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
Agreed. Roger was the obvious choice at the time. We were lucky to have him as Bond.
Without him the franchise would not have survived.
It's a great point. He had possibly the trickiest job as the guy to basically save the series and didn't sweat it.
Yes, and he was confident in his own skin and wisely didn't try to impersonate Connery and he pushed back when they tried to give him than rougher edge in those scenes in TMWTGG. I only wish Roger has bowed out after OP (for which I think he gives a fine performance), AVTAK wasn't the send off he deserved.
I suppose for the next actor it'll be similar. They'll know they can't just copy Craig - or indeed any other Bond actor's portrayal - and I'm sure no matter who it is that'll be the case. Hopefully they'll be able to get that certain actor who just makes the part their own (while of course playing the Bond that we know) and resonates with audiences. Odds are that'll be the case.
Maybe that's the key to why some here struggle to pinpoint who should play Bond going forward? Because the modern man is so far removed now from those qualities that made Bond what they were. It's not impossible, but it'll get harder and harder to recapture, which is why reinvention or re-contextualising is so important. The actor may not capture that era of actor, and in a lot of ways, that's probably for the best, but either way whats important is that the actor chosen is able to capture at least the essence of the character of Bond in the world of today.
Sometimes I think some slack should be given in this sense. Again, we're at a time where the most realistic options were born in the 90s, half a century away from the world that birthed the character of James Bond.
Yes. After Craig's stellar performance as Bond, one can't blame Barbara for being careful with Bond 7's picking. She's obviously aiming to top Craig's Bond era, with the Villeneuve rumours we're hearing. She's now looking beyond the facade of each Bond candidate. Like some members here have said in the past, that Cubby would have cast Aidan Turner as Bond 7, when NTTD was doing its press conferences.
Well, to be fair Cubby went through the audition process in the 80s to get Dalton. And to be honest Turner doesn't have the star power/charisma Moore had. He doesn't even have those qualities compared to Dalton. Perhaps he would have been more willing to approach Turner, but even then I don't think an automatic casting would have come. But it's all hypothetical.
I don't know how careful they're being picking the next Bond. We have to understand this process comes a bit later. I suspect they have names in mind, and perhaps have even approached certain actors to gauge interest. I think every actor naturally plays the role differently to some extent, and it's just about picking who they think best from that pool of potentials. But I genuinely think they've got more options today than ever before, and I can imagine at least a handful of actors confidently taking the role and filling those shoes left by Craig. It's dependent on who they'll actually be able to convince to audition though.
I think the encouraging thing is on a character/script level, there's more Fleming in the cinematic Bond nowadays than when Connery portrayed Bond in DN. It's a cool performance, but not a portrayal of the character that ever aimed to faithfully capture aspects of Fleming's Bond (keep in mind the literary Bond in DN was a man only recently recovered from a serious injury and dealing with a shaken ego).
But I agree, there's that certain intangible 'Bond' quality that an actor has to have. The essence of the character as you said. I think all the Bonds have had it.
Connery was more like Clark Gable and Moore was like Cary Grant.
You are making very valid points. I do fear, like you, that finding a place for Fleming's Bond in our (confused and increasingly woke) world is harder and harder. Personally, I'd suggest either bowing out with NTTD (which they obviously won't), or going back to a setting in the late 50's and early 60's where Bond makes sense. Look at how a super stylish show, Mad Men, worked so well exploring the past and yet still smartly relating it to our present. That's the way I'd go now.
I'm not saying that a modern actor can't capture the character of James Bond, but the effort has to be made to modernise and re-contextualise that man for it to work, like they did with Craig - but they're in a tougher position now, because Craig could still work with ties to old regime and the Cold War, can a James Bond born in the 90s say the same?
I suppose it's worth noting that Moore, like all the Bonds, put on that 'gentlemanly warfare' act to some extent. He was a working class South Londoner who had attended RADA after all. I get the sense what he did with The Saint and Bond was less something completely natural to him as a person (although his sense of humour and natural charisma were very much integral) but in essence was almost a pastiche of that 'English gentleman' archetype. A sort of wry, less uptight, and more seductive David Niven almost. It sounds weird but it's really not a million miles away from what Connery did by portraying Bond with that more tongue in cheek element (both certainly had their convincing harder edge as well). It's there with every Bond to some degree. They're all actors of their time portraying a man with some ideals out of that time.
