› ›

Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1…472473475477478…1231

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Watching the recent adaptation of Ordeal by Innocence over the past couple of evenings, I've kept looking at Matthew Goode thinking that he could have been a good choice for a period set Bond film. He's 40 now, with some lines in his face, and a bit more muscle it seems. Of course, we won't get a period Bond anyway; just thought it was worth mentioning.
    I haven't seen too much of his work, but I've always liked Goode's look. He has the right build for Bond too. Someone who I've always liked from that era is Jack Davenport. He's got a certain style about him.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Talking of Agatha Christie adaptations, I think Nicholas Clay, around the time he did Evil Under the Sun and Excalibur, could have made a great Bond.
    A bit thuggish in my view, but distinctive.
    --

    I rewatched Thor Ragnarok (one of my faves from the past few years) last night, and I am coming around more to Hemsworth. I noticed in this last viewing that he really holds his own when sparring with theatre heavyweights like Blanchett, Hiddleston and Hopkins and his light timing is perfection (as good as Moore, Connery or Willis at their best). I don't see Bond in him, but find him very good when he's in his sweet spot (he reminds me most of a young Willis and think he'd be great in a Die Hard type film).
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    Univex wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Just from the top of my head, and in a very poor fashion I must add. Let's try telling a relevant story about the pharmaceutical fascism, and the lack of real and true ideals that command a vision of an apt future for mankind. All this without the loom and gloom.

    I'd have a new Bond (Turner) go to a far out location (say, Japan), in order to stop a mad man inciting people to commit suicide on his island throughout a legislative loophole concerning international waters. This said entrepreneur would work with a couple of known psychiatrists, a network of psychiatrists, in order to lure people from all sorts of relevant lines of work, to his small and deadly island. His aim, unknown. But some members, let's say two, of Her Majesty's government have been missing. And so have others from other nations. One of the 00s has been sent to investigate, four months ago, and has yet to report. Bond is called from his vacation in the Algarve, where he by chance has met a fellow (female) agent suffering from some sort of chemically induced depression, spending her income in the casino while she drinks to oblivion. Note that Bond is the only one not feeling depressed in this treatment. He's called back to London. Meets M for a quick and rather well written expository scene. M sends him to Japan, where he spends a couple of days training for a long swim to the island, being that it's the only way to get there undetected. When he does try to get there, we have the infamous barracuda scene ;) He reaches the shoreline in an awful state and has to recover and infiltrate the castle in a scene reminiscent of Dr. No's escape scene (Black coffee and eggs included, from the, say, specialised gardeners). He then eludes many forms of death traps. Listen, this is all quick and very empty ideia. For all its worth, made the wrong way, we could have a Johnny English 3 made out of it. Done right, we could have another Dr. No. And start afresh from there. If not, there's a Swiss story about couriers I have in mind, and many others.

    Now, do fell free to claw and rip this one apart.
    I have hardly any complaint About that idea, except I saw a flashing red light and heard a loud warning claxon and a mechanical voice coming through Speakers exclaiming, "Tracy Alarm! Tracy Alarm!", when I read the part About the depressed Lady in the Casino.

    Oh, he doesn't save her from anything ;) Not even from herself. But I see what you mean. Back to the writing page then ;)
    Glad you guys liked it.
    @Univex, Nothing problematic, just a minor fix ;-). Keep going.

  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    edited December 2018 Posts: 17,757
    bondjames wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Watching the recent adaptation of Ordeal by Innocence over the past couple of evenings, I've kept looking at Matthew Goode thinking that he could have been a good choice for a period set Bond film. He's 40 now, with some lines in his face, and a bit more muscle it seems. Of course, we won't get a period Bond anyway; just thought it was worth mentioning.
    I haven't seen too much of his work, but I've always liked Goode's look. He has the right build for Bond too. Someone who I've always liked from that era is Jack Davenport. He's got a certain style about him.

