› ›

Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1…277278280282283…1229

Comments

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited April 2017 Posts: 8,392
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    The little blonde chav could in 2006, so can Aidan.

    People forget he is still too young for the role now. Craig looks like a wuss in the early 00s.

    Not to mention that most of the roles he is known for date back to 2014 and earlier when he was still in his twenties. He's bulked up substantially since then.

    I personally welcome a change in the tides again, like we got in 2006. I don't think general audiences would accept another serious take, I think they would lose their rag. They've had to wait long enough for a bit of espirit.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @BondJasonBond006, but DC was, and is, a far superior actor with tons of charisma;

    Turner is competent for a small screen performer, and as bland as wet toast.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Turner is too fey to be Bond.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @Mendes4Lyfe , it's not about bulking up; it's about have the skill and natural presence to drive a character as large as 007.

    Turner is drivel, lacking in big screen acting chops, and he does, with that scowl of his, look like a constipated douche.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited April 2017 Posts: 8,392
    If anything Turners natural dark aura retains a lot of what Craig established, but brings it out of 2006 into the current day. People don't want a dire Bond anymore, they want someone who will have fun with the role. Craig had more fun filming that video with the puppies than he had on Bond.

    It should be pretty obvious that we are heading in that direction again, Turner or not. It's been a consistent back and forth pattern since the franchise first started.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    No he isn't.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I don't even know what you are saying @Mendes4Lyfe???

    Turner's dark aura??? He's a lightweight with a constipated scowl on his face!
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I think there's a reason why Turner couldn't take his big screen break (The Hobbit), into a film career-- he just isnt a big screen actor, and certainly not a big screen leading man.

    If I'm not mistaken, he hasn't been in a theatrically released film since The Hobit.

    If Hollywood sees talent, they don't let it languish on British TV, as we have seen has happened to any number of Brit actors over the years.

    Hollywood loves finding the next "it" actor.

    Unfortunately, Turner isn't "it".
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I don't know enough about him to say anything either way. I've only seen those brief clips from his Agatha Christie miniseries. I thought he looked the part (as much as any other actor that is) but sadly he seemed a bit of a lightweight in the clips. Someone who needed to rely on gimmicks like the cigarettes and what not to elevate his performance. I realize he wasn't playing Bond there, but the performance seemed a bit affected to me.

    I didn't hear much in the voice or the delivery to suggest he could make a good Bond, but I'm still open to him. I'll just have to see more.
  • TellyBlofeldTellyBlofeld
    Posts: 489
    I still say Tom Hardy can play the Gentleman/Thug that best embodies Bond.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited April 2017 Posts: 9,509
    Yes @bondjames, that's my problem with the guy: lightweight, affected... you can see him "acting" not "being"...
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    TellyBlofeld wrote: »
    I still say Tom Hardy can play the Gentleman/Thug that best embodies Bond.

    And therein lies my problem with the suggestion of Hardy. It is questionable whether Bond is a gentleman, but he is absolutely not a thug.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Agreed. Hardy isn't Bond material. Bond Villain material on the other hand, yes.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Bond henchman. At best.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    It may be that some people are confusing the description "blunt instrument" with "thug".

    I was often ticked when ppl described Craig as a thug; just like the dry humour in his first outings, I also saw the gentlemen with some taste and developing culture-- whether it was pouring a glass of wine properly (the bottle doesn't touch the glass, and a twist of the wrist at the end of the pour (on the train with Vesper), or his absolute refusal to stay in the run down hotel that Agent Fields had chosen.

    Craig was a far cry from a thug. But especially in those first two outings, he was certainly a blunt instrument.

    That's why I'm hoping that if he is indeed back, give him his teeth back for his final outing.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    He's lacking some of that finesse that I want in my Bond. They were able to give us a bit of the style in CR (at the casino and also when he plays Dimitrios for instance), but I've realized that he needs a really tight script for that to come out well. The elegance and class doesn't drip off him like it did with some of the others.

    He's very convincing as the blunt instrument however.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    In the end, if it were between someone like Hardy and someone like Turner, I'd go with the better screen actor-- Hardy by a country mile.

    However, I'd eat my hat if Babs went for Hardy...

    At this moment in time, none of the actors
    mentioned strike me as 007. I don't have the strongest opinion on who should replace Craig (I think it's going to be a tough assignment and also a large undertaking of screen-testing many actors over many months); I just have very strong opinions on who SHOULDNT be Bond (looking at you, Turner and Hiddles).
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited April 2017 Posts: 8,392
    bondjames wrote: »
    He's lacking some of that finesse that I want in my Bond. They were able to give us a bit of the style in CR (at the casino and also when he plays Dimitrios for instance), but I've realized that he needs a really tight script for that to come out well. The elegance and class doesn't drip off him like it did with some of the others.

    He's very convincing as the blunt instrument however.

