116 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

If they bring back Moneypenny shouldn't she actually have you know, an actual purpose?

Should she? I don't know. Does Villiers (Moneypenny in all but name and gender) have one, particularly? Does the Moneypenny of Fleming have much of a purpose? Does Tanner? Again, I don't know, but the answer is probably "no".

Sure, Maxwell's Moneypenny was mostly just "pointless flirting", but even so the Eon films arguably managed to do more with the character than Fleming ever did. I'd like a new Moneypenny to be introduced with the same kind of backstory that Craig's Bond gets in CASINO ROYALE (albeit with much less screentime, obviously), i.e. not actually very much backstory at all (one of the remarkable things about CR is that the film seems much more of an origin story than it actually is), but a definite hint of something, y'know, quite interesting.

Still, I don't necessarily take the view that a future Moneypenny or Q must have a solid, plot-serving purpose or not be used at all. I don't see what's wrong with characters who are less important than other characters, or there just for a bit of comic relief or whatever. Neither is it a crime to have elements that are there purely to please "the fans".... as long as all these "secondary" or fannish things aren't overdone or drag the film down.

[triviachamp]

Should she? I don't know. Does Villiers (Moneypenny in all but name and gender) have one, particularly?

Well his dislike for Bond is new and answering the phone call and assisting M is much more than Moneypenny ever did in almost every film. Also so far there is yet to be a cliched ritualistic "Villiers insults Bond" scene.

Does the Moneypenny of Fleming have much of a purpose? Does Tanner? Again, I don't know, but the answer is probably "no".

Different mediums. Also Tanner was hardily ever used in the film series because he had little purpose.

Still, I don't necessarily take the view that a future Moneypenny or Q must have a solid, plot-serving purpose or not be used at all. I don't see what's wrong with characters who are less important than other characters, or there just for a bit of comic relief or whatever. Neither is it a crime to have elements that are there purely to please "the fans".... as long as all these "secondary" or fannish things aren't overdone or drag the film down.

These characters are so cliched and overused that bringing back just because they were always there is just more cliched formula. If CR was supposed to be a new direction why not actually go in a new direction?

[Royal Dalton]

If they bring back Moneypenny shouldn't she actually have you know, an actual purpose? At least have her actually do something as M's secretary, as supposed to have her there for some pointless flirting.

To be fair, we generally only see her when she's flirting with OO7. The rest of the time she's probably up to her eyeballs typing letters, answering the phone, and even doing the occasional bit of filing.

Anyway, former 'Hollyoaks babe' Elize du Toit would be a good choice for the new Moneypenny, if you ask me.

Not that you did...

[RogueSpy007]

Let's have a new Q and Moneypenny. Whether I liked them or not, we should have new people play those parts. I think they should be in the same age range as Craig. I would also like to see a new M. I think we should have had a new M in Casino Royale.

[triviachamp]

To be fair, we generally only see her when she's flirting with OO7. The rest of the time she's probably up to her eyeballs typing letters, answering the phone, and even doing the occasional bit of filing.

And that justifies pointless flirting how?

Villiers answered the phone and followed behind M in CR, more than Moneypenny did in almost every film.

[Royal Dalton]

And that justifies pointless flirting how?

What's pointless about flirting? It's a rather nice way of passing the time, IMO.

Villiers answered the phone and followed behind M in CR, more than Moneypenny did in almost every film.

He didn't type letters, or do any filing, though, did he?

Villiers wasn't M's secretary, anyway, so you can't compare the two.

