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
Did you miss the plot point where Safin survived dioxin poisoning as a child? Dioxin among other horrible things destroys skin. Look at former Ukranian president Yuschenko who was poisoned with the stuff some years ago. It makes total sense plot wise why Safin looks the way he looks.
If Bond 26 is going to be another reboot ??? It could be part of the pts, to show where Bond gets a facial scar.
Similar to how Indiana Jones gets his scar in The Last Crusade, to match that of Harrison Fords.
It's a subtle piece of character, that Fleming fans would enjoy, and the general audience wouldn't really worry about.
Well it is a big plot point, but I think they should avoid giving them to just the baddies. After all, quite a few of the women in Fleming's novels had something imperfect about their physical appearances: it is an invention of the films that only the baddies have scars etc. I know Camille had an injury, but it was conveniently out of sight! :)
Yes I think that would be good. It'd be a nice thing to just distinguish him a bit from the last.
I didn’t mean it in a derogatory way. it’s just less of a mouthful than typing “fans who want things to stick as closely as possible to the novels” every time. Purist by definition means sticking to traditions, and I’ve definitely seen it used in the context of source material before (the google definition gives this example, “the production has yet to offend Gilbert and Sullivan purists"), nothing to do with nazis or whatever.
Exactly! :)
That's alright, @thelivingroyale, I only reacted badly to it because some member do make a point of using it in a derogatory fashion. Not you, of course.
My main candidate, as of late ;) And only because I believe he's the right age, has the right looks, right voice, good presence, curriculum - good and bad -, and...the bloody eyebrows ;)
I have never considered him at all but yes I could see that potentially.
I too have only seen him in the Inbetweeners film and he's so odious in that to the point where his performance had coloured my opinion of him. Just shows what a good actor he is I suppose!
Watching the clip above, the first image that came to mind was him exchanging flirtatious banter as he waits to be called into M’s office.
I know it's hard to judge from a clip, but I wouldn't be opposed to his casting. Certainly has the right looks, height, acting ability and charisma. One to keep tabs on for sure. Be surprised if he's not on a shortlist.
Well, he’s 36, an ideal age, and will steadily become more seasoned. At the rate these films are made a youthful appearance is an asset.
You're not wrong there. Plus the experience of making one, if the Daniel Craig films are anything to go by, will age a person pretty bloody quickly.
I would be fine with him
I really hear this debate. Often, I weirdly do find myself agreeing with both sides.
If you take away the core of the character and make him a different ethnicity or gender, aren't you ridding Bond of some of the fundamental DNA which the character was built upon? What then distinguishes Bond from Atomic Blonde or The Protagonist in Tenet? Aside from the tropes of the franchise (gunbarrel, theme music, etc), what would make this any different from another spy franchise without the core of the character maintained?
Nevertheless, I do find that there have been instances where the franchise broke the rules themselves. For example, Daniel Craig was really someone on paper that didn't tick many of the boxes. That move payed off in dividends. In many respects, someone like Daniel Craig seems more revolutionary a choice on paper than someone like Rege-Jean Page who seems far more traditional.
It's for this reason that, on balance, I believe the riskier and more edgy choice should be made. I quite like this new era Eon have entered where bold choices are not shied away from. I don't necessarily think it's likely they will cast an actor of colour as Bond. However, if Idris Elba was 35 today, he'd be hard to say 'no' to....The same could be said about Rege-Jean Page. He's literally done one thing so far, so if he can bring the goods in his upcoming projects, he would, again be someone difficult for Eon to say 'no' to.....He's basically treating his life as a James Bond audition. He was at the premiere for 'The Tragedy of Macbeth' and all I see is 007
Am I right to assume that, so far, Theo James gets the more consensus? Have we found our common ground? I’m so happy we did, if we did. Maybe we have found our “FRWL” candidate. In the sense that no Bond fan would say it’s the worst Bond film or that it’s bad. And most of us love it.
So there IS the possibility of common ground amongst us. Cool.
who casted Brosnan then ;)
it should be Cubby cast the first 5 and Babs casted Craig
Just look at this guy. You can tell right away he is evil.
Don’t know how I managed to miscount there haha. But yeah exactly, Brosnan was Cubby’s final Bond really, and I think the difference between his relationship with EON and Craig’s speaks volumes. Getting sacked vs getting a co-producer credit, creative control, etc. I’m sure she liked Pierce as a person, but they seem much more satisfied with their edgier choice. Why else would they go to such lengths to keep him happy?
That doesn’t necessarily mean we’ll get someone similar to Craig next time. But I do think Craig’s casting, success, and how happy EON were with him has blown the net wide open in terms of potential candidates. Physically, I’d imagine it’s anything goes now, within limits obviously (he’ll still have to have sex appeal and be in decent shape, for example).
"God willing" ? Do you believe in a racist Almighty ?
I'd need to actually watch him in something to see if he's any good first, and he's not appeared in anything I've seen. I'm open to all suggestions but I need to see how good they are first. It looks like he's playing the co-lead in the new Steven Moffat version of The Time Traveler's wife, which I will certainly watch.
He was good in Archive, which is also a great little film .
I am fine with Theo James
and according to ths
https://divergent.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Big_Brother_99/Theo_James_Confirmed_As_New_James_Bond:_Actor_To_Star_Next_To_Emilia_Clarke
he is the next Bond and Bond 25 will be his first film... did I dream No time to die? lol
I thought he was good in Divergent, but it's a Young Adult adaptation, so you may not enjoy it (I found it entertaining myself).
For a more grown-up role, Backstabbing For Beginners is worth checking out.
I do think you'll be a little underwhelmed - Theo James is a very solid actor, but he can't lift lacklustre material like a true star can, imo. But then, there are very few of those around.
Okay thanks, I'll see if I can find it. Sounds very Ex Machina! :)
Thanks. Yes that's the worry. I don't really want someone who's just fine.
Haven t seen that, but yes. The subject matter is sort of similar.
Wanting Bond to remain Caucasian is , for the vast majority who feel that way, not based In racism; it’s simply a preference. Jumping to the racism motive is prejudiced.
I’ve said that I prefer Bond to remain white, but I would go see a spy film featuring someone like Idris Elba in the drop of a hat.