Idris Elba strongly considered to be next James Bond by producers

[Zero Hunter]

I am of the same mind as some others in they should keep to a younger actors like Henry Cavil or Tom Hiddleston. Guys in their mid 30's just work better in my mind.

[AJBopp]

Henry Cavill in the role is the only casting choice that comes to mind that would immediately cause me to take a pass on the movies in the history of the franchise. There are enough people who have far more knowledge of such things than I who claim Cavill is a talented actor who brings charisma and charm to the screen, so I believe it must just be me. But I've never felt such qualities from him.

I personally like the idea of 2 or 3 Bond movies in which the point of the plot is how an aging agent approaches his job, his patriotism, and the inevitable end of his career, through one means or another.

[ChrisIII]

I think Skyfall dealt with that a bit. Never Say Never Again also dealt a bit with Connery's aging, with him appearing to retire at the end. (Weird thing is, Connery almost looks younger in NSNA than DAF, probably because Connery seems a bit out of shape in the latter)


The later Moore films seemed to mostly ignore the aging, although it wasn't as noticeable in Octopussy since Maud Adams was near 40 at the time.

[Carabas]

I think Skyfall dealt with that a bit. Never Say Never Again also dealt a bit with Connery's aging, with him appearing to retire at the end. (Weird thing is, Connery almost looks younger in NSNA than DAF, probably because Connery seems a bit out of shape in the latter).

Never Say Never is not an actual official Bond movie though.

[AJBopp]

Never Say Never is not an actual official Bond movie though.

I don't think I'd agree with that, but I don't know what you're criteria is.

[Mormel]

I don't think I'd agree with that, but I don't know what you're criteria is.

Not official in the sense that NSNA was more like a novelty production (by another studio), another adaptation of Thunderball with Connery revisiting the character, and not a part of Eon Productions' Bond franchise canon.

[Carabas]

I don't think I'd agree with that, but I don't know what you're criteria is.

It's not an Eon film. Never Say Never Again is a bit like a Superman comic made by Image.

It exists because of some odd legalities surrounding the rights to the novel Thunderball. It is not part of the official Bond canon (in as much as the movies have a canon anyway). That's why it doesn't have the gun barrel opening every other Bond movie has.

It's not a judgement on the quality of the film.

[Coin Biter]

The later Moore films seemed to mostly ignore the aging, although it wasn't as noticeable in Octopussy since Maud Adams was near 40 at the time.

The age differences were fairly excruciating by the time of a View to a Kill In general, of course, the parodic approach of Moore helped reduce the issues with his age. He said himself that he could never pretend to be tough, like Connery, so he sent it up. (Brosnan wasn’t the most physical of Bonds either of course.) So far as Connery is concerned, I sometimes think he looks older in his later Bonds than he did in the Last Crusade Maybe it’s the hairpiece.

An older Bond is perfectly feasible, arguably even more so than back in Moore’s day.

[AJBopp]

Not official in the sense that NSNA was more like a novelty production (by another studio), another adaptation of Thunderball with Connery revisiting the character, and not a part of Eon Productions' Bond franchise canon.

It's not an Eon film. Never Say Never Again is a bit like a Superman comic made by Image.

It exists because of some odd legalities surrounding the rights to the novel Thunderball. It is not part of the official Bond canon (in as much as the movies have a canon anyway). That's why it doesn't have the gun barrel opening every other Bond movie has.

I don't think I can buy that. It's a film with the main character of James Bond, the character has all the attributes and personality of James Bond, has the same job, the same supporting characters, and the plot is a familiar one to a James Bond movie. It has excellent production values so it's not like a Roger Corman low budget fan film.

The Eon films have no particular continuity beyond the occasional vague reference ("once married"), and even that is often completely dispensed with (The Craig films represent a full-fledged reboot, for that matter).

There isn't really any quality or characteristic about Never Say Never Again that makes it not a "real" Bond film that I can see.

[keeen]

Too old and James Bond has always been Caucasian. If the studio wants him to play 007 (or 001-009) that's fine, he's a great actor. They could explore the rest of the 00 agents. I just don't like the studio veering too far from the established norm.