[Santa]

I'm a traditionalist so I've always hoped Q and Moneypenny would come back, but entirely in a different form. It seems to me they were untenable as has been lately. I know it's bitchy, but Samantha Bond just didn't seem attractive enough, and to try and emulate DL, well, they were on a hiding to nothing there all along. I'd like to see them come back but the new Q needs to have his own character this time, as does Moneypenny.
As an example, the new MP could be very attractive, and I'd rather like to see Bond genuinely chase her and get turned down regularly. Realistically, these days her character would not be a simple secretary, she would be intelligent and ambitious and quite capable of holding her own against all kinds of debonair ladykiller. That could work for me. Having said that, I'm getting used to the idea of Villiers. It's a bit hard to judge after just CR but maybe an interesting dynamic between 007 and him could become apparent in the next one.
For Q I've previously suggested Eddie Izzard and I stand by that. Not as a copy of Desmond Llewellyn but, as others have said, the armourer. And not some blustery jobsworth either but a more louche, Bondlike character. I also think Daniel Craig and Eddie Izzard in particular could work well against each other. The other option of the kind of boy genius, like Mackenzie Crook, could work for me too. Either way, I think both Q and MP could be brought back and really work, as long as handled with care and not shoved in as part of a 'Bond checklist'.

[ACE]

Anyway, former 'Hollyoaks babe' Elize du Toit would be a good choice for the new Moneypenny, if you ask me.

She's smokin' hot and I've heard she's very professional to work with.
Well, she was very good in that film about dancing!
Yes, yes, come to think of it, Royal Dalton, good idea in a Caroline Bliss-ish sort of way

[Loomis]

Should she? I don't know. Does Villiers (Moneypenny in all but name and gender) have one, particularly?

Well his dislike for Bond is new and answering the phone call and assisting M is much more than Moneypenny ever did in almost every film. Also so far there is yet to be a cliched ritualistic "Villiers insults Bond" scene.

True, but the thing that annoys me about Villiers is that he could so easily have been Moneypenny, just as Jack Wade was Felix Leiter in all but name. Instead of using substitutes that fool nobody, why don't the filmmakers just use the old characters? Perhaps you'll say that it's because the old characters are clich

[supernova]

In response to John Cleese returning as Q - PLEASE NOOOOOOO!!!!!

[Royal Dalton]

Anyway, former 'Hollyoaks babe' Elize du Toit would be a good choice for the new Moneypenny, if you ask me.

She's smokin' hot and I've heard she's very professional to work with.
Well, she was very good in that film about dancing!
Yes, yes, come to think of it, Royal Dalton, good idea in a Caroline Bliss-ish sort of way

Yeah, and I imagine she'd enjoy flirting with Bond, ACE.

[supernova]

I'm a traditionalist so I've always hoped Q and Moneypenny would come back, but entirely in a different form. It seems to me they were untenable as has been lately. I know it's bitchy, but Samantha Bond just didn't seem attractive enough, and to try and emulate DL, well, they were on a hiding to nothing there all along. I'd like to see them come back but the new Q needs to have his own character this time, as does Moneypenny.
As an example, the new MP could be very attractive, and I'd rather like to see Bond genuinely chase her and get turned down regularly. Realistically, these days her character would not be a simple secretary, she would be intelligent and ambitious and quite capable of holding her own against all kinds of debonair ladykiller. That could work for me. . .

Yes, but what would be the reason for her rejecting Bond? As a 00, Bond is an M16 rockstar and one would assume the ladies would be flinging themselves at him. For a young, unattached, heterosexual lady to reject an eager and pursuing Bond would be like a guy turning down a hot (pre skinny), come-hither Angelina Jolie. It's sort of unbelievable.

[Santa]

I'm a traditionalist so I've always hoped Q and Moneypenny would come back, but entirely in a different form. It seems to me they were untenable as has been lately. I know it's bitchy, but Samantha Bond just didn't seem attractive enough, and to try and emulate DL, well, they were on a hiding to nothing there all along. I'd like to see them come back but the new Q needs to have his own character this time, as does Moneypenny.
As an example, the new MP could be very attractive, and I'd rather like to see Bond genuinely chase her and get turned down regularly. Realistically, these days her character would not be a simple secretary, she would be intelligent and ambitious and quite capable of holding her own against all kinds of debonair ladykiller. That could work for me. . .

