Should we get a new M / Q / Moneypenny for BOND 26 and beyond ?

1121315171830

Comments

  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited February 2022 Posts: 1,419
    We live in a world where Tom Cruise WANTS to cameo as Iron Man in the multiverse, and it may actually happen. Actors want attention. Bond movies should have a Q. and M. that give actors the attention they want, even if it's for two minutes. We are in a new golden age of cameos, and with Q. and M. you get far much more than just a cameo.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    Posts: 2,161
    I think the franchise faired better with dependable character actors in the roles.
  • Posts: 6,682
    Murdock wrote: »
    Wipe the slate clean.

    To wash away bad memories, amirite? ;)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I think the franchise faired better with dependable character actors in the roles.

    Judi Dench and Ralph Fiennes aren't dependable? And Rory Kinnear is one of the best character actors in the country.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited February 2022 Posts: 648
    If they don't bring back any of the actors from the Craig era maybe they can bring back one from the Brosnan era like Colin Salmon. Something about a clean slate doesn't ring true for this series. There's always been some overlap in terms of casting between eras.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    Posts: 2,161
    mtm wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I think the franchise faired better with dependable character actors in the roles.

    Judi Dench and Ralph Fiennes aren't dependable? And Rory Kinnear is one of the best character actors in the country.
    That’s not what I said. Is there anything you will not quibble with?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    At what point does an actor become a character actor? I've always liked the the phrase and you always know a character actor when you see one, but what's the threshold for it?

    In Kinnear's case, he's played such a wide range of roles that I've never really thought of him as a character actor.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Birdleson wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I think the franchise faired better with dependable character actors in the roles.

    Judi Dench and Ralph Fiennes aren't dependable? And Rory Kinnear is one of the best character actors in the country.
    That’s not what I said. Is there anything you will not quibble with?

    No need to make it personal. Were you not saying that it was better with dependable character actors in the roles?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2022 Posts: 14,861
    At what point does an actor become a character actor? I've always liked the the phrase and you always know a character actor when you see one, but what's the threshold for it?

    In Kinnear's case, he's played such a wide range of roles that I've never really thought of him as a character actor.

    I’d say he’s usually not playing your classic leading man type but usually slightly more unusual parts as part of an ensemble which kind of is your character actor bread and butter (I don’t want to downplay how good he is though), but often he does leads of course so that’s fair. Dench has probably been more of the classic character actor for the last couple of decades.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    Since62 wrote: »
    With regard to all these proposals to have "Office Characters" played by big-time actors and rising stars - yet don't want them in the field or doing anything significant, how do you figure the actors would agree to minimal roles, barely above the furniture ? Not likely, is it ? The actors whose names are being thrown about would be more suitable for more significant parts, either by the Office folks getting significant parts in the story, or in playing villains, allies, etc. in the story.

    You're not wrong. There is a bit of a disconnect there. However, I would say the limit nature of the roles combined with the prestige of the franchise - especially in Britain - could make for an enticing combination. Eon's pitch to someone like Olivia Colman or Mark Rylance or Jessie Buckley or Jenna Coleman or whomever would be: You can get one of the most famous roles in British cinema for the next 15 years (as opposed to a one-and-done villain or Bond girl) and all you have to do is show up at Pinewood for 2 weeks once every four years and do a bit of promotion with our product partners afterwards (who are very generous, btw). I don't think that's a bad pitch.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,895
    Quite a few of the higher profile people we've had in recent years said that they were interested in being in or directing a Bond film because of Daniel Craig and what he'd brought to it. Dan's left the series in a really good place, but fresh slate and all that - I do wonder if there'll still be the same attraction for some of them now that the draw of working with Craig's gone?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Venutius wrote: »
    I do wonder if there'll still be the same attraction for some of them now that the draw of working with Craig's gone?

    Well there's always cash I guess! :D
    Good point though, they'll need to build up the prestige again to some extent.
  • Posts: 1,545
    mtm wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    I do wonder if there'll still be the same attraction for some of them now that the draw of working with Craig's gone?

    Well there's always cash I guess! :D
    Good point though, they'll need to build up the prestige again to some extent.

    Interesting...if they go with some overly young pup with the body of a teenager, a pretty face, an ability to brood - even to the exclusion of any and all other abilities - to get "the youth market", that may bring the built-up prestige crashing down. I get the concern for appealing to younger fans, and I don't know who's REALLY under consideration or would be considered, but wowww...It isn't just Harry Styles or Timothy Chalamet who would utterly lack credibility in terms of looking like someone who could succeed at tough action, fighting, etc. Richard Madden and some others belong in the same group, though more mature. Madden, all furrowed brow so much of the time, looked like a lad in The Take, and his character even said so himself in comparing himself to Idris Elba's character in that film.

    This is no easy task ahead for the producers.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,834
    Since62 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    I do wonder if there'll still be the same attraction for some of them now that the draw of working with Craig's gone?

