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
Be god damn serious. Are you going to use Daniel Radcliffe as an example too, since he didn't have 20+ years of leading star experience before getting cast as Harry Potter? 'The Force Awakens' was not marketed as a Daisy Ridley film in the same way Mission Impossible, Jack Reacher or Edge of Tomorrow are indeed Tom Cruise films.
And Layer Cake was not marketed solely as a Daniel Craig vehicle either, in the same way as Mission Impossible is with Cruise. He's barely a main character in it.
But regardless, Daisy Ridley was cast in a 200 million dollar production when they could have just as easily gone with a more experienced 20 year old woman. And this new chap playing Han Solo doesn't appear to have carried a film on his own either, so when all is said and done, being a relatively under the radar actor is not a deal breaker when it comes to starring in big budget films.
Bond may be big budget action, but, it does rely on the actor in this role to sell it to an international market. More than anything, Babs will be looking for someone with presence enough to carry the film. IMHO, Turner fails in this regard. He's a capable tv actor, but his presence doesn't radiate further than that.
I also think the distributors, since they will be marketing the film for international audiences, want someone who at least has had supporting roles in films they can reference.
There's no point talking to you, is there? Stop being so oblivious to what people are saying. Use actual, serious arguments please. The main marketing point of a Bond film is the lead actor playing Bond. Daisy Ridley was not the main aspect TFA rely on to sell the film. And why the hell did you bring Layer Cake into this? The film had a budget of less than 7 million dollars, it didn't need to be marketed as a Daniel Craig vehicle in order to make profit at the box office, but he did carry the film, and prior to that he had several films where he was the lead star.
Nobody is questioning Turner's talents or that his movie career will never take off, but he is not getting cast as Bond until he can prove he can headline a film.
'At the end of the day', as you say, Daisy Ridley is not in any way remotely responsible for the huge success of TFA, but whoever is in Bond 25, be it Daniel Craig or a new actor, will be one of the key aspects of the film's marketing and ultimately to the film's success.
I'm not disputing that, but my comment was in response to what @Ludovico wrote, that other people are saying that Turner doesn't have a high profile, and/or is a tv actor. All of the Bond fall under this category. Connery, Dalton & Craig had experience behind them, but weren't household names. Moore and Brosnan, I would ague that despite some film experience, were more tv actors.
You might have a point about Turner, but then I don't think Brosnan was that well known in the UK, before being cast, even with Remington Steele. He had Remington Steele, which I gather was a big thing, in the US... in the 1980's. But between that and Bond, he was knocking around in stuff like Live Wire.
Personally, I wouldn't mind Turner being cast, but if it doesn't happen, then it's no tragedy.
But you do touch on something that is very much worth bringing up when you say that the actor hired for Bond will be ultimately one of the key aspects to the films successful. I agree with that in a sense, however the exact way in which the actor will affect the success of the film could be very different than how it is done now. For instance, in terms of pure performance Craig is highly regarded as Bond, but in other areas he is lacking, his handling of press commitments being probably the most known blot on his record. Some of his comments aren't exactly good PR for EON and it's possible that they might try and remedy this with the next actor.
Film marketing these days is beginning to cost more than actually making the films themselves. I remember hearing that Roger was absolutely amazing at charming the press, he could talk for days on end and never get tired. Brosnan was a similar although he was touchy on occasion. I was thinking maybe they would go for a lower profile actor that would not create any more PR disasters. Honestly, I think the talent aspect of Bond actors is overstated in importance, especially these days. What EON really needs is stamina for these long shoots and gruelling press tours. This occurred to me, because someone like Turner is very cheery and upbeat whatever the weather. That is a very valuable trait for EON to exploit.
The Welsh have a good acting pedigree, Burton, Dalton, Hopkins...Bale. Are there any up and coming potential Welsh Bonds?
Bond is a different beast: don't confuse talent with presence. Luckily Craig has both, but a new actor would at least need the latter (and hopefully the former); Turner is a competent TV actor, with not a lot of big-screen balls attached to him.
I would think, after Craig, Babs will go for a dynamic personality, someone who will make us temporarily forget what came before him.
Neither did Brosnan before Bond, unless you count a slew of B-Movies and made-for-television tommyrot as leading star status?
Exactly. There are a lot of similarities between Brosnan and Turner IMO.
@peter maybe your right. They would certainly save money with Turner compared to Craig.
And how did John Boyega and Daisy Ridley fit into this global market of yours for Star Wars?
