Who should/could be a Bond actor?

14824834854874881234

Comments

  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    I’ve been a very vocal contrarian to Cavill’s casting as Bond, until I saw him in UNCLE. His interpretation of Solo (not different from Vaughn’s, save for the backstory) broke that mould for me, which was what I always wanted to see from Bond on the screen. So, he’s my top choice.
    He was okay in that film, mostly his look and styling what did the trick, not so much his acting chops.
    A Bond actor doesn't have to be a thespian. He's not auditioning for a Shakespearean play.

    Quite right old chap, but there's very limited range and okay-good acting. Craig for example is a good actor, while Cavill can't even stand in his shadow. Just my 2 cents.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,164
    Cavill won't be getting the part. So, getting worked up wouldn't do anyone much good. ;)


    Why so sure Cavill won’t be getting the part @ClarkDevlin

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited January 2019 Posts: 15,423
    I’ve been a very vocal contrarian to Cavill’s casting as Bond, until I saw him in UNCLE. His interpretation of Solo (not different from Vaughn’s, save for the backstory) broke that mould for me, which was what I always wanted to see from Bond on the screen. So, he’s my top choice.
    He was okay in that film, mostly his look and styling what did the trick, not so much his acting chops.
    A Bond actor doesn't have to be a thespian. He's not auditioning for a Shakespearean play.

    Quite right old chap, but there's very limited range and okay-good acting. Craig for example is a good actor, while Cavill can't even stand in his shadow. Just my 2 cents.
    Well, in that case, Brosnan already demonstrated the same woodenness that Cavill is said to have the potential to deliver. No wonder it’s the most and perhaps the only hated era among the Bond fans. ;)
    Benny wrote: »
    Cavill won't be getting the part. So, getting worked up wouldn't do anyone much good. ;)


    Why so sure Cavill won’t be getting the part @ClarkDevlin
    He’s too well known, @Benny. That might’ve worked with Moore and Brosnan for different reasons, but in this day and age, popular choices and high profile celebrities never get cast in the roles people fancy them for. Today’s marketing campaigns are strongly against typecasting. And besides, Cavill doesn’t seem to be Barbara’s type of actor at all.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    I’ve been a very vocal contrarian to Cavill’s casting as Bond, until I saw him in UNCLE. His interpretation of Solo (not different from Vaughn’s, save for the backstory) broke that mould for me, which was what I always wanted to see from Bond on the screen. So, he’s my top choice.
    He was okay in that film, mostly his look and styling what did the trick, not so much his acting chops.
    A Bond actor doesn't have to be a thespian. He's not auditioning for a Shakespearean play.

    Quite right old chap, but there's very limited range and okay-good acting. Craig for example is a good actor, while Cavill can't even stand in his shadow. Just my 2 cents.
    Well, in that case, Brosnan already demonstrated the same woodenness that Cavill is said to have the potential to deliver. No wonder it’s the most and perhaps the only hated era among the Bond fans. ;)

    Personally I don't find Pierce wooden, he shows a lot of range in Goldeneye for example. Tons of charisma, too. A great smile does a lot already. Pierce wasn't very lucky story/direction/style wise, after GE that is. Pierce deserved much better!
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,584
    I'm not sure Aiden Turner has proved that he is a bankable star yet.

    Times change, and even as late as 2005 Eon were able to take a chance with Daniel Craig. Yes, he was a leading man in small budget films, but he was definitely a risk.

    In 2020, it may be different. Turner is a TV star, but would he be a bankable big screen star? We really don't know.

    Tall, dark and handsome actors are ten a penny. But tall, dark and handsome actors with bags of big screen charisma? A lot thinner on the ground.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    NicNac wrote: »
    I'm not sure Aiden Turner has proved that he is a bankable star yet.

    Times change, and even as late as 2005 Eon were able to take a chance with Daniel Craig. Yes, he was a leading man in small budget films, but he was definitely a risk.

    In 2020, it may be different. Turner is a TV star, but would he be a bankable big screen star? We really don't know.

    Tall, dark and handsome actors are ten a penny. But tall, dark and handsome actors with bags of big screen charisma? A lot thinner on the ground.

    In terms of exposition Turner is more bankable than Craig back in the day, Layer Cake gave him the nod. However with a small budget of 6.5 mil and a return of only double it was hardly a success. I.e. Craig wasn't bankable back then. He was what EoN (Babs) wanted, a bit of a relatively unknown/obscure-ish actor.
    Turner stars, for example, in Poldark. One of the biggest BBC shows and has been sold to many foreign countries. As many experts claim TV isn't a dirty word anymore, just look at Netflix and HBO alone. Poldark can actually be seen on Netflix. Turner in this day and age is on the verge of breaking through, given what he's done so far and his (praised by critics) talent. Bond would be the perfect breakthrough part, just like it was for Craig.
  • Posts: 19,339
    I’ve been a very vocal contrarian to Cavill’s casting as Bond, until I saw him in UNCLE. His interpretation of Solo (not different from Vaughn’s, save for the backstory) broke that mould for me, which was what I always wanted to see from Bond on the screen. So, he’s my top choice.
    He was okay in that film, mostly his look and styling what did the trick, not so much his acting chops.
    A Bond actor doesn't have to be a thespian. He's not auditioning for a Shakespearean play.

    Quite right old chap, but there's very limited range and okay-good acting. Craig for example is a good actor, while Cavill can't even stand in his shadow. Just my 2 cents.
    Well, in that case, Brosnan already demonstrated the same woodenness that Cavill is said to have the potential to deliver. No wonder it’s the most and perhaps the only hated era among the Bond fans. ;)

    Personally I don't find Pierce wooden, he shows a lot of range in Goldeneye for example. Tons of charisma, too. A great smile does a lot already. Pierce wasn't very lucky story/direction/style wise, after GE that is. Pierce deserved much better!

    I agree..i thought he had a good range in all his films tbh.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,584
    NicNac wrote: »
    I'm not sure Aiden Turner has proved that he is a bankable star yet.

    Times change, and even as late as 2005 Eon were able to take a chance with Daniel Craig. Yes, he was a leading man in small budget films, but he was definitely a risk.

    In 2020, it may be different. Turner is a TV star, but would he be a bankable big screen star? We really don't know.

    Tall, dark and handsome actors are ten a penny. But tall, dark and handsome actors with bags of big screen charisma? A lot thinner on the ground.

    In terms of exposition Turner is more bankable than Craig back in the day, Layer Cake gave him the nod. However with a small budget of 6.5 mil and a return of only double it was hardly a success. I.e. Craig wasn't bankable back then. He was what EoN (Babs) wanted, a bit of a relatively unknown/obscure-ish actor.
    Turner stars, for example, in Poldark. One of the biggest BBC shows and has been sold to many foreign countries. As many experts claim TV isn't a dirty word anymore, just look at Netflix and HBO alone. Poldark can actually be seen on Netflix. Turner in this day and age is on the verge of breaking through, given what he's done so far and his (praised by critics) talent. Bond would be the perfect breakthrough part, just like it was for Craig.

