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
Also the rumors that Beyonce and Jay Z are divorcing, which appeared right as they're going on tour. Its going to sell tickets. Its probably even manufactured. Same with Solange Knowles hitting Jay Z. Her sales went up 200% after that. Statistics shw all publicity = more money = good publicity
Bad publicity can render your product redundant. People who make money from column inches and exposure court press, whether good or bad. Bond films need to compete with the rest of Hollywood and their own legacy. Having cast Bardem in your previous movie, hauled in an Oscar for title song, grossed 1bn at the BO and been roundly lauded by critics, one would expect a continuation of these lofty achievements/aspirations. Casting The Rock does not align with this sentiment. As @Germanlady said, he exists in his own world. The Rock, is The Rock, is The Rock. He is not Bond material.
And Daniel Craig was before Casino Royale? Your saying The Rock is too recognizable? Is the issue that you think he will pull people out of the film because of their recognition? He's not Madonna.. He's a real actor.
Are you seriously suggesting that 'The Rock' is maverick casting in the vein of Craig?
The Rock is one of the most recognisable caricatures in cinema. He comes with so much inherent baggage that it would be a ludicrous casting decision. I'm not saying it would turn people off the movie, the general public have debatable taste the majority of the time, but it would certainly taint the 'brand' which, let's be honest, is in pretty rude health.
On the one hand you have the ability to find a physically imposing nobody who will, in all likelihood, become synonymous as 'that guy in (insert b24 title)', or alternatively you have '(insert b24 title), is that the one with The Rock in it?. I know which I'd rather have.
I can't see any A-list actress as the sacrificial lamb Bond girl for similar reasons, for instance.
So, actually, if you think about publicity casting, you should look for specifically not an actor, in my opinion (like, for instance, Goldie). I know it's impossible to prove and we'll never know, but a random choice like Jonah Lomu would be more likely than The Rock I think. Even though Jonah Lomu as a henchman has "Pierce Brosnan Bond movie" written all over it.
Dwayne Johnson is a muscled guy who can throw a punch, run like a leopard and deliver a good Arnold line. And that's great! Again, I like the man. But I simply can't see him function in a Bond film just yet. He would feel out of place. There's a reason the likes of Sly, Vin Diesel, Bruce Willis, Jet-Li, Jackie Change, Bruce Lee, John Travolta, ... never get / got a part in a Bond film. You don't eat doughnuts, no matter how good, with foie gras.
It's hard to put into words when casting choices are poor but as with porn, I think we can all agree we'll recognise it when we see it. ;-)
The publicity argument doesn't work for me. There's bad publicity and there's bad publicity. Heath Ledger's suicide was bad publicity but The Dark Knight didn't suffer from it. Rather the opposite I'd say. But then Nolan hadn't cast Justin Bieber in his film either. THAT would have been damagingly bad publicity. ;-)
Well to be fair then, Dimi, The Rock is not Justin Bieber. But I do think your right. Perhaps the wine that is The Rock is not quite.. Er.. Fermented enough for Bond yet. I do usually prefer the nobody casting, especially for baddies, but they haven't come close to nailing it for the henchman in Craig's era, nobody or not. Perhaps a larger actor would require a larger role in the henchman spot, and we might actually get a side baddie who actually serves a purpose. Quantum/LeChiffres goons were all nobodies and purposeless, same with Elvis, and Patrice could have easily had a better role or just been written out altogether.
But I would not be dissapointed if they cast The Rock. I don't think it would be Justin Bieber bad, but rather, as with the Batfleck example I gave, peak some of the audiences curiosities.
Plus the guy has history with the franchise. That's a relatively rare thing, and quite a good story if he were to find a part.
He's not Daniel Craig, no, but I think the producers taught us with CR that they can occasionally positively surprise us.
