Who should/could be a Bond actor?

12672682702722731231

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    Moore had charisma to burn. Cavill by comparison is a slab of MDF.
    Quite true. Cavill will never be Bond.
    doubleoego wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    That's the rumour going around right now; that he could be the film's antagonist.
    I wonder if they'll use him as a sort of pseudo Bond?
    Whatever the capacity of his role I'm most certainly intrigued.
    There is a possibility (as a Brit) that he could be tied to Ilsa's past. That would be interesting given that she's been a mysterious character (neither good nor bad) so far in the prior film.
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 1,661
    doubleoego wrote: »
    As posted in the mission impossible thread:

    We can rule out Cavill becoming 007. He's just been cast in the new Mission Impossible film.

    http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/827017-henry-cavill-joins-the-mission-impossible-6-cast

    Cavill playing a Bond type spy in a Mission Impossible film! Bonkers, man! 8-} If he can't play Bond I guess this is the next best thing. I can't imagine he'll play a villain but you never know, I suppose.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    As posted in the mission impossible thread:

    We can rule out Cavill becoming 007. He's just been cast in the new Mission Impossible film.

    http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/827017-henry-cavill-joins-the-mission-impossible-6-cast

    If he's playing a British spy - part of the British MI team - that will be kinda funny! Cavill playing a Bond type spy in a Mission Impossible film! Bonkers, man!
    He did play a Bond type secret agent, albeit American, in The Man from UNCLE.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    As posted in the mission impossible thread:

    We can rule out Cavill becoming 007. He's just been cast in the new Mission Impossible film.

    http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/827017-henry-cavill-joins-the-mission-impossible-6-cast

    If he's playing a British spy - part of the British MI team - that will be kinda funny! Cavill playing a Bond type spy in a Mission Impossible film! Bonkers, man!
    He did play a Bond type secret agent, albeit American, in The Man from UNCLE.

    Which is interesting, considering Cruise was originally going to play that role before Cavill stepped in.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited March 2017 Posts: 15,715
    Cavill as a pseudo-Bond in the new M:I could be cool. However, given that this is the 6th Mission Impossible film (hence M:I:6), if they are indeed hellbent on featuring a Bond type spy in the film, I would really like (no matter how improbable) that they actually cast one of the former Bond's for such a character. I understand there is a kind of competition between the 2 franchises, but I am not one to care for it, both M:I and Bond have done a splendid job in the spy/action/adventure genre in the last 10 years. So I would really be in total 'fanboy mode' if they could get Dalton or Brosnan as a Bond-type character in M:I:6.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    As posted in the mission impossible thread:

    We can rule out Cavill becoming 007. He's just been cast in the new Mission Impossible film.

    http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/827017-henry-cavill-joins-the-mission-impossible-6-cast

    If he's playing a British spy - part of the British MI team - that will be kinda funny! Cavill playing a Bond type spy in a Mission Impossible film! Bonkers, man!
    He did play a Bond type secret agent, albeit American, in The Man from UNCLE.

    He did a good job too....
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    suavejmf wrote: »
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    As posted in the mission impossible thread:

    We can rule out Cavill becoming 007. He's just been cast in the new Mission Impossible film.

    http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/827017-henry-cavill-joins-the-mission-impossible-6-cast

    If he's playing a British spy - part of the British MI team - that will be kinda funny! Cavill playing a Bond type spy in a Mission Impossible film! Bonkers, man!
    He did play a Bond type secret agent, albeit American, in The Man from UNCLE.

    He did a good job too....
    Definitely!
  • Posts: 3,327
    I'll be up for a new actor if it means we go in a new direction. Well, not that new. I want them to go back to the books. Untapped Fleming material. Resurrect it, in all its glory. Not a half-arsed loose adaptation.

    And let's hear the next actor say things that Dalton used to come out with. I want him to be a massive fan of the novels. I want him to be the driving force in forcing the producers to go back to the books - just like Dalton did.

