Who should/could be a Bond actor?

19439449469489491231

Comments

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited August 2022 Posts: 3,154
    That's true - if his agent's had discussions with EON, Turner could say 'I've never had a meeting with them' and pass a lie detector with flying colours. The only time I've seen it put to him directly before was a brief red carpet interview where he closed down the reporter with 'You're not getting a word out of me about Bond, darlin'!'
    Reading Turner's response in this new piece, I had to laugh at the difference in the way that he and Craig expressed their reservation about the possible impact on their lives if they played Bond.
    Turner: 'I can still get on the Tube and go to pubs and there's never a problem.I don't think I'd want that to change.'
    Craig: 'It was genuinely like, My life is going to get f*cked if I do this'!
    You can take the boy out of the North of England, but...
  • Posts: 16,170
    Sounds like Aidan's not much of a fan of the series. Perhaps he's only seen a couple of the more recent films? SPECTRE perhaps?
    Seriously though, I don't think I'd want a new Bond actor that didn't at least have an appreciation for the films (and books).
    Changed my mnd about him. They can do better.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,154
    Although Craig hadn't read any of the books before he was in talks with EON and when he bought a copy of Casino Royale, he ripped the cover off because he didn't want to be seen reading a Bond book on the tube. I never knew if he did that because he didn't want word to get out or if he was ashamed of being seen with it!
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,820
    I haven't heard that story and that's probably the most negative assessment of Craig's motivations possible.

    There is the tale of Craig naively seeking out a Cape first edition of Casino Royale and retreating when the price was 5-figures. Probably not so much an issue soon after.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 2022 Posts: 16,428
    Venutius wrote: »
    Although Craig hadn't read any of the books before he was in talks with EON and when he bought a copy of Casino Royale, he ripped the cover off because he didn't want to be seen reading a Bond book on the tube. I never knew if he did that because he didn't want word to get out or if he was ashamed of being seen with it!

    It would be the former, it's hardly going to be the latter. Who cares what anyone does on the Tube, and I doubt Craig would have given a toss what anyone thought :D
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited August 2022 Posts: 3,154
    It was in a Virgin Radio interview, way back, when he was asked about how he got the role:
    'Barbara gave me a call and said, ‘Please come and say hello’ and I thought this was a bit of a giggle. I got a copy of the book and I was reading it but I’d ripped the front cover off it because going on the Tube reading it was a bit kind of…I got off the Tube at Piccadilly, finished the last page and threw it in the bin and went ‘Well, that was all right’, walked into the offices and sat down with them.'
    He later wished he'd kept the book!
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,282
    Venutius wrote: »
    It was in a Virgin Radio interview, way back, when he was asked about how he got the role.:
    'Barbara gave me a call and said, ‘Please come and say hello’ and I thought this was a bit of a giggle. I got a copy of the book and I was reading it but I’d ripped the front cover off it because going on the Tube reading it was a bit kind of…I got off the Tube at Piccadilly, finished the last page and threw it in the bin and went ‘Well, that was all right’, walked into the offices and sat down with them.'

    I can tell that he's a sentimentalist.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited August 2022 Posts: 3,154
    :D Anyhow, the point is that Craig proves that the actor doesn't need to be a big Bond or Fleming fan in order to make a great James Bond. It might help, but it's clearly not a dealbreaker.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,282
    Venutius wrote: »
    :D Anyhow, the point is that Craig proves that the actor doesn't need to be a big Bond or Fleming fan in order to make a great James Bond. It might help, but it's clearly not a dealbreaker.

    No, indeed not, considering that relatively few of the Bond actors ever read the Fleming novels or, if they did, only a few of them or parts thereof. Dalton and Craig are notable exceptions of course and Lazenby read OHMSS and kept a copy on him as inspiration for how to play Bond in that film.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,220
    If cast, Turner will likely say, ‘of course I’m a Bond fan, particularly the Fleming originals’…
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    talos7 wrote: »
    If cast, Turner will likely say, ‘of course I’m a Bond fan, particularly the Fleming originals’…

    "Yes, I meant I haven't watched every film 25-times, but they've assured me we are going back to Fleming and I am a hug fan of those books."
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    My oh my, I leave the nest for a couple of days and there is all kinds of speculation... As other members have already pointed out, Turner is playing it safe, a little coy, with the right amount of boisterousness, Craig style.

