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
Have you not seen Prisoners?
After seeing CR, a hint of regret …
Maybe, although we can never know. I'm very happy with the actor we got. Especially since there was no distracting factor, such as being associated with another iconic character.
Connery is the quintessensial irrefutable Bond. Craig however, at least in my opinion, was replaceable. By for example this man, who goes by the name Michael Fassbender. Seen here in 2006:
He'd have been absolutely perfect. The one who got away.
I'd take Richard Johnson over Connery.
All the actors are replaceable, this is just the way the cards fell.
Now it's hard to picture the two of them since they're old enough (agreed about Jackman with the Wolverine one, although he could've soften it a bit when it comes to Bond), but then again, my problem with them are the age (of course now), and another thing: they're too popular.
Fassbender, even back in the day was too much of a star, he's what Henry Cavill is now, more bigger than the character, even Jackman, they're too much of a star.
I'd liked my Bond actor not to be that much popular.
Listen mate it'd be boring if everyone agreed all the time. I love Craig's portrayal myself, but I can see why fans can't buy into his era.
I agree I think had Craig not been Bond, Fassbender would have been perfect for the role, that scene in "Inglourious Basterds" alone sold me on him being Bond.
The moment Jackman became Wolverine, he was not going to be Bond. Too associated with one iconic character to become another.
I'd rather have lesser known actors cast as the new Bond as well. And that counts fir the Bond girls and the villains too: I hope they bring back veteran lesser known actress to play baddies. Or only famous "locally", not international stars who won an Oscar.
Or indeed someone like Stanley Baker could have gotten it. Both him and Jonson were arguably similar to Connery, and I get the sense the producers at the time were leaning more towards that rugged anti-hero type rather than the 'English gentleman spy' that many readers had in their heads at the time when it came to Bond.
So yes, it's always about where the cards fall, but I think the producers often have a general idea of what they want for the new Bond that influences who they chose to audition. It'll be interesting seeing what they go with this time around in that respect.
Stanley Baker is another good choice. Yes. Baker definitely had the toughness. Innocent Bystanders, though closer to an anti Bond, than Bond itself give an idea of what a Baker Bond might have been like. Minus the 70's 'tache though.
For Johnson, I imagine something between Deadlier Than The Male and Danger Route, maybe leaning a little more towards the latter.
I think Baker would have been a great alternative had they not gotten Connery. I know he was considered for the role but for whatever reason didn't want to do it. In fairness I think that 'anti-Bond' idea is something the producers were half leaning into anyway. Not fully, but they certainly emphasised more of a sense of irony and tongue in cheek humour that's not quite the same as the literary character (even Connery said he went into the role with the intention of 'making fun' of the original character). Again, it points to what they wanted from the film Bond and their lead actor. They could just as easily have gone for a Trevor Howard or David Niven type - someone more gentlemanly, English and upper middle class who would have played the role 'straight'. Instead they seemed to lean towards rugged, regional actors from working class backgrounds who would have brought more humour or irony to the role such as Connery, Baker and Johnson.
I agree 100% ; the stars were aligned for the inception of this franchise and Connery was an integral element.
True, none of them could've brought the franchise into a stardom like Connery did, Stanley Baker and Richard Johnson are both good actors, but none of them could've been possibly a star like Connery was in the role.
Although if there's a Connery alternative that I could think of, and maybe could've been on par with what Connery done, it's Cary Grant.
But yes, Connery is the star, nothing could've topped that.
And perhaps literally. It was the swinging sixties, after all. ;)
It shows getting the right person is important, but knowing what you want from the wide pool of candidates is equally as important. For DN they wanted someone who could play a sardonic, rugged, but essentially charming anti-hero type. For CR they wanted someone who could push the grittier side of Bond. In both instances rather unusual, but talented candidates were chosen, to the point where few fans can imagine any other actor in the role during their tenures.
Nicely stated @007HallY …I love Jackman, and he was terrific in Prisoner, but I can’t see him cracking open Bond, as Craig did in CR…
Exactly. And moreover even if Jackman hadn't been a big star at the time I doubt he would have been considered for the part because he wouldn't have been what the producers were looking for (I agree though, Prisoners is a great little film and Jackman is wonderful in it).
It's a key to casting the right Bond, knowing what they're looking for. And at the moment we don't know what this will be with regards to potential candidates (especially since this will be the first time we'll get a millennial born James Bond, someone born after the Cold War). It might be a bit different to some of the qualities that Craig brought.
Hugh Jackman said the producers were interested in him. The usual thing actors say. I guess it's flattering to get interest from the producers even if it's not a serious offer.
From what I understand, Barbara Broccoli was very keen on Craig so I guess his casting was meant to be. Craig did turn down the initial offer but reconsidered and accepted the role.
One can only wonder what he would've been like in the role. He didn't seem like an obvious choice, but Cubby and Harry must have seen something in him.
We'll never know how it would've been panned out.