    I've never once heard Craig speak of the novels fondly like Dalton did. He's obviously read them, but I don't get the sense he is really trying to interpret the character Fleming wrote. He is a very good actor, and brilliant at conveying hidden depth emotions. But I feel his performance is driven purely by the script he's given, and not by the Fleming source material.

    If its a classically trained actor, then no doubt he would go back to the novels, because most thespians who take the craft seriously try to understand the root of a character, and this usually means going back to the source, wherever it may be.

    If they go down the route of something silly like Idris Elba, or another actor who is a popular choice, but not necessarily classically trained, then I doubt it. We'll just get another generic action hero who dresses in nice suits and likes bedding women.
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    Tom Hiddleston could do that.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Hm, I think with him they went back to what Förmings Bond was meant to be. Dalton tried that, but....
    Just with Sp they left that path and gave us the more traditional Bond, due to request of many, I believe
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited March 2017 Posts: 15,423
    I don't think with Craig they completely went back to Fleming. Far from it. But, they did introduce the universe into more realistic and grounded measures. In the Fleming novels, Mathis wasn't a suspected traitor and does not die at all. The Skyfall lodge and the Oberhauser Blofeld angle were nonexistent. They didn't go down the road of the Fleming material faithfully and I doubt they'll ever do so. Each film that came out throughout the 24 films were products of their time and that the Bond films follow the then-current trends, mostly the post-1960s ones.

    So, I wouldn't get my hopes up to see 100% Fleming with the next era or the installment even. Because we know they'll be replicating the thing that left impact on the audience and stick to pop culture. Sure, they'll mention some of the principals and outlines that formed the character from the source material and all, but that's as far as they'll go. The general audience only knows that Bond is a Super-Spy, so EON will keep going down that road. It's only us, the fans, who truly care about Fleming. The general audience doesn't.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    cwl007 wrote: »
    Tom Hiddleston could do that.
    With considerable ease.
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Hm, I think with him they went back to what Förmings Bond was meant to be. Dalton tried that, but....
    Craig indeed did, and he did a very good job with it.
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Just with Sp they left that path and gave us the more traditional Bond, due to request of many, I believe
    The best Bond actors can blend Fleming's intent with a more flippant & casual Bond that has become known and loved by many. They tried that in SP, but it didn't work (at least imho). Most of that was due to the appalling script, but I believe a lot of that was on account of Craig, who doesn't appear to do so well with that kind of thing. I just watched MR last night and was impressed with how Moore switched subtly from a moore (pun intended) serious Bond in TSWLM to the one he played in that film. He would switch back to even more serious in the next outing, all the while maintaining the character at its core. It's not as easy as it looked.
  • Posts: 3,327
    I don't think with Craig they completely went back to Fleming. Far from it. But, they did introduce the universe into more realistic and grounded measures. In the Fleming novels, Mathis wasn't a suspected traitor and does not die at all. The Skyfall lodge and the Oberhauser Blofeld angle were nonexistent. They didn't go down the road of the Fleming material faithfully and I suspect they'll ever do so. Each film that came out throughout the 24 films were products of their time and that the Bond films follow the then-current trends, mostly the post-1960s ones.

    So, I wouldn't get my hopes up to see 100% Fleming with the next era or the installment even. Because we know they'll be replicating the thing that left impact on the audience and stick to pop culture. Sure, they'll mention some of the principals that formed the character from the source material and all, but that's as far as they'll go. The general audience only knows that Bond is a Super-Spy, so EON will keep going down that road. It's only us, the fans, who truly care about Fleming. The general audience doesn't.
    Sadly you may be right, unless a new producer steps in and decides to honour what Cubby started in the right way....and also take his advice literally, in that when you are stuck, revert back to Fleming.

    Barbara has often quoted this, yet none of this is evident in the films she has worked on, other than CR.

    QoS, SF and SP dig up mild (in the extreme) references and character names from the novels, and then turn them into something they imagine Fleming would write - often with disastrous results - and far worse than anything that originated with what Fleming wrote. Which makes me wonder what they are afraid of in resurrecting any of the untapped material.