    Turner feels well flattered, it is obvious, but he doesn't want to come over as desperate.

    Let the speculation continue. Amen.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited August 2022 Posts: 18,282
    talos7 wrote: »
    If cast, Turner will likely say, ‘of course I’m a Bond fan, particularly the Fleming originals’…

    In another context altogether that reminds me rather of when Saddam Hussein cynically Islamised his formerly secular regime under the Return to Faith Campaign because it was politically expedient for him to do so at the time. The promise of immense wealth (such as the Bond role garners nowadays) can similarly bring about a Damascene conversion among some actors.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,428
    My oh my, I leave the nest for a couple of days and there is all kinds of speculation... As other members have already pointed out, Turner is playing it safe, a little coy, with the right amount of boisterousness, Craig style.

    Turner feels well flattered, it is obvious, but he doesn't want to come over as desperate.

    Or he's genuinely not interested, as he says.
  • Posts: 4,174
    Troy wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Stuff like height, eye colour etc. are examples of this. I mean, if a potential candidate strikes her as 'Bond' but has, say, crooked underteeth, is 5'9 or whatever, then she's going to go with him based on his sex appeal, his command of the role, his screen presence, his talent etc.

    so Tom Cruise would not be ruled out

    Most likely Tom Cruise would be ruled out for many sensible reasons. He's too famous, too old, while an action star he doesn't necessarily give off 'James Bond' (at least from what I can see) more than he does 'American movie star' vibes, so in all likelihood wouldn't have that command of the role anyway. He'd probably need to do a convincing British accent which is not something that has ever been required of him. He's the main actor in a rival movie franchise which would create all kinds of PR problems. Personally, I don't think he would be a good fit.

    A better analogy would be that of Craig/Cavill in 2006. You have a more traditionally Bondian candidate who is broadly the 'correct height' and sort of looks the part. Then you have another candidate who isn't. He's too short, too blonde, too 'rough around the edges' and generally not conventionally Bondian looking. But his audition has made an impact - again, things like charisma, screen presence, command of the role etc. In these sorts of situations I suspect they'll almost always go with the candidate who has made that lasting impression over the one who 'looks the part' but puts in a weaker performance. In this case height, hair colour, a funny nose or whatever it is will not be a detriment if there's something there. And let's face it, MGW and BB are far better at finding that certain something than we are at it.
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    :D Anyhow, the point is that Craig proves that the actor doesn't need to be a big Bond or Fleming fan in order to make a great James Bond. It might help, but it's clearly not a dealbreaker.

    No, indeed not, considering that relatively few of the Bond actors ever read the Fleming novels or, if they did, only a few of them or parts thereof. Dalton and Craig are notable exceptions of course and Lazenby read OHMSS and kept a copy on him as inspiration for how to play Bond in that film.

    True. I never got the sense that Craig read or cared that much about the novels beyond CR. It's not unusual for the actors. Connery hadn't read many of them either. Same with Brosnan who once famously thought DN was the first Bond novel. Dalton of course specifically wanted to bring out the spirit of Fleming in his performance, and (although I might be wrong) I think Moore liked to read/had read the novels at one point or another.

    It'd be nice if the next actor and director did read them.

    As for Turner, it could well be a sly PR move to drum up some buzz around him as a candidate, but I doubt it. I like him as an actor but I simply don't think he's the right fit anyway. He's been discussed way too much in the press as a contender too, which almost certainly means he won't get it.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 2022 Posts: 16,428
    007HallY wrote: »
    In these sorts of situations I suspect they'll almost always go with the candidate who has made that lasting impression over the one who 'looks the part' but puts in a weaker performance. In this case height, hair colour, a funny nose or whatever it is will not be a detriment if there's something there.

    Yes please!
    007HallY wrote: »

    True. I never got the sense that Craig read or cared that much about the novels beyond CR. It's not unusual for the actors. Connery hadn't read many of them either. Same with Brosnan who once famously thought DN was the first Bond novel. Dalton of course specifically wanted to bring out the spirit of Fleming in his performance, and (although I might be wrong) I think Moore liked to read/had read the novels at one point or another.

