
    Posts: 4
    I'd like for a more refined, elderly Q for B26 and beyond. Just my preference. I did not care for the impudent Ben Whishaw.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,169
    RC7 wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It would be a damned shame to break the link going all the way back to DN. I might not even want to follow. It may seem superficial, but as I have pointed out many a time, it is the only real continuity this franchise has ever had; at least one actor has carried on in the same role in the next film. Does this current team of producers really want to obliterate a tradition that they’re obviously aware of? Maybe, but I hope not.
    It’s always been a comforting part of this experience.

    I agree. It has to be done. Whishaw would be my preferred choice.

    It'll probably Rory as Tanner then. :))
    Though I actually like all the MI6 regulars. Even Tanner doesn't irk me as he does some fans.
    I do like Ben Whishaw as Q though, I think he brings a new take on a beloved character. And he does it well.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,252
    If they introduce a new Bond, because of the issue they've made of this incarnation's age, it more than likely will be a fresh start and an entirely new timeline/universe. If Whishaw were to be retained, it would be the same situation that existed when Judy Dench was brought back as the character of M. Just as Brosnan's M was not Craig's M, even though she's portrayed by the same actress, Bond#7's Q would not be Craig's Q.
    They got away with it with once and possibly could again, but I'd rather see a clean slate, with a new Bond, new timeline and new supporting cast.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    Definitely keep Q - I think he was cast excellently and should stay beyond B25 for sure. Same with M (great casting here). Harris does have the looks to stay around another couple of years - no doubt.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,252
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    Definitely keep Q - I think he was cast excellently and should stay beyond B25 for sure. Same with M (great casting here). Harris does have the looks to stay around another couple of years - no doubt.

    So would Bond be "Craig's Bond" just portrayed by another actor? If they want to go with a younger actor, this creates a big problem.
  • JamesStockJamesStock
    Posts: 572
    I don't get why people feel the need to change all of the supporting cast. They didn't every other Bond swap, so why now? The closest we had was Broz to Craig, except we still got Tanner and M and Q and MP weren't in it at all...

    What will likely happen (and what should) is that they will continue for as long as it makes sense for the individual actor as well as the series (like not having MP significantly older than Bond). I dont see the need for actors to have a life sentence with the role, but I dont see why any of them shouldn't carry on with the next Bond. Honestly, I hope they do.

    Having the supporting cast change slowly over time adds consistency and prevents a major flop from happening. Change is good, but too much can be a problem too.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,252
    If a new actor is going to brought in to begin a totally new era of a character, I can't understand why the supporting cast for the previous era would be retained; for good or bad modern audiences would not be as oblivious to it as were those in the past.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,252
    Birdleson wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    So would Bond be "Craig's Bond" just portrayed by another actor? If they want to go with a younger actor, this creates a big problem.

    No it doesn’t. You just ignore the issue, as was always done in the past. I’d prefer we go back to that weird, loose and malleable continuity. Not that I give a whit about box office myself, but the drop in revenue from CR to QOS and SF to SP (opened big, but ended up grossing 25% less worldwide, I believe) does seem to illustrate that general audiences prefer Bond films that don’t get themselves tied up in continuity.

    I don't want to ignore it; In the past I would say that was true and more possible. The Craig era has created a new dynamic of continuity, one that was more fluid with prior actors. Within this new model, having Bond go from his mid 50s to an actor in his late 30s or early 40s, while everyone around him remains the same, would be as jarring as a slide whistle sound effect or a pigeon doing a doubletake.
  • JamesStockJamesStock
    edited September 2019 Posts: 572
    talos7 wrote: »
    If a new actor is going to brought in to begin a totally new era of a character, I can't understand why the supporting cast for the previous era would be retained; for good or bad modern audiences would not be as oblivious to it as were those in the past.
    People get attached to the characters. You can see it reading through these comments. Changing actors presents a risk. You're already changing the main character and changing everyone else at the same time may make the film feel foreign and un-Bondian. They've already built investment in the current cast, which by the way, they have been generally well recieved and successful at their role. It's far better to mitigate the risk by spreading it out. Imagine if there were several miscast and what that would do to the series. No, just no.

    To me, wanting a full-blown recast is a kind of OCD false pretense, like the need to try to solve the timeline issues between Craig Bond and the others. There's simply no need.

    Don't fix what ain't broke!
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,252
    Ultimately,for me, after making age and his time on the job such an issue, to have Bond suddenly become 15 to 20 years younger, with everyone around him remaining the same. Looks pretty silly! ;)
  • JamesStockJamesStock
    Posts: 572
    talos7 wrote: »
    Ultimately,for me, after making age and his time on the job such an issue, to have Bond suddenly become 15 to 20 years younger, with everyone around him remaining the same. Looks pretty silly! ;)
    Personally, I think this only really applies to Moneypenny. It didn't bother me with Dench as M. But to each their own.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,169
    I like the Lee, Llewelyn and Maxwell team working with Connery, Lazenby and Moore.
    Never did any of them seem out of place.
    Dear old Desmond Llewelyn of course went on to work with Dalton and Brosnan, and even though he was in his 80's, he was, nay is such a beloved character it worked just fine.
    Keeping some things regular and familiar to audiences helps I think when a new actor assumes the role of James Bond. To much change can be off putting.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    I agree that Whishaw is the best of the new bunch. Fiennes doesn't do it for me at all. Bad dialogue doesn't help.

