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 must give me the name of your oculist"
My Wife says he looks nothing like Cumberbatch, she has no attraction to old Benedict but Hughes is another case.
I would like DC back as long as we get something more focused than SPECTRE but measuring the next Bond on DC is a mistake so regardless of Hughes looking fresh faced I don't see how this makes any difference.
Take a look at the guys acting before dismissing because he's younger than DC.
DC clone is certainly not the way to go, each Bond has been distinctly different so whether the current candidates don't have same rough and aged look of Craig is not really a reason to rule them out.
As @dominicgreene has said it could well be a total unknown to us, I'm sure many had no clue who Daniel Craig was before he was touted and I can imagine depsite his career Dalton came out of nowhere for some.
I was only 15 when TLD came out and I'd not heard of him, no we didn't have the internet and it was just film magazines so when he was announced I hadn't a clue who he was.
The Internet is the factor here and I think it's possible that it will be unlikely he's not on the radar due to the all seeing eye of the net, the surprise is gone and spoilers rule.
I might be wrong but because of social media the new Bond once DC hangs up the Walther be it before or after Bond 25 is in the public eye.
When DC was announced the internet was being used but it was nowhere the level it's at now and it's ability to know everything means that the next Bond will not come out of nowhere infact I think it's practically impossible, be it an established actor like Fassbender or someone the level of Hughes or Norton.
I think this is very close to what is going on.....but still it smacks of heel dragging and yes @haserot I do say this as a fan, because that is my only stake in Bond, as fan, as consumer of Bond product, movies, books and music.
I would like, as a fan, for Babs to develop a greater sense of urgency, prioritize Bond productions, and escalate the timetable from film to film, like her dad did. And yes I know one could make movies quicker in the '60s and even the '70s, but what I am talking about is an attitude, a determination to keep the franchise rolling along, and turn the films over in as timely a fashion as possible
If she is sidestracked by other ventures, then maybe turn guidance over to someone who will work tirelessly to overcome obstacles and get the Bond product turned over as quickly as possible.
As a fan, this is what I want. From a business perspective I am customer.
This is customer feedback. Process accordingly.
Here is plan for Babs
1. Get story figured out ASAP
2. Discuss who will direct with Craig. Then get both Craig and Director signed ASAP
3. Coupled with #2 above, get distribution and other business matters resolved ASAP.
4. Leverage considerations discussed in #3 to expedite #2 and vice-versa
5. When 1, 2 and 3 are ticked off, make the damn movie!
After movie finishes its opening major market cinema run, evaluate, process, and get to work on next film ASAP
Repeat process until you die (Cubby), or turn file over to someone with needed energy to continue.
The Bond fandom thanks you for your attention to this matter of gravest import. ~O)
btw first priorty for B26 willl to be to audition new Bonds. Hughes and Norton need be on speed dial now. Maintain relationship with these two until auditions are finalized. Keep them on hook.
His acting is reasonable, but in general a Bond actor doesn't have to be Oscar worthy (there are exceptions of course, and it can be argued that a higher level of acting talent was in fact required for a film like CR, or at least for certain pivotal scenes in the film).
Rather he has to be able to naturally exude filmic Bondian qualities (confidence, screen gravitas, voice projection, menace, & acting subtleties while staying in character etc.) imho. Craig demonstrated nearly all of that in Layer Cake (the only film I saw him in prior to CR) but Hughes didn't have nearly the same effect on me after watching The Game. I don't think he can anchor a major film franchise. There is something instantly forgettable about him.
Hiddleston certainly did (in Thor, Avengers, The Night Manager and High Rise).
First priority with any audtion is make sure they can move well, like Sean and Laz and even Craig. Anyone that can't move well, show them the door right away. Bond needs a physical presence.
James Norton might be the guy if Hughes is found lacking. I just have a good vibe about this guy.
How did Brosnan manage this and you say Hughes can't.
Charisma from Brozzer, did we confuse this with smarm?
Hiddleston was great in the Night Manager but I'm seeing the opposite for Bond, he could bulk up but I think he's too wiry to be Bond, we'll see when Hughes has more time to develop.
It's easy now to say I saw it in Craig so did I but Hughes hasn't had a role on the big screen to say he could be Bond, it's different on TV although I think in The Game he showed potential, James Norton as well in his respective roles.
Hiddleston's boat has sailed and is just too all over the tabloids, I would say if she looking at him or Fassbender, If you want charisma Fassy would leave Hiddleston in the cold and Babs would be gunning for him over Loki.
