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
EDIT: Here it is. Interesting read.
https://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/film/news/a8782/daniel-craig-interview/
EDIT again: You got it before me.
What I am saying is I think many of the franchises Hardy is known for will not be successful and it will mean he is available for Bond. Hardy is a strange character, because he is considered a household name and yet I don't think he ever plays the main character. Venom will be the first time for that, but I don't think Sony can compete with Marvel and Fox when it comes to superheroes. Hardy will be available for Bond and if Nolan gets the franchise, Hardy will definitely have a role even if he isn't wearing the tux himself. But I do think he is the most like Harrison Ford for a British actor I have ever seen.
As @bondjames points out. Eon would need to "reimagine Bond in a more hip way." Otherwise they're in danger of finding themselves stuck in a recurring cycle of Bond battling his own relevancy in the world as he gets close to retirement age. I'm afraid that shtick is going to get pretty damn tedious, pretty damn quick if they should go that route again. That's a good enough reason not to cast a 40 year-old Tom Hardy in the role @Mendes4Lyfe. Not that Hardy will be 40 anymore in four or five years from now. That's why he's not a realistic suggestion for a reboot.
He is if it's a trilogy.
There's nothing to say a tenure has to last 10+ years. They frequently don't.
2022 he'll be 43/44, younger than. Roger in LALD. With 3 year gaps, he would be 49/50 in his third and final. In this day and age where heroes are getting older, and Bond is no young buck to begin with, that's perfectly fine.
Harrison Ford was 47 in The Last Crusade, for reference.
Only by a few months.
Like I said, Harrison was 47 in Last Crusade. Was he not convincing in the role to you?
The concept that Bond needs to be re-imagined to me implies as a character he isn't worth the screen-time any more. There shouldn't be any need for the series to prove itself and the character yet again. That's why I feel these 4 year gaps are so damaging. If the films were even being released with consistent 3 year intervals, the series would be naturally evolving and not losing relevance.
My point is more that: 1) the emphasis on 'old ways' in SF (which let's remember is the most successful Bond film of the recent past) combined with 2) the woefully useless follow up which linked everything together and 3) the unenticing prospect of an over the hill Craig lumbering through his 5th outing leave limited options going forward.
In the era of #metoo, Black Panther, millenials and SJWs, there are fewer paths for Bond now without reinvention.
So it isn't only the long gaps (I firmly believe Broccoli is dead wrong that Bond needs to be an 'event'), but also the times we live in combined with the poor choices they have made (for the longevity of the series, even if they may have profited from it in the short term) that have potentially necessitated another 'younger' reboot.
Totally agree. And the one year - with three year intervals instead of four, can make a lot of difference, both in casting, relevance, marketing and box office.
An actor in the 30-34 year age group, who can pass as older than that, is the best option, if you ask me.
True. SF could have been left alone as the 50th anniversary event it was without the need to link it and the others in SP. Had SP been a stand alone follow up with solid writing, there might not be much question as to where to take the series from here.
Bond is very well loved and embraced by movie-goers, and the general public. I personally feel its the media that forces the issue that Bond is out-dated or in need of reinvention, hence the constant articles advocating Gillian Anderson or who ever for the part.
If the film is solid, well publicized, exciting, and true to Bond, the audience will turn up. Bond has passed through so many eras over the decades that this current trend of SJWs, etc should seem a walk in the park.
That goes without saying.
Definitely the media is complicit and drives this nonsensical PC narrative. The question is what does one do? Stand one's ground and keep Bond true to his roots, with minimal pandering to prevailing sensibilities? Or succumb to the pressures? I sincerely hope for steel balls worthy of Bond in CR by the producers. Failing which, sell to someone else and move on.
They need a film that celebrates the best of Bond and a suave actor who can pull it off. That will reset everything. I think they need another (modern version) TSWLM or GE sooner rather than later.
The direct continuity is one of my biggest problems with the Craig era as well. It deliberately separates itself from the rest of the series. When a reference is made to the past, the ejector seat joke in SF for example, it almost takes one out of the movie for a moment.
I think CR was very much a reaction to the current trends: the Bourne series and the re-boot phenomenon. Luckily it had a great Fleming story to back it up. However, I think CR would have been fine without the gimmick of making it Bond's origin story.
I do hope we get another TSWLM or GE sooner than later, with a film that embraces the series' legacy and history rather than turning it's back on it.