    If the material was good enough for Cubby, it should be good enough for his daughter too. And we all know (those who are familiar with the novels) that the material is good enough - far stronger than what P&W have conjured up anyway!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Ultimately it's a money making business.

    EON have done a good job of trying to stay true to a fantasy character that was written when the world was a very different place.

    Given Bond has been played by six actors, we have also had the privilege of different actor interpretations of the character along with progression due to time. It's truly been a fascinating ride, but ultimately they should tailor the script and the character to the actor in order to make it seem authentic. Work within the actor's limitation and we will have a decent enough film.

    That doesn't mean it will impress everyone though, and I'm sure many will be up in arms that it's not true to something they envisaged in the books. Nevertheless, I believe that's the way they must go.
  • Posts: 3,327
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ultimately it's a money making business.

    EON have done a good job of trying to stay true to a fantasy character that was written when the world was a very different place.

    Given Bond has been played by six actors, we have also had the privilege of different actor interpretations of the character along with progression due to time. It's truly been a fascinating ride, but ultimately they should tailor the script and the character to the actor in order to make it seem authentic. Work within the actor's limitation and we will have a decent enough film.

    That doesn't mean it will impress everyone though, and I'm sure many will be up in arms that it's not true to something they envisaged in the books. Nevertheless, I believe that's the way they must go.

    But if the actor's limitations are like another Brosnan or Moore, and we go down the generic DAD action fest route again, this doesn't guarantee we will get another decent Bond flick.

    Let's hope they pick a strong enough actor who loves the novels enough to force the producers into going back down that route.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ultimately it's a money making business.

    EON have done a good job of trying to stay true to a fantasy character that was written when the world was a very different place.

    Given Bond has been played by six actors, we have also had the privilege of different actor interpretations of the character along with progression due to time. It's truly been a fascinating ride, but ultimately they should tailor the script and the character to the actor in order to make it seem authentic. Work within the actor's limitation and we will have a decent enough film.

    That doesn't mean it will impress everyone though, and I'm sure many will be up in arms that it's not true to something they envisaged in the books. Nevertheless, I believe that's the way they must go.

    But if the actor's limitations are like another Brosnan or Moore, and we go down the generic DAD action fest route again, this doesn't guarantee we will get another decent Bond flick.

    Let's hope they pick a strong enough actor who loves the novels enough to force the producers into going back down that route.
    Or a Craig even? I'll take Brosnan in DAD over Craig in SP.

    At the end of the day, DAD was a fiasco for reasons other than Brosnan. Craig on the other hand contributed to SP being a rather unenjoyable film for me.

    Moore was a far more versatile actor than he is generally given credit for and he proved it with seven tonally different entries.

    Yes, in one takes it to extremes, we could indeed get something outrageous, but I believe there are enough decent actors out there for that not to be an inevitability.
  • Posts: 3,327
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ultimately it's a money making business.

    EON have done a good job of trying to stay true to a fantasy character that was written when the world was a very different place.

    Given Bond has been played by six actors, we have also had the privilege of different actor interpretations of the character along with progression due to time. It's truly been a fascinating ride, but ultimately they should tailor the script and the character to the actor in order to make it seem authentic. Work within the actor's limitation and we will have a decent enough film.

    That doesn't mean it will impress everyone though, and I'm sure many will be up in arms that it's not true to something they envisaged in the books. Nevertheless, I believe that's the way they must go.

    But if the actor's limitations are like another Brosnan or Moore, and we go down the generic DAD action fest route again, this doesn't guarantee we will get another decent Bond flick.

    Let's hope they pick a strong enough actor who loves the novels enough to force the producers into going back down that route.
    Or a Craig even? I'll take Brosnan in DAD over Craig in SP.

    At the end of the day, DAD was a fiasco for reasons other than Brosnan. Craig on the other hand contributed to SP being a rather unenjoyable film for me.

    Moore was a far more versatile actor than he is generally given credit for and he proved it with seven tonally different entries.

