Who should/could be a Bond actor?

18648658678698701178

Comments

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited January 2022 Posts: 8,009
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    How do you guys feel about Craig’s claim that he requested Bond’s death from the very beginning? I’m skeptical, and think there is a bit of ret-conning going on. I believe that had SPECTRE been a stronger film that it would have been his curtain call.

    I feel the same way, and I never really understood the need to make it seem like there was always a grand plan and ending point for everything. It rarely rings true to me. They make it up as they go and that's absolutely fine.

    I don’t think having an end in mind is the same as a grand plan.

    No, it's not. And I never specifically said it was, either. But the way it comes across to me - specifically in the "Being James Bond" documentary - suggests that's what they would like people to think and it doesn't ring true to me. And it's an unnecessary pretense, too.

    I’m not sure what gave you that impression, I think they were quite clear about things like Quantum not being fully written. He just said here that he thought killing him would be a good ending.

    The impression comes from the idea that they had this idea for the ending conceptually in place from the beginning, from before CR was released. That discussions were had about it and it was always where they were going to go. It was mentioned pretty outright, if memory serves, and I just don't really buy it.

    Re: the other things. Yep, that's correct - and it was rather refreshing to hear them talk about Quantum in that way. I liked that portion of the doc quite a bit; easily the most interesting from a production POV. It was a shame the rest felt like they were selling smoke.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2022 Posts: 14,861
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    How do you guys feel about Craig’s claim that he requested Bond’s death from the very beginning? I’m skeptical, and think there is a bit of ret-conning going on. I believe that had SPECTRE been a stronger film that it would have been his curtain call.

    I feel the same way, and I never really understood the need to make it seem like there was always a grand plan and ending point for everything. It rarely rings true to me. They make it up as they go and that's absolutely fine.

    I don’t think having an end in mind is the same as a grand plan.

    No, it's not. And I never specifically said it was, either. But the way it comes across to me - specifically in the "Being James Bond" documentary - suggests that's what they would like people to think and it doesn't ring true to me. And it's an unnecessary pretense, too.

    I’m not sure what gave you that impression, I think they were quite clear about things like Quantum not being fully written. He just said here that he thought killing him would be a good ending.

    The impression comes from the idea that they had this idea for the ending conceptually in place from the beginning, from before CR was released. That discussions were had about it and it was always where they were going to go. It was mentioned pretty outright, if memory serves, and I just don't really buy it.

    As I said, having a thought of finding a way to kill him at the end is not the same as a grand plan for the whole run. I think you’re thinking they’re claiming something that they’re not. They clearly didn’t have it figured out, Craig talks in the podcast about how they had to find a satisfying way of killing him for this film.
    Re: the other things. Yep, that's correct - and it was rather refreshing to hear them talk about Quantum in that way. I liked that portion of the doc quite a bit; easily the most interesting from a production POV. It was a shame the rest felt like they were selling smoke.

    Yeah I’ve never heard EON ever admit to production problems on any of their films before: I love the Pat Macnee docs on the DVDs but they never really felt like the truest of accounts (the story behind Dalton’s casting and him supposedly being the real first choice before Brosnan always felt like a bit of a party line). Again on this podcast Craig talks about the issues with Quantum and it’s quite refreshing.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    How do you guys feel about Craig’s claim that he requested Bond’s death from the very beginning? I’m skeptical, and think there is a bit of ret-conning going on. I believe that had SPECTRE been a stronger film that it would have been his curtain call.

    I feel the same way, and I never really understood the need to make it seem like there was always a grand plan and ending point for everything. It rarely rings true to me. They make it up as they go and that's absolutely fine.

    I don’t think having an end in mind is the same as a grand plan.

    No, it's not. And I never specifically said it was, either. But the way it comes across to me - specifically in the "Being James Bond" documentary - suggests that's what they would like people to think and it doesn't ring true to me. And it's an unnecessary pretense, too.

    I’m not sure what gave you that impression, I think they were quite clear about things like Quantum not being fully written. He just said here that he thought killing him would be a good ending.

    The impression comes from the idea that they had this idea for the ending conceptually in place from the beginning, from before CR was released. That discussions were had about it and it was always where they were going to go. It was mentioned pretty outright, if memory serves, and I just don't really buy it.

    As I said, having a thought of finding a way to kill him at the end is not the same as a grand plan for the whole run. I think you’re thinking they’re claiming something that they’re not. They clearly didn’t have it figured out, Craig talks in the podcast about how they had to find a satisfying way of killing him for this film.