I don't think The Rock will be cast because even though he'd probably make a good henchman he's too famous and would probably come with too big a paycheck for such a small part. But I don't see anything wrong with @JWESTBROOK suggesting him. He's a decent actor, he's huge, menacing and he has presence. I think he's a good choice for a henchman. And how would casting him be any different than casting some unknown body builder? The Rock is famous sure and some people would complain but I think @JWESTBROOK is right, it'd bring more publicity than some unknown body builder (which I think is a good thing). And besides, maybe there'd be some people bitching about how they've gone from Bardem to The Rock but at the end of the day it wouldn't stop anyone seeing the film. And maybe some people who havenMt seen a Bond film before but like The Rock would go and see it because of him. He's also a big name in America (a market where Bond doesn't normally do huge business) so that'd help, and he's only the henchman. The main villain would still probably be played by a more arty actor (Chiwetel Efijor if rumours are true).
Again, not saying this will happen, just saying I don't think having The Rock as a henchman would be a bad idea at all.
And to be honest I think some of us are overestimating Bond's value. Yeah Skyfall won some Oscars and now we have a posh theatre director making them but at the end of the day the Bond films are action films; escapist entertainment just like any other action franchise. And I think rather than acting like they're above these other franchises such as Fast And Furious, Mendes and everyone else making the new Bond films could actually learn a thing or two (the action scenes and fight scenes in the last two Fast And Furious films blow any of the action scenes and fight scenes in Skyfall out of the water).
Although I'm not really a wine drinker. Give me a nice cold lager any day ;)
Yes I think I forgot I have to include that on every post on this site. And thank you for clarifying.
You thank me, in your opinion? Thanks imo. Humble, humble opinion. That is a fact.
Bond 24: BETWEEN THE ROCK AND A HARD PLACE. The place to be.
My thought exactly.
I love them both, for different reasons. Variety is the spice of life.
Robert Shaw? He didn't win an Oscar, but he was an amazing actor, maybe the greatest to ever be in a Bond movie. And a true artist. And he played maybe the best henchman in the series, mute for most of the movie, yet had presence.
I am not saying all henchmen should be played by such actors, but there is nothing wrong about sometimes getting someone with actual acting skills and can display menace without grunting.
This.
I don't class Red Grant as a henchman, I class him as a villain. I guess technically he is but he's developed well, he gets lots of screentime (more than the other villains) and he interacts and talks with Bond more than the other villains in FRWL do.
And no The Rock is no Robert Shaw but he is a decent actor and since the casting call said they'd have someone from a sports background I doubt Hinx, or whatever he'll end up being called, will be a challenging role that needs a really good actor to play him.
Well, I do class Grant as the main antagonist of FRWL (sharing it equally withRosa Klebb), but he is still a henchman (the henchman can be the main villain, heck, sometimes more than the higher ranking badguy). I don't think The Rock is really Bond villain material, for the reasons other people stated (too famous, too associated with dumb action movies), I also think his acting skills are rather limited compared to Craig and that makes him not ideal. They can go for a bodybuilder or an actor with limited skills, but then I would rather see a more unknown actor. And even then, maybe put against Craig, you might need someone with more than decent acting skills.
Yes that was his Grandfather
I do agree here @RC7. Such a line would be a bit.....inconsistent at least with the quality-Oscar-driven-approach from the previous Bond film.
Still, let us not forget that we're still talking about the henchman here and not the leading villain. The fact that a henchman will be included in Bond 24 could give away the inclusion of a larger criminal organisation/syndicate that is behind the lead villain's scheme.
Having said that I would welcome more headlines like these:
"Christoph Waltz plays lead villain, Kevin Durand as henchman" or,
"Daniel-Day Lewis is Blofeld, Dolf Lundgren the bulldozer henchman", or,
"Michael Shannon is 'Nr.2', Robert Maillet plays henchman", or,
"Michael Fassbender plays leading baddy and Kevin Durand is his sidekick"
He portrayed a rather humorous henchman in the film 'The Lone Ranger':
He was amazing in Penny Dreadful but I don't think he's Bond henchman material.