I could be in a considerable minority here.. But with DC leaving after this.. I'd prefer yet another reboot of the storyline and take the series back to the cold war and set it in the 60's... With all the Mission Impossible films, Bourne movies becoming so regular and similar in themes..... The 007 series could really bring something intriguing back to the screen with that era.. Plus the cars and clothing would be great too..
These days, I'm pretty much focused on Bond 25 and will put a bit more energy into who will be the next Bond after Bond 25 is released and runs its course. However, if I see an actor who I think has Bond potential I'll throw him out there. Recently I have been watching the TNT series Animal Kingdom which is an Americanized adaptation of the original Aussie film and it's actually pretty good and of course has a couple of British actors doing bang-on performances as California Surfer Dudes / Master Thieves. One of the Brit actors, Ben Robson seems to have some Bond potential. He's tall and has the looks (even though on the show he has shoulder length hair), a good actor (he does a great job pulling off a Cali Surfer Dude Stoner / thief) but most of all, he has great screen presence and charisma. He'd need to get into a bit better shape for Bond which shouldn't be difficult and age could possibly be a factor (Robson is 34 so he would be at least 38 or 39 when Bond 26 comes around). Cleaned up, Robson kind of looks like Hugh Grant's much tougher, military vet, younger brother.
I could be in a considerable minority here.. But with DC leaving after this.. I'd prefer yet another reboot of the storyline and take the series back to the cold war and set it in the 60's... With all the Mission Impossible films, Bourne movies becoming so regular and similar in themes..... The 007 series could really bring something intriguing back to the screen with that era.. Plus the cars and clothing would be great too..
That would be my preference as well from a creative standpoint. Set in that postwar period, Bond could be Bond without having to cater to our contemporary cultural morés. Mad Men showed it could be done.
Alas, I fear Eon, or whoever holds the rights by then, will be too afraid of the history. They'd be terrified that millennials and the generation now coming of age wouldn't buy tickets. They'd probably be justified in their fear IMO.
I could be in a considerable minority here.. But with DC leaving after this.. I'd prefer yet another reboot of the storyline and take the series back to the cold war and set it in the 60's... With all the Mission Impossible films, Bourne movies becoming so regular and similar in themes..... The 007 series could really bring something intriguing back to the screen with that era.. Plus the cars and clothing would be great too..
That would be my preference as well from a creative standpoint. Set in that postwar period, Bond could be Bond without having to cater to our contemporary cultural morés. Mad Men showed it could be done.
Alas, I fear Eon, or whoever holds the rights by then, will be too afraid of the history. They'd be terrified that millennials and the generation now coming of age wouldn't buy tickets. They'd probably be justified in their fear IMO.
I was once drastically opposed to this sort of thinking, but lately I find myself
Coming round to it for all of the reasons stated above. And for what it’s worth, I’m 32 which I believe technically makes me a dreaded millennial.
While it would be great for us fans and it would set Bond clearly apart from other action franchises, I don't think it should or will happen. Making period movies is more expensive. Woody Allen (why hasn't he been offered a a Bond movie to direct? ) ) said in an interview that he loves making movies set in the past, but period movies are about 50% more expensive.
I also love how the world of James Bond changes, but Bond himself doesn't change much.
For a spy/adventure/action franchise set in the 1960's I'd much rather see HBO make a Modesty Blaise series.
Of the four DC Bonds, Three are in the top ten of the most successful British Films
EVER made ! One held the #1 spot for a long time. ............ Why on earth would they Change
what they're doing ? The cinema going public obviously love it. These films have achieved both
Financial success and critical acclaim ! Yet some still want them to do it differently ) As for
making them a period piece, as Numb24 has pointed out. These are very expensive to make and
would be picked over by " Nerds" as to( .. how a car from 1961 could be in a film set in 1957 ... ).
Also Bond even in a period film, couldn't hit a woman or Force his advances on her. He's still have to
be as PC as in a modern film.
I have been an occasional contributor on MI6 Forum but have taken a long break from it given the
almost feverish anti-Bond posts of late. The MI in MI6 obviously mow stands for Mission Impossible.
Some seem to have had a religious conversion to MI films, stating that whoever takes over from
Daniel, will have to do his own stunts ) I'm still of the opinion that we need a good actor to
play Bond and let the stunt team handle the action.
This reminds me of the 70s, when Martial arts films were popular, so lets have Bond do some
Kung Fu. Then Star Wars was a hit so .... Lets get Bond in to Space ! ) We might as well
have Bond sing a few ABBA songs in Bond25, as they're popular again
I only hope the calls will start soon for a female Ethan Hawk )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
The trouble is that the world is changing. We live in a drastically different climate than 2006, or even 2015! Craig is very popular with audiences and critics, and has now been established in the role for a very long time, so Bond 25 will largely be immune to any backlash from the vocal minority of SJW types. But I fear what comes after that, and returning to the 1950s may be preferable to bastardizing the character out of appeasement.
