19 replies to this topic

[Humphrey Bogart]

If there's only one great British bloke who can be Q, it has to be Simon Pegg.





Come on, I love Simon Pegg. To me, he posessed that "Dude, Come On!" look Desmond Llewelyn has.And Oh course, he was the tech guy in another spy franchise, but only for one movie. MI-3 in case you were wondering. So why not give it a shot?

[SecretAgentFan]

Because he already did it in MI:3.

[Cody]

Because he already did it in MI:3.

Yep. Disqualified. I'd welcome him as another character, though.

[Righty007]

Because he already did it in MI:3.

Exactly!

[Zorin Industries]

Did no-one see CASINO ROYALE?!!

Quirky gadget masters and fan boy casting are out the window now. The reset button has been pressed in favour of quality and narrative conviction and the Angel Delight flirtations between MONEYPENNY and BOND and the "hilarious" nods to Q's "don't touch that, it's my lunch!" are long gone. If you want THE SPY WHO LOVED ME XI then watch GOLDENEYE or THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH - but leave a decent Bond to the fans who don't want things like a quirky Q. Going down that path - with Brosnan in-jokes and gravy ad style one liners - will get Bond dumped at the cinematic roadside in a black bin liner.

If there's only one great British bloke who can be Q, it has to be Simon Pegg.





he was the tech guy in another spy franchise, but only for one movie. MI-3 in case you were wondering. So why not give it a shot?

Is this new equivalent of "whose playing the next Bond?" I.e. Fan boys and their musings about future cast members on the sole stipulation they have seen an actor in a similiar role before...? It ain't happening folks and it's not how filmmakers operate.

[Dr.Mirakle32]

Did no-one see CASINO ROYALE?!!

Quirky gadget masters and fan boy casting are out the window now. The reset button has been pressed in favour of quality and narrative conviction and the Angel Delight flirtations between MONEYPENNY and BOND and the "hilarious" nods to Q's "don't touch that, it's my lunch!" are long gone. If you want THE SPY WHO LOVED ME XI then watch GOLDENEYE or THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH - but leave a decent Bond to the fans who don't want things like a quirky Q. Going down that path - with Brosnan in-jokes and gravy ad style one liners - will get Bond dumped at the cinematic roadside in a black bin liner.

If there's only one great British bloke who can be Q, it has to be Simon Pegg.





he was the tech guy in another spy franchise, but only for one movie. MI-3 in case you were wondering. So why not give it a shot?

Is this new equivalent of "whose playing the next Bond?" I.e. Fan boys and their musings about future cast members on the sole stipulation they have seen an actor in a similiar role before...? It ain't happening folks and it's not how filmmakers operate.

You don't have to rain on their parade. This is a fan's message board, and they can discuss whoever they want to see in a future Bond film.
And as "realistic" as CR may seem, it's still an over the top spy fantasy (but obviously not as fantastical as some other Bond films.)

Edited by Dr.Mirakle32, 15 December 2006 - 03:44 AM.

[MR. BOND 93]

I don't care for the idea of Simon Pegg, but I still support the idea of a quirky Q!

[bill007]

Now hold on a minute here. Q is an engineer. He creates things. It just so happens that he creates things with a purpose of sustaining the life of agents in the field. We saw qwirky with John Cleese. I, for one, didn't feel comfortable with that idea.

CR is taking us in a serious direction, and I, for one, would like to see that direction continue. His disdain for 007's abuse of equipment in the field is a direct assualt on his creativity.

Q, if re-energized, as I hope, should be a little p*ssed-off, hard-nosed, down-right angry at 007. But, I get ahead of the current position. Craig hasn't had the chance to anger Q yet, has he?

Edited by bill007, 15 December 2006 - 04:21 AM.

[dinovelvet]

Is this new equivalent of "whose playing the next Bond?" I.e. Fan boys and their musings about future cast members on the sole stipulation they have seen an actor in a similiar role before...? It ain't happening folks and it's not how filmmakers operate.

