It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
This isn’t a complete list of those whose names were bandied about before Reeve…
Paul Newman, Warren Beatty, Robert Redford, Clint Eastwood, Nick Nolte, James Caan, Burt Reynolds, Charles Bronson, Sylvester Stallone, and Steve McQueen….
McQueen, Newman and Redford all turned the role down officially.
I think Reeve had only done one or two very small parts and a stage play when he got the audition for Superman. He’s an obvious choice now, but the studio certainly didn’t think so back in the day.
It took someone plunking him from obscurity, getting him into the audition, and letting him do the rest (the easy role of casting director).
The same applies to the casting of Rocky and Michael Coleone… Obvious choices now, not so much when they were auditioning…
(And just thinking about it some more, Michael Keaton, Sean Connery, Timothy Dalton, Daniel Craig, Matt Damon as Bourne, Downey Jr as Stark, Ledger as Joker...)
It is going to be a very competitive process culminating in a series of screentests.
But @talos7 , ATJ already signed like a month ago. He's shot the gunbarrel and has been measured for suits....
You missed the point. Craig is not the problem. His Bond was his Bond. The new one just needs to be different.
I didn’t miss that point, I chose not to respond to it (as it’s redundantly obvious that that’s what Craig is, and what needs to be done).
I instead responded to your “it’s not that hard” statement.
That's why you missed the point.
Well, quite honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if I did. Your cryptic messages take more than my pea-sized brain to crack.
After all, you’re the genius, and I am your humble servant. Please allow me to spread The Movie Gospel According to Deke Rivers…. Please?
@peter Damn!
😂 😂 😂
I watched the first episode of Under the Banner of Heaven on Disney+ the other day, which is a murder drama set around an LDS community in Utah, which features a couple of British actors I didn't know were British: Billy Howle, who gives a really good performance as the husband of the murdered woman, and Daisy Edgar-Jones, who's very charismatic as the aforementioned murdered woman. I don't think Howle is right for Bond (he's playing an unassuming, boyish character and seems to look different from project to project), but again, in this total desert of Bond news I thought I put in a new name rather than the most discussed (and more likely) options.
Yeah. I love Craig's Bond. But the franchise wasn't exactly in peril after DAD. I still think the reboot wasn't really needed, even if CR was successful. Craig's Bond should have simply continued after the events of DAD....even if it still stayed grounded.
I mean I can understand to an extent why EON chose to reboot things after DAD, but what I don't get were some of those takes that I was responding too. To reiterate, if those people seriously think that Craig is the only worthy successor to Connery then that's fine. I just think that's a bit of a disingenuous take because it takes away from everything that the other actors have brought to the part/series. It diminishes Moore essentially saving the series because of his unique take on the character. It takes away from both Lazenby/Dalton for introducing elements that would become so synonymous with Craig's Bond. It takes away from Brosnan for essentially reviving the franchise with his portrayal for a post Cold-War world, and basically turning the Bond films into Modern Day Blockbusters. And it also passes judgement on the next actor before we've even seen a frame of footage, automatically deciding the next actor isn't going to be as good as Craig was. This franchise was successful before Craig entered the frame, it was successful while Craig was in the frame, and it will continue to be successful now that Craig is gone. Simply put I think it's a bit of a narrowed eyed view and one that I can't get really get behind.
It would indeed. I don’t mean to take anything away from what Craig has done with the role either; he was great at what he did even if sometimes I wasn’t a fan of some of the creative decisions made during his tenure, and I have nothing but the upmost respect for the man for making people eat their own words once CR came out. I’m just at a point in my love for the series and character where I can watch any of the actors and think to myself “Yup that’s James Bond in all his glory.”
…well maybe not David Niven ;).
I couldn't agree more.
