retiring Q and sacking Miss Moneypenny

Lexi

This has just appeared on the glory that is the interweb....
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/entertainment/bond-producers-pension-off-q-miss-moneypenny_10016192.html

What do you think? Are they really going to get rid of these iconic figures? (seems a bit of a shame really, but I guess if they really are going in a new direction, then changes must happen) What do you all think?

DAWUSS

But time has moved on and to reintroduce them now would be to conjure up memories of the Roger Moore films, which many people believe, rightly or wrongly, are best forgotten.

Who are these "many people"? ?:)

Dan Same

Quite honestly, that article doesn't appear to be paricularly credible to me. Samantha Bond has said that Moneypenny won't be appearing in QOS; well, we know that. As for not appearing in future films, well, I'm not going to exactly trust some unnamed executive. I mean, if they truly have no regrets about killing off Moneypenny or Q, then why speak on condition of anonymity? Plus, is it possible to speak about Bond without sledging Moore?

darenhat

I really doubt EON would turn their nose up at Roger Moore or the films they made with him. The fact that the writer uses the term 'killing off' seems quite the bit of hyperbole.

The characters have their place in the series. That certainly doesn't grant them the 'right' to be in every film, but I don't believe the characters have outlived their usefulness.

cpoulos62

Q, Moneypenny and M are part of the Bond series as are the Bond Girls, gadgets and cars. While they may not appear in every film, it would be silly to kill them off. As far as I am concerned there will always be a Q and M and like in business and with government, ofter their tenure, they pass on to then next.

highhopes

DAWUSS wrote:

But time has moved on and to reintroduce them now would be to conjure up memories of the Roger Moore films, which many people believe, rightly or wrongly, are best forgotten.

Who are these "many people"? ?:)

Put me down as one of them. Don't get me wrong -- I enjoyed them the first time I saw them, but by Moonraker, they were best seen on videocassette. And once was enough. I just think it's a shame they wasted so many good novels on such lightweight fare.

yodboy007

I don't believe that article for a second. Look at the bottom of it where it has the related stories. They are all stories we have concluded to be bogus as well. They include "Craig signs on for four more 007 films" and "Craig to bare all for next 007 film". All B.S.

If by some sick, twisted farce that this is true, I don't know how much longer I will be watching the new 007 films. If the producers really think these iconic Fleming creations are "ghosts of the past", then I am just sad. They are institutions that are timeless and the fact that they can now be re-casted again makes them all the more interesting. I would love to see another actor's take on the role of Q. Desmond is the Sean Connery of Q. Just because he is gone does not mean we can't have more good ones.

I didn't like the crack on Sir Roger either. Had that man not taken in the role of 007, it is likely Babs would still be doing assistant director work for some crappy film production company and Mickey would actually be using his engineering degree making far less money. I'm not even sure if Cubby himself could have kept Bond going so long in the 1970s without someone like Moore. I find it highly unlikely that another actor would have had the intelligence, much less the talent, to create their own style and not rip off Sean's style. Roger made 007 his own. And that worked. Period.

"Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater". I love that quote. If EON understands that, perhaps I can continue to watch new 007 films.

DAWUSS

I think when the films return to the "self-contained format" (when us anti-rebooters can at least pretend the reboot never happened :v ) that most of the films have, there could at least be a reference to them, maybe Moneypenny is on leave or something like that.

Tilly Masterson 007

I don't believe that they have been sacked either.

Surely they would have said if they were officially "sacked" by now.

It seems that they are simply not using them for this film.....

00-Agent

I definitely think the credibility of the article is in question. I thought that Michael Wilson was questioned about this in the press conference and said that they would not be in this film but may be back in other future films. Is my memory that bad, maybe it is just wishful thinking on my part? I do miss Q and Moneypenny. For the life of me I do not know why people think that they cannot fit in with the new style of the films. They didn't detract from FRWL.

John Drake

00-Agent wrote:

I definitely think the credibility of the article is in question. I thought that Michael Wilson was questioned about this in the press conference and said that they would not be in this film but may be back in other future films. Is my memory that bad, maybe it is just wishful thinking on my part?

