Where does Bond go after Craig?

1294295297299300513

Comments

  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,494
    LucknFate wrote: »
    https://variety.com/2023/film/global/rebel-wilson-james-bond-audition-senior-year-1235624156/

    "“What was really cool was getting to audition for Bond,” said Wilson, who stressed that the role she went for wasn’t actually James Bond, but rather another character in the movie. The audition took place last year, though the star played coy about whether or not she landed the gig.

    The next instalment of the famous franchise is currently in script stage. Broccoli and Wilson last year told Variety that finding the new Bond is “not just about casting an actor for a film. It’s about a reinvention.” One frequently discussed frontrunner for the role is Aaron Taylor-Johnson."

    As a fellow Australian, please no.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2023 Posts: 14,861
    She is quoted as using the word 'audition', which makes for a very odd situation. What's going on here? Variety are pretty reliable too. It's possible she's making it all up, but that would be a bit weird... seems like there's something here.
    It also strikes me that she's not a completely different type to Daisy May Cooper, who of course the red tops were reporting was the new M a few weeks back. I don't buy the M thing, but it doesn't seem impossible there's some role they're looking at filling which would suit a comedienne, and although the tabloids make stuff up they do have contacts in the entertainment biz so there may have been a whiff of truth in the Cooper thing: and if there's a role that means there's some semblance of a script or at least ideas of characters they want to introduce... interesting...
  • It is strange that they would audition someone before having a script. It would have to be for one of the main characters that they already know will be in it, like M or Moneypenny or Q. Honestly my guess for Rebel Wilson would be Q. To me it's just about a no-brainer at this point that they will have a female Q. I mean think about it, it's always been a man, and getting a man for the role yet again would almost look like it's sending the message that Q has to be a man since it's technology related. I just don't really see how they could keep Q male. Besides that, they always race/sexual orientation/gender swap one of the characters. Female Q just seems like the obvious next step. It's also a comedic relief role, so they would probably be looking for an actress that could do humor. They might also want a less attractive actress. Keep having Moneypenny be the one he flirts with. It would be weird having him hit on both Moneypenny and Q. It's too much. Having a larger/less attractive, but funny female Q would be interesting, and something different. I'm not sure if Rebel would be my first pick, but still...
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    It's certainly possible, and as I say: Daisy May Cooper may have been an alternate choice.
  • CharmianBondCharmianBond Pett Bottom, Kent
    Posts: 533
    I don't see either of them as Q but I would love a female Q in Bond 26. I've said it before but a Q that's styled on Amina from We Are Lady Parts would be my dream. Having a woman get to be nerdy and funny would be a nice contrast to the typical Bond girl and have her be similarly uninterested and exasperated with Bond would build on Whishaw's evolution of the character without feeling like a copy.

    Aisha, the Q Branch Tech from Double or Nothing is pretty much there, I love her personality and she gets some laugh out loud moments, particularly throwing her shoe at a bad suggestion from her coworker. Then again I'd love to see Mirren play their boss, Mrs Keator as this non-nonsense older woman who decoded Spektor's in the Cold War. It's criminal she's not been in the franchise already.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    It is strange that they would audition someone before having a script.

    That’s only if you actually take Barbara Broccoli’s word of there being no script in development. I actually don’t believe her. I think she only tells the press there’s no development because that’s a way of getting them off their backs.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,483
    DCZA4pdUQAEPnRh.jpg
    MV5BMTZlZTg4NWEtNzE4YS00NzhjLWJjODctMjMyYzY3ZmMxM2Y4XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyOTc5MDI5NjE@._V1_.jpg

    Michelle Monaghan in Mr and Mrs Smith is how I'd picture a female Q. Not sure I feel about a female Q though, it feels a bit too subversive to my mind.
  • edited May 2023 Posts: 2,753
    The Wilson audition is strange, but as was said she's not an actress miles away from Daisy May Cooper. Personally, I think having Cooper makes much more sense as a comic relief or Q type character than Wilson (not sure her brand of improvised humour really gels with Bond, and Cooper is a better actress).