    Agree on Jack Davenport. Quality actor, with the right type of screen presence required, IMO. He also has this "British gentleman" kind of look, if that makes sense. Ten years to late though…
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,125
    @bondjames Nicholas Clay thuggish? I thought he looked and acted very gentlemanly. I've been a fan of Excalibur since childhood, so maybe I imagine his hypothetical Bond a bit like he played Lancelot.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Davenport played an exaggerated Bond pastiche in the first Kingsman, so that’d immediately disqualify him. Today, they don’t “typecast”.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    @bondjames Nicholas Clay thuggish? I thought he looked and acted very gentlemanly. I've been a fan of Excalibur since childhood, so maybe I imagine his hypothetical Bond a bit like he played Lancelot.
    It's just his look @Ludovico, and not his acting. There's something a bit ruffian or 'street' about the guy to me. To a degree he reminds me of Craig or Hardy. Not to say he couldn't do the job, but I prefer just a tad more natural elegance for Bond.
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Watching the recent adaptation of Ordeal by Innocence over the past couple of evenings, I've kept looking at Matthew Goode thinking that he could have been a good choice for a period set Bond film. He's 40 now, with some lines in his face, and a bit more muscle it seems. Of course, we won't get a period Bond anyway; just thought it was worth mentioning.
    I haven't seen too much of his work, but I've always liked Goode's look. He has the right build for Bond too. Someone who I've always liked from that era is Jack Davenport. He's got a certain style about him.

    Agree on Jack Davenport. Quality actor, with the right type of screen presence required, IMO. He also has this "British gentleman" kind of look, if that makes sense. Ten years to late though…
    Yes, way too late sadly, but he had what it took imho.
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Davenport played an exaggerated Bond pastiche in the first Kingsman, so that’d immediately disqualify him. Today, they don’t “typecast”.
    If he were to have been cast, it would have had to predate Kingsman. He was already too old imho by 2015.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    edited December 2018 Posts: 17,757
    bondjames wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Davenport played an exaggerated Bond pastiche in the first Kingsman, so that’d immediately disqualify him. Today, they don’t “typecast”.
    If he were to have been cast, it would have had to predate Kingsman. He was already too old imho by 2015.

    Yep. Davenport would only have been a possibility about a decade ago. Strange how it seems to have been more potential candidates back then than now. Where are the Jackman's, the Davenport's etc. of 2018 hiding?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Davenport played an exaggerated Bond pastiche in the first Kingsman, so that’d immediately disqualify him. Today, they don’t “typecast”.
    If he were to have been cast, it would have had to predate Kingsman. He was already too old imho by 2015.

    Yep. Davenpoty would only have been a possibility about a decade ago. Strange how it seems to have been more potential candidates back then than now. Where are the Jackman's, the Davenport's etc. of 2018 hiding?
    It's sort of bifurcated now. No one candidate has it all, but there are certainly candidates who have many of the required attributes, and they are discussed here frequently.

    Let's look at it another way: if someone had dropped Craig's name on this forum in 2004, I wonder how many of us would have seen him as a fit for the role. Not many I'm reasonably sure, and with perfectly valid reasons too (many of which we still discuss here as we anticipate B25). So in the end there won't be another Connery - the perfect man isn't there. We will have to settle, and it's a matter of where on the spectrum the candidate lies.

    I agree that there were closer fits to the iconic template last time around. EON didn't choose them.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    edited December 2018 Posts: 17,757
    bondjames wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Davenport played an exaggerated Bond pastiche in the first Kingsman, so that’d immediately disqualify him. Today, they don’t “typecast”.
    If he were to have been cast, it would have had to predate Kingsman. He was already too old imho by 2015.

    Yep. Davenpoty would only have been a possibility about a decade ago. Strange how it seems to have been more potential candidates back then than now. Where are the Jackman's, the Davenport's etc. of 2018 hiding?
    It's sort of bifurcated now. No one candidate has it all, but there are certainly candidates who have many of the required attributes, and they are discussed here frequently.

    Let's look at it another way: if someone had dropped Craig's name on this forum in 2004, I wonder how many of us would have seen him as a fit for the role. Not many I'm reasonably sure, and with perfectly valid reasons too (many of which we still discuss here as we anticipate B25). So in the end there won't be another Connery - the perfect man isn't there. We will have to settle, and it's a matter of where on the spectrum the candidate lies.

    I agree that there were closer fits to the iconic template last time around. EON didn't choose them.

    Good points. Nothing suggested Craig was a candidate, yet he's still around playing Bond. I do wonder if EON see themselves at a different crossroad now (or not). Casting a "template looking" Bond this time around will no doubt please many of us.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Davenport played an exaggerated Bond pastiche in the first Kingsman, so that’d immediately disqualify him. Today, they don’t “typecast”.
    If he were to have been cast, it would have had to predate Kingsman. He was already too old imho by 2015.

