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 many that I remember.
Did you take a poll? 😏
Chris Claremont, the writer of the 1982 Wolverine comics, said that in 1988 it seemed perfectly rational to cast Hoskins as Logan, citing the harshness and brutality that he portrayed as perfect compliments to Wolverine’s character at the time.
https://screenrant.com/xmen-wolverine-bob-hoskins-perfect-franchise-bad-movies/
Yeah, Claremont was a great writer (not by that point though, he was burning out quite badly and becoming quite self-indulgent, imo) but Hoskins would have been a bad pick - not a bad height, good actor, but bad for the rest.
I wasn’t keen in the way Singer was determined to only cast a tall actor in the role, and he didn’t understand the character at all, but Jackman worked for the script they had (though I will argue we only get flashes of the comic-book Wolverine on screen, leaving room for an another actor to give us a Wolverine that feels like the comic character).
The Q test is a good idea.
Jackman was a more romantic Clint Eastwood. It worked fine, I guess.
I don't think we'll see the real Wolverine. The actors who could play him are either old or dead.
I thought he was the best of the bunch of youngsters, personally. Which isn't saying much.
If we're talking about the actor specifically (and not how Bond is written), it's a bit like asking how long a piece of string is (the answer is it depends incidentally, haha).
It's annoying and even vague when put like that, but since picking an actor for any role is somewhat an intuitive process it becomes tricky having a list of specific qualities that this character should have - the exact hair colour, the exact accent, the exact ear and jawline size etc. With Bond especially each actor has been different and unique, even when they're playing the same character with Bond's fundamental qualities intact.
Obviously there's some points of disagreement here on a very broad level about what we want from Bond (the biggest one is obviously whether Bond needs to be white or can he be played by an actor of any other race, and there are obviously different arguments for or against this). I think all of us agree that the actor needs to convey a sense of masculinity, gravitas, charisma, confidence, Britishness, and sex appeal, but those in itself are qualities that can look very different dependent on the actor in question.
Joking of course, and of course if he's busy he's busy. I actually haven't seen much of Essidu to say one way or the other. I have absolutely no opinion about him as Snape if anybody cares, haha.
I just wonder if there are any limits? Any areas that the character shouldn't go? Of course, it's a bit of a subjective question, since we all have our own idea of who Bond is. But I doubt many would be happy if Bond went to work for Greenpeace. Obviously, that's an extreme example. But I guess what I'm asking is how much change is too much? When do we cross the line of it simply being a new interpretation, to going against the fundamentals of the character and the series? At what point does it become unrecognisable?
I don't think there's anything which needs to change too much: the Bond we got in NTTD didn't feel out of step with the world and yet was still 007. Give me a new spin on that guy and he'll still be Bond.
I guess when you ask how much can you change him... well how much do you want to change him? What's the suggestion?
What about Bond's actions?
Something like DAD infamously had Bond surfing and that didn't feel like Bond to me. The fencing did.
We've had Bond skiing, but not really snowboarding, with the odd exception of AVTAK. Snowboarding feels like a bridge too far, pandering to a younger audience.
Video games also feel a bit weird in NSNA. Again, he's too old.
If we have a younger Bond--and surely we will--do have to accept nods to current technology? I semi-facetiously ask about TikTok because Amazon is trying to buy it.
Will we have to endure (I sound old) Bond sending a covert (ha!) message over TikTok?
I do think Bond does zag quite often. Meaning, when we think someone like him would abhor TikTok, I could see Fleming writing a little sentence that he actually finds it quite interesting to see what people are into or a good way to stay on top of multiple subjects or just a good way to spy on someone or something like that. It's not like he's always been some kind of conservative mainstream guy. He obviously wouldn't try to be a content creator doing funny little dances in between missions, but if the next Bond would make some kind of dismissive one liner while not being able to navigate TikTok to send a covert message or contact an asset, I would think he's just an Old Guy.
Edit: To make it more broadly: The next Bond needs to be someone for whom a smartphone (do we even still call them that?) is second nature and not something he tolerates because he has to.
Well, Bond helped out the Mujahideen so an odd alliance with Greenpeace types could work in certain contexts I guess... Not that I'm particularly wanting to see it!
Again, it really depends. I think you can have a scenario where the character is changed too much and doesn't feel like Bond, and another one where they try so hard to make him 'Bondian' that it becomes too superficial and not the character we know anymore.
Let's not forget that CR and QoS were mainly a two-parter origin story for Bond.
True. And they should've ended the story arch there.
Yeah. That was clearly the intention. Even the gunbarrel at the end of QoS was there for the arc's conclusion. But after SF made a billion...understandably, EON wanted SF's DNA in Craig's subsequent Bond films. But SF...even with its limited action, couldn't be top and is clearly better than SP & NTTD.
Bond was already Bond when he gave his introduction at the end of Casino Royale.
+1