RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Media James Bond: Casting Call - How would you make the movie?

I finally saw Die Another Day. The movie started out so strong, but then, after about half an hour, maybe a little more, it fell apart. Fast. There are so many things that went wrong with this film, and I have no intention of listing them. Instead, I would like to put together on paper, or in this case, type in a forum, what I think would be a good Bond film.

First, some background. I have been watching Bond films since I was four, maye five. My father loved Bond films, and he passed that on to me. I have seen every film numerous times. Of all of the films, there are only a few that stand out. The first is Goldfinger. This is the film that all the other Bond flicks have never measured up to. It is a masterpiece. This movie shows why Sean Connery will forever be James Bond. He had just the right mix of immaturity and charm. Sure, there are things in the movie that are very outdated, like Pussy Galore melting in Bonds arms, after being presented as such a strong women, but I guess that goes with the decade the movie was made in. I still think they should have called her Kitty. Anyway, and this is in chronological order, Live and Let Die is another great one. The villain was never a fair match for Bond, and the brilliance here is that it seems like Roger Moore knew it, and he played Bond like he knew it. Everyone's performance was great, and the boat chase is one of the best chase scenes in any of the Bond films. The only down side is that Q never makes an appearance. Still, as fun as Q vs. Bond was in this era, the rest of the movies were loaded with rediculous gadgets. It seems like the Bind films were written for the gadgets. Moving on, both of Timothy Dalton's films, The Living Daylights and Liscense to Kill, were great. The first may have had the best plot in a bond movie that was executed properly. It also featured my favorite car and chase scene. The second, although I don't like the way they wrote Phelix Lighter out, I loved watching James Bond work over the villain in his quest for vengence. Dalton didn't have Connery's charm, but he had his serious approach to the role and the life of the spy. He was lacking in the immaturity as well, but Moore overplayed it, so it was a nice break. I wish he would have done one more film. Now we get to Pierce Brosnan. This guy was born for the role, unfortunately, his films have not been very strong. Like the others, he has made Bond his own, but he most closely resembles Sean Connery's take on the character. Of his films, Goldeneye, although a bit fast, and the scene on the beach made absolutely no sense, was very good. Tomorrow Never Dies was paced very well, but the way they threw in the car chase...and they way over did the electronic gadgets. Also, the story was a bit week, and I was disapointed in Terry Hatcher's performance. Finally, my favorite of Brosnan's films, The World Is Not Enough. The only thing that hurts this film is the poor casting of Dr. Jones. Well, the name sucks too. They went for hot little spunky American sex pot. What they needed was thrity-something sufisticated able to pull of the role beauty. I don't let that ruin the movie for me, but I will forever think about "what if the right person was cast?" The real problem with the modern Bond is that he can't have a conversation with any woman without numerous, and not very intelligent, sexaul quips.

So, what would I do if I was in charge? The first thing is to put someone different at the helm. Since I just saw what may be the best film I will ever see, or, at the least, stay near the top of my list, I would have Quenton Terentino write and direct the film. He just has a way of telling a story, and I think Bond needs some new life.

Now, for the cast:

James Bond: Adrian Paul - This would be a more character oriented film, and I think Adrian Paul has the ability to exhibit just the right mix of charm, immaturity, and, well, that suave attitude that is James Bond.

Q: John Cleese - He has some big shoes to fill, and he was the highlight of Die Another Day

M: Here, I am torn. Either Sean Connery or Roger Moore. I would have the other play an informant Bond needs to meet with. The informant would maybe be a crime boss, or a former deep cover agent, or something like that. He would, of course, die at the right moment. Sure it's predictable, but it works when it's done right.

Bond Girl #1: Jennifer Garner - Maybe she would be a rogue American agent out for revenge. I think she would be killed in the big fight.

Bond Girl #2: Uma Thurman - If I want Terentino to do the film, then his girl should be the one to end up with Bond. There would have to be a scene where she and Bond have a duel with Samurai swords. That would be a lot of fun. And she should have a past with-

American Villain: John Travolta - He plays a great bad guy. 'Nough said.

British Villain: Timothy Dalton - May as well include the serious Dalton as a villain, and a partner to Travolta. One of them would go over the edge before the final showdown and kill the other. I just don't know which one. Sure, Travolta plays a good psycho, but Dalton could sell the scene too, and it wouldn't be as predictable.

CIA Counterpart: Samuel L. Jackson - Damn man, he needs to be in the film. I could easily imagine him as a great opposite to the serious Bond. I could also see him lighting up a smoke to cellebrate the victory, or something like that. He would help to balance the mood.

