No Q in 21?
Hardyboy
Posts: 5,882Chief of Staff
Rumors, rumors, rumors. . . Much as I hate them, here's another: John Cleese claims that Q does not appear in the present version of the Bond 21 script. You can read more about it by clicking on the link to the right of the main page, or by going directly to the source:
http://www.ianfleming.org/mt_content/000235.html
Post your thoughts here, but PLEASE--don't turn this into a "Who should be the next Q?" discussion!
http://www.ianfleming.org/mt_content/000235.html
Post your thoughts here, but PLEASE--don't turn this into a "Who should be the next Q?" discussion!
Vox clamantis in deserto
Comments
I feel the present group planning the Bond films like to take things to the extreme. DAD had extreme computer graphics, and now the rumors are that they are swinging in the opposite direction, getting back to a "realistic" Bond, and away from gadgets.
I would still like to see John Cleese in Bond 21. I didn't care for his comedic performance as 'R' in TWINE, but I did like his more serious performance in DAD. We'll just have to wait a while to find out . . .
No Q, no gadgets...
Yes, yes, I know that there was a trick watch in LALD, but it's an interesting supposition nonetheless.
However...wouldn't it be nice to see some regular, non-up-upity, non-eccentric arms expert who is actually called "Quartermaster"? For the matter, have him again be called "Major Boothroyd" and reinforce the tradition of Fleming's day (and to the present?) of having govermnment staffers coming from uniformed service, like Bond, M, Moneypenny, and even Hammond. It would be refreshing to see some guy who clearly looks ex-military, middle-aged, competent and most importantly, confident in delivering a briefing to 007. A pipe and eyepatch might even be nice touches!
I was unsure about John Cleeses Q as I thought he was a bit OTT,but he seemed to pull it back a bit in DAD,so I wouldn't want to see him go altogether
As previously stated,it could be that the new Bond could benefit from no previous associations.We shall have to wait and see..
And by having John Clease as Q, surely it would boost the profile of the film. He is a classic British comedian, and I think it would reflect negatively on the film not having him in there.
On the other side, if Bond 21 is a period piece, I wouldnt mind seeing no Q.
mountainburdphotography.wordpress.com
"right 007 do pay attention.......and try and bring them back in one piece"
ha, that would be easy...lol
mountainburdphotography.wordpress.com
isn't on a mission, like he's on some vacation time and falls in love with some woman, and there's no violence at all with the exception of a possible PTS
I respectfully disagree. Some of the better Bond films, Dr. No, OHMSS, and FYEO really didn't have gadgets, and they are quite respected in the series. I like the films that don't rely heavily on gadgets as part of the story. OHMSS did have the safe-cracking/Xerox-copier device, but that scene could have been written without the gadget. IMO, its the best film of the series.
The next film is supposedly Casino Royale, if the rumors are to be believed, and if it is closely based on the novel, there are no gadgets. I would prefer character-driven plots rather than lots of gadgets.
That sounds like a pretty weak Bond film
Depends on how you define gadget. As I remember there are two assassination weapons in Casino Royale (walking stick gun and camera bomb) which could loosely be described as gadgets.
Most fictional spies today use unusual or technologically sophisticated equipment to help them complete their mission, even in shows like ‘Spooks’ and the Bourne movies. It would be unrealistic if they didn’t. The difference is that the gadgets have become too much of a focus in the recent Bond films, rather than being treated as tools which assist him in his job.
If you ask me the producers are heaping serious pressure on themselves to get the right Bond. Without the gadgets & the strong supporting cast whoever it is is going to have to give a fantastic performance otherwise the movie will bomb badly.
True, but I was thinking in terms of equipment used to Bond by 'Q'. . . but I definitely agree that it depends how much focus the filmmakers place on gadgets.
Interesting ... but why should Cleese know about the (let's face it) first draft of the script ... they are not going to finalise a script until a director has been contracted, and they are certainly not going to let the actors know too much until a director is ready, willing and able.
I have no problem with Q being there or not there ... all I want is a cohesive story that features the most appropriate characters to drive forward that story ... I personally found DAD's Q section to be particularly cringe-worthy with the subnormal 'Vanish' gag. This was no fault of Cleese, but if the gadgets and Q's involvement are there just to provide one-dimensioanl comic relief then no. If Q is there to provide an advancement of the plot then great ...
irreplacable...
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Waiting for the 21 with a Q... of course!
I didnt thought about this , yes CR is before Q
But what superado said is interresting it would be cool to see a middle-aged ex-military doing that job! ín CR or in the future Bonds
If somebody only put :this is great ....
and depends.