Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1106410651067106910701191

Comments

  • KronsteenKronsteen Stockholm
    Posts: 783
    Screentest wrote: »
    Tabloid touts Daisy May Cooper as new 'M'
    https://www.mi6-hq.com/news/tabloid-touts-daisy-may-cooper-as-new-m-230322
    She appears to be a comedian. Campy Bond is back on the menu boys.

    The most interesting part is Waller-Bridge though. Feels extremely plausible that she should be invited back for B26 by Babs.
  • CharmianBondCharmianBond Pett Bottom, Kent
    Posts: 534
    Sun nonsense aside I would really like to see PWB's campy take on Bond.
  • Posts: 686
    What type of campy? I'm all badass with tears.

    "of, relating to, or characterized by theatrical or extravagant style, expressing playful irreverence or knowing amusement:
    a campy send-up of romantic operettas."
  • QsCatQsCat London
    Posts: 251
    Kronsteen wrote: »
    Screentest wrote: »
    Tabloid touts Daisy May Cooper as new 'M'
    https://www.mi6-hq.com/news/tabloid-touts-daisy-may-cooper-as-new-m-230322
    She appears to be a comedian. Campy Bond is back on the menu boys.

    The most interesting part is Waller-Bridge though. Feels extremely plausible that she should be invited back for B26 by Babs.

    That’s what they want you to think…
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,005
    I don't know Daisy May Cooper, but maybe she could play well as M against Olivia Colman as Bond.

    Another Oscar-winner in the franchise ranks.

    oscar-2019-performanta-rara-pentru-olivia-colman-desemnata-cea-mai-buna-actrita-in-rol-principal_size23.jpg
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,492
    I wouldn't want a replica of the 60s.

    That decade was so unique, and interesting and just plain cool, that having a modern filmmaker try and create an authentic 60s backdrop would just feel false.

    Plus, would I want to see another actor pretend he's back in the 60s, when I have the genuine article with Connery dominating the world in the role of James Bond?

    There is no actor walking the planet today that could compete with 60s Connery. The poor guy would be set up for immediate failure.

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,966
    It would never happen for one simple reason, lack of product placement.

    Cynicism aside, I could more see a period Bond done as a television adaptation of the original novels rather that an event motion picture.
  • Posts: 2,887
    talos7 wrote: »
    It would never happen for one simple reason, lack of product placement.

    Cynicism aside, I could more see a period Bond done as a television adaptation of the original novels rather that an event motion picture.

    Another issue with a television series of this sort is the fact that we already have adaptations of many of the novels with the films. Actually a few of them are arguably better than the source material. Not sure if I'd personally want to see a faithful adaptation of GF. As much as I love Fleming's novels I'd argue the film version is superior because of the liberties it took with that book.

    It would also never fully satisfy fans or general viewers I think. The films by and large are able to evoke that spirit of escapism and adventure which are fundamental to the novels. I get the feeling a television series would be a lot slower and more cerebral. There'd be a few modern revisionist nods to the period (think Mad Men) that I think would annoy some fans.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,492
    That's it @007HallY ...it would almost be guaranteed that any contemporary-made adaptation of a Bond -period film would have modern revionist sensibilities.

    It just wouldn't be authentic.
  • edited March 2023 Posts: 2,887
    peter wrote: »
    That's it @007HallY ...it would almost be guaranteed that any contemporary-made adaptation of a Bond -period film would have modern revionist sensibilities.

    It just wouldn't be authentic.

    A direct TV series adaptation of Fleming used to be something I wanted to see. I'm a fan of Mad Men so I guess a part of me liked the idea. It's something I've gone off of over time for the reasons I wrote though, but I get why some people are fond of the concept.

    But yeah, I think film is the best medium for Bond, and set in modern times at that (and yes, by EON). I don't think a TV series would ever drum up the same level of excitement or be quite the 'big event' that something like SF was back in 2012. Or indeed any of the other big Bond films. Even nowadays. I just don't think a small scale series would capture that spirit of fantasy in Fleming's novels. Flawed as the films can be, I don't think it'd ever match up.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Not a red herring
    Posts: 564
    Bond fighting against the evils of today's world is part of what keeps the series relevant. And as @peter said, it would feel inauthentic against the genuine article.
  • Posts: 1,453
    Bond fighting against the evils of today's world is part of what keeps the series relevant. And as @peter said, it would feel inauthentic against the genuine article.

    Yes, 100% agree. Eon know that Bond has survived because the character and stories etc. evolve with the times. They will never go back to a 60's setting.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited March 2023 Posts: 2,925
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    [ Eon know that Bond has survived because the character and stories etc. evolve with the times. They will never go back to a 60's setting.
    True. MGW said explicitly that 'Bond is always a contemporary character.' Except for when he was at the Greene Planet function and he was two years in the future, obvs. ;)
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,511
    Bond as a character looks forward and not back, the series should always strive to do the same. The 60's films are excellent and we always have them to rewatch, let's not recreate them.

    The line between homage and pastiche is dangerously thin in the world of Bond
  • Posts: 9,770

    God no I agree with @peter this is the dumbest idea I have ever heard.

    Sorry no it wouldn’t work for a variety of reasons

  • Posts: 6,677
    It won’t happen. Thank heavens it doesn’t need to happen, because we all know the best 5 Bond films are all set in the 60s. We have literally a handful of films made and set in that era.

