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

1246730

Comments

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,889
    It interesting the range of opinions; I can’t even imagine a new Bond, one completely separate from the closed Craig universe, surrounded by the same supporting cast .
    It worked with Dench, and M, but I wouldn’t want to see it repeated.
  • GatecrasherGatecrasher Classified
    Posts: 265
    talos7 wrote: »
    It interesting the range of opinions; I can’t even imagine a new Bond, one completely separate from the closed Craig universe, surrounded by the same supporting cast .
    It worked with Dench, and M, but I wouldn’t want to see it repeated.

    +1 for me too. I can’t see past the Craig era, it’s hard to imagine who’ll be cast as Bond. If and when they do, though, I’d hope Fiennes and Harris stay on as M and Moneypenny respectively. Gives future films a nice continuity, not to mention I like them in their roles. I can do without Q and Tanner, definitely.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,889
    talos7 wrote: »
    It interesting the range of opinions; I can’t even imagine a new Bond, one completely separate from the closed Craig universe, surrounded by the same supporting cast .
    It worked with Dench, and M, but I wouldn’t want to see it repeated.

    +1 for me too. I can’t see past the Craig era, it’s hard to imagine who’ll be cast as Bond. If and when they do, though, I’d hope Fiennes and Harris stay on as M and Moneypenny respectively. Gives future films a nice continuity, not to mention I like them in their roles. I can do without Q and Tanner, definitely.

    No, I can imagine a new Bond, but not one with Craig’s supporting cast. The new Bond needs a clean slate .
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,811
    talos7 wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    It interesting the range of opinions; I can’t even imagine a new Bond, one completely separate from the closed Craig universe, surrounded by the same supporting cast .
    It worked with Dench, and M, but I wouldn’t want to see it repeated.

    +1 for me too. I can’t see past the Craig era, it’s hard to imagine who’ll be cast as Bond. If and when they do, though, I’d hope Fiennes and Harris stay on as M and Moneypenny respectively. Gives future films a nice continuity, not to mention I like them in their roles. I can do without Q and Tanner, definitely.

    No, I can imagine a new Bond, but not one with Craig’s supporting cast. The new Bond needs a clean slate .

    Why do you say that @talos7 ?
    I like the small continuity we get from the MI6 regulars between actors.
    Even if it was just Fiennes, Harris or Whishaw that remained.
    I’d have no problems with any of them remaining. But each to our own of course. ;)
  • Posts: 11,425
    I feel at least one actor needs to be carried over to maintain the unbroken chain back to 62.
  • Agent_47Agent_47 Canada
    Posts: 330
    Sad to hear that Whishaw is done with the role, he's the only member of the new MI6 that I would like to see continue.

    Fiennes is okay, certainly doesn't live up to Lee/Dench.

    I honestly don't care for Harris as Moneypenny. She doesn't have a patch on Samantha Bond and Lois Maxwell.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    And I will add if one stays, I want them all to stay. For sure if Ralph stays, I want Naomie to stay. She's a great Moneypenny.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    I think Naomie is the most charming Moneypenny since Lois Maxwell. I never really took to Caroline Bliss (admittedly she had less screentime) and Samantha Bond.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,882
    royale65 wrote: »
    Wishaw is leaving? It's a bit sudden, isn't it, or have I missed something? It feels like Finnes, Harris & Wishaw are now starting to settle in, and we're already losing them.

    Wishaw gave an interview that said he was done with Q. Shame. Really liked him. Same goes for Finnes as M, and I hope they keep him, at least. Harris I can take or leave.

    Hopefully going forward EoN will just hire some jobbing actors, who'd be happy for 5 minutes of screen time.

    Oh damn, that is a shame. I like all three, but I agree that the MI6 regulars need to be used sparingly. Bond is not Mission Impossible.
  • It really depends on the characterisation.....

    Q was always an exasperated, old bureaucrat who had little time for 007. It was only during the Dalton/Brosnan years that he softened up and became a slightly cantankerous albeit grandfatherly figure.

    Ben is meant to be playing a cocky computer whizkid who doesn't have time for Bond being the crusty, seasoned vet. In SP, he retreated into being a bit of a nerd who Bond walks over....I hope NTTD strikes the balance between the arrogant up-start and his closeness to Bond. The trailers suggest that Q and Bond have a general joshing relationship.

