Previous Debate: Naomie Harris as Moneypenny - Approve or not?

If Naomi Harris is indeed Moneypenny, then I'm sure her introduction will be handled in a way that most fans will approve - although there will always be those who have already made up their minds to hate the idea, no matter how well it's handled (just as there are those who will hate Adele's song, Thomas Newman's music, Sam Mendes' direction, Judi Dench's involvement and/or deaprture, Daniel Craig's hair, Ben Whishaw's Q, Purvis & Wade's script (despite Logan's contribution), etc.).

Of course, not all the naysayers will hate the same things, but they will declare that anyone who doesn't agree with them can't be 'real' Bond fans, or purists or whatever.

What's really astounding is how many people even hate the publicity campaign! For God's sake, people, they're just posters! Who here is still pissed off that EON didn't use some of the concept posters for DAF (missile between Sean's legs, Sean reclining in front of a bank of monitors) instead of the final image we did get?

I've been a 007 fanatic since 1971, and I've preferred to enjoy every entry for something (even AVTAK!) rather than hate any of them for some reason; and I have NEVER gone into the theatre on opening night expecting - let alone being determined - to hate the new film or any part of it.

If you don't like EON's Bond films, get your fix somewhere else - like Bourne, Austin Powers, Johnny English, whatever - but don't condemn Skyfall until you've seen it. And if I like it (as I expect I will, without babbling "this is going to be the best Bond ever!" to anyone who'll listen), don't try to convince me that I'm wrong. I have flaws, and there are people who love me despite them.

And people who don't like me don't have to waste their time criticizing me and trying to turn others against me, in order to make them better judges of character (especially when they haven't even met me yet).

Moore wrote:

Touché.

However, I feel Fleming would have preferred innovation and experimenting with new ideas as opposed to re-treading the same old material. for 5 decades.

Yup. You can see that in his latter novels where it started to slowly break away from the usual formula. Is this the best way to go for the films? I'll wait and see how it all turns out. But I do like that the films are taking more risks, for better or worse it's more admirable they try to shake things up than go the route the Brosnan era went having its tail tucked between its legs.

Python wrote:

Moore wrote:

Touché.

However, I feel Fleming would have preferred innovation and experimenting with new ideas as opposed to re-treading the same old material. for 5 decades.

Yup. You can see that in his latter novels where it started to slowly break away from the usual formula. Is this the best way to go for the films? I'll wait and see how it all turns out. But I do like that the films are taking more risks, for better or worse it's more admirable they try to shake things up than go the route the Brosnan era went having its tail tucked between its legs.

Definitely!

I'd rather them go and try something completely different and fail miserably as opposed to just playing it safe and beating a dead horse. Only time will tell how it turns out. I'm definitely excited to see what they have in store.

On the other hand:

Cubby's edict to his heirs was alternately "Don't screw it up" and "Don't let anyone else screw it up."

So, we saw a female M in a new office, a liberated then absent Moneypenny, R then no one from Q branch, and a rougher-around-the-edges 007. And how the fans have bitched.

Now, we may see a new male M in an office with a leather door, a new Moneypenny, a new, younger Q and a veteran 007. Sounds like a lot of un-screwing going on.

And still the fans bitch...

AMC Hornet wrote:

And still the fans bitch...

Of course they do. There are so many people out there who all have their own ideas of what Bond should be that they're almost guaranteed to hate it. Look at Lazenby. as a perfect example of this - he's been preaching doom and gloom from the minute the film was announced and without knowing a thing about it (sorry, but it's true). I think a lot of people who do this go in looking to be disappointed so that they can feel reassured that their ideas of what Bond should be are good ideas.

Moore wrote:

Touché.

However, I feel Fleming would have preferred innovation and experimenting with new ideas as opposed to re-treading the same old material. for 5 decades I just feel a lot of the stagnation that set in during the 80's and the Brosnan era were a result of set characters like Q and Moneypenny.

I'm sure they could have brought back an old white guy and white lady for the roles, no doubt. But at this point, I'm willing to see any kind of shake up to bring back a sense of watching a serious Bond film and not what seems like a spoof.

