42 replies to this topic

[YOLT]

I think for the sucess of next Bond continuity is needed. What I mean with continuity is atleast 5 films. This is not the Btaman that actor changes rapidly. We need a loyal Bond to atleast play in 5 movies. Or not even a decade later we will looking for a new Bond. If Owen going to be loyal to the sereis or Jackman than get them. But Owen is 40+ and Jackman is 35+ and they are big names. They can get bored and leave the series after 2 or 3 films which I think is not enogh. They might have other projects to delay the films one or even two years.
We need a loyal actor not big enough for Bond. His most important sucess in his career MUST be Bond. Otherwise the series might be in big trouble.

[SecretAgentFan]

I don

[Skudor]

[quote name='SecretAgentFan' date='10 June 2005 - 12:30']I don

[YOLT]

[quote name='SecretAgentFan' date='10 June 2005 - 11:30']I don

[Turn]

This is one of the things that has me concerned about the whole current state of where the series is going. Say they get a 25-26 year-old. Does that means he stays in the role and there is a 3-year gap in between each? If he stays for five films he will be roughly in his early 40s at the end of that gap.

The big question is what will they do after that? Do you keep getting younger guys and going forward? What if one doesn't work out? They seem to really want to skew to that younger crowd. Nobody was making such demands 10, 11 years ago when a 40-year-old Brosnan stepped in. Will the series have built enough new fans to continue at that point?

[Stephenson]

I think the actor should stick around for 3 films, possibly four, but IMO five is actually too many. For one thing, the idea of changing actors is now built into the franchise, so it isn't the same shock as it would be if they tried to change, say, Indiana Jones or the actors in the LotR movies. Bond is more of a "Batman" type character in that respect.

Where Bond doesn't change is in the formula. With Connery's first four films, everything was fresh and exciting. But, despite his legendary status in the role, we can still see how things began to get stale (and at times boring) by his fifth film. With Moore, there was an initial excitement over seeing the "next" Bond (as there is with each actor), but soon the producers were caught in that "let's make the next one bigger than the last" pattern which still exists today. Let's be honest: with the exception of OHMSS and LTK, there haven't really been a whole lot of orignal ideas in a Bond story. Every Bond story was pretty much already told in Connery's first four. We've really just been seeing variations on a theme for the last 35 odd years. The fact that we keep going back to watch, and that it can attract new viewers is a testament to what a cool theme it is .

So the formula is a double edged sword IMO: it is the stongest thing the franchise has going for it, allows the audience immediate access into Bond's world and (most importantly) is very attractive to people. But it can easily get stale, especially in today's market when Bond faces so much competition in the same genre. So how do you keep it fresh? Change the actor, so that "Bond's" responses to the same situations can vary and provide something original. After 4 films, that actor will have run the gamut, and there will be very little that is new in the plot for the actor to respond to (unless Eon decides to radically change the formula). Keep it to three movies per actor (four if he is really special), tweak things so we can get an edgier, more realistic "Bond world", focus on quality in the script and production, and this horse could run forever. Just my idea

[Mister Asterix]

While I agree with you for the most part, YOLT. I think the Bond series can survive a stumble, with regard to a short lived Bond, but probably not much more than that. Two such stumbles would cause a huge problem. And if you combine that with a poorly received film I think you would have a even bigger problem.

As it appears Eon in looking at younger actors, I think they need to wrap 007.6 up for at least five films. (Perhaps signed for three with their option on the next two.) Then it all hinges on them picking the right guy.

[Seannery]

Nowadays with 3 year intervals 3 films per Bond(and maybe more if all works out well) is more than sufficient. If they went back to every two years then 4 films per Bond would be fine.

[SeanValen00V]

4-5 films is fine if it's 2 year gaps.


But 3 year gaps, too long.

[Mister Asterix]

And these 4 year gaps are right out.

[cvheady007]

While I agree with you for the most part, YOLT. I think the Bond series can survive a stumble, with regard to a short lived Bond, but probably not much more than that. Two such stumbles would cause a huge problem. And if you combine that with a poorly received film I think you would have a even bigger problem.

