Who should/could be a Bond actor?

13753763783803811234

Comments

  • Posts: 6,601
    Not for free, but not sell your soul either. I think, many do it and pay dearly at some point. Not saying, its easy. Bit that is where character begins. Or stay decent in this film or entertainment moloch. Hat up to all who succeed.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I recall a scene in And Then There Were None on a train with Turner. I think it may have been his intro scene. Where he's checking out the girl. He was very good in that. Gives off a natural smoothness with an edge. A bit of a rascal. My only concern with him is whether he can appear likeable enough. There was a hint of nastiness in him and one must always root for Bond. I admit I've only got that series to go on, which is not much.

    Regarding the famous FRWL scene: it never ceases to impress me. Both Connery and Bianchi are absolutely superb in it. One of the best.

    This scene wasn't it - on the train?

    cd2a09832c128868e15926b7289d5df0.gif
    Yes, that's the one. He was quite good there.
    One of his better scenes in ATTWN I think, as it gave an accurate impression the character without really telling anything about him.


    Here is the scene (in very poor quality)
    Thanks. I've only seen this series once, but feel I should revisit it again to get a better read on him. I'm quite curious to see Turner in something else though. Something contemporary. Not sure if anyone can recommend anything outside of the Poldark 'period' piece.
  • Posts: 17,814
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I recall a scene in And Then There Were None on a train with Turner. I think it may have been his intro scene. Where he's checking out the girl. He was very good in that. Gives off a natural smoothness with an edge. A bit of a rascal. My only concern with him is whether he can appear likeable enough. There was a hint of nastiness in him and one must always root for Bond. I admit I've only got that series to go on, which is not much.

    Regarding the famous FRWL scene: it never ceases to impress me. Both Connery and Bianchi are absolutely superb in it. One of the best.

    This scene wasn't it - on the train?

    cd2a09832c128868e15926b7289d5df0.gif
    Yes, that's the one. He was quite good there.
    One of his better scenes in ATTWN I think, as it gave an accurate impression the character without really telling anything about him.


    Here is the scene (in very poor quality)
    Thanks. I've only seen this series once, but feel I should revisit it again to get a better read on him. I'm quite curious to see Turner in something else though. Something contemporary. Not sure if anyone can recommend anything outside of the Poldark 'period' piece.

    I'm also curious to see him in something else (and contemporary). If anyone have any recommendations, please let us know! :-)
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    RC7 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Yes, true. Thanks for clearifying. Its good to not jump on every bit of fame and money thrown in your direction. Shows character, or not? That's why this "only for the money" is as much a spur of the monent thing as the wrist. He didn't do it back then and certainly not now. He does it, because he wants to - for whatever reason.

    I agree with you. Some of those who want Craig to move on are like vultures, with their sanctimonious diatribes. If you want him to move on, not a problem, just say it rather than misrepresenting the bloke, or cherry picking out of context morsels, like a hack journalist.

    yep, well said.
  • Posts: 3,333
    00Agent wrote: »
    Thats exactly where i was hooked on him as well. I have only Seen a couple episodes though. Haven't gotten the whole season yet. Maybe i should.

    Also i loved his extremely calm and cool demeanor in Then there were none. I love the whole series but for me he steals the show.

    I think he has what it takes for the job.
    And he seems the least needy for the role atm, which is a smart move. Thats the last thing you should come across as.
    Look at poor Craig, they had to convince him a full year lol
    I've only watched S1 and S2 of Poldark myself, but he gives a solid performance throughout. I don't normally go in for these bodice-rippers but Turner managed to keep me glued, so clearly he's doing something right.
  • Posts: 12,837
    RC7 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Yes, true. Thanks for clearifying. Its good to not jump on every bit of fame and money thrown in your direction. Shows character, or not? That's why this "only for the money" is as much a spur of the monent thing as the wrist. He didn't do it back then and certainly not now. He does it, because he wants to - for whatever reason.

    I agree with you. Some of those who want Craig to move on are like vultures, with their sanctimonious diatribes. If you want him to move on, not a problem, just say it rather than misrepresenting the bloke, or cherry picking out of context morsels, like a hack journalist.

    I think this will gradually stop the more details we get. Soon as the trailer comes out the majority will be excited for the next one. Then by the time it comes out, if it's better recieved than SP (I think it will be), everyone will have chilled out fully and people will start to look on him and his era more fondly again.