    Yes, in one takes it to extremes, we could indeed get something outrageous, but I believe there are enough decent actors out there for that not to be an inevitability.
    You would hope so. Bringing in another Dalton type, who loves the novels, is one way of becoming closer to securing that hope.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ultimately it's a money making business.

    EON have done a good job of trying to stay true to a fantasy character that was written when the world was a very different place.

    Given Bond has been played by six actors, we have also had the privilege of different actor interpretations of the character along with progression due to time. It's truly been a fascinating ride, but ultimately they should tailor the script and the character to the actor in order to make it seem authentic. Work within the actor's limitation and we will have a decent enough film.

    That doesn't mean it will impress everyone though, and I'm sure many will be up in arms that it's not true to something they envisaged in the books. Nevertheless, I believe that's the way they must go.

    But if the actor's limitations are like another Brosnan or Moore, and we go down the generic DAD action fest route again, this doesn't guarantee we will get another decent Bond flick.

    Let's hope they pick a strong enough actor who loves the novels enough to force the producers into going back down that route.
    Or a Craig even? I'll take Brosnan in DAD over Craig in SP.

    At the end of the day, DAD was a fiasco for reasons other than Brosnan. Craig on the other hand contributed to SP being a rather unenjoyable film for me.

    Moore was a far more versatile actor than he is generally given credit for and he proved it with seven tonally different entries.

    Yes, in one takes it to extremes, we could indeed get something outrageous, but I believe there are enough decent actors out there for that not to be an inevitability.
    You would hope so. Bringing in another Dalton type, who loves the novels, is one way of becoming closer to securing that hope.
    That's true, and whatever Dalton's faults, he stayed true to his iteration and his vision over two films. I give him credit for that. He didn't try to operate outside his pay grade.

    Some don't like that (and I'm not so sure if I was keen on it either), but it's to be commended because there is a sincerity in his films.

    The box office suffered though.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited March 2017 Posts: 15,423
    Dalton did care about the novels, yes. But, his iteration of the character wasn't that of the literary rendition. His Bond was a bit too emotional and morally-driven as opposed to the opinionated character of the books by Fleming where he was pretty much cold-hearted despite having doubts and all. The closest we've had to the Fleming Bond was Lazenby's incarnation, in my honest opinion, and not even that was 100% faithful.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    This takes us back to the money making aspect of the films. Both Laz's and Dalt's entries were underperformers (relatively speaking) at the box office. The question is will MGM & EON tolerate that going forward? I doubt it.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Exactly. They'll always be sold on the idea of the newest trend and grab on to it. The trend that makes the wallets in pockets uber-thick.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Dalton did care about the novels, yes. But, his iteration of the character wasn't that of the literary rendition. His Bond was a bit too emotional and morally-driven as opposed to the opinionated character of the books by Fleming where he was pretty much cold-hearted despite having doubts and all. The closest we've had to the Fleming Bond was Lazenby's incarnation, in my honest opinion, and not even that was 100% faithful.

    I don't agree with this. In TLD maybe (as this was written for Moore).

    But Dalton in LTK is the exact carbon copy of Fleming from the books. Lazenby in OHMSS wasn't far off either, be he was lucky in that the script pretty much followed the novel, so he had no choice but to play the Fleming character. Being physically fit but slightly wooden probably helped convey that to screen too actually.

  • Posts: 3,327
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ultimately it's a money making business.

    EON have done a good job of trying to stay true to a fantasy character that was written when the world was a very different place.

    Given Bond has been played by six actors, we have also had the privilege of different actor interpretations of the character along with progression due to time. It's truly been a fascinating ride, but ultimately they should tailor the script and the character to the actor in order to make it seem authentic. Work within the actor's limitation and we will have a decent enough film.

    That doesn't mean it will impress everyone though, and I'm sure many will be up in arms that it's not true to something they envisaged in the books. Nevertheless, I believe that's the way they must go.

    But if the actor's limitations are like another Brosnan or Moore, and we go down the generic DAD action fest route again, this doesn't guarantee we will get another decent Bond flick.

