It's going to be hard to run a thriving 60 plus year franchise into the ground, but we will see what happens with the direction of these productions. I share similar concerns about doing the Marvel type spin offs. I hope they just stay true to the time tested formulas that have been used and don't fuck up a major cash cow.I think that's HORRIBLE news. The Brocollis have been helming Bond films since the beginning.
I heard that talks finally broke down because Amazon wanted to do Bond spin-offs, etc. (similar to Marvel / Star Wars / etc). But Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli just weren't having it.
Anyways, I hope I'm wrong. But if the LOTR amazon series is any indication, it doesn't look good
Best Bond?
- Thread starter Bbw hunter
- Start date
This news might have been prompted in part by some wealthy guy in Europe trying to sue for non-use of copyright.
It's been a problem ... almost 5 1/2 years since production wrapped on the last one. That's about the time it took to make the first five Bond films from 1962 to '67.
Yes, it's a very different era now with immense budgets, complicated financing, and the almost literal requirement of a small army to make them. But maybe if they scale down a bit we'll get them more regularly ..
People forget how original those early ones were, basically inventing the action-film genre. And on limited budgets for the first three ... they need to get back to good writing and downplay the spectacle a little, as with the first Craig entry, Casino Royale.
Consider for a moment the matter of advancing years [co-producer Michael G. Wilson is 83 years old] and the "problem" of second generation wealth ... and that there was no third generation waiting in the wings, as I understand it.
It's been a problem ... almost 5 1/2 years since production wrapped on the last one. That's about the time it took to make the first five Bond films from 1962 to '67.
Yes, it's a very different era now with immense budgets, complicated financing, and the almost literal requirement of a small army to make them. But maybe if they scale down a bit we'll get them more regularly ..
People forget how original those early ones were, basically inventing the action-film genre. And on limited budgets for the first three ... they need to get back to good writing and downplay the spectacle a little, as with the first Craig entry, Casino Royale.
Consider for a moment the matter of advancing years [co-producer Michael G. Wilson is 83 years old] and the "problem" of second generation wealth ... and that there was no third generation waiting in the wings, as I understand it.
Last edited:
Mixed thoughts on this. It would be nice to inject some energy back into the franchise, but at the same time I worry about casting decisions and especially the possibility of putting American actors in the role. The writing could go either way, given some of the up and down writing of the franchise in general. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Maybe Amazon could create the 60's spy universe, crossing over Bond, Matt Helm (book character, not the movie schlock), The Man from Uncle, the Saint etc.
I always thought that Brosnan was the best Bond, incorporating the right mix of style and physicality, but he was at the mercy of the material they wrote for him, and his stretch of movies had some of the worst writing of the franchise. I wish we could have seen him with a Casino Royale type script instead of the crap he got. so, despite my thinking he was the best Bond, none of his movies would make my top 10 except for Goldeneye. Last year I re-read the Bond books after a hiatus of many years. Most of them are pretty low key, often with bland dialogue and action. Where Fleming really excelled was in his descriptive prowess and he could really paint a picture well. If we're looking at it objectively, none of the Bonds from the movies would be a good adaptation of the book Bond, as he was a pretty humourless guy in general. Dalton may have been the closest but even he wouldn't be a great fit. Also, book Bond preferred his Beretta over the Walther PPK, so there's that. lol
I always thought that Brosnan was the best Bond, incorporating the right mix of style and physicality, but he was at the mercy of the material they wrote for him, and his stretch of movies had some of the worst writing of the franchise. I wish we could have seen him with a Casino Royale type script instead of the crap he got. so, despite my thinking he was the best Bond, none of his movies would make my top 10 except for Goldeneye. Last year I re-read the Bond books after a hiatus of many years. Most of them are pretty low key, often with bland dialogue and action. Where Fleming really excelled was in his descriptive prowess and he could really paint a picture well. If we're looking at it objectively, none of the Bonds from the movies would be a good adaptation of the book Bond, as he was a pretty humourless guy in general. Dalton may have been the closest but even he wouldn't be a great fit. Also, book Bond preferred his Beretta over the Walther PPK, so there's that. lol
You know your Bond!Mixed thoughts on this. It would be nice to inject some energy back into the franchise, but at the same time I worry about casting decisions and especially the possibility of putting American actors in the role. The writing could go either way, given some of the up and down writing of the franchise in general. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Maybe Amazon could create the 60's spy universe, crossing over Bond, Matt Helm (book character, not the movie schlock), The Man from Uncle, the Saint etc.
