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
If there’s an actor in their 20s who does well in the role, has some credible work behind them, and gives us a new take on Bond, I’m all for it. It really depends. I can see them going a bit older in practice though - perhaps early but more likely mid 30s. That’s still a younger Bond and could even work if they were depicting Bond in his early 00 years.
I’d say short of a First Light type concept Bond is generally a character perpetually in his prime (even in the Craig films this is generally the case, and him being older in NTTD is him in his early 50s, which isn’t geriatric by any means). Usually that sense just comes through better with actors with some years behind them rather than being too early into their 20s. The other reason I can see this happening is because EON publicly said back in ‘22 that it’s difficult in practice for younger actors to do well in this role. I can see that just being a thing anyway, and Amazon have seemingly gone down similar creative routes EON have.
At any rate, even if the next actor turns out to be a Harris Dickinson or Jacob Elordi type - who, let’s be honest, are very young for their level of success as actors - they too would be in their early 30s by the time they became Bond. Any other potential actor I can think of who would be likely to have that appeal amongst younger audiences are in their mid 30s - the likes of Callum Turner, Jack O’Connell, even ATJ etc. Again, it’s tricky finding an actor in their 20s experienced/established enough to take on the role, and going too unknown and even young might not be a good strategy under most circumstances.
+1.
Yeah. Let's see how it pans out, though. So far, Amazon are hiring the right people. There's a bit of hope now, that they'll get the casting of Bond right.
Yes, I think that’ll be their biggest challenge. And it’s a big role that legitimately changes an actor’s life.
It’s always a balancing act. Bond films are ultimately tentpole blockbusters curated for the masses.
Sure, but it's not like Craig's movies were all gold. I mean, they don't need a home run either. Let's temper our expectations.
I think their ideal situation is a success not dissimilar to that of The Batman in 2022. A reboot of a much explored, but popular character with a distinct, bold new take (albeit one that has roots in the previous era) and prestige names attached. Strong critical and audience reception. Maybe not a straightforward, family friendly crowd pleaser (so not quite the much needed course correction that Superman 2025 was for its franchise) but certainly a more mature, exciting blockbuster that ultimately some - critics and fans - will dislike or have their issues with. Doesn’t need to break a billion or have a 94% minimum on RT, but it needs to draw in fresh audiences and get people hyped for this new Bond and era. In the long term this is what will pay off.
If it’s a more booming financial success that’d be great. If it doesn’t quite meet financial expectations but is praised/for all intents and purposes accomplishes the above, that’s somewhat a win too, and it can always be built on with future instalments. So long as it isn’t received in an underwhelming way by the majority (ie. ‘It’s ok’). It needs to make an impact, which is why I don’t think playing it safe is going to cut it, and also why it doesn’t matter if some of us here really dislike it.
As a longtime Bond fan, I find that having full on expectations is half the prize, seeing that, many many times, the final prize doesn't live up to said expectations.
So I will not temper expectations. Specially in theses days of doom and gloom. We need to be happy, more than ever, we need every chance we get.
So, bloody rejoice :) There'll always be a time for mourning and pain. This is not that moment. Not today. Today is a day for dreaming awake, for what are lucid dreams but expectations?
Yeah. But EON had the luxury to experiment with Craig's era, because they've already won fans over...since 1962. But Amazon don't have that luxury yet, so it makes their job all the more difficult and they're fully aware of that. That's why they're signing the right people to make Bond 26 a banger! It's more like everything or nothing for Amazon.
Yes, well put. "It's more like everything or nothing for Amazon" is spot on.
A Villeneuve film will get good reviews even if it sucks. That's not what we should be worried about. It's our expectations.
I disagree. Even the greats like Kubrick got some mixed reviews for films in their heyday. There’s no reason a film of his couldn’t be received disappointingly, no matter how good it’s viewed in hindsight.
In terms of us as individuals, yes, our opinion of this film is all that matters. Ultimately I want to enjoy it and expect to. But in a larger sense/for Bond as a whole it makes no difference if you, I or even many on this site dislike it if a majority of audiences do. That’s pretty much what happens with many of the Bond films anyway.
Yes exactly. Roger Moore's films appealed to kids and families; it wasn't 'pandering', it was just making a film that people wanted to see. I find it such an odd phrase.
You’re right. It really is an odd phrase, specially if you use it the semantics of prostitution. From the dictionary: Pandering has two primary meanings. The first, often used in legal contexts, refers to the act of encouraging or facilitating someone to become a prostitute, or to procure clients for a prostitute. This can involve a range of actions, from simply talking someone into prostitution to more coercive tactics like threats or controlling their finances. The second meaning, more broadly applied, refers to the act of catering to the desires or prejudices of a group, often to gain their favor or support, sometimes without regard for principle or ethical considerations
So, they really shouldn’t be pandering, not to fans, not to young demographics, …
Does that mean they should cast Timothee Chalamet as Bond to do this? That would probably be bad pandering and would likely backfire as he’s probably not suited to the role.
Yeah I guess the definition comes into play when something is turned into something which contradicts the fundamental values of the piece in order just to appeal to an audience. But then... Moonraker? Was that pandering to the Star Wars/Smokey and the Bandit etc. crowd of the 70s? It's certainly hard to imagine Ian Fleming intended 007 to jet into space. There's a case to say it was 'pandering', and yet an awful lot of people love it. Maybe as long as it's good and people love it, it doesn't matter so much?
I guess there was precedent with space being featured in YOLT, the films becoming more fantastical, and incorporating elements of contemporary cinema since the 60s… and ultimately you can argue it’s an extension of where TSWLM was going in terms direction… but yeah, I definitely see what you mean and agree! None of this is a science.
I'd say it's far more likely to be the other way round, as both Villeneuve and his wife Tanya Lapointe are executive producers. Everything reads to me that Knight will write from an idea that has been developed by Villeneuve with Pascal and Heyman.
Exactly. The only known fact about Knight, is that he is a fast writer, used to tv scheduling and whatnot. So, I reckon he'll have a blast at it. As a writer myself, I can only imagine the joy and positive pressure he's feeling right now.
Pure speculation from me and maybe I am buying into a press release narrative too much, but to me it seems like every step of the way was a question of "are these people on board with the vision as it currently stands" and now they are all on the same page. Meaning, I'd assume Amazon-MGM had only a very rough idea and Heyman/Pascal were on board had some ideas to actually make that happen. And they then started talking to directors about the way they wanted this to go and these directors pitched more specific ideas. In the end they went with the Villeneuve vision. And then they went to writers and talked to them about the whole package and what they'd do with that. And Steven Knight threw some ideas on how he would go from idea to script and they liked it and Villeneuve liked it, so now all of them are making a film together.
It all sounds like they made sure everyone is one the same page while getting some proper heavy hitters involved.
Pretty much pristine management of a property I'd say, and a rare case of the big boys actually caring and going to the effort to do things the right way. Compare Amazon handling of Bond this far with Disney's management of Star Wars or Marvel lately.