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

1235730

Comments

  • I think as good as the current MI6 staff has been, keeping them self contained in the Craig arc and reintroducing a new supporting cast with the new Bond is a great opportunity. My dream would be to see Colin Firth as M, Phoebe Waller Bridge as Moneypenny (would be a fun cameo if she continues on as a writer), Riz Ahmed as Q, David Oyelowo as Bill Tanner, and Oscar Isaac as Felix.
  • Posts: 11,425
    PWB would be a great MP
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited April 2020 Posts: 5,834
    @Benny @Birdleson @jake24 Hey mods, Is it possible to make this page a general MI6 regulars casting page so we can talk about M, Moneypenny, and Tanner as well?
  • Posts: 1,879
    How about just M and forget the rest. I welcomed that approach in CR and QoS. Scooby Gang is a low point in the series.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,834
    BT3366 wrote: »
    How about just M and forget the rest. I welcomed that approach in CR and QoS. Scooby Gang is a low point in the series.
    You know Moneypenny and Q existed before Casino Royale right? And it was only until Spectre that became anything that resembled the 'scooby gang'.
  • Posts: 1,879
    Denbigh wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    How about just M and forget the rest. I welcomed that approach in CR and QoS. Scooby Gang is a low point in the series.
    You know Moneypenny and Q existed before Casino Royale right? And it was only until Spectre that became anything that resembled the 'scooby gang'.

    Yes, and rather than becoming appearances I looked forward to, Moneypenny scenes became double-entendre fests in the Brosnan era that I dreaded or the poor Moneypenny scene in LTK. Q appearances were often squeezed in to give him a token appearance in many films. Desmond Llewelyn was a vital link to the past, so I can understand that.

    Now we get Moneypenny action hero and so on. Sorry, I don't care for it.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited April 2020 Posts: 5,834
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    How about just M and forget the rest. I welcomed that approach in CR and QoS. Scooby Gang is a low point in the series.
    You know Moneypenny and Q existed before Casino Royale right? And it was only until Spectre that became anything that resembled the 'scooby gang'.

    Yes, and rather than becoming appearances I looked forward to, Moneypenny scenes became double-entendre fests in the Brosnan era that I dreaded or the poor Moneypenny scene in LTK. Q appearances were often squeezed in to give him a token appearance in many films. Desmond Llewelyn was a vital link to the past, so I can understand that. Now we get Moneypenny action hero and so on. Sorry, I don't care for it.
    Well by your own description, it's not the characters but how you use them, so use them and use them well.

    They'll keep them. I don't think we'll ever get their "origins" again. I think Bond 26 will be like what Reeves is doing with The Batman; a rebooted timeline with no connection to previous entries, and will introduce these characters we love again, without bothering with origin stories.
  • Posts: 1,879
    I'll go with that. I just don't think we're in an era where the token appearances are as appreciated as they once were and I don't really want a radical redefinition for the modern day, but the right circumstances.
  • I am divided on the possibility of keeping these MI6 regulars for the next era. In addition to the cost represented by these actors who have a successful career in parallel, NTTD is intended as a conclusion, leaving the door open more to a soft-reboot than to standalone sequels as was the case in the past with Connery or Moore. It is also possible that a break will happen before the release of Bond 26. The writing and use of these characters is characteristic of the Craig era and it would be weird to see them with a new Bond.

    Many elements which suggest, in my opinion, that this supporting cast will not be kept. The fact remains, however, that Whishaw seems to be popular and that the audience would like to see him again, whereas Fiennes and Harris seem, to me, to have been greeted with more indifference. As long as no new actor has been announced in the role of Bond, it is difficult to really know what direction should be taken for these actors.