You're right of course, and I suspect the casting of Q (if indeed there is a Q) will be completely out of left field. After all, during the year or so of speculation of who will play Le Chiffre/Felix/Mathis, not one person in here came up with Mads Mikkelsen, Jeffrey Wright, or Giancarlo Giannini. (I left out Vesper, because I believe there was ONE suggestion in here of Eva Green, out of the thousands of posts on the subject!)

Q, if re-energized, as I hope, should be a little p*ssed-off, hard-nosed, down-right angry at 007. But, I get ahead of the current position. Craig hasn't had the chance to anger Q yet, has he

Yeah, maybe in Bond 22 the new Q could be enthusiastic and eager to work with 007, only for Bond to wreck all his gadgets, and from then on Q will be grumpy every time he sees him!

[yolt13]

Did no-one see CASINO ROYALE?!!

Quirky gadget masters and fan boy casting are out the window now. The reset button has been pressed in favour of quality and narrative conviction and the Angel Delight flirtations between MONEYPENNY and BOND and the "hilarious" nods to Q's "don't touch that, it's my lunch!" are long gone. If you want THE SPY WHO LOVED ME XI then watch GOLDENEYE or THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH - but leave a decent Bond to the fans who don't want things like a quirky Q. Going down that path - with Brosnan in-jokes and gravy ad style one liners - will get Bond dumped at the cinematic roadside in a black bin liner.

If there's only one great British bloke who can be Q, it has to be Simon Pegg.





he was the tech guy in another spy franchise, but only for one movie. MI-3 in case you were wondering. So why not give it a shot?

Is this new equivalent of "whose playing the next Bond?" I.e. Fan boys and their musings about future cast members on the sole stipulation they have seen an actor in a similiar role before...? It ain't happening folks and it's not how filmmakers operate.

Well, I doubt Simon Pegg will be asked to play Q anytime soon, but I couldn't resist jumping all over this, arguably the most "fanboy" post ever to hit this board...

The Bond franchise has gotten "serious" many times in the past, yet has always (sometimes gradually, sometimes abruptly) seen the return of the tongue-in-cheek approach. There is no reason to believe that when the character of Major Boothroyd, Quartermaster, is brought back into the fold (and he will be) that he will not be someone with at least a wry sense of humor. It's even reasonable to assume that an actor known for comedic roles will be selected to play the part. The idea that because CASINO ROYALE took a more serious approach to Bond that the days of witty banter with Q are gone forever is just one of many silly things you wrote.

Equally ridiculous is the idea that there is unlikely to be any flirtatious repartee between Bond and whoever plays Miss Moneypenny in future films. Do you honestly believe that flirtatious banter will be prohibited between Bond and his female costars going forward? If so, I'd have to ask if you've seen CASINO ROYALE.

Humor is used in dramatic narrative (especially tales of heavy tension, suspense, and/or violence) to lighten the mood and give the audience a breather. The Bond films have long used the Moneypenny and Q scenes for this purpose, and it's foolish to think that trend won't continue going forward. There was certainly plenty of witty banter in CR to break up the tension. Just because a supporting actor has a flair for comedy or his or her character is given more comedic scenes doesn't mean the tone of the entire film must be humorous. I would think someone who presumes to know "how filmmakers operate" would understand this.

Perhaps most ludicrous is the idea that "filmmakers" don't ever indulge in what you call "fanboy casting" - especially in the 007 series! Countless times in the history of this franchise key roles have been given to actors with name value which the "filmmakers" (re: the studio execs) knew would appeal to certain paying members of the audience. I suppose Diana Rigg's wild popularity as Emma Peel had no impact whatsoever on her casting as Tracy in the very "serious" OHMSS? And her former AVENGERS co-star turned up in AVTAK because of a great audition, not because spy-fi fans love the guy, right? The last Q was cast for his serious turn in Coppola's FRANKENSTEIN, rather than all of his fan-favorite work on Monty Python, Fawlty Towers, etc., eh? There are dozens more in this series alone, and thousands more examples in cinematic history. It's not "fanboy casting" (because even Bond doesn't have enough die-hard fanboys to recoup costs and turn a profit every two to three years), it's gimmick casting, and it's something that film and TV execs worldwide LOVE to do. Undoubtedly, it will happen again in the world of 007, before too long. After all, the dark and gritty CR featured a cameo by Sir Richard Branson.

