388 replies to this topic

[Athena007]

From CBn's Main Page...

Sources: Eon, Sony Considering Young Bonds

Some candidates for Bond #6 are in their early 20s

[Bon-san]

Wow. I wouldn't have thought they were looking at guys that young. No matter how you slice it, I would really prefer Bond not be played by a 22 year old. Root root root for the older guys!

[Righty007]

Wow.

[tdalton]

Worst news we've had in a while.

[Agent Provocateur]

Why do I get a bad feeling about this?

[tdalton]

Why do I get a bad feeling about this?

Because nothing good can come of this.

[doublenoughtspy]

22 is pretty surprising. If they did go with that candidate and he lasted a long time - can you imagine 30 years of the same Bond actor?

The military point is a very good one - for a US Army equivalent - that would be LT Colonel. No 22 year olds at that rank!

I am all for it though - we haven't had someone in their 20s play Bond since 1969 - if it's time for a reboot - go all the way.

[Roger Moore's Bad Facelift]

Zencat had it right (paraphrasing here), Bond is supposed to be the man we all wish we were.
The cool, seasoned pro, not the verdant, wet-behind-the-ears, newbie.
Not to be negative, but this [censored]ing sucks

[Bon-san]

Ah, it's just hit me. Perhaps they're fishing about for a youngster to play the "young man who matures into the hardened agent" that Campbell spoke of. Presumably, he would only be used in the early parts of the film. Which, if true, means they could use Bros or any of the other "candidates" for the balance of the film.

If they're going to use Dench, and bring in a new actor to play the mature 007, it just seems a bit "not right". When they segued from Lee to Brown as M, there was no mention of it being a different character. But Dench's M was introduced as a new character. So having a non-Brosnan Bond take orders from Dench, especially after an earlier sequence with "young Bond", is really messing with the continuity. I'm no continuity freak at all, but it just seems funky if they go that route.

Of course, this is all speculation.

[Loomis]

I am all for it though - we haven't had someone in their 20s play Bond since 1969 - if it's time for a reboot - go all the way.

Absolutely. No half-measures, please.

[The Silver Beast]

I'm not going to panic...yet. The article only says they are considering some younger actors. I'm sure they're looking at all ages. And considering Cubby wanted Dalton at 26 (presumably for DAF) and then wound up with Connery should give us Pierce fans some hope.

And isn't it also possible that this movie is designed for a young Bond and some of these actors might be pretty good?

My question is, if they go with a 20something James, will they stay with him? Or will "Bond Begins" be a one-shot experimental movie? I guess box office will be the final judge of that.

[spynovelfan]

Yeah. Not sure why I'm so surprised, considering Zencat's (in hindsight) rather obviously loaded question about this recently, but still. Twenty-something unknowns? One as young as 22? I'm amazed they'd even consider that idea. Or perhaps they've been reading CBn, and came across this thread.

I think there probably are a few unknown twenty-somethings who could do it - but does the audience really want this kind of messing around with Bond? Batman has been taken in several directions and people were tired of it - the audience might not have been crying out for an origin story, but the director and the cast alone have gotten people excited about that, Bale's in his thirties, that franchise has to do something totally different or sink, and, well, Batman is actually at heart an origin story. Spiderman worked - but again, Peter Parker was always a nerdy young guy who morphed into a superhero. Kudos to them for keeping to that - it was a brave thing to do, and they pulled it off. Superman - the franchise hasn't been around for years, and it seems to be riding piggyback on Spidey's success. But 007 is a different kettle of invisible cars altogether - I don't think people *want* to see the Bond films radically change. One of the great things about them is that they basically stay the same. In the same way as pretty much every Marvin Gaye song from the mid-60s sounds like a variation of the same theme, or every Kaurismaki film seems like you've seen it before, part of the pleasure and comfort of watching a Bond film is that it's a Bond film like any other. You know what to expect. It's a formula, as Umberto Eco once elegantly showed, and the enjoyment comes from seeing the formula applied in a slightly different way. We known 007 will get the girl. We know the bomb won't go off, and that Bond will defuse it at the seventh-last second. My concern would be that something like this would simply be too out of whack for the series, as OHMSS was, I suppose. Just as people scratched their heads then and said: Bond gets married? Then she dies? This is meant to be a *serious* Bond film - whatever that is... people may well say with this: Bond is a kid? Why do I care that he's an orphan - was this in the books, or is it just a Batman rip-off? This is meant to be a *serious* Bond film - whatever that is.

I just think it might be a little too off-putting.

[DLibrasnow]

This is excellent news. I love the idea of having a younger 007...

This would seem to suggest that Campbells earlier comments were correct.

Fantastic news.

[Athena007]

Not to be negative, but this [censored]ing sucks 

I think that's what many are feeling.

Though at the same time I'm interested to see a 22 year old convince me that he's James Bond... is that possible? Part of me wants to know.

