53 replies to this topic

[delfloria]

I've seen them all first run since Goldfinger and never thought I'd say this. I love Q and Moneypenny but while Craig is Bond they should keep with the characters they have established in CR and reintroduce Q and Moneypenny when a new Bond actor takes over. (Runs for cover.)

[Cody]

I love Q and Moneypenny but while Craig is Bond they should keep with the characters they have established in CR and reintroduce Q and Moneypenny when a new Bond actor takes over. (Runs for cover.)

I'm starting to think the same thing. I'm not really looking forward to a return to the same old routines.

[DaveBond21]

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree. They're part of the fundamental basics in much the same way there'll always be a Lois Lane and an Alfred.

Yep. How many things do you have to take away before he stops being Bond? How about we lose the tuxedo, exotic locations, Bond girls, and vodka martinis.

And he starts working for the CIA. In New York.

[tdalton]

I wouldn't be upset if either character never returned to the series. While watching Casino Royale, I never found myself thinking "Where's Moneypenny and Q?" If the can play an essential part in the film, then bring them back, but if they're there just to be there, then I'd rather them be left out.

[00Twelve]

I think I just prefer to see Boothroyd and Moneypenny as options for each film instead of priorities.

[JCRendle]

Why not give Moneypenny's job to Loelia Ponsonby and have Q's character just a MI6 technician from Q-Branch, maybe call him "Major" or just Boothroyd.

[DaveBond21]

While watching Casino Royale, I never found myself thinking "Where's Moneypenny and Q?"

I did.


Mainly because they had people in the movie in their place!


(namely Villiers and the Armourer guy).

[triviachamp]

I wouldn't mind them never returning.
What is the purpose of Moneypenny anyway? No titilation, no plot function, no humor so why is she there again?

Q: the whole repressed hostility got old 40 years ago, not to mention he hasn't been funny in years either.

[Moore Baby Moore]

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree. They're part of the fundamental basics in much the same way there'll always be a Lois Lane and an Alfred.

Alfred is essential. Lois Lane is not, especially the way she's been handled in the past decade or so. Superman can always get a new and better girlfriend. But Alfred is Batman's father (so to speak). He's a totally different ball of wax.

As for Q and Moneypenny...if they have a function to serve in the given story, then use them. If they serve no function and the story works better without them, then leave hem out. Simple as that.

[dodge]

I'd so love not to see 'em for a good while longer. In fact, I was delighted by the brisk but cheery Brit who stitched the tracker in Bond's arm. Let him bring the gadgets or someone like him. No more silly, tired foolery. As for Moneypenny...We've had forty years of her too. That's long enough for any gag.

[DaveBond21]

I would like to see MI6 have some real accents in there - we're not all snobby toffs you know!


I bet half the people in the real MI5 are from the North or the Midlands. It's certainly the case with government, so let's have that reflected in the Bond movies.

[Publius]

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree. They're part of the fundamental basics in much the same way there'll always be a Lois Lane and an Alfred.

Lois Lane is dispensable. She's to Superman what Moneypenny is to Bond; that is, crossed the line from interesting to uninteresting decades ago (okay, so Lane was never even the former...), and is now just downright annoying. If either never sees the light of day again, good riddance.

Lex Luthor is analogous to Blofeld, which is to say they both should have been finished off in the 70s, and now simply be excised from their respective franchises forever. Nothing but tired examples of nostalgia and formulaic safety getting in the way of good, imaginative stories.

I'd say Alfred is to Batman what Q is to Bond. He's become old hat and is in need of a break, but there's still some hope for what is at the core a charming character who usually plays off the protagonist in an amusing way. Bring him out every so often, but make him serve a purpose, and drop the comic relief in favor of some natural, situational humor dependent upon the contrasting personalities.

M is by far the most important peripheral character to the mythos of his/her particular series, and we've even lived without him/her before (and for one damn good film at that), so that goes to show we can get by just fine without. Hell, use the attempted assassination sub-plot of TMwtGG, or at least do something similar, and we can probably milk it for a good plot thread while showing a willingness to sacrifice a "sacred cow" in the process.