Yes, but what would be the reason for her rejecting Bond? As a 00, Bond is an M16 rockstar and one would assume the ladies would be flinging themselves at him. For a young, unattached, heterosexual lady to reject an eager and pursuing Bond would be like a guy turning down a hot (pre skinny), come-hither Angelina Jolie. It's sort of unbelievable.

Darling, we women aren't stupid. She could quite feasibly turn him down - maybe she's not the one night stand type and knows what Bond is like, sex for dinner, death for breakfast () and it's not for her. She may be worried she'd catch something, after all, you never know where Bond has been. Or maybe she doesn't want to lose her job and I can't quite see M standing for it. Plenty of women find the confident/arrogant type a complete turn off. You may be at the mercy of your hormones, but an intelligent woman is quite capable of turning him down. I'll add here that I'm clearly not one as I certainly wouldn't turn him down.

[triviachamp]

Well, I know they're different mediums, but are you saying that it's okay for Fleming's Moneypenny to have practically no real role but not for Eon's?

Well in books you have to describe pretty much everything so there is more leeway for useless characters. Fleming describes M's office in pretty much every book and that includes his secretary. He also describes Bond's flat and his maid but we never have seen this (with few exceptions) because they are not necessary to the films. Also we have hardily ever seen Bond's office because it is not relevant so no Loelia Ponsonby. Get what I mean?

[Loomis]

Yes. Fair points.

[Blofeld's Cat]

They could have had Q in Casino Royale doing the homer injection scene, but by having some nondescript MI6 bod doing it it could be an indication that Q won't figure in too much in Bond's "new" world.

[Santa]

Or maybe to mark a dividing point between old and new Q? In that he will be coming back but they want to make it clear that he is not John Cleese or Desmond Llewellyn, put some distance between them?

[Gabriel]

There's no way in hell these characters should return! They're pointless indulgences whose appearances dragged the opening of the movies to an utter standstill!

We already saw what was obviously a modern Q branch at work in Casino Royale: a branch of hackers, medics and other experts on 24-hour stand-by to assist agents in the field. And why would the head of Q Branch brief Bond on the equipment for his assignment? Surely the technicians who designed the equipment would take him through the usage of it?

Casino Royale's usage of the 'Q Branch' was believeable in the context of its world.

As for Moneypenny, Bond just saw Vesper kill herself. M has Villiers as her PA now. Indeed M was probably only as involved with Bond as much as she was in Casino Royale because he was a new recruit. If Bond needs any information, M will send it to him via Villiers to Bond's secretary: all stuff we don't need to see.

I want to see a Bond film about Bond doing espionage stuff, not performing the same old boring lines from the old MI6 sitcom.

Q and Moneypenny have had their day. Leave them in peace!

[triviachamp]

They could have had Q in Casino Royale doing the homer injection scene, but by having some nondescript MI6 bod doing it it could be an indication that Q won't figure in too much in Bond's "new" world.

Well if Q injected the homer then he would have to have some useless banter with Bond, just like old times! (I don't know why he would expect a homer to be back one piece but he would have to think that! ) Otherwise there would not be much of a point of having John Cleese appear for a few seconds and say nothing. This is what led to the problem in the first place!

They could have Moneypenny be a faceless extra outside M's office but there would not be much of a point to that would it?

See if Q and Moneypenny are in the movie then they have to have a few minutes screentime and some dialogue with Bond. However their scenes serve little purpose and the dialogue isn't funny so we have wasted a few minutes to bad humour because it was funny 40 years ago. That is my problem with these two characters.

[Santa]

But what if the dialogue were genuinely funny? I think it could be done.

[triviachamp]

But what if the dialogue were genuinely funny? I think it could be done.

A tall order. And their scenes will still be useless.

[Santa]

But what if the dialogue were genuinely funny? I think it could be done.

A tall order. And their scenes will still be useless.

Maybe, maybe not. If that were the case then I wouldn't want them back either but the film needs a whole cast of characters, not just Bond, M, the villain and the girl and I don't see any problem with some of those characters being Q and MP but under the very strict condition that they are well written so their scenes are not useless filler.