I'm not accusing you of this, @ToTheRight, but I do think some members here have a real hangup about Eon potentially casting a new Bond that's actually younger than themselves. It scares them that they're getting on a bit and it shatters their own illusion (delusions) that they're too old to be 007 themselves — no longer able to live their own schoolboy fantasies. Again, I'm not accusing you of this, but I'm willing to bet that there's most definitely a percentage here that have this psychology block as to why they don't want to see a 32-year-old Bond again. I do agree with you about the long gaps between movies being frustrating. Damaging? We've yet to see much evidence of this. They've certainly painted themselves into a creative cul-de-sac with a senescent Bond though. Where to next? Logan Bond or a repeat of SF again?
For me, realistically, a Bond actor should be ending his tenure at around the 40 mark — not starting it.
Like you, I also feel early 30s is just right to start a tenure, with a planned exit by the early to mid 40s. That gives a good 10 to 12 year run which will work even with the longer gaps between films (although that's not something I endorse at all, and would much prefer a return to the 2-3 year gaps of the past).
It's an interesting point you make about a younger actor casting doubt on member's own mortality and energy. I hadn't thought about that previously, but the next actor is very likely to be younger than me, and I'm not sure how I'm going to feel about that yet.
With the assumption that the actor keeps himself fit, a starting age of 35 and concluding age of 50ish seems right.
I'm not sure how accurate the reporting was but I seem to recall there were once rumours about Eon wanting to shoot both Bond 24 & 25 back-to-back, until Craig dismissed the very notion and shot the idea down in flames. I guess it's not unreasonable to surmise that a back-to-back Bond shoot could be something worth considering again for a future date with a lesser-known actor in the role? Especially as he is less likely to baulk at the physicalities of the job due to him being both young and eager to secure the role. It's also worth remembering that Dr No and FRWL were basically shot back-to-back, so it wouldn't be a first.
I'm sure they could consider it again in the future, or at the very least try to plan out a two film arc for the new actor's first and second outing so as to prevent the problems which beleaguered QoS. After all these long breaks, I would think at least a profit oriented distributor (if not Broccoli) would want to blast out of the blocks with Bond actor #007 and give us two entries in relatively quick succession. You'e quite right that a new actor would probably be hungry to get on with it. Most don't appear to need the extended breaks that the incumbent seems to favour.
Having said that, I'm not sure if I'm entirely down with the idea. I can't recall any back-to-back filmed movie which I've particularly enjoyed. I'd perhaps be more agreeable to a multi-film script being drawn up at least with the director for the first film of the next actor contracted to at least do the second one too (like Young and Hamilton for Connery and Moore respectively).
My problem is that there seem to be less and less decent candidates who are young and actually have that look imo. I know an older actor would do less movies but give me two or three films with someone like Hardy or Fasdbender over five or six with most of these 30 something's mentioned any day.
I think the popular choices and suggestions are definitely worse than they were going from Brosnan to Craig altogether, but pretty much all of the few where I've thought "yeah, he could be good" were older actors. 28 year olds don't look like Sean Connery anymore and I'd rather have a tough hardened seeming Bond from the off than have to wait for him to grow into the part, even if it means less movies from them. After Craig being Bond for so long, more frequent recasting actually seems sort of appealing to me as well. Doubt EON or whoever end up casting the next one will see it that way though.
But, to thelivingroyale's point: the 32 year old Connery looked like THE Man already; whereas, today, the candidates in this age range aren't that great. At all. My guess is the re-cast will be an unknown-- all the "knowns" are grotesquely under-qualified (outside of Fassbender and Hardy (both too old; and I would be hard-pressed on Hardy at this point))
As far as being older than the actor playing Bond, if you've passed 29 and are watching OHMSS, then Lazenby's 007 is younger than you. The way I see it, if we're lucky, we're all going to eventually get to Sir Roger's age when he did AVTAK. I imagine some here may have already reached that milestone of 57. I look forward to myself. Of course by then the current incumbent will be far younger than me. My biggest hang up is that time is passing and we're getting fewer films per decade. I maintain the opinion that Bond should be an in-determinant age. He should look old enough to have the world weariness evident in Fleming, yet youthful enough to still have several assignments ahead of him. Actors age and mature differently. Connery and Lazenby had those qualities relatively young, and many of today's actors don't acquire them until they are well into their 30's. Even Pierce looked baby faced in 1986.
@bondsum, I agree Bond has changed over the decades. However, I'd say he evolved naturally through the different actors and time periods. Yet, he still remained Bond.
That's a very good point. I have no problems with Laz as Bond.
Can't think of more than a handful young-ish actors that have anything about them close to what actors like Connery, Moore and Lazenby had in radiation. That's something that is completely lost with most actors today.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/03/04/report-sperm-count-drastically-dropping-western-world/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social