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
You mention that Holmes is "THE most played character in cinema and television" as if audiences that went along to see Robert Downey Jr gave that a second thought when queuing up to see his movie. I'm sure if you'd have stood inline alongside them and put this question to each and everyone of them, the vast majority would've given you blank stare. Bottom line, the average modern moviegoer doesn't really care that much about the history and filmography of these characters and would be hard-pressed to give you the names of any two actors that have played him before. Off the top of my head I can only think of Basil Rathbone (who, by all accounts, shouldn't really have played him as he'd already played such iconic roles as Sir Guy of Gisbourne and Baron Wolf von Frankenstein directly before that) and of course Christopher Lee. Though, I'm aware of there being many other actors, both TV and cinema, who have also played him over the years, it's these 2 that standout to me.
But it seems that we're just making a case for any actor being able to play Holmes but not Bond, when that's not entirely true. Some have been terribly miscast as Holmes. As for Holmes there's a certain mould that they must adhere to. Of course, there's no way that so many actors will be able to match the numbers that have played Holmes, notably because he's in the public domain and producers are free to make as many different versions of him without paying a fee. This cannot be said of Bond. Still, six different actors have played 007, so the audience understands that it's not going to be Connery anymore when they buy their ticket for B26 or B27. Whether they can suspend their disbelief that Clark Kent can now be 007, I don't think that it'll be too much of a problem, maybe only to a small minority?
To be fair, Fleming paved the way for that in the books. There are a couple of times where he makes out his stories are based on a real life Bond, and in M actually mentions the books in Bond's obituary. So they could exist in the film world too. Tiffany probably knew about him because of them.
I think in general actors associated with one iconic role tend to be stuck with this association. They can of course do other things but in genre movies it stick to them. Mark Hamill had to become a voice actor (and a great one at that) to get off the shadow of Star Wars. To be fair to Henry Cavill, I understand his Superman was not exactly memorable.
Back to Basil Rathbone. Of course, The Adventures of Robin Hood was very much the Star Wars of its day. There probably wasn't anyone on earth, at the time, that didn't recognise Basil Rathbone from that movie. It would have been seen as "iconic" and as "role defining" back in 1938 as it was for any lead actor that appeared in Star Wars in 1977 and after. I think there's always a counterargument for casting an established name into an "iconic" role. If I recall correctly, they almost went with Robert Redford for the 70s Superman. I think one of the deciding factors was that the producers wanted an actor that would make more than one movie with them, and the salary would've been an important factor too. This is all a long-winded way of saying I don't think it's too important that Cavill has played the man in spandex before Bond anymore, or vice versa. If the modern audience is as well-versed and knowledgeable as we suspect that they are, then they'll already know that Cavill was Campbell's original first choice for Bond over Craig and, like Brosnan, will see him as the heir apparent. Does that mean that I think Eon would prefer an unknown over an established name... yes, I still think that would still be their preference. So Turner it is, then :)
Batman: The Animated Series gave him a whole new profile under The Joker. A role he reprises to this day and is most associated with.
And I did say he had to become a voice actor. Where he excels by the way.
I think big is a strong word there though, compare his career to Harrison Ford's. I've played some of the Arkham games and I think he's brilliant in them, almost on par with Heath Ledger, but without wanting to be disrespectful, it isn't really what you'd expect the lead from Star Wars to have ended up doing. Good for him basically finding a whole new career and he's obviously very talented but it is a bit weird that he didn't get more film roles.
Scheduling is also an issue. I know that we've been subjected to four year periods between Bonds, but I'm guessing EON would ultimately prefer--after locking in a new actor and securing distribution--to regularly release films on a two-to-three year interval. A new Bond actor will likely be expected to be up for at least four films, and if he's already part of another franchise with similar expectations, scheduling will become difficult.
For me, the only part of your summary that goes astray is when you mention "it's better to cast an actor who hasn't been publicly defined as another character" then use the term "exception to the rule" and cite two actors where this was apparently forgiven @Revelator. It's either a rule or it isn't, I'm afraid. And I think the examples that you've just offered prove that the rules are there to be broken or at least bent. I think it's easy for younger members here to forget just how popular and well known Roger Moore was as The Saint before he made LALD. Sir Rog even found it difficult stepping out from the shadow of Templar with his The Persuaders! TV show in '71, which failed to capture the US market and for which ABC pulled the series before all 24 episodes were aired. Some might blame the fact that it went head-to-head with Mission: Impossible, if excuses are there to be had, but the combined chemistry of Tony Curtis and Roger Moore should have been enough to overcome a show that had been running since 1966 and that only had 2 more years of life left in it before it was cancelled itself. Either way, Moore was still Simon Templar in most people's eyes. Despite UA and—for a long time Saltzman not wanting to go with Moore (Broccoli was his biggest champion)—Moore got the green-light. Whether I was a big fan of Roger Moore or not as 007 is by the by, it's how others saw him that really counts. Regardless, I still parted with my own money to queue up and see Moore in a Bond movie even when his movies were pretty dire.
