What is your breaking point that would make you stop being a Bond fan.

1141517192025

Comments

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Another dreadful suggestion. Is there no end to it?
    Indeed!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    The next actor has to have a natural charm to him imho. Be able to fit into the standard Bond template and play that role, with the wise cracks and all, but still be serious and credibly lethal when called upon.
  • Posts: 9,843
    bondjames wrote: »
    The next actor has to have a natural charm to him imho. Be able to fit into the standard Bond template and play that role, with the wise cracks and all, but still be serious and credibly lethal when called upon.

    So you agree Tom Hardy is the perfect choice fantastic glad we all agree on this.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Risico007 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The next actor has to have a natural charm to him imho. Be able to fit into the standard Bond template and play that role, with the wise cracks and all, but still be serious and credibly lethal when called upon.

    So you agree Tom Hardy is the perfect choice fantastic glad we all agree on this.
    You're right of course. Those attributes I mentioned above could just as easily apply to the villain as well, in which case Hardy would be perfect indeed.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Honestly, I can't imagine a more boring way for the franchise to go than the straight-forward, continuity stripped missions. It's just so dull and uninteresting a proposition to me, and something we've already seen unending heaps of in the franchise. People keep clamoring for EON to do something new with Bond, then in the same breath suggest they do what they've always done instead. I've heard this suggested countless times and I just don't get the appeal.

    Doing stories with a younger Bond, however, would actually allow EON to do fresh things with Bond and not retread on well-worn ground. It's more the route Fleming purists would desire and not cinematic Bond fans, so maybe that's the issue for some.

    At this point I'd rather see a miniseries that adapted each Fleming book in the right order with 4-6 episodes a run (depending on the book length and how much could be gotten out of them), that carried a heavy continuity with how Bond develops in them over time, from his run-ins with SMERSH, Drax and No to his time with Tracy and how he battles Blofeld and grows more bitter and cynical. A chance to see a proper Fleming adaptation that really told the stories the way they should be told, all set in the 50s to 60s. If the writers and co. did that and did it well, while the films carried on with continuity stripped mission films, I'd turn down the movie ticket and instead just stream the show, because it's potential is infinitely more exciting to me than the same old, same old.
  • gumboltgumbolt Now with in-office photocopier
    Posts: 153
    I think Tom Hardy is the clear favourite for me. He is a top actor with striking screen presence. He will draw the female audience just like DC did. Hopefully they would do a few films back to back while he is still in the right age range. Neither Turner or Hiddleston are strong enough candidates. Fassbender is too like Craig physically and Elba just isn't right at all. If not Hardy I would take a risk and go for Aaron Taylor Johnson but nobody has ever agreed with me on that!
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    gumbolt wrote: »
    I think Tom Hardy is the clear favourite for me. He is a top actor with striking screen presence. He will draw the female audience just like DC did. Hopefully they would do a few films back to back while he is still in the right age range. Neither Turner or Hiddleston are strong enough candidates. Fassbender is too like Craig physically and Elba just isn't right at all. If not Hardy I would take a risk and go for Aaron Taylor Johnson but nobody has ever agreed with me on that!

    Mmmm I don't like Hardy.
    Yes he has the muscle snd is a great actor bit i just can't believe him as cool and charming. When i saw him in Wuthering Heights I thought he did a great job in second part of the film when Cathy Dies and turns all evil but i had such a hard time believing him in the first part.

    Bond in some way is like heathcliff who has two sides and would happen to me with Hardy's Bond what happened to me with his heathcliff.
    I would believe him as an assasian and someone you don't want as you're enemy but would fail in the ladies man department.

    And my most shallow reason against hardy I don't find him attractive at all, he justvdoes nothing for me.



  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    Honestly, I can't imagine a more boring way for the franchise to go than the straight-forward, continuity stripped missions. It's just so dull and uninteresting a proposition to me, and something we've already seen unending heaps of in the franchise. People keep clamoring for EON to do something new with Bond, then in the same breath suggest they do what they've always done instead. I've heard this suggested countless times and I just don't get the appeal.

    Doing stories with a younger Bond, however, would actually allow EON to do fresh things with Bond and not retread on well-worn ground. It's more the route Fleming purists would desire and not cinematic Bond fans, so maybe that's the issue for some.

