53 replies to this topic

[Warpechowski]

What I really dont want to see is those characters inside a movie just for the sake of it. If there is a need of them, great, put them in. But creating an entire scene just to add those characters feel very cheap.

Anyway, if they are going to add Q or Moneypenny, I wish they change the characters. The whole deal of Q and Moneypenny wouldnt work in the new movies. I mean, in CR, there was not one moment where Bond went back to base to get the equipments or talk to M. In this world of technology, Bond doesnt need to go back to HQ anymore.

If they want to add Moneypenny in, they should make her a logistical suport woman, like those that helped him get rid of the poison. I mean, the idea of a team of specıalısts working 24/7 to help operatives all over the world is much more realistical and interesting than Bond having to rely on going back to HQ and getting the info/equipment needed.

Btw, what I really liked in this movie is that double-0 agents look like very competent agents who have enough freedom to do whatever needed. The way Bond just did everything possible to get the info, without information from HQ was quite amazing.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

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.)

But why would you reintroduce them at all in that case?

Sure Villiers was a stand-in for Moneypenny...but I don't feel any particular attachment to him. And there was no Q...so why not bring him back?

When it comes to established characters I think all you really need to worry about are Leiter (not using Jeffrey Wright again would be a bigger mistake than casting Halle Berry) and Mathis.

[dodge]

More than Q or Moneypenny, I dread the baggage they'll bring. They'll be like guests who just drop by and end up not just moving in but taking over the house. With Q we'll simply have to see more demos of gadgets in progress...more quibbling and bantering with Bond...etc. With Moneypenny what else will we get but the same old, same old ridiculous flirtations. Once all that is in the door, can the rest of all we hated be very far behind? It just won't be that far a jump for Dan to run into an idiot grandson of ole Sheriff Pepper. For at least Craig's tenure, let's lock the door and bar it tight.

[FlemingBond]

And can anyone really replace Desmond as Q?

[Gothamite]

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.

So untrue. Superman cannot function without Lois Lane. It's a simple, basic rule of the story. They're soulmates, from the very first story. Just because she hasn't been handled well in the comics doesn't make this an irrefutable fact.

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.

I agree, here. I don't think there'd be any harm in introducing Moneypenny as a standard secretary with a smaller function than before, but I don't think the series needs Q anymore. We loved Llewelyn, and he's passed now. There's no need to hire a new actor.

[Gere]

And can anyone really replace Desmond as Q?

Definitely not! Especially not after his remarcable scene in TWINE when he says "goodbye"

Edited by Gere, 20 December 2006 - 06:27 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

Whilst I do not strictly want to see the back of Q or MONEYPENNY, I do feel the series has moved on and shaved its deadwood - which as of Brosnan's last two efforts markedly included these two characters. I personally did not miss MONEYPENNY in CASINO ROYALE. The character of VILLIERS more than filled in the function of the role, if not quite the glamour and secretarial legs.

Q is not necessary at the moment. Gizmos and gadgets are all a bit 1965. The only real devices used by Daniel Craig were real machines with a narrative purpose. ROYALE marked the first point in the series for a long time where the screenplay was not signposted from the Q Lab scene onwards then shoe-horned around explosive ways to use those toys. Also, BOND's scenes with MONEYPENNY were more to do with the agent in the field returning to Universal Exports to report in. That is no longer necessary in an age of mobile phones, laptops and webcams.

We all have gadgets. We all have toys to communicate and protect ourselves with. A Baden-Powell esque quartermaster in BOND is not needed. This is 2006, not 1946. Furthermore, BOND's Angel Delight flirtations with a lady colleague are not needed either. I'm not knocking the escapist sexism of these MONEYPENNY scenes. I am though concerned about keeping elements and facets of a Bond film just because they have always been around. That is no reason to keep scenes that, to be honest, owe more to a 1959 colonial England than 21st Century film narratives.

It is surely no coincidence that CASINO ROYALE shelved its deadwood, was such an adept, skilled and bloomin' cool BOND film AND didn't feature MONEYPENNY or Q.

[Publius]

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

I could have just as easily run with that and argued why you must support every cliche in the book. After all, the slippery slope is a two-way street. Instead, let's all just commit to staying off it, shall we? I'd hate to have to start calling you guys dirty Communists for wanting to keep Bond stuck in a stagnant Cold War formula.

[K1Bond007]

I don't think it matters. Casino Royale didn't suffer at all from the loss of Moneypenny and Q. As I've said elsewhere, this is a good time to introduce Loelia Ponsonby instead of Moneypenny - I'd rather see that because it would be different and fresh for the films while still being true to Fleming. Moneypenny is such a 'been there done that' that the scene became a burden for the more recent films.

