20 replies to this topic

[00 Brosnan]

Maybe this has been explained and I just missed it or I don't remember correctly, but as far as I do remember in many of the previous films Q has stated he hated going out in the field (preferring his Mi6 lab) and doesn't want to put up w/ 007's crazy antics.

So why in LTK is Q so insistent on being involved in 007's mission? It seems to me like it went against his character. We know in all honesty that Q has an appreciation for Bond, but in the past he never wanted any part of his missions.

[Royal Dalton]

Q went to Isthmus because Moneypenny was worried sick about Bond and she knew he'd need his help. Remember, if it hadn't been for Q Branch he'd have been dead long ago.

[TheREAL008]

Q went to Isthmus because Moneypenny was worried sick about Bond and she knew he'd need his help. Remember, if it hadn't been for Q Branch he'd have been dead long ago.

Seconded. Despite Q's gruff manner toward Bond, he cares for James deeply. A son he always wanted. But Q would never admit it to Bond or anyone else.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Funny thing: For Licence to Kill, EON originally wanted Dudley Moore to play Q, rather than Desmond Llewelyn; Moore went as far as to travel to Mexico for a costume fitting, but apparently had a last minute change of heart and left the project, so the role went back to Llewelyn.

Wonder why they were going to change it at that point, to begin with?

[jaguar007]

Funny thing: For Licence to Kill, EON originally wanted Dudley Moore to play Q, rather than Desmond Llewelyn; Moore went as far as to travel to Mexico for a costume fitting, but apparently had a last minute change of heart and left the project, so the role went back to Llewelyn.

Wonder why they were going to change it at that point, to begin with?

I know that story is out on the internet, but I really have trouble believing it.

[00 Brosnan]

Q went to Isthmus because Moneypenny was worried sick about Bond and she knew he'd need his help. Remember, if it hadn't been for Q Branch he'd have been dead long ago.

I know why it happened story wise in the film, but it just seems like it went against his character up to that point in the series. He always had an appreciation for Bond and wanted to help him out, but he never wanted to be involved in Bond's missions, all of a sudden he insists upon it. Just seems odd to me.

Funny thing: For Licence to Kill, EON originally wanted Dudley Moore to play Q, rather than Desmond Llewelyn; Moore went as far as to travel to Mexico for a costume fitting, but apparently had a last minute change of heart and left the project, so the role went back to Llewelyn.

Wonder why they were going to change it at that point, to begin with?

I know that story is out on the internet, but I really have trouble believing it.

Agreed. I'm calling "Shenanigans!" on that story.

I've never heard this story, but it does sound a little unbelievable. If they were looking to replace Llewelyn they had a good opportunity during the six year hiatus between LTK and GE and obviously, they didn't replace him.

[iBond]

Funny thing: For Licence to Kill, EON originally wanted Dudley Moore to play Q, rather than Desmond Llewelyn; Moore went as far as to travel to Mexico for a costume fitting, but apparently had a last minute change of heart and left the project, so the role went back to Llewelyn.

Wonder why they were going to change it at that point, to begin with?

I know that story is out on the internet, but I really have trouble believing it.

Same here. I mean, they might as well have had Rowan Atkinson as Q in that cast. But yeah, I do have a hard time believing it. I believe they were busy shooting Arthur 2: On The Rocks. But I will have to check out the IMDb information to see if it's accurate or not.

[Major Tallon]

I was around at the time, and I never heard the slightest suggestion of a plan to replace Desmond, and certainly not with Dudley Moore. As for sending Q into the field, it was a way to prevent Bond having to return to London every time he needed a gadget. It might have made more narrative sense, but it would have killed the pacing of the movies.

[jaguar007]

I was around at the time, and I never heard the slightest suggestion of a plan to replace Desmond, and certainly not with Dudley Moore.

Same here. Although there was no internet at the time, I scrounged every newspaper article during the filming I could and never heard it. It would not make any sense to replace Desmond as he was so loved (one reason they expanded his role).

[iBond]

I'm glad there is a positive highlight about Licence to Kill for some. Heck, if you hated the movie, at least Q would be there to help you cope.

Edited by iBond, 14 April 2011 - 06:28 PM.

[Davy]

i think they thought adding Q would make it seem more traditionally Bond and less like a more generic 80s actioner. I quite like Q tagging along - it means we can have some comic relief without turning Bond himself into a joke as would have been the case if the tone of the Moore era were carriedforward into Dalton's.

[00 Brosnan]

Q went to Isthmus because Moneypenny was worried sick about Bond and she knew he'd need his help. Remember, if it hadn't been for Q Branch he'd have been dead long ago.

I know why he was tagging along in the film story line wise. What I don't really get is why he was so intent on tagging along. We know Q deep down has an appreciation for Bond, but in almost every previous film he doesn't like being sent out into the field, despite his affection for Bond. It just seemed to go against his character to me.

i think they thought adding Q would make it seem more traditionally Bond and less like a more generic 80s actioner.

