No Time To Die: Production Diary

1109810991101110311042507

Comments

  • I think Fiennes is decent but replaceable. Better than Brown but not on the same level as Dench and Lee. Kinnear is crap, and I've been really disappointed in Harris too because she's such a good actress but just seems so wooden in the Bond films.

    Wishaw though, they've struck gold there and I say that as someone who wrote him off because of the whole young geeky hacker angle before SF came out. He's brilliant and he could play Q than Desmond did. They bought Dench back with CR so I see no reason at all for them to not do the same with Wishaw. The rest I don't care about in the slightest.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 832
    I think Fiennes is decent but replaceable. Better than Brown but not on the same level as Dench and Lee. Kinnear is crap, and I've been really disappointed in Harris too because she's such a good actress but just seems so wooden in the Bond films.

    Wishaw though, they've struck gold there and I say that as someone who wrote him off because of the whole young geeky hacker angle before SF came out. He's brilliant and he could play Q than Desmond did. They bought Dench back with CR so I see no reason at all for them to not do the same with Wishaw. The rest I don't care about in the slightest.
    Reflects my feelings well, they truly did strike gold. Preferred Fiennes in sf over sp, I think he has potential if kept on.
  • Posts: 12,506
    How long will the gap between B25 and B26 be, do we think?

    I firmly believe it will be 3 years, so 2022 to tie in with the 60th Anniversary. Too big a thing to miss. They released a film on the 40th and 50th Anniversary so their is no doubt about that for me at least.
  • Posts: 11,119
    I think Fiennes is decent but replaceable. Better than Brown but not on the same level as Dench and Lee. Kinnear is crap, and I've been really disappointed in Harris too because she's such a good actress but just seems so wooden in the Bond films.

    Wishaw though, they've struck gold there and I say that as someone who wrote him off because of the whole young geeky hacker angle before SF came out. He's brilliant and he could play Q than Desmond did. They bought Dench back with CR so I see no reason at all for them to not do the same with Wishaw. The rest I don't care about in the slightest.

    Ralph Fiennes played M now two times now. I can't remember that we were raving about Judi Dench after TND premiered. Same with Bernard Lee after FRWL. Those characters were just.....there.

    Here's again an example of 'what do we really want?'. An M with not too much screentime only giving Bond the necessary tasks, so that we can focus on Bond as a man doing a mission, risking that this M won't be as 'impressive' as Judi Dench' version? Or giving Fiennes' M so much fieldwork and screentime, forcefully giving his character the same 'depth' as his predecessor, risking that this too will cause criticism like 'ooowh what a cheap copy-paste work from Dench' M.

    Give Fiennes a bit of a break please. The man is following Dench' footsteps which in itself is incredibly difficult. Don't judge the man too hard. In the long-term this will be an M that can be loved too.

  • Posts: 17,241
    No matter my opinion of the last two Bond films; Fiennes is a wonderful M.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,729
    Perhaps poor Rory has read some of the posts on MI6 Community?!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    Why can't we have both? You can dial down M's screentime and still make it memorable. She's in, what, two scenes in GE? Makes a solid impact with only three or four minutes on-screen.
  • Posts: 17,241
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Why can't we have both? You can dial down M's screentime and still make it memorable. She's in, what, two scenes in GE? Makes a solid impact with only three or four minutes on-screen.

    Absolutely! Only need the few scenes to be memorable and well-written.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Perhaps poor Rory has read some of the posts on MI6 Community?!

    By Michael Kitchen aka TheWizardOfIce?
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 12,837
    I think Fiennes is decent but replaceable. Better than Brown but not on the same level as Dench and Lee. Kinnear is crap, and I've been really disappointed in Harris too because she's such a good actress but just seems so wooden in the Bond films.

    Wishaw though, they've struck gold there and I say that as someone who wrote him off because of the whole young geeky hacker angle before SF came out. He's brilliant and he could play Q than Desmond did. They bought Dench back with CR so I see no reason at all for them to not do the same with Wishaw. The rest I don't care about in the slightest.

