75 replies to this topic

[mattbowyer]

I hope this recent news is not true, they tried removing Q and all we are left with is the sad loss of an extra Q scene.

There is so much you can do to improve Bond. Better action, dialogue, more location shooting, less CGI, two years between films...

But not get rid of Q, not to mention of one the series' best assets at the moment in Cleese.

Bad, bad idea.

[Scottlee]

Where did u get the news from?

Can't imagine this would ever happen? John Cleese has settled well into Desmond Llewyln's (can never spell that) shoes. Why would the producers want to leave out Q? I don't get the logic.

[Loomis]

I like Cleese, and certainly wouldn't complain if his Q returned, but, frankly, I hope this news is true. Why? Because it would show that they're not afraid to take a few risks and make some changes to the established Bond movie formula. For decades, there's been "the obligatory Q scene" - usually it's funny, sometimes it isn't (and just holds things up), but, still, "the rules of Bond" have dictated it, and not, y'know, organic artistic necessity or whatever.

So a Q-free BOND 21 script may - may - indicate a willingness to make something other than the standard join-the-dots 007 outing. And I'd say it would also indicate a BATMAN BEGINS-style "20-something Bond on his first mission" film, only Judi Dench seems convinced she'll be returning, oh who knows what to believe?

[zencat]

Where did u get the news from?

Can't imagine this would ever happen? John Cleese has settled well into Desmond Llewyln's (can never spell that) shoes. Why would the producers want to leave out Q? I don't get the logic.

MKKBB has it: No Q for Bond 21?

You would think they would want Q to help introduce a new Bond -- keep continuity...but then again, Q sat out Moore's first.

Keep Q...but dump the "gee wiz" car for Bond 21, I say.

[Adrian Carlisle]

Michael Wilson: "Oh. it'll be fine. Just like (Purvis and Wade) Live and Let (the series) Die."

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]I don

[Jim]

I very much hope this is true.

I expect to be disappointed.

Yet again.

[Qwerty]

Where did u get the news from?

You can also read it here: http://debrief.comma...showtopic=19329

[kevrichardson]

Remember Live and Let Die ?

[Max Zorin]

I'd almost rather have no Q scene than an obligatory but pointless Q scene. Remember in Goldeneye when they spend five minutes on Bond's new car and all it's gadgets? And then the car never came into play at all during the film? (Save for that weak "bombing around" line.)

If it was Desmond, I would be horrified a the idea. But Cleese is new, and I think "shaking up the series" as Loomis said is a fantastic idea. (Though I would hope that they'd shake it up more than just removing Q.)

Having said that, isn't Cleese under contract for three more films or something?

[Jim]

Remember Live and Let Die ?

With considerable fondness.

Better not to have such a scene than go through the motions for the hell of it.

[kevrichardson]

Remember Live and Let Die ?

With considerable fondness.

Better not to have such a scene than go through the motions for the hell of it.

I totally agree !

[Agent 76]

they can't eliminate the Q character , it's part of the mythology of James Bond.

[Bondian]

If this is true, then why has Cleese signed for Bond 21 and 22?.

[deth]

as long as they are funny, not too long, and relevant to the plot, I want the Q scenes to stay...

[stromberg]

Remember Live and Let Die ?

With considerable fondness.

Better not to have such a scene than go through the motions for the hell of it.

Very true. The problem is - as much as I like John Cleese - that it's very likely that we won't ever see a Q scene again that has at least a bit of seriousnes in it. I could live without a Q scene that would only be a forced attempt on "humour" and would only add to Cleese-Q becoming the JarJar Binks of the franchise (as I already said some time ago). On the other hand - when did we last have such a scene...

So, P&W managed to write a script? Interesting. And Cleese knows that there are no Q scenes in it? He doesn't even know if he's going to be in the movie, but he knows what's in the script? Very interesting...

Could it be that this Ex-Monthy-Python was just pokin' some fun at a few journalists eager to get a "Bond-Scoop" while he was pining for the fjords...?

[Bondian]

Could it be that this Ex-Monthy-Python was just pokin' some fun at a few journalists eager to get a "Bond-Scoop" while he was pining for the fjords...?

Ha-ha, THIS is an ex parrot!!!.

I think this fiasco with EON is more fitting to "how to make yourself invisible" sketch!.