I love Q, but he was spoofing himself by the late 80's/early 90's. Same with Moneypenny. Even M. Watch a film like TND: World War III is about to start, but when you see the scenes with M you don't really feel their is a risk. It all seems so Austin Powers-esque. Sure, we all know Bond is going to win in the end, but even in the sillier films those scenes made it seem like there was really something at risk.

I'd much rather watch Eve become Moneypenny and have some character development than watch another Samantha Bond Moneypenny scene with no substance at all. Watching that you get the sense "Oh, we need to fill 5 minutes of screen time, let's throw Moneypenny on there and make up some bland, boring dialogue."


Different strokes for different folks. I definitely understand everybody elses argument though, I respect that. I recognize I don't exactly hold a popular view.

Fleming certainly would have appreciated the search for new ideas, even though he had run out of them by the time he wrote The Man with the Golden Gun. But he would not have approved of transmogrifying his traditional British characters in order to score lefty ideological brownie points. He would have rolled his eyes fiercely at the "diversity" idolatry that rules the roost at Eon, and just about everywhere else in the West these days. If M, Q and Moneypenny as boring, stale whiteys is the problem just get rid of them. But don't do violence to the Bondoverse Fleming created.

PS--Please tell me how Moneypenny as a Bond-shaving, gun-toting negress advances the "seriousness" you seek in a Bond film.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Moore wrote:

Touché.

However, I feel Fleming would have preferred innovation and experimenting with new ideas as opposed to re-treading the same old material. for 5 decades I just feel a lot of the stagnation that set in during the 80's and the Brosnan era were a result of set characters like Q and Moneypenny.

I'm sure they could have brought back an old white guy and white lady for the roles, no doubt. But at this point, I'm willing to see any kind of shake up to bring back a sense of watching a serious Bond film and not what seems like a spoof.

I love Q, but he was spoofing himself by the late 80's/early 90's. Same with Moneypenny. Even M. Watch a film like TND: World War III is about to start, but when you see the scenes with M you don't really feel their is a risk. It all seems so Austin Powers-esque. Sure, we all know Bond is going to win in the end, but even in the sillier films those scenes made it seem like there was really something at risk.

I'd much rather watch Eve become Moneypenny and have some character development than watch another Samantha Bond Moneypenny scene with no substance at all. Watching that you get the sense "Oh, we need to fill 5 minutes of screen time, let's throw Moneypenny on there and make up some bland, boring dialogue."


Different strokes for different folks. I definitely understand everybody elses argument though, I respect that. I recognize I don't exactly hold a popular view.

Fleming certainly would have appreciated the search for new ideas, even though he had run out of them by the time he wrote The Man with the Golden Gun. But he would not have approved of transmogrifying his traditional British characters in order to score lefty ideological brownie points. He would have rolled his eyes fiercely at the "diversity" idolatry that rules the roost at Eon, and just about everywhere else in the West these days. If M, Q and Moneypenny as boring, stale whiteys is the problem just get rid of them. But don't do violence to the Bondoverse Fleming created.

PS--Please tell me how Moneypenny as a Bond-shaving, gun-toting negress advances the "seriousness" you seek in a Bond film.

How would it not?

Finally, a real character with a story or a purpose. I'm all for that. I'd rather that than Samantha Bond talking about where she would really like to put a cigar. Such dire lines. Pointless scenes. A useless character. I'd rather a Moneypenny with a story. Not just a cardboard cut out at a desk getting all wet every time James Bond stumbles in the room. Either shake up the character or get rid of her completely. But for the love of all that is right, no more scenes like the ones with Samantha Bond. Horrible.


With that said, I don't think "don't do violence to the Bondoverse Fleming created" is a realistic argument. James Bond in outerspace? An invisible car? Fleming's Bondoverse has been subject to violence since day one. I really doubt he'd be thrilled about his creation flying a space shuttle or floating around a space station zapping people with laser beams, but it happened.

Moore wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Moore wrote:

Touché.