    Nevertheless, I consider that the most satisfactory way would be to have new characters, and not just new actors. Rather than seeing Moneypenny's return, why not introduce Loelia Ponsonby as it was at one point the case in Michael France's draft for Goldeneye?
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,811
    As the NTTD production thread has spawned this discussion, I thought I'd continue it here.
    Personally I have no issue with Fiennes, Whishaw and Harris continuing on a M, Q and Moneypenny. It worked for Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan keeping actors from previous films in the role, when the lead actor changed.
    Even with the Craig films being all linked, it isn't a problem for me. Fiennes is such a good actor, his inclusion is most welcome.
    However, if they do re-cast I'd prefer it if a character actor were cast. Since Judi Dench became M, the role has been filled with well known (and terrific) actors as M.
    I'd prefer we went back to actors like Bernard Lee or Robert Brown. Less known, but good character actors, in a small but important role. Same with Q and Moneypenny.
    I get the feeling that Ben Whishaw is all but done with the role of Q. I don't think he'd be phased if the part were recast in Bond 26. As for Moneypenny, well I'd prefer her to be more desk bound in future films. Far too much field work for M's secretary in the past few films. And Harris is great in the role. Just too much to do.
    As far as Tanner goes, maybe it's time to give the character a break. Too many characters needing a reason to appear otherwise. Just my two cents.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    I think team MI6 are all great actors, but I think that's also part of the problem.. because they are who they are, you almost have to write sizeable roles for them, or else they'd probably walk away because their talents aren't being utilized - which is why I think we've gotten a lot of Team MI6 lately...

    I would rather cast complete unknowns or relatively unknown journeymen actors in the roles - and get Bond back to being on his own... I've noticed this a lot in secret agent type films and tv shows now - they have their team that is always in their ear helping them... IMO, I think that diminishes the uniqueness of the hero.. it's different if he's on his own, having to make the tough choices, knowing their is no backup - vs an earpiece guiding him from point A to point B and so on..
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    Obviously depends on the tone they want to go for for the next actor. Fiennes I think can do absolutely everything, Harris, Whishaw and Kinnear only work in certain types of movies (and I'm honestly not sure the latest movies played to their strengths). I do like the idea of keeping actors for a long time across multiple iterations of the series and the main character. It is one of the best and also strangest things in the series that Q starts out as being more or less the same age as Bond and by the time Desmond Llewelyn retires, he is 40 years Bond's senior.
    I think it would be something modern/younger audiences rail against (you know, the people for whom everything has to make rational sense, so they come up with Codename Theory and stuff like that), but I would enjoy seeing actors from earlier films return.
    For M, the bench is sadly depleted and I don't want Dame Judy to return, so I'm good with Fiennes, but maybe have him interpret the role very differently opposite a new Bond actor.
    I don't have a big relationship to Michael Kitchen's Tanner, but Colin Salmon would be a great re-introduction. Not as Tanner, but for a one-off role maybe.
    And the one I would think could be really fun would be a return of Samantha Bond, who I think is a fantastic actress. Again, not necessarily as Moneypenny. She would have been perfect in the role Helen McCrory plays in SF. And maybe she could even pull off a fun Q for a handful of films.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2021 Posts: 14,861
    Denbigh wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    How about just M and forget the rest. I welcomed that approach in CR and QoS. Scooby Gang is a low point in the series.
    You know Moneypenny and Q existed before Casino Royale right? And it was only until Spectre that became anything that resembled the 'scooby gang'.

    Yes and no. If you watch films like Octopussy or Thunderball Bond is working with a small team of MI6 officers; even in LTK when he's supposed to be out on his own there's actually three of them, including Q, in a little gang.

    I must admit I don't understand the objections to them being given stuff to do. Didn't everyone love it in LTK when Q was helping Bond?
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    How about just M and forget the rest. I welcomed that approach in CR and QoS. Scooby Gang is a low point in the series.
    You know Moneypenny and Q existed before Casino Royale right? And it was only until Spectre that became anything that resembled the 'scooby gang'.

    Yes and no. If you watch films like Octopussy or Thunderball Bond is working with a small team of MI6 officers; even in LTK when he's supposed to be out on his own there's actually three of them, including Q, in a little gang.

    I must admit I don't understand the objections to them being given stuff to do. Didn't everyone love it in LTK when Q was helping Bond?

