›

Should Moneypenny and Q Have Returned?

1235»

Comments

  • MilovyMilovy
    edited May 2017 Posts: 676
    delete
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Milovy wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    I wouldn't mind a bit of recasting with some no name actors for the next Bond's era though. They need to get back the freedom to use them at their own discretion.
    I don't buy this idea that EON are somehow obligated to use Fiennes, Harris or Whishaw because they are "name" actors. Fiennes seems like a humble guy who enjoys working, and I'm sure he'd be happy with a role similar to Dench's in GE, TND, DAD (before M became Bond's babysitter or a major player in the plot). And Harris and Whishaw just aren't that big of a deal. I seriously doubt any of these actors demand lots of screen time and I'm sure they understand that M, Moneypenny and Q are traditionally not big parts. They knew what they signed up for.

    I think the solution to Moneypenny and Q getting too much screen time is simply reducing their screen time. By all means EON should try to keep these characters fresh - but going forward, I'd prefer a "quality over quantity" approach to their scenes. If the actors aren't happy with that, they are free to walk. In the meantime, let's not link EON's questionable creative decisions with the actors. The actors don't call the shots.

    Amusingly, however, I guess Fiennes did veto M's reveal as a traitor! That's a major piece of input. I think Bond fans should be grateful to Fiennes for respecting the character and demanding a change. Say what you will about his performance, he clearly cares about the work he's doing. With Fiennes, I think that M is in very good hands. (Anyway, I think I've gone off topic.)

    But the screen time issue doesn't get over the fact IMO that Q, Moneypenny and Tanner are all badly miscast. Fiennes is decent.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I just don't think Q is needed in this world anymore. As someone on a previous thread had mentioned, the fellow who injected Bond in CR seems more like what they would have nowadays.

    And I have no problem with Naomi Harris, at all, but (repeating something I have said about both Q and Moneypenny), CR and QoS proved they are, or were, quite unnecessary in this new era.

    Now that they're back, I see no way of getting rid of them until the next re-boot comes along.
  • BT3366BT3366
    Posts: 1,917
    Don't need them, especially since the series is going from James Bond to Eon's Agents of Mi6. I want to see James Bond take care of the action, not have these people join in.

    CR and QoS showed they were fine movies without these characters. I wouldn't object to there being another 00 having a role in a future film beyond just a cameo, a corpse, mention in the dialogue or as a traitor. I'd like to see their skills as opposed to or complementing Bond's.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,306
    No. Not needed. Thanks a lot, Mendes.
  • MilovyMilovy
    edited May 2017 Posts: 676
    It was rather reactionary of EON to bring back Moneypenny and Q after their short absence of two films. I understand that QoS was generally perceived as light on the "Bond" feel and they wanted to bring that back for SF, which included bringing back the old MI6 characters. But I would have preferred EON stick to their original, more bold vision of cutting the fat, scaling back the formula.

    Their new idea of getting Tanner, Q, Moneypenny and M in on the action - "fresh" though it may be - does not work IMO.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I didn't like the MP 'field' backstory. Completely unnecessary hogwash. Mendes hasn't been all that good with creating or inserting characters into the universe imho. Campbell was better at it.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    I do not mind the re-casting of a new Moneypenny & Q but them being A-listers means that their roles eat into the budget and ego's might get into the way in the long run. I would not mind having a MP & Q around for the next 007. The constant recasting of major-minor characters muddies the water.
  • MilovyMilovy
    Posts: 676
    Whishaw and Harris aren't A-listers.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    This nonsense all started with Chloe and the gang of geeks in 24. Then Cruise got in on the Scooby action with MI and now Bond wants a piece too. Enough imho.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Agreed @bondjames, but until a re-boot, I think we're stuck with them.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,409
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I hope that we don't get another reboot for several more decades, aside from the tacit, unspoken type that is the result of a new lead in the role.

    Dalton did it best in this regard, by not addressing it. People caught on rather quickly.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @Birdleson , do you think it possible, in this day and age, to simply re-cast an actor, and continue on, as EoN had done prior to DC?
    I think the DC era has been so unique that audiences won't just simply accept a new actor in the role being the same man who lost Vesper, battled with Quantum and Silva, and met his "brother" in SP...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Why would the day and age matter at all? The general public has no interest in Bond continuity; which is why QOS and SP were less well received than there predecessors, people didn't want to rely on prior knowledge, they just wanted a solid Bond film. The series is always better off when it ignores continuity and just moves.
    I completely agree with this. Both my parents are huge fans, and introduced me to the world of Bond. My father liked SP (unlike myself) but complained about the continuation elements. Unlike geeks like myself, he didn't see all of the films prior to watching it, and therefore couldn't remember all of the connections that were mentioned. I can imagine that several viewers felt the same way.

