Is Ralph Fiennes a lock for B23?

http://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/is-ralph-fiennes-a-lock-for-bond-23-villain/

Two publications, the U.K. Daily Mail newspaper and U.S. trade publication Variety, have stories that, in passing, say actor Ralph Fiennes will be in Bond 23 and the film will begin production in December.

The stories center on Fiennes’s participation in a stage production of Sheakespeare’s The Tempest, where he will play Prospero.

The Daily Mail has this mention:

Almost as soon as he comes out of The Tempest, Fiennes will begin preparations for the new James Bond film, which begins shooting in December. This column was first to reveal that Fiennes had met with his old friend Sam Mendes, who is directing the latest 007 thriller (which has the working title Sam Mendes Bond 23), about starring with Daniel Craig in the picture.

Variety, meanwhile, has this passage (“the run” refers to Fienennes time on The Temptest):

Fiennes’s movie commitments mean the run will be strictly limited. He is skedded to start filming on the Sam Mendes helmed “Bond 23″ In December. The latter is scripted by John Logan who also scripted Fiennes’s recent movie helming debut “Coriolanus.”

Again, both stories toss this news off as an aside. There have been almost no official casting announcements, other than Daniel Craig would return as Bond for his third 007 outing. Judi Dench said in interviews she’d return as M. And that’s been about it. If the Fiennes news is true, he’d almost have to be the villain because the biggest non-Bond male parts in 007 films are villains. We’ll see.

Well, I'll be certainly content if Fiennes is tied to a Bond picture. I've liked him in Schindler's List, The Duchess and The Reader. I think he is a fantastic actor and I thought he'd be a great addition to any Bond film. While it'd be great if he could play a villain, I think that he should play an ally. He always seems to play a villain it seems...

FieldsMan wrote:

Well, I'll be certainly content if Fiennes is tied to a Bond picture. I've liked him in Schindler's List, The Duchess and The Reader. I think he is a fantastic actor and I thought he'd be a great addition to any Bond film. While it'd be great if he could play a villain, I think that he should play an ally. He always seems to play a villain it seems...

Seems to be some overload here though and with Bardem apparently too?

Too many stars not enough sky for me.

Variety is reputable. So this may be news. If it's him and Bardem, then it's gonna be a hell of a cast.

Brown will be happy

Vesper wrote:

Variety is reputable. So this may be news. If it's him and Bardem, then it's gonna be a hell of a cast.

Brown will be happy

Hence me posting it but hopefully they are not quoting verbatim from others?

We'll see.


:suspect:

If this film continues (or, perhaps more likely, concludes) the Quantum storyline, then I'd guess it makes perfect sense to them to bring in some "bigger name villainy". Maybe Bardem will be the big villain at Quantum's HQ, with Fiennes as the most high-ranking British Quantum insider? If Fiennes' character is very high up in the food chain (a major player with the PM), this could maybe be what they refer to by "a villain who's already won", in that this guy could by and large be shaping the British government from the inside into exactly what Quantum want it to be. All guesswork I know, but right now that's all we can really do.

Lazenby. wrote:

If this film continues (or, perhaps more likely, concludes) the Quantum storyline, then I'd guess it makes perfect sense to them to bring in some "bigger name villainy". Maybe Bardem will be the big villain at Quantum's HQ, with Fiennes as the most high-ranking British Quantum insider? If Fiennes' character is very high up in the food chain (a major player with the PM), this could maybe be what they refer to by "a villain who's already won", in that this guy could by and large be shaping the British government from the inside into exactly what Quantum want it to be. All guesswork I know, but right now that's all we can really do.

That could work.

Lazenby. wrote:

If this film continues (or, perhaps more likely, concludes) the Quantum storyline, then I'd guess it makes perfect sense to them to bring in some "bigger name villainy". Maybe Bardem will be the big villain at Quantum's HQ, with Fiennes as the most high-ranking British Quantum insider? If Fiennes' character is very high up in the food chain (a major player with the PM), this could maybe be what they refer to by "a villain who's already won", in that this guy could by and large be shaping the British government from the inside into exactly what Quantum want it to be. All guesswork I know, but right now that's all we can really do.

I like it...

I do wonder about the rumors of having so many stars, though. It seems like the sort of rumors we always get pre-production. Too good to be true, I reckon.

I always wanted him to play an ally, more so than a villain. But still, I think this is a good news, so long as they don't have him playing some generic villain.

In terms of marketing, it'd be a great move. Kids can now pay to see their favorite Harry Porter villain go against James Bond.

lalala2004 wrote:

Lazenby. wrote:

If this film continues (or, perhaps more likely, concludes) the Quantum storyline, then I'd guess it makes perfect sense to them to bring in some "bigger name villainy". Maybe Bardem will be the big villain at Quantum's HQ, with Fiennes as the most high-ranking British Quantum insider? If Fiennes' character is very high up in the food chain (a major player with the PM), this could maybe be what they refer to by "a villain who's already won", in that this guy could by and large be shaping the British government from the inside into exactly what Quantum want it to be. All guesswork I know, but right now that's all we can really do.