Also, I don't want the film version of 'Q' to return anytime soon. I'd rather have Fleming's version that was more realistic - as seen in the first couple of films (mainly DN and FRWL).

[Scottlee]

I'm afraid I've got to disagree with this one. Moneypenny and Q are characters who have become as essential to the Bond series as Bond himself. It worked to not include them in CR, but come Bond 22 I would definitely like to see them back. Hell, in the case of Q I would even like to see John Cleese return.

[yolt13]

I'm really surprised by some of the views of the Moneypenny and Major Boothroyd characters expressed here:

"Shoehorned in"?

"Guest stars"?

Of course, both of these characters are Fleming creations and, as such, belong in the films. But that notwithstanding, both serve vital functions in the stories, in both the practical and narrative senses. "Q" is the Quartermaster, the head of the armory and equipment section which provides all MI6 field operatives with their gear. Miss Moneypenny is the secretary to the head of the entire organization. To denounce these characters as "guest stars" who pop in and make glorified cameos is to ignore their practical importance in the operations of the British Secret Service. Further, these characters function in the stories as comic relief to lighten the tension of violent espionage drama, and to humanize the ruthless hero. If you take them out, they will be replaced with other characters who serve the same functions. And if you're going to replace all of the supporting cast, your just a small leap from replacing Bond himself as the protagonist and creating a completely different franchise. Why bother? Why not use the characters that Fleming created for the purposes they were intended?

[erniecureo]

I'm torn on this one. I like the old films immensely, and enjoy Monneypenny's and Q's contributions. But I also don't see how they'd fit into the more realistic Bond world we've received with the re-boot (at least in their traditional incarnations). I'm okay with their retirement, but as someone mentioned earlier, I'd also like to see Loelia and Boothroyd show up instead.

I always liked the occasional glimpses into the Secret Service headquarters (the phone room in Dr. No, M's office, Bond's office in OHMSS, etc.). It would be fun to see a few more as we move along.

[Dr. Noah]

Moneypenny and Boothroyd are in the books, but are nothing close to what the characters became in the films. I got real tired of the office sitcom banter that went nowhere by the end of 20 films, anyway.

And really, there IS a Moneypenny in the film -- there was just a sex switch, like with M.

M's a woman, Moneypenny's a man. Didn't hurt the film a bit.

[bonds_walther]

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.

I tend to agree. I didn't really miss them in Casino Royale. I feel that the Moneypenny/Bond scene at the end of Die Another Day kind of rounded off her role - even if it was virtual reality.

[stamper]

I agree, Q and Moneypenny.

I mean, the last time Moneypenny was interesting was in LTK, all Moneypenny appearances from YOLT to AVTAK were a traditional joke and wink, who appreciated seeing Lois Maxwell growing old ???

As for Q, his last good use was in LTK also, most of his diatribes are just lazy filmmaking to fill space for punters who want their recipe never to change. Thought I enjoyed seeing dear old Desmond, he should have been gone from the series eons ago. Bond (the original, not the joke the series became) was never about fixed tradition, but breaking the rules and boundaries and surprising people. And no one missed him in LALD either.

Anyway, we are surrounded by gadgets in real life now. Gadgets are part of our life, so there is no novelty thing about them, which Q had in the sixties. Q, let Craig shines, and the series be reborn, as opposed to embalmed.

PS I agree, let Desmond rest in peace

[Trey]

Desmond Llewelyn was Q.
Lois Maxwell was Moneypenny.

I really didn't care for John Cleese's "R", or Samantha Bond's Moneypenny (I know someone else played her, but I can't think of the name at the moment), but I think the series NEEDS at least a Q Branch. On the other hand, I honestly don't think Moneypenny would complement Craig's Bond very well, because Craig portrays Bond in a darker manner, and a flirtatious comic relief character really wouldn't suit him too well. Also, something about the interaction between Judi Dench's M and Samantha Bond's Moneypenny didn't really seem to click, and IMO, I'd MUCH rather have Judi's M than Miss Moneypenny.

Bring back a Q Branch, leave Moneypenny out!

[Gabriel]

If you have to bring them back, do something radical.

Make Moneypenny a 00-agent and the first woman Bond gets involved with after Vesper. She can be M's deputy in the Craig's third film!

And, since Boothroyd's a Major and a badass who knows enough about weapons to kill you in twenty different ways in less than a second, make him a former superior of Bond's in the SAS who had Bond sent to prison for a month for disobeying orders!!

[Moore Baby Moore]

So untrue. Superman cannot function without Lois Lane. It's a simple, basic rule of the story.