    Right now I think all the backlash on here has come from SP changing peoples opinions and there being a four year gap before the next one has a chance to rectify that. By the end of the year we'll have a lot more details and by this time next year we'll have a trailer, so I think we will see a turnaround soon.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    bondjames wrote: »
    I recall a scene in And Then There Were None on a train with Turner. I think it may have been his intro scene. Where he's checking out the girl. He was very good in that. Gives off a natural smoothness with an edge. A bit of a rascal. My only concern with him is whether he can appear likeable enough. There was a hint of nastiness in him and one must always root for Bond. I admit I've only got that series to go on, which is not much.

    Regarding the famous FRWL scene: it never ceases to impress me. Both Connery and Bianchi are absolutely superb in it. One of the best.

    This scene wasn't it - on the train?

    cd2a09832c128868e15926b7289d5df0.gif

    Someone put glue on his cigarette?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,431
    Nice that others are starting to see Turner's potential as a candidate for Bond. The time is now for these discussions to start heating up now that Craig era is coming to end.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,161
    The time for these discussions to start heating up, would be much better when Daniel Craig actually has vacated the role. Between now and then it's all mere speculation and fans of actors who think they'd make a good Bond.
    At the end of the day, Turner may well be on EON's radar, and could possibly make a good Bond.
    But it's a little early to start planning anyone to take over the coveted role of Bond #7.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Benny wrote: »
    The time for these discussions to start heating up, would be much better when Daniel Craig actually has vacated the role. Between now and then it's all mere speculation and fans of actors who think they'd make a good Bond.
    At the end of the day, Turner may well be on EON's radar, and could possibly make a good Bond.
    But it's a little early to start planning anyone to take over the coveted role of Bond #7.

    Yeah, I’m not even starting to think about what’s next. I’m just excited about what they cook up for 25. I’d genuinely like to have a life that’s void of any responsibilities so I could muse on the next 5-10 years of 007, but sadly I have s*** to do. Maybe when I’m retired. That would be nice.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,293
    00Agent wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Yes, true. Thanks for clearifying. Its good to not jump on every bit of fame and money thrown in your direction. Shows character, or not? That's why this "only for the money" is as much a spur of the monent thing as the wrist. He didn't do it back then and certainly not now. He does it, because he wants to - for whatever reason.

    I have no Problem with his money comment, even if it were true. He always gives his all in the role. Its all on the screen. He has set a benchmark that will be tough to follow.

    Everyone including Fleming did Bond for the money at some point. You certainly should not do it for free.

    I bet Roger would have been the first guy to defend Craig and say that he himself did ALL his movies for the money lol. Ah bless his soul, i miss him

    The 'money' comment (at least if it's the same one I think it is) was utterly taken out of context by 'the sun' garbage outlet. eh, 'news' paper. It's from an old Rolling Stone interview where he's clearly joking. And all in all that's what irks me most: whatever you think of his performance, when someone is joking, it's a joke. even if you don't like the joke. And should not be taken literally. People complain about his lack of 'humour' and then start twist and turn every word he says. People are so news-addicted they start regurgitating old stories and take every single word out of context to make 'news'. So people, stop clicking on everything/ every story and use your brains. Stop the spread and business model behind this faul behaviour, and have some patience.
    #endofrant

    On Turner: for what I've seen he's a decent actor and to me an actor doesn't have to have had a 'similar' role to be a contender. He just needs to sell the person he's supposed to be properly. Turner does that indeed, but if he's good enough to make us forget his physical shortcomings (too short, friendly face) I can't tell as I haven't seen him acting. Personally I still think Tom Ellis does fit the bill better, as I think he's a very good actor (sells Lucifer perfectly) and has the looks as well. But we'll see. For now he can stay Lucifer, I thoroughly enjoy his performance there.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Benny wrote: »
    The time for these discussions to start heating up, would be much better when Daniel Craig actually has vacated the role. Between now and then it's all mere speculation and fans of actors who think they'd make a good Bond.
    At the end of the day, Turner may well be on EON's radar, and could possibly make a good Bond.
    But it's a little early to start planning anyone to take over the coveted role of Bond #7.
    That's true, No harm in discussing and speculating (even passionately) about the future though. It's something to look forward to and is actually not that far away. We are not at the start of a man's tenure, but rather one year away from the end of it. After all, we've had a B25 thread running for many years now when we've only just gotten solid information on what's going to happen.

    I'm happy to hear of other suggestions as well, but for now Turner is as good a choice as anyone.

    Honestly I'm surprised to see that there are quite a few who favour Cavill as well. I'm open to either at this point but would also like to see more suggestions, even from tv.

