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
Yeah. He does look like a Bond.
Out of interest has anyone changed their minds about who they want as Bond recently?
Like you had someone you wanted in the part and then over time you've saw someone else who is now your favourite
For instance, I wanted Fassbender when I thought Craig wasn't coming back but he's probably too old now, then after seeing And Then There Were None, I thought Aidan Turner could be Bond but he's more of an outside shout now if I'm honest
Who knows, indeed! There's nothing I enjoy more than being proved wrong by an actor, so I'll keep an eye on him. Bullet Train sounds cool, either way.
I have a feeling all of the potential Bond actors mentioned in this thread will be well past Sir Roger's AVTAK age by the time B26 begins development.
Whether this is a part of his history now or not I don't know, but if they keep the same background as Craig's incarnation, then he needs to have been a serving SBS officer too. I am guessing Craig's Bond was both (I think SBS teams are led by either RN Commanders or Marines from what I remember reading).
You can be relatively young and do this (early thirties I think if you work hard and talented - so Bond would fit the mark), but you do need that gravitas.
Something to remember when thinking of casting. It can't just be someone who is British and handsome.
Couldn't agree more with this, well said mate
It's one thing I think people always forget about when they suggest potential candidates. That and the actors voice, Bond should always have a commanding voice to match his presence
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9305249/Aaron-Taylor-Johnson-films-bloody-fight-scene-film-Bullet-Train-led-Brad-Pitt-LA.html
As much as I tend to be against the casting of a black actor as Bond, on looks alone I'd chose him over say Cavill, Turner and many other white actors mentioned here. Not sure why. Maybe he does have something of a younger Colin Salmon. Maybe he looks less youthful/baby face than other actors his age.
Yes, voice is very important. Good point.
This is very much a sideline but the way I understand it, a Royal Navy Commander could be the Commanding Officer of all of SBS. Sources vary. It's either a Royal Navy Captain (one rank above Commander) or a Royal Marines Lieutenant Colonel (equivalent to a RN Commander) while squadrons are led by Navy Lieutenant Commanders or Marine Majors (both one rank below the RN Commander). So Bond would be quite senior in the SBS up to possibly commanding the whole thing. That obviously doesn't work anymore.
But Commander Bond sounds great, so they should definitely keep it.
And to be honest, on both points I think Brosnan falls down! :) I don't buy him as a military man at all (certainly not a special forces type), plus his voice isn't really his strong point. I don't dislike him in the role though so I think there's an awful lot that a bit of straightforward movie star charisma can just make up for, but I do agree that I prefer someone who does have those aspects, like Craig or Connery (plus the charisma of course!).
Cheers @ImpertinentGoon. Great info. I didn't look it up before I wrote the post. So I am happy to be contradicted. I thought a RN Commander could lead a squadron of SBS.
Either way, my point was that Bond should have that standing, experience, and leadership qualities.
Personally, all Bond actors so far could qualify. They are all believable (I have worked with a few ex RN and Marine/Special forces types), and for me, they all fit a version of the various moulds I have encountered - either gruff individuals, having a commanding presence, a good education, or ex-public school style authority. The only one who struggles is Lazenby, and he makes up for it with the swagger of a young, ambitious navy type.
That's just my experience. Not trying to shout down anyone who thinks differently.
What prompted me posting this in the first place was re-watching The Hunt for Red October and seeing Connery playing a naval character - he's great. Moore does a good job in North Sea Hijack too. It basically reminded me of some of Bond's core characteristics, and him being steeped in the history of the RN. I think it is important to keep that background in the films, preferably with him as a Commander, regardless of his height, skin colour, etc.
Doesn't he get referred to as 'Commander Bond' in NTTD?
Mind you, probably the most camp Bond of them all was the toughest and most Bond-like in real life: Niven!
Good point.
I had put that together a while back for a post somewhere else and thought I'd share it here to.
I have never been in or around the military in any way, so I really only have a limited understanding of how all of this works. Just as a caveat.
I think this is a very sly situation where the difference between Fleming Bond, the post-war hero and modern Bond the post-Cikd War career soldier comes through. I don't remember everything off the top of my head, but the obit in YOLT basically states that Bond was given promotions for clandestine work during the war and his position in the RNVR was mostly cover - at least that's the way I read it. So I would presume he was basically outside the usual command structure and was never really a commanding officer and his time as an actual working seaman (or however you want to call it) was quite limited. That doesn't really work nowadays, I think, because SIS and the Navy (or military in general) are more separated and obviously there hasn't been a World War in some time so really the option of gaining ranks through working for Naval Intelligence doesn't really exist anymore.
From what I think Bond is, his rank in the SBS would be more like a Lieutenant leading a small team, but not that much higher up.
At the end of the day, I think this is one of those things where less thinking about it is more for us fans. He is Commander Bond and that is that. Trying to tie up too.many ends just makes a jumble of things...
Good point. I haven't read the YOLT obit for ages because I hate the self reflexive joke about the popular novels being based on his exploits.
And yes, he's Commander Bond and that is that, I agree with completely. I am not trying to overthink it at all. I am merely pointing out that whoever gets the role needs to have looked like they have military experience serving in the RN or SBS or whatever.
They pitched it perfectly with Craig (just remembered he also gets a brief obit in SF where they mention his rank). I just think that should continue with the next incarnation of the role.
I was saying that I was overthinking it, not you :-D So, all good here.