    Yep. Davenpoty would only have been a possibility about a decade ago. Strange how it seems to have been more potential candidates back then than now. Where are the Jackman's, the Davenport's etc. of 2018 hiding?
    It's sort of bifurcated now. No one candidate has it all, but there are certainly candidates who have many of the required attributes, and they are discussed here frequently.

    Let's look at it another way: if someone had dropped Craig's name on this forum in 2004, I wonder how many of us would have seen him as a fit for the role. Not many I'm reasonably sure, and with perfectly valid reasons too (many of which we still discuss here as we anticipate B25). So in the end there won't be another Connery - the perfect man isn't there. We will have to settle, and it's a matter of where on the spectrum the candidate lies.

    I agree that there were closer fits to the iconic template last time around. EON didn't choose them.

    Good points. Nothing suggested Craig was a candidate, yet he's still around playing Bond. I do wonder if EON see themselves at a different crossroad now (or not). Casting a "template looking" Bond this time around will no doubt please many of us.
    I think they do indeed see themselves in a different place. They can't do another origin story so soon, and so they will need to flow into an actor who can quickly embody the character without the luxury of a detailed backstory as Craig has had (and I'd argue that this backstory has also become his, and the character's, burden as it has gone along - at least from my perspective).

    They just need to use the Cubby changeover template that has proven to be the most successful in the industry.

    I must say though that rumours of a definitive end to the Craig era suggest they are going to do something drastic next time around (and it could very well mean a sale or another reboot, which I think would be a big mistake). It just doesn't make any sense otherwise to try to close out this Bond's story, age recognition and all, rather than flow it into a normal changeover as they set up with the SP ending.
  • Benjamin_Weekly69Benjamin_Weekly69 London
    edited December 2018 Posts: 727
    There was a recent poll where 63 percent of Americans wanted Elba to be James Bond. I suspect for us, the British, the number is much higher.

    Edit, here it is: https://www.wmagazine.com/story/idris-elba-james-bond-poll
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217
    Polls are easily manipulated to achieve a desired outcome.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,757
    bondjames wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Davenport played an exaggerated Bond pastiche in the first Kingsman, so that’d immediately disqualify him. Today, they don’t “typecast”.
    If he were to have been cast, it would have had to predate Kingsman. He was already too old imho by 2015.

    Yep. Davenpoty would only have been a possibility about a decade ago. Strange how it seems to have been more potential candidates back then than now. Where are the Jackman's, the Davenport's etc. of 2018 hiding?
    It's sort of bifurcated now. No one candidate has it all, but there are certainly candidates who have many of the required attributes, and they are discussed here frequently.

    Let's look at it another way: if someone had dropped Craig's name on this forum in 2004, I wonder how many of us would have seen him as a fit for the role. Not many I'm reasonably sure, and with perfectly valid reasons too (many of which we still discuss here as we anticipate B25). So in the end there won't be another Connery - the perfect man isn't there. We will have to settle, and it's a matter of where on the spectrum the candidate lies.

    I agree that there were closer fits to the iconic template last time around. EON didn't choose them.

    Good points. Nothing suggested Craig was a candidate, yet he's still around playing Bond. I do wonder if EON see themselves at a different crossroad now (or not). Casting a "template looking" Bond this time around will no doubt please many of us.
    I think they do indeed see themselves in a different place. They can't do another origin story so soon, and so they will need to flow into an actor who can quickly embody the character without the luxury of a detailed backstory as Craig has had (and I'd argue that this backstory has also become his, and the character's, burden as it has gone along - at least from my perspective).

    They just need to use the Cubby changeover template that has proven to be the most successful in the industry.

    I must say though that rumours of a definitive end to the Craig era suggest they are going to do something drastic next time around (and it could very well mean a sale or another reboot, which I think would be a big mistake). It just doesn't make any sense otherwise to try to close out this Bond's story, age recognition and all, rather than flow it into a normal changeover as they set up with the SP ending.

    Yes, a new origin story now would feel wrong, IMO. A soft reboot on the other hand should be the way to go. But who knows where EON find themselves post-Bond 25. I look forward to see what they come up with, but I'm not necessarily feeling too optimistic. I'd actually be more optimistic had the Craig era ended with SP. That ending felt like a soft reboot waiting to happen.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited December 2018 Posts: 8,217
    So much has been made of Bond’s age in this era, specifically in SF, that I want a completely new incarnation for the next actor; that means an entirely new supporting cast. It will exist in is own universe, with no links to previous incarnations.

