Where does Bond go after Craig?

1732733735737738

Comments

  • Posts: 61
    LucknFate wrote: »
    dewiparry wrote: »
    People need to believe it's Bond from the very first reveal. Camera angles and movie magic can't fake this one.

    Didn't Craig prove that you can be Bond despite not looking the part on first impression? So no... it really doesn't matter.
    It's not 2005 anymore. There's tons of interviews and events before the film. I wouldn't be selling myself short.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 22 Posts: 17,477
    Give me a break.... This constant not so subtle shots at Trump on a James Bond forum are so tiresome. Nobody did this about Biden six months ago because it's obnoxious no matter what.
    Not quite the same thing. As echo said, the world order and allegiances are changing and everything has become more dangerous and unstable. Six months ago we'd have said the same things about Putin and no one would blink an eye.
    There is literally a very real world situation where the British and French are having to take the lead in a fight against our enemies, there's nothing wrong with pointing that out and echo is perfectly right to say it's a backdrop against which a little more relevance for the next film could be added, but only really alluded to in much the same way 911 was only nodded towards in DAD and CR, nothing explicit.

    It's why I actually quite fancy seeing a film where the Double 0 section gets set up. Again, nothing explicit, but a nod towards 'a new world, with new enemies and new threats' would be a good backdrop for M to decide he wants to establish a new department for fighting them.
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    It's getting silly again.

    Not at all. Some scoff at the notion that there are height limits, upper and lower, for a Bond actor. I just don't think that's realistic, and I'm just curious as what most see those limits to be.

    mtm, would you cast either a 5'4" or 6'8" actor?

    I doubt it, I'd have to see the guy; but it's a silly question. Who has scoffed at the idea of limits? There are obviously limitations to the casting, there always is to casting any role; it's why a lot of us have said we don't fancy seeing Dalton or Brosnan back because they're in their 70s.
    It's a silly question because even finding a guy who's 5'4 is pretty tricky if you were actually looking for one, there's no real point in asking it. It's not a situation they're going to find themselves in. There seems to be an odd idea that because the casting thread has done an occasional bit of blue sky-ish thinking about who could be a Bond that that means that some of us are utterly bonkers and want literally anyone of any shape, length or thickness as long as they look nothing like Tim Dalton in the role, but that's just silly exaggeration, as with this 5'4/6'8 thing.
    If the ideal candidate materialises out of nowhere, is the dead spit of Hoagy Carmichael and stands 6'2 in his socks then great, I doubt any of us would be saying we don't want him. But if the ideal candidate happens to not look exactly like Connery, his hair isn't jet black, and is a few inches shorter or taller -but still handsome and alpha male-ish- then I'm really not going to sweat about it. If you want to know exactly how many inches variance I'm happy to accept right down to the millimetre, I think it might be touch grass time.
  • Posts: 2,164
    Give me a break.... This constant not so subtle shots at Trump on a James Bond forum are so tiresome. Nobody did this about Biden six months ago because it's obnoxious no matter what.

    Bond 26: False Equivalency.
  • Give me a break.... This constant not so subtle shots at Trump on a James Bond forum are so tiresome. Nobody did this about Biden six months ago because it's obnoxious no matter what.

    Fake news
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited March 23 Posts: 24,552
    You have made your points again, gents. Please, let's continue without the politics. To us, mods, it's not about whose side we are on but about keeping the forum from another political war. If the Bond films ever talk about it, then so can we. But until then, let's stay friendly. Politics are simply too polarizing these days, especially from behind our keyboards. Thank you.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 14,232
    With respect suggest the Mods simply delete those posts as a signal to the originator and the forum to forestall responses.

  • edited March 23 Posts: 4,851
    talos7 wrote: »
    So would anyone here cast an actor, no matter how incredibly talented, who was 5’4? On the other end of the spectrum , how about one that is 6'8"?

    It would depend on the actor, but I think those extremes are highly unlikely. It’s not just about them being incredibly talented but how that Bondian potential is conveyed through the complete image of the actor and how they come across onscreen. As I said for certain actors they can come across as being 6 foot even if they’re 5’7 or whatever (average height rather than above average essentially). That’s more likely the sort of thing we’re looking at.

    But to play devil’s advocate, if an extraordinarily good candidate came along for Bond and blew all his competitors out of the water/was the best pick, and was one of those extremes of height, I’d say cast them rather than go for a lesser actor and work around their height. Again, assuming part of this actor’s package was coming across as larger than life/naturally taller than they are onscreen if short, but not extraordinarily large in a way that doesn’t fit the character if they’re taller. But these hypothetical actors are just not likely to exist in practice
  • Posts: 1,931
    OK, the latest RUMOR is that Cuaron has already taken a meeting with Amazon and pitched his take on the reboot. Also in the rumor mill is a late 2027 release date.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    edited March 23 Posts: 15,345
    Are we really going back to the height of the next actor? Again!
    70oa5jlmas8l.gif

    It’s unlikely an actor who is 5’4” or 6’8” would be considered. No matter how talented they are.
    What talented actors fall within these parameters, that would actually be considered for the role of James Bond?

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,477
    delfloria wrote: »
    OK, the latest RUMOR is that Cuaron has already taken a meeting with Amazon and pitched his take on the reboot. Also in the rumor mill is a late 2027 release date.