    Sorry, I thought I had mentioned it in my opening comment on this but my only reference was to the documentary. Not the podcast. And in the documentary it's said that they had the idea of killing Bond from the very beginning, during prep for CR - and it's that which I find hard to believe. I find it much easier to believe that it came up post-SP because of where the path had led them. I agree, they clearly didn't have it all figured out. If they talk about it in a more detailed and clearer way in the podcast then fair enough, but them having to work out a satisfying way to execute the idea isn't really relevant to my point (as interesting as I'm sure it is) - only when the idea was actually pitched is.
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah I’ve never heard EON ever admit to production problems on any of their films before: I love the Pat Macnee docs on the DVDs but they never really felt like the truest of accounts (the story behind Dalton’s casting and him supposedly being the real first choice before Brosnan always felt like a bit of a party line). Again on this podcast Craig talks about the issues with Quantum and it’s quite refreshing.

    For sure! The films that are plagued by issues always make the best stories. I actually think the behind the scenes turmoils of QoS are more interesting than the film itself.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2022 Posts: 14,861
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    How do you guys feel about Craig’s claim that he requested Bond’s death from the very beginning? I’m skeptical, and think there is a bit of ret-conning going on. I believe that had SPECTRE been a stronger film that it would have been his curtain call.

    I feel the same way, and I never really understood the need to make it seem like there was always a grand plan and ending point for everything. It rarely rings true to me. They make it up as they go and that's absolutely fine.

    I don’t think having an end in mind is the same as a grand plan.

    No, it's not. And I never specifically said it was, either. But the way it comes across to me - specifically in the "Being James Bond" documentary - suggests that's what they would like people to think and it doesn't ring true to me. And it's an unnecessary pretense, too.

    I’m not sure what gave you that impression, I think they were quite clear about things like Quantum not being fully written. He just said here that he thought killing him would be a good ending.

    The impression comes from the idea that they had this idea for the ending conceptually in place from the beginning, from before CR was released. That discussions were had about it and it was always where they were going to go. It was mentioned pretty outright, if memory serves, and I just don't really buy it.

    As I said, having a thought of finding a way to kill him at the end is not the same as a grand plan for the whole run. I think you’re thinking they’re claiming something that they’re not. They clearly didn’t have it figured out, Craig talks in the podcast about how they had to find a satisfying way of killing him for this film.

    Sorry, I thought I had mentioned it in my opening comment on this but my only reference was to the documentary. Not the podcast. And in the documentary it's said that they had the idea of killing Bond from the very beginning, during prep for CR - and it's that which I find hard to believe. I find it much easier to believe that it came up post-SP because of where the path had led them. I agree, they clearly didn't have it all figured out. If they talk about it in a more detailed and clearer way in the podcast then fair enough, but them having to work out a satisfying way to execute the idea isn't really relevant to my point (as interesting as I'm sure it is) - only when the idea was actually pitched is.

    Yep, but as I keep saying: having the thought of ending it by killing him isn’t a fully-formed masterplan, it’s not exactly implausible to have the idea ‘it’d be good to kill him at the end’- I bet if you look back at 2006 on here you’d probably have fans on here suggesting the same, but they didn’t claim to have 5 films’ worth of story mapped out either. That it happened to align with where they’d ended up with the character 15 years later and they decided to stick to the idea isn’t exactly beyond the bounds of plausibility.
    I don’t get why it would seemingly be impossible for Craig to suggest ‘let’s kill him at the end’ back then. And bear in mind this was after CR was made.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    Fair enough! That's not really what I got from the statements made in the documentary at the time, but it is what it is I suppose.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,890
    I can absolutely accept that following CR Craig may have tossed the idea out there but, as has been stated, it not was part of a master plan.
    I strongly feel that had SPECTRE been a stronger film that it would have been his last ; his tenure would have had him leaving MI-6 and riding into the sunset with Madeline.

    With that said, I think that Daniel wanted an ending that would eliminate any chance of returning.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    talos7 wrote: »
    I can absolutely accept that following CR Craig may have tossed the idea out there but, as has been stated, it not was part of a master plan.
    I strongly feel that had SPECTRE been a stronger film that it would have been his last ; his tenure would have had him leaving MI-6 and riding into the sunset with Madeline.

    Yup, I think you’re right, and I think it sounds like Craig possibly did consider it to be his last after he’d done it.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    I think a younger Bond/paternalistic M is the way to go next time around. A newly-minted Bond, which would also be a meta-commentary on the recasting.