However, I feel Fleming would have preferred innovation and experimenting with new ideas as opposed to re-treading the same old material. for 5 decades I just feel a lot of the stagnation that set in during the 80's and the Brosnan era were a result of set characters like Q and Moneypenny.

I'm sure they could have brought back an old white guy and white lady for the roles, no doubt. But at this point, I'm willing to see any kind of shake up to bring back a sense of watching a serious Bond film and not what seems like a spoof.

I love Q, but he was spoofing himself by the late 80's/early 90's. Same with Moneypenny. Even M. Watch a film like TND: World War III is about to start, but when you see the scenes with M you don't really feel their is a risk. It all seems so Austin Powers-esque. Sure, we all know Bond is going to win in the end, but even in the sillier films those scenes made it seem like there was really something at risk.

I'd much rather watch Eve become Moneypenny and have some character development than watch another Samantha Bond Moneypenny scene with no substance at all. Watching that you get the sense "Oh, we need to fill 5 minutes of screen time, let's throw Moneypenny on there and make up some bland, boring dialogue."


Different strokes for different folks. I definitely understand everybody elses argument though, I respect that. I recognize I don't exactly hold a popular view.

Fleming certainly would have appreciated the search for new ideas, even though he had run out of them by the time he wrote The Man with the Golden Gun. But he would not have approved of transmogrifying his traditional British characters in order to score lefty ideological brownie points. He would have rolled his eyes fiercely at the "diversity" idolatry that rules the roost at Eon, and just about everywhere else in the West these days. If M, Q and Moneypenny as boring, stale whiteys is the problem just get rid of them. But don't do violence to the Bondoverse Fleming created.

PS--Please tell me how Moneypenny as a Bond-shaving, gun-toting negress advances the "seriousness" you seek in a Bond film.

How would it not?

Finally, a real character with a story or a purpose. I'm all for that. I'd rather that than Samantha Bond talking about where she would really like to put a cigar. Such dire lines. Pointless scenes. A useless character. I'd rather a Moneypenny with a story. Not just a cardboard cut out at a desk getting all wet every time James Bond stumbles in the room. Either shake up the character or get rid of her completely. But for the love of all that is right, no more scenes like the ones with Samantha Bond. Horrible.


With that said, I don't think "don't do violence to the Bondoverse Fleming created" is a realistic argument. James Bond in outerspace? An invisible car? Fleming's Bondoverse has been subject to violence since day one. I really doubt he'd be thrilled about his creation flying a space shuttle or floating around a space station zapping people with laser beams, but it happened.

Then fine, get rid of the character. Rename her. But Moneypenny, like her or not (and I loved Lois Maxwell's Moneypenny) is not a field agent in any shape or form, and she's not black. If there just has to be a femme-ethno agent for Bond to traipse around with in order for the Bond films to be "serious," then create another character altogether. Hell, call her, oh, I don't know, Eve.

PS--I loathe DAD, and therefore have no use for the invisible car. And while I agree that cinematic Bond has extended Fleming's Bondoverse, not until GE and the introduction of identity politics was true violence done to it. Bond in space? Farfetched. But Fleming's Moonraker was all about rocketry and a weapon of mass destruction. One can easily see the science fiction elements in cinematic Bond as variations on a theme by Fleming.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Then fine, get rid of the character. Rename her. But Moneypenny, like her or not (and I loved Lois Maxwell's Moneypenny) is not a field agent in any shape or form, and she's not black. If there just has to be a femme-ethno agent for Bond to traipse around with in order for the Bond films to be "serious," then create another character altogether. Hell, call her, oh, I don't know, Eve.

Has it even been confirmed yet that Eve is Moneypenny?

I say it's still too soon to get up in arms over this. And if it's done - well, it's done. I'm to OC to turn my back on the franchise over it - hell, I kept coming back after MR and AVTAK (and was rewarded on both occasions), so I'm obviously hooked.

AMC Hornet wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Then fine, get rid of the character. Rename her. But Moneypenny, like her or not (and I loved Lois Maxwell's Moneypenny) is not a field agent in any shape or form, and she's not black. If there just has to be a femme-ethno agent for Bond to traipse around with in order for the Bond films to be "serious," then create another character altogether. Hell, call her, oh, I don't know, Eve.

