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
I definitely didn't mean to imply none of you cared about the books as that obviously isn't the case. Like I said, I guess it depends where you draw the line and how big a change/departure you think it is compared to what we've had already. Also, when I said they've never really cared about what Fleming wrote, I meant EON, not the members on here. And I think that's fair. From YOLT onwards it was a case of "we might use or try to emulate Fleming, we might not, we'll see how we feel" instead of "okay, here's the book, lets go from there".
I don't really see the modern Bond as the ghost of an empire past either (although I agree that would make a good title). He's patriotic sure and I think that definitely applies to the book Bond. But the film Bond from Brosnan onwards is a more modern and (once we get to Craig) cynically apolitical character imo. I think he loves his country and wants to defend it but I wouldn't say he has any notions of superiority or anything like that. In the books sure but Fleming was writing in a post world war 2, are we still really relevant as a superpower world. Since then I honestly think that's been answered with "no, we're not" and that they've moved with the times there. Brosnan was more of a cool Britannia britpop new Labour type of Bond, fantasy to the point where the politics of it didn't really matter. Craig's Bond is more gritty, lots of real world murkiness about how great Britain (or any of the other "good guys") really are. I wouldn't say either are old boy remember the empire types, I think Bond's moved past that already.
The American actor thing, I just don't care where the actor is from as long as they get the accent right. Having said that though, it's not like we have any shortage of decent actors over here, so I don't think there's really any need to bother. But if there was an American actor with the presence of Connery, the charisma of Moore, the coolness of Brosnan, the danger of Dalton, the acting ability of Craig (exaggerated description but you get the point, someone who'd be good) who looked the part and could do an accent that sounded more English than I do, I wouldn't disqualify him based on him not really being British, that's all I was saying there.
Having said that I can't think of a single American from history who'd have been able to pull it off. So maybe it would be better to stick to Brits or at least 'close enough' (Irish, Aussie).
Notice how it says it seems a bit silly to me. To me. Meaning I don't really get it. There's a difference between that and going round saying nonsense I'm right you're wrong etc. You also convinently missed out the part of my post where I said I could see some of what you were getting at.
Don't really care about "virtue signalling" and all that bollocks. At least not when it comes to stuff like films (in real life sure, but if we're making assumptions about eachother you seem like a proper miserable PC gone mad Tory type, so I doubt we'd agree on anything that actually mattered either). All I was doing was giving my opinion on how big a change changing Bond's race would be, which has been the same since long, long before everything had to be some sort of woke movement.
With Craig the references are less obvious, but they are still there. The 'bloody big ship', the bulldog. It's full of symbolism about British former glory.
So yes, I think it's very much all still there, and I'm convinced the general public buys into the same story. It's what sets Bond apart from, say, Batman or Superman, or all those 'action heroes', and has given Bond it's longevity.
See, I did think about the post cold war stuff in GE, but in the end decided that was more questioning the relevance of Bond himself/the series than Britain. Look at TND. We're somehow perfectly able to go to war with China. That's what I meant by pure Britpop fantasy.
Good point about the Craig era. I do feel that was more SF specifically than any of his others though. And again you could easily take the symbolism (the bulldog in particular, which is tied to Britain, but not really the empire) as a metaphor for Bond himself, given that him was also about questioning whether he'd still got it. I didn't really get any colonial subtext there. The ship scene I think shows what I mean by cynically apolitical too, he doesn't get wistful about it, it's just a bloody big ship.
No other nation in Europe, except for France perhaps where hey have a similar notion of 'playing the part' would dream of pretending to be able to beat China. That's retro-colonial thinking to the max. But it's engrained in the British psyche, and perhaps that's why you don't see it that way. Take the invasion of Iraq as an example. Not the first one of course, that was a true coalition, but the second, where British forces were allowed to die alongside their American cousins for the sole purpose of Bush's daddy complex. So yes, I think it's a very strong daydream of former worldpower glory.
Personally I think CR and QoS were the films that focussed on Bond himself, it's SF and SP that take up his role in the universe and thus Britain's relevance. Craig's Bond has touched on more symbolism and discarded it with a quip, but that doesn't mean he doesn't find it fitting. He discards it because it doesn't help him at that moment. You can see it as cynisism, or you can see it as his protection meganism (you've got your armour back on). The fact that Bond isn't willing to show his weaknesses doesn't mean he has them, symbolc or not.
Cillian Murphy looks near identical to American comedy actress Kristen Wiig (also the voice of Lola Bunny - Bugs Bunny's girlfriend!). They're more or less twins.
:D
SF is very much a nostalgia trip. Harking back to former "glories". I blame it for Brexit.
Anyway, I keep on thinking Jamie Bell must be in with a chance. He's a decent actor - quite chameleon like - and EON has cast him before so we know Babs likes him (this is the litmus test). Okay he's short but I could really see them handing it to him.
Well known with lots of experience but not a superstar. Similar to Craig prior to CR in some ways. Still youthful but growing into his looks.
If that happens, my tenure with the franchise ends with Craig.
Tbh no one has ever been as good Sean, so that's pretty much a given.
Also Bond is one of those roles that can elevate a middling actor. Craig for me is not a brilliant actor but he works as Bond.