I don't know about the rest of the world but, in the UK, Dan and CR genuinely made Bond legitimately cool again in a way that it hadn't been for decades. No irony, no nudge-nudge, no light comedy or niche guilty pleasure. Again, that doesn't have anything to do with the success of the Sir Rog and Brosnan films, which were obviously popular and financially successful on their own terms. It's a cultural thing, not a financial one. In the UK, at least, Craig's Bond had an entirely different cultural impact to the Moore and Brosnan movies. It's not an exaggeration to say that Craig completely transformed the way that Bond had come to be perceived in this country - and that's the aspect that hadn't been seen since Connery. For the first time since Sean, Bond was absolutely cool as. That's why the new guy's got big shoes to fill.
I don't question the logic behind EON choosing to reboot after DAD. It was the right call at that time, and thankfully it worked.
Craig's Bond/his era leaned every bit as much into irony, nudge-nudge humor, sometimes light comedy, and an overload of niche guilty pleasures as his predecessors had. The only difference was that it was done with more subtly than perhaps it had been in a while. But Casino Royale has one of the most egregious lines of dialog when Bond states "you don't know what I can do with my little finger." When Bond enters the meeting in SPECTRE, he announces himself as "Mickey Mouse" to the guard there. Those types of moments are not that far off from ludicrous lines like "Christmas comes only once a year" or any of the puns from the Moore era.
I won't say that I don't understand where you're coming from with this take; here in the US, Brosnan was seen in very much the same light. That's why Dalton never really took off here (because people wanted Brosnan after Moore), and why Brosnan's films became blockbusters. But ANY notion that "Blank and Blank are the only cool Bond's" is a reading I find flawed for a variety of reasons. First off, "Cool" is an incredibly subjective term. What one person finds cool may not be cool in the eyes of someone else. Likewise, different age groups/generations have their own ideas of what is cool and what isn't. Connery was cool for an entire generation in the 60's, Moore the 70's, Brosnan the 90's/Early 2000's and Craig for the Late 2000's/2010's. They're are plenty of people who grew with any of the other Bond's, who might find Craig's Bond not as cool. Secondly different cultures have their own ideas of coolness, which I mentioned earlier about Brosnan's perception here in the US, and what you've talked about regarding Craig in the UK.
Third it's a huge disservice to the other actors who played the part, and the future actors playing the part regardless. It diminishes all the achievements they've had in keeping the film series going in favor of keeping a rather narrow minded view that isn't really open to discussion. That's why whenever some casual fan states; "Connery is the only real Bond; the rest are imitators", I kind of roll my eyes and dismiss it because the film series is no longer at that point; we've now had 6 different Bond actors, each with their own legion of fans (yes even Laz has a fanbase.) Compare that to Superman, where it's become virtually impossible for any actor playing the part to escape the shadow of Christopher Reeve. It's been pointed out numerous times but we as Bond fans are extremely lucky; I feel so!
Okay that's just flat out false. Moore and Brosnan had that appeal going for them as well, and I'm sure ladies were swooning over Dalton too.
If Bond legitimately stopped looking "cool" in the eyes of some folks than all I can say that I pity them because he never stopped looking "cool" to me, and he never will.
Yes, and now we find ourselves in that situation again in 2024. Time to bring back some humour and fun to the series, and show a younger generation what Bond can do when there's no fears, limits or substitutes. B-)
Look guys. They said the same thing about Brosnan.
Great post, I totally agree (I wish this forum had ‘like’ buttons :) )
Yes, this is just the kind of post that the 'like' button was invented for.
No, they didn't.
Well we were going to add a 'like' button when the forum started, but a few members felt that NuMi6 (as it was known by some) was too much like Facebook.
So the idea was scrapped.
I'm sure Henry Lloyd-Hughes has been mentioned before. 39 and 6'1".
Could be a possible.
Also has a younger brother Ben, who is 36.
Just mentioning actors so I keep the thread on track. ;)
Just realised that's Donovan from The Inbetweeners. I don't why, but there'd be something so random about him becoming Bond (I know he's a relatively well established actor/has done a lot though, and seems actually a pretty good one. I'm not sure if he's quite right for Bond, but who knows).
Brosnan was "the best Bond after Connery" too. "The man who saved the franchise", they said.
History repeats itself, I guess.