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

1679111230

Comments

  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited August 2021 Posts: 5,707
    I don't know why I haven't suggested this sooner but after watching The Suicide Squad, and also considering how good he was on Doctor Who, Peter Capaldi would be a really good choice for either M, Q, or even a villain.

    The-Thinker-The-Suicide-Squad-Peter-Capaldi.jpg
  • Posts: 1,537
    I would be FINE with a Doctor Reunion in the cast ! So many good Whos (not, not the Seussical ones) and assistants ! Get 'em all in there ! Well, OK the Bond folks won't do it, but I hope the Who show has some scene with EVERYONE in there. Given the strange physics and science fiction of the show, it would be do-able !
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,794
    He would be a good Q, that's true.
  • Posts: 250
    From here on in I'd like to see a policy of new M, Q, Moneypenny, Tanner and Felix for each new Bond. Ring-fenced continuities are the way forward- we will always have the oddity of 1-20 but the market has changed and I think those roles should be cast around whoever is playing Bond.
  • I wanted the current M, Moneypenny and Q to stay but after NTTD I think it wouldn't be possible anymore.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    edited October 2021 Posts: 45,489
    FourDot wrote: »
    From here on in I'd like to see a policy of new M, Q, Moneypenny, Tanner and Felix for each new Bond. Ring-fenced continuities are the way forward- we will always have the oddity of 1-20 but the market has changed and I think those roles should be cast around whoever is playing Bond.

    That is 80 % of the series, so hardly an oddity.

    Edit: I realize "oddity" can mean different things.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Yes, definitely a clean slate for Bond 26. That is the only viable way to do it, I think. All of them, no matter how much I like Ben and Naomie and Ralph.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,333
    I've made my feelings known elsewhere for Bond 26 and the continuation of cast members. Just in case you're unfamiliar with them, I say a resounding no to the notion.

    @Birdleson makes a valid point about there being a link of at least one actor carrying on in their role film-to-film, tying the franchise together since Dr No, but I could argue the circumstances have now changed with bringing Bond's life cycle to its final conclusion. For cinematic clarity, they need to wipe the slate totally clean and start afresh with no previous baggage going forwards.
  • EinoRistoSiniahoEinoRistoSiniaho Oulu, Finland
    Posts: 73
    Ask Ralph Fiennes to grow a beard and name his character Sir Miles Messervy and it's all good.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Ask Ralph Fiennes to grow a beard and name his character Sir Miles Messervy and it's all good.
    Or Moneypenny, depending on how edgy you want to go. :-j
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,860
    Fiennes and Wishaw are ideal in their roles, Harris and Kinnear are ok. But unless EON go the code-name route, they've all got to go now, surely? I know Dench was playing a different M in the Craig and Brosnan films, but they can't pull that trick twice, can they?
  • BennyBenny keeping tabs on youAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,733
    Venutius wrote: »
    Fiennes and Wishaw are ideal in their roles, Harris and Kinnear are ok. But unless EON go the code-name route, they've all got to go now, surely? I know Dench was playing a different M in the Craig and Brosnan films, but they can't pull that trick twice, can they?

    Why not? Many actors in the past have played different roles in the series.
    Like @Birdleson I too would like to see at least one cast member return for the next Bond.
  • I think some recasting is in order, to signal that it’s a fresh start. I like Fiennes and Harris, but they’re replaceable imo. Those roles have been played well a few times. And Tanner doesn’t really matter at all, they could ditch him entirely and it’d make no difference.

    But replacing Q seemed like such an impossible task. I liked Cleese, but I‘d come to terms with nobody being able to live up to Desmond Llewellyn. Then along comes Wishaw, who completely reinvents it and absolutely smashes it. I wasn’t happy about the idea of a young, techy Q, but they nailed it. I think his Q is very much in keeping with the spirit of the character, while being distinct enough from Llewellyn to feel fresh, and Wishaw played it perfectly.

    He’s been a real highlight of the last few films, and I don’t think we’ve seen anywhere near enough of him yet. I really hope he gets to do a Dench and stick around.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2021 Posts: 2,860
    I can't think of a better M than Fiennes. Perfect casting and if he's gone, I can't see a plausible alternative. So maybe he actually could do a Dench and be a different M for different Bonds? Dunno. I could see Sam Rockwell as Leiter - although I'd be expecting the clown nose to go on for the first few scenes. Ayoade would maybe be the most plausible alterna-Q. I'd be half-expecting him to give Bond the internet in a box, though!
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 13,868
    I want Whishaw to stay, he's the MVP here. He gets a lot of love from everyone (just check my avatar), and for B26 I don't see why they can't give him a brief scene in the lab and not make a thing of continuity.
  • BennyBenny keeping tabs on youAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,733
    I’d be happy to see both Whishaw and Fiennes return. For 26 I’d be happy to shelve Tanner, and return Moneypenny to desk duties.
    Part of the problem of the Scooby gang, especially with the Craig eta, is giving too many minor characters something to do. M, Q, Moneypenny and Tanner. During the Connery and Moore films, these roles were almost a cameo. And that’s why they worked IMO. Leave them wanting more.
  • Posts: 1,876
    Benny wrote: »
    I’d be happy to see both Whishaw and Fiennes return. For 26 I’d be happy to shelve Tanner, and return Moneypenny to desk duties.
    Part of the problem of the Scooby gang, especially with the Craig eta, is giving too many minor characters something to do. M, Q, Moneypenny and Tanner. During the Connery and Moore films, these roles were almost a cameo. And that’s why they worked IMO. Leave them wanting more.

