220 replies to this topic

[stamper]

Rachael Stirling will be Moneypenny. You can bet on it.

[Captain Tightpants]

Rachael Stirling will be Moneypenny. You can bet on it.

And you're basing this on what, exactly? Her acting credentials? Gut feeling? Or because she's the daughter of Diana Rigg?

[Joe Bond]

I wouldn't mind for Moneypenny or Q to come back as long as they are not forced into a story and they are portrayed in a new fresh way and I do agree with Harmsway about showing the backstory to the Moneypenny/Bond relationship. I wouldn't care if gadgets returned or not but if they did I would like them to be realistic and practical like Batmans gadgets in TDK and Batman begins or the ones in Fleming novels. I also think it would be interesting idea to have Bond initially hating gadgets because it makes him feel Mi6 doesn't trust or respect his abilities and gets rid of them as soon as he gets them and he would eventually gain respect for them as being a last option if he can't do anything else. I also think it would be a nice idea to have a gadget malfunction when Bond needs it the most like a situation where he can't use his wits to beat the baddie but if forced to use his adrenaline. These are just ideas if they did bring gadgets back but I wouldn't mind if they didn't. As for actors playing these parts I don't really know but maybe Gary Oldman as Q or Emily Blunt as Monneypenny or just casts unknowns in the parts.

[Righty007]

Ema Watson for Monneypenny

Emma Watson for Mrs. Righty007.

[DamnCoffee]

Ema Watson for Monneypenny

Emma Watson for Mrs. Righty007.

What would Gemma say!?

[Righty007]

Ema Watson for Monneypenny

Emma Watson for Mrs. Righty007.

What would Gemma say!?

Good point. I guess Emma would have to be my girlfriend on the side.

[Union Bond]

I kind of agree with most of this thread. Unless Q and Moneypenny is well cast and needed, no need to have them yet.

But, if you are going to cast Q, Stephen Fry would be wonderful. Smart, witty, the actor himself has a love of all things Bond, and quite different from the previous Q's, in the same way Daniel is different from the other Bonds.

Edit - A quick thought. Quite a shame Gemma Arterton has already appeared in James Bond. Her portrayal of Agent Fields was quite similar to Moneypenny in some ways.

Edited by Union Bond, 04 November 2008 - 12:14 AM.

[MkB]

Edit - A quick thought. Quite a shame Gemma Arterton has already appeared in James Bond. Her portrayal of Agent Fields was quite similar to Moneypenny in some ways.

Exactly my thoughts! She would have been a perfect, fresh and witty Moneypenny.

[Publius]

They are the differences between Bond and Bourne. Bond is a traditional name. You cant change its parts that easily. I am not against the films with Craig and their aims. But as Craig stated they ARE going to comeback. Like the gunbarell the line etc.

Q and Moneypenny (and the gunbarrel, and the line, etc.) aren't "parts" of Bond. They're parts of the cliche Bond movie. 95% of any given Bond movie don't even feature those characters (or those elements). Are you suggesting that it's only distinctly Bond 5% of the time?

[tdalton]

They are the differences between Bond and Bourne. Bond is a traditional name. You cant change its parts that easily. I am not against the films with Craig and their aims. But as Craig stated they ARE going to comeback. Like the gunbarell the line etc.

Q and Moneypenny (and the gunbarrel, and the line, etc.) aren't "parts" of Bond. They're parts of the cliche Bond movie. 95% of any given Bond movie don't even feature those characters (or those elements). Are you suggesting that it's only distinctly Bond 5% of the time?

Excellent point. For me, the only essential piece that needs to be there in order to make a James Bond film is James Bond himself. I know that many would disagree, but I don't need "the line", the gunbarrel, Q, Moneypenny, "shaken, not stirred", or any of the other cliches that have become associated with the franchise in order to enjoy a film. I'd actually enjoy the films more if all of those cliches were dropped from the franchise altogether.

[Quantumofsolace007]

They are the differences between Bond and Bourne. Bond is a traditional name. You cant change its parts that easily. I am not against the films with Craig and their aims. But as Craig stated they ARE going to comeback. Like the gunbarell the line etc.