I tend to agree with you that the Navy background should be considered fundamental to the character. It is interesting that you write about it being a question of gravitas and a certain feeling you get from the performance rather than something in the writing. I have been thinking a bit about ways for screenwriters to bring that part of the character into the film but maybe you are more on the right track that that shouldn't even be needed. It has to come from the actor and the way he carries himself and not some nifty piece of writing about the conflicts he was involved in or something.
I don't understand how PB's voice doesn't stand up. His voice as an actor is distinctive and he uses it very well. Now if you're saying his voice doesn't suggest he was a Commander in the Navy, well, we're now entering the realm of the ridiculous.
I think Bond is similar to Lawrence of Arabia; an outsider who doesn't seem to fit in.
If Bond were to initially appear somewhat unbelievable as having been in the Navy and Commando's, I don't think it's too much of a problem because it fulfils that outsider quality and also helps him to blend in as a spy.
As much as I love Craig's interpretation and the change he helped bring to the franchise, I don't think its necessary for Bond to be as close as possible to a real life agent. The main thing is that he can get by on his wit and be the ruthless man of action when he needs to be- and that we believe him when he does.
I like all the Bond's for different reasons. Next time round I'd like to see a Bond who is a bit more positive, more extrovert, who smiles now and then. I think the charisma of the actor and their watchability may actually be far more important than if they tick the right boxes. Ticking boxes can be boring. I loved Craig's Bond at first, but since Skyfall I find him pretty boring. He seems constantly depressed. Talking often even seems a challenge for him.
Let's be thankful for what Craig brought to the series, but after NTTD, let's leave him on a golden beach, alone, with a bottle of Blackwells. There, as he thinks of Vesper, he may drink himself into the grave he longs for.
To those of you who deride Brosnan- I don't understand you. You may think him too slight -possibly the least important fault- but what about all his positives?? I don't see how he himself could have been any better in the films he had. He worked his arse off and did a brilliant job. I think he had the best balance of all the elements, even though he's not necesserily my favourite Bond. How lucky we would be to have an actor of Brosnan's calibre next time round. I hope those of you who dislike Brosnan aren't also the ones suggesting Nicholas Hoult or Jack Lowden. @-)
I didn't say that no: two separate points raised in the discussion. You're joining those dots yourself.
His voice is just a bit whiny, that's all. He does a bit of an affected raspy thing to try to mitigate it. Plus he's got his odd, unique accent.
It's not terrible or anything, just not his greatest strength.
Completely agree about all this.
Sorry if I came across as annoyed - that was just bad writing on my part. All good here too!
Personally, Brosnan is my least favourite, but that doesn't mean I think he is bad. In many respects he is the best thing about the films he is in. I rank GE very lowly, but not because of his performance. I think he's good in all four of his efforts. Also, personally I think he does a good job of the ex military aspect too. He carries himself with confidence. But everyone sees things differently, and that's fair.
As I have said before, I think EON have chosen the lead actor brilliantly each and every time. The fact that the films have continued to be successful proves that. Whatever one thinks of Brosnan, or Moore, or Dalton, they each in their own way kept things going when the series was in doubt. And even in the case of Lazenby, the only instance where you could say they made an error, his performance is actually terrific for the most part, and the film now stands as one of the very best. So retrospectively it has worked out - even if has taken 50 years!
James Bond 007 is both a very simple character and a complex one. Each actor has brought out certain elements of the character that the other actors haven't. And I think when people suggest actors here, they acknowledge that nobody can really encapsulate every single aspect of the character perfectly. So what you get are actors who bring out particular traits more than others.
Excellently put, @FatherValentine.
For contrast, I never bought Moore as an ex-military man, mainly because of his lack of physical fighting skills. There are countless times, to me, where he feels like a stiff, graceless English teacher in his rough and tumbles with enemies. But he excelled in his own way in other important areas which meant the films rarely suffered as slices of entertainment in spite of that gripe.
I think that owes a lot to what you are saying, there.
You give with one hand, and you take away with the other, @CraigMooreOHMSS, haha. Obviously you are 100% correct that my previous comment was 'Excellently put'. Well spotted!
But I'm afraid I disagree about Moore. If you look at AVTAK maybe, but in LALD, TMWTGG and the fight in Octopussy's bedroom he's good. I think you have to judge his fight scenes alongside other fight scenes in films made around the same time, rather than against how film fights look now. If you do that they compare very well to what was in contemporaneous cinemas.
Also, his gun handling is pretty good overall too. Look at him in The Wild Geese and North Sea Hijack for more evidence of that. Also, he does remind me of ex naval men I have met. He's got a gravitas and looks comfortable among other naval men in TSWLM, for example. He also had a National Service background too, so had some military experience.
Obviously, we all have a different takes on things, but you've touched a nerve with this one haha!
But it is fair to point out that the lasting impression of his ability in action scenes is in AVTAK, where he seemingly didn't do anything on set that involved doing more than standing up. He does look awful in those fights for sure.
Such is life, eh? ;)
And I'm sure you wouldn't be alone in that! Haha! But it was always an issue for me outside of AVTAK, too. But I digress to my point that it was not his physical abilities that made his Bond so popular, so I guess it ultimately doesn't particularly matter anyway.
It was my fault, I derailed the conversation by defending Moore! I understood your point. Yeah, Moore is better known for his comedy and lightness of touch. Though I do find a lot of his more ruthless moments are forgotten by casual fans - such as killing Sandor in TSWLM. It's so ruthless they gave the same 'move' to Daniel Craig 30 years later!
I think a lot of where they go after Craig depends on who is available, I guess.