› ›

Where does Bond go after Craig?

1…8687899192…675

Comments

  • BirdlesonBirdleson
    Posts: 2,161
    My hope more than most anything is that they cast a relative unknown.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,757

    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    See I completely disagree with all the comments about Cavil’s acting abilities. I find him to be perfectly fine in anything I’ve seen him in. His Superman films may be incredibly divisive, but Cavil was always doing the best that he could with that material. I think the issue is (and I haven’t seen much films w/ Cavil), is that he always seems to play the strong, stoic type of characters, and when your typecasted to play those kind of parts, there is only so much you can do w/ your abilities.

    Cavill is a great Superman, I agree, but that's a part where the character is new to Planet Earth, and sometimes it feels like Cavill is new to Planet Earth.

    Bond is the opposite.

    EDIT: I should clarify, I really do enjoy him as Superman, and those films.

    Well Bond was also established as an outsider. However comfortable in whatever setting.

    From Moonraker:
    Bond knew that there was something alien and un-English about himself. He knew that he was a difficult man to cover up. Particularly in England. He shrugged his shoulders. Abroad was what mattered. He would never have a job to do in England. Outside the jurisdiction of the Service. Anyway, he didn't need a cover this evening. This was recreation.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,264
    Birdleson wrote: »
    My hope more than most anything is that they cast a relative unknown.

    Same here. I’m tired of the same names being tossed around.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,273
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @007ClassicBondFan … check out Craig in CR… if he was a one dimensional actor, his “strong and stoic” characterization would have been robotic. And he would be type-cast.

    But because Craig is an exceptional talent, he filled HIS characterization of strong and stoic with all kinds of nuance and dimension so what we got instead was a secret agent who was considered a blunt instrument…. But that was just on the surface; underneath the stoicism was something deeper and far greater.

    If Cavill had more talent, he could turn his “typecasting” into a deeper characterization. But he can’t. He plays his roles to the best of his abilities, and it always ends up kinda flat. And outside of Superman, he has no film career; he’s doing TV series for Netflix (which is fine since he can make oodles of $$$ in residuals); Gerard Butler has more of a film career than Cavill at this time. That’s saying something…

    I’ve talked to many people who think Cavil is a great actor

    https://gfycat.com/miserlyreflectingeft
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    edited December 2021 Posts: 2,264
    echo wrote: »
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @007ClassicBondFan … check out Craig in CR… if he was a one dimensional actor, his “strong and stoic” characterization would have been robotic. And he would be type-cast.

    But because Craig is an exceptional talent, he filled HIS characterization of strong and stoic with all kinds of nuance and dimension so what we got instead was a secret agent who was considered a blunt instrument…. But that was just on the surface; underneath the stoicism was something deeper and far greater.

    If Cavill had more talent, he could turn his “typecasting” into a deeper characterization. But he can’t. He plays his roles to the best of his abilities, and it always ends up kinda flat. And outside of Superman, he has no film career; he’s doing TV series for Netflix (which is fine since he can make oodles of $$$ in residuals); Gerard Butler has more of a film career than Cavill at this time. That’s saying something…

    I’ve talked to many people who think Cavil is a great actor

    https://gfycat.com/miserlyreflectingeft

    That’s it, I hope Cavil becomes Bond now. Let you all suffer in dissapointment...

    But in all seriousness, there are many people who think Cavil is great, although they are just casual audience members who mainly cite Superman and Witcher, but it’s not unusual the way some here make it out to be. So why the smugness?
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,147
    peter wrote: »
    But because Craig is an exceptional talent, he filled HIS characterization of strong and stoic with all kinds of nuance and dimension so what we got instead was a secret agent who was considered a blunt instrument…. But that was just on the surface; underneath the stoicism was something deeper and far greater.
    Agree completely. I've said this in other threads, but this is part of the problem they've got. You might not need to be a great actor to play Bond, but Craig genuinely was and he raised the bar to such an extent that they're risking a big drop off in quality if they go with a guy that looks the part but who only packs functional acting ability. The other part of the problem is that, looks or not, I really don't see any British actors in their mid-30s with anything like the ability that Craig had at that age.
  • HarmonyRocketsHarmonyRockets
    edited December 2021 Posts: 181
    Am I the only one that isn't so much concerned with Cavill's acting, but think he doesn't look the part at all? Outside of his (overly perfect) appearance, which seems to be his main draw, he's fairly dull. But I'm not sure if he'd be any more dull than Lazenby or how Moore could be sometimes, and I'm not sure he's any worse of an actor than Moore.

