No Time To Die: Production Diary

1158815891591159315942507

Comments

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    After watching Steve Jobs and Trainspotting 2, I sincerely am at a loss to see how these Q/Bond scenes will play in 25.

    This cute repertoire between these two are literally and figuratively a Mendes creation, and it's clear that Boyle is no Mendes.

    It's also clear that even in a film so straight forward like SJ, Boyle's scripts, direction and visuals are unhinged with frenetic energy. He's unrelenting and marches to his own unique voice.

    I find it hard to imagine this Q (created in the hands of another director (but whom I enjoy immensely)), fitting into Danny Boyle's B25 world.



  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited July 2018 Posts: 4,585
    peter wrote: »
    After watching Steve Jobs and Trainspotting 2, I sincerely am at a loss to see how these Q/Bond scenes will play in 25.

    This cute repertoire between these two are literally and figuratively a Mendes creation, and it's clear that Boyle is no Mendes.

    It's also clear that even in a film so straight forward like SJ, Boyle's scripts, direction and visuals are unhinged with frenetic energy. He's unrelenting and marches to his own unique voice.

    I find it hard to imagine this Q (created in the hands of another director (but whom I enjoy immensely)), fitting into Danny Boyle's B25 world.



    Judi Dench’s M had been created many directors prior to DC’s arrival and she continued, through two more.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @TripAces I get what you're saying. However, Ben Wishaw's character has Mendes DNA all over it, whereas I didn't find Dench's M was a creation of any one director.

    And the last thing Boyle's going to do is copy whatever came before.


  • Goldeneye0094Goldeneye0094 Conyers, GA
    Posts: 464
    @peter I'm not really too familiar with Mendes filmography pre bond except for American Beauty so how is whishaw's Q completely mendes created?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @Goldeneye0094, this is only my opinion and may mean nothing to others:

    Q was not in CR, nor QoS. Nor was he needed in these films (and an argument could be made he was never necessary in Craig's films to date-- I would agree (although I did like Ben))

    When Q showed up in SF and SP, he was not the Q we had known for decades. He was new and re-imagined under the guidance of the director: Sam Mendes.

    This Q was something we had never seen before.

    And since Boyle is not someone to copy what came before, especially if he was not the original creator, I just find it difficult to realize Mendes' "Q" being in 25...
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    peter wrote: »
    @Goldeneye0094, this is only my opinion and may mean nothing to others:

    Q was not in CR, nor QoS. Nor was he needed in these films (and an argument could be made he was never necessary in Craig's films to date-- I would agree (although I did like Ben))

    When Q showed up in SF and SP, he was not the Q we had known for decades. He was new and re-imagined under the guidance of the director: Sam Mendes.

    This Q was something we had never seen before.

    And since Boyle is not someone to copy what came before, especially if he was not the original creator, I just find it difficult to realize Mendes' "Q" being in 25...

    The exact same argument could be applied for Dench's M (a total re-invention of the character we had known for decades). She was essentially Campbell's creation, and yet the character was present in five other director's visions. Personally, I would be pissed if Whishaw was snubbed from B25.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Once again this is a personal opinion, @jake24 .

    Yes, M was re-invented in GE and again in CR. But the director's stamp on the character felt less than the the visionary strengths of Mendes.

    We had an incredible debut with Craig.

    The usual tropes of MP and Q were kind of re-invented in these first two films without having to name characters Q and MP. And it grounded their roles in the story.

    Mendes comes along, and they drop these characters back in. MP may've been "different" but ended up being something not radically "different."

    "Q" was a complete re-invention. He was Mendes creation.

    Not Boyle's.

    I'm not saying Boyle would be done with the character.

    I'm just saying I find it hard to imagine how he will play the Bond/Q scenes using his own voice, since Q was a character that was very much a Mendes interpretation (and a very strong one at that).

    Personally, I feel Q is, and has never been, needed in Craig's timeline. I feel CR and QoS showed that beautifully.

  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,807
    Benshaw's Q is set up marvelously. I can't imagine a director would have any reluctance or difficulty using the character.