Sorry, @peter, but you can't have your cake and eat it. Bond is the granddaddy of all the franchises. You could use the same "it was going to be a smash, regardless" retort equally for Bond. Only difference here is that we don't have a new Bond picture starring a new unknown Bond to prove it.
Bond is also global, but so much of that success is on the shoulders of the man wearing the tux. The distributors will want a presence that they know they can sell to the global audiences.
If the new actor is a B-level, and the global audience turns their back, the franchise is in real trouble. I'm not saying they need to go A-list (please don't put words in my mouth); but they do need someone who can carry the character, someone they can reference in their marketing who has a history of interesting roles, and someone who, once the film comes out, will make us have temporary amnesia of who came before him.
The role of Bond is a lot more difficult than saying, man he looks good in a tux...
as for Boyega: you do know that the Chinese market shrunk his face on all their ads, don't you?
If Turner is the new Brosnan we get an unsure actor who'll regret his own performance in the series but is still very grateful for what it brought him. I don't think we want to go down that road again, dispite Brosnan beeing very honest and open about his tenure.
And I believe it won't be as easy to "just going back" to what was done before Craig.
However, he definitely needs screen presence, charisma, a decent voice, a reasonable physique, and he'd better look half decent as well (although we don't need a fashion model).
he doesn't need to be able to 'act cool'. He needs to 'be cool'. It must emanate naturally. All of the Bond actors, to varying degrees, have exhibited that characteristic including Brosnan (albeit less so imho).
I personally believe that EON will go for a slightly bigger name (than Craig) next time out. Bond has been redefined and is looked upon more favourably critically these days (the last film is still seen as an unfortunate hiccup, rather than an ongoing declining trend, as was the case in the 90s and even the mid to late 80s).
They will not want to lose what Craig has given them, but rather build on it with a new actor.
I agree.
Bond's success, on the other hand, is all about the man in the tux. The casting here is very tricky: the actor will have to have many appealing traits about him that will have to sell globally.
In this day and age, and a crowded marketplace, just simply handing the reigns over to a TV actor with little film experience, would be a silly gamble (unless that actor has shown something remarkable in what is his body of work-- just being Brosnan-lite won't cut it).
@bondjames has listed the important components; one of the most important @Mendes4Lyfe, is not "acting" cool but "being" cool. IMHO that's Turner's downfall: he acts rather than "being" (and he seems to have only one dramatic face: bratty scowl)
I honestly don't think, if the next James Bond is a relative unknown, it'll make that much of a difference to the overseas market. The big draw for a Bond movie has always been its action set pieces. Get the action right and the Chinese market will flock to see it, as they do with those terrible, badly-acted Fast & Furious movies. Also, one thing that some of these other franchises do well is they cast supporting roles to established Indian and Chinese actors, to draw in the crowds overseas. It's cynical, but it does encompass your global market view of popular Western cinema. Maybe future Bond movies will do this, too?
That's not to say I don't think the casting of a new Bond actor won''t affect our own Western BO returns, because it will. Get the casting wrong at our end, and audiences will dramatically drop off. As to who that might be, well, I could give half a dozen reasons as to why it won't be a big name, the major one being that EON will never be able to tie them down to more than a two-picture deal without first forfeiting their own profits. They'll want an actor that will be able to commit himself to the role and establish a series of movies, and that will do it for a certain fee and not a percentage. These established actors that have been bandied about here will all want a high fee and a percentage of the gross. I just don't see EON agreeing to that, no matter what the global market says.
FF films are spectacle; I'd like to think of Bond films as elevated action compared to that franchise;
I agree with your POV that other franchises do fill out supporting cast thinking of the various markets, and yes, I think Bond will have to do more of this in the future as well.
I don't think we're in for a Laz/Craig/Dalts run for the next one. More Moore/Brosnan levels of fame.
Regarding salary and 'points' demands - I'm sure some accommodation can be made, especially if scripts and directors are up to snuff.
Bond actors normally sign on for three films with an option for a fourth. It's not unreasonable to expect that a director may sign on for at least two films, especially if there is a known trajectory and path for the character. This can go some way towards appeasing an actor's salary demands.
Moreover, other 'vanity' projects can be funded by the same studio. There are ways to make deals.
As you're quite aware, directors can drop out of making a sequel they originally agreed to make for a number of reasons. It happens all the time. Unless there's a script, etc, they just won't commit to the project. The actor is in a different position to the director as he has signed up for three more, regardless of the script.