![]() ![]() ![]() It also means they’re not too old to be eligible for social security at the end of their run. Getting an actor in their 30s means they are just young enough to commit to the franchise for at least 10 years. Logistically, it makes sense that the producers planted their flag firmly in this territory. When looking at those parts of James Bond, along with his flaws, vices, and even chosen profession, there’s no way the series can ever cast a “younger” Bond. And more than a tad jaded about the world in which he inhabits. He’s not a plucky upstart but is, instead, a man with considerable experience under his belt. James Bond is a blunt instrument who wears his world-weariness like fashionable cufflinks. More importantly, it underscores a firm understanding of the character. It signals a new philosophy for a franchise adapting to making films today vs. It’s not about ageism or some revolt by boomers against Gen Z, either. (Unnecessarily, I might add.) But the longtime keepers of the James Bond flame are correct that an actor in his 30s is best for the role, when the inevitable recasting is announced. ![]() No, not about Daniel Craig’s era being a thought-out arc because, seriously, they backed into that one. Producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |