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
As for Niven, David Niven I always wondered what they'd have done about his mustache. I cannot recall him not having it, and not having it just so -- pencil thin, just above the upper lip. I looked it up online and found him clean-shaven, but quite some time ago. Otherwise -- wearing it. Would the producers just have gone with it ?
Not fault there at all, you made valid points in return! :)
Yes, I've decided against attaching myself to any one name that I think could possibly pull it off - there's so many variables involved both in timing and in whatever creative route they choose to take next. I was surprised when Craig was announced and later pleasantly surprised when he turned out to be good, so I wonder if that's the best way for me to approach the next casting too.
I think one of the main reasons why we're here discussing this over and over is because of the dearth of new film material. I doubt we'll be on this thread as soon as NTTD gets released. We haven't had a new film in 6 years (and counting), and so what else are we going to talk about? I don't really follow the Dynamite comics, and so there's literally nothing else to discuss, unless to go on the NTTD board. Doing that resulted in me finding out nearly everything that happens in the film, so I don't want to go back there again.
So I think your approach sounds sanest. Saying that, it's always fun to think about who could play the role. But it's almost pointless until Craig is properly out of the picture.
Not that I dislike interacting with you guys...
Yep that's fair. I do think Lazenby was a ball dropped and he wasn't terribly good, but equally there are other spy films in the 60s where they were attempting to rip Bond off and they have guys in the lead where you really do wonder 'what were they thinking?' when you see them giving really terrible or flat performances, and Lazenby does do a better job than some of them, so I don't think he's utterly without merit. Also I think Dalton didn't entirely work out, but part of me wonders if he'd have been better and a more complete Bond with a different director. I think purely as a casting choice though, he's a good one and if I had been in their position I'd have cast him too.
Yes I absolutely agree with that: there's a confidence there with Roger which does suggest 'officer', if perhaps not the sort of more commando grunt which Bond really is (even in the books).
Linked at bottom of this page.
https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond_21_007_dossier1.php3
Great, thanks! So Defense Intelligence is the missing link between SBS and MI6 and between Lieutenant-Commander and Commander. Could have thought of that...
Although of course not canon for film/Craig Bond, that is mentioned in Carte Blanche, now that I think of it. Bond went into DI after his military service, but soon requests a more "hands on" role and is recruited by M for the Overseas Development Group.
Thank you very much. I had read this before and it is great to go through again.
I hope they keep this as the background for the new actor.
That's great, I've never seen this before. Thanks for sharing mate
Bond’s one strong relationship with an adult from his teens and early twenties — one Hannes Oberhauser
That caught my eye when I read it. I wonder if there was always a plan to bring that character in?
Good spot, it might well have been something they'd had their eye on.
I do think, if you wanted to have a shady figure from Bond's past turn up to wreak vengeance, it's actually not a bad idea to give Oberhauser an estranged/jealous son. Raymond Benson had Bond face off against his old school bully in one of his books, and the Oberhauser thing is way better than that! :)
The problem was making that extra leap and turning him into Blofeld- just too much.
I always wondered had they decided to either: a)make Franz his father's murderer, but not Blofekd himself (Blofeld's right hand man perhaps?) or b)make Blofeld the murderer of Hannes Oberhauser, but not his son, if people here would have accepted it better. Both would have been contrived coincidences, but perhaps less implausible in a fictitious universe.
Yes I think you're right, either would be better. I think it would be easier to swallow if Franz wasn't in Spectre (i.e. coincidentally the exact same line of work which Bond ended up in) but had perhaps been recruited by Spectre (or maybe stumbled across them) because he already had his personal beef with Bond and it was something they were keen to exploit.
I know that makes the whole thing messier and it streamlines the whole plot and the drama to make Franz and Blofeld one and the same, but it might make the thing easier to swallow.
How about you have C actually turning out to be Franz, and Blofeld (who has been using Bond to destroy his rivals like Quantum) has placed him in that position in the Government to finish Bond off? So Blofeld becomes pushed to the background a little more (although keep the Rome meeting and the crater base) and C becomes more of the main villain on the ground who wants Bond dead (so at least M and Bond are fighting the same guy). And get someone better to play him- like Hugh Grant.
Doesn't quite hang together and I feel like there's a few holes there, but it might be a bit easier to swallow.
Yeah I’m not 100% sure about the idea- just coming up with it as I wrote! :)
Really? Why not? Did you see A Very English Scandal? He’s amazing.
Yep I totally agree mate
I wish they would have never made Bond and Oberhauser step brothers, they only spent one or two winters together but it felt like they were trying too hard to give them a history.
It's poor in concept on two levels, one it takes away a key component from Bond, his lone wolf trait. We don't know about his family, his backstory or his feelings on it. We just know his parents died in a climbing accident and someone else brought him up for a couple of years, that should be it.
