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
This looks very very good.
Yes, it does, and my apologies if my mentioning Pine was misconstrued. Even as an American, I would not want anyone but a Brit (or Aussie, maybe) playing the part. But I found Pine to look and act very Bond-like in his Armani ads.
Fair comment and agreed then.
He's worth a screen test without a doubt.
Agreed.
http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/tom-hiddleston-says-he-wants-rumours-that-he-will-/404007
Idris Elba and Tom Hiddleston are James Bonds 007s in
Self-Promotion Never Dies
;))
Then there is also the availability of the actor in question to be considered. You don't want them to run off to 4 other projects between Bond films. We would get films on a 3-5 year cycle...
If the budget is crazy big anyway (like with Spectre) then an actor's salary won't make much difference in it. Paying the lead makes more sense than throwing ridiculous amounts of money away at a car chase and a big explosion.
As for the actor doing other projects, why not, it's probably better they do. 4 other projects is not too much at all, it just depends on the size of those projects. Playing a lead in 4 other blockbusters that take ages would obviously not be doable. 4 or indeed more smaller movies would be just fine (assuming 3 years between Bond movies). Actors playing leads in other big franchise movies (and doing all required promotional work for them) have done it, so surely a Bond actor could as well. Craig has stopped even trying to (not a single movie between Skyfall and Spectre), but it's not like he couldn't if he wanted to.
Yea but an A+ is usually cast to bring in an audience.
Does it really?
I don't think so, people now care much more for the franchise and the well known product than the actor that's why we don't have many new A listers like in the 90s or 80s At least not on the same level of Julia Roberts or George Clooney to name some.
With every actor or actress franchise is happening the same thing as with Bond that fans only care for certain actors when they are playing X or Y character.
Example Jennifer Lawrence even though she has her oscar the only film where she brings a lot of audiences are with The Hunger Games, Pattinson's career died at the Moment there were no more twilight films.
Fans only love you in one Character for Bond actors are their Bond films, for the Twilight kids was Twilight, for the Hunger Games stars The Hunger Games, for Chris Hemsworth is Thor.
Don't get me wrong its important to get the right guy for Bond and any other film but the days of certain names will putt butts in the theaters are over. There not more box office draw actors
In the 90s everyone went to see The Mask of Zorro because a hot girl (Catherine Zeta Jones) was in it in 2008 Megan Fox didn't have that same effect.
Sure she became famous for how hot she was in Transformers but didn't pull everyonento see that film like Catherine did with Zorro.
Everyone says how Bond is bigger than the actor who plays him and while its true now it is for every actor's franchise.
Anyway this thing of don't care for the actor's name has helped Bond very much while choosing the bond girls and Villains now they can pick whoever they want and they consider talented without asking if audiences will see a film for X and Y after all not being well known is what prevented Monica Bellucci to play Paris Carver in Tomorrow never dies and what helped her get the part of Lucia Sicarra.
People not caring to see a film because X name is in it has given EOn much more freedom to do what they want with Casting Villains and Bond girls while in the 90s they felt pressure to get big names in the supporting cast to sell the tickets.
Except maybe Liam Neeson.
Thanks, though its a bitt of sad thing, don't you think ?
I liked that magic of people going to a movie because they loved to watch certain actors, but on the other has helped in quality of films since now everyone works harder to make a good film.
Now they can't make a crappy film and still make it succesful by casting Julia Roberts to give an example.
Has its pros and cons.
That's definitely true. The tolerance for error has been reduced.
You made s great point now Hollywood instead of relying on stars to sell they are all about franchises and too afraid to make risks that's why all the remakes and reboots.
And maybe also a lack creativity as well since why holding on on franchises too much?
Ok no more big stars but instead making many good standalone flicks.
With all this craziness for franchises Hollywood has forgotten about making Rom Coms or just plain comedies.
Its all about making films that they can make many sequels out of them.
I like the idea of having movies series and franchises but not to the point of Domintating the box office.
I should have elaborated. All those examples y'all gave were either known properties or already established franchises like Bond which do not necessarily need a well known lead.
