Should JC play R again?

heartbroken_mr_drax

Should John Clese play R again?

I dont think he should, he feels like a parody.

What do you guys think?

taity

Well, that all depends. Cleese in TWINE was a light hearted joke. However, his performance in DAD was a straightforward, almost as if it were writen for Desmond.

Also, Cleese is a very versatile comedian who has done slapstick (Fawlty Towers) through to rather straight laced "boring" characters - such as in a Fish called Wanda. I think that he could play any character the screenwriters gave him.

However it will also depend upon if the producers still want him in light of this whole "bond begins" rubbish. Additionally, he said publically that he had retired from acting.

heartbroken_mr_drax

taity wrote:

However it will also depend upon if the producers still want him in light of this whole "bond begins" rubbish.

Good points but ^^ dont really agree with this being rubbish

taity

Yeah, okay - to defend that point. I liked the whole movie, the cast ect. (and Mr Mendel was by far the coolest banker EVER.) I just wish that they had removed the whole rookie component of the film. I think it would have worked perfectly fine keeping all the action scenes and all that in place except removing a couple of small references to his inexperience.

s96024

I don't think he should return. He has one of those funny faces and you automatically associate him with fawlty towers as soon as you see him. I think they would do better introducing a less well known actor or maybe not even including it at all. He was only R while he was being trained by Q, so I guess now Q has gone he should now be Q.

Mr Martini

s96024 wrote:

I don't think he should return. He has one of those funny faces and you automatically associate him with fawlty towers as soon as you see him.

Actually, I've never heard of faulty towers until mentioned in this post. When I saw JC play "R" for the first time, I had a good laugh. I even liked JC as "Q" in DAD. If the producers want to go a different direction though maybe they should leave JC out of it. Like mentioned above, get a younger actor to play the Quartermaster. That is of course if the producers decide to equip Mr. Bond with gadgets.

heartbroken_mr_drax

Mr Martini wrote:

s96024 wrote:

I don't think he should return. He has one of those funny faces and you automatically associate him with fawlty towers as soon as you see him.

Actually, I've never heard of faulty towers until mentioned in this post. When I saw JC play "R" for the first time, I had a good laugh. I even liked JC as "Q" in DAD. If the producers want to go a different direction though maybe they should leave JC out of it. Like mentioned above, get a younger actor to play the Quartermaster. That is of course if the producers decide to equip Mr. Bond with gadgets.

Yea defenitly, like Desmond was in FRWL even though he was old looking. Someone that isnt intended to be a joke but becomes one as the films go on.

They will equip Mr Bond with gadgets it will be like OHMSS then TSWLM in terms of lavisness and gadgets etc.

Dan Same

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

Should John Clese play R again?

No, but I certainly wouldn't object to his playing Q again.

delliott101

"R" was a little one line joke Bond made in TWINE... In DAD, the character was called, by Bond, "Quartermaster" and "Q".

As far as Cleese... no. I thought he would be a natural for the role, but all I saw when he was on the screen was a knight skipping around "bangin' two 'haves of a coconut together"

Dan Same

delliott101 wrote:

"R" was a little one line joke Bond made in TWINE... In DAD, the character was called, by Bond, "Quartermaster" and "Q".

Oh, I know. I was just having a bit of fun.

baccaret

I think JC should come back in the role of Q, ther eventually be gadjets again and I think the Q character is a very important part of bond that was sadly missed in cr. I understand with him bein new that they really did not need Q in this movie, but as he gets older again I think should and will return . Maybe with JC or another actor.:007)

taity

delliott101 wrote:

"R" was a little one line joke Bond made in TWINE... In DAD, the character was called, by Bond, "Quartermaster" and "Q".

As far as Cleese... no. I thought he would be a natural for the role, but all I saw when he was on the screen was a knight skipping around "bangin' two 'haves of a coconut together"

And Mr Martini, recently (down under) Fawlty Towers was deemed the second best televsion show from the entire baby boomers generation. You should IMDB it.

