The main takeaway with that Lea Seydoux article is that next week she is going to Budapest to shoot a movie, suggesting that she might not be featured in much if any of the Jamaica scenes...
Interesting! Certainly seems to point to Bond and her having split up then.
The main takeaway with that Lea Seydoux article is that next week she is going to Budapest to shoot a movie, suggesting that she might not be featured in much if any of the Jamaica scenes...
Interesting! Certainly seems to point to Bond and her having split up then.
It's of course possible it's not for the movie, but it looks likely-
Bond was in Cuba in DAD, but the only other action movie with scenes in "Cuba" I can think of is Miami Vice.
A lot of Bad Boys 2 was set in Cuba...but that was a Michael Bay movie so between the many women in bikinis, over the top gun fights, car chases and explosions, it didn't really show that much of Cuba. That was released close to DAD though—there really hasn't been a lot of films set there lately.
The main takeaway with that Lea Seydoux article is that next week she is going to Budapest to shoot a movie, suggesting that she might not be featured in much if any of the Jamaica scenes...
Interesting! Certainly seems to point to Bond and her having split up then.
Or the other thing...
True! I hope not though; it’s a bit easy.
And if she’s in the film but not in the Jamaica portions (which isn’t a certainty of course) then it sounds like she doesn’t get killed in their idyllic tropical retirement, Bourne Supremacy-style, but is alive in another location away from Bond.
I guess Ben Whishaw, or the journalist, hasn't seen Skyfall.
But, I wouldn't be surprised if Ben Whishaw was able to convince TPTB to let him have an obvious nod in the film to his Q being gay. We saw a bit of Moneypenny's private life in Spectre.
I just assumed that Q was gay. I too don't see what the problem
With a characters sexuality is. I have several gay friends and
Work colleagues, it's 2019 no members of society should be
Excluded. -{
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Q has never had much of a personal identity before. It was implied that he’s straight in Octopussy, but I always pictured him as a bachelor because he has little interest in women. I think it would make a lot of sense to make Q gay because he has always been very different from Bond. It would show one reason why he and Bond don’t always see “eye to eye”.
I've never been interested in Q's personal life or sexual orientation and I feel no urge to know more. the Scooby Gang gets more than enoough screen time anyway. If they write Q as a gay character I won't mind it, but I don't seen why I need to know the personal life of the man who makes exploding pens.
I kinda see it the same way. Exploring Q (and his sexuality) is nothing I want to see. These are supporting roles, they should only do for what they‘re there and nothing more. The films are about James Bond and therefore should focus on him.
Besides: I don‘t think the general audience are interested in seeing another guy in Q‘s bed.
And a lot of us die-hard‘s probably not either...
I think it would make a lot of sense to make Q gay because he has always been very different from Bond. It would show one reason why he and Bond don’t always see “eye to eye”.
I disagree. Fleming’s Bond’s aversion, if not outright revulsion, towards gay men is not something that appears to have been carried over to Craig’s Bond given his more modern sensibilities. Would you have difficulty seeing “eye to eye” with a colleague because they are gay? I’m certain the answer is no. So why would Bond? And why would the filmmakers want to give Bond such a trait in 2019?
Q, especially as played by Wishaw, is already very different from Bond. If they confirm in some manner that he is gay, I think it’s more about adding background to his character rather than contrasting him with Bond. As long as it doesn’t feel forced so as to take the audience out of the film, I have no issue with it.
I think the best solution is to write one of Bond's allies as gay. Allies need a lite bit of personality and colour anyway, they don't take much time in the franchise and if it the ally is badly written there is no need to use him in more movies. We have already had one gay/bisexual villan in the series (Silva), so having more gay bad guys now is probably not the best idea.
Garden of death was cool in the 1950s when Japan was quite a mysterious place but we moved on a lot in the last 70 years.
As much as Fleming afficionados still feel keen on it, the contemporary moviegoer may wonder, if that title could mean the murderer in a Home Depot )
Yeah ive also had that view.
