Hopefully no wacky Q if he returns
#1
Posted 21 November 2006 - 09:23 PM
#2
Posted 21 November 2006 - 10:29 PM
'Wacky' should never be allowed to describe anything put in Craig's way. Cleese's Q... No. I think the old Desmond Q of the 60's would work. Craig could play off that and still keep the edge he established in CR.
#3
Posted 21 November 2006 - 10:42 PM
#4
Posted 21 November 2006 - 10:48 PM
#5
Posted 21 November 2006 - 11:08 PM
I dont understand what you are trying to say. As I see it, the character 'Q' has always been 100% serious and disciplined, from FRWL to TWINE! Maybe they should let James Bond be more disciplined and show Q more respect... nah that sounds boringIf in Bond 22 Q comes back along with Moneypenny, i hope that they make him more like Armorer in Dr. No and Q in From Russia with Love where he just walks in M's office and gives the gadget without any wacky antics especially since M is there, they both have to be disciplined, bringing some legitimacy to it. I always liked and miss the pre-Goldfinger gadget man.
#6
Posted 21 November 2006 - 11:19 PM
#7
Posted 21 November 2006 - 11:26 PM
#8
Posted 22 November 2006 - 12:35 AM
Having said that, after watching Casino Royale and being widly impressed by it, I can't say I would want Q to return, same for Moneypenny.
It now seems clear that their absence was a deliberate separation from bond films of old, Both characters served as "light relief" in the cinematic interpretation of Bond and such light heartedness would have been detremental to Casino Royale's plot, where humour is employed much more effectivly elsewhere (I'm talking about that torture scene)
I am enjoying this new era of Bond, and whether you see it as Bond 0, Bond Series 2 or plain old Bond 21, I personally would only accept Q back in a serious functional role which would hint towards the Q/Bond relationship and as for Moneypenny, I still think her removal was unneccesary initially but now Villiers has her role, I would like to see him in a few more films.
Edited by shady ginzo, 22 November 2006 - 12:38 AM.
#9
Posted 22 November 2006 - 07:40 AM
[mra]I
#10
Posted 22 November 2006 - 08:48 AM
I saw that man as just a doctor at MI6, not as Q. To me the guy who served in the Q/Maj. Boothroyd capacity was the mustached guy who put the chip in Bond's arm and scanned it.Anybody else think that we might have already met Q in the defibrillator scene? The one who took charge in the bad jacket? What was he given credit for in the credits? I bet somebody would have noticed had it been Q but hey no hurt in trying!
#11
Posted 22 November 2006 - 09:02 AM
I wonder whether he should be played by a relative unknown, a known actor in England but unknown in America, or an internationally renowned British actor.
Also, should he be called Q officially? Should he be called the Armourer/Quartermaster of Q Branch? Or should they split the difference and make "Q" the nickname Bond comes up with during their first encounter?
Edited by Sanjuro007, 22 November 2006 - 09:04 AM.
#12
Posted 22 November 2006 - 02:36 PM
#13
Posted 22 November 2006 - 02:51 PM
#14
Posted 22 November 2006 - 02:58 PM
Maybe someone like Michael Caine? Or, is he wrapped up with Batman?
They should (re)introduce Q-Branch, and Major B., who Bond just starts calling 'Q'.
#15
Posted 22 November 2006 - 05:38 PM
[mra]I
#16
Posted 22 November 2006 - 06:15 PM
But if we must go for an older Boothroyd/Q, then I'd want to distance him as much from the previous versions as possible. Make him a former field agent, maybe even have him injured to the point where he can't serve anymore. Make him a mentor figure to Bond rather than a verbal sparring partner. Give him a fresh spin.
#17
Posted 23 November 2006 - 03:19 PM
Q should be a curmudgeonly old(er) Merlin to Craig's Bond. There should be humor, but it should come naturally in his interaction with Bond, not from forced gags.
I wonder whether he should be played by a relative unknown, a known actor in England but unknown in America, or an internationally renowned British actor.
