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
I agree, very anticlimactic. And the way they have chosen to announce it, if it is Craig, is baffling also. No matter how popular a Bond actor is, there is an inherent excitement and drama when they leave the role and we are between actors. For them to invoke that by saying "James Bond will return" instead of "Daniel Craig will return as James Bond", doesn't make any sense. Their phrasing suggests that their is some surprise or mystery involved, so to "reveal" that Bond will be indeed be played by the guy that's played him for the last decade... What?
A better way of saying it would have just been "Bond 25 will premier on November 8th 2019 in the US." And leave it at that. Can't help but feel they are creating a rod for their own back with this deliberately ambiguous phrasing.
It's my belief they've been doing this for some time. After all DC has been around for over a decade, it's a natural move for a producer, especially when talent is non-committal at a juncture such as this. Despite this, I'm 99.9% certain that Barbara wants him back (she said as much to an acquintance of mine at the turn of the year) and from what I've heard it's likely.
And then Nolan Bond 26?
Well with the last actor, who was at the time hugely popular, they just threw him out (sort of). So with this one beeing not so popular (still making the highest grossing in the frenchise ever) they will certainly pick someone else. That makes absolutely (no) business sense.
All in all, I'm willing to bet it's Craig again.
And about the announcement, i think you read it wrong. the sentence is "James bond will be back in cinema's". Which is a fair way of sayin it I think. No ambiguety. Just a way to tell people the date and the writers. Nothing more, nothing less.
Agreed. As for now, I'm glad we've got confirmation of a release date but creatively (so far) with the confirmation of P+W returning I'm just not that enthused at all.
There's a little thing called 'context' which has a massive impact on how popular art/culture is received.
I agree, I'm a fan of Craig but I'm hoping he's done at this point. Waiting two years just for an announcement that he's returning would be anti climatic enough and then waiting another two years to see it? Followed by another three or four years before we do finally get a fresh start? No thank you. New Bond in 2019 please EON.
I think Jack O Connell could be very good. He oozes intensity and charisma, he's got that natural swagger that's essential to play Bond. Does still look quite young but I'm sure they could weather him a bit for his first film or two (like when Campbell encouraged Brosnan's stubble in GE) and he could age into the role.
I love Craig but I don't like the direction his Bond has moved in. I think he is perfect in Casino Royale and Quantum. I have been a little disappointed by the direction they have taken his character since. I feel they are too eager to get back to a Roger Moorish feel. Some praised him in Spectre saying things like he was "at ease" in the role. To me though, that's kind of a problem. I think he turned in better performances in his earlier films. While he is still great, when he is "at ease", it's not quite the same. Honestly, the character feels slightly retconned to be more "classic".
I have thought about Jack O Connell also. I'd be interested to see that. His age doesn't bother me. I mean Sean Connery was (I think) 32 when Dr. No came out. Lazenby was 29 when OHMSS came out. They never struck me as too young. I think screen charisma can make up for the age factor. A younger actor would work if the performance and script are good. Bond actors have to age into the role anyway. In my opinion, its better to err on the young side (28-32 years to start).
Come to think of it, actually not a bad choice. I'm guessing Bond 26 is at least 5 years away - that puts him at 28. Not much younger than Connery and Lazenby when they started. If 51 isn't too old for Bond, then surely 28 isn't too young? He is English, tall, darkhaired and certainly has the right face for Bond. They would have no problem bringing the young female audience back into the fold with Styles that's for sure.
I knew this suggestion would catch some flack but with a bit more age I can see it.
I completely agree with you on Craig, particularly in SP but also in SF.
Regarding O'Connell, I don't have a problem with his age, but he hasn't really caught my attention in anything. I saw that film he did with Roberts and Clooney last year and they owned the screen while he disappeared.
I agree with you age as well. As long as the actor has presence, I have no problem with a young chap. In fact, perhaps it's preferable. Moore, Brosnan, Dalton and even perhaps Craig were brought on too late imho. They would have all been better a bit earlier.
He was fine (everyone was), but I didn't find him particularly memorable, and I can't even comment based on that performance if he could be Bond material some years down the line. - Oh and you're correct, that pic doesn't do him justice, he looks much younger and different in it, more boyish instead of an actual grown-up.
Cillian Murphy is wonderful, and very versatile - equally convincing as a transgender woman as a ruthless crime boss, and not one note as either. (Red Eye is just a very mediocre movie, btw, I wouldn't make any conclusions based on that. Every actor has those.) But he is indeed very slight in build for Bond, that might be an issue. Though then again, I don't remember thinking, "oh he's tiny" or something when watching Peaky Blinders. I could imagine it, yes, but... Plus he's 41 already, I think a new guy should preferably be younger when starting out. He's obviously much better than some suggestions, though, and I like him a lot as an actor.
But if Craig is continuing anyway...
He was fine as well, but again there was too little to make any conclusions regarding another, very different, and huge role a decade or more from now when he has grown up some. Obviously he's far too young now or anytime soon, and looks it. I don't have anything against the guy and I have no idea what he has done for people to bash him. I saw a couple of interviews for Dunkirk and he seemed like a nice young man in those. I haven't come across anything negative, but then I don't know much. As an actor, in 10 - 12 years... ? I haven't got the slightest clue.
Very good actor though. Always higjly watchable.
Of course we don't. Even if he isn't we still don't, not really.