    Ralph Fiennes played M now two times now. I can't remember that we were raving about Judi Dench after TND premiered. Same with Bernard Lee after FRWL. Those characters were just.....there.

    Here's again an example of 'what do we really want?'. An M with not too much screentime only giving Bond the necessary tasks, so that we can focus on Bond as a man doing a mission, risking that this M won't be as 'impressive' as Judi Dench' version? Or giving Fiennes' M so much fieldwork and screentime, forcefully giving his character the same 'depth' as his predecessor, risking that this too will cause criticism like 'ooowh what a cheap copy-paste work from Dench' M.

    Give Fiennes a bit of a break please. The man is following Dench' footsteps which in itself is incredibly difficult. Don't judge the man too hard. In the long-term this will be an M that can be loved too.

    Why don't you give everyone on here a break and let them give their own opinions without acting like some sort of self appointed negativity police? I didn't even say he was bad. He's alright, I liked the growing trust between him and Bond in SF and thought he had some great scenes in SP. I just don't think that so far he's made the impact that Lee (a lot of that is down to him being the original tbf but still, he owned it and set the standard, perfect casting) and Dench (the sexist dinasour scene alone, and then her coldly pimping Bond out in TND, she doesn't mess around) had made in their first two.

    So you're right he could get better and better but so far, I think he seems fairly replaceable, especially in comparison to Wishaw who has really made Q his own.

    I'm not saying they must get rid of Fiennes don't get me wrong. I like him. He's fine. I just wouldn't lose any sleep if once Craig goes, they did recast M and Moneypenny.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,729
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Perhaps poor Rory has read some of the posts on MI6 Community?!

    By Michael Kitchen aka TheWizardOfIce?

    Yes, that's the one! ;)
  • Posts: 11,119
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Why can't we have both? You can dial down M's screentime and still make it memorable. She's in, what, two scenes in GE? Makes a solid impact with only three or four minutes on-screen.

    Exactly @Creasy47. And this best of both worlds principle should not only apply to this character M, but also for the entire 25th Bond film.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,586
    Rory simply hasn't been asked yet, much like the rest of the MI6 regulars. He's not holding out for anything.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    jake24 wrote: »
    Rory simply hasn't been asked yet, much like the rest of the MI6 regulars.
    Best news I've read all day. There's hope yet for B25.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 11,425
    I think Fiennes is decent but replaceable. Better than Brown but not on the same level as Dench and Lee. Kinnear is crap, and I've been really disappointed in Harris too because she's such a good actress but just seems so wooden in the Bond films.

    Wishaw though, they've struck gold there and I say that as someone who wrote him off because of the whole young geeky hacker angle before SF came out. He's brilliant and he could play Q than Desmond did. They bought Dench back with CR so I see no reason at all for them to not do the same with Wishaw. The rest I don't care about in the slightest.

    Totally agree with your succinct assessment of the situation. Fiennes - serviceable but unremarkable - is he too young for Craig's Bond, I wonder? They almost seem like peers. Make it hard for Fiennes to have that authority over Bond IMO. Kinnear - someone put him and us out of our misery (worst MI6 staffer characterisation ever?). Harris - limp (where is the attention grabbing actress we saw in Moonlight?). Whishaw - couldn't stand him in SF (just an annoying twerp) but seems to have 'found' his Q in SP and totally turned it around with a likeable, new interpretation of who the character might be in the 21st century - definitely a keeper IMO.

    Overall though, this lot are getting way too much screen time. The beauty of these characters in the past was the all too brief classic little scenes that left you wanting more - but you always just had to wait until the next film. By overusing the current lot EON seriously run the risk of everyone just getting bored/sick of them - as evidenced by the general apathy towards the Scooby Gang voiced on these boards.

    I have to say I think this problem started a while ago, most notably with Dench's M, who I rapidly began to dislike after her first irritating and officious appearance in GE - the dialogue stank, which didn't help I suppose. I never like her character and don't fully understand how she became so universally adored. By TWINE I was sick of her. I suppose it was inevitable that they'd end up making an entire film about her, which doubtless contributes to my general lack of appreciation for SF.

