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
To make an announcement one week in advance. But sorry, if this article turns out to be untrue after all.
QoS was different, Forster just wanted to change the aesthetic.
Denis Khoroshko ... Palazzo Russian Boss
George Lasha ... Ukrainian Businessman
Wilhelm Iben ... Syringe Heavy
Bodo Friesecke ... Man in Cable Car
Andy Cheung ... Chinese Businessman
Amra Mallassi ... The Train Waiter
@JCRendle
I'm waiting for the day a Bond 'woman' just comes out and honestly admits she was chosen first for her looks and secondly for her acting prowess. It really would put a different spin on the marketing for sure. :)
Are you suggesting that Lea was cast mainly for her looks rather than her acting skills?
Thank you so much @Aaron819 . Stunning article, and it also confirms many of my anticipations.
I'm a little bit gutted myself that QoS seems to have stumped the progression of the Craig era, and it now seems like they're fully reverting to type. Not that it isn't exciting, but part of me is disappointed. I always thought the DC era would be really distinct and not really resemble the other films in too many ways.
Not Lea, but certainly some of the Bond 'girls' over the years. I'm not complaining. I don't care either way. We need thespians and we need eye candy. Both are essential to the Bond universe.
However, as @jobo suggests, it's somewhat tiresome to hear the same Bond 'woman' line about being 'Bond's equal' etc. We hear it every time there's a new Bond film. It's like they're trying too hard. Bond has no equal imho. That's why he's Bond ;)
The gun already make him stand aside.
Stand out darnit. I can't seem to edit with my phone.
For me personally the Brosnan era lacked any real distinctiveness. Brosnan's films for me always were like "trying to create a near-perfect blend of previous Bond outings, but then resulting in rather soul-less, copy-paste work of those previous films".
I think that's completely different with the Craig-era. IMO they ARE very distinct, have way more "soul", are tightly connected together because of continuity, and most of all work way way better because of truly believable characters. Something even the later Connery flicks did not have.
Brosnan's films are unashamedly a greatest hits era. I don't think it was ever really billed as anything beyond that. With DC I felt like CR set a template that the subsequent films would follow, I wasn't actually sure we'd see Q, MP, gadgets or any of the most distintive tropes throughout his tenure, I thought CR was so strong they wouldn't need to, instead leaving it bubbling under for the next actor. It felt like a launchpad to go and do everything a little differently. However, it seems QoS gave them cold feet, so in SF we got both MP and Q, the old MI6, the GF DB5 etc. I think SP will continue that trajectory, albeit with a twist. Q's lab will be back, no doubt. We'll probably have a classic villain's control room style lair and so on and so forth. I just often wonder where we'd be creatively if QoS had done SF figures because I think we'd be somewhere more interesting. Not necessarily better, or more exciting, but interesting.