Q and Moneypenny (and the gunbarrel, and the line, etc.) aren't "parts" of Bond. They're parts of the cliche Bond movie. 95% of any given Bond movie don't even feature those characters (or those elements). Are you suggesting that it's only distinctly Bond 5% of the time?

Excellent point. For me, the only essential piece that needs to be there in order to make a James Bond film is James Bond himself. I know that many would disagree, but I don't need "the line", the gunbarrel, Q, Moneypenny, "shaken, not stirred", or any of the other cliches that have become associated with the franchise in order to enjoy a film. I'd actually enjoy the films more if all of those cliches were dropped from the franchise altogether.

keep the gunbarrel and i'll agree with you.



the rest don't need.

[tdalton]

keep the gunbarrel and i'll agree with you.



the rest don't need.

Of those that I listed, the gunbarrel is the only one that I'd miss at all, although I could do without it if EON decided to get rid of it. The rest of the elements, though, I don't particularly want to see them used in any future Bond films.

[sharpshooter]

The way these Craig films are plotted and paced, Q and Moneypenny are just not needed. After I saw CR, my friend just realised neither were in the film. They were not missed. Did their absence make it any less of a Bond film? Absolutely not.

[Mister E]

The way these Craig films are plotted and paced, Q and Moneypenny are just not needed. After I saw CR, my friend just realised neither were in the film. They were not missed.

Casual and non-Bond fans really wouldn't give a crap if they are gone. Their roles have never been important and the actors who made them enjoyable for people to love are gone, it's pointless to bring either character back.

[ElFenomeno]

but they are so much FUN ! i want them for bond 23. or at least Q or Moneypenny. Craig wants them too so it should turn out fine.

[double o ego]

Well yes they were good. If we had CR or QOS its because we had the other 20. Also as Craig stated he loves to have the "classic touch" back. There is no way that they can go with CR forever. The personal stuff is over. Back to mission and back to all the classics.

Why do people insist upon clinging to the past? Why does a Bond movie need Moneypenny or Q to be a classic? I don't see any answer to that question.

Because like you said, some people like living in the past and prefer past myths to dictate the outcome of future projects, which is why so many were/are/will be pissed off with QoS. Almost every negative review I've read say the same thing, there's no Q or moneypenny thus, it doesn't feel like a Bond film.
It's so sad and pathetic tbh.

[Joey Bond]

Alan Rickman for Q. You know it. I know it.

I'm certain he could deliver quite a scathing "Grow up, 007!"

That's actually a great idea!
I'm still sticking with Rachael Weisz for Moneypenny

[Aris Kristatos]

Im not overally fussed about Moneypenny and Q to be honest.

Although I'd rather the James Bond character still had some of his mannerisms. I know Craig is being different from the rest and is going in a different direction but no harm in him still saying the names bond, james bond.

You can change every thing about the films as much as you want but at the end of the day James Bond is still James Bond, and whoever the actor is whatever the film is. He is still the same character we've seen in all the films.

[BoogieBond]

I think others have mentioned in CR(Apologies if I am repeating their sentiments) you could add a couple of bits of dialogue and include the Q and moneypenny characters
When Craig has the chip implanted in his arm, just have M say, thanks Q, thats it. Also when Bond is poisoned, have the same actor present and have Craig say thanks Q at the end.

Have Villiers replaced by a PA called Miss Moneypenny.

I think a criticism some have is that, they drag the film down, and are not needed, but using the examples above, would they not fit in the new world of 007 ? No need for quips or long dialogue dragging the film down, also they would drive the plot forward as much as Villiers and the other characters did.
I was OK with them not appearing in the last 2, but some people miss the characters, so why not compromise and have them be part of the plot and also, perhaps not appear in every film, would that not be the way to have the cake and eat it too.

Edited by BoogieBond, 06 November 2008 - 04:43 PM.

[Cabainus]

keep the gunbarrel and i'll agree with you.



the rest don't need.

Of those that I listed, the gunbarrel is the only one that I'd miss at all, although I could do without it if EON decided to get rid of it. The rest of the elements, though, I don't particularly want to see them used in any future Bond films.