Yep. How many things do you have to take away before he stops being Bond?

The only thing you need for it to be Bond, is Bond. The legend is about the man, not his "support network" back home, or even the cliches about the man (e.g. tuxedos everywhere). I'll watch Mission: Impossible and X-Men for ensemble performances, and Bond, Batman, etc. for the adventures of lone superheroes taking on villains and threats on their own and by themselves if need be.

[DanMan]

I wouldn't mind if they didn't return. Hell I hope he doesn't wear a tux in Bond 22 either. Or order a vodka martini "shaken not stirred". Come to think of it, it would be pretty refreshing not to hear "Bond... James Bond either". Connery didn't rele on cliches, Craig shouldn't either.

[bill007]

I wouldn't mind if they didn't return. Hell I hope he doesn't wear a tux in Bond 22 either. Or order a vodka martini "shaken not stirred". Come to think of it, it would be pretty refreshing not to hear "Bond... James Bond either". Connery didn't rele on cliches, Craig shouldn't either.

Well, let's just chuck the gun and the girls, and call it, "Holiday destinations with an Enlgish guy."

[DaveBond21]

Well, let's just chuck the gun and the girls, and call it, "Holiday destinations with an English guy."

LOL - haven't you heard that they're gonna make him an American guy who never leaves his house?

[DanMan]

Connery didn't order the drink in FRWL, he never wore a tux (his imposter doesn't count), and he never says the famous introduction. Would you call that "Holiday destination with an English guy"?

[bill007]

The tux and the introduction were in Dr. No. The drink order came in Goldfinger. Your wish to eliminate most of the cliche's simply warrants an English Jason Bourne. Sure, CR is a new direction, but let's not strip the franchise of everything.

[DanMan]

The last thing I would want is for Bond to turn into Bourne. I LOATE the Bourne movies. What I'm trying to say is, at least for Craig's tenure let's shake thing's up a little bit. He wore a tux for half of CR, so let's give it a rest in Bond 22. In the novels, Bond didn't order a martini everywhere he went, he would drink whatever was good in that specific locale.

And he didn't say "the line" in FRWL or TB. Do you consider those films "english Jason Bourne" films?

[tambourineman]

I think I just prefer to see Boothroyd and Moneypenny as options for each film instead of priorities.

I agree 100%. I want them back (but no Cleese. Good as he was, he doesnt suit the new world of 007). But I dont think their neccessary for every movie. I didnt miss them in CR. But I do hope that they do come back.

[bill007]

DanMan...

Ok, ok. I misinterpreted you initial direction as relinquishing all that is dear for an extended period of time, if not longer. I see what you mean, though.

I also became a bit tired of the repeated use of the drink order over the last few films.

Edited by bill007, 20 December 2006 - 04:15 AM.

[DanMan]

I probably should of made it clearer in my posts. I also wouldn't want it to disappear for his entire tenure, I just think they should use the series' trademarks more sparingly than they have during the last decade or so.

[DaveBond21]

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but certainly in Britain, Q and Moneypenny are cult figures.

The reason Q came back in TMWTGG was due to complaints from the public about him being missing from the cast of LALD.

[bill007]

Well, let's just chuck the gun and the girls, and call it, "Holiday destinations with an English guy."

LOL - haven't you heard that they're gonna make him an American guy who never leaves his house?

Ooh yeah. Now there's a juicey plot theme. Bond, Bourne, and Jack Ryan stuck in a safe-house for the weekend.

[DaveBond21]

Well, let's just chuck the gun and the girls, and call it, "Holiday destinations with an English guy."



LOL - haven't you heard that they're gonna make him an American guy who never leaves his house?



Ooh yeah. Now there's a juicey plot theme. Bond, Bourne, and Jack Ryan stuck in a safe-house for the weekend.

Wait til you see the comic relief - he has a robot monkey called Grub.

