Sweepy the CatHalifax, West Yorkshire, EnglaPosts: 986MI6 Agent
I really think a brand new Q should be in Bond 22 because I've missed him. I know it's supposed to be more dark and realistic but the odd gadget wouldn't do any harm. It's a staple of the bond series.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I miss Q as a charcter, but because of how established DL was in the role. I can't see him being able to be replaced. Personally I didn't like John cleese's attempt. It really is one of those roles which you have to give an unbelievable performance in your first couple of films to make the viewers accept you. I think the only way it could work is with a less used character, who just provides the gadgets and has little screen time.
Almost a year later and we still don't know what you're referring to, NP.
As for Q, I think there's plenty of room for him in the the Bond films without stalling the story. As a character, he needs to be moved away from the gadgets and into a more 'technical expertise' realm. Where as he once was the 'armourer' and knew all the details of weaponry, he can become a more technologically minded character, essential in helping Bond on the mission. I think of David Niven's demolition expert in the 'The Guns of Naverone' accompanying Gregory Peck on the objective. In fact, this could lay background for Bond and Q's odd relationship.
Was doing a bit of research and I came up with the following information regarding "Q" in the Fleming novels.
In my initial investigations, I found that "Q" was mentioned two times: once in CR and once in LALD. In CR, M tells bond to see Q for "hotels, trains, and any equipment you need."
And in LALD, the skin graft on Bond's hand to cover the damage that was done in CR was performed by "Q". M studies it and makes comments about the quality of the work. It's never made clear whether or not Q is an individual or department in these cases. However, in GF there is a direct reference to 'Q Branch" in regards to Bond making travel plans.
In DN, Major Boothroyd is introduced as the Armourer, in which he chastises Bond's use of the Beretta.
At some point, the films merged the two entities (Q Branch and Boothroyd) into one...FRWL, I believe.
This being said, if we are to insist on a more literal translation, it may be wise to maybe introduce Q branch, but not a Major Boothroyd.
Sean Connery's first Bond Film didn't have Q in.
Nor did Roger Moore's first Bond film.
So why all the fuss that he wasn't in Daniel Craig's James Bond film?
I'm sure Q/R/P etc will return...
I certainly did ot miss him this time out,nor would I resent his reintroduction.It would be great to see many aspects of Broccoli/Saltzman era 007 explored without overdoing it,as with gadgetry and character themes.
Was doing a bit of research and I came up with the following information regarding "Q" in the Fleming novels.
In my initial investigations, I found that "Q" was mentioned two times: once in CR and once in LALD. In CR, M tells bond to see Q for "hotels, trains, and any equipment you need."
And in LALD, the skin graft on Bond's hand to cover the damage that was done in CR was performed by "Q". M studies it and makes comments about the quality of the work. It's never made clear whether or not Q is an individual or department in these cases. However, in GF there is a direct reference to 'Q Branch" in regards to Bond making travel plans.
In DN, Major Boothroyd is introduced as the Armourer, in which he chastises Bond's use of the Beretta.
At some point, the films merged the two entities (Q Branch and Boothroyd) into one...FRWL, I believe.
This being said, if we are to insist on a more literal translation, it may be wise to maybe introduce Q branch, but not a Major Boothroyd.
Well, Q is simply short for 'Quartermaster,' which is a military term for a person or an office which handles provisioning of supplies and gear to troops.
Which made Q's replacement in TWINE being called 'R' yet another sign that the franchise was in serious need of a reset. I mean, what? 'Ruartermaster?' Sheesh.
I don't want to see any more ridiculous expository scenes wherein Bond is given unlikely gadgets that somehow are the only things that can get him out of the jam he's in.
Q should've been playing the lotto with the odds he could muster.
First of all, I think the existence of gadgets should be minimized to the extreme. Standard spy stuff like bugging devices, etc are okay.
I like the gadgets showing up unbidden, to be realistic, and being somewhat multi-purpose - that is, they'd be something that would come in handy on ANY mission, not magically tailored for the one he finds himself in.
A good example was the small, remote-controlled explosive charge in the Omega watch that Bond used to shatter the glass jar (that contained the grenade) in Tomorrow Never Dies.
There was never a pandering scene with Q showing it off (probably because it came from Michelle Yeoh's collection). And it was realistic. Not to mention the fact that it was cleverly employed - it wasn't the primary explosive, it was used to trigger the grenade.
Such a gadget is subtle and realistic in the sense that it's multi-purpose and doesn't rely on a plot tailored around its existence. It could be used to blow locks off doors, for instance.
I rather liked the stun gun in the cellphone as well, actually. All-around practicality for an undercover agent.
Magic rings that shatter glass do not fall into this category; nor do X-ray specs.
