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 are one of them. That was established a long time ago. Carry on.
I think that's certainly true (if it keeps going!) but also I think their choices are so limited and they need to find that really perfect actor each time that they probably won't limit their search either way. I guess that makes a non-white actor more likely than it used to be, but I'd be surprised if they decide to look only for one, just because they need that perfect massive movie star in waiting, so they'll cast their net as wide as possible.
I may be wrong I guess, but I feel like Craig was a bit of a sign of that last time for the reasons we've just been talking about. They should have only been looking at younger actors to suit the script, but looked at everyone instead (including at least three Aussies) and found Craig!
I don't believe he has done any straight acting as such. But Pertwee and McCoy weren't actorly types (Pertwee was told to be himself, and McCoy had the natural eccentricity), though they had done bits of acting here and there. Pertwee was known for The Navy Lark, and McCoy was known for his work on The Ken Campbell Roadshow, in an act that saw McCoy; hammer nails up his nose, set his hair on fire, and stuff ferrets down his trousers! They weren't really character actors like Troughton and Eccleston were.
It's Ayoade's pedantic on-screen persona that makes me want to see him as The Doctor. I can picture him lecturing his companion on the Mondasian Cybermen.
I think he would be great, but he's a writer and director and has so much going on that I think he'd be mad to take it. Ultimately playing the Doctor means repeating the same scenes over and over again on a horribly tight schedule: you get to show that you can be a star but I think it's not something any actor wants to stay with for a long time, and anyone who is already successful would probably be mad to do it!
I'm all for a black Bond and hope to see it some day, but I am not at all interested in seeing Regè-Jean Page in the role, I just get the feeling of a mix of all the least interesting parts of Brosnan and Lazenby rolled into one. I think a couple more interesting names are
Sope Dirisu
Daniel Kaluuya
Far from it, the producers have gone back to the source for every single film.
For characters like Leiter and moneypenny it really doesn't matter, for their roles are rather one dimensional and just have a function, hardly any background. But Bond is Bond, and should thus stay close to Fleming.
I also don't get the comparison to Dr who. That one is a timelord and could even come back as a cat. That doesn't mean Bond can be a bulldog.
On a side note, I never understood why the producers wanted a jinx spinoff, but a nomi one I'd definitely go and see. Her character hasn't gotten the right amount of recognition if you ask me. Pity she can't come back.
Doctor Who wasn't specified as white from any origin books (as far as I know), whereas Bond was written as white from the outset. I personally still want an actor that resembles what Fleming wrote on the pages, but that's just me.
Glad someone else here thinks the same way I do. I want Bond on screen to be as close as possible to the books, as far as possible. I'm absolutely fine with female M's, black Moneypenny's, black Leiter's, gay Q's, even if this isn't what Fleming described them as, whatever it takes to keep the films diverse and relevant, but I draw the line at the main character himself.
Bond still has to belong to the colonial, old-fashioned, sexist, Eton 1950's era that Fleming wrote of, and look like him too. Once you change that, you change Bond.
The films are not literal transcriptions of the books, they're adaptations of them i.e. they have been adapted, as you might adapt a plug into a socket in a foreign country. You change it to make it fit in the new medium. As long as he feels and acts like Bond, and has adventures like Bond, that's Bond.
If it's set in the modern day he can't be a man from the 50's who fought in WW2, smokes 2000 cigarettes a day, has an exercise regime consisting of nothing but four press ups and a cold shower etc.
You know exactly what I mean. I'm not going to start splitting hairs on Moore not having the exact black comma hair, or a scar down his cheek so there is no way on earth he could possibly resemble Fleming's 1950's Bond from the books.
There is a definitive image of Bond on screen, which is not a million miles away from what Fleming wrote, and all the previous actors fit that bill.
Once you deviate away from that, then the films and the character are going in a different direction. You may be fine with that, I'm certainly not.
I would love to see a return to a period setting for Bond. His attitudes and habits are from a different era. If you change him too much and make him too modern, too relatable, too "nice" (he's quite a bastard in the books) then it's no longer Fleming.
