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
However, Broccoli is in the driving seat. Last time around names like Ewan McGregor, Clive Owen, Jude Law, Hugh Jackman, Orlando Bloom, Gerard Butler and Dougray Scott were inevitably on the studio 'shortlist'. But Broccoli wanted Craig and she fought for him. Craig was far from the fan's first choice at the time.
Who knows if Barbara's choice is actually on that list. However, they're the most studio friendly names that MGM would want if Craig does drop out.
There are some good picks there.
I know people have an issue with Idris's skin colour (let's not let this thread descend into another argument on this). However, he has something a lot of these other suppossed canadiates don't have: masculinity. He has a commanding alpha-male appeal and natural sexual charisma. He's a pretty big star maybe too big for Bond. But I'd love to see him in the part.
Two other names that haven't been discussed to death that are listed are Charlie Hunnam and Luke Evans. Hunnam looks bland; very much the new Sam Worthington and Jai Courtney. However, Evans has something. He was great in High-Rise.
Elba's candidacy wasn't solely just tabloid hypothesising or wish fulfillment:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2882431/The-s-Elba-Idris-Elba-Leaked-Sony-emails-reveal-boss-Amy-Pascal-wants-British-actor-James-Bond.html
http://www.vulture.com/2014/12/sonys-amy-pascal-wants-idris-elba-as-james-bond.html
http://gawker.com/leaked-amy-pascal-email-idris-elba-should-be-the-next-1673843286
There's some truth to that; no argument there; but wasn't she also Barbara Broccoli's biggest supporter at Sony and championed her needs and objectives? She was also smart enough to broker a deal that got spider-man to be in the MCU. So whatever madness that plagues her, there's still or used to be some degree of savviness swimming around in that head of hers.
Who knows what was discussed, it could have been about a part but why was it nescessarily be Bond, it could have been anything to do with a future entry.
I do think Idris has plenty of charisma but I don't see Bond, yes the skin colour factors into that but he's now too old.
They need to be looking towards someone who'll give the character a future not someone with a clock wondering that he'll only manage 2 or not.
Hughes and Norton fit that bill, Idris is just a product of the tabloids, as is Tom Hardy I believe, I don't think he's ever been on EON's radar whereas Fassbender I do.
Hiddleston and Turner I think were considered and Aidan might well be on the short list but poor old Tom just campaigned too hard I'm afraid.
No one should be cast because the general public want it, the day the casting of a new Bond is like the X-factor the series is dead.
I get the feeling that Barbara gets on with people like that at Sony just to keep things kosher. She'll tell all of them that their (stupid) ideas will be taken into consideration, but really she just ignores anything they suggest at the end of the day and gets on with her job, making the movies EON wants instead. After hearing the Sony suggestions for script changes during SP's production, I'm glad she tuned them all out.
Barbara is the savvy one here, able to play a Janus like game at the Hollywood level with a bunch of nutjobs, bean counters and egotists. And good on her for it.
In the world of business, particularly the movie business that is being savvy. The common misconception and mistake people make is, that Sony sold the spider-man rights back to Marvel. This is not true at all.
Marvel didn't pay Sony to have Spider-Man in Civil War, and won't pay for him to be in the Avengers or any other Marvel Studios produced film. Simultaneously, Marvel do have creative control over Sony's spidey films but won’t receive a cut of the box office for any of Sony’s films until the film reaches a certain BO milestone. Additionally Sony don’t receive a percentage of the revenue Disney makes from the Marvel films that have Spider-Man in them.
That's a win win situation that gives spider-man the goodwill of Disney/Marvel while still being owned by Sony. Sounds pretty savvy to me.
Far too many studios Fuck up, sweep it under the mat and continuing anyway it's become standard practice in Hollywood. Fox and WB are huge perpetrators of doing this. Fox could and should make a similar if not the same deal as Sony, particularly with the fantastic 4 but they're being stubborn and spiteful. Every Spider-Man movie to date has been profitable, albeit with diminishing returns since the 3rd movie and moreso financially since the 4th movie. However, the tide has now changed and we'll get to see in what degree next summer.
