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
Sir Roger was the man.
And when people say Moore is miles away from Fleming's take on the character I question that too. We don't see the glum and depressed side of Fleming's Bond in Moore's films, but Fleming's Bond often acted with amusement and confidence in the face of bizarre villains, would occasionally make a quip, and also often acted paternally or at least felt responsible for vulnerable women - things I admire in Moore's take on the character. People often forget that Moore showed his dangerous side far more often than is given credit for - his sense of danger and swag in LALD, TMWTGG, and TSWLM especially (with the odd moments here and there in his later films). In fact, he shows immense swag in all his films, even in AVTAK (even if his physique can't quite match it).
Regarding Foley, if he was not conceived originally as Black before casting Eddie Murphy, he became very much a Black character once Murphy made Foley his own. I don't know if anybody can play Axel Foley but Murphy and I doubt a remake would be a good idea, but if there was one Foley could only be Black. Not White, Asian or Hispanic.
When he was rumoured he made a few tweets about it. Something like:" Shouldn't Bond be handsome? Thank you for thinking about me," and" This is what the people want so they should listen to them." Not his exact words, but something of the sort. From what I've understood he didn't say that a Black actor deserved the role, but that HE deserved it by popular acclaim. He's not the first one who said such thing, to be fair, but as for the Nip/Tuck guy, it's a very presumptuous way to express your interest.
Well naturally; as I said, the character of Bond is appealing. But as Nick said, the films are about the plots. A lot of the pleasure is in seeing how Bond reacts to certain plot situations though of course.
I think there's a lot of that. If it is the case it didn't serve him that well: when was his last big success? The Jungle Book?
That's interesting- I'm not sure if I do. I'm not even sure if I believe the Bond who fights Zorin even remembers flying up into space.
You won't find me criticising Roger in any way! I don't know if I can see it that way, as I don't really see them as the same character, but I'm happy enough if they aren't. He's James Bond 007, movie star and that's fine by me. It's a bit like when folks criticise the Christopher Reeve Superman movies because Clark Kent shouldn't be his cover identity but should be his real self. But sod that, I don't care how it is in some comics I'm not reading: the films are brilliant and so is he.
I'm not going to try with either! :D
Hobbs and Shaw made a big chunk of change last Summer; that was the last time his name was bandied about by tabloids for Bond too, unless I've missed something since.
Yeah, he did say that. He also said this:
So there you go. Plot plus character.
Wasn't there talk of some Netflix Beverley Hills Cop 4 on the way at some point?
I'm not really getting those impressions from those words either to be honest! :) Are you sure he wasn't being tongue-in-cheek? If he said the handsome thing it sounds like a joke.
It was pretty good fun too in a very brainless way of course! Elba did well enough with his role but it was a bit thankless in that his character was only really angry all the time.
That is how all stories pretty much work, yes. But you can generally divide them all into plot-driven and character-driven, and Bond falls into the first category. All stories have characters in them though of course, and Bond's character is, as we've both been saying, a very appealing element in these movies.
Funnily enough I'd say possibly less so in the books. He's got some quirks but generally he's just a bit of a machine in the books and the pleasure from reading them comes in the pace and wild imagination of the world around him. Bond himself is a bit of a blank slate. He doesn't do much that's cool, he rarely makes gags, there's no vicarious pleasure in seeing him do something the reader wouldn't do to the scale we get in the films. There's pleasure in the world he lives in and the things he gets to do, but I don't know if the reader gets much of a chance to fall in love with the man himself. I think it's quite interesting how the movies made Bond the star.
In any case, race considerations aside, I never understood what people found Bondian about Idris Elba. Colin Salmon yes, he looks like a Black Bond and I can understand why people would want him in the role.
Yes, that is how stories work. By contrast, what you're describing is a very rigid view on storytelling and I think most would struggle with it as it eliminates stories that balance both. Bond is a character and is a natural driving force in the plots of all the stories (sometimes of his own initiative), after all. Plenty of spy stories do the same thing. I don't see it as being that black and white.
As for Bond in the books, I'm not really sure I agree with you there. I don't see him as a blank slate at all. But a lot of that goes back to me seeing Bond as an extension of the author himself, whom I both admire for his skills and talents and am repulsed by his views in equal measure. But I appreciate that is a matter of taste moreso than anything else. Gags, doing cool things, etc are pebble dashing to me - though you are right that it was the amplification of these things that propelled the character to the "superstar" levels that he has enjoyed for so long.
I feel like a character that is essentially more of a vessel for us to experience "things" in a film is someone like Mad Max. He is a true blank slate. I don't see Bond as being in a similar vein.
I don't know, the studio head thinking it's a great idea doesn't exactly seem a bad way of getting of a role! :D
Elba is a big handsome guy who lots of people find very attractive, he's an alpha male type, he's a charismatic lead performer in movies, he can handle comedy and drama, he can smoulder in a pretty sexy way, he's built like Connery, he's got the swagger... I'm not sure what isn't Bondian about him to be honest. He'd need to tone down the Sarf Lahdahn, but if Roger could manage that I'm sure he could! As I said before, I do find him to be a bit full of himself when he is himself, but as an actor he's pretty good. But he's a bit too old for it now.