    To be honest, I'm not really a fan of either for a female Q. It's almost too obvious and I get the sense both actresses are a bit too 'larger than life' to really appear like they're organically a part of the MI6 world and not just the 'comic relief' which sticks out like a sore thumb (I'd argue Cleese's R suffered from this). I think if Cooper does appear in this film (which is a big if) I can see her more a henchwoman playing the role straight if they wanted to do a bit of 'subversive casting'. In all honesty I think she's a good enough actress to do it well.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,053
    I’m not opposed to a female Q. John Gardener did it. Let’s just hope she wouldn’t be as awkward as John Cleese was portrayed. In particular they should avoid how John Gardner wrote her and her incident with Bond. If Phoebe Waller-Bridge is cast, they need to be careful how they write and portray her. If Indy 5 isn’t a hit a lot of people are going to blame her. Based on their personal opinions.

    As for Rebel and Daisy auditioning, their scripts are probably parts from old scripts. I believe EON has at least some ideas on where to go next.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    I'm less concerned with who plays the next Q and more worried they're going to get way too much screentime again. The same goes for M and MP. I really hope they move away from that again in the next era.
  • Posts: 12,243
    Male Moneypenny and female Q would make it interesting as long as the actors are good.
  • edited May 2023 Posts: 2,753
    A male Moneypenny would be essentially a different character as a big part of her movie incarnation is to have that chemistry/flirtatious banter with Bond. It's even the case with Harris' Moneypenny in SF to an extent.

    As I've said in the past, I don't think the series should feel restricted by the expectation to have a Q or Moneypenny. They might not necessarily be needed and could potentially feel shoehorned in. Honestly, I'd rather see a version of Lolelia Ponsonby as a sort of assistant to the Bond/the 00's (even in the novels she serves much more of a function than Moneypenny ever did in the films, both practically and even emotionally) and then an M and Bill Tanner perhaps.

    I'm not really sure if having an A-List comedian as a comic relief Q is needed or necessary.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 686
    For Q and Moneypenny I’d like actors who would disappear into the characters they are playing, not people who are particularly famous for playing one type of comedy character. Even though I’m a big fan of Richard Ayoade, for example, I’d worry that he’d just be playing another version of Moss. I don’t want what I’d consider stunt casting. I’m just not a big fan of ‘mixing it up’.

    Just give me good dramatic actors.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,494
    Well a few years ago the head of Mi6 did reveal that the real life equivalent of Q was a women, so they could claim that casting a female Q more accurately reflects real life.
  • Posts: 12,243
    007HallY wrote: »
    A male Moneypenny would be essentially a different character as a big part of her movie incarnation is to have that chemistry/flirtatious banter with Bond. It's even the case with Harris' Moneypenny in SF to an extent.

    As I've said in the past, I don't think the series should feel restricted by the expectation to have a Q or Moneypenny. They might not necessarily be needed and could potentially feel shoehorned in. Honestly, I'd rather see a version of Lolelia Ponsonby as a sort of assistant to the Bond/the 00's (even in the novels she serves much more of a function than Moneypenny ever did in the films, both practically and even emotionally) and then an M and Bill Tanner perhaps.

    I'm not really sure if having an A-List comedian as a comic relief Q is needed or necessary.

    I wouldn’t mind if they weren’t around either, considering their minimal presence in the original books. And if the producers do go forward with a more monogamist Bond as has been hinted at, the “flirtatious banter” won’t be necessary anymore. It didn’t really happen in SP or NTTD even, they seemed more like just friends to me. And still minimal in SF I’d argue.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    007HallY wrote: »

    I'm not really sure if having an A-List comedian as a comic relief Q is needed or necessary.

    Yeah it feels a bit on-the-nose 'here's the funny bit'. I was a bit disappointed in Cleese taking the gig as well: felt like he'd sold out a touch.

