No Time To Die: Production Diary

1121912201222122412252507

Comments

  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    I just want Fassbender. Even though he is probably a little too old, I think he can get in a solid 3 Films.

    Ay maybe that can be the Nolan trilogy
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I just want Fassbender. Even though he is probably a little too old, I think he can get in a solid 3 Films.

    Ay maybe that can be the Nolan trilogy

    I am with you.
  • Posts: 3,273
    I just want Fassbender. Even though he is probably a little too old, I think he can get in a solid 3 Films.

    Ay maybe that can be the Nolan trilogy

    Won't happen. The next Bond won't even be on anyone's radar, because he'll be relatively unknown, and fairly young.

    When Layer Cake came out, Craig was on no one's radar, and watching that film at the time, I don't think there were many shouting out `There he is! There's the next Bond'! because at the time he didn't seem to be an obvious candidate, or a big enough star.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I just want Fassbender. Even though he is probably a little too old, I think he can get in a solid 3 Films.

    Ay maybe that can be the Nolan trilogy

    Won't happen. The next Bond won't even be on anyone's radar, because he'll be relatively unknown, and fairly young.

    When Layer Cake came out, Craig was on no one's radar, and watching that film at the time, I don't think there were many shouting out `There he is! There's the next Bond'! because at the time he didn't seem to be an obvious candidate, or a big enough star.
    Given the consolidation in the industry and the fact that Bond is one of the largest market makers out there globally, I think they are likely to go with someone with a bit more known marketability than before. The only way that doesn't happen (imho) is if the director is big enough to soak up the oxygen. Meaning Nolan. Then they have cover to go with an unknown.

    I don't think Fassbender will ever be Bond due to his age. He would have been great though.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,889
    For a number of reasons Turner would be my pick at the moment; with that said Fassbender would be outstanding and I believe the most universally accepted by the fan base.
  • Posts: 12,242
    Right now I have a good vibe about Bond 25. I love Craig’s odd-numbered entries, and I am hopeful they try something refreshing after the safe SP.
  • edited December 2017 Posts: 5,767
    FoxRox wrote: »
    No way it will get any more unrealistic than Moore in AVTAK. I think having a little less action could actually help the film. They packed in a ton in SP. DN and FRWL are the most action-lite, and they are two of the series’ best. Something smaller and more story-focused like those could be great for Craig to go out on.

    The probem is that nowadays action and pace are often totally confused. DN and FRWL had not that much action (although for the time it was probably also not that little), yet they had a fast pace. 15mins into the film there was already more story than other films had after 2h. SP had action, yet still it dragged at times enormously.



    I just want Fassbender. Even though he is probably a little too old, I think he can get in a solid 3 Films.

    Ay maybe that can be the Nolan trilogy

    Won't happen. The next Bond won't even be on anyone's radar, because he'll be relatively unknown, and fairly young.

    When Layer Cake came out, Craig was on no one's radar, and watching that film at the time, I don't think there were many shouting out `There he is! There's the next Bond'! because at the time he didn't seem to be an obvious candidate, or a big enough star.
    Eon were usually looking for someone with b.o. appeal before Craig. In Craig´s case it could have to do with CR being sold as Bond´s first time as a double-oh.
    Then again, I could imagine that with all the room for wishful thinking of the fans, a known actor would mean sure disappointment due to unfulfilled expectations.
  • edited December 2017 Posts: 3,333
    I find it strange that people talk about past Bond castings as if they were from some bygone Golden Age of Hollywood (1920s, 30s and 40s). I mean, seriously, things haven't changed that much since 2006 when Craig first took his bow. Let's just apply the same logic to Marvel castings then, shall we. Apart from Robert Downey Jr (the comeback rehabilitation kid), all the superhero casting roles have since gone to relatively low-key actors in the lead roles. Not that I'm suggesting Eon follow the Marvel blueprint, but the fact remains, it's not necessary to cast a well-known actor in the part because the subject matter alone will draw the crowds. The same thing goes for Bond, too.