It's still a rule, but I'll modify it to read "it's better to cast an actor who hasn't been publicly defined as character dissimilar to Bond." Simon Templar and Bond are cut from a more similar cloth than, say, Batman and Bond, and the Saint was an obvious influence on Fleming's Bond. For an actor to go from one to another feels like a natural progression. Ditto for Remington Steele, who again shared DNA with Templar and Bond, and whose show was often viewed as a Bond try-out for Brosnan.
When you have an actor who has proved himself in the role of a suave but tough British adventurer, the sort of hero looks great in a tux, at the wheel of a swank car, or at the throat of a villain, then the public is already primed to accept him as a potential Bond. His past roles don't have to be put aside in picturing him as Bond, whereas Cavill would need to make us forget Superman even after he stops playing him. And to be honest, I don't find him an interesting or exciting choice for Bond.
There are thousands of young, ambitious, and talented actors in Britain and the Commonwealth who haven't yet hit the big time, and hundreds of them who might have the attributes for Bond. It would be wonderful for EON to work the same magic it did with Connery and put a new face in the spotlight, someone with no past associations. As it is, none of the big names currently proposed for the role are to my liking.
He certainly hasn't given the ghost of Christopher Reeve a run for his money.
I would agree with this. Which is why casting one of the undiscovered talents might be the correct move (at least if recasting needed doing now).
I mean, let's assume that we would all be able to reasonably guess the eventual choice for Bond #7, that the next actor winds up being someone with whom we would all be familiar and not a new discovery. @Revelator makes a good case for what their scouting template should be: a familiar actor, but not a major Hollywood star; someone known chiefly for his television work, familiar through the small screen but whose freshness on the large screen is yet untapped; someone who has extensively played someone in the Bond mold.
Given those guidelines, is there anyone who actually fits? Off the top of my head I'm stuck.
They have a lot of former Bond movies actors. And I mean a lot. It would makes sense to have a future Bond in the cast past or present.
The problem with some of the logic of not casting Cavill is based solely around "I don't find him an interesting or exciting choice for Bond" or "he's a plank of wood" which is fair enough. It's of course subjective as I never bought into Roger Moore as Bond for the very same reasons, seeing him as Simon Templar first and rather limited as a performer. That doesn't mean to say that I didn't like Roger Moore, I loved him. Maybe just not as Bond, and not for the duration he ended up playing 007 for. I think perhaps 3 or 4 movies max should have been his limit. I also wasn't alone in this way of thinking either, but it seems I was a minority in the overall big scheme of things.
We could debate the pros and cons of Moore and Brosnan having played a prototype Bond before being cast as Bond, but at the end of the day Moore (Brosnan perhaps less so as Remington Steele) was universally known as TV's The Saint in his early years. Never once did I watch The Saint and think: he was like James Bond because he was British and suave. To me, he was always Simon Templar foremost in my mind. Only when Moore became Granddad Bond did I think he's now too old to play Simon Templar and came around to the notion that maybe he was now his very own Bond, although not for the right reasons. Cavill dressed up in spandex with a kiss curl and adopting an American accent is a very different proposition to seeing the same actor dressed in a tux and with his proper English accent. It'll be interesting whether you think of Superman when you watch Cavill in the new MI movie. My guess is that you won't over the duration of the movie. And by the very same token that we're saying Moore and Brosnan played prototype Bonds before being cast, can we not apply the same logic to Cavill as a CIA agent in MI? After seeing that amazing halo jump that Cavill performs in the movie, maybe the producers will think: we want our very own action man who can do his own stunts like Cruise as well? Again, I'm just playing devil's advocate here.
No it shouldn't have been like a Bond movie. It should have been like a Man From Uncle movie, but wasn't! Wasted, wasted opportunity.
https://metro.co.uk/2018/05/17/midsomer-murders-nick-hendrix-throws-name-ring-replace-daniel-craig-james-bond-7554683/
Nah. He looks like a younger version of Tom Hanks viewed through a prism... and his voice is too light.
After all this Cavill bashing and me playing devil's advocate, I've actually come around to being in Cavill's corner now. At least Cavill does his own stunts. Apparently it even surprised Tom Cruise that he was willing to do so many of them in MI: Fallout. I think Cavill's the real deal.
Decent enough actor, but as Bond? No, can't see how that would work.
"Oh Moneypenny, you look lovely today"
Right age, unknown enough. Not sure at all about his face on the pics.