So, yeah, that's a lot of big names to cast, and a not so big name Bond, but I think it would work. Terentino's people already have a great chemistry, and I think the former Bonds would fit right in to these roles. The question mark goes on Garner. Can she be taken seriously, or would she be another Jinx? It scares me to think that my idea so closely resembles that movie, but then, that movie could have worked, if it wasn't written around the gadgets, and instead written around the characters. That, and a recasting of Jinx. Halle Berry did not sell that role.

This movie would be long, maybe told over two films. There are a lot of characters who need proper screen time, and a good spy story needs time to develop. Plus, there needs to be room for certain Bond elements, like a car chase. This time, I would want Bond to do the chasing. Later, maybe he can be chased, depending on how long the movie is. A car chase has to fit naturally into the story, a point the people in charge choose to ignore. And I would tone down the car. I mean, there needs to be room for an engine in there. Also, it needs to be more practical. It definately should have the rotating the liscense plates, but no invisibilty cloak. Maybe some sort of projectile that would shoot out of the wheel axel to pop another car's tire. And the weapons should make sense. There is no way they can fit in the roof. Missiles behind the headlights makes sence. And the ejector seat is cool, but how about the driver seat as well? With built in parachutes, or maybe collapsable hang gluiders? I don't know if that would work, but that would be a great way for Bond and one of the girls to escape the car before it crashes, or goes over a cliff.

And then there is the standard Q scene. We all love it. Bond gets his assignment, and he checks with Q to get his equipment. Stuff hapens in the background, they trade quips, and they go through everything. Alias figured out how to mix it up. That's what they need to do for Bond. He get's his assignment, and goes to Q. We see some wired stuff in the background. They trade a couple of quips. Q says something, followed by: "Now pay attention, 007." And then cut the scene to Bond on the mission. Then, like Alias, as Bond uses his quipment, flash back to Q's explantions, mixed with the usual Bond remarks, of course. This would also make the car chase seem a bit longer, although, maybe Q should introduce the car right off the bat, and then save the rest of the stuff for later. Notice, this way we get more Q during the movie. But, I think the gadgets have gotten to high tech. Maybe this is the way it has to be, but maybe the effects guys are just getting carried away. Classic gadgets, like the dart gun from Moonraker, or the belt from Goldeneye, are some of the best. And while the watch has become a staple, it's old. Yeah, it has a laser, and it can be used as a detonator, but we've seen this so many times. Bond needs a new watch.

All that, and Bond needs to be able to have a conversation with a woman without a million sexual innuendoes. I mean, a real conversation, relevant to the plot. And when there are innuendoes, they need to be intelligent, something that most people may not get right away.

Anyway, that's all I have to say on this. For now. I don't know, maybe my idea sucks. But there it is.

Anyone else want to give it a go? Try to be detailed. And it would help if you mention what your favorite elements of Bond are, along with the stuff you want to change, if any.

The first thing you have to do is set it in the 1960s. Bond really only works in the 1960s, what with the cold war, etc.

As far as who should play James Bond: Clive Owen ("the Croupier," "Gosford Park") or, if he can act, Robbie Williams (the guy who looked a lot like a young Sean Connery in the "Millenium" video).

I'd like to see them re-start the movies, this time following the books more closely. Bond in the Ian Fleming novels is a cold-blooded professional, not given to silly one-liners or being able to be the best at everything he's challenged to (fencing, video games, etc).

I'd also like to see the Bond movies take place during the times they were written - the 1950s and 1960s. Maybe they should even go for an R rating, going for realism instead of spectacle. Spectacle is fun, but basically ever since "Thunderball," they've practically re-made the same movie over and over again (with very few exceptions), and it's getting tedious.

As for cast...Brosnan could easily do a Bond more in tune with the novels - he's versatile enough for it. Timothy Dalton certainly came the closest for accuracy when it came to the Bond of the novels. But Clive Owen wouldn't be a bad choice either.

While they definately need to strive for realism, I don't know that it's possible to do Bond just like the novels. That may be too real, and too serious. There is no doubt that the current formula doesn't work, but I think that's because we can only suspend belief so much. Still, to reboot Bond, and tell the stories in the 60's, that would be a good way to go. I was thinking more in tune with keeping him current, but taking him back makes sense too. However, should the movies resemble the books? I'm not so sure. On Her Majesty's Secret Service was almost exactly like the book, but the book wasn't that good to begin with. My friend read From Russia With Love, and I think he said that the movie was also close, but I still can't stay awake for that one. Goldfinger added elements that are necessary for a movie to attract a main stream audience. The car worked. The homing beacon worked. Everything worked. And Bond and Q really clicked. And nothing was over done. It had just the right mix of that serious tone, because Bond is a cold blooded killer, and that immature nature that allows Bond to stay sane. Even in the most dire of circumstances he still wants to take a time out with the girl. That's James Bond.