    I always thought the Algeron version in NSNA was great. There you have a Q who works in an underfunded and forgotten Q-branch. Let's be real, any UK government cant afford to give its agents Aston Martin DB10s and Omega watches with bombs...I'd like to see a Q in the basement who has been forgotten and is working on their own..................A little like Lucius Fox in Batman Begins.

    Also, if it's a reboot - the role must be played by Phoebe Waller-Bridge.

    giphy.gif
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,889
    Benny wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    It interesting the range of opinions; I can’t even imagine a new Bond, one completely separate from the closed Craig universe, surrounded by the same supporting cast .
    It worked with Dench, and M, but I wouldn’t want to see it repeated.

    +1 for me too. I can’t see past the Craig era, it’s hard to imagine who’ll be cast as Bond. If and when they do, though, I’d hope Fiennes and Harris stay on as M and Moneypenny respectively. Gives future films a nice continuity, not to mention I like them in their roles. I can do without Q and Tanner, definitely.

    No, I can imagine a new Bond, but not one with Craig’s supporting cast. The new Bond needs a clean slate .

    Why do you say that @talos7 ?
    I like the small continuity we get from the MI6 regulars between actors.
    Even if it was just Fiennes, Harris or Whishaw that remained.
    I’d have no problems with any of them remaining. But each to our own of course. ;)

    As I , and others have pointed out, the Craig era is a self contained universe; it been implied by Barbara and Cary that this film is a definite conclusion to his story. The next Bond will be a completely new incarnation of the character. To bring back a cast member would be awkward; yes it worked with Dench so anything is possible , but to do it with multiple actors would be confusing and would hinder creating a new, fresh, vision.
  • I dont get why people think that new Bond should get a new supporting staff. We have a rock solid cast. Just because we "need" a clean slate, is not a good enough answer.

    As much as people seem to want Craig's era to be binned into its own self-contained universe, it's already not. Just about every rule of continuity/transition between Bonds have been broken, so the producers have every ability to do what they want. The only thing that has been is that there's always at least one supporting staff member that carried the torch with every Bond actor transition. I think this is important because too much change can make the film feel foriegn. There needs to be just a little familiarity with Bond, and recognizable actors/actresses is one way to do it.

    The fact of the matter is they can easily take a fresh vision with a new Bond and use the same supporting actors. The actors dont even have to play the same rendition of themselves (ahm, Dench). I could totally see Harris continue as Moneypenny, but this time in a cougar-ish role. Same character, same actress, different take.

    Let's not put up false walls that exist to only serve fan base fetishisms.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,889
    JamesStock wrote: »
    I dont get why people think that new Bond should get a new supporting staff. We have a rock solid cast. Just because we "need" a clean slate, is not a good enough answer.

    As much as people seem to want Craig's era to be binned into its own self-contained universe, it's already not. Just about every rule of continuity/transition between Bonds have been broken, so the producers have every ability to do what they want. The only thing that has been is that there's always at least one supporting staff member that carried the torch with every Bond actor transition. I think this is important because too much change can make the film feel foriegn. There needs to be just a little familiarity with Bond, and recognizable actors/actresses is one way to do it.

    The fact of the matter is they can easily take a fresh vision with a new Bond and use the same supporting actors. The actors dont even have to play the same rendition of themselves (ahm, Dench). I could totally see Harris continue as Moneypenny, but this time in a cougar-ish role. Same character, same actress, different take.

    Let's not put up false walls that exist to only serve fan base fetishisms.

    Son of a gun, what a coincidence, I don't get why people think that a new Bond, one that will be a completely different incarnation of the one portrayed by Craig, should not get a new supporting staff. There are many extremely talented actors and actresses who could fill the roles and create an equally rock solid cast .

  • edited January 2020 Posts: 565
    talos7 wrote: »
    JamesStock wrote: »
    I dont get why people think that new Bond should get a new supporting staff. We have a rock solid cast. Just because we "need" a clean slate, is not a good enough answer.

    As much as people seem to want Craig's era to be binned into its own self-contained universe, it's already not. Just about every rule of continuity/transition between Bonds have been broken, so the producers have every ability to do what they want. The only thing that has been is that there's always at least one supporting staff member that carried the torch with every Bond actor transition. I think this is important because too much change can make the film feel foriegn. There needs to be just a little familiarity with Bond, and recognizable actors/actresses is one way to do it.

    The fact of the matter is they can easily take a fresh vision with a new Bond and use the same supporting actors. The actors dont even have to play the same rendition of themselves (ahm, Dench). I could totally see Harris continue as Moneypenny, but this time in a cougar-ish role. Same character, same actress, different take.

