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
Why so hung up on Bond’s ethnicity? We’re not in the 1950s anymore.
Besides, the British got all over the world. At one point, the sun did not set on the English Empire. Therefore, you can have Brits of a great many colors and places of origin. Brits with Brit daddies and non-Brit mommies, the reverse, and, really, neither. A James Bond, of British heritage, background, etc., from anywhere in the world, of any color, would make sense. No stupid codename at work, either. Face it, for many years, Bond in the movies has not been someone who could have served in WWII.
The casting search for Bond in 1968 has been thoroughly documented, and neither Dalton nor Moore were among those seriously considered at that time.
In his memoirs Broccoli claimed Fleming wanted Roger Moore for Bond after seeing him as the Saint. But in reality The Saint didn't appear on TV until a day after the premiere of Dr. No! In his own memoirs, Moore doubted whether he'd been Fleming's first choice. From 1959 to 1962 Moore primarily appeared in American television, so it's unlikely he would have been on Fleming's mind, unless he had memories of the 1958-59 ITV program Ivanhoe.
When do we last see Bond play or gamble?
With an exception of Casino Royale or Goldeneye, we never saw Bond play or Gamble.
In TWINE, it's Elektra who's playing while there's just him watching, he never actually played.
In Skyfall, the same, he's just watching and it's very brief.
I want to see Bond prove himself as the MI6 best gambler again, it's one of his characteristics, he's the best at it, he's the man full of luck, he always have high chances of winning.
Please bring back Bond the gambler again.
For me there are 2 factors. The one above that you described, the attitude and charisma - definitely!
The second factor is to get an actor that fits the description Fleming wrote, grey cold eyes, black comma hair. The closest we have had to that factor is probably Dalton.
To me they are the most important factors, and I appreciate the second factor isn't that important to those who are not a big fan of the novels, hence why they are ok with an actor that doesn't match Fleming's description.
Which is a shame because I think Moore would have been great in OHMSS: the script suited him. I’m not sure he’d have been free though.
Connery and Laz had dark eyes, so there weren't an exact match, but overall it was quite easy to picture them in the novels as per Fleming's description.
Moore and Craig had lighter hair, yet again they didn't seem a million miles away either. And Brozza is the closest in terms of characteristics, along with Dalton.
Once they go down the route of an actor with different ethnicity, skin colour, etc. then I feel it may start to drift away from its roots - again, not a huge problem if you are not a fan of the novels, but for me it's important they try and keep this aspect, even if everything else around Bond can be changed, modernised, etc.
As I say, I do enjoy the novels, but if you watch any adaptation of any novel (not just Bond) translated to the screen it's not usual for the actor to match the exact description in the source novel, because getting the character right is more important than how they look. Bond's black hair does not inform his character and the way he behaves; that he is handsome does, so it's a matter of what's important and what isn't. I know you want to see the exact word of the book you've read on the screen, but you never have and you never will, and to be honest you may as well just read the books instead if that's what you're after.
I did half-forget about that to be fair. That said it might even be misleading to use phrases like 'first choice' when it comes to Cubby's methods of casting. This would imply some sort of fixed process where 40 or so actors were chosen, each going through the same auditions/performing the same scenes, until the final few were chosen and a decision was made based on these performances. This seems to be how BB conducts the casting nowadays. An offer is only made once this process has been completed.
In reality, Cubby had that 'old Hollywood' habit of meeting these candidates at parties and liking their 'look', which is how Brosnan came to his attention (albeit at a premiere). There were candidates like Finlay Light (who also seems to have been offered a contract? Take that with a grain of salt) who was not an actor but a model with no prior credits. There are plenty of stories of actors being approached and outright offered the role. Hell, some actors were only auditioned to try and entice other actors who weren't locked down yet (ie. Robert Bathurst). Brolin actually seemed to be in the process of moving down to London before the financial imperative of competing with Connery in NSNA led to Moore's return. Brosnan himself only did three days of screen tests relatively late into the process - far fewer than Brolin - and was offered the role but was quickly dropped due to the whole Remmington Steele situation.
To me, it just doesn't seem that Brosnan was 'first choice' as much as he was one of the stronger candidates within a very haphazard process. It seems like it was a scramble to get their lead before filming. If the dates and circumstances hadn't lined up we could just as easily have had anyone other than Dalton - Brosnan included. As @Revelator pointed out these things are also subject to myth-making. Of course Cubby would want to give the impression that these actors were essentially 'born to play' the part. He comes out looking good because he ultimately picked them. "Yeah, even Fleming wanted Roger, but he was just a small time TV star at the time. No one would have thought he was right! But we kept an eye on him because there was something special about him! That's the thing about being a Producer. You have to be able to spot that certain something, that star quality!" or "Yeah, even when Timothy was 23 we knew about him. We even offered it to him but he said no! He just had that something." etc. Again, the reality isn't quite as glamorous.
