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
Bond must project a certain youthful vitality that makes his outrageous feats of derring- do at least somewhat believable. Hence, Rog's age in AVTAK was a tremendous liability. You could almost hear his joints creaking during the spat with Zorin's goons in Stacy's mansion.
And I think four films is the minimum Eon would expect out of any new actor these days. That is one more than one could possibly expect from Fassbender.
Precisely how I feel. When Cubby was casting for a new Bond he certainly had the intention of that actor sticking it out for a good 6 outings. I don't doubt that for a minute. Had he lived through the Brosnan era, unless there had been some law suit as per 1991, we would have certainly had a 5th Brosnan outing in 2004. I believe the 3 year break from TWINE to DAD would have been a one off- not the start of a new trend. He wanted the current Bond to be so established and on a regular basis audiences wouldn't have to ask "who is playing Bond in the new film?". Which is pretty much what happens every time a new film is made. Even before SF I had people ask me "is the blond guy still playing Bond?". The gaps are long enough now it's easy for the general public to become disconnected enough from Bond to not really care. Hence, today in the 21st century you get forum topics with people actually thinking changing Bond to a female, etc is a GOOD idea.
Cubby had created a franchise like no other- every 2 years, as reliable as Christmas, an exciting well made new film with an established heroic character like none other. I cannot emphasize enough what it was like to see Bond every other year. Film after film, and no other franchise was doing that. A holiday analogy like Christmas is the best example I can think of. Bond should be as established as Santa Claus. Yet today, every time a new film is made, the filmmakers seem to be trying to prove Bond is still relevant. If the films had been coming out on at least something of a regular basis they wouldn't have to.
I think the problem is instead of having a long term game plan, as with the early actors (meaning-do the novels during the Connery's, finish the books and start the short stories with Moore and Dalton, etc) Eon has been winging it for some time now. Playing by ear. The Craig re-boot really should have been the start of something great. Especially with CR. Yet they went the route of the story arc through the duration and SP disappointed many.
Although many have argued by now it's impossible to come up with a new film on a regular basis I wholeheartedly disagree. If anything now should be the opposite. With generations and generations of creativity since Fleming passed there are countless resources to base the films on. The continuation novels, some are quite solid actually, even the countless comic adaptations for example. The ideas should be flowing, yet with every film, the series seems to be in limbo.
I do feel though when a new actor is cast it will force Eon to start coming up with a game plan. If they continuing winging it, the risk of the series eventually petering out gets bigger.
Then Eon and MGM are going to have to make movies more often than three or four years.
Remember when Michael G. Wilson said they hoped Craig would do *eight* and break Roger Moore's record? They better get amped up if they really want to do that.
http://deadline.com/2011/12/daniel-craig-to-surpass-roger-moores-record-as-007-uk-report-206692/
Of course, I doubt many people took that seriously. It was a silly thing to say given how Eon wants longer breaks between films.
Some actors want to get on with it. Others want time off to do other things. Ultimately, I hope they cast an actor who embraces the former, and is willing to commit to making more Bond films more regularly.
That's all we can hope for, because the MGM issues continue to haunt Bond (an unfortunate Saltzman legacy).
Excellent points. I agree wholeheartedly with your analogy. As reliable as Christmas.
I understand your enthusiasm but I think it's wise to be mindful that the actor alone isn't enough to establish a good film let alone a legacy and dwarfing someone else's.
Craig is a very good actor but his era imo hasn't lived up to the potential of the new direction EoN were supposedly taking the movies in; and his talents have been somewhat wasted. Fassbender is a tremendous actor but he also needs the support of great talent and material to make his casting worthwhile.
I believe a few members here ( @Birdleson I'm sure) would argue that the most unique entries in the franchise were when they came out almost every year. DN through TMWTGG, each film had a very specific main location and theme (kung fu, blaxplotation, Japan culture, underwater, etc).
Exactly! Each film is distinctly different in look, tone and feel, yet all have the most important thing in common: they all feel like James Bond movies.
Eon kept very much in practice and never felt like it was getting rusty or tired. Now when a new film goes into production it's like they're out of practice to a degree and feel they have to do something dramatically different (like killing off M for example) just to stay fresh.
