› ›

Best and worst case scenario for the Amazon Bond

1…67891012»

Comments

  • NavyGrenadineNavyGrenadine
    Posts: 6
    I wonder if a realistic best case scenario could be that we get a George Lazenby situation. A very good, well made, beautiful film that feels faithful to the source material but with 007 being played by someone that doesn’t inspire the majority of the audience whatsoever. Someone bland and almost asexual.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,680
    There are many adjectives, both positive and negative, to describe Lazenby, but asexual is not one of them!
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,395
    NavyGrenadine wrote: »
    I wonder if a realistic best case scenario could be that we get a George Lazenby situation. A very good, well made, beautiful film that feels faithful to the source material but with 007 being played by someone that doesn’t inspire the majority of the audience whatsoever. Someone bland and almost asexual.

    You went a bit negative on the end there, but I am starting to lean more and more in the direction that they should focus on one film and one film only and not try to re-build the franchise on day one. Get one very good film done. See where you stand. If the actor worked and can or wants to do another one, keep him. If it's a one-off, that's fine, too.

    For a long time, I've thought they would need to take the long view. Find a guy who commits to doing 4 films in 15 years. Get a producing director to oversee the whole thing. Have at least an outline for all of those films, before you start shooting the first one. And the more I am reflecting, the more I feel like that is way too much and they should instead just do one good film.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited May 8 Posts: 5,162
    I think they should always concentrate on one film at a time. As for the actor, I think it’s worth trying to find a long term one who can thrive in the role. I don’t see what a potential lame duck Bond would add. I also think a big part of Bond’s success is based on who’s in the role. Look at the initial reaction to OHMSS and Lazenby - would a stronger, more charismatic replacement to Connery have boosted the success of the film? I think potentially.
  • NavyGrenadineNavyGrenadine
    Posts: 6
    echo wrote: »
    There are many adjectives, both positive and negative, to describe Lazenby, but asexual is not one of them!

    My post must be poorly written. I didn’t mean to disparage George Lazenby as asexual, just that he wasn’t that well received. I can just imagine the next hire to be bland.

    Whenever I try and imagine a ‘best case scenario’ it’s always with some sort of caveat. For example I could potentially see them nailing the actor for 007 but tripping up on the kind of film they want to make for two or three films. Similar to Sir Roger Moore maybe. But I find this less likely because I, for whatever reason, have no confidence they will get the main casting decision right.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 1,919
    NavyGrenadine wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    There are many adjectives, both positive and negative, to describe Lazenby, but asexual is not one of them!

    My post must be poorly written. I didn’t mean to disparage George Lazenby as asexual, just that he wasn’t that well received. I can just imagine the next hire to be bland.

    Whenever I try and imagine a ‘best case scenario’ it’s always with some sort of caveat. For example I could potentially see them nailing the actor for 007 but tripping up on the kind of film they want to make for two or three films. Similar to Sir Roger Moore maybe. But I find this less likely because I, for whatever reason, have no confidence they will get the main casting decision right.

    A bland Bond isn't the worst-case scenario. The worst-case scenario is a bland and ugly Bond. ;)

    It is true that Hollywood makes things very complicated and the obvious is no longer obvious.
Sign In or Register to comment.