    Now, to have the spirit of that era drive a character in the 21st century, that would be interesting. And I’m talking about having a 50s kind of guy living in todays world, without the obvious jarring no-no’s we all know.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited March 2023 Posts: 7,526
    Fleming himself asked the character to be kept up with the times.

    Not opposed to a period set prestive-TV Bond series to cover the novels though. But the films, IMO, must be "five minutes in the future", as they say.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,966
    Bond being in the present is why I’ve always seen Dalton as the first reboot. Based on age Connery, Lazenby and Moore are the same Bond; Dalton and Brosnan are the next incarnation, then the Craig era. Yes there are inconsistencies and contradictions but that’s how I see it.
  • Posts: 1,517
    Setting a Bond film in the sixties would be quite expensive; however, as I have noted previously, a prologue set in the sixties with implications for MI6 today would work.

    I'm fine with a contemporary Bond, but tired of stories about chips, stolen hard drives, bots, computers, things that shoot beams from space, etc. Which is why I like CR and QoS. While there is much to like in NTTD, the Safin destroy the world thing felt old.

    The challenge going forward will be to write stories that are fresh instead of variations of what we've seen before.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,526
    Safin and his antics were definitely the weak point of NTTD, IMO.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited March 2023 Posts: 1,430
    I am so sick of nostalgia and the vocal grown children that never want anything to change. The past is the past, give me a contemporary Bond or nothing. Its such a lazy idea to go back in time and an impossible challenge in practice. Grow up.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Not a red herring
    Posts: 564
    I get the impression that it's less about going back to the 60s and more about returning to the style of the 60s films.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,526
    I get the impression that it's less about going back to the 60s and more about returning to the style of the 60s films.

    I think there's some people that literally want to go back to the 60's. Wouldn't be my preference but I'm not aggressively opposed to it.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Not a red herring
    edited March 2023 Posts: 564
    I get the impression that it's less about going back to the 60s and more about returning to the style of the 60s films.

    I think there's some people that literally want to go back to the 60's. Wouldn't be my preference but I'm not aggressively opposed to it.

    Probably, but I just wonder if those same people wouldn't be equally satisfied if they just had a 60s style rather than actually setting them in the 60s. Especially if the latter was done in same style as the Craig movies, just set in the past.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,526
    I get the impression that it's less about going back to the 60s and more about returning to the style of the 60s films.

    I think there's some people that literally want to go back to the 60's. Wouldn't be my preference but I'm not aggressively opposed to it.

    Probably, but I just wonder if those same people wouldn't be equally satisfied if they just had a 60s style rather than actually setting them in the 60s. Especially if the latter was done in same style as the Craig movies, just set in the past.

    Was that what Man from Uncle was like? Never seen it.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Not a red herring
    edited March 2023 Posts: 564
    I get the impression that it's less about going back to the 60s and more about returning to the style of the 60s films.

    I think there's some people that literally want to go back to the 60's. Wouldn't be my preference but I'm not aggressively opposed to it.

    Probably, but I just wonder if those same people wouldn't be equally satisfied if they just had a 60s style rather than actually setting them in the 60s. Especially if the latter was done in same style as the Craig movies, just set in the past.

    Was that what Man from Uncle was like? Never seen it.

    Man from Uncle was tapping into more of an early-60s European chic aesthetic that the Bond films never really associated with. I guess if they wanted to portray a more stylised, retrospective version of the 60s with all the recognisable iconography, then it would look something like that. But it wouldn't be authentic to the actual 60s Bond films.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    Weren't Skyfall through NTTD already soaked in about as much 60s nostalgia as a modern film could support? I guess you could do the Archer thing and just pick and choose which aspects of what era you want to use with basically no rhyme or reason or consistency. But that's not Bond. That's quite literally a Bond parody. To me a film set today but aggressively pursuing a 60s aesthetic would be the worst possible option. Bauhaus and Mid-century modern is one of the strongest design languages used in the upscale market Bond operates in, anyway. To go beyond that would be farcical.

    I really would like a Bond film that exclusively looks forward as the kick-off. You can do it like they did with CR and then the rest of Craig: Start off completely bare-bones, no gadgets, no Moneypenny and Q, some poking fun at the old catchphrases, but honestly, just ignore many of them; and then you gradually re-introduce and re-fit these things as you find your footing with this new Bond. But for a first film of a new actor, give me a new car (I swear to God, if they do any of the old Astons again...), a new gun, a new type of villain and threat, maybe even some mild structural experimentation with the film itself and make Bond feel like a 30-something actually living in this world. Sure, make him a bit more conservative in his attitudes. Bond has always been and he needs to be with the job he's doing, I guess. But don't have him be someone fallen out of his time. This isn't Captain America. Bond wasn't frozen in 1962 and is only now re-awakening.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited March 2023 Posts: 1,318
    Contemporary is dull tbf, just look at Craig's tenure sans CR, which is actually due to Campbell. Give me 60s setting with actual STYLE any old day of the week. Sure, Sean's no longer with us, but there is ALWAYS new talent around. Bond is walking among us. Ditch the 'new and improved' new age (possibly woke) Bond and go back to the golden age. At least then we have an interesting template, difficult to mess up, along with a truly good director.

    @LucknFate You always have to make it personal, chap.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited March 2023 Posts: 7,526
    Contemporary is dull? Every single Bond film has been contemporary. The word “woke” always has to appear…
Sign In or Register to comment.