    To me, he doesn't look right or come across right for Bond at all. He's just way too pretty and hunky for Bond. He's nice, safe, and wholesome, and big and physically perfect, if not a bit boring and bland. He's like a big Greek God or something. Perfect for Superman, but absolutely terrible for Bond. It always amazes me that this is some people's idea for what James Bond is actually supposed to be. Like, if Bond doesn't look like Superman or a super model body building hunk than the actor basically falls short. I get that Craig should have been a bit taller, but I think he's a thousand times better for Bond as far as physical appearance than Cavill. If anything, Craig might have been a bit too buff honestly. He had the right kind of rugged handsomeness though, to me at least.

    I'm not sure who the next actor should be, as almost all the candidates seems more boyish to some degree and not so rugged, but I think Cavill would be one of the worst choices. Like others have said, he'd be a safe pick, but an uninspired one.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,546
    HarmonyRockets wrote: »
    Am I the only one that isn't so much concerned with Cavill's acting, but think he doesn't look the part at all? Outside of his (overly perfect) appearance, which seems to be his main draw, he's fairly dull. But I'm not sure if he'd be any more dull than Lazenby or how Moore could be sometimes, and I'm not sure he's any worse of an actor than Moore.

    To me, he doesn't look right or come across right for Bond at all. He's just way too pretty and hunky for Bond. He's nice, safe, and wholesome, and big and physically perfect, if not a bit boring and bland. He's like a big Greek God or something. Perfect for Superman, but absolutely terrible for Bond. It always amazes me that this is some people's idea for what James Bond is actually supposed to be. Like, if Bond doesn't look like Superman or a super model body building hunk than the actor basically falls short. I get that Craig should have been a bit taller, but I think he's a thousand times better for Bond as far as physical appearance than Cavill. If anything, Craig might have been a bit too buff honestly. He had the right kind of rugged handsomeness though, to me at least.

    I'm not sure who the next actor should be, as almost all the candidates seems more boyish to some degree and not so rugged, but I think Cavill would be one of the worst choices. Like others have said, he'd be a safe pick, but an uninspired one.

    Yeah, interesting take and it's hard to disagree.
  • battleshipgreygtbattleshipgreygt
    edited December 2021 Posts: 1,220
    Never cared for Cahill as an actor, I’ve found his performances to be average at best, wooden and cringeworthy at his worst. As far as Bond he strikes me more as a Bond stand-in from a cologne advert than Bond himself.

    He’s a little too perfect and too modelesque, I like my Bond in the Craig/Connery/Dalton mode with more ruggedness than prettyboy looks.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,264
    HarmonyRockets wrote: »
    He's like a big Greek God or something. Perfect for Superman, but absolutely terrible for Bond. It always amazes me that this is some people's idea for what James Bond is actually supposed to be. Like, if Bond doesn't look like Superman or a super model body building hunk than the actor basically falls short. I get that Craig should have been a bit taller, but I think he's a thousand times better for Bond as far as physical appearance than Cavill. If anything, Craig might have been a bit too buff honestly. He had the right kind of rugged handsomeness though, to me at least.