I tend to agree with SpectreB', I much prefer the realistic gadgets, but still, many of Q's impossible gadgets are incredibly entertaining. But given the nature of Craig's Bond, I dont think we'll see too many outlandish gadgets in 22#. I'd love Q to return though, but if he did, would Bond be as boyish as he is in the previous films?
... Lets just keep our fingers crossed the next film will be a nice blend of old and new Bond.
Which made Q's replacement in TWINE being called 'R' yet another sign that the franchise was in serious need of a reset. I mean, what? 'Ruartermaster?' Sheesh.
I loved those glasses. IMO they were one of the the best gadgets in the series. The reason being that they were cool but they also came across to me as extremely realistic. (Before anybody make a comment about whether they were realistic, I'm talking about my perception as a viewer; the invisible car in DAD is apparently possible but it noonetheless comes across to me as ridiculously unrealistic.) Anyway, I would love to see Q return, but I'm afraid I'm not going to get my wish.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
It looks like Cleese needs the money, he is the new pitch man for Iron Mountain the information management company. http://www.friendlyadvicemachine.com/
james362001Lancaster, California USAPosts: 338MI6 Agent
It has already been said by Barbara Broccoli that Miss Moneypenny and Q will not be in the next film for 2008. But she will not rule out an appearance in the future if they are needed. You can catch up on all the latest news on Secret 007 at http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/Secret_007/:007)
Comments
That's rather catchy; my congratulations {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
That's really how I feel about his character.
What am I waffling about? ?:)
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Almost a year later and we still don't know what you're referring to, NP.
As for Q, I think there's plenty of room for him in the the Bond films without stalling the story. As a character, he needs to be moved away from the gadgets and into a more 'technical expertise' realm. Where as he once was the 'armourer' and knew all the details of weaponry, he can become a more technologically minded character, essential in helping Bond on the mission. I think of David Niven's demolition expert in the 'The Guns of Naverone' accompanying Gregory Peck on the objective. In fact, this could lay background for Bond and Q's odd relationship.
In my initial investigations, I found that "Q" was mentioned two times: once in CR and once in LALD. In CR, M tells bond to see Q for "hotels, trains, and any equipment you need."
And in LALD, the skin graft on Bond's hand to cover the damage that was done in CR was performed by "Q". M studies it and makes comments about the quality of the work. It's never made clear whether or not Q is an individual or department in these cases. However, in GF there is a direct reference to 'Q Branch" in regards to Bond making travel plans.
In DN, Major Boothroyd is introduced as the Armourer, in which he chastises Bond's use of the Beretta.
At some point, the films merged the two entities (Q Branch and Boothroyd) into one...FRWL, I believe.
This being said, if we are to insist on a more literal translation, it may be wise to maybe introduce Q branch, but not a Major Boothroyd.
They should have left it, original and best!
Well, Q is simply short for 'Quartermaster,' which is a military term for a person or an office which handles provisioning of supplies and gear to troops.
Which made Q's replacement in TWINE being called 'R' yet another sign that the franchise was in serious need of a reset. I mean, what? 'Ruartermaster?' Sheesh.
I don't want to see any more ridiculous expository scenes wherein Bond is given unlikely gadgets that somehow are the only things that can get him out of the jam he's in.
Q should've been playing the lotto with the odds he could muster.
First of all, I think the existence of gadgets should be minimized to the extreme. Standard spy stuff like bugging devices, etc are okay.
I like the gadgets showing up unbidden, to be realistic, and being somewhat multi-purpose - that is, they'd be something that would come in handy on ANY mission, not magically tailored for the one he finds himself in.
A good example was the small, remote-controlled explosive charge in the Omega watch that Bond used to shatter the glass jar (that contained the grenade) in Tomorrow Never Dies.
There was never a pandering scene with Q showing it off (probably because it came from Michelle Yeoh's collection). And it was realistic. Not to mention the fact that it was cleverly employed - it wasn't the primary explosive, it was used to trigger the grenade.
Such a gadget is subtle and realistic in the sense that it's multi-purpose and doesn't rely on a plot tailored around its existence. It could be used to blow locks off doors, for instance.
I rather liked the stun gun in the cellphone as well, actually. All-around practicality for an undercover agent.
Magic rings that shatter glass do not fall into this category; nor do X-ray specs.
... Lets just keep our fingers crossed the next film will be a nice blend of old and new Bond.
I loved those glasses. IMO they were one of the the best gadgets in the series. The reason being that they were cool but they also came across to me as extremely realistic. (Before anybody make a comment about whether they were realistic, I'm talking about my perception as a viewer; the invisible car in DAD is apparently possible but it noonetheless comes across to me as ridiculously unrealistic.) Anyway, I would love to see Q return, but I'm afraid I'm not going to get my wish.
http://www.friendlyadvicemachine.com/