18 replies to this topic

[Syndicate]

Anyone know or have any guess as to will Q and Q branch return in future Bond movies. From that scence where Bond ran out to the car to try and save himself and use that thing. That looks like it should have been a Q and Bond moment, where Q tells him how to use it and afterward Bond's good old remarks and humor with Q.

Edited by Syndicate, 03 December 2006 - 03:31 AM.

[JimmyBond]

I'm glad they didnt do that, it would have taken the tension out of the scene.

[capungo]

I'm pretty sure Q and Q branch will be returning in the next one, so you needn't fear. Not sure about the Q brunch though, although I admit it sounds rather tasty

[Cody]

Now that I've dealt with the presumed removal of John Cleese from the franchise, I wouldn't mind if there is no Q in the next films. Like the tracking chip implanter and the medics in Casino Royale, Bond can interact with specıalısts in certain areas when necessary, but no more "Pay attention, 007" Q scenes.

[tdalton]

I'm glad they didnt do that, it would have taken the tension out of the scene.

I'm glad that they didn't as well. That scene was one of the more tense scenes in the franchise (or at least in recent films) even though we knew that he was going to make it out of it. I think that the scene was written quite well as it stands now.

[Death for breakfast]

I hope Q and Q branch will return for Bond 22 but w/o Cleese. I think he's a little too campy for the direction the franchise is trying to go in.

[Syndicate]

I hope Q and Q branch will return for Bond 22 but w/o Cleese. I think he's a little too campy for the direction the franchise is trying to go in.

I don't mine John Cleese in the role, I think he can do those type dream/comedy situations when need for action movies, like talking to Bond, M or others working in Q branch. I hope they are not going think about using Michale Caine in the role. He is a good actor but that role does not fit him and he does not fit it.

[00Twelve]

If Major Boothroyd returns (sorry, I hope he's called by his real name), he should be considerably younger than he has been since, say, OHMSS. He needs to be young enough to see 007 through all his next 20 missions, IMO. Also, I'm hoping to see some realism in Q Branch, showing realistic current spy technology, so we don't go back to the old "ghetto blaster"/"stinging in the rain" days of Q branch.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

Mmm I could go some Q brunch right about now.

[Syndicate]

If Major Boothroyd returns (sorry, I hope he's called by his real name), he should be considerably younger than he has been since, say, OHMSS. He needs to be young enough to see 007 through all his next 20 missions, IMO. Also, I'm hoping to see some realism in Q Branch, showing realistic current spy technology, so we don't go back to the old "ghetto blaster"/"stinging in the rain" days of Q branch.

Can't show realistic current spy technology, if they do that then James Bond would have to changed from a superspy to a close to the real type spy like Tom Clancy's CIA Operation Officer John Clark, John Le Caree's George Smiley and the British Sercet Intelligence Service Operation Officers that work under him. The whole superspy formula whould have to throwen out. That would the same thing if they wanted realistic current spy technology for Mission Impossible and Austin Powers no more of the superspy formula at all.

[dunmall]

Why not? The folding sniper rifle from FRWL was based around a real tool? So was the concept of carry spare hard cash conceal about your person, I believe SOE agents had gold coins in their shoe heels during WW2 in case of emergencies, not to mention mineture saw blades were concealed in shoe laces for escape purposes.

Start with something real and just build apon it to make it a little fantastical

[00golf]

If they do bring back Q it needs to be in the fassion of Goldfinger or Thunderball IMO. No sentimental moments, no knee slapping one liners.

[Hergersheimer]

Give me a heads up if this Q-Brunch ever happens.

[Jackanaples]

I think it extremely unlikely we'll be seeing the return of Q or Q Branch for the next few movies.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

Don't touch that!

That's my brunch....

Right, couldn't resist...Personally I didn't have a problem with that scene, though I'll admit, at first I had no clue what on earth was happening. That was actually my least favorite scene in the movie the first time I saw it (it was saved by Daniel's 'you ok?').

I also think it would've been strange having Daniel go from the Bahamas back to London then to Montenegro just so John Cleese could tell him how to use some shock paddles in the glove box of his car. The package and "I love you too M." was much better.

[00Twelve]

If Major Boothroyd returns (sorry, I hope he's called by his real name), he should be considerably younger than he has been since, say, OHMSS. He needs to be young enough to see 007 through all his next 20 missions, IMO. Also, I'm hoping to see some realism in Q Branch, showing realistic current spy technology, so we don't go back to the old "ghetto blaster"/"stinging in the rain" days of Q branch.

Can't show realistic current spy technology, if they do that then James Bond would have to changed from a superspy to a close to the real type spy like Tom Clancy's CIA Operation Officer John Clark, John Le Caree's George Smiley and the British Sercet Intelligence Service Operation Officers that work under him. The whole superspy formula whould have to throwen out. That would the same thing if they wanted realistic current spy technology for Mission Impossible and Austin Powers no more of the superspy formula at all.

I mean things similar to the defibrilator in a glove compartment. Casino Royale did a pretty decent job of taking the gadgets back to a reasonable level of believability in comparison with the past several films.

[RJJB]

I don't care if Q or Moneypenny ever return. Everything has been already done with the characters and returninng them for the sake of tradition would be a backstep. Part of the reason the series bogged down was the plug and play approach. Every movie had to have the obligatory scenes with Q and Moneypenny, and as the actors were replaced, it just lost its value. This is a new Bond with a fresh start. Let's keep the excess baggage out.

Edited by RJJB, 04 December 2006 - 04:01 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

Anyone know or have any guess as to will Q and Q branch return in future Bond movies. From that scence where Bond ran out to the car to try and save himself and use that thing. That looks like it should have been a Q and Bond moment, where Q tells him how to use it and afterward Bond's good old remarks and humor with Q.

And that's exactly why we shouldn't reinstate the Q and Q BRANCH of old... CASINO ROYALE has proved that a Bond film can be more than a Christmas shopping list of elements for fans to tick. I love Desmond Llewellyn in the part, but his inclusion in the latter Brosnans was a nod to the fans and not the substance, energy or narrative of the films themselves. John Cleese became a continuance of that gimmick - a gimmick that Eon have shed with CASINO ROYALE and will no doubt need a lot of convincing to reinstate.

He needs to be young enough to see 007 through all his next 20 missions...

Why?!! How said the character needs to be in the next 20 films because he was in all the others? This smacks of fan-boy delusions and not the devices and mechanics necessary in shaping and creating a cutting edge piece of mainstream cinema.

[Jackanaples]

I'm with you, ZI. When people take time to understand why the filmmakers initially decided to give James Bond high tech gadgets back in the 1960s, they'll understand why doing it now JUST DOESN'T WORK.