    Bring them on and let's see what they've got!
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    00Agent wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Yes, true. Thanks for clearifying. Its good to not jump on every bit of fame and money thrown in your direction. Shows character, or not? That's why this "only for the money" is as much a spur of the monent thing as the wrist. He didn't do it back then and certainly not now. He does it, because he wants to - for whatever reason.

    I have no Problem with his money comment, even if it were true. He always gives his all in the role. Its all on the screen. He has set a benchmark that will be tough to follow.

    Everyone including Fleming did Bond for the money at some point. You certainly should not do it for free.

    I bet Roger would have been the first guy to defend Craig and say that he himself did ALL his movies for the money lol. Ah bless his soul, i miss him

    The 'money' comment (at least if it's the same one I think it is) was utterly taken out of context by 'the sun' garbage outlet. eh, 'news' paper. It's from an old Rolling Stone interview where he's clearly joking. And all in all that's what irks me most: whatever you think of his performance, when someone is joking, it's a joke. even if you don't like the joke. And should not be taken literally. People complain about his lack of 'humour' and then start twist and turn every word he says. People are so news-addicted they start regurgitating old stories and take every single word out of context to make 'news'. So people, stop clicking on everything/ every story and use your brains. Stop the spread and business model behind this faul behaviour, and have some patience.
    #endofrant

    No i get that. I know he was making a joke. But even IF he had meant it (and no one would say that stuff puiblically) I would Not be bothered too much if he still gives us a good performance in the end. I feel like Connery would agree with me on this lol.

    As for the press, yes, the gossip sites have turned into vultures who only try to trigger people with soundbits to keep everyones Twitter feed running. I hope its because they are slowly dying and are getting desperate. But the sad truth is that there is something universal about gossip and people need to have someone else to Talk s*** about so they don't have to look at their own boring lifes.

    Daniel did say some dumb stuff, but the press took it way to far, and many people are to naive (or easily triggered) and believe everything they read sadly. I know Craig has learned his lesson. Expect only superficial, 'diplomatic' and boring answers from him on the next press Tour. Delivered with a fake smile. I already noticed him doing that a couple of times.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Why are we blaming the press? That's the way they've always operated. It's a part of the game when you're in show bizz. Some thought it was cute that Craig used to make those kind of jovial comments before. It caught up with him. In retrospect he realizes he shouldn't have done it and I suspect we won't ever hear anything like that from him again. Irrespective, the damage is done, not because of the comment but more because of how it got so much airtime consistently out of context. It annoys me that we still continue to see both comments in front of many articles (globally) discussing Bond, but it is what it is. EON should have shut both down sooner, and I said that back then when both were getting traction. You don't let these things fester. You address it right away and move on. That's how it's done in politics. The fault is not in the statement but in the way it was handled.

    Regarding what he's getting paid for B25: Who cares really? I certainly don't. I'm sure it's a lot of money and that's fine. Pay him £50m or $25m or whatever. Just get the film out on time and make sure it's good. I'll be happy.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Benny wrote: »
    The time for these discussions to start heating up, would be much better when Daniel Craig actually has vacated the role. Between now and then it's all mere speculation and fans of actors who think they'd make a good Bond.
    At the end of the day, Turner may well be on EON's radar, and could possibly make a good Bond.
    But it's a little early to start planning anyone to take over the coveted role of Bond #7.
    In defence of this thread and people's views, the purpose of these comments is to make a projection and state a case for the next 007 actor, regardless of the current production in progress. Surely one could make the same case for the "Bond 25 Production Diary" thread which has very little info available regarding the actual production of the movie, but is already 1565 pages deep in pointless diatribe and baseless rumours?
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,293
    @Bondsum @Benny just reacted to an overly enthusiastic @Mendes4Life and isn't targeted against this thread I believe.

    @Bondjames and @00Agent there's a difference in what was and what is. It's sad that Roger Moore could joke around without any real backlash, whilst if Craig does it, it's immediately taken out of context and regurgitated time and time again. And yes I'm aiming at the 'gossip papers', but the 'mainstream media'(I hate that term) haven't done anything to stop this: they're most often even doing the same or just part of the same media company.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @CommanderRoss, Craig's commentary was misinterpreted. Not sure if the press is out to get him or if his humour rubs them the wrong way. As mentioned, I have absolutely no problem with the comment, which was intended as a joke, even if he should have known better. Rather, my problem has always been with how it was handled (or rather, not handled). It became a much bigger issue than it needed to be due to poor press management and obtained a life of its own. It will continue to stay with us now, sadly, as can be seen.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Its rather easy. Roger made jokes, but played nice to the press. DC has alkways, from the start let them know, how much he dislikes them. So, of course, they are after him more then Sir Roger, who was everybodies darling.
    So - in a way, Daniel knows this and still is doing it his way and gets the backlash. Nothing surprising here.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 2018 Posts: 8,431
    Craig never fully committed to everything the role entails. If you take a role like Bond you have to accept that handling reporters is part of the job. You represent the brand. Craig never embraced that part of it, and it has reflected badly over the years on the franchise as a whole.