Your memeory is fine. Wilson implied they would return at some point, but not in QoS. This article is the usual speculation we get during the filming of a Bond movie. Personally I am looking forward to my favourite made-up story that always appears during filming, that Sean Connery makes a cameo appearance.

Smoke_13

highhopes wrote:

DAWUSS wrote:

But time has moved on and to reintroduce them now would be to conjure up memories of the Roger Moore films, which many people believe, rightly or wrongly, are best forgotten.

Who are these "many people"? ?:)

Put me down as one of them. Don't get me wrong -- I enjoyed them the first time I saw them, but by Moonraker, they were best seen on videocassette. And once was enough. I just think it's a shame they wasted so many good novels on such lightweight fare.

You're preaching to the choir here Double H. I am in 100% agreement with you. The 'Cookie Cutter' Bond films were good for their time, but sticking to a closer translation to some of the novels would have made for some truly great films. "Live and Let Die" done with the majority of the novel's bits would have been far more enjoyable story -especially the ending.

SpectreBlofeld

Not so much 'retired' as 'not yet hired'. This is supposed to be a reboot, remember? It's way too early to start falling back on the formula. The reason Star Trek's 'origin story' (Enterprise) sucked is because they kept introducing classic Trek stuff waaay too soon - Romulans, Klingons, the Borg, etc.

blueman

If at some point in the future EON deems fit to bring those characters back, then I'm sure they will. IF QOS is anything like CR, then they're building a great case for not bringing them back, at least for a while. And, if the tradeoff is a great Bond but with no supernumaries, well then twist my arm. :v

Lexi

yodboy007 wrote:

I don't believe that article for a second. Look at the bottom of it where it has the related stories. They are all stories we have concluded to be bogus as well. They include "Craig signs on for four more 007 films" and "Craig to bare all for next 007 film". All B.S.

After posting I went back to the site and have to agree that the other articles on there are all stories that turned out to be untrue, so I'm hoping like all of you that this is just another "rumour" or misinformation that we see on a daily basis.

I take it Cleese was a mistake in casting for Q? (although I thought he injected some humour into the movies, but sadly perhaps in the wrong place?) As someone who has not read (cowering in the corner with her hands over her head waiting for a right beating) any of the books I take it Q was never meant to be so farsical, and perhaps this is why they are giving Q a rest for a couple of films, so that they can re-introduce him as he was meant? Just a thought.

highhopes

Smoke_13 wrote:

highhopes wrote:

DAWUSS wrote:

Who are these "many people"? ?:)

Put me down as one of them. Don't get me wrong -- I enjoyed them the first time I saw them, but by Moonraker, they were best seen on videocassette. And once was enough. I just think it's a shame they wasted so many good novels on such lightweight fare.

You're preaching to the choir here Double H. I am in 100% agreement with you. The 'Cookie Cutter' Bond films were good for their time, but sticking to a closer translation to some of the novels would have made for some truly great films. "Live and Let Die" done with the majority of the novel's bits would have been far more enjoyable story -especially the ending.

Thanks for encouraging me, Smoke13. Being an old crank, I periodically agitate for remakes and I'm about due, so here goes: I didn't mean just to pick on Roger Moore. I'm re-reading You Only Live Twice, and it just kills me to think what a terrific film that one would have made ... and I haven't even gotten to the swordfight and Bond's amnesia. Just think what a modern art director and Hollywood magic could do with something as creepy as the castle and the Garden of Death; And of course, you'd have to follow that with the sequel, with Bond's brainwashing and attempt on M's life and last-chance-at-redemption mission against The Man with the Golden Gun. But why torture myself? By the time that happens, if it happens at all, some nursing home orderly will be wiping the drool off my chin as I stare blankly at the screen ... )

7289

Highhopes is right,

Having been a Bond Novel Enthusiast since the day I first picked up FRWL, my main gripe with the producers has always been their willingness to toss Fleming's novels into the ash heap, and replace them with something out of the cat box!