But if you look at the audience for the No Time To Die (while very profitable) the target audience skewed older (35+), so right now, the younger crowds aren't interested in Bond. They have their own heroes they've grown up with (Iron-man, Captain America and all of the Marvel Superheroes). So how does EON appeal to these younger cinema goers whilst appealing to the long-term Bond fan who want Bond to be Bond not some woke, sensitive, watered down version of what Fleming created.
It's a dilemma for the studio. Change things up, bring in a different type of Bond but risk alienating the biggest audience (and only one at the moment): the traditional fans.
Which is why I circle back to the idea of keeping Bond in the 50's & 60's. Lower budget but a harder hitting thriller set during the cold-war.
I read what you wrote and you said you wanted the guy from the 50's out of the books: I explained that you've never had that and you never will.
The point of adaptations is to capture the spirit and flavour of the original material and translate it- not to make exact copies of everything which is written down. Sometimes you can get very close, sometimes it doesn't matter so much. If there's no reason why, for example, Daniel Craig having blond hair makes him no longer believably a suavely handsome, tough superspy; other than 'it's not what was written down in the books!', then it's not worth worrying about.
The producers have ruled that out; it's just not where they want to take it.
And yes, other than early Connery and then Dalton, we've never really had a decent, very accurate portrayal of Fleming's Bond on screen, which explains why many of the films I'm not a huge fan of.
But I can still live in hope that we get another actor like Dalton who wants to go back to the novels. That may sound like an absolute nightmare to you, but to me it sounds like pure heaven.
Yeah that seems good to me. I think sort of Mendes level of outlandish is fine, maybe even a touch more.
What is it that you think 'splitting hairs' means? I'm not making trivial distinctions: I'm saying the opposite in fact, that trivial distinctions don't matter!
I'm not bothered about them being as close as possible to the books, no; and I've been explaining why that is. I'm not seeing any reasons to change my mind either.
Dalton wasn't very popular or successful in the role, so I wouldn't want another one like him, no. If he's like Craig, who takes the best of the books and combines it with what made Bond so successful on the screen, then I'm all for it.
I know James Bond films are a nightmare for you but I happen to really enjoy the films, it's why I'm here. I like the books too, but if I enjoyed them more than the films then I'd probably talk about them more and post in threads about them more heavily than I do in ones about the films.
They could have a modern, tough guy black Bond, who respects women's boundaries, has gay friends, doesn't smoke and sticks to his medically advised alcohol units, and he could be a dad, and die every other day. And people could say "he's still James Bond" if they like, (as they do on this thread).
Then they could do a seperate TV series called 'Ian Fleming's James Bond', where they cast a unashamedly stiff-assed white brit with dark hair, scar and all. And adapt the books more faithfully than ever before, and have a Peaky Blinders period vibe, set in the bleaker 50's, where the scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nauseating at three in the morning.
Then everyone would be happy!
A million +1 times this. Back to period Bond, when Bond was ACTUALLY Bond.
If you watched a TV show where the stories are nearly but not quite as good as the Connery films, with worse music and set design than the original Goldfinger, for example, had; with less money to spend on them, featuring cinematic sequences like watching two men play bridge for 50 minutes, then you'd probably get quite bored. You can't smell the smoke and sweat of a casino on TV.
That's not to say that the films haven't made things like the card game in CR or the golf scene work, but that's because they adapted them.
My only issue going from Gangs of London is perhaps his take on the role might be a wee bit too similar to Craig's. Personally I think we need a slightly different approach to the role, whatever it may be. I don't think a non-white actor would inherently bring something new to the role. That said no one can know that for sure until he actually plays the part.
One thing he shares with Craig is he hardly has any chin. Not a good start.
Yes that's a fair point. It's why I thought -even if he'd do it which I don't think he would- Tom Hardy wouldn't have worked.
Yes we don't want anyone with tiny chins.
:))
Yes, and I'd say that's how the films have been going along in the last few years. He's done some dickish things, he's actually been allowed to mess up more than ever, and yet he's still been the hero.