36 replies to this topic

[Rik]

I for one would like to see the return of the characters of Q and Moneypenny to the Bond films. They were always a fixture in the novels as well as the past films.

I'm more than happy to see John Cleese carry on in the role of "Q" although I'm not sure if Samantha Bond should be brought back, I'm still undecided there.

[coco1997]

There is no way John Cleese nor Samantha Bond will be brought back to the EoN franchise.

[Rik]

You seem pretty sure of that one.

[mttvolcano]

You seem pretty sure of that one.

He's probably right about both. I know that when Daniel Craig was cast as 007, Samantha Bond said that was the end of her doing 007 anymore. As for John Cleese, yes i would like to see him back as Q. It's doubtful though.

[coco1997]

You seem pretty sure of that one.

It's simple. "Casino Royale" was a complete reboot of the Bond franchise, and although Judi Dench's M was inexplicably carried over, there was a reason Moneypenny and Q/"R" were discarded. If/when we do see them again, they will be played by different actors. And rest assured Moneypenny will be played by someone closer to Craig's age, but most likely younger.

[Righty007]

You seem pretty sure of that one.

Samantha Bond publicly stated that she would retire from the role when Pierce Brosnan did. Regarding Cleese, EON will not put a comedian in the rebooted series. It just wouldn't make sense on any level.

When the two beloved characters return, it will be with new actors. That's a fact.

[BoogieBond]

Agreed, I think the characters will return, but not the actors.
I am not sure whether we will get them as regular appearences though, I hope they are used sparingly, and perhaps not in every film.
I like both and think they could come back if and when needed. Sometimes Bond may go to Q-Branch to pick up equipment. Sometimes he may just smile and have a short conversation with Moneypenny on his way to M's office. You can include the characters without hedging 5 minutes of the film to these characters every time to stop the formulaic approach reoccurring.

[Gothamite]

Personally, I think it would be a shame if the speccy, out-of-place nerd who spoke exposition to Bond, Tanner and M for that brief scene in QoS wasn't Q. He was fine for the tiny role he had, which is all Q needs in these newer films.

That being said, there's nothing wrong with bringing the two back. There are plenty of examples throughout the franchise where they were used effectively in ways that defied the traditional formula (OHMSS for Moneypenny and LTK for Q, especially).

One possibility they could look at is to finally make Moneypenny an actual main love interest, as a field agent of sorts.

Edited by Gothamite, 18 January 2011 - 01:42 AM.

[James Bond Jr]

We need a Moneypenny. She is a great contribution to MI6, both diffusing M's gruff personality and being Bond's biggest cheerleader in the Service.

Q, I'm not as much excited about seeing replaced. I didn't like John Cleese as R or Q. Major Boothroyd is really a minor character who Bond doesn't really even care about in the books. And the Craig films seem grounded in the books. But then again, Craig's films seem pretty focused on spy gadgetry (tracking implants in his arm, the ridiculously high tech computer room in QoS, Bond's heart-restarting gadget)

Plus, the main selling point of Q was Desmond Llewelyn's one of a kind performance and chemistry with the young Bond actors. Don't bring him back unless they find someone so perfect for Q that it would be silly not to cast him.

[Rik]

Personally, I think it would be a shame if the speccy, out-of-place nerd who spoke exposition to Bond, Tanner and M for that brief scene in QoS wasn't Q. He was fine for the tiny role he had, which is all Q needs in these newer films.

ohhh I had forgotten about that guy. Good call

[Messervy]

I wouldn't mind Q returning, but then I'd like it to be as the armourer, and wouldn't want it to be an excuse for bringing back all those over-the-top gadgets. They were enjoyable (to a degree) in old Bonds, but that wouldn't fit in the current Bond trend.

As for the Moneypenny issue, I actually never understood why the movie-Bond never had his 00 section secretary, as in the novels. I think, if we're going to have Moneypenny "reintroduced" in the Craig era for the first time with Bond 23, that it would be interesting and original to have both Moneypenny and 00 section's own secretary. That would then answer the wish for a Monneypenny return and at the same time bring about some welcome new feature.