    It'd be nice if the next actor and director did read them.

    To be honest I'm sure most of them read the books: it's not as if they're a particularly tricky read and they had plenty of time to read them, and there must be some curiosity if you're playing the character from them. Not every single book maybe, I'm not sure you need to do that to get a good feel for it.

    But if I'm honest I wouldn't particularly want them to ground their entire performance in the books: James Bond is a product of the cinema as much as it is literary, and there's nothing wrong with that. I think there's a bit of snobbery towards the books as if enjoying a load of (well-written) pulp thrillers is somehow more highbrow and clever than liking decades-worth of brilliantly-made movies, but I don't think it is. Bond is a cinema icon, so I tend to think it's probably more important that an actor is aware of the films than the books, even. Craig's performance, for example, has certainly taken note of what works for Bond on the big screen and why he was always so popular, with his alpha male swagger and extreme confidence, whereas arguably Dalton chucked a lot of that out and ended up being less well-remembered and less successful as a result. In truth the credits at the beginning of the films should really read
    'DANIEL CRAIG
    as IAN FLEMING and ALBERT R.BROCCOLI & HARRY SALTZMAN'S
    JAMES BOND 007'

    I think naming NO TIME TO DIE after one of Cubby's movies rather than one of Fleming's books was tacit acknowledgment of that.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited August 2022 Posts: 3,154
    One of the difficulties in gauging how it might go this time around is knowing how badly Barbara Broccoli wanted to cast against type, previously. She's supposed to have wanted Sean Bean to replace Dalton, but was overruled by Cubby. BB's the one who wanted Craig to replace Brosnan and who drove the whole thing despite all the criticism (wasn't Cavill only there in 2005 as a fall-back if Craig turned it down?). Ironically, after 15 years of Craig as Bond, casting against type at this point would mean reverting to a more traditional Bond, such as Turner or Cavill might play! There hasn't been even a hint that that might be on the cards - so it's all up in the air, with no clue as to which way they'll go. Interesting times.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,978
    mtm wrote: »
    My oh my, I leave the nest for a couple of days and there is all kinds of speculation... As other members have already pointed out, Turner is playing it safe, a little coy, with the right amount of boisterousness, Craig style.

    Turner feels well flattered, it is obvious, but he doesn't want to come over as desperate.

    Or he's genuinely not interested, as he says.

    This. It's funny seeing the obsessive Turner fans twist every new happening into their favor.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    We might be about to experience the most interesting reveal of our new Bond. Maybe this time, he would parachute into a big arena to meet the media, then off to the press conference.
  • edited August 2022 Posts: 4,174
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    In these sorts of situations I suspect they'll almost always go with the candidate who has made that lasting impression over the one who 'looks the part' but puts in a weaker performance. In this case height, hair colour, a funny nose or whatever it is will not be a detriment if there's something there.

    Yes please!
    007HallY wrote: »

    True. I never got the sense that Craig read or cared that much about the novels beyond CR. It's not unusual for the actors. Connery hadn't read many of them either. Same with Brosnan who once famously thought DN was the first Bond novel. Dalton of course specifically wanted to bring out the spirit of Fleming in his performance, and (although I might be wrong) I think Moore liked to read/had read the novels at one point or another.

    It'd be nice if the next actor and director did read them.

    To be honest I'm sure most of them read the books: it's not as if they're a particularly tricky read and they had plenty of time to read them, and there must be some curiosity if you're playing the character from them. Not every single book maybe, I'm not sure you need to do that to get a good feel for it.

    Oh yeah, they all seemed to have read at least one of them.
    mtm wrote: »
    But if I'm honest I wouldn't particularly want them to ground their entire performance in the books: James Bond is a product of the cinema as much as it is literary, and there's nothing wrong with that. I think there's a bit of snobbery towards the books as if enjoying a load of (well-written) pulp thrillers is somehow more highbrow and clever than liking decades-worth of brilliantly-made movies, but I don't think it is. Bond is a cinema icon, so I tend to think it's probably more important that an actor is aware of the films than the books, even. Craig's performance, for example, has certainly taken note of what works for Bond on the big screen and why he was always so popular, with his alpha male swagger and extreme confidence, whereas arguably Dalton chucked a lot of that out and ended up being less well-remembered and less successful as a result. In truth the credits at the beginning of the films should really read
    'DANIEL CRAIG
    as IAN FLEMING and ALBERT R.BROCCOLI & HARRY SALTZMAN'S
    JAMES BOND 007'

    I think naming NO TIME TO DIE after one of Cubby's movies rather than one of Fleming's books was tacit acknowledgment of that.