I like it...

I do wonder about the rumors of having so many stars, though. It seems like the sort of rumors we always get pre-production. Too good to be true, I reckon.

I think that having an Oscar-winning "ac-tors" director attached will have a lot of sway for the casting of this fiilm though. Hence I'm a bit more prone than usual to believe rumours linking bigger-name actors to this film.

If not one but two mega-stars are cast opposite Bond, this will be a huge departure for Bond films. I mean, has any Bond film ever had a villain or Bond girl played by an actor/actress as famous as Fiennes?

Bardem and Fiennes are fine actors - among the best in the industry - but they're not exactly typical Hollywood A-listers like Clooney, Pitt, Cruise, etc. Plus, are their names as well-known globally as Halle Berry, Denise Richards, Chris Walken, Grace Jones, or Christopher Lee, for instance? Sure, maybe two actors of such calibre in one Bond film may be a departure from the norm, but the Bond series isn't short on stars.

Stilicho Bias wrote:

If not one but two mega-stars are cast opposite Bond, this will be a huge departure for Bond films. I mean, has any Bond film ever had a villain or Bond girl played by an actor/actress as famous as Fiennes?

Christopher Walken and Halle Berry, but even then, they're in a very small minority.

I agree that Walken and Barry are the two luminaries most comparable to Fiennes and Bardem.

danslittlefinger wrote:

Vesper wrote:

Variety is reputable. So this may be news. If it's him and Bardem, then it's gonna be a hell of a cast.

Brown will be happy

Hence me posting it but hopefully they are not quoting verbatim from others?

We'll see.


:suspect:

I wondered that myself, but Variety is a reputable source, so I figure they've done their homework.

Walken & Jones?

anyway Badem doesn't have that big a profile does he?
about as big as Topol?

Pleasance, Savalas, Lee, Walken... Fiennes?

very evil "In Brugge"

I say bring it on!

I still haven't gotten around to seeing that flick. I really ought to. But you make a point with many of those stars. I guess it's just been awhile since we had anything like that in Bond flicks with the exception of Halle Berry.

Nah, I didn't didn't think he was threatening at all in IN BRUGES. Too obvious and on the nose. Just a generic cockney gangster, that could have come from any trashy Guy Ritchie/Matthew Vaughn flick.

Brendan Gleeson was one of the very few good things in that film. Fine actor.

Makeshift Python wrote:

I still haven't gotten around to seeing that flick. I really ought to. But you make a point with many of those stars. I guess it's just been awhile since we had anything like that in Bond flicks with the exception of Halle Berry.

Robert Shaw was only making his name when they made FRWL
but Donald Pleasance was something of a star when he made YOLT, having recently done "The Great Escape" "Dr Crippen" & "Fantastic Voyage"
OHMSS had Dianna "Avenger" Rigg as well as Telly Savalas
Yaphet Koto was certainly as well know at the time of LALD as Badem is now
Christopher Lee was already a "genre star" when they made TMWTGG

OP had Louis Jourdan and Vijay Armitraj, who were familiar faces
as previously mentioned, AVTAK had Christopher Walken and Grace Jones, who were both well known in their fields

TLD had Joe Don Baker and John Rhys-Davies who were familiar faces

the use of higher profile actors was a feature of the Brosnan era
GE had Sean Bean who was a TV star, as was Robbie Coltrane, both also having a profile as actors
TND had Terri Hatcher, who was a familiar as a TV star from "Lois & Clark", Jonathan Price a familiar face if not really a "star"
TWINE had Sophie Marceau who was a French star and Robert Carlisle had been a TV star and had a profile in movies after "The Full Monty" (and Robbie Coltrane was back)
DAD had Hally Berry
and don't forget Dame Judy...

so far they have steered clear of "Faces" in the Craig era, looks like that is about to change?

Jack Wade wrote:

danslittlefinger wrote:

Vesper wrote:

Variety is reputable. So this may be news. If it's him and Bardem, then it's gonna be a hell of a cast.

Brown will be happy

Hence me posting it but hopefully they are not quoting verbatim from others?

We'll see.


:suspect:

I wondered that myself, but Variety is a reputable source, so I figure they've done their homework.

Colour me happy as well. I'm a big fan of Fiennes and if it's him and Bardem this will be one hell of a cast for a Bond film!

And, to Seve, I'd say that Bardem has a much higher profile nowadays than Topol or Kotto ever had. This is, for instance, is taken from his Wikipedia entry:

Quote :

Bardem has been awarded an Academy Award, a Golden Globe, a Screen Actors Guild Award, a BAFTA, four Goya awards, two European Film Awards, a Prize for Best Actor at Cannes and two Coppa Volpis at Venice for his work. He is the first Spaniard to be nominated for an Oscar (Best Actor, 2000, for Before Night Falls, lost to Russell Crowe for Gladiator), as well as the first to win an acting Oscar (Supporting Actor, 2007, for No Country for Old Men). He received his third Academy Award nomination, and second Best Actor nomination, for the film Biutiful.