    Yes. Looking back at the Craig era, okay we had the experiment with more teamwork. But ultimately these are James Bond movies and that's where the emphasis should stay. I got Mission Impossible vibes during the climax of NTTD with Q giving me vibes the Simon Pegg or Ving Rhames characters constantly updating Ethan Hunt of the situation and all that. Bond always works best when left to his own resources.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,333
    I think the problem with Cleese having been the new quartermaster in DAD was that he was too well known a star in his own right, and has always been associated with comedic roles. I liked Desmond Llewellyn in his early days before he became too jokey, less so when we got into the Eighties. I even liked the Major Boothroyd character in Dr No played by Peter Burton. Wishaw always seemed more inspired by Simon Pegg's casting of Benji in the 2006 Mission: Impossible III than anything else. He's servicable, but not irreplaceable.

    I still think the new casting of Bond 26 needs to take a big step away from Craig's era and find its own two feet. Anything delivered half-cocked will only cause further confusion going forwards.

    As for who they can get to replace them, there's plenty of British TV dramas or stage actors to cast their nets wide from. I'd offer up a few names myself, but I no longer watch that many British TV dramas.
  • bondsum wrote: »
    I still think the new casting of Bond 26 needs to take a big step away from Craig's era and find its own two feet. Anything delivered half-cocked will only cause further confusion going forwards.
    That's also my opinion. Casino Royale was made 15 years ago and the cinematic landscape was quit different: there was no MCU, no cinematic universes; considering the movie trends of today, to bring back Fiennes or anyone else will only cause confusion and could, at worst, estrange the audience from the next era.

    Regarding potential new actors, I have two or three suggestions for M: Mark Strong (maybe too close to Fiennes?), David Harewood (he reminds me of the M from the Dynamite comics) and Ciarán Hinds.
  • I agree with @QBranch, I don’t think keeping Wishaw (or one of the others, but I’d
    prefer Wishaw) would confuse people at all. To be honest I think NTTD’s ending will make it clear that the next one is a reboot irregardless, but even if not, we’ll have a different Bond who’s significantly younger and looks completely different (might even be a different race this time), vauxhall cross will probably be back, we’ll likely get a big change in tone/direction, etc.

    I think it’d be easy to keep any of the cast members they want to. Audiences accepted it with Dench, and they’ve accepted it in other things too. It’s funny that you mention the MCU @Herr_Stockmann, because didn’t they bring JK Simmons back despite the new Spiderman having nothing to do with the old one? I don’t think a brief scene with Q in his lab would have people questioning if this was the same Bond as Craig.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 13,868
    It might even be a fresh approach and less jarring to show the returning actor doing their thing in MI6 but not have them interact with the new Bond actor for this first film.
  • BennyBenny keeping tabs on youAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,733
    It wasn’t a problem having Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell or Desmond Llewellyn play opposite Connery, Lazenby or Moore.
    Or Robert Brown play M to Moore and Daltons Bonds.
    Or Judi Dench play M for Brosnan or Craig.
    So why would it matter, for the next actor to appear with Fiennes, Harris or Whishaw?
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2021 Posts: 2,860
    Thinking about it, Wishaw said he was contracted for three films - so if Craig hadn't come back he'd've played Q at least once with a different Bond, post-SP. Which suggests that EON were open to the idea of carrying at least some of the MI6 team over to the next phase. Then again, they could've just paid him off and gone for a clean slate, I guess.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 875
    It’s funny that you mention the MCU @Herr_Stockmann, because didn’t they bring JK Simmons back despite the new Spiderman having nothing to do with the old one? I don’t think a brief scene with Q in his lab would have people questioning if this was the same Bond as Craig.
    Well, it's different I think: Simmons is the only actor who played Jonah Jameson on the big screen and is iconic in this part (to the point of becoming a meme); it isn't the case of Fiennes, Harris or Whishaw. The audience won't that easily accept a new actor in the role. Besides, the new Spider-Man lives in the Multiverse that the previous Peter Parker so this Jameson is an alternate version of the one seen in the Raimi's trilogy, there is a diegetic justification. So, again, the MCU pushes its concept of narrative coherence to the point where even seemingly confusing elements are justified by the story.
    Benny wrote: »
    It wasn’t a problem having Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell or Desmond Llewellyn play opposite Connery, Lazenby or Moore.
    Or Robert Brown play M to Moore and Daltons Bonds.
    Or Judi Dench play M for Brosnan or Craig.
    So why would it matter, for the next actor to appear with Fiennes, Harris or Whishaw?
    Again, times have changed and the cinematic landscape isn't the same. The fact that the codename theory is popular proves there is a desire from the audience to see narrative consistency and continuity. It wasn't a problem of having Bernard Lee play opposite Connery, Lazenby or Moore back then because the three were the same character and not a different version each time, but even in 2006 there was some confusion about Dench: is Craig playing a younger version of Connery? Is this a confirmation of the codename theory? These were questions heard back then and the MCU wasn't even a thing, just imagine 15 years later. I definitely think that the return of any member of the past supporting cast would matter and wouldn't be that accepted by the audience.

