75 replies to this topic

[Blofeld's Cat]

John Cleese IS Q.

I need my Q scene!

I want my Q scene!

I demand my Q scene!

[Johnboy007]

I'm willing to bet they just have not written a scene for it yet. Doesn't really mstter either way, I just want Bond to return soon.

[Alex Zamudio]

I very much doubt they won't include a Q scene; I think at this height of the series is just impossible, regardless if this is a dead serious Bond spy thriller flick; all the most serious 007 outings have had a Q scene; FRWL, FYEO, TLD, LTK, even when he wasn't needed in OHMSS he had some scenes! Everybody knows by this point that a 007 movie without Q is just not a Bond film, so those who are wishing for an ultra change in direction for Bond 21 with a "Qless" film, you will be disappointed...

Regards.


p.s. even NSNA had Q Algy.

[freemo]

I'm sure they'll shoehorn a Q scene in at some point in the film. Don't forget, they've got cars to sell, and the Q scene is a major part of that.

[mkkbb]

I'd like to see Q on assignment, like in License To Kill.

[LordAsriel]

I very much doubt they won't include a Q scene; I think at this height of the series is just impossible, regardless if this is a dead serious Bond spy thriller flick; all the most serious 007 outings have had a Q scene; FRWL, FYEO, TLD, LTK, even when he wasn't needed in OHMSS he had some scenes! Everybody knows by this point that a 007 movie without Q is just not a Bond film, so those who are wishing for an ultra change in direction for Bond 21 with a "Qless" film, you will be disappointed...

Regards.


p.s. even NSNA had Q Algy.

I think the problem is that John Cleese's Q is a very different character than Desmond Llewelyn'Q, he's almost parodic in a way. And I can't see John Cleese's Q working well in Licence to kill, or in the short and sober Q scene in FRWL.

[JimmyBond]

And I can't see John Cleese's Q working well in Licence to kill, or in the short and sober Q scene in FRWL.

I could, I don't think we've had enough films with Cleese yet to really get a feel for his character. In TWINE he was a buffoon, in DAD he was a bit more serious, but still a smart . Who knows, it all depends on how he's written.

BTW, if they don't include a Q scene, I'd be fine with that, not every film has to follow the forumula to a T.

[Moonraker]

It depends on where the story leads. If its going to be as serious as what we've heard and it would most likely work, especially if its based on Casino Royale.

[Pussfeller]

In spite of my boundless admiration for Monty Python, I would rather Eon made a faithful adaptation of Casino Royale. I think this would require the producers to eschew a lot of Bond film tradition, including the self-contained ten-minute Q scene.

Mind you, I doubt they have the balls to depart from the formula, which means that they'll no doubt jam in a Q scene whether it's needed or not. I just hope they'll make an effort to be clever and restrained--and leave out the invisible cars and gasoline-powered turtleneck sweaters.

[JimmyBond]

Mind you, I doubt they have the balls to depart from the formula,

We'll see. Perhaps they finally realize what the fans are saying about the series and are taking a few of these complaints to heart.

[Pussfeller]

Mind you, I doubt they have the balls to depart from the formula,

We'll see. Perhaps they finally realize what the fans are saying about the series and are taking a few of these complaints to heart.

I sure hope so.

[brendan007]

Mind you, I doubt they have the balls to depart from the formula,

What on earth are you talking about, I hope they have the COMMON SENSE NOT TO depart from the formula. Whats with all these so called 'fans' wanting to change the series till we no longer recognise it?
The Bond series works because there is a formula. Its a bit like Law & Order really, people know what to expect when they watch, and we will damn well get if its not there.
Change the formula and its not Bond, so why bother. If you guys want something radical and edgy, then I'd suggest a change of franchise. Let us Bond fans enjoy the Bond films for what they are.

[Skudor]

I'd like to say that I'm not too bothered, but I would probably miss it if it wasn't there. There will probably be one. All the recent films have had a fair number of gadgets, so this one will no doubt too - even if its more down to earth - there's a world of difference between the Vanish and, say, a camera hidden in the glasses, or some other useful spy gadget, but they could both do with a Q scene to explain it.

My penny goes on there being a Q scene, and Cleese being Q.

[Harmsway]

Mind you, I doubt they have the balls to depart from the formula,

What on earth are you talking about, I hope they have the COMMON SENSE NOT TO depart from the formula. Whats with all these so called 'fans' wanting to change the series till we no longer recognise it?
The Bond series works because there is a formula. Its a bit like Law & Order really, people know what to expect when they watch, and we will damn well get if its not there.
Change the formula and its not Bond, so why bother. If you guys want something radical and edgy, then I'd suggest a change of franchise. Let us Bond fans enjoy the Bond films for what they are.

All these 'fans' wanting to change the formula don't want to change the series till it's unrecognizable. They just want to shake things up a bit, get back to the Fleming roots. Departure from the formula doesn't mean it ceases to be James Bond, it just means the elements are put together in a new way. For example, a film about a headhunt for James Bond, or a film where Bond is put together to work in cooperation with agents from other agencies.