    This is a slightly different direction, but I love the MI6 field offices they used to have. I am specifically thinking of the one in TSWLM in Egypt. I often dislike the more ridiculous elements of the Moore films, but this is incredibly funny to me:

    The-Spy-Who-Loved-Me-0430.jpg

    The idea that the entire staff of the Head of the Secret Service plus apparently at least a substantial part of Department Q heads out to Egypt and sets up a field office in some very well preserved Egyptian ruins (or moves into an already established field office, whatever) and Moneypenny even has a little shelf with a kettle. Incredible.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Yes, I always loved that gag in every one. Was YOLT the first?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    I must admit that I always get a chuckle at seeing Q in the field. I don't like seeing him in danger, though, so OP never quite sat well with me. What if it had been Q instead of Vijay? (Don't even get me started on how M gets kidnapped in TWINE.)

    I can also see why they put M and Moneypenny in the field; it's to mix things up, and from YOLT on this became a fairly regular thing.

    I like the current crew and hope they stay (with the exception of Tanner), although I wonder if they will.
  • Tokoloshe2Tokoloshe2 Northern Ireland
    Posts: 1,172
    TB is the first 'Q in the field' outing, although YOLT takes it much further.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    Tokoloshe2 wrote: »
    TB is the first 'Q in the field' outing, although YOLT takes it much further.

    Yes, I was talking about M and Moneypenny. And then they stay in the field for a while.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    M - Current is ok.
    Moneypenny - Current is ok.
    Q - Just awful, recast.
    Tanner - Bland, wet lettuce, recast.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,811
    suavejmf wrote: »
    M - Current is ok.
    Moneypenny - Current is ok.
    Q - Just awful, recast.
    Tanner - Bland, wet lettuce, recast.

    Interested to see your reasons concerning Ben Whishaw as Q @suavejmf
    We're all different of course, but I quite like his take on the character.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,447
    I think Whishaw was perfectly cast as Q. His take on the character is charming, funny and believable in these times. He's not trying to be Desmond 2.0 and yet, I immediately accepted him in SF. I hope he can continue to play the part.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    it's not even so much Bond working with other agents, or allies... i think there is a difference when M or Q or whoever, is there to equip or inform Bond in the field, vs taking an active role as a participant in the field.. there are numerous examples of M and Q traveling abroad to check-in / equip Bond as he's on a mission... but i feel like lately, they've been forcing the team MI6 thing a little too much.... like being in an office is not good enough for the character, now they have to be actively involved in the mission - where realistically, a section chief, an armorer, and a secretary probably wouldn't leave London lol.. i know it's splitting hairs on the issue, but i much prefer seeing Bond on his own, with only his wits - and maybe the occasional Q gadget to bail him out... i loved the line in CR, when Mathis tells Bond "if you get in trouble out here, the cavalry won't coming over the next hill." .. obviously implying that you are on your own, you screw up, you're dead.... i think constantly having MI6 at his beckon call just feels... cheap? lazy?... i dont know how else to really phrase it.... maybe it's just holdover from SP, where i think they abused the hell out of the team MI6 thing - maybe that was a Mendes idea? who knows..
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    HASEROT wrote: »
    it's not even so much Bond working with other agents, or allies... i think there is a difference when M or Q or whoever, is there to equip or inform Bond in the field, vs taking an active role as a participant in the field.. there are numerous examples of M and Q traveling abroad to check-in / equip Bond as he's on a mission... but i feel like lately, they've been forcing the team MI6 thing a little too much.... like being in an office is not good enough for the character, now they have to be actively involved in the mission - where realistically, a section chief, an armorer, and a secretary probably wouldn't leave London lol.. i know it's splitting hairs on the issue, but i much prefer seeing Bond on his own, with only his wits - and maybe the occasional Q gadget to bail him out... i loved the line in CR, when Mathis tells Bond "if you get in trouble out here, the cavalry won't coming over the next hill." .. obviously implying that you are on your own, you screw up, you're dead.... i think constantly having MI6 at his beckon call just feels... cheap? lazy?... i dont know how else to really phrase it.... maybe it's just holdover from SP, where i think they abused the hell out of the team MI6 thing - maybe that was a Mendes idea? who knows..

    I always want to see the org chart and HR role descriptions for the MI6 people. Just in the Craig era, M is the Head of the entire Secret Service of the UK, but also has operational control over 00-agent's individual missions, together with her Chief of Staff? And Q's position is Armourer, Head of Technology, Head of the Cyber division - including as a technician/analyst - and also sometimes operational oversight for 00-agents and maybe even field agent. Cool.