All of that notwithstanding, the worst part of your post is the great presumptuousness that a)you have the future of the series pegged based on one successful entry and that b)you have turned a simple, harmless speculation thread into a venue for insulting and condescending to those with different (or perhaps just broader) tastes in Bond films than your own. I'm a serious Bond fan. I love CASINO ROYALE, and welcome the change in tone and direction. I also think there is room for - and will be - more of the lighter, "spoofier" elements in the series' future, and I'd hardly say that anyone here (unless Barbara Broccoli frequents this board) is in a position to say "never" to that possibility.

One can only hope the next Q has a sense of humor. It's easy to see how people without one can adversely affect others' enjoyment of the franchise.

Edited by yolt13, 15 December 2006 - 05:28 AM.

[moorebond82]

Who says the next Q willbe played by a british actor yes the producers have always been dead seat against casting a american to play bond but they never said anything about Q! Maybe it's time to start looking at actors outside the UK?

[DaveBond21]

I am happy for Q to return, but I don't think I want a comedian to play him. Desmond Llewellyn was an actor, and so I'd like to see someone similar play the role.

I would welcome Q back, if the character is needed for any gadget demonstrations or comic relief.

[Nimsworth]

While we're on the topic of Q, IGN (and not The Sun) are reporting that Scottish actor Ewen Bremnar is in line to play Q.

http://au.movies.ign...0/750310p1.html

[Sir Charles]

I'd like it if in Bond 22 Q liked Bond (even tolerating Bond disregard for his gadgets/tools/equipment and ill-attention to Q's explanations), but have a large dislike for him in Bond 23, after Bond has destroyed some of his equipment while in the field (in Bond 22).

I see Craig's Bond as very similar to Connery's Bond (especially Thunderball's Connery/Bond). A bored, impatient attitude around Q (not to mention a disbelief of Q's gadgets). Perhaps Craig/Bond should learn to appreciate the equipment in either 22 or 23 (but without telling Q of course).
On a side note, I don't think Brosnan got the Bond/Q "relationship" quite right until DAD.

On another side note, I like Cleese in DAD but couldn't stand him in TWINE.

As to Pegg...nope. I think Q should be older than Craig.

[moorebond82]

While we're on the topic of Q, IGN (and not The Sun) are reporting that Scottish actor Ewen Bremnar is in line to play Q.

http://au.movies.ign...0/750310p1.html

Well if this rumor is true Then Q is will still be younger then bond.

[Zorin Industries]

Did no-one see CASINO ROYALE?!!

Quirky gadget masters and fan boy casting are out the window now. The reset button has been pressed in favour of quality and narrative conviction and the Angel Delight flirtations between MONEYPENNY and BOND and the "hilarious" nods to Q's "don't touch that, it's my lunch!" are long gone. If you want THE SPY WHO LOVED ME XI then watch GOLDENEYE or THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH - but leave a decent Bond to the fans who don't want things like a quirky Q. Going down that path - with Brosnan in-jokes and gravy ad style one liners - will get Bond dumped at the cinematic roadside in a black bin liner.

If there's only one great British bloke who can be Q, it has to be Simon Pegg.





he was the tech guy in another spy franchise, but only for one movie. MI-3 in case you were wondering. So why not give it a shot?

Is this new equivalent of "whose playing the next Bond?" I.e. Fan boys and their musings about future cast members on the sole stipulation they have seen an actor in a similiar role before...? It ain't happening folks and it's not how filmmakers operate.