    Well, I went to great pains to point out that Craig wasn't a bankable star back in 2005 in order to avoid this kind of lecture. But, as you will.

    Craig had broken into films as a leading man in British films, and an acclaimed actor in bigger budget Hollywood films. And yes he wasn't obvious Bond fodder. And no, he wasn't bankable.

    My point still stands though. This is 2019, and times change.
    Yes TV is a much bigger medium now, but Poldark isn't Breaking Bad. It's cosy Sunday night eye candy, and maybe we need to see more to give Barbara Broccoli the feeling that he could do it.

    They can't take risks this time around. The stakes are up, the competition is immense.
  • Posts: 6,710
    If they go full archetype and play with the imagery we all know and love, they'll have a new golden goose. It's their best card now. If they go against the old strong current again, it won't work. Craig was a fluke, a lightning in a bottle of sorts. That's why I defend Turner, because he can fit the archetype well. Give the guy a Goldeneye, and he'll shine with old/classic/archetypical Bond glow.

    So, it won't be picking a bankable actor that moves things forward. It's playing with the archetype again, like they did in 1995 - with a "Were you expecting someone else" kind of thing.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited January 2019 Posts: 1,318
    NicNac wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    I'm not sure Aiden Turner has proved that he is a bankable star yet.

    Times change, and even as late as 2005 Eon were able to take a chance with Daniel Craig. Yes, he was a leading man in small budget films, but he was definitely a risk.

    In 2020, it may be different. Turner is a TV star, but would he be a bankable big screen star? We really don't know.

    Tall, dark and handsome actors are ten a penny. But tall, dark and handsome actors with bags of big screen charisma? A lot thinner on the ground.

    In terms of exposition Turner is more bankable than Craig back in the day, Layer Cake gave him the nod. However with a small budget of 6.5 mil and a return of only double it was hardly a success. I.e. Craig wasn't bankable back then. He was what EoN (Babs) wanted, a bit of a relatively unknown/obscure-ish actor.
    Turner stars, for example, in Poldark. One of the biggest BBC shows and has been sold to many foreign countries. As many experts claim TV isn't a dirty word anymore, just look at Netflix and HBO alone. Poldark can actually be seen on Netflix. Turner in this day and age is on the verge of breaking through, given what he's done so far and his (praised by critics) talent. Bond would be the perfect breakthrough part, just like it was for Craig.

    Well, I went to great pains to point out that Craig wasn't a bankable star back in 2005 in order to avoid this kind of lecture. But, as you will.

    Craig had broken into films as a leading man in British films, and an acclaimed actor in bigger budget Hollywood films. And yes he wasn't obvious Bond fodder. And no, he wasn't bankable.

    My point still stands though. This is 2019, and times change.
    Yes TV is a much bigger medium now, but Poldark isn't Breaking Bad. It's cosy Sunday night eye candy, and maybe we need to see more to give Barbara Broccoli the feeling that he could do it.

    They can't take risks this time around. The stakes are up, the competition is immense.

    Not a lecture, merely addressing some points. I didn't like Craig for Bond back in the day, apart from the fact CR is a great Bond film. My opinion about him hasn't changed all that much retrospectively. To me he still looks and acts like a brute, say a Russian spy, a great adversary for Bond if you will. To each his own, eh?

    Comparing Poldark to BB is a moot point, the latter being a cult hit. Comparing any show to it would be difficult. Point being, Poldark is a huge show, worldwide. He is incredibly popular with women and the show itself is watchable for men, too. Have you ever seen Poldark or And Then There Were None? He's shown enough, imo. But sure, one film hit would be great too.

    I'm not the fanboy kind, blindly clinging to stars, it's just there is something special about this one Aidan Turner. He's being handed to Babs on a silver platter. It would be daft to ignore it.
    Univex wrote: »
    If they go full archetype and play with the imagery we all know and love, they'll have a new golden goose. It's their best card now. If they go against the old strong current again, it won't work. Craig was a fluke, a lightning in a bottle of sorts. That's why I defend Turner, because he can fit the archetype well. Give the guy a Goldeneye, and he'll shine with old/classic/archetypical Bond glow.

    So, it won't be picking a bankable actor that moves things forward. It's playing with the archetype again, like they did in 1995 - with a "Were you expecting someone else" kind of thing.

    Excellent post @Univex You've described my feelings to a tee.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    edited January 2019 Posts: 7,584
    NicNac wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    I'm not sure Aiden Turner has proved that he is a bankable star yet.

    Times change, and even as late as 2005 Eon were able to take a chance with Daniel Craig. Yes, he was a leading man in small budget films, but he was definitely a risk.

    In 2020, it may be different. Turner is a TV star, but would he be a bankable big screen star? We really don't know.

    Tall, dark and handsome actors are ten a penny. But tall, dark and handsome actors with bags of big screen charisma? A lot thinner on the ground.

    In terms of exposition Turner is more bankable than Craig back in the day, Layer Cake gave him the nod. However with a small budget of 6.5 mil and a return of only double it was hardly a success. I.e. Craig wasn't bankable back then. He was what EoN (Babs) wanted, a bit of a relatively unknown/obscure-ish actor.
    Turner stars, for example, in Poldark. One of the biggest BBC shows and has been sold to many foreign countries. As many experts claim TV isn't a dirty word anymore, just look at Netflix and HBO alone. Poldark can actually be seen on Netflix. Turner in this day and age is on the verge of breaking through, given what he's done so far and his (praised by critics) talent. Bond would be the perfect breakthrough part, just like it was for Craig.

    Well, I went to great pains to point out that Craig wasn't a bankable star back in 2005 in order to avoid this kind of lecture. But, as you will.

    Craig had broken into films as a leading man in British films, and an acclaimed actor in bigger budget Hollywood films. And yes he wasn't obvious Bond fodder. And no, he wasn't bankable.

    My point still stands though. This is 2019, and times change.
    Yes TV is a much bigger medium now, but Poldark isn't Breaking Bad. It's cosy Sunday night eye candy, and maybe we need to see more to give Barbara Broccoli the feeling that he could do it.

    They can't take risks this time around. The stakes are up, the competition is immense.

    Not a lecture, merely addressing some points. I didn't like Craig for Bond back in the day, apart from the fact CR is a great Bond film. My opinion about him hasn't changed all that much retrospectively. To me he still looks and acts like a brute, say a Russian spy, a great adversary for Bond if you will. To each his own, eh?