Bond has constantly changed and evolved, can't see that
Changing. I'm guessing eon want to continue to make money
So will change what's needed and keep the core character
Intact.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Bond has constantly changed and evolved, can't see that
Changing. I'm guessing eon want to continue to make money
So will change what's needed and keep the core character
Intact.
While it would be great for us fans and it would set Bond clearly apart from other action franchises, I don't think it should or will happen. Making period movies is more expensive. Woody Allen (why hasn't he been offered a a Bond movie to direct? ) ) said in an interview that he loves making movies set in the past, but period movies are about 50% more expensive.
I also love how the world of James Bond changes, but Bond himself doesn't change much.
For a spy/adventure/action franchise set in the 1960's I'd much rather see HBO make a Modesty Blaise series.
Not neccessarilly more expensive, for a start they could stop the cinemas most expensive explosion (which looked like CGI anyway) or filming the world dullest car chase at enormous expense, or overblown Helicopter scenes that cost so much that the only way to justify them is with ridiculous amount of screentime...
I can see value in a period Bond maybe as a two hour TV one off. With the kind of haitus we have had of late one could be slotted in between Cinema outings. Amends could be made for squandering Moonraker with a UK set faithful interpretation of one of Fleming's finest novels.
It need not cost a bomb
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I think Cavill is the most obvious choice. Kind of how Brosnan apparently was back in the 80s. Which doesn't necessarily mean he's the best choice. But whenever I see or read people who want him to be the next Bond I just think "yeah, I get it" because he fits the stereotypical Bond image so well. Of course being in two spy films recently have helped as well.
I think Cavill is the most obvious choice. Kind of how Brosnan apparently was back in the 80s. Which doesn't necessarily mean he's the best choice. But whenever I see or read people who want him to be the next Bond I just think "yeah, I get it" because he fits the stereotypical Bond image so well. Of course being in two spy films recently have helped as well.
I think he very much looks the part. He’s just a bland actor with no charisma or charm. Someone who looks like that should at least have a little presence on screen, but he has none! My guess is that’s really what cost him the role back in 2006, not his age. If anything, his age should have helped him since the film was clearly written for a younger man.
I think he very much looks the part. He’s just a bland actor with no charisma or charm. Someone who looks like that should at least have a little presence on screen, but he has none! My guess is that’s really what cost him the role back in 2006, not his age. If anything, his age should have helped him since the film was clearly written for a younger man.
I feel the same way. Cavill was the perfect age for Bond in Casino Royale, but he is certainly a piece of wood. Madame Tussauds wouldn't even need to make a wax copy to put him in their museums!
I have been an occasional contributor on MI6 Forum but have taken a long break from it given the almost feverish anti-Bond posts of late. The MI in MI6 obviously mow stands for Mission Impossible.
Some seem to have had a religious conversion to MI films, stating that whoever takes over from Daniel, will have to do his own stunts ) I'm still of the opinion that we need a good actor to play Bond and let the stunt team handle the action.
One reason it took me so long to even watch the Mission Impossible films is precisely Tom Cruise, in my opinion a dreadful untalented self-absorbed Hollywood celebrity.
We should count ourselves lucky we have a good actor running around in front of all the explosions in our films. And I'd much prefer they scale back the explosions and action set-pieces in favour of well-told story.
Pierce Brosnan was better looking (in his prime) than Henry Cavill and had way more natural charm:
And Brossy around similar-ish age (or even younger) to Cavill:
Amen to that!
Hope the photos not too big!
Some of Henry Cavill's dialogue in Man From Uncle was so stiff I thought he'd overdosed on Viagra!
If Henry can become a bit more natural in his delivery, who knows. Anyway, it's doubtful EON would choose the current Superman to become the next Bond. Not impossible, perhaps, but very unlikely. I reckon EON will look for someone less high profile.
"Overdosed on Viagra" ) I do agree HC is rather wooden in his performances but so are a lot of so called "great actors" ! Tom hardy, one of the most overrated boring actors I have ever watched, DC again boring, if it wasn't a Bond movie, don't think I could watch one of his films where he has starring role , all the way through in one go! Could be wrong but Camble wanted HC for CR but BBwanted DC and obviously she got/had her way ) Middle aged man playing rookie agent, go figure again just my opinion(opinions are like assholes we all got them but no one wants to here them ) ) but I think Cavill could find his niche with Bond if get the gig!
Pierce Brosnan was better looking (in his prime) than Henry Cavill and had way more natural charm:
And Brossy around similar-ish age (or even younger) to Cavill:
Amen to that!