    I don't feel strongly about them taking a larger role: I just don't object to them being in Spectre, I know many people do.
  • edited May 2023 Posts: 2,753
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »

    I'm not really sure if having an A-List comedian as a comic relief Q is needed or necessary.

    Yeah it feels a bit on-the-nose 'here's the funny bit'. I was a bit disappointed in Cleese taking the gig as well: felt like he'd sold out a touch.

    I don't feel strongly about them taking a larger role: I just don't object to them being in Spectre, I know many people do.

    Yeah, I don't think it'd feel right. Like I said though, I can see Cooper as a henchwoman or secondary villain played straight.
    FoxRox wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    A male Moneypenny would be essentially a different character as a big part of her movie incarnation is to have that chemistry/flirtatious banter with Bond. It's even the case with Harris' Moneypenny in SF to an extent.

    As I've said in the past, I don't think the series should feel restricted by the expectation to have a Q or Moneypenny. They might not necessarily be needed and could potentially feel shoehorned in. Honestly, I'd rather see a version of Lolelia Ponsonby as a sort of assistant to the Bond/the 00's (even in the novels she serves much more of a function than Moneypenny ever did in the films, both practically and even emotionally) and then an M and Bill Tanner perhaps.

    I'm not really sure if having an A-List comedian as a comic relief Q is needed or necessary.

    I wouldn’t mind if they weren’t around either, considering their minimal presence in the original books. And if the producers do go forward with a more monogamist Bond as has been hinted at, the “flirtatious banter” won’t be necessary anymore. It didn’t really happen in SP or NTTD even, they seemed more like just friends to me. And still minimal in SF I’d argue.

    The great thing about Ponsonby in the novels was that Bond did have a kind of teasing banter with her, but she also did a lot for him practically speaking. There's definitely a sense that Bond knows he can't ever 'cross that line' with her, and again it's more playful than outright flirtatious as we get in with the early film version of Moneypenny.

    It's actually quite interesting reading those passages of Fleming's novels. It never feels inappropriate given Bond's relative restraint/how much Ponsonby cares for him/the other agents. I think it'd be quite humanising watching a Bond interact with such a character in that way.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    Not sure if it was already shared but Quentin Tarantino offered a lot more information behind the prospect of him filming CR years back and where he thinks the future of the series should go (adapting the books in a way more faithful manner):

    https://deadline.com/2023/05/quentin-tarantino-retirement-james-bond-tv-cannes-1235379761/
  • Posts: 1,478
    Actors act. Personalities play themselves.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,053
    I agree with everyone that the MI6 crew need their roles cut down considerably for awhile. That being said, I would like to see Ponsonby and May get a chance to get some screen time. They are another way for Bond to change as a person between era to era. It creates a new writing and acting challenge. I'm sure we'll see some familiar faces in the MI6 cast for the foreseeable future.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2023 Posts: 14,861
    Ponsonby would be good, although I guess most people would be confused why she isn't just Moneypenny. I think May would be odd: Bond having a maid nowadays would be a bit strange I think and make him look a bit incapable of looking after himself, plus in an epic action adventure spy movie I'm not sure I need to watch the main character having his breakfast made for him.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,053
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Not sure if it was already shared but Quentin Tarantino offered a lot more information behind the prospect of him filming CR years back and where he thinks the future of the series should go (adapting the books in a way more faithful manner):

    https://deadline.com/2023/05/quentin-tarantino-retirement-james-bond-tv-cannes-1235379761/

    I’d also include the continuation novels with his comments if EON decides to adapt them.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Not sure if it was already shared but Quentin Tarantino offered a lot more information behind the prospect of him filming CR years back and where he thinks the future of the series should go (adapting the books in a way more faithful manner):

    https://deadline.com/2023/05/quentin-tarantino-retirement-james-bond-tv-cannes-1235379761/

    There’s an interview from 1997 where he said he wanted to do Casino Royale. Would have set in the 60s, even suggested Felix Leiter would be played by Samuel L Jackson. But he made a weird error where he said the book ends with Bond KILLING Vesper and then making a call to say “the bitch is dead”.