    Comparing Poldark to BB is a moot point, the latter being a cult hit. Comparing any show to it would be difficult. Point being, Poldark is a huge show, worldwide. He is incredibly popular with women and the show itself is watchable for men, too. Have you ever seen Poldark or And Then There Were None? He's shown enough, imo. But sure, one film hit would be great too.

    I'm not the fanboy kind, blindly clinging to stars, it's just there is something special about this one Aidan Turner. He's being handed to Babs on a silver platter. It would be daft to ignore it.

    Yes, of course. But even if I hadn't it makes no difference, because I'm not talking about my preference, or who I think should be Bond. I'm not even talking about how good Turner looks in and out of clothes. (He looks great, of course).

    I'm talking about whether Turner has the clout to maintain Bond's popularity in the eyes of the Eon producers. They can't afford to take a risk, and as much as you suggest Turner is nailed on to be successful, it simply isn't a good enough guarantee.

    I support no one, but when I suggested that Richard Madden's star had risen thanks to his Golden Globe win, thus bringing him to the attention of the American public (an important thing to consider) it was taken as me suggesting Madden should be Bond. I was not saying that, I was merely looking at the facts. A Golden Globe does no harm to anyone.

    So, with Marvel and MI cleaning up at the box office, can Broccoli afford to take any risks? I'd say not.

    Oh, and talking of moot points. Craig has had his time and was enormously successful as Bond, so whether he looks like a Russian thug is also moot. Craig is Bond, and has done it well. Nothing to prove there.
  • edited January 2019 Posts: 6,710
    I'm also not the fanboy kind, blindly clinging to stars. And if they find a Turner type, I'd be happy about it. It's just that this guy really seems like a mixture of Connery/Dalton/Brosnan and then something new. He's an agreeable chap, with a smart face and determined physicality. Poldark sold this ideia to me because i've seen him lead men, bed women, fight, cry, be suave, be a bruit, exasperate, win, rejoice,... in the show. The guy has charisma and acting chops to boot. Then I saw the Christie mini series and, I'll be damned if that wasn't a Bond audition. And he was stellar in it. Outshining the likes of Sam Neil, for example. And standing ground with Charles Dance, who I always wanted to play a Bond villain. Oh, and Toby Stephens. He outshone them all. I was convinced. And as I am also tired of the blonde brutish take on Bond (although I've always been a Craig defender and I'm glad he is and always will be Bond, an established in quality Bond, at that), I can't help but be enthused with the prospect of returning to the archetypical Bond (literary and film wise, a mix if you may) with Aidan Turner.

    There, made my case :)
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    NicNac wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    I'm not sure Aiden Turner has proved that he is a bankable star yet.

    Times change, and even as late as 2005 Eon were able to take a chance with Daniel Craig. Yes, he was a leading man in small budget films, but he was definitely a risk.

    In 2020, it may be different. Turner is a TV star, but would he be a bankable big screen star? We really don't know.

    Tall, dark and handsome actors are ten a penny. But tall, dark and handsome actors with bags of big screen charisma? A lot thinner on the ground.

    In terms of exposition Turner is more bankable than Craig back in the day, Layer Cake gave him the nod. However with a small budget of 6.5 mil and a return of only double it was hardly a success. I.e. Craig wasn't bankable back then. He was what EoN (Babs) wanted, a bit of a relatively unknown/obscure-ish actor.
    Turner stars, for example, in Poldark. One of the biggest BBC shows and has been sold to many foreign countries. As many experts claim TV isn't a dirty word anymore, just look at Netflix and HBO alone. Poldark can actually be seen on Netflix. Turner in this day and age is on the verge of breaking through, given what he's done so far and his (praised by critics) talent. Bond would be the perfect breakthrough part, just like it was for Craig.

    Well, I went to great pains to point out that Craig wasn't a bankable star back in 2005 in order to avoid this kind of lecture. But, as you will.

    Craig had broken into films as a leading man in British films, and an acclaimed actor in bigger budget Hollywood films. And yes he wasn't obvious Bond fodder. And no, he wasn't bankable.

    My point still stands though. This is 2019, and times change.
    Yes TV is a much bigger medium now, but Poldark isn't Breaking Bad. It's cosy Sunday night eye candy, and maybe we need to see more to give Barbara Broccoli the feeling that he could do it.

    They can't take risks this time around. The stakes are up, the competition is immense.

    Not a lecture, merely addressing some points. I didn't like Craig for Bond back in the day, apart from the fact CR is a great Bond film. My opinion about him hasn't changed all that much retrospectively. To me he still looks and acts like a brute, say a Russian spy, a great adversary for Bond if you will. To each his own, eh?

    Comparing Poldark to BB is a moot point, the latter being a cult hit. Comparing any show to it would be difficult. Point being, Poldark is a huge show, worldwide. He is incredibly popular with women and the show itself is watchable for men, too. Have you ever seen Poldark or And Then There Were None? He's shown enough, imo. But sure, one film hit would be great too.

    I'm not the fanboy kind, blindly clinging to stars, it's just there is something special about this one Aidan Turner. He's being handed to Babs on a silver platter. It would be daft to ignore it.

    Yes, of course. But even if I hadn't it makes no difference, because I'm not talking about my preference, or who I think should be Bond. I'm not even talking about how good Turner looks in and out of clothes. (He looks great, of course).

    I'm talking about whether Turner has the clout to maintain Bond's popularity in the eyes of the Eon producers. They can't afford to take a risk, and as much as you suggest Turner is nailed on to be successful, it simply isn't a good enough guarantee.

    I support no one, but when I suggested that Richard Madden's star had risen thanks to his Golden Globe win, thus bringing him to the attention of the American public (an important thing to consider) it was taken as me suggesting Madden should be Bond. I was not saying that, I was merely looking at the facts. A Golden Globe does no harm to anyone.

    So, with Marvel and MI cleaning up at the box office, can Broccoli afford to take any risks? I'd say not.

    Oh, and talking of moot points. Craig has had his time and was enormously successful as Bond, so whether he looks like a Russian thug is also moot. Craig is Bond, and has done it well. Nothing to prove there.

    Thanks for the sober observations, @NicNac ... You’re very intuitive and your words and comments are eloquently and intelligently shared. I have to agree with your perspective.

  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited January 2019 Posts: 1,318
    NicNac wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    I'm not sure Aiden Turner has proved that he is a bankable star yet.

    Times change, and even as late as 2005 Eon were able to take a chance with Daniel Craig. Yes, he was a leading man in small budget films, but he was definitely a risk.

    In 2020, it may be different. Turner is a TV star, but would he be a bankable big screen star? We really don't know.

    Tall, dark and handsome actors are ten a penny. But tall, dark and handsome actors with bags of big screen charisma? A lot thinner on the ground.