    Let's hope they pick a strong enough actor who loves the novels enough to force the producers into going back down that route.
    Or a Craig even? I'll take Brosnan in DAD over Craig in SP.

    At the end of the day, DAD was a fiasco for reasons other than Brosnan. Craig on the other hand contributed to SP being a rather unenjoyable film for me.

    Moore was a far more versatile actor than he is generally given credit for and he proved it with seven tonally different entries.

    Yes, in one takes it to extremes, we could indeed get something outrageous, but I believe there are enough decent actors out there for that not to be an inevitability.
    You would hope so. Bringing in another Dalton type, who loves the novels, is one way of becoming closer to securing that hope.
    That's true, and whatever Dalton's faults, he stayed true to his iteration and his vision over two films. I give him credit for that. He didn't try to operate outside his pay grade.

    Some don't like that (and I'm not so sure if I was keen on it either), but it's to be commended because there is a sincerity in his films.

    The box office suffered though.

    I think Dalton and LTK were ahead of the time. Back then audiences still expected cheesy Bond, with lots of humour and gadgets. Nowadays people want darker, tougher heroes. Craig's films are testimony to that, and they've all performed well at the BO.

    And in Craig's films we are not that far away from the Fleming world, and the gritty, bloody, violent Dalton Bond of LTK. It will only take subtle changes in bringing Craig's Bond into the Fleming world. The tone is pretty much already there.

    Having the story based on some Fleming material would be a good start.

  • Posts: 3,327
    bondjames wrote: »
    This takes us back to the money making aspect of the films. Both Laz's and Dalt's entries were underperformers (relatively speaking) at the box office. The question is will MGM & EON tolerate that going forward? I doubt it.

    Craig's have all performed well, and his films are not that far off Fleming Bond.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    This takes us back to the money making aspect of the films. Both Laz's and Dalt's entries were underperformers (relatively speaking) at the box office. The question is will MGM & EON tolerate that going forward? I doubt it.

    Craig's have all performed well, and his films are not that far off Fleming Bond.
    Yes, they have. I was referring to comments about Dalton and Laz being the most Fleming'esque of the portrayals. Neither actor demonstrated the natural suavity required for a financial successful film Bond actor imho.

    Craig does, as long as he sticks to what he's good at and plays within his safe zone, which is within a more grounded & serious universe which is actually closer to the character & tone of the novels.

    If they want to inject larger than life fantasy with Craig as Bond, they have to do it with the supporting characters. They successfully achieved this with SF, which is the only Craig entry to really lift the box office numbers in terms of number of theatre goers Stateside. CR, QoS & SP were all relatively static.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,205
    The Living Daylights was written for Moore. Is this a fact or an assumption? I would think that following A View to a Kill it was fairly obvious that it was to be his last.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Good point. I thought it was written for Brosnan actually.
  • Posts: 3,327
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    This takes us back to the money making aspect of the films. Both Laz's and Dalt's entries were underperformers (relatively speaking) at the box office. The question is will MGM & EON tolerate that going forward? I doubt it.

    Craig's have all performed well, and his films are not that far off Fleming Bond.
    Yes, they have. I was referring to comments about Dalton and Laz being the most Fleming'esque of the portrayals. Neither actor demonstrated the natural suavity required for a financial successful film Bond actor imho.

    Craig does, as long as he sticks to what he's good at and plays within his safe zone, which is within a more grounded & serious universe which is actually closer to the character & tone of the novels.

    If they want to inject larger than life fantasy with Craig as Bond, they have to do it with the supporting characters. They successfully achieved this with SF, which is the only Craig entry to really lift the box office numbers in terms of number of theatre goers Stateside. CR, QoS & SP were all relatively static.
    It's doable, even with Fleming material, to still inject larger than life fantasy. It's all there. The producers just need to look.

    Dr. Shatterhand and his Garden of Death, Bond trapped and sat above an erupting tiny volcano chair before escaping and flying off in the sky on a helium balloon.

