I thought he did a good job and he does have history, being introduced by Desmond Llewelyn himself. Problem is if they are going back to the Connery style films rather then the more comic type he would not fit in and I'd agree with you in this regard.
I can't see them injecting too much humor Back into the series at least as Long as Craig plays the part. One liners and humor doesn't fit well with his take on Bond. So Q might return in a more "gritty and realistic" form, as The is No humor in everyday life, especially the military and other services :v Only Gritty realism )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Humor should still play a part, but it should be the understated humor along the lines of "she should have kept her month shut" or "I think he got the point". It's been pointed out that the humor lines come at a conclusion of a tense scene.
Juvenile garbage about Christmas coming once a year, Bond being a cunning linguist, or a bottle of Phu Yuck wine belongs in an Austin Powers movie, not a James Bond movie.
Back to the original topic: I do not want to see John Cleese back as Q. The evolution of the relationship between Bond and Q happened over the course of the movies. Cleese's introduction was forced, and having him dislike Bond so much was poor. He is completely unnecessary to the movies.
I think the 40 year running Q jokes went old and stale 30 years ago. Same thing every movie of the same joke isnt funny after the first couple times you hear it, and is too silly along with any other gags the series fell into. The jokes have to feel smarter, or at least more natural.
It is hard to make it fit because it pretty much has to be humorous if they use John Cleese... This is what I said on this before. I wouldn't ind Cleese making an attempt to be a more plausible role with the humor coming from a witty script instead of the old gadget jokes. I think gadgets need to keep away.
I hope they bring Q back, but not with gadgets and sci fi, just as the weapons and tech director for MI6. He would be responsible for his weapons, the devices (like the defibrillator in the car), the cars, and the phone. He could simply brief him on all the stuff he has been upgraded to, the car he can get when he arrives at his mission, etc. He isn't necessary, but it would be a nice surprise if he weren't in the trailers and suddenly popped up in an MI6 scene in the theater...
But that's besides the point. My point is, I want them to stick to more believable and physical like with Craig, though I understand it needs some room to get less realistic if they want to get back to some more traditional Bond ventures next time...
Yep. The jokes are dead. Like it or not. The latest reboot has to adapt or die. These days there's nothing I hate more than buddy cop Bad Boys type films, and 80s throwbacks like The Expendables tried to be. Dated and tacky, and worst of all not even funny to begin with. Bond deserves better than Beverly Hills Cop V.
I suppose everyones different, anywhere I've ever worked there's always been humor, from everyone there. Lots of leg pulling and work jokes, Still I suppose for some work is all work. As for the Expendables deing dated , It cost $80 mil to make took $275 mil, ( If only QOS had taken that Precentage, of cost to profit margin ) so I guess some old timers liked it. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
If CR and QOS did one of the mortal sins possible by leaving out Q and Moneypenny from the James Bond franchise there is little chance of the character/s being brought back for the next movie, which will be the third bond of the Craig trilogy following the story that began in Royale and was followed onto Solace.
Never should of had Cleese as Q, I don't know what the hell they were thinking of, but the way the Bond films are going of late having a Monty Python actor may just fit in nicely
I wouldn't be surprised if Mister Bean was introduced as next in line to be honest.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,756Chief of Staff
If CR and QOS did one of the mortal sins possible by leaving out Q and Moneypenny from the James Bond franchise there is little chance of the character/s being brought back for the next movie, which will be the third bond of the Craig trilogy following the story that began in Royale and was followed onto Solace.
I know it's only a rumour, but Moneypenny could be back for BOND23...
Never should of had Cleese as Q, I don't know what the hell they were thinking of, but the way the Bond films are going of late having a Monty Python actor may just fit in nicely
I wouldn't be surprised if Mister Bean was introduced as next in line to be honest.
At the time I thought John Cleese was an inspired choice...and if you could elaborate on your second point please ?
first off it wouldn't be proper to bring Moneypenny and Q back for the next release as next years movie will be Part 3 of the Craig trilogy following on from what went before, you can't just leave them out for the first two connected films and then bring them back out of thin air, it wouldn't be right
secondly, there has been times in the recent past that Bond movies have been more Circus Big Top than serious spy material and especially with Die Another Day I thought it fitting that a former python was given a part in it what with some of the nonsense and unintentional humor that took place.
Bean was simply following on from Cleese, Bond movies have been more ass clown than secret agent recently and in years past, I should of recommended Frank Spencer or Norman Wisdom for next release, but with the latter at least, looks unlikely
PPK 7.65mmSaratoga Springs NY USAPosts: 1,253MI6 Agent
If I remember right John Cleese had a falling out with the producers after it was annonced that Brosnan was not coming back, and they wanted to bring the film series back to its roots. As such it is highly unlikely that he would be asked to come back.