I always thought that Brosnan was the best Bond, incorporating the right mix of style and physicality, but he was at the mercy of the material they wrote for him, and his stretch of movies had some of the worst writing of the franchise. I wish we could have seen him with a Casino Royale type script instead of the crap he got. so, despite my thinking he was the best Bond, none of his movies would make my top 10 except for Goldeneye. Last year I re-read the Bond books after a hiatus of many years. Most of them are pretty low key, often with bland dialogue and action. Where Fleming really excelled was in his descriptive prowess and he could really paint a picture well. If we're looking at it objectively, none of the Bonds from the movies would be a good adaptation of the book Bond, as he was a pretty humourless guy in general. Dalton may have been the closest but even he wouldn't be a great fit. Also, book Bond preferred his Beretta over the Walther PPK, so there's that. lol
Yeah, one of the big differences between books and films is the absence of humor in the books. I read somewhere that Connery was mostly responsible for introducing the darkly humorous oneliners ....
They came very close in the past to choosing a number of American actors to play Bond. Adam West, John Gavin, James Brolin ... even Clint Eastwood, I think, and probably others, which seems nuts.
Last edited:
Brolin would have been a good choice to do Matt Helm if they had ever gotten around to doing a real Matt Helm film.
Next Bond should be about a machiavelic Russian president, manipulating a mad and stupid USA president, making alliance with him and trying to takeover UK. And of course Bond will defeat those mad men leading sick countries.
Rowan Atkinson should be the one leading the dance as 007.
Rowan Atkinson should be the one leading the dance as 007.
Last edited:
Amazon’s Jeff Bezos asks followers who should be the next James Bond—and there’s one resounding answer
Henry Cavill has emerged as the overwhelming favorite to step into the shoes of the suave British superspy.
When Ian Fleming was imagining the Bond character in his mind Bond looked like Hoagy Carmichael.
Amazon’s Jeff Bezos asks followers who should be the next James Bond—and there’s one resounding answer
Henry Cavill has emerged as the overwhelming favorite to step into the shoes of the suave British superspy.www.yahoo.com
We need a black James Bond, imo.
Idris Elba, anyone?
He's British like James Bond, he can act, can do action movies & is suave.
Idris Elba, anyone?
He's British like James Bond, he can act, can do action movies & is suave.
Problem is he is too old. He is 52 and a 5 film deal would take him into his 60s which is just too old for this part. Cavill, at age 41, is the perfect guy for the part.
I did not feel Daniel Craig had aged well in the part and injuries were frequent during the last couple of productions. Tom Cruise has run into the same problem doing the Mission Impossible movies while in his late 50s. Numerous injuries. These guys have old bodies which are not built to do the action scenes in these films. They require younger more athletic actors. BTW, this is also why Cruise is not casting himself in the Edge of Tomorrow sequel. He could do the original movie at age 50 but the sequel and now in his 60s, there is no way can he handle doing those scenes and he actually knows it. This despite that he owns the sequel rights.
FYI insurance costs skyrocket on a production when the star keeps getting hurt causing production delays. Amazon may have lots of money but they know old guys are more expensive to insure. Movie making is a business and all businesses have to watch production costs.
BTW Daniel Craig was in the role from 2005 to 2021 making 5 films. He was 54 when the last film was released, this after 2 injury laden productions. In 16 years, Elba will be 68, while Cavill will be 57. If they can accelerate production like the old days perhaps they can squeeze 5 films out of Cavill in 10 years, at which time he will be 51.
Last edited:
Tom Hiddleston
He would be my choice if not Idris Elba. EB may be correct that Elba is slightly too old for the role now. After watching Tom Hiddleston in the fantastic spy thriller ‘The Night Manager’ i immediately said “There’s the next James Bond!”
He would be my choice if not Idris Elba. EB may be correct that Elba is slightly too old for the role now. After watching Tom Hiddleston in the fantastic spy thriller ‘The Night Manager’ i immediately said “There’s the next James Bond!”
Hiddleston at age 44, who is 3 years older than Cavill, would most likely be a 3 film candidate. Although I really liked him in Night Manager, I am not quite so sure he would be as good as Cavill.
