Bro, what about the Geneva Convention?
News Daniel Craig signs up for Bond 25, Christopher Nolan in talks to direct
- Thread starter Mach5
- Start date
TBBS is not a signatory.
Just watch the Timothy Dalton movies, they are basically the same person.
I think Isaacs looks a bit like Timothy Dalton. Or maybe it’s more his presence and delivery rather than actual looks. I remember seeing a trailer for Squaddies, the bbc drama he did years ago, and briefly thinking it actually was Dalton.
On the basis of his roles in Mission Impossible Fallout and The Man from UNCLE I think Cavill would be a decent 007. The problem is, I think there’s a risk of him being seen as the go-to-guy for franchises & the Broccoli family seem to be protective of Bond that way - I can’t imagine that they’d necessarily want an ex-Superman, ex-Napoleon Solo in the role.
On the other hand, both Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan had done iconic performances in popular TV shows and movies before being cast as Bond, Moore in Maverick, The Saint, as well as The Persuaders!, Brosnan in Remington Steele, Around the World in 80 Days, and The Lawnmower Man.
But, of course, Cubby Broccoli was still around for both these casting decisions.
But, of course, Cubby Broccoli was still around for both these casting decisions.
I don’t know that I’d call any of Brosnan’s pre-Bond roles iconic. Of course, his being recalled to Steele duties nixed him for the role first time out, though that was mostly just an issue of availability (though I think I read somewhere that while he could have done both RS & 007 at the same time, Cubby didn’t want audiences to see his star on tv every week). Either way, as you rightly point out, those were different days, different producers in charge.
I’d be happy to be proven wrong of course, as I think HC would be a good Bond.
He does, but I think he also has a touch of danger and anger in his face. Dalton just looked a little bland.
I think the problem is that before you know what type of Bond you want you need to decide what type of Bond movie you want. They chose Roger Moore for the campier, funner Bonds. They picked Craig for the darker, grittier Bonds.
That's the main problem I have with HC. Seems like kinda a generic good looking guy; if you fed a bunch of actor photos into a Bond picking machine, it'd probably pick HC. He fits the Bond look perfectly, but I don't think he really says anything about the direction these movies will take.
People hated the idea of Daniel Craig at first because he wasn't at all what people expected of Bond, but he ended up being very well-received. I think HC would be the opposite. Exactly what people expected, but not very memorable. That's why I'd suggest someone along the Matt Smith line.
Craig has certainly done fandom a service in broadening the idea of what Bond looks like. Cavil is so perfect in matching the generic Bond look he'd be fighting off being a cliche before a frame was shot.
He'd be a perfect live action Sterling Archer, however. Because that character is supposed to have a bit of 007 parody in him.
He'd be a perfect live action Sterling Archer, however. Because that character is supposed to have a bit of 007 parody in him.
Exactly. He's too right in the middle, just like Dalton.
I think you could construct a sliding scale of Bond and Bond-ish characters. On the far left is Austin Powers. On the far right is Liam Neeson's character from Taken. In the middle is Dalton or maybe Brosnan. If you're keeping to Bonds I'd put Craig on the far right and Moore on the far left.
Point is, they've already done the far rightish Bond (apologies for political implications). Go back to center and you're probably chasing average, not quite what the series needs right now. People like to talk up Brosnan, but realistically he had one great movie and then a very sharp drop in quality. Would really like things to go the other way. Pick up someone who can play more of a charming, joie de vivre Bond instead of the racked with inner conflict Bond. This is why talk of Idris Elba doesn't excite me.
Now, that, I can get behind.
I always imagine Jon Hamm as a live-action Archer but he’s probably a bit long in the tooth now to play it.
Timothy Dalton changed the rules for action heroes in movies and television, thanks to his portrayal of Bond.
This again. I swear to God that our society is becoming increasingly conservative . . . to the point that many won't allow for challenging stories or characterizations in pop culture.
This again. I swear to God that our society is becoming increasingly conservative . . . to the point that many won't allow for challenging stories or characterizations in pop culture.
"People" didn't hate Craig, a small minority did. A lot of them were women who didn't think he was "hot enough." And the men who hated him thought he was "too blonde" or basing their impressions of him on Layer Cake. And then EON totally botched his reveal by having him arrive on a boat in a life jacket with his hair long. And these were the days before Twitter and widespread social media condemnation (and studios bowing to it).
I remember it quite well when he was cast. I didn't like it at first either, but primarily because I wanted Tarantino's "Casino Royale" with Brosnan. Primarily....I wanted one more with Brosnan. I didn't hate Craig, though....in fact I was slightly relieved it was him over the (at first rumored and then later confirmed to have auditioned) 23-year old Henry Cavill.