[JimmyBond]

Lets see:

-Bond never wore a tuxedo in FRWL, YOLT, or LALD.

-With one exception, Bond never fired a gun in either DAF or MR

-Connery only uttered his line in three of his films.


I could go on, but just because all of those things became cliche's over the last 20 years, doesnt mean we have to keep them. I wouldnt mind seeing Bond just wear suits this time around (if the situation calls for it). I also don't want to see him ordering a martini just for the sake of it.

And as for the gun? Let's not get rid of it, it's a part of the character now. But for goodness sakes, he doesnt have to grab a machine gun just for the hell of it, I could probably count on my fingers the number of time Bond relied on a gun in CR, I'd like to see that continue.

[DaveBond21]

And why do people always think I'm joking when I say he should have a robot dog?

[moorebond82]

I think of them to much as a tradtion and traditions should be upheld.

[Moore Baby Moore]

Lois Lane is dispensable. She's to Superman what Moneypenny is to Bond; that is, crossed the line from interesting to uninteresting decades ago (okay, so Lane was never even the former...), and is now just downright annoying. If either never sees the light of day again, good riddance.

Lex Luthor is analogous to Blofeld, which is to say they both should have been finished off in the 70s, and now simply be excised from their respective franchises forever. Nothing but tired examples of nostalgia and formulaic safety getting in the way of good, imaginative stories.

Something that bears mentioning about Lois Lane...she's been portrayed as emotionally abusive to Superman (with only occasional breaks where a creative team tries to buck the trend--Kurt Busiek and Richard Donner being the current case in point), and at one point was ready and willing to jump another guy's bones as soon as Superman was presumed dead (Jeb Friedman in the "death of" story). And her depiction in Superman Returns wasn't much better; she didn't seem to care about her fiance or her son very much, coming off as "me me me" more than anything else. (Then again, she she was a total jerk in the Richard Donner re-edit of Superman II, so I guess it's just par for the course.) Her character is simply unappealing at this point, and well beyond salvage.

As for Lex Luthor...the main problem I see with him is the fandom's refusal to let the character be made fresh and new. They've screamed bloody murder over his being evolved away from his untouchable Iron Age-era Donald Trump phase, and they refuse to accept anything other than that. I don't think going back to the mad scientist motif is the answer, either, but he NEEDS to be taken down a new road to stay relevant. Making him an Osama Bin Laden-style terrorist with a technological bent would be a good way to go, and playing up his anti-alien bigotry (vaguely hinted at in the past) would make him a nastier, creepier character. Otherwise, if he's only going to stay stuck in a rut as the fandom so desperately wants, then yeah, cut him loose.

I have a feeling we're going to have to spin this discussion off into a Superman thread in the off-topic forums....

I think of them to much as a tradtion and traditions should be upheld.

I think of them as having no right to be in the films unless they serve a purpose to the storyline in question. {Expletive} tradition. I want quality, and if it means kicking Q and Moneypenny to the curb, so be it.

[rafterman]

I don't want them to leave, but they shouldn't be shoehorned in. Brosnan's films tended to do that with lots of conventions, the token Moneypenny flirting, the Q scene that wanted to be Goldfinger's. I'd like to see Bothroyd, not Q and maybe a young Moneypenny, but only if needed. Really a return by Mathis and Felix would be more in line right now.

[dee-bee-five]

I would like to see MI6 have some real accents in there - we're not all snobby toffs you know!


I bet half the people in the real MI5 are from the North or the Midlands. It's certainly the case with government, so let's have that reflected in the Bond movies.

I'd prefer not to watch a bunch of unwashed scallies in Bond movies, thank you very much. Like The Avengers, Bond movies shouldn't even acknowledge the existence of the working classes (actually, I pretty much try to deny their existence, too )

Being serious for a moment... as for Moneypenny and Q; I admit, I missed Moneypenny in Casino Royale and it was, in fact, my only real gripe with the film is that they replaced her with Villiers. It seemed utterly pointless. Oddly enough, I didn't miss Q at all and think a veil should be quietly drawn over the character.