    In terms of exposition Turner is more bankable than Craig back in the day, Layer Cake gave him the nod. However with a small budget of 6.5 mil and a return of only double it was hardly a success. I.e. Craig wasn't bankable back then. He was what EoN (Babs) wanted, a bit of a relatively unknown/obscure-ish actor.
    Turner stars, for example, in Poldark. One of the biggest BBC shows and has been sold to many foreign countries. As many experts claim TV isn't a dirty word anymore, just look at Netflix and HBO alone. Poldark can actually be seen on Netflix. Turner in this day and age is on the verge of breaking through, given what he's done so far and his (praised by critics) talent. Bond would be the perfect breakthrough part, just like it was for Craig.

    Well, I went to great pains to point out that Craig wasn't a bankable star back in 2005 in order to avoid this kind of lecture. But, as you will.

    Craig had broken into films as a leading man in British films, and an acclaimed actor in bigger budget Hollywood films. And yes he wasn't obvious Bond fodder. And no, he wasn't bankable.

    My point still stands though. This is 2019, and times change.
    Yes TV is a much bigger medium now, but Poldark isn't Breaking Bad. It's cosy Sunday night eye candy, and maybe we need to see more to give Barbara Broccoli the feeling that he could do it.

    They can't take risks this time around. The stakes are up, the competition is immense.

    Not a lecture, merely addressing some points. I didn't like Craig for Bond back in the day, apart from the fact CR is a great Bond film. My opinion about him hasn't changed all that much retrospectively. To me he still looks and acts like a brute, say a Russian spy, a great adversary for Bond if you will. To each his own, eh?

    Comparing Poldark to BB is a moot point, the latter being a cult hit. Comparing any show to it would be difficult. Point being, Poldark is a huge show, worldwide. He is incredibly popular with women and the show itself is watchable for men, too. Have you ever seen Poldark or And Then There Were None? He's shown enough, imo. But sure, one film hit would be great too.

    I'm not the fanboy kind, blindly clinging to stars, it's just there is something special about this one Aidan Turner. He's being handed to Babs on a silver platter. It would be daft to ignore it.

    Yes, of course. But even if I hadn't it makes no difference, because I'm not talking about my preference, or who I think should be Bond. I'm not even talking about how good Turner looks in and out of clothes. (He looks great, of course).

    I'm talking about whether Turner has the clout to maintain Bond's popularity in the eyes of the Eon producers. They can't afford to take a risk, and as much as you suggest Turner is nailed on to be successful, it simply isn't a good enough guarantee.

    I support no one, but when I suggested that Richard Madden's star had risen thanks to his Golden Globe win, thus bringing him to the attention of the American public (an important thing to consider) it was taken as me suggesting Madden should be Bond. I was not saying that, I was merely looking at the facts. A Golden Globe does no harm to anyone.

    So, with Marvel and MI cleaning up at the box office, can Broccoli afford to take any risks? I'd say not.

    Oh, and talking of moot points. Craig has had his time and was enormously successful as Bond, so whether he looks like a Russian thug is also moot. Craig is Bond, and has done it well. Nothing to prove there.


    Turner has the clout, a 100% and EoN probably already knows this. Turner has all the ingredients, more than Craig did anyway. Also, it's always a risk to cast a new actor. Just look at Dalton, the majority of critics/people found him too dark/serious, in comparison to Moore. How 'wrong' were those people, looking back. He was ahead of his time. Turner just needs to prove himself and he can only do that by 'being' Bond. He needs to be given the chance, simple as that.

    Your stance on Madden is a little strange. Just because he won a GG he should be Bond. What? No, he's an actor who won a GG and that's that really. Is he Bond material is the true question. I assure you he is not, at least not compared to the competition you speak of.

    Craig Bond? That's subjective as can be. Just like with Dalton who wasn't liked very much at all back in the day, yet now is, especially among Bond adepts. So with that logic he wasn't Bond back then, yet now is. To myself and many others Craig isn't Bond. Indeed he played Bond, but he doesn't have the Bond DNA, imo. Subtle difference.
    peter wrote: »
    Thanks for the sober observations, @NicNac ... You’re very intuitive and your words and comments are eloquently and intelligently shared. I have to agree with your perspective.

    No nice words for me then ColonelSun? I mean Peter ;)
  • Posts: 6,710
    I quite agree with @NicNac's sober observations. I also agree with @JeremyBondon's views and wishes on what comes next. So, that's that ;)
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,584
    peter wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    I'm not sure Aiden Turner has proved that he is a bankable star yet.

    Times change, and even as late as 2005 Eon were able to take a chance with Daniel Craig. Yes, he was a leading man in small budget films, but he was definitely a risk.

    In 2020, it may be different. Turner is a TV star, but would he be a bankable big screen star? We really don't know.

    Tall, dark and handsome actors are ten a penny. But tall, dark and handsome actors with bags of big screen charisma? A lot thinner on the ground.

    In terms of exposition Turner is more bankable than Craig back in the day, Layer Cake gave him the nod. However with a small budget of 6.5 mil and a return of only double it was hardly a success. I.e. Craig wasn't bankable back then. He was what EoN (Babs) wanted, a bit of a relatively unknown/obscure-ish actor.
    Turner stars, for example, in Poldark. One of the biggest BBC shows and has been sold to many foreign countries. As many experts claim TV isn't a dirty word anymore, just look at Netflix and HBO alone. Poldark can actually be seen on Netflix. Turner in this day and age is on the verge of breaking through, given what he's done so far and his (praised by critics) talent. Bond would be the perfect breakthrough part, just like it was for Craig.

    Well, I went to great pains to point out that Craig wasn't a bankable star back in 2005 in order to avoid this kind of lecture. But, as you will.

    Craig had broken into films as a leading man in British films, and an acclaimed actor in bigger budget Hollywood films. And yes he wasn't obvious Bond fodder. And no, he wasn't bankable.

    My point still stands though. This is 2019, and times change.
    Yes TV is a much bigger medium now, but Poldark isn't Breaking Bad. It's cosy Sunday night eye candy, and maybe we need to see more to give Barbara Broccoli the feeling that he could do it.

    They can't take risks this time around. The stakes are up, the competition is immense.

    Not a lecture, merely addressing some points. I didn't like Craig for Bond back in the day, apart from the fact CR is a great Bond film. My opinion about him hasn't changed all that much retrospectively. To me he still looks and acts like a brute, say a Russian spy, a great adversary for Bond if you will. To each his own, eh?

    Comparing Poldark to BB is a moot point, the latter being a cult hit. Comparing any show to it would be difficult. Point being, Poldark is a huge show, worldwide. He is incredibly popular with women and the show itself is watchable for men, too. Have you ever seen Poldark or And Then There Were None? He's shown enough, imo. But sure, one film hit would be great too.

