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'm only 5'9'' and kind of scrawny, and of course as a guy I'm always aware of how much your physical presence comes into play when interacting with other men, particularly when you are in your teens and twenties. Even in non-violent situations it tends to be a factor, which is why a character's height tends to be really important to me in a story - is he an underdog or an 'alpha' in a physical situation. O'Connell plays Paddy Mayne in SAS Rogue Heroes, and he's framed as a very romantic figure, and underdog from the sticks with a self-destructive streak that causes him to pick fights in bars where the odds are against him, sort of a warrior-poet.
In real life Paddy Mayne was a big man who had found fame as a Rugby Union player for both Ireland and Britain (a sportswriter once said "Mayne, whose quiet almost ruthless efficiency is in direct contrast to O'Loughlin's exuberance, appears on the slow side, but he covers the ground at an extraordinary speed for a man of his build, as many a three quarter and full back have discovered"). This makes his tendency to start fights much less self-destructive in real life, where he would have often been the biggest man in the room, and makes him more of a bully than an underdog in those situations. Casting O'Connell was probably a smart move on their part to make him more sympathetic in those situations. Physicality is important in things like this. Bond, imo, should come across as tall, and the only guys that should dwarf him should be monstrous, the stuff of legend.
I agree with you completely about Sean Bean, he's a very powerful actor when he's using his own Yorkshire accent, but always feels forced to me when 'poshing-up'. Check out Florence Pugh in Lady Macbeth to see how much gravitas you can get out of that accent - it's amazing.
Food for thought and nicely composed, @sandbagger1 ...
Might just be me, but I think it’s quite interesting that Moore and Connery (and I suppose Craig and Brosnan too) were from working/lower middle class backgrounds. Definitely none of the actors came from the relatively wealthy, boarding school educated, continental travelling background of James Bond.
Not sure if it’s anything to read into, but even Fleming’s Bond’s wasn’t the sort of character I can imagine feeling comfortable with a group of back slapping ‘old boy’ types, and it’s the same case with any of the film incarnations. Bond is far too much a loner, and even amongst the wealthy in the novels didn’t always feel comfortable (just going from the character’s concept of money/wealth he was too indulgent and generous with his own to be a stingey ‘old money’ type, and yet lived otherwise modestly and by own accounts didn’t want too much of it). That and I suppose all of the Bond actors I mentioned probably had aspects of their performances/acting style in some way shaped by their life experiences. So maybe it’s that sort of dissonance between the actor and character’s background that helps create that - the ability to both look comfortable in a casino, a fancy car or a tuxedo, and yet in some way be above the glitzy superficiality of those things. I dunno…
Oh, I like these thoughts as well! Good reading on Sunday morning!!! Keep it up, fellas....
Watching all the Indy movies last month, I thought I'd like Bond 26 to be a bit like Temple of Doom: a brilliant an unexpected opening, and then somehow in heading back home, Bond gets caught up in an unofficial (not rogue!) adventure.
I know there will be a big gap between NTTD and B26, but I feel there will still need to be a buffer before a true return to normal (if we ever even get there). So no normal mission, but also no origin story. Just a good PTS that sends him off track into an adventure. Maybe the MI6 crew can make an appearance in the second half or something, but better not to rush that.
Very good. He would be well cast as Fleming.
Maybe Amazon should do a Fleming miniseries (again) or movie but with a meta-Being John Malkovich type twist where Bond and Fleming co-exist in the same world. As kind of a palate cleanser before the next guy...they could have Brosnan or Dalton narrate it.
They could adapt the two Pearson books.
I think CR captures that idea and provides us more insight into Bond more than any other film. I love that train conversation between Bond and Vesper. She points out the obvious disdain Bonds projects while looking entirely natural in a tux or tailored suit. Again, what a wonderful script and film that nothing was able to match.
"We found a guy to play James Bond. He wears a toupee!"
"We found a guy to play James Bond. He's an inexperienced car salesman from Down Under currently modelling undies."
"We found a guy to play James Bond. He'll be in his mid-forties when he takes the role."
"We found a guy to play James Bond. He's a theatre actor who will spit out 'funny lines' as if they give him stomach ulcers."
"We found a guy to play James Bond. He makes pain faces that scare away birds from grain fields and he talks with a slightly raspy Irish voice."
It's just a thought I had recently. Our beloved Bond actors may all have been considered wrong for some reason by angry Internet mobs, don't you think? ;-) Well, we know what happened to the sixth guy...
This is hilarious! And honestly, I think Sean would get the worst of it....
