It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
He lacks the requisite presence and a certain level of gravitas in his performance imo. I don't have a problem with his acting per se, but he doesn't own the screen. Yes, I can see Connery's presence in Darby O'Gil. Part of my job involves casting, perhaps I just see things from a different perspective.
And before you get upset hey think of it like this at least I want him to have his own franchise lol...
Hardy is doing splinter cell so I doubt he will ever be bond so yeah sorry to be a band wagon jumper but I am going for Hiddleston :)
In your opinion could Turner cultivate greater screen presence as he develops?
I don't necessarily mean as Bond but part of exhibiting that gravitas on screen could be learned(?).
If you gave the trailer a proper title that would be perfect
Macgyver is ANNOUnced to come back fall (Friday at 8:00 on CBS) and now a fan trailer for Hiddleston as bond jeez I might as well play the lottery I am haveing such an amazing day
Let them compete in filming segments, casino scene, flirt scene, action scene, fight scene etc, that'd be fun!
:P funny
Very much agreed. It's fairly easy to tell who has "it" and who doesn't when seeing actors on the screen. That's not to say that casting is an easy process, but those that have "it" generally command one's attention, IMO anyway.
Connery has always had "it", even before being cast as Bond. That's not to say that he would have become the international star that he became without Bond, but the ingredients, namely that "x-factor" or whatever you want to call it, was there. Moore has it in spades as well, and I'd say that Craig has it to a lesser extent, but he makes up the difference by being a superior actor.
I think Hiddleston has similar qualities, although he's far from my top choice to take on the role. I'd probably be disappointed to a degree if he got it, as I have others I'd rather see take it, but I think he could win me over. I don't see similar qualities from Turner, other than his ability to look good in a tuxedo.
Agreed
I would watch that. ;)
One after the other doing their bits and quite well, too. At the end, Daniel comes in for his and all of a sudden everybody remembers, why he us such a great Bond and pales in comparison.
So - that was me channeling my inner Mendes.
In reality I want him to quit to not endanger his legacy and have the mental freedom to do different stuff.
Why endanger his legacy? Outside of this forum Spectre has cemented Craig as the best Bond since Connery, everywhere except maybe, maybe the US.
I'd love a fifth movie and it would make him THE James Bond of two generations and the longest serving one too.
What I would like to see are all the screen tests for Bond from 1962 onward. I hope EON releases them one day.
I would watch that show as well with the bast Bond actors as judges giving comments to the contenders.
Why not coping the voice
At least the blind auditions.
The Bond contender makes the wAlk for the gun barrel shoots and Says Bond James Bond if the past Bonds liked the voice they click the button and turn around.
People tend to forget how absolutely non-Bond Craig looked when he got announced. Compared to that, Hiddy or Turner are oozing Bond galore.
That's true and it's noticeable during CR, Craig during the airport scene looks a lot leaner than in other parts of the film. In contrast there is a scene in a car with Vesper where Craig looks like a tank, alot of ongoing training would have gone on during filming.
Roger Moore didn't really have the "macho quality" and he made a first-rate Bond. I think one can do action without being over-the-top in the "macho" category.
Absolutely.
So how do we measure this "It Factor" then? On star power? Well, Hiddleston hasn't pulled in the box office numbers in any of his lead roles, so we can't measure it that way. Personally, I think it's too early to say whether Hiddleston has this "It Factor". Yes, he's comfortable in his own skin, has that acting narcissism bug that's required to succeed in the business, then so do many, but that doesn't necessarily equate to him having major pulling power at the box office. Indeed, Hiddleston and Turner have their own legion of fans outside these threads, and to ask either one of these sets who should be the next Bond you're going to get opposing answers.
From what I've read here, with the exception of maybe one or two, most people here are basing their judgement on photos and a few short clips of Turner (or even worse The Hobbit). If that's how you judge the "IT Factor" then I'm a monkey's aunt.
Hello - agree with everything you said here. However I did get round to watching And then there were none, and Aidan Turner really impressed me in that. I think he has "it", without having to work at it. He has that old-school, dark/brooding charisma; there were several scenes where you didn't know if he was going to kiss the girl or kill her. It's a great audition piece.
Your summary of Piddleston is spot-on. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want Piddles as Bond, he looks like he'd have trouble fighting Q. I think I would seriously prefer another LTK-GE six year gap than watch him in a Bond film.