Has it even been confirmed yet that Eve is Moneypenny?

It does seem to be a fait accompli. What I am not sure of is how they manage to work the name in. We know her as Agent Eve. How does she become Agent Moneypenny? It might be as simple as MP is revealed to be her last name, but we don't know.

I think everyone is jumping to a lot of conclusions. Yes, Eve will most likely be Moneypenny, but how it happens or what her role is is still unclear. And this whole "gun-touting black lady!" stuff is bullshit. Aside from the PTS chase, we haven't seen any evidence of Eve being in any kind of action role. Again, let's stop jumping conclusions. And...are people seriously still upset with the fact that Eve is black? People don't jump over Maxwell because she's Canadian (not British, like Fleming's Moneypenny, OMG!!11), yet people freak out about a black Moneypenny? She was an incredibly minor character that had almost no role or purpose in the old films (aside from the occasional comic relief)... and in Fleming's novels, she was even more insignificant. Frankly, I could care less if they do something new or different with the character. I'm with Moore on this one.

Also, cinematic Bond and literary Bond are, and have ALWAYS been, totally different. I think it's a little silly to try and play the comparison game when talking about the films.

Besides, Maxwell's Moneypenny has worked on the field before. ;)

And if anyone has read the MP Diaries, she gets lots of field work there too!

I'm not really bothered. They've already switched up Q, why not Moneypenny? I think it's good they're trying to keep the characters fresh.

Toppers wrote:

I'm not really bothered. They've already switched up Q, why not Moneypenny?

And Leiter. Hell, why not Bond himself? I mean, Bond really has no essential identity, does he? Any actors will do. Any situations. Bond, Bourne, Woody Allen, Walt Disney, there's really no difference. Fleming doesn't matter. Nor Cubby, nor T. Young. It's all relative and conditional. Let Bond drift whichever way the wind blows, and in accordance with the political agendas of whoever is making the films. Who the hell cares if the films are no longer recognizable?

A metaphor the United Kingdom.

:roll:

Python wrote:

Besides, Maxwell's Moneypenny has worked on the field before. ;)

Lee's M was also in the field, why can't Dench's?

Moneypenny's not really a major player. If they're making out Moneypenny to have some experience in the field before her desk work, I don't see anyone like Lois Maxwell fitting the bill. Was Moneypenny as important as Leiter, M or Bond in the books? I don't recall her being so. Like someone before mentioned, the only description Fleming gave her was that was she was a brunette.

I don't agree with them switching up Leiter or M, they're big characters, but minor characters like Moneypenny, who appear for little more than five minutes on screen, doesn't really phase me. If anything, it's an improvement.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Toppers wrote:

I'm not really bothered. They've already switched up Q, why not Moneypenny?

And Leiter. Hell, why not Bond himself? I mean, Bond really has no essential identity, does he? Any actors will do. Any situations. Bond, Bourne, Woody Allen, Walt Disney, there's really no difference. Fleming doesn't matter. Nor Cubby, nor T. Young. It's all relative and conditional. Let Bond drift whichever way the wind blows, and in accordance with the political agendas of whoever is making the films. Who the hell cares if the films are no longer recognizable?
:roll:

Point made; quite right.

Every film should be just like the classics, with a Bernard Lee lookalike playing M, a Lois Maxwell lookalike playing Moneypenny (and both remaining behind their desks where they belong), a Desmond Llewelyn clone in Q branch and a Felix Leiter who resembles...whom? Who was the definitive Felex? And who can look and act just like Sean Connery, without triggering a lawsuit like the one Crispin Glover launched against Robert Zemeckis when he cast a lookalike actor as Goerge McFly in the Back to the Future Sequels?

And which classic film do we want made over and over again? I'm confused.

AMC Hornet wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Toppers wrote:

I'm not really bothered. They've already switched up Q, why not Moneypenny?