    I'd also like to think if Nolan ever did get the director's job, he'd have enough vision and nous to cast someone that he hasn't worked with before in the lead role. I know he likes to squeeze Sir Michael Cain into every damn movie he makes, but why is it that everyone here is so convinced he'd automatically choose Hardy over someone new? Again, I'd hope that Nolan would have the ingenuity, plus talent to be able to spot and pick someone fresh and new for the role, rather than from his oh-so-predictable pool of favourite actors. My worry, and it's I suppose a small worry, is that Nolan will just want to make a one-off Bond akin to his favourite Bond movie: OHMSS, then exit stage left.

    PS. I'd also go so far as to say, audiences no longer go to see a movie because of a certain actor in that movie. If it's got a good story and appeals to them, then they'll go. But, I can't think of one name, apart from Tom Cruise, that can open a tent-pole movie like they used to do in the past. Actors just don't carry the same weight anymore.
  • Posts: 5,767
    I just want Fassbender. Even though he is probably a little too old, I think he can get in a solid 3 Films.

    Ay maybe that can be the Nolan trilogy

    Won't happen. The next Bond won't even be on anyone's radar, because he'll be relatively unknown, and fairly young.

    When Layer Cake came out, Craig was on no one's radar, and watching that film at the time, I don't think there were many shouting out `There he is! There's the next Bond'! because at the time he didn't seem to be an obvious candidate, or a big enough star.
    Eon were usually looking for someone with b.o. appeal before Craig. In Craig´s case it could have to do with CR being sold as Bond´s first time as a double-oh.
    Then again, I could imagine that with all the room for wishful thinking of the fans, a known actor would mean sure disappointment due to unfulfilled expectations.
    bondsum wrote: »
    I find it strange that people talk about past Bond castings as if they were from some bygone Golden Age of Hollywood (1920s, 30s and 40s). I mean, seriously, things haven't changed that much since 2006 when Craig first took his bow. Let's just apply the same logic to Marvel castings then, shall we. Apart from Robert Downey Jr (the comeback rehabilitation kid), all the superhero casting roles have since gone to relatively low-key actors in the lead roles. Not that I'm suggesting Eon follow the Marvel blueprint, but the fact remains, it's not necessary to cast a well-known actor in the part because the subject matter alone will draw the crowds. The same thing goes for Bond, too.

    I'd also like to think if Nolan ever did get the director's job, he'd have enough vision and nous to cast someone that he hasn't worked with before in the lead role. I know he likes to squeeze Sir Michael Cain into every damn movie he makes, but why is it that everyone here is so convinced he'd automatically choose Hardy over someone new? Again, I'd hope that Nolan would have the ingenuity, plus talent to be able to spot and pick someone fresh and new for the role, rather than from his oh-so-predictable pool of favourite actors. My worry, and it's I suppose a small worry, is that Nolan will just want to make a one-off Bond akin to his favourite Bond movie: OHMSS, then exit stage left.

    PS. I'd also go so far as to say, audiences no longer go to see a movie because of a certain actor in that movie. If it's got a good story and appeals to them, then they'll go. But, I can't think of one name, apart from Tom Cruise, that can open a tent-pole movie like they used to do in the past. Actors just don't carry the same weight anymore.
    Marvel´s subject matter is hardly comparable to Bond.

    Nolan is known for assembling big-name cast around him. Critics say it helps him cover up his poor writing and directing. I agree.

  • Posts: 3,333
    Of course the subject matter isn't comparable to Bond. I wasn't comparing the subject matter to begin with @boldfinger. Neither are any of Nolan's previous movies comparable to Bond, for that matter. I was trying to discuss present-day casting in major Hollywood movies and how it hasn't mattered in the past whether the actor was well-known or not for a lead role. Apart from Star Wars and Marvel, and perhaps DC, Hollywood really isn't making too many big blockbusters either way, so there's not a lot to use as a practical yardstick to measure anything by unless I use those examples.

