News on BOND 25


Small aside - we are assuming the interview was conducted VERY recently, but it was only 2 weeks ago that The Daily Mail reporting that Fiennes, Whishaw and Harris would return. It’s very likely Whishaw may not have been asked at the time the interview was conducted - especially when this interview with CJF, which is only a month old, said he hadn’t locked in his script yet so no cast could be confirmed

I’m getting the impression that Bond 25 is moving at such a pace now that interviews are being outdated between talking to the interviewee and the article being written.


Funny you should say that because I’ve been thinking along similar lines. After giving it some thought I’m leaning towards Meera Syal.


Ben Whishaw will be a guest on ‘The Graham Norton Show’ this Friday at 10:35PM on BBC One.


A female Q, hey! Well, I could live with that so long as there’s no sexual tension whatsoever with Bond, or we’d be doubling up with the Bond/Monneypeeny dynamic.

She could be much younger, but then it’d be a token gender switch since Wishaw already does that dynamic. So that leaves much older - perhaps Maggy Smith. But would an older Q sit well, dishing out ultra new tech?


Return of the Man From Uncle: Janice.
Billion Dollar Threat: Miss Peabody
John Gardner: Anne ‘Q’ute’ Reilly.

It’s been done to death. Having an insecure younger man (with a mortgage and two cats) was more of a surprise move. Perhaps with the next Bond actor they can try a female Q and a male Moneypenny, then they can still have sexual tension at MI6.


I´d prefer a middle age female Q. Olivia Coleman. But she’s too high profile and would need a bigger role.


I like John Noble (of Tv series Fringe). He’s Australian, but I imagine he can do a perfectly fine English accent.

But that’s a tangent! In terms of a female Q Colman would be magnificent - she always is - and her down to earth realism would click with Craig very well.

Maybe Helena Bonham-Carter? She’d do a very plausible eccentric genius gadgets boffin.

But I personally think there’s no way they’d change Wishaw unless forced to. I think he’s great in the role - His intro scene in The National Gallery is a favourite of mine. But they do need to avoid the urge to build his part unnecessarily.


Oh, yes - John Noble would be great as Q. Or as M.

But I guess it really was a case of “old interview”. Whishaw will most likely be Q again.


Lord of The Rings and Elementary both require him to have an English accent, and it’s utterly flawless.


Of course Noble would also make a great big bad for Bond. But as Q he’d bring a lot of fun with that unpredictable, excitable energy he had in Fringe.


“Something we’re making for the Americans! It’s called a ghetto blaster” - John Noble as that kind of Q would be brilliant.


In almost all cases. However…would we want to pare down the dialogue in Joseph L. Mankiewicz’ ALL ABOUT EVE (maybe the greatest script ever written): Instead of “Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy night,” Margo says “Be careful”?

Or what about Howard Hawks’ HIS GIRL FRIDAY?


Guy Hamilton’s direction of the entire film helps–there is an element of surrealism/fantasy from the very beginning, so the killings in the film have their brutal edges rounded off.


Brilliant. I alert you now that going forward I will use it (with proper attribution of course).


Not just to you, more the thread in general, just using your reply as it was the last in a quiet interesting conversation (if you’re a writer or teacher. I imagine it’s deathly boring otherwise)

This does ignore the quality of the words and action being of higher quality than the other - see the Nolans’ work versus Fast and Furious. One discusss the philosophy, the other demonstrated the action, They are polar opposites, which is better depends on your preference


A female quartermaster. Not half bad, and I’m one of the few that adored Q’ute (Anne). Hell, if they wanted to go ahem ‘of a certain maturity’ get Caroline Munro. She’d do it in a heartbeat and she’s a gem. Had the pleasure of meeting and spending some time with her at several Cons and events.


This might necessitate the start of a new thread, but here goes (and sorry if I am being deathly boring):

There were writers such as Preston Sturges, Billy Wilder, John Huston and George Seaton (often forgotten among the important writer/directors of Golden Age Hollywood, but one who at the time was regarded as part of the group) who wrote scripts and then ascended to the director’s chair. Sturges was the first, and he and Wilder both strove to be directors to protect their words (Mitchell Leisen was a bete noire for both of them, though he was a better director than either in terms of mise en scene).

Mankiewicz was also a writer who sought to direct his scripts: "I felt the urge to direct because I couldn’t stomach what was being done with what I wrote.” But there was an important distinction between Mankiewicz and Sturges/Wilder who most wanted to protect their words from what they felt were the capricious changes of Leisen and other directors.

Mankiewicz believed that a) the properly written screenplay had already been directed; and b) the first stage of a director’s job was to write the script. He maintained that writing and directing were two halves of the same job: filmmaker. He thought that a person who directs a screenplay she has not written actually re-directs the screenplay (again with the caveat that the screenplay was properly written in the first place).

So while Sturges and Wilder movies are often well-photographed by good/great cinematographers, Mankiewicz’s films are different–there is a connection between word and image that is rarely found in other movies of his time (he acknowledged Sacha Guitry as a forerunner, especially THE STORY OF A CHEAT). Mankiewicz would become a major influence on Godard, Rohmer and Fassbinder with regard to the dynamic relationship between word and image.

Three other directors–Preminger, Hawks, and Hitchcock–were closely involved with the writing of their movies’ screenplays. Hawks, in fact, often re-wrote on the set–he was committed to the dialogue suiting the characterizations of his actors which he understood to evolve as the film was being made (he was also known to shift a film’s emphasis during shooting when he found himself out of sympathy with one of his actors, e.g., HATARI and RIO LOBO). With Hawks films also, I think a keen dynamic exists between word and image.

The Hawks/Mankiewicz approach is the minority one in the present day. More and more film came to be understood as primarily a visual medium–dialogue serving as a handmaiden to the image. Directors may still work closely with their screenwriter(s), but it often it seems that they want a script that serves as a launching pad for visual spectacle–dialogue is to remain out of the way/functional and never interact with the image the way sound design/music does. But then again, the visual also seems to dominate in theatre today more than it has ever before (at least in my memory).

For me, I like films where the image is involved in a complex dynamic with dialogue and not just with the sound design (one of ALL ABOUT EVE’s never-bested record of 14 Academy Award nominations was for Best Sound Recording–which it won). Mankiewicz’s words and images are equal in terms of quality and precision; Hawks’ dialogue perfectly meshes with his plan americain mise en scene. Painterliness is more valued nowadays–Mankiewicz was right when he said in 1986 that “I’ve been in on the beginning, the rise, peak, collapse and end of the talking picture.” Movies still employ dialogue, but they rarely talk anymore.


Whishaw will be back… in a “weird” way


In a “weird” way…

Just in Bond´s head?

There was this rumor that Boyle´s idea was about Bond being captured for most of the film.

Could they actually have kept that idea - with Fukunaga being interested in that particular plot strand?


No, just his head. Like Nixon in Futurama. The man inside Bond’s head is Ernst Stavro Blofeld.

Great article there - says that the movie will be out on October 25th next year… :roll_eyes: