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
This is nonsense. A lawsuit between Eon and Amazon will *delay* the film, not make it happen.
And by that point, it will be too late for Cavill to be Bond. On the plus side, it gives him time for acting classes.
I think a lawsuit is a reasonable, potential scenario. Put it this way, imagine you're Amazon and you want to make Bond films. You paid billions to acquire MGM studio and a 50 percent stake in the James Bond franchise.
Barbara Broccoli is refusing to work with Amazon (maybe she feels she is protecting the franchise and doing it for honourable reasons). Amazon don't care what her reasons are, all they want is to make Bond films, hopefully decent ones - but they can't wait years and years for Eon to be "ready." So if you were Amazon what would you do?
File a lawsuit for unreasonable delay.
I think Amazon have a good case. No Time To Die was released in 2021. It's original date was 2019 then 2020. It's almost 2025. If there's no development by summer or autumn 2025 maybe Amazon should say "that's it. We've had enough waiting. You haven't provided us with any screenplay, any draft, nothing. See you in court!"
Amazon can wait for years and years if they want to. They don't need Bond nor MGM. They make enough money but as they did buy MGM and they have half ownership of the Bond franchise they might as well file a lawsuit and get things moving.
It's possible the threat of a lawsuit might make Broccoli think twice about calling Amazon fking idiots! A reality check.🤭
He'd basically be a Moore-level choice, well-known but not obvious, with wide experience in film as opposed to Moore's TV resume.
I think Hoult would be a very solid and safe pair of hands for the series.
From what I’ve seen of him, he handles the press and media well. He’s also a very fine actor, who I believe could make a very credible Bond. Certainly different from Craig, so as not to be too comparable.
I’d be more than happy if he were cast.
We don't want Superman but we do want Lex Luthor. :-?
I think it's too late. I think that if EON wants someone little known they have to hurry. They are not the only ones who hire actors.
I'm not one of those people who say we can't have an actor connected to another franchise. Scheduling is the only real problem in my mind, and depending on DC's plans for Lex, that could be a problem.
He’s 35, so with no new film on the horizon if he were given the role, he could potentially be the same age as Craig in CR.
At the rate things are going, he might be old enough to play M when they start casting for Bond 26.
No but more seriously, there's another possibility: they could recast Luthor if he's cast as Bond. I still think a more mature and bulkier actor should play Superman's nemesis in any case.
Yes but I fear we'd get the Brosnan effect, where it looks like he ages 10 years between GE and TND.
Which absolutely was a positive; Brosnan looked his best in TND and TWINE.
Exactly…
As for Hoult, I really don't know. He's not someone I can picture in the role, but I like him as an actor.
Brosnan looked overfed in DAD.
Can you elaborate? I'm curious what the overlap is. Hoult seems far and away the more capable actor with a better resume. His daily voice isn't a concern, and there would be zero talk of nepotism given his wife isn't in bed with Eon already. I think Hoult is the clear winner out of the two, depending on schedule.
Haha, if I'm critical I will say it's clear at certain points they're trying to clothe Brosnan in particular ways (there's the fencing scene where Toby Stephens looks quite broad and toned in his vest. Brosnan, on the other hand, has long sleeves and there seems to be an effort to cover him up a bit more). I think he's also doing the thing Connery used to do (apparently) which was to suck in his stomach a bit during the scenes when he's in his hospital gown. I also remember some of his suits/clothes in that film being slightly baggier (might be more the fashion of the time though, I don't know).
But he really doesn't look bad at all. Maybe just not quite what was needed for this particular Bond film (it's quite a contrast to, say, Craig in SF who genuinely looks a bit guant and unshaven in the first third).
I often wish they'd padded his legs out a bit in that scene, he's got really skinny chicken legs in it! :D
They both look like boys, lack any intimidating screen presence and they have to try to look tough.
They've also both been very much in the public eye for ages which doesn't help them for different reasons.
It will be a reboot.
The Hollywood Reporter predicts Josh O'Connor will be the next James Bond.
I'm guessing we're moving away from the 'Aaron Taylor-Johnson is Bond,will be signed next week, has filmed the gun barrel opening, signed a four picture deal' ;)) era to the new era of 'Josh O'Connor is Bond, will sign next week, is the only man Eon want.'
This will probably last six months then some new bloke will come along for the click bait media to obsess over and everyone will forget about O'Connor.