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
Perhaps there isn't evidence, but there are certainly clues that point to Turner being best positioned of any actor at the moment. Any new actor, that is. Craig could still return but I just don't see it happening. Firstly, whether we see it as the perfect ending or not, SPECTRE does kinda rap things up. Secondly, Craig has never seen himself as an ambassador in the same way as say Moore did. He see's the role as just that, a role. I would have never had him down as interested in playing the same character for 9 years in 2006, so I certainly don't think he would carry on even longer. Again, he's not the same breed as a Tom Cruise, who absolutely loves making popcorn entertainment for the masses. Craig would be quite happy to work on the stage for the rest of his life, and he has been talking about "letting someone else have a go" since 2012.
You do know Dalton is still alive, don't you? :P
I don't think anyone sane has ever stated explicitly that Turner won't be Bond it's just that most normal people consider that there is simply no data draw any conclusion from yet.
Only an idiot/@Mendes4lyfe would think Turner is a done deal.
Brilliant. A Christian Evangelist couldn't have put it better. Mendes doesn't need mundane things such as facts - he has faith that his own delusional prophecy will come to pass.
Feel free to share some of these clues as to why Turner is nailed on with us, as all you have written there are reasons why Craig won't return which is not the same thing even if the voices in your head tell you it is.
With Craig the films have been very emotional, sensitive, gritty, serious, sombre, some might even say languorous. So it follows that the next guy would bring back the fun and lightheartedness, at least to some extent. At the same time, EON will likely be looking for someone that is a visual contrast to Craig, more of the traditional tall, dark and handsome type. Having said that, they probably don't want to move the dial to far in the other direction, so they'll be looking for someone with a mystique about them, a sense of danger. At the end of the day, It's about getting that balance right, finding the right range to carry the franchise forward for the next decade or so. Turner appears to tick all the boxes on paper, and once you see some of his back catalogue, it all kinda falls into place. You can call it a delusion of mine, but I've seen multiple fans all with the same idea for what they want from a new Bond, and once I mention Aidan Turner and point them to some of his work, they all just kinda end up agreeing with me. There's no way EON hasn't realized this yet.
Anyway I wish EoN would announce something soon to turn off all this Turner babble.
Why? The Craig era has been a massive success so why would they not decide to go down the same route?
Why? They were happy to go with Craig because they thought he was the best man for the job. Why would they not apply the same rule for the next actor they go for?
If you're a good actor you can portray a character who seems to have these attributes.
Does he? Which boxes? Ones that you have made up? I'm sure there are a number of actors who look different to Craig and could portray a sense of danger. Why is it only Turner that can possibly fit the bill?
Delusions of grandeur indeed. How can EON possibly have not realised that Mendes is right?
Very good @GL. Quote of the day.
Wouldn't it be nice if we were so lucky with Daniel Craig on October 7th ?
Oh, well. Once again- I repeat- I miss those 2 year gaps.
This anti-Aiden Turner thing some here have going is reminiscent of the Craigisnotbond movement. Troubling.
Hardly. Besides, Turner isn't even confirmed as Bond. He's just constantly being shoved down our throats. Some like him. Fine, others don't, fine. Can we just shut up about him. Turner's name getting thrown around all the time is just as annoying as Elba's.
It's not anti-Turner, it's anti-relentless conjecture passed off as having some sort of truth. As my Dad would say, a load of old Billy bollocks.
Quite.
1 - Why would they try and make back to back tenures identical? Because they have done that before or shown any interest in doing so.
2 - Yes, they thought Craig was the best man for the job but you have to qualify that by putting it in the context of where the franchise was at that point, and where cinematic trends were going. Craig fit the bill then, Turner fits the bill now.
3/4 - Again, there is more to it than just looking different. You can tell by the way Aidan handles himself in the press that he is very different compared to Craig. Craig is often on edge and defensive, whereas Turner seems relaxed and at home. Generally it is a good idea to follow one up with the other. EON know this, because it's what they've been doing for over 50 years now.
5 - It's not a question of me being right, it's a question of EON being a company with common sense and an established way of doing things which is observable. Why would they randomly throw out the script?
You fail to differentiate between being anti Turner (can provide a quote from me saying I definitively don't want Turner?) and being anti Mendes' infantile and relentless Turner spamming based on absolutely no evidence in the slightest.
I really just can't be bothered any more. As Murdock says it more tiresome than Elba now.
You win Mendes; Turner is going to be the next Bond and only a fool would argue to the contrary.
Still can't see any facts in there.
What are you talking about? Mendes has said it so it will come to pass. What more proof do you need?
Ah, yes, I forgot about that one dear Wiz. How is your grave visiting duties going, by the way? Are you down to visit the gravestone to your former vets, third cousin, once removed by marriage yet?
Too right mate. It's contractual. If I don't visit 100 graves a week they can dock my pay. Obviously I'm never actually in work because I spend all my time tramping round the country trying to uncover where the great, great grandfather of the bloke who had my job 10 years before I arrived is buried but they think it's more important that I do that than any work.
Quite. It is a valuable job you are doing. Keep it up!
--If Craig comes back, expect to hear more about the agony of playing James Bond. You know, along the lines of “I’ve been trying to get out of this from the very moment I got into it, but they won’t let me go."
--If a new actor is cast, Eon will say they're "going back to Fleming."
https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/13/wild-guesses-about-007s-film-future/
I read this article and it sounds like the writer is deaf to sarcasm when it comes to Craig. Jesus, I'm more the fool for responding.
If I had just spent 250m on a movie to have its star make such irresponsible comments as that I would've been pissed. ...oh wait they were. As I fan I sure the hell was.
Absolutely. Obviously Craig was being sarcastic when he said it was his idea to title Bond 22 as Quantum of Solace because who'd ever really believe they'd let an actor name the movie.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/3096758/Daniel-Craig-Bond-film-name-Quantum-of-Solace-was-my-idea.html
And obviously he was sarcastic when he said the Fleming titles didn't mean anything when anybody who actually read them would know the titles are explained.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/3096758/Daniel-Craig-Bond-film-name-Quantum-of-Solace-was-my-idea.html
And obviously he was sarcastic when he said he and Marc Forster really wrote Quantum because anybody who actually kept up with stories done during the time of production knew that Joshua Zetumer was hired to do rewrites during filming.
Just sarcasm.