It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
It worked with Dench, and M, but I wouldn’t want to see it repeated.
+1 for me too. I can’t see past the Craig era, it’s hard to imagine who’ll be cast as Bond. If and when they do, though, I’d hope Fiennes and Harris stay on as M and Moneypenny respectively. Gives future films a nice continuity, not to mention I like them in their roles. I can do without Q and Tanner, definitely.
No, I can imagine a new Bond, but not one with Craig’s supporting cast. The new Bond needs a clean slate .
Why do you say that @talos7 ?
I like the small continuity we get from the MI6 regulars between actors.
Even if it was just Fiennes, Harris or Whishaw that remained.
I’d have no problems with any of them remaining. But each to our own of course. ;)
Fiennes is okay, certainly doesn't live up to Lee/Dench.
I honestly don't care for Harris as Moneypenny. She doesn't have a patch on Samantha Bond and Lois Maxwell.
Oh damn, that is a shame. I like all three, but I agree that the MI6 regulars need to be used sparingly. Bond is not Mission Impossible.
Q was always an exasperated, old bureaucrat who had little time for 007. It was only during the Dalton/Brosnan years that he softened up and became a slightly cantankerous albeit grandfatherly figure.
Ben is meant to be playing a cocky computer whizkid who doesn't have time for Bond being the crusty, seasoned vet. In SP, he retreated into being a bit of a nerd who Bond walks over....I hope NTTD strikes the balance between the arrogant up-start and his closeness to Bond. The trailers suggest that Q and Bond have a general joshing relationship.
I always thought the Algeron version in NSNA was great. There you have a Q who works in an underfunded and forgotten Q-branch. Let's be real, any UK government cant afford to give its agents Aston Martin DB10s and Omega watches with bombs...I'd like to see a Q in the basement who has been forgotten and is working on their own..................A little like Lucius Fox in Batman Begins.
Also, if it's a reboot - the role must be played by Phoebe Waller-Bridge.
As I , and others have pointed out, the Craig era is a self contained universe; it been implied by Barbara and Cary that this film is a definite conclusion to his story. The next Bond will be a completely new incarnation of the character. To bring back a cast member would be awkward; yes it worked with Dench so anything is possible , but to do it with multiple actors would be confusing and would hinder creating a new, fresh, vision.
As much as people seem to want Craig's era to be binned into its own self-contained universe, it's already not. Just about every rule of continuity/transition between Bonds have been broken, so the producers have every ability to do what they want. The only thing that has been is that there's always at least one supporting staff member that carried the torch with every Bond actor transition. I think this is important because too much change can make the film feel foriegn. There needs to be just a little familiarity with Bond, and recognizable actors/actresses is one way to do it.
The fact of the matter is they can easily take a fresh vision with a new Bond and use the same supporting actors. The actors dont even have to play the same rendition of themselves (ahm, Dench). I could totally see Harris continue as Moneypenny, but this time in a cougar-ish role. Same character, same actress, different take.
Let's not put up false walls that exist to only serve fan base fetishisms.
Son of a gun, what a coincidence, I don't get why people think that a new Bond, one that will be a completely different incarnation of the one portrayed by Craig, should not get a new supporting staff. There are many extremely talented actors and actresses who could fill the roles and create an equally rock solid cast .
Historically, there's always been carry over. As I said, I believe it helps with softening the transition from one Bond to the next, bringing a familiarity aspect that is expected of Bond films.
That said, I am not opposed to rebooting the whole cast, but not because a new Bond deserves a new cast. If we get a new Q because the current one leaves, ok. If we get a new MP, because of age discrepancy affecting their believability of the Bond-MP relationship, fair enough. If we get a new M, because they have a new vision for M and/or contract value, I can understand. If we get a new cast because of all of the above, I get it. But to remove all the capital they've built in the current characters/actors, just because there's a new Bond is ridiculous. It does cost money to find and hire new actors.
I don't believe the producers would do that anyway. My hunch is at least Fiennes will return.
Just following your lead. ;)
I was thinking this, and have a strong feeling that the next Q will be a woman.
They may keep M ... because that role would go through more than a couple of 007s probably if her or she were at MI6 for decades. And Moneypenny could stay, but I don't find it necessary at all for any of them to stay (including M, though that makes sense). I love Lois and I like Naomie very much. For me, I'd like Naomie to continue, but it's not a big part of my enjoyment of Bond. And I think the general public are not going to really howl about "loyalty" and "continuity." Perhaps it will come down to the working relationship EON has with the individual actors.
Although if they were going to make Q a woman, I'd rather it was an older woman, as opposed to younger, as if they did the latter, it would maybe feel like they're trying to surround Bond with beautiful women all the time.
But I'm sticking to my guns on Riz Ahmed as the next Q :)
SPECTRE was one of the most expensive movies ever made, and Bond 25 looks like it might end up wasting a lot on marketing etc. So I really feel like once there is a new Bond EON will be forced to rein in the budgets, and do more with less.
But, if they are to keep one member of the cast on, I'd vote for Ben. I like the idea that theres only ever been a handful of men who played the character, so ideally he can stay as long as possible.
However, that doesn't have to limit having a female member of Q Branch on hand as well. Also doesn't have to have strictures on getting intimate after hours, can be different from the Moneypenny dynamic.
Can also contribute to the hijinks of keeping a relationship under wraps. M and Moneypenny wandering around Bond's flat while she scurries from kitchen to closet. Q himself dealing with unconfirmed suspicions. Movie gold.
And as work comes to a close for the day, she prompts and quickly accepts Bond's mention of dinner. And not long after he ends up at her place.