164 replies to this topic

[DamnCoffee]

I was expecting this. Terrible, absolutely terrible.

In what way?

[deth]

A fresh start is good. I hope he apologizes for shooting him.

[DamnCoffee]

This isn't a spoiler.

It is. What if Wilshaw was revealed to be Q at the end of the film, after helping Bond with his mission. It might not be as straightforward as you think. If Fiennes was confirmed to be Blofeld that would be a massive spoiler, especially if the producers didn't want us to know.

[d21089]

i think he's a good choice- hopefully he'll stick around for a few films now- he would have done well in a meatier role i think, but it works and he's a good actor and it doesn't seem like theyll be going the John Cleese route with this one so I'm all for it

[Quantumofsolace007]

It was only a matter of time, really. After the cold turkey of the last two movies, the public wants its fix.

not really no one is addicted to Q.


that said Ben as Q to me is bold and I like it

[Aris007]

This isn't a spoiler.

It is. What if Wilshaw was revealed to be Q at the end of the film, after helping Bond with his mission. It might not be as straightforward as you think. If Fiennes was confirmed to be Blofeld that would be a massive spoiler, especially if the producers didn't want us to know.

I think the quote "Ben Whisaw has been cast as Q" is preety straightforward. You don't cast someone for a character that will come alive in the end of a movie. And I'm not sure I can imagine how much of a spoiler this could be. I mean you don't promote someone to head of the technology section of MI6 overnight. He needs to have a background in the service in this particular section. As a result I think that it'll be clear from the first minute he steps in the story.

[marktmurphy]

I hope he's more like the tech guys in Spooks than the old Q: just a young person who knows what he's doing with technology. Not bothered about all the wants-his-gadgets-back-in-one-piece stuff.
I'm sure they have better ideas about this than I do, though.

[Matt_13]

Looking forward to seeing this (though I think everyone figured this would be the case). Hopefully he's a fast talking tech geek who is just as annoyed as the original Q.

[TQB]

I hope his character is serious and not cliche
one could def. argue that the gadgets and their ridiculousness have brought down the franchies. But one could also argue that it's the movie's tone which reflects the gadgets.

[The Shark]

A comment on the Telegraph sums up my thoughts on "seriousness" pretty well.

The seriousness of recent movies is all part of our swing to dystopia, and it is leading to a way of life worse than hell. Here is how and here is why:

1. Humor requires intelligence and wisdom, after all, jokes are only comprehensible because we are in tune with the subject matter and/or culture.
2. Politically correctness is relegating true humor to YouTube, late night TV or repeats.
3. The general dumbing down of just about everything today means that most youth don't even get jokes, simply appearing baffled at any attempt at wit. This is NOT an age issue. When my late uncle Sam, who was a very funny Canadian, made jokes when were we kids, we found them funny. Why? A diet of The Two Ronnies, Morecambe and Wise and more (plus a humor gene in the family) all provided that necessary trait of not taking everything so seriously.

The last two bond movies, and many of the recent SciFi shows on TV are totally devoid of humor, wit or irony, instead relying on bling and explosions. The latter worked in the past because it was part of the story, but not based on brand promotion.

Effectively, we have created a generation of drones who are literally programmed by X-Factor (& other mindless tosh) and cold distant movies.

Hence, I won't be seeing the new bond movie. I want to be entertained, not made to feel bored or angry.

[DamnCoffee]

The last two bond movies, and many of the recent SciFi shows on TV are totally devoid of humor, wit or irony, instead relying on bling and explosions.

....

Well, someone hasn't seen Casino Royale!

Edited by Mharkin, 25 November 2011 - 05:54 PM.

[The Shark]

The last two bond movies, and many of the recent SciFi shows on TV are totally devoid of humor, wit or irony, instead relying on bling and explosions.

....

Someone hasn't seen Casino Royale!

Oh yeah, I forgot about the finger sucking scene.

[supernova]

I like Ben Whishaw, and am glad he is on board with the Bond movie but am surprised. Its an interesting and even curious bit of casting.

Edited by supernova, 25 November 2011 - 06:03 PM.

[SecretAgentFan]

The seriousness of recent movies is all part of our swing to dystopia, and it is leading to a way of life worse than hell. Here is how and here is why:

3. The general dumbing down of just about everything today means that most youth don't even get jokes, simply appearing baffled at any attempt at wit. The last two bond movies, and many of the recent SciFi shows on TV are totally devoid of humor, wit or irony, instead relying on bling and explosions. The latter worked in the past because it was part of the story, but not based on brand promotion.

Sorry, but that line of argument really shoots itself in the foot. There was lots of humor in CR and QOS. If that went unnoticed, well... see 3.