    It would be nice if there was at least one bit of casting continuity into B26, maintaining that unbroken link back to 1962.
  • OOWolfOOWolf Savannah
    edited January 2020 Posts: 140
    I'd replace them all. Not big on any of the Scooby gang. I don't feel as if they contribute in any real way to the films and their chemistry with Bond is 0 to none. As a matter of fact, I think they're in the films for too long as well. Maybe keep Fiennes as M, but that's about it. I liked watching the bureaucratic cabinet of older people in contrast to Bond, from the good 'ole days. He'd receive a consultation or a briefing and then be on his merry way. Now, watching Q, Eve and Tanner run around is like watching a live action version of James Bond Jr. No thanks.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited January 2020 Posts: 5,970
    Like I've said before, I personally would cast Riz Ahmed. I think he's a great actor and a worthy follow-up to Ben Whishaw. You should see how commitment this guy is to a role. He sent so many tapes to Gareth Edwards for Rogue One and different personalities. It was amazing. So yeah, if Whishaw is out, I'd cast Riz.

    ?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F4d%2F9f%2F9a319e7d60582db8f4469b91fa9a%2Fla-jrottenberg-1481836821-snap-photo

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Like I've said before, I personally would cast Riz Ahmed. I think he's a great actor and a worthy follow-up to Ben Whishaw. You should see how commitment this guy is to a role. He sent so many tapes to Gareth Edwards for Rogue One and different personalities. It was amazing. So yeah, if Whishaw is out, I'd cast Riz.

    ?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F4d%2F9f%2F9a319e7d60582db8f4469b91fa9a%2Fla-jrottenberg-1481836821-snap-photo

    Riz is great. Not sure he’d settle for Q, though, to be honest.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,252
    Yes, and an entirely new supporting cast for the next incarnation of Bond.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Like I've said before, I personally would cast Riz Ahmed. I think he's a great actor and a worthy follow-up to Ben Whishaw. You should see how commitment this guy is to a role. He sent so many tapes to Gareth Edwards for Rogue One and different personalities. It was amazing. So yeah, if Whishaw is out, I'd cast Riz.

    ?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F4d%2F9f%2F9a319e7d60582db8f4469b91fa9a%2Fla-jrottenberg-1481836821-snap-photo

    Riz is great. Not sure he’d settle for Q, though, to be honest.

    Yes Riz Ahmed is very good. I really recommend The Night Of. Excellent.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    Who would be a great moneypenny and m?
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,695
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Who would be a great moneypenny and m?

    Daisy Ridley and Felicity Jones, respectively. Not written by Purvis and Wade.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,220
    With Whishaw leaving, I hope EON continues the trend of introducing a new character with Q. Ever since GE they stopped "recasting" the parts and instead introduced brand new characters in MI6 as a way of changing the dynamic. M was now a totally different character in GE rather than the same grumpy admiral. Then they actually show the transition of a new Q with John Cleese. Then in SF we get two whole new characters as Mallory as M and a new Q that's unnamed. I assume whatever Q we get next will neither be a retread of Boothroyd or Young Q. It'll probably be a female.

    The only mainstay was Moneypenny, though we briefly had a different male secretary in CR that was too underwritten to make an impression.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited January 2020 Posts: 12,480
    Overall, I'm fine with a new Q and I rather expected that. I really like Naomie ... but I feel a new set of the main supporting characters would probably be best for the new Bond.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,169
    I do hope Ralph Fiennes stays on as M, he has that authoritarian quality too him. And gives the films a certain respected class due to his long career.
    I'd be fine with all three staying, to be honest.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,220
    Agreed with Fiennes. And I'd like to see Harris stick around for one more iteration as Moneypenny. She's still very attractive in her early 40s, so I don't see why a man in his 30s wouldn't be flirty with her. I know I would!
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    Wishaw is leaving? It's a bit sudden, isn't it, or have I missed something? It feels like Finnes, Harris & Wishaw are now starting to settle in, and we're already losing them.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    MajorDSmythe wrote: »
    Wishaw is leaving? It's a bit sudden, isn't it, or have I missed something? It feels like Finnes, Harris & Wishaw are now starting to settle in, and we're already losing them.

    Wishaw gave an interview that said he was done with Q. Shame. Really liked him. Same goes for Finnes as M, and I hope they keep him, at least. Harris I can take or leave.

    Hopefully going forward EoN will just hire some jobbing actors, who'd be happy for 5 minutes of screen time.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    edited January 2020 Posts: 2,641
    I'd be sad to see Whishaw leave, I think he's a fantastic Q, I love his humour and he really brings a fresh vie to the role.
    Same for Harris as Moneypenny, not only is she beautiful but she is charming and a fantastic actress. Both are true ambassadors for the series and both have wonderful chemistry with Craig

    With that being said if we have a reboot or soft (Goldeneye) style reboot, I believe they will probably recast the roles as it would confuse the general public. But I hope they stay on, so long as they don't go over the top like they did with Spectre.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I’m convinced Whishaw will still be here in 30 years.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,169
    RC7 wrote: »
    I’m convinced Whishaw will still be here in 30 years.

    Why so sure @RC7 ?
    I hope you’re right. I like Whishaw as Q and Harris as MP.
    Keep the three if possible, maybe keep them out of the action for a while.
Sign In or Register to comment.