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
I like his arrogant attitude in The Fall Guy, but I agree, @Benny, it's become a lot more difficult to see him as Bond. (It doesn't help that Theo James has been able to click with me in The Gentlemen.)
I brought him up last year when Triangle of Sadness (I love its third act) hit. I think he'd be a good choice.
Morally correct of course, but the sliding ratings don't lie unfortunately. If they don't pick up then Who viewership will be at its lowest that they've been in a long time. So unless we're saying that the majority of fans are racist, and I doubt we are (as you say, the racists seem to be in the minority), then it must be something to do with the storytelling.
The 28 day ratings for ep.3 have just landed and it puts it at the 9th most watched programme that week: usually (since 2005) Dr Who has hovered at around the no.14-15 position. TV viewership has changed, only stuff like a coronation or England match (or I'm a Celeb) gets the kinds of figures DW got even five years ago.
Yes, I reckon they were hoping for about 5m 7 day figures, so it's not quite as high as they might have hoped for, but it's no disaster when compared to what every other drama or even everything else on TV is getting. The boost from the 7 day+ ratings suggests the storytelling is doing something right.
One can hope that their plan for building a new, younger audience will pay dividends in the long run, as I imagine that it is mostly that bracket that are making up that 28 day viewership. It seems like a fairly consistent decline to me, one that started towards the end of Capaldi's run. The racial backlash seems like a bit of a smokescreen to cover up that ongoing drop to me.
Which is a shame, as similar enough to all the Bond actors, I have liked all the Doctors for their own individual reasons.
Viewership is declining, but judge that against what everything else on TV is getting, because everything else is declining too.
@bondywondy
We are not going to play the "woke" game on this forum.
Once Disney has its pound of flesh in the two series it's paid for, I wouldn't be surprised if it kills the partnership.
If it's any consolation though, I think the next Bond actor/film will drum up much more general audience excitement than the new Dr. Who has.
I don't think you can point to a set of ratings and say they don't count. Ratings show how many people are watching it, full stop. You can't just pick and choose in order to try and make a case for the side that it's failing. If 28 day figures were meaningless than they wouldn't be recorded and released.
It remains high in the charts, you have to compare TV show ratings with how many people are watching other TV shows: it's like for like.
Disney, incidentally, are unlikely to care about the ratings in the one country in the world they don't screen it.
There's a good balanced piece in the Times today which may help to explain it.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/arts/article/doctor-who-us-adventure-hangs-balance-bbc-disney-hnwsss7jn
https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/1479/anyone-for-a-jelly-baby-doctor-who-discussion-thread#latest
That's true, however..... Disney have not released their own viewing figures. Whether they do or not, I don't know. Nor have they put something anything out to suggest that they are happy with the partnership. We'll know for certain, next year, whether Disney renews the partnership or not.
I am by no means revelling in the ratings falling. The way I see it, is that if the show is still on, then there is a chance that the next Doctor will be more to my liking.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/michael-fassbender-showtime-spy-drama-the-agency-1235931014/
Anyway, EoN likely wouldn’t have risked an association with him even if Craig had left the role by 2015 due to his previous assault allegations (think of them what you will by the way, but the allegations do exist and I suspect it’s impacted his career, albeit to a very limited extent considering his lack of roles the past few years).
Look into Fassbender's deep involvement beyond just starring in the Assasin's Creed franchise if you have time - he was deeply involved in story adaptation and development, and other aspects, it was at least partially his vision, and he has later done online interviews you can watch saying he can now see the flaws and what's missing and some of the challenge of adaptation. So I think that's what we would have gotten with his Bond: good effort, good intentions, just unfortunately lacking results in that type of project. It's just not his fit. He's an excellent actor.
I think he would have been a Dalton-type. Tried to work the novels in more, with some grit and darkness and drama, and that may not have been exactly what producers or audiences wanted. Though we see with the Craig era that may have actually worked rather favorably. Oh well.
I respectfully disagree; he would have been an outstanding Bond, with one caveat that could apply to many actors, he would have needed the right director. Yes that’s stating the obvious.
