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
An argument can be made on these very instantaneous and feeble times, in which people thrive on change and get tired of things that overstay their welcome. Not that I personally advocate for any of this, but I believe that a good actor that spans a decade is better than someone who stays in the role for two decades with years and years between films.
But like I said, the point of the poll would be to probe our wants, not the reasoning behind the eventual solution by the new studios.
Well, not exactly, the last poll was about which actor - from a list - would we prefer.
And in all honesty, the poll actually helped calm some of the nerves and arguments in the forums.
I just thought it could be informative. But it’s just a suggestion.
It could be informative, carry on, mate! It's a thoughtful debate and insightful. I'm just feeling the loop, and obviously I don't see age brackets.
@MSL49
You already received a polite request to avoid these single-sentence posts that rarely add anything to a conversation, yet you refuse to change your ways. Understand that you're bordering on 'spam', for which this forum has little patience.
Actually, with this post, at least - and I know not of the others - it makes a definitive, clear statement and gets to the point quickly and directly.
https://bsky.app/profile/gralefrit.bsky.social/post/3lzncrxwj4s2d
Further discussion of it on the link above. I dunno, I'm not fully convinced, but I think he has an interesting point. I guess Bond does have a whiff of mystery about him.
Even First Light from what I can see seems less about a guy in his mid 20s learning all this stuff, but a very skilled, extraordinary, albeit young agent making the first step in his career as a 00.
It's sort of what makes Bond unique in many ways. He doesn't actually have a definitive origin story, and we get lots of hints/threads of a life (ie. his previous relationships, the occasional reference to him doing courses at specific universities, and even in the Craig era these brief little snapshots of his childhood, which you also get in Fleming).
Personally, I hope they don't feel the need to go in-depth about a lot of this stuff. Part of Bond's appeal is his current job and the unusual, dangerous nature around it along with his attitude towards it. I really couldn't care less about the ins and outs of his naval past or what he was doing from 18-22 years old, and I don't find it the most interesting aspect of the character (unless it's relevant to a story beat I guess, and even then I'm not sure a full film about a pre-007 Bond would work).
I'm sure he can continue to be an alpha male even in his younger years.
I think if anything it's tricky finding the right actor that fits that age and is able to convey all of that. I'm not sure even a 25-28 year old Brosnan, Dalton, or Moore would have been able to convincingly play the part as a younger version. That idea of gravitas EON used to talk about. Again, it's why in practice I can imagine we'll get a late 20s/early 30s Bond played by an actor around 33.
The author's thoughts mimic my own. Unless you do it very well, an origin tale is always risky. CR works for me because it does, not because it explores the beginnings of its main character--which it barely does anyway. A deep dive into Bond's origins holds the risk of establishing details ("data") that may be considered canon henceforth or retroactively. I, too, prefer Bond's life to bathe in mystery, to exist only in the now, which is why I couldn't care less about young Bond books and whatnot.
This is not my usual attitude, by the way. Star Wars, Dune, Batman, ... the more EU stuff you feed me, the more I'll happily take it in (if I can find the time). But Bond is different for me.
Cavill was 22 made it in to the final two only lose to Craig.
True, but EON were pretty open about younger actors not usually having enough gravitas. If the latest rumours are true they’ll go a bit older with a late 20s/early 30s Bond.
His audition must have been very good, youngest candidate almost got the role.
Yeah I'm not sure I'd be too interested in any extended Navy section; he's got to be 007 for a decent bit of the film.
I know what you mean about too much detail about his past too- I liked Forever And A Day a lot, but one thing I wasn't keen on was it added in silly details like why he liked martinis and gold-ringed cigarettes- don't need that! :D
Even in First Light it looks like he's 'got a past', something about a mission in Iceland; so I think Bond always needs something like that. A hint that he's seen a lot. I don't mind the idea of a younger Bond but he can never be someone who's lead a normal life up until this point.
Startingpoint like that would be ideal and i would say needed.
Again, I like the idea of a PTS involving a younger Bond in his navy/operative days perhaps, with some crucial detail in the story becoming relevant. Then we flash forward to a Bond who’s recently become 007 or whatever.