    Let's not put up false walls that exist to only serve fan base fetishisms.

    Son of a gun, what a coincidence, I don't get why people think that a new Bond, one that will be a completely different incarnation of the one portrayed by Craig, should not get a new supporting staff. There are many extremely talented actors and actresses who could fill the roles and create an equally rock solid cast .
    Sassy are we?

    Historically, there's always been carry over. As I said, I believe it helps with softening the transition from one Bond to the next, bringing a familiarity aspect that is expected of Bond films.

    That said, I am not opposed to rebooting the whole cast, but not because a new Bond deserves a new cast. If we get a new Q because the current one leaves, ok. If we get a new MP, because of age discrepancy affecting their believability of the Bond-MP relationship, fair enough. If we get a new M, because they have a new vision for M and/or contract value, I can understand. If we get a new cast because of all of the above, I get it. But to remove all the capital they've built in the current characters/actors, just because there's a new Bond is ridiculous. It does cost money to find and hire new actors.

    I don't believe the producers would do that anyway. My hunch is at least Fiennes will return.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    A female Q would be cool new dynamic from Llewelyn and Whishaw.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,889
    JamesStock wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    JamesStock wrote: »
    I dont get why people think that new Bond should get a new supporting staff. We have a rock solid cast. Just because we "need" a clean slate, is not a good enough answer.

    As much as people seem to want Craig's era to be binned into its own self-contained universe, it's already not. Just about every rule of continuity/transition between Bonds have been broken, so the producers have every ability to do what they want. The only thing that has been is that there's always at least one supporting staff member that carried the torch with every Bond actor transition. I think this is important because too much change can make the film feel foriegn. There needs to be just a little familiarity with Bond, and recognizable actors/actresses is one way to do it.

    The fact of the matter is they can easily take a fresh vision with a new Bond and use the same supporting actors. The actors dont even have to play the same rendition of themselves (ahm, Dench). I could totally see Harris continue as Moneypenny, but this time in a cougar-ish role. Same character, same actress, different take.

    Let's not put up false walls that exist to only serve fan base fetishisms.

    Son of a gun, what a coincidence, I don't get why people think that a new Bond, one that will be a completely different incarnation of the one portrayed by Craig, should not get a new supporting staff. There are many extremely talented actors and actresses who could fill the roles and create an equally rock solid cast .
    Sassy are we?


    Just following your lead. ;)

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,889
    A female Q would be cool new dynamic from Llewelyn and Whishaw.

    I was thinking this, and have a strong feeling that the next Q will be a woman.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    I think longtime fans on here are sometimes so far apart from what the general public cares about, or at times is even vaguely aware of (continuity of characters in the films). I think EON is under no real pressure to keep any of the supporting actors.

    They may keep M ... because that role would go through more than a couple of 007s probably if her or she were at MI6 for decades. And Moneypenny could stay, but I don't find it necessary at all for any of them to stay (including M, though that makes sense). I love Lois and I like Naomie very much. For me, I'd like Naomie to continue, but it's not a big part of my enjoyment of Bond. And I think the general public are not going to really howl about "loyalty" and "continuity." Perhaps it will come down to the working relationship EON has with the individual actors.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I think Fiennes will want to stay. The gig is handy for him. Keeps his profile up. Makes some pocket money. Allows him to do other more arty fare, like directing his own movies.
  • edited January 2020 Posts: 17,241
    It depends on NTTD for me, but right now I'd be happy with a new Q, M and Moneypenny – there are plenty of great actors out there. And If we can make a wish list, I'd like Jonny Lee Miller (Bernard Lee's grandson) as Q.