    Though I happen to agree with your overall summary of Nolan, @boldfinger, I wouldn't necessarily agree that critics think that way. The majority seem to believe he can do no wrong.

    I still happen to think that there are no proper A-list actors anymore that can guarantee bums on seats, unless they happen to be starring in a repeat of a movie that made them successful to begin with. Maybe Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Cruise are the exceptions? Interestingly, I see Tom Hardy is rumoured to have signed up for another spin in Max Rockatansky's car with Max Max: The Wastelands, a sequel to his Fury Road. I'll be happy to go see that movie, though I'd prefer it if it was Mel Gibson in the role.
  • Posts: 12,506
    Wow? Over 300 posts since I last had chance to look on this thread, and I am no more informed now than I was then?!!! Lol!
  • Posts: 3,273
    bondsum wrote: »
    I find it strange that people talk about past Bond castings as if they were from some bygone Golden Age of Hollywood (1920s, 30s and 40s). I mean, seriously, things haven't changed that much since 2006 when Craig first took his bow. Let's just apply the same logic to Marvel castings then, shall we. Apart from Robert Downey Jr (the comeback rehabilitation kid), all the superhero casting roles have since gone to relatively low-key actors in the lead roles. Not that I'm suggesting Eon follow the Marvel blueprint, but the fact remains, it's not necessary to cast a well-known actor in the part because the subject matter alone will draw the crowds. The same thing goes for Bond, too.

    I'd also like to think if Nolan ever did get the director's job, he'd have enough vision and nous to cast someone that he hasn't worked with before in the lead role. I know he likes to squeeze Sir Michael Cain into every damn movie he makes, but why is it that everyone here is so convinced he'd automatically choose Hardy over someone new? Again, I'd hope that Nolan would have the ingenuity, plus talent to be able to spot and pick someone fresh and new for the role, rather than from his oh-so-predictable pool of favourite actors. My worry, and it's I suppose a small worry, is that Nolan will just want to make a one-off Bond akin to his favourite Bond movie: OHMSS, then exit stage left.

    PS. I'd also go so far as to say, audiences no longer go to see a movie because of a certain actor in that movie. If it's got a good story and appeals to them, then they'll go. But, I can't think of one name, apart from Tom Cruise, that can open a tent-pole movie like they used to do in the past. Actors just don't carry the same weight anymore.

    100% spot on!!
  • edited December 2017 Posts: 5,767
    bondsum wrote: »
    Of course the subject matter isn't comparable to Bond. I wasn't comparing the subject matter to begin with @boldfinger. Neither are any of Nolan's previous movies comparable to Bond, for that matter. I was trying to discuss present-day casting in major Hollywood movies and how it hasn't mattered in the past whether the actor was well-known or not for a lead role. Apart from Star Wars and Marvel, and perhaps DC, Hollywood really isn't making too many big blockbusters either way, so there's not a lot to use as a practical yardstick to measure anything by unless I use those examples.
    Well, you mention Marvel in the context of "it's not necessary to cast a well-known actor in the part because the subject matter alone will draw the crowds". The MCU builds a lot on the idea of the U. Most of the films are more interlinked with other films than standalone films. That means people who are into Avengers want to see all the films starring one Avenger because he is an Avenger. People want to see the next Bond film because they were sold on the last actor, unless there is a massive pr campaign justifying why people should be interested for another reason. If an Avenger dies, there are three other ones to replace him, the MCU will live on without him. There won´t be a long row of Captain America films, or Iron Man films.

    bondsum wrote: »
    Though I happen to agree with your overall summary of Nolan, @boldfinger, I wouldn't necessarily agree that critics think that way. The majority seem to believe he can do no wrong.
    Sorry I think I messed up words, with "critics" what I meant was people who critisise Nolan in a negative way.