For the average movie goer anything with “Garden” in it sounds a bit meh and not exciting.
As for the Garden of Death as a narrative device (rather than a title), I think it’s absolutely workable - but as more of a hobby for the villain than the main plot; the notion of scientific gene-splicing to create deadly poisonous plant life is suitably creepy and Bondian (not on the cartoonishly cataclysmic scale of MR, of course). My title would be The Death Collector, with a villain’s plot that plays off the notion of poison and drug research - and it’s an idea I’ll use for one of my own projects, in all likelihood, so no need to detail it here and now :v
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
. We have already had one gay/bisexual villan in the series (Silva), so having more gay bad guys now is probably not the best idea.
Not to mention Wint and Kidd, whose sexuality was treated in classic 1971 style
I’m also not sure why it’s relevant to focus on his sexuality unless it has some link to the plot ?:)
A good point, I don't feel a great need for it myself. But if they chose to show a positive gay character in a Bond film, an ally is probably the way to go.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
...Back on topic, I'm glad that Jamaica figures into Bond 25, at least early on; there's a nice sense of 'full circle,' given that the very first shot of DN was accomplished at the airport in Kingston.
Well only if it's the last one ever, which I hope it isn't!
Only in the sense that this is the 25th picture; arguably an anniversary of sorts - or, at least, a landmark. It’s just good to have Bond in Jamaica.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I think it would make a lot of sense to make Q gay because he has always been very different from Bond. It would show one reason why he and Bond don’t always see “eye to eye”.
I disagree. Fleming’s Bond’s aversion, if not outright revulsion, towards gay men is not something that appears to have been carried over to Craig’s Bond given his more modern sensibilities. Would you have difficulty seeing “eye to eye” with a colleague because they are gay? I’m certain the answer is no. So why would Bond? And why would the filmmakers want to give Bond such a trait in 2019?
Q, especially as played by Wishaw, is already very different from Bond. If they confirm in some manner that he is gay, I think it’s more about adding background to his character rather than contrasting him with Bond. As long as it doesn’t feel forced so as to take the audience out of the film, I have no issue with it.
I was thinking of it in the context of Q not approving of Bond's womanising, but as a straight man I would still sympathise with Q on that. You're right that sexual orientation is no reason why they shouldn't see eye-to-eye. Many of my colleagues are gay, but our personal lives never are discussed because we are just colleagues and that would be inappropriate. Now Bond, on the other hand, has no personal life when he's on the job and everything he does (such as who he sleeps with on a mission) are concerns of the people he works with. Q's feeling towards Bond are going to be the same whatever his orientation. The generational gap is more at play. Q used to be a generation or two older than Bond, and now he's a generation younger.
I don't care about Q's sexuality because I don't care about Q. He's not why I bought the ticket.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
The conflict between Bond and Q traditionally was due to the generation gap (an expression that dates my generation, lol) and it was fun to flip that dynamic with the new Q. This Q’s disapproval reminds me of a youth who has a newly gained sensibility that causes him to cringe at his father’s over-amorous lifestyle. Should Q be rewritten as gay, I don’t think that should have any bearing on his disapproval of Bond’s womanizing, but rather a kind of tut-tutting.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
The conflict between Bond and Q traditionally was due to the generation gap (an expression that dates my generation, lol) and it was fun to flip that dynamic with the new Q. This Q’s disapproval reminds me of a youth who has a newly gained sensibility that causes him to cringe at his father’s over-amorous lifestyle. Should Q be rewritten as gay, I don’t think that should have any bearing on his disapproval of Bond’s womanizing, but rather a kind of tut-tutting.
Agreed with this and Matt’s follow-up above. That’s the nature of the tension.
I don’t understand why we’re talking about Q being gay just because the actor who plays him is. No decent actor is going to have any trouble playing a sexuality other than their own, and would not expect their character’s sexuality to be made to match their own. He’s an actor full stop, not a ‘Gay Actor’.
I wondered about that too. Perhaps he wants non-villan gay character? The only one I can think of is Pussy Galore, and she switches to the good side when Bond turns her straight …
Comments
Interesting! Certainly seems to point to Bond and her having split up then.
