Kincade - A necessary and important character?
scottmu65
Carlisle, Cumbria, UKPosts: 402MI6 Agent
Hello to you all!
I have seen Skyfall 3 times now and each time I have found myself liking the character of Kincade even more, not only that but I have decided that he is an important and relevant character in the new era of Bond, not only because he added to Bond's back-story and gave us information about his past, no, but because of the new, younger Q...
Now I may be the only one who holds this view but please bear with me. The new Q is a young, computer-wizard who probably plays alot of World of Warcraft in his spare time, don't get me wrong, I am all for Ben Whishaw as Q, I think that in this day and age that Q NEEDS to be younger and tech-savvy, my only problem is this; I always viewed Bond and Q's relationship as a sort of 'father and son' affair, Bond acting as the rebellious teenager thinking he knows it all and Q acting as the wise father-figure who keeps him straight, and I liked that relationship, but in the new era, that relationship has sort of been flipped over with Bond being the more experienced of the two with Q being the know-it-all being put in his place by Bond, I know that the sarcasm etc. from Q is still there and all this is fine with me except something was lacking, I missed the way Q could shoot Bond back down to earth with a sarcastic or patronising remark or two and it left me feeling kind of empty, although that was only for a short while, why? Because Kincade was introduced to me!
...The balance was restored in my eyes because of Kincade, his sarcastic and upfront attitude towards Bond coupled with his obvious soft spot and caring nature towards him reminded me alot of the relationship between Bond and Q, It was the 'Try and stop me ye' jumped up little sh*t' line that got me!
Of course I am sure that Q and Bond's relationship will be built upon further (hopefully) but I definately saw Kincade as a much needed character, one I hope we will see again in the future! I understand it would be very difficult to incorporate him into new stories, perhaps after SkyFall was destroyed Bond employs him in some other capacity at his home? Perhaps a janitor for MI6? Ok maybe not a janitor heh, but you see what I mean. I personally want to see them share at least one scene per film from now on somehow if at all possible, he, in my eyes at least, would be a more than welcome addition to the more permanent characters of the series joining M, Moneypenny, Tanner and Q!
I also wanted to ask peoples opinions on the stories behind the new M and Miss Moneypenny, I have no problems with the actors etc. as I think they will be brilliant but I am afraid that when the next film is out that it's going to bother me that I now know Bond and Moneypenny's backstory, whereas it used to be undisclosed and mysterious, also we know M's name from the off now (Gareth Mallory obiviously) not a huge issue for me but I enjoyed how Dench's M's name was left delibertly ambigious, I am also aware that in the novels we are aware of his name, coudl it be possible that these little things will take away that air of mystery surrounding the permanent characters? Could it affect the appeals of the characters and possibly run them dry in the future now that everybody knows their story?
I am very interested in peoples opinions about these subjects?
I have seen Skyfall 3 times now and each time I have found myself liking the character of Kincade even more, not only that but I have decided that he is an important and relevant character in the new era of Bond, not only because he added to Bond's back-story and gave us information about his past, no, but because of the new, younger Q...
Now I may be the only one who holds this view but please bear with me. The new Q is a young, computer-wizard who probably plays alot of World of Warcraft in his spare time, don't get me wrong, I am all for Ben Whishaw as Q, I think that in this day and age that Q NEEDS to be younger and tech-savvy, my only problem is this; I always viewed Bond and Q's relationship as a sort of 'father and son' affair, Bond acting as the rebellious teenager thinking he knows it all and Q acting as the wise father-figure who keeps him straight, and I liked that relationship, but in the new era, that relationship has sort of been flipped over with Bond being the more experienced of the two with Q being the know-it-all being put in his place by Bond, I know that the sarcasm etc. from Q is still there and all this is fine with me except something was lacking, I missed the way Q could shoot Bond back down to earth with a sarcastic or patronising remark or two and it left me feeling kind of empty, although that was only for a short while, why? Because Kincade was introduced to me!
...The balance was restored in my eyes because of Kincade, his sarcastic and upfront attitude towards Bond coupled with his obvious soft spot and caring nature towards him reminded me alot of the relationship between Bond and Q, It was the 'Try and stop me ye' jumped up little sh*t' line that got me!
Of course I am sure that Q and Bond's relationship will be built upon further (hopefully) but I definately saw Kincade as a much needed character, one I hope we will see again in the future! I understand it would be very difficult to incorporate him into new stories, perhaps after SkyFall was destroyed Bond employs him in some other capacity at his home? Perhaps a janitor for MI6? Ok maybe not a janitor heh, but you see what I mean. I personally want to see them share at least one scene per film from now on somehow if at all possible, he, in my eyes at least, would be a more than welcome addition to the more permanent characters of the series joining M, Moneypenny, Tanner and Q!
