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 am perplexed that Wilson championed him.
You people think Sam Neill was awful?
Have you not seen Mr. Brolin's audition? That's what I'd call awful!
:))
"Funny you should say that..."
And suddenly I like you.
I'll love anybody who has Dalton as his favourite, even Trump, I might stop at Cruz :))
On that we agree.
I knew you would :D
I think Cubby always knew what he did to his last breath.
Like when he hired American John Gavin to play bond?
Cubby was visionary, but not perfect.
British born or British background can work. Cary Grant for example was an American of British background.
Michael York? Hmmm.
Jeremy Irons? Irons might have been an good choice in 1980 that producers might have regretted later on...don't think about Irons as you knew him by the mid-80s. Go back to The French Lieutenant's Woman. He had a presence. He could have been Bond for that era. Ultimately, though, he may have been perceived as too sensitive and fragile.
Mark Rylance wasn't known yet. Neither was Julian Sands.
Rutger Hauer? Not British. (Nor, at the very least, an Aussie)
Nigel Terry? Too artsy. Perhaps, like Irons, too fragile.
Liam Neeson? Possibly.
Gabriel Byrne? He would have been an interesting choice. Like Neeson, he was young and relatively unknown, but he had "the look."
This leaves us with one choice. And don't laugh. Because you have to forget everything you know now and go back to 1979 and his two performances in Tim and Mad Max...and then see the work he did in The Year of Living Dangerously.
That's right.
Mel Gibson.
His acting was OK and his take on the romantic side of things would, I think, have been Conneryesque. Watch him in "The Professionals" and you might see how he could have been the Daniel Craig of his day (but admittedly he was not as good an actor). He said that Cubby thought him "too arrogant" for the role, which is interesting. I imagine Cubby was anxious to avoid difficult stars after the way Connery and Lazenby's relationship with him went.
I think so. Especially after the most extravagant Bond movie of Moore's tenure. But maybe a more serious Bond would have been better accepted?
That's common knowledge. I remember how the media from the beginning supported Brosnan wholeheartedly. It was kind of a given regarding the history of the franchise that Brosnan would take over.
Brosnan went the same road as Moore and Dalton before him.
Nobody was surprised, as it was widely known that Brosnan would have taken over in 1997. It was all over the media back then.
Brosnan didn't get any opposition. None.