    I thought from the beginning that Casino Royale and forward the filmmakers were rebuilding their established Bond film formula. So it was just a matter of time before Q and Moneypenny showed up. Mendes or otherwise.

    And regarding Boyle, surely he's committed to directing in part because he likes or loves the franchise. So his expected unique approach will still likely use the classic elements.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Benshaw's Q is set up marvelously. I can't imagine a director would have any reluctance or difficulty using the character.

    I thought from the beginning that Casino Royale and forward the filmmakers were rebuilding their established Bond film formula. So it was just a matter of time before Q and Moneypenny showed up. Mendes or otherwise.

    And regarding Boyle, surely he's committed to directing in part because he likes or loves the franchise. So his expected unique approach will still likely use the classic elements.

    I'm not saying he won't use these classic elements.

    I have said I can't visualize how he will (my lack of imagination)
  • Posts: 5,767
    peter wrote: »
    After watching Steve Jobs and Trainspotting 2, I sincerely am at a loss to see how these Q/Bond scenes will play in 25.

    This cute repertoire between these two are literally and figuratively a Mendes creation, and it's clear that Boyle is no Mendes.

    It's also clear that even in a film so straight forward like SJ, Boyle's scripts, direction and visuals are unhinged with frenetic energy. He's unrelenting and marches to his own unique voice.

    I find it hard to imagine this Q (created in the hands of another director (but whom I enjoy immensely)), fitting into Danny Boyle's B25 world.


    Let´s hope then that noone forces Boyle to insert any extraneous tropes. I´d probably be very happy with a 100% Boyle film, even though I´d imagine that to deviate quite a bit from the Bond template (if there is such a thing left). What I couldn´t take anymore is those awkward attempts at being funny that contributed massively to ruining the last two films for me.

  • Posts: 9,847
    Strange question but do you guys think the title will be leaked before hand?

    Casino Royale was announced on a press sheet and wasn’t leaked but wasn’t made a big deal out of either
    Quantum of solace was leaked about a week or so early
    Skyfall was leaked 3 months early
    Spectre was leaked on this forum a week before the announcement

    So do you guys think it will be leaked or not?
  • Posts: 4,409
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Strange question but do you guys think the title will be leaked before hand?

    Casino Royale was announced on a press sheet and wasn’t leaked but wasn’t made a big deal out of either
    Quantum of solace was leaked about a week or so early
    Skyfall was leaked 3 months early
    Spectre was leaked on this forum a week before the announcement

    So do you guys think it will be leaked or not?

    Interesting. You’re right, they didn’t make a big deal of the fact that they were adapting CR – I believe they announced it in February 2005 alongside the news that Campbell was to direct.

    QOS’s name leaked earlier in the day of the announcement in January 2008 – I believe a member of this forum simply did a check on a domain hosting site and figured it out.

    SF leaked months before. I believe it was in September. I think it was through the same domain website issue. I think the title was actually decided a lot earlier in production – possibly even as early as CR’s title.

    I think the Sony leaks confirm that SP was the title by the summer of 2014. However, the name only leaked due to a member at this forum revealing something he had overheard at Pinewood the week before.

    I doubt Bond 25’s title will leak. Eon stopped the whole domain name issue and now simply use 007.com as the de-facto Bond website. I really don’t think they’re in a hurry to change this. If it leaks, it’ll be down to a situation similar to SP.

    Also, it’s heresy that Whishaw is inherently connected to the Mendes era. He’s been the MVP of the last two Bond films and one of the most celebrated young actors on British screen and theatre. He’ll almost certainly be back in Bond 25. The only reason he wouldn’t return is if Boyle plans something more radical – like a period piece.
    There is nothing in any of the previous Mendes films to suggest the character is outwardly connected to his oeuvre. It’s a silly suggestion. He’s pretty much the same old Q – only younger and more computer-savvy.

