86 replies to this topic

[DamnCoffee]

Just came across this, from the Cowboys and Aliens premiere. The Interviewer asks if Q will be back in Bond 23, Craig replies with "You'll have to wait and see."



It's not a yes, but at the same time, it's not an outright no. Still, I thought I would share with you guys.

[Jim]

Yes, it is quite PlayFall.

(D'you see what I did there? Do you? DO YOU??? ANSWER ME!!!!)

[DamnCoffee]

Oh, well done!

[zencat]

That means "yes". Or it means he doesn't know. Or it means he thinks they're taking about Cowboys & Aliens.

[Matt_13]

"What are fans going to see in this film that they haven't seen before?"
"Cowboys and aliens."

I still can't believe that needed to be asked. Well played Daniel.

[Marketto007]

Definatelly a YES!

xxx

[MajorB]

Definatelly a YES!

xxx

If it pleases you to think so.

In another interview, Craig pointed out that it's difficult to have a gadget-master in an age when we're all of us pretty gadgeted up (computers, smartphones, etc.). That struck me as an indirect no. But we shall see.

[Skudor]

I suspect they'd want to take it a bit slower than that. Moneypenny now, Q later - if and when it makes sense.

[Captain Tightpants]

I suspect they'd want to take it a bit slower than that. Moneypenny now, Q later - if and when it makes sense.

That makes the most sense. The entire point of rebooting the franchise was to get it right. I think they wanted to make the characters actual characters, and that applies to the secondary characters just as much as Bond. Felix Leiter seems to come across as the cynical voice of reason - for example, he lies (and makes no secret of it) in front of Beam and Greene just to see where the conversation is going. M is obviously maternal, concerned with the welfare for her agents, but maybe keeping them on a longer leash than she should. And even though he only appeared briefly, I could see Bill Tanner as having everything under control, even when he seems exasperated (which is the sense I got in Fleming's Moonraker with Tanner's cluttered desk). So I think they want to get Moneypenny and Q right. They don't want the character to be people who show up for five minutes, do two things with Bond and then go. I'm not saying that they'll dedicate fifteen minutes of backstory to each, but I think they'll want a new spin on each character. Especially Q - it would be too easy to ape Desmond Llewellyn (I felt John Cleese's Q was the same as Llewellyn's, but without the camaraderie Llewellyn's Q had with Bond). If that means keeping one of them on the bench for another film, so be it. I'd rather wait and have them introduced and be interesting rather than rushed and included in BOND 23 for he sake of it.

[Skudor]

The issue with Q is whether he is needed at all. It's really only a walk on role to give Bond his gadgets and only became an icon due to DL. Cleese just felt like a pathetic attempt to replace someone who had remained in place too long anyway, and was only accepted due to his history with the franchise.

Also, whereas Moneypenny is a Fleming character (or two in one really) Q is really a Film Bond mark1 chatacter that doesn't really fit in this rebooted Bond world.

[Captain Tightpants]

I think Q can be used, even if the gadgets are scaled back. For example, he could be a part of briefings to show satellite photos or some such.

[DaveBond21]

I love Daniel but he is boring as an interviewee. I really don't think people should try to interview him.

He doesn't like it.

[Captain Tightpants]

Bear in mind that he has to do dozens of five-minute interviews to promote films, and most of the time, the interviewers usually ask the same questions.

[tdalton]

The issue with Q is whether he is needed at all. It's really only a walk on role to give Bond his gadgets and only became an icon due to DL. Cleese just felt like a pathetic attempt to replace someone who had remained in place too long anyway, and was only accepted due to his history with the franchise.

Also, whereas Moneypenny is a Fleming character (or two in one really) Q is really a Film Bond mark1 chatacter that doesn't really fit in this rebooted Bond world.

Agreed. The Q character isn't necessary at this point in the franchise, given the prevalence of gadgets in every day life as well as the direction the franchise is currently taking. If they were to totally revamp the character, then maybe, but I'd rather they just leave the character alone.

