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
And for a lot of people not even that. Not me, certainly. But I quite appreciate FYEO and OP, so... Hmm.
Anyway, a change of actor has always been foretold by a poorly received Bond film, not a well received one (aside from YOLT).
OHMSS - badly received by public at the time, most people didn't like the actor.
DAF - well, Connery was only coming back one more time but this is generally seen as the weakest of Connery's era.
AVTAK - Moore was declared way too old.
LTK - too dark for a Bond film at the time, public never really warmed to Dalton.
DAD - eeuuuugh...
SP - Maybe? ??????
I know it's usually more 'exciting' to see the new guy wear the tuxedo, but IMO Sean, Roger and even Pierce didn't give us their best performance in DN, LALD and GE respectively. (I say "even Pierce" because GE is perhaps my favourite Bond film.) Yes, costs go up, which is why Disney needs to dig deeper and deeper every time they want Robert Downey Jr back as Iron Man. But hey, it works. Same with Bond. I bet you a large majority of casual and die hard Bond fans demands Craig back for Bond 25. Most of them and us would have been livid had they recast the role for QoS (especially seeing how much of a "saving grace" Craig is to that film.)
So I find it weird to imagine that if we get another 10 Bond films, it'd be with 10 different actors. That doesn't say "smart move" in my opinion. Rather, that reads like "franchise in big trouble". Look at certain other franchises in trouble:
- Jack Ryan: Baldwin (1), Ford (2), Affleck (1), Pine (1), ?
- Terminator: Furlong (1), Stahl (1), Bale (1), Clarke (1), ?
I don't see anything wrong with Connery's performance in DN, Moore's performance in LALD, or Brosnan's performance in GE. They are most certainly far from their worst, respectively (DAF, TMWTGG or AVTAK, TWINE). Brosnan's performance in GE is not far from his best performance in TND, in my opinion.
Well we'd have all hated it if Craig were recast in QOS. Definitely. If he is recast now that is a different matter.
Well I would agree about peaking, actually.
You can't judge their portrayal the right way, The Bond actors grow in the role and get better each time till they get to their third and with their fourth its finally a Bond we love and we are used to.
So i guess the proper number of films is 4 or 5.
6 is too much and we both get tired. The fans and the actor who is playing Bond i think the best is 4 films.
and with 1 or two films the general audiences don't get to know the actor.
I bet for the causal movie goers who enjoy Bond but are not huge fans there are only 4 actors who portrayed Bond: Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Pierce Brsonan and Daniel Craig.
I really don't think that there should be a set number of films for any actor coming in. The focus should be on making really good films each and every time out. If they can keep that run going past five or six, or further, and everyone's still happy doing what they're doing, then by all means continue on.
Yeah, and it still gets me angry.
TB, MR, DAD, SP
I think TB was the result of the GF hype and of Cubby and Harry still going at it like mad. I honestly believe they could have used a two year pause from GF before going any further. It might have refuelled Connery too.
Say what you want about MR, I think Moore was great in it. He had found his Bond IMO, or rather, Bond had found his Roger. Either way, I like what he's giving in the film, despite the outrageous and excessive stuff the film delivers.
DAD should never have happened. Never!
I have not a lot of bad things to say about SP to be honest and certainly not about Craig in it.
Obviously @Troy meant in the future, because we can't change the past. I'm saying that a person playing Bond only once in the future is pretty damn unrealistic and will only happen if they had a major fallout with the rest of the crew (and that shouldn't happen). Technically, Lazenby did have that, but he also had advice to quit the role and believed that the franchise would expire in due time, which, well, it didn't. A modern Bond actor would never believe that. I can't see any future Bonds departing after just one attempt.
Personally I would love Christian Bale to take a crack at it, for one or two films, assuming they had a decent script and wanted to take it on a tangent for a couple before coming back to reality.