Should Q and Moneypenny return to James Bond?

Stuart · 10-02-2009, 14:32

Judi Dench has joined with Daniel Craig in calling for producers to bring back Q and Moneypenny.

I have to admit, while I can see that the arguement that bringing them back might be a link to the old Bond movies (something which the producers seem to be actively avoiding), I think they should. Q, in particular, provided some comic relief which is sorely missing from the new films.

What to you think?

Russ · 10-02-2009, 14:37

I think (humerous) Q belongs in the camp Bond days (Roger Moore era). It seems like with Daniel Craig (who never really looks to me like he's putting his heart in to the role) they're taking it in a new direction which could work well given the sort of competition out there, like Jason Bourne etc

**Paul** · 10-02-2009, 14:50

Yes. They are part of Bond History - why do they always think they know better and have to mess with things.

Pierre · 10-02-2009, 15:01

Not bothered about Money Penny.

Q, real name Major Boothroyd, could easily be brought back, and could be brought back as a much younger more field operational character.

punky · 10-02-2009, 15:44

They should. Its all part of the story.

Felix Leiter has been played by 8 different people, although David Hedison (Live And Let Die) is the best IMHO. Don't see why MP and Q can't be played by others.

Pierre · 10-02-2009, 15:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

They should. Its all part of the story.

Felix Leiter has been played by 8 different people, although David Hedison (Live And Let Die) is the best IMHO. Don't see why MP and Q can't be played by others.

Live And Let Die & Licence to Kill

+ Money penny and Q have already been played by 3 other people each.

M I think has also been played by 3 people.

(Obviously I'm not including Never say never again & the original Casino Royale)

MadGamer · 10-02-2009, 16:37

I think they should be brought back

**Maggy** · 10-02-2009, 17:38

Was either Q or Moneypenny part of the original Fleming books?If so I cannot see why not.If not well it hardly matters..

Halcyon · 10-02-2009, 19:35

The whole "Forget all the other Bond's and start again" idea is ridiculous. They should have just continued...And indeed kept Q and Moneypenny.

Ken W · 10-02-2009, 19:48

Bring back Q and Moneypenny NOW

Uncle Peter · 10-02-2009, 20:26

Most definitely, bring them both back. Of course the real Q (if he exists

) has moved out of the city to more glamorous parts... Milton Keynes!

pmc31@blueyonder · 10-02-2009, 22:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halcyon

The whole "Forget all the other Bond's and start again" idea is ridiculous. They should have just continued...And indeed kept Q and Moneypenny.

I think they had to restart as the films were starting turn into parodies of themselves and were looking dated compared to the competition, the afor-mentioned Bourne for example.

Die Another Day is a case in point it started so well, with the torture scenes and 'has he been turned' premise yet invisble cars, solar heat reflected from space, that blooming robo-suit and Madonna in a pointless cameo served to turn it into a mess.

At the moment, with the films moving away from the pointless gadgets there is little for Q to do.

As for Moneypenny, do we need someone else to trail M around, and flutter her eyelashes at Bond?

**Chris** · 10-02-2009, 23:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Was either Q or Moneypenny part of the original Fleming books?If so I cannot see why not.If not well it hardly matters..

Some of them, yes. They weren't in the film of Casino Royale because they weren't in the novel. I suspect the same is true of Quantum of Solace.

At the moment the producers are adapting some of Fleming's earliest Bond material, so it's hardly surprising that the series appears to be 'ditching' some of the icons we have come to associate with it. But they are not messing about with the formula, far from it. They're simply taking it back to basics. I think Bond is all the better for it.

Stuart · 11-02-2009, 01:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by pmc31@blueyonder

I think they had to restart as the films were starting turn into parodies of themselves and were looking dated compared to the competition, the afor-mentioned Bourne for example.

The trouble with doing that the way they have done it is that they are starting to make Bond look like a pale imitation of Bourne even though it may well be the other way around. Also, the last Bourne movie, while OK, was basically one long chase, with little or no reasoning given as to why things were happening. This is certainly something Quantum of Solace aped. Badly, as well.

Quote:

Die Another Day is a case in point it started so well, with the torture scenes and 'has he been turned' premise yet invisble cars, solar heat reflected from space, that blooming robo-suit and Madonna in a pointless cameo served to turn it into a mess.

Die another Day did seem to be just one long excuse to make references to other Bond films.

Quote:

At the moment, with the films moving away from the pointless gadgets there is little for Q to do.

Pointless Gadgets? So what was the Aston with the built in Defibrillator then? OK, so it did get some use in the story but I got the impression that whole scene was written in just so they'd have a use for the gadget.

Quote:

As for Moneypenny, do we need someone else to trail M around, and flutter her eyelashes at Bond?

I don't personally think Moneypenny is as important as Q, but it would be nice to see the character back at some point.

---------- Post added at 00:15 ---------- Previous post was at 00:12 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

Some of them, yes. They weren't in the film of Casino Royale because they weren't in the novel. I suspect the same is true of Quantum of Solace.

Quantum of Solace was not a book. It may have been loosely based on some of Casino Royale (the book), but I haven't read that, so can't confirm it.

Peter_ · 11-02-2009, 08:33

I voted no because the new direction is modern and alive and more in keeping with its modern rivals such as the Bourne series, the is no need for tongue in cheek humour and silly gadgets.