    This. Bond was never meant to be some big, muscular beast, and that was what was always appealing. Timothy Dalton wasn’t exactly muscular, but I still buy the danger his Bond possess.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,147
    The one thing about Cavill that gives me second thought is that he may be a little too muscular and beefy. I'd prefer if Bond were fit, but he doesn't have to look like a body builder. I don't think he needs a superhero physique, really.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited December 2021 Posts: 3,147
    Yes, CraigBond looked the way he did in CR because he was supposed to have only recently left Special Forces, so it fitted his version of the character. NewBond doesn't have to have a similar backstory, so doesn't need to be similarly jacked. I suppose this one will come down to whether or not EON think that audiences have come to expect Bond to have the physique of a meat-eating, testosterone-driven killing machine and whether they'll satisfy that expectation or set out to confound it. It all adds to the interest in how they're going to play their next hand, no?
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    edited December 2021 Posts: 16,147
    Venutius wrote: »
    Yes, CraigBond looked the way he did in CR because he was supposed to have only recently left Special Forces, so it fitted his version of the character. NewBond doesn't have to have a similar backstory, so doesn't need to be similarly jacked. I suppose this one will come down to whether or not EON think that audiences have come to expect Bond to have the physique of a meat-eating, testosterone-driven killing machine and whether they'll satisfy that expectation or set out to confound it. It all adds to the interest in how they're going to play their next hand, no?

    Couldn't agree more. I do wonder what ideas for the next Bond actor are being considered at Eon. I'd really prefer if they would go back to basics and find an actor who can embody Fleming's Bond the way Dalton did.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited December 2021 Posts: 3,147
    Yes, you only had to take one look at Dalton to know that he was James Bond and then when he made the decision to channel as much of Fleming's Bond into his portrayal as he could, well, I couldn't have been happier with his casting. Visually, Aidan Turner's the closest of the current candidates to Dalton. You could easily imagine that Turner and Dalton were playing the same character. I don't know if he'd be capable of embodying BookBond to the degree that Dalton did, though, and I've not seen enough of him to know if he's got the actual acting ability to follow Craig. I can see the potential, though!
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,147
    Venutius wrote: »
    Yes, you only had to take one look at Dalton to know that he was James Bond and then when he made the decision to channel as much of Fleming's Bond into his portrayal as he could, well, I couldn't have been happier with his casting. Visually, Aidan Turner's the closest of the current candidates to Dalton. You could easily imagine that Turner and Dalton were playing the same character. I don't know if he'd be capable of embodying BookBond to the degree that Dalton did, though, and I've not seen enough of him to know if he's got the actual acting ability to follow Craig. I can see the potential, though!

    After seeing his performance in And Then There Were None, I think Turner could do the job.
  • OOWolfOOWolf Savannah
    Posts: 140
    Venutius wrote: »
    Yes, you only had to take one look at Dalton to know that he was James Bond and then when he made the decision to channel as much of Fleming's Bond into his portrayal as he could, well, I couldn't have been happier with his casting. Visually, Aidan Turner's the closest of the current candidates to Dalton. You could easily imagine that Turner and Dalton were playing the same character. I don't know if he'd be capable of embodying BookBond to the degree that Dalton did, though, and I've not seen enough of him to know if he's got the actual acting ability to follow Craig. I can see the potential, though!

    Neither Turner nor anyone needs to be book Bond. Craig was book Bond only to a certain extent. For the sake of the screen and people's enjoyment, the next Bond needs to be charismatic with a wide character palate. As I always say, the actor needs to be Bond, not just someone who plays Bond. Craig played Bond, whilst, Connery and Dalton were Bond.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,546
    OOWolf wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Yes, you only had to take one look at Dalton to know that he was James Bond and then when he made the decision to channel as much of Fleming's Bond into his portrayal as he could, well, I couldn't have been happier with his casting. Visually, Aidan Turner's the closest of the current candidates to Dalton. You could easily imagine that Turner and Dalton were playing the same character. I don't know if he'd be capable of embodying BookBond to the degree that Dalton did, though, and I've not seen enough of him to know if he's got the actual acting ability to follow Craig. I can see the potential, though!

    Neither Turner nor anyone needs to be book Bond. Craig was book Bond only to a certain extent. For the sake of the screen and people's enjoyment, the next Bond needs to be charismatic with a wide character palate. As I always say, the actor needs to be Bond, not just someone who plays Bond. Craig played Bond, whilst, Connery and Dalton were Bond.