    From the start, this should not be an origin story either, Bond should be an agent in his prime.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    edited December 2018 Posts: 17,757
    talos7 wrote: »
    So much has been made of Bond’s age in this era, specifically in SF, that I want a completely new incarnation for the next actor; that means an entirely new supporting cast. It will exist in is own universe, with no links to previous incarnations.

    From the start, this should not be an origin story either, Bond should be an agent in his prime.

    That would definitely be preferable. Just introduce the next guy in a standalone mission (with whatever continuity as loose as possible). Simple!
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,266
    Benjamin_Weekly69 wrote: »
    There was a recent poll where 63 percent of Americans wanted Elba to be James Bond. I suspect for us, the British, the number is much higher.

    Edit, here it is: https://www.wmagazine.com/story/idris-elba-james-bond-poll

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217
    Brilliant!
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,125
    @bondjames Funny how perceptions differ. I'd imagine Clay to be in direct line to Moore. But then again for me he was the greatest Lancelot. The least thuggish role there could be.

    In any case he's too old and too dead now.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @Ludovico it's more his look and his build than anything else. I'll admit he was very smooth in Evil Under The Sun.

    In terms of a Moore type successor, I think Davenport would have been closest in the past, and these days it's probably Hiddleston.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    edited December 2018 Posts: 17,757
    bondjames wrote: »
    In terms of a Moore type successor, I think Davenport would have been closest in the past, and these days it's probably Hiddleston.

    I think you're right about this. For example, I think both Davenport and Hiddleston could have easily done well as The Saint - which Moore made famous before playing Bond.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    In terms of a Moore type successor, I think Davenport would have been closest in the past, and these days it's probably Hiddleston.

    I think you're right about this. For example, I think both Davenport and Hiddleston could have easily done well as The Saint - which Moore made famous before playing Bond.
    Good point. I can see either in the role.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited December 2018 Posts: 9,509
    Apologies to all Hiddleston fans. He's an actor I find very hard to like, admittedly, so putting him in the same sentence with Roger Moore, hurts my eyes and my brain when I process any remote comparisons between these two actors.

    In the end, Roger Moore was so incredibly special (and this is from someone who rates him third/sometimes fourth of the Bond actors), that there is no Second Coming of Moore (even more so with Connery); not even close.

    So a Hiddleston, to me, is far more effective if he would be cast in something more theatrical-- for example, I could see him playing an amazing and twisted Joker.

    Just keep him away from James Bond (and the Saint).
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    peter wrote: »
    Apologies to all Hiddleston fans. He's an actor I find very hard to like, admittedly, so putting him in the same sentence with Roger Moore, hurts my eyes and my brain when I process any remote comparisons between these two actors.

    In the end, Roger Moore was so incredibly special (and this is from someone who rates him third/sometimes fourth of the Bond actors), that there is no Second Coming of Moore (even more so with Connery); not even close.

    So a Hiddleston, to me, is far more effective if he would be cast in something more theatrical-- for example, I could see him playing an amazing and twisted Joker.

    Just keep him away from James Bond (and the Saint).

    + 1
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2018 Posts: 23,883
    peter wrote: »
    Apologies to all Hiddleston fans. He's an actor I find very hard to like, admittedly, so putting him in the same sentence with Roger Moore, hurts my eyes and my brain when I process any remote comparisons between these two actors.

    In the end, Roger Moore was so incredibly special (and this is from someone who rates him third/sometimes fourth of the Bond actors), that there is no Second Coming of Moore (even more so with Connery); not even close.

    So a Hiddleston, to me, is far more effective if he would be cast in something more theatrical-- for example, I could see him playing an amazing and twisted Joker.

    Just keep him away from James Bond (and the Saint).
    No need to apologize. We're all entitled to disliking someone and your views on Hiddleston are well known.

    I agree that there is no second coming of Moore, and especially not Connery. Nobody has suggested that. Those two are acknowledged greats in the Bond pantheon.

    All there is are actors who can evoke certain elements of those two benchmarks. I'm of the view that Hiddleston skews towards the Moore type, and he is definitely one of the acknowledged Bond contenders for #007.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    bondjames wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Apologies to all Hiddleston fans. He's an actor I find very hard to like, admittedly, so putting him in the same sentence with Roger Moore, hurts my eyes and my brain when I process any remote comparisons between these two actors.

    In the end, Roger Moore was so incredibly special (and this is from someone who rates him third/sometimes fourth of the Bond actors), that there is no Second Coming of Moore (even more so with Connery); not even close.

