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
Well Bond was also established as an outsider. However comfortable in whatever setting.
From Moonraker:
Same here. I’m tired of the same names being tossed around.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
After seeing his performance in And Then There Were None, I think Turner could do the job.
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.
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...
Seems like someone knows something I don't!
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.
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.
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.
I'm putting a response to this on the Scottish heritage thread in the literary section JSW.
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.
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.