    No need to reintroduce elements a la CR (and definitely not the Aston Martin). Bring in elements of LALD and MR, including a younger Leiter.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited January 2022 Posts: 2,895
    talos7 wrote: »
    I think that Daniel wanted an ending that would eliminate any chance of returning.

    I think that's as near to it as anything. SP was DC's last contracted Bond film and it was pitched early on as 'Bond's last mission' yet there's no mention of his death in any of the leaked Sony/MGM emails - they refer to him walking away from MI6 at the end. That indicates that Bond dying didn't form any part of what was then known to be Craig's last. It also ties in with Dan's comment that EON's response to the idea of killing Bond 'was no, for years'. Still think that Bond dying was Craig's condition for making NTTD and that Barbara Broccoli and MGW conceded as the price of getting the film made.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2022 Posts: 14,861
    Craig said she agreed to the idea right after CR.
    Obviously that wasn’t in stone or anything, and I doubt it was ever a hard and fast condition he had, it’s just something he thought would be a good ending. It’s right there in Fleming and the CR movie itself: “I understand double Os don’t have a very long life expectancy”. When you watch CR it’s kind of obvious it’s only going to go one of two ways for this character. And they did the happy-ever-after, sunset ending in the previous film.
  • Posts: 14,800
    echo wrote: »
    I think a younger Bond/paternalistic M is the way to go next time around. A newly-minted Bond, which would also be a meta-commentary on the recasting.

    No need to reintroduce elements a la CR (and definitely not the Aston Martin). Bring in elements of LALD and MR, including a younger Leiter.

    I quite like this idea of a younger Bond and father figure M. And the villain as a distorted, perverted father figure.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    I’ve been giving Carte Blanche another go and I do quite like the total rethink given to the whole double O section and Bond’s route of joining in it.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,895
    Didn't MGW come up with a reboot script after Sir Rog left, with an origin story that had a younger Bond paired with a mentor figure or a maverick young Bond finally brought into line by his grandad's best mate or some such? The one that Cubby vetoed because he didn't think anyone wanted to see a rookie Bond. Wonder if any elements of that might filter into Bond 26?
  • Posts: 14,800
    Venutius wrote: »
    Didn't MGW come up with a reboot script after Sir Rog left, with an origin story that had a younger Bond paired with a mentor figure or a maverick young Bond finally brought into line by his grandad's best mate or some such? The one that Cubby vetoed because he didn't think anyone wanted to see a rookie Bond. Wonder if any elements of that might filter into Bond 26?

    I don't think so. I think they initially hinted at a "Bond begins" in the early drafts of GE, making the Trevelyan character older and a sort of father figure for Bond.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Yeah, although I’m not against the idea of Bond Begins, that B15 draft never really sounded very good to me.
  • Posts: 15,785
    I firmly feel Eon already did an excellent Bond Begins with CASINO ROYALE and we don't need another origin story.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,890
    I want to see Bond in his prime as an established agent .
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    talos7 wrote: »
    I can absolutely accept that following CR Craig may have tossed the idea out there but, as has been stated, it not was part of a master plan.
    I strongly feel that had SPECTRE been a stronger film that it would have been his last ; his tenure would have had him leaving MI-6 and riding into the sunset with Madeline.

    This is how I see it, too.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I firmly feel Eon already did an excellent Bond Begins with CASINO ROYALE and we don't need another origin story.

    I wouldn’t have a problem with it. I’m open to anything if it’s good.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    Eon has an opportunity with a new continuity, to do it right this time...like they started with CR (or DN) but then bungled.

    The new Bond doesn't have to have a Tracy, or a Madeleine. He could have a Gala or a reimagined Tiffany or Mary Goodnight...really anything.

    But I think Bond #7 needs to be on the younger side (closer to 30 than 35) because if he does 4-5 films, that's maybe 12-20 years.
  • Posts: 14,800
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah, although I’m not against the idea of Bond Begins, that B15 draft never really sounded very good to me.

    Well, it was not exactly "Bond begins" as he was established as a 00, but from what I understand there were flashbacks from earlier on in his career.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited January 2022 Posts: 7,518
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah, although I’m not against the idea of Bond Begins, that B15 draft never really sounded very good to me.

    Well, it was not exactly "Bond begins" as he was established as a 00, but from what I understand there were flashbacks from earlier on in his career.

    Sorry to bring up Nolan again, but it's easy to imagine him doing something like this. A combination of sorts of Inception and Dunkirk , maybe show Bond at the blitz, as in the origin story graphic novels they're doing now.* If they wanted to go in that direction.

    *Obviously that wouldn't work if they keep Bond modern, which they should.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah, although I’m not against the idea of Bond Begins, that B15 draft never really sounded very good to me.

