Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
The Craig 'Re-Make': The Definitive Discussion
Over in the Bond 24 Production Timeline Discussion, a few people brought forth their discomfort with Mendes and Co.'s new Moneypenny in Naomi Harris.
They're main point behind their dislike for the rejuvenated character is her potentially being involved in even more action scenes in Bond 24 & beyond. They claim that Skyfall set Moneypenny up, and by the end of the film she was to sit at a desk and serve only as M.'s Secretary like in the pre-Craig Era films.
Perhaps they are wrong about one certain thing. Perhaps, from the first fade-in-from-black that started 2006's Casino Royale, we've been watching an all new Bond; a new Bond Universe.
It's not a 'take on the same character' or 'Bond before Dr. No, set in a modern time'. Perhaps it's just a pure, unaffiliated, unrelenting restart on the World of Bond.
Therefore, there are no restraints; no Moneypenny only at a desk; no M. only for a brief; no Q only for a gizmo. New characters with new abilities in new settings in a new time. This Moneypenny is meant for the field. Why? Because she's not just a secretary at a desk. She's something more. The whole Craig series hasn't been a new take. It, too, has been a new beginning. A re-make.
They're main point behind their dislike for the rejuvenated character is her potentially being involved in even more action scenes in Bond 24 & beyond. They claim that Skyfall set Moneypenny up, and by the end of the film she was to sit at a desk and serve only as M.'s Secretary like in the pre-Craig Era films.
Perhaps they are wrong about one certain thing. Perhaps, from the first fade-in-from-black that started 2006's Casino Royale, we've been watching an all new Bond; a new Bond Universe.
It's not a 'take on the same character' or 'Bond before Dr. No, set in a modern time'. Perhaps it's just a pure, unaffiliated, unrelenting restart on the World of Bond.
Therefore, there are no restraints; no Moneypenny only at a desk; no M. only for a brief; no Q only for a gizmo. New characters with new abilities in new settings in a new time. This Moneypenny is meant for the field. Why? Because she's not just a secretary at a desk. She's something more. The whole Craig series hasn't been a new take. It, too, has been a new beginning. A re-make.
^ 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
Precisely. I think Craig is all about rounding up a new generation of Bond fans, and to do that they need a young, revised, and exciting cast of returning characters. 16-26 year olds need to fall in love with Q (as they have, if you've noticed) and Moneypenny, and M can't be a grumpy stinker looming in London. Once they get a new group that will keep coming back for the next 50 years, they'll use Craig's era as a springboard for new ideas going forward.
I wouldn't quite say Skyfall set up a new formula. M. took up a Bond girl role, the villain showed up late, and people were places they aren't often found.
Give them Bond 24. It will have the 'new' formula if there is even a new formula. It should set up where they plan to go, at least with Craig's last, or last few films. Then decide.
I wouldn't be too keen on a Skyfall 'formula' coming back anytime soon, just because there wasn't really a formula to it.
That is one of the arguments. I find it both odd and intriguing that in 7 years of Craig's films don't have a clear idea of where he fits in with all the other eras. They kind of said re-boot with Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, both through the style/content of the films and interviews, but they've never said that these characters are all new people.
The facts that they only share a few traits, or some even just a name, with past characters tells me, personally, they weren't or aren't sure where they want to go and that they decided to 'start over'.
I have never looked upon it as a remake but merely a reboot. I don't think that there's any excuse to bastardise the Moneypenny character like they might be doing and already have done to a certain extent.
Anyway, they gave her this lame, clichéd Hollywood backstory in SF and then she became desk bound and that's how it should now stay. They shouldn't suddenly reverse their decisions. The whole thing screams of unoriginality and this unnecessary message their trying to put across about how all woman are now equal to men, including Bond. We all know this anyway. We don't need it shoved down our throats in such an appalling, not to mention unoriginal manner and certainly not at the expense of such a historical, well known character. She's a secretary and always should be.
Agreed, and I feel that implying they slept together in the shave scene takes away from their relationship. While they're flirty and do have some attraction to each other in all the incarnations, I don't think that we should ever get the sense that they would actually go through with it. I remember how much I hated the virtual-sex scene from Die Another Day (I'm looking at you, Tamahori). IMO the fact that makes their relationship so fun is that they never actually have bonked and never will. I think the dumb backstory they try to introduce dilutes her character
That did suck big time.
Regardless, I don't like the notion that this is completely different and I don't want Moneypenny to be Bond's sidekick.
As I alluded to earlier, I'd have liked to see "in his prime" Bond between QoS and SF. The Craig series gets a lot of praise for the character arc of Bond, but there are a few hiccups, which could get worse if Bond 24 follows the theory laid out in the first post.
The fight on the train was, like you said, a draw that Bond lost because he got shot by his own guy. He beats Patrice in a fair fight in the tower later on, so that's not really a good example to me. I see what you're saying about Bond not holding on, but Patrice might have wanted to fall anyway, because of the fear that he had of Silva. The fight in Macau was three on one, and there's a chance that he would have fought differently if his enemy had been able to shoot Bond with his own gun.
There's also the issue of Bond's getting shot, falling from a ridiculous height, and nearly drowning before neglecting his physical fitness (except in, ahem, a certain area) and drinking even more, all of which have been known for their deleterious effect on helath and fitness.
Hey, at least we got a new joke that will appear in almost every single Bond movie out of it.