    So a Hiddleston, to me, is far more effective if he would be cast in something more theatrical-- for example, I could see him playing an amazing and twisted Joker.

    Just keep him away from James Bond (and the Saint).
    No need to apologize. We're all entitled to disliking someone and your views on Hiddleston are well known.

    I agree that there is no second coming of Moore, and especially not Connery. Nobody has suggested that. Those two are acknowledged greats in the Bond pantheon.

    All there is are actors who can evoke certain elements of those two benchmarks. I'm of the view that Hiddleston skews towards the Moore type, and he is definitely one of the acknowledged Bond contenders for #007.

    I didn't know my views on Hiddleston was well known. Yet I still will apologize. Since others see something in him that I'm too biased to enjoy-- as James Bond. And I don't take enjoyment in ever thinking an opinion would upset another (which can happen on this site). I'm obviously not right in my evaluation; I'm only right for me, and I always want to make that clear.

    Saying Hiddleston skews to the Moore type, I'd agree, if we were saying a sub-level Moore type. The guy could never pull off anything Moore did in his tenure, nor come close. I think most would say he's a poor man's Moore.

    I could be wrong there, too.

    That's saying mo(o)re about Moore, than Hiddleston, btw.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2018 Posts: 23,883
    peter wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Apologies to all Hiddleston fans. He's an actor I find very hard to like, admittedly, so putting him in the same sentence with Roger Moore, hurts my eyes and my brain when I process any remote comparisons between these two actors.

    In the end, Roger Moore was so incredibly special (and this is from someone who rates him third/sometimes fourth of the Bond actors), that there is no Second Coming of Moore (even more so with Connery); not even close.

    So a Hiddleston, to me, is far more effective if he would be cast in something more theatrical-- for example, I could see him playing an amazing and twisted Joker.

    Just keep him away from James Bond (and the Saint).
    No need to apologize. We're all entitled to disliking someone and your views on Hiddleston are well known.

    I agree that there is no second coming of Moore, and especially not Connery. Nobody has suggested that. Those two are acknowledged greats in the Bond pantheon.

    All there is are actors who can evoke certain elements of those two benchmarks. I'm of the view that Hiddleston skews towards the Moore type, and he is definitely one of the acknowledged Bond contenders for #007.

    I didn't know my views on Hiddleston was well known. Yet I still will apologize. Since others see something in him that I'm too biased to enjoy-- as James Bond. And I don't take enjoyment in ever thinking an opinion would upset another (which can happen on this site). I'm obviously not right in my evaluation; I'm only right for me, and I always want to make that clear.

    Saying Hiddleston skews to the Moore type, I'd agree, if we were saying a sub-level Moore type. The guy could never pull off anything Moore did in his tenure, nor come close. I think most would say he's a poor man's Moore.

    I could be wrong there, too.

    That's saying mo(o)re about Moore, than Hiddleston, btw.
    He's an excellent actor with a lot of range that has been acknowledged. However, if he's not for you then he's not for you.

    I'm not sure if he'd be right for Bond, but as I mentioned in an earlier post, none of the contenders is perfect. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, as does the current Bond. I can certainly see him being good for a certain type or style of Bond film.

    RE: your views on Hiddleston being well known; you've expressed your dislike quite a few times on this thread in no uncertain terms so I assume those who follow the thread know that you have strong negative feelings about him. You're certainly not alone in that opinion though. There are members here who don't like him.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    bondjames wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Apologies to all Hiddleston fans. He's an actor I find very hard to like, admittedly, so putting him in the same sentence with Roger Moore, hurts my eyes and my brain when I process any remote comparisons between these two actors.

    In the end, Roger Moore was so incredibly special (and this is from someone who rates him third/sometimes fourth of the Bond actors), that there is no Second Coming of Moore (even more so with Connery); not even close.

    So a Hiddleston, to me, is far more effective if he would be cast in something more theatrical-- for example, I could see him playing an amazing and twisted Joker.

    Just keep him away from James Bond (and the Saint).
    No need to apologize. We're all entitled to disliking someone and your views on Hiddleston are well known.

    I agree that there is no second coming of Moore, and especially not Connery. Nobody has suggested that. Those two are acknowledged greats in the Bond pantheon.

    All there is are actors who can evoke certain elements of those two benchmarks. I'm of the view that Hiddleston skews towards the Moore type, and he is definitely one of the acknowledged Bond contenders for #007.

