Should we get a new M / Q / Moneypenny for BOND 26 and beyond ?

1181921232430

Comments

  • edited April 2022 Posts: 2,540
    @007HallY, having Bond be none of the agents would be interesting as a twist, but I'd still prefer seeing him as a part of it just so that he feels the intensity and danger of what he's involved in, directly feeling the loss of his comrades and understand just how close he was to dying himself. I think it raises the stakes higher when the truth is revealed and he has his sights set on the villain behind it: he's not just impacted because the dead were his brothers in arms, but also because he was an intended target. Just think it brings it up another notch.

    The TLD pre-title was definitely a big inspiration for what I was thinking of, not just with Bond being revealed gradually over the course of the action and fellow agents dying in perilous ways, but also with that element of ominous danger akin to the "Smiert Spionam" message.

    I get that. Again, it'd be cool seeing the 00 section more in a future Bond film, as well as Bond's relationship with them. I'd watch it.

    I had an idea not unlike this that I posted in a 'pitch your own Bond film' thread a while ago. The main premise was that 00 agents were going missing and essentially being brainwashed to reveal top secret information, or perhaps even be used to assassinate people (so think along the lines of TMWTGG or The Ipcress File). The villain would be revealed to have been an ex 00 agent himself (the previous 007 in fact) and was expelled from MI6 due to psychopathic behaviour, so in turn wants to destroy the 00 section.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 3,958
    If EON is planning on a 5 film storyline, we can expect some characters being set a film or two in advance. Not only would we get the MI6 regulars, we can expect other iconic characters being setup. The only true EON created character I could see getting setup as a later villain is Alec Trevelyan. Makes the betrayal more difficult for Bond and the audience. Blofeld, Irma Bunt and Spectre I could see being set up properly this time. I think for future characters coming back we should look beyond the MI6 regulars. Especially in this day and age of rebooting and origin stories.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited April 2022 Posts: 2,853
    Would it be a bit too 'post-' if they got the likes of Cavill, Elba, Turner, Hardy and Madden to play the other 00s...? ;)
  • Posts: 14,750
    Oh no please! No male Moneypenny! M and Q are titles, they can go to a female character. But Moneypenny is a female character! Switching gender is borderline codename theory, whether it's for Bond or anybody else. It's also stunt casting Let's keep Bond, Leiter and Blofeld male and Moneypenny female, thank you very much.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,350
    Venutius wrote: »
    Would it be a bit too 'post-' if they got the likes of Cavill, Elba, Turner, Hardy and Madden to play the other 00s...? ;)

    If they pick a very young Bond and do another origin story, I would find it funny if they cast one of the guys who aged out of the role during the Craig run as a mentor. Or go really meta and have a Thunderball-type scene with a number of 00s silently in a circle and it's all the guys and girls that have been thrown around in the past. Cavill, Fassbender, Hardy, Elba, Emily Blunt, Hiddlestone, Page, hell get Clive Owen in there. That will never happen, but it would be pretty hilarious.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited April 2022 Posts: 2,853
    Yeah, exactly - it'd be the best gag in the film and worth the money for an instant classic scene! :D
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    Posts: 2,161
    I'd hate it. I don't like gag, celebrity or wink/wink casting in my Bond films. Madonna was bad enough.
  • Keeping the same cast of characters walks a fine line between sentimentality and quality....having the same Q in GE was nice to see the actor return and having his quick wit. But the character being played by the same actor did not add much to the quality of the film. This is in stark contrast with keeping Judi Dench as M for CR onward. Her character added quality to the movies.
    Murdock wrote: »
    Wipe the slate clean.

    I don't blame you for saying that.
  • Posts: 328
    Yes, wipe the slate clean.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Keeping the same cast of characters walks a fine line between sentimentality and quality....having the same Q in GE was nice to see the actor return and having his quick wit. But the character being played by the same actor did not add much to the quality of the film. This is in stark contrast with keeping Judi Dench as M for CR onward. Her character added quality to the movies.
    Murdock wrote: »
    Wipe the slate clean.

    I don't blame you for saying that.

    Having the same Q into the 90s wasn't really alarming though, as continuity wasn't in question. We were supposed to believe this Bond was the same as the others (I never believe this myself, but whatever).

    However, it's more alarming when a cast member is retained across two different versions of Bond, where we know they are different men entirely with different histories and backgrounds. And I think the current cinematic era we're in holds continuity far higher than ever before, which is why I see it as a low chance that we have the same actors from era to era going forward.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 12,828
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I'd hate it. I don't like gag, celebrity or wink/wink casting in my Bond films. Madonna was bad enough.

    Maybe it’s because he had a bigger part, but Hugh Dennis in NTTD distracted me even more than Madonna. Which is unfair really, because he is an actual actor (well, he’s done sitcoms). But he’s such a well known comedian here in the UK that I found it impossible not to see Hugh Dennis, and instead of being wrapped up in the scene, I was just sat there wondering how he ended up getting the role.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I'd hate it. I don't like gag, celebrity or wink/wink casting in my Bond films. Madonna was bad enough.