    I liked the more assertive Q in SF – but the lighter more comedic Q in SP was equally as appreciated. You can’t get rid of Whishaw! He’s had the greatest career trajectory of any of the new MI6 regulars. Plus he has genuine chemistry with Craig.

    tumblr_mcymh3XEK71ql4atmo2_500.gif
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I didn't say they were getting rid of him. I said I find it hard to imagine this character in a Boyle Bond film, @Pierce2Daniel.

    No biggie.

    Just a personal opinion that wasn't meant to offend his fans (I quite like Q, although I think there's an argument to be made that he and MP were unnecessary, as CR and QoS had made evident).

    Perhaps I should have stated this in the controversial thread.

    It was just more me coming to terms with Boyle's style after I watched, and continue to watch, his films.
  • Posts: 12,474
    I bet Bond 25 takes place at least one year after SP - probably longer - and Q and Moneypenny will be absent or much more limited.
  • Posts: 4,622
    Considering Desmond Llewellyn had a 17 film run with several directors and different Bonds, I think Whishaw can evolve his character similarly.
    Probably not for 17 films, but he's got the character nicely re- established after two films
    Until the rebooted CR and QoS, the Q character, once established, had only been omitted from one film, and that was LALD.

    I can't remember why that was exactly. Maybe to give Roger Moore maximum canvas to establish his character?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    timmer wrote: »
    Considering Desmond Llewellyn had a 17 film run with several directors and different Bonds, I think Whishaw can evolve his character similarly.
    Probably not for 17 films, but he's got the character nicely re- established after two films
    Until the rebooted CR and QoS, the Q character, once established, had only been omitted from one film, and that was LALD.

    I can't remember why that was exactly. Maybe to give Roger Moore maximum canvas to establish his character?

    Llewellyn was busy with a tv series.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    I think the Sony leaks confirm that SP was the title by the summer of 2014. However, the name only leaked due to a member at this forum revealing something he had overheard at Pinewood the week before.


    Not exactly.
    I spoke to a family friend of mine this morning who has several friendship ties associated with Bond productions

    Therefore I'd say it's entirely possible the title will be leaked sometime in the last week of November.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Given that he's "afraid of flying" in SF, I genuinely thought we'd be able to avoid him being in the field too often, but alas.
  • Posts: 16,169
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Though I feel he has been way overused in the past two films, I do like Ben Whishaw in the role, and hope he stays in the role well into old age (I'll be long gone by then, as I am 18 years his senior). But I would prefer that he stay out of the field (an odd exception is tolerable) and keeps his place (stop undermining M).

    I like Whishaw as well. I think he had sufficient screen time in SF, but overused in SP.
    I'd like him to stay on, but I must admit I kind of miss the days when M and Q both looked old enough to be my grandfather.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Strange question but do you guys think the title will be leaked before hand?

    Casino Royale was announced on a press sheet and wasn’t leaked but wasn’t made a big deal out of either
    Quantum of solace was leaked about a week or so early
    Skyfall was leaked 3 months early
    Spectre was leaked on this forum a week before the announcement

    So do you guys think it will be leaked or not?

    Interesting. You’re right, they didn’t make a big deal of the fact that they were adapting CR – I believe they announced it in February 2005 alongside the news that Campbell was to direct.

    QOS’s name leaked earlier in the day of the announcement in January 2008 – I believe a member of this forum simply did a check on a domain hosting site and figured it out.

    SF leaked months before. I believe it was in September. I think it was through the same domain website issue. I think the title was actually decided a lot earlier in production – possibly even as early as CR’s title.

    I think the Sony leaks confirm that SP was the title by the summer of 2014. However, the name only leaked due to a member at this forum revealing something he had overheard at Pinewood the week before.

    I doubt Bond 25’s title will leak. Eon stopped the whole domain name issue and now simply use 007.com as the de-facto Bond website. I really don’t think they’re in a hurry to change this. If it leaks, it’ll be down to a situation similar to SP.

