Ben Whishaw cast in Bond 23?
#1
Posted 19 August 2011 - 07:35 PM
http://www.comingsoo...ws.php?id=81220
Yet more speculation but confirmed casting decisions should no doubt start being announced shortly. Ben Whishaw is interesting though and can currently be seen on BBC television in 'The Hour' alongside Dominic West.
#2
Posted 19 August 2011 - 09:29 PM
And Fleming's Mary Ann Russell character, too, perhaps?
#3
Posted 19 August 2011 - 09:56 PM
#4
Posted 19 August 2011 - 10:47 PM
#5
Posted 20 August 2011 - 12:09 AM
Anybody else notice that one of the women is supposedly called "Severin", which is the same name as the villain from CARTE BLANCHE?
#6
Posted 20 August 2011 - 12:35 AM
#7
Posted 20 August 2011 - 01:14 PM
#8
Posted 20 August 2011 - 01:18 PM
#9
Posted 20 August 2011 - 01:35 PM
#10
Posted 20 August 2011 - 01:39 PM
#11
Posted 20 August 2011 - 02:53 PM
#12
Posted 20 August 2011 - 03:16 PM
#13
Posted 20 August 2011 - 03:32 PM
If this is true, then I approve. Mendes seems to have his heart set on making the best Bond film the franchise has ever seen, and appears to be putting just as much attention into casting as he is every other element of the film.
Possibly.
Then again, all this talent and Mendes could still end up producing an even more confused pile of e than QOS.
Remember, OHMSS, arguably the best Bond film of the lot, had a non-acting male model in the lead. But then, it was closely based upon an Ian Fleming novel, not the scribblings of some movie hacks and a would-be auteur director...
#14
Posted 20 August 2011 - 04:07 PM
If this is true, then I approve. Mendes seems to have his heart set on making the best Bond film the franchise has ever seen, and appears to be putting just as much attention into casting as he is every other element of the film.
Possibly.
Then again, all this talent and Mendes could still end up producing an even more confused pile of e than QOS.
Remember, OHMSS, arguably the best Bond film of the lot, had a non-acting male model in the lead. But then, it was closely based upon an Ian Fleming novel, not the scribblings of some movie hacks and a would-be auteur director...
Not much excited about a film written by Logan Purvis Wade and Directed by Sam Mendes?
#15
Posted 20 August 2011 - 04:14 PM
If this is true, then I approve. Mendes seems to have his heart set on making the best Bond film the franchise has ever seen, and appears to be putting just as much attention into casting as he is every other element of the film.
Possibly.
Then again, all this talent and Mendes could still end up producing an even more confused pile of e than QOS.
Remember, OHMSS, arguably the best Bond film of the lot, had a non-acting male model in the lead. But then, it was closely based upon an Ian Fleming novel, not the scribblings of some movie hacks and a would-be auteur director...
Not much excited about a film written by Logan Purvis Wade and Directed by Sam Mendes?
Always excited by any Bond film at this stage (with the possible exception of the 80s Rog films). At this stage there is huge potential. Often not achieved in the final product, unfortunately.
However, I remain to be convinced that simply loading a Bond film with "talent" guarantees a great Bond film. Understanding of Ian Fleming and James Bond is far more valuable than critically success packed CVs.
Remember the words of Cubby, or was it Harry: "Laurance Oliver could never play James Bond".
I think many Bond fans should remember that dictum when the next name in world cinema is mentioned in connection with Mendes' project.
#16
Posted 20 August 2011 - 04:23 PM
#17
Posted 20 August 2011 - 04:31 PM
Olivier as Bond? Truly, never thought of that. Probably for a reason.
It's a quote from EON's top two back in '68-'69 defending the casting of non-actor Lazenby, the theory, I guess, being than just because one is a great actor doesn't guarantee success as James Bond, Bond requiring a level of naturalness which Connery certainly had and, in Cubby and Harry's opinion (and mine) so did Lazenby.
Using that argument, I do not necessary see Mendes and Co hitting the ball out of the park. Consider, how many critcally acclaimed or even successful films outside of Bond did T. Young, G. Hamilton or P. Hunt make????