Cheers,


Ian

[JackChase007]

I'm not totally against the idea myself. Cleese is a great fit for the role, there's no doubt about that, but let's look at it this way: Major Boothroyd was only in ONE of Fleming's Bond novels. And if people want to get back in touch with the "real", "old-fashioned" Bond, then this is definately a step in the right direction.

[stromberg]

I think this fiasco with EON is more fitting to "how to make yourself invisible" sketch!. 

Did anyone see exploding shrubberies near the EON offices?

[Double-0 Six]

I've read several times in various places that the Q scene is always written last, often whilst well into filming - so they can make sure the gadgets he gives Bond are actually relevant to the plot.

I'm sure this is just a case of having not reached the stage where they can write a Q scene yet. It's only the first draft isn't it?

I'm a big fan of the Q scenes, although I do think they need to get more serious - these are deadly weapons Q is giving to Bond, and I think they could do with treating some of them seriously.

Having said that, I've always enjoyed the Q scenes for what they are - a lighthearted break before Bond heads out on his mission. It would be a shame to not have one in Bond 21, but it wouldn't be the end of the world.

[Bondian]

Did anyone see exploding shrubberies near the EON offices?

Yes, and a few EON Staff dressed as Gumby!.

"thus arrange them, in a vase"!.

[Double-Oh-Zero]

I am hoping part of this is true. I would love to see Q pop up in the middle of the film in a situation room scene (like TB or TND) to give a few small remarks, and then disappear for the rest of the film. But to exclude the entire character from the film might be awkward, seeing as how Cleese was ushered in with all the bells and whistles in DAD.

I'm really not too bothered with a Q scene in Bond 21, pobably because I feel they played the hell out of the last one with all of the "oh look another Q gadget from one of the other fillums" references.

[SnakeEyes]

I hope this is true, so badly. How could would it be to see a simple 'M gives the orders' MI6 scene and then that's it - Bond out on assignment. Not much, if any Moneypenny crap and none of that Q crap either. Right back to DrNo with style.

[Von Hammerstein]

"Now I want you to pay close attention Michael and Barbara, there MUST be a Q and the obligatory Q scene in Bond 21." Live And Let Die was a fun romp but the scene where M gives Bond the Q watch was lame. And you'll remember that some of Roger's best moments were from playing off Desmond Llewellen's straight man of Q. It's kind of like doing the movie with Felix Leiter saying, "Good to see you James, M's given me the rundown so here's how it goes." Sure for pure exposition it's fine. But it is NOT a signature 007 scene and there are somethings people expect from Bond, the M scene, the Q scene, the first meeting with the villian and the Bond girl, the scene where the villian explains his dastardly plot and the scene where Bond kills the villian, his henchmen, destroys the base and absconds with the girl. If you don't include these you're making a spy movie, but it ain't a BOND movie.

[gkgyver]

@ Agent76

Who talks about killing the Q character? If I understood this right, then Q might only take a vacation for Bond 21.

And I don't need a Q scene for Bond 21. At least not one that fits into the pattern of the last four flicks. Bond and Q exchanging some puns while we're introduced to another gadget-car.
While talking about gadgets: what could a lack of Q mean? Maybe they turn the gadgets down a bit, which could (COULD) mean a bit less explosions and a bit more of storytelling.

[Mr J Bond]

I don't think they should get rid of forever but it wouldn't harm anyone if he wasn't in one movie!
I do think they should definately tone down the comedy in Q scenes!

[Janus Assassin]

There hasn't been a Bond movie in which there was a bad Q scene, they add some comedy into the film.

[Qwerty]

I really actually don't care much how this turns out. I don't think a Q scene is required for Bond 21. And lately, the Q scene has become WAY formulatic. It might shake things up a bit, and that is fine with me.

[gkgyver]

Yeah, Janus Assassin, they added comedy; but the problem in the recent films was that Q added comedy although the films were already crammed with puns and jokes.
There's a fine line between "amusing" and "funny" things.
Take the Bond/Goldfinger/Jill card playing scene; that's amusing.
Take the first Bond/Jinx encounter: that's (meant to be) funny.
Of course there's a point where it descends into "embarassing", like the scene in TWINE, when Bond tells Christmas his name: "Bond..." *elevator up* "James Bond" ooohh

My point is: Q was just a joke amongst many others in the Brosnan era.

[Righty007]

John Cleese will return as 'Q' in Bond 21. It's as simple as that.