    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Wow? Over 300 posts since I last had chance to look on this thread, and I am no more informed now than I was then?!!! Lol!
    Don´t tell me you read all of them :-)).
  • Posts: 12,506
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    Of course the subject matter isn't comparable to Bond. I wasn't comparing the subject matter to begin with @boldfinger. Neither are any of Nolan's previous movies comparable to Bond, for that matter. I was trying to discuss present-day casting in major Hollywood movies and how it hasn't mattered in the past whether the actor was well-known or not for a lead role. Apart from Star Wars and Marvel, and perhaps DC, Hollywood really isn't making too many big blockbusters either way, so there's not a lot to use as a practical yardstick to measure anything by unless I use those examples.
    Well, you mention Marvel in the context of "it's not necessary to cast a well-known actor in the part because the subject matter alone will draw the crowds". The MCU builds a lot on the idea of the U. Most of the films are more interlinked with other films than standalone films. That means people who are into Avengers want to see all the films starring one Avenger because he is an Avenger. People want to see the next Bond film because they were sold on the last actor, unless there is a massive pr campaign justifying why people should be interested for another reason. If an Avenger dies, there are three other ones to replace him, the MCU will live on without him. There won´t be a long row of Captain America films, or Iron Man films.

    bondsum wrote: »
    Though I happen to agree with your overall summary of Nolan, @boldfinger, I wouldn't necessarily agree that critics think that way. The majority seem to believe he can do no wrong.
    Sorry I think I messed up words, with "critics" what I meant was people who critisise Nolan in a negative way.


    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Wow? Over 300 posts since I last had chance to look on this thread, and I am no more informed now than I was then?!!! Lol!
    Don´t tell me you read all of them :-)).

    Heck no! Just skimmed over them. Lol!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondsum wrote: »
    PS. I'd also go so far as to say, audiences no longer go to see a movie because of a certain actor in that movie. If it's got a good story and appeals to them, then they'll go. But, I can't think of one name, apart from Tom Cruise, that can open a tent-pole movie like they used to do in the past. Actors just don't carry the same weight anymore.
    I agree that star power isn't as important as it was before. It's true.

    However, the actor they cast is very important. Cast the wrong chap and a disaster can await. Given the global nature of the franchise (where the performance has to be translated into numerous foreign languages and still resonate), and the increasing pressures on the character due to social changes (and political elements in the current climate), it is essential that an actor be able to play him in a natural way that captures his essence. A lot of cinematic Bond can't really be acted imho. It must be embodied. It's a personification. Tough one to cast and fraught with risk.

    Marvel have done it superbly imho. Parker, Thor, Loki, Rogers et al are perfectly cast. Those actors capture the respective characters to perfection. Textbook.
  • Posts: 3,273
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    PS. I'd also go so far as to say, audiences no longer go to see a movie because of a certain actor in that movie. If it's got a good story and appeals to them, then they'll go. But, I can't think of one name, apart from Tom Cruise, that can open a tent-pole movie like they used to do in the past. Actors just don't carry the same weight anymore.
    I agree that star power isn't as important as it was before. It's true.

    However, the actor they cast is very important. Cast the wrong chap and a disaster can await. Given the global nature of the franchise (where the performance has to be translated into numerous foreign languages and still resonate), and the increasing pressures on the character due to social changes (and political elements in the current climate), it is essential that an actor be able to play him in a natural way that captures his essence. A lot of cinematic Bond can't really be acted imho. It must be embodied. It's a personification. Tough one to cast and fraught with risk.

    Marvel have done it superbly imho. Parker, Thor, Loki, Rogers et al are perfectly cast. Those actors capture the respective characters to perfection. Textbook.

    I agree. Casting Bond has to be perfect - but that doesn't necessarily mean the actor playing him needs to be a big established star already.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2017 Posts: 23,883
    That's true @jetsetwilly. The more I think about it I believe Bond is a bit of an albatross for an actor. One is so associated with the role that it overshadows everything.

