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
#TomHardywillneverbebond
Harrison Ford played two iconic characters at the same time; being Han did not stop them from being cast as Indy. If the want Cavill, Superman will not be an issue.
Cavill is a star but not a superstar; if he fits the direction in which they want to take Bond any other roles he’s played(ing) won’t stop them.
Also people forget that the current EoN (Babs) has only ever cast one guy as Bond, and he was completely out of left field. Theres no telling what they are going to do next.
The natural comparison for Cavill would be Brosnan because they both look the part and people seem to be hoping Cavill would be more traditional, but Brosnan had bucketloads of charm and presence that Cavill just doesn't have imo, he's got a proper old school Hollywood star quality about him. UNCLE was Cavill's chance to prove he had that and for me he just doesn't. Besides, Brosnan was really Cubby's choice, not Barbara's.
Also, I don't really get why people are clamouring for the next Bond to be a return to a more traditional cinematic one. Well I do get it, but I'm confused, because hasn't Craig pretty much been exactly that in the last two? I don't get how much further some of you want them to take it in that direction in terms of how Bond himself is played. I guess there's still room to go full on Moore, but that'd be a disaster. He was one of a kind.
I'm not asking for Moore 2.0. Perhaps something closer to Dr. No, GoldenEye or Casino Royale. Something that strikes a perfect balance. Also, of all these contemporary actors I've seen suggested, None of them do it for me. Hell even Cavill didn't do it for me back then, but I'd take him above everyone else. A stallion must be broken in first before it can reach its potential.
And Moore and Brosnan fits in a second category
I think Bond actor 7 will be more from category B than category A, whoever it ends up being. They simply need someone more naturally enigmatic and charming this time.
Whilst I don’t disagree with you about casting someone up and coming, it backfired spectacularly with Solo. Big studios are in the business to make money, not art. Those days are now long gone. The poor performance of Solo might be enough to make the future Bond studio financing the movies sit up and take notice, albeit more cautious. Bond is not a little art house movie, it costs big bucks and requires promotional advertising (product placement) to offset the huge costs. The next 007 will have to be able to sell Omega watches, Heineken beer and the latest Aston Martin with aplomb as a sideline.
I don t watch tv now, but I do go to the cinema.
Back in the 70s, practically everybody had a tv set.
As @Ludovico said, I think the problem there was that character is so tied to Harrison Ford. It's different to Bond, who's bigger than the actor who plays him. I also think that oversaturation could have played a role there since there have been so many Star Wars films within the last couple of years. I don't watch those films, but from my uninformed outsider perspective, I don't think it's fair to use that as an example of unknown actors in big franchises being a problem.
The melodrama stuff is down to the scripts though, not the sort of actor they cast and how he plays the role. I guess the actor gives an indication of what direction they're going with it, but again, I'd say Craig enjoyed life plenty in the last two especially, and has always been a connoiseur. I get some of the issues that people have with the recent scripts, but I don't get where the mopey emo Bond complaints are coming from. He was in a rut in SF but was back to cracking one liners in no time, and there was no moping at all in SP.
I agree that's true of most of them (one or two suggestions I've found interesting), but I still think Craig should leave after Bond 25. He's been Bond for way too long imo. I think Boyle will do wonders to make things fresh and exciting again, but they still need new blood after this one, even if most of the potentials suggested on here do seem pretty dire.
Your not wrong of course. The writing has been a problem since QOS really. And you are right. Craig does enjoy life but to me at least it seems very rare. I can't really recall him being a connoiseur though aside from when he has the Vesper made for the first time. But my point still stands. Post Craig I would like a more balanced Bond more fun and adventure with a good balance of drama. No melodrama and super personal stories for at least a decade or two.
Couldn't agree more. The only glimmer of hope I see that happening is if Universal or Annapurna were to jump start the series after B25 is released and get things back on track.
Sadly, I don't honestly see that happening considering B25 is most likely Craig's last outing. I'm guessing after B25 we're in for at least another 4 years before B26 comes around.
https://youtu.be/YhPV61vSvLg?t=0m50s
All this talk of licenses makes for the perfect segue. What about playing a certain British agent who has a license to kill? Ten years ago, the choice for the new James Bond was reportedly down to Cavill and Daniel Craig, with Craig getting the nod. Would Cavill be interested if opportunity knocks?
“I would be very excited to explore that option if it were to come around again and I were to have an opportunity to sit down with [Bond producers] Mike Wilson and Barbara Broccoli,” says Cavill. “I would relish that opportunity.”
I saw the trailer when it first came out. I don't remember seeing a spoiler in it that he dies. What's the reference that you're talking about?
My guess has been that Cavill's character is basically "Ethan meets his match," and then he turns out to be good. And at the end of the movie he is recruited to be in the MI force, setting him up to be in future films, or possibly to star in them since Cruise is getting old. Otherwise the choice to cast a younger handsome man that always comes across as a good guy as the villain, when his youth and looks would upstage Cruise, just seems a bit strange. Unless they were looking for his replacement (which you'd think that they would be).
Oh well, just a theory. I guess we'll see pretty soon. Oh yeah, and that character name, August Walker. That's a hero's name if I've ever heard one. And I remember hearing about how Cavill asked to do his own stunts for the movie, as if he was auditioning to take over, to show that he could do action. But like I said, we'll see.
On a script level, I would imagine a great deal of the 'emo Bond complaints' have to do with the fact Bond sheds tears at the end of Sf. That's bound to make an impression on a long-time Bond fan. I'm ambivalent toward that scene. Not convinced it works. Not with tears, anyway.
I'm skeptical of all these people, as well. Turner, Norton, Cavill, and especially O'Connell. Though I concede I might be wrong, as one can't fully judge an actor's suitability to a role based on their previous work or even on the way they appear to be in interviews, premieres, etc. There is always room for surprise.
So, skeptical, but I'll be glad to be proven wrong by whoever they chose if they pick him from among the expected candidates.