Then I saw Casino Royale and it blew my mind. Daniel Craig was 007 from the very first moment. It was the way they presented him. Bosnian War veteran. Ex special forces. They deliberately fit all his clothes a bit too small so he looked like a "jungle cat" when he moved. Dangerous. Efficient. Cold.
Henry Cavill looks like a cookie-cutter Bond right now, but it's all in how they'd present him if they cast him. Maybe, after years of Craig being dour, they want to go in the opposite direction, more lighthearted again (sort of like they went in the opposite direction of Brosnan when Craig was cast). Personally I don't want someone too young. No 20-somethings. Everything else, I have an open mind on.
I remember it quite well when he was cast. I didn't like it at first either, but primarily because I wanted Tarantino's "Casino Royale" with Brosnan. Primarily....I wanted one more with Brosnan. I didn't hate Craig, though....in fact I was slightly relieved it was him over the (at first rumored and then later confirmed to have auditioned) 23-year old Henry Cavill.
Then I saw Casino Royale and it blew my mind. Daniel Craig was 007 from the very first moment. It was the way they presented him. Bosnian War veteran. Ex special forces. They deliberately fit all his clothes a bit too small so he looked like a "jungle cat" when he moved. Dangerous. Efficient. Cold.
Henry Cavill looks like a cookie-cutter Bond right now, but it's all in how they'd present him if they cast him. Maybe, after years of Craig being dour, they want to go in the opposite direction, more lighthearted again (sort of like they went in the opposite direction of Brosnan when Craig was cast). Personally I don't want someone too young. No 20-somethings. Everything else, I have an open mind on.
I don't get the problem here.
"Challenging" is loading your personal preferences with an unfounded value judgment. Just because you love your revisionist grimdark takes doesn't mean everyone has to, nor does it make them inherently superior to more traditional approaches.
If it helps, though, I agree that Dalton was pretty much everything I ever wanted in a cinematic Bond.
I see it as extremism on both ends in entertainment right now. One end is steadfastly against any change at all, and the other wants change "because reasons". It's the culture war, and entertainment is the battleground (in more ways than one).
Challenging stories? Studios are afraid of Twitter at this point. Do something Twitter agrees with, and you're gold. Do something that offends them, and the blogs will keep it running for weeks. Just ask JK Rowling how it is dealing with people's Twitter fits after every character decision she makes, from casting in the "Wizarding World" movies to characters she's written. I don't know how she deals with it, honestly. They're never satisfied.
Personally, when it comes to Bond, I think Bond shouldn't do anything too rocky. At this point, Bond is Bond. But let's look at some of the "change" people have discussed in recent years.
Gender-swapping characters -- my opinion? Stupid, in most cases. Yes, Jodie Whittaker is perfectly fine as the new Doctor, but the Doctor didn't need to be changed. He was...."because reasons." But okay, Doctor's a Time Lord, a body-transforming alien, and it works and it's been shown to happen in the show, so okay.
But James Bond? The people that want a female are social justice Twitterites who want to use a classic male character to wage a war against "toxic masculinity." Never mind the fact that the franchise itself is run by a woman who herself has been involved in the production side for 40 years (95% of them don't even know that, I'd bet money on it) and they've been addressing it "her way" for the last 23 years. Why can't they just create their own franchise? Because they want the "James Bond" name recognition. The 65 year pedigree. They're afraid that a new character and a new film series won't have the same draw and cultural impact, so they want to take over one that is enduringly popular. It's the same with Indiana Jones. One "woke journalist" stupidly asked Steven Spielberg if Indiana Jones could be a woman, because reasons. Spielberg replied in droll fashion, effectively dismissing the question for anyone properly paying attention. But it was a "blogosphere story" for a week because Lara Croft isn't enough for these people, and they WANT these franchises! Badly! Like Gollum with the Ring.
Besides, Bond itself grates on them sooooooooooooooooo much. He's everything they hate. A relic of male privilege and toxic masculinity in the MeToo era and a relic of British exceptionalism. They hate it so, so much. But they want control. Badly. It'd be such a coup in the Culture War to scalp 007. So they're setting their sights lower....keep him male, but make him a minority to represent multicultural Britain.
This, I have no problem with, personally. It's all in the casting. But to the Traditionalists, this is such an affront. I mean....I get it. I do. And if I had written the Bond books, and if it were my character they were trying to race-swap and gender-swap, I'd get on Twitter and go "No. End of discussion." Why change a character from a white male when that's what he's been for 65 years? But Ian Fleming is long dead, and Eon will do what they do. Barbara will make her decision. And if it's a black guy or Indian guy or whatever, I'm sure it'll be fine.