The second level is that it makes Bond a terrible spy. The man causing him all this grief and all this pain was his "brother" that's never been brought up until now. I mean that's what makes it Austin Powers, it was his brother this whole time
Apologies about the long post guys, brought up some feelings 😅
Back on topic, Aidan Turner or Richard Madden for Bond 26
Agreed, it makes Bond a massive security risk. Mi6 will have regretted hiring him.
No I haven't, but his presence would be a distraction. He can be good in some roles, but overall he's not good enough for Bond imo. Not as Bond as he was suggested by some people outside the fanbase back in the 90s. And not as other characters.
Well if they had other double 0's showing up in future films, I could see him fitting that. Only if sat at a desk though...
I'd say he was too good for Bond though if anything... in that I can't see him playing a leading part and he's casting-wise too good for a small role. He's also too good of an actor to be wasted on a small role. Plus, you're right, it could be somewhat distracting.
Then again, maybe future films could have well known actors making such appearances? Why not? It's a bit of a shame that a better known actor wasn't chosen for Nomi in NTTD.
Anyway. As we are already deviating from who would play Bond himself, I'd like to see Michael Shannon in a Bond film one day..
I don't want to see Bond go back to the camp, self knowing, eyebrow raising character he was because I think those days are gone. That's no dig at Sir Roger or Pierce, although I think they worked in that time they were made, but you need Bond to be top of his game, assured, but still be able to vulnerable in certain moments
They need to walk that tightrope between him being Dalton level cruel and Daniel level tough for me. He should have a dry and dark sense of humour but not constantly making puns and quips for the sake of it
I can't see them going for the less personal route with Bond 26 but I hope they steer clear of Bond's origin and backstory. Eon did it well up until Skyfall, Spectre was a bit too much for my taste, hopefully NTTD just keeps it to a minimum
Sorry for another long post, I just think we all talk about who we want as the next actor but not so much about the direction of the next film
True, although I guess in a way that sort of applies to the Octopussy short story too. Fleming doing a ‘this time it’s personal’ story! :)
He’s brilliant in anything he’s been in in the last ten or so years I’d say; I’m not sure which performances you’re thinking of? Not all Bond villains are BAFTA winners/nominees. He’d be as much a distraction as he is in any film he’s in: I don’t quite see why it would be worse in a Bond.
Hugh Grant is a comedy actor. He's good for what he can do, but he's not a great actor. There is not a single role in a Bond movie where I would have rather have Grant than whoever got the role. Even Gustav Graves, a character I hated, I think was served better by Toby Stephens. And Grant would have been a joke as Bond (not that I think he ever was seriously considered, but he was rumoured before the Brosnan and Craig era.)
I think if you haven't watched him act dramatically you can't really say that. Watch Very English Scandal or The Undoing (BAFTA/Emmy/SAG/Golden Globe-nominated for both).
He'd have been much better as C I think.
I don't understand how PB's voice doesn't stand up. His voice as an actor is distinctive and he uses it very well. Now if you're saying his voice doesn't suggest he was a Commander in the Navy, well, we're now entering the realm of the ridiculous.
I think Bond is similar to Lawrence of Arabia; an outsider who doesn't seem to fit in.
If Bond were to initially appear somewhat unbelievable as having been in the Navy and Commando's, I don't think it's too much of a problem because it fulfil's that outsider quality and also helps him to blend in as a spy.
As much as I love Craig's interpretation and the change he helped bring to the franchise, I don't think its necessary for Bond to be as close as possible to a real life agent. The main thing is that he can get by on his wit and be the ruthless man of action when he needs to be- and that we believe him when he does.
I like all the Bond's for different reasons. Next time round I'd like to see a Bond who is a bit more positive, more extrovert, who smiles now and then. I think the charisma of the actor and their watchability may actually be far more important than if they tick the right boxes. Ticking boxes can be boring. I loved Craig's Bond at first, but since Skyfall I find him pretty boring. He seems constantly depressed. Talking often even seems a challenge for him.
Let's be thankful for what Craig brought to the series, but after NTTD, let's leave him on a golden beach, alone, with a bottle of Blackwells. There, as he thinks of Vesper, he may drink himself into the grave he longs for.
To those of you who deride Brosnan- I don't understand you. You may think him too slight -possibly the least important fault- but what about all his positives?? I don't see how he himself could have been any better in the films he had. He worked his arse off and did a brilliant job. How lucky we would be to have an actor of Brosnan's calibre next time round. I hope those of you who dislike Brosnan aren't also the ones suggesting Nicholas Hoult or Jack Lowden. @-)
I think C would have been a perfect fit! Andrew Scott was obviously not to be trusted from the moment you saw him.
Perhaps with his own voice he would do better, but he seems to do “American “ in most things. Maybe he’s having to concentrate on the accent.
I watched Night Hunter on Netflix a few months ago. The writer/director was largely responsible for the movie being poor overall, but despite this there were some good performances in the film, just not from Cavill; he was (inexplicably) using his own accent, and I though he was shockingly wooden. Perhaps whoever said he needed a good director to take the extra time to micromanage his performance was on the money.