I'd like to see a two or three parter. We all know there's always gonna be a movie. Do they have to be able to stand on their own? Why not make a story that lasts a couple movies? I like how in Die Another Day Bond was on the run. Let's take that a step further. In two of the past four movies there's been a rogue British Secret Service agent. Why is that? There's potential for a good story there.

Actually, I'd like to see SPECTRE make a comeback, or maybe create another criminal consortium.

I've heard quite a few people pan Timothy Dalton's Bond, but I quite enjoyed his movies. Especially The Living Daylights.

And you forgot George Lazenby. He'd probably make a good villain these days.

I'm glad Pierce Brosnon is doing another Bond. But by all accounts Bond#21 will be his last.

Hugh Jackman was mentioned as a possible Bond, and I really think he would be perfect for the role. Though he's probably rather busy with X-Men, The Boy from Oz, Van Helsing (sequals???), etc.

I'm happy with Dame Judi Dench as M. And Samantha Bond as Moneypenny.

However, I personally think Sylvester McCoy would have made a quirky Q.

Main thing would be to get rid of the Americanisation thats crept in over the last few films!
Bond is a very "British" institution but starts to lose its way with too many American actors!

Great villains would be Alan Rickman & Jeremy Irons (they did great jobs in the Die Hard Movies).
Brosnan is fine as Bond,I see no reason to change that!

Not a fan of Dench as M,I'd go back to a stuffy older guy like Bernard Lee used to play it.
Theres plenty of Brit actors who could do that!

Cleese can stick with the part of Q.

No more German or Russian villains ever!

A potential idea I've always thought might work is to have him have to team up with a mercenary who used to be a double 0 agent but quit.
But to make things more interesting the guy would be working class,the total opposite of Bonds upper class background!

Also up the rating of the film!

I read that somewhere. It's why Terentino came to mind. Not only would he be perfect, he wants to do it.

As for changing the actor, Brosnan is great, but he is getting older. I think he maybe has one or two more films left. But not if they are the same nonsense that the studio has been spitting out.

Please no,I do not want someone like Tarantino doing it.
The Bond films need to retain their "Britishness",its one of the few things that keep it seperated from the generic Hollywood action movies!

The more Hollywood these movies become,the less Bond they become!

Have you seen Die Another Day? Asside from following the"Bond" formula, which has become a joke all its own, the franchise has become the "Hollywood action film" of today.

It needs new life, and a new direction. Not more of the same that brought it to this.

First half of Die Another Day kicked ass. Then it went downhill.

My three favorite movies are probably From Russian with Love, Goldfinger, and Goldeneye, in no particular order.

I felt like Goldeneye allowed a post-Cold War Bond to exist. There was a perfect formula of three villians -- one an ex-Soviet fighter pilot, another was the head of the Space Division turned-traitor, and finally 006 showing his true nature as leader of a crime syndicate. Basically, three backstabbing traitors. All three had connections to the USSR. But they were still bad guys even with the end of communism in Russia. 006 was one of the perfect Bond villians (yes, the fact that Sean Bean plays him might result in a sort of bias for me...). Some of those scenes where he predicts Bonds moves...downright creepy.

"Oh, please, James, put it away. It's insulting to think I haven't anticipated your every move."

"Take a seat, my dear. You know, James and I shared everything. Absolutely everything... to the victor go the spoils."

Basically, if Bond is going to work this century, they need to address the problems they are having now the way they did in Goldeneye. I think one of the reasons Dench is a great M is because she acts as a chorus for the audience.

"Good, because I think you're a sexist, misogynist dinosaur. A relic of the Cold War, who's boyish charms, though wasted on me, obviously appealed to the young lady I sent out to evaluate you."

Bond has to prove to both M and the audience he is still useful.

I do think the last few movies have been too Americanized. I had seen Judi Dench, Sean Bean, and several other of the British actors only because I had seen some of the British work (Dench was in the TV show 'As Time Goes By'...anyone here seen Bean as Richard Sharpe?). Now we have Halle Berry and Madonna? Oh dear.