I'm a bit more open to Moneypenny returning, given that she is a Fleming character, like you said, but hopefully they'll do something different with the character rather than simply having her there as someone for Bond to flirt with and trade "witty" one-liners with.

[Wade]

Definatelly a YES!

xxx

Craig pointed out that it's difficult to have a gadget-master in an age when we're all of us pretty gadgeted up (computers, smartphones, etc.). That struck me as an indirect no. But we shall see.

The logical thing would be to make Q, or Boothroyd, what he was in the novels: an armourer. Rather than "gadgets," he makes sure Bond is loaded for bear when he goes into the field. The weapons can still be fanciful, but only if they make sense. That way, the movies don't always need to be ahead of technology. They can just keep Bond strong on the job.

[PPK_19]

Definatelly a YES!

xxx

Craig pointed out that it's difficult to have a gadget-master in an age when we're all of us pretty gadgeted up (computers, smartphones, etc.). That struck me as an indirect no. But we shall see.

The logical thing would be to make Q, or Boothroyd, what he was in the novels: an armourer. Rather than "gadgets," he makes sure Bond is loaded for bear when he goes into the field. The weapons can still be fanciful, but only if they make sense. That way, the movies don't always need to be ahead of technology. They can just keep Bond strong on the job.

I see your point Wade. However its hard to see Q as a 'function' instead of a character. When you talk of him being an armourer, i think of Desmond Llewelyn's first appearance in FRWL, were he explained the 'function' of the briefcase and did nothing else. Obviously at this point he had no relationship with Bond and did keep him strong on the job, so to speak.

If Q were to return in Bond 23 (which he won't) he would need to be more fleshed out, someone for Bond to have banter with (without harking back to John Cleese's portrayal), or even be accompanied into the field with, a la Licence to Kill.

[TCK]

Instead of Q, I'd prefer Geoffrey Boothroyd.

[Guy Haines]

Instead of Q, I'd prefer Geoffrey Boothroyd.

Agreed. Major Geoffrey Boothroyd, and as the armourer or quartermaster, as "Q" appeared to be in the earlier films.

[The ides of Mark]

I think Q will be introduced in this film. Storywise the character can provide some comic-relief and give the film a more 'Bondian' feel. Not necessary for fans like us, but more the general public. Done properly it just works with these kind of films. Not just Bond, the scenes with Lucius Fox in the Batman movies illustrate that IMO.

[univex]

Instead of Q, I'd prefer Geoffrey Boothroyd.

Agreed. Major Geoffrey Boothroyd, and as the armourer or quartermaster, as "Q" appeared to be in the earlier films.

It would be wonderful If they´d introduce the armourer as Major Boothroyd. Oh how I´d like to see the Admiral back as well...with his secretary, Miss Moneypenny, maybe not as M but as some Navy important connection that becomes M after Dench retires. A back to the old days kind of figure.

Edited by univex, 16 October 2011 - 12:51 AM.

[Guy Haines]

Instead of Q, I'd prefer Geoffrey Boothroyd.

Agreed. Major Geoffrey Boothroyd, and as the armourer or quartermaster, as "Q" appeared to be in the earlier films.

It would be wonderful If they´d introduce the armourer as Major Boothroyd. Oh how I´d like to see the Admiral back as well...with his secretary, Miss Moneypenny, maybe not as M but as some Navy important connection that becomes M after Dench retires. A back to the old days kind of figure.

Unless an actor is cast who can create as much of a "character" performance as Desmond Llewelyn did, I think "Q" will have to appear as Major Boothroyd in a future Bond film - at least until the character is established (which is, if you think about it, what happened with Llewelyn's first appearance - he was "the armourer" rather than "Q"). I quite liked John Cleese' in DAD - I'm a Python and Fawlty Towers fan! - but he should have been in the film as a new character rather than as the new "Q" I guess the problem, for me, is that Desmond Llewelyn was around in the series for so long that he "became Q", and it was hard to imagine anyone else in the role. Admittedly, we had Alec McCowen as "Q" in NSNA, but he had a name, Algy, and played him in a different way. Had to, I suppose!