    Also, it’s heresy that Whishaw is inherently connected to the Mendes era. He’s been the MVP of the last two Bond films and one of the most celebrated young actors on British screen and theatre. He’ll almost certainly be back in Bond 25. The only reason he wouldn’t return is if Boyle plans something more radical – like a period piece.
    There is nothing in any of the previous Mendes films to suggest the character is outwardly connected to his oeuvre. It’s a silly suggestion. He’s pretty much the same old Q – only younger and more computer-savvy.

    I liked the more assertive Q in SF – but the lighter more comedic Q in SP was equally as appreciated. You can’t get rid of Whishaw! He’s had the greatest career trajectory of any of the new MI6 regulars. Plus he has genuine chemistry with Craig.

    tumblr_mcymh3XEK71ql4atmo2_500.gif

    How many films have they done together, aside from SF and SPr?

    The Trench
    Enduring Love
    Layer Cake

    I think I am missing one.
  • edited July 2018 Posts: 5,767
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Though I feel he has been way overused in the past two films, I do like Ben Whishaw in the role, and hope he stays in the role well into old age (I'll be long gone by then, as I am 18 years his senior). But I would prefer that he stay out of the field (an odd exception is tolerable) and keeps his place (stop undermining M).

    I like Whishaw as well. I think he had sufficient screen time in SF, but overused in SP.
    I'd like him to stay on, but I must admit I kind of miss the days when M and Q both looked old enough to be my grandfather.
    Probably soon they will find out how immensely original the idea is to reverse that relationship, with Bond being a hoary old man and M as well as Q being young upstarts. Oh how funny that will be. Not to mention the immesurable emotional tensions and philosophical possibilities that constellation offers.

    Actually I quite like the current Q too. What I would wish for is that if they have to pretend there´s something like continuity, that they would follow that logic through. As funny as Q´s quip about bringing the car back in one piece was, it belies the notion that in SF the DB5 was Bond´s private car, and not government property. Bond films used to be the masters in the art of making nonsensical stuff work. Recently they seemed to have lost that access.
  • Posts: 9,847
    I just fear the world of Marvel has in some ways hurt bond because now everything has to be cohesive and we can’t just let the audience decide what happened here.... I dunno as much as I loved Quantum and it’s connect to Casino i feel Bond films have gotten in some ways to interconnected and in other ways to disconnected...

    I know I am in the minority but I honestly don’t get why they couldn’t of just left Spectre for the next chap and given us the same film in 2015 but calling if something different (like Oberhauser) and dropped the blofield thing.. sure Bond’s step brother being the head of quantum is no less stupid but at least it doesn’t hurt peoples memories of Spectre and Blofield ... I don’t know and now to ignore the plot strands from Spectre simply because people don’t like the idea of Bond retireing and another revenge plot so soon after Quantum (10 years is not really soon but meh) is also annoying for a variety of reasons.

    I am just a 31 year old fool who is rambling but I am slightly sad he Craig era started off so brilliantly with the first two films (and even I would argue the first three games) heck we even had our first modern bond novel in over a decade with Carte Blanche... then Skyfall 007 legends and Solo happened... then Spectre and that stupid mobile game and trigger Mortis and I know Craig has no control over half that stuff heck I don’t think even EON have control over certain things...


    Sogh
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    Risico007 wrote: »
    I just fear the world of Marvel has in some ways hurt bond because now everything has to be cohesive and we can’t just let the audience decide what happened here.... I dunno as much as I loved Quantum and it’s connect to Casino i feel Bond films have gotten in some ways to interconnected and in other ways to disconnected...

    I know I am in the minority but I honestly don’t get why they couldn’t of just left Spectre for the next chap and given us the same film in 2015 but calling if something different (like Oberhauser) and dropped the blofield thing.. sure Bond’s step brother being the head of quantum is no less stupid but at least it doesn’t hurt peoples memories of Spectre and Blofield ... I don’t know and now to ignore the plot strands from Spectre simply because people don’t like the idea of Bond retireing and another revenge plot so soon after Quantum (10 years is not really soon but meh) is also annoying for a variety of reasons.