Yes! Think about it. Imagine if we were offered a new actor today. One who wears a toupee. This place would EXPLODE! So perhaps that teaches us something...
It reminds me of someone I was talking with on ajb before CR was released: they were deep into all of the Craig-not-Bond stuff and always kept going on about The Formula of Bond films which must never be diverted from. I asked them to imagine a Bond film starring a fair-haired Bond, who never wears a dinner suit, never orders a martini, doesn't go to M's office, doesn't appear in the PTS, in which Q doesn't appear, the baddie has supernatural powers, the theme song is part reggae etc. etc. Amazingly they said they'd hate it and wouldn't watch it, whereas I'm sure everyone reading this has worked out I was talking about Live And Let Die.
And that's the thing: every slight new idea over the last 60 years would have been approached with horror if it were to happen now, but because we've lived with these older films for so much longer we don't even notice the slight changes from one to the next. If you've come to Bond fandom in the last 20 years just imagine the reaction to TWINE: there's an awful lot in that which breaks the established rules, but we don't even notice it now.
People forget how odd a choice Connery was for Bond. He literally played the role with a Scottish accent.
Think that was Jack Bannon in the potential Bond actor’s thread. Still think he’d be a good pick personally.
Well, we don't know who is wearing a toupee now. Cavill? Fassbender?
To be fair I don't think anyone's saying people can't or even shouldn't do that here. I think the main point is that perhaps some of the stuff that we might focus on when thinking about certain actors for this role might not be as much their detriment as we might think, and often they drift into being superficialities.
Oh yes. And honestly, I'm fully prepared for fan criticisms when the next Bond actor is announced. There'll never be a situation where every one of us will be happy, even if we haven't actually seen them onscreen yet.
But if it's any consolation (and I mean this in a positive way) none of us truly know what we're talking about anyway when it comes to the next Bond actor/the 'potentials' at this early stage, so it's just as well. Whoever is cast will be cast for a reason.
That's a perfect example of the outrage-before-thinking phenomenon. Yes, Bond fans can be strict and protective of what is perceived as 'formula', something dogmatic. I, for one, am glad that Brosnan wasn't succeeded by another easy-on-the-eye, perfectly coiffed male model. I like Brosnan, but Craig was a whiff of fresh air with looks that were, at least initially, challenging to a lot of people, and an unwavering arrogance we hadn't seen since Lazenby. But he absolutely nailed the part in CR. Not once, while watching the film for the first time, did I think that the bloke in the tux wasn't James Bond.
I recall the days before CR. I remember the media giving Craig an extremely hard time. I remember the mockery from CraigNotBond. Craig didn't fit the picture. Well, CR reframed the picture in my opinion, and quite well. I don't mind an actor who challenges my preconceived notions of what constitutes "a good James Bond."
I think Bond fans want "their Bond". The past is watched with modern eyes.
For many people the Bond Formula was the Brosnan Formula. They looked the past with that in mind.
Yeah I like new stuff; I like to be challenged a bit. I have all of the old films, I don't need another one. I actually remember having a slight pang of disappointment at going to see Goldeneye in the cinema (don't get me wrong, I did enjoy it, but I did have a slight niggle with it) that it felt so close to being a standard Bond film- a mix of an 80s Roger with a Tim one maybe, and I could watch all of those on telly.
I don't want them to forget what Bond is totally, I want that feel of a Bond film, but I want it to move on in some form and give me something new; be of the now.
And that's the tricky part here sometimes.
Sometimes I imagine the media cycle if a Lazenby-esque casting happened today. Inconceivable of something like that occurring again for a project of that scale.
The former CraigsNotBond people would probably herald the return of the 'Classic James Bond' just because some generic tall, dark, and handsome guy was back in the role. Then the film would come out and everyone would turn on him.
I like Craig but a tall, dark and handsome guy might work now because he is not Craig.
I don't need a clone of Craig now. We had the real one for 15 years.
I didn't say one wouldn't, it just seems like a section of people (not on this forum, but generally) would be satisfied with any good-looking model in the role, even if they lack in acting ability. Then when someone unconventional like Craig gets cast, they immediately reject him.
That being said, I think Craig's casting has set a new precedent, and Eon will want to continue going after less obvious choices for the part, further pushing the boundaries of who and what James Bond can be. That could mean an actor of a different race, one who isn't conventionally attractive, masculine looking, or all three.
Ultimately, what matters is if they have something interesting to offer. Something we haven't seen before. And coming after Craig, that will be no easy task.