[Syndicate]

Maybe we could have a Q that a cross between Desmond Llewelyn and that one in Never Say Never Again, IF they really don't one with some humor, but it better to just get John Cleese back. All they have to change alittle of the humor to other kinds that not "Grow Up 007.", types. More of the dark comedy type humor for the Q and Bond scences I don't want to see a Q that close to the real world type spy movie character.

As for Moneypeny, they need to still have one that keep trying to date Bond one day. As for Samantha Bond, she made it clear when Pierce Brosnan leaves the role of Bond she would too on Miss Moneypenny. She had said that even before Die Another Day.

[SecretAgentFan]

I don´t know whether either character must be used again.

Q was the fun factor in the first 20 films, giving Bond technical equipment that seemed totally over the top in those days and which was unavailable to the general public.

Nowawdays, you can get almost anything on the internet which would have been a typical Bond gadget before. Yesterday I got a catalogue in the mail in which they offered a pen which also had a hidden audio-recorder, a video-camera and a speech-recognition device. The glasses with the video-camera were already old hat. Also, everybody has smart phones with the most outrageous apps etc. now.

What exactly could Q provide Bond with that would create the thrill and humor of the previous Bond era?

And just re-introducing a Q who gives Bond his weaponry... well, that seems a bit boring and pointless.


The MISS MONEYPENNY character seems to pose the same question. The secretary who has a crush on Bond but never actually gets to be his girl... well, we already had the variation of that with tougher and more self-confident Samantha Bond. That would work for Craig, of course, as would the return to the Lois Maxwell-flirty kind of woman. However, does the Craig era really need that? No.

So, IMO, both characters could easily be left out of the further Craig movies. They are just relics for nostalgia-driven fans.

Having said that, maybe EON will come up with a really good reason to bring back both characters.

Personally, I would like to see a MISS MONEYPENNY who is an agent herself, working as a liaison for Bond, having a fling with him again and again but not more.

And right now I could imagine a Q who is not giving Bond any gadgets but another field agent who is the tech guy, doing all the stuff Bond is not an expert on.

[Guy Haines]

I think Moneypenny could return, and in this retcon/reboot era we might see 'Penny at the start of her career just like Bond. Also, didn't Bond himself have a secretary named Loelia Ponsonby, in the early books? Why not introduce both, and add a bit of typing pool rivalry for 007's affections?

As for Q, I would prefer Craig's Bond to be armed by Major Boothroyd, or the Quartermaster, or the Armourer. Desmond Llewellyn's Q was a character in its own right, and right for its times, but probably not for this era. The temptation would be for the film makers to cast some acting eccentric or comedian as Q, and if the Craig style of Bond film continues with 23 such casting of Q would stick out like a sore thumb.

[Baccarat]

John Cleese was abysmal in his outings as Q; Basil Fawlty demonstrating the invisible Aston Martin in DAD was just about the creative nadir of the entire franchise. And although a very talented actress, Samantha Bond was sadly relegated to delivering some of the worst of the one-line innuendos that marred much of the Brosnan era ("cunning linguist...you'll have to decide how much pumping...I trust you'll stay Onatopp of things...").

I for one am glad to see the back of Q and Moneypenny. I enjoyed both characters immensely in the Connery films, and there was the odd moment or two of glory after that. But neither have any place in the Craig era. I've been a Bond fan for as long as I can remember, but I'm glad that CR and QoS stripped Bond down to some semblance of the character that Fleming created, and Connery played so convincingly in the first four films.

Edited by Baccarat, 19 January 2011 - 12:42 AM.

[jaguar007]

I don't see the need for either. Neither Boothroyd or Moneypenny were really fleshed out characters in the books, Q and Moneypenny became so loved because of Desomond Llewlyn and Lois Maxwell. Neither John Clesse, Caroline BLiss or Samantha Bond ever brought anything that appealing to the table.