The fact that he can't function without someone who repeatedly proves time and again that she doesn't love him and would gladly turn her back on him is not an endorsement of Superman. If anything, it shows how spineless and weak-willed he's become. This isn't a virtue of the character, it's a failing that makes him look like an idiot. It also makes him look supremely immature that he can't function without a woman in his life. I'm sorry, but a Superman who goes around pounding on meteors and whining about how he "lost Lois" over and over again is a loser. I expect more of a backbone out of him.

They're soulmates, from the very first story.

HE thinks they're soulmates. Her actions prove otherwise. Just because he can't see himself with anybody else doesn't make it so.

Again, this reflects badly on Superman, because he's seeking to be loved by someone who's extremely selfish and callous. A hero who's a total doormat isn't what I want to see.

Just because she hasn't been handled well in the comics doesn't make this an irrefutable fact.

Superman was barely "dead" for a few days before she hooked up with a guy so sleazy that fans hated him from the off and DC made him a spotlight character to spite them. She's unwilling to cut him any slack for BEING Superman, chewing him out for doing his job, getting jealous when he has to help/rescue his co-workers, and trying to walk out on him for stupid and unsupportable reasons. Even in the Donner version of Superman II; she doesn't care about him. She spends most of her time trying to out him as Superman, even trying to do it in front of everybody at the Daily Planet! Then she uses blank ammo to trick him into exposing himself, which is beyond low. How is this a soulmate? She's doesn't love him. She doesn't respect him. She's been shown to be unaccepting of the fact that he's Superman and has greater responsibilities. This isn't a soulmate, this is an abusive spouse. This is actually worse than Moneypenny constantly mooning over Bond because it doesn't damage Bond himself as a character. Moneypenny may be a boring stooge, but Bond at least can keep his dignity. Lois robs Superman of anything remotely resembling dignity. She's an albatross now, a detriment to Superman than a necessary component. She's well surpassed Moneypenny and Q as dead weight, and if they can be sacrificed to make a better, fresher story, then so can she.

And this is the last I'll speak of this, because I don't want this thread to go any more off-topic than it already has.

[Moore Baby Moore]

double-post

Edited by Moore Baby Moore, 21 December 2006 - 12:15 AM.

[bill007]

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

I could have just as easily run with that and argued why you must support every cliche in the book. After all, the slippery slope is a two-way street. Instead, let's all just commit to staying off it, shall we? I'd hate to have to start calling you guys dirty Communists for wanting to keep Bond stuck in a stagnant Cold War formula.

The context was a mis-understanding between DanMan and I, where I thought his opinion was to eleminate the Bond film cliche's altogether. We were about to march-off 20 paces until we had a meeting of the minds. He actually meant": 'not every cliche in e-v-e-r-y movie.' Which I humbly agree with.

Being an old , I miss them (Q and Moneypenny) to some degree. However, with the current direction of CR, Villiers occupies the required M assistant slot. And Q is an entire group. My excitement over CR easily over-rides my nastalgia.

Edited by bill007, 21 December 2006 - 12:50 AM.

[Mr_Clark]

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.

Accept the CIA is located in Langly I think out of respect for Desmond, they shouldn't cast Q-Or unless they can cast someone properly and keep the gadgets down to a low, like one or two HELPFULL gadgets. I don't mind Miss Moneypenny.

[vicbond]

I feel The Quarter Master should come back only if bond has a direct need for him. Not to return for just (You know what"AKA POO") and giggles, he should have a purpose. For Miss Moneypenny, she should be back again only for a purpose as well. Not for a tounge and cheek sceen.

Edited by vicbond, 22 December 2006 - 02:58 AM.

[bleary_25]

I can't imagine Q returning to the franchise and playing the same "explainer" role that he did in the movies before now. I think one of the great things about this film is that the defibrilator is shown in the Aston Martin, but there's no explanation to what it is - until Bond needs to use it. Sure, someone probably explained it to him back at HQ, but did we need to see that? No.

I'm not adverse to an armourer character appearing, but I'd rather him be Major Boothroyd (the character name Q is an invention of the movies anyway, Fleming just had Q-branch) - and certainly not in the jokey way the film character was once used.

As for Moneypenny, as people have pointed out - she's been replace by Villiers. Have Villiers flirt with Bond. That I'd like to see. That's some unresolved sexual tension that will never get resolved!

And if Moneypenny must return, use her sparingly and for the sake of the plot. Not for the sake of "tradition" or as another mere artifact from the old films. She didn't play that big a role in the books, so clearly not as necessary as M.

[Agent Carter]

I didn't miss them either, but if they are part of the story plot fine, but not for formula sake.