The new Q is PATHETIC compared to the original.......
He's a millennial who's very effiminate (snowflake) and most likely a gay character........ he owns 2 cats? Sorry but straight, alpha males do NOT own multiple cats...... ever!
shareHe's a millennial who's very effiminate (snowflake) and most likely a gay character........ he owns 2 cats? Sorry but straight, alpha males do NOT own multiple cats...... ever!
shareHemmingway had lots of cats, he was alpha as they get.
shareAt least, he TRIED to be. Maybe he tried a little too hard. I mean, after all . . . multiple cats. That all aside, the new Q needs to die a slow and humiliating death, perhaps being slathered in fish oil, then pitched into a pit of starving cats when ejected from a speeding Aston-Martin.
shareGreat analysis...... You have quite the imagination! LOL!
shareWhile I like the new M and the new Moneypenny, I never liked the new Q. Q should be older than Bond, someone Bond's senior who can quip with Bond, not some young guy who works at buzzfeed.
shareI think they made the right move with new-Q.
1 - You can't top Llewelyn's portrayal and memory. I've heard that Jackie Chan went with his "Buster Keaton kung fu" persona partly to avoid direct comparison with Bruce Lee - knowing he couldn't beat Bruce. So, giving us a very different Q prevented direct comparison. This also feels like they weren't trying to erase or diminish Llewelyn's Q, either.
2 - A major theme of Skyfall is Bond's age and the question of whether or not he can compete in this young man's game. Q being youthful and operating with computers gives Bond a kind of indirect rival to pit him against. This also allows Bond to overcome this age v. youth problem by stripping everything away and going low-tech for his final confrontation with Silva.
Good points, all of them, but I think what we object to is not his age as such, but instead to him being portrayed as an (pardon my impending redundancy) obnoxious millennial.
shareYes! All very good point of views....... One comment about Q being older than bond, such as an uncle, fatherly figure, was PERFECT! In LICENSE TO KILL, Q was at his best and had he been a much younger, condescending, effiminate character, I don't think that Bond's girl would've "bonded" (pardon the pun) w/him so well, like she did w/the much more mature and "fatherly" Q.......
shareCertainly that is one of Licence to Kill's charms, as well: Q gets to shine. (One of many reasons why I think LtK is highly underrated).
With age, I certainly meant more than just youth, but yes, his obnoxious millennial-ness. They wanted to give Bond a different Q (not to compete with Llewelyn) and tied it to a major theme. It also added a point of tension and bumped up the stakes for Bond in the film.
I'm not arguing that the old Q-Bond relationship of uncle/father was better, but they were wise, I think, to try something new to avoid comparison. They can always change up Bond and Q in a few years and return to the original relationship.
Desmond will always be THE Q. However I really like Ben Wishaw as Q. He's not bad at all in my opinion.
shareQ should always be older than Bond. Should be Bond's elder and somewhat as a more senior person who feels they need to "parent" Bond or tell him what to do. Thats why Desmond worked so well with Connery & Moore.
shareI disagree, I think Q should represent the technology of the age, and if that means changing him from an avuncular engineer to an arrogant cybergeek, then the change should be made.
Which is a pretty small price to pay for carrying the same story from the Space Age to the age of cyber warfare, but it's a price that should be paid. Better to change Q than Bond himself.
To eachs own. Not everyone can pull of what Desmond did while trying to act like his Q. John Cleese was terrible in Die Another Day as Q. Way to cheesy.
shareNo comment on changing the Bond series to adapt to new eras? Because IMHO the place to start is the tech and the supporting characters.
Bond himself can never change.
You are not wrong, perhaps I should have said I preferred it when Q was more of an elder to Bond. The role of Q, M, Moneypenny will change with the times. Bond himself has changed a bit, 60s vs. 2000s.
I like Raph Fiennes as M because he reminds me of Bernard Lee. I'm fine Naomi Harris as Moneypenny and her background as a "failed" field agent, but Lois Maxwell will always be my favorite.
There is just something about this Q and his relationship with Bond I just can't believe or like.
I would say that it's now necessary to make the modern Q more of a cybergeek than an engineer, but you're right, there's no real necessity to make him young.
However, there are several factors pushing in that direction: the fact that modern tech is so notoriously a young person's field, the fact that movie franchises like to hire their actors young and get many years use out of them, and the desire to have at least one young man in the cast, as the Bond movies do appeal most strongly to a young-ish male demographic and the Bond himself is no longer young.
excuse me but someone said here that jackie chan could not beat bruce lee and had to use buster keaton or something..to hell with that..bruce lee was overrated and a fraud..jackie is miles better and jackie dont need to beat bruce lee.lee is dead.and hey why the comparision both of them were different.bruce lee is not even in the league of jackie chan.sorry i am harsh and angry but shame on you man.you ultimate jackass..and this movie,bruce lee & ben wishan sucks dong,these 2 are the most gayest.
share