› ›

Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1…418419421423424…1231

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Nolan said in an interview last year, while promoting Dunkirk, that he thinks Hardy would be perfect for Bond.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    :-&
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Nolan said in an interview last year, while promoting Dunkirk, that he thinks Hardy would be perfect for Bond.

    There you go then, it's probably him we're getting. Not my first choice, but not a bad choice either.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    And that's why Nolan should never come anywhere near Bond.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    And that's why Nolan should never come anywhere near Bond.

    Precisely.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    I'm guessing you two would much prefer Bond goes back to a series of fun standalone spy mission, and part of me dearly misses those days too. But there's no going back, we live in a different world now. Evergreen Franchises like Bond are so precious that whoever is in charge I don't think they will ever make Bond just a breezy series of one-off's again. We are never getting that Bond back.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Never say never again.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Never say never again.

    +1 This different world can go shove it.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Murdock wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Never say never again.
    +1 This different world can go shove it.
    +1. The world changes frequently, and one can't predict the future. Some love to act like seers and oracles here.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Never say never again.
    +1 This different world can go shove it.
    +1. The world changes frequently, and one can't predict the future. Some love to act like seers and oracles here.

    Wish I had their magic 8 ball. I could stand to win the lottery for once. =))
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Murdock wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Never say never again.
    +1 This different world can go shove it.
    +1. The world changes frequently, and one can't predict the future. Some love to act like seers and oracles here.
    Wish I had their magic 8 ball. I could stand to win the lottery for once. =))
    Better make that two! :))
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    i would like standalone entertaining films as per the Connery and Moore eras as well but when Babs tried to do this with Brosnan the films were a major disappointment to me. it felt like she was trying to ape the Moore era but aping the past usually (not always) just feels contrived and tired. I suppose you could make the same criticism of SP.

    also I think current audiences have come to expect something a little more hard edged from Bond. ironic really considering the difficulty they had getting people to accept the change of direction with Dalton

    Having said that times and attitudes change. more light hearted Bond could make a return. it would need to be done in the right way with a coherent vision and good writing. Mission Impossible has probably got that dimension covered right now.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,115
    But the Connery era was not purely standalone. He had a recurring adversary in all but one of his Bond movies after all. Of course the plots themselves were independent from each other, but there was some continuity.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Quite a bit in fact.

    From Russia With Love has some direct references to Dr. No. Goldfinger has a vague reference to Dr. No. Thunderball has connections to From Russia With Love, though no direct references. Then OHMSS with the callbacks to DN, FRWL and TB.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    The first 20 Bond films do have at least vague references to one another, but not as absurdly pulled off as in SP. It could have a continuity, but not in a manner that would trap the writers in the corner they brought themselves through. You can have a dateless timeline (which is what the Bond films should be like) but never a character arc. Bond films should be about the adventure and the plot revolving around the threat. Bond is the central instrument of how to stopping that threat, not become the focus of the story as a character.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    The first 20 Bond films do have at least vague references to one another, but not as absurdly pulled off as in SP. It could have a continuity, but not in a manner that would trap the writers in the corner they brought themselves through. You can have a dateless timeline (which is what the Bond films should be like) but never a character arc. Bond films should be about the adventure and the plot revolving around the threat. Bond is the central instrument of how to stopping that threat, not become the focus of the story as a character.

    Post of the day.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited September 2018 Posts: 8,395
    I'm not just talking about continuity. It's possible that they find a better balance of humour after Craig leaves, but they will never go back to the happy-go-lucky romps of the 80's and 90's. Bond has to mean more nowadays, as the granddaddy of blockbuster franchises, it has to be more mature. I wish it wasn't the case, but it's just the reality.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Murdock wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    The first 20 Bond films do have at least vague references to one another, but not as absurdly pulled off as in SP. It could have a continuity, but not in a manner that would trap the writers in the corner they brought themselves through. You can have a dateless timeline (which is what the Bond films should be like) but never a character arc. Bond films should be about the adventure and the plot revolving around the threat. Bond is the central instrument of how to stopping that threat, not become the focus of the story as a character.
    Post of the day.
    Thank you, my good man. :D
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Thank you, my good man. :D

    My pleasure. :)
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    I'm not just talking about continuity. It's possible that they find a better balance of humour after Craig leaves, but they will never go back to the happy-go-lucky romps of the 80's and 90's. Bond has to mean more nowadays, as the granddaddy of blockbuster franchises, it has to be more mature. I wish it wasn't the case, but it's just the reality.
    Bond stories like fun romps as labeled around here is being done right now in the comics to critical acclaim. If that's succeeding, it's not hard for the filmmakers to go back to that style.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    edited September 2018 Posts: 17,753
    Ludovico wrote: »
    But the Connery era was not purely standalone. He had a recurring adversary in all but one of his Bond movies after all. Of course the plots themselves were independent from each other, but there was some continuity.

    That's all the continuity we really need, I think. Some friends of mine who are just your regular moviegoers, have found the Craig era very difficult to follow, as they couldn't pick up on elements from the previous film(s) when they were presented. "Who's this Mr. White again?", as one of my friends put it.

    Although we might be more invested in continuity, the regular moviegoers don't necessarily pick up on all these elements x years later. And a large amount of the people who go to see a Bond film are regular moviegoers.
  • fanbond123fanbond123
    edited September 2018 Posts: 1,661
    Going into cynical mode, I'd posit Richard Madden is merely the flavour of the day. Tom Hiddleston got the 'next Bond' treatment when The Night Manager was broadcast. That was a BBC political thriller and now we have another BBC political thriller and another actor gets the 'next Bond' treatment.