I thought the point of naming him R in this point was to serve as distinction between him and the originalm Q.

Pendragon

If he played R again, that would be cool. If they felt the need for a new actor, they'd have to move on to someone called S.

~Pen -{

Tee Hee

Fish1941 wrote:

It is really important to have Q or R in every Bond movie? I didn't miss MI6's armorer. The last time I had enjoyed Q in a Bond movie was LICENSE TO KILL.

It's important for me (I stress ME) to have or at least mention (LALD) Q in every Bond film. I look forward to the Q scene(s) and feel that the gadgets are an intrical part of what makes Bond Bond and a Bond film a Bond film. But considering the filmmakers decided to dispose of the character in CR, I don't feel a need to revive the character. And I don't think they will since they have made Craig into a Bond who relies on his abilities not gadgets. Sorry Cleese old boy, Q Branch has been shut down and "You're Fired!"

Oh boy now I have to pay Donald Trump! )

Dan Same

Tee Hee wrote:

It's important for me (I stress ME) to have or at least mention (LALD) Q in every Bond film. I look forward to the Q scene(s) and feel that the gadgets are an intrical part of what makes Bond Bond and a Bond film a Bond film. But considering the filmmakers decided to dispose of the character in CR, I don't feel a need to revive the character. And I don't think they will since they have made Craig into a Bond who relies on his abilities not gadgets. Sorry Cleese old boy, Q Branch has been shut down and "You're Fired!"

Oh boy now I have to pay Donald Trump! )

Tee Hee, I agree with everything except for your conclusion. I think it is important to bring back Q (and gadgets) for Bond 22 as the lack of gadgets in CR struck me as IMO rather unBondian.

Tee Hee

Dan Same wrote:

Tee Hee, I agree with everything except for your conclusion. I think it is important to bring back Q (and gadgets) for Bond 22 as the lack of gadgets in CR struck me as rather unBondian.

But the fact of the matter is they won't bring Q (or gadgets) back. CR has proved that Bond doesn't need either of them to be successful. Sadly the general public has given in to this new, real, and gritty version of Bond where he actually jumps to the cradle instead of using a watch grapple. The over-the-top gadgets are no longer welcome and bringing them back would upset the Bond films newest fans recruited by CR. The producers have no choice but to give the public what they want and right now its a spy who fights with his fists instead of shooting darts from his wrists. (Sorry for the rhyme )

emtiem

There'll be gadgets (and there were in CR: a phone with a tracker/scanner built in, hidden gadget drawer in car) I'm sure, but hopefully not as silly as they were. On perhaps a level with Living Daylights (not including the car) would be fine for me.
If CR was 'unBondian' in its amount of gadgets I'd hate to know what OHMSS or even AVTAK were!

As for Q, there must be a slicker way of showing these things- it's very simplistic to have them just dumped on us in these scenes. And the jarring 'comedy scene' nature is so by-numbers I'm more than happy to see the old way go.

Dan Same

Tee Hee wrote:

But the fact of the matter is they won't bring Q (or gadgets) back. CR has proved that Bond doesn't need either of them to be successful. Sadly the general public has given in to this new, real, and gritty version of Bond where he actually jumps to the cradle instead of using a watch grapple. The over-the-top gadgets are no longer welcome and bringing them back would upset the Bond films newest fans recruited by CR. The producers have no choice but to give the public what they want and right now its a spy who fights with his fists instead of shooting darts from his wrists. (Sorry for the rhyme )

No need to apologise. The only thing missing is some music. Anyway I agree with you that sadly they're not going to be bringing back any of the elements I associate with Bond, or at least not for a while.

s96024

R was just the training name for Q's protege. Now Q has gone R should really take that place. R being reserved for the next person lined up for Q. It will be interesting to see what they do with the character if they bring him/her back and who they get to play the role. For most people Q is a very important character and would almost have the same impact as a new Bond. Lets hope they can make an equally good choice as they did with DC.

Dan Same

emtiem wrote:

If CR was 'unBondian' in its amount of gadgets I'd hate to know what OHMSS or even AVTAK were!