    I'm not the fanboy kind, blindly clinging to stars, it's just there is something special about this one Aidan Turner. He's being handed to Babs on a silver platter. It would be daft to ignore it.

    Yes, of course. But even if I hadn't it makes no difference, because I'm not talking about my preference, or who I think should be Bond. I'm not even talking about how good Turner looks in and out of clothes. (He looks great, of course).

    I'm talking about whether Turner has the clout to maintain Bond's popularity in the eyes of the Eon producers. They can't afford to take a risk, and as much as you suggest Turner is nailed on to be successful, it simply isn't a good enough guarantee.

    I support no one, but when I suggested that Richard Madden's star had risen thanks to his Golden Globe win, thus bringing him to the attention of the American public (an important thing to consider) it was taken as me suggesting Madden should be Bond. I was not saying that, I was merely looking at the facts. A Golden Globe does no harm to anyone.

    So, with Marvel and MI cleaning up at the box office, can Broccoli afford to take any risks? I'd say not.

    Oh, and talking of moot points. Craig has had his time and was enormously successful as Bond, so whether he looks like a Russian thug is also moot. Craig is Bond, and has done it well. Nothing to prove there.

    Thanks for the sober observations, @NicNac ... You’re very intuitive and your words and comments are eloquently and intelligently shared. I have to agree with your perspective.

    Thank you @peter. You're my new best friend. ;)
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited January 2019 Posts: 1,318
    Univex wrote: »
    I quite agree with @NicNac's sober observations. I also agree with @JeremyBondon's views and wishes on what comes next. So, that's that ;)

    ipanews_e5c086a8-8d33-430e-bc34-f51778cd5ded_1

    bff's ;)
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,584
    peter wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    I'm not sure Aiden Turner has proved that he is a bankable star yet.

    Times change, and even as late as 2005 Eon were able to take a chance with Daniel Craig. Yes, he was a leading man in small budget films, but he was definitely a risk.

    In 2020, it may be different. Turner is a TV star, but would he be a bankable big screen star? We really don't know.

    Tall, dark and handsome actors are ten a penny. But tall, dark and handsome actors with bags of big screen charisma? A lot thinner on the ground.

    In terms of exposition Turner is more bankable than Craig back in the day, Layer Cake gave him the nod. However with a small budget of 6.5 mil and a return of only double it was hardly a success. I.e. Craig wasn't bankable back then. He was what EoN (Babs) wanted, a bit of a relatively unknown/obscure-ish actor.
    Turner stars, for example, in Poldark. One of the biggest BBC shows and has been sold to many foreign countries. As many experts claim TV isn't a dirty word anymore, just look at Netflix and HBO alone. Poldark can actually be seen on Netflix. Turner in this day and age is on the verge of breaking through, given what he's done so far and his (praised by critics) talent. Bond would be the perfect breakthrough part, just like it was for Craig.

    Well, I went to great pains to point out that Craig wasn't a bankable star back in 2005 in order to avoid this kind of lecture. But, as you will.

    Craig had broken into films as a leading man in British films, and an acclaimed actor in bigger budget Hollywood films. And yes he wasn't obvious Bond fodder. And no, he wasn't bankable.

    My point still stands though. This is 2019, and times change.
    Yes TV is a much bigger medium now, but Poldark isn't Breaking Bad. It's cosy Sunday night eye candy, and maybe we need to see more to give Barbara Broccoli the feeling that he could do it.

    They can't take risks this time around. The stakes are up, the competition is immense.

    Not a lecture, merely addressing some points. I didn't like Craig for Bond back in the day, apart from the fact CR is a great Bond film. My opinion about him hasn't changed all that much retrospectively. To me he still looks and acts like a brute, say a Russian spy, a great adversary for Bond if you will. To each his own, eh?

    Comparing Poldark to BB is a moot point, the latter being a cult hit. Comparing any show to it would be difficult. Point being, Poldark is a huge show, worldwide. He is incredibly popular with women and the show itself is watchable for men, too. Have you ever seen Poldark or And Then There Were None? He's shown enough, imo. But sure, one film hit would be great too.

    I'm not the fanboy kind, blindly clinging to stars, it's just there is something special about this one Aidan Turner. He's being handed to Babs on a silver platter. It would be daft to ignore it.

    Yes, of course. But even if I hadn't it makes no difference, because I'm not talking about my preference, or who I think should be Bond. I'm not even talking about how good Turner looks in and out of clothes. (He looks great, of course).

    I'm talking about whether Turner has the clout to maintain Bond's popularity in the eyes of the Eon producers. They can't afford to take a risk, and as much as you suggest Turner is nailed on to be successful, it simply isn't a good enough guarantee.

    I support no one, but when I suggested that Richard Madden's star had risen thanks to his Golden Globe win, thus bringing him to the attention of the American public (an important thing to consider) it was taken as me suggesting Madden should be Bond. I was not saying that, I was merely looking at the facts. A Golden Globe does no harm to anyone.

    So, with Marvel and MI cleaning up at the box office, can Broccoli afford to take any risks? I'd say not.

    Oh, and talking of moot points. Craig has had his time and was enormously successful as Bond, so whether he looks like a Russian thug is also moot. Craig is Bond, and has done it well. Nothing to prove there.

    Thanks for the sober observations, @NicNac ... You’re very intuitive and your words and comments are eloquently and intelligently shared. I have to agree with your perspective.

    Thank you @peter. You're my new best friend. ;)

    @JeremyBondon . I would love to see where I said Richard Madden should be Bond.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2019 Posts: 23,883
    There are good points on both sides of this conversation. We are in a slightly different place now than we were in 2005, but not entirely different. It will very much depend on the producer's (and more importantly, the studio's) vision for this character for the next decade. They had a vision in 2005, which was for a more serious reboot. The trends were clear, Bourne had shifted the landscape immeasurably, Nolan had started the reboot wave, and grim serious depictions were in during a post-911 period. It was cathartic for the viewer in a way, similar to all those conspiracy films in the 70s which followed all the assassinations and mayhem of the mid to late 60s. For that type of environment, Craig, who can do intense, broody and moody, was perfect casting. I've always maintained that CR was made for him and vice versa.

    We are at a different time now. The reboot craze is over, and films seem to be trending towards a more lighter note, as @Mendes4Lyfe has astutely observed and stated several times on these boards. Films like Thor Ragnarok, the recent Aquaman, and many disaster type flicks are cleaning up. Even Venom had its share of humour, and was an outsize hit. This could be a result of increasing Gen Y (milennial) or for other reasons. It could be a function of changing moods. It could be the increasing clout of the fast growing Asian market and what humour clicks there. Or it could even be just the fact that every era results in a noticeably different era after it.