Miles Messervy wrote:

And, to Seve, I'd say that Bardem has a much higher profile nowadays than Topol or Kotto ever had. This is, for instance, is taken from his Wikipedia entry:

Quote :

Bardem has been awarded an Academy Award, a Golden Globe, a Screen Actors Guild Award, a BAFTA, four Goya awards, two European Film Awards, a Prize for Best Actor at Cannes and two Coppa Volpis at Venice for his work. He is the first Spaniard to be nominated for an Oscar (Best Actor, 2000, for Before Night Falls, lost to Russell Crowe for Gladiator), as well as the first to win an acting Oscar (Supporting Actor, 2007, for No Country for Old Men). He received his third Academy Award nomination, and second Best Actor nomination, for the film Biutiful.

awards and fame are not the same thing (where high profile = well known = fame)

I would argue Topol's appearance in "Fiddler On The Roof" easily outweighs all of that put together
"Fiddler" was a landmark musical and a pop culture sensation at the time, to a far greater extent than anything Badems been in
even now everybody knows "If I Were A Rich Man"

great acting has little to do with fame either, that's why Mr T and the Hoff had a 'higher profile' than Paul Schofield or Albert Finney ever did

the point I'm making is that Paul Schofield could have appeared in a Bond movie without bringing any distracting celebrity baggage with him
whereas Mr T, post Rocky 3 & The A team, could not (before that he would have made an ideal henchman) nor the Hoff, post Knightrider and Baywatch (before that he might have made a useful Felix Leiter?)

for example, much as I enjoy Telly Savalas as Blofeld, I have to admit I see the actor/personality Savalas/Kojak first and the character Blofeld second, although that is a retrospective fame issue
I would argue that if Savalas had done Kojak earlier he would not have been offered the role in OHMSS

although I guess you can make the same case against Chrisotpher Lee, how much of the audience thought "ooh look, there's Dracula" rather than seeing the character Scaramanga, in which case I could argue that casting him was a mistake, in Bond terms, much as I enjoy watching Christopher Lee

not that many people have seen Badem's movies, even "No Country For Old Men" is far from being a must see blockbuster for most people, so his image is not indelibly stamped on the public conciousness under another brand name

and neither is Fiennes (seagueing deftly back on topic...)

Sharky wrote:

Nah, I didn't didn't think he was threatening at all in IN BRUGES. Too obvious and on the nose. Just a generic cockney gangster, that could have come from any trashy Guy Ritchie/Matthew Vaughn flick.

Brendan Gleeson was one of the very few good things in that film. Fine actor.

Come on, Sharky. In Bruges is a terrific little film. If Ealing existed in its original form, tit's the sort of thing they'd be doing, not bloody St Trinains. And Fiennes is fine in it, even if he is following in the wake of Sir Ben in Sexy Beast.

ambler wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Nah, I didn't didn't think he was threatening at all in IN BRUGES. Too obvious and on the nose. Just a generic cockney gangster, that could have come from any trashy Guy Ritchie/Matthew Vaughn flick.

Brendan Gleeson was one of the very few good things in that film. Fine actor.

Come on, Sharky. In Bruges is a terrific little film. If Ealing existed in its original form, tit's the sort of thing they'd be doing, not bloody St Trinains. And Fiennes is fine in it, even if he is following in the wake of Sir Ben in Sexy Beast.

Nah, there's nothing remotely Ealing Studios about this. No charm, and subversive innocence. Everything's in the foreground. Too many smart-arsed references, not enough character, and far too portentous for its own good. It's leaden.

Kingsley was far more chilling than Fiennes, due to his quiet, pinhole-like intensity. Much more like the real Kray twins. The menace of understatement, rather than shouting one's bloody head off in a stock cockney accent, or swearing every line or two.

ambler wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Come on, Sharky. In Bruges is a terrific little film. If Ealing existed in its original form, tit's the sort of thing they'd be doing, not bloody St Trinains. And Fiennes is fine in it, even if he is following in the wake of Sir Ben in Sexy Beast.

Nah, there's nothing remotely Ealing Studios about this. No charm, and subversive innocence. Everything's in the foreground. Too many smart-arsed references, not enough character, and far too portentous for its own good. It's leaden.

Kingsley was far more chilling than Fiennes, due to his quiet, pinhole-like intensity. Much more like the real Kray twins. The menace of understatement, rather than shouting one's bloody head off in a stock cockney accent, or swearing every line or two.

the best thing about "In Brugge" is the way they are able to show off the beautiful location
the worst part is the moral bankruptcy at the heart of the story
Farrell's character is just a punk who kills people for a living (among other illegal activities), why should we care about him?
I blame Tarantino for this more than Guy Ritchie, although because there are British accents Guy Ritchie is automatically the "usual suspect"
Fiennes may not have been as good as Kingsley was in that role, but then not many are
say, Kingsley has a bald head, perhaps he could be hired as the new Blofeld?

Guy Ritchie just tried his best to be the British Tarantino, and succeeded.