    At this point I'd rather see a miniseries that adapted each Fleming book in the right order with 4-6 episodes a run (depending on the book length and how much could be gotten out of them), that carried a heavy continuity with how Bond develops in them over time, from his run-ins with SMERSH, Drax and No to his time with Tracy and how he battles Blofeld and grows more bitter and cynical. A chance to see a proper Fleming adaptation that really told the stories the way they should be told, all set in the 50s to 60s. If the writers and co. did that and did it well, while the films carried on with continuity stripped mission films, I'd turn down the movie ticket and instead just stream the show, because it's potential is infinitely more exciting to me than the same old, same old.

    I agree with this.

    Bond needs to do something fresh, desparately. Luckly, I think BB understands this. And also luckily, this board isn't deciding the next step for Bond to take. I don't want another Sean-Dan, I want a new interpretation.
  • Posts: 15,106
    If they go with three or four year gaps from now on, it's likely that actors will be doing four films, five at best. Even if they cast a 25 year old, they can't expect him to commit to series for 15 or 20 years.

    An actor plays Bond for 10-13 years, and that's it. At that point, either he wants to move on, or they want to replace him.

    True, at some point the new actor will want to do something else than Bond. But making him younger(ish) would give him more chance for a longer run than an older actor. It would also allow to a more Flemingian report with the villains, who can finally be sensibly older than Bond and potentially more intimidating. In the source material as well as the early movies, the villains are older and wiser than Bond, they have the upper hand. It is something easier to convey with a seasoned actor as the villain versus a younger one as Bond.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    1979 Luke Evans - 2
    1977 Michael Fassbender - 13
    1982 Jack Huston - 1
    1981 Rupert Friend - 2
    1989 Sonny Robertson - 1
    1972 Idris Elba - 2
    1980 Charlie Hunnam - 1
    1990 Jack O'Connell - 1
    1983 Aidan Turner - 15
    1981 Tom Hiddleston - 16
    1986 Tom Hughes - 1

    Untitled-2_zpsqb5mq5zc.jpg~original

    Thank you @Master_Dahark for that wonderful collection of pictures.

    Above, the current standings in the POLL[/quote]

  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Hardy is a superb actor with bags of charisma his 2 cameo's in the recent Peaky Blinders was a pure joy, Alfie Solomons what a character, he also was good as Ricky Tarr in TTSS but Bond, sorry I don't see it.

    Nice to see some think I wasn't off the mark with Hughes, he's quite an actor and about the same level if not lower of fame than Craig was before CR, Fassbender would be great and I know he's said he'd be up for it but he doesn't need it or neither does Hardy, someone of Hughes level of status is ideal.

    Hughes despite some here judging a book by it's cover is not a pretty boy model and that is, no more clothes horses thanks, Hughes has the dramatic chops as well.

    I'll echo the same feeling on where do they go, we've had more straight down the line mission films in the series than not and yes they pushed the personal angle far too much by SPECTRE but there needs to be a balance between presenting Bond as a credible human being as well as a suave spy.

    I just don't think showing Bond as teflon quip machine is going to work anymore. The personal angle is in the mix it just needs to be dialed back, SP could of easily done this while still using elements of SF and Dench's M's ghost over the proceedings.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    I'm putting in my cent for Cillian Murphy:

    cillian-murphy-in-time.jpg
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I'm putting in my cent for Cillian Murphy:

    cillian-murphy-in-time.jpg
    He does have that cold killer look in this shot. Good one, @dominicgreene.
  • Posts: 4,813
    He's a talented actor but he's 5 foot 9. Everyone else in the movie would look like Jaws!
  • SasSas
    Posts: 50
    A vote for Tom Hiddleston.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited June 2016 Posts: 5,131
    Risico007 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The next actor has to have a natural charm to him imho. Be able to fit into the standard Bond template and play that role, with the wise cracks and all, but still be serious and credibly lethal when called upon.

    So you agree Tom Hardy is the perfect choice fantastic glad we all agree on this.

    At 5'8" tall.......no.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Tom Hardy is a great actor but... he's way too thuggish and street for Bond.
  • Posts: 12,837
    He's a talented actor but he's 5 foot 9. Everyone else in the movie would look like Jaws!