I also wanted to ask peoples opinions on the stories behind the new M and Miss Moneypenny, I have no problems with the actors etc. as I think they will be brilliant but I am afraid that when the next film is out that it's going to bother me that I now know Bond and Moneypenny's backstory, whereas it used to be undisclosed and mysterious, also we know M's name from the off now (Gareth Mallory obiviously) not a huge issue for me but I enjoyed how Dench's M's name was left delibertly ambigious, I am also aware that in the novels we are aware of his name, coudl it be possible that these little things will take away that air of mystery surrounding the permanent characters? Could it affect the appeals of the characters and possibly run them dry in the future now that everybody knows their story?
I am very interested in peoples opinions about these subjects?
http://www.classicbondforums.tk - Please support our community.
Comments
If Q is the Quartermaster, perhaps Kincade will be the new MI6 armorer. He does seem to have a penchant for firearms...
Think about it, in Bond 24 we could get a classic Q-esque gearing-up-for-battle sequence! Though I'm not sure what that would take away from Whishaw's character...
As for your other questions, I think having a more fleshed out M and Moneypenny over the course of the next few films will do a great deal to solidify Craig's unique tenure as Bond. Once Craig is out and Fassbender (please God!) is in, everything will change again, I imagine.
It would be nice if he appeared as a housekeeper, groundsman etc. for Bond appearing at the start or the end.
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
Cameo maybe, but please no more than that, and certainly no more back story of Bond and or Kincade.
I think the absence of an elder Q meant that the generational 'father figure' mentor part of Bonds character was shifted on to the new M (Dench) who served as the replacement parental figure as opposed to the more equal yet professional 'employee/ employer' relationship that a male M traditionally had with Bond. Bond was always presented as being a cut above M, remembering the scene in Goldfinger when they are having dinner with the chap from the Bank Of England and Bond shows how he is able to move through the higher echelons of society with a little more grace.
I think in M's (Dench) stead, you are right in pointing out the lack of parental style guidance from another character and Kincade would fit this part nicely as I think we might see Mallory shift back to a more traditional fitting. (Although I should like to see Mallory as a 'kick arse' M who won't suffer Bonds attitude and can meet him on his intellect and grace)
Great discussion. -{
move on and Please NO more back story for Bond, We
know all we need to know.
( well I do anyway )
You're probably right, thinking about it.
I think the best bet is if Bond is up in his neck of the woods and needs a favour however I expect to see more exotic locations in the next few movies
Great idea- hope he could fett it into his schedule.
Kincade was a prop support in the final scenes of the film, because there was only so much Bond and M could say to each other and exposition was needed to explain where they were. (Lacked why, but there you go). The scenes needed someone else. and Albert Finney did a great job.
However, - the dynamics of the character were thrown in there, then thrown out. Bond is NOT Batman! I cringed at the bolt on nature of this, and lets face it, Bond has never been looking over his shoulder ruminating about the past, or needed a Father figure. (Either version of M does not count!) It worked here because its the lynch pin of the story a la Silva. Plus even if you did bring him back, where would you put him? Bond spent more time in the UK in this film than all of the others put together.
I think the final scenes say it all. - No more looking back!
OMG! PLZ NO MOAR BACKSTORIEZ!!!!!!!
I don't think he was intended to actually be from Scotland.
( Or scottish in CR67)
Just like an Englishman to come up and Put a Scottish game keeper out of work.
I am probably one of the 'complainers' and just want to clarify. My concern is not so much with Skyfall (which is primarily concerned with M's past and not Bond's) it's more about the potential to overplay this element in future if not careful. I have never been comfortable with the amount of M That we have had in recent times. My main disappointment with Skyfall is that it's a film primarily about M. This tendency to be self referential has a'pop will eat itself' resonance for me, and if unchecked will mean that Bond ultimately becomes only about himself. I want to see a new thread, a new mission, unconnected with Bond or any other main characters past, where M does not treat Bond as a dysfunctional child.
We may get precisely this next time, tantalisingly the end leaves it open. A lazy and cynical option would be to dig into Bonds past, the death of his parents ( a major fear for me) Mallory or Kinccade could be easily mined. If it goes along that road it will be the beginning of the end.
I hope EON don't take the easy option.
Roger Moore 1927-2017