    Are there more risks with recasting this time around? Perhaps. B25 will determine that. If the tone and approach they take is successful, then they are likely to cast an actor that can continue that on (similar to how Moore continued what Connery began with DAF). If it doesn't work, then they may shift gears and try something different for B26 (like how Connery went for a new gambit with DAF after OHMSS). So time will tell what they do and who they pick.

    Presumably they won't be telling another reboot story next time out...presumably they will be going straight into a mid stream Bond on a mission type venture, similar to DN, LALD, TLD or GE. If so, then they need someone who can be instantly credible as James Bond. Someone who fits into those suits and embodies the essence of this character without needing a backstory. They will also need someone with subtle acting skills, because without the benefit of full backstory and emotional weight (the Vesper and Tracey stories have already been told), he will have to show finessed depth in other ways. Can Turner do this? I don't know. Perhaps. Can Cavill? Again, I'm not sure. I do know that if either is cast, they will step up and give it their all. So again, the actor isn't such an issue for me. They've all delivered. I'm more concerned about writing and direction. That's what they must get right going forward. The rest will all fall into place, as it always has done. When they 'invest' in the actor and the film, they get results, because the Bond brand is bulletproof.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited January 2019 Posts: 1,318
    NicNac wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    I'm not sure Aiden Turner has proved that he is a bankable star yet.

    Times change, and even as late as 2005 Eon were able to take a chance with Daniel Craig. Yes, he was a leading man in small budget films, but he was definitely a risk.

    In 2020, it may be different. Turner is a TV star, but would he be a bankable big screen star? We really don't know.

    Tall, dark and handsome actors are ten a penny. But tall, dark and handsome actors with bags of big screen charisma? A lot thinner on the ground.

    In terms of exposition Turner is more bankable than Craig back in the day, Layer Cake gave him the nod. However with a small budget of 6.5 mil and a return of only double it was hardly a success. I.e. Craig wasn't bankable back then. He was what EoN (Babs) wanted, a bit of a relatively unknown/obscure-ish actor.
    Turner stars, for example, in Poldark. One of the biggest BBC shows and has been sold to many foreign countries. As many experts claim TV isn't a dirty word anymore, just look at Netflix and HBO alone. Poldark can actually be seen on Netflix. Turner in this day and age is on the verge of breaking through, given what he's done so far and his (praised by critics) talent. Bond would be the perfect breakthrough part, just like it was for Craig.

    Well, I went to great pains to point out that Craig wasn't a bankable star back in 2005 in order to avoid this kind of lecture. But, as you will.

    Craig had broken into films as a leading man in British films, and an acclaimed actor in bigger budget Hollywood films. And yes he wasn't obvious Bond fodder. And no, he wasn't bankable.

    My point still stands though. This is 2019, and times change.
    Yes TV is a much bigger medium now, but Poldark isn't Breaking Bad. It's cosy Sunday night eye candy, and maybe we need to see more to give Barbara Broccoli the feeling that he could do it.

    They can't take risks this time around. The stakes are up, the competition is immense.

    Not a lecture, merely addressing some points. I didn't like Craig for Bond back in the day, apart from the fact CR is a great Bond film. My opinion about him hasn't changed all that much retrospectively. To me he still looks and acts like a brute, say a Russian spy, a great adversary for Bond if you will. To each his own, eh?

    Comparing Poldark to BB is a moot point, the latter being a cult hit. Comparing any show to it would be difficult. Point being, Poldark is a huge show, worldwide. He is incredibly popular with women and the show itself is watchable for men, too. Have you ever seen Poldark or And Then There Were None? He's shown enough, imo. But sure, one film hit would be great too.

    I'm not the fanboy kind, blindly clinging to stars, it's just there is something special about this one Aidan Turner. He's being handed to Babs on a silver platter. It would be daft to ignore it.

    Yes, of course. But even if I hadn't it makes no difference, because I'm not talking about my preference, or who I think should be Bond. I'm not even talking about how good Turner looks in and out of clothes. (He looks great, of course).

    I'm talking about whether Turner has the clout to maintain Bond's popularity in the eyes of the Eon producers. They can't afford to take a risk, and as much as you suggest Turner is nailed on to be successful, it simply isn't a good enough guarantee.

    I support no one, but when I suggested that Richard Madden's star had risen thanks to his Golden Globe win, thus bringing him to the attention of the American public (an important thing to consider) it was taken as me suggesting Madden should be Bond. I was not saying that, I was merely looking at the facts. A Golden Globe does no harm to anyone.

    So, with Marvel and MI cleaning up at the box office, can Broccoli afford to take any risks? I'd say not.

    Oh, and talking of moot points. Craig has had his time and was enormously successful as Bond, so whether he looks like a Russian thug is also moot. Craig is Bond, and has done it well. Nothing to prove there.

    Thanks for the sober observations, @NicNac ... You’re very intuitive and your words and comments are eloquently and intelligently shared. I have to agree with your perspective.

    Thank you @peter. You're my new best friend. ;)

    @JeremyBondon . I would love to see where I said Richard Madden should be Bond.

    Your wish is my command, commander
    NicNac wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I’m no Turner fan (for Bond) but he’s a significantly better actor than Cavill. I’ve always thought he lacked a certain something, but I’d take him in a heartbeat if the alternative was Cavill.

    I think they're pretty much even. To me anyway. Their look is fine, it's their acting skills I find lacking. And Cavill seems made of plastic now, don't know why.

    I must confess I prefer the idea of Richard Madden. Height aside, what's so un Bondian about his look for some?

    Madden doesn't look Bond to me, at all. More like 006, or even Leiter. Haha.

    Well as you say about Turner it isn't about how they 'look', more about whether they can deliver on screen. Of the favourites being bandied about my opinion is that Madden has a little more of the charisma required to pull it off in the near future (just a year or two too soon at the moment). Not entirely convinced that Turner has the same. He looks ok in photos, but acting wise smacks too much of a top TV star who won't make the transition. Madden I think can make it.


    bondjames wrote: »
    There are good points on both sides of this conversation. We are in a slightly different place now than we were in 2005, but not entirely different. It will very much depend on the producer's (and more importantly, the studio's) vision for this character for the next decade. They had a vision in 2005, which was for a more serious reboot. The trends were clear, Bourne had shifted the landscape immeasurably, Nolan had started the reboot wave, and grim serious depictions were in during a post-911 period. It was cathartic for the viewer in a way, similar to all those conspiracy films in the 70s which followed all the assassinations and mayhem of the mid to late 60s. For that type of environment, Craig, who can do intense, broody and moody, was perfect casting. I've always maintained that CR was made for him and vice versa.

