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
Many people - including actors - are around this height. Tom Cruise is roughly 5'7 and Al Pacino is 5'6, the latter of which I found surprising (if you'd have told me his character in The Godfather was meant to be 5'10 or so I'd have believed it). I was surprised to read that Scott Cann is 5'5. Anyway, filmmakers are always going to be working around something with these actors - maybe it's the fact that they're hairline is receding or thinning at the back, maybe they're too short, too tall, have a beer belly, have a tattoo, have a funny mole on their neck... whatever, it can be worked around. Just get the best actor for the part.
A 5’4 James Bond ? Well obviously you’re more enlightened than I am. Lol.
I know lots of people don't care if what they get on the screen is accurate to source, they care if it is successful critically and commercially, and whether it is 'good' on its own terms. I get that. I hear lots of people say Hugh Jackman was the perfect Wolverine; well, even ignoring the height (and I'll admit that having Logan quite as short as the comics probably wouldn't work), the director didn't understand the character and kind of merged him with Cyclops to the detriment of both characters. And I love Charlie Cox's Daredevil more than the comic version, but part of that is because he is not particularly accurate to the comic version - not just the height and the hair-colour, but ditching the swinging and acrobatics, it moves him away from DD and closer to other heroes, and he loses his individuality.
That is, I stress, just my opinion. I'm not trying to tell anyone they are wrong for having a contrary view, or prevent anyone from posting suggestions that deviate from baseline, I just wanted to make clear why I tend to think casting Bond should line up with Fleming's original if possible.
I bet a 100 quid you look better than him.
Lazenby - 1
Dalton - 2
Brosnan - 4
Craig - 5
Connery - 6
Moore - 7
So maybe the next Bond actor will do three (3) Bond films to complete the pattern.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
If they don't, we should riot.
Either that or they should do eight. ;)
A single actor doing a strong trilogy would not be a bad thing.
Certainly not the worst thing, but being a pessimist that would probably lead to a solid ending for the third film and then everyone wants to continue with the creative team in place; it takes ages for contracts to be sorted out; the tidy ending of the third film is frayed by the story suddenly having to go on, leading to the fourth film being underwhelming, so they want to do a fifth which is plagued by the same problems and before you know it, it's 15 years later and our guy is catching a set of missiles on the head. Wait, what were we talking about?
Honestly, I wouldn't mind a well-thought-out solid trilogy. Especially if they want to serialize the films again for Bond 7.
Sadly true. I’d rather see more well-written lower budget iterations than fewer grandiose expensive spectacles hiding mediocre storytelling.
That does found familiar. As Robert Burns put it, "The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men/Gang aft agley”.
People like to say "Well, they just have to plan it out better" as if serialized storytelling on a blockbuster scale is the easiest thing in the world and all of these people, who's literal job it is to do this, just haven't been smart enough to come up with that one.
That's a gamble they'd have to take in such a situation and another reason why I'd rather these films (as unlikely as it is, after the success of the Craig era and its retroactive plotting that didn't always hit the mark) stick to standalone releases in the next era.
I don't see a planned "Bond trilogy" working either. Trilogies work better when they have an existing source material to work on. That said, it would be useful to have some ideas where to go once the first film has been done and released. Have some sort of open ends (I might be the only one in favour of a recurring threat) and a few ideas for development.
Yeah, I also tend to think that with Bond films they put all of their effort into the next one: 100% with nothing left over. Intentionally holding stuff back for the next film (other than very vague thoughts like 'we might introduce Q and Moneypenny at some point') isn't really what they do: everything goes in now. Bond films aren't really about delayed gratification.
It doesn't mean you can't do a serialised story, just that you make it up as you go along. Does anyone think Ian Fleming had the plot of TMWTGG all mapped out when he wrote OHMSS? I would be willing to bet he made it up as he went along.
Yeah, I would love a return to standalone films as well. But after Craig, I really don't know if that would be possible. It might be EON wanting to correct the mistakes of Craig's era and do it better with Bond 7, still in serialized fashion.
Most likely, the Bond producers have already chosen their man—they are just keeping him underwraps until the appropriate time. My money is probably on Regé-Jean Page. Not because I think he's the ideal choice for the role, but because he left Bridgerton to pursue a big movie career and the timing is rather suspicious. Though the Russo Brother's upcoming $200 million movie The Gray Man, where Page plays a top CIA asset might have put the kibosh on that for now. Plus, he's also got the upcoming Dungeons & Dragons for Paramount Pictures to grapple with.
One thing's for sure. I look around at the slim picking for a suitable Bond candidate and I'm far from impressed. Apart from the few obvious names that the bookies throw around, there's nobody I can see who'll want to make me buy a ticket for Bond 26. Seriously, nobody. I can't be alone on this. Which should be a slight worry for Eon going forwards.
I am not saying he would be bad, but like with Cavill I suspect it his performance will be bland.
I don’t think most people are as picky as fans are to be honest. Look at how DCINB turned out. Or the backlash to Matt Smith as Doctor Who, Heath Ledger as the Joker, Robert Pattinson as Batman, etc. As long as they cast an attractive British leading man, who’s a good actor, and they put him in a good film, then it’ll do well.
I personally think there are lots of interesting candidates who could bring something new to Bond. It's not Cavill, or Madden or even Jean-Page but someone the press simply aren't and wouldn't talk about at this stage. Unfortunately as audiences we won't get a sense of the actor's portrayal until the film is released. Anyway, before Bond I'm sure most people wouldn't have bought their tickets to see CR specifically because of Craig, or DN because of Connery. It just doesn't work like that with this series. If it did Cary Grant would have been the first Bond.
Plus, it’s generally working like that less and less anyway, there aren’t many movie stars who can light up the box office on name alone left anymore. Look at how well Robert Downey Jr’s last couple of non Iron Man films have done, and even big names like Cruise and Damon and Affleck have struggled to put bums in seats outside of their famous franchises in recent years. Obviously the casting is important to make the film work, but IP is what really sells now, and Bond is one of the biggest brands there is. People will be curious about the new one, no matter who it is.
Considering the rate the films have decreased, if this drop in productivity were to continue, it would approximately take the next 30 years just to get 3-4 more films out.
I expect the next Bond actor (and his follow up) to be a one and done.
Shh, don't give them any ideas.
Haha! I really do hope the Amazon deal gives Eon a push to get the next Bond actor's films out in a more timely manner.
You could say Bond was a precursor in that regard.
It's probably nothing, but could it be a sign they're not as far along with development of Bond 26 as we'd like? I didn't expect them to be celebrating Craig's Bond a year after he'd left the role
Was it the same as the documentary film (Being James Bond documentary)?