    I didn't know my views on Hiddleston was well known. Yet I still will apologize. Since others see something in him that I'm too biased to enjoy-- as James Bond. And I don't take enjoyment in ever thinking an opinion would upset another (which can happen on this site). I'm obviously not right in my evaluation; I'm only right for me, and I always want to make that clear.

    Saying Hiddleston skews to the Moore type, I'd agree, if we were saying a sub-level Moore type. The guy could never pull off anything Moore did in his tenure, nor come close. I think most would say he's a poor man's Moore.

    I could be wrong there, too.

    That's saying mo(o)re about Moore, than Hiddleston, btw.
    He's an excellent actor with a lot of range that has been acknowledged. However, if he's not for you then he's not for you.

    I'm not sure if he'd be right for Bond, but as I mentioned in an earlier post, none of the contenders is perfect. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, as does the current Bond. I can certainly see him being good for a certain type or style of Bond film.

    RE: your views on Hiddleston being well known; you've expressed your dislike quite a few times on this thread in no uncertain terms so I assume those who follow the thread know that you have strong negative feelings about him. You're certainly not alone in that opinion though. There are members here who don't like him.

    Once again, someone being an excellent actor (outside of the giants that broke the mold (Olivier, Brando, Dean, early/young Pacino and De Niro to name a few on the Western front), I think is subjective @bondjames.

    I don't think Hiddleston is Steven Segal (sp?), by any means. Nor do I find him "an excellent actor"; I just find him too stagey and one dimensional for my tastes. I honestly think he could make a very good Joker, though.

    Re: my views: I don't think that what I say will be remembered thirty seconds after I post-- I'm a little humble in this matter.

    I just assumed that after 4000 comments (wow, that's a lot of free time, lol), that ten or so comments on Hiddleston wouldn't actually be heard, and certainly not remembered, lol!

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2018 Posts: 23,883
    peter wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Apologies to all Hiddleston fans. He's an actor I find very hard to like, admittedly, so putting him in the same sentence with Roger Moore, hurts my eyes and my brain when I process any remote comparisons between these two actors.

    In the end, Roger Moore was so incredibly special (and this is from someone who rates him third/sometimes fourth of the Bond actors), that there is no Second Coming of Moore (even more so with Connery); not even close.

    So a Hiddleston, to me, is far more effective if he would be cast in something more theatrical-- for example, I could see him playing an amazing and twisted Joker.

    Just keep him away from James Bond (and the Saint).
    No need to apologize. We're all entitled to disliking someone and your views on Hiddleston are well known.

    I agree that there is no second coming of Moore, and especially not Connery. Nobody has suggested that. Those two are acknowledged greats in the Bond pantheon.

    All there is are actors who can evoke certain elements of those two benchmarks. I'm of the view that Hiddleston skews towards the Moore type, and he is definitely one of the acknowledged Bond contenders for #007.

    I didn't know my views on Hiddleston was well known. Yet I still will apologize. Since others see something in him that I'm too biased to enjoy-- as James Bond. And I don't take enjoyment in ever thinking an opinion would upset another (which can happen on this site). I'm obviously not right in my evaluation; I'm only right for me, and I always want to make that clear.

    Saying Hiddleston skews to the Moore type, I'd agree, if we were saying a sub-level Moore type. The guy could never pull off anything Moore did in his tenure, nor come close. I think most would say he's a poor man's Moore.

    I could be wrong there, too.

    That's saying mo(o)re about Moore, than Hiddleston, btw.
    He's an excellent actor with a lot of range that has been acknowledged. However, if he's not for you then he's not for you.

    I'm not sure if he'd be right for Bond, but as I mentioned in an earlier post, none of the contenders is perfect. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, as does the current Bond. I can certainly see him being good for a certain type or style of Bond film.

    RE: your views on Hiddleston being well known; you've expressed your dislike quite a few times on this thread in no uncertain terms so I assume those who follow the thread know that you have strong negative feelings about him. You're certainly not alone in that opinion though. There are members here who don't like him.

    Once again, someone being an excellent actor (outside of the giants that broke the mold (Olivier, Brando, Dean, early/young Pacino and De Niro to name a few on the Western front), I think is subjective @bondjames.

    I don't think Hiddleston is Steven Segal (sp?), by any means. Nor do I find him "an excellent actor"; I just find him too stagey and one dimensional for my tastes. I honestly think he could make a very good Joker, though.

