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
He has the look, style, and he is a great actor.
He would be my number one choice, if age wasn't a factor.
Unfortunately, however, age is a factor and he will simply be too old when Bond 26 rolls around. I can't get behind Hiddle's as he too weak looking. Hardy is too street. Madden has the look, and is a solid actor, but he is too small. Of all the realistic contenders in the media, my number one pick is still Henry Cavill. I know he needs to be enthused by the material to dish out a performance, but I don't think that would be a problem with Bond. I wouldn't have anything against Turner or Stevens, either.
Agreed. Either of those would have been, quite frankly, excellent.
They are 41 & 44 years old,so they could still play Bond for about 3 films IF Craig somehow dropped out of B25 and EON went back to the 'film every 2 years' routine.
Now,however,who knows,but box office wise SP still did well.
Craig as Bond is a money-making machine.
This is true. They have been the victims of their own financial success. This is why I hope they don't chase box office going forward, but scale back to a more manageable level, like they did post-MR. Bond shouldn't be about chasing box office imho, because there is a risk that it will then result in watered down, or predictable product to please the masses.
Having said that, I suspect EON (and Broccoli, as a savvy financial operator) will be keeping an eye on satiating the new and growing cinematic markets when she casts the next Bond.
There have been quite a few signals in the last couple of years regarding the direction they are headed. Some of it isn't quite clear yet due to some deliberate 'noise', but I think we're in for some interesting times soon.
You are breaking @Mendes4Lyfe heart here.
Hahaha oooh you animal you ;)
I don't recall anybody suggesting him here as Mendes' successor/Boyle's replacement.
Unless any of us here thinks a name we constantly end up suggesting will be placed in the respective role he or she is rooted for, then yes. We are wasting our time here. But, if we are merely suggesting names that are suitable for the certain position/role, then no time is wasted as it's a field of entertainment.
I'm not contradicting that thought, but the Bond production business is no different than the rest of the intellectual properties in the same field. Was anybody expecting Robert Downey Jr to land into the role of Sherlock Holmes? Ben Affleck into the role of Batman? These are just two mere examples. Filmmakers don't lift suggestions from fans as much as we love to fantasize about the thought. They'll go for the person least expected, if at all.
Well, he was spoken about. Some members did conjure up he'd be an apt choice.
About someone really thinking a name will be placed in the role, that's just being delusional or hopeful, witch isn't a bad thing sometimes, not if the delusion doesn't become an imposition of his or hers reality upon others. We've seen it happen, I know. But I think this particular thread is going on well and civil. Isn't it? ...for the most part of it ;)
Perhaps someone we expect is in fact the unexpected this time around? ;)
After all, we are at a very different place now in comparison to where we were in 2005 or 2002. Moreover, with the internet, it's difficult to keep things under wraps as readily as in the past.
Realistically speaking, however, the obvious choices as history reminds us are very unlikely to be placed in those positions. People always enlisted their fan casts as the ones producers should go to, like we do, in any fan base. But, we always end up learning in this day and age almost a full percentage of those desires don't come true.
True. I'd say there was a huge percentage of audience members and fans who rightfully predicted Pierce would land Bond after Tim bailed out in '94. In fact, it only took about 2 months before we had the announcement.
And some disbelief.
I think you mean despair!!
And desolation.
You probably looked like this when you heard the news =))
I remember at the time feeling Hugh Grant might bring a Roger flair for humor, but had a difficult time picturing him in action. Maybe it was his FOUR WEDDINGS haircut? I felt Mel way way too famous for other movies. The LETHAL WEAPON franchise might over shadow his Bond. Liam seemed like a strong possibility and Pierce, IMO was the probably one would would actually get the part.
If there were a similar poll today we'd probably have: Idris Elba, Tom Hardy, James Norton and Tom Hiddleston.
Compared to any of those guys I think the 1994 contenders each look like Fleming's creation brought to life.
No disbelief from what I can recall. He was a very popular choice back then, and the only real choice as well. Suitable candidates were thin on the ground.
Brosnan would never be everyone's cup of tea but that was true of all the previous Bonds. Let's face it, Fleming wasn't exactly enamoured with Connery for a start.
There was a lot of interest surrounding Lazenby, Brosnan and Moore, but it was more noticeable that interest was waning when Dalton was announced. Bond was already on a bit of a slippery slope in the 80s with Indiana Jones and other competitors coming through.
The enforced 6 year break was a blessing in disguise.
And with any luck, the long 5 year break following a tired entry will be this time too.