Assuming this 2020 release features scenes in Cuba, an 18-year gap isn't all that recent. It's a full third of the franchise's history ago
Or the other thing...
Called "A View To A Kill"?
A lot of Bad Boys 2 was set in Cuba...but that was a Michael Bay movie so between the many women in bikinis, over the top gun fights, car chases and explosions, it didn't really show that much of Cuba. That was released close to DAD though—there really hasn't been a lot of films set there lately.
The guy definitely has style! Glad he's got the reins this time -{
That sounds like most Bond films.
True! I hope not though; it’s a bit easy.
And if she’s in the film but not in the Jamaica portions (which isn’t a certainty of course) then it sounds like she doesn’t get killed in their idyllic tropical retirement, Bourne Supremacy-style, but is alive in another location away from Bond.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/8999878/james-bond-ben-whishaw-gay-character/
I guess Ben Whishaw, or the journalist, hasn't seen Skyfall.
But, I wouldn't be surprised if Ben Whishaw was able to convince TPTB to let him have an obvious nod in the film to his Q being gay. We saw a bit of Moneypenny's private life in Spectre.
Tabloid stuff but meh, i'll bite.
It wasnt made explicit in Skyfall and even if it was the character was played as twisted because of it.
This Q being gay is totally OK. Why not.
With a characters sexuality is. I have several gay friends and
Work colleagues, it's 2019 no members of society should be
Excluded. -{
Besides: I don‘t think the general audience are interested in seeing another guy in Q‘s bed.
And a lot of us die-hard‘s probably not either...
IG: @thebondarchives
Check it out, you won’t be disappointed
I disagree. Fleming’s Bond’s aversion, if not outright revulsion, towards gay men is not something that appears to have been carried over to Craig’s Bond given his more modern sensibilities. Would you have difficulty seeing “eye to eye” with a colleague because they are gay? I’m certain the answer is no. So why would Bond? And why would the filmmakers want to give Bond such a trait in 2019?
Q, especially as played by Wishaw, is already very different from Bond. If they confirm in some manner that he is gay, I think it’s more about adding background to his character rather than contrasting him with Bond. As long as it doesn’t feel forced so as to take the audience out of the film, I have no issue with it.
Not to mention Wint and Kidd, whose sexuality was treated in classic 1971 style
I’m also not sure why it’s relevant to focus on his sexuality unless it has some link to the plot ?:)
As for the Garden of Death as a narrative device (rather than a title), I think it’s absolutely workable - but as more of a hobby for the villain than the main plot; the notion of scientific gene-splicing to create deadly poisonous plant life is suitably creepy and Bondian (not on the cartoonishly cataclysmic scale of MR, of course). My title would be The Death Collector, with a villain’s plot that plays off the notion of poison and drug research - and it’s an idea I’ll use for one of my own projects, in all likelihood, so no need to detail it here and now :v
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
A good point, I don't feel a great need for it myself. But if they chose to show a positive gay character in a Bond film, an ally is probably the way to go.
Only in the sense that this is the 25th picture; arguably an anniversary of sorts - or, at least, a landmark. It’s just good to have Bond in Jamaica.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I was thinking of it in the context of Q not approving of Bond's womanising, but as a straight man I would still sympathise with Q on that. You're right that sexual orientation is no reason why they shouldn't see eye-to-eye. Many of my colleagues are gay, but our personal lives never are discussed because we are just colleagues and that would be inappropriate. Now Bond, on the other hand, has no personal life when he's on the job and everything he does (such as who he sleeps with on a mission) are concerns of the people he works with. Q's feeling towards Bond are going to be the same whatever his orientation. The generational gap is more at play. Q used to be a generation or two older than Bond, and now he's a generation younger.
Agreed with this and Matt’s follow-up above. That’s the nature of the tension.
He was in Skyfall and knows about Silva, right?
IG: @thebondarchives
Check it out, you won’t be disappointed