Hope the photos not too big!
Some of Henry Cavill's dialogue in Man From Uncle was so stiff I thought he'd overdosed on Viagra!
If Henry can become a bit more natural in his delivery, who knows. Anyway, it's doubtful EON would choose the current Superman to become the next Bond. Not impossible, perhaps, but very unlikely. I reckon EON will look for someone less high profile.
Acting chops aside Cavill is way more masculine looking then Brosnan which is more important for Bond then just being a pretty boy. Not to mention he's physically intimidating in a way Brosnan never was.
Part of the problem in the UNCLE movie was thar Cavill had to be bulked up because he was going straight off to do Superman again. With Ilya Kuryakin reimagined as a very un-David McCallum 'powerlifter with anger management issues' there was too little physical contrast between the two leads. The film was OK for me though.
To my surprise my other half, a huge UNCLE fan, loved it.
Comments
If the Height Wars start again, please tell me. I think I can contribute a lot
That would be my preference as well from a creative standpoint. Set in that postwar period, Bond could be Bond without having to cater to our contemporary cultural morés. Mad Men showed it could be done.
Alas, I fear Eon, or whoever holds the rights by then, will be too afraid of the history. They'd be terrified that millennials and the generation now coming of age wouldn't buy tickets. They'd probably be justified in their fear IMO.
I was once drastically opposed to this sort of thinking, but lately I find myself
Coming round to it for all of the reasons stated above. And for what it’s worth, I’m 32 which I believe technically makes me a dreaded millennial.
I also love how the world of James Bond changes, but Bond himself doesn't change much.
For a spy/adventure/action franchise set in the 1960's I'd much rather see HBO make a Modesty Blaise series.
Of the four DC Bonds, Three are in the top ten of the most successful British Films
EVER made ! One held the #1 spot for a long time. ............ Why on earth would they Change
what they're doing ? The cinema going public obviously love it. These films have achieved both
Financial success and critical acclaim ! Yet some still want them to do it differently
making them a period piece, as Numb24 has pointed out. These are very expensive to make and
would be picked over by " Nerds" as to( .. how a car from 1961 could be in a film set in 1957 ... ).
Also Bond even in a period film, couldn't hit a woman or Force his advances on her. He's still have to
be as PC as in a modern film.
I have been an occasional contributor on MI6 Forum but have taken a long break from it given the
almost feverish anti-Bond posts of late. The MI in MI6 obviously mow stands for Mission Impossible.
Some seem to have had a religious conversion to MI films, stating that whoever takes over from
Daniel, will have to do his own stunts
play Bond and let the stunt team handle the action.
This reminds me of the 70s, when Martial arts films were popular, so lets have Bond do some
Kung Fu. Then Star Wars was a hit so .... Lets get Bond in to Space !
have Bond sing a few ABBA songs in Bond25, as they're popular again
I only hope the calls will start soon for a female Ethan Hawk
Changing. I'm guessing eon want to continue to make money
So will change what's needed and keep the core character
Intact.
Agreed.
Not neccessarilly more expensive, for a start they could stop the cinemas most expensive explosion (which looked like CGI anyway) or filming the world dullest car chase at enormous expense, or overblown Helicopter scenes that cost so much that the only way to justify them is with ridiculous amount of screentime...
I can see value in a period Bond maybe as a two hour TV one off. With the kind of haitus we have had of late one could be slotted in between Cinema outings. Amends could be made for squandering Moonraker with a UK set faithful interpretation of one of Fleming's finest novels.
It need not cost a bomb
I think he very much looks the part. He’s just a bland actor with no charisma or charm. Someone who looks like that should at least have a little presence on screen, but he has none! My guess is that’s really what cost him the role back in 2006, not his age. If anything, his age should have helped him since the film was clearly written for a younger man.
I feel the same way. Cavill was the perfect age for Bond in Casino Royale, but he is certainly a piece of wood. Madame Tussauds wouldn't even need to make a wax copy to put him in their museums!
We should count ourselves lucky we have a good actor running around in front of all the explosions in our films. And I'd much prefer they scale back the explosions and action set-pieces in favour of well-told story.
And Brossy around similar-ish age (or even younger) to Cavill:
Amen to that!
Hope the photos not too big!
Some of Henry Cavill's dialogue in Man From Uncle was so stiff I thought he'd overdosed on Viagra!
If Henry can become a bit more natural in his delivery, who knows. Anyway, it's doubtful EON would choose the current Superman to become the next Bond. Not impossible, perhaps, but very unlikely. I reckon EON will look for someone less high profile.
Superman
To my surprise my other half, a huge UNCLE fan, loved it.