    Connery was able to overcome that but it took him many years, and arguably it's only when he started to look very different that his career took off again. He benefited from starting and leaving while he was quite young too.
  • edited December 2017 Posts: 4,622
    I would like to see the new Bond, post-Craig, cast young, age 28-32.
    A good young actor with the right look and requisite physicality can play the role mature, in the Fleming mode.
    It's just acting. Good actors find the character and deliver it.
    Fleming wrote Bond as a mature but brash young man.
    The villains always referred to him as young man.
    M considered him young man.
    I considered him young man.
    Connery and Lazenby were both perfectly cast.
    Bond is a mature young agent of indeterminate '30s age. He drinks and carouses as young men of a certain bent do, but he is very serious about craft, and dedicated to duty -her Majesty's pit-bull.
    I would hire as young as possible and try and get 6 pictures. The actor will probably pull a Connery in his mid 40's anyway, and quit to cash in on his Bond fame and fortune with other roles more befitting his mature years, which is exactly what Connery did.

    btw I still firmly believe B25 will be a riff on Shatterhand. Blofeld will be back. We will meet Bunt. Doesn't matter if Waltz returns.
    Swann should be written out but not killed.
    Hinx will be back.
    Blofeld will be defeated again, yet not killed, but like in DAF, Bond might be left to think he is dead, that way he can achieve some closure, that is until Ernst reappears again down the line, played by yet another actor.

    B25 I do think will be named Shatterhand.
    It's a perfect title.

  • edited December 2017 Posts: 2,107
    Two more years! Dang it! I should just become a casual fan and stop reading all these forums. Being a fan starts to feel depressing.
  • Posts: 4,622
    SharkBait wrote: »
    Two more years! Dang it! I should just become a casual fan and stop reading all these forums. Being a fan starts to feel depressing.

    Yes, after this next Craig outing, hopefully Eon might take a page from the Marvel and DC playbook and start mapping out fresh releases at regular intervals, like every two years.
    I do think deference to Craig is what has seen them lurch from picture to picture in the Craig-era.
    There doesn't appear to have been any plan post QoS.

    Mind you if Craig, wants to do a B26, I think that would be good, but do get it out quickly.
    He's a solid Bond, so it's not the worst thing to squeeze one more out of him. He'll just have to play younger than he actually is.



  • edited December 2017 Posts: 15,785
    I still not sold on whether EON, Barbara and Mickey G will even want to continue after Craig, despite the series long history of re-casting.

    With the exception of QOS, each film since TWINE has been delayed for various reasons. Whether due to MGM's situations, Craig needing a break, waiting on a director, or just outright fatigue from the previous entry it's become the norm in the Craig era.

    So much time has passed now, and we still have another two years before the next film, that I can almost see Eon not wanting to go through the whole process again with another actor.

    In addition, that the distribution deal (which we STILL don't have specifics on) is only for one film is just salt on the wound. It adds to my bad hunch that B25 could be the film the series wraps up on.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Dalton thought LTK would be the final Bond. Relax, Bond is too much of a cultural icon to disappear for good.
  • Posts: 15,785
    Dalton thought LTK would be the final Bond. Relax, Bond is too much of a cultural icon to disappear for good.

    I'm hoping when more news comes to the forefront on B25, there will be a sense of security for the franchise's future. I'd like the distribution deal to end up being not just for B25 but the next three or four films.
  • Posts: 4,619
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    It adds to my bad hunch that B25 could be the film the series wraps up on.
    I seriously believe the Bond franchise will outlive me, but Bond 25 really could be the last Bond film before a very long gap (I'm thinking 10-15 years). Which could explain why Nolan would want to direct Bond 25 even if it meant working with Craig instead of him being able to cast a new actor.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Bond will survive and thrive with the right ownership. Either that will be EON or it will be someone else. I just hope whoever has the job has the passion for the character. There will have to be tweaks to accommodate modern sensibilities, but ultimately Bond is a bit of an outlier and should always be so.