Well, I doubt Simon Pegg will be asked to play Q anytime soon, but I couldn't resist jumping all over this, arguably the most "fanboy" post ever to hit this board...

The Bond franchise has gotten "serious" many times in the past, yet has always (sometimes gradually, sometimes abruptly) seen the return of the tongue-in-cheek approach. There is no reason to believe that when the character of Major Boothroyd, Quartermaster, is brought back into the fold (and he will be) that he will not be someone with at least a wry sense of humor. It's even reasonable to assume that an actor known for comedic roles will be selected to play the part. The idea that because CASINO ROYALE took a more serious approach to Bond that the days of witty banter with Q are gone forever is just one of many silly things you wrote.

Equally ridiculous is the idea that there is unlikely to be any flirtatious repartee between Bond and whoever plays Miss Moneypenny in future films. Do you honestly believe that flirtatious banter will be prohibited between Bond and his female costars going forward? If so, I'd have to ask if you've seen CASINO ROYALE.

Humor is used in dramatic narrative (especially tales of heavy tension, suspense, and/or violence) to lighten the mood and give the audience a breather. The Bond films have long used the Moneypenny and Q scenes for this purpose, and it's foolish to think that trend won't continue going forward. There was certainly plenty of witty banter in CR to break up the tension. Just because a supporting actor has a flair for comedy or his or her character is given more comedic scenes doesn't mean the tone of the entire film must be humorous. I would think someone who presumes to know "how filmmakers operate" would understand this.

Perhaps most ludicrous is the idea that "filmmakers" don't ever indulge in what you call "fanboy casting" - especially in the 007 series! Countless times in the history of this franchise key roles have been given to actors with name value which the "filmmakers" (re: the studio execs) knew would appeal to certain paying members of the audience. I suppose Diana Rigg's wild popularity as Emma Peel had no impact whatsoever on her casting as Tracy in the very "serious" OHMSS? And her former AVENGERS co-star turned up in AVTAK because of a great audition, not because spy-fi fans love the guy, right? The last Q was cast for his serious turn in Coppola's FRANKENSTEIN, rather than all of his fan-favorite work on Monty Python, Fawlty Towers, etc., eh? There are dozens more in this series alone, and thousands more examples in cinematic history. It's not "fanboy casting" (because even Bond doesn't have enough die-hard fanboys to recoup costs and turn a profit every two to three years), it's gimmick casting, and it's something that film and TV execs worldwide LOVE to do. Undoubtedly, it will happen again in the world of 007, before too long. After all, the dark and gritty CR featured a cameo by Sir Richard Branson.

All of that notwithstanding, the worst part of your post is the great presumptuousness that a)you have the future of the series pegged based on one successful entry and that b)you have turned a simple, harmless speculation thread into a venue for insulting and condescending to those with different (or perhaps just broader) tastes in Bond films than your own. I'm a serious Bond fan. I love CASINO ROYALE, and welcome the change in tone and direction. I also think there is room for - and will be - more of the lighter, "spoofier" elements in the series' future, and I'd hardly say that anyone here (unless Barbara Broccoli frequents this board) is in a position to say "never" to that possibility.

One can only hope the next Q has a sense of humor. It's easy to see how people without one can adversely affect others' enjoyment of the franchise.

Well as this site is all for people expressing their views (which is exactly what it should be...), I obviously have to respond. I will stand by my opinion at the time. Simon Pegg or a similiar piece of casting is a ludicrous idea. Diana Rigg was not cast in OHMSS because of her AVENGERS track record. She was cast because she was a seriously good and competent international and stage actress in a film that didn't initially have a Bond. A stronger actress was vital to keep the film (and subsequently the franchise) afloat when no-one knew if they would get a Connery replacement that suited everyone. Patrick Macnee was not cast in A VIEW TO A KILL because of his AVENGERS persona. He was cast because he was appropriate to the role (which Simon Pegg wouldn't be).