I couldn't agree more - I think that, in theory, it is important to stick with the same 007 for around 10 years. In Connery and Moore's cases, it was around that timeframe and they just so happened to do several pictures. In Dalton's case, he was Bond for about 7-8 years and only did 2. Brosnan took the helm in 1995 and needs to do Casino before bowing out. Then, let's get another Bond (I have changed my selection from Connery and finally picked one: Connery's own selection of Ewan McGregor), and keep him around for 10 years or so.

Too many "stumbles" would spell the end for James Bond - not even he can escape that demise.

[YOLT]

I am very conservative in this issue. If you ask me I say keep the same man atleast for 10 movies. For example I really cant watch OHMSS without thinking "Is this guy Bond?" In a way its also the same for Dalton and EVEN Brosnan after 4 films. I need to warmup the actor in ATLEAST 3 films. If he finishes doing Bond after #3 how can I warmup with him:) ? Also I can really say Cleese is Q now. Maybe after 3 more movies. Nobody will remember Dalton's Monepenny or even Samantha Bond.
5 movies is Ok for me but my expectations are higher. I need to feel it, feel that this is the same old 007. I will be very sorry if 3 per actor Bond film period begins.
I think I am young enough to see (God knows) film no.50 (with 2 year gaps) with Bond#10 hope not with Bond#20.
If the Bond series is going to be like Batman I say kill Bond know or the theaters will kill him. Bond is different from Batman or Indıana Jones. Bond is a legend I say keep it so.

[cvheady007]

I think that is where I differ - it is more of a TIMEFRAME than a movie count for me. Dalton WAS James Bond from TLD until Pierce's press conference for Goldeneye. Brosnan is still Bond until someone else takes the mantle.

I don't think it is our job to watch a movie and say "Is this guy Bond?"; it is EON's job to cast him and the actor's job to convince us.

[Bondesque]

That is why someone like Butler would be a great choice:

Young enough to be Bond for many years

Is passionate about the role and would like being Bond

Would most likely enjoy doing a Bond film every 2 years.

[YOLT]

I think that is where I differ - it is more of a TIMEFRAME than a movie count for me.  Dalton WAS James Bond from TLD until Pierce's press conference for Goldeneye.  Brosnan is still Bond until someone else takes the mantle.

I don't think it is our job to watch a movie and say "Is this guy Bond?"; it is EON's job to cast him and the actor's job to convince us.

Timeframe doesnt make any sense. Then sign a actor he doesnt make any 007 movies and he is James Bond ha? No way! The films always counts. Not the time.

If I am a James Bond fan, or even a ordinary film goer I have the right to judge the actor playing Bond. Lazenby couldnt convince me that he was Bond only in a single movie and thats what I am saying.

[cvheady007]

I think timeframe makes a difference because I'm not about to discredit Dalton just because he did two films. Also, in watching OHMSS, I feel that Laz delivered a strong performance and it was a great story. I am not saying you are wrong for feeling as you do, just offering up why I have a differing opinion.

Sure, it would be nice if Sean Connery (for me personally - others would prefer someone else perhaps) played James Bond every time out, but it won't happen. I don't think that lack of continuity will break the franchise. It hasn't yet...but we haven't had a whole lot of continuity problems yet, either. It would help to have someone do at least 3 films, and YES - I would like to see that happen once Pierce is out.

[Mr. Somerset]

I think for the sucess of next Bond continuity is needed. What I mean with continuity is atleast 5 films. This is not the Btaman that actor changes rapidly. We need a loyal Bond to atleast play in 5 movies. Or not even a decade later we will looking for a new Bond. If Owen going to be loyal to the sereis or Jackman than get them. But Owen is 40+ and Jackman is 35+ and they are big names. They can get bored and leave the series after 2 or 3 films which I think is not enogh. They might have other projects to delay the films one or even two years.
We need a loyal actor not big enough for Bond. His most important sucess in his career MUST be Bond. Otherwise the series might be in big trouble.