[Matt_13]

A comment on the Telegraph sums up my thoughts on "seriousness" pretty well.

The seriousness of recent movies is all part of our swing to dystopia, and it is leading to a way of life worse than hell. Here is how and here is why:

1. Humor requires intelligence and wisdom, after all, jokes are only comprehensible because we are in tune with the subject matter and/or culture.
2. Politically correctness is relegating true humor to YouTube, late night TV or repeats.
3. The general dumbing down of just about everything today means that most youth don't even get jokes, simply appearing baffled at any attempt at wit. This is NOT an age issue. When my late uncle Sam, who was a very funny Canadian, made jokes when were we kids, we found them funny. Why? A diet of The Two Ronnies, Morecambe and Wise and more (plus a humor gene in the family) all provided that necessary trait of not taking everything so seriously.

The last two bond movies, and many of the recent SciFi shows on TV are totally devoid of humor, wit or irony, instead relying on bling and explosions. The latter worked in the past because it was part of the story, but not based on brand promotion.

Effectively, we have created a generation of drones who are literally programmed by X-Factor (& other mindless tosh) and cold distant movies.

Hence, I won't be seeing the new bond movie. I want to be entertained, not made to feel bored or angry.

This is pretty absurd. Sorry. It sounds like he's disappointed by the absence of the less than intelligent humor of the Brosnan age and before, rather than by the abandonment of humor altogether (which has not happened). To the contrary, the current crop of Bond flicks has had some of the sharpest humor ever on display in the series. I do not classify puns (or at least the majority of the puns found in the Bond pictures) as intelligent wit. And for God's sake, has this guy ever seen "The Daily Show?" "American Dad?" "Archer?" There's plenty of bright, topical humor to be found on network TV these days. Sounds like he's simply out of touch.

As for the sudden love for what some people consider "grit," after the flamboyancy of cinema in the 90's, a darker take on age old material is a logical step towards keeping things fresh and exciting (plus, dramatic depth and high stakes is something everyone can become invested in, and I'd argue the "grit" gives these movies a credibility necessary for buying the absurdity of what's frequently taking place). And if there is a problem with my line regarding the flamboyant nature of 90's cinema, like if you were to find it say.......a generalization, then you can't generalize about the "darkening" of cinema in the first decades of the 21st century.

[The Shark]

There were a lot of clunkers, I'd admit ("Stephanie Broadchest", "She's seasick", "Be careful, she has handcuffs, "I do hope so" etc.) but aside from the parking lot/valet gag, the ordering of the Vesper, and the "teachers on sabbatical line" - very few of them clicked.

[MattofSteel]

QOS was full of clunkers - but I've never laughed as hard at a Bond film as I did with CR. Sparkling dialogue, full of wit. If every Bond subsequent Bond film met CR's standard, I'd have nothing to complain about.

[Major Tallon]

The seriousness of recent movies is all part of our swing to dystopia, and it is leading to a way of life worse than hell. Here is how and here is why:

3. The general dumbing down of just about everything today means that most youth don't even get jokes, simply appearing baffled at any attempt at wit. The last two bond movies, and many of the recent SciFi shows on TV are totally devoid of humor, wit or irony, instead relying on bling and explosions. The latter worked in the past because it was part of the story, but not based on brand promotion.

Sorry, but that line of argument really shoots itself in the foot. There was lots of humor in CR and QOS. If that went unnoticed, well... see 3.

I agree wholeheartedly with Secret Agent Fan.

There was less silliness in the last two movies, with more sly humor, and I find that far more entertaining than the juvenile quips we've seen too much of in the Bond films. To give an example from CR, when Carlos inadvertently blew himself up, the camera focused on Craig as he gave a sardonic little grin. It wasn't slapstick humor, nor a groaner of a pun, but the audience I saw the film with laughed out loud. I could do with stuff that in "Skyfall" and fewer lines like "Now there's a name to die for."

The author of the piece in The Telegraph tells us that humor requires intelligence and wisdom. By his inability to recognize the lighter touches in the Craig movies, he may be revealing more about himself than he realizes.

[DamnCoffee]

QOS was full of clunkers - but I've never laughed as hard at a Bond film as I did with CR. Sparkling dialogue, full of wit. If every Bond subsequent Bond film met CR's standard, I'd have nothing to complain about.

Totally agreed. I think Casino Royale is probably the funniest Bond movie, as well as the most serious one. The dialogue is just lovely. Wonderfully written.

[Joey Bond]

Haven't seen enough of him to make a judgement... my only memory of him is, as The Shark noted, the guy who shot Craig in Layer Cake.