I can understand that. The only thing that sets LTK apart from every other 80s action movie is the main character's name is Bond and Q is in there.

[Col. Sun]

Funny thing: For Licence to Kill, EON originally wanted Dudley Moore to play Q, rather than Desmond Llewelyn; Moore went as far as to travel to Mexico for a costume fitting, but apparently had a last minute change of heart and left the project, so the role went back to Llewelyn.

Wonder why they were going to change it at that point, to begin with?

I worked on LTK. Dudley Moore was NEVER going to replace Desmond Llewelyn as Q.

[Fan]

It's really funny to see a Brosnan fanboy talk about out-of-character behaviour.

*dons Whitaker's flameshield*

Edited by Fan, 21 April 2011 - 09:40 AM.

[Mr Twilight]

From Wikipedia, the not so reliable source, about the Dudley Moore-affair;

In

1989, the James Bond producers wanted to cast Moore in the role of Q in Licence To Kill. Moore travelled to Mexico to have a costume fitting, but apparently had a last minute change of heart and left the project. Likewise in 1995 he was again linked to the Bond franchise to be playing a character in Goldeneye.

Either if its true or not, its all new to me.

[Davy]

Perhaps they were hoping Dudley would boost box office given the film would have a higer rating. I'm glad it didn't come off though, i would have been the worst bit of stunt casting since Richard Pryor in Superman III.

[Col. Sun]

From Wikipedia, the not so reliable source, about the Dudley Moore-affair;

In

1989, the James Bond producers wanted to cast Moore in the role of Q in Licence To Kill. Moore travelled to Mexico to have a costume fitting, but apparently had a last minute change of heart and left the project. Likewise in 1995 he was again linked to the Bond franchise to be playing a character in Goldeneye.

Either if its true or not, its all new to me.

As I say, I worked on the film for nearly a year and never heard a single word about Cuddly Dudley taking on the role of Q, in fact I recall MGW commenting how he'd beefed up Q's part for good old Desmond because they thought, at his age, he might retire from the series soon.

[00 Brosnan]

It's really funny to see a Brosnan fanboy talk about out-of-character behaviour.

You realize that every actor who played Bond played the role differently right? That they all brought a unique twist to the roll? Therefore, there is no one right way to portray the character or one narrow definition of interpretation.

I'm certainly no fanboy. I like all the actors, they all bring a unique flavor to the role. So I prefer Brosnan, that makes me a fanboy? That's like saying everyone who has a favorite Bond is a fanboy or anyone that has a favorite anything is a fanboy. I've never said anywhere that Brosnan is the ultimate Bond. He does things better than other actors and vice-versa.

I don't know if you just don't know what actually defines a fanboy or if your just blindly throwing out generalizations based on your own (wrong) assumptions.

Edited by 00 Brosnan, 25 April 2011 - 02:32 AM.

[Fan]

00, the wink in my post indicates that it was tongue-in-cheek.

In any case, when I say out-of-character vis-à-vis James Bond, I mean as compared to Fleming's Bond. I love Roger Moore's films, but they're very out-of-character in that sense, as are Brosnan's. This doesn't have any bearing on whether or not the films are good - it's just a fact.

It's not just Brosnan and Moore, either. Connery had YOLT and DAF.

[00 Brosnan]

00, the wink in my post indicates that it was tongue-in-cheek.

I see. I apologize for being somewhat defensive about it then. I really didn't notice the wink as I tend to ignore emoticons.

In any case, when I say out-of-character vis-à-vis James Bond, I mean as compared to Fleming's Bond. I love Roger Moore's films, but they're very out-of-character in that sense, as are Brosnan's. This doesn't have any bearing on whether or not the films are good - it's just a fact.

It's not just Brosnan and Moore, either. Connery had YOLT and DAF.

I guess some people just care more about the preservation of Flemings Bond than others. The on-screen character and the literary character have for the most part been a bit different so I've never really seen the need to place so much emphasis on Flemings Bond. Had they all been heavily Fleming inspired on-screen and than one actor came along and they abandoned that element I could understand, but as it is I just don't.

[iBond]

Bond was sort of made into his own thing with the films. Yes, the books will always be remembered and never forgotten since Bond originated from them, but at the same time, the films tell the stories that were books, the directors have their own take on the character as well as the actor playing the character. For example, people felt that Licence to Kill fit Dalton more because it was a story written specifically with him in mind. So, in a way it was like pulling the Bond from the books and adding him to an original film. At the same time, with The Living Daylights, the film was originally written for Moore and not Dalton so when they changed it to fit him, I'm sure it far more close to the short story.

But yeah, I tend to think Dalton was underrated because he was more focused on the books and not what came before on the screen.