Well AVTAK was arguably very unBondian but that relates more to its quality than anything else. As for OHMSS, well I don't remember wether OHMSS had less or more gadgets than CR (it may have had less), but the difference is that OHMSS, unlike CR, kept much of the elements which I associate with Bond; such as Q, Moneypenny, the Gunbarrel, his being an experienced agent and it wasn't a so-called reboot.

Sir Hillary Bray

Tee Hee wrote:

But the fact of the matter is they won't bring Q (or gadgets) back. CR has proved that Bond doesn't need either of them to be successful. Sadly the general public has given in to this new, real, and gritty version of Bond where he actually jumps to the cradle instead of using a watch grapple. The over-the-top gadgets are no longer welcome and bringing them back would upset the Bond films newest fans recruited by CR. The producers have no choice but to give the public what they want and right now its a spy who fights with his fists instead of shooting darts from his wrists. (Sorry for the rhyme )

I don't agree with your forecast, Tee Hee. For a long-running series of any kind -- books, films, what have you -- to succeed, it needs to have some definable elements that tie it together. In an era where the lead actor is unlikely to play Bond for more than a handful of films (especially Craig, whose whose significant acting chops be in high demand for a long time) these "signature elements" become even more important. Far from being "the new way forward", I believe CR will in time be viewed more as a one-off. Future films, starting with Bond 22, will see more of the traditional elements -- gadgetry, MI6 interactions, music, etc. Included in this is the Q character, and while I don't see Cleese returning (too old) I can definitely see Q back in the fold.

This does not mean we're heading all the way back to DAD-style silliness, but I do think the series will move slightly in that direction. I don't think it could survive otherwise. These "new Bond fans" aren't really fans of the series if all they like is CR. They will be fickle, and the long-standing base will eventually become bored if the old elements are completely lost.

I realize I'm talking in broad generalizations here, but it's hard not to. Also, of course all I say could be completely wrong, but that's my perspective sitting here today.

Bottom line -- the producers have some far more difficult choices to make with Bond 22 than they did with CR. It will be a fascinating couple of years.

emtiem

s96024 wrote:

R was just the training name for Q's protege. Now Q has gone R should really take that place.

Are you posting from 1999?

emtiem

Dan Same wrote:

emtiem wrote:

If CR was 'unBondian' in its amount of gadgets I'd hate to know what OHMSS or even AVTAK were!

Well AVTAK was arguably very unBondian but that relates more to its quality than anything else. As for OHMSS, well I don't remember wether OHMSS had less or more gadgets than CR (it may have had less), but the difference is that OHMSS, unlike CR, kept much of the elements which I associate with Bond; such as Q, Moneypenny, the Gunbarrel, his being an experienced agent and it wasn't a so-called reboot.

If you can't remember it, how would you know which of the items on your list a film needs to tick in order to be (a dull formulaic) Bond fillm it ticks off?

I like the meaningless use of 'so-called' too! Classic sneery phrase placed in a situation where it has no meaning!

s96024

I just felt people where seeing the 2 as 2 individual people who could work alongside each other for ever.

Dan Same

emtiem wrote:

If you can't remember it, how would you know which of the items on your list a film needs to tick in order to be (a dull formulaic) Bond fillm it ticks off?

Oh, lord. Not this again. First, yes, I can remember what goes on in OHMSS, but when I write a post, I often do so quickly, and when I wrote the earlier post, I wasn't mentally comparing whether CR or OHMSS had more gadgets. Do I need to provide facts and figures (OHMSS had X gadgets, CR had Y figures)? It doesn't make a difference. The point remains; I can forgive OHMSS's relative lack of gadgets because it still had plenty of other things which reminded me that I was watching a Bond film.


