Q & Miss Moneypenny must return
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 3,505
    Librarian said:

    I like "step by step" solution for introduction Q & Monepenny.
    I'll be satisfied if we meet only Q in Skyfall. Time for Ms. Moneypenny will come when we meet new M (she'll be h i s secretary) in Bond 24.



    Like your thinking Librarian! I think that too!
  • commandbond007commandbond007
    Posts: 660
    I agree...Moneypenny should not just appear just because it is wanted by the fans....if the story fits She should come back. Otherwise Moneypenny should be reintroduce in Bond 24 with a new M.....I dont think having both Q and Moneypenny together reintroduce is a good idea so I hope they make them seperate even though this is the 50th anniversary
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 4,642
    commandbond007 said:

    I agree...Moneypenny should not just appear just because it is wanted by the fans....if the story fits She should come back. Otherwise Moneypenny should be reintroduce in Bond 24 with a new M.....I dont think having both Q and Moneypenny together reintroduce is a good idea so I hope they make them seperate even though this is the 50th anniversary



    Monneypenny didn't fit any of the story lines before, so why now? She's never had a necessarily 'vital' role.
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant
    Posts: 690
    Agreed, Monneypenny doesn't need some important enterance, she just needs to come in and have a quick talk with Bond.
  • Agent7FAgent7F
    Posts: 310
    Naomie Harries confirmed she no where near Miss Moneypenny. So it look she won't in Skyfall. So I might after the Skyfall release put Miss Moneypenny must return in Bond 24.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 3,155
    M should stick behind his desk and Moneypenny should not generally be seen outside her office. That's the way the world is supposed to be.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007
    Posts: 4,831
    Getafix said:

    M should stick behind his desk and Moneypenny should not generally be seen outside her office. That's the way the world is supposed to be.



    With the way the franchise is going, Miss Moneypenny will probably join Dench in her constant globetrotting......... urgh
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 3,155
    I think LTK represents the big transition between old and new Bond movies. LTK still feels a lot more like a proper Bond movie than anything from the Brozza or Craig era, but it introduces a number of annoying innovations that seem to now be endlessly repeated - i.e. the tedious obsession with Bond having some 'personal' motivation. Bond is a secret agent, doing a job which he loves. He doesn't need to be motivated by anything more than a sense of duty and the thrill of the chase. Other worrying innovations in LTK were bringing a London-based character (Q) out on into the field (although this works quite well in LTK). Another one was when Bond goes awol and practically assaults M (I've been assured by a Mod on here that he doesn't actually kick M, but that's how it stuck in my memory). This kind of weird totally out of character behaviour becomes increasingly common in the Brozza era.
  • Mr_SterlingMr_Sterling
    Posts: 99
    Getafix said:

    I think LTK represents the big transition between old and new Bond movies. LTK still feels a lot more like a proper Bond movie than anything from the Brozza or Craig era, but it introduces a number of annoying innovations that seem to now be endlessly repeated - i.e. the tedious obsession with Bond having some 'personal' motivation. Bond is a secret agent, doing a job which he loves. He doesn't need to be motivated by anything more than a sense of duty and the thrill of the chase. Other worrying innovations in LTK were bringing a London-based character (Q) out on into the field (although this works quite well in LTK). Another one was when Bond goes awol and practically assaults M (I've been assured by a Mod on here that he doesn't actually kick M, but that's how it stuck in my memory). This kind of weird totally out of character behaviour becomes increasingly common in the Brozza era.



    Does it?
  • GreenFigsYoghurtGreenFigsYoghurt
    Posts: 1
    going out on a limb here but anyone think Ralph Fiennes could be signed as Moneypenny?
  • commandbond007commandbond007
    Posts: 660
    GreenFigsYoghurt said:

    going out on a limb here but anyone think Ralph Fiennes could be signed as Moneypenny?



    no he already stated he is government agent.......
  • w2bondw2bond
    Posts: 186
    Yes, in GE you have the misogynist dinosaur spiel, TWINE and to a lesser extent TND have an emotional connection between Bond/M and Bond girl.