    Jump to 12:25, they all start off (rightfully) crapping on TND and then it changes to Tarantino talking about wanting to do CR.

  • edited May 2023 Posts: 2,753
    mtm wrote: »
    Ponsonby would be good, although I guess most people would be confused why she isn't just Moneypenny. I think May would be odd: Bond having a maid nowadays would be a bit strange I think and make him look a bit incapable of looking after himself, plus in an epic action adventure spy movie I'm not sure I need to watch the main character having his breakfast made for him.

    I'm not entirely sure how much audiences would question or be confused by the change. I don't think it would be enough to impact their enjoyment of the film. I hope EON don't feel they need to be chained to those particular characters, especially considering they're creating a new 'Bond world' as it were.

    An argument against May is that she really doesn't serve much narrative use and would be more of a cameo if anything. At most she would probably deliver a very minor piece of information and not be seen again for the duration of the movie. I suspect as well it'd be changed from her being Bond's maid to his landlady or something. I don't see much point in including her, but it could be nice.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Ponsonby would be good, although I guess most people would be confused why she isn't just Moneypenny. I think May would be odd: Bond having a maid nowadays would be a bit strange I think and make him look a bit incapable of looking after himself, plus in an epic action adventure spy movie I'm not sure I need to watch the main character having his breakfast made for him.

    I'm not entirely sure how much audiences would question or be confused by the change. I don't think it would be enough to impact their enjoyment of the film.

    Yes you're right. I think a lot of people would just think she's Moneypenny anyway though.
    007HallY wrote: »
    An argument against May is that she really doesn't serve much narrative use and would be more of a cameo if anything. At most she would probably deliver a very minor piece of information and not be seen again for the duration of the movie. I suspect as well it'd be changed from her being Bond's maid to his landlady or something. I don't see much point in including her, but it could be nice.

    Yeah there are ways of doing it, but I guess there would have to be a story/plot reason for a character to be there first rather than just forcing in a character for the sake of it.
  • Tarantino is a great film director but he would not have come close to what Martin Campbell did. I think Tarantino thinks Bond is an anachronism and only works in a period setting so he wouldnt have known how to modernism him.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    Tarantino is a great film director but he would not have come close to what Martin Campbell did. I think Tarantino thinks Bond is an anachronism and only works in a period setting so he wouldnt have known how to modernism him.

    A lot of Tarantino’s films have lately been set in the past, he hasn’t really had a film that felt like it was set in the present since the 90s.

    KILL BILL and DEATH PROOF felt very 70s cinema stylistically. INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, DJANGO UNCHAINED, THE HATEFUL EIGHT, ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD, and now THE MOVIE CRITIC are all period pieces.

    It’s not that Tarantino wouldn’t know how to modernize it, it’s that he doesn’t want to modernize it. He wants to wallow in the kind of films he grew up watching as a kid. Even if he didn’t limit himself to ten films, he’ll probably never be interested in making a movie set in the 2020s.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    @Scaramanga1974, to be fair, Tarantino would've been making an entirely different picture than what Campbell gave us in CR. I don't think the two would be comparable beyond their source material.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    There was a point when Tarantino was willing to concede and work under Eon just so he could be able to adapt CR, because he wanted that gig so badly. So stuff like shooting in black and white, and setting it in 1964 would have been put aside.

    He only stopped expressing interest in doing CR when Brosnan was let go. As far as he was concerned, Brosnan was the only Bond he wanted to work with. Though even if he still wanted to with a new Bond I kind of doubt Eon would be interested.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    I'd love to live in a reality where we got a 60s-set, black and white, Brosnan-led adaptation of CR directed by Tarantino.
Sign In or Register to comment.