I agree, YOLT. I some how have the feeling that if someone like Jackman or McMahon got it (Owen, too to some extent), they'd do 3 and leave. Certainly the longer gap between films plays a part in an actor doing fewer films, but yes, we need someone who'll stick around. I honestly think if Cubby were running the show we wouldn't be having these threads because PB would still be on board without question. Also there would never be this 20 year old Bond nonsense.
If Gruffudd got it, depending on Fant4's success, and the two year gap were brought back, he could easily do six or seven before the age of 45. Owen could do five before 50, and so on.

[Stephenson]

After five movies playing the same character any actor is going to get bored, not just Jackman or Owen; the character of Bond simply isn't that deep and to try and change that would turn Bond into something he is not, thereby messing with the formula. And when the actor gets bored, it shows on the screen, and the audience is going to get bored watching him.

Additionally, whatever Eon's hiring practices in the past, I think they are going to have a damn hard time in today's world signing any actor worthy of the role if they insist on "exclusivity clauses" and the like.

Lastly, IMO having Cubby around to bring Brosnan back would NOT be a good idea: I think the franchise is ready for some new blood and if waiting means we get the right guy in a good quality movie (fingers crossed! ) then I'll wait. I really don't want a Bond movie out just for the sake of having a Bond movie out, or because the producers have to conform to some ridiculous "2 year rule".

[Pussfeller]

I fail to see why it would be so awful to have a new Bond every three films or so. It would allow the character to go in lots of different directions, trying out different extremes (one actor could be funny, the next gritty, the next literary, et cetera). I'd rather have a succession of interesting, possibly controversial Bonds than a monolithic, monotonous Bond (like Brosnan) who lingers around for a long time making dull, homogenized action films.

Of course, the succession can't be too rapid, or practically every film would have to waste time on the introduction of a new actor. The reason people get excited about the announcement of a new Bond is because it doesn't happen very often. If it became a routine affair, it would lack gravity and suspense. But this only means that you can't have a continual recasting, with a new actor in virtually every film. If a new Bond actor were cast every eight years or three films (whichever comes first), I think things would work out splendidly. Everyone would have a chance to enjoy Bond. "If you don't like him now, just wait a few years."

Moreover, this rapid-succession method would discourage actors from forming a prima donna attitude. They wouldn't be around long enough to really become synonymous with the character. Hence, the character of Bond, not the actor playing him, would remain the focus.

Edited by Pussfeller, 10 June 2005 - 06:23 PM.

[Stephenson]

Good points Pussfeller. I would even add that that a three to four year wait between actors might not be such a bad idea. Give the public a chance to "cleanse their palette" and prepare for the new guy.

[trumanlodge89]

we bond fans have been spoiled. first of all, what other film series has 20 installments? secondly, we had a james bond do 6 films, and another fill the role for 7. thats 13 movies between 2 actors. a movie series like batman now has 5 films, and 4 different men have played him. (not to mention the almost 10 year gap or adam west)


brosnan made 4 bond movies in 7 years. after DAD he lost the role (we think). connery grew tired of bond right around thunderball/ YOLT (between his fourth and fifth). moore's fourth bond movie was moonraker. and we all know how i feel about moonraker.


so what im saying is this: maybe four films is the right amount for one actor to play bond. sure, moore bounced back and made 3 decent bond movies after MR, and sir sean made came back to do DAF (which again, is all right). i would rather have a bond who wants to play the part then someone doing it for the blockbuster and great paycheck.

[YOLT]

Well I think changing 007 too often is very risky. I say have the right 007 and let him do atleast 5. We are now in excitement because Most of us have never seen a Bond replaced by another or cant remember easily. But if this process becomes normal like choosing "another" Batman, the series will be harmed so deeply. People wont ask "who the NEW James Bond is" but will say "another James Bond is casted".
I think that being 007 is a long process. Lazenby, Dalton or even Brosnan might have been sucessful Bonds, but they are not equal to Connery and Moore. I argue that both Connery and Moore would have been less Bond without even one of their films.
James Bond films are different because you have to warm up the new actor. He must travel all round the world, have love with many girls, kill many enemies etc. You have to see him in very different missions and situations. What I really mean is I dont think that being 007 is just saying "Bond.James Bond" but he has to prove it.
And proving needs time cant happen in just 3 movies. Think Connery only made DR.No FRWL and GF and Moore only LALD TMWTGG and TSWLM. Will you still think they are the best. No I wont.

