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
I'd say what makes SF's ending work is that the whole film is centred around the idea of Bond's - and by extension MI6s' - relevance in the modern world. It makes sense ending on something that's familiar to Bond fans and viewers. As is said in the film itself 'the old ways are best'. I don't think this idea was there with CR, and I'd argue that film isn't actually all that much about Craig's Bond becoming James Bond anymore than QOS is about him seeking revenge. Bond is a relatively seasoned agent by the beginning of that film and the lessons he has to learn are more personal, related to Vesper's betrayal and perhaps learning to 'take his ego out of the equation' (I guess), but it's not about the nature of his job and his sense of duty which is very much there with SF. Perhaps Bond becomes a bit more hardened by the end of CR - and indeed it's a great ending with that familiar line and theme -but it's still very open ended, which is a major reason why QOS became a direct sequel.
Perhaps I should have said instead of Craig's Bond becoming the Bond we know (although there's an element of that too) it's more that the onscreen world becomes more like what we associate with the classic Bond films. In the subsequent films the threats are amped up, the stories become more fantastical, and Bond is really the only one who can tackle these new threats in a changing world.
I do agree that SP is a missed opportunity with some very questionable decisions, but I understand why they went in the general direction they did. It had to be a Bond film which harkened back to those more classic, fantastical films.
Same with the DB5.
I’d like a new Mi6 crew, that doesn’t necessarily include a personal assistant/secretary by the name of Moneypenny. And I’d like a Q-branch, but I don’t necessarily need Q.
I think the new actor should be one who can possess all of Bond’s strengths: physically attractive (but emotionally unavailable), a gambler and risk taker, physically honed and fit and trained in modern unarmed combat, great marksman, passionate about cars and driving, dangerous…
But underneath that it’d be wise for the creators to find his weaknesses.
What is that one thing, or couple things he’s hiding with his surface bravado and bluffs? What would an intuitive opponent be able to exploit?
If the writers can dig deep and find his weakness (even Superman has his kryptonite), then we can explore a different, yet grounded James Bond. What is this man afraid of? And let the new villain drive him to the brink where, just as we think Bond has been defeated, he’s able to overcome the fears and turn the table on his enemy.
Always put as many obstacles in front of our hero as we can. Never make anything easy for him. And then let him slay the dragon in a last minute bit of triumph and bravery
General, I know. But just thinking what I’d like to see from the character moving forth…
"So, 007, you failed to retrieve the undercover list, a foul-up which directly lead to the executions of several MI6 agents, you went AWOL for a month during which time we suffered a terrorist attack, and then you kidnapped the head of British intelligence and got her killed by using her as bait?"
"Yes, but I learned something about myself along the way, sir."
"In that case, we're lucky to have you. Welcome back, old chap."
[cue triumphant Bond theme]
I don't recall a positive post from you.
Oh wait…
At least he’s trying new things…
You guys should form a private members club.
@Venutius … he’s the only one who checks my boxes. The other actors who are routinely mentioned feel like wet napkins compared to Sope.
How are you interpreting character? When did Connery's Bond cease becoming a character in favor of a formulaic role? Are you suggesting Craig's angst and baggage make him more of a character?
I'd argue that it's about balance. One of the things about CR that I adore is how we learn about this version of Bond as a character through his actions rather than any explicit attempts at explaining him. Mollaka doing his gymnastics, while Bond simply bursts through the wall etc. I love that stuff.
SF felt special at the time because it was the first Bond that went into any detail about Bond's life prior to him being an MI6 operative. As a once off, it was supremely effective. A perfectly balanced, unique adventure that managed to do something new while also being everything that you'd expect a Bond film to be on top of that. The best of both worlds.
Then SP and NTTD doubled down on those aspects and while they had their thrills, I found the impact diluted somewhat. The things that made SF special and unique suddenly became an expectation. All of these elements would have been more palatable with better scripts, of course, but unfortunately those scripts weren't the best.
It's a double-edged sword, though; obviously because SF was so successful they clearly felt that this was the thing to do. And that's fair enough. The numbers don't lie.
Exactly that, Peter. Sope's got every one of those Bond strengths, whereas most of the other suggested candidates have a couple at best and many of them don't seem to measure up at all. Put Sope up against any one of them and it's almost man against boy, tbh. IMO, obvs.
💯… if you put him in a tux— he’ll look awesome. Combat gear— awesome. A three piece suite— awesome. Driving? Fighting? Being brought into M’s office? Having women want him?
The list goes on and this guy makes the mark on each.
Connery was interesting because he was cool, nonchalant, cynical, and could project personal fear when in danger. Moore couldn't pull off Connery, which is why he really never seemed to be in danger. I've never bought the Moonraker centrifuge scene as RM's ability to project fear.
Craig projected some of what Connery did, but never Connery's cool, nonchalance. Nonetheless, I enjoyed DC as Bond.
Moving beyond Craig, I hope the producers find an actor who can mashup Connery and Craig without being Moore or Brosnan. For me it always comes down being Bond as opposed to playing the role of Bond.
That was more directed at the cast of characters rather than Bond specifically. To make my point clear, Connery says he preferred the earlier films because there was more rounded characters and dynamics for his Bond to bounce off of. By the time we reach YOLT, the characters are one dimensional and there’s more emphasis on the spectacle, set design, etc. It’s a big factor in why Connery became less engaged. Had he been given the OHMSS that Peter Hunt made, I have confidence that would have kept him more engaged than he was in YOLT. He might have delivered his best performance in that film.
Yes, that would be exactly my view too.
I like the Sope appreciation going on here.
He is very alpha male, with a good strong voice, and all the necessary features associated with the character of James Bond.
Exactly the sort of (fairly) low profile you want for a Bond actor. Of course it's just an opinion, but I've got a very strong feeling this is our man.
Yes I agree with pretty much all of this. Bond's fears in the books were fairly normal and human. He even had a fear of flying during one novel, when turbulence suddenly strikes.
I would also like to see the return of Bond alone on a mission, without a Scooby gang or a female 007 in tow either accompanying him.
He doesn't tally with the Fleming description, so it's a massive no from me. And there are other candidates touted around at the moment who are far stronger than Sope.
I hate to rain on your parade, but it won't be Sope as the next Bond. I am 100% certain.
For me, it's quite important the next guy matches Fleming's description in some way. I actually though Daniel Craig wasn't as good choice as Bond, and he's still my least favourite. As good an actor as he is, and as good as CR and SF were, I never quite believed in him as Bond.
I don’t think Sean was into that.
As long as he's a handsome, sells the action and can please a crowd. I'm sure that can't be too difficult.
I don't think many people are that bothered if we get a Fleming-true Bond or not. Someone did say there's no chance of a black Bond because of how other countries would react. Here in the UK I don't think a different Bond would hurt the box office, but I don't know if that's true in other parts of the world.
I'd like another Tim Dalton doing a film every two years, but I don't think either will happen.
When Daniel got the role in 2005, he wasn't unknown, as much as he was an unfamiliar face. He'd worked with Angelina Jolie, Paul Newman, Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg and most importantly he'd had several lead/co-lead roles.
The great thing with Sope and my own choice for the role, Leo Suter, is they're both young and talented actors. They've both got time to round themselves as actors and polish their C.V's
An actor that looks fresh-faced in 2023, might well be the perfect Bond in 2026.