1. Allow Bond to be relevant to the 21st century. This means looking at what problems the UK is facing (I thought the use of the Korens as the enemy was too American). And do this without being political, please.

2. Go back to hiring non-Americans. Looking back, some of the most memorable Bond girls were Ursala Andress and Honor Blackman.

3. Villians. Why hasn't Alan Rickman or Jeremy Irons played one yet? Again, find relevant enemies for Bond, but they don't have to be predicable. Look at 006. Yes, he's Russian and he's an ex-spy, but they put a twist that the audience didn't expect. His parents and their friends were Russians that betrayed Stalin to work for the Nazis. When they tried defecting to the British, they were sent back to Stalin, who had them killed. The British then allowed one of the children to work for MI6. No wonder the man turned traitor. Complicated? Yes. Both worth it? I think so. I think everyone in the audience was glad to see the satalite crush that two-faced spy. And as much as the audience didn't like 006, but making him one of Bond's friends, he was a worthy opponent for 007.

I agree with Jackie. Relevance is always good.

Die Another Day has my favorite set-up for a Bond movie ever. The infallable secret agent is captured and comes out of captivity to find a world he's unfamiliar with. Unfortunately, the movie doesn't do anything with it and chooses to degrade into shit once Halle Berry appears and it becomes a bad double-entendre fest. Oh, yeah, and the status quo is restored at the end, isn't it? Probably. Fucking movie.

Invisible car (sigh) aside, I was enjoying the last one till the bloody satelite came into view. there was a little actual spying going on for a while.

My own favourite is from Russia with love (although it was live and let die in my youth) and I'd really like them to try and get that feel back.

I'd like a Bond film where there was a serious threat but it all carried on in way such that believably the public at large would have no idea.

I'd like TArantino to get his way because it would almost certainly be big box office and could kick start a new direction for the franchise. One that isn't reliably crap.

My only qualm would be too Tarantino and not enough Bond. He'd have to tone down the language and violence (it is a family friendly franchise after all).

period set would be the best way to do it.

from ign.com:

May 19, 2004 - According to The World Entertainment News Network, Eon Productions and actor Pierce Brosnan have resolved their differences and will reunite for the next James Bond film. This would end all the rumors about Heath Ledger, Hugh Jackman, Eric Bana, Clive Owen, Jude Law or Ewan McGregor assuming the mantle of 007.


According to WENN (via the IMDb), "insiders say Pierce – who had publicly slammed the Broccoli's [the Bond producers] for delaying the project – is still their number one choice for Bond. A source says Barbara Broccoli told employees she had forgiven Brosnan's recent outbursts, as they didn't compare to the friction between her father Cubby and original Bond Sean Connery. Broccoli reportedly said, 'If you knew what my father went through with Sean Connery, that's nothing.'"

The untitled 21st Bond flick is slated to begin production sometime early next year for a late 2005 release. Die Another Day writers Neal Purvis & Robert Wade have returned to script this installment.

I think the last movie was too special effects heavy. It had no "feel" to it. I stopped watching it after about two hours. I just didn't care anymore. It probably had to do with my hatred of Hally Berry. I can only stand so many almost endings.

I agree. Die Another Day was too CG.

Bond movie gizmos in past films, did what they were supposed too.

For the record, my fav Bond films:

Sean Connery - You Only Live Twice
George Lazenby - OHMSS (not a lot of choice there)
Roger Moore - The Spy who Loved Me
Timothy Dalton - The Living Daylights
Pierce Brosnon - Goldeneye

I concur.

Really, where are the people who wrote Goldeneye? They need to come and save Bond's ass...er...'arse'.

Jeremy Irons is sooo made for being a Bond villain.

Love to see Viggo Mortensen take a turn as well.

Right...now that actors for villians are mentioned...who are these villians? Bond's had a lot of them. Some are terrorist, some are villian masterminds...who should Bond be fighting in the 21st century? SPECTRE was a relic of the Cold War. I mean, technically, the Russians are our friends now. Makes it pretty darn hard to do something like From Russian with Love.

And Red Dwarf!

No more rich businessmen. Terrorists are OK, but not very original or thought provoking. Warlords- meh. How about a politician out to betray his/her county, prhaps by attempting a coup? I'd like to see something like that. Yeah, it's been done, but not in Bond. Bond is a great spy, but he never does any real spying anymore. If he went up against a high ranking official from his own goevernment, someone who saw him coming, or at least, thought he saw him coming, that could make for a good story.

What about Cubans? Couldn't Cubans be villains?