I'd say an actor born in the 90s won't matter. GE showed you could have a post Cold War Bond movie, and I'd argue the Craig Bond films have more a 'post 9/11' tinge to them than necessarily a post Cold War vibe (both are referenced, but it's M who has much more of that connection to the Cold War with a little reference in CR). Just stick to Bond as that lone wolf/blunt instrument whose dedication to his duty and country leads him to do the right thing. Keep his vices (the gambling, womanising, drinking, fast cars etc), the wry humour, and the harder edge of the character and half the battle is won I think.
It won't matter at all. I trust EON through and through at this point. It's more a point I wanted to make to really hammer home how they need to be looking forward and that while EON can obviously capture some of the magic, some particular elements will need to modernise naturally due to where we are within the context of an actor who comes from a different world to every single actor whose come before, more so than ever before. As for Craig, you're completely right, but I feel with Craig's age, especially by Skyfall, you were still able to understand that Craig's Bond came from a different world. He began to find himself in a world that our new Bond will come from, which I think perfectly encapsulates my point further.
At the end of the day, it's James Bond will be getting, but I don't envy EON for having to consider what he looks like today.
There's probably something to that, at least in terms of Moore's persona/style. But I'd also say that it's still an archetype he was playing with. There's always an element that it has at least a tinge of fiction to it. That and I think it's debatable just how much of that 'English gentleman' image was ever at the core of Bond. Even in Fleming there's a sense that he's not entirely that - he has a dull name rather than something like Peregrine Carruthers (as Fleming famously said). He's in essence an ordinary man - a lone wolf certainly - who has an extraordinary job and gets into extraordinary situations. He's not a backslapping upper class type (in fact he looks out of place in a private gentleman's club). He seems more at home in continental Europe rather than the English countryside. He's certainly not always virtuous and can be a rather cruel and ruthless character sometimes.
I think it's one of the reasons why Bond as a character has been so malleable throughout the different interpretations but still fundamentally works. I think if an actor like Benedict Cumberbatch or Tom Hiddleston played Bond (who do, for all intents and purposes, share at least a bit of Bond's background) it'd ring false. They don't quite have that harder edge, that individuality to them. For whatever reason a balding Scotsman with a noticeable accent is more convincing in the part.
Yeah, I get you. Like I said, I think as long as they stick to the fundamentals of the character that's a big part of it won.
It's interesting to think about though - what does a relatively young Bond in this day look like? Again, you've got Bond's sense of duty, his habits, his individuality and humour sorted, but anything else in there is up in the air. Is he a cynical, already world weary agent worn down by his job? Or is he MI6's best agent, a man at the peak of his career who lives a life of gambling, womanising, drinking, and of course going on missions (who of course will go on an assignment that'll ultimately test him in some way over the course of the film). Or is he a Bond at the beginning of his career as a 00, still learning the ropes and more prone to mistakes? So many routes they could go down.
It's funny because I always thought that in the first two Moore movies, he was channeling a good deal of Connery, consciously or not. Not the Connery of DAF, but the one of the early movies. He's a bit more violent, cruel, less gentlemanly than in later instalments. It might just be the writing, I don't know. In any case, I think we might get something similar for the next Bond: people expect him to be noticeably different than Craig. I'm not so sure.
Oh, yeah, that's true. Although, he gave us glimpses of MooreBond. But yeah, it was TSWLM that started showcasing Moore's Bond as we would come to know him. Then from MR-AVTAK, it's either a fan likes his Bond or doesn't. But I think he was great at what he did...even if a lot of them weren't Flemingesque. His decision not to blatantly follow Connery's style helped distinguish him. He's a very popular Bond.
Like Moore, the next Bond will be different if he looks different.
He will be different no matter how he looks, however I suspect he might not come off as completely different at first.
Well if they hire another Lazenby...
Self parody can be useful. You don't need to worry about reality.
Yes, a very fine candidate, with a proper voice and demeanour. 33 by then, right?
Sam Corlett? He's also in Vikings.
I think Thomas Doherty would be more mature then.