One other point. Would a "well known" actor want to go on playing "Q" or Boothroyd in film after film? Judi Dench has as "M", but there's no guarantee that an actor cast in the role would want that kind of long lasting continuity. A character actor might - one of those who always plays supporting roles -but would a star "name" want to?

[007jamesbond]

Major Geoffrey Boothroyd was in the earlier film and if Craig says it will be classic I assuming we see the Major instead of Q. I like how the earlier film Dr. No and FRWL, the Major have small but yet important role for Bond. I like that maybe the Major comes in with some new gadget or something agent issue for Bond. No more of those jokes anymore! please
I guess a older actor would best suited for Major Boothroyd but who? But if we used Q then I think Simon Pegg would be the best choice I know that he played a Q like character in MI:3 but he would be suited for the role

Edited by 007jamesbond, 16 October 2011 - 07:16 AM.

[Captain Tightpants]

Pegg is returning in GHOST PROTOCOL as well. So I don't think he'd be appropriate.

[univex]

Pegg is returning in GHOST PROTOCOL as well. So I don't think he'd be appropriate.

Lost oportunity if you ask me. Pegg would be a decent Q, which is what he is in the MI films. "Remeber, blue...glue (...) And red? (...) Dead"

[Harmsway]

Eh, there are better choices than Pegg. I'd prefer someone with more maturity.

Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if SKYFALL features Q in some capacity. I suspect that part of the film's agenda is to get the Bond trademarks back in place.

[JimmyBond]

Eh, there are better choices than Pegg. I'd prefer someone with more maturity.

Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if SKYFALL features Q in some capacity. I suspect that part of the film's agenda is to get the Bond trademarks back in place.

So you thinking they're going to put the gunbarrel back at the open of the film? I've been thinking that too.

[DaveBond21]

Definatelly a YES!

xxx

If it pleases you to think so.

In another interview, Craig pointed out that it's difficult to have a gadget-master in an age when we're all of us pretty gadgeted up (computers, smartphones, etc.). That struck me as an indirect no. But we shall see.

Batman has one.


-------------

[zed009]

Definatelly a YES!

xxx

Craig pointed out that it's difficult to have a gadget-master in an age when we're all of us pretty gadgeted up (computers, smartphones, etc.). That struck me as an indirect no. But we shall see.

The logical thing would be to make Q, or Boothroyd, what he was in the novels: an armourer. Rather than "gadgets," he makes sure Bond is loaded for bear when he goes into the field. The weapons can still be fanciful, but only if they make sense. That way, the movies don't always need to be ahead of technology. They can just keep Bond strong on the job.

I agree with this as this is how the boothroyd character was in the books, for example when he replaced bonds trusty berreta for a ppk , it would only be a small part as before, not sure he should be called Q though, may be boothroyd like the book,

paul

[Syndicate]

I think Q should return, and how can it be difficult to have a gadget-master in an age when we're all of us pretty gadgeted up. IF that is true then even in the NON SUPER SPY WORLD we would not need them and that department. What it is what a spy use and how it are not sold in stores at all. One can not just go to Best Buy, Frys, Target, Apple store, Costco, Sears and Walmart to get it. Also it would never be talked about or known about for a long time even when it old news in the spy business. But in a super spy world one can let their imagination go alittle wild, just not out of control on the stuff. Where there no way that can ever be created, even in this kind of a world.

So IF we never had that or still need them then we would not have books like these.

The Wizards Of Langley: Inside The Cia's Directorate Of Science And Technology by Jeffrey T. Richelson

Spycraft: The Secret History of the CIA's Spytechs, from Communism toal-Qaeda by Robert Wallace, H. Keith Melton and Henry R. Schlesinger

Edited by Syndicate, 18 October 2011 - 03:26 PM.

[BoogieBond]

I think if Q does return it will suit Craig's interpretation. The gadgets will be scaled back and functional like some of the gadgets in CR. Grounded compared to a submarine car or even a deadly briefcase spitting out Gas if opened inappropriately. I would like to see some of the fun and fantasy come back with Bond though.