    We are at a different time now. The reboot craze is over, and films seem to be trending towards a more lighter note, as @Mendes4Lyfe has astutely observed and stated several times on these boards. Films like Thor Ragnarok, the recent Aquaman, and many disaster type flicks are cleaning up. Even Venom had its share of humour, and was an outsize hit. This could be a result of increasing Gen Y (milennial) or for other reasons. It could be a function of changing moods. It could be the increasing clout of the fast growing Asian market and what humour clicks there. Or it could even be just the fact that every era results in a noticeably different era after it.

    Are there more risks with recasting this time around? Perhaps. B25 will determine that. If the tone and approach they take is successful, then they are likely to cast an actor that can continue that on (similar to how Moore continued what Connery began with DAF). If it doesn't work, then they may shift gears and try something different for B26 (like how Connery went for a new gambit with DAF after OHMSS). So time will tell what they do and who they pick.

    Presumably they won't be telling another reboot story next time out...presumably they will be going straight into a mid stream Bond on a mission type venture, similar to DN, LALD, TLD or GE. If so, then they need someone who can be instantly credible as James Bond. Someone who fits into those suits and embodies the essence of this character without needing a backstory. They will also need someone with subtle acting skills, because without the benefit of full backstory and emotional weight (the Vesper and Tracey stories have already been told), he will have to show finessed depth in other ways. Can Turner do this? I don't know. Perhaps. Can Cavill? Again, I'm not sure. I do know that if either is cast, they will step up and give it their all. So again, the actor isn't such an issue for me. They've all delivered. I'm more concerned about writing and direction. That's what they must get right going forward. The rest will all fall into place, as it always has done. When they 'invest' in the actor and the film, they get results, because the Bond brand is bulletproof.


    Thanks for your thoughts and views @bondjames Very sensible, per usual
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,584
    Well said @bondjames . Thankfully you understood that I wasn't offering my preferred options, but simply trying to express the opinion that in this day and age will Eon risk an actor unproven on the big stage? And if they do risk someone like Turner, will he be good enough? As you say he would step up as best he can, but not all handsome actors can transfer TV charisma onto the big screen.

    Maybe Turner can. And if he gets the gig I hope to God he does.

    But, the fact remains, would BB want to risk it?

  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318

    NicNac wrote: »
    Well said @bondjames . Thankfully you understood that I wasn't offering my preferred options, but simply trying to express the opinion that in this day and age will Eon risk an actor unproven on the big stage? And if they do risk someone like Turner, will he be good enough? As you say he would step up as best he can, but not all handsome actors can transfer TV charisma onto the big screen.

    Maybe Turner can. And if he gets the gig I hope to God he does.

    But, the fact remains, would BB want to risk it?

    Dear NicNac, which of the previous Bonds were totally proven before their casting of Bond? Also, why would they go against their preference of casting a relatively unknown actor? The brand Bond makes the actor. Chicken > egg type of thing. It's just that EoN wants the best possible Bond there is, albeit a relatively unknown one. If you haven't seen Poldark/ And Then There Were None please do so, as it might change your opinion from not knowing to 'the man is suitable'.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Thanks @NicNac. Yes, I understood that you weren't necessarily advocating for Madden, and I get your point about the Globes win raising his profile (although, as I mentioned a few weeks back, his profile in the UK and as Bond contender was quite high prior to that due to bookie odds which were broadcast every week in the Mail, Express etc. and picked up stateside).

    I haven't seen Poldark, but from what I can tell, Turner's profile is just as high as Craig's was prior to CR. I get the impression they are pretty much on par, even if not on a perceived acting level. Mainly tv with a few smaller and less recognized films here and there.

    Madden's profile seems much higher at the moment, and of course he was already known and a bit of a heart throb on account of the first few seasons of GoT. Like Turner he has a female fanbase, which may have even helped the success of Bodyguard.

    I suppose all Turner needs to do is star in another limited run BBC thriller and his profile will also be raised similarly?

    It's possible that they will have slightly different considerations next time out, because the viewing market is a bit broader now than it was in 2005, and includes such a large foreign component. They will probably ensure that whoever they pick can click with that audience as well as the local and North American ones. There is a school of thought that these markets prefer a more humorous take and also an actor who is less obviously masculine. I'm not sure of that, but I've read such comments. Cruise certainly fits that bill, and he cleans up over there.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,584
    NicNac wrote: »
    Well said @bondjames . Thankfully you understood that I wasn't offering my preferred options, but simply trying to express the opinion that in this day and age will Eon risk an actor unproven on the big stage? And if they do risk someone like Turner, will he be good enough? As you say he would step up as best he can, but not all handsome actors can transfer TV charisma onto the big screen.

    Maybe Turner can. And if he gets the gig I hope to God he does.

    But, the fact remains, would BB want to risk it?

    Dear NicNac, which of the previous Bonds were totally proven before their casting of Bond? Also, why would they go against their preference of casting a relatively unknown actor? The brand Bond makes the actor. Chicken > egg type of thing. It's just that EoN wants the best possible Bond there is, albeit a relatively unknown one. If you haven't seen Poldark/ And Then There Were None please do so, as it might change your opinion from not knowing to 'the man is suitable'.

    Already told you I have seen them. But it proves you don't actually read my replies. And I can't keep repeating the same points if you don't read them.

    I have been talking about, and continue to talk about Barbara Broccoli's opinion, not mine. OK?



  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited January 2019 Posts: 1,318
    NicNac wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    Well said @bondjames . Thankfully you understood that I wasn't offering my preferred options, but simply trying to express the opinion that in this day and age will Eon risk an actor unproven on the big stage? And if they do risk someone like Turner, will he be good enough? As you say he would step up as best he can, but not all handsome actors can transfer TV charisma onto the big screen.

    Maybe Turner can. And if he gets the gig I hope to God he does.

    But, the fact remains, would BB want to risk it?

    Dear NicNac, which of the previous Bonds were totally proven before their casting of Bond? Also, why would they go against their preference of casting a relatively unknown actor? The brand Bond makes the actor. Chicken > egg type of thing. It's just that EoN wants the best possible Bond there is, albeit a relatively unknown one. If you haven't seen Poldark/ And Then There Were None please do so, as it might change your opinion from not knowing to 'the man is suitable'.

    Already told you I have seen them. But it proves you don't actually read my replies. And I can't keep repeating the same points if you don't read them.

    I have been talking about, and continue to talk about Barbara Broccoli's opinion, not mine. OK?



    Actually I have read your replies, but to remember everyone's reply is a bit of a stretch.
    However, you have advocated somewhat for Madden, that I do remember:
    NicNac wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I’m no Turner fan (for Bond) but he’s a significantly better actor than Cavill. I’ve always thought he lacked a certain something, but I’d take him in a heartbeat if the alternative was Cavill.

    I think they're pretty much even. To me anyway. Their look is fine, it's their acting skills I find lacking. And Cavill seems made of plastic now, don't know why.

