›

Should Moneypenny and Q Have Returned?

135

Comments

  • youonlylivethriceyouonlylivethrice
    Posts: 117
    I absolutely love how they incorporated Q and Moneypenny in the recent movies. The DC's era is known for redefining everything we knew and loved about the franchise and having Q locked up doing experiments or Moneypenny behind a desk like any other regular secretary (especially when she's a former field agent) wouldn't do it any favors. Bond is still a lone wolf, after all, and it's not like they're getting too much screentime or getting in the way of his usual action.

    I believe the classic characterization can still be done in the future, but not now. Not with Craig's Bond.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'd be happy if both of them are re'booted' when DC leaves. I say just keep Fiennes.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,193
    Threads like this remind me sometimes why I hate fanboys with rigid imaginations. M, Q, Moneypenny and Tanner shouldn't have moments to shine just because a bunch of dead filmmakers didn't consider doing that over 50 years ago? This is the kind of silly "stick to formula, don't do anything different" mentality that would have killed the series long ago. This series thrived on changing dynamics in order to keep it fresh throughout the years. I feel like if some of you were in charge you would have never given the role of M to Judi Dench because she's not like Bernard Lee. Worse, SKYFALL would have never happened under some of you.

    I'm glad EON is moving by the drums of their own beat.
  • ehaaseehaase
    Posts: 7
    I like the new M, Q, and Moneypenny and enjoyed every minute they were in the movie.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I go to a James Bond film to see James Bond. The others are incidental, and that's how I'd like it to remain. They can be in a spin off if they need something more meaty to do.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    I agree with MakeshiftPython. Eon can't please everyone and the Debbie Downer's won't be pleased unless they get the same repackaged, regurgitated product. Those other movies still exist. MI6 out in the field is not an affront to the series when Bond is still kicking ass and being a badass. This is hardly "Team Bond" (what a ridiculous concept).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    "Team MI6, The New Adventures of Q, MP & M", coming to a theatre near you in 2017.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Funny how people who praise SF to death are now complaining about too much M or MP in Spectre.
    It's hilarious.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,356
    I thought the MI-6 regulars had less screen time. I was surprised by how little screentime Fiennes had. Tanner was there for the info dump and chaffer role. Nothing wrong with that. Moneypenny, good amount time. Q? Maybe a bit more than necessary but I can't help but love the guy. My favorite moment with him is the "I asked you to bring it back in one piece, not leave one piece." scene. He was channeling Rick Moranis for a second there. :))
  • tigers99tigers99
    Posts: 582
    HASEROT wrote: »
    people on these boards spent roughly 6 years.. begging and pleading for Moneypenny to return.. for Q to return.. for gadgets to return.. for "traditional Bond elements and/or formula to return." .... and now that we got it - we are get a thread like this...

    sometimes i really wonder...... 8-}

    I started the thread and I'm not saying we should get rid of them. Although I did feel it was refreshing to have a break from them in CR and QoS
  • tigers99tigers99
    Posts: 582
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Threads like this remind me sometimes why I hate fanboys with rigid imaginations. M, Q, Moneypenny and Tanner shouldn't have moments to shine just because a bunch of dead filmmakers didn't consider doing that over 50 years ago? This is the kind of silly "stick to formula, don't do anything different" mentality that would have killed the series long ago. This series thrived on changing dynamics in order to keep it fresh throughout the years. I feel like if some of you were in charge you would have never given the role of M to Judi Dench because she's not like Bernard Lee. Worse, SKYFALL would have never happened under some of you.

    I'm glad EON is moving by the drums of their own beat.

    I disagree. I'm all for changing with the formula and like what they've done in SF and SP, I like variety - sometimes stick to the formula other times don't, then neither gets boring. I started the thread to have the discussion nothing more.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited November 2015 Posts: 5,767
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Going back to the original post, I say no. Moneypenny was a secretary, they've turned her into something else, and whatever her position is, now she tends to get way too much screen time and interrupts the pacing drastically. Q, as well. A character named "Q" did not exist in the Fleming books; Major Boothroyd makes one appearance to give Bond his PPK, Q branch is mentioned a couple of times, that's it. I never liked the gadgets (which are a convention of the films, the only gadgets Bond uses in the original novels are the knives in his briefcase and the blade in his shoe).
    To be fair, there is at least one instance, in the FRWL novel I believe, where Bond has complaining thoughts about Q section not providing him with a toy like Grant´s book gun.



