› ›

SPECTRE--last Craig-era film?

1…78101213…25

Comments

  • timmertimmer
    Posts: 4,622
    Very interesting insights into the movie business @smitty.
    I'd like to check out that Picker book.

    Re. Craig, I'd like him to do the next two films

    I have my reasons but they are confined to the leaks thread for now. Top secret.
  • smittysmitty
    Posts: 725
    I responded on the leaks thread. Very much liked your scenario for Bond 25.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't know anything about Hughes, but from a quick google search, he has a bit of a Cillian Murphy thing going on in my opinion. A little quirky looking for Bond, no?

    My Wife remarked he was good looking she likes Craig as actor but doesn't fancy him.

    I think all bets are off on looks anyway as Craig's casting has proved.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited June 2015 Posts: 4,521
    Tom Hughes looks like more Henchman material. If there cast Matthew Goode as lead villian with Hughes next to him as friend ''brother''/henchman.
  • ChrisMC36SSRChrisMC36SSR
    Posts: 133
    In my opinion, Daniel Craig will probably do one more Bond film after he does Spectre.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    M_Balje wrote: »
    Tom Hughes looks like more Henchman material. If there cast Matthew Goode as lead villian with Hughes next to him as friend ''brother''/henchman.

    Bollocks!
  • PerdoggPerdogg
    Posts: 686
    I would prefer Henry Cavill.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Perdogg wrote: »
    I would prefer Henry Cavill.
    Me too.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Cavil can't act. He has the look but he was wooden and looked out of his depth in Man of Steel and from what I have seen of The Man From Uncle I don't think it will do well at the box office and the critics say Armies Hammer steals the limelight with his excellent Russian accent.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,132
    It won't happen with Cavill. Associated with Superman who convinced no one, now associated with Man from Uncle and well no. Had he remained off the radar and built his acting maybe.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    One has to see "The Cold Light of Day" to see Cavill at his laughable worst. Horrendous acting on display. I agree that he should have worked on his acting skills and stayed under the radar. Then he could have become one of the best Bonds.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    The Man of Steel from UNCLE will never be Bond.
  • PerdoggPerdogg
    Posts: 686
    Birdleson wrote: »
    The answer is to find the best actor that could represent Bond in an interesting fashion. I don't want a predictable choice. I want to see a strong actor with a surprising take.

    I am not sure what difference it makes. Craig has not shown any level of acting in the Bond films as Connery, Lazenby, or Moore - he has not been require to do so.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    Perdogg wrote: »
    Craig has not shown any level of acting in the Bond films as Connery, Lazenby, or Moore - he has not been require to do so.

    Have you seen the movie called CASINO ROYALE?
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard about Daniel craig not being given an opportunity to act. Connery didn't even get a real opportunity to act like Daniel craig has. He wanted it, he didn't get it. Lazenby, despite what some of you think, was never an actor. He's the answer to a trivia question, he's a punchline, a cautionary tale of someone being given a lucky break and pissing it all away. And roger Moore is a personality. The only range he has is with his eyebrows. Daniel Craig is the best actor of all of them. Dalton was good, Brosnan was eager, but Craig is the best actor to play James Bond.
  • Seven_Point_Six_FiveSeven_Point_Six_Five Southern California
    Posts: 1,257
    Perdogg wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    The answer is to find the best actor that could represent Bond in an interesting fashion. I don't want a predictable choice. I want to see a strong actor with a surprising take.

    I am not sure what difference it makes. Craig has not shown any level of acting in the Bond films as Connery, Lazenby, or Moore - he has not been require to do so.

    Wat8.jpg
  • walter1985walter1985 Rotterdam
    Posts: 91
    what ThomasCrown76 says.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,132
    ThomasCrown76 wrote: »
    That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard about Daniel craig not being given an opportunity to act. Connery didn't even get a real opportunity to act like Daniel craig has. He wanted it, he didn't get it. Lazenby, despite what some of you think, was never an actor. He's the answer to a trivia question, he's a punchline, a cautionary tale of someone being given a lucky break and pissing it all away. And roger Moore is a personality. The only range he has is with his eyebrows. Daniel Craig is the best actor of all of them. Dalton was good, Brosnan was eager, but Craig is the best actor to play James Bond.

    Agreed. And he is also the actor who has the chance to truly play Bond as a character. Not merely an icon, not a stock hero, but a true, complete character.
  • ColonelSunColonelSun
    Posts: 1,493
    Plus, Craig is the only actor to get a BAFTA nomination for best actor for playing Bond.

    Craig has been able to dig deeper into Bond, the flawed and isolated man, than any other actor so far.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,132
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Plus, Craig is the only actor to get a BAFTA nomination for best actor for playing Bond.

    Craig has been able to dig deeper into Bond, the flawed and isolated man, than any other actor so far.

    he literally set the bar very high for his successor. Far higher than any other Bond actor since Connery.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I'm pretty convinced he's just here to wind us all up, it's probably best not to take the bait, he still thinks Craig's era hasn't been a success.

    I'm sure is medication is probably due.
  • PerdoggPerdogg
    Posts: 686
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I'm pretty convinced he's just here to wind us all up, it's probably best not to take the bait, he still thinks Craig's era hasn't been a success.

    I'm sure is medication is probably due.

