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
I think, reading between the lines, this was true.
I think the books have become a lot more interesting since they've been given over to other authors.
Sir, you are wrong, but I still love you @Birdleson
Hey man, it doesn't really matter does it? I mean he did one and that was that and there are more important things like tomorrow's football scores. If you think your right, well and good, you are right. But I care more about Hull City beating Huddersfield Town to be honest.
Fine, i get rankled when Hull City lose. Each to their own ...
Yes me too. David Picker makes a statement that it was the star that paid the price but that's not, as you say, universal agreement. But anyway it really doesn't matter, I don't understand why Birdleson is so annoyed.
ok, cool, like i said it doesn't matter, it's just a documentary about a film.
Casting the same actor for a number of episodes enables the public to get used to the character and connect with him or her. Since every actor brings his own energy and input to a character, changing the actor for each movie would disrupt that process. I also don't agree on the maximum of movies - I think Moore showed us a new but very interesting Bond in his fifth outing, FYEO. And despite the age-argument, I find he showed us the same aspect in AVTAK.
Also, it's apparently a sound commercial rule in Hollywood, not to change the actor too often in a serial franchise, when you look at other serial franchises: Indiana Jones, Jack Ryan, Ethan Hunt, Jason Bourne, Luke Skywalker, Batman, Superman ...
By all accounts, this premise may lay too much importance on the lead actor. As movies are the result of a multitude of aspects (script, directing, production design, cinematography, co-stars ...), the freshness of a movie within a franchise can't be attributed solely to the lead actor.
However, how would people feel if EON cast one of these hot choices, but made it very clear that they are only bringing them in for one movie?
I think it might allow the series to avoid being too samey whilst also allowing EON to experiment: I for one can't really see Hiddleston as Bond in the present day (despite being excellent in the Night Manager) but I could see him play the Bond from the books in a one-off Bond movie set in the 50s/60s.
I'm sure the vast majority of people would prefer consistency but I think Craig has been so excellent the series might benefit with a singular alternative Bond for one-film-only!
And as we've seen before, EON may not go for the obvious choices. Who here would've guessed Daniel would take over the role?
Make it only one if you want, or do the Blofeld Trilogy correctly with these two even in period setting.
Then get back on track with a new guy..
It won't happen though.
I would rather have Lazenby or Dalton. Connery and Moore are obviously too old.
It would be a one-and-done just in terms of the fact that we'd have a change in Bond actor, say going from Craig to Dalton and then on to somebody else, after just one film.
As for someone being truly one-and-done, as in only making the one film, then that should be a non-starter of an idea from the get-go.
I think he is called P diddy now.
Val Kilmer he has already played The Saint so following in the footsteps of Sir Roger. ;))