It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I'm not suggesting that we introduce Islamist villains into the James Bond series, but that we try and link the villain's scheme more tangibly to the real world and current geopolitical conflicts.
Heh. And Islamist plots and villains do that in spades.
if this is too much like any other plot to any other movie, i apologize - just throwin' ideas out lol..
http://www.denofgeek.com/40108/james-bond-ralph-fiennes-doesn-t-know-if-he-ll-be-back-as-m
Look like everything is in a holding pattern at the moment. I still think that regardless of the new direction the franchise takes it would be shame if EON lost Fiennes (or any of the new MI6 team). I quite like the idea of going back to the '60's and having proper Cold War story. I think Fiennes would still work - after all Judi played M in the Brosnan films and the rebooted movies. The timeline is so screwed up with Bond it hardly matters to maintain continuity.
Now that's a dream team, right there.
Or Craig, Fiennes, Harris, Whishaw, Waltz and Seydoux :)
And with no video games literally the comic book is all we have to push bond forward this is kind of depressing.
Well at least Macgyver is back....
No, we only have another 2.5 year wait. Probably 1.2 years before we find out who Bond number 007 is. Believe me, in another 6 months, the news will start to come in. I bet Turner is up for a screen test, given that he has already been has flown out at the behest of EON.
Actually Turner looks much more like Adrian Paul to the point that I want Turner to be the lead in that long gestating Highlander reboot.
A stopped clock is right twice a day.
+1
The reason the press is picking up on him is because he fits the mould of the tall dark handsome leading man. I don't care about that. I want him to be Bond because, from the small hints from his television work I already know he has the potential to be the best Bond ever created. I just hope EON don't screw it up and plump for Hiddleston for his media courting abilities. I think post Craig, they don't want any more problems with the press, so I wouldn't put it past them.
To put it another way, I want my Bond to have a burning intensity about him that is self-evident. I want a cunning agent, solely devoted to his mission, prepared to do whatever it takes. He should be cynical, dry and abrasive. Tom Hiddleston and his toothy grin don't communicate any of that.
They know what they are doing.
He has a very brooding look, but I think a lot of people are thus far unconvinced that he brings the presence and gravitas that is necessary 'on screen', not just in decontextualised stills. He was good in 'And Then There Were None', but he didn't own the screen. He reminded me much more of Dalton, visually appropriate, but lacking the electricity and charisma of a Connery or Moore, the je ne sais qois that elevates the character. To reference a more recent example, Craig during Silva's monologue and the ensuing dialogue - Bardem is a man with enormous screen presence and the nature of his character allowed him to thrive, but at no point is Craig overshadowed. He matches Bardem with every beat. I don't see that in Turner. People should feel Bond walk into a room before they've even seen him. Hiddleston (to use another potential candidate) seems to have this, to me. He never blends into the background or feels like his performance is superficial, there's a kineticism to his performance, not even in a literal sense, but you can see his mind working. That's not an easy thing to pull off.
Bardem is hugely overrated in Skyfall. And the dialogue they gave him in his opening shot is borderline daytime soap level.
Aidan Turner will be fine as Bond, so would Hiddleston be.
Really? Even as much as I don't like SF, I don't think I've ever had a complaint about Bardem's acting level. What don't you like about it?
He doesn't feel menacing or dangerous, just ridiculous and pathetic. What does he want? To seduce Bond?
His looks are already very camp, they should have at least given him dialogue that doesn't seem to come out of an Austin Powers movie.
He overacts horribly. And in a bad and unconvincing way. It just doesn't fit with the tone of the movie. It's like transforming Elliot Carver into Skyfall. That wouldn't have worked either.
Silva could have been a typical Brosnan-era villain.
Also the Hannibal Lector sequence feels like a parody. And again his acting is way over the top and the dialogue cringe-worthy.
The only time I really feel Silva is a Bond-worthy villain is in the Skyfall sequence.
I don't care for the 'Lector' sequence, either. This is where the movie really starts to drag for me, and his escape hinders my enjoyment. However, his acting itself never seems to step into an OTT/overacting territory; for me, anyway.
Exactly, he's a fruit loop.
Yes, but be honest, no Bond actor had that BEFORE they were Bond. It's something they gain from the role, its the challenge they have to take on when they agree to the part. Connery became Bond AFTER he agreed to the role, its well documented. At this stage in the process looks carry a lot of weight because its one of the few things we can be sure the actor will bring with him. You nailed it with your comparison of Aidan with Dalton. There is a huge parallel there. Both very dark and brooding. Thats their mystique. That's what the character is, IMO. What Turner lacks now, in your eyes, he may well more than make up for in the 2 years he has to get to grips with the character. That's what happened with Connery and Craig after all.
For me the movie gets completely derailed after 70 minutes when Silva enters the screen.
No I agree completely. He is the worst thing about SF. Everyone was aware of his reputation for playing strong villians, so no one dared even attempt to rein him in. Shame, I really like SF when Bardem isn't around. He drags the whole film down for me now, especially the middle.