I will also stand firm by my opinion that CASINO ROYALE will mark a turning point for Eon Productions and their take on Bond. The jokier, Police Academy mugging might return, but not in their immediate future. I would say it is not their intention to retread warms paths when it comes to DIE ANOTHER DAY's fantasy leanings. They also want to do something different. There are only so many underground bunkers you can blow up. They have a product - a product that has momentum in the international marketplace.

I personally feel the banter between BOND and Q and MONEYPENNY were in the Bond films (well, the Brosnan efforts) solely because they had always been. That is not a reason to continue doing the same. In most of Brosnan's MONEYPENNY and Q scenes (of which I do like by the way - well, the earlier ones) there was NO drama or tension to diffuse - especially in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. The Bond films are not SEVEN or ALL THE PRESIDENTS MEN. They have many more narrative devices in place to differentiate the tone than some old colonial hang-up that dictates BOND has to flirt with his colleagues as if we're all in 1959. I don't want Q to have a "sense of humour". The character works because he doesn't.

I also feel that Purvis and Wade are not equipped do write brilliantly pithy banter between BOND and his Mi6 cohorts at the moment. The MONEYPENNY and Q of old worked because the times were different as were the writers. Maibaum, Dahl, Harwood, Mankiewicz et al were all better wordsmiths than the duo who are competent granted, but not especially coy or debonaire when it comes to loaded dialogue and enigmatic one-liners. CASINO ROYALE's successes with its screenplay was due to Paul Haggis. Purvis and Wade are a bit decaffinated when it comes to Bond. Any old hack can put the acoutrements of Bond in place. It takes a lot more to shape a rich screenplay. I personally feel Bond films should not be written by a duo who couldn't even spoof 007 very competently (JOHNNY ENGLISH anyone....?).

It has never been my intention to condescend or insult. I do know how "filmmakers operate" as I work in the industry myself. As a Bond fan with broad 007 tastes (my favourite Bond film is not one that most people favour...!) I feel sometimes that some fans - and that doesn't mean you at all - need to be broader themselves when it comes to some musings and speculations. Granted, that's half the fun and beauty of being a Bond fan. We all do it. We're lucky enough to favour a franchise that keeps going - so we all put our penny's worth into the Aston Martin shaped piggy bank. But pondering and debating the thickness of the gunbarrel blood and silly musings when it comes to casting are not part of the series future - which is where I have come from on these posts since I joined at the arrival of CASINO ROYALE and what I would like to see a little bit more of in these forums. The consensus is that CASINO ROYALE is the most adept, well-crafted Bond film in 30 or so years. It is also a Bond film that dumped MONEYPENNY and Q. I for one do not believe that the dumping of such narrative deadwood was strictly a coincidence.

All the best,

Zorin Industries.

PS. Richard Branson was cast in CASINO ROYALE as he supplied the airliner that was mocked up into the superjet for the Miami scenes.

[Odd Jobbies]

Please god, NO!

[Kiss Kiss Bang Bang]

well, actually mr. MacNee was hired for the role because of Moore's support :] (I'm far from saying that was the main reason, but fame WAS important)

As for the Q character. He, as well as M, and Moneypenny have always been there for Bond to rely on and that's good. In the 44 year history of the franchise they were successful in creating certain response from the audience. It's kind a like a tradition. It shouldn't be dismissed so easily.

About commedy reliefs - well in each and every Bond humour played important role in establishing the main character's features. Even in the "seious" CR we hear funny one-linears, which bring some easy lighthearted fun into the other way tensed, action packed story.

And for the M's sake - Q is there only for a minute or two. Does this make the whole film unviewable?

[Number 6]

Pegg would be an okay choice had he not done that already in MI:III.

I'd like to see Bill Nighy give it a go though...

[rafterman]

I imagine the next Q will be more like the first two appearances in Dr. No and FRWL. He was serious and the part was brief. More like that. I do vote for young, but hope they don't go too wacky with gadgets.