    We need someone who can make up for that downfall, and bring it back to what we had with Moore and Brosnan.

    Looks like Poldark is back!

  • Posts: 15,204
    Well, given the trust Barbara put in him he seems to have been a fairly committed and good representative of the brand.
  • edited May 2018 Posts: 3,333
    I don't entirely agree with you @Mendes4Lyfe. I think you're partly right that any actor that accepts the role should be mentally prepared for handling reporters, but there's nothing to say that he should have to endure some of the inane questions that are put forward by these halfwits that are running some internet blog somewhere or have somehow managed to get a guest role on a low-rent cable TV show and are there because MGM or Sony just happen to think it'll generate more ticket sales. I think it was HaphazardStuff that produced a marvellous segment on one of his Bond review videos that showed just how dumb these questions were and Craig's blank expression afterwards. And let's be honest, Dalton didn't like it nor embrace it either, and the same could be said of Connery. There was only really 2 Bonds that did, both Moore and Brosnan, who seemed grateful for their belated media attention after being confined mostly to TV. I also happen to think things are a lot tougher now. No longer is it the big networks sending out their very best interviewers, it's clowns that they've got asking the questions now.

    Found it!! Take a look at HaphazardStuff's video below roughly around the 20:00 mark right to the very end. And bare in mind that this is only a tiny snippet of the real PR process...

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 2018 Posts: 8,431
    bondsum wrote: »
    I don't entirely agree with you @Mendes4Lyfe. I think you're partly right that any actor that accepts the role should be mentally prepared for handling reporters, but there's nothing to say that he should have to endure some of the inane questions that are put forward by these halfwits that are running some internet blog somewhere or have somehow managed to get a guest role on a low-rent cable TV show and are there because MGM or Sony just happen to think it'll generate more ticket sales. I think it was HaphazardStuff that produced a marvellous segment on one of his Bond review videos that showed just how dumb these questions were and Craig's blank expression afterwards. And let's be honest, Dalton didn't like it nor embrace it either, and the same could be said of Connery. There was only really 2 Bonds that did, both Moore and Brosnan, who seemed grateful for their belated media attention after being confined mostly to TV. I also happen to think things are a lot tougher now. No longer is it the big networks sending out their very best interviewers, it's clowns that they've got asking the questions now.

    Found it!! Take a look at HaphazardStuff's video below roughly around the 20:00 mark right to the very end. And bare in mind that this is only a tiny snippet of the real PR process...


    I agree, they are inane questions, but it doesn't change the fact that the actor in the role represents the Brand more visibly than anyone else. Like I said Roger and Pierce were the best at this, and after someone like Craig being in the role we really need someone that knows how to handle that.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited May 2018 Posts: 5,185
    bondsum wrote: »
    I don't entirely agree with you @Mendes4Lyfe. I think you're partly right that any actor that accepts the role should be mentally prepared for handling reporters, but there's nothing to say that he should have to endure some of the inane questions that are put forward by these halfwits that are running some internet blog somewhere or have somehow managed to get a guest role on a low-rent cable TV show and are there because MGM or Sony just happen to think it'll generate more ticket sales. I think it was HaphazardStuff that produced a marvellous segment on one of his Bond review videos that showed just how dumb these questions were and Craig's blank expression afterwards. And let's be honest, Dalton didn't like it nor embrace it either, and the same could be said of Connery. There was only really 2 Bonds that did, both Moore and Brosnan, who seemed grateful for their belated media attention after being confined mostly to TV. I also happen to think things are a lot tougher now. No longer is it the big networks sending out their very best interviewers, it's clowns that they've got asking the questions now.

    Found it!! Take a look at HaphazardStuff's video below roughly around the 20:00 mark right to the very end. And bare in mind that this is only a tiny snippet of the real PR process...



    Agreed with every word you said.
    Unfortunately if you reach Craigs Level you don't even get questions about your movies some of the time. Some of those idiots will just ask you which Kadaschian you would rather date only so they can have a headline the same day.
    What many people don't seem to understand is that these so called journalists are not looking for honesty or a good story. They have declared themselves in the 'entertainment business' instead of journalism so that means anything goes.
    It just needs to generate clicks.
  • edited May 2018 Posts: 3,333
    Cheers @00Agent. You understand exactly what I mean. It is now all about the 'entertainment business' instead of proper journalism.

