Every once in a while a casting decision is made that just makes you go “Wow! I never would have thought of that… but it’s PERFECT!”
That was the first reaction I had to the announcement a few years ago that John Cleese was taking over the role of “Q” in the James Bond franchise. It was a great choice that has paid off. The small role “Q” has had in the last couple of Bond films have been great.
Too bad the good folks over at Digital Spy are reporting that the end to this short era is now at hand:
John Cleese fans will be sad to hear that his character, Q, will most likely not feature in the next Bond movie, Casino Royale. The director, Martin Campbell, sees no part for the Python star to play in what he intends to be a grittier, more realistic affair than recent Bond movies. Campbell said: “Casino Royale will be a grittier, tougher and more realistic Bond movie. “We’ll be getting away from the huge visual effects and comic relief.”
Cleese commented sagely: “If I’m told that is 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,” he added.
Personally I think this is a bad move. I can understand where Campbell is coming from… but I still think this is ill advised.
NO Q!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
arrrgggghhhhhhh.
Thats where all the fiction comes from. without Q, bond wouldn’t of had any cool cars or gadgets, also pointed out that bond would be lying in his grave if it weren’t for Q
Just to confirm, it’s not that there’s no Q, it’s that John Cleese won’t be Q. It might mean there is a Q but it’ll be a straight role and more realistic.
Ok, how can you get rid of Q?!? 007 owes his life to the guy a thousand times over, and John Cleese is so perfect for the role!!!
I mean, the whole idea of a “serious and realistic” Bond movie is rediculous anyway. Since when is James Bond realistic? and he was never that serious. If i’m gunna watch Bond, I want Bond. Personaly, i think the 007 series should be over with. Things started going down hill with Timothy Dalton. Pierce Brosnan wasn’t bad, but thing just aren’t the same and it’s not getting any better. Why can’t we end this before it gets any worse??
Oh, yea, the money! Forgot, sorry. But if you’re going to make a Bond movie, make it right!! No one will ever top Sean Connery, but can’t we at least keep the movies like they were back then?
Well, anyway, i’ve said my piece. As a huge Bond fan i say, keep Q!!!!
Bond will simply visit a newly opened Sharper Image store on Oxford St. and pick up other gear at the Apple Store. The dweeb at the Genius Bar will function as a replacement for Q.
I really don’t care either way about if Q stays. The only real reason I can see to keep him is with a new Bond coming in, it offers a lifeline to the audience. “Here you might not recognize Bond, but you know these guys” kind of thing.
Unlike me, I’m not going to agree with anyone…totally that is!
I read this first off and went “What?! No Q? That’s a bleeding travesty!” then proceeded to apologise to the 200 strong open plan office around me.
Then I thought about it. The previous posts have raved about reworking the franchise, and if Campbell is trying to go for a truer, gritier Bond as in the original, well this is just another move in that direction.
Is it so wrong to dump the comedy and go for the straight, serious slant? I think it bodes well and suggests that maybe the franchise owners are ready to move on a bit from the old Bond.
To be perfectly honest…Good riddance! I’m a huge John Cleese fan (in particular A Fish Called Wanda, The Python Films and Faulty Towers). But it seemed such a weak stretch to have him hamming it up in the Bond films…They should have retired the chracter with the passing of Desmond Lewllyn (sp?). The Bond films have been hokey and over done since Roger Moore came on board…(somehow Golden-Eye worked, despite it’s overall silliness of the whole affair…)
The real question is ‘what does the audience want’…A cartoon spy movie where everyone wise cracks and nothing is taken seriously (in particular Moon-Raker, The World is Not Enough and Die Another Day) or do they want a gritty spy film with a bad-ass spy(Dr. No).
It appears that MGM is going with the latter, but Box Office receipts and this web-site would suggest the former (unless I’m reading things wrong)…
I think anyone who actually liked Ian Flemings novels and the idea of James Bond stopped watching the movies 25 years ago.
So whether or not Campbell and Company do a good job on re-inventing the genre in a more realistic way, it seems the audience doesn’t want this anyway…
my rambling $0.02
This is a shame.
I understand the desire to do reconstruct the franchise, but let’s not ditch a key character. Everyone loves Q and to do away with the character makes me sad. And all those cool little gadgets are part of what made Bond fun!
How can a bit of fun and cool gadgets (which have been key in Bond’s great escapes) ruin the grit and toughness? Perhaps it’s the realism that is getting rid of Q.
It looks like this project has got the big word disaster written all over it. No Q? And how come they are letting go of the visual effects and some snippets of humor, what’s wrong with that? I enjoyed those in all Bond movies why take it out now?
I suppose there wont be any more “martini, shaken but not stirred” either, or “the name’s Bond, James Bond”.