However, another actor whom you guys are forgetting, who is younger than both Cavill and Hiddleston, is 39 year old Theo James, who was excellent in The Gentlemen:
However, another actor whom you guys are forgetting, who is younger than both Cavill and Hiddleston, is 39 year old Theo James, who was excellent in The Gentlemen:
I think whatever Amazon-designated creatives become in charge of the series they will first have to decide on the tone and direction before choosing an appropriate actor.
The tone and direction of the films has always changed markedly from actor to actor. For instance, EON had no reason to be displeased with Brosnan, except they felt he was no longer appropriate for a new, more serious post 9/11 world. Similarly, it's impossible for me to imagine Craig doing the light humor of the Moore era, just as Moore himself could not do an especially convincing "tough guy" Connery-like approximation of the role.
Fleming's Hoagy Carmichael (American, btw) visual comparison of Bond in the '50s would always befuddle [not tough, not handsome] future generations of Bond film fans who instinctively had one of the film Bonds in mind, especially Connery.
An initially skeptical Fleming was won over by the brawny working-class Scot. So won over that he gave his literary Bond a Scottish (and Swiss) ancestry, which is really played up in the much later movie, Skyfall.
So, ironically, Bond isn't even English ...
PS I initially thought the same about Hiddleston after seeing The Night Manager, which really is fantastic ....
Fleming & Connery below on the set of From Russia With Love, I think. Fleming would die just a few months short of the release of Goldfinger.
The tone and direction of the films has always changed markedly from actor to actor. For instance, EON had no reason to be displeased with Brosnan, except they felt he was no longer appropriate for a new, more serious post 9/11 world. Similarly, it's impossible for me to imagine Craig doing the light humor of the Moore era, just as Moore himself could not do an especially convincing "tough guy" Connery-like approximation of the role.
Fleming's Hoagy Carmichael (American, btw) visual comparison of Bond in the '50s would always befuddle [not tough, not handsome] future generations of Bond film fans who instinctively had one of the film Bonds in mind, especially Connery.
An initially skeptical Fleming was won over by the brawny working-class Scot. So won over that he gave his literary Bond a Scottish (and Swiss) ancestry, which is really played up in the much later movie, Skyfall.
So, ironically, Bond isn't even English ...
PS I initially thought the same about Hiddleston after seeing The Night Manager, which really is fantastic ....
Fleming & Connery below on the set of From Russia With Love, I think. Fleming would die just a few months short of the release of Goldfinger.
Last edited:
Are you saying American actors are not talented enough to portray British characters? Didn't Robert Downey Jr. play Sherlock Holmes? And didn't Renee Zellwegger portray Bridget Jones (and also get an Oscar Nomination for doing so?)
Aren't you assuming that they are going to cast the part written by Ian Fleming? Just a reminder that Fleming wrote his books in the 1950s and 1960s when the UK still had a colonial empire, and we are now living in 2025. The UK's position in the world order has changed since the plots of the Bond books. Another reminder is they have pretty much used up all of the Ian Fleming novels on movies anyway, including the half completed The Man With The Golden Gun, which was considered Fleming's weakest book.
Like Meta said- they kind of have to figure out a modern go forward vision for the character while retaining many of the important formulas of the franchise such as the de rigeuer technical gadget of the day (which evolved over time) and the music and choreography of the action scenes. To me the most malleable elements will be plot and character.
Does Bond really even need to belong to one nation's spy service? Maybe he will be a free agent. If you have ever watched the Danger Man UK TV series of the 1960s you would know that Patrick McGoohan (an Irish American actor) portrayed the John Drake character in season 1 as an American agent for the NATO spy service (there was no such thing then or now). However in seasons 2-4 the Drake character loses his American accent and becomes British and is working for MI6. It's kind of preposterous yet it works for all 4 seasons because the formulas of each episode remain the same as does McGoohan's acting which is good whether speaking with an American or British accent.
The series in its entirety is on Prime, and it's worth watching as it parallels certain aspects of the Bond series. Except McGoohan had a strict no kissing and no guns policy which is why he passed on James Bond role which I think was offered to him before Sean Connery. McGoohan was the highest paid TV actor in the UK in the 1960s and he wasn't even British. He was Irish American born in New York City.
