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
Ultimately I wouldn’t worry too much about what other people think. Bond is a broad church and that’s fine. I think if they tried to please everyone, we’d end up with something bland, safe and dull. I hope they have the confidence to just commit to whatever vision they have for the next guy.
Very well said.
Right? :D
I just pray they've got the brains to get Campbell back for the hatrick. Its amazing that he started both Brosnan and Craig with stellar films and none of the subsequent 3 and 4, respectively, measured up, regardless of whatever big name director might have been on board. If they can pull it off, I'd like to see a bit more 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' from the powers that be, but its in our nature to want to progress - not holding my breath.
Personally, I think that the discussion is as moot as discussing a female 007 or a 5'1'' tall white actor, or an overweight actor, or an Irish setter 007, or whatever, because all of them deviate too much from the original literary depiction.
And I'm not a racist, a misogynist, a xenophobe, an aesthetic hegemonic idiot, an animal hater, a bigot, ... I'm just someone who'd like to see a 007 as close to the page as possible.
And you do know that many of the so called suggestions are made for shock value, @Denbigh, my friend. I do wonder about our own racial backgrounds and about the identification issue, and the same about the gender and sexual orientation. Many of us identify with the character in a lot of ways. I'm wondering if race isn't important, as say, a person of black descent being able to identify with T'Challa, for example. Those identifications are important. Both of them. And none is racism in any way.
The same thing about wanting Bond to remain an heterosexual womaniser. Why would that be wrong if it's important to have meaningful and powerful LGBT characters as well? Double standards? No. Both are important.
All good questions, I think. Good for forums ;)
I always think about how we're in this really interesting point within the franchise, given how far we are from that original creation and how much the world is changed, so these discussions and debates are more poignant as while James Bond will always be the man he is, some things will change. We're moving further and further away from a James Bond whose "a relic of the Cold War", so it's gonna be up to all the people involved in the future of the franchise to reinvigorate him while keeping what made him who he was. It's not an easy task but it's a natural product of the franchise.
And taking all that into account, anythings possible, and I think no matter what changes are made (ethnicity, background), I trust that EON will still provide us with a James Bond we understand and can get behind.
He looks good. He's magnetic. Good in the fight scenes. All things considered, especially what I see as a real dearth of genuine contenders, I would put him as my favourite for the role so far. Maybe I would prefer Nicholas Hoult slightly more for his looks and because he is younger, but otherwise Stevens really throws his hat into the ring with this.
I am only halfway through the film, but his poise, and ability to deliver brutal violence without flinching, is quite impressive.
Yes he is nearly 40, but 40 year olds look a lot younger than they used to. And any actor under 35 tends to look baby faced, so I think we are going to have to accept a 40+ year old in the role if we want someone who looks genuinely masculine.
well many of the names that are far away from literture Bond does get me more interested in Aidan Turner so it works out for you
Yes, I believe in the power of discussion, and I believe we should discuss all possibilities inside some logical sphere. These are, after all, interesting times, as you say. Lovely post, @Denbigh, btw ;)
How is Aidan Turner that far removed from literature Bond? Eye colour?
Anyway, it won't be him, and it won't be Hardy either ;)
That being said, I give you... Common ground :)
I’m not sure about Campbell coming back again. Love GE, but while I admire CR, I’ve always found it a bit bloated, and his work since has been quite hit and miss imo (although The Foreigner was pretty decent).
I’d like someone fresh, but I wouldn’t say no to Fugunaka returning. I think he pulled off an incredible balancing act with NTTD. Moulding all those different tones, themes, stories and ideas into a cohesive thriller, that somehow seemed to fly by despite being so long. I know NTTD has been divisive in some quarters, and I thought it was very flawed myself, but in a lesser director’s hands, the sheer amount of stuff they were trying to do could’ve turned the film into a complete trainwreck.
My only hangup is that he seems quite interested in the psychological side of things, while I’d like something a bit introspective next time. But he’s very versatile. Played in all sorts of genres, and even bought a load of different sensibilities to Bond (horror one scene, intense action the next, CR esque realism one scene, Roger Moore the next). So, I’d be up for a return, if being free from the baggage of the Craig era meant he could pull off something very different.
And with
Honestly, I'd love him to come back but I have the same reservations.
I think the proof is always in the pudding: when a new guys gets cast we'll all be holding our breath to see how he actually performs in the role.
Like you I'm hoping it's not someone bland designed to try and please everyone, because as you say: you can't.
Excellent post. Dismissing others' thoughts and opinions as just being voiced for shock value isn't necessary and just leads to bad feeling and atmosphere: there's no need to be having arguments over what folks can and can't suggest. This thread continued happily with those for months with people suggesting lots of names, and now it's being gatekept once again. It's tiring.
I think he was decent, but I did worry slightly at his handling of the action stuff and lack of any sort of 'Bond moments', which even Spectre managed, despite being more ragged in the story department. I had no big complaints with the general story of NTTD but I did end up actually missing Mendes a bit for his sense of style, urgency and just Bond flavour.
I hear you both, but Campbell is 2 for 2 as far as I'm concerned and I'd really like to see a return to a slightly lighter, more fun bond for a couple of films - I think he's very well placed to bring us that, if that is a direction EON might want to go. I'm not sure Fugunaka can pull that off, but you never know. This is also 100% personal preference. I'm certainly not betting on a lighter Bond next time 'round.
One question about Page: can he look manly clean shaved?
The first lesbian Bond?
Cmon man, with comments like that every time we try to make a point we'll loose our reason and ground. He doesn't look manly or he doesn't convey the appropriate edge for the role, that's true, but do we need to call the guy a lesbian? Which doesn't make any sense to begin with. Calling it a figurative travesty would be more to your point, even if still a bit on the aggressive side. I hate it when you throw in a comment like that because I'm sure you'll be rightfully attacked for it.
Do it like this:
Page is wrong for the role because:
1) He doesn't look manly enough;
2) He lacks the screen presence;
3) He has not proven himself as an actor in any way;
4) He looks too cocky;
5) He's not a caucasian, as Fleming described Bond in the books;
6)...
And those are reasons enough to have some of them be valid to all and some only to some. But please, let's not call the guy a lesbian, ok? ;)
Edit: actually I and anyone in their right mind should feel offended that someone has the "audacity" to propose that vain clown for Bond. Maybe that's why my Dutch direct humour gets triggered.
“Oi, Blofeld, you mug!”
I do think he's more suited to the Saint than Bond- I can see him working quite well in that. But I think the chances of it being made are pretty slim because their track history in making the thing is so terrible; I will believe it when I see it.
Being tied to it (unless he's released soon) will most probably take him off their list though, I agree.
Call Babs and tell her MI6 Community has made their minds up.
Pick a direction with Bond #7 and try to get everyone pulling in the same direction
I don’t think that’ll happen. The films are reactionary. My personal choice would be to follow through on continuity of character rather than narrative. Have each story be it’s own thing but have a subtle character thread run through it. And I don’t mean an ‘arc’ but something akin to Fleming.