    Well there's always cash I guess! :D
    Good point though, they'll need to build up the prestige again to some extent.
    This is no easy task ahead for the producers.
    I would actually say it's gonna be easier for them than it is on here, and I actually think they'll have many less stipulations. And I definitely think they won't be using insults as reasoning.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    The thing is...Bond has skewed older since at least the '70s. And they've tried, and struggled, to appeal to a younger audience. Why do you think Moore was snowboarding in AVTAK?

    Because Bond is the granddaddy of the genre, it will always be a struggle...
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    echo wrote: »
    The thing is...Bond has skewed older since at least the '70s. And they've tried, and struggled, to appeal to a younger audience. Why do you think Moore was snowboarding in AVTAK?

    Well they've always tried to get the new ideas for stunts or gadgets in their films for freshness' sake. Them hiring Duran Duran is probably more appropriate to your point! :)
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    I think Duran Duran approached Cubby and said they were available to do a proper theme song after All Time High.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    He didn't say no though ;)
  • Posts: 1,879
    echo wrote: »
    The thing is...Bond has skewed older since at least the '70s. And they've tried, and struggled, to appeal to a younger audience. Why do you think Moore was snowboarding in AVTAK?

    Because Bond is the granddaddy of the genre, it will always be a struggle...

    I've heard that AVTAK precredit scene was where snowboarding was inspired, not the other way around. It wasn't put in to appeal to a younger demographic. It was more to work in the cheap joke with the faux Beach Boys music.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,811
    BT3366 wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    The thing is...Bond has skewed older since at least the '70s. And they've tried, and struggled, to appeal to a younger audience. Why do you think Moore was snowboarding in AVTAK?

    Because Bond is the granddaddy of the genre, it will always be a struggle...

    I've heard that AVTAK precredit scene was where snowboarding was inspired, not the other way around. It wasn't put in to appeal to a younger demographic. It was more to work in the cheap joke with the faux Beach Boys music.

    Well that info would be wrong @BT3366
    Modern snow boarding dates back to 1965, so 20 years prior to AVTAK.

    I saw someone suggest Mark Rylance as a possible M.
    An outstanding choice.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,895
    And Rylance once beat Aidan Turner for a Best Actor award...
  • Posts: 14,800
    I'd stick to them for a while if they can. Especially Fiennes.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited February 2022 Posts: 1,419

    Just because Rylance is a good actor does not make him M. That man is not gruff and has too soft a face. Please cast the roles, not the actors you want to see.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    I think they should recast the roles, because of how NTTD ended. I would have loved them to stay, but if Fiennes and company stay on, it will definitely look like another 00 agent replaced Craig and started bearing James Bond.
  • Posts: 14,800
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think they should recast the roles, because of how NTTD ended. I would have loved them to stay, but if Fiennes and company stay on, it will definitely look like another 00 agent replaced Craig and started bearing James Bond.

    They kept Judy Dench though. I think the codename fallacy will be defended by people no matter what.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited February 2022 Posts: 8,255
    I agree with @GadgetMan ... They've never killed Bond before-- literally, that is-- so keeping some of the same actors would muddy the waters for the new 007 and his film.

    I think we will see a re-casting from Bond on down.

    Edit: I think pre-Craig it had value to keep the same or some of the cast from previous eras; it was comforting and we were reassured that the lead actor may've changed , but this is still an EoN Bond film.

    Now that Craig Bond took some missiles to the face and is dead, I don't think there is any value bringing any of the supporting players back.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,811
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Just because Rylance is a good actor does not make him M. That man is not gruff and has too soft a face. Please cast the roles, not the actors you want to see.

    That's just a matter of opinion.
    I think Mark Rylance does have the ability as an actor to become M. He's an actor after all. The fact you don't see it, doesn't make it so.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    Posts: 2,161
    Can't they get that Bernard Lee fellow back?
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited February 2022 Posts: 1,419
    Benny wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Just because Rylance is a good actor does not make him M. That man is not gruff and has too soft a face. Please cast the roles, not the actors you want to see.

    That's just a matter of opinion.
    I think Mark Rylance does have the ability as an actor to become M. He's an actor after all. The fact you don't see it, doesn't make it so.

    If only. We need to stop trying just anything because they're British. Any name can be thrown in, the point of the thread is to discuss them.

    Rylance reminds me of Geoffrey Keen.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,811
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Just because Rylance is a good actor does not make him M. That man is not gruff and has too soft a face. Please cast the roles, not the actors you want to see.

    That's just a matter of opinion.
    I think Mark Rylance does have the ability as an actor to become M. He's an actor after all. The fact you don't see it, doesn't make it so.

    If only. We need to stop trying just anything because they're British. Any name can be thrown in, the point of the thread is to discuss them.

    Rylance reminds me of Geoffrey Keen.

    Well that too me is a good thing. For many of his appearances he was a strong figurehead. Highlights for me would be Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker, Octopussy and even View To Kill.
    I think Rylance could play that former Admiral who can give Bond a stern direction, but show care and pride in his top agent.
    Another actor I could see playing M would be Ciaran Hinds. Strong commanding actor who could keep Bond under control, whilst keeping the fatherly figure side, I think is required for the role.
Sign In or Register to comment.