The Craig 'Re-Make': The Definitive Discussion

edited December 2013 in Bond Movies Posts: 5,745
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.

Comments

  • If that is the case, then I do not support it. I would rather have Moneypenny as a secretary, M giving orders, and Q distributing gadgets. The occasional slight shake-up would be welcome, but they shouldn't have fixed something that wasn't broken. While the Brosnan years did show some structural weaknesses (or at least excesses), these were not among them and should not have been affected by the reboot, remake or what have you.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Personally, I agree with you JW, I don't have a problem with a field Moneypenny. It can all revert to classicism on the next reboot with the next actor if so chosen by EON.
  • edited December 2013 Posts: 5,745
    chrisisall wrote:
    Personally, I agree with you JW, I don't have a problem with a field Moneypenny. It can all revert to classicism on the next reboot with the next actor if so chosen by EON.

    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.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    So Q, who used to come in the field, hates flying and won't be in the field any longer, and MP, who used to solely be a secretary, is now going to be Bond's sidekick of sorts, joining him in the field. I'm not crazy about that switch-up. So MP comes in, helps Bond (or doesn't, based off of her abilities in SF), and then disappears so a Bond girl can appear for some random sex and then possibly die? I'm just not digging the new formula if that's the way they go. I mean, I'm sure I won't hate it, but I'd prefer to see that typical office flirting with MP behind the desk. I'm not crazy about it, but I won't hate it, either.
  • edited December 2013 Posts: 5,745
    Creasy47 wrote:
    I'm just not digging the new formula if that's the way they go.

    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.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    Time will tell, I suppose. This discussion and her comments could be completely misconstrued, and we'll just get a traditional Bond film in B24. Who knows.
  • edited December 2013 Posts: 5,745
    Creasy47 wrote:
    Time will tell, I suppose. This discussion and her comments could be completely misconstrued, and we'll just get a traditional Bond film in B24. Who knows.

    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'.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    @JWESTBROOK, it is interesting to see Craig's Bond sort of growing, in a way, going from an agent to a 00 agent and whatnot, though in a way, he doesn't seem to have a definitive style just yet. He was very gritty and brutal in CR and QoS, but seemed a lot more laid back in his fighting in SF.
  • The jump from Quantum of Solace to Skyfall hindered the development of Craig's Bond. He seemed to be in some kind of groove in the PTS of Skyfall, but other than that it was an incredibly quick jump from "You're too rash and inexperienced," to "You're too old and worn out". The ending of Skyfall, as cool as it was, muddied it even further by showing Bond getting into a new groove of some kind with M, Moneypenny, and Q. The rumors about Moneypenny, by the way, seem to contradict her development in Skyfall. Why get rid of her development in Skyfall to push her back into the action, and, if we're looking at it from the opposite angle, why give her a whole arc that you'll abandon just for a quick crowd-pleasing moment at the end of Skyfall?
  • edited December 2013 Posts: 2,595
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    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.

    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.
  • edited December 2013 Posts: 316

    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
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    I remember how much I hated the virtual-sex scene from Die Another Day

    That did suck big time.
  • My take on the "young and brash agent of CR and QoS" jump to "washed up" in skyfall is that Skyfall is truly the "most recent" bond adventure and Bond has been doing missions for many years (Dr No-DAD perhaps???). just my take.

    Regardless, I don't like the notion that this is completely different and I don't want Moneypenny to be Bond's sidekick.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    I just heavily prefer the brutal, gritty Bond we got in CR/QoS than the washed up, 'old' Bond in SF.
  • Creasy47 wrote:
    I just heavily prefer the brutal, gritty Bond we got in CR/QoS than the washed up, 'old' Bond in SF.

    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.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Creasy47 wrote:
    I just heavily prefer the brutal, gritty Bond we got in CR/QoS than the washed up, 'old' Bond in SF.
    Absolutely.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    I just think that if Bond is more "seasoned" in SF, why was he worse at fighting? Patrice bests him on the train (though I suppose that might not have been the case if Eve didn't shoot him), he drops Patrice after the fight, and he ends up losing the fight in Macau and only survived thanks to Q's convenient timing and gadgetry, yet he won all of the brutal, intense fights in CR and QoS.
  • Creasy47 wrote:
    I just think that if Bond is more "seasoned" in SF, why was he worse at fighting? Patrice bests him on the train (though I suppose that might not have been the case if Eve didn't shoot him), he drops Patrice after the fight, and he ends up losing the fight in Macau and only survived thanks to Q's convenient timing and gadgetry, yet he won all of the brutal, intense fights in CR and QoS.

    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.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Creasy47 wrote:
    I just think that if Bond is more "seasoned" in SF, why was he worse at fighting? Patrice bests him on the train (though I suppose that might not have been the case if Eve didn't shoot him), he drops Patrice after the fight, and he ends up losing the fight in Macau and only survived thanks to Q's convenient timing and gadgetry, yet he won all of the brutal, intense fights in CR and QoS.
    He wasn't 100% healthy. He did not pass his physical or psychological evaluations but M allowed him to go on the mission anyway. It was about Bond being "resurrected" and him trying to get his mojo back.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    True, I do suppose he was in a weakened state and the only one that could be argued is the train fight, which, in the end, can't be argued, then, because it didn't end with either winning or losing, merely Bond getting shot and falling into the water.
  • Creasy47 wrote:
    True, I do suppose he was in a weakened state and the only one that could be argued is the train fight, which, in the end, can't be argued, then, because it didn't end with either winning or losing, merely Bond getting shot and falling into the water.

    Hey, at least we got a new joke that will appear in almost every single Bond movie out of it.
Sign In or Register to comment.