[Messervy]

And right now I could imagine a Q who is not giving Bond any gadgets but another field agent who is the tech guy, doing all the stuff Bond is not an expert on.

That's an interetsing idea indeed. Actually, Q as a field operative (and sharing Bond's hotel room!) in LTK was a step in that direction. Only issue was, in my view, that Desmond Llewelyn was too old to portray an active field agent and was too associated with the "good old Q" in the audience's mind. But the idea remains valid.

Samantha Bond was sadly relegated to delivering some of the worst of the one-line innuendos that marred much of the Brosnan era ("cunning linguist...you'll have to decide how much pumping...I trust you'll stay Onatopp of things...").

My feeling also.

I enjoyed both characters immensely in the Connery films, and there was the odd moment or two of glory after that. But neither have any place in the Craig era.

and I felt the same in the Dalton era: Moneypenny is sadly restricted to a pointless faitherbrained feature in TLD.

[Publius]

And right now I could imagine a Q who is not giving Bond any gadgets but another field agent who is the tech guy, doing all the stuff Bond is not an expert on.

That's an interetsing idea indeed. Actually, Q as a field operative (and sharing Bond's hotel room!) in LTK was a step in that direction. Only issue was, in my view, that Desmond Llewelyn was too old to portray an active field agent and was too associated with the "good old Q" in the audience's mind. But the idea remains valid.

Although I've always liked that idea, my only concern would be people associating Q as Bond's sidekick, the Robin to his Batman, and then future debates about Bond movies wouldn't be about whether or not to have an Armourer character who provides Bond with weapons, vehicles, and gadgets, they would be about The Adventures of Bond & Q.

[plankattack]

The return of Q and Moneypenny? Why not, but, and for me it's a monster-sized but, it has to be done right. I don't have a problem with Bond and Q in "armoury scene hi-jinks" - I've got a problem with Q and Bond in "armoury scene hi-jinks" in every film. As someone else pointed out, Q in the field in LTK was the character in a different situation, on it's own a refreshing change. The GF Q-briefing is one of the highlights of the series, terrifically played by both actors - unfortunately the series decided to try and repeat that scene, ooooh, in pretty much every film. I think the same can be said of Moneypenny, another character reduced to a stereotype because there was no effort made to do anything beyond repeating what had been done before.

Moneypenny and Q can return, but if it looks like it's looked over the last forty-nine years, then it really is a waste of time. The franchise can no longer expect to be successful if it takes on the role of annual pantomine (same jokes every Christmas) rather than a story that evolves and moves along. I don't think same old, same old, is the way to move forward.

NSNA is notable for the way it handled the two characters (Q with more success than Moneypenny) - they had to be different from what was playing on the "other channel" so to speak. And IMHO, Alec McGowan's Q scene is as good as any in the series - fresh, memorable, and yet fitting in with the rest of the film.

[Stainless Steel Teeth INC]

But if the producers were to cast either of these characters in the same manner they approached the casting of Craig then perhaps Q & Moneypenny might also be invigorated and offer a new dynamic to the Bond films.

As has already been mentioned the traditional role of Q seems rather outdated or even quaint in todays gadget filled world. The idea of Q as a field agent is great but it might also work if the character was not only responsible in 'arming' the 00's but also involved in their mental & physical training. That in itself could offer more story potential than brief comic relief.

As for Moneypenny, perhaps the character could be revealed to be more than just a secretary/PA. As assistant to the head of MI6 she might have previously had a military background, skilled in linguistics, negotiations, tactics and therefore offer M an ideal 'sounding board' in difficult situations if required. She might even act as bodyguard and 'last line of defence' in the protection of her boss.

I feel there is plenty of mileage left in both of these characters and they could quite easily fit into the Craig era if the producers are prepared to confound peoples traditional expectations all over again.

