what did he do anyway?
except hacking into C's surveillance and giving bond a watch bomb.
tracker he gave bond in skyfall was really ....I don't know what to say. too big to be used in secret. it was really dull looking?
not only that he was stupid enough to be tricked by Silva.
I don't really understand why he is even in the movie.
Old man Q was great. It's like typical Hollywood like by making the new Q 21 years old. Hell the new Moneypenny is like 25.
shareI just don't like how this Q is so intimidated by his superiors.
Old Q wouldn't take that crap!
"Houston, be advised: Rich Purnell is a steely-eyed missile man."
I guess people keep forgetting the Craig series of Bond movies is a reboot. We're seeing the beginnings of everything.
shareWhat bothers me the most about this statement, while true, is that it doesn't make sense that in Skyfall they already claimed James was old and past his prime and all this, however this is "before" all the other movies? I never understood that aspect of Skyfall.
shareSkyfall doesn't take place before all the other movies. The Craig series is a complete reboot and doesn't fit anywhere into the timeline of the previous films.
shareSkyfall doesn't take place before all the other movies. The Craig series is a complete reboot and doesn't fit anywhere into the timeline of the previous films.
Boy, people on this board who purport to be such Bond experts know nothing of Bond history
If Craig's Bond movies are prequels:
how does he already have the Astin Martin (fully loaded with machine guns) in Skyfall when he first introduced to it in Goldfinger?
How does Miss Moneypenny change from a black woman to a white woman?
Why is Bond introduced to the Walther PPK in Dr. No when he already used them from Casino Royale through Spectre?
When does M change his name from Gareth Mallory (Fiennes' M) to Miles Messervy (Lee's M)?
Why does Bond meet Felix Leiter for the first time in Casino Royale, and then meet him again for the first time in Dr. No?
Because they're not prequels. The entire Craig series is a reboot. The producers have even said so and said that was their intent. Anything you claim is pure fan speculation that doesn't hold up as I've clearly pointed out.
First of all watch the Special Features on Casino Royale Blu Ray titled "Becoming Bond" with interviews of Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli producers and director Martin Campbell...
They state the Daniel Craig movies are prequels to Sean Connery movies to show young Bond which is why they did not cast Brosnan in the role because they needed a younger actor to play young Bond at the beginning of his career as a "00".
Also it wasn't until the filiming of Casino that the rights to Ian Flemming's book were not available from Sony Pictures until then and they always wanted to make the original story the right way.
Michael Wilson also states that it is the begining of the timeline and the fact that they brought Judi Dench back as M made no sense in the timeline but they just had to bring her back and saw no one else playing M.
Paul Haggis also said that it is young Bond to see his story of how he got to be so emotionally unattatched in the Connery and other Bond stories/films.
All of this right here ends all arguments about calling it a reboot because both producers and the director Martin Campbell are calling it the beginning of the timeline.
Any other questions you have you should direct towards the producers and directors. Daniel Craig movies are young Bond movies and the beginning of the timeline not a new rebooted timeline.
... End of line.[/red][/b]
I like how you ignored all of the points I made proving the Craig films CAN'T be prequels.
But fortunately for me, I HAVE watched Becoming Bond on the Blu-ray. While they DO talk about the need to cast a new actor because Casino Royale takes place when Bond is younger and just becoming a 00 (therefore negating the ability to use the older Brosnan), they NEVER ONCE SAY that it is a prequel. NOT ONCE. They have always stated that they were "rebooting" the series (just like Batman Begins was a reboot of the Batman series - or did you stupidly think Batman Begins was a prequel to the 1989 Batman?). They have never said the Craig Bonds are prequels - and they aren't, for exactly for the reasons I gave that you conveniently ignored.
http://www.firstshowing.net/2012/interview-james-bond-producers-barbara-broccoli-michael-wilson/
http://www.gamesradar.com/decade-s-best-casino-royale/
http://jamesbond.wikia.com/wiki/Casino_Royale
Now, either link to sources where either Michael Wilson or Barbara Broccoli call the Craig films prequels and address the points I brought up, or shut up. Those are your two choices.
Sorry but you are wrong. They never said 'Reboot' and when they talk about the timeline it is the same as a prequel i.e. origins stories, young Bond, Bond before the timeline of Connery stories etc. Are you a Moron and can't figure that out. Prequel means stories that tell the origins and if Casino is an origin storie of Bond before 00 then it is a prequel. Talk about being stupid. If you watched it properly you would hear that it was Bond before Connery and the other films. They are not going to redo all the Ian Flemming stories that were in the films of all the other Bonds. No where did the producers comment on that anywhere.
For now you are on my IGNORE list as I no longer will waste my time with rude arrogant ignorant morons like yourself. IGNORE YOU GO!! BYE BYE
... End of line.
I provided you 3 links in which they SPECIFICALLY called it a "reboot."
Prequels are not defined as being origin stories. They are sequels that are set before the events of the previous movies. Indiana Jones and the Temple, for instance, is a prequel because it takes place before Raiders. But it is not an origin story.
And if the definition of a prequel WAS an origin story, as you claim, then Batman Begins WOULD be a prequel to Batman (1989). Is that really what you're trying to say? No, I didn't think you were.
And you STILL DIDN'T even attempt to address the points I made. Because you can't.
Game over. You lose.
it doesn't make sense that in Skyfall they already claimed James was old and past his prime and all this, however this is "before" all the other movies?