[Stephenson]

If the new actor can't establish himself in the first 10 minutes of his first film than he shouldn't have been cast in the part. No one is going to say, "well that wasn't toooo bad. Now let's see how he does in the next one."

Eon/MGM/Sony aren't thinking about the actor's legacy; they want him to put in the seats on the opening weekend. And the public comes to see the formula as much as the man. Eon's main concern is finding the actor that can fit into the formula, make it believable, has the qualities needed to stand up amongst his predecesors (mainly Brosnan now, although the ghost of Connery still haunts), and still bring something fresh and exciting to the part. Tough call, and their success won't be judged by movie #3, or even #2. It will be judged in those first ten minutes.

[tdalton]

I think that it's essential that each actor from here forward be able to do 5 Bond films, at least. If they don't, if each of them does 2 or 3, then there's going to be more time spent searching for a new 007 than there will be actual time spent on the sets of the films and less films that will ultimately be able to be made.

If there is a new actor every 2 or 3 films, then the search for a new 007 will become bigger than the films, which would ultimately lead to the casting of 007 to become like the casting of Batman, where the new flavor of the month is brought in and rides it out until he is no longer famous, and is then replaced. That's exactly what will happen if the new actors can't do more than 2 or 3 minimum films. Now, more than ever, an actor who can carry the franchise on his back for a while.

If you look at the last two Bonds, Dalton and Brosnan, combined, they didn't do as many films as Roger Moore did (Dalton and Brosnan combined did 6, Moore did 7). We need an actor who can do at least 5 on his own, if not more.

[Bon-san]

I think that it's essential that each actor from here forward be able to do 5 Bond films, at least.  If they don't, if each of them does 2 or 3, then there's going to be more time spent searching for a new 007 than there will be actual time spent on the sets of the films and less films that will ultimately be able to be made.

If there is a new actor every 2 or 3 films, then the search for a new 007 will become bigger than the films, which would ultimately lead to the casting of 007 to become like the casting of Batman, where the new flavor of the month is brought in and rides it out until he is no longer famous, and is then replaced.  That's exactly what will happen if the new actors can't do more than 2 or 3 minimum films.  Now, more than ever, an actor who can carry the franchise on his back for a while. 

If you look at the last two Bonds, Dalton and Brosnan, combined, they didn't do as many films as Roger Moore did (Dalton and Brosnan combined did 6, Moore did 7).  We need an actor who can do at least 5 on his own, if not more.

I wouldn't think we could say what we "need" with any certainty. Circumstances will dictate. If the movies come out every 3 or 4 years, then asking for 5 from an actor may be a bit much. Or if an actor ends up sucking in the role, then move him on and get a better one.

They'll likely sign him to a 3-picture deal with options (Eon's) for 1 or 2 more. So I'd say 3 films is a good starting point.

[YOLT]

I think that it's essential that each actor from here forward be able to do 5 Bond films, at least.  If they don't, if each of them does 2 or 3, then there's going to be more time spent searching for a new 007 than there will be actual time spent on the sets of the films and less films that will ultimately be able to be made.

If there is a new actor every 2 or 3 films, then the search for a new 007 will become bigger than the films, which would ultimately lead to the casting of 007 to become like the casting of Batman, where the new flavor of the month is brought in and rides it out until he is no longer famous, and is then replaced.  That's exactly what will happen if the new actors can't do more than 2 or 3 minimum films.  Now, more than ever, an actor who can carry the franchise on his back for a while. 

If you look at the last two Bonds, Dalton and Brosnan, combined, they didn't do as many films as Roger Moore did (Dalton and Brosnan combined did 6, Moore di3d 7).  We need an actor who can do at least 5 on his own, if not more.

I totally agree tdalton. 3 films for each actor will kill the series IMO.
And Stephenson I am not supporting a failed actor unsucessful actor. What I say is choose the right man and dont change it for atleast 5 films. Why say goodbye to a sucessful 007 and look for a new one and take risk. Thats not a clever move I think.
I cant really judge an actor just in 10mins. Sure its important but its not enough. He has to prove many things being Bond is not that easy in my book. And if he really is Bond than why let him go after 3 films?