    I think you're always going to go through a process of reinvention when it comes to adapting literature for the screen. Especially now that much of the source material of the Fleming novels has already been adapted.

    For me, it's not that I want to see the definitive version of Fleming's James Bond onscreen - short of having a period piece, which I don't want personally, this won't happen - but rather I want them to revisit the novels (ideally re-reading all of them just to get a feel for how the stories, ideas and characters develop), choose what resonates with them about the literary character and try to tailor their own strengths as an actor to a version of Bond that stands out, adds something fresh to the cinematic series in the context of the modern world (that's not to say in a way that's trying to outshine or be better than their predecessors) but still inherently shares many of those core traits of the literary and film Bond. Which specific traits they choose to emphasise and how they make it work in the context of an onscreen performance is where it gets interesting. And yes, I agree, the cinematic Bond is just as much a part of this process as much as the literary Bond is (no doubt Craig's portrayal of Bond will have a massive impact on how the next actor plays the role, regardless of whether they choose to take elements from it or consciously subvert/go against it).

    It's the same with most of these iconic characters - Sherlock Holmes, Batman etc. Each actor/film should bring something different to the table, the writers/directors (and even actors) themselves using the source material for creative inspiration, all while coming up with something that is still recognisably that character.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 2022 Posts: 16,428
    Yep, that sounds good to me. It would be much more interesting if the next actor didn't say only 'we've gone back to the books', but rather as you say 'we've gone back to the books and looked at all of the previous amazing movies to really work out what this character means'. Because 90% of the audience haven't read the books, they don't really care if the actor has or not, they just want to see a good Bond movie with a great Bond!
  • Posts: 4,174
    @mtm Yeah, I can appreciate that. I suppose for me the reason I'd like the next actor to ideally read all the books going into the role is for the same reason they should watch all of the previous Bond films. Even in Craig's tenure alone there are so many different aspects of the character that are brought out in different ways.

    In that sense, it's interesting to think about what future actors could take away from the novels specifically. I'm sure one actor could read it and resonate more with, say, Bond's tendency in the novels to fall in love with the women in these stories in that 'St. George complex' way. That could well have an impact on how the actor performs certain scenes, how later drafts of the script are written, and even who is cast alongside him.

    Another might read the novels and be more impacted by the literary Bond's more hedonistic traits. Or perhaps his dislike of killing in cold blood. Again, it's all there and opens up a lot of possibilities in terms of the performance and film in general.
  • Venutius wrote: »
    One of the difficulties in gauging how it might go this time around is knowing how badly Barbara Broccoli wanted to cast against type, previously. She's supposed to have wanted Sean Bean to replace Dalton, but was overruled by Cubby. BB's the one who wanted Craig to replace Brosnan and who drove the whole thing despite all the criticism (wasn't Cavill only there in 2005 as a fall-back if Craig turned it down?). Ironically, after 15 years of Craig as Bond, casting against type at this point would mean reverting to a more traditional Bond, such as Turner or Cavill might play! There hasn't been even a hint that that might be on the cards - so it's all up in the air, with no clue as to which way they'll go. Interesting times.

    I guess it depends whether she was intentionally trying to cast against type, or whether she just prefers the Sean Bean, Daniel Craig sort of actors to the Brosnan types. I’m leaning towards the latter, she seemed much happier with how the Craig era turned out, but honestly who knows. I think what’s so exciting about BB still being in charge is that she always manages to surprise me.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited August 2022 Posts: 3,154
    Agreed. And, yes, I'm really glad Barbara Broccoli's in charge and will be for the foreseeable. I think she genuinely does want the films to be good, not just profitable, and does care about the legacy. If anyone can stop Amazon milking it for short-term returns, it's BB.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,428
    Venutius wrote: »
    Agreed. And, yes, I'm really glad Barbara Broccoli's in charge and will be for the foreseeable. I think she genuinely does want the films to be good, not just profitable, and does care about the legacy. If anyone can stop Amazon milking it for short-term returns, it's BB.

