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
There was something offhand in the recent podcast that hinted that Gregg Wilson recently did something wrong or off-putting from Eon's perspective (I doubt that this was his comment in the WSG about diversity because we know Barbara made similar comments). I have no idea what it was. Maybe he didn't have the same producer chops as Barbara and Michael, and they decided time was up.
I agree completely. Fleming was always trying to sell the rights to whatever story to any number of companies. For him, it came down to money.
Fleming was a bit like Robert DeNiro. "What's that, a script? I'll do it!"
If it's a contemporary Bond movie, Bond can be any race (supposedly by 2060, the UK will be majority-minority). There are, in fact, Black and Asian people at Eton, Oxford, etc.
If it's period, then I think he needs to be white because of the old boys club.
I love Fleming's novels and think that DNA should always be there with the cinematic character (with EON I think that thread is what made those films work in terms of what they built upon, and was always there, no matter how far they strayed) but I think it's a mistake to try and definitely say what Fleming would have wanted. Especially considering we're talking of hypotheticals and things he never had the chance to think about in the same way we do. His opinions towards his literary character were probably contradictory in interviews, and certainly how he felt about the first two Bond movies would not have been recognisable to us Bond fans. It certainly gives us no indication of this.
If fans want to stick to Fleming's text and believe that's the blueprint of casting, fine. But it's such a specific thing getting an actor with black hair, blue eyes, and is 6 foot. You discount actors like Moore or Craig (even Connery if you go further with his brown eyes and Scottish accent). I genuinely don't believe, and can't see, how it's an argument to hold validity on.
🤭
Anyway, here's an interesting article from Telegraph suggesting Amazon have made a Bond type product - Citadel - and it wasn't good.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/amazon-james-bond-citadel-russo-brothers/
Looking at it from a more positive perspective, it's possible the mistakes in Citadel may be avoided with Bond. If certain elements in Citadel - plot, casting, use of locations etc - didn't gel then Amazon will know what to avoid when making Bond 26. Citadel getting negative feedback may not automatically mean Bond 26 will be similar.
I want to know! They weren't spilling on the podcast...but why didn't they pass Eon to the next generation, or to a hybrid Barbara/Gregg situation? Somebody DM me.
Heck, Fleming only wrote in Bond’s Scottish lineage as a nod to Connery.
Does the actor look like he could hold his own in a fight, with all but the most physically privileged opponents?
Does he look like he could seduce any woman he wants? Bearing in mind, he doesn’t have to be conventionally attractive; Casanova had a big nose, scars, and a wart on his chin and he did just fine.
If the answer to both of these questions is ‘yes’, then he probably has the look to play Bond.
Things like hair, eye, and skin colour have no bearing on either of these qualities. A blonde-haired man can be just as sexually attractive and alluring as a dark haired one, and a brown-eyed man can be just as physically proficient as a blue-eyed one. What’s important is how Bond's appearance communicates aspects of his character.