[David Schofield]

The short term future of Bond will involve Clive Owen doing two films - possibly three at the very most, though I'd wager two.

Bond is sufficiently popular and creative at this time to lure someone of Owen's status but Owen's very career, the restrictive nature of the Bond filsm and the time between them now, will mean he goes quite early. The days of an actor tying himself to Bond long-term - largely because he has nothing else on offer - has gone for the time being. It may return but not for now. I can see Owen occupying the role till 2010, making films that are both popular and well recieved critically and moving on, leaving Bond even more presitigious than it is now. Then Jackman could easily follow.

Bond doesn't need a long term actor, either. A new man every couple of films drives the publicity machine and brings a new angle (and image) to the portrayal of Bond. It keeps the franchise fresh. IMO, there is little doubt that after 7 films, Bond was stale with Roger (three films too many): with Brozza now the time is right for a new angle, a new interpretation.

Bond must continue to evolve to develop. Two fresh movies from actors in love with the role is better than some limited actor tying himself to a part he gets increasingly bored with just for the publicity and the pension.

[YOLT]

The short term future of Bond will involve Clive Owen doing two films - possibly three at the very most, though I'd wager two.

Bond is sufficiently popular and creative at this time to lure someone of Owen's status but Owen's very career, the restrictive nature of the Bond filsm and the time between them now, will mean he goes quite early. The days of an actor tying himself to Bond long-term - largely because he has nothing else on offer - has gone for the time being. It may return but not for now. I can see Owen occupying the role till 2010, making films that are both popular and well recieved critically and moving on, leaving Bond even more presitigious than it is now. Then Jackman could easily follow.

Bond doesn't need a long term actor, either. A new man every couple of films drives the publicity machine and brings a new angle (and image) to the portrayal of Bond. It keeps the franchise fresh. IMO, there is little doubt that after 7 films, Bond was stale with Roger (three films too many): with Brozza now the time is right for a new angle, a new interpretation.

Bond must continue to evolve to develop. Two fresh movies from actors in love with the role is better than some limited actor tying himself to a part he gets increasingly bored with just for the publicity and the pension.

What about after Owen or Jackman what will happen when they leave? I insist on saying that continuity of the actors is very important. I agree that change is a must but with 3 films and having the change will kill the series. Let it be small but let it continue. NONE of the previous actors were BIG from the name 007 when they started doing James Bond films. But Owen and Jackman are big enough and this can hurt the series so deep.
None of the previous actors were in the scale of Owen and Jackman when they started doing 007. Moore and Brosnan were a little known but not in the way like Owen or Jackman. Also DAD costed 140m$ which is very high I think. Will Owen and Jackman accept to appear in a 007 movie cost 100m$. They will want big names and more money. Also they will have lots of other projects which can shadow Bond.
I say have a loyal and a lesser known actor for 007 like Davenport

[MarJil]

I think there should be a maximum of 4 films for each actor. There has only been one really good Bond film made with an actor who has been in the role for more than 4 films (FYEO). I'm not sure if the actor gets bored in the role or if the production team starts to lean too much on the lead actor's presence and they get lazy, but for some reason the act gets stale.

[trumanlodge89]

dalton only did 2 films, and he is recognized as bond. nobody says "tim dalton, you were great in the beautician and the beast!!" he is remembered for bond.

brosnan has had a more successful outside of bond career, but people dont immediatly think of stu from mrs doubtfire or thomas crowne when pierce brosnan's name comes up. hell, people still call him "007." roger moore is the same way.


connery is a different story. for starters, he looks so much different now than he did when he did the bond films. secondly, he has made other blockbusters and is recognized for being james bond, indiana jone's father, the scottish/russian from that jack ryan movie..... the list is endless. sure, many people think of him as james bond, but really, connery is connery now.


so do we want someone who will be james bond for 10 or 15 years and be only james bond for the rest of his life, or are we creating a superstar here? i would like more of the moore type model. (*cough* clive owen *cough*)