"James Bond 23" officially slated for 2012!

[Aldo]

I think it's interesting to point out that Arnold still hasn't been confirmed as the composer of the film.

Arnold or not, it seems like they are waiting a while to reveal who it will be. Perhaps they haven't figured that out yet? When does a composer typically start scoring the film?

 

[Admiral_Young]

IIRC it is when they wrap filming. I assume that a composer will read the script (which I believe that Arnold has stated he was going to or already has) which generates his ideas for the music that he or she will write. Then when they start getting footage they compose the score. It's not unusual for a composer not to be confirmed this "late".

"Man of Steel" still doesn't have a composer yet and principal photography wraps in early Jan sometime.

 

[Candlelight]

So glad we're going back to the gadgets. The first two Craig movies were just blah.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Not yet quite official but fairly reliable:

http://www.totalfilm.com/news/ben-whishaw-cast-as-q-in-bond-film-skyfall

Skyfall, the latest instalment of the James Bond franchise, has cast Ben Whishaw as MI6 gadget master Q, according to various reports hitting the web today.

It will be the character's first appearance in the franchise since 2002's Die Another Day, where he was played by John Cleese.
Prior to that, Q was played by Desmond Llewelyn, who owned the role for an impressive 36 years.
Q is the character who supplies Bond with all of his nifty hi-tech gadgets and espionage equipment in the movies.
Traditionally, the actor playing Q has been older than James Bond, but that's set to change here (Whishaw's 31, Craig's 43).
Craig is appearing as 007 for the third time in Skyfall.
Ben Whishaw has already acted opposite Craig, in 2004 ganster Brit-flick Layer Cake.
And, not that we're saying we told you so or anything, but we did have our money on Whishaw playing Q:

Q AND Moneypenny!

This just keeps getting better and better....

Moneypenny may be in it (see my post a few places up), but it's not official yet

Glad there will be a Q and Moneypenny,

What I said above.

and I do love Layer Cake, but who the hell is this guy?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0924210/

Outside of the obvious young gadgetry appeal, what are the motives to making some sort of tech guru or young geeky Q? I already thought we had the badass younger Bond with Craig's reinventions, so why would Q be younger? This really confuses me, as it might have been nice to have something slightly similar to a cranky old man in an effort to get things back on track.

Why make M female? Why make Bond blond? Maybe Wishaw was just the best person who auditioned for the role.

Eh, must wait and see.

Exactly!

So glad we're going back to the gadgets. The first two Craig movies were just blah.

We may or may not be going to the gadgets. Q appeared in OHMSS, which is hardly gadget-laden. In the recent Jeffrey Deaver Bond novel there is a Q department but Bond's tecchiest piece of kit is a super Iphone (or IQphone). Q may simply be the Quartermaster.

 

[Candlelight]

So glad we're going back to the gadgets. The first two Craig movies were just blah.

We may or may not be going to the gadgets. Q appeared in OHMSS, which is hardly gadget-laden. In the recent Jeffrey Deaver Bond novel there is a Q department but Bond's tecchiest piece of kit is a super Iphone (or IQphone). Q may simply be the Quartermaster.

Chekov's Gun and the mentality of today's audience.

If Q is there, the gadgets must follow.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I disagree that just because Q is in the movie that gadgets must follow. If that is the direction that the script follows then yes that will be the case but if they continue to follow the tone and direction of the previous two films then I would hazard a guess that gadgets will be minimal at best.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ Yeah, I see Q as providing weapons and cutting edge technology that is perhaps just marginally more advanced than the stuff we have access to - the stuff that Apple or whoever will be selling in a couple of years. No underwater cars, rocket packs or the like.

 

[Starkers]

If Q doesn't give Bond a one man crocodile submarine in this film then I hate it already!!

The idea of a young geeky Q makes perfect sense (So much so that Spooks did it several years ago, replacing Malcom with Tariq)

I do hope they don't go the Deaver route of just giving him an iPhone that does everything!

Shame he's the Doctor cos Matt Smith would make a brilliant Q...

Yeah and at the risk of being a complete Pedant...Bond works for MI6(Or SIS) not MI5 (The Security Services)...

 

[Captaindemotion]

If Q doesn't give Bond a one man crocodile submarine in this film then I hate it already!!

The idea of a young geeky Q makes perfect sense (So much so that Spooks did it several years ago, replacing Malcom with Tariq)

I do hope they don't go the Deaver route of just giving him an iPhone that does everything!

Shame he's the Doctor cos Matt Smith would make a brilliant Q...

