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
Back in December, he raised the idea of Daniel Craig doing five additional movies for a total of eight. Now these comments which sound hypothetical but still are a long way from his December remarks.
Also, at the November press conference, he said Skyfall had no change in direction from Casino and Quantum, then in December started talking "classic" and "magical Goldfinger feel," invoking a movie that had a lighter tone than either Casino or Quantum. Four years ago, it was gunbarrel will probably be back at the normal place, except it wasn't.
It's kind of like trying to fact check P.T. Barnum. You should basically have a degree of skepticism about MGW's public pronouncements, but you'll drive yourself crazy if you take it super seriously.
Back in December, some fans got excited about the prospect of Daniel Craig doing five more films. Now, some fans (not commenting about anyone here) who don't like Craig are excited, practically starting the countdown to a new Bond. Both reactions were premature.
Besides, it'll be Henry Cavill that gets the gig after Craig
In the broader sense, yes, that's true. Bond was around long before Craig and will be around (hopefully) long after.
But that comment doesn't take into account how the general public latches on to, and quickly identifies the current actor as Bond. Especially if you're introduced to the Bond franchise during a certain actor's tenure as Bond. Why do you think we have so many disagreements on this board? The people who grew up with Moore naturally think the lighthearted approach is more "Bond like", while the younger generations prefer the action of Brosnan or the darker approach of Craig. We're all right, and yet we're all wrong. Everyone has their own opinion and preferences and that's the way it should be.
Another way to rebute MGW comments, is to ask why they bother to bring back actors for a series of films. Why not cast a new Bond actor with each film? It's the character of Bond that matters, right Michael? But we all know the franchise would collapse if they did that.
Lastly, Wilson should know that in the current media/internet culture we live in that a comment like that would stir up plenty of press and discussion. It will certainly make it's way to Craig and/or Craig's agent, which can only bring about tention and some brusied egos. If nothing else, Craig (like all the Bond actors) has worked his butt off to be a great Bond. He, like the others, pours his heart into the role, not to mention the physical beating he takes over the tremendously long shooting schedule of a film like Skyfall.
And this is the thanks he gets for all that effort? His boss openly speculating about ending his employment.
After all is said and done on this topic, I think we should all agree on one thing: Michael G. Wilson is a complete idiot.
Skip to 11:20 he talks about change in the series. I'll sum it up he says "don't be afraid of change" and "actors, directors, writers, etc are replaceable", "Bond is the star."
He goes on about how Brosnan was well liked but time for change.
Some great insight indeed and great to hear, even if it's taken nearly ten years.
Thanks for finding and linking us to the video @tqb.
"The report also said audiences were not interested in Bond having a serious relationship with a woman." I would love to read this report! It sounds like a load of rubbish! Thank God for MGW and Barbara Broccoli!
Don't be afraid of change, good motto. Don't see it being a title any time soon though ;)
It's not the first time:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/15/movies/MoviesFeatures/15bond.html
sample:
"I was desperately afraid, and Barbara was desperately afraid, we would go downhill," said Michael G. Wilson, the producer of the new Bond film, "Casino Royale," with Ms. Broccoli. He even told that to Pierce Brosnan, the suave James Bond who had a successful run of four films, he said.
"We are running out of energy, mental energy," Mr. Wilson recalled saying. "We need to generate something new, for ourselves."
Very good talk from MGW, and it just shows you how his comments have been totally
twisted around to create a story that he'd change Craig without any qualm; that's not what he's saying at all.
You're not kidding. He's brutal. He kept looking at the screen over his shoulder. I guess he wanted to make sure that his prepared remarks matched with whatever visuals were being shown, but couldn't he simply trust that the video guy had a handle on it - that the video guy was pacing him? Isn't that how it's done?
"At the heart of every Bond film is Bond's journey... We trusted the story to carry the film, ... and now we are making our 3rd Bond film starring Daniel Craig"
This raises my expectations for Skyfall even more!
I don't think you know how casting Bond works.
What is the classic Bond look? Tall, dark hair and a face that can land a Givenchy fragrance campaign deal?? These sorts of comments are always interesting to me, particularly as they're mainly coming from a bunch of dudes. Craig imo along with Connery are the 2 most realistic-looking Bond actors who aren't "pretty boys" but ruggedly good looking who look well dressed and can portray that killer instinct but I guess actors with model-type looks, pretending to act tough and failing to convince they are tough is perfectly acceptable to some.
Part of PBs failing in my eyes was exactly what doubleoego eluded to. He was acting it out, but still looked like a pretty boy who belonged in a ferrero rochet advert. He did some things well, but the overall impression fell a little short.
I didn't notice that he was looking over, I just listened to it the first time because I was working. I meant he is not a very engaging speaker, he got lost a few times and slowed down, kept reading the notes he had prepared (his script), like he hadn't trained the presentation before and perhaps he didn't. Now I took a look and yes, he just keeps checking if everything is fine and that disrupts the rythm too. You either have the control over the visuals (it's the best way) or trust the person who's handling it. You only look when you want to drag attention to something in there so it's usually a purposeful motion and not just sneaking over the shoulder. He's obviously not used to make this kind of things, that's how it looks like. Though I would expect him not to be a newbie in these sorts of things!
I still remember when DC's name first was thrown into the ring and I bought a copy of Layer Cake on ebay, just to see what the fuss was all about. One scene absolutely sold me DC as Bond, even though he did not have any similarities with the previous Bond actors: when Colm Meaney's character shows DC his gun collection, DC is suddenly converted to a fascination for one of them and tries pointig it at various corners of the apartment in Bond style.
Brosnan unfortunately did not have the acting-capability to show the enthusiasm that DC enacted in this one scene. A glimpse of it is shown here at 1:09:
" I don't want Craig to leave yet, but if it had to happen, there would be good replacements. My vote goes out to Ryan Gosling."
Eh? Gosling is Canadian! No Americans/Canadians wanted for Bond, thank you very much!
As for Henry Cavill - I can't see that ever happening. If Superman: Man of Steel is a big hit, Cavill will be wanted for several sequels - there's bound to be a trilogy - and if Man of Steel is a relative flop Cavill will be seen as damaged goods. "Failed Superman actor gets second chance with Bond." I can't imagine Eon wanting those sorts of headlines.
Tom Hardy - nope, can't see it. He doesn't really look the part (just my opinion) but even if you don't care about how Bond looks, he's currently filming a new Mad Max film. If 'Fury Road' is a success I can't see Hardy playing Mad Max and James Bond.
I think the next actor will be similar to Craig, perhaps with limited film experience. Some actor that is out there but not widely known. I don't think there will be any pressure put on Eon to find a tall, dark and handsome actor to take over. In theory any actor of decent height, decent acting ability and of reasonable looks (bit subjective, I guess!) should be in with a chance. But I can't imagine it will be any of the current list of names people mention. How many people expected Daniel Craig to replace Pierce Brosnan? Not many. History could repeat itself with another fairly unknown actor.
I'm from the UK, and I would agree with you, but to be fair, Bond was originally supposed to be an English spy. Since then we've had a Scottish Bond (they even changed the books because of this), an Aussie, a Welshman and an Irishman. So I'd say an American, a Canadian, a German, a Russian, almost any nationality, could play Bond if they can do a good accent.
Gossling is a great actor and I wouldn't mind him playing Bond. But like I said, Scott Adkins is my first choice. He's not too famous either like Fassbender, Hardy or Cavill might be.