    Jeffrey Wright was used just about the right amount in CR and QoS. You always remember his scenes, as he's a good actor and the dialogue was actually pretty well written. Felix calming a pumped up rooky Bond in CR always sticks in my mind - a great scene. And then the fleeting bar encounter in QoS also works well.

    As we all know though, the fact we have almost A-listers in all these minor roles means EON feels obliged to use them more and more to justify the pay checks.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    jake24 wrote: »
    Rory simply hasn't been asked yet, much like the rest of the MI6 regulars. He's not holding out for anything.

    Let s hope so, and that they don t postpone the film yet another year waiting for him.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Postponing the movie for Kinnear is the worst thing they could ever do.
  • Posts: 11,119
    There were times that we simply....accepted secondary characters like Tanner, Villiers, the minister of defense, Leiter, Moneypenny and Robinson. They were necessary 'filler' that handed over missions to 007, or only gave some extra intel. Characters like these were never scrutinized to the extend that we judge the role as if it could be a potential Oscar winner. Sadly, this is a bit the case right now.

    In my opinion, a good or a bad Bond film doesn't depend on such minor characters. Having said so, I don't mind if Tanner returns. Nor do I mind if Leiter returns and Tanner stays home. But, for the sake of variety, it makes sense to re-introduce Leiter again, and not Tanner. But that's only for the sake of variety. Nothing else.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Very true.
  • Posts: 14,800
    I think Fiennes is decent but replaceable. Better than Brown but not on the same level as Dench and Lee. Kinnear is crap, and I've been really disappointed in Harris too because she's such a good actress but just seems so wooden in the Bond films.

    Wishaw though, they've struck gold there and I say that as someone who wrote him off because of the whole young geeky hacker angle before SF came out. He's brilliant and he could play Q than Desmond did. They bought Dench back with CR so I see no reason at all for them to not do the same with Wishaw. The rest I don't care about in the slightest.

    Ralph Fiennes played M now two times now. I can't remember that we were raving about Judi Dench after TND premiered. Same with Bernard Lee after FRWL. Those characters were just.....there.

    Here's again an example of 'what do we really want?'. An M with not too much screentime only giving Bond the necessary tasks, so that we can focus on Bond as a man doing a mission, risking that this M won't be as 'impressive' as Judi Dench' version? Or giving Fiennes' M so much fieldwork and screentime, forcefully giving his character the same 'depth' as his predecessor, risking that this too will cause criticism like 'ooowh what a cheap copy-paste work from Dench' M.

    Give Fiennes a bit of a break please. The man is following Dench' footsteps which in itself is incredibly difficult. Don't judge the man too hard. In the long-term this will be an M that can be loved too.

    I already loves Fiennes' M very much. A man of action, former military stuck at a desk job, but willing to do it with integrity and competence, almost envious of Bond... There's great potential there.
  • Posts: 1,452
    There were times that we simply....accepted secondary characters like Tanner, Villiers, the minister of defense, Leiter, Moneypenny and Robinson. They were necessary 'filler' that handed over missions to 007, or only gave some extra intel. Characters like these were never scrutinized to the extend that we judge the role as if it could be a potential Oscar winner. Sadly, this is a bit the case right now.

    In my opinion, a good or a bad Bond film doesn't depend on such minor characters. Having said so, I don't mind if Tanner returns. Nor do I mind if Leiter returns and Tanner stays home. But, for the sake of variety, it makes sense to re-introduce Leiter again, and not Tanner. But that's only for the sake of variety. Nothing else.

    I'm sure Tanner will be back in Bond 25. Hopefully they'll give him more substance this time. Rory is a wonderful actor and, as many have expressed here, his talents feel wasted so far. I do recall, meeting Rory Kinnear at a party (very nice guy), he said (I'm recounting broadly) P&W switched the character's name in QOS and made him Tanner but without really altering the character already written in the script - and I think this explains why this version of Tanner doesn't really feel like the man from the books.

