41 replies to this topic

[Zorin Industries]

Whoever would get cast in this role would not be "Q like" at all - not if that role was anything like the changes made since 2006. Just because someone was "like Q" in one film does not make them a shoe-in.

Not suggesting that anyone is a shoe-in for anything, just that a Q like character in another film gave me some ideas for a new casting approach in the Bond series.

Forgive me for saying it again... we don't need a "Q like character". The series has shed that. Why on earth would it be picked up again?!!

Actually - I don't know what's got me more riled here - the fact we are STILL discussing yay or nay to Q or that Graham Rye is still apparently interested in a series of films his writings clearly suggest he gave up on in the late 1960's. Disingenuous indeed. And his suggestion of Graham Crowden is a tad off the mark too. Crowden would be 87 next year. I'm not sure that's quite where the series is headed, Mr Rye.

We need to think outside the box-set folks.

Eg. Q is in the film. Okay. But who would you then cast?

I'm not 'right' here, but Q in a future Bond film needs to be played by someone like....Lindsay Duncan, Jessica Hynes or Mia Farrow.

[Pierce - Daniel]

Look EON would be stupid to go back and just bring back Q and Moneypenny, and it's inevitable one will return for Bond 23. I argree with Craig, you have to earn the relics and present them in a new and interesting way becasue to alot of people Moneypenny dosen't even exist, it's just Daniel Craig against the odds, remember his films have bought in an entire new auidence. Unless they can make them part of the plot then go for it, but don't bring them all back at once and have Bond flirt with Moneypenny see M then head down and meet Q. That pattern worked so well in the Connery movies, becasue the tension between him and Maxwell was real and very flirty, and with Desmond extrembly funny and warm, but imo Moore tainted things a little, I hate most of his scenes with Maxwell, hense why I see little point of the Moneypenny character. But...........she can be done right and the first 6 movies are prove of that, and of course Sam Bond was great, loved her with Pierce, her scene was by far the best of the entire movie.

But..I like Collinder's idea of a kidnapped Q, it's a ready made storyline, that just needs to wheels set in motion with a good script underneath.

As for Moneypenny she needs an Agent Fields like setup, we need her to go with Bond for at least part of his mission, just to set the character up.

[DamnCoffee]

I really wouldn't mind a younger actor to play Q. Someone closer to Craig's age would be interesting. I quite like the idea of a no nonsense, gadget master, like the Q we had in From Russia With Love.

[danslittlefinger]

Craig wants to bring 'Q' back to Bond


I could not agree more with this new comment from Daniel Craig. It seems that the Quantum Of Solace star wants Q to be brought back in a future movie. Speaking to the fantastic Rotten Tomatoes website.

"We should give Q to a good actor," The thesp said.

"We should find an actor and find out what they think and find a good story. If we just drop it in there and then go to the basement and there is Q with exploding bananas, it is not going to work.

"Q has been done and it has been done brilliantly and with great humour. We have to find a way to bring Q into it properly. I think we owe it to the franchise." He added.


(Old news but somewhat relevant here)

[Vanya86]

And since when did Q have to be played as an eccentric genius?

Well if you look at a tin of talcum powder and think 'I could turn that into a tear gas bomb' that's pretty eccentric.

There's much more to Colin Baker than Doctor Who though, I saw him in a play a few years ago where he played an air force colonel. It was a great performance (as I said before, underrated actor) and it's actually conceivable that he could have reached the rank of major in the army (before he got old and fat). And surely it's better for Q to be played someone who isn't recognisable to the wider audience?

[AgentBentley]

Yep, preferably a new or lesser-known actor for Q, and not a comedian a la John Cleese.
There's nothing wrong with a bit of humor from Q, but that shouldn't be his prime function.

[Double-O-Nine]

Yep, preferably a new or lesser-known actor for Q, and not a comedian a la John Cleese.
There's nothing wrong with a bit of humor from Q, but that shouldn't be his prime function.

Maybe Hugh Laurie?

[booyeah_]

Hugh Laurie is my favorite of the proposed choices.

I do have to say that I was under the suggestion that Q is a position, like M is. Therefore, Q is not necessarily Maj. Boothroyd, who is now retired(and should always be remembered as DL). For instance, John Cleese as Q was def not Boothroyd and whoever will be Q in the future will not be Boothroyd.

[Jeff007]

I think for the new Q they need to think Craig and beyond. Possibly somebody who could play Q for 10 movies.

[Sniperscope]

What has been such a strength of Craig's era is its sheer unpredictability - both films have succeeded in shaking up our expectations of what Bond can and should be. What worries me with all this Q talk is that his reintroduction, as nostalgic as it may be, will tend to subtly return to the "formula" that has largely been rejected... If Q should come back his role should be no greater than say Tanner's in QoS and he should be played completely straight or perhaps with a very dark, "gallows" humour. He should be an ex-OO / ex-SAS warrant officer type with a sober, cynical style who is not slapping down Craig with quips but instead going through the mission as equals - Bond could even ask him advice early on, and Q would supply Bond in the field. I don't think Q should be played by any famous actor at all! He should be in his mid-50s with a grizzled kind of look - perhaps an image of who Craig's Bond could become!

Edited by Sniperscope, 20 December 2008 - 11:38 PM.

[gineth]

what happened eith the other Q john cleese?

[007Bond007]

Appreciate the change in heading. To be fair my comment was directed more at the article itself, whoever wrote it had no right to proclaim “Philip Madoc is on Q to be James Bond star ” based on nothing more than someone on the internet's personal preference.

While we're naming names and posting photos here's my choice: Colin Baker

That's right, Dr Who no. 6. He's an incredibly underrated actor, a familiar face but not so well known as to dominate the screen, we know he can play an eccentric genius and isn't likely to be tied up with other projects. And at 65 he shouldn't fall into the too old category.

I saw the photo i just snickered, he looks like a a evil genius out of a cartoon. Not the rite look for Q, im afraid.