› ›

Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1…312313315317318…1236

Comments

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    I saw DUNKIRK today, and it was a brilliant piece of cinema. Truthfully, Bond didn't enter my mind until the very end, when we see Tom Hardy by his Spitfire.

    In retrospect, all the players were amazing in their roles-- every single one-- but none, including Hardy, screamed out future Bond.

    (although i would be intrigued with the Hardy/Nolan duo)

    (also, I think I was too wrapped up in the intensity of the film)

    (one last comment: this film reminds me that we truly have become snowflakes; DUNKIRK shows what sacrifice, heroism and bravery are all about. Now? As our PC thread has proven, we're too busy getting offended at everything under the sun).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I didn't pick him because he was in a high profile film btw. I just see something in the guy. He's young, but he held his own in Nolan's film and has a certain gravitas. Keep in mind he was in Demange's lauded 71 (which I haven't seen) as well.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,256
    http://screenrant.com/james-bond-recast-benedict-cumberbatch-new-actor/
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I can't see it, given his current role as Dr. Strange.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,256
    Cumberbatch is a great actor but I don't see him as Bond.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    I don't see Cumberbatch as Bond at all. Good actor but I don't see him playing a very good Bond.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,821
    Would love to see Cumberbatch as a villain.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,234
    Cumberbatch is too associated with other franchises and characters. And I can't see him as Bond. And he's too old by now surely.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    peter wrote: »
    I saw DUNKIRK today, and it was a brilliant piece of cinema. Truthfully, Bond didn't enter my mind until the very end, when we see Tom Hardy by his Spitfire.

    In retrospect, all the players were amazing in their roles-- every single one-- but none, including Hardy, screamed out future Bond.

    (although i would be intrigued with the Hardy/Nolan duo)

    (also, I think I was too wrapped up in the intensity of the film)

    (one last comment: this film reminds me that we truly have become snowflakes; DUNKIRK shows what sacrifice, heroism and bravery are all about. Now? As our PC thread has proven, we're too busy getting offended at everything under the sun).

    Wouldn't mind Rylance as a villain though.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    What Cucumberpatch COULD pull off is the snobbiness of Bond.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,256
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Would love to see Cumberbatch as a villain.

    Yes! Has he ever played a villain?

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Khan.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,256
    Ah yes, I had forgotten.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    It was very forgettable, so no wonder.
  • TuuliaTuulia
    Posts: 2,081
    Cumberbatch? Geez...

    There are probably more British actors that have been suggested for the Bond role by someone somewhere than there are those that nobody has thought to mention, yet.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    The more I think about it, hiddleston could play like a 008 but i dont think he could be Bond. I still firmly think Fassbender could embody a more literary bond and could pull it off really well. Tom hardy would make a good henchman, and Leonardo Dicaprio could play a bond villain one day.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Bassfender really is the best option to take over.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,234
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    It was very forgettable, so no wonder.

    What? What was wrong with taking one of the most complex and original villains of Star Trek and sci-fi history and turning him into a whitewashed, stereotypical villain with a cliche British accent?
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,821
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    It was very forgettable, so no wonder.

    Is the film itself any good?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    It was very forgettable, so no wonder.

    Is the film itself any good?

    If you like Star Trek, watch it, but it is no masterpiece.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    It was rubbish imho. Quite forgettable indeed.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,362
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    It was very forgettable, so no wonder.

    Is the film itself any good?

    If you like Star Trek, watch it, but it is no masterpiece.

    It also lends itself to repeated viewings. It was just okay for me at first but it gets a bit better with each new viewing.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,234
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    It was very forgettable, so no wonder.

    Is the film itself any good?

    If you like Star Trek, watch it, but it is no masterpiece.

    I'd say if you like or liked Star Trek avoid it.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,821
    Murdock wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    It was very forgettable, so no wonder.

    Is the film itself any good?

    If you like Star Trek, watch it, but it is no masterpiece.

    It also lends itself to repeated viewings. It was just okay for me at first but it gets a bit better with each new viewing.

    And if you are unfamiliar with Star Trek?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,362
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    It was very forgettable, so no wonder.

    Is the film itself any good?

    If you like Star Trek, watch it, but it is no masterpiece.

    It also lends itself to repeated viewings. It was just okay for me at first but it gets a bit better with each new viewing.

    And if you are unfamiliar with Star Trek?

    I would suggest watching the original series, the original series films then the newest ones.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,821
    Murdock wrote: »
    I would suggest watching the original series, the original series films then the newest ones.
    That is quite comprehensive, isn't it? Or am I confusing Star Trek with Dr. Who?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,362
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    I would suggest watching the original series, the original series films then the newest ones.
    That is quite comprehensive, isn't it? Or am I confusing Star Trek with Dr. Who?

    Gotta start somewhere. ;)
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,821
    Murdock wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    I would suggest watching the original series, the original series films then the newest ones.
    That is quite comprehensive, isn't it? Or am I confusing Star Trek with Dr. Who?

    Gotta start somewhere. ;)

    Yeah, you're probably right there! The only thing I've seen of Star Trek is that silly fight between William Shatner and that lizard like thing...
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    Call me an idiot: as a soft fan of ST, I did enjoy the first re-boot , and INTO DARKNESS and I hated, HATED, BEYOND...
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,944
    social%20tout.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.