Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 9589845" data-attributes="member: 22424">IMO, they're taking an obvious, and wrong, approach to their new casting.The Daniel Craig films never quite settled on whether they were part of the same continuity as those that went before - "Casino Royale", despite Judy Dench as M, felt like a new start, but as they series went on they leaned more and more on the past. Either way, "No Time To Die" seems to be a pretty definitive end.That gives them a chance to do something new, and I'd suggest they should embrace it - rather than looking for another young(ish) guy to play Bond for 15 years, I'd instead do a few standalone, more experimental takes on the character.So maybe you do cast someone older to play the grizzled Bond. Or, hell, see if Dalton would come back for a much older Bond, who for whatever reason has to come back into action but has to deal with the fact that he just can't do what he once did.Maybe you do a Bond film set back in the 60s. Or maybe one set in the 1860s - let's see how Bond fares when he's not an agent of a dying Imperial power but instead the pre-eminent Imperial power of the age. Or do a film about the naval Commander Bond in WWII - maybe he gets involved in a plot involving Nazis and stolen nuclear plans?Or, horrors, an American Bond working for the CIA. And, since it's eventually going to happen, this would be a good chance to try out a female James Bond, and see how the audiences react.</blockquote>

Verification