And Leiter. Hell, why not Bond himself? I mean, Bond really has no essential identity, does he? Any actors will do. Any situations. Bond, Bourne, Woody Allen, Walt Disney, there's really no difference. Fleming doesn't matter. Nor Cubby, nor T. Young. It's all relative and conditional. Let Bond drift whichever way the wind blows, and in accordance with the political agendas of whoever is making the films. Who the hell cares if the films are no longer recognizable?
:roll:

Point made; quite right.

Every film should be just like the classics, with a Bernard Lee lookalike playing M, a Lois Maxwell lookalike playing Moneypenny (and both remaining behind their desks where they belong), a Desmond Llewelyn clone in Q branch and a Felix Leiter who resembles...whom? Who was the definitive Felex? And who can look and act just like Sean Connery, without triggering a lawsuit like the one Crispin Glover launched against Robert Zemeckis when he cast a lookalike actor as Goerge McFly in the Back to the Future Sequels?

And which classic film do we want made over and over again? I'm confused.

Actually, you're not far off. The Formula, with minor variations, need change very little. It is ingenious. It works. The only major variations that need occur from film to film are the plots, which must keep up with modern geopolitical developments, the locations, and the aesthetic trappings. Recurring characters should constitute a recognizable continuum, and the zeitgeist should reflect Fleming and the 60s films much more than frivolous, postmodern Hollywood "sophistication."

Pat of the criticism of the films being out of step with the times focuses on the very thing that makes the films charming in their own unique way, that they do have these fixed elements that don't yield to trends. When they do genuflect toward timeliness in something more major than a painting being stolen (blaxploitation, Bond's hair creeping up over his ears STAR WARS, Bourne), it is usually to the film's detriment as a Bond movie.

The adapt-or-die notion may well be true, but a lot of Bond's adaptations haven't been worth the price of the celluloid ... I'd still be okay if Bond had died out for the 70s and early 80s and been restarted with Dalton or somebody of his ilk, rather than endure the unbondlike kinks that were presented in the interim.

Well said, trevanian. Especially that first paragraph.

I would add, however, that adapt-or-die has hardly come close to being proven. I mean, is the movie-going public desparately craving even more political correctness? Would it reject Bond if he refused to offer up his posterior orifice to the race and gender Hutus who dominate elite society? Color me skeptical.

See how everyone reacts if Bond calls Eve a "negress" or that remark about Koreans written in GF.

Python wrote:

See how everyone reacts if Bond calls Eve a "negress" or that remark about Koreans written in GF.

Well, I don't think any ambassadors would die, nor would DC be stabbed to death in the streets of Amsterdam.

Of course it wouldn't go that extreme but it would certainly polarize a lot of people and hurt the film series' reputation in this day and age.

Python wrote:

See how everyone reacts if Bond calls Eve a "negress" or that remark about Koreans written in GF.

Of course but that's rather moot as well. There would be no sense in calling her a negress in 2012, as no-one talks that way now, although people did talk that way in 1962, including the ultimate urbane sophisticate, JFK.

A Bond movie will always reflect the vernacular, fashion styles and tech of the times but it doesn't have to reflect any particular attitude of the time. Fleming infused his character with a timeless temperament and attitude which Eon I thought adapted very well for the early classic films. Bond was too square for the Beatles in 1964 just as he would be too square for the teen music of today. The general Bond persona as created by Fleming and tweaked by Eon with Fleming's tacit approval, can be moved forward in time forever.

The same can be said for M and MP. They don't need to change any more than Bond does. Leiter though is a lost cause. Eon blew him up in 1964 with Cec Linder, revived the classic Leiter-look briefly with Rick Van Nutter in TB, but then went back to Linder/Leiter with Normam Burton in DAF. Leiter effectively no longer had any definitive look or persona.

Even though I barely recognize Bond any more, and classic MP seems to have been deep-sixed, (although you could argue that started with GE, as I think Bliss is close enough to the Maxwell model), new M, Mallory, does seem to be a return to the classic M as does possibly Q. Q is just younger, but he might seem a lot like the Q we've known. Even old Q was young once.