    Nobody mentions Tom Hiddleston anymore. According to IMDB, he has no films in pre-production? Perhaps he's given up acting! Maybe he'll do some stage acting. A bit of Shakespeare or pantomime. ;)






  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,753
    Hiddleston might just be on a break, perhaps? It's not like Craig has done a lot of projects between Bond (stage plays aside).
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    I don't like Hardy one bit. He mumbles too much or puts on hard to understand voices in the majority of the films I've seen him in.
    Yep. And besides, he plays the same character every time just like Jason Statham. There’s no chance in hell we’ll see an absolutely different persona from him on the screen that accommodates the needs of portraying Bond.

    Not to mention he's a little too cockney for Bond.

    Good job he's an actor then. He's also not enough of a secret agent for Bond, but he can pretend. That's what actors do.
    I knew someone would bring this exact sentiment up. And no, some actors just don’t get out of their own image. Hardy is that type of an actor. Always playing himself.
    Bronson, Warrior, Tinker Tailer Soldier Spy, Inception, always the same? Hmm.

    But I am NOT advocating Nolan. In fact, I don´t think he is a director who brings out the best in actors.

  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,753
    boldfinger wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    I don't like Hardy one bit. He mumbles too much or puts on hard to understand voices in the majority of the films I've seen him in.
    Yep. And besides, he plays the same character every time just like Jason Statham. There’s no chance in hell we’ll see an absolutely different persona from him on the screen that accommodates the needs of portraying Bond.

    Not to mention he's a little too cockney for Bond.

    Good job he's an actor then. He's also not enough of a secret agent for Bond, but he can pretend. That's what actors do.
    I knew someone would bring this exact sentiment up. And no, some actors just don’t get out of their own image. Hardy is that type of an actor. Always playing himself.
    Bronson, Warrior, Tinker Tailer Soldier Spy, Inception, always the same? Hmm.

    But I am NOT advocating Nolan. In fact, I don´t think he is a director who brings out the best in actors.

    Agree completely with this. I feel his characters are a bit flat, and that this affects the acting performances. Many might disagree, but this is how I see it.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    I agree with a lot of the Nolan criticisms but I'd still like to see him write and direct a Bond film. Yes he has flaws and he's perhaps not as great as he's made out to be but he's still undeniably one of the most accomplished and successful British directors of his generation. I'm not saying he's on Kubrick' s level but he also often got slightly low key performances out of his actor's while perhaps focusing more on the visuals and overall concept and look and feel of a movie.

    There are lots of ways to make a film after all in terms of emphasis.

    What Nolan would bring is a finely crafted and ingeniously plotted approach that we haven't seen for some time. For me that's worth a punt. What's the alternative anyway? Another 5 year wait after B25 with Purvis and Wade called in at the last minute and some random director drafted in to salvage something from the mess... again?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited September 2018 Posts: 8,395
    Getafix wrote: »
    I agree with a lot of the Nolan criticisms but I'd still like to see him write and direct a Bond film. Yes he has flaws and he's perhaps not as great as he's made out to be but he's still undeniably one of the most accomplished and successful British directors of his generation. I'm not saying he's on Kubrick' s level but he also often got slightly low key performances out of his actor's while perhaps focusing more on the visuals and overall concept and look and feel of a movie.

    There are lots of ways to make a film after all in terms of emphasis.

    What Nolan would bring is a finely crafted and ingeniously plotted approach that we haven't seen for some time. For me that's worth a punt. What's the alternative anyway? Another 5 year wait after B25 with Purvis and Wade called in at the last minute and some random director drafted in to salvage something from the mess... again?

    I've had enough of that with the Craig films, TBH :)) . I want someone to write and direct there own Bond film, instead of multiple parties passing the project around like a hot potato.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    so you'd be up for a Nolan Bond movie?

    I just feel that as with Speilberg it would be a real shame if we never got a Nolan Bond film.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited September 2018 Posts: 15,423
    boldfinger wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    I don't like Hardy one bit. He mumbles too much or puts on hard to understand voices in the majority of the films I've seen him in.
    Yep. And besides, he plays the same character every time just like Jason Statham. There’s no chance in hell we’ll see an absolutely different persona from him on the screen that accommodates the needs of portraying Bond.

    Not to mention he's a little too cockney for Bond.

    Good job he's an actor then. He's also not enough of a secret agent for Bond, but he can pretend. That's what actors do.
    I knew someone would bring this exact sentiment up. And no, some actors just don’t get out of their own image. Hardy is that type of an actor. Always playing himself.
    Bronson, Warrior, Tinker Tailer Soldier Spy, Inception, always the same? Hmm.
    Characters that are entirely in his range. Even the upcoming Venom (from what they look like in the trailers). Bond isn't.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    Getafix wrote: »
    so you'd be up for a Nolan Bond movie?

    I just feel that as with Speilberg it would be a real shame if we never got a Nolan Bond film.

    Absolutely, I'd be up for a Nolan trilogy! With Tom Hardy if necessary. Speaking of Speilberg, Nolan is basically the Spielberg of the new generation. I could see him making Bond movies as good as any of the Indiana Jones films.
Sign In or Register to comment.