    I feel like this comment sort of collapses in on itself. You say that no one needs to be book Bond, but then you say the only actors who "were" Bond were Connery and Dalton, the latter of which is sort of renowned for nailing book Bond. And that Lazenby, Moore, and Craig all "play" Bond but were not "actually" Bond.

    To your credit I can see why Connery "is" Bond because Fleming made creative decisions about his character based on Connery. But to say Craig "played" Bond while Dalton "was" Bond is just so arbitrary. I dunno, I already had my "Dalton is the Best Bond" phase and have since come out the other side of it, so it always feels a little silly to me now.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,264
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    To your credit I can see why Connery "is" Bond because Fleming made creative decisions about his character based on Connery.

    But did he though? I know the story of Fleming using Connery’s Scottish Background for Bond has been around for a very long time, but Charles Helfenstein proved this to be false when he unearthed research and notes Fleming was writing for Bond’s background and asking a College of Arms researcher to create a Scottish Background for Bond, and all of this was in 1960, at least 1 year before Connery was even in the fold.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited December 2021 Posts: 3,147
    OOWolf wrote: »
    Neither Turner nor anyone needs to be book Bond.
    Not quite what I said, though, to be fair. Dalton openly said that he was trying to get a lot of Fleming's Bond into his portrayal - I said I didn't know if Aidan Turner would/could do the same. However, having just looked at some of And Then There Were None for the first time, as recommended by ToThe Right, I actually do think that Turner could channel Fleming's Bond in that way if he was so inclined. Not saying that he should - but judging by what I've just seen, he's certainly capable of doing so and getting it right. So much so, that (and I know it'll never happen) if ever there were any authentic Fleming adaptations done as period pieces, parts of Turner's performance in And Then There Were None suggest that he'd be ideal for a period Bond.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,546
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    To your credit I can see why Connery "is" Bond because Fleming made creative decisions about his character based on Connery.

    But did he though? I know the story of Fleming using Connery’s Scottish Background for Bond has been around for a very long time, but Charles Helfenstein proved this to be false when he unearthed research and notes Fleming was writing for Bond’s background and asking a College of Arms researcher to create a Scottish Background for Bond, and all of this was in 1960, at least 1 year before Connery was even in the fold.

    Fair enough, in that case...

    9dc75e9f1f92fb6d4546c02551105e09.png

    Seems like someone knows something I don't!
  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,507
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    To your credit I can see why Connery "is" Bond because Fleming made creative decisions about his character based on Connery.

    But did he though? I know the story of Fleming using Connery’s Scottish Background for Bond has been around for a very long time, but Charles Helfenstein proved this to be false when he unearthed research and notes Fleming was writing for Bond’s background and asking a College of Arms researcher to create a Scottish Background for Bond, and all of this was in 1960, at least 1 year before Connery was even in the fold.


    That's interesting. I have never heard that story before. I suppose that even within the hard core fanbase there are potentially still some unfounded myths floating around.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    OOWolf wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Yes, you only had to take one look at Dalton to know that he was James Bond and then when he made the decision to channel as much of Fleming's Bond into his portrayal as he could, well, I couldn't have been happier with his casting. Visually, Aidan Turner's the closest of the current candidates to Dalton. You could easily imagine that Turner and Dalton were playing the same character. I don't know if he'd be capable of embodying BookBond to the degree that Dalton did, though, and I've not seen enough of him to know if he's got the actual acting ability to follow Craig. I can see the potential, though!

    Neither Turner nor anyone needs to be book Bond.
    I don't agree. I think the next actor needs to embrace the Fleming novels like Dalton did, with a desire to go back to the books.

    But I do agree the actor needs to embody the self assurance, swagger, sexual magnetism, macho charisma and confidence that Connery carried. If the actor has all that, combined with great acting chops, and a lover of the books, we would be on to a sure-fire winner.

  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,722
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    To your credit I can see why Connery "is" Bond because Fleming made creative decisions about his character based on Connery.

