19 replies to this topic

[Dalton]

Just read an article over at Moviehole, from an article in "The Hollywood Reporter"

They talk about the casting problems, and that Director Martin Campbell wants to find "An Unknown" to re-invigerate the series.

But They Finish the article by stating that: "One thing is for sure, says the trade, is the casting of Judi Dench as M. and John Cleese as Q, who'll reprise their roles for the next one out-of-the-gate."

Edited by Dalton, 31 August 2005 - 08:46 AM.

[ACE]

That's a relief. Continuity with the series. Phew.

ACE

Edited by ACE, 31 August 2005 - 09:05 AM.

[Righty007]

I knew he'd be in Casino Royale all along.

[JamesMagenta]

Thats good news.

[Agent 76]

I guess this is good news. I can't see right now another actor more suited for this role. John Cleese is a legend in terms of comedy acting, so he's perfectly capable of doing a good performance as Q.

[DLibrasnow]

I'm excited about the search for an unknown.

[Spoon]

In a reboot, the only actor who would actually "make sense" would be Desmond Since that's not an option, I don't really care who plays Q.

Dench staying as M is just weird though, since she is so different from all other Ms, both in terms of personality and, obviously, in terms of gender. I guess we're going to be asked to assume that the "new guy" is portraying Brosnan 20 years ago (which will be quite amusing with some of these candidates)... and that "Brosnan 20 years ago" was before Connery... except that it's set in the 21st century... oh no, I've gone cross-eyed Ah, well... the series has never really made sense with regard to such considerations anyway.

Edited by Spoon, 31 August 2005 - 02:38 PM.

[pieffra]

I would like to see Cleese once again

[tdalton]

In a reboot, the only actor who would actually "make sense" would be Desmond   Since that's not an option, I don't really care who plays Q.

Not necesarilly. There was a different actor playing the "armourer" in Dr. No, so my thinking is that anybody other than Cleese would be fine for a reboot (not that I support the idea of a reboot). Cleese is already tied to his last two Bond films (TWINE & DAD) and asking the audience to believe that he was in those two as well as Q back before Dr. No ever happened would just be too confusing when it would be just as easy to cast someone else in the role.

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]As long as they doing a full reboot of the series

[Double-Oh-Zero]

As long as the M/Q scenes don't last for longer than five minutes, I've got no problems.

Supposing that the "prequel thing" is only part of the whole story, then Dench and Cleese could logically come back and do their respective scenes (set in the present day) without any real problems.

Other than Dench's apparent drinking problem, anyway.

[luciusgore]

If it is a reboot with Dench as M, Cleese as Q and a 22-year-old as Bond, maybe the Bond character is some kind of genetic clone that is created in a lab every 10 years. Cleese and Dench are simply working with the "new Bond" of 2005 who needs to be broken in. The "Old Bond" (Brosnan) has now retired or been liquidated.

[Eye Of The Tiger]

In a reboot, the only actor who would actually "make sense" would be Desmond   Since that's not an option, I don't really care who plays Q.

Dench staying as M is just weird though, since she is so different from all other Ms, both in terms of personality and, obviously, in terms of gender.  I guess we're going to be asked to assume that the "new guy" is portraying Brosnan 20 years ago (which will be quite amusing with some of these candidates)... and that "Brosnan 20 years ago" was before Connery... except that it's set in the 21st century... oh no, I've gone cross-eyed   Ah, well... the series has never really made sense with regard to such considerations anyway.

Yeah, I just think it makes zero sense to get rid of Pierce Brosnan, and yet bring back Judi Dench! It is truly idiotic to bring Dench back if Brosnan is gone!

[License To Kill]

[quote name='Eye Of The Tiger' date='31 August 2005 - 16:46'][quote name='Spoon' date='31 August 2005 - 10:27']In a reboot, the only actor who would actually "make sense" would be Desmond

[Qwerty]

Don't mind as long as we don't have another Bond film featuring the MI6 staff for the entire thing again.

[Double-Oh-Zero]

Yeah, I just think it makes zero sense to get rid of Pierce Brosnan, and yet bring back Judi Dench! It is truly idiotic to bring Dench back if Brosnan is gone!

I'll bet they said the same thing about Bernard Lee and Sean Connery, y'know.

[Qwerty]

As long as the M/Q scenes don't last for longer than five minutes, I've got no problems.

Ah, just noticed that I reiterated almost the exact same thing in my post below a bit. The World Is Not Enough's MI6 scenes (of which there are probably 20+ too many) are irritating because they never really end.

Get the briefing from M, get whatever gadgets from Q, flirt with Moneypenny, and off you go.

[Mr. Somerset]

[quote name='Eye Of The Tiger' date='31 August 2005 - 12:46'][quote name='Spoon' date='31 August 2005 - 10:27']In a reboot, the only actor who would actually "make sense" would be Desmond

Edited by Mr. Somerset, 01 September 2005 - 03:40 AM.

[return of the saint]

I really hope they don't do something so lame it hurts me to think of it but...

You don't think that they'll say this is a different 007 do you? I mean, keep with the existing continuity (as if there is any) and say that the original James Bond has retired, and that the new guy is a replacement.

It would actually fit in with the original Casino Royale film - and work continuity wise. They would even be able to get a Croation or a blonde to play the part.

ha ha - how's that for scare mongering?

[cvheady007]

No, they will play off the transition, probably like every other transition in Bond history...and if it is truly a "young Bond", they will still play it off as best they can.

I am also very glad that Cleese will return as Q - as much continuity as possible is preferable in my book!