Other than having a promo for it in the end titles, no.
Nope, except for renewed goodwill and hype for the character in general and increased anticipation for the solo movie(s).
I think Homecoming is largely in Sony's hands, so if what @doubleoego is saying is true, it'd be Marvel not getting much.
Homecoming and every other solo spider-man film going forward is creatively controlled by Disney/Marvel. Disney/Marvel are doing all the heavy lifting but it's Sony who reap the financial and BO rewards. Disney/Marvel only get a cut of the profits if and once the film crosses a specific milestone.
The look he's got below, I think is good solid Bond raw material. The fact that he can act and move well, tells me he's got the ingredients to play Bond. He can still fill out some, with a workout regimen. He's plenty tall enough. He's a serious actor that should be able to find the Bond range, from menacing to charming.
5 years from now he could be a fully formed Bond - even now , but we don't need him yet, unless Craig quits, but why would Craig do that?
And yes, James Norton is worthy of consideration too. He's only 31, a year older than Hughes. He's got the broad strokes covered, appearance wise, and like Hughes he can act.
Facially he's got more a ruggedly handsome look, as opposed to Hughes matinee idol looks.
Fleming wrote Bond as having classic tall dark and handsome features, but with a darker edge of course, reflecting his profession. Vivienne Michel spots the duality immediately when she first encounters Bond in TSWLM, so if Hughes can mix the charm with the dark, he's in good Bond shape.
But either Hughes near perfect look or Norton's less conventional look, work just fine I think.
I think we are fortunate to have such a pair of strong candidates on the Eon radar. Either one could ace an audition.
I remain in the Hughes camp, but Norton is potentially worthy.
Good times ahead I think.
===I also saw Craig in Layer Cake when the film was fresh.
Although he didn't strike me as quite having the Bond look, what I did take, was that he showed he could play a Bond like character. He was giving the Bond vibe. There was no mistaking that.
What was missing from the Layer Cake guy I think, was a tough physical edge. The character put up a good exterior, but he wasn't muscle. Still the potential for a Bond portrayal was on display.
http://www.heart.co.uk/showbiz/movies/behind-scenes-new-films/
The only event that Idris Elba should be thankful of, are the SonyLeaks and former Sony-CEO Amy Pascal's support of making Elba the new Bond while Craig is still contractually obligated to play 007 one more time. That event, and that event alone, is the prime reason of all this gossip bullshit featuring Idris Elba.
And as of today it sickens me. Again it shows how criminal computer hacks can be so destructive and influential to the public opinion. Men like Julian Assange and Snowden need to be dragged out of the embassies they are hiding in ("Casino Royale"-style) and be prosecuted for a long prison sentence.
And yeah, funnily enough, this is an highly detested opinion, but I stand by it. Very, very strongly.
Wow, your remarks worry me a lot @Germanlady. What do you actually perceive as 'truth'?? And what do you actually think if there aren't ANY secrets anymore on this planet??
I mean come on, it's naïve to think that there's only good coming from hacks and leaks. It's not. It's disruptive, it destroys social cohesion, it even destroys ordinary business operations, like it was the case with the Sony hacks. And the long-term consequences of it? Loss of welfare and prosperity.
You know, I don't want to derail this topic too much, but if you can't see the damage that has been done to the Bond franchise with this continuous tabloid nonsense about which actor will become the next Bond, then again you are naïve.
I find your populist, strong and un-nuanced language sometimes scary @Germanlady :-(. All I want is a Bond franchise that is less prone to gossip and wrong tabloid rumours. I want the Bond franchise to be clear of that.
Obviously CEO's therefore need to be careful and conduct ethical business where possible. But I also firmly believe that hacking is a key to more problems. It still is crime, it still is the modern-day equivalent of stealing, and you give a full-blown support to that particular crime.