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
You're definitely right, there needs to be the right balance. I thought Brosnan was great in the role of the more "modern" iterations and sadly, it was the scripts that tarnished his legacy and didn't allow us to see his full potential. 'Goldeneye' had the perfect balance of everything, to me.
Excellent post. I couldn't agree more.
It would certainly put the pressure up for the next actor. He probably would not need to be an Oscar winner, but he'd be expected to master Bond enough to get an Oscar nomination.
Jack O’Connell could batter Aidan Turner in a fight.
It’s fine not to like his Bond, but watch him in Our Friends in the North and tell me he’s a good but not great actor. He’s not my
favourite Bond (although he is up there now), but he’s by far the best actor to play the role imo.
And I didn’t think his earier performances were just pouting (that steely detachment in his eyes doesn’t come naturally) or that his later performances were forced or exaggerated at all personally. If anything I thought he seemed more relaxed. He’s said that in CR, he thought Bond was a man who didn’t know very much about life, which I think says a lot about his earlier take on the character. He essentially started off emotionally stunted, and I think what Craig did well was loosen up as his Bond aged and grew with experience, while still not loosing sight of the pain behind the character in his downtime. That’s why what defined his Bond for me, and gave him his own identity. He was the dynamic Bond who actually grew and evolved.
Times have changed mate, didn’t you hear? EON don’t understand Bond and every new film they make is a further drop of piss on Ian Fleming’s grave. It’s up to us, the brave Bond fans of the internet, to defend our hero from those monsters.
The thing I find most ironic, when we start going on about defending the IP, is that Ian Fleming didn’t want Sean Connery. He described Dr No as dreadful, and as far as I’m aware, there’s no proof he ever actually warmed to him in the part (just fan speculation based off making Bond Scottish, but wasn’t Fleming of Scottish ancestry himself?). So, if we want to defend his intellectual property in line with his wishes, we’d have to invent a time machine, go back to 1962, get them to cast David Niven or someone Fleming saw as more befitting of the character’s social status, and kill the entire series in the process.
He was a great writer, but the films have always done their own thing and played it fast and loose with the source material. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn’t. But at the end of the day, the series would never have survived this long if they’d just stuck to the books and what he wanted.
Yes, and nobody listens to us even though we know best, woe is us.
As you point out, adaptation is the name of the game, not replicating the exact word on the page. Always has been. We're all here because we're fans of the films foremost (if that weren't true then why are the threads about the novels so relatively quiet?), let's admit that we quite like them and how they've been doing it.
If they went funnier/more charming then I think you'd want a Ryan Reynolds type: charismatic but still believably an action star. But he needs to have that X Factor where you can't take your eyes off him: that's where Connery and Craig excelled.
I suspect the next Bond will very much be my children's Bond regardless. I don't have children yet but Craig's films are not something I think I can share with children of a reasonable age unlike, say, Moore's tenure. It's something for them in their teens if they are "into" Bond like I am.
Do we live in different times now though? I remember being about 8 and watching TSLWM and LALD on ITV. The magic of it was how I got hooked.
I think Jake Gyllenhaal could have been a good Bond.
I don't think Brosnan's tenure was that much lighter. Yes DAD was cartoonish (and I hated it), TND was probably more fun oriented than its direct predecessor, but all of them had at least a few dark moments and plenty of brutality. Not like LTK, but still.
That’s true. His tenure was no where near as light as Moore’s, and it had more of a mixture. GE and TWINE seemed more serious while TND and DAD seemed more fun. I can see them going for that balance again.
Maybe that should be added as an extra way of auditioning. All the actors that want the job, have to fight for it, last man standing is hired.
To be clear I never said and I'm not saying I don't like Craig. As I stated I think he's a good actor, I just don't think he's a great actor and I say this as someone who's seen OFiTN. Sure, I can appreciate Craig's Bond having an arc but frankly it was clumsily executed and tbh it's a bit beside the point. It's amazing how I can buy Lazenby as a more credible Bond than Craig and that's considering Lazenby's limitations and inexperience as an actor and yet, George was able to pull off the most emotional scene that showed Bond's vulnerability while keeping Bond's character in tact. Craig hasn't really done anything that we haven't seen before and tbh, it's been done better and far more naturalistic. It's as I said, any competent actor can do what Craig did with the role. Craig had the benefit of quality consistency which after DAD can be perceived as "genius" or highbrow which imo overstated his actual performances. I'm sure you'll disagree with everything I'm saying and that's fine.
I'll be happy with a more classic character portrayal of the Bond character that marries the tone of Casino Royale. Craig's performances as Bond were good and were enjoyable up until SF but all this talk about the next actor having impossible shoes to fill is ridiculous and hyperbole of the highest order.
Somehow I think they will remain fairly dark. If only because it's what has been working for them these last few years. The series might lighten up, but not right away.
Doesn't mean anything. Another actor may know a martial art or a self defence technique. And there's a big difference between fighting in a dojo or a competition and fighting in proper combat situation.
Ah; for a second there I thought you meant that all potential candidates should have to beat up Aidan Turner! :))
Well, we all see things differently, which is fine: but I really can't see that at all.
We don't know that. Like I said, fighting in a controlled environment is nothing like fighting in real life.
Haha that would be great. Could be an TV special. Get Graham Norton or someone to host it. Barbara and Micheal sat ringside. At the end Daniel Craig could come out to present the winner with a tuxedo. And didn’t Lazenby win the role by breaking a stuntman’s nose? So, there’s prescedent there.
Although Lewis Collins lost it by doing something similar!
I'm sure you'll be very happy together.
I like what I hear here. Seems like Fukunaga had a good partnership with the producers, and if he's up to it and has great original ideas to offer for a new Bond, I'd love to see him back. The biggest thing that gives me pause is that I didn't like the last victory lap attempt from the same director (Mendes SP); there has to be enough positive differences. Really hope they don't go for a super hard, origin story reset; I don't want one again after CR.
IF Jack could only hit Turner, that is. He does look like a cute miniature bouncer. Turner looks like Bond.
Also, please no more Fukunaga. He's a little too woke for me these days.
Bring back the man, the myth Martin Campbell. One last time.