    tumblr_nyfgb3w7AM1so28u7o1_500.gif
  • Posts: 12,506
    I think we need to see who will take up the 007 role first? I think we will all feel possibly different then to how we all feel now?
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited April 2020 Posts: 5,834
    My two suggestions for a new Q: Riz Ahmed or Bill Skarsgard :)
    BN-QV379_1216_r_M_20161116110404.jpg
    image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.onecms.io%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F6%2F2018%2F07%2Fshutterstock_editorial_9330910c_huge.jpg
  • Posts: 725
    Yes. We need a Q of colour. A QOC if you will.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited April 2020 Posts: 5,834
    Yes. We need a Q of colour. A QOC if you will.
    Lol. Yeah, Riz Ahmed would be perfect. I imagine him as more of a zany but realistic Q :)
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 4,599
    Given that the series wants to stay modern (but still be Bond), a female Q is an obvious route. Unlike Bond himself, there is no reason that Q should be male.A quick google shows 49% of STEM staff under 29 are woman so it's perfectly possible (not a silly squeeze) for Q to be female. It also offers opportunities for new situations (flirting? why not) Actually, in contrast to the current Q, they could have a hard nosed, (fancy a smoke out the back, bottle of scotch on the poisons locker) hard talking divorcee who actually flirted with Bond. (Emily Watson?) Ironically, someone with more balls than the current Q. With a younger Bond , the dynamic could be interesting. Also, (sorry for rambling) she would bring gravitas. (see Chernobyl), if she tells you the threat is real, then you believe it. The current Q is fun but he never really had any weight and that can undermine the threat. (he was pathetic in SF). Ralationships are built on conflict and contrast. The younger Q was clearly there to contrast the older, craggy Bond. With a clean cut, youthful leading man, we do need a new Q.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,914
    Q'ute.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,834
    I think with being a ore member of the MI6 team, a female Q has never really been needed, and while something they could definitely do, it's a new thing I'm not sure would work. I'd rather they "race-bent" the character to be honest.

    Although if they were going to make Q a woman, I'd rather it was an older woman, as opposed to younger, as if they did the latter, it would maybe feel like they're trying to surround Bond with beautiful women all the time.

    But I'm sticking to my guns on Riz Ahmed as the next Q :)
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited April 2020 Posts: 7,966
    I think a complete new cast might be necessary at this point.

    SPECTRE was one of the most expensive movies ever made, and Bond 25 looks like it might end up wasting a lot on marketing etc. So I really feel like once there is a new Bond EON will be forced to rein in the budgets, and do more with less.

    But, if they are to keep one member of the cast on, I'd vote for Ben. I like the idea that theres only ever been a handful of men who played the character, so ideally he can stay as long as possible.
  • Posts: 299
    I still prefer Ben Whishaw. He's current "Q" so he should play this role as long as possible (like Desmond).
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,914
    I love Ben Whishaw as Q and expect him to continue.

    However, that doesn't have to limit having a female member of Q Branch on hand as well. Also doesn't have to have strictures on getting intimate after hours, can be different from the Moneypenny dynamic.

    Can also contribute to the hijinks of keeping a relationship under wraps. M and Moneypenny wandering around Bond's flat while she scurries from kitchen to closet. Q himself dealing with unconfirmed suspicions. Movie gold.


    images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQwnhodIEGzrbSkdXRad2Kyp2r-fzLrWbwb_Vjdcx1NA2xhxfMY&usqp=CAU
    Licence Renewed, john Gardner, 1981.
    Chapter 5 - The Road to Ascot
    Primarily, the idea was to put Bond into the Murik
    ménage as a walking listening device. It was natural, then,
    for him to spend much time with Q Branch, the experts of
    'gee-whizz' technology. In the past he had often found
    himself bored by the earnest young men who inhabited the
    workshops and testing areas of Q Branch; but times were
    changing. Within the last year, everyone at headquarters
    had been brightened and delighted by the appearance of a
    new face among the senior executives of Q Branch: a tall,
    elegant, leggy young woman with sleek and shining straw-
    coloured hair which she wore in an immaculate, if severe,
    French pleat. This, together with her large spectacles, gave
    her a commanding manner and a paradoxical personality
    combining warm nobility with cool efficiency.

    Within a week of her arrival, Q Branch had accorded its
    new executive the nickname of Q'ute, for even in so short a
    time she had become the target of many seductive attempts
    by unmarried officers of all ages. Bond had noticed her, and
    heard the reports. Word was that the colder side of Q'ute's
    personality was uppermost in her off-duty hours. Now 007
    found himself working close to the girl, for she had been
    detailed to arrange the equipment he would take into the
    field, and brief him on its uses.

    Throughout the period, James Bond remained
    professionally distant. Q'ute was a desirable girl, but, like
    so many of the ladies working with the security services
    these days, she remained friendly yet at pains to make it
    plain that she was her own woman and therefore Bond's
    equal. Only later was 007 to learn that she had done a year
    in the field before taking the two-year technical course
    which provided her with promotion to executive status in Q
    Branch.

    And as work comes to a close for the day, she prompts and quickly accepts Bond's mention of dinner. And not long after he ends up at her place.

Sign In or Register to comment.