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
I'm not talking about the general audience. I'm talking about Hollywood producers. If you honestly can't understand that the leading role performance Craig delivered in Layer Cake made EON (and other major producers) realize Craig had what it takes to carry a major Hollywood blockbuster, this discussion will go around in circles. Turner has ZERO of what Craig did in that film. I'm not insulting him, I'm not saying he's a bad actor or that his TV credentials are worthless, but until he can carry a film the way Craig did in Layer Cake, no-one in Hollywood will risk making a big budget film with him as the leading star.
We'll have to agree to disagree. You say that Turner has nothing compared to Craig, but we don't know how Barbara feels on the matter. If she disagrees with you, then we never know...
There is nothing to agree or disagree about. I'm not talking about Turner's talent, but that he simply does not have leading star status. You can not disagree with that. I'm not saying he is unable to become an A list actor, but at this point in time he just does not have anywhere close that potential lead star aspect that will land him a major franchise like Bond. Once Turner carries a film by himself, then we can start to talk. But as of now, Turner's current filmography is a big obstacle for him to become Bond #7.
That Eleanor Tomlinson is going to be a flame-haired Bond villainess!
Or that he's fed up looking like an Irish Gypsy!
Totally agree.
I don't. Whining that "Casino Royale is almost entirely focused on a card game that no one understands any more" ignores that fact that (a) the game is easily explained (far more so than poker) and Fleming does so in the book, and (b) baccarat is still played in casinos around the world. Easily verified by a visit Vegas or even the local Indian casino.
Since this dunce academic never really explains what Bond's "essence" is, she has no call to complain that it has stayed the same, especially since Bond's character--and relation to Fleming--has changed every time a new actor assumed the role. What is it about Bond that encourages such stupidity from academics and journalists?
Baccarat is far, far easier to understand than poker.
That guy isn't perfect for Bond.
No leading man quality, nor any credits outside tv. He has no profile outside the UK.
His hair looks to be receding rather quickly too. He'll be wearing a toupe by his second or third film. But not as Bond. Too much of a risk, no studio will back him due to his profile globally.
He lacks star quality. He's a TV actor through and through. Big NO!
Hot redhead next to him though.
I must comment about people saying Turner's profile is not high enough or that he's only a TV actor. What truly matters is acting skills and therefore Turner has proven that... humm... well, he... Anybody got a pic of him in a tuxedo?
Precisely.
The inference that Keanu Reeves or another household name is better suited to Bond than Aidan Turner simply because he is better known is frankly loony.
This is true, but apart from Lazenby, and perhaps Dalton and Craig (though they were very well respected theatre actors) all have had a known presence on a global scale.
Connery was the first and he sold the role whilst in it.
Turner isn't a known actor globally.
Connery created the role, Moore was well known, as was Brosnan. If history repeats itself, after Craig, a more well known actor will assume the role. Hardy, Fassbender, Hiddleston.
If Turner has no star power, how can we explain that he has managed to stay in the running with Hardy, Fassbender, Elba et all all this time. If he was such a nobody like you seem to think, why are countless articles being written about him in place of the more popular candidates? It just seems an odd contradiction to me.
Brosnan was known stateside due to Remington Steele. He had the all important US support.
As far as his being in the running, it appears you are easily lead. Just because bookies and press articles mention an actor to be in the running for Bond, doesn't necessarily make it true. The truth is, only EON and the films distributor/s will know IF there is to be a new Bond. And IF they are casting the part, it's possible that some of the names suggested in polls, forums or the press are not even tested.
The only source to be believed 100% has and always be EON productions. Till they confirm anything, it's not guaranteed.
What films had Daisy Ridley carried when she was cast in the lead role of a 200 million dollar production?
Answer the question, please. You just said that no one is getting cast in a lead role on a blockbuster film without carrying a film first.
Oh definitely. Craig was not a star but he proved himself in small roles and bigger roles. He was a respected actor.