Bond says in Casino that 00 have a short lifespan.. ie usually get killed in the first year. Bond has outlived all the other 00 of his generation and for that he is considered old in 00 years. Being a 00 is like dog years as far as lifespan goes. The comments in the movie do not mean literally old but 00 old, and that is apples and oranges. Its such a demanding job as a 00, the agents get burned out quickly. But not Bond. Remember how he takes out 4 agents in the hotel elevator in Quantum. This shows Bond is an exceptional 00 agent. He outlives, outsmarts, outmanuevers, outwits everyone. He is invincible which is why all the movies are about 007 not 009 or 006. MI6 movies are about the best 00 agent that ever lived in MI6 history. Bond will live forever.
Why doesnt anyone get this concept?...
... End of line.
The comments in the movie do not mean literally old but 00 old
Why doesnt anyone get this concept?...
And you do know everything you said about Craig's Bond films was all written by Ian Flemming back in 1953 and 1959 books?...
... End of line.
And you do know everything you said about Craig's Bond films was all written by Ian Flemming back in 1953 and 1959 books?...
Thank you. This makes sense. Basically Skyfall was its own thing where CS, QOS and Spectre were a trilogy. I can buy that.
shareAnd in a perfect world Spectre would've been released before Skyfall. It would then be less confusing and a new Bond actor could step right in.
Who knows where they go from here after the Spectre ending because Craig obviously appears younger than he was in Skyfall.
I don't really have feelings about new Q one way or the other. But I certainly miss that Q is no longer the humorless take no guff boss of the shop. It was always great watching him boss 007 around like an annoying nephew.
"I said no camels, that's five camels, can't you count?"
It was always great watching him boss 007 around like an annoying nephew.
ah. yes. I really miss that.
it seemed old Q treated bond as stubborn brother that he can't like or hate.
I remember his last line.
"always have an escape plan
"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjrGsNTxrUQ
I like how they've turned Q into a hacker nerd, a bit like Chloe in 24 or Simon Pegg's character in Mission Impossible. It's probably the most sensible change they've made to any of the characters in the Bond movies.
Every modern action hero needs a hacker sidekick. Their role is to (1) advance the plot by doing impossible things with a few taps on their keyboard; (2) provide some comedy nerd/jock interplay with the hero; (3) say "We're in!" at least once per movie; and (4) provide a character that teenagers in the audience can identify with (particularly if the action hero is almost old enough to be their grandfather).
Q was the Quartermaster. The guy whose division created the gadgets and tools the agents took out into the field.
Then he was turned into a generic, nerd hacker you see in every other show and movie, AND THEN THEY MADE HIM A REALLY BAD ONE.
Who in their right mind would take a laptop and plug it directly into the mainframe of the MI5?! The mouth-breathers at mmy local PC World use closed systems to check computers taken in for repairs, but this dink decides that it's cool to plug it in without doing any checks on it?!
It's hot... but not as hot as the night Johnny Viti got married...
The Daniel Craig Bond movies are prequels to the Sean Connery films. So the Q in these recent movies is Q when he was young and just becoming inventive. As time goes by Q creates and invents more innovative spy gadgets. Eventually he grows into being old man Q. They are the same guy. Just as we are seeing Bond evolve through Daniel Craig so is Q. Remember in Casino Royale with Craig, he was not even a double 0 yet.
I like this Q. The car in Spectre you can see is a prototype of what a Bond car can really do like the older films. If you also recall, in Casino & Quantum, & Skyfall there were very few gadgets until Q comes into the scene. They have to introduce Q in these prequels sometime and not just have him jump into Bond's missions with crazy gadets at the get go. He has to evolve through time.
... End of line.
The Daniel Craig Bond movies are prequels to the Sean Connery films. So the Q in these recent movies is Q when he was young and just becoming inventive.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Did you even read my post?...
Daniel Craig BOnd films are not reboots like Dark Knight.
They are young Bond and are true to the books history.
They start the story of BOnd before the Sean Connery and other actors portraying the same character as a continuing storyline. You don't know anything about Bond. I've been reading the books, short stories and watching the films since the 60's.
These two publications are what Daniel Craig's first two Bond films are from.
The title and the complete storyline of them are true to Fleming's writings.
"Casino Royale" Ian Fleming book release date April 1953
"Quantum of Solace" Ian Fleming Cosmopolitan short story release dateMay 1959
... End of line.
I like the new version of Q. I shows that the series is adapting to the times. Computers are more capable of doing things. I wish just wish he would have created more gadgets.
shareI believe in the up and coming films and as Q matures with the 00 program which later is just called MI6, he will then create more gadgets. Remember he just joined the program as of the last film and this 00 program is still in its testing phase which is why one of the villains Max, aka "C" has jointed the agency to evaluate its effectiveness. He wants to make it obsolete and end the 00 program.
If you noticed in Spectre, Q moves into the same location that "Old Q" was in for the older films. The building is the same. If you watch Die Another Day you can see Q's headquarters for his inventions is the same as in Spectre. So this is the start of Q's work space. He is just settling in, in Spectre. So the next film I am sure we will see Q much more advanced and lots more high tech gadgets. If we put all the movies together in order we have one long story of the same agent, including Money Penny and Q who also never change. "M" has been known to change in the books but is always called "M" no matter what the persons name although thus far all "M"s real names started with "M" and remained for anonymity. These other posters who want to change Bond's sex or race don't get the Bond 007 franchise. They think its like reboots of Batman, Spiderman or Planet of the Apes. It an unending saga and has never once started the stories over.
... End of line.
I am excited for the gadgets in the next movie. I feel they will be quite inovative compared to the older movies... I think we may need a seatbelt in the movie theater for the next film.
... End of line.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Verily I say unto thee...he should be called PCQ.
share