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
Yes, and rather than becoming appearances I looked forward to, Moneypenny scenes became double-entendre fests in the Brosnan era that I dreaded or the poor Moneypenny scene in LTK. Q appearances were often squeezed in to give him a token appearance in many films. Desmond Llewelyn was a vital link to the past, so I can understand that.
Now we get Moneypenny action hero and so on. Sorry, I don't care for it.
They'll keep them. I don't think we'll ever get their "origins" again. I think Bond 26 will be like what Reeves is doing with The Batman; a rebooted timeline with no connection to previous entries, and will introduce these characters we love again, without bothering with origin stories.
Many elements which suggest, in my opinion, that this supporting cast will not be kept. The fact remains, however, that Whishaw seems to be popular and that the audience would like to see him again, whereas Fiennes and Harris seem, to me, to have been greeted with more indifference. As long as no new actor has been announced in the role of Bond, it is difficult to really know what direction should be taken for these actors.
Nevertheless, I consider that the most satisfactory way would be to have new characters, and not just new actors. Rather than seeing Moneypenny's return, why not introduce Loelia Ponsonby as it was at one point the case in Michael France's draft for Goldeneye?
Personally I have no issue with Fiennes, Whishaw and Harris continuing on a M, Q and Moneypenny. It worked for Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan keeping actors from previous films in the role, when the lead actor changed.
Even with the Craig films being all linked, it isn't a problem for me. Fiennes is such a good actor, his inclusion is most welcome.
However, if they do re-cast I'd prefer it if a character actor were cast. Since Judi Dench became M, the role has been filled with well known (and terrific) actors as M.
I'd prefer we went back to actors like Bernard Lee or Robert Brown. Less known, but good character actors, in a small but important role. Same with Q and Moneypenny.
I get the feeling that Ben Whishaw is all but done with the role of Q. I don't think he'd be phased if the part were recast in Bond 26. As for Moneypenny, well I'd prefer her to be more desk bound in future films. Far too much field work for M's secretary in the past few films. And Harris is great in the role. Just too much to do.
As far as Tanner goes, maybe it's time to give the character a break. Too many characters needing a reason to appear otherwise. Just my two cents.
I would rather cast complete unknowns or relatively unknown journeymen actors in the roles - and get Bond back to being on his own... I've noticed this a lot in secret agent type films and tv shows now - they have their team that is always in their ear helping them... IMO, I think that diminishes the uniqueness of the hero.. it's different if he's on his own, having to make the tough choices, knowing their is no backup - vs an earpiece guiding him from point A to point B and so on..
I think it would be something modern/younger audiences rail against (you know, the people for whom everything has to make rational sense, so they come up with Codename Theory and stuff like that), but I would enjoy seeing actors from earlier films return.
For M, the bench is sadly depleted and I don't want Dame Judy to return, so I'm good with Fiennes, but maybe have him interpret the role very differently opposite a new Bond actor.
I don't have a big relationship to Michael Kitchen's Tanner, but Colin Salmon would be a great re-introduction. Not as Tanner, but for a one-off role maybe.
And the one I would think could be really fun would be a return of Samantha Bond, who I think is a fantastic actress. Again, not necessarily as Moneypenny. She would have been perfect in the role Helen McCrory plays in SF. And maybe she could even pull off a fun Q for a handful of films.
Yes and no. If you watch films like Octopussy or Thunderball Bond is working with a small team of MI6 officers; even in LTK when he's supposed to be out on his own there's actually three of them, including Q, in a little gang.
I must admit I don't understand the objections to them being given stuff to do. Didn't everyone love it in LTK when Q was helping Bond?
This is a slightly different direction, but I love the MI6 field offices they used to have. I am specifically thinking of the one in TSWLM in Egypt. I often dislike the more ridiculous elements of the Moore films, but this is incredibly funny to me:
The idea that the entire staff of the Head of the Secret Service plus apparently at least a substantial part of Department Q heads out to Egypt and sets up a field office in some very well preserved Egyptian ruins (or moves into an already established field office, whatever) and Moneypenny even has a little shelf with a kettle. Incredible.
I can also see why they put M and Moneypenny in the field; it's to mix things up, and from YOLT on this became a fairly regular thing.
I like the current crew and hope they stay (with the exception of Tanner), although I wonder if they will.
Yes, I was talking about M and Moneypenny. And then they stay in the field for a while.
Moneypenny - Current is ok.
Q - Just awful, recast.
Tanner - Bland, wet lettuce, recast.
Interested to see your reasons concerning Ben Whishaw as Q @suavejmf
We're all different of course, but I quite like his take on the character.
I always want to see the org chart and HR role descriptions for the MI6 people. Just in the Craig era, M is the Head of the entire Secret Service of the UK, but also has operational control over 00-agent's individual missions, together with her Chief of Staff? And Q's position is Armourer, Head of Technology, Head of the Cyber division - including as a technician/analyst - and also sometimes operational oversight for 00-agents and maybe even field agent. Cool.
Archer sure seems to have been onto something with
Well okay, I guess when you grow up with these sort of things you don't get too worried by them.
Really we've had Moneypenny come out to brief him in SF (much like in the old films) and then she went to the casino where she didn't do anything. Then M came along to Scotland, but as keeping her alive was the actual mission that seems reasonable to me; then Q appeared in Switzerland where he did the normal sort of Q-in-the-field stuff (no hot air balloon this time) and in terms of Bond not being on his own and having the MI6 regulars with him... that's it. That I can think of anyway.
Yes, they had their separate climax at C's building, but the C plot was always their part of the film anyway.
You got a point.. I guess I just see it as an overall trend outside of Bond even.. M:I and the slew of tv shows involving an agent of sorts where there is a team always helping whether directly or indirectly, and they all have a hand in taking down the baddie at the end.... It's fine every now and then, but too much if that I feel devalues what makes the main or titular agent special.
Now, Jeffrey Wright is far and away my favorite Felix Leiter. I sure hope he returns if they include Felix in Bond 26 and beyond, but I wouldn’t blame him for wanting to move on.
You've sort of strengthened your own point above and that's that despite Cruise being the main focus of the MI films, the original TV series and then movies were about a team concept, which they've gotten back to with specialists contributing their expertise to ensure a mission's success.
The thing is about the Mi6 team concept, in the classic days we looked forward to appearances and in some cases those were limited to 1 interaction in some cases. Think DAF where M's only appearance is right after the credits and MP gets about 30 seconds of screen time or LALD when M and MP visit Bond for his briefing right after the credits and no Q.
I'm fine with the current people doing their jobs and hope the SF/SP thing is where it stays. I want to watch James Bond movies and not Eon's Agents of Mi6.
It is funny how the MI films get bashed for not featuring a team like the TV show, and they also get used to bash other movies because they have a team structure in them :D
But also people absolutely loved Q's extended appearance in LTK. So it's a bit of both really.
Certainly I enjoyed it when they used Dench a bit more because she was excellent.