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
Okay lets try this one, this pertains to casing of the leading lady.
Would you rather Selma Hayek play Jinx in DAD or keep Halle Berry?
Rumoured to be in the running for Jinx Selma Hayek the role eventually went to Halle Berry. But could Selma have brought something different to the role? Would it have improved the movie with her as Jinx?
Selma went on to co-star with Pierce in After the Sunset and the two definitely had chemistry. I can picture Selma doing the bikini rise from the ocean to similar effect as Halle Berry. Would her charisma and charm as an actress brought something different to the role?
OR
Halle stays in the role. She was a huge casting coup as she unexpectedly won an Oscar for Best Actress in a leading role. In fact she was in the midst of filming DAD when she won the Oscar. This would be a momentous occasion as it marked the first time an Oscar winner had starred in a Bond film. I recall the PR machine playing that angle up as DAD became her follow up to Monsters Ball.
So would you rather have had Selma as Jinx or are you happy with Halle in the role?
DAD would still have problems, mind you, and I prefer Bond girls to be played by lesser known actresses, but still.
With that said, I would keep Halle in the role but would change how the character was written and portrayed; rather than street and sassy I would have her as sultry and classy.
Salma Hayes is great but would have been saddled with the same type of material. And it might date even more poorly over time.
A) change the haircut. The short hair doesn't work.
B) tell her to act the way she feels is right. And allow her to not speak certain lines. Yo momma.
Salma Hayek would have been the perfect Bond girl for Pierce if he did a fifth film. They have great chemistry in After The Sunset.
That's why I prefer Salma Hayek. She just looks sexier and far more sexual. Circa 2002 she was in her prime, extremely attractive and oozing charisma. Yes, it doesn't change the many, many, many problems the script had, the way the character was poorly written. But the question is not about changing the script, it's about a new casting. Which would have maybe improved somewhat the character. Maybe they'd change a few lines, maybe they'd rewritten Jinx to suit Hayek. If they hadn't, then at least we'd have a far sexier looking Jinx (and I'm saying sexier, not more beautiful) with more natural chemistry with Brosnan.
This.
Hayek is good in other stuff, if they’d done another Brosnan film she’d have been a good fit.
Casino Royale is one book of Flemings that has such a checkered past when it comes to productions and bringing it to the small and big screen. Fleming sold the rights to the book before he truly understood the gold mine he had with the character of James Bond.
This led to the book not being available for EON to produce until 2006. In the years between it's publishing and 2006 there were many attempts to bring it to life. Course there was also the bizarre CR 67.
But for this would you rather lets see what you would rather have seen on the Big Screen!
Would you rather a serious CR adaption in the sixites OR Quentin Tarantino CR in modern times?
The 1960s Attempt
Before Charles Feldman turned Casino Royale into the wild 1967 spoof we know today, he explored the idea of producing a straight, serious adaptation of Ian Fleming’s first Bond novel. Early reports suggested he approached Cary Grant for the role of Bond and even considered offers to Sean Connery himself — at a time when Connery was still 007 under EON. Feldman’s negotiations with United Artists collapsed, and without a distribution deal, the film couldn’t be made in line with the official series. Some rumors claim Feldman flirted with directors like Sidney Lumet or Guy Green, envisioning a gritty espionage drama faithful to the novel — Le Chiffre, baccarat, torture scene and all — before pivoting to the all-star parody we actually got. Timing suggests that this film would have released between 1965 and 1967.
OR
Tarantino’s 2000s Pitch
Fast forward to the early 2000s. Quentin Tarantino publicly expressed his desire to make Casino Royale after Pierce Brosnan’s run as Bond. He imagined a period piece set in the 1950s, filmed in black and white or with a retro aesthetic, sticking closely to Fleming’s text. Tarantino claimed he even had conversations with Brosnan about playing Bond in this one-off project — a standalone outside the EON continuity. The idea reportedly died when EON decided to reboot the franchise with Daniel Craig and Martin Campbell’s modern, grounded Casino Royale (2006).
Which one would you have rather seen on the big screen?
I've never been convinced that Tarantino would've been the right director to tackle anything Bond-related. I recall an appearance on the Charlie Rose show while he was promoting JACKIE BROWN where he talked about his desire to make CR, and he seemed ignorant about the film series and the Fleming novels. At one point he described the ending of CR and couldn't even get that right, claiming Bond shoots Vesper on the last page! (Maybe he mixed it up with Mickey Spillane's I, the Jury).
A 60s CR probably would have tweaked the concept of the torture scene, and in practice I think getting Connery would have been a big ask. It’s a tricky book to adapt as well. It would have been an oddity just as much as the ‘67 CR is, but it might have been interesting.