The Next Q In 007.

[BloodyWolverine]

I think a Q will be needed but i think with this new look to bond they will be differant then before. Despite what people think the gadgets is part of Bond simply because Bond needs help perfecting and also they are spy movies at the core. I think Q has to come arcoss as smart with some since of humore but maybe a bit more serious. I think Sam Neil, Gary Oldman or Alan Rickman would be the right age for a younger Q And they have an intellegence about them on screen.

 

[Chaos Bringer]

No Q, no gadgets. Adding Q is like adding Robin.

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

^^^

no having standard gadgets require Q to show them to Bond.

 

[Makeshift Celebrity]

Who is "Brain Cox"?

 

[Danger Mouse]

Who is "Brain Cox"?

Inspector Gadget's dog?

 

[xwolverine2]

alan rickman wouldnt be bad......

 

[Danger Mouse]

What, no Rowan Atkinson?

 

[cryptic name]

Bill Nighy, but honestly I don't want Q to appear in new Bond movies. He is unnecessary figure, and besides I prefer to see Bond without gadgets.

bond needs Q like batman needs alfred. he doesn't need a lot of gadgets. but the car and the watch are musts for the next one.
anyway, i'd like to see john cleese come back. but alan rickman is an interesting suggestion.

 

[CConn]

I closed my eyes and voted for Liam Neeson.

 

[Fran]

Sam Neill FTW

 

[Backdrifter]

Q is the old Bond. The new Bond doesn't need goofy gadgets and toys. I'm more concerned with compelling stories and character arcs for Bond and less with gizmos and gadgets. That's gimicky and insults the direction that they are pushing Bond. No thanks.

 

[Downhere]

Sam Neill would be a good choice I think.

 

[BloodyWolverine]

Obviously a few of you are not true Bond fans for even the great classic Bond movies had Q and Gadgets. Bond is a spy and so he needs those things. If you were watching the same film Bond in casino Royale could have used a couple gadgets. YOu can't beat up and shoot people through all 3 Craig movies. Gadgets are part of the legend that is Bond Jamse Bond.

Also i ment Brian Cox you know the guy who played Stryker in X-men 2 . He also was in such movies as The Bourne Supermecy, Braveheart, Troy, Rob Roy and so on.

 

[jaydawg]

True Bond fans? I've seen every Bond film and frankly, Q is unnessary. Gadgets that conviently solve any obstacle in Bond's way? No thanks. I'll take the more realistic approach that Casino Royale took....... but Bill Nighy really is a good pick.

 

[A.J.Rimmer(BSC)]

It's the ****ty jokes that tainted it - - that's why I look to the way the character was handled in Dr.No and From Russia with Love.

I honetly don't see why the role has to be the comic relief. CR struck just the right balance/blend in tone, let's not introduce a character that could mess that all up.

I'm with you as well. In fact I thought

Spoiler

Bond's reaction through the torture scene was funnier than most if not all one liners. I mean it made Bond look funny AND even harder!

And are you a member of the Rafalution, SuperBENITEZ. If so good man.

 

[~†~§iX~†~]

My pick would be Nigel Havers.

!......

 

[A.J.Rimmer(BSC)]

The Housewives favourite.

 

[Brian Braddock]

I'm with you as well. In fact I thought

Spoiler

Bond's reaction through the torture scene was funnier than most if not all one liners. I mean it made Bond look funny AND even harder!

And are you a member of the Rafalution, SuperBENITEZ. If so good man.

Hehe. a fellow Red eh? Good man right back atcha! (nice win last night too).


Red Dwarf fan as well? Impecable taste, sir.

lol.

And to anyone wanting Q back in Bond for 'comic relief' - we might as well just have Alan Partridge as the new Quartermaster, for all the good it would do?

 

[DACrowe]

Anyone who says Bond doesn't need Q in future movies needs to take a LONG look back. Just becaues it worked for CR doesn't mean you throw out a staple like that for good. It obviously must still work considering BB ripped it off.

Anyway John Cleese is fine as Q. Sure he was Q in the Brosnan years (for one anyway) but hey, so was Dench as M. I liked Cleese in the role though.

 

[DACrowe]

P.S. To quote Craig himself "This is very overthetop. Mads' eye is bleedin' for bloody sake." or something to that extent.

Comic relief is NOT a bad thing. Considering how we have Craig play the role Q can work as that. Goldfinger is the best in the series and no one complains about "serious Connery" interacting with Q there.

 

[Brian Braddock]

Never said Bond didnt need Q - Never said that comic relief in the film was a bad thing, either.

I thought what humor there was in CR was just right and I certainly wouldnt like to see the kind of groan inducing slapstick that became rife in Q branch (particulary in the Brosnan movies - Cleese trapping his coat in a car door anyone? Sorry, wsnt too impressed by that) creeping back into the franchise, just as it's got people taking it seriously again.

As I mentioned before, I'd prefer the Q role to be retired as respect to Desond Llwellyn; but if they did have someone else play the role - I'd rather it was a tad more serious, or should that be less comedic?

And the Goldfinger Q>Bond interaction? No one complains because that wasnt played entirely for laughs. Again, as in CR, the balance between humour and seriousness was just right.

I'll leave it to the great man himself to finish this post:-

"I never joke about my work, 007".

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

I'm sorry..bond was very realistic to start off with..casino royalae is just going back to the first couple of bonds..

 

[Brian Braddock]

Exactly Robo - let's face it; certain elements of the Bond franchise had become almost farcical and cliche.

A lot of people, going by opinions of friends, co-workers and family (who where turned off Bond because of said elements) are discovering and enjoying Bond again due to CR.

Whereas fans like myself who've been there all the while are welcoming a change in direction, 'going back to the source' if you will, (before Bond became a superhero ).

 

[BloodyWolverine]

Never said Bond didnt need Q - Never said that comic relief in the film was a bad thing, either.

I thought what humor there was in CR was just right and I certainly wouldnt like to see the kind of groan inducing slapstick that became rife in Q branch (particulary in the Brosnan movies - Cleese trapping his coat in a car door anyone? Sorry, wsnt too impressed by that) creeping back into the franchise, just as it's got people taking it seriously again.

As I mentioned before, I'd prefer the Q role to be retired as respect to Desond Llwellyn; but if they did have someone else play the role - I'd rather it was a tad more serious, or should that be less comedic?

And the Goldfinger Q>Bond interaction? No one complains because that wasnt played entirely for laughs. Again, as in CR, the balance between humour and seriousness was just right.

I'll leave it to the great man himself to finish this post:-

"I never joke about my work, 007".

Thats pretty much what i was meaning. I say there can be a Q with per say a bit drier since of humor but a Q is needed if your going to do a Bond reboot as it were. I don't per say want a goof ball. I want them to stick to the Connery Q.

 

[DACrowe]

I wasn't referring to you. There are a number of posts though going "No more Q."