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
Yeah you're right: you can give a Bond film a flavour of something like that, but having him retire and keep bees and get close to his nurse who comes over every day or something just isn't a Bond movie.
Also it's something that most fans seem to complain about as far I've seen here: the only reason you'd have an 'old Bond' movie is that there's something from his past/'this time its personal and dragging him back' story, and folks seem to hate those.
Well it's so incidental to SF that that they could easily use it again: but they also can't go near it for a while because there are genuine tensions between the UK and China over HK and the breaking of the handover promises at the moment.
Oh yeah, I don't think they are going anywhere near a HK set story the way things have been going there for the last few years and with the Chinese box office massively growing in importance.
To completely derail this thread: I just had a quick look through BoxOfficeMojo and while CR has made around $11 million in China (on par with Sweden and about 1,7 % of the total worldwide gross), SP has made $83 million there (third only to the US and UK and about 9,5 % of the worldwide total). One would assume Eon wants that trend to continue.
Now, if f.e. Apple were to buy MGM and possibly even Eon, or the next generation of Eon leadership - which is bound to take over sometime in the next 15-20 years at the latest - sees this totally different, then maybe we get some kind of opening up and then a return of Dalton or Brosnan might be conceivable.
For me, their involvement could be a stepping stone for a period piece. Sadly, Connery and Moore are no longer with us, so we can't fully go back to the 60s, I don't think. However, having a TV series that is mostly set in say the 80s with a mid-30s actor playing Bond and then have a kind of framework story in the present day with Dalton or Brosnan as aged Bond. That could be kind of cool. It would relieve the burden of them having to lead a full series and do the typical Bond tropes like loads of action set pieces and seducing younger women when in their 70s or 80s (the young incarnation would take up those parts), but could still give us a return of these great actors in the role in a limited capacity.
Alternatively or additionally this would be the one acceptable way - I think - of showing Bond dying as @Since62 suggested. This could maybe even be done in the main series (although I have no idea why they would ever do that), with a massive flash forward a couple of decades and a couple of small scenes with one of the older actors giving us the death of Bond. We could still keep the films going in the ever-changing present day, but like we always know that at some point prior to the films Bond's parents died and he went to Fettes and then the Navy and all that, we would also know that at some point in the future, Bond dies in a certain way. I don't think it's problematic that we would know, that the intermittent adventures aren't Bond's last, because we always know that anyways. What I see as more problematic is: It only makes sense if his death is in some way connected to the specific story of the film or series to which it connects. Which then elevates that story above all else. A bit like how OHMSS elevates Blofeld to the level he is at because he kills Tracy (Yes, I know there are other reasons why Blofeld is the signature villain of the series, but to me killing Tracy is at the top of the list, really.). So if like Scaramanga's secret love child comes back 30 years after their father is killed by Bond and kills Bond in a duel, that could be a very, very cool scene but it suddenly gives that story massive importance, that might be misplaced.
No hang on, that's someone else... :D
Even Tamahori would have thought this one is taking things too far. Or maybe not. After the codename theory, the reincarnation theory.
For me, I'd choose American actor, Christopher Abbott.
The thing is, nationality does matter. Even if he was British, I'm not sure about that guy.
Yes, he would have made a pretty great job of it.
He's holding a gun, I guess.
Maybe this is super basic, in that he might not make a good Bond and I just want to see an actor I love in my favourite series, but Oscar Isaac.
Might be a bit on the short side and I know for a couple of you, his Guatemalan complexion disqualifies him regardless of nationality (he is not exactly Hoagy Carmichael, let's put it like that). But I think he can do serious, he can do more campy, he can do the action, he can do the cruel smile and he is a very good looking man.
Most of the US options are too square for my taste.
Isaac would be pretty terrific and could play the role in any way, really (he can do likeable charm and jokes, he can do very dramatic). He's just the sort of actor I hope they get for it, and If Americans were being considered he'd be a great pick, yes indeed.
He's not blond enough.
I suppose we have to start somewhere. ;)
He's a brilliant actor but I don't think he'd be suitable for Bond.. You can be capable of portraying many of Bond's traits and still not be suitable.
Anyone seen The two faces of January? He probaby appears most Bond-like in that. As does Viggo Mortensen. Even moreso, Viggo could have been a good Bond. But some actors are better off not playing Bond. In those 15 years or so they could get all sorts of interesting work; in their prime years. Fassbender for example, we don't know quite how he feels but from what I've seen, I get the feeling he wouldn't be interested, although the thought that many people would like to see him as Bond is no doubt good for his ego..
As much as I love Craig as Bond (although my love has decreased dramatically...), his best work was before Bond. Fifteen years ago, when I was asked who my favourite actors were, Craig would have been mentioned. Not so now...
I suppose what I'm saying is that sometimes it's better for actors you love to not be restricted by a part like Bond.
You are absolutely right there. But most of these guys have deals for like 5 films and 2 seasons of a TV series with Disney anyway. Isaac is actually a prime example. Just like Fassbender, you just have to wonder what kind of interesting stuff he could have done had he not been in three Star Wars films, an X-Men and a Bourne film and what his future could be if he weren't signed on for Dune (although I am looking forward to that), a Metal Gear Solid film and a Marvel/Disney+ streaming show.
Sure, Bond falls into that category in a way, but I just very selfishly would have to say (obviously) Bond is much more interesting to me than X-Men or Moon Knight...
Well yes, like a bald actor for Blofeld.
In some ways rather regrettably, yes, though as we know from the original Bond novels Blofeld had hair all the way through though there were of course changes of appearance for this Most Wanted man. I suppose the closest he came to baldness was the crew cut he sported in Thunderball. Of course the Pleasence bald Blofeld (supplemented by the bald Savalas Blofeld) is the iconic Blofeld in the wider public consciousness that exists outside of the die-hard Bond fandom exhibited here. However, under the literary Bond guide only Charles Gray's and Christoph Waltz's Blofelds were closer to the Blofeld of the novels on the hair front at least.
I have always thought that Hugh Jackman would have made an outstanding Bond, combining the strengths of Moore and Craig; on screen he looks great and has tremendous acting skills, but I often see photos of him and he doesn't look a thing like he does on screen. Now I'm not saying that he's Quasimodo; he's obviously a good looking guy. but as much as his screen appearances have convinced me that he would have been a great Bond, I don't know if I would feel the same based on many photographs that I've seen of him . This is why screentest are so vital
You'd never have picked Humphrey Bogart as a great leading man from his headshots, and I'd have said Matt Damon was fairly ordinary-looking from a headshot, but I find him effortlessly watchable on film; and of course there are a whole slew of B-movie actors who are handsome but dull onscreen. You don't really know until you see them act.
Cate Blanchett is another one.
Kind of ironic, given how controversial they were as Blofeld (albeit for Waltz it has more to do with background choices, nothing to do with his casting).
I just find it silly when an actor is suggested as Bond because he's been seen in a tux and an actor is suggested as Blofeld because he's bald. Bruce Willis as Blofeld! Ving Rhames as Blofeld! Vincent d'Onofrio as Blofeld! Bryan Cranston as Blofeld! Okay, so the last one is not bald, but he played a bald man for years, so he's used to play bald characters, so he'll be perfect.