    Bond has been standalone for decades (with loose continuity) and only recently has adopted the strict linear philosophy of other blockbusters. I don't think the public wants that from Bond, since it predated all the others and has its own storied history (films more than books imho) to draw from.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,409
    Yes, I think the standalone nature of Bond was what people found refreshing.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Fair points @Birdleson and @bondjames ; however, I still have a gut feeling that the DC era did have quite the impact on the general audience; the films put plenty of butts in seats and, for the past decade they've been accustomed to seeing DC in the role.

    They are also a film generation hard-wired for re-casting that comes only with re-boots (for lead characters). It seems that the assumption with modern filmgoers is, once an actor gets too old for the role, they'll re-boot with a younger actor (or re-boot with a supposedly older actor in BATMAN).

    I dunno, I think this will be tricky post-Craig: have a younger guy slip into the tux, but we're supposed to believe this is the same man we've watched since '06...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @peter, it's an interesting question that you pose. Being a huge fan of Bond prior to Craig's reboot, I don't have a problem with them just recasting and moving on (even ignoring the Craig era would be fine with me).

    However, I can imagine there are some younger viewers who have embraced his era completely, including his trials and tribulations etc. What proportion of the overall audience they make up is not known. How loyal they are to the franchise is also unknown. Time will tell.

    For me, Craig is just one of six actors who's played the role. Nothing more, nothing less. Yes, his most recent two films have made more money than many over the past many years (despite a significant dropoff for SP vs. SF - but we must keep in mind the pricier IMAX theatres etc. which weren't there in the past), but from a cultural significance point of view, I'd contend that only SF has had any impact. Yes, I don't believe CR had as much of an impact among the general public as among us hardcore.

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @bondjames , I was also a fan and never had a problem moving from one actor to the next.

    This time I would find it difficult to believe that a new actor is the same man I've been watching for over a decade.

    I'm 43 so I was not in diapers when DC was cast.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @peter, I can tell that you've fully embraced Craig as Bond. Much more than I have. I do like him in the role, but the continuity elements have become a distraction for me, and outside of CR (which was terribly refreshing) I haven't been as moved by his era as some here.

    So I'm actually looking forward to the changeover (either this time or the next time after that) as much as I was towards the end of the Brosnan run.

    I really think these people should find a way to get the films out more often in order to give the actors more films, because after about 10 years or so, a change is good.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,409
    It will definitely be interesting to see what happens next. We're all hanging on the next morsel of info at the moment... :)
  • MilovyMilovy
    edited September 2017 Posts: 676
    One of the reasons it might be difficult to accept a new Bond with the same supporting cast is because the switch between Dench and Fiennes was built into the story of Skyfall, and the intro of the Quartermaster and M's secretary also happened in that film. Whereas in the past, M and Moneypenny actors would come and go between films.

    But I really don't think audiences will care about this when a new Bond is introduced in 2020 or 2025 or whatever. It's Bond. M, Q and Moneypenny are there (or not). Simple as that. General audiences won't worry for more than 5 minutes over whether it's the same Bond or the same supporting cast. These sorts of things certainly never bothered anyone when Bond reversed age about 20 years between AVTAK and TLD or when Dench appeared in the reboot. Just get on with enjoying the movie at hand.
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Why would the day and age matter at all? The general public has no interest in Bond continuity; which is why QOS and SP were less well received than their predecessors, people didn't want to rely on prior knowledge, they just wanted a solid Bond film. The series is always better off when it ignores continuity and just moves.
    Completely agreed.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    If we're going to start rebooting the franchise with each new Bond actor, then it would be best to end the series all together once Craig leaves. At the speed we're getting films in the modern era, we won't get more than 4/5 films between reboots, and all you'll achieve is to drive away life-long fans and new viewers. Yes, it will be tough to go on after Craig after the major success of his take on the character and of his films, but rebooting for each recast is just not a solution.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I'm not saying it is a solution, but I am pointing out that it's in our hard-wiring nowadays that when we hear there is a re-cast of a lead character, it does go hand-in-hand that this will also be a re-boot.

    Once again, I'm 43, and even when I hear someone like Ben Affleck will be cast as Batman, or Tom Holland as Spiderman, I know that this will also come with a re-boot, that they will not continue on from what went before.

    Now that Babs has entered into the world of re-boots herself with CR, and since the four films are so entwined (good or bad, we can argue the merits about that on another thread), I am wondering if she can re-cast a younger actor and just continue on as before?

    As a Bond fan and a filmgoer, I myself would have trouble accepting a new actor as the same man I've been watching for the past decade (prior to DC, I had my favorite (SC), but never a real problem saying this is SUPPOSED to be the same man since '62).