    Archer sure seems to have been onto something with
    both the Head of Accounting and the Head of HR later becoming field agents and the secretary of the boss also going on most missions for reasons
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2021 Posts: 14,861
    HASEROT wrote: »
    it's not even so much Bond working with other agents, or allies... i think there is a difference when M or Q or whoever, is there to equip or inform Bond in the field, vs taking an active role as a participant in the field..

    Well okay, I guess when you grow up with these sort of things you don't get too worried by them.

    31b808_b434b78492bb421db8aaccf1ccf168c4~mv2.jpeg

    Really we've had Moneypenny come out to brief him in SF (much like in the old films) and then she went to the casino where she didn't do anything. Then M came along to Scotland, but as keeping her alive was the actual mission that seems reasonable to me; then Q appeared in Switzerland where he did the normal sort of Q-in-the-field stuff (no hot air balloon this time) and in terms of Bond not being on his own and having the MI6 regulars with him... that's it. That I can think of anyway.
    Yes, they had their separate climax at C's building, but the C plot was always their part of the film anyway.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    @mtm
    You got a point.. I guess I just see it as an overall trend outside of Bond even.. M:I and the slew of tv shows involving an agent of sorts where there is a team always helping whether directly or indirectly, and they all have a hand in taking down the baddie at the end.... It's fine every now and then, but too much if that I feel devalues what makes the main or titular agent special.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 776
    M,Q and Moneypenny should stay the same. Tanner, I don’t know, probably.

    Now, Jeffrey Wright is far and away my favorite Felix Leiter. I sure hope he returns if they include Felix in Bond 26 and beyond, but I wouldn’t blame him for wanting to move on.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    I want Wyatt Russell as Leiter.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Someone pointed out recently that NTTD will be the first film to feature all of M, Q, Moneypenny, Tanner and Leiter.
  • Posts: 1,879
    HASEROT wrote: »
    @mtm
    You got a point.. I guess I just see it as an overall trend outside of Bond even.. M:I and the slew of tv shows involving an agent of sorts where there is a team always helping whether directly or indirectly, and they all have a hand in taking down the baddie at the end.... It's fine every now and then, but too much if that I feel devalues what makes the main or titular agent special.

    You've sort of strengthened your own point above and that's that despite Cruise being the main focus of the MI films, the original TV series and then movies were about a team concept, which they've gotten back to with specialists contributing their expertise to ensure a mission's success.

    The thing is about the Mi6 team concept, in the classic days we looked forward to appearances and in some cases those were limited to 1 interaction in some cases. Think DAF where M's only appearance is right after the credits and MP gets about 30 seconds of screen time or LALD when M and MP visit Bond for his briefing right after the credits and no Q.

    I'm fine with the current people doing their jobs and hope the SF/SP thing is where it stays. I want to watch James Bond movies and not Eon's Agents of Mi6.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    BT3366 wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    @mtm
    You got a point.. I guess I just see it as an overall trend outside of Bond even.. M:I and the slew of tv shows involving an agent of sorts where there is a team always helping whether directly or indirectly, and they all have a hand in taking down the baddie at the end.... It's fine every now and then, but too much if that I feel devalues what makes the main or titular agent special.

    You've sort of strengthened your own point above and that's that despite Cruise being the main focus of the MI films, the original TV series and then movies were about a team concept, which they've gotten back to with specialists contributing their expertise to ensure a mission's success.

    It is funny how the MI films get bashed for not featuring a team like the TV show, and they also get used to bash other movies because they have a team structure in them :D
    BT3366 wrote: »
    The thing is about the Mi6 team concept, in the classic days we looked forward to appearances and in some cases those were limited to 1 interaction in some cases. Think DAF where M's only appearance is right after the credits and MP gets about 30 seconds of screen time or LALD when M and MP visit Bond for his briefing right after the credits and no Q.

    But also people absolutely loved Q's extended appearance in LTK. So it's a bit of both really.
    Certainly I enjoyed it when they used Dench a bit more because she was excellent.

Sign In or Register to comment.