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, that's my point, forgot to mention that.
Ooh, I wouldn't mind a senior Brosnan one off, Nolan at the helm.
That would be incredible. It will never happen though. Oh, and even though I’m a big Brosnan fan, I’d rather have Tim on that film.
Some may be relieved to hear there's no mention of Bond in this article.
God, why’d they hafta choose that pic? The guy is a handsome man, great physique, and he has been doing that very “punchable” smirk in many photos of him (his agent and publicist should really tell him, “no, no, no, and no”.).
But I know that there are better pics than this one, 😂.
He kind of reminds me of Brosnan when he does that face. Maybe that's why he does it.
Not with that voice…
It’s a dealbreaker for me.
Bond always has to be that handsome stranger you want to come along and save the day, not a familiar face.
I also agree with @talos7 his voice is a deal breaker, along with that stupid smirk, it's like a cartoon villians smirk. Someone please have a word with him.
Of all the actors discussed here I think Sope Dirisu is probably the best and the one who stands the most chance of actually being considered, but really that's more indicative of how lacklustre I find the competition than anything I especially like about him.
Granted, Connery was once referred to by UA executives as "the richest man in the poor house", so maybe that's enough for Sope to get ahead.
Insofar as I'm not privy to future auditions and never will be, at the moment I'm seeing him less as a Daniel Craig and more as a Henry Cavill (albeit I think ATJ is a better actor). A 'safe' choice in many ways, but there are likely other actors with more gravitas that could come along. Without knowing what kind of direction they want to go with in terms of the film and the character it's also pretty tricky to predict.
Sope doesn't match the description of the literary version of Bond in any shape or form, so it won't be him, unless amazon/EON want to really take a gamble on the franchise and depart completely from the character that Fleming created.
And loose me as a viewer.
Not that they care. Or do they? ;)
I hope they do! We'd be lucky to have Sope Dirisu as Bond. Some of you only read the _physical_ descriptions of Bond and seem to have missed most of the actual character. Good thing you have 25 movies to guide your imaginations, lets get a rendition that guides some other imaginations this time.
We have 25 films because they followed a formula and respected, one way or another, the source. Want to change that? Sure, by all means. But I don’t believe I’ll be the only one that won’t be watching it.
Too much is just too much. Craig was enough in the little changes they made (few gadgets, another blonde Bond, some other minor subversions, artistic gunbarrels galore, “do I look like I give a damn?” moments,…). And it worked because the man is a powerhouse of an actor, and because they increased the production quality.
I don’t go to a James Bond film so I can use my imagination and produce the film I wanted to see inside my head while I watch a subversive version of my favourite character.
And… I still defend intelectual property as it is. Screw with it and you screw with your golden goose. And we know how that story ends.
IMO, of course.
It is an interesting conversation to have though, what people see as veering too far from source material and tradition in these last many decades to the point that they'd no longer watch.
Well, yes, that’s the point. I’d argue they have not veered too far from the source material and tradition. Not yet, anyway. Nor should they, IMO.
I do play nice ;) And it is about race, gender, height, weight, sound, mood, feel, story, character depiction, script, production design,… and so many other things. So many. Some are, maybe, more relevant than others, but if you start to change things, you’ll end up with something you can not recognise anymore.
Some will say it’ll be when you change the character’s back story. Others, his race. Others will fail to recognise Bond if he is overweight and short. If Bond is a woman, is he still the character you love? Maybe if they change his sexual preferences?
Most will say some of these things are not relevant. Some say race is not relevant. Some will call me a racist for wanting a caucasian actor to play a caucasian character. And I am not a racist. I am an intelectual property purist and a Fleming fan. Still, not a racist. Not a homophobe, either.
And the fact we can’t seem to discuss this without some sort of moral police that keeps us within the politically correct, is simply very sad.
So, as ever, I’ll just reafirm that this is all IMO.
Well said…
Exactly, they need to make Bond 26 as bombastical as possible so people forget about Craig, introducing the new Bond and its era like it should be done.
A.k.a. the next Goldeneye and Casino Royale.
Maybe I need someone to tell me why Bond being white is important. You can be nonwhite and Scottish, English. You can be nonwhite and have Bond's education, hopefully! You can be nonwhite and have Bond's job, surely. You can be nonwhite and be a Naval Commander. You can be nonwhite and have a Benzedrine and drinking problem. Please don't take adavantage and say I'm short-sighted on Bond's character, but if you want to get into it, please do. What am I missing?