    Typical Fanboy reaction, when you do not agree with some one make ad hominine attacks.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    It's called an argument. You state something and then I say something back. We have a give and take. It's a form of social interaction. Your first?
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,132
    It's not that we don't agree, it's that what you claim is unsubstantiated, when sometimes downright false. SF received bad reviews, Craig isn't acting, etc. If people say sarcastic things about you on drugs it is because you seem to be.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited June 2015 Posts: 4,043
    It's OK to have an opinion and clearly this stage of Bond is not to your liking but I hated the Brosnan era but I'd foolish to say it wasn't successful. Whether I liked it or not has no bearing on blatant fact that Pierce was very well received and revitalized the series which at that point was not in a good place.

    Craig has undoubtedly taken Bond to another level whether artistically your opinion thinks it hasn't, to state what you see is fine but to deny this is utterly ridiculous, so you are delusional to state it has fact as your posts keep saying.

    You might not think Craig does nothing approaching acting but the reception and the success of his films says quite the contrary to that and you are just going to accept you are in a minority thinking it.

    Bond until Dalton came along didn't really require much depth, Connery & Moore were good at what they did but it was only occasional we got insights into their psychology.

    It wasn't really necessary in their eras but Dalton wanted to bring something more of the books to the role and not only the odd bit that Sean and Rog had incorporated, he wanted the darkness and Craig has picked up on that as well.

    You just can't play Bond like Sean & Rog did now, audiences expect more and no some of you want lets just give him a mission and get on with it, I honestly don't think you'll get it as straight forward as that for a very long time. The next actor that takes the role will be accepting because of what Craig has done with it and those that want straight forward probably need to consider another Spy franchise as I don't see Bond making a move back to the 60's or 70's model anytime soon.
  • PerdoggPerdogg
    edited June 2015 Posts: 686
    Ludovico wrote: »
    It's not that we don't agree, it's that what you claim is unsubstantiated, when sometimes downright false. SF received bad reviews, Craig isn't acting, etc. If people say sarcastic things about you on drugs it is because you seem to be.

    I said that SF received mixed review. Read below, if you can. Now go play with your action figures:

    http://nypost.com/2012/11/06/new-bond-film-skyfall-falls-flat/

    http://reason.com/archives/2012/11/09/skyfall

    http://n007.thegoldeneye.com/film_commentary/skyfall_review.html

    http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-news.asp?H=Skyfall-‘nonsense’-says-Bond-writer&nItemID=29303

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268672/Box-office-busting-Skyfall-ridiculed-distasteful-Bond-author-Sebastian-Faulks.html

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100204072/skyfall-failed-at-the-oscars-because-it-is-ridiculous-and-overhyped-and-its-james-bond-is-a-weary-anachronism/



  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited June 2015 Posts: 10,591
    Perdogg wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    It's not that we don't agree, it's that what you claim is unsubstantiated, when sometimes downright false. SF received bad reviews, Craig isn't acting, etc. If people say sarcastic things about you on drugs it is because you seem to be.

    I said that SF received mixed review. Read below, if you can. Now go play with your action figures:

    http://nypost.com/2012/11/06/new-bond-film-skyfall-falls-flat/

    http://reason.com/archives/2012/11/09/skyfall

    http://n007.thegoldeneye.com/film_commentary/skyfall_review.html

    http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-news.asp?H=Skyfall-‘nonsense’-says-Bond-writer&nItemID=29303

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268672/Box-office-busting-Skyfall-ridiculed-distasteful-Bond-author-Sebastian-Faulks.html

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100204072/skyfall-failed-at-the-oscars-because-it-is-ridiculous-and-overhyped-and-its-james-bond-is-a-weary-anachronism/


    This is six reviews based on hundreds. With all due respect, but do you actually believe SF received mixed reviews? It currently stands at a 7.8 on IMDB, a 92% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and an 81 on Metacritic. Granted, it may have mixed reviews within the Bond fan community, but the way I see it is, Skyfall's flaws are typically only noticeable after repeated viewings. Critics however have an unfair advantage when viewing newly released films, as critics usually view a film once before they critique it, and hence why the IMDB rating (mostly filtered by normal moviegoers) stands slightly lower than those on RT, and MC.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    No Bond film will please everyone and today people can be more vocal than they ever were before thanks to the internet.

    As a Brosnan defender I've learned that pretty quick.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,132
    Perdogg wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    It's not that we don't agree, it's that what you claim is unsubstantiated, when sometimes downright false. SF received bad reviews, Craig isn't acting, etc. If people say sarcastic things about you on drugs it is because you seem to be.

    I said that SF received mixed review. Read below, if you can. Now go play with your action figures:

    http://nypost.com/2012/11/06/new-bond-film-skyfall-falls-flat/

    http://reason.com/archives/2012/11/09/skyfall

    http://n007.thegoldeneye.com/film_commentary/skyfall_review.html

    http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-news.asp?H=Skyfall-‘nonsense’-says-Bond-writer&nItemID=29303

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268672/Box-office-busting-Skyfall-ridiculed-distasteful-Bond-author-Sebastian-Faulks.html

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100204072/skyfall-failed-at-the-oscars-because-it-is-ridiculous-and-overhyped-and-its-james-bond-is-a-weary-anachronism/

    I will quote your post on the 31st of May in "Why did Craig succeed when Dalton failed?":
    Most of the review of QoS and SF were bad.

    Apparently, you can't even get the facts about your own posts right.

    And, like @jake24 said, these are six reviews out of hundreds. You can disagree with the positive response to SF. But you cannot say it didn't exist.
  • ColonelSunColonelSun
    Posts: 1,493
    Skyfall was a huge commercial and critical success. Fact. Period.
Sign In or Register to comment.