    Re: my views: I don't think that what I say will be remembered thirty seconds after I post-- I'm a little humble in this matter.

    I just assumed that after 4000 comments (wow, that's a lot of free time, lol), that ten or so comments on Hiddleston wouldn't actually be heard, and certainly not remembered, lol!
    You're probably right. It's the intensity of your feelings towards him as expressed in your posts that I picked up on in this thread, but you're right that I shouldn't speak for others who may not have noticed it. I always find it interesting when I detect that someone has strong feelings about someone or something, and so it tends to stay with me. As I said, if he's not for you, then he's not for you.

    Of course everything is subjective when it comes to assessing art and film. That goes without saying, or at least it should. He is respected in the industry for his acting skills as far as I'm aware (based on theatrical awards and nominations) but I wouldn't begin to put him up there with the names you mentioned above.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    bondjames wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Apologies to all Hiddleston fans. He's an actor I find very hard to like, admittedly, so putting him in the same sentence with Roger Moore, hurts my eyes and my brain when I process any remote comparisons between these two actors.

    In the end, Roger Moore was so incredibly special (and this is from someone who rates him third/sometimes fourth of the Bond actors), that there is no Second Coming of Moore (even more so with Connery); not even close.

    So a Hiddleston, to me, is far more effective if he would be cast in something more theatrical-- for example, I could see him playing an amazing and twisted Joker.

    Just keep him away from James Bond (and the Saint).
    No need to apologize. We're all entitled to disliking someone and your views on Hiddleston are well known.

    I agree that there is no second coming of Moore, and especially not Connery. Nobody has suggested that. Those two are acknowledged greats in the Bond pantheon.

    All there is are actors who can evoke certain elements of those two benchmarks. I'm of the view that Hiddleston skews towards the Moore type, and he is definitely one of the acknowledged Bond contenders for #007.

    I didn't know my views on Hiddleston was well known. Yet I still will apologize. Since others see something in him that I'm too biased to enjoy-- as James Bond. And I don't take enjoyment in ever thinking an opinion would upset another (which can happen on this site). I'm obviously not right in my evaluation; I'm only right for me, and I always want to make that clear.

    Saying Hiddleston skews to the Moore type, I'd agree, if we were saying a sub-level Moore type. The guy could never pull off anything Moore did in his tenure, nor come close. I think most would say he's a poor man's Moore.

    I could be wrong there, too.

    That's saying mo(o)re about Moore, than Hiddleston, btw.
    He's an excellent actor with a lot of range that has been acknowledged. However, if he's not for you then he's not for you.

    I'm not sure if he'd be right for Bond, but as I mentioned in an earlier post, none of the contenders is perfect. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, as does the current Bond. I can certainly see him being good for a certain type or style of Bond film.

    RE: your views on Hiddleston being well known; you've expressed your dislike quite a few times on this thread in no uncertain terms so I assume those who follow the thread know that you have strong negative feelings about him. You're certainly not alone in that opinion though. There are members here who don't like him.

    Once again, someone being an excellent actor (outside of the giants that broke the mold (Olivier, Brando, Dean, early/young Pacino and De Niro to name a few on the Western front), I think is subjective @bondjames.

    I don't think Hiddleston is Steven Segal (sp?), by any means. Nor do I find him "an excellent actor"; I just find him too stagey and one dimensional for my tastes. I honestly think he could make a very good Joker, though.

    Re: my views: I don't think that what I say will be remembered thirty seconds after I post-- I'm a little humble in this matter.

    I just assumed that after 4000 comments (wow, that's a lot of free time, lol), that ten or so comments on Hiddleston wouldn't actually be heard, and certainly not remembered, lol!
    You're probably right. It's the intensity of your feelings towards him as expressed in your posts that I picked up on in this thread, but you're right that I shouldn't speak for others who may not have noticed it. I always find it interesting when I detect that someone has strong feelings about someone or something, and so it tends to stay with me. As I said, if he's not for you, then he's not for you.

    Of course everything is subjective when it comes to assessing art and film. That goes without saying, or at least it should. He is respected in the industry for his acting skills as far as I'm aware (based on theatrical awards and nominations) but I wouldn't begin to put him up there with the names you mentioned above.