    In fact, I should edit my first statement: I think to get away from the DC era, Babs has no choice BUT to re-boot and then continue on from there, making stand-alone films, loosely or unrelated to each other, so that when she needs to re-cast Bond no. 8, there will be less need for a re-boot at all (since we're back to the stand-alone pictures and Bond once again has become the avatar for the side of good).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @peter, I agree that the next actor is less likely to inhabit a direct continuity universe, as Craig has. The more I think about his tenure, the more I see it as a one-off. He was cast to tell the CR story and reset the franchise. The critical success of that first film has led them on a path to where we are now.

    When they recast, they will go in a different direction again, but I'm not sure what it will be. Either they will go back to their past and try to deliver tight spy thrillers again, thereby making themselves stand out against the overblown competition, or they will draw from contemporary successful franchises and follow that path (like they did with Craig, rebooting and essentially melding the Bond universe with Bourne/Bat angst driven continuity and character path to resolution).

    I don't think we'll necessarily see a 'full reset'. It also won't be a very soft one like the Dalton/Moore/Laz switch. Rather, it will most likely be along the lines of GE, with a reimagined, modern take.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    edited May 2017 Posts: 4,325
    I've changed my mind since my brother started this thread. By the way he wishes everyone well.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @bondjames , don't you think the GE re-imagining worked well because of the six years between films?

    (and is your suspicion that we are in for another lengthy gap between films where this type of "re-boot" would work once again?)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Your guess is good as mine on the length of time before B25 arrives @peter. All I know is we're already 2 years in and it looks like it could be another 2 before we get the film. That's not quite 6 years, but it's long enough.

    Craig has done four, which is what Brosnan had done when they recast. However, his tenure is already 4 years longer than Brosnan's was. So if he gets to do a fifth, that will likely be released 13 years after he got the role. He's also currently the same age that Brosnan was when he did his last and one year shy of the 50 year mark. Only Moore has made a Bond film in his 50s (I'm not counting NSNA) and his interpretation was never intense, but always rather more relaxed. Make of that what you will.

    I don't think that the current batch of MP, Q & M have truly established themselves to the level that the old crew had (I'd liken it to the batch during Dalton's time). So I'm willing to bet that only one is going to be kept going forward, and that we will indeed have a GE style soft reboot with a concept which blends the old with the new (like that film did so successfully).
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    I wanted both back as soon as they were gone but after the last two films I'm not so sure.

    Q definitely. Even without gadgets you can work him into each film, he serves a real purpose and Wishaw is brilliant and could play the role until he's as old as Desmond was imo. I think we'll probably get another (softer) reboot after Craig but I'm praying he gets kept on. If they kept Dench then they should do everything they can to keep Wishaw.

    Moneypenny I'm not too sure about. I'm not a fan of Harris in the part, think she's an amazing actress but in Bond she's always come across as wooden and her interactions with Craig seem forced. But to be honest I'm starting to think it's not her fault. Maybe it seems forced because after 20 something films of the same old flirting the character is just played out. And instead of trying to reinvent the character (e.g. making her a field agent like in SF) I think they may as well retire her for good, or at least relegate her to a background/not in every film presence like Tanner used to be. Because right now whenever Bond interacts with her it just feels like going through the motions imo. But maybe a well written scene and chemistry on par with Connery/Maxwell and Bond/Brosnan could change my mind.
  • CountJohnCountJohn
    Posts: 230
    I could really have done without Q coming back, both as a nod to Llewelyn in retiring the role after he died and due to Q not having much to do in the less gadget oriented Bond films these days.

    Personally, I think Moneypenny is essential, though. You don't have to give her lots of screentime, just have her be there.

    As for the new Bond question, Fiennes is such a good actor that they should have him back as M as long as he wants to do it. I like Harris in a vacuum, but she and Craig don't have the best chemistry, so I'd be willing to try her out with a new actor. I'm assuming the reason they got Winshaw is that he's so young that he can be another long tenured Q like Llewelyn.

    I don't think you need to articulate anything in terms of "continuity" once Craig leaves. Just go back to self contained stories.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,306
    CountJohn wrote: »
    I could really have done without Q coming back, both as a nod to Llewelyn in retiring the role after he died and due to Q not having much to do in the less gadget oriented Bond films these days.

    Personally, I think Moneypenny is essential, though. You don't have to give her lots of screentime, just have her be there.

    As for the new Bond question, Fiennes is such a good actor that they should have him back as M as long as he wants to do it. I like Harris in a vacuum, but she and Craig don't have the best chemistry, so I'd be willing to try her out with a new actor. I'm assuming the reason they got Winshaw is that he's so young that he can be another long tenured Q like Llewelyn.

    I don't think you need to articulate anything in terms of "continuity" once Craig leaves. Just go back to self contained stories.

    That, plus I think they realized after Cleese that they needed a different type than Desmond.
Sign In or Register to comment.