Q and Moneypenny were sadly misused as comic relief, and abused in that role as well. I would not object to Moneypenny's return as a desireable, but very professional secretary to M. What they did with Moneypenny in the PB era was offensive - especially her using the "holodeck" ... it was tasteless!

"Q" was never a book charecter, and I don't miss him or his tinkertoys. He should be replaced by nameless fellows like the chap who stuck Bond with the tracking device in CR'06.

But in the long run, both will be back - but only after the producers have gone off the current "formula". I give it two more films max!

scottbuster2000

highhopes, I agree they should do some re-makes. From the Connery era - YOLT & DAF, From Roger's era - LALD, TMWTGG & MOONRAKER. If they don't want to use the same titles they should at the very least adapt the original stories for today like CR. There is so much unused Fleming material, it's a shame to see it neglected like this. Since the series is a reboot the first 20 films are the cold war Bond and therefore do not conflict with the new post cold war/911 Bond.

highhopes

scottbuster2000 wrote:

Since the series is a reboot the first 20 films are the cold war Bond and therefore do not conflict with the new post cold war/911 Bond.

That's a good point, and a great reason for doing them as period dramas, not something I've been much of an advocate for before, but why not? And definitely go the whole hog and use the titles. Remakes happen all the time in Hollywood, not always to good effect, but I think more faithful remakes of the Bond films would be fun and original enough, while not necessarily supplanting the original versions. The series is 40 years old. It's ripe.

Red Indian

I have always wished that someone would do for the original Fleming titles what Granada did with Sherlock Holmes and Jeremy Brett. Period-accurate adaptations of all of the original novels!

batester2005

if this series is set before Dr No, then how can they kill off Q and Moneypenny. i kno its bond but they cant die and then suddenly reappear in dr no can they. unless they have twin siblings. so i highly doubt that the bullsh!tter who stated this rumor has any brain at all.

darenhat

I watched AVTAK last night and I realized that there was not really a 'Q' scene in the traditional sense. Q's primary performance was an expositional one, since the matter at hand was somewhat technical in its scope. There was no real obligatory 'Now pay attention' dialogue between Bond and Q and I thought it worked fairly well.

This of course does not excuse Q and Moneypenny accompanying M, Bond, and Tibbet to the horse race to spy on Zorin, nor Q's appearance in a Winnebago outside Stacy Sutton's home, but I think it's a small example of how Q can be used without shoe-horning him into the script. Sometimes supplementary characters are needed, like Fanning in OP because M or Q or the Minister of Defence are not going to be experts in every field, and thus it adds to the 'believability'. I feel that it is perfectly acceptable, however, to think that in MI6, there's a collective group of individuals who are trusted and knowledgeable and are consistently relied upon to discuss mission details.

Boothroyd admittedly evolved from an 'armourer' into a 'gadget man', but I think it would be refreshing to see Bond having a conversation with 'Q' as an expert in Bond's weaponry.

DAWUSS

batester2005 wrote:

if this series is set before Dr No, then how can they kill off Q and Moneypenny. i kno its bond but they cant die and then suddenly reappear in dr no can they. unless they have twin siblings. so i highly doubt that the bullsh!tter who stated this rumor has any brain at all.

Not to mention how the technology can all of a sudden take a 40-year regression...

cbdouble07

DAWUSS wrote:

batester2005 wrote:

if this series is set before Dr No, then how can they kill off Q and Moneypenny. i kno its bond but they cant die and then suddenly reappear in dr no can they. unless they have twin siblings. so i highly doubt that the bullsh!tter who stated this rumor has any brain at all.

Not to mention how the technology can all of a sudden take a 40-year regression...