I think it would be fun if they created a fictional NATO spy agency like they did on Danger Man and we next see Bond working for it like John Drake did at one time. Or maybe he will "defect" and join CONTROL and Maxwell Smart:
Last edited:
Theo James would indeed by a decent choice. I really liked his work in White Lotus season 2. Another name that comes to mind is Jamie Dornan. He’s been excellent in every movie & miniseries i’ve seen him in.
Haven't seen him in much else, but Jamie Dornan was really good in Season 1 of The Fall ...
I've always loved Patrick McGoohan, especially in The Prisoner ... he had the cool factor, obvious intelligence and acting chops. But he might have been a little too intense at times for Bond, who should (at least for me) have a debonair, laid back, slightly louche quality.
Cary Grant (the Best Man at future Bond co-producer Broccoli's wedding) might have done the first Bond, except the producers wanted someone contracted for five films--a later sore point for Connery.
Similarly, Hitchcock might have directed the first film, if we can believe the stories; but the producers (Saltzman was from Quebec, btw) probably thought he (and Grant) were too expensive.
Of course, if Hitchcock had done it, it would have been a "Hitchcock picture," not exactly what they had in mind, even if Hitchcock's North By Northwest, with Grant, is the obvious template for cinematic Bond, which would later steal a variation on the famous crop-dusting scene for FRWL.
I've always loved Patrick McGoohan, especially in The Prisoner ... he had the cool factor, obvious intelligence and acting chops. But he might have been a little too intense at times for Bond, who should (at least for me) have a debonair, laid back, slightly louche quality.
Cary Grant (the Best Man at future Bond co-producer Broccoli's wedding) might have done the first Bond, except the producers wanted someone contracted for five films--a later sore point for Connery.
Similarly, Hitchcock might have directed the first film, if we can believe the stories; but the producers (Saltzman was from Quebec, btw) probably thought he (and Grant) were too expensive.
Of course, if Hitchcock had done it, it would have been a "Hitchcock picture," not exactly what they had in mind, even if Hitchcock's North By Northwest, with Grant, is the obvious template for cinematic Bond, which would later steal a variation on the famous crop-dusting scene for FRWL.
Last edited:
Yes. That's what I'm saying. Downey was passable but Zellweger was bloody awful to my ears. I find there's often a certain level of discomfort and/or a level of resources diverted to maintaining an accent while also properly interpreting your lines. If you do it natively then you can focus entirely on the performance. I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying it will be likely be done better by someone who does it naturally. Why get an imitation instead of the real thing? Are you saying that there aren't any british actors fot for the role? Didn't you already in fact put forward a desirable British candidate?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm assuming. It's Bond. If you want to redefine the character you either do it within the confines of the Bond universe (which has happened several times already) or you go do something else that's perhaps Bond-like and develop a new character. I used the Ludlum books (Jason Bourne etc) as an example above. There's no reason why Bond can't be modern, but he should still be Bond. That's what we all signed up for.
Yes, he does. Again, he's Bond and that's part of the core identity. However, once again you can adapt new characters into multinational services with no problem. The Man from U.N.C.L.E. was actually conceived as being exactly that. You could reinterpret that in any way you like for the modern age, and use any character (or collection of characters) at all. There are better vehicles for doing this than Bond. As for McGoohan, I think he's awesome, but I preferred The Prisoner.
As for defecting to Control, I mean why not? I'd hubba hubba over for a little 99.
Last edited:
Cary Grant would be a dream Bond in almost every aspect, but he lost some of physical prowess relatively early in middle age, and you can see that in films like North by Northwest. If they had caught him early enough I don't think any of us would be questioning who was the best Bond, I think the decision would have been almost unanimous for him. Nobody else before or since has exuded charm and grace like Mr. Leach. I also completely agree with you about McGoohan ( I just finished commenting about him to EB before I read your post. lol). He's awesome, cool and intelligent, but he is more perfect Bond villain than perfect Bond because of that frowning intensity he has. I can totally see McGoohan as a Bond villain. Hitchcock would have been a poor choice to direct a Bond film, as much as I love Hitchcock films, because Hitchcock is a master at developing suspense and tension, and that's not the right tone for a Bond film, which is more about developing action (of course there are elements of both tension and action that cross over each way, but I'm referring to the predominant mood and tone.
Similar threads
