Should Q and Moneypenny return in Bond 23?

[wdm0744]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately.

Obviously, Craig's Bond is certainly a more serious incarnation and some of the sillier aspects of the franchise, including Q and Moneypenny, have been purposefully exorcised.

However, with the formative chapter of Bond's character arc having been closed with "Quantum of Solace", is it time to return to more of the traditions of the franchise and include Moneypenny and Q in Bond 23?

What do you think?

Daniel Craig has said that he is not opposed to having the two characters return, but that he would want the producers to find the best actors possible who would then put their own stamp and unique twist on the characters.

I agree with Craig.

Desmond Llewelyn IS Q. John Cleese was a clever choice for a replacement, but I never felt like his version particularly worked.

Lois Maxwell, of course, played the part of Moneypenny quite well, even if the producers did keep her around past the point of properity. Samantha Bond did just fine, but she wasn't truly effective either.

So, if you think Q and Moneypenny should return, who do you think should play the roles?

I vote for Emily Blunt and Simon Pegg.

Blunt could work her icy performance in "The Devil's Wears Prada" into a "strictly business-like" Moneypenny that could slyly match Bond's playful teasing with witty repartee. I think she would be brillant in the role.

Pegg has already played a Q-like character in "Mission: Impossible III". He's obviously got the humor to play Q, but, most importantly, he would bring a humor that is completely unique from Llewelyn's. His relationship with Bond would be completely different.

Also, both the actors are young enough that they could stick with the franchise for a while.

Would do you guys think?

[TheLuckyOne]

Of the two, Moneypenny would be the easiest to work back into the more serious tone of Craig's Bond movies. There's nothing particularly esoteric about her, she's just a pretty secretary Bond likes to flirt with. I'd be happy to see her again.

Q's a tougher sell, because of the whole gadget thing. I think it could still work, but they'd have to tone down the zaniness- maybe just have him inventing relatively believable gadgets and expressing a dry wit, rather than clowning around with Bond and blowing up extras in the background.

-D

[StarOpal]

Nov 19, 2008 13:15:13 GMT -5 TheLuckyOne said:

Q's a tougher sell, because of the whole gadget thing. I think it could still work, but they'd have to tone down the zaniness- maybe just have him inventing relatively believable gadgets and expressing a dry wit, rather than clowning around with Bond and blowing up extras in the background.-D

But can we keep in Q being adored by an all female cabal of thieves posing as a traveling circus troupe?

[Al]

I got see Quantum of Solace a week or so ago, and YES, YES, A THOUSAND TIMES YES we need Moneypenny and Q back onboard.

I'm willing to accept them being absent so far, as this series has been about showing Bond evolve into the secret agent we all know and love. By this point, however, we've gotten the 'Bond, James Bond' and we've got him into a tuxedo and firing at the camera. By the end of the next film, we need a Q, a Moneypenny, and a scene where Bond sits in an office with M and receives a folder marked 'For Your Eyes Only.'

Also: I'd be totally happy if the next Bond film wraps up the 'Young Bond' idea and the franchise resumes as normal. Is that likely? No. But I can hope. I mean, I'm totally okay with The Quantum becoming the new SMERSH or SPECTER, but I want to start seeing a closer return to formula. They're getting there (at least this villain had a fancy hideout, even though it sucked), but Bond 23 will have to step it up from this one.

EDIT: I just realized how negative this post sounds. I actually enjoyed the movie quite a bit, I thought it was clever and fun and mostly kept a good pace. I'm just a creature of habit, what can I say.

[dex]

Nov 17, 2008 10:26:24 GMT -5 wdm0744 said:

Daniel Craig has said that he is not opposed to having the two characters return, but that he would want the producers to find the best actors possible who would then put their own stamp and unique twist on the characters.

I agree as well. And I read that as: they shouldn't feel tacked on. So apart from the style, as mentioned, we need to think about their function as well.

For Q, Drew said it. Let me just add that a snarky, sarcastic humour could fit a serious tone and dark characters quite naturally. His function is obvious--

But not Moneypenny's. So far, she provided comic relief and reminded us Bond was a ladies' man, in case it slipped our mind for 5 minutes. Strictly speaking, she was superfluous (but of course an enjoyable, irreplaceable part of the canon). Today, we should demand more from the script.

Consider Nikki in Bourne Identity (I'm not talking about the sequels). She had little screen time (still maybe a bit more than Moneypenny should have) and did not drive the plot. Yet she was integral to the movie. Moneypenny would need to gain some importance. Maybe have a subtle informal, but vital (for Bond) role in agency politics or operations? (In fact, she has on occasion acted like that, hasn't she?)

I vote for Emily Blunt and Simon Pegg.

You make a convincing point for both of them. Good idea!