    I must confess I prefer the idea of Richard Madden. Height aside, what's so un Bondian about his look for some?

    Madden doesn't look Bond to me, at all. More like 006, or even Leiter. Haha.

    Well as you say about Turner it isn't about how they 'look', more about whether they can deliver on screen. Of the favourites being bandied about my opinion is that Madden has a little more of the charisma required to pull it off in the near future (just a year or two too soon at the moment). Not entirely convinced that Turner has the same. He looks ok in photos, but acting wise smacks too much of a top TV star who won't make the transition. Madden I think can make it.

    Talking about Babs her opinion though? We can only speculate, it's pointless at the end of the day. The only thing we know for a fact is that EoN prefers high Bond material, yet relatively unknown.

    /my last reply regarding the back and forth. Points have been made.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,584
    NicNac wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    Well said @bondjames . Thankfully you understood that I wasn't offering my preferred options, but simply trying to express the opinion that in this day and age will Eon risk an actor unproven on the big stage? And if they do risk someone like Turner, will he be good enough? As you say he would step up as best he can, but not all handsome actors can transfer TV charisma onto the big screen.

    Maybe Turner can. And if he gets the gig I hope to God he does.

    But, the fact remains, would BB want to risk it?

    Dear NicNac, which of the previous Bonds were totally proven before their casting of Bond? Also, why would they go against their preference of casting a relatively unknown actor? The brand Bond makes the actor. Chicken > egg type of thing. It's just that EoN wants the best possible Bond there is, albeit a relatively unknown one. If you haven't seen Poldark/ And Then There Were None please do so, as it might change your opinion from not knowing to 'the man is suitable'.

    Already told you I have seen them. But it proves you don't actually read my replies. And I can't keep repeating the same points if you don't read them.

    I have been talking about, and continue to talk about Barbara Broccoli's opinion, not mine. OK?



    Actually I have read your replies, but to remember everyone's reply is a bit of a stretch.
    However, you have advocated somewhat for Madden, that I do remember:
    NicNac wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I’m no Turner fan (for Bond) but he’s a significantly better actor than Cavill. I’ve always thought he lacked a certain something, but I’d take him in a heartbeat if the alternative was Cavill.

    I think they're pretty much even. To me anyway. Their look is fine, it's their acting skills I find lacking. And Cavill seems made of plastic now, don't know why.

    I must confess I prefer the idea of Richard Madden. Height aside, what's so un Bondian about his look for some?

    Madden doesn't look Bond to me, at all. More like 006, or even Leiter. Haha.

    Well as you say about Turner it isn't about how they 'look', more about whether they can deliver on screen. Of the favourites being bandied about my opinion is that Madden has a little more of the charisma required to pull it off in the near future (just a year or two too soon at the moment). Not entirely convinced that Turner has the same. He looks ok in photos, but acting wise smacks too much of a top TV star who won't make the transition. Madden I think can make it.

    Talking about Babs her opinion though? We can only speculate, it's pointless at the end of the day. The only thing we know for a fact is that EoN prefers high Bond material, yet relatively unknown.

    /my last reply regarding the back and forth. Points have been made.

    Got me with my pants down.
    In my defence your reply before was to my comment about Madden in this recent discussion, aluding to his chances in the eyes of Eon. Digging up an old post where I was offering my own opinion? Well that's dirty tactics, and can only means one thing.
    I like you, you rascal!
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited January 2019 Posts: 1,318
    NicNac wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    Well said @bondjames . Thankfully you understood that I wasn't offering my preferred options, but simply trying to express the opinion that in this day and age will Eon risk an actor unproven on the big stage? And if they do risk someone like Turner, will he be good enough? As you say he would step up as best he can, but not all handsome actors can transfer TV charisma onto the big screen.

    Maybe Turner can. And if he gets the gig I hope to God he does.

    But, the fact remains, would BB want to risk it?

    Dear NicNac, which of the previous Bonds were totally proven before their casting of Bond? Also, why would they go against their preference of casting a relatively unknown actor? The brand Bond makes the actor. Chicken > egg type of thing. It's just that EoN wants the best possible Bond there is, albeit a relatively unknown one. If you haven't seen Poldark/ And Then There Were None please do so, as it might change your opinion from not knowing to 'the man is suitable'.

    Already told you I have seen them. But it proves you don't actually read my replies. And I can't keep repeating the same points if you don't read them.

    I have been talking about, and continue to talk about Barbara Broccoli's opinion, not mine. OK?



    Actually I have read your replies, but to remember everyone's reply is a bit of a stretch.
    However, you have advocated somewhat for Madden, that I do remember:
    NicNac wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I’m no Turner fan (for Bond) but he’s a significantly better actor than Cavill. I’ve always thought he lacked a certain something, but I’d take him in a heartbeat if the alternative was Cavill.

    I think they're pretty much even. To me anyway. Their look is fine, it's their acting skills I find lacking. And Cavill seems made of plastic now, don't know why.

    I must confess I prefer the idea of Richard Madden. Height aside, what's so un Bondian about his look for some?

    Madden doesn't look Bond to me, at all. More like 006, or even Leiter. Haha.

    Well as you say about Turner it isn't about how they 'look', more about whether they can deliver on screen. Of the favourites being bandied about my opinion is that Madden has a little more of the charisma required to pull it off in the near future (just a year or two too soon at the moment). Not entirely convinced that Turner has the same. He looks ok in photos, but acting wise smacks too much of a top TV star who won't make the transition. Madden I think can make it.

    Talking about Babs her opinion though? We can only speculate, it's pointless at the end of the day. The only thing we know for a fact is that EoN prefers high Bond material, yet relatively unknown.

    /my last reply regarding the back and forth. Points have been made.

    Got me with my pants down.
    In my defence your reply before was to my comment about Madden in this recent discussion, aluding to his chances in the eyes of Eon. Digging up an old post where I was offering my own opinion? Well that's dirty tactics, and can only means one thing.
    I like you, you rascal!

    I'm a spy, what can I say :) I like you as well.
  • Posts: 6,710
    Anyone can dig up that comment by Turner’s agent about him having met with Barbara? - if this even happened. Or was it Hiddleston?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Univex wrote: »
    Anyone can dig up that comment by Turner’s agent about him having met with Barbara? - if this even happened. Or was it Hiddleston?
    I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that they've both met with EON, although I think both have denied it.
  • Posts: 17,814
    Univex wrote: »
    Anyone can dig up that comment by Turner’s agent about him having met with Barbara? - if this even happened. Or was it Hiddleston?

    Don't know if it's the same source, but here's one article:
    https://www.newsweek.com/poldarks-aidan-turner-next-james-bond-436917

    The 32-year-old star jetted off to Los Angeles to meet with Bond producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson last week, it’s claimed.
Sign In or Register to comment.