I'm sure the cost aspects are influencing their decisions to a large degree, but market demand is influencing them as well no doubt. There is a steady market for 'explosions', 'slapstick humour', 'cheap thrills' and 'CGI', and it's a global one.
With the 'English speaking' and 'Western' market declining as a proportion of total box office volume, Hollywood perhaps feels compelled to cater to historic known franchises such as comic book, Star Wars etc. which already have a baked in global audience. The more successful these films are, the more they will want to replicate their success. No incentive to change. Jurassic World is a perfect example of something that was far more successful than perhaps it should have been, given its low quality compared to the early films. This has replaced the 'actor' reliance that was so apparent during earlier decades up to and including the mid 90's or so.
Interestingly, the tv market seems to have 'absorbed' a lot of these actors, and now 'name' actors are big draws for new tv shows and serials. Fortunately, the quality of a lot of the tv shows are top notch these days, particularly those from the cable outfits.
Tony Blair!
Something about him reminds me of a younger Tony Blair. ;))
Admit it, Tom, you're obsessed with the role. He needs help. He's got the medical condition 'Idris-itis'! It's a delusional belief you are the next James Bond. Almost incurable! 8-}
i agree very much with you especially on Franchises which have been with from a long time ago but they also look for Book series they can adapt into many films as Possible and sadly Harry Potter gave them an ideal on how to milk the Cow.
Harry Potter had its fair reason on why should they makenthe last two book in two parts but not the hunger games and definitely not twilight.
That was just Plain greed but going back to out theme. They have found in book series a new wave of franchises which sell pretty well, not all but the ones which do so are gold mines.
Stars maybe were more helpful than i thought. They inspired the studios to make risks and if not inspire them at least not terrify them.
They came up with more ideas because they new X name could sell that film they were doing.
I think the stars system died in the mid 00s. Innthe late 90s we still hd stars and names selling films.
These franchises do a lotvof good and bad to actors at the same time
Good because they become famous with just one film but bad because after the franchise is over seems like they are as well.
But like you said TV has now been doing what films did in early decades.
Then he should play a young Adam Lang( Tony Blair) in the ghost writers prequel instead of Bond.
The film being called the first Ghost Writer. Didn't the film talk about previous guys getting the job of the ghost then follow from that point. We only need to know if Plonasky could do it.
This time the ghost would be portrayed by Sam Worthington, Adams's wife Rooney Mara and his Publicist( the character played Kim Catral) played by Rosamund Pike.
Yep!
Just look at the marketing for The Jungle Book film. The trailer even went as far to include the iconic logo of pirates of the Caribbean and put the big IRON MAN logo in the in there. I was half expecting to see Stark's arc reactor in the trailer with the sound effects of his repulsors.
There's now a growing and more conscious perception that a franchise is now being governed by a more competent, capable steward that knows how to get them critical acclaim and box office success.
It's no wonder that Nolan's name was paraded in the MoS trailers. There's a reason why Bay's name is all over the TMNT trailers. It's a very conscious decision as to why Marvel opts to use "from the studio that brought you..." for their trailers. It simply comes down to more big mega-bucks box office dollar-dollar bills. Audiences know what's being sold to them and that's what they base their decisions on.
See what they sell is the studio, Director and from the people who brought you.....
They don't sell the actors anymore. Its all about thr franchise and product.
Almost all people make their choices based on some ingredients etc. that make them think they might like the product whether they're buying a movie ticket, a concert ticket, a book, a cd, a meal, etc. and completely random choices are - understandably - rare. So in that sense sure, movies are like other products. There is little else to go by to make a choice regarding movies than the things listed. Critical acclaim/awards/friends' recommendations maybe that might make one think they might like a movie or at least make them interested in seeing it? Subject matter sometimes maybe?
I imagine mostly people indeed "stick with" what they think they might like, which makes a hell of a lot of sense when they spend money and time on something - and such "sticking" to what one likes/is interested in can still provide a huge variety of choices. Depending on the variety of one's tastes and points of interest, of course. (It does to me... with movies, music, books, meals, etc.)