Also, I don't know how many times I have said this to you, but when I watch a Bond film I don't sit with a pen and paper and count the number of ways it follows the formula. I simply sit down and enjoy it. Do I prefer that a Bond film follow the formula? Yes, because the formula (which I don't consider to be dull) is a major reason why I ama a Bond fan. I love the scenes with Q and Moneypenny, the gunbarrel, the beautiful women and the action scenes etc... The difference between the best and the worst Bond films IMO is not wether they are faithful to the formula, but how skillfully and creatively they follow the formula. If a film is creative and exciting enough, then I'll think highly of it. Nonetheless, they must follow the formula; otherwise why would I watch a Bond film if it was just like any other spy/action film out there?

emtiem wrote:

I like the meaningless use of 'so-called' too! Classic sneery phrase placed in a situation where it has no meaning!

Well, yes and no. Although when I wrote my earlier post, I was simply using 'so-called' as a fact, I guess part of me was sneering at the reboot that is CR. But you can't be too upset about that as you, in this post, sneered at me for liking the 'dull' formula. I may have been sneering at a film, but at least I wasn't sneering at a person.

Dan Same

Fish1941 wrote:

I've discovered that my favorite Bond movies tend to be the ones that DO NOT heavily rely upon the so-called "Bond formula". For me, they tend to be more original and better written.

Each to their own. However I don't think that really any of the Bond films (other than the first few) are all that original. Not that it matters because I think it all comes down to how well the elements come together. As it happens three of the (IMO) five best Bond films set up the formula (DN, FRWL, GF), while the other two (TB and TSWLM) may be described as 'formula films,' however I think they are superior to at least 16 of the 21 official Bond films.

Dan Same

Fish1941 wrote:

DN, FRWL and GF are the best Bond movies? I don't recall this being a matter of fact. Now, if you had said that it was a matter of your opinion, I could have accepted this statement. I can accept FRWL being considered as among the best Bond movies, but certainly not the other two.

Fish, please read my post. I did say IMO. I said "three of the (IMO) five best Bond films.."

Fish1941 wrote:

Nor do I recall FRWL heavily relying upon the so-called "Bond formula", which seemed to really pop up in GF (much to my displeasure).

You know, if you had read my post, you would have seen that I listed FRWL as a film which helped set up the formula. Of course it didn't rely upon the formula; the formula was only really established with GF!

Dan Same

Fish1941 wrote:

Are we now splitting hairs, because I found much to disagree with your last post?

Oh, give me a break. 8-) You accused me (falsely) of presenting an opinion as fact, and instead of apologising, you're accusing me of splitting hairs? )

I don't care if you agree with me or not; just actually read my posts instead of merely quoting them and don't accuse me of doing things I never did!

s96024

Chill people, chill.

Tee Hee

emtiem wrote:

There'll be gadgets (and there were in CR: a phone with a tracker/scanner built in, hidden gadget drawer in car) I'm sure, but hopefully not as silly as they were. On perhaps a level with Living Daylights (not including the car) would be fine for me. If CR was 'unBondian' in its amount of gadgets I'd hate to know what OHMSS or even AVTAK were!

If you are willing to see a return to the style of gadgets in TLD (Ghetto Blaster, Key Ring Finder) then I think we may be reaching some common ground!

AVTAK had plenty of gadgets: Snooper, sunglasses, ring camera, electronic shaver/bug detector/tape recorder, etc. Gadgets were hard to come by in OHMSS other than the radioactive lint and the copy machine, however in this film, like Dan said, Q is still a character and all other Bondian elements are upheld. CR does have some gadgets, but they are far from being characterized as “Bond Gadgets.” Bond gadgets are unique in that Bond is the only one who has them. I could see any agent nowadays having tracking software loaded into their cell phone. Now I’m not saying let’s bring back the invisible Vanquish, but let’s bring back some of the inventiveness of Q branch. Let’s see some gadgets that are bizarre but seem like they would actually work. Until they do, Bond will just be a regular agent.

emtiem wrote:

As for Q, there must be a slicker way of showing these things- it's very simplistic to have them just dumped on us in these scenes. And the jarring 'comedy scene' nature is so by-numbers I'm more than happy to see the old way go.