[Mister Asterix]

Mind you, I doubt they have the balls to depart from the formula,

We'll see. Perhaps they finally realize what the fans are saying about the series and are taking a few of these complaints to heart.

[mra]I would suspect they

[Skudor]

How far can a Bond film stray from the formula and still remain a Bond film?

I'm not too sensitive to changes, as long as Bond remains Bond I'm happy. But I think the audience at large expects most of the standard formulaic elements. Take too many away and there will be moans and groans in the isles. Consider a Bond film without the standards Moneypenny banter, no Q scene, no gadgets, no car, no casino scene (or equivalent posh party scene / tux wearing event as in TND and DAD), no exotic locations and no Bond girls - to most people that would no longer be a Bond film. It wouldn't be what they paid to see. Take away a couple of the elements and they'd probably still complain. After 20 films and 40 years people expect things - the Bond formula is more or less set in stone because of the audience's expectations.

To answer my own question, I think you can remove Q once in a while, or some of the other elements (the girls have to be there ), as long as it comes back next time round.

[Righty007]

Mind you, I doubt they have the balls to depart from the formula,

What on earth are you talking about, I hope they have the COMMON SENSE NOT TO depart from the formula. Whats with all these so called 'fans' wanting to change the series till we no longer recognise it?
The Bond series works because there is a formula. Its a bit like Law & Order really, people know what to expect when they watch, and we will damn well get if its not there.
Change the formula and its not Bond, so why bother. If you guys want something radical and edgy, then I'd suggest a change of franchise. Let us Bond fans enjoy the Bond films for what they are.

Nicely put.

[Qwerty]

I wouldn't mind seeing some minor changes that freshen up the film, but don't detract from the overall feeling the audience is expecting from the Q scene. I don't see that being an real problem for the film.

Something like, as mentioned earlier in this thread, seeing Q right out in the field with James Bond, ala Thunderball and You Only Live Twice.

[JackChase007]

What's this rubbish about "changing the formula and you no longer have Bond"? There's a difference between making small changes here and there from one film to the next. You run a risk of ruining Bond when you, say, make Bond American, or turn him into a blue-collar, everyday schlub. But for example, Q's presence was missed in Live And Let Die, however, I still think that the film was fantastic, and in fact is one of my favorites. You don't need to rely on the same elements each and every time to make a successful film.

Look at the Jason Bourne films. If you have seen Supremacy, you know that they took a very drastic step in terms of the story, and the film was still fantastic, and this helped make Supremacy more unique to Identity, but did not shatter the overall feel to both movies.

[brendan007]

What's this rubbish about "changing the formula and you no longer have Bond"?  There's a difference between making small changes here and there from one film to the next.  You run a risk of ruining Bond when you, say, make Bond American, or turn him into a blue-collar, everyday schlub.  But for example, Q's presence was missed in Live And Let Die, however, I still think that the film was fantastic, and in fact is one of my favorites.  You don't need to rely on the same elements each and every time to make a successful film.

Look at the Jason Bourne films.  If you have seen Supremacy, you know that they took a very drastic step in terms of the story, and the film was still fantastic, and this helped make Supremacy more unique to Identity, but did not shatter the overall feel to both movies.

Jeez im sick off all these comparisions to Bourne. Yes they are good films, but if they made a Bond film like that I (and I suspect the majority of Bond's audience) would be severly disapointed.
You're quote "You don't need to rely on the same elements each and every time to make a successful film" is true, but not in the Bond series. You DO need to rely on the same elements each and every time to make a successful Bond film.
Look at the Bond films that didnt, audiences stayed away.
The trick is to make it seem brand new, which IMO the Brosnan series did very well. People on the net are putting way to much thought into these things.
To quote Ian Fleming (well actually Desmond Llyewlen) "The trick is to keep your story moving so fast that nobody notices all the plot holes etc)".
I dont see why Michael G and Barbara get so much crap around here when all their doing is delivering what people expect from Bond, and doing a bloody good job of it as well.

[JackChase007]

First off, I wasn't trying to say that Bond should be more like Bourne. I was just making an example. I had originally intended to point that out, however, forgot as I typed up that message.

Second, sticking to the same forumla each and every time does NOT lead to a definate success. For example, Moonraker is one of the most argued-about Bond films, and IMO, the worst of the series, part of the reason being that it is a complete and utter rehash of The Spy Who Loved Me. And the fact is that lately, the Bond films have been criticized for being so formulaic and predictable. I strongly disagree that the same elements need to be used in each and every Bond movie for it be good. Sure, the Q scenes are fun, but let's face it - they really aren't necessary. I've brought this up in the past, and I'll bring it up again - look at the original novels. Boothroyd was only in ONE novel, and somehow, the series just happened to survive. If you keep giving people the same thing over and over and over and over, then yes, the movies will come to rely on those aspects, but they really should try to mix things up here and there. Again, taking Q out of one movie isn't nearly the same as, say, changing Bond's character. In the end, when you keep recycling the same elements over and over, people will get tired to the point where they'll think to themselves, "Why should I pay $10 to go see this new Bond movie, when I can sit here and watch essentially the same thing at home for free?". Sure, it's good to have some of the familiar elements to fall back on (the same supporting cast and all), but it's also good to offer variety.

