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

007HallY

I don’t think Moneypenny being an assistant or secretary - or indeed both - will matter because I don’t think she’ll be called either. She’ll just function onscreen and do what the story requires (and I think she’ll be given more to do than just flirt with Bond in a new film, even if it’s minor).

mtm

Yes I hope so; I liked her role in the recent movies, being a bit more active.

RichardTheBruce

Q also isn't likely to be known as an armorer. Or armourer.

Troy

I really dislike this Team Bond approach, where MI6 only has three employees, who apparently do everything. Just ridiculous.

M is the chief executive, and would have a private office. Moneypenny is in charge of that private office, and is a key role. She would have no time for popping out on missions.

Similarly Q is the senior quartermaster, running a large department with a significant budget to manage, developing new technologies. He does not have time to pop out delivering messages to Bond in the field.

If you want Bond to have a support team ,then fine. But they are different characters.

echo

I prefer it when M, Moneypenny, and Q all remain within the physical confines of MI6.

At MI6 Bond can be introduced to whatever expert he needs for the job at hand. Jim Fanning comes to mind.

That keeps it fresher because there are new characters with limited roles in the story.

patb

With Moneypenny, there is a compromise where she can play a more pivitol role but stay in the office and thats being an OSINT expert. They dont have typists any more but OSINT is now key so it gives the character a greater, more respectful role but avoids her being "in the field"

ImpertinentGoon

Troy wrote: »

I really dislike this Team Bond approach, where MI6 only has three employees, who apparently do everything. Just ridiculous.

M is the chief executive, and would have a private office. Moneypenny is in charge of that private office, and is a key role. She would have no time for popping out on missions.

Similarly Q is the senior quartermaster, running a large department with a significant budget to manage, developing new technologies. He does not have time to pop out delivering messages to Bond in the field.

If you want Bond to have a support team ,then fine. But they are different characters.

Which, just by the by, is the reason why the Craig films make much, much, much more sense if the Bond crew are all just working at/in charge of the 00 section instead of all of MI6. Dench-M is the boss of over 3.500 employees while running mission control for a single op? Not likely. Eve being put into admin duty as the executive assisstant to said boss of an entire government department? Again, not really. Makes much more sense if there are only a small number of employees and understanding the field side already is actually an asset. All of those employees being re-located to some bunkers? Nope. C even goes on and on about how the 00s are obsolete, as if Fiennes-M is only responsible for them and not a huge apparatus responsible for all kinds of foreign intelligence work around all that. Because that's what M is in that timeline. They just never say it.

Edit: Oh, and this is one of the things Deaver got right in Carte Blanche and they should at least take as a background reality, even if they don't say it out loud. MI6 isn't the MI6 of Fleming's days anymore (if it was like the book version even in that time). It's a major bureaucracy. Taking the Bond support cast and putting them into their own side entity - the Overseas Development Group under the cover of Universal Exports in Carte Blanche - that very few people in the British government and Civil Service even know about makes way more sense.

mtm

Yeah agreed, I think all of the films make more sense that way: that M is just in charge of the 00 section rather than all of MI6. I don't buy that the real C is personally briefing actual SIS officers.
That's why I wouldn't mind the new films showing M having the idea for the 00s and setting up his own section of 'Red Indians'.

Bond

Absolutely, bring them all back and recast them all. I think the new Bond's first outing should only feature them minimally and preferably without introduction, I really have origin fatigue at this point.

echo

I agree. Bond 26 needs to establish the Bond actor. I don't need lots of M, Q, Moneypenny and think CR is stronger without the latter two.

It really does make you feel like Bond is on his own at Casino Royale, the danger and isolation, not unlike OHMSS. I love that feel, and I hope that Bond 26 does something similar.

Ludovico

I still think from a marketing point of view, they will keep Fiennes as M and maybe even Wishaw as Q.