    You're an intuitive guy, @bondjames , and I've already told you that you're a very strong writer. However, any intense feelings I have about Hiddles, may've been incorrectly assessed this time. I hardly give this guy a second thought until I hear people consider him Bond material. Even then, I tend to hold back more often than not. I honestly just don't like him as an actor-- awards or not (Halle Berry won a best actress, but I don't consider her an exceptional actress by any means). He's certainly not for me, in certain roles, but I'm not intense about my dislike (as I am intense about certain other things, lol).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    peter wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Apologies to all Hiddleston fans. He's an actor I find very hard to like, admittedly, so putting him in the same sentence with Roger Moore, hurts my eyes and my brain when I process any remote comparisons between these two actors.

    In the end, Roger Moore was so incredibly special (and this is from someone who rates him third/sometimes fourth of the Bond actors), that there is no Second Coming of Moore (even more so with Connery); not even close.

    So a Hiddleston, to me, is far more effective if he would be cast in something more theatrical-- for example, I could see him playing an amazing and twisted Joker.

    Just keep him away from James Bond (and the Saint).
    No need to apologize. We're all entitled to disliking someone and your views on Hiddleston are well known.

    I agree that there is no second coming of Moore, and especially not Connery. Nobody has suggested that. Those two are acknowledged greats in the Bond pantheon.

    All there is are actors who can evoke certain elements of those two benchmarks. I'm of the view that Hiddleston skews towards the Moore type, and he is definitely one of the acknowledged Bond contenders for #007.

    I didn't know my views on Hiddleston was well known. Yet I still will apologize. Since others see something in him that I'm too biased to enjoy-- as James Bond. And I don't take enjoyment in ever thinking an opinion would upset another (which can happen on this site). I'm obviously not right in my evaluation; I'm only right for me, and I always want to make that clear.

    Saying Hiddleston skews to the Moore type, I'd agree, if we were saying a sub-level Moore type. The guy could never pull off anything Moore did in his tenure, nor come close. I think most would say he's a poor man's Moore.

    I could be wrong there, too.

    That's saying mo(o)re about Moore, than Hiddleston, btw.
    He's an excellent actor with a lot of range that has been acknowledged. However, if he's not for you then he's not for you.

    I'm not sure if he'd be right for Bond, but as I mentioned in an earlier post, none of the contenders is perfect. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, as does the current Bond. I can certainly see him being good for a certain type or style of Bond film.

    RE: your views on Hiddleston being well known; you've expressed your dislike quite a few times on this thread in no uncertain terms so I assume those who follow the thread know that you have strong negative feelings about him. You're certainly not alone in that opinion though. There are members here who don't like him.

    Once again, someone being an excellent actor (outside of the giants that broke the mold (Olivier, Brando, Dean, early/young Pacino and De Niro to name a few on the Western front), I think is subjective @bondjames.

    I don't think Hiddleston is Steven Segal (sp?), by any means. Nor do I find him "an excellent actor"; I just find him too stagey and one dimensional for my tastes. I honestly think he could make a very good Joker, though.

    Re: my views: I don't think that what I say will be remembered thirty seconds after I post-- I'm a little humble in this matter.

    I just assumed that after 4000 comments (wow, that's a lot of free time, lol), that ten or so comments on Hiddleston wouldn't actually be heard, and certainly not remembered, lol!
    You're probably right. It's the intensity of your feelings towards him as expressed in your posts that I picked up on in this thread, but you're right that I shouldn't speak for others who may not have noticed it. I always find it interesting when I detect that someone has strong feelings about someone or something, and so it tends to stay with me. As I said, if he's not for you, then he's not for you.

    Of course everything is subjective when it comes to assessing art and film. That goes without saying, or at least it should. He is respected in the industry for his acting skills as far as I'm aware (based on theatrical awards and nominations) but I wouldn't begin to put him up there with the names you mentioned above.

    You're an intuitive guy, @bondjames , and I've already told you that you're a very strong writer. However, any intense feelings I have about Hiddles, may've been incorrectly assessed this time. I hardly give this guy a second thought until I hear people consider him Bond material. Even then, I tend to hold back more often than not. I honestly just don't like him as an actor-- awards or not (Halle Berry won a best actress, but I don't consider her an exceptional actress by any means). He's certainly not for me, in certain roles, but I'm not intense about my dislike (as I am intense about certain other things, lol).
    Glad to read that. Well, intuitiveness can lead one astray as it is instinct more than anything. Such is evidently the case here so I'm glad you clarified. Mea culpa.

    As I think he's a compelling actor and screen presence, I hope he does something outside of the villain space in the future which impresses you.
Sign In or Register to comment.