Yeah and at the risk of being a complete Pedant...Bond works for MI6(Or SIS) not MI5 (The Security Services)...

Pedant.

 

[Starkers]

Sorry...

 

[23skidoo]

I disagree that just because Q is in the movie that gadgets must follow. If that is the direction that the script follows then yes that will be the case but if they continue to follow the tone and direction of the previous two films then I would hazard a guess that gadgets will be minimal at best.

I don't understand why people talk about "minimal" gadgets. The Daniel Craig era has been loaded with gadgets - look at the anti-poison kit in the car, the tracking device, all the magic stuff Bond is able to do with his cellphone, the futuristic table-top at MI6 in Quantum of Solace.

The only difference is that many of the gadgets seen in the Craig films are things that likely exist in real life, or are plausible. (Sort of like how real life has caught up with Star Trek's futuristic communicators and tricorders.) So, OK, I don't expect us to see an invisible car anytime soon, but I've noted no lack of gadgets in the Craig era. All that's missing is a guy codenamed Q explaining how to use them - since odds are James Bond in 2006 was quite capable of figuring out how to use a smartphone.

But in Casino Royale certainly I saw at least 2 characters who could have easily been Q: the guy who injects Bond with the tracker in the Bahamas, and the guy who talks Bond through the antidote process.

Odds are if we see Q again he's going to be more like the "Quartermaster" his code name represents, i.e. helping Bond train with his weaponry, making sure the Walther is clean, etc.

Alex

 

[Admiral_Young]

^ That's kind of the point I was trying to make

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ That's kind of the point I was trying to make

I disagree that just because Q is in the movie that gadgets must follow. If that is the direction that the script follows then yes that will be the case but if they continue to follow the tone and direction of the previous two films then I would hazard a guess that gadgets will be minimal at best.

^ Yeah, I see Q as providing weapons and cutting edge technology that is perhaps just marginally more advanced than the stuff we have access to - the stuff that Apple or whoever will be selling in a couple of years. No underwater cars, rocket packs or the like.

Yeah, I would have thought we're all basically making the same point.

 

[Rush Limborg]

I wouldn't be suprised if his "name" in the film isn't "Q", per se...but M instead refers to him as "Major Boothroyd"...or simply "Major". Even if it's just "Major"...we'll get the idea.

 

[Admiral_Young]

^ Or even The Quartermaster

 

[ATimson]

But in Casino Royale certainly I saw at least 2 characters who could have easily been Q: the guy who injects Bond with the tracker in the Bahamas, and the guy who talks Bond through the antidote process.

I'd thought the latter was Bill Tanner, but apparently he wasn't in CR, just QOS. Checking the script, that was apparently supposed to be a doctor MI6 had on call. Huh. The things you learn.

 

[Starkers]

Well I guess it isn't beyond the realms of the possible for this younger Q to be/have been a major, but it would take a bit of a suspension of disbelief so I expect him to just be refered to as Q, Quartermaster, or maybe just Boothroyd.

 

[KB24]

I'm so behind in this thread now, The board hasn't been cooperating with me for days!

Anyhoo, I do indeed thing Craig has had gadgets, but they've been too contemporary product placement and are already out of date. So I'm hesitant about some young guy giving him some hip cool thing that is going to be passe by time the next movie roles around. That's why I would rather have a cranky old guy who can't deal with new crap or has something a bit toward the real of fantastic and quirky inventor.

I mentioned it before, but doesn't anyone think McCory could be the new Moneypenny? She seems motherly classy like a step up from Samantha Bond. Although she also seems like a worthy M replacement if Dench is really on the way out. Although I think it would be awesome for Colin Salmon to return if there is a need for a new M.

I forget what else I was going to say from when it wouldn't post for me, sigh. But I did find this. Outside of the wedding ring and the wine instead of a martini, and you might not now it wasn't from a Bond film

http://i42.tinypic.com/2v1sodf.jpg

 

[Starkers]

Well Bond does drink wine (just make sure it's the right kind for the meal you're having ) and he could be undercover as a married man...

I think McCrory would be a greap Moneypenny, however heaven forbid the role is taken by a woman who's the same age as 007...

As for Q, it is possible to be young yet play the role of an old duffer (see Matt Smith) and it does make more sense these days that the Quartermaster would be of the younger generation.

I reckon Finney will be a new M if it's anybody (and always assuming Dench is planning to leave which doesn't seem certain)...

 

[Captaindemotion]

^I think I read that Finney is one of M's superiors, though whether he's a politician or a securocrat, I don't know.