Who should/could be a Bond actor?

12852862882902911229

Comments

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    I don't think Layer Cake put Craig on the map as a leading star. I think he impressed Barbara and Michael, Craig got the role and then everyone went through Craig catalogue to learn more about this Actor. They watched Layer Craig because they knew the guy was becoming Bond and they were curious to learn more.

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited May 2017 Posts: 15,713
    I don't think Layer Cake put Craig on the map as a leading star. I think he impressed Barbara and Michael, Craig got the role and then everyone went through Craig catalogue to learn more about this Actor. They watched Layer Craig because they knew the guy was becoming Bond and they were curious to learn more.

    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.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited May 2017 Posts: 10,591
    I seriously doubt that Babs and Michael saw Layer Cake after the fact. Take into account that Craig and Broccoli met in late April/early May in 2004 (at the funeral of casting director Mary Selway). Craig was offered the part around 6 months later, about the time Layer Cake was in its theatrical run.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    I don't think Layer Cake put Craig on the map as a leading star. I think he impressed Barbara and Michael, Craig got the role and then everyone went through Craig catalogue to learn more about this Actor. They watched Layer Craig because they knew the guy was becoming Bond and they were curious to learn more.

    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...
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited May 2017 Posts: 15,713
    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.
  • Posts: 4,325
    talos7 wrote: »

    That Eleanor Tomlinson is going to be a flame-haired Bond villainess!
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,195
    Ha!
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »

    That Eleanor Tomlinson is going to be a flame-haired Bond villainess!

    Or that he's fed up looking like an Irish Gypsy!
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    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.

    Totally agree.
  • Posts: 2,914
    bondjames wrote: »
    Not sure if I agree with all of her conclusions but I appreciate the effort.

    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?
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,264
    They think they understand it and that it's easy peasy but they don't - and it isn't!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Revelator wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Not sure if I agree with all of her conclusions but I appreciate the effort.

    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?
    I can only assume it's because he's a popular and long standing cultural icon who reflects values which these latte sipping, sushi eating, Prius driving, Guardian reading, holier than thou Liberal types find offensive.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,264
    There's also a bit of cutting down the tallest poppy syndrome about these polemics and diatribes against all things Bond too.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Revelator wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Not sure if I agree with all of her conclusions but I appreciate the effort.

    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.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,129
    talos7 wrote: »

    No one better tell me that guy isn't perfect for Bond.

    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.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Benny wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »

    No one better tell me that guy isn't perfect for Bond.

    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!
  • Posts: 15,106
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    @bondjames I would like her to be mentioned again, not forgotten. A passing mention would be enough.
    I absolutely agree. Just a cursory mention is all that's needed.
    talos7 wrote: »
    I'm afraid I'm not seeing any Bond here. All I see is some chap who was in need of a trim, and who finally got round to it.

    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?
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    It could be argued that a number of the Bonds either didn't have a high enough profile, or were tv actors. It could be argued that all 6 fall under either category.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 2017 Posts: 8,392
    It could be argued that a number of the Bonds either didn't have a high enough profile, or were tv actors. It could be argued that all 6 fall under either category.

    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.
  • ggl007ggl007 www.archivo007.com Spain, España
    Posts: 2,541
    Charlie Hunnam on Bond:

  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,129
    It could be argued that a number of the Bonds either didn't have a high enough profile, or were tv actors. It could be argued that all 6 fall under either category.

    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.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    I don't think Brosnan was anymore well known than Turner is now. They both had hit TV shows. If you haven't heard of Poldark that's fine, but it was one of the most watched shows of 2015/16. Not a show with the high profile cache of some modern dramas, but what are we measuring here? Raw popularity or acclaim? Poldark is huge, there's no other way of looking at it.

    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.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited May 2017 Posts: 15,713
    Who cares if 'Poldark' is huge? Turner is not getting cast in the lead role of a $150+ million blockbuster until he proves he can carry a film. Please stop misunderstanding what we are saying. In this day an age, you are not going to headline a major big budget blockbuster without leading star status or at the very least potential lead star status, which Turner simply does not have right now. Turner is not getting anywhere Bond until he shows he can carry a film.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,129
    Articles written with the UK press. I'd never heard of him before his name popped up on the forum.
    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.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    Who cares if 'Poldark' is huge? Turner is not getting cast in the lead role of a $150+ million blockbuster until he proves he can carry a film. Please stop misunderstanding what we are saying. In this day an age, you are not going to headline a major big budget blockbuster without leading star status or at the very least potential lead star status, which Turner simply does not have right now. Turner is not getting anywhere Bond until he shows he can carry a film.

    What films had Daisy Ridley carried when she was cast in the lead role of a 200 million dollar production?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited May 2017 Posts: 15,713
    What kind of argument is that? Honestly, try being serious for once. Are you saying TFA is solely a Daisy Ridley flick? Are you giving her the same status as Tom Cruise in M:I? Or Denzel Washington in Equalizer?
  • Posts: 15,106
    Craig was not well known, not in comparison to his competitors and certainly not compared to the people brought forward by the general public: Jude Law, Hugh Grant, Robbie freaking Williams. He was a veteran actor who had a few interesting roles. Same with most Bond actors. Moore was the most famous one when cast but he was a tv star and an exception: to fill the shoes of Connery you needed someone already popular. Brosnan had been famous as the man who would be Bond and Moore's heir apparent. He had built his pre-Bond career on the role he nearly got.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 2017 Posts: 8,392
    What kind of argument is that? Honestly, try being serious for once.

    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.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited May 2017 Posts: 15,713
    Yes, Craig was not well known, but he had several lead roles in films prior to becoming Bond. Turner has none of that. He's not going to get cast as the lead role in a big budget film until he at least shows he can carry a film.
  • Posts: 15,106
    Yes, Craig was not well known, but he had several lead roles in films prior to becoming Bond. Turner has none of that. He's not going to get cast as the lead role in a big budget film until he at least shows he can carry a film.

    Oh definitely. Craig was not a star but he proved himself in small roles and bigger roles. He was a respected actor.
Sign In or Register to comment.