On the other side of the coin, for the people who want to "see positive change," I get that too. But it's all in how you do it. You can't just make 007 a woman or make him bisexual because you want to, for "representation." That's completely senseless. You instead change his environment. You have to give him other characters to play off. But also, you have to look at it from the studio's POV. They're in it for the money. You rock the boat too much, the box office suffers. Craig has plaJyed the dour, damaged Bond for 12 years now. 14 years by the time the next movie comes out. After him, they'll likely want a change. Just like they wanted change after Brosnan literally para-surfed on a CGI glacier. Or whatever that was. They wanted to "ground" Bond again. They changed him.
I would too after Craig....just don't go too far into Roger Moore territory. Give me a bit of Brosnan and a bit of Dalton and I'll be happy as a clam.
Challenging stories? Studios are afraid of Twitter at this point. Do something Twitter agrees with, and you're gold. Do something that offends them, and the blogs will keep it running for weeks. Just ask JK Rowling how it is dealing with people's Twitter fits after every character decision she makes, from casting in the "Wizarding World" movies to characters she's written. I don't know how she deals with it, honestly. They're never satisfied.
Personally, when it comes to Bond, I think Bond shouldn't do anything too rocky. At this point, Bond is Bond. But let's look at some of the "change" people have discussed in recent years.
Gender-swapping characters -- my opinion? Stupid, in most cases. Yes, Jodie Whittaker is perfectly fine as the new Doctor, but the Doctor didn't need to be changed. He was...."because reasons." But okay, Doctor's a Time Lord, a body-transforming alien, and it works and it's been shown to happen in the show, so okay.
But James Bond? The people that want a female are social justice Twitterites who want to use a classic male character to wage a war against "toxic masculinity." Never mind the fact that the franchise itself is run by a woman who herself has been involved in the production side for 40 years (95% of them don't even know that, I'd bet money on it) and they've been addressing it "her way" for the last 23 years. Why can't they just create their own franchise? Because they want the "James Bond" name recognition. The 65 year pedigree. They're afraid that a new character and a new film series won't have the same draw and cultural impact, so they want to take over one that is enduringly popular. It's the same with Indiana Jones. One "woke journalist" stupidly asked Steven Spielberg if Indiana Jones could be a woman, because reasons. Spielberg replied in droll fashion, effectively dismissing the question for anyone properly paying attention. But it was a "blogosphere story" for a week because Lara Croft isn't enough for these people, and they WANT these franchises! Badly! Like Gollum with the Ring.
Besides, Bond itself grates on them sooooooooooooooooo much. He's everything they hate. A relic of male privilege and toxic masculinity in the MeToo era and a relic of British exceptionalism. They hate it so, so much. But they want control. Badly. It'd be such a coup in the Culture War to scalp 007. So they're setting their sights lower....keep him male, but make him a minority to represent multicultural Britain.
This, I have no problem with, personally. It's all in the casting. But to the Traditionalists, this is such an affront. I mean....I get it. I do. And if I had written the Bond books, and if it were my character they were trying to race-swap and gender-swap, I'd get on Twitter and go "No. End of discussion." Why change a character from a white male when that's what he's been for 65 years? But Ian Fleming is long dead, and Eon will do what they do. Barbara will make her decision. And if it's a black guy or Indian guy or whatever, I'm sure it'll be fine.
On the other side of the coin, for the people who want to "see positive change," I get that too. But it's all in how you do it. You can't just make 007 a woman or make him bisexual because you want to, for "representation." That's completely senseless. You instead change his environment. You have to give him other characters to play off. But also, you have to look at it from the studio's POV. They're in it for the money. You rock the boat too much, the box office suffers. Craig has plaJyed the dour, damaged Bond for 12 years now. 14 years by the time the next movie comes out. After him, they'll likely want a change. Just like they wanted change after Brosnan literally para-surfed on a CGI glacier. Or whatever that was. They wanted to "ground" Bond again. They changed him.
I would too after Craig....just don't go too far into Roger Moore territory. Give me a bit of Brosnan and a bit of Dalton and I'll be happy as a clam.
It's always from the studio's point of view. Not every change to a male character is due to 'social justice Twitterites'.
They apparently approached Christopher Reeve to play him when Moore left.
Hadn’t heard that before. I do remember in the early 80s there was speculation that they’d cast an American to broaden its appeal. I remember Ford & Selleck being the main names bandied about (though James Brolin actually got an audition). There was also talk of Mel Gibson (who was apparently also approached to replace Dalton, while talk in the early 90s was that Joel Silver tried to buy the rights, planning to cast Mel).
If Reeve was approached, it’d have been the second time an actor best known for playing a superhero turned them down - Adam West was offered the chance to replace Connery.
In all honesty, that could have been very interesting casting.