Salmon's okay, I never found him to be a very good actor to be honest. He always seems to be over-enunciating to me and kind of trips up on his words.
Elba looks too brutish. With a few more pounds he'd make a great Mr Big. Colin Salmon I haven't seen him in a role in years, but he looks better imo and in his heyday had at least as much charisma.
It doesn't really matter if she's the one in charge! :)
Nope. He can certainly look tough when he needs to, which is rather what Bond is. I'd take tough over fey in a Hiddleston kind of way any day of the week.
Not really, no. I'd say there's a reason one is a movie star and one wasn't.
Colin Salmon would have been/basically was a great Bill Tanner, much better than Kinnear is, even if Kinnear is a better actor than Salmon.
I also personally feel like the overexposure of the guy would make the films akin to what the Mission Impossible franchise is with Tom Cruise, just watching Idris Elba do the things that James Bond would do, as opposed to watching James Bond do those things. I'd also say the same about many actors who are overexposed at this point.
Totally agree.
How much of a movie star is Elba really? His biggest/greatest role was in a TV show and while he was stellar as Stringer Bell, it was a while ago.
As for Amy Pascal, she was never in charge of casting Bond. Thankfully. And didn't she leave Sony in disgrace?
Not sure how fair this statement is as it's so dependent on the actor. If Craig had made 2-3 films each year, then he'd risk being overexposed. It just happens that he does 1 film every 2 years or so (if that). Basically, you only really see him play Bond these days. The last film he was the leading man - aside from a Bond film - was in 2011 (I'm excluding Knives Out as he was only the nominal lead, as that film was clearly an ensemble piece)!
Now, if you're saying that Bond can't be played by a high-profile actor who has their own 'reputation', than that's a different story. In which case, I'd say that Tom Hardy who is very well-known would fit that bill. For those reasons, if he played Bond you would just be watching Hardy aping the Bond style. In which case, I wholly agree with you @Denbigh
I'm still praying that WB give in to fan pressure and give the greenlight to Ben Affleck doing his own Batman film. Then Pattinson's film becomes an afterthought and R-Ratz can become the next 007. That could happen....Wasn't that a quote that Barbara Broccoli liked Pattinson for the role? Considering Pattinson looks destined to be a one-time Batman, I'd say he's not 100% out of the running. Plus, people are crazy for Henry Cavill as 007 and he's already Superman...
Also, interestingly when they were casting Batman in 2018. Jack O'Connell was on that shortlist. He's one of the most fearless and committed actors out there. He is growing into his features perfectly and looks more rugged than ever. However, (whilst I supported him vehemently as a future 007 years ago) people on this forum have talked me out of my support due to his height. He is little.....But has the look.
It's interesting because about 3 years ago, I wanted O'Connell to play 007 more than anything. R-Patz was not even on my radar and I would imagine he'd be someone I'd actively speak out against. Now, I want R-Patz more than anything and I'm ambivalent on O'Connell.
So......this is a short way of saying that this race is far from over. People we favour today will quickly loose heat and those we wouldn't even imagine in our worst nightmares may become our favourites.
In response to this post, they'll be a flurry of people arguing over Aidan Turner. Someone will mention Callum Turner and I'll probably turn up with another curveball like Timothee Chalamet. This whole thing has become so circular.....So I'm gonna just enjoy the time we have left with Daniel Craig in the role and log off this thread! I'll return when the real rumours begin.
As for Pattinson, and I know you've probably seen my comments on this already, before he was cast as Bruce Wayne/Batman, and in another world in which he wasn't, I would fully be behind this and would give good money to see him play the 00 agent...
...but considering the plans for a trilogy, the fact that WB isn't going to invest in any plans to turn The Batman into an afterthought, and that this Batman film inparticular is shaping into something I've wanted from that franchise in particular for a long time, while managing to cast Pattinson and Kravitz in leading roles, I'd say it's not going to happen, and that those chances are beyond our grasp @Pierce2Daniel.
As for Jack O' Connell, I'm fully behind this decision. He's a great actor, and while I agree that if he isn't considered, it's probably his height that'll get in the way, if he does end up getting it, then I'd be over the moon.
...and that someone will almost certainly be me :D
I'm actually quite surprised you're not more onboard with him @Pierce2Daniel, as to me, he's the next best thing, now that Pattinson is almost certainly out of the running. Not to mention, I can't give you any reason why he wouldn't be considered.
Looks like he's 5'8".
I think he looks a bit more rugged than some of the other guys mentioned here. If B26 does in fact take a decade or so to get underway he might be alright.
Still he's only 5'8".
I really think this is the most realistic outlook.
I think out there is taller actor's.
Indeed yes, we're just talking about him in a sort of 'could have been' rather than 'should be'.
It's an interesting point, and I'm sure that's part of why they like to get actors on the way up rather than actual fully fledged stars, yes. Also I'm sure they're cheaper that way! :D
Well he's starred in movies. He's not The Rock, no, but he's been in a film with him :)
Ooh no they're much better than that. If Spectre had been half as satisfying as Rogue Nation or as tense and exciting and viceral as Fallout I'd have been a very happy Bond fan. Right now Mi is wearing the crown, it's up to NTTD to bring it home.