Also, should he be called Q officially? Should he be called the Armourer/Quartermaster of Q Branch? Or should they split the difference and make "Q" the nickname Bond comes up with during their first encounter?
I'm with you there 100%, humor should be avoided (I love Q as a serious technician with Bond not taking Q's work serious) but forced gags are a bit much and campy. I see no problem with Cleese or another British comedian (Rowan atkinson?) so long as they aren't goofy. Q is a fine title and makes sense considering S and M
#18
Posted 25 November 2006 - 11:24 AM
#19
Posted 25 November 2006 - 11:31 AM
#20
Posted 25 November 2006 - 08:40 PM
I'm hoping Casino Royale has been set as the template for the rest of the Daniel Craig era, in that we've now dispensed with the childish tomfoolery, and the films will have a much 'straighter' tone in all departments...i.e. no John Cleese rolling around in an inflatable jacket! I'm all for a little humour injected into proceedings, as long as it's well-written, sharp & witty.
I always liked the Q scene from TND best, if thats considered straight.
#21
Posted 01 December 2006 - 10:03 AM
Moneypenny should return to liking Bond. In Moonraker the novel, it states that they like each other and that Moneypenny knows that Bond is attracted to her. She should be used in a serious way - not for comic relief.
Who should play them - well I cannot say really, but no former Bonds, no Michael Caine or any other star. Serious character actors.
#22
Posted 01 December 2006 - 02:23 PM
Yes, I would like that!
#23
Posted 01 December 2006 - 02:34 PM
#24
Posted 01 December 2006 - 02:34 PM
I get the feeling M's male assistant in CASINO ROYALE could be a MONEYPENNY by stealth. Bring it on if so. If the age of a wacky gadget master is behind us, then so are the Angel Delight flirtations of a man and his secretary. BOND and MONEYPENNY is all a bit colonial England now....
#25
Posted 02 December 2006 - 01:23 AM
I liked how the scene was handled. Just business, no bull's .
Especially I liked how the only remark directed towards the guy, who's only doing his job, is an ironical "ouch", and then back to the briefing.
Edited by Blonde Bond, 02 December 2006 - 01:23 AM.
#26
Posted 02 December 2006 - 03:43 AM
#27
Posted 02 December 2006 - 04:32 AM
I wouldn't mind John Cleese reappearing, either.
I would mind if it was done in a daft, self-indugent manner (re: anything after TB).
#28
Posted 02 December 2006 - 05:04 AM
Also, I wouldn't mind seeing Q's respect for Bond develop over the next few movies, so we can sort of see that dynamic of the friendship between them a la TWINE. Even though Bond can annoy Q a great deal, I think that that uniqueness of character is quite endearing to Q. Couple that with the fact that Bond is one of the few 00s without a short lifespan, and I'm sure Q is able to appreciate the special man he is.
As for casting, I'd be rather indifferent to John Cleese coming back, but if they were to recast, I've got 2 ideas.
A. First off, after watching some Shaun of the Dead, I think it'd be interesting to see what Bill Nighy would do to the role. Maybe try to have him be a relic of the sorts of English gentlemen we usually see during those MI6 briefings in the Connery days.
B. Hugh Laurie. He may be a bit of an untraditional choice for the role, but I think he could carve out something special with the character. Just imagine in your head how a scene with him as Q would play out. Pretty damned great, no?
Edited by capungo, 02 December 2006 - 05:08 AM.
#29
Posted 02 December 2006 - 07:46 AM
B. Hugh Laurie. He may be a bit of an untraditional choice for the role, but I think he could carve out something special with the character. Just imagine in your head how a scene with him as Q would play out. Pretty damned great, no?
Just equip him with a cane, make him very stuck-up in his manners, and we're set to go !
#30
Posted 02 December 2006 - 08:50 AM
B. Hugh Laurie. He may be a bit of an untraditional choice for the role, but I think he could carve out something special with the character. Just imagine in your head how a scene with him as Q would play out. Pretty damned great, no?
I think that he would probably be a very good Q as well. He would probably be able to strike a great balance between the seriousness that Q would need within this new reboot as well as be able to mix some humor into the part as well.