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
This may be controversial...but I don't really "get" how reusing actors in different roles is a "tradition." To me it's just Cubby wanting to get actors like Charles Gray or Joe Don Baker "on the cheap." Just ask Connery.
Dench is of course an exception because she is a treasure and an institution, and Barbara didn't have the heart to tell her she was out. Could anyone? Just try telling Judi Dench not to report to set!
But that doesn't mean they should re-cast, say, Fiennes.
Fair enough. I suspect they’ll instinctually go for someone a bit more high profile, but I do think Salmon has a good, effective presence even if he’s not the greatest actor in the world. He didn’t do much as Robinson, but I think seeing someone on the MI6 team who was younger and looked a bit more in his prime added a bit of legitimacy, as if he was an effective ally who could help head up an efficient team, and that Bond had that behind him (again, however superficial that was in practice). Kitchen, while great and had good chemistry with Brosnan in GE, was consciously quite a haggard looking Tanner, and someone who put his foot in his mouth/didn’t do much otherwise. Obviously prior to this we had an M/Minister of Defence over the age of 60 with large jowls and weren’t always depicted as entirely savy.
Salmon’s older now, but he could bring something cool to the role in a similar way. He’s an actor who could have conceivably played Bond at one time (I think he even stood in and played Bond for EON to screen test actresses) or at least comes across as someone who could conceivably have been an agent before becoming M. If they leaned into that idea for this new M/Bond’s relationship (ie more older/younger brother than the more paternal one we usually get) or do something a bit different with the character, I can see him working and perhaps even compliment/create a cool dynamic with the actor playing Bond in a way that doesn’t overshadow them.
A fine actress, but would not have worked as well in train scene.
Pike was easily the best thing about the over-hyped Saltburn for me, she's a brilliant and very skilful actor.
Indeed, it was more for practical reasons, but if casting a certain actor who appeared previously works creatively it’s also a nice nod in a way (for the record I don’t think getting Fiennes back is a good idea and I don’t think it’d be effective creatively). At least for someone like Salmon enough time has passed.
I can’t imagine Pike as M, although she’s fantastic.
The same with Rigg. I don't want to see someone in that role. I can't say the same with many other Bond films.
She is skilled, and is one of those actors I think could play any role presented to her.
I loved Green, but I could see another universe where Pike would knock it out of the park playing Vesper. And to see her and Craig play off each other may have the potential to melt my brain.
I certainly had very high hopes for both. Can't say that either disappointed, though I'm still a bit unsure about Waltz' Blofeld. I like the actor and his portrayal, but something fails to "click", and I can't quite put my finger on what that is.
I hope we see the villains plan told visually like in the old days. That's a big missing element. In the last two films, it feels like a distant, nebulous thing that the audience isn't really clear about.
When it comes down to it though, a Bond film needs a threat that’s visualised and tangible, I agree. A ticking bomb, a missile about to launch etc. Even convoluted films like FRWL boils down the concept of Bond being targeted into the PTS. Other films like DN aren’t quite as visual though, and if you watched the third act of that film without the sound on I don’t think the actual threat and understanding what Bond has to do would be clear (the toppling missiles thing is only brought up in dialogue once earlier on from what I remember, and the visuals of No’s control room doesn’t inherently lend itself to a clear explanation. It’s the sort of thing even watching the film normally that sort of comes from left field in a sense). I felt NTTD actually did this a lot better as we actually saw what the nanobots could do, and visually the beats were there. The buyer ships coming in and map with graphics, while not great, were better than how SP handled these sorts of visuals (ie. A countdown to a programme going doesn’t quite work as it can be taken down instantly). It’s just Safin’s actual villain monologue about why he’s doing this is a bit unclear. But I suspect without sound it’d be easier to understand than DN’s climax, albeit on a basic level.
It's why I think Thunderball has a bit of a failure of a villain's plan: once they're removed from the Vulcan we don't see the bombs again, and they're offscreen threatening cities we don't see and which Bond himself isn't in. Weirdly it might have actually helped to cut back to M and Moneypenny, because they're actually more under threat in the climax.
I feel like either you've got to actually see the method of destruction of these places and Bond should be with them (MR, GE, TSWLM etc.) and/or Bond himself has got to be personally in the firing line, otherwise the threat feels too detached.
Yeah, agreed about TB and DN. Young’s an interesting Bond director, but not always the most visually savvy with his storytelling decisions. FRWL is I think is by far his most cinematic Bond film in this regard. I think he benefitted from Hunt’s editing in this area too to bring more to certain scenes, and of course the script being more ironed out than DN’s.
I think it comes down to that old principle that showing (or conveying or whatever you want to call it) is more impactful than telling. Even when it comes to those expository villain monologues and not necessary the visuals. Something like Silva’s rat speech or Blofeld’s aside about the fish in FRWL are far more impactful and tell you a lot about their characters/goals compared to Safin outright giving his thoughts on free will/philosophically why he wants to use the nanobots (and even then I’m not entirely sure what he’s talking about).
Haha, fair enough about the sound. I wouldn’t recommend watching those films with the sound off either (although I do think visuals/how well a film is crafted is very important). I think for me it comes down to which Bond films best get me into the story and make me feel captivated and entertained. The visual storytelling’s a big part of it, and an issue I have with DN is that some of choices in this area aren’t always as impactful as they could be. An example I sometimes use is the dragon scene where Quarrel dies. The lighting is just a bit too dark, the camera angle on the dragon is a bit too wide at times and gives away just how cheap it looks in terms of it being a truck that’s had eyes/a mouth painted on. Some odd decisions such as a lack of score or close up on Bond perhaps looking back towards Quarrel’s body leave me feeling a bit cold/awkward, whereas it could have been a genuinely dark and even emotionally impactful moment if there’d been a bit more ambition with the filmmaking choices. Just things like that for me keep it from being a great Bond film, as much as I love it. I have similar issues with TB.
It’s why FRWL, SF and TSWLM are my favourite Bond films. For me the filmmaking of those movies are purposeful and precise, but in a way that gets me hooked into the story/not thinking consciously about what it’s doing, even though the impact is felt. But to each their own. We all have our favourite Bond films.
I appreciate Bond's line at dinner about getting revenge for Quarrel, but yes, a little moment of introspection or even an audible line by Bond in the moment would've been appreciated even more.
By the way, this isn’t me saying DN is a bad film at all. If the filmmaking for Bond’s introduction/slowly revealing him hadn’t been perfect then likely Bond wouldn’t have survived as a film series. It’s a just an early movie where EoN were still honing how to make a Bond film.
The bombs are a macguffin like the Lektor or the ATAC. It could be a pirate treasure or gold and it would be the same.
TB is the perfect summer movie. It's funny that they released this movie in December
I find Dr No kind of fascinating in that it feels like a 50s British movie made in colour, and then suddenly there's this pretty big leap to FRWL in only a few months. They really got where they were going, and Connery's portrayal came on a long way too- he's much more likeable in FRWL.
That's some Marvel level of film releases back then
Yeah definitely. I know people who have said to me they like DN because it has an old school cinematic quality. Other people I know say it’s dated haha. But yes, I think FRWL feels much more polished and Connery actually feels more human and Bond-like. I think a lot of it comes from Bond being less in control of the situation compared to DN (and it is genuinely odd how much Bond is one step ahead throughout that film until the very end, which is very unlike the literary character) and he’s on the back foot until the very end.
To be fair I suppose they had novels to adapt, and the simple truth is nowadays films cost and take more time to make at this level.