116 replies to this topic

[tambourineman]

Cleese is a good actor, I think they could totally revamp the role and make it much more serious, and totally dispose of the bumbling smartass Q, and still cast Cleese in the role.

[Royal Dalton]

[quote name='Gabriel' post='766387' date='26 August 2007 - 18:33']The old Bond film series was like a snowball on a mountain. Initially, things were small and contained, with Bond getting his orders and heading out. By DAD, the whole MI6 sitcom/soap, with its predictable clich

[tim partridge]

Agreed.

I really don't care for some Bourne clone. That's not Bond and never was.

[Killmaster]

i agree ... why dispose of everything that made most of us bond fans to begin with? pare certain segments back, but don't eliminate them altogether.

i like the q scenes, but they definitely need to be shorter and more serious in nature. get bond in and out... a couple of minutes should be all that's required to show the working relationship between q and bond. drop the silly stuff. to quote q himself, "grow up, 007!"

ditto the moneypenny scenes... keep 'em in but trim the length and the repartee. moneypenny is an important part of the bond mythos, but you can show that two people have feelings for each other and maintain sexual tension without all the over-the-top innuendos and double entendres.

[Blonde Bond]

If it was up to me, I'd promote that quiet tech guy to the position of the head of Q-Branch.

He looked a little like Cleese. Just itty bitty. But still...

Edited by Blonde Bond, 28 August 2007 - 08:02 PM.

[JimmyBond]

Agreed.

I really don't care for some Bourne clone. That's not Bond and never was.

At this time I'm niether for nor against bringing Q and Moneypenny back. But I got to ask, why would the lack of two characters automatically make it a Bourne clone? I'm not sure I follow that logic.

[BlackFelix]

Im more in favor of a return of "Q" more than John Cleese. If the writers reboot the role lean and less gag-like, and if Cleese can perform the role as needed than there is no problems!

[Sorayna]

Let's be serious...there is a purpose for everything...

[JimmyBond]

Let's be serious...there is a purpose for everything...

Just because something serves a purpose does not make it purposeful.

Think about it.

[triviachamp]

I think it says something that only in OHMSS does Moneypenny serve an actual plot function and only in LTK does Q have a real purpose.

[Royal Dalton]

If you think that, then all I can say is: "Do pay attention, Triviachamp!"

[triviachamp]

Oh Grow Up Royal Dalton, I expect it back in one piece.

[Royal Dalton]

Have I ever let you down?

[triviachamp]

Well there was that time in Tokyo...

[Royal Dalton]

It's true!

[stamper]

No more Cleese. He is a snobinard. Ever heard of that VIP party, where he asked for Johnny Lydon to be escorted out ? "what is this sort of people doing here ?" he said. Same thing as you, they are enternainers ! Part of the British culture, wether you like it or not ! Cleese lost all my respect that day. I mean, the guy is doing the silly walk, screams to his patrons in that hotel series, and he complains about another entertainer who do the robot dance on stage and screams into a microphone. Let me know what is the difference. Hypocrite.

[Royal Dalton]

That's nothing. I was at a VIP party, and asked for both of them to be escorted out.

Bloody riff-raff.

[tim partridge]

Agreed.

I really don't care for some Bourne clone. That's not Bond and never was.

At this time I'm niether for nor against bringing Q and Moneypenny back. But I got to ask, why would the lack of two characters automatically make it a Bourne clone? I'm not sure I follow that logic.

All I'm hearing around here is how Q and Moneypenny should be eliminated and lots of hoping that the gunbarrel sequence will be dropped. Not much pride in what makes Bond individual and great IMO.

CASINO ROYALE was a back to basics reboot, meaning recapturing what the classic older Bond movies were like, getting back to Fleming and the roots. I feel too much of fandom has the wrong idea, believing the reboot is a gutting in which Bond becomes an empty shell to adapt what is hip and relevent.

Hey, I want Q, I want Moneypenny, I want the gunbarrel, I want the credit sequences with dancing girl silouhettes and the gaffer and continuity, etc getting their credit in the main titles- I want the political correctness to be tightroped with pride, inherent underlying sexist attitude of the protagonist (and with that the many strong, fearless, exotic and cheekily named Bond women to give him a run for his money), I want to cheer at an uplifting, crowd pleasing pre-title sequence (think SPY WHO LOVED ME), I want to go into the cinema and be reminded why I love Bond movies in the first place.