    Edited to remove massive spoiler.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 6,522
    new Admiral Miles Messervy/M:

    ?resize_to=fit&width=493&height=640&quality=80&src=https%3A%2F%2Fd32dm0rphc51dk.cloudfront.net%2FzhhE6EtsyoTIv_GRabnIsQ%2Flarge.jpg

    new Moneypenny:

    99221462-phoebe-waller-bridge-fleabag.jpg

    new Major Boothroyd/Q:

    4192.jpg?width=1200&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=819f26c64db6d2b160551a1aa4dee2b0
  • BennyBenny keeping tabs on youAdministrator, Moderator
    edited October 2021 Posts: 14,733
    It’s funny that you mention the MCU @Herr_Stockmann, because didn’t they bring JK Simmons back despite the new Spiderman having nothing to do with the old one? I don’t think a brief scene with Q in his lab would have people questioning if this was the same Bond as Craig.
    Well, it's different I think: Simmons is the only actor who played Jonah Jameson on the big screen and is iconic in this part (to the point of becoming a meme); it isn't the case of Fiennes, Harris or Whishaw. The audience won't that easily accept a new actor in the role. Besides, the new Spider-Man lives in the Multiverse that the previous Peter Parker so this Jameson is an alternate version of the one seen in the Raimi's trilogy, there is a diegetic justification. So, again, the MCU pushes its concept of narrative coherence to the point where even seemingly confusing elements are justified by the story.
    Benny wrote: »
    It wasn’t a problem having Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell or Desmond Llewellyn play opposite Connery, Lazenby or Moore.
    Or Robert Brown play M to Moore and Daltons Bonds.
    Or Judi Dench play M for Brosnan or Craig.
    So why would it matter, for the next actor to appear with Fiennes, Harris or Whishaw?
    Again, times have changed and the cinematic landscape isn't the same. The fact that the codename theory is popular proves there is a desire from the audience to see narrative consistency and continuity. It wasn't a problem of having Bernard Lee play opposite Connery, Lazenby or Moore back then because the three were the same character and not a different version each time, but even in 2006 there was some confusion about Dench: is Craig playing a younger version of Connery? Is this a confirmation of the codename theory? These were questions heard back then and the MCU wasn't even a thing, just imagine 15 years later. I definitely think that the return of any member of the past supporting cast would matter and wouldn't be that accepted by the audience.

    @Herr_Stockmann please remember that there are those of us who have yet too see NTTD. X(
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 12,828
    Well we’ll have to agree to disagree, I think audiences would accept it just fine, so long as they did enough to differentiate this new Bond and new world.
    QBranch wrote: »
    It might even be a fresh approach and less jarring to show the returning actor doing their thing in MI6 but not have them interact with the new Bond actor for this first film.

    A fresh approach someone once suggested on here, which I quite like the idea of, is having no MI6 regulars at all for the first film. You could have a Bondless PTS setting up the story, then have the first scene post titles being Bond getting off a plane, on his mission. Or maybe introduce us to the new Bond through someone else’s eyes, ala the TSWLM novel.

    I really like this idea of skipping the London scenes altogether, just for a film. It’s fresh, because it hasn’t been done before, and it instantly makes this new Bond more of an enigma and strips things down compared to the Craig era. It also provides a great sequel hook too, because it leaves us wondering what this new Bond is like outside of the field, what his relationship with M/Q/MP is, all of which could then be explored in the second film. Start off very mysterious, and explore more as we go on, basically.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,848
    I like the suggestion of Nighy, @Univex, but I would swap out Oldman and Waller-Bridge for Emily Watson and Jenna Coleman respectively.

    27213.jpg
    DR-WHO-Clara.jpg

  • edited October 2021 Posts: 875
    Benny wrote: »
    @Herr_Stockmann please remember that there are those of us who have yet too see NTTD. X(
    Truly sorry @Benny, I tried to be as implicit and indirect as possible, but considering the argument, it's difficult to ignore the current state. I should have used the spoiler marker, my bad.

    Nevertheless, is it possible to add a "potential spoilers" warning for this topic, like it has been done for the general post-Craig discussion? After all, it's relevant to take NTTD into account if we want to talk about the future.
  • Posts: 6,522
    Nice ideas, @MajorDSmythe! Love them. I simply love Clara Osw...Jenna ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.