88 replies to this topic

[Double-Oh-Zero]

I'd be tempted to agree with the idea of getting rid of Q since because, let's face it, the Q scene just became it's own joke after the Connery films. Perhaps if they would do it in the style of the first few, which involved Boothroyd walking into M's office, showing Bond a new gadget, exchanging in some harmless banter, and then leaving (all in the span of about three minutes, as well), they could keep him.

Cleese is still okay in my books, but if they were to go for someone younger-ish looking, Dexter Fletcher might fit the bill. Simon Pegg would be great if it weren't for the aforementioned role in M:I-III.

[shady ginzo]

I agree that institution is not enough cause to keep bringing back a warmed over character, even more so since the death of Llewellyn and his replacement by cleese. as far as Q goes his purpose was never really that of Quartermaster / armeror, that was a by-product of comedy/light hearted scenes which have given us some good moments over the years but less and less as time goes by. of the Brosnan scenes, TWINE was the only memorable one in my opinion, and that was simply because of the introduction of Cleese, who was acceptable as a bumbling deputy but made a un-fulfilling replacement as far as I am concerned (although I have to add here that I do adore Cleese in everything he does, but sadly tha character here was wrong from the start.)
I think Q should be replaced but stricly in the function of armourer / "tech guy" used when necessary as opposed to obligation. I like the idea of Ricky Gervais playing the role cause I can imagine him doing something unpredictable and inovative. Second Choice would be Simon Pegg but I expect to see a Boom in his career shortly with the release of Hot Fuzz and that would probably rule out this kindda work. Plus, as mentioned before he has already done a similar role in MI3

Edited by shady ginzo, 09 June 2006 - 11:12 PM.

[Agent007.5]

How are we so sure that when Q returns that Cleese won't be him. I personally liked him as Q, although Desmond Llwelyn is the true Q, Cleese did a good a job trying to make the character his own instead feeling like he was just replacing Llwelyn. So I think Cleese should return and if they need to replace him, I would suggest either Cleese's fellow Python buddy Eric Idle or maybe Rowan Atkinson, who I know was in NSNA, but that one doesn't count as an offical Bond film.

[Robert Watts]

I would like Cleese to be back, I enjoyed him (albeit he was terribly slapstick in TWINE, but that was the way the character was written)

If they were to do a female Q it would have to be after Dench departs from the franchise.

For a new take on the character, or more to the point a take much like Q in Goldfinger (With him being serious but Bond making the scene funny) I would suggest Michael Caine.

[Agent007.5]

I would suggest Michael Caine.

Interesting, because I can easily seen Caine in the role of M but who knows? Would be interesting what he does with the character.

[Mike00spy]

Keep Cleese.

[Robert Watts]

I can't see Caine as M, partially because of his accent. However looking at his recent roles, namely seeing him in Batman Begins, has lead me to think that he could make a terrific Q.

As for Q being young and nerdy, I don't like the idea -- it has been done to death on TV shows (ALIAS as an example with their techy character) and I like the interesting irony of an old man being a technical whiz.

[cletus van damme]

Now that I am sober ....I have to agree with JIM and JIMMY BOND.

Money Penny andQ are not needed and not integral to the character OR the story and scenes with them always felt nostalgia before they got the plot...

I don't think they should come back either...

Eddie Izzard took the piss mercilessly out of Q, (trousers that turn into Jam etc) so he wouldn'tbe a good choice....

its not needed...do we honestly think any secret agents go down to the tec department and meet a "Q" before heading out on a mission?

BOND IS now former SBS right? they develop their gadgets on the job, constant training and lectures by experts ...that would be more realistic,,,,Bond visiting a Naval base (Poole?) and recieving new training and information ..rather than a ropey studio set up in Pinewood to meet a comedy character..NOT. GOOD. the further away from studio based set=ups the better...

[me4007th007]

Hugh Laurie

[Loomis]

Mackenzie Crook is clearly the perfect next Q. The character should be a young man, and younger than Bond, whom he looks down on for being a technological dinosaur ("So, 007, assuming you know what an iPod is, I've built one for you that has a few rather explosive surprises in it....").

[Carver]

Mackenzie Crook is clearly the perfect next Q. The character should be a young man, and younger than Bond, whom he looks down on for being a technological dinosaur ("So, 007, assuming you know what an iPod is, I've built one for you that has a few rather explosive surprises in it....").

Totally agree. He has that geeky look about him, isn't a huge name in the film business and isn't a bad actor. If Cleese were to be replaced, Crook would be my first choice.

[K1Bond007]

I don't see all the hate with Cleese. I thought he did great in Die Another Day given the circumstances of that film. I liked how he wasn't a bumbling fool like Q had become and even how "R" was in the previous film. I wouldn't mind Clesse's return so long as they got rid of all the jokes and whatnot and made Q a respectable character instead of a running joke. Wit is the key with making Cleese work in that role; a "smarter than you" / "I haven't got time for this " type of attitude that we got from Llewelyn in FRWL - Thunderball. I do hope that whatever is done with Q, that it is limited. I don't think we need a full on scene with him. Have him show up in M's office a la Dr. No or something to that extent - so long as he is pertinent to the plot -, and not a trip to the gadget lab. Bond doesn't really need gadgets anyway. Q should really be there for support to explain , not to really just hand out gadgets that "may" come in handy, but almost always certainly do because Bond is always thrust into the most opportune moment to ever use the gadget.