[Atticus17F]

As long as the entire film isn't about a twenty-year-old Bond, I'm okay with it.

[Bondian]

This news has got a Sony Playstation 2 scenario written all over it.

Bond at 22?. "Phew Yuk!".

[Qwerty]

God.

[Athena007]

Ah, it's just hit me.  Perhaps they're fishing about for a youngster to play the "young man who matures into the hardened agent" that Campbell spoke of.  Presumably, he would only be used in the early parts of the film.  Which, if true, means they could use Bros or any of the other "candidates" for the balance of the film.

As long as the entire film isn't about a twenty-year-old Bond, I'm okay with it.

I really don't see them making a film staring "two" Bond's though (the younger & the older). "John Doe AND John Smith ARE James Bond" ... That's almost Casino Royale the Comedy. Even though they're shaking up the series by looking for a younger Bond I doubt they'd ruin the dynamic of one Bond -- in chronological younger to older scenes or in flashback scenes.

[tdalton]

Just think, Bond 21 starring a 21 year old Bond. Ironic, isn't it?

[Loomis]

So I guess this is a full-on origin story reboot, a la THE SUM OF ALL FEARS.

But if it's okay for IFP to give us "Young Bond", why shouldn't Eon do likewise?

[DLibrasnow]

I think this is the most welcome piece of news in the last two decades of 007.

[spynovelfan]

Though at the same time I'm interested to see a 22 year old convince me that he's James Bond... is that possible? Part of me wants to know.

If they *do* go down this route, the guy is not just going to have to be able to convince as Bond - he's going to have to have a very strong character not to get completely messed up by the experience. Imagine if you're just out of drama school and get given this part. Go to your head, much? Pressure, much? Most reasonable people would probably melt down after one film.

[tdalton]

Why do I get the sinking feeling that we're going to see Orlando Bloom as James Bond? Followed by Hilary Duff as Vesper Lynd and Jake Lloyd as Le Chiffre?

[Bon-san]

Ah, it's just hit me.  Perhaps they're fishing about for a youngster to play the "young man who matures into the hardened agent" that Campbell spoke of.  Presumably, he would only be used in the early parts of the film.  Which, if true, means they could use Bros or any of the other "candidates" for the balance of the film.

I really don't see them making a film staring "two" Bond's though (the younger & the older). "John Doe AND John Smith ARE James Bond" ...

I'm sure you have a better grasp of the possibilities than I. I'm just barking into the wind!

[Genrewriter]

I wouldn't mind seeing a younger Bond in the pre title sequence but as for the entire movie...I'm not particularly enthused with the idea. Still, it's a little too early to judge.

[trumanlodge89]

i see "indiana jones and the last crusade" written all over this one. young indiana jones was starting to get popular when that film came out, so natuarally they incorporated that into the film, and it turned out to be a very cool opening sequence. could the same happen for bond? of course, the young bond books are about a much younger bond than 22, but it would still be a cool tie in. and casino royale IS one of his first missions as a double-oh, and MGW already said that the film would expand on the book. there are a lot of things that could happen here. im optimistic, cautious and excited at the same time.

Edited by trumanlodge89, 24 May 2005 - 08:40 PM.

[Bon-san]

If they *do* go down this route, the guy is not just going to have to be able to convince as Bond - he's going to have to have a very strong character not to get completely messed up by the experience. Imagine if you're just out of drama school and get given this part. Go to your head, much? Pressure, much? Most reasonable people would probably melt down after one film.

Lazenby redux? Hey, if it were to mean something on par with OHMSS, I'd just about be willing to risk the rest of the series on that!

Oh, I sound like Loomis.

[Loomis]

No way will they rip off INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE. They'd have more class than that. Wouldn't they?

[Athena007]

I wouldn't mind seeing a younger Bond in the pre title sequence but as for the entire movie...

You know... *ponder* ...speaking of 2 Bond's being in the same movie, that could actually work. Don't go giving Eon any ideas now, G.

[spynovelfan]

I really don't see them making a film staring "two" Bond's though (the younger & the older). "John Doe AND John Smith ARE James Bond" ... That's almost Casino Royale the Comedy. Even though they're shaking up the series by looking for a younger Bond I doubt they'd ruin the dynamic of  one Bond -- in chronological younger to older scenes or in flashback scenes.

I think they might well be planning to do it, Athena. It's taking Martin Campbell's "young man who matures into the hardened agent" comment rather literally, agreed - but I think Campbell's quite capable of being that literal himself. And it might make sense as to why they're looking at young unknowns. Say, for a moment, that James Purefoy has signed as Bond. They want an early scene with a younger version of him - so they're looking for someone in his twenties who could convince as a younger Purefoy.

Although why they would bother with the two Bond thing is a problem, seeing how we already know what the hardened agent is like. The most likely thing does seem to be that the entire film is a flashback. With Dench as M. Hmmm...