Perhaps I'm missing something but I didn't think that these movies took place before the others. It's a reboot which means it's like an entirely different series entirely unrelated to the others. Just like Batman Begins. This is what I've always heard abou the reboot thing but I don't think that the producers have really come out and given a definitive statement about what they are planning to do with the reboot.

blueman

I guess I'm somewhere in the middle: I don't expect to ever see a 100% Fleming Bond film, as great as his novels are most (if not all) have long stretches of Bond inner monologuing, which enjoyable as it mght be to read is hardly filmable--without adulterating it in some fashion. Translating Fleming to the big screen, there has to be something added to the mix, in order to make a gosh darn film out of it! And for better or worse, the early Bonds EON made with Connery have forever (I think) cemented cinematic Bond on the collective consciousness of the freakin' world, not sure how you erase that icon, or even significantly change it to something more Flemingesque (or if it would even work, or be as successful...). Q and Moneypenny were a part of that early iconography, sure, but I think EON has now (finally! wisely!) realized the challenge for them is to make good movies about Bond, as opposed to rubber-stamped Bond movies that cash in on the icon (not a bad thing, as it's made EON very very rich) but present little else that's creative or compelling or worthwhile. I don't think Craig could've been such a hit as Bond if there hadn't been a couple rather rancid decades of bad/derivative Bond to contrast/compare to. JMHO and I realize there are Bond fans who love the last five or ten films or so prior to CR, and if that's their Bond, fine. EON looks to be going back to the basics these days, and starting with Bond as originally first brought forth to the big screen (near enough ). Not having the minor characters, which took a number of films to become the beloved cliches they are now, simply keeps the focus on Bond and not the sandtraps of 40 years of cinematic Bond that EON are trying to bridge-backwards. I'd even posit the Dalton experiment failed for not doing exactly what EON are doing now: fully embracing old school Bond. Dalton was the right actor for such a throwback Bond but EON (read Cubby) wanted his Moore cake and to eat it too, and simply kept the formula and what it had developed into intact, the result being a mishmash Bond film (TLD), the ingredient-blend of which was addressed, albeit poorly, in Dalton's follow-up (LTK).

I don't expect to see Q or Moneypenny while Craig is Bond, simply because they're not needed to make a Bond film, as EON is currently proving. They would fit much better in a hoped-for but never-gonna-happen period Bond. I can see EON bringing them back at some point, but I expect when they do they'll be broadly reinterpreted, as I don't see EON looking to ride the Bond-cliche bandwagon anytime soon, they're having too much fun and success doing what they're doing.

taity

Its interesting to see how some people cite that to not include these two characters is being disloyal to Fleming.

Where's Lola Personaby? Mary Goodnight had more work in the novels.

And what about Bill Tanner - he made very few movies, but hey - here he is in Quantum of Solace!

As for the characters, if I cant have Desmond or Lois, I dont know if I want them. Seeing Bond flirt with newer Moneypenny's felt disloyal to her memory. And that scene where John Cleese was being Q - whoa, it felt like it was too soon!

batester2005

thats the problem with films that are in retrospect. its like star wars. all the technology in episode 1 made the stuff in return of the jedi look like pre roman times. funny how in the bond world, he drives a 2006 Aston Martin DBS and in films set after this time, he drives a brand new 1964 Aston DB5. i suppose we av to put all this to the back of our minds and enjoy the quality of the film. i suppose they could play it that Q and Moneypenny havent been employed by MI6 yet......

DAWUSS

And of course what does no Q and no Moneypenny mean?


More screen time for M.

blueman

DAWUSS wrote:

And of course what does no Q and no Moneypenny mean?


More screen time for M.

And we have a winner! {[]

down2000

What a ridiculous article. I love these "unamed" executives. Well, he must not be very high on the executive food chain since anyone would know that Q & Monenypenny were not just in the "Moore Years" but also the Connery, Brosnan, Dalton, Lazenby years.

What a dope!

BTW...I am all for brining back both characters. Tradition!!

armourer

Well, if we're talking about going back to Fleming in regard to the original "support" characters (Moneypenny/Ponsonby/Tanner/M et al) could we have a crusty old sea-dog as M again (nothing against the great Dame J)? Anthony Hopkins or Derek Jacobi would be interesting as M.