    Well, it was not exactly "Bond begins" as he was established as a 00, but from what I understand there were flashbacks from earlier on in his career.

    Not in the version I've seen reported on: the whole premise was he's a lieutenant basically kicked out of the Navy and is recruited by M, teaming up with the old 007, who goes on to die on Bond's first mission, with Bond taking the 007 number in honour of him.
  • Posts: 14,800
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah, although I’m not against the idea of Bond Begins, that B15 draft never really sounded very good to me.

    Well, it was not exactly "Bond begins" as he was established as a 00, but from what I understand there were flashbacks from earlier on in his career.

    Not in the version I've seen reported on: the whole premise was he's a lieutenant basically kicked out of the Navy and is recruited by M, teaming up with the old 007, who goes on to die on Bond's first mission, with Bond taking the 007 number in honour of him.

    In what I've read the previous M was the one who apparently died and turned out to be the villain/Trevelyan character. But I don't know if it was just a rumour about the early drafts or genuine content in the early drafts.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861

    He’s very good in The Tourist, I expect that’s why.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah, although I’m not against the idea of Bond Begins, that B15 draft never really sounded very good to me.

    Well, it was not exactly "Bond begins" as he was established as a 00, but from what I understand there were flashbacks from earlier on in his career.

    Not in the version I've seen reported on: the whole premise was he's a lieutenant basically kicked out of the Navy and is recruited by M, teaming up with the old 007, who goes on to die on Bond's first mission, with Bond taking the 007 number in honour of him.

    In what I've read the previous M was the one who apparently died and turned out to be the villain/Trevelyan character. But I don't know if it was just a rumour about the early drafts or genuine content in the early drafts.

    For Bond 15? Sounds more like a Bond 17 draft you’re talking about there.
  • Posts: 14,800
    mtm wrote: »

    He’s very good in The Tourist, I expect that’s why.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah, although I’m not against the idea of Bond Begins, that B15 draft never really sounded very good to me.

    Well, it was not exactly "Bond begins" as he was established as a 00, but from what I understand there were flashbacks from earlier on in his career.

    Not in the version I've seen reported on: the whole premise was he's a lieutenant basically kicked out of the Navy and is recruited by M, teaming up with the old 007, who goes on to die on Bond's first mission, with Bond taking the 007 number in honour of him.

    In what I've read the previous M was the one who apparently died and turned out to be the villain/Trevelyan character. But I don't know if it was just a rumour about the early drafts or genuine content in the early drafts.

    For Bond 15? Sounds more like a Bond 17 draft you’re talking about there.

    Yes I was talking about Bond 17, or what would become Goldeney from the beginning.
  • mtm wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I firmly feel Eon already did an excellent Bond Begins with CASINO ROYALE and we don't need another origin story.

    I wouldn’t have a problem with it. I’m open to anything if it’s good.

    Same for me. I think I said it before: the B15 premise (Bond teams up with the then crurent 007 who dies in the field, leaving his protégé to finish the mission alone), mixed with elements from Horowitz's Forever and a Day, could make a great movie; however, because IOI's game will more or less at the same time touch on Bond's origin story, such story would not necessarily be relevant for B26.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2022 Posts: 14,861
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »

    He’s very good in The Tourist, I expect that’s why.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah, although I’m not against the idea of Bond Begins, that B15 draft never really sounded very good to me.

    Well, it was not exactly "Bond begins" as he was established as a 00, but from what I understand there were flashbacks from earlier on in his career.

    Not in the version I've seen reported on: the whole premise was he's a lieutenant basically kicked out of the Navy and is recruited by M, teaming up with the old 007, who goes on to die on Bond's first mission, with Bond taking the 007 number in honour of him.

    In what I've read the previous M was the one who apparently died and turned out to be the villain/Trevelyan character. But I don't know if it was just a rumour about the early drafts or genuine content in the early drafts.

    For Bond 15? Sounds more like a Bond 17 draft you’re talking about there.

    Yes I was talking about Bond 17, or what would become Goldeney from the beginning.

    Right, I was talking about Bond 15: that's what I meant by 'that B15 draft'. That was the one after Roger where Wilson & Maibaum planned a young Bond begins story- that's what we're all talking about.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,483
    I would like to see Bond in his prime with Bond 26, even if they cast a younger man. They've done the origin story perfect in Casino and I like the unique aspect to that film, I don't want to compare Casino and Bond 26, because I fear Casink was lightning in a bottle

    We need more of Bond physically and emotionally in his prime
Sign In or Register to comment.