PDA

View Full Version : The End of Q!?


HM Murdock
03-15-2005, 06:20 AM
Earlier Joblo.com posted this:

I may not be a James Bond connoisseur but I do know that the character of "Q" is as much a part of the franchise as Bond having wild sex with hot foreign women who may or may not be evil. Sure, his collective screen time has only been about forty minutes (at least according to imdb) but he's Q, for crying out loud! Since the passing of the cool Desmond Llewelyn, the always funny John Cleese had taken over the reigns as Bond's gadget expert. However, it seems he may not be back to reprise his role in CASINO ROYALE. Director Martin Campbell has already gone on record as saying that ROYALE will be a "grittier, tougher Bond" and that "we'll be getting away from the huge visual effects and comic relief." However, I didn't think that meant booting Q's ass out the door. It seems so, though, as Digital Spy is reporting that according to Cleese, "If I'm told that there is a Q, I will be Q…but unfortunately, I don't believe there's a Q in the current version of the script." Sure, they'll bring back M, as Judi Dench herself has mentioned but no love for my man Q or Cleese? For shame. For shame!! ROYALE is expected to begin shooting January of next year. The shooting script better have some Q in it or I'll just about get bubonic on someone's ass! Are you with me?

Have MGM gone mad? They ditch Brosnan and now Cleese, there won't be any Bond left at this rate. I thought it was a little dumb the way they introduced Cleese as Q, they should have called him something else at least, but now they've gone that way they should stick with it. As for a grittier Bond with no comic relief...argh! Bond is slick, over the top action with loads of witty remarks all the way. Bond is not gritty at all! Why don't MGM just have done with it and bring in a new franchise rather than slowly convert Bond, wrecking a brillant reputation. Bond 21 is sounding crapper by the day!

Fraenkl
03-15-2005, 06:54 AM
I must admit that I was also shocked when the news came to me. But....

I thought that the intension of CR is to be a movie where we could see a much younger Bond than we saw in the last 15 movies. Bakc to the roots. And if that means that there isn't a Q, then there shouldn't be a Q.

As for the name Q being lame, would you rather see Judy Dench be named N instead of M? ;)

PS: John Cleese rocks!

HM Murdock
03-15-2005, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by Fraenkl

I thought that the intension of CR is to be a movie where we could see a much younger Bond than we saw in the last 15 movies. Bakc to the roots. And if that means that there isn't a Q, then there shouldn't be a Q.

As for the name Q being lame, would you rather see Judy Dench be named N instead of M?

A younger Bond? Oh God, it's James Bond Junior the movie! If this is a prequel of sorts I can see why Q wouldn't be in the movie. But that would mean it would be set in the 60s...oh forget it, the James Bond timeline is all over the place.

As for Q's name being lame, I didn't mean his name was bad. I think they should have given him a different name other than Q considering he is a different character to Q. Maybe it was a good idea but what does Q stand for anyway?

bob
03-15-2005, 06:44 PM
Less CGI and gimmicks?

Good.

Ditching John Cleese?

Bad.

Not casting a new Bond after ditching the second best Bond of all time?

Bad.


MGM's 1 for 3 on the new Bond film, by my calculations.

Ted Pikul
03-25-2005, 06:19 AM
Q was Desmond Llewlelyn.

Cleese is just annoying "comic relief".

No great loss if you ask me.

Indiana Sev
03-25-2005, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by Ted Pikul
Cleese is just annoying "comic relief".

No great loss if you ask me.

I couldn't have put it better myself.