I could imagine him being a very intense Bond. More in line with Dalton. But I think even then Fassbender just lacks that raw energy/confidence that Bond needs. It’s just not the kind of actor he is, again despite his talent. He’s much more subtle. He doesn’t have the kind of presence in which you can imagine heads turning as he enters a casino or whatever.
I think the right director is always needed, but more important is that what they’re getting the actor to do is in line with their strengths and capabilities (and I think it would suggest that some of Fassbender’s capabilities as Bond would have been limited, which is my opinion). You can’t get a good Bond performance out of a certain actor with ‘the right director’ but not get it out of another in that sense. You can have instances where the material isn’t quite tailored or right for the actor (ie. Moore in TMWTGG) but the actor could still put in the performance needed. Or rare instances where the material is out of the actor’s range (ie. Brosnan in TWINE) but ultimately I think a good Bond is a good Bond at the end of the day, even if certain directors get the best out of them.
Connery brought out Bond’s brutishness and sex appeal, and also a sense of humour that instilled the films with a sense of fun, not to be taken too seriously.
Lazenby, while his acting skills were limited, still brought his own youthful self-assurance and cheekiness, that was quite welcome after Connery’s more subdued performance in YOLT.
Moore specialised in wry humour and a smooth demeanor, qualities that were already part of Bond's character, and that resided in Moore himself. But there's a warmth to Moore that Connery lacked, and he also imbued Bond with a greater sense of humanity.
Dalton brought a disturbed moodiness and an almost theatrical intensity (some would call it overacting).
Brosnan… I’ll have to have a think about that one.
Craig, like Dalton, channelled the character’s darkness and world-weariness, but his acting style was more understated and minimalist, and counterbalanced by a relaxed confidence and swagger, reminiscent of the pre-Dalton incarnations.
Brought the series back from the brinks of death; and I do mean that quite literally. Brosnan brought his own effortless charm and sophistication which was somewhat lacking during Dalton’s tenure (not a dig). I’ll also say that he never becomes outright comedic like Moore, nor too overly-serious at times like Dalton and Craig.
Thought I’d help you there 😁
Yeah. That's Pierce's Bond in a nutshell. Pierce was a 90s Bond, it wasn't completely off to put him in flashy, action-heavy Bond films...that how action films of the 90s were after all, with the likes of John Woo, Michael Bay, Tony Scott, etc. churning out bombastic action films frequently.
Also, if the Bourne series didn't come out at about the same time DAD did, I'm not sure DAD would have been critically maligned the way it was, even if the film was a notch too outlandish, but still Bondian.
They spent ten years trying not to be Dalton's Bond and then Bourne showed up. I'm sure it was a revelation to them.
Well, Brosnan's films past GE always had a bit of a mixed critical reaction, although none were panned (even DAD) and it leaned slightly more positive than negative. I suspect if anything fan reaction was stronger about his Bond/the direction of his films.
It's a bit of a hypothetical as Bourne did in fact influence CR, but I think regardless a change in direction and actor was needed. You can tell in TWINE and DAD they were trying to give Brosnan material that was a bit beyond his range/the tone of his Bond (ie. Bond dealing with injury, self doubt, and falling for Elektra in TWINE seems more a Craig era idea. Same for Bond being imprisoned/betrayed in DAD). With Craig they got an actor who could carry that darker side of Bond along with the breezier, more humorous element.
The Brosnan films tested the waters for bigger things to come.
Yeah, Brosnan isn't the most dramatic actor around. He's all about being slick, stylish and all that. It worked for him then and he did it ever so well.
I don't know, but I can't imagine a minimalistic, plot-driven, less action Bond film like Skyfall being highly successful in 1997 or 1999, like it was in 2012. It's more like saying Brosnan's Bonds won't work today and Craig's Bond wouldn't have worked yesterday.
Also, it wouldn't shock me if Bond 7 does extremely well, and fans start going negatively hard on the Craig films Haha! But whatever happens, I'll still love Craig's Bond.
I don't think it was Brosnan's fault.
They wanted to make FRWL and ended up making TB. Didn't Michael G Wilson say something like that?
With Bourne they were able to make their FRWL.
Dalton's Bond was great! I love his Bond. But Brosnan's style was needed for the 90s.