My point is there's no one destined to play Bond, and even if Brosnan had truly been the first pick there would still be no precedent of the second pick getting the role next time round. I suspect Cavill and his PR team would want to suggest this is the case however, because he wants the part. It doesn't work like that unfortunately.
Dalton seems to have been approached for the role years before Brosnan (during the Moore era around 1980, not the questionable OHMSS claim). He also seems to have auditioned before or around the same time as Brosnan but had little interest in the role. Was he the 'first choice' or was it Brosnan? Also whose first choice? Cubby may have favoured Brosnan but MGW, John Glen and BB actually seemed to favour Sam Neil during auditions. As I also said there seems to have been a few offers made and it wasn't as much a case of Brosnan being born to play the role.
Perhaps it's just an issue of phrasing/the connotations around it for these types of roles. I'll concede Brosnan was one of many candidates and was offered the role, but this was retracted. I don't think it was a case where a single actor outshone the others early on, at least in the Producer's eyes. My main point was that no one's destined to play Bond, the casting process seems to have been slightly different in Cubby's day than it is now, and using such logic for Cavill is... well, questionable...
As far as I can tell that's not quite right: he was considered but rejected for OHMSS; considered but didn't move forward to the test stage around '80 (about the same time Cubby first met Brosnan whilst shooting FYEO); and then invited to audition for TLD but he turned it down due to availability. Then when the Brosnan deal fell through they screentested Dalton and the film had been delayed enough for him to make it.
Only Brosnan was offered the role for TLD; then when his TV contract option was taken up and he couldn't do it, they approached Dalton. If it weren't for availability problems it's hard to say which of the two was their favoured option. They certainly seemed happy with both but didn't want either of them enough to significantly delay the film for them.
His offer wasn't retracted as much as he had a prior contract which prevented him taking it; but I take your point and I agree- as I say, it seems like they'd have been happy with either or Brosnan or Dalton, and indeed ended up with both of them anyway.
The old Pat Macnee 'Inside TLD' DVD doco does paint it as Dalton being the first choice, but he sadly couldn't make it; then they got and lost Brosnan; and then happily they got their first choice of Dalton. But I tend to think that's a slight corporate airbrushing of the story, a bit like the reported 'mutual' decision for Dalton not to make GoldenEye, which seems to have been a slight massaging of the truth of the studio not wanting Dalton.
I do think of all the options he’s actually the best choice. Then maybe Turner.
The ‘too famous’ thing doesn’t really cause much fuss… none of the Bonds were complete unknowns. I mean people talk about Craig in Layer Cake, but the Tomb Raider movie is a much more relevant reference point tbh.
Hmm, I think that's the sort of thing that might need sources to verify. If that's even possible. Like it was said before, there seems to be a lot of revisionism and myth making about this. I've even heard spins on this story where Dalton was in fact offered the part in '86 or so (after some sort of audition presumably) before Brosnan but turned it down due to his lack of interest. On the second time they approached him they managed to hook him with a commitment to make the next Bond film more Fleming-esque. I don't know how true this is personally. I've also seen it spun that Brosnan was always the preferred candidate, the overly serious Dalton someone they chose to 'settle' on after the Remmington Steele situation prevented him from doing it (which I will get on to later). So it really depends on who is telling the tale. Was Dalton the preferred candidate, ruled himself out, at which point Brosnan became the front runner? Or was it Brosnan all along who was the preferred candidate? Who is the first choice in this case?
It's not unlikely that Dalton may have auditioned around the same time as Brosnan though. I've seen this still which is supposedly from his audition in '86... I don't know how the dates line up for all this though. They also seemed to try and pin down their preferred candidates with contracts rather quickly after few auditions, which would explain much of the confusion around this (the process seems much more drawn out and considered nowadays).
From what I understand there's a bit more to it. Remmington Steele was due to be cancelled, hence why Brosnan was initially freed up to do Bond. After he was offered the part NBC used the hype around rumours of his announcement to drum up publicity and renew the series, which they did supposedly, three days before Brosnan's contract was about to end. After this, Broccoli withdrew the offer as he didn't want their Bond to be associated with a current television series (it's where the oft-quoted line, "Remmington Steele will NOT be Bond" from Broccoli comes from). This would imply it's not as much a scheduling conflict but a conflict of PR. It would make sense, and would explain why Brosnan supposedly had a stipulation in his contract as Bond the second time round that he could not be seen wearing a tuxedo in other films outside of Bond during his tenure (if that's even true).