    Yes, @Mendes4Lyfe, Craig IS still representing the brand by sitting there and answering their stupid questions. What more would you have him do? Part of the reason why I like Craig so much is that he's clearly his own man. I don't want the next Bond actor to be a performing seal for these stupid press junkets. I'd rather he told them straight and to come back when they have some decent questions to ask. Who honestly cares about this "talking head" crap anyway? The real potatoes is on the likes of The Graham Norton Show or Colbert's late-night television talk show, which Craig is fine at. Plus, Moore didn't have to endure these big circus PR events when announcing a new Bond movie. It was normally a civilised affair atop of Kensington Roof Gardens with the top entertainment journalists of the day.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,161
    bondsum wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    The time for these discussions to start heating up, would be much better when Daniel Craig actually has vacated the role. Between now and then it's all mere speculation and fans of actors who think they'd make a good Bond.
    At the end of the day, Turner may well be on EON's radar, and could possibly make a good Bond.
    But it's a little early to start planning anyone to take over the coveted role of Bond #7.
    In defence of this thread and people's views, the purpose of these comments is to make a projection and state a case for the next 007 actor, regardless of the current production in progress. Surely one could make the same case for the "Bond 25 Production Diary" thread which has very little info available regarding the actual production of the movie, but is already 1565 pages deep in pointless diatribe and baseless rumours?

    As @CommanderRoss correctly pointed out @bondsum , my comments were not targeting the thread in general. But @Mendes4Lyfe incessant posting of Aidan Turner taking over the role of James Bond after Daniel Craig has left the role. As if Turner has already been lined up, and come 2022 we'll all be siting down to Bond26 with Turner.
    There's speculating and suggesting an actor as a credible potential Bond (And Turner is a potential whether I like it or not) and there's getting so engrossed in ones own fantasy, that it becomes some warped reality. This is the latter.
    Who knows, maybe Craig will enjoy Bond 25 so much he decides to stay on for one more.
    Maybe EON have an actor lined up in their heads already.
    It's fine too speculate, as you said that's all this thread can do, and it's a bit of fun. But when it's posted as almost a fact or a certainty that this is what the future will hold....then that's something different.
    Turner, Cavill, Fassbender, Goode, Norton et al will all doubtless be amongst the bookies favourites at some point. Who can tell what comes after is a mystery.
  • edited May 2018 Posts: 6,601
    Right. Thanks Benny and also, Thing is, he feels the need to put others down first to make him shine. Seems he cant stand on his own, not even in Mendes eyes.
  • Posts: 6,601
    IF, what seems not impossible to me, DC stays as co producer or whatever, HE might be the one suggesting the next Bond.
  • Posts: 15,204
    I always thought: 1)Craig might coach his successor, if he's considerably younger and 2) it's likely that the next Bond is at the moment a complete unknown.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,293
    @bondsum thanks for that! It's a nice sum-up of my grievences with this whole 'press' arena. It shouldn't be too difficult to ask some interesting questions at such an event, or in apromotional tour, without beeing so bland and ignorant/stupid now should it?

    @Germanlady now there's a provocative thought! Would be really intersting to see if Craig remains as a co-producer after leaving the role.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Benny wrote: »
    As @CommanderRoss correctly pointed out @bondsum , my comments were not targeting the thread in general. But @Mendes4Lyfe incessant posting of Aidan Turner taking over the role of James Bond after Daniel Craig has left the role. As if Turner has already been lined up, and come 2022 we'll all be siting down to Bond26 with Turner.
    There's speculating and suggesting an actor as a credible potential Bond (And Turner is a potential whether I like it or not) and there's getting so engrossed in ones own fantasy, that it becomes some warped reality. This is the latter.
    Who knows, maybe Craig will enjoy Bond 25 so much he decides to stay on for one more.
    Maybe EON have an actor lined up in their heads already.
    It's fine too speculate, as you said that's all this thread can do, and it's a bit of fun. But when it's posted as almost a fact or a certainty that this is what the future will hold....then that's something different.
    Turner, Cavill, Fassbender, Goode, Norton et al will all doubtless be amongst the bookies favourites at some point. Who can tell what comes after is a mystery.
    In that case, you have my humble apologies @Benny. And you're quite right about @Mendes4Lyfe's obsessiveness of Turner. It can go beyond enthusiasm to the point of turning people against the actor.
Sign In or Register to comment.