    As I've said before though, any delay to accommodate an actor or director needing a break is something I'm against. I'd rather they be sacked.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Exactly, hence my gripe with the Craig era and particularly SF (oh that one has a lot to answer for). I like QoS, but the film was handled wrongfully. SP has loads of flaws and one of them is having an inconsistent and insensible plot, but one of the things they got right about it is Bond’s characterization which is why I forgive it more than some others.

    i thought the plot of SP made perfect sense.. it was an attempt, by Spectre, to consolidate and control all the major nation's intelligence info - under the guise of a corporate 3rd Party named 9 Eyes... thus shutting down departments like MI6 and the CIA... with the information under their control, they could use it as blackmail - or to sell off the info to the highest bidder - or use the info for any one of their nefarious reasonings.... IMO, it's actually a very scary and realistic plot..

    that should've been the main focus of the story - what weighs it down or makes it "inconsistent and insensible".. is the superfluous window dressing they added to it - the foster brother angle, Swann..... the one problem with the above though, is that they never really expressed or showed how dangerous all that info being in the wrong hands to be - that is it's one failing.. but the idea of it, is actually pretty horrifying.

    The plot just wasn't very original.
  • Posts: 1,680
    They dont have the energy anymore, it was exhausting for them to make SP in three years.

    They practically need 4 years to come to the table with a very good film.

    You wont see the films being produced on a tight frequent basis with Babs, MGW, & Craig in the picture.
  • edited December 2017 Posts: 3,273
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I still not sold on whether EON, Barbara and Mickey G will even want to continue after Craig, despite the series long history of re-casting.

    With the exception of QOS, each film since TWINE has been delayed for various reasons. Whether due to MGM's situations, Craig needing a break, waiting on a director, or just outright fatigue from the previous entry it's become the norm in the Craig era.

    So much time has passed now, and we still have another two years before the next film, that I can almost see Eon not wanting to go through the whole process again with another actor.

    In addition, that the distribution deal (which we STILL don't have specifics on) is only for one film is just salt on the wound. It adds to my bad hunch that B25 could be the film the series wraps up on.

    No. More likely EON will do a Star Wars Disney type sale to someone like Nolan/WB, which I think would be much needed now. The Bond franchise has gotten stale and needs new blood and a fresh perspective injected into it. Someone like Nolan, who would hopefully go back to the Fleming novels and use whatever material there still is that hasn't yet been used (we all know what they are by now. The usual list of suspects - MR, DAF, AVTAK, TSWLM, YOLT, TMWTGG). The QoS short story could also be added to the list, but to be fair there isn't much in that tale that would warrant an adaptation.

    Those 5 remaining novels and 1 short story could stretch over at least 3 to 4 films - maybe more, if they do a TLD and just use one moment and build an entire film around that scene (also maybe an idea for the Fleming car racing scene from Trigger Mortis?)

    Let's remind ourselves again on the sheer incompetence of EON, choosing to opt for `original' material from the likes of P&W, that would give us sheer delights in the form of TND, TWINE, DAD, QoS and Spectre, while criminally ignoring the following Fleming novels -

    MR - Bits have been `borrowed' (in the loosest possible term). Character names in the Moore film, a half-baked pathetic attempt in DAD, a teeny weeney bit in QoS, but other than that the novel is good to go.

    DAF - Bits were used in the 1971 film, but there are entire chapters and major scenes left untapped.

    (From) AVTAK - gripping short story that was never used, yet quite a lot of spy work and action occurs.

    TSWLM - entire novel ready for adaptation, although to be fair the only cinematic moments happen in part 2 and part 3 of the novel, but still good to go. Would ideally be used as a vehicle to introduce Bond to the latest Bond girl (Viv Michel in this case).