[getting ready for hate flashback]

Meh. Not hate. Just confusion. Like: how could anyone possibly take continuity of genre fiction seriously at this point? Since when has anyone taken Bond continuity seriously? Hasn't it already been established in the Bond films that different men assume the role? I thought it was Dalton who said something about "the last guy" in one of his films? Anyway, you're clearly trolling, so have fun with it.

[Panic]

Hasn't it already been established in the Bond films that different men assume the role?

No it hasn't. It's a stupid idea that doesn't make sense, and it is justly HATED by serious Bond fans.

[Conch22]

Jamie Dornan (The Fall) would've been my pick to replace Craig.

That said, Idris is great, the Bonds don't exactly look alike, I'm good with them giving this a shot.

If not, Idris busting out his American accent to play Felix would also be welcome

[ChrisIII]

The "Different agents" theory is mainly based on an in-joke at the beginning of "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". I think there are rumors that they considered putting Bond through plastic surgery in the film, which makes a bit more sense (and is sort of an explanation for Blofeld's transformation as well).

Both theories don't really make sense with the Moneypenny re-casting though (M was also recast, but it's perfectly logical to assume the 80's M might be a totally different character, especially when he is replaced by Dench). Like Moore she kind of goes from a 58-year old to somebody much, much younger. (Although Brosnan's MP is pretty much the same age as Dalton's so that transition makes a bit more sense, although Samantha's look and acting style were somewhat different than Bliss's).

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

All the bond movies are set in a floating timeline of sorts.

Not really. They don’t overly reference previous films but everything upnto Brosnan’s films were heavily implied to be part of the same continuity and you can trace something from every film back to a previous one for the most part

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I don't think I can buy that. It's a film with the main character of James Bond, the character has all the attributes and personality of James Bond, has the same job, the same supporting characters, and the plot is a familiar one to a James Bond movie. It has excellent production values so it's not like a Roger Corman low budget fan film.

The Eon films have no particular continuity beyond the occasional vague reference ("once married"), and even that is often completely dispensed with (The Craig films represent a full-fledged reboot, for that matter).

There isn't really any quality or characteristic about Never Say Never Again that makes it not a "real" Bond film that I can see.

I’m sorry I think you just aren’t familiar enough with the series or character to make that assessment. NASA is a remake a Thunderball with some name changes. It’s the same plot. SPECTRE second in command Largo leads a project to hijack two nuclear bombs by manipulating the Bond girl Domino’s brother to assist. Bond is at a health clinic and by pure coincidence gets a lead that makes him travel to the Caribbean and make contact with Domino and gain her assistance in recovering the Bombs. Bond must circumnavigate Largo and his femme fatale (Fiona in Thunderball, Fatima in NASA). It could never fit in the continuity that Thunderball exists in. Hell because of For Your Eyes Only it cant even fit in the Aron continuity at all because the mastermind of that film is dead.

The EON films do have a continuity. First film, Bond meets SPECTRE agent Dr. No. Second film is SPECTRE trying to get revenge on Bond for foiling Dr. No’s plans. The third film is an entirely standalone film in yet they still reference Bond losing his main weapon of the last film to convey how defenseless he is while Goldfingers prisoner. The next film is another SPECTRE film which is Thunderball where Bond retains the car he just got from the previous film. Because of the notoriety he gets for disrupting such a big plot his death is faked to get some enemies off his trail. In YOLT, Blofeld makes clear references to them having dealt with Bond before despite his supposed death. Bond meets Blofeld for the first time and then hints him over the next two films. In one of them his wife is murdered (that was the Lazenby film). In at least three films they reference it. In the Spy Who Loved Me has agent Triple X note it as part of his dossier, in For Your Eyes Only Bond literally goes to her grave and gives flowers and then located and kills Blofeld. Then in Dalton’s second film was the vague (his wife died once). That spans 3 different actors and relies heavily on the continuity set up by Connery’s films. Also then in Live and Let Die, Bond meets Quirrel’s son from the first movie. Later on towards the end of Moore’s films the Admiral from Spy Who Loved Me becomes M after the previous one retires. Bond goes rogue for the first time in License to Kill and is getting an assessment to start Goldeneye before he can be brought back on the service.

Way too many people take it so that because it doesn’t have an overarching plot (which it lightly did at one point) that it is not a continuity. It is. It’s just missions based and they have no reason to all be connected. It’s a series of plots and counterplots. Not one grand scheme.