    M becomes a 'field agent' in all movies post 1995, and the 'trust' angle is getting very tedious.

    I wouldn't say it distracted from the movies until the Craig era where I hear the word 'trust' every second scene (M even says 'I need to know I can trust you...' in CR AND QOS)

    Mr_Sterling said:

    Getafix said:

    I think LTK represents the big transition between old and new Bond movies. LTK still feels a lot more like a proper Bond movie than anything from the Brozza or Craig era, but it introduces a number of annoying innovations that seem to now be endlessly repeated - i.e. the tedious obsession with Bond having some 'personal' motivation. Bond is a secret agent, doing a job which he loves. He doesn't need to be motivated by anything more than a sense of duty and the thrill of the chase. Other worrying innovations in LTK were bringing a London-based character (Q) out on into the field (although this works quite well in LTK). Another one was when Bond goes awol and practically assaults M (I've been assured by a Mod on here that he doesn't actually kick M, but that's how it stuck in my memory). This kind of weird totally out of character behaviour becomes increasingly common in the Brozza era.



    Does it?

  • bondtheorybondtheory
    Posts: 74
    @greenfigsyoghurt, Albert Finney will be Moneypenny.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 4,555
    You can't have a man as Moneypenny, I hope it never sees the light of day [-X

    Well ok you can, but I for one would treat it with distaste, It's just something that's not done, Moneypenny has been, and always should be a lady. I couldn't take a male 'Penny seriously, they changed the Q character, I really don't want any more alterations with these characters even if some may view them as not above peripheral figures
  • Samuel001Samuel001
    Posts: 9,901
    Villiers played by Tobias Menzies could be considered a 'male Moneypenny'.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 4,555
    It's still something to be frowned upon, but the thing is you know at some point in time such a thing will occur, it can only be a matter of time, but I hope it is some way off yet. They are slowly changing things bit by bit and moving from lesser characters to more pivotal figures by each passing year I suspect
  • X3MSonicXX3MSonicX
    Posts: 2,548
    Samuel001 said:

    So in one interview she says she's not Monepenny but in the other she does! I think she will be, though hope the opposite.



    That's what she want to do with us. She wants to confuse us so we'll see who she really is when the movie comes out. ;)
  • MrEonMrEon
    Posts: 273
    Samuel001 said:

    Villiers played by Tobias Menzies could be considered a 'male Moneypenny'.



    Yes that could be... AS Tanner is now!!
    Maybe Tanner will be killed off in this movie as part of the big attack and all, and after Eve has done her bit in the field along side Bond she decides to take a desk job at MI6 rather than experience whatever she has done in the field with 007 again, and becomes M's secretary....ie- Moneypenny!!??

    Eve is her name now, and on taking the new job of M's secretary she is given a new name...Miss Moneypenny!!!

    Miss Moneypenny to Ralph Fiennes "M"...??

    Just a thought!? :D
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 4,642
    Where does Q fit in to all this info we've been getting.

    To me it looks like M and Bond against the world.. again.

    He must have one scene at MI6 HQ and thats it. Shame
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 3,505
    JWESTBROOK said:

    Where does Q fit in to all this info we've been getting.

    To me it looks like M and Bond against the world.. again.

    He must have one scene at MI6 HQ and thats it. Shame



    To be fair? Other than LTK i think? Q is usually seen at his facility whether that be at MI6 HQ or field offices around the world.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 7,794
    Librarian said:

    RogueAgent said:

    I like "step by step" solution for introduction Q & Monepenny.
    I'll be satisfied if we meet only Q in Skyfall. Time for Ms. Moneypenny will come when we meet new M (she'll be h i s secretary) in Bond 24.



    Like your thinking Librarian! I think that too!


    I think they should've just introduced them all in CR.
  • Jazz007Jazz007
    Posts: 130
    DaltonCraig007 said:

    What's next, @Jazz007 ? What other Bond traditions do you want to scrap ? How far will you erradicate the Bondian elements until the films become unrecognizable from other action films ? Sorry, but you seem to want to kill the franchise.