I bet on Aidan Turner being Bond more than Hiddleston.
I agree with you that Brosnan (and Dalton to a lesser degree) didn't quite do (or bring) what I noted was essential for a Bond actor, and that is why both their tenures weren't quite all that imho (although I realize they have their fans here and elsewhere). I don't want a repeat of this, which is why I maintain that big screen effortless charisma (without the need to overplay it) is essential for the next Bond actor.
Yes, you're right. Hughes could improve with age and I shouldn't judge him on the basis of one performance (although it was in the Bond spy genre and he was playing a spy). So far he hasn't done it for me though (just like Cavill never did it for me).
I scouted out some films of Charlie Hunnam a few months back after hearing his name mentioned on here, and I'm afraid he wasn't all that impressive (again, missing that extra something in my view).
Norton is a very promising actor, great in Happy Valley, but not Bond for me. Hunnam is a terrible idea.
Re. Hiddleston - People talk about him being the wrong shape - not built enough - but I fail to see any real difference between him in TNM and Connery in DN. I think Craig has distorted the Fleming image in part. Bond should have the physique of a man who is fit through activities such as swimming and climbing - not the gym. I feel Hiddleston pulls that off.
I agree. Craig certainly compensates, as others could I'm sure. I think you're possibly on the same page as me with Hiddleston. I feel like he brings a look that is fitting, yet still different. On top of that, and most importantly, he brings acting chops. He has charisma, he has charm and he has genuine screen presence. I can see where he could go with the character, in much the same way I could see the thinking behind the Craig casting. People assuming Hiddleston could only be a Moore or Brosnan lite need to watch more of his work.
@bondjames it was @shardlake that tipped me to Norton. I could see Norton bringing something unique to the role like Connery did -ie extra dollops of charisma and machismo.
Aidan Turner of course is a viable candidate.
I think it should start with the look, then with how they move, and then the real auditioning starts. ie how well they find the relaxed but menacing Bond persona.
We are of course talking about B26. Short of a full-out resignation, I think Craig is good to go for B25.
http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/sony-offers-daniel-craig-millions-two-more-james-bond-films/
Radar is not a source to be sniffed at. They're very much in the internet gossip arena (much like TMZ they specialise on Kardashian news), but they are often right.
I think this is the best possible news. Bring back Craig! Then usher in a new younger actor.
The truth is Craig has so firmly redefined the role and established himself in the part. I mean, he jumped out of a plane with the Queen. He just IS James Bond in the public imagination. Regardless of how good the new guy is in the part, I just can't imagine someone like Aidan Turner having that much support.
Edit: Just read it. They lost me at the "back to back" shooting part. Each film takes about 7 months to shoot. Back to back would mean a minimum 13 month shooting schedule. Logistically they would never be able to pull that off. If Dan returns, B25 would have been his last film. There is absolutely no way he would continue through to B26 if it meant setting aside yet another 3 years of his life for Bond.
Of course they'd need a director (like Soderbergh), that knows how to shoot fast and furiously.
It would be a challenge, but could be done.
The key to this rumour is to wait for the next couple weeks to see if Sony really is re-upping on the distribution deal. Then I'll take the radar article with a little more seriousness (with fingers crossed it's true).
The only way he is ever going to do two more is if they do them pretty much back to back, so the story sort of makes sense. And you can't wrap up Blofeld in just one movie IMO.
May be EON are working on that two movie story arc they were considering for SP.
I have no doubt the story will be crucial in terms of luring DC back.
Would be nice if he did six in total. We'd have a hefty era to rival Sean and Rog then.
If they do two back to back they should be contrasting - one big relatively OTT TSWLM type movie and one smaller more character led entry.
This was supposed to be a competitive distribution tender, so I assume EON wouldn't have sweetened the pot for Sony unless nobody else wanted a piece.
Now they feel comfortable paying $150m to an actor who hasn't made a film outside of SF & SP in the last 4 years? That's roughly 33% of the production budget of the last two films combined.
Implicit in this is an assumption that they aren't giving much credit for the success of SF & SP to Mendes, who is no longer directing.
Fishy doesn't even begin to describe it.
In the story, it says Sony is ready to announce it will again release Bond films. That has the ring of truth in that Ghostbusters showed Sony still has problems developing "franchise" movies.
Still, one of the problems Sony had with Skyfall and SPECTRE is its profits were paltry considering how much of the production budget it financed. Paying your leading man $75 million a movie doesn't look to be a way to improve profitability.