    But did he though? I know the story of Fleming using Connery’s Scottish Background for Bond has been around for a very long time, but Charles Helfenstein proved this to be false when he unearthed research and notes Fleming was writing for Bond’s background and asking a College of Arms researcher to create a Scottish Background for Bond, and all of this was in 1960, at least 1 year before Connery was even in the fold.

    Yes - I believe every Bond fan would love to read Helfenstein's making of OHMSS - certainly one of the best books about Bond released in the recent past. And the other thing is that Fleming is from Scottish lineage, the Fleming name fairly synonymous with Scotland. It is something he was interested in himself.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    edited December 2021 Posts: 3,327
    Major_Boothroyd wrote: »
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    To your credit I can see why Connery "is" Bond because Fleming made creative decisions about his character based on Connery.

    But did he though? I know the story of Fleming using Connery’s Scottish Background for Bond has been around for a very long time, but Charles Helfenstein proved this to be false when he unearthed research and notes Fleming was writing for Bond’s background and asking a College of Arms researcher to create a Scottish Background for Bond, and all of this was in 1960, at least 1 year before Connery was even in the fold.

    Yes - I believe every Bond fan would love to read Helfenstein's making of OHMSS - certainly one of the best books about Bond released in the recent past. And the other thing is that Fleming is from Scottish lineage, the Fleming name fairly synonymous with Scotland. It is something he was interested in himself.

    Wasn't Fleming's home as a child in Scotland too (Glencoe)? Didn't he grow up there?

    I'm sure Fleming had Scottish origins planned for Bond before Connery came on the scene anyway, as much of Fleming was passed on to the fictional character.

    The Sunspel clothing label did a Fleming winter wardrobe last year (approved by the Fleming estate), and much of it was using Scottish materials, to tie in with Fleming.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Craig is the best actor that portrayed Bond as far as I’m concerned so whatever actor they will choose it’s probably gonna be a downer for me.
  • ColonelAdamskiColonelAdamski UK
    Posts: 1,073
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    I'm sure Fleming had Scottish origins planned for Bond before Connery came on the scene anyway, as much of Fleming was passed on to the fictional character.

    I'm putting a response to this on the Scottish heritage thread in the literary section JSW.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 690
    The greater the physical distance between Fleming's Bond and the actor playing him, the more you're going to have to alter the character to suit the actor. Alter the character too much and he just doesn't seem like Bond anymore, you might as well just be doing a movie about an original character.

    Craig's casting was a stretch, but only a slight one. The problem with him is that he was only good at playing the young hotheaded Bond of CR and QOS, and seemed rather directionless when he was playing the more "classic" Bond of SF and on

    Generally speaking the easier an actor can be seen playing Bond (tall, handsome, good with action, attractive to women), the better off we are. There's nothing wrong with an "obvious" casting decision. It actually makes the most sense. The whole, "Hey let's cast this guy who looks and behaves nothing like Bond, it'll be more interesting because reasons" mentality is only good for novelty casting and/or parodies.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    I’m not bothered about how close to the books the next guy plays it really. I’ve already seen Fleming’s Bond done pretty much perfectly on screen a few times, and I can always read the books whenever I like. I think it’s more important that he makes it his own. He should be familiar with the books, and with the performances of the others, so he knows what the constant parts of the character are and what sort of takes have already been done before. But I want to see it reinvented again.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,312
    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    I’m not bothered about how close to the books the next guy plays it really. I’ve already seen Fleming’s Bond done pretty much perfectly on screen a few times, and I can always read the books whenever I like. I think it’s more important that he makes it his own. He should be familiar with the books, and with the performances of the others, so he knows what the constant parts of the character are and what sort of takes have already been done before. But I want to see it reinvented again.

    Yeah I think it's good to keep a foot in the books, but Bond moved beyond them and added so much more that within a year or two of the first movie.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson
    Posts: 2,161
    Added and lost. The Fleming Bond is my number one incarnation of the character, and not any of the cinematic interpretations are very close in my estimation, but they each have embodied the character in some way which built their own credibility (each guy has given at least one performance that I feel says “Bond”).
Sign In or Register to comment.