    Alright, you caught me. I want to kill the franchise. Sure, I own and watch the movies all the time, read the books frequently, listen to the soundtracks often.... But I want to kill the franchise. Since you apparently have great insight into my motives and degree of fandom, perhaps you want to tell me why I want to kill the franchise?


    No. The truth is that the franchise will kill itself if it resorts to gimmick and nostalgia over timeless character, story and quality. The 007 series will live on through good films, Skyfall seems to be following that path - not through annual releases of fading carbon copies of itself.
  • rabar007rabar007
    Posts: 27
    Jazz007 said:

    No. The truth is that the franchise will kill itself if it resorts to gimmick and nostalgia over timeless character, story and quality. The 007 series will live on through good films, Skyfall seems to be following that path - not through annual releases of fading carbon copies of itself.



    See, I disagree here. Sure, some parts of the "nostalgia" change (the treatment of women/Bond girls is the obvious one, from Connery spanking the masseuse in GF to strong female leads like Brosnan/Craig installments), and that's just how the world works. But Q and Moneypenny are timeless characters that the fans look for.

    I am very happy with everything that I've heard about so far. Do I think the movie will have been more worse out if it didn't have a Q and (probably) won't have Moneypenny anyway? No. But these characters really add a fun element that other contemporary spy/actions films lack (such as the MI series or Bourne).

    The general movie-goers don't care and don't notice these motifs, but the fans do. We can't cater to every fan, of course... but... James Bond movies are James Bond movies because of their recognizable and enjoyable qualities. They've lasted 50 years because of this.

    Sorry for the "rant"... I just love Q and Moneypenny!
  • Agent7FAgent7F
    Posts: 310
    Eve was Miss Moneypenny but through the movie she know as Eve. So the full cast has return. Including Q. That great
  • PenguinPenguin
    Posts: 15
    Being that Ben Whishaw is gay, do you think that Q should also be!? Give the old character a new angle and his repour with Bond!!!? I'd like it!! ;;)
  • SJK91SJK91
    Posts: 950
    Penguin said:

    Being that Ben Whishaw is gay, do you think that Q should also be!? Give the old character a new angle and his repour with Bond!!!? I'd like it!! ;;)


    Welcome to the forums, Penguin.

    However, I must say that I disagree with you 100%. ;)
  • PenguinPenguin
    Posts: 15
    SJK91 said:

    Penguin said:

    Being that Ben Whishaw is gay, do you think that Q should also be!? Give the old character a new angle and his repour with Bond!!!? I'd like it!! ;;)


    Welcome to the forums, Penguin.

    However, I must say that I disagree with you 100%. ;)



    In what respect my friend!? ......
  • SJK91SJK91
    Posts: 950
    Penguin said:

    SJK91 said:

    Penguin said:

    Being that Ben Whishaw is gay, do you think that Q should also be!? Give the old character a new angle and his repour with Bond!!!? I'd like it!! ;;)


    Welcome to the forums, Penguin.

    However, I must say that I disagree with you 100%. ;)



    In what respect my friend!? ......

    I don't think Q should be gay or be flirting with Bond.
  • PenguinPenguin
    Posts: 15
    SJK91 said:

    Penguin said:

    SJK91 said:

    Penguin said:

    Being that Ben Whishaw is gay, do you think that Q should also be!? Give the old character a new angle and his repour with Bond!!!? I'd like it!! ;;)


    Welcome to the forums, Penguin.

    However, I must say that I disagree with you 100%. ;)



    In what respect my friend!? ......

    I don't think Q should be gay or be flirting with Bond.


    Who said about flirting with Bond!? More of a glitzy banter, a small undercurrent of fancying/caring about Bond!? Make sure Bond's all tooled up good and proper!? ;)
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 7,794
    The new Q might be gay. Equally, he could've been gay in the old films. But I don't want to find out because I don't think they should explore Qs personal life at all.

    They should keep it simple. Q is the old (altough that's gone out the window now) gadget master who is there for comedy, has lots of banter with Bond but cares about him.
Add a Comment

Categories

In this Discussion