    Oh really? Who has reported that?
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited March 23 Posts: 2,366
    @mtm I saw it too...on the World of Reel site.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,756
    I would cry tears of joy if this became a reality, knowing the reboot is in good hands of an great filmmaker. If he can reproduce the magic he brought to potter it would be an amazing Bond adventure.

    https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2025/3/22/alfonso-cuarn-met-with-amazonmgm-to-direct-bond-26
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,345
    If it’s true, I don’t think many Bond fans would have a problem.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,426
    Hiring Cuaron would build my faith in the future of Bond. It would be the first good step for Amazon.
  • Posts: 1,755
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I would say 5'4". I guess it is easier to make a short man look taller than the other way around. But evidently, there are limits. I just don't think we should be talking about actual numbers. As long as an actor's height is acceptable, say Tom Cruise give or take an inch, I think the camera has little trouble in making the man look taller than he is.

    Now we have a tall Jack Reacher and he's quite different.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,756
    I took the liberty of listening to the podcast that that articles uses as a source and according to him the Heyman/Pascal is basically a done deal, nothing but a formality now. Cuaron has met with Amazon and has a take of his own, but no formal negotiations have taken place. It's very early days, but Amazon wants a movie out soon, so I imagine it won't be long before we get a writer and director announcements.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,438
    Exciting times…
  • edited March 23 Posts: 4,851
    It’ll definitely be a very stylish film if this all turns out to be the case. But ultimately a good portion will depend on the writers involved too. It could still be a flat film in terms of substance or it could be great (although I suspect it’ll be at least financially successful regardless). At the current time I’m cautiously optimistic though.
  • meshypushymeshypushy Ireland
    Posts: 166
    I had the pleasure of seeing CR in the cinema again over the weekend and I was surprised to see that about 70% of the audience were under 25. There was a buzz in the queue that I have not seen for a new release for quite some time - a lot of talk about the movie and Craig etc. it gives me hope that there is a young audience waiting for Bond 26. I doubt a showing of any of the earlier MIs would’ve attracted the same enthusiasm. CR on the big screen is something I will never tire of - it’s amazing to think that it’s almost 20 years old.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,732
    I don't really know a lot about Cuaron as a director, what would he bring to Bond?
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,883
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I don't really know a lot about Cuaron as a director, what would he bring to Bond?

    He almost directed TWINE. I think he would have made it a little less family soap-opera like.
  • Posts: 2,164
    Cast someone. Pick a director. Get on with it. The problem with a big name director is they may not necessarily make a great Bond film. Sometimes expectations can be too much.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,477
    I took the liberty of listening to the podcast that that articles uses as a source and according to him the Heyman/Pascal is basically a done deal, nothing but a formality now. Cuaron has met with Amazon and has a take of his own, but no formal negotiations have taken place. It's very early days, but Amazon wants a movie out soon, so I imagine it won't be long before we get a writer and director announcements.

    Given the amount of talk about them from reputable sources I’d be very surprised if the Pascal/Heyman thing didn’t turn out to be true; Cuáron I think is much less a certainty but there’s reason to be cautiously optimistic. I won’t get too attached to the idea of him though as lots can change.
  • Posts: 1,931
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Cast someone. Pick a director. Get on with it. The problem with a big name director is they may not necessarily make a great Bond film. Sometimes expectations can be too much.

    Fortunately Cuaron is a name director that infused new energy and originality into an established franchise. Also, the word is the budget will be around 250 million.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,756
    mtm wrote: »
    I took the liberty of listening to the podcast that that articles uses as a source and according to him the Heyman/Pascal is basically a done deal, nothing but a formality now. Cuaron has met with Amazon and has a take of his own, but no formal negotiations have taken place. It's very early days, but Amazon wants a movie out soon, so I imagine it won't be long before we get a writer and director announcements.

    Given the amount of talk about them from reputable sources I’d be very surprised if the Pascal/Heyman thing didn’t turn out to be true; Cuáron I think is much less a certainty but there’s reason to be cautiously optimistic. I won’t get too attached to the idea of him though as lots can change.

    Alfonso has been linked to Bond by two insiders now, not to mention hes shared spheres with Heyman and EON in the past. If he genuinely has met with executives at Amazon, then I think it's hopeful. If they want a film by 2027 they don't have a lot of time, they need to pick a director and go for it.
  • Posts: 1,931
    The classic Connery films only took a year to make, not to mention the original Disneyland. Plenty of time to make a late 2027 release. Fun times now as the layers keep piling on. BTW Those Vloggers who have been saying that Bond is dead can now go and find another spy franchise to follow.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 23 Posts: 17,477
    delfloria wrote: »
    The classic Connery films only took a year to make, not to mention the original Disneyland.

    No blockbuster films only make a year to make now though, you must know it's not the same situation.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,588
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Cast someone. Pick a director. Get on with it. The problem with a big name director is they may not necessarily make a great Bond film. Sometimes expectations can be too much.

    They can't until the deal closes. In May.
  • Posts: 1,931
    mtm wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    The classic Connery films only took a year to make, not to mention the original Disneyland.

    No blockbuster films only make a year to make now though, you must know it's not the same situation.

    True, I do. Two years is doable though.
  • edited March 23 Posts: 45
    I would have absolutely loved a one-off of an older Bond on his last mission. Or he needs to come out of retirement because he's the only one who can save the day. Played by none other than. . . Raph Fiennes. Unfortunately, he is or was M, but otherwise, I think a slower more poignant 007 film would have been awesome.
    That aside. My number one choice for Bond is easily Dev Patel.
Sign In or Register to comment.