I keep an open mind. Basically you can't make a final judgement until the actor has made a film as Bond. In fact the final judgement really comes after their run is over.
Anyway, thought I'd bump Bell. He doesn't get mentioned much on here but we 100% know EON like him. He's still young. To me he seems a more likely choice than Turner. Bell has far more movie experience than Turner and is 3 years younger.
Just realised CJF cast him in Jane Eyre as well. So IF CJF came back for another that's probably another point for Bell.
He's a fine actor though, and has a certain Bond like look too him at times.
Personally I don't think the fact that he's worked on a previous EON film before will give him anymore of a chance than anyone else who is screentested, when the time comes.
He might be a name on EON's radar, but unless he gets the job, or is down to the last three it's unlikely we'll find out.
True that EON having cast him in something else is no proof he will be Bond. But it's still significant I think, in that he's not someone that we are just speculating about being on EON's radar.
I get the sense with Babs now that with her theatre work and non Bond productions she is scoping. She likes to build relationships over time as did Cubby.
If it happens everyone will be saying it was obvious.
That is complete rot old boy. So, one thinks that every Britisher craves the day when the Empire is restored? The average Brit, like every one else on this planet - just trying to get through the day and have a laugh. Same as everywhere.
Need I remind you about the massive protests against joining the war in Iraq? The vast majority of the British population wanted nothing to do with Blair's ego trip. I just as well ask you if the Dutch are planning on restoring their empire.
Actually, many of the Dutch would like that. Back to the Guilder (former coin) and less problematic multiculturalism for example. The Dutch in general are quite politically incorrect and straightforward so we tell it as it is.
And I thought the Dutch were very liberal and smoked pot all day. The more you know!
Well that's the thing, we are very liberal, but not very tolerant to the intolerant. Also, because pot has been (semi) legal for ages the majority doesn't really care for it.
I know, I was just tweaking your nose. Stereotypes are fun aren't they, the English are repressed, tea loving gents; the French are communist alcoholics, wearing berets and if you scratch a German you'll find precision.
The one about the French is true though! ;)
People have more in their system then just getting through the day. The Dutch perhaps don't long still to rule their former east indies, but we are arrogant enough to expect the national football team to win the world championship, (Allthough they never did) or at least belong to the world's best. We find it logical to have the biggest port of Europe and the second biggest in the world (those pesky Chinese!) and expect our top companies to dominate their field (Heineken, ING, royal dutch shell, Unilever, etc. Etc. And yes two of those are half British). For a country of 17 million we're punching far above our weight, both economically and politically. Is it different on your side of the channel? No. The battle of Britain won the war, the Americans are stealing all the British exploits and yes, even all those Onslow's expect Britain to be a leading light for the western world, comfortably close to your colonial cousins. And all that shines through in Bond. He wouldn't be so popular if it wasn't.
Yes, the difference is Holland is actually incredibly, ridiculously successful. Exports 3 times as much as Britian, despite having a 3rd of the population. Highly entrepreneurial with world beating private sector giants, while also having excellent public services. Whereas the UK is in an almighty mess. Decrepit private sector with low investment and deteriorating productivity. Stagnating wages. Falling living standards and rampant poverty and homelessness.
Holland is one of the wealthiest countries in the world while the UK is stuck in a rut. Blaming everyone else for its problems - the EU, immigrants, etc.
Our 2 countries seem to be on starkly different trajectories.
Dutch GDP per capita in 2018 $55,040.
UK GDP per capita in 2018 $42,978.
So glad we are cutting lose from you losers to make it big time on our own. Brexit rocks.
I never said it was an Anglo-Dutch exclusivty thing, I guess the French (however misplaced, those wine slobbing, baret wearing commies!), Portugese and Spanish all have ths legacy.
@Getafx don't worry, if history repeats, it'll take you about 100 years to catch up ;-)
https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/who-should-be-the-next-james-bond-vote-in-our-poll-now/
Surprised to see a few names on here. Ewan McGregor for example.
And why oh why is Idris Elba constantly so high on these?
Obviously all to be taken with a grain of salt.
Aidan Turner pretty low. His limited presence in the US market could be an issue when it comes to casting.
Still a long way till the next Bond is picked though, maybe some food for thought going forward.
Don’t know much about Sam Heughan, though he doesn’t look bad, and at least he’s a tall chap.
Not one American actor in film history has successfully pulled off an English accent. Period.
His acting ability is fairly wooden though.
Their round-up comment on Turner is worth reading: He's got what it takes to handle the action scenes and smolder on screen, and though he isn't as well-known to Americans, he's one of the leading contenders to play the next 007.
Well, neither was Craig well-known to Americans before his Bond casting, especially if you compare his profile to that of Brosnan's.
For me, it's still between Turner or Cavill.
Both sensible and viable suggestions.
With NTTD still to hit theatres, Daniel Craig is still James Bond. And will be till he and EON confirm he isn't. It's still possible that Craig could return for Bond 26. Even if NTTD is being billed as Craig's last Bond film. Nothing is for sure.
Whilst Turner is possibly on the list for Bond 26, he's going to have to wait for a while yet.