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
Not quite as jarring as the others, but something about Roger Moore's early career as a sweater model just doesn't scream Bond.
It's a very strange picture for me. Is he a red head or is he brunette? Is he 25 or 35? Is he smiling or has he just opened his mouth in the middle of speaking?
Moore and Brosnan "auditioned" for the role by playing "International Men of Mystery" on TV. The public had given them their seal of approval by watching those shows, so the Bond producers felt they were safe bets. I think that percieved "goodwill" was a factor in the producers picking them, despite both being in their 40s
I don't think there is an equivalent situation out there at the moment, so the producers will have to "play a hunch", "take a punt", as they did with the other actors who have been chosen for the role.
I think anyone who has passed the age of 40 is unlikely to be selected, which rules out perenial candidates like Idris Elba, Tom Hardy, Henry Cavill and Tom Hiddleston, as well as outsiders like Ben Barnes and Jamie Dornan.
That leaves the likes of Sam Clafin, Kit Harington, Regie-Jean Page and Nicholas Hoult
We are currently living in a "bearded age" and many of the actors under consideration only really look the part when they have a bit of growth going, is the World ready for a bearded Bond?
I think that depends on whether they choose the right actor for it. Maybe a Bond with a light stubble beard?
Stubble beard, no. Or have it as a cover and shave it off early on after a mission like SF is fine.
Also, Moore was meant to be a transition Bond, if I'm not mistaken, for a shorter tenure. In any case, he was cast in a time of crisis for the franchise when they needed a more famous actor to get out of the large shadow of Connery.
Talking of transition Bond, isn't the casting process now a bit like a conclave? The cardinal walking in as presumptive pope walks out still a cardinal. Might be the same for Bond: those the general public consider the best candidates will not get the role.
Becoming a star after the age of forty is quite unlikely.
Moore's casting was a risk in that sense. But it paid off getting an actor confident and seasoned. If this time round they wanted to lean into a slightly younger Bond I can see them going more early 30s than late 30s/early 40s. Just depends on what they want. But it's very possible an actor now could start at 42 and do ten years as Bond (so three films effectively) and still look good in their early 50s, which was effectively the case with Brosnan.
No idea. Perhaps with how stripped back LALD and TMWTGG were they might have presumed a yearly cycle was possible in the short term (although by the time we get to YOLT it's two year gaps I suspect due to the scale of the films).
Indeed, he was older than Connery for his whole life! :P
Broccoli and Saltzman were also basically taking it turns to be lead producer on the films at that point too I think, so along with being slightly smaller productions I guess that made it possible. Personally I prefer the approach from Spy onwards: Spy is almost a reboot of the series.
😂
Not to put on my pedantic glasses, but LALD released June 73 (USA) and TMWTGG released December 1974, so there was actually 18 months between films.
Thunderball (Dec 1965) to YOLT (June 1967) was similarly 18 months.
They were famous tv actors. But I'd argue that Brosnan wasn't that famous. He was mostly known for being the actor who should have been James Bond. I know that's why between 1989 and 1995 I watched every tv miniseries and B movie he starred in I could find.
From what I understand they wanted to establish Moore as Bond quickly, so they rushed TMWTGG after the success of LALD.
Yes, as a tv actor. He played in lots of b movies. As a main character in a major film he didn't have much. Maybe only The Lawnmower Man.
Dalton lived in Brosnan's shadow in the US. It's ironic (even though I preferred Dalton to Brosnan). The best thing that happened to Brosnan and his career was publicly losing the role. Instead of being a TV actor, he was suddenly Bond-worthy.
http://pbfiles.net/interviews/Inter047-People-The_Spy_Whos_Loved_Too_Much_1986.html?i=1
Brosnan was famous for the role he didn't have at the time.
I listened to this; it was excruciating
Until The Sun newspaper confirm it, it's never official.
:))
=;
As for the actor - his age should be the least of our worries. If EoN's track record since 2005 is anything to go by, they will look to other franchises and movies to see what is trending (they did exactly that with CR through to SP...) and just go with that for sheer lack of own inspiration.
So looking at Hollywood's trends in the last year we can see that they are re-hashing a lot of old stories, playing it safe with casting and using a lot of virtual production.
https://signalscv.com/2024/08/movie-trends-a-look-at-2024-top-grossing-films/
My bet is for a very populist choice, an actor around 35 with broad appeal, far more of a 'safe bet' than DC was 20 yrs ago... and a script that essentially copies one of the more popular movies that do well with the broader crowd, such as TB, TSWLM, GE, CR, SF
Saying stuff like 'big franchise films with 'recycled' stories, safe casting choices, and lots of VFX have done well' has been the case for at least a decade now. It's not new and means absolutely nothing in the context of trying to craft a Bond film. To some extent all Bond movies take things from each other as well, so reworking something is pretty much guaranteed no matter what it is. I'm sure they keep an eye on what's being released, but we're talking about a creative direction in this case. This time round Bond doesn't have the same criticisms it faced in 2004/5 (namely the over-reliance on fantastical gadgets and scenarios) which stood in contrast to the Bourne films.
It depends on what you mean by an actor having 'broad appeal'. I think the issue is there'll always be some push back with the new Bond actor, regardless of who they are. Are we talking about someone along the lines of Henry Cavill as a 'safe bet' with his level of fame? As we've discussed here he's actually not a very safe bet at all, and to some extent the new actor has to become Bond in the eyes of the public.
The rumour is false.
I read a few months Amazon were acquiring new studios space in the UK.
According to the Bray Studios Wikipedia page the studios are owned by Amazon Prime Video.