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
Yeah, tend to agree about the origin thing, unless they have an original angle on it which is very different from CR. I can't think of a version which wouldn't feel like a retread in some way, but I'm not a movie writer so maybe they can!
:)
My preference would be perhaps go a little more Roger: I wouldn't mind something of the tone of Mission Impossible Rogue Nation.
When you say standalone missions how do you mean?
Overall, I'm just a big believer in that if they want to make things feel fresh and new, and bring new audiences on board with the next era as every producer wants, while honouring the original fans, an actor in his 30s is the better way to go. For me, that choice would be Callum Turner or Aaron Taylor-Johnson, but I do understand people's concerns - at this moment in time.
Oh right. To be honest I don't think the Craig films really spin much around their arc: Quantum is a sequel to Casino, but the other two are as standalone as you like. NTTD carries on from where Spectre left Bond but I don't see the problem with that.
My advice if they wanna keep doing overarching storylines is just to plan it better - if you're gonna do it.
Yeah they should do it better, but Skyfall was standalone. I'm struggling with what the problem with tying them together is though? Is it just that they you think they didn't plan it well enough?
It was also an obvious covering of tracks as opposed to a genuine interesting concept to tie up Quantum. I would've preferred they just left it.
I also think I would've preferred one or the other, SPECTRE being connected to Silva or SPECTRE being connected to Quantum, but not both.
He's currently 34. 6' 1".
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3198781/?ref_=nmls_hd
I could definitely be on board.
I think both made sense. An organisation the size and power of Spectre must have either controlled or be born from Quantum, and on a meta level Quantum was merely used because Spectre could not at the time. For Silva, even as a pure independent hacker Spectre must have at least known about it. And something that always irked me about SF pre SP was why would henchmen follow Silva so eagerly in a risky personal vendetta. It could of course be explained by fear and indoctrination, but I always thought the link with Spectre made the scheme profitable at some level.
That said, yes, it was glossed over far too quickly.
Me too. Brilliant suggestion. I'd have to hear his voice, though. But well done.
Edit: Heard his voice. Definitely would do. Good eyebrow game too.
Oh yes, good thought; I've seen him in a few things. Not sure I've seen him play a lead yet but he's always seemed decent.
Also not bad.
I agree, and as with Hoult , a few more years of maturing will improve his chances.
Edit: Just saw your other message haha but he definitely could be one to keep an eye on
I particularly like this picture. Take out the moustache and it could be Bond...
I've come around to thinking that Henry Cavill would be the safest choice for Bond. He's not exciting, but he ticks most of the boxes. I've started to look at the casting of the new Bond like a game of Top Trumps, with scores in categories like Acting Power/Credibility, Good Looks, Physical Credibility, Accent/Class Credibility, and PR Factor. I think Cavill scores reasonably well across the board, with his weakness being that he's never tried to stretch his acting ability out of the Handsome Leading Man roles. Like most of the actors often talked about, though, time is not on his side.
I'd love to see what Dan Stevens would do with the role. I think he might have a problem with the bulking up part, though - when he worked out for The Guest (great turn from him in that) he actually lost weight, and I think that's because internet posters made fun of the double chin he occasionally sported on Downton Abbey; he dropped weight when he started working in the States, and I think that was in order to preserve his jawline. So he'd probably have the choice of being skinny with a well-defined jaw, or muscular but without a good jawline. He's a fantastic actor though. Just more of a gamble than Cavill.
I like Aidan Turner, though like Cavill he's lumbered with being labelled a sex-symbol rather than a serious actor. I think he's got decent acting chops and could pull of pretty much what was asked of him in the role, but he doesn't have the serious acting credibility that Daniel Craig brought to the role. I think it's going to be difficult to find someone of the right age who has that and the looks to match and is in the right age category. Michael Fassbender would have been perfect, but I think he's aged out now, unfortunately.
I know a few people have suggested we're probably looking at Nicholas Hoult, who I like better than a lot of other contenders and has youth on his side, and I think they're probably right. He's a bit soft-looking, but if the Mission Impossible team think he makes for a credible villain then he might be right for the part. He's actually much taller than I would have guessed, and he's played more than just hot-guy roles.
This is all assuming that there still is a Bond franchise once Covid-19 has finished with it, of course. :-S
As an aside-- I heard Hoult is no longer in the next M:I films. "Scheduling" concerns...