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
Reading Turner's response in this new piece, I had to laugh at the difference in the way that he and Craig expressed their reservation about the possible impact on their lives if they played Bond.
Turner: 'I can still get on the Tube and go to pubs and there's never a problem.I don't think I'd want that to change.'
Craig: 'It was genuinely like, My life is going to get f*cked if I do this'!
You can take the boy out of the North of England, but...
Seriously though, I don't think I'd want a new Bond actor that didn't at least have an appreciation for the films (and books).
Changed my mnd about him. They can do better.
There is the tale of Craig naively seeking out a Cape first edition of Casino Royale and retreating when the price was 5-figures. Probably not so much an issue soon after.
It would be the former, it's hardly going to be the latter. Who cares what anyone does on the Tube, and I doubt Craig would have given a toss what anyone thought :D
'Barbara gave me a call and said, ‘Please come and say hello’ and I thought this was a bit of a giggle. I got a copy of the book and I was reading it but I’d ripped the front cover off it because going on the Tube reading it was a bit kind of…I got off the Tube at Piccadilly, finished the last page and threw it in the bin and went ‘Well, that was all right’, walked into the offices and sat down with them.'
He later wished he'd kept the book!
I can tell that he's a sentimentalist.
No, indeed not, considering that relatively few of the Bond actors ever read the Fleming novels or, if they did, only a few of them or parts thereof. Dalton and Craig are notable exceptions of course and Lazenby read OHMSS and kept a copy on him as inspiration for how to play Bond in that film.
"Yes, I meant I haven't watched every film 25-times, but they've assured me we are going back to Fleming and I am a hug fan of those books."
Turner feels well flattered, it is obvious, but he doesn't want to come over as desperate.
Let the speculation continue. Amen.
In another context altogether that reminds me rather of when Saddam Hussein cynically Islamised his formerly secular regime under the Return to Faith Campaign because it was politically expedient for him to do so at the time. The promise of immense wealth (such as the Bond role garners nowadays) can similarly bring about a Damascene conversion among some actors.
Or he's genuinely not interested, as he says.
Most likely Tom Cruise would be ruled out for many sensible reasons. He's too famous, too old, while an action star he doesn't necessarily give off 'James Bond' (at least from what I can see) more than he does 'American movie star' vibes, so in all likelihood wouldn't have that command of the role anyway. He'd probably need to do a convincing British accent which is not something that has ever been required of him. He's the main actor in a rival movie franchise which would create all kinds of PR problems. Personally, I don't think he would be a good fit.
A better analogy would be that of Craig/Cavill in 2006. You have a more traditionally Bondian candidate who is broadly the 'correct height' and sort of looks the part. Then you have another candidate who isn't. He's too short, too blonde, too 'rough around the edges' and generally not conventionally Bondian looking. But his audition has made an impact - again, things like charisma, screen presence, command of the role etc. In these sorts of situations I suspect they'll almost always go with the candidate who has made that lasting impression over the one who 'looks the part' but puts in a weaker performance. In this case height, hair colour, a funny nose or whatever it is will not be a detriment if there's something there. And let's face it, MGW and BB are far better at finding that certain something than we are at it.
True. I never got the sense that Craig read or cared that much about the novels beyond CR. It's not unusual for the actors. Connery hadn't read many of them either. Same with Brosnan who once famously thought DN was the first Bond novel. Dalton of course specifically wanted to bring out the spirit of Fleming in his performance, and (although I might be wrong) I think Moore liked to read/had read the novels at one point or another.
It'd be nice if the next actor and director did read them.
As for Turner, it could well be a sly PR move to drum up some buzz around him as a candidate, but I doubt it. I like him as an actor but I simply don't think he's the right fit anyway. He's been discussed way too much in the press as a contender too, which almost certainly means he won't get it.
Yes please!
To be honest I'm sure most of them read the books: it's not as if they're a particularly tricky read and they had plenty of time to read them, and there must be some curiosity if you're playing the character from them. Not every single book maybe, I'm not sure you need to do that to get a good feel for it.