[Royal Dalton]

Of course they'll be back. No need to panic, Q and Moneypenny fans.

[RazorBlade]

There's no way in hell these characters should return! They're pointless indulgences whose appearances dragged the opening of the movies to an utter standstill!

We already saw what was obviously a modern Q branch at work in Casino Royale: a branch of hackers, medics and other experts on 24-hour stand-by to assist agents in the field. And why would the head of Q Branch brief Bond on the equipment for his assignment? Surely the technicians who designed the equipment would take him through the usage of it?

Casino Royale's usage of the 'Q Branch' was believeable in the context of its world.

As for Moneypenny, Bond just saw Vesper kill herself. M has Villiers as her PA now. Indeed M was probably only as involved with Bond as much as she was in Casino Royale because he was a new recruit. If Bond needs any information, M will send it to him via Villiers to Bond's secretary: all stuff we don't need to see.

I want to see a Bond film about Bond doing espionage stuff, not performing the same old boring lines from the old MI6 sitcom.

Q and Moneypenny have had their day. Leave them in peace!

I wholeheartedly agree.

[JLaidlaw]

I didn't quite see Q coming back myself, but a poster up the thread suggesting Jason Isaacs or Sam Neill has made me think of a Q who was once a Double-0 (Though preferably not 007) wounded and put out of action, bitter and resentful of Bond's carefree attitude to his life. It could even lead to some sort of minor scuffle between the two, though aside from a couple of minutes of pointless drama I'm not sure whether it would achieve much. Maybe to underline the emotional damage of Bond's 'Just Another Kill' Life.

[MkB]

I didn't quite see Q coming back myself, but a poster up the thread suggesting Jason Isaacs or Sam Neill has made me think of a Q who was once a Double-0 (Though preferably not 007) wounded and put out of action, bitter and resentful of Bond's carefree attitude to his life. It could even lead to some sort of minor scuffle between the two, though aside from a couple of minutes of pointless drama I'm not sure whether it would achieve much. Maybe to underline the emotional damage of Bond's 'Just Another Kill' Life.

Nice ! I'd like something like that. Anyway, I still consider that, if the last Bosnan films were far too much over-the-top regarding gizmos (gosh, an invisible car... How did they buy it ???), gadgets are fully part of the Bond universe. It brings a kind of magic to the films :-) If well-balanced, a Q section and its Q[uatermaster] would be great.

[JimmyBond]

I flip flop on this more than John Kerry did during the debates (a bit late for a topical joke methinks ).

Anyways, right now I'm of the opinion that we really don't need to see much of MI6 period. How about a film where Bond begins already on assignment? Through dialogue we can learn about Bond's current mission.

[MkB]

Anyways, right now I'm of the opinion that we really don't need to see much of MI6 period. How about a film where Bond begins already on assignment? Through dialogue we can learn about Bond's current mission.

It would not fit well with the traditional pre-title sequence, which is usually not directly linked to Bond's principal assignment during the movie, would it ?

[JimmyBond]

Anyways, right now I'm of the opinion that we really don't need to see much of MI6 period. How about a film where Bond begins already on assignment? Through dialogue we can learn about Bond's current mission.

It would not fit well with the traditional pre-title sequence, which is usually not directly linked to Bond's principal assignment during the movie, would it ?

I feel with Casino Royale they pretty much threw tradition out the window. I'm expecting new things with this film.

[Gabriel]

It would not fit well with the traditional pre-title sequence, which is usually not directly linked to Bond's principal assignment during the movie, would it ?

Screw 'tradition!'

'Tradition' wrecked the Bond franchise! I'd love to start off a movie with Bond mid-mission. Every Bond film should try something new and different! The old Bond film series was like a snowball on a mountain. Initially, things were small and contained, with Bond getting his orders and heading out. By DAD, the whole MI6 sitcom/soap, with its predictable clich