I debated including the rest of Amy Pascal’s Bond 26 interview with Deadline in my previous post, but the curious wording, apparent editing hiccups and unfortunate lack of a proper martini reference deserve their own spotlight.
I actually like Pascal describing the actor search as “really, really methodical,” although frankly, that should be the bare minimum when casting the next James Bond. Her admission that Daniel Craig is a hard act to follow is hardly controversial either, since every new Bond inherits the considerable shadow of the actor who came before him.
The real head-scratcher arrives with the description that the new casting choice must be “something really different that is a stirring and exciting and different.” “Exciting” feels like a spectacular understatement, while repeating “different” makes me wonder whether that was simply a transcription or editing error, or perhaps they just wanted to emphasize how different this Bond will no doubt be because it will obviously not be Daniel Craig?
Most importantly, Pascal missed an open goal for a vodka martini reference, because surely the prospect of a new Bond should leave fans “shaken” rather than merely be a “stirring” bit of news. Then again, if the casting process really is this methodical, perhaps we haven’t even ordered a martini yet?