    I'm hoping Leiter is back as well.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    The only one I'm interested in seeing back is James Bond. I couldn't care less about any of these other peeps, including Leiter.
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    The only one I'm interested in seeing back is James Bond. I couldn't care less about any of these other peeps, including Leiter.

    Yeah, we love James Bond eh ;-)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    The only one I'm interested in seeing back is James Bond. I couldn't care less about any of these other peeps, including Leiter.

    Yeah, we love James Bond eh ;-)
    He's the only character that really matters. The focus should be on him imho, especially after four long years and only three films in 11 years (since QoS). The rest are just window dressing cliches. Hardly memorable enough to care about.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The only one I'm interested in seeing back is James Bond. I couldn't care less about any of these other peeps, including Leiter.

    Yeah, we love James Bond eh ;-)
    He's the only character that really matters. The focus should be on him imho, especially after four long years and only three films in 11 years (since QoS). The rest are just window dressing cliches. Hardly memorable enough to care about.
    Hear hear!
  • Posts: 1,452
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The only one I'm interested in seeing back is James Bond. I couldn't care less about any of these other peeps, including Leiter.

    Yeah, we love James Bond eh ;-)
    He's the only character that really matters. The focus should be on him imho, especially after four long years and only three films in 11 years (since QoS). The rest are just window dressing cliches. Hardly memorable enough to care about.

    Really? M, Q, Moneypenny, Leiter, just window dressing?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The only one I'm interested in seeing back is James Bond. I couldn't care less about any of these other peeps, including Leiter.

    Yeah, we love James Bond eh ;-)
    He's the only character that really matters. The focus should be on him imho, especially after four long years and only three films in 11 years (since QoS). The rest are just window dressing cliches. Hardly memorable enough to care about.

    Really? M, Q, Moneypenny, Leiter, just window dressing?
    Indeed. If you are talking about Maxwell, Llewelyn and Lee that's a different story as they originated the characters. It wasn't forced there, but rather organic. Ever since we went back to the 'old office' scenario at the end of SF, they have been window dressing as far as I'm concerned. Force fed retro-fitted to deliberately remind us of the past. Entirely unnecessary and nonessential.

    Earlier on (with Dench, Salmon etc.) they at least attempted to create new ideas & scenarios for Bond's coworkers and boss.

    In addition, as @peter has said, having MP sit behind a desk seems a bit passe in today's day and age.

    I don't know about you, but I didn't miss any of these jokers in CR or QoS. Leiter was interesting, but the films could have done without him as well. It's not like he was a huge part of either story. The fact that he made an impact is on account of Wright more than the character himself.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The only one I'm interested in seeing back is James Bond. I couldn't care less about any of these other peeps, including Leiter.

    Yeah, we love James Bond eh ;-)
    He's the only character that really matters. The focus should be on him imho, especially after four long years and only three films in 11 years (since QoS). The rest are just window dressing cliches. Hardly memorable enough to care about.

    Really? M, Q, Moneypenny, Leiter, just window dressing?
    He’s right, you know? They really are just window dressings. They give Bond information and/or instruments for the field and serve their purpose. That’s what they are. Well, M perhaps has higher value but nowhere near to be appearing as an overvalued stone on a crown.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The only one I'm interested in seeing back is James Bond. I couldn't care less about any of these other peeps, including Leiter.

    Yeah, we love James Bond eh ;-)
    He's the only character that really matters. The focus should be on him imho, especially after four long years and only three films in 11 years (since QoS). The rest are just window dressing cliches. Hardly memorable enough to care about.

    Really? M, Q, Moneypenny, Leiter, just window dressing?
    He’s right, you know? They really are just window dressings. They give Bond information and/or instruments for the field and serve their purpose. That’s what they are. Well, M perhaps has higher value but nowhere near to be appearing as an overvalued stone on a crown.
    Precisely. Thank you.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255
    Agreed @bondjames and @ClarkDevlin ; and I, like you bondjames, did not miss any of these characters in DC’s first two. In fact the way they went about setting up M’s staff was perfectly fine in CR and QoS.

    Other than M, the other three really have no relevancy in this Bond’s timeline.
Sign In or Register to comment.