    HASEROT wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    people on these boards spent roughly 6 years.. begging and pleading for Moneypenny to return.. for Q to return.. for gadgets to return.. for "traditional Bond elements and/or formula to return." .... and now that we got it - we are get a thread like this...

    sometimes i really wonder...... 8-}

    Are you sure that those were the same people?

    i dont know - don't care.. but i am sure there are probably more than a few that fall into that category - thats why i said "people", not "everyone"

    i speak in generalized terms of course.. but this is the reason why there is no sense in trying to make a Bond movie that pleases everyone - it can't be done, because everyone's version of what a Bond film should be (or have in it) is different..

    i posted this, because at some point, we are bound to have the subject brought up, yet again, about EON not making the Bond film we want to see - they don't listen to what the fans want... you have hundreds of thousands of dedicated Bond fans - and they all scream for something different.. but it seems the only thing we could ever universally agree on was the gun barrel placement......

    it's just funny to me.
    But it´s obvious they´re putting more emphasis on putting as many elements as they can into the films that people call for than on making a good film.



    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    This series thrived on changing dynamics in order to keep it fresh throughout the years.
    Sometimes with more success, recently with considerably less success.


    HASEROT wrote: »
    as characters, they have their place - fleshing them out more, and expanding their roles a little bit is one thing.. but turning their characters into something they are not is something completely different....
    I don´t even mind turning them into characters they weren´t before. In CR Bond was turned into a character he never was before. But Craig and the filmmakers pulled it off fearlessly. In QoS I felt that this Bond had nothing to do with anything of the Connery-Moore era, yet I totally wanted him to continue, because Craig f***ing owned the role. I don´t mind much how Bond turned out since then, but MP for instance I find a pitiful waste as long as she has to be Goodnight. As for the rest of the gang, my personal blame lies most of all with Mendes. With better storytelling a lot of screen time variations could be pulled off effectively.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I would prefer they remain in the lab & behind their desks. Their involvement in the first 30 minutes of SP (up to when Bond nicks the Aston) was just about right. Everything beyond that was just too 24/MI for me.

    Spot on. Their screen time in SP was way more than anything that Bernard, Lois and Desmond ever had but once Bond goes to Rome that should be it. If you must they can have about 5 minutes at the end like SF but Q turning up in Austria is completely nonsensical.

    And another thing - for a bloke who Q has met once before in SF, why is Q (who is presumably fresh out of university and has just got himself his dream job) so keen to risk his career for Bond?

    I can only imagine Bond must've covered for him in SF and said he didnt gormlessly hook up Silva's laptop to the MI6 mainframe and ultimately cause M to die.

    Just out of Uni? The guys 35 ffs! I've heard of further education but that's taking it a bit far!
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'd be happy if both of them are re'booted' when DC leaves. I say just keep Fiennes.

    This. And we can get rid of the meatier roles for M, too.
  • JohnHammond73JohnHammond73 Lancashire, UK
    Posts: 4,151
    I'm glad they are back but I'd like to see a little more of the classic way in which they appeared as opposed to the bigger roles they have been given. During the DC I do believe that we have now seen the "origin" of Bond and I'd like the next movie to see Bond being given a mission - "This is the big one, 007". That way we just get to see them in the classic way we saw Lee, Maxwell and Llewellyn.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Shark_0f_Largo wrote: »
    I'm glad they are back but I'd like to see a little more of the classic way in which they appeared as opposed to the bigger roles they have been given. During the DC I do believe that we have now seen the "origin" of Bond and I'd like the next movie to see Bond being given a mission - "This is the big one, 007". That way we just get to see them in the classic way we saw Lee, Maxwell and Llewellyn.

    Agreed.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited November 2015 Posts: 9,117
    Lancaster007 wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I would prefer they remain in the lab & behind their desks. Their involvement in the first 30 minutes of SP (up to when Bond nicks the Aston) was just about right. Everything beyond that was just too 24/MI for me.

    Spot on. Their screen time in SP was way more than anything that Bernard, Lois and Desmond ever had but once Bond goes to Rome that should be it. If you must they can have about 5 minutes at the end like SF but Q turning up in Austria is completely nonsensical.

    And another thing - for a bloke who Q has met once before in SF, why is Q (who is presumably fresh out of university and has just got himself his dream job) so keen to risk his career for Bond?

    I can only imagine Bond must've covered for him in SF and said he didnt gormlessly hook up Silva's laptop to the MI6 mainframe and ultimately cause M to die.

    Just out of Uni? The guys 35 ffs! I've heard of further education but that's taking it a bit far!

    I'll give you that one!

    Nonetheless the point still stands - SF is painted as pretty much his first day on the job so why would he constantly keep risking the sack just for Bond who he hardly knows.

    If I was 009 I'd raise a grievance that Bond always gets the Aston while I'm stuck with a Prius from Hertz. I guess maybe it feeds into the theory someone put about on another thread that Q is gay (simply because Wishaw is) - hes got a crush on Bond so goes out of his way to help him.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    edited November 2015 Posts: 1,874
    I'd like to think he helps all the Double Os out equally - and I'm sure 009 was proper pissed!
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    HASEROT wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Lancaster007 wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I would prefer they remain in the lab & behind their desks. Their involvement in the first 30 minutes of SP (up to when Bond nicks the Aston) was just about right. Everything beyond that was just too 24/MI for me.