But if I'm honest I wouldn't particularly want them to ground their entire performance in the books: James Bond is a product of the cinema as much as it is literary, and there's nothing wrong with that. I think there's a bit of snobbery towards the books as if enjoying a load of (well-written) pulp thrillers is somehow more highbrow and clever than liking decades-worth of brilliantly-made movies, but I don't think it is. Bond is a cinema icon, so I tend to think it's probably more important that an actor is aware of the films than the books, even. Craig's performance, for example, has certainly taken note of what works for Bond on the big screen and why he was always so popular, with his alpha male swagger and extreme confidence, whereas arguably Dalton chucked a lot of that out and ended up being less well-remembered and less successful as a result. In truth the credits at the beginning of the films should really read
as IAN FLEMING and ALBERT R.BROCCOLI & HARRY SALTZMAN'S
JAMES BOND 007'
I think naming NO TIME TO DIE after one of Cubby's movies rather than one of Fleming's books was tacit acknowledgment of that.
This. It's funny seeing the obsessive Turner fans twist every new happening into their favor.
Oh yeah, they all seemed to have read at least one of them.
I think you're always going to go through a process of reinvention when it comes to adapting literature for the screen. Especially now that much of the source material of the Fleming novels has already been adapted.
For me, it's not that I want to see the definitive version of Fleming's James Bond onscreen - short of having a period piece, which I don't want personally, this won't happen - but rather I want them to revisit the novels (ideally re-reading all of them just to get a feel for how the stories, ideas and characters develop), choose what resonates with them about the literary character and try to tailor their own strengths as an actor to a version of Bond that stands out, adds something fresh to the cinematic series in the context of the modern world (that's not to say in a way that's trying to outshine or be better than their predecessors) but still inherently shares many of those core traits of the literary and film Bond. Which specific traits they choose to emphasise and how they make it work in the context of an onscreen performance is where it gets interesting. And yes, I agree, the cinematic Bond is just as much a part of this process as much as the literary Bond is (no doubt Craig's portrayal of Bond will have a massive impact on how the next actor plays the role, regardless of whether they choose to take elements from it or consciously subvert/go against it).
It's the same with most of these iconic characters - Sherlock Holmes, Batman etc. Each actor/film should bring something different to the table, the writers/directors (and even actors) themselves using the source material for creative inspiration, all while coming up with something that is still recognisably that character.
In that sense, it's interesting to think about what future actors could take away from the novels specifically. I'm sure one actor could read it and resonate more with, say, Bond's tendency in the novels to fall in love with the women in these stories in that 'St. George complex' way. That could well have an impact on how the actor performs certain scenes, how later drafts of the script are written, and even who is cast alongside him.
Another might read the novels and be more impacted by the literary Bond's more hedonistic traits. Or perhaps his dislike of killing in cold blood. Again, it's all there and opens up a lot of possibilities in terms of the performance and film in general.
I guess it depends whether she was intentionally trying to cast against type, or whether she just prefers the Sean Bean, Daniel Craig sort of actors to the Brosnan types. I’m leaning towards the latter, she seemed much happier with how the Craig era turned out, but honestly who knows. I think what’s so exciting about BB still being in charge is that she always manages to surprise me.
Yep, absolutely agree.
Except he never said he isn't interested. Rather his thoughts on what could happen and his reservations accordingly. There isn't any twisting going on.
@mtm stirring the pot per usual
We've moved onto another topic, but fine. He said he can't see himself wanting to do it pretty clearly. It's not a no, but it's certainly far from a yes; it's just what the actual text says. Rather than having to invent motivations that 'he doesn't want to come over as desperate' one should also entertain the possibility that he simply means what he says. He's always seemed a pretty straight-talking person.
"At the moment I can still get on the Tube and go to pubs and there's never a problem. I don't think I'd want that to change" Maybe than some other delicate and arcane meaning, he actually just means 'I don't think I'd want that to change'.
Do we have to have this sort of stuff, mods?
You are spreading misinformation, perhaps refrain of doing so. Asking the mods to come to your aid, when you are the one bending words, not the first time either. Stop gaslighting.
If that's what it is at the end then I will have peace with it. Then I know what the producers will miss out on. That is my feeling and opinion. I never liked Craig for example, their decision not mine. Personally speaking, I have mentioned other candidates and supported other names from other members, so that's that.
You don't get to decide that. It's a forum for Pete's sake. How are you this arrogant?