I'll be interested to see what they do with the character though, it's gonna be a fine line to thread. The Q character, as made famous by Desmond Llewelyn, has become so cliched and I dare say customary in a lot of recent action movies involving the protagonist sneaking around with gadgets (think Benji Dunn from Mission Impossible or Lucius Fox from the new Batman films) I doubt they'll try to do something like that here.

Any indication whether he'll be playing Boothroyd? Or will they reimagine the whole Q character altogether?

[DamnCoffee]

He's amazing in Perfume. I highly recommend it. One of my favourite movies.

[Peckinpah1976]

Terrific actor and good casting but I could really live without Q or Moneypenny; still I'm opened minded enough to see before I judge...

I was expecting this. Terrible, absolutely terrible.

In what way?

The mans got a downer on anything that isn't Roger Moore and Lewis Gilbert circa 1977 - it's a waste of time asking him.

[The Shark]

To give an example from CR, when Carlos inadvertently blew himself up, the camera focused on Craig as he gave a sardonic little grin. It wasn't slapstick humor, nor a groaner of a pun, but the audience I saw the film with laughed out loud.

To me the shot came off as clumsy, grim and more than a little sadistic. Not displaying any kind of wit or irony. More like something I'd expect from a Steven Segal direct-to-DVD flick, TBH.

[Tybre]

Haven't seen enough of him to make a judgement... my only memory of him is, as The Shark noted, the guy who shot Craig in Layer Cake.

I honestly didn't even remember him as that. I was about to say I'm not familiar with him so I can't make a judgment but then I was like "Well, maybe I have seen him in something and I just didn't really quite realize it" so I went to check and saw he was in Layer Cake but, yeah, I have absolutely nil memory of him there. So basically it's right back to what I was going to say: I've no real idea what he's like so I don't see the point in making a judgment call.

Making Q younger does make a decent degree of sense, though, and it'll be interesting to see which way they decide to run with the character.

[wrong_pussy]

I like the idea of a younger Q. I don't require the presence of the character in the films, but if it's done well I'm all for it!

[Skudor]

Shouldn't this have been in the spoiler section (and with a thread title that didn't give this away on the main page)?

Seeing this is going to be splashed everywhere I hardly think a spoiler notice would have made much difference. It is huge on the BBc website for a start.

Yep. And it's not exactly a shocker, is it? Pointless of them to try to cover it up in the first place, really.

He should be good, though. I'm expecting quirky rather than nerdy.

Yep - quirky is how I see it.

I hope it works - the geeky young gadget freak is a bit too common for my liking, but it's all about the individual approach, and that could, frankly, be anything.

[Vauxhall]

Ben Whishaw is a name I chucked around for Q a couple of years ago. I've never really quite nailed down why exactly I liked the idea of him in the role, short of the fact that he's an exceptional actor and can play a good level of awkwardness which may befit a technology expert. Alongside Fiennes and Finney's performances, Whishaw is one of the things I'm most looking forward to in SKYFALL.

[Iroquois]

A comment on the Telegraph sums up my thoughts on "seriousness" pretty well.

The seriousness of recent movies is all part of our swing to dystopia, and it is leading to a way of life worse than hell. Here is how and here is why:

1. Humor requires intelligence and wisdom, after all, jokes are only comprehensible because we are in tune with the subject matter and/or culture.
2. Politically correctness is relegating true humor to YouTube, late night TV or repeats.
3. The general dumbing down of just about everything today means that most youth don't even get jokes, simply appearing baffled at any attempt at wit. This is NOT an age issue. When my late uncle Sam, who was a very funny Canadian, made jokes when were we kids, we found them funny. Why? A diet of The Two Ronnies, Morecambe and Wise and more (plus a humor gene in the family) all provided that necessary trait of not taking everything so seriously.

The last two bond movies, and many of the recent SciFi shows on TV are totally devoid of humor, wit or irony, instead relying on bling and explosions. The latter worked in the past because it was part of the story, but not based on brand promotion.

Effectively, we have created a generation of drones who are literally programmed by X-Factor (& other mindless tosh) and cold distant movies.

Hence, I won't be seeing the new bond movie. I want to be entertained, not made to feel bored or angry.

Naomie Harris confirmed that there will be plenty of humour in Skyfall here:





Either way, this is incredibly exciting news. I had a feeling Q would be in this film what with the introduction of Q Branch in the recent Bond game "Blood Stone". I have to say I don't think I've ever been this excited for a film before, the talent behind it is incredible.

[Blonde Bond]

or like the rubbish Q substitute in that Alias TV show.

I don't want a Q like that either. But Marshall was the man. I always got a chuckle when he was on screen. Fitted Alias.

[Janus Assassin]

I'm glad Q is making a return. It will bring back a classic character and I have a feeling that it'll work even with a younger actor playing the role.