    Spot on. Their screen time in SP was way more than anything that Bernard, Lois and Desmond ever had but once Bond goes to Rome that should be it. If you must they can have about 5 minutes at the end like SF but Q turning up in Austria is completely nonsensical.

    And another thing - for a bloke who Q has met once before in SF, why is Q (who is presumably fresh out of university and has just got himself his dream job) so keen to risk his career for Bond?

    I can only imagine Bond must've covered for him in SF and said he didnt gormlessly hook up Silva's laptop to the MI6 mainframe and ultimately cause M to die.

    Just out of Uni? The guys 35 ffs! I've heard of further education but that's taking it a bit far!

    I'll give you that one!

    Nonetheless the point still stands - SF is painted as pretty much his first day on the job so why would he constantly keep risking the sack just for Bond who he hardly knows.

    If I was 009 I'd raise a grievance that Bond always gets the Aston while I'm stuck with a Prius from Hertz. I guess maybe it feeds into the theory someone put about on another thread that Q is gay (simply because Wishaw is) - hes got a crush on Bond so goes out of his way to help him.

    i dont know - for as constantly as Connery and Moore's Bond ticked off Q, he certainly went above and beyond a few times for them, even though there always seemed to be a bit of contempt towards Bond from Q's pov... the attitude didn't really start to change until Dalton's run, and then him and Broz almost seemed to be bosom buddies..
    Good point. Q is mocked at by Bond, yet still goes out of his way to do his job supporting him. In a similar way, Bond´s methods are often disrespected by M, which doesn´t distract 007 from doing his job properly. Both Bond and Q show a healthy amount of professional pride.
    Besides that, Craig hasn´t been remotely as offensive towards Q as Connery or Moore used to be.


    One thing that comes to my mind concerning M, MP, Q and Tanner is that there used to be a time when they represented certain kinds of polarity. They each had their short moments, yet they left an impression that lasted for the whole rest of the film. I don´t get this feeling anymore. It seems the more often they are on the screen in one film, the smaller the impression they leave. Everybody seems to do the same job. Maybe I am really conservative, but I find the old constellation much more colorful and interesting, where M did his job, MP did her job, Q did his job, Bond did his job.

  • CowleyCowley
    Posts: 486
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    Funny how people who praise SF to death are now complaining about too much M or MP in Spectre.
    It's hilarious.

    Yes conveniently ignoring a previous Bond film which was very much M's story we're now having some whinging about M's participation in SP.

    I didn't miss or need Q and Moneypenny in CR and QOS but now we have them, why not enjoy them. Other Bonds had the characters so I can't see why Craig's Bond universe can't be expanded either.


  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    ForYourEyesOnly wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'd be happy if both of them are re'booted' when DC leaves. I say just keep Fiennes.

    This. And we can get rid of the meatier roles for M, too.

    Whishaw really won me over in SP. He annoyed the hell out of me in SF but hit his stride with SP. He's a keeper IMO. Best performance of the whole movie as far as I'm concerned.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,335
    Getafix wrote: »
    ForYourEyesOnly wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'd be happy if both of them are re'booted' when DC leaves. I say just keep Fiennes.

    This. And we can get rid of the meatier roles for M, too.

    Whishaw really won me over in SP. He annoyed the hell out of me in SF but hit his stride with SP. He's a keeper IMO. Best performance of the whole movie as far as I'm concerned.

    "Please don't." LOL!
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 2017 Posts: 8,414
    hehe.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    I love the way he has reimagined the character. I think he got it just right this time. Great voice as well, although I did keep on thinking of Paddington Bear
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,335
    I think Q in SP found the perfect balance between helping Bond and covering his own a**.

    In SF he came across as haughty, which is tough for a younger Q to pull off (although I love the "pajamas" lines).
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    I really enjoy the current incumbent of the MI6 team. Apart from London climax, I thought the team were relatively spare in terms of their screen time.

    I'm happy with Fiennes. Q I like too, he and Bond have some good banter. And even Tanner – I felt he and Bond were rather pally cruising down the Thames together.

    My only complaint is Moneypenny. I though she improved on her SF appearance, but there is still some work to do. “He's seen us! REVERSE!!!”

    If anything, I like to Tanner continuing indefinitely, if only for @TheWizardOfIce's similes on how dull Tanner can be. “about as dull as popping down B&Q for some grouting” is my personal highlight.
  • lalala2004lalala2004
    Posts: 162
    I was glad they brought them back, but was also disappointed by their overuse in Skyfall. We've JUST brought these characters back, and we're already taking them out of their element? Let's establish what their actual jobs are before throwing a wrench in things. Oh well.
Sign In or Register to comment.