    That's the problem. Craig has depth, but little variety.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @Mendes4Lyfe , are you serious? Watching DC's films, he has quite the variety of performances.

    As opposed to Turner, who has one look: the scowling, constipated, douche.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,843
    I think Noah Coward said it best so to paraphrase him

    Aidan Turner as 007 no no no no no no no
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,106
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't know enough about him to say anything either way. I've only seen those brief clips from his Agatha Christie miniseries. I thought he looked the part (as much as any other actor that is) but sadly he seemed a bit of a lightweight in the clips. Someone who needed to rely on gimmicks like the cigarettes and what not to elevate his performance. I realize he wasn't playing Bond there, but the performance seemed a bit affected to me.

    I didn't hear much in the voice or the delivery to suggest he could make a good Bond, but I'm still open to him. I'll just have to see more.

    He was fairly good in it but then he played a stereotype. And actually Lombard should have been more thuggish. I think he's compared to a wolf in the novel.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    In ten or twenty years when the tech is perfected. will it be such a bad idea to have a cgi Connery?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    In ten or twenty years when the tech is perfected. will it be such a bad idea to have a cgi Connery?

    Yes, it will be.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    In ten or twenty years when the tech is perfected. will it be such a bad idea to have a cgi Connery?

    Yes, it will be.
    Agreed. I suppose one day it will be inevitable, when they perfect the technique. They are a long way from it at the moment however, but I'll concede that this technology improves exponentially (Moore's Law is the term I think). I can assure you that in a decade or so we will look back at the ending of Rogue One and cringe at CGI Leia, because it's completely soulless & they will have improved version 2.0's and further. I suppose Disney could superimpose one of those newer improved creations on later film copies (like Lucas did by switching out Shaw for Christensen).

    We'll all be obsolete at some point though. Rise of the Machines will soon be upon us.
  • daltondalton
    Posts: 1,631
    CGI Connery would be a terrible idea. Just as would CGI Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, or Craig.

    If we get to a point where they decide to do an animated or CGI Bond, I'd rather they attempt to depict Fleming's Bond on the screen rather than going back and copying one of the men who previously played the part.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    bondjames wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    In ten or twenty years when the tech is perfected. will it be such a bad idea to have a cgi Connery?

    Yes, it will be.
    Agreed. I suppose one day it will be inevitable, when they perfect the technique. They are a long way from it at the moment however, but I'll concede that this technology improves exponentially (Moore's Law is the term I think). I can assure you that in a decade or so we will look back at the ending of Rogue One and cringe at CGI Leia, because it's completely soulless & they will have improved version 2.0's and further. I suppose Disney could superimpose one of those newer improved creations on later film copies (like Lucas did by switching out Shaw for Christensen).

    We'll all be obsolete at some point though. Rise of the Machines will soon be upon us.

    It'll be a long, long time before a CGI character plays a leading man in a Hollywood blockbuster, let alone Bond. For starters, who's going to market the film? It's an important role and star's travel all around the globe signing autographs, attending conventions etc.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    I thought Bond was supposed to be about Bond ? , not about the actor who is paid millions of £/$ to portray him on screen ?
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    BondJasonBond006 has it right. As I said a few pages back it will be Dan Stevens. Ideal as the next Bond after Craig (which willl be Bond 26). It had better be anyway, I have £100 at the bookies on it.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    In ten or twenty years when the tech is perfected. will it be such a bad idea to have a cgi Connery?

    Yes, it will be.
    Agreed. I suppose one day it will be inevitable, when they perfect the technique. They are a long way from it at the moment however, but I'll concede that this technology improves exponentially (Moore's Law is the term I think). I can assure you that in a decade or so we will look back at the ending of Rogue One and cringe at CGI Leia, because it's completely soulless & they will have improved version 2.0's and further. I suppose Disney could superimpose one of those newer improved creations on later film copies (like Lucas did by switching out Shaw for Christensen).

    We'll all be obsolete at some point though. Rise of the Machines will soon be upon us.

    It'll be a long, long time before a CGI character plays a leading man in a Hollywood blockbuster, let alone Bond. For starters, who's going to market the film? It's an important role and star's travel all around the globe signing autographs, attending conventions etc.
    I certainly hope so. However, with a CGI actor the production costs are much lower. So marketing costs don't have to be that high either. It's troubling to see that some of the top worldwide grossers every year don't have any real actors on screen any more (I'm referring to all the kiddie films that Disney or Universal put out like Minions etc).
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,196
    cwl007 wrote: »
    BondJasonBond006 has it right. As I said a few pages back it will be Dan Stevens. Ideal as the next Bond after Craig (which willl be Bond 26). It had better be anyway, I have £100 at the bookies on it.

    I think this could be a fairly safe bet; with Beauty and the Beast his profile is just about right, he's known but not too famous.

Sign In or Register to comment.