I guess this one comes down (like everything else) to personal preference. Personally I look forward to the Q scene(s) because I enjoy the badgering relationship between Bond and Q. I also like to see the latest bizarre gadgets that Q Branch is working on. Receiving the gadgets in an envelope at the hotel reception may be fine for you, but it certainly does not meet with my expectations.

Sir Hillary Bray wrote:

Future films, starting with Bond 22, will see more of the traditional elements -- gadgetry, MI6 interactions, music, etc. Included in this is the Q character, and while I don't see Cleese returning (too old) I can definitely see Q back in the fold.

Well obviously the relationship between Bond and M will be closely followed in Craig’s future films. The Bond Theme will also make a triumphant return considering Bond is finally “Bond.” 8-) If they do introduce a Q character he will be used in the usual reboot fashion and meet 007 for the first time. For all we know Q could be a 10 year old computer geek because the past forty years no longer matter. We can change the story. If they do introduce gadgets, they will be nothing like we’re used to in the past. They will be completely practical and devoid of the slightest bit of humor.

Sir Hillary Bray wrote:

These "new Bond fans" aren't really fans of the series if all they like is CR. They will be fickle, and the long-standing base will eventually become bored if the old elements are completely lost.

These “new Bond fans” don’t have to be fans of the series because this is a “separate series.” Look, the idea of a “real” Bond with none of the usual silliness (gadgets) has brought thousands of people to the theatre. And they are eating it up! The long-standing base is too and many don’t want to see a return to the more traditional Bond. “If you want to see Moneypenny and Q, go watch one of the first 20,” is what one member has said. Unfortunately we live in a time where Jason Bourne has defined what we now expect in a spy film. We can’t clown around anymore. The Bond films have sadly lost their identity. And since the public approves of the direction the series is going, that is what the producers are going to give them.

emtiem

Dan Same wrote:

I can forgive OHMSS's relative lack of gadgets because it still had plenty of other things which reminded me that I was watching a Bond film.

How convinient. Are you sure it's not just because you've had so long to get used to the fact that it's a Bond film? I mean, if LALD came out today, with all of its deviations from the formula, wouldn't you be complaining about that too? You can say 'but it wasn't a reboot' 'till you're blue in the face, but today's 'reboot' is yesterday's 'no dinner suit/shaken not stirred/no MI6/no Q' etc. In ten years time do you honestly think the new fans your age will be complaining about the reboot in CR?

Dan Same wrote:

Do I prefer that a Bond film follow the formula? Yes, because the formula (which I don't consider to be dull) is a major reason why I ama a Bond fan. I love the scenes with Q and Moneypenny, the gunbarrel, the beautiful women and the action scenes etc... The difference between the best and the worst Bond films IMO is not wether they are faithful to the formula, but how skillfully and creatively they follow the formula. If a film is creative and exciting enough, then I'll think highly of it. Nonetheless, they must follow the formula; otherwise why would I watch a Bond film if it was just like any other spy/action film out there?

Because the formula shouldn't be so tight as to specify what exact scenes are in there! A Bond film should deliver on what the brand promises; a globe-trotting, glamorous, sexy exciting spy adventure with laughs, style and genuine wit and invention. Not 'one scene involving a high fall; surreal titles with bare ladies; scene in M's office [serious]; scene in Q's lab [funny]..etc.' - where's the wit or intelligence in that? CR followed the formula (that is the true formula which constitutes a classic Bond film) perfectly. Die Another Day followed the formula of which you speak (namely getting bogged down with the details of exact scenes and characters, and forgetting what the whole effect was) and it was crap.
It is to Goldfinger what a copy of the Mona Lisa which strives to exactly copy the shape down to the nth degree is to the original: it forgets to put any life and spirit into the whole- failing to stand back and look at the whole picture and worrying about the tiny details (as if they make the end product) can only cause a ruin.

emtiem wrote:

I may have been sneering at a film, but at least I wasn't sneering at a person.

Oh stop it; it's pathetic. Talk about the film.