Glad I got that off my chest.

[MkB]

Hey, I want Q, I want Moneypenny, I want the gunbarrel, I want the credit sequences with dancing girl silouhettes and the gaffer and continuity, etc getting their credit in the main titles- I want the political correctness to be tightroped with pride, inherent underlying sexist attitude of the protagonist (and with that the many strong, fearless, exotic and cheekily named Bond women to give him a run for his money), I want to cheer at an uplifting, crowd pleasing pre-title sequence (think SPY WHO LOVED ME), I want to go into the cinema and be reminded why I love Bond movies in the first place.

Glad I got that off my chest.

Count me in your guild, Tim! :-)

[Judo chop]

Hey, I want Q, I want Moneypenny, I want the gunbarrel, I want the credit sequences with dancing girl silouhettes and the gaffer and continuity, etc getting their credit in the main titles- I want the political correctness to be tightroped with pride, inherent underlying sexist attitude of the protagonist (and with that the many strong, fearless, exotic and cheekily named Bond women to give him a run for his money), I want to cheer at an uplifting, crowd pleasing pre-title sequence (think SPY WHO LOVED ME), I want to go into the cinema and be reminded why I love Bond movies in the first place.

Glad I got that off my chest.

Count me in your guild, Tim! :-)

I

[stamper]

Please no more cigar joke with Moneypenny. This scene negative should be burned.

[HH007]

Personally I wouldn't mind if Q or Moneypenny came back, although I didn't miss either one in CR to be perfectly honest. I read someone on IMDb suggesting Hugh Laurie (TV's House) for Q, and while I find that interesting, I would ultimately prefer a lesser known actor to play that part. That way it wouldn't seem quite so gimmicky.

[MkB]

Please no more cigar joke with Moneypenny. This scene negative should be burned.

Well, OK, this one was... how to put it? Mmmh, let's just put it in the dustbin!
I LOVE the Bond double-innuendos, really, but this scene was quite vulgar.

[Double-Oh Agent]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='768090' date='31 August 2007 - 11:00'][quote name='MkB' post='768047' date='31 August 2007 - 10:21'][quote name='tim partridge' post='768045' date='31 August 2007 - 17:05']Hey, I want Q, I want Moneypenny, I want the gunbarrel, I want the credit sequences with dancing girl silouhettes and the gaffer and continuity, etc getting their credit in the main titles- I want the political correctness to be tightroped with pride, inherent underlying sexist attitude of the protagonist (and with that the many strong, fearless, exotic and cheekily named Bond women to give him a run for his money), I want to cheer at an uplifting, crowd pleasing pre-title sequence (think SPY WHO LOVED ME), I want to go into the cinema and be reminded why I love Bond movies in the first place.

Glad I got that off my chest. [/quote]

Count me in your guild, Tim! :-)
[/quote]

I

[A Kristatos]

It's true!

Oh great! Now I got that image of Ruby Bartlett in my head again!

Personally I wouldn't mind if Q or Moneypenny came back, although I didn't miss either one in CR to be perfectly honest. I read someone on IMDb suggesting Hugh Laurie (TV's House) for Q, and while I find that interesting, I would ultimately prefer a lesser known actor to play that part. That way it wouldn't seem quite so gimmicky.

I think Hugh Laurie would be a good choice. I'm just wondering if he would be able to tone down his House personality a bit so he would not be so sarcastic in his portrayal of Q. While Cleese was adequate for that time, I think it was his smarmy attitude in the role that turned some people off. A throwback to the original Q would work though.

[Judo chop]

JC will lower the tone. It will be like having jolly Roger back.

I really wish you wouldn't talk about me while I'm away, Ms. Minnie.

[stamper]

Here's the John Lydon quote about John Cleese, from Wired magazine

I once did some charity work -- or tried to -- for the Prince Charles trust fund thingy, and the attitude I got off his people was revolting. They just looked down their noses at me. And I was really angry at a man whose work I've really loved and respected, John Cleese. Fawlty Towers was a masterpiece. But when he looked straight at me and had the nerve to ask some (inaudible) next to him, "What's that sort of person doing here?" That's when my stomach turns, do you know what I mean? Like, I'm not good enough even for charity. I've done no harm to no one. In fact, I think I've improved the world. I've opened things up into a lively open debate, which is what they should be, but oddly enough now it's taken me some 30 solid years of work to have to prove that open debate is not negative, it's actually a positive force.