    I am just a 31 year old fool who is rambling but I am slightly sad he Craig era started off so brilliantly with the first two films (and even I would argue the first three games) heck we even had our first modern bond novel in over a decade with Carte Blanche... then Skyfall 007 legends and Solo happened... then Spectre and that stupid mobile game and trigger Mortis and I know Craig has no control over half that stuff heck I don’t think even EON have control over certain things...


    Sogh

    Well said. It's baffling how different Craig's first and second era's are. Feels like different worlds.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    Remington wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    I just fear the world of Marvel has in some ways hurt bond because now everything has to be cohesive and we can’t just let the audience decide what happened here.... I dunno as much as I loved Quantum and it’s connect to Casino i feel Bond films have gotten in some ways to interconnected and in other ways to disconnected...

    I know I am in the minority but I honestly don’t get why they couldn’t of just left Spectre for the next chap and given us the same film in 2015 but calling if something different (like Oberhauser) and dropped the blofield thing.. sure Bond’s step brother being the head of quantum is no less stupid but at least it doesn’t hurt peoples memories of Spectre and Blofield ... I don’t know and now to ignore the plot strands from Spectre simply because people don’t like the idea of Bond retireing and another revenge plot so soon after Quantum (10 years is not really soon but meh) is also annoying for a variety of reasons.

    I am just a 31 year old fool who is rambling but I am slightly sad he Craig era started off so brilliantly with the first two films (and even I would argue the first three games) heck we even had our first modern bond novel in over a decade with Carte Blanche... then Skyfall 007 legends and Solo happened... then Spectre and that stupid mobile game and trigger Mortis and I know Craig has no control over half that stuff heck I don’t think even EON have control over certain things...


    Sogh

    Well said. It's baffling how different Craig's first and second era's are. Feels like different worlds.

    A brave new world? ;)
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    royale65 wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    I just fear the world of Marvel has in some ways hurt bond because now everything has to be cohesive and we can’t just let the audience decide what happened here.... I dunno as much as I loved Quantum and it’s connect to Casino i feel Bond films have gotten in some ways to interconnected and in other ways to disconnected...

    I know I am in the minority but I honestly don’t get why they couldn’t of just left Spectre for the next chap and given us the same film in 2015 but calling if something different (like Oberhauser) and dropped the blofield thing.. sure Bond’s step brother being the head of quantum is no less stupid but at least it doesn’t hurt peoples memories of Spectre and Blofield ... I don’t know and now to ignore the plot strands from Spectre simply because people don’t like the idea of Bond retireing and another revenge plot so soon after Quantum (10 years is not really soon but meh) is also annoying for a variety of reasons.

    I am just a 31 year old fool who is rambling but I am slightly sad he Craig era started off so brilliantly with the first two films (and even I would argue the first three games) heck we even had our first modern bond novel in over a decade with Carte Blanche... then Skyfall 007 legends and Solo happened... then Spectre and that stupid mobile game and trigger Mortis and I know Craig has no control over half that stuff heck I don’t think even EON have control over certain things...


    Sogh

    Well said. It's baffling how different Craig's first and second era's are. Feels like different worlds.

    A brave new world? ;)

    Ha well done.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,540
    Ben Whishaw on A Very English Scandal, Singing in Mary Poppins, and Why Q Should Be the New 007
    vulture.com/2018/07/ben-whishaw-a-very-english-scandal-interview.html

    And you’re officially returning to James Bond?
    That’s my understanding. I believe we’re starting in December, so I haven’t read anything or talked to anybody yet. But that’s quite normal. It’s all incredibly secretive until the last moment.

    I would like to go on record that I think Q should be the next 007. Would you be game?
    Oh, yeah! I’d only do it if I could be Q, though, doing it. I don’t want to jinx anything, but I’m definitely up for being more active.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    "Q should be the next 007". I hope she's feeling good with whatever she's smoking.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    "Q should be the next 007". I hope she's feeling good with whatever she's smoking.

    "Journalism"
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,807
    "I don't want to Jinx anything." Good one.
Sign In or Register to comment.