[James Bond Jr]

I think both characters should be rebooted to their Connery versions. Instead of comic relief, Q should be a job annoyance and Moneypenny should be a romantic co-worker who keeps Bond feeling appreciated at MI6. They can give them more important parts in the story or new things to do, but they should stop being clowns.

The field agent idea would be cool, but I don't want the Craig era to be labeled as the "Everyone's more tough" era Plus, this would add way too much screen time to both characters. I prefer when the characters had very tiny cameos like in DAF or Monneypenny in LALD. They do their job and leave.

I do think that Q is still necessary in a tech-savvy world. Gadgets seemed unrealistic and corny long ago, now they are one of the more fashion-forward elements of the Bond mythology. Modern Bond villains would have more access to high price, underground technology than any past villains. 21st century Bond should HAVE to have and use gadgets to survive.

[Pussfeller]

As long as Dench-M exists, it won't make sense to have any other major MI6 personality. She's too much of a presence. When the time comes to hire a new M, that would be the time to reintroduce Q and Moneypenny, so that all three characters will begin their existence as an evenly-matched trinity. They might even wait until the end of Craig's tenure, so that the entire MI6 ensemble would be recast at the same time.

[Kreivi von Glödä]

I think and hope that we'll get a new M before the end of Craigs tenure. Bond 23 will probably be Dame Judis last Bond. Maybe new Q and Moneypenny will appear with the new M (which hopefully is a male naval admiral-type character).

[Zorin Industries]

Bond 23 will probably be Dame Judis last Bond. Maybe new Q and Moneypenny will appear with the new M (which hopefully is a male naval admiral-type character).

Really? Why?

[Kreivi von Glödä]

By the time of Bond 24 Dame Judi will be 80, she's getting really too old to be believable (even within flexible realism of Bond) as the head of MI6. Sure, she doesn't look that old, but still. In general I do like her in the role but I'd like to see Bonds boss to be more of Bernard Lee-type now when they've returned to the spirit of Flemings novels and early films. Bond doesn't need to be mothered but let loose!

Edited by Kreivi von Glödä, 09 February 2011 - 10:09 PM.

[DCI_director]

I to am ready to see the return of Q and Moneypenny. It's time. I however do want Q to give Bond gadgets that Q branch and other intelligence agencies would develop and not just gadgets that every civilian has like an ipod or phone. Don't forget the CIA and the KGB back in the Cold War really did make gadgets that could kill people like a cigaret gun or a cyanide pen. Only intelligence agencies would have those. I would like to see the return of those types of gadgets. I don't need to see something like a jet pack, but I wouldn't mind a car with a few missiles in them.

[jaguar007]

I want to see Q give Bond a new gadget, and Bond pulls out his iphone and says that he already has an app that does that and more Just kidding.

I mentioned in another thread that to me, the reason Q and Moneypenny were so loved was because of Llewlyn and Maxwell. I don't think Cleese, Bliss or Bond ever brought the same chemistry to the roles. Besides Moneypenny and Boothroyd were much more minor characters in the books than they were in the movies.

[Matt_13]

I like what Feirstein did in the games and made Tanner a member of Q Branch. I think Rory Kinnear would serve as a perfectly reasonable Quartermaster.

[Stainless Steel Teeth INC]

Having just replied to a comment regarding the new Captain America movie in another section I recalled an actress in it who might make a good Moneypenny.



Natalie Dormer's biggest role to date has probably been as Anne Boleyn in The Tudors but she is starting to make a bigger name for herself now.

Who else do you think could take on the role of Moneypenny or Q when the time comes?

[TheREAL008]

What about original characters in place for Q and Moneypenny from now on in?

Q is irreplaceable. I don't think anyone on this planet deserves the role, or could do it justice the way Desmond had.

Moneypenny will always be Lois Maxwell to me.

Don't get me wrong, it would be interesting to see a new Q and Moneypenny. But out of respect to Lois and Desmond, as well as the first series; best to leave them and have new charactes for the new franchise.