    I don't think that's too big a deal nowadays to be fair. I mean watching his films you'd never think Tom Cruise was as short as he was in real life. Sylvester Stallone is 5ft 9 and convincingly portrayed a heavyweight boxer. Movie magic. And it's not like 5 foot 9 is really short. I think if filmed right it wouldn't even be noticeably short. True Bond is always portrayed as about 6ft but that's not really an integral part of the character in the way it is say Jack Reacher. So 5ft 9 seems alright to me but that's probably about the limit before we get into too short territory.
    Honestly, I can't imagine a more boring way for the franchise to go than the straight-forward, continuity stripped missions. It's just so dull and uninteresting a proposition to me, and something we've already seen unending heaps of in the franchise. People keep clamoring for EON to do something new with Bond, then in the same breath suggest they do what they've always done instead. I've heard this suggested countless times and I just don't get the appeal.

    Doing stories with a younger Bond, however, would actually allow EON to do fresh things with Bond and not retread on well-worn ground. It's more the route Fleming purists would desire and not cinematic Bond fans, so maybe that's the issue for some.

    At this point I'd rather see a miniseries that adapted each Fleming book in the right order with 4-6 episodes a run (depending on the book length and how much could be gotten out of them), that carried a heavy continuity with how Bond develops in them over time, from his run-ins with SMERSH, Drax and No to his time with Tracy and how he battles Blofeld and grows more bitter and cynical. A chance to see a proper Fleming adaptation that really told the stories the way they should be told, all set in the 50s to 60s. If the writers and co. did that and did it well, while the films carried on with continuity stripped mission films, I'd turn down the movie ticket and instead just stream the show, because it's potential is infinitely more exciting to me than the same old, same old.

    Is a younger Bond Flemingesque? There's never any indication that he's inexperienced in CR. In fact didn't Fleming descibe him as mid 30s? I want to see Bond in his prime now. Craig gave us both young and old Bond.

    It's true there are a lot of continuity free straightforward Bond films but we haven't had one for over a decade to be fair. I loved what the Craig era did in terms of character development and continuity (even the Spectre retcon), but I think for the next actor they should go with a more straight forward approach to freshen things up and leave DC's era as it's own standalone thing, ala the Dark Knight trilogy.

    Fleming wrote his fair share of stand alone stories. Sure there was the odd mention, and there was the Blofeld trilogy and before that SMERSH kinda carried over but they were never that linked until TB. Even FRWL, which ends on a cliffhanger, barely factors into DN. The main source of continuity was how Bond developed over the series and you could still do that while having him on straight forward, not personal, perhaps even OTT (giant squid anyone?) missions, just like Fleming did for the most part.

    Personally whether it's continuity based or a back to basics stand alone adventure I can't ever see myself skipping the next Bond film.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    I think he could act the part. But he's at least 2 inches too short....at least.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'd prefer a taller actor next time. Film trickery has worked for the past 10 yrs, but let's get someone more traditional imho.
  • Posts: 9,843
    For my honest top 10 actors who could be the next bond

    1. Michael Fassbender: the more I watch the three fan trailers with him as 007 (with three different titles Risico James Bond 007 and Moonraker) I just feel comfortable and happy maybe because I feel he would be a continuation of Craig's bond from his first two films maybe because silly gags that plagued Spectre wouldn't work with Fassbender I don't know. I know I like him as bond number 7 and he has remained my top choice

    2. Tom Hardy: at 38 he brings the same kind of world weariness Fassbender brought. Sure he would be a bit rough around he edges and yes he would be brutual and harsh but I get such a Connery vibe from his Inception character that I just would love him as bond. His style would be similar to early Connery and I am honestly ok with that serious but with a touch more camp and after Spectre while camp isn't something I love maybe I won't mind it as much with Hardy as bond.

    3. Tom Hiddleston: I am sorry but I love the guy he is charming brutual and a great actor. Would be a step in the Roger Moore/pierce Brosnan camp sure but hey even their films weren't completely self parody (ok maybe a view to a kill is guilty of that but come on the others aren't) and again I sense a growing complain among bond fans the the film's aren't "fun anymore" (to quote Max Denbeigh "whatever the hell that means") I don't mind Hiddleston as bond is he my number one choice no of course not but number 3 isn't horrible

    4. Cillian Murphy: this idea has grown on me in years like Hardy he is brutual but perhaps he is a bit too creepy.. I have only seen him in villain roles to be honest but I loved him as scare crow and he seemed at home in the suave charming moments in Red eye. There is a danger about him that I like but I am not sure works he best for bond however I wouldn't be upset if he was cast

    5. Christian Bale: according to Wikipedia he is 42 which is why he is lower on this list of course if eon and MGM got off their buts they could have 4-5 films before he starts to look to old. Again he is around the same age I believe Brosnan started as bond (or maybe Moore I know someone started at 42) at worst even if he did only 3 films still that would give other actors (Liam Hemsworth for example) the ability to flex their acting muscles and develop their skills before taking on 007. I am not going to go too far into why he would be a great 007 because just watch batman begins - the dark knight rises.