[Loomis]

Mind you, I doubt they have the balls to depart from the formula,

What on earth are you talking about, I hope they have the COMMON SENSE NOT TO depart from the formula. Whats with all these so called 'fans' wanting to change the series till we no longer recognise it?
The Bond series works because there is a formula. Its a bit like Law & Order really, people know what to expect when they watch, and we will damn well get if its not there.
Change the formula and its not Bond, so why bother. If you guys want something radical and edgy, then I'd suggest a change of franchise. Let us Bond fans enjoy the Bond films for what they are.

Nicely put.

I'm with people like Harmsway and JackChase007 on this one. Variety is the spice of the Bond series. For all this talk of the hallowed "formula", Bond has survived for decades by not giving viewers precisely the same thing every time out, and by adapting to new trends. I mean, this is a series that - stunningly - contains both OCTOPUSSY and LICENCE TO KILL, both ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and MOONRAKER. If you showed, say, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER to Martian who wanted to know what all the fuss over Bond was about, he'd think it was a lighthearted comedy caper movie series featuring a smooth playboy type as the hero. Now show your Martian pal THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS.

Admittedly, what I'm talking about here are changes in tone, rather than changes in story formula (although, frankly, if you can put Bond in space, surely you can do anything with him - didn't films like THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, MOONRAKER and OCTOPUSSY change beyond recognition the series containing DR. NO, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and GOLDFINGER, only for yet more radical change to come with the Dalton era?), but still.... if BOND 21 didn't feature, say, a Moneypenny scene, would it really be so terrible, as long as the film delivered plenty of other traditional Bond movie elements and was entertaining?

Why shouldn't Bond borrow from Bourne? Bond has borrowed from blaxploitation, Bruce Lee, STAR WARS, LETHAL WEAPON, DIE HARD.... Anyway, borrowing from Bourne simply means (IMO) making a grittier, more suspenseful flick than something like DIE ANOTHER DAY - doesn't mean making Bond a former employee of the CIA with amnesia, or anything like that.

According to brendan007: "You DO need to rely on the same elements each and every time to make a successful Bond film. Look at the Bond films that didnt, audiences stayed away."

By that logic, I guess they should never have made OHMSS and LTK, two films held in very high regard by many Bond fans.

Well, I'm a Bond fan because the series occasionally departs from the formula and gives us interesting movies (and interesting failures).

And, while I've read (and written) many criticisms of LIVE AND LET DIE, I've yet to encounter the complaint that it fails to be a proper Bond flick because it doesn't have Q in it.

[JackChase007]

Now that was nicely put.

And I do want to say, why shouldn't we compare Bond movies to the Bourne movies? IMO, and I'm sure people would agree with me, the Bourne films are becoming the spy thrillers that the Bond movies should have been. Sure, From Russia With Love and On Her Majesty's Secret Service are close to their literary roots, and in fact, those are two of the best in the series (and not just by my tastes, they are both considered some of the best by many). The only thing that Bond could really learn from the Bourne movies is just that you can make a financially successful spy film without resorting to dumbed-down tactics, like slapstick humor and CGI effects. I'll be totally honest, to this day, I very much love Die Another Day and I enjoy it a lot (although, once the film leaves Iceland, it's pretty much over for me), I look back at 2002, and for me, The Bourne Identity is the spy film that Die Another Day could have been, and to some effect, even almost was. The point is, the Bourne filmmakers are doing something right, and the Bond people are falling behind a bit - I've been a Bond fan for....I can't even remember how long. However, I've only been a fan of Bourne for a little over two years, but I've managed to get a LOT more use out of my copy of The Bourne Identity than my copy of Die Another Day.

[DLibrasnow]

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.

I agree Zencat. I am tired of there being a new gee-whiz car in every new movie.
These were always featured sparingly in 007 movies (1964, 1977 and 1987), but with these multi-million dollar cross-promotional deals EON makes now we have been saddled with a new car every entry.

[Pussfeller]

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.

I agree Zencat. I am tired of there being a new gee-whiz car in every new movie.
These were always featured sparingly in 007 movies (1964, 1977 and 1987), but with these multi-million dollar cross-promotional deals EON makes now we have been saddled with a new car every entry.

Hear hear! I've always been irritated by this automotive obsession that Eon seems to have. They act like the car is the main event!

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]It

[Loomis]

I wouldn't care if Bond drove nothing at all in BOND 21. Actually, isn't it the case that he doesn't drive in MOONRAKER? There we are: you need fewer "classic Bond elements" than you'd think for a classic Bond flick.

[DLibrasnow]

I agree Loomis, I don't think there's a need to show Bond drive any car in Bond 21.

[Bondian]

I agree. Couldn't he take a bus for a change?.

[Qwerty]

I agree. Couldn't he take a bus for a change?.   

*ahem*Live And Let Die*ahem*