Im sure this appears in another thread somewhere, but what about the James Bond theme?

Supposing Bond 23 had no inclusion of this iconic theme at all, would anyone object so long as it still included the James Bond character?

Is it any more/less essential than a 'Martini shaken not stirred' reference or a gun barrel?

[Quantumofsolace007]

I think we should create a list of what we want and what we don't want in bond 23 lol

[Number Six]

Dylan Moran as Bernard Black as Q.

[dgibby]

I am a big Q fan. It is because of Q that I pursued my career into engineering and I now design equipment on behalf of a prime contractor for the Ministry of Defence!
If Q is to return in Bond 23 I think it would be a good thing and as Bond has been re-invented again as per CR then we should be introduced to him as Major Boothroyd from Q-branch. Gadgets? I agree - bit more difficult nowadays in the 21st century world of personal commercial gadgets like 3G GPS iPhone etc. But I think a loaded DBS with revolving number plates, guns, on-screen laser guided missiles could work. As for the actor - undecided.... Some good names touted- Alan Rickman especially. Even Mackenzie Crook has a certain "that could work".

[Daddy Bond]

I only want Q and/or Moneypenny back if they fit well into the plot of the movie and are not forced. I like the non-forced Bond elements in QoS so much, I only want the familiar elements if they flow naturally.

[dogtherock]

It is very depressing that Desmond Llewelyn had to die, may he rest in peace, and Daniel Craig has said he wants to reinvent the two characters. Who do you think should play them. Now this may sound crazy but i think that Mr. White should somehow become Q. I was watching QoS for my fourth time when i though "he would be a great Q". I dont know how EON would work it out though. Maybe he was a double agent for the americans or brits. i dunno. also wouldnt it kinda be cool to put a ton of make up on Pierce Brosnan and have him play Q? Just a thought. as for moneypenny i have no clue. Please post a reply on who you think should play the character.

[DaveBond21]

It is very depressing that Desmond Llewelyn had to die, may he rest in peace, and Daniel Craig has said he wants to reinvent the two characters. Who do you think should play them. Now this may sound crazy but i think that Mr. White should somehow become Q. I was watching QoS for my fourth time when i though "he would be a great Q". I dont know how EON would work it out though. Maybe he was a double agent for the americans or brits. i dunno. also wouldnt it kinda be cool to put a ton of make up on Pierce Brosnan and have him play Q? Just a thought. as for moneypenny i have no clue. Please post a reply on who you think should play the character.

First of all, it was bloody selfish that Desmond Llewelyn had to die. What was he thinking? He let all his fans down badly there.

Secondly, I agree Mr White should become Q, and Fields should come back as Moneypenny. Strawberry Moneypenny.

[Craig is 007]

If Moneypenny and Q would come back, I'd like to see them in another way than the one we know. Moneypenny could still be the flirty secretary, but in very brief scenes, like in the Dalton era. The Q scenes should be much more serious, not so many jokes etc. But since the new organisation is Quantum (Q), I think that the Q character should be called Major Boothroyd or just Boothroyd.

[sharpshooter]

Well, I'd like Q to be totally different. Not Major Boothroyd, somebody else. Then he/she can have a totally different personality. Probably something more in line with NSNA.

[double o ego]

No. Q needs to be Major Boothroyd and I'd like it if they refered to him as Boothroyd more often than they did in the past. As for his relationship with Bond, i'd like it to mirror the Q/Bond relationship in TB. It would be good to see Craig in a more relaxed, fun and school boyish attitude, which could make for some very intelligent comedy.

As for Moneypenny, keep the flirtation but not the OTT in your face antics of smantha bond's take.

[Fro]

Moneypenny's pretty easy to fix... up her rank and essentially make her undersecretary of the place behind M or at least have her in charge of coordinating operational support.

I see her as a Naomi Hunter in the first Metal Gear Solid game, or how Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles) is the Bourne series, with a little bit of a grown-up version of her namesake "Penny" from Inspector Gadget thrown in. Needs to be in Bond's ear helping him out and doing some computer hacking, etc.

Also needs a lot more sizzle, so she should be quite a bit more attractive than the last couple versions of the character.