As for Q and Moneypenny returning it might happen, however I am willing to bet their parts will be written to relect the environment of the current films, rather than the jokes they became in DAD.
If I remember right John Cleese had a falling out with the producers after it was annonced that Brosnan was not coming back, and they wanted to bring the film series back to its roots. As such it is highly unlikely that he would be asked to come back.
As for Q and Moneypenny returning it might happen, however I am willing to bet their parts will be written to relect the environment of the current films, rather than the jokes they became in DAD.
"Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,756Chief of Staff
first off it wouldn't be proper to bring Moneypenny and Q back for the next release as next years movie will be Part 3 of the Craig trilogy following on from what went before, you can't just leave them out for the first two connected films and then bring them back out of thin air, it wouldn't be right
Will it be Part 3 ? I haven't seen that confirmed anywhere ???
And who says you have to "bring them back out of thin air" ?
I'm in no rush to see Q return....I'd be happier to see the character of the Armourer return....but they could introduce the character of Miss Moneypenny...
If I remember right John Cleese had a falling out with the producers after it was annonced that Brosnan was not coming back, and they wanted to bring the film series back to its roots. As such it is highly unlikely that he would be asked to come back.
As for Q and Moneypenny returning it might happen, however I am willing to bet their parts will be written to relect the environment of the current films, rather than the jokes they became in DAD.
This is likely. Moneypenny is a reported favorite of the producers for reintroduction, but an actress hasn't been named, nor is it a sure thing.
I wouldn't want to see John Cleese back. In fact I'm not sure I'd want to do the whole 'Q Branch' thing again. Bond has sort of gone past that. One of the most rewarding aspects of both CR and QOS wasn't the lack of gadgets but the lack of introduction. The audience knows there will be gadgets in a Bond movie, they are already in on the joke.
Although I liked Desmond Llewelyn, I thought he was a bit past it by the Brosnan era and I would have liked to have seen him gracefully bow out in GE and be replaced by Cleese in TND. It was disheartening to see the gentle humour of Llewelyn's role replaced by blatant slapstick for Cleese's R and Q. I prefer not to think about it too much in case I squirm.
Denzil2222
Posts: 77MI6 Agent
Comments
Reflections in a double bourbon...
Juvenile garbage about Christmas coming once a year, Bond being a cunning linguist, or a bottle of Phu Yuck wine belongs in an Austin Powers movie, not a James Bond movie.
Back to the original topic: I do not want to see John Cleese back as Q. The evolution of the relationship between Bond and Q happened over the course of the movies. Cleese's introduction was forced, and having him dislike Bond so much was poor. He is completely unnecessary to the movies.
Never should of had Cleese as Q, I don't know what the hell they were thinking of, but the way the Bond films are going of late having a Monty Python actor may just fit in nicely
I wouldn't be surprised if Mister Bean was introduced as next in line to be honest.
I know it's only a rumour, but Moneypenny could be back for BOND23...
At the time I thought John Cleese was an inspired choice...and if you could elaborate on your second point please ?
And why Mr Bean ?:)
secondly, there has been times in the recent past that Bond movies have been more Circus Big Top than serious spy material and especially with Die Another Day I thought it fitting that a former python was given a part in it what with some of the nonsense and unintentional humor that took place.
Bean was simply following on from Cleese, Bond movies have been more ass clown than secret agent recently and in years past, I should of recommended Frank Spencer or Norman Wisdom for next release, but with the latter at least, looks unlikely
As for Q and Moneypenny returning it might happen, however I am willing to bet their parts will be written to relect the environment of the current films, rather than the jokes they became in DAD.
Will it be Part 3 ? I haven't seen that confirmed anywhere ???
And who says you have to "bring them back out of thin air" ?
I'm in no rush to see Q return....I'd be happier to see the character of the Armourer return....but they could introduce the character of Miss Moneypenny...
This is likely. Moneypenny is a reported favorite of the producers for reintroduction, but an actress hasn't been named, nor is it a sure thing.
Although I liked Desmond Llewelyn, I thought he was a bit past it by the Brosnan era and I would have liked to have seen him gracefully bow out in GE and be replaced by Cleese in TND. It was disheartening to see the gentle humour of Llewelyn's role replaced by blatant slapstick for Cleese's R and Q. I prefer not to think about it too much in case I squirm.