#18
Posted 20 August 2011 - 04:53 PM
#19
Posted 20 August 2011 - 05:02 PM
I suppose a lot depends on a solid and gripping storyline and in the early days they had Fleming and Maibaum for this. After the Fleming stories were plundered the outside influence had to grow and visuals had to make up for a lot of missing logic. Now it seems as if the engaging storylines don't find their way to Eon any more, or at any rate not the way they used to. This is what I hope for with Mendes's involvement, a feeling for a story that can carry a Bond film.
#20
Posted 20 August 2011 - 05:36 PM
Would like to know, if this is true, that due to the writers trike, they were not allowed to make significant changes, so that Forster could only do bits to enhance a script, thast was not entirely finished, when the strike began. Therefore they filled the gaps with action scenes. One in a German paper, that might be bs and here the other
DC talking:
-Yes, it (QoS) was overloaded with action. It because, we suffered from the writer's strike. Except from director MF and me nobody was allowed even to touch the script. And even we couldn't rewrite it, we could only make some minimal changes, and as a result the action scenes piled one on top of another...
Quote:
- Да, с трюками в этом фильме перебор. Все оттого, что мы страдали от забастовки сценаристов. Кроме режиссера Марка Форстера и меня, никому не было разрешено прикасаться к сценарию. Да и мы не могли его переписывать, только чуть-чуть что-то менять. В результате сцены побоищ нагромоздились одна на другую.
http://kuban.kp.ru/d...5738.3/2726611/
Edited by Germanlady, 20 August 2011 - 05:37 PM.
#21
Posted 20 August 2011 - 05:47 PM
But I believe Wilson went on record after CR with something like 'the next one will have twice the action' or something to the effect. I think it's possible the weak script made Forster put the emphasis much more on the action material than he may have planned at the start.
#22
Posted 20 August 2011 - 07:59 PM
I don't think that's the entire truth about QOS. But it might be part of the truth. Action scenes entail tremendous planning and logistics and not a little funds too. If you have gaps in a script it would make much more sense to fill material that doesn't come with such a price tag.
But I believe Wilson went on record after CR with something like 'the next one will have twice the action' or something to the effect. I think it's possible the weak script made Forster put the emphasis much more on the action material than he may have planned at the start.
You might be right, but the first time, Michael W. said above mentioned was at the press conference for QOS, when they gave us the title.
#23
Posted 20 August 2011 - 10:54 PM
If nothing else, Mendes can certainly bring together high-caliber acting talent.Ben Whishaw works for me. So far I'm not disliking any of the Bond 23 casting rumours.
Let's hope he knows how to use them, too. Forster needlessly squandered the talents of the cast of QUANTUM OF SOLACE.
#24
Posted 21 August 2011 - 01:01 AM
OHMSS was not "the best Bond of all". It was absolute rubbish. Everybody and everything was dragged down by the fact that George Lazenby was an atrocious actor and the film is filled with amateurish cuts and editing decisions. Peter Hunt should have known better.Remember, OHMSS, arguably the best Bond film of the lot, had a non-acting male model in the lead. But then, it was closely based upon an Ian Fleming novel, not the scribblings of some movie hacks and a would-be auteur director...
#25
Posted 21 August 2011 - 01:06 AM
#26
Posted 21 August 2011 - 01:32 AM
However, I remain to be convinced that simply loading a Bond film with "talent" guarantees a great Bond film.
Very true. THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH has perhaps the most prestigious cast of any Bond film before or since (with the exception of Denise Richards, although ironically she gives the least mannered, most engaging and unpretentious performance in the film!), but look how it turned out.
#27
Posted 21 August 2011 - 04:07 AM
Surely you jest, sir.
#28
Posted 21 August 2011 - 05:44 AM
#29
Posted 21 August 2011 - 08:31 AM
OHMSS was not "the best Bond of all". It was absolute rubbish. Everybody and everything was dragged down by the fact that George Lazenby was an atrocious actor and the film is filled with amateurish cuts and editing decisions. Peter Hunt should have known better.
Remember, OHMSS, arguably the best Bond film of the lot, had a non-acting male model in the lead. But then, it was closely based upon an Ian Fleming novel, not the scribblings of some movie hacks and a would-be auteur director...
OHMSS may not have been the "best Bond of all"...but it is certainly up there.
#30
Posted 21 August 2011 - 08:45 AM
EDIT: What the hell!? I lose reputation points simply because I don't like OHMSS? I only ever dock reputation from people who do or say something stupid, not because of their opinions of particular films.