But again, is this more PR spin on Cubby's part? Is he trying to make out that he in fact let Brosnan go as opposed to Brosnan having to give up the role? And what about this odd Finlay Light business? He seems to have been a main contender (according to John Glen), but was he actually offered a 10 year contract to play the character or is this something the press made up? In that case if this pre-dated Brosnan's offer, was he the first choice? Like I said, I don't think the casting process for Bond was quite as streamlined (ie. professional) during Cubby's tenure, and this is subject to revisionism.
But yes, I certainly agree that it's a case where the producers liked both Dalton and Brosnan, but weren't going to bend the schedule for either of them.
He's not a strong contender from my point of view. Bond actors don't tend to be complete unknowns, but none were A-Listers or played Superman. With a big name like Cavill he would be in a position to demand a hefty pay check, even a chunk of the film's gross profits. That's a massive gamble, especially considering they can't be sure how the public will take to his Bond if cast. If he or the film is a dud they've got a problem. This seems to have been the case with Clive Owen. That aside I just think he's a weak actor. Little charisma. Plenty of character actors who can do better. I'm also not a fan of Turner and doubt with the amount of press he's accumulated as a potential for Bond he'll end up getting it.
I'm going by the histories in 'Some Kind of Hero' and 'The Making of the Living Daylights' books and they seemed to have talked to lots of people involved. Dalton was screentested after Brosnan's deal fell through, he wasn't part of the initial batch of auditions for TLD.
Yes, sorry, I think you're right there.
No idea about Dalton's audition and haven't read enough to say for sure (I even edited my post a bit just due to lack of information). Like I said, I think in those days when they had a preferred choice they tended to try and get them rather quickly. Hell, look at Brolin and others 'approached' or 'offered' the part even during Moore's later tenure or after Connery, a few apparently without auditions. There's so many 'what could have beens' and certainly a good share of dodged bullets, haha.
But yeah, the whole Brosnan/Remmington Steele thing is interesting. Cubby's spin is also fascinating, especially when it comes to actors who actually got the part.
But Ian Fleming's James Bond was white.
How could you forget the Scorpion and a Drink gamble ?!!?
That seems more likely. I suspect he was strongly considered as a potential (very strongly in fact if they asked him that many times and auditioned/offered it to him as quickly as they did), didn't want to do it, and finally caved in/did the audition and was available on what was at that point a very tight schedule with many drop outs, and ultimately no stand outs for the role. The reluctant Bond as it were.
That's not a reply to what I was saying, but okay: he was also an Englishman (not a Scottsman/Aussie/Irishman) with blue grey eyes, black hair and a big scar on his cheek. 60 years in and I'm fine with not seeing precisely that on the screen.
What if this hypothetical actor were mixed race (so Black or Asian or whatever demographic and White)? As in they look noticeably mixed-race, but still very much had those qualities of Fleming's Bond, perhaps bore a resemblance to Sean Connery or Timothy Dalton or whatever. What if they were of a different race to the ones I mentioned and they have, say, Latino or Middle Eastern heritage? (So not dissimilar to actors such as Oscar Issac, Sean Teale, Rami Malek etc). Would it still matter?
That's right. It was an observation.
It all boils down to the old argument of straying too far from the source material to be comfortable with. Post-Thunderball, I think everyone has had their own idea of how far we can stray from Fleming before it becomes, put simply, not James Bond anymore
.
As for the post-Sir Rog transition, Jeff Kleeman of MGM/UA said explicitly that 'Pierce had once been Cubby's first choice for Bond' prior to the Remington Steele contract debacle. Dunno how true that is, but that was Kleeman's perspective. He also said that even though EON wanted Dalton to play Bond in GE, Tim 'was never in the picture' as far as he and John Calley were concerned. Apparently, it was only when MGM/UA proved to be unmovable on the issue that Cubby relented and said 'Let's go with Pierce.'
So if Kleeman's to be believed, Brosnan was first choice in '86-'7 but they went with Dalton, while Dalton was first choice in 94-'5 but they went with Brosnan! Funny old world...
A question I've been asking the people who've been clamoring for Bond's ethnicity to be pointlessly changed for the past 20 years.
I don't think anyone here has been clamoring for it. Indifferent would be a better description for the attitude.
I don't really get why you're quoting me if you're not replying to what I said, but okay. As I said, if he acts like Bond and has the physical attributes which feed into his behaviour (.i.e alpha male type, attractive, athletic, reasonably young etc.) then he can be Bond for my money. For someone not to be Bond they'd have to be a bit wimpy, unattractive, too old/young... I struggle to think of anything else which is important. Probably a full head of hair I guess. You're implying that not being white is 'straying too far', but for me I don't see the difference between that and Roger's fair hair; especially not in Bond's fantasy world.
What an odd way of phrasing it.