The suggestion of making Q a woman is not a bad idea (one of Gardner's better ideas), although I don't think it's a good idea at this point. We already have a female M and I don't think we need to retread the whole idea of putting a female character in a traditionally male role. I don't think you can get much more out of that that hasn't already been done with M, Miss Moneypenny, and to a further extent, Dr. Warmflash from TWINE.

[Santa]

Or Eddie Izzard, anyone?

Yep, I suggested him once before and expected to get bashed for it but it seems we're not the only ones. I think he could put his own take on the character as I think we're all fairly in agreement that there's no point in trying to do some kind of DL clone.

[cletus van damme]

HELLOOOOO????

Eddie Izzard does a whole sketch on Q.

Q outfits BOND with trousers made of JAM!!!!

Izzard would KILL the franchise..how much self parody can one series take....????

Izzard is a terrible suggestion.

He also takes the piss out of BOND in just about every stand up showhe has ever done, albeit with affection AND he did it in OCEANS 12, where he played the equivalent of Q.

Terrible suggestion.

Leave Q and MOneyPenny in people's imagination....and for nostalgia freaks, they are walking a fine line betweeen redemption and parody

[Nimsworth]

Now that John Cleese has announced his plans to retire would this be the best time to retire Q?

Since Casino Royale is essentially a new slate does Bond need a bunch of gadgets in his upcoming adventures? I'm all for keeping Moneypenny since M needs a secretary but does he really need all the gadgets that Q convieniently gives him?

Edited by Nimsworth, 12 June 2006 - 04:45 PM.

[Stephen Spotswood]

Actually in the John Gardner Bond books they have a female Q that they called Qute. Qute, huh?

How about Ian McCellan as Q? It would be less work than Magneto.

[cletus van damme]

if you read what John Cleese just said about the Bond producers and the fact that they didn't ring him and couple that with what Brosnan said....it adds up to quite a bit of a PR failure for BABS and co. ...why are they so bad at handling their family?

[JCRendle]

We've known from early production, and you'd think he knew, that Q wasn't in Casino Royale, it's not like they kept it quite from the start.

[Fro]

So how would someone younger than Bond rise to head of his department?

I think John Lithgow would be an interesting choice, if you even want to bring the character back. The only real time Q has been interesting is when he's been out in the field with Bond.

Edited by Fro, 12 June 2006 - 07:04 PM.

[Tarl_Cabot]

The guy who played a Q type in MI3(dunno his name).Maybe it's too late for that because they'd be copying MI but he seems perfect to me for a renewed, refreshed version of a Bond universe.

[FilmNerdJamie]

If I were directing a Bond film (something I maintain I will do someday; being as how I'm a student filmmaker), my top choice for Q would be Nicol Williamson (i.e. Merlin from Excalibur, Sherlock Holmes from The Seven Per-Cent Solution, etc.)

In my mind, Q has to be someone who spends every single moment putting random items together and seeing what happens next; a really quirky guy who rarily sees daylight being as how he's always inside the lab inventing things for 007.

Any thoughts...?

[I Like Sharks]

David Tennant? Seeing him in the current series of Doctor Who I think he'd bring a fresh feel to Q. Not quite young enough to be a nerdy-straight out of college whizz kid type and can defenatly play a frustrated eccentric. He'd pull in the female audience as well.

[K1Bond007]

Just to throw a name in there: Jeremy Bulloch for obvious reasons.

[007forever]

To be honest, I am so so so annoyed that they dropped Q.....><

[Qwerty]

To be honest, I am so so so annoyed that they dropped Q.....><

Why is that?

[Nimsworth]

One of the main reasons I dont see them as needing Q anymore is James Bond is a man who relies on his own skills to solve things not gadgets. That and the convienient nature of the gadgets in the later films.

Just to give an example of what I mean by "convienient nature" it seems most of the gadgets in the later films werent built "just in case you need them" but more for "the part later in the film when you need it".

[Agent005]

I agree

so... instead of changing or getting rid of Q then we shouyld just make him give Bond "just in case" gadgets.


Agent005

[Mr Malcolm]

HELLOOOOO????

Eddie Izzard does a whole sketch on Q.

Q outfits BOND with trousers made of JAM!!!!

Izzard would KILL the franchise..how much self parody can one series take....????

Izzard is a terrible suggestion.

He also takes the piss out of BOND in just about every stand up showhe has ever done, albeit with affection AND he did it in OCEANS 12, where he played the equivalent of Q.

Terrible suggestion.

I hadn't heard that. I was thinking out loud!

Edited by Mr Malcolm, 13 June 2006 - 11:58 AM.

[Gabriel]

Tony Head would be a good Q. He can comfortably handle subtle humour and can portray the required toughness you'd expect of a Major.

[Mike00spy]

Hopefully, Q comes back to Bond in the next film after Casino Royale. I just found the excuse that Q and Moneypenny aren't in the film b/c they weren't in the source novel a funny excuse. Did I miss Solange in the novel? I must have skipped the chapter where he went to Madagascar.