    (The next five are in no specific order)

    6. Bradley Cooper: before you send out Spectre to kill me hear me out yes I know he is amaerican yes I know it is the biggest sin to have an American play 007 but let's ignore all of that for a second just hear me out he suave charming and can be brutal his roles in limitless, the Ateam and the place beyond the pines proved all of that. Women love him men want to be him now about that American thing in the A-team he was able to do a covincing South African accent I say get the bloody yank ove to some accent classes and boom we might just have our next 007

    7. Liam Neeson: I don't care he is 61, I don't care that he would only do one film (bond coming out of retirement for one last fight) I don't care about any of that I would see the one film and be happy I witnessed it if you need to know why Neeson should be bond here are a list of films you need to see
    Taken
    Taken 2
    Unknown
    Taken 3
    Non-stop
    The A-team
    Run all night

    After that come to me and say the man can't be bond

    8. Luke Evans: I don't care that he is gay in real life the man has the look and sound of 007 like Neeson and Cooper my bottom 5 are they would be perfect but the media will rip them to shreds based on one key thing that is largely out of their control. I loved him in the Raven and I think he would be able to play a convincing straight 007

    9. Neil Jackson: before you say who he was in quantum of solace as mr slate... He was also brilliant as the main villian of Blade the series and honestly would be a really good 007 of course no one knows who the hell he is so yeah

    10. Christopher Hemsworth: apart from marvel movies the uU has not had a hit but maybe because he keeps picking bad projects I plan on seeing Black hat to make up my mind and that film could be in top 5 but would a studio want to bank on him as 007?


    Anyways my list is my list will most people hate the whole list yeah probably but it is what it is.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Yep. Although I never felt 5'10" never proved an issue for DC. Any shorter wouldn't do though.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Yep. Although I never felt 5'10" never proved an issue for DC. Any shorter wouldn't do though.

    Would he make your shortlist or not?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Yep. Although I never felt 5'10" never proved an issue for DC. Any shorter wouldn't do though.

    Would he make your shortlist or not?
    =))
  • Posts: 2,483
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Yep. Although I never felt 5'10" never proved an issue for DC. Any shorter wouldn't do though.

    Would he make your shortlist or not?

    Nice.

  • Posts: 15,106
    What strikes me about many of the actors mentioned is that many of them are known and often very well known for other roles. In the past, it has only truly been the case for Roger Moore and in particular circumstances, when Sean Connery was casting a very large shadow. Pierce Brosnan was of course known for Remington Steele, but it was a relatively modest success in comparison, and he became mainly known as the man who would be or should have been Bond.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Post-Remington Steele, Brosnan's career was pretty much going down the well, and ten years later, people hardly (the youth of the time) remembered or knew him as the aforementioned eponymous character. But, you're right about being under the shadow of being/should've been cast as Bond, which was the case.
  • Posts: 15,106
    Post-Remington Steele, Brosnan's career was pretty much going down the well, and ten years later, people hardly (the youth of the time) remembered or knew him as the aforementioned eponymous character. But, you're right about being under the shadow of being/should've been cast as Bond, which was the case.

    I know his career was not going anywhere. Like I said Remington Steele was a relatively modest success. In fact, without Brosnan being associated with Bond, I think Remington Steele would have been mostly forgotten.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Post-Remington Steele, Brosnan's career was pretty much going down the well, and ten years later, people hardly (the youth of the time) remembered or knew him as the aforementioned eponymous character. But, you're right about being under the shadow of being/should've been cast as Bond, which was the case.

    I know his career was not going anywhere. Like I said Remington Steele was a relatively modest success. In fact, without Brosnan being associated with Bond, I think Remington Steele would have been mostly forgotten.
    Very much so!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2016 Posts: 23,883
    That's true. Bond did put Brosnan back on the map, acting wise. He was doing a lot of B-movies for a while post-Remington Steele. I respect the way he used the Bond role to set up his production company and get some good roles at the same time.
Sign In or Register to comment.