    A brainwashed Bond trying to kill M.

    Bond going undercover as Mark Hazard to kill the deadliest hitman on earth, only to find himself on an open steam train, about to be killed as a spectacle for Scaramaga's guests.

    Bond being almost kicked to death by a couple of Brooklyn mobsters wearing football boots.

    Bond rescuing the heroine who is trapped in a motel by a couple of mobsters who plan to rape her then kill her.

    There is much more I can list, but I think you get the point...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    This takes us back to the money making aspect of the films. Both Laz's and Dalt's entries were underperformers (relatively speaking) at the box office. The question is will MGM & EON tolerate that going forward? I doubt it.

    Craig's have all performed well, and his films are not that far off Fleming Bond.
    Yes, they have. I was referring to comments about Dalton and Laz being the most Fleming'esque of the portrayals. Neither actor demonstrated the natural suavity required for a financial successful film Bond actor imho.

    Craig does, as long as he sticks to what he's good at and plays within his safe zone, which is within a more grounded & serious universe which is actually closer to the character & tone of the novels.

    If they want to inject larger than life fantasy with Craig as Bond, they have to do it with the supporting characters. They successfully achieved this with SF, which is the only Craig entry to really lift the box office numbers in terms of number of theatre goers Stateside. CR, QoS & SP were all relatively static.
    It's doable, even with Fleming material, to still inject larger than life fantasy. It's all there. The producers just need to look.

    Dr. Shatterhand and his Garden of Death, Bond trapped and sat above an erupting tiny volcano chair before escaping and flying off in the sky on a helium balloon.

    A brainwashed Bond trying to kill M.

    Bond going undercover as Mark Hazard to kill the deadliest hitman on earth, only to find himself on an open steam train, about to be killed as a spectacle for Scaramaga's guests.

    Bond being almost kicked to death by a couple of Brooklyn mobsters wearing football boots.

    Bond rescuing the heroine who is trapped in a motel by a couple of mobsters who plan to rape her then kill her.

    There is much more I can list, but I think you get the point...
    I do, and I can see Craig successfully pulling off any of the above scenes.
  • Posts: 3,327
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    This takes us back to the money making aspect of the films. Both Laz's and Dalt's entries were underperformers (relatively speaking) at the box office. The question is will MGM & EON tolerate that going forward? I doubt it.

    Craig's have all performed well, and his films are not that far off Fleming Bond.
    Yes, they have. I was referring to comments about Dalton and Laz being the most Fleming'esque of the portrayals. Neither actor demonstrated the natural suavity required for a financial successful film Bond actor imho.

    Craig does, as long as he sticks to what he's good at and plays within his safe zone, which is within a more grounded & serious universe which is actually closer to the character & tone of the novels.

    If they want to inject larger than life fantasy with Craig as Bond, they have to do it with the supporting characters. They successfully achieved this with SF, which is the only Craig entry to really lift the box office numbers in terms of number of theatre goers Stateside. CR, QoS & SP were all relatively static.
    It's doable, even with Fleming material, to still inject larger than life fantasy. It's all there. The producers just need to look.

    Dr. Shatterhand and his Garden of Death, Bond trapped and sat above an erupting tiny volcano chair before escaping and flying off in the sky on a helium balloon.

    A brainwashed Bond trying to kill M.

    Bond going undercover as Mark Hazard to kill the deadliest hitman on earth, only to find himself on an open steam train, about to be killed as a spectacle for Scaramaga's guests.

    Bond being almost kicked to death by a couple of Brooklyn mobsters wearing football boots.

    Bond rescuing the heroine who is trapped in a motel by a couple of mobsters who plan to rape her then kill her.

    There is much more I can list, but I think you get the point...
    I do, and I can see Craig successfully pulling off any of the above scenes.

    Absolutely! Which is why I have been frustrated with his tenure ever since they abandoned using any Fleming material after CR, and coming up with far weaker scenes and storylines, IMO.

Sign In or Register to comment.