Starting with Dalton, they attempted to peel it back, as it were. I can understand why they chose to do this, but I was not all that keen on it. CR was fine as a reboot one-off, but it's time to get back to the straight missions again, as many have advocated. I believe they will be better placed to do that if they reset with another actor. They must ensure though that he is one who naturally embodies filmic Bondian attributes. Fassbender could easily be that man.
Let actor himself make Bond 3 dimensional through his performance. You don't need all the backstory rubbish especially when they eff it up royally by making Blofeld Bond's foster brother.
Yeah, well, they had a dude named Fleming to rely upon.
False equivalence. I wish people would stop going on about about Disney and SW, we are one film into their reboot. ONE FILM. Come back to me in twenty years. Bored of listening to the same old bollocks.
I'm not keen on Fassbender at all. A few reasons: 1) He looks like he was created in a laboratory to play Bond. To me, this is not a good thing. See also: Brosnan in the '80s. 2) Fassbender's name has been tossed around for Bond since Inglourious Basterds 6 years ago, just like Christoph Waltz was considered a shoo-in for Bond villain for 6 years. Naturally, Waltz did his usual shtick and did nothing surprising with the role. Fassbender would be the same - he's played Bond-like characters so often that we have probably seen his performance already. Boring. 3) I've never been impressed by Fassbender's acting, particularly how he can't seem to keep a consistent accent throughout one film (Tom Hardy has the same problem).
Basically, I would prefer an actor whose face has more character and whose performance wouldn't be so easy to predict. (Can you tell I'm a Daniel Craig fanboy?)
You need to obviously know his output which it sounds like you only know his more mainstream work.
Watch his performance in Hunger, Shame, Fish Tank and 12 Years a Slave or more recently Macbeth, then try and tell me Craig has delivered acting that level outside of OFITN and maybe Love & The Devil or The Mother but I just haven't seen DC do much outside of those to think he's as gifted as Fassbender.
I like his performance alot in TGWDT but it's no huge leap. I hope Purity can show us his drama chops once again but Fassbender is far more a chameleon.
Fair enough back up your boy becaue he's Bond but first tell what he's done that would compare to what Fassbender has done since he was in Hunger, he has one of the most impressive filmographies of recent times of any actor of his generation.
Have to agree here. Fassbender's output and diversity of roles in the last 10 years alone is incredible and Craig hasn't come anywhere significantly close.
He would be fantastic, IF they sorted out the writing and got the right director.
The sad thing is that, if Dan does sign on for Bond 25 and returns to the role, everyone will have already moved on from him with the idea that they were getting a new Bond, and his return will be looked at as a massive disappointment because of that. People are taking all these bookie reports and so-called "insider" sources as gospel and are only setting themselves up for major disappointment, because not only do I think we won't ever see any of these names thrown around appear as Bond, I think Dan will most certainly return.
I predict childish cries and whining when Dan signs on for Bond 25, to the tune of, "Craig AGAIN?" or "I thought we were getting Fassbender, not him again." I don't think that reaction would be below some here.
If he returns, I'll be indifferent about it - not overly excited, but not disappointed, either. I'll just look to the future and hope they don't bungle 'Bond 25' too much.
If tonight I eat at a restaurant and have an outstanding meal then go to another tomorrow night and also have a great meal does it take away from the previous? No.
I for one try not to look at this as a competition.
Agreed. This would happen most likely. Another reason, I don't want him to return. I actually pray, he doesn't.
As with the others, I don't think there's anything really to see here. First and foremost, Fassbender will be too old to take on the part if and when EON gets around to making the next one. Starting in your 40s would be fine if this was back in the day when they were able to get these films made in less than four years, but we're in a different time now. Fassbender would only get to make three films before we'd have to start this whole process all over again.
I firmly believe they'd rather have a great actor play Bond for 3 films, if age was an issue, than have a younger actor who can't measure up to Craig but may (if the audience takes to him) last in the role longer. Eon will be far more focused on casting a strong actor than worrying if he'll make 3 or 4 films due to age. After all, they would have Craig for Bond 25 in a heartbeat even though he'll be 50 by then.
Personally, with the 3-4 year gap between films, I don't think we'll ever see an actor play Bond more than 4 times now, 5 at a push.