    YOLT - character names were only used in the 1967 film. The entire novel is good to go, ready for an adaptation. We've heard rumours that Bond 25 will be called Shatterhand, which hopefully means they are going to finally use this novel. If so, this one gets happily ticked off the list, even though its only taken 50 years to do so.

    TMWTGG - character names were only used in the Moore film along with a few lines taken from the book, LTK hinted at the undercover relationship with Bond and Sanchez, and SF hinted at the opening with Bond going missing, but again, the entire novel is ready for adaptation - particularly the brilliant brainwashed assassin opening, and the undercover Mark Hazard storyline.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Tom Hardy as Bond

    you do realize that by the time Bond 25 in out in 2019, Tom Hardy will be 42.. and by the time they might actually release Bond 26 - which at this pace, would be no sooner than 2022 - Tom Hardy would be 45 in his first Bond movie.... don't count on it...

    when they recast after Craig bows out, you have to look at actors who are currently (that means right now) in their early to mid 30s, possibly even late 20s... EON loves longevity, and they like keeping their actors around for multiple films obviously - someone currently in their 40s is not going to be the next Bond.

    I've said this before but my personal preference (not that I think it'll happen) would be a 40 something actor who actually looks like an experienced secret agent for only a couple of films, rather than some baby faced indie/hipster looking 20-30 odd year old ex Game Of Thrones/BBC drama rising star type that we have to wait years to grow into the role for five films.

    in their first (in GL's case, only) Bond movie, Connery was 32... Lazenby was 29..

    IMO, it has less to do with how young someone is, and more like what @bondjames said 'gravitas' - or attitude, acting ability and a little bit of that certain 'it' factor when it comes to casting Bond.. i would cast a 25 year old - if he was believable and looked the part... never forget too, Cubby saw something in Dalton way back for OHMSS - and would've cast him in the role if Dalton himself didn't turn it down (feeling he was too young).. and he was around 22 at the time..
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2017 Posts: 4,399
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I still not sold on whether EON, Barbara and Mickey G will even want to continue after Craig, despite the series long history of re-casting.

    With the exception of QOS, each film since TWINE has been delayed for various reasons. Whether due to MGM's situations, Craig needing a break, waiting on a director, or just outright fatigue from the previous entry it's become the norm in the Craig era.

    So much time has passed now, and we still have another two years before the next film, that I can almost see Eon not wanting to go through the whole process again with another actor.

    In addition, that the distribution deal (which we STILL don't have specifics on) is only for one film is just salt on the wound. It adds to my bad hunch that B25 could be the film the series wraps up on.

    the only place where this rumor seems to still be alive and kicking is here - no other credible media outlet has picked up on it - simply because i believe it's not true.. conjecture fabricated because news is slow... there was just an article published recently with Babs where she romances the idea of filming a future Bond movie in Ireland.. that doesn't sound like someone ready to hang it up IMO.... just because a Producer wants to PRODUCE other material outside of what they are commonly known for, doesn't mean want to give up doing that thing..

    but...

    the only reason i can see them not wanting to do another - is if they (Babs and MGW) want to take more of a back seat - especially maybe MGW - and hand it off to his sons Gregg and/or David and let them take the wheel.. Babs is still young enough to push on for another 20 years if she wants to... (Babs is 57, MGW is 77)..

    David Wilson has worked on Bond films from Goldeneye through Casino Royale, but hasn't done much of anything since (perhaps he is more of an office type?)..

    Gregg Wilson has been the more active participant.. he worked on the video games side of things.. also has worked as a producer of the Bond films since QOS, and already takes after his father of cameoing in the films.. i believe he is an active part of the pre-production process on these films now as well... MI6 Confidential did an article with him about a year ago, and he went through some of what goes on behind the scenes... I personally believe the time is coming soon, and maybe Bond 26 or 27, where we do see a changing of the guard from MGW to Gregg..

    but sorry, i just can't see a time and place any time soon where EON does not control Bond.. i just think there might be a passing of the baton from MGW here soon..
Sign In or Register to comment.