    Maybe it’s because he had a bigger part, but Hugh Dennis in NTTD distracted me even more than Madonna. Which is unfair really, because he is an actual actor (well, he’s done sitcoms). But he’s such a well known comedian here in the UK that I found it impossible not to see Hugh Dennis, and instead of being wrapped up in the scene, I was just sat there wondering how he ended up getting the role.

    I mean, I didn't even know Dennis's background until you mentioned that, but even still, he did a great job in his moments and delivered a very good performance and gave to the scenes what they needed while blending in well, which is the whole point of having an actor in a role. Madonna on the other hand was a celebrity cameo that was very much there to say, "Hey, we not only got her to do our crappy theme song, but Madonna is also in this film too. See?!" And it just comes off as so sloppy and indulgent, as she adds nothing to the film and is in a very unimportant scene that didn't need her in it.

    At least the part Dennis plays sets up the big threat for NTTD and introduces the stakes Bond is facing. Furthermore, his death at the hands of Safin's men shows just how far they're willing to go to get what they want, which comes together to set a strong tone for the rest of the film.
  • I would like to see Idris Elba as M.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,822
    At this point I truly trust the judgment of the producers on this.

    The current MI6 staff is top shelf, it would be great to see all of them again.

    And I'm open to the possibilities. Quite a moment in time for the franchise to relish as it plays out.

    JamesBond007201801101161Incen20PhamVirg.jpg
  • CharmianBondCharmianBond Pett Bottom, Kent
    edited April 2022 Posts: 533
    I liked Rory Kinnear and I thought he captured the spirit of Tanner but because of Craig's chemistry with Whishaw he was downplayed, I never got the sense he and Craig's Bond were good friends.

    Don't know why I hadn't thought of it before but watching Operation Mincemeat I think Matthew Macfadyen would be a good choice, depending on who they cast as Bond of course, they might have to skew older like the traditional 38 of Bond with him already being 47. But he has the greying at the temples, I can believe he was a sapper and he's still able to play things meekly.

    And next to the other Mister Darcy maybe we could have Firth as the first M who is genuinely smoking 🔥😂

    0_BESTPIX-UK-Premiere-Of-Operation-Mincemeat-In-London.jpg
  • Posts: 2,540
    I'm a bit split on Tanner returning. Kinnear's performances were great, however the Craig era's interpretation of the character was a bit... well, bland really. He's more a straight laced civil servant who sometimes assists Bond rather than the good humoured friend of the novels and arguably the Brosnan era. It's also a bit hard to justify including the character as he doesn't tend to do much from a narrative point of view, unless you have situations in SF or SP where the core members of MI6 assist Bond (which I'm not sure if they'll want to do as much going forward). Then again, perhaps including him and making him useful in a fresh way would be good to see.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 7,965
    Further to @007HallY above, my two cents are similar enough:

    Unless you're actually going to have the friendship between Tanner and Bond on display, there's no reason to include him as the exposition stuff could easily be handled by M or Moneypenny.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @007HallY, @CraigMooreOHMSS, very much agreed. It's honestly bizarre that they even decided to call that character Tanner in the first place, as he is so disparate from anything resembling the novel character.

    The most frustrating thing about Tanner is that from SF onwards he truly seems to only exist to show that Bond (or other characters at times, even) is so much braver, smarter, capable, competent and all around more useful than he could ever be. You have moments like in SF where Tanner truly seems to cower in fear when Silva is attacking M, instead of standing up and protecting her from certain death (which would've been a great character moment for him). Instead, it's Mallory who must step up and stand against Silva. Or in SP where Tanner warns Bond to watch his step because of how slippery the entrance to the new MI6 HQ is (implying he's already fallen in that spot), only for Bond to give him a dismissive look and stride onward unimpeded. He always just comes off as so feckless and borderline bumbling, which is just a disgrace to the name he's been given.

    Tanner gets moments to rattle off mission exposition and info on relevant characters and plot details to push the action along, which is fine, but that's truly the only utility he has, and that's a waste of a character. He should've just been another character entirely, much like Villiers in CR. That way we wouldn't have to compare him to the Tanner of the novels, who is an actual character and not just a bad comedic device of embarrassment. Kind of bemusing that they decided to even bother naming him after a character he is such a far cry from, especially since he and Bond have the weakest relationship out of any of the MI6 crew, when they should have the strongest bond in order for it to be faithful to the source.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 7,965
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, good to see you here and a great post. I was thinking of this very thing recently - if you want a prime example of just how "surplus to requirements" this Tanner is, look no further than the big moment at the end of NTTD. He's the only one (besides Nomi, I think) who doesn't get his own reaction shot to what has transpired. I think that sums it up.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 2,540
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I think one of the problems was that the Tanner of the Craig era was, in fact, meant to be a different character entirely and that's Villers as you mentioned. I don't know why the actor never came back and was replaced by Kinnear in QOS (who, at that time, was a young and not well known actor) but I get the sense they'd written the script with Villers in mind and simply replaced him with Tanner due to whatever problem required the change in actor. They softened Tanner later into the Craig era and made him less bumbling and incompetent than Villers (although Villers was never a particularly strong character anyway) but the remnants are there.

    I'm a fan of Michael Kitchen's Tanner personally. The guy looked constantly dishevelled/stressed but had this nice chemistry and familiarity with Brosnan's Bond. Sure, he was thoroughly embarrassed by M during the 'Queen of numbers' moment but he wasn't bumbling or incompetent.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,405
    Given the success of the Craig era, would it be a shock if we didn't see Q, Moneypenny or Tanner in Bond 26. Just focus on Bond #7 like they did in Casino, especially if the new actor is considerably younger
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,858
    I didn't see Villiers as incompetent at all, just loyal to M, not Bond. (And frankly that's an interesting dynamic we don't see enough in the films.)

    Tanner quickly became an exposition-bot in the Craig era.

    I think, because of the success of CR and SF (and perhaps SP), we are destined to keep getting character re-introductions as dramatic moments within the series. I can see the producers salivating in Bond 26, "How do we surprise the audience with the new Moneypenny?" etc.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 2,540
    @echo Perhaps incompetent was a strong word. He's definitely played for comedic impact at times though and his bureaucratic loyalty is a stark contrast to Bond's 'follow your gut' approach in CR. Definitely agree about the dramatic moments idea of reintroducing characters. It's why we might not necessarily see Q or even Moneypenny in the next one.

    A Tanner in a future instalment could work. They'll have to strengthen his relationship with Bond and get him more involved in the plot though. I know in the Fleming novels he's depicted as being slightly older than Bond but not much so, and reading between the lines he was a Colonel and seems to have shown a level of courage, competence and patriotism during the war. The main difference between him and Bond is that he's not inherently drawn towards the danger of the spy game and has instead chosen a quieter life with kids, the desk job and golf at weekends. Perhaps it'd be more interesting to see a new incarnation of the character sticking up for Bond more, perhaps even defending his actions to a new M initially. Can see someone like Kingsley Ben-Adir playing it who would likely be a similar age to the new 007 actor and has even been brought up by some as a potential Bond.
  • Posts: 1,876
    How about no Tanner. Why not Bond flirts with Moneypenny, gets his assignment from M and picks up gadgets from Q, then it's off on his assignment? A sporadic appearance from them if necessary again later on is fine, but just let the focus go back to Bond.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,350
    BT3366 wrote: »
    How about no Tanner. Why not Bond flirts with Moneypenny, gets his assignment from M and picks up gadgets from Q, then it's off on his assignment? A sporadic appearance from them if necessary again later on is fine, but just let the focus go back to Bond.

    I wouldn’t be against it. It seems to me they wanted a Villiers/Tanner figure for Judi Dench to play against and due to there being no Q and no Moneypenny she had more of a role and needed a partner. By the time they bring in Whishaw and Harris, Kinnear is more well known actor, SF happens to have a story that is very focussed on the internals of MI6 and Whitehall, so you can’t really drop him there and suddenly you have Kinnear, Whishaw, Harris and Fiennes on hand for what are basically three bit parts.
  • Posts: 12,209
    I’d have no problem with Q, Moneypenny, and Tanner being taken away for a while. In fact I’d prefer it if it meant focusing far more on Bond himself and not shoehorning the others into the plot so much.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,858
    How about Ralph Fiennes as Tanner in Bond 26?
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,853
    The studio execs thought similarly about Tanner at one point - the leaked Sony emails discussed dropping him from SP altogether and giving his scenes and dialogue to Moneypenny.
  • Posts: 1,876
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I’d have no problem with Q, Moneypenny, and Tanner being taken away for a while. In fact I’d prefer it if it meant focusing far more on Bond himself and not shoehorning the others into the plot so much.

    CR and QoS worked just fine without them, didn't it?
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 3,958
    echo wrote: »
    I didn't see Villiers as incompetent at all, just loyal to M, not Bond. (And frankly that's an interesting dynamic we don't see enough in the films.)

    Tanner quickly became an exposition-bot in the Craig era.

    I think, because of the success of CR and SF (and perhaps SP), we are destined to keep getting character re-introductions as dramatic moments within the series. I can see the producers salivating in Bond 26, "How do we surprise the audience with the new Moneypenny?" etc.

    That’s one current trend that I see EON following for a while. For better or worse, it is a movie series trend now. It’s how they do it that will make it work. I could see some reintroduced characters from the books and movies make an appearance in the next couple of Bond movies. Blofeld, Goldfinger, Trevelyan etc. If it’s another origin story, I would like to see Charmian Bond and May finally get their film introduction. Also, if they go that route, I would like to see EON take inspiration from Richard Maibaum and Michael G. Wilson’s Bond 15 origin story. There is some great story beats in that screenplay.
Sign In or Register to comment.