    Yep, absolutely agree.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited August 2022 Posts: 1,318
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    My oh my, I leave the nest for a couple of days and there is all kinds of speculation... As other members have already pointed out, Turner is playing it safe, a little coy, with the right amount of boisterousness, Craig style.

    Turner feels well flattered, it is obvious, but he doesn't want to come over as desperate.

    Or he's genuinely not interested, as he says.

    This. It's funny seeing the obsessive Turner fans twist every new happening into their favor.

    Except he never said he isn't interested. Rather his thoughts on what could happen and his reservations accordingly. There isn't any twisting going on.

    @mtm stirring the pot per usual
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,978
    Yes but some have blinders on and can't seem to even entertain a situation that may not result in Turner being cast or a response that may be seen as less favorable to the higher ups and decision makers. There's nothing wrong with championing a favorite as the next Bond but when it leans into obsessive or defensive territory or to the point where other actors shouldn't even be brought up or discussed, it's not the best look.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,428
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    My oh my, I leave the nest for a couple of days and there is all kinds of speculation... As other members have already pointed out, Turner is playing it safe, a little coy, with the right amount of boisterousness, Craig style.

    Turner feels well flattered, it is obvious, but he doesn't want to come over as desperate.

    Or he's genuinely not interested, as he says.

    This. It's funny seeing the obsessive Turner fans twist every new happening into their favor.

    Except he never said he isn't interested. Rather his thoughts on what could happen and his reservations accordingly. There isn't any twisting going on.

    We've moved onto another topic, but fine. He said he can't see himself wanting to do it pretty clearly. It's not a no, but it's certainly far from a yes; it's just what the actual text says. Rather than having to invent motivations that 'he doesn't want to come over as desperate' one should also entertain the possibility that he simply means what he says. He's always seemed a pretty straight-talking person.
    "At the moment I can still get on the Tube and go to pubs and there's never a problem. I don't think I'd want that to change" Maybe than some other delicate and arcane meaning, he actually just means 'I don't think I'd want that to change'.
    @mtm stirring the pot per usual

    Do we have to have this sort of stuff, mods?
  • Posts: 88
    If that quote is correct Turner exact words were "itd be a interesting conversation to have" if anything him being that reserved about it means its more likely something is up.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited August 2022 Posts: 1,318
    mtm wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    My oh my, I leave the nest for a couple of days and there is all kinds of speculation... As other members have already pointed out, Turner is playing it safe, a little coy, with the right amount of boisterousness, Craig style.

    Turner feels well flattered, it is obvious, but he doesn't want to come over as desperate.

    Or he's genuinely not interested, as he says.

    This. It's funny seeing the obsessive Turner fans twist every new happening into their favor.

    Except he never said he isn't interested. Rather his thoughts on what could happen and his reservations accordingly. There isn't any twisting going on.

    We've moved onto another topic, but fine. He said he can't see himself wanting to do it pretty clearly. It's not a no, but it's certainly far from a yes; it's just what the actual text says. Rather than having to invent motivations that 'he doesn't want to come over as desperate' one should also entertain the possibility that he simply means what he says. He's always seemed a pretty straight-talking person.
    "At the moment I can still get on the Tube and go to pubs and there's never a problem. I don't think I'd want that to change" Maybe than some other delicate and arcane meaning, he actually just means 'I don't think I'd want that to change'.
    @mtm stirring the pot per usual

    Do we have to have this sort of stuff, mods?

    You are spreading misinformation, perhaps refrain of doing so. Asking the mods to come to your aid, when you are the one bending words, not the first time either. Stop gaslighting.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Yes but some have blinders on and can't seem to even entertain a situation that may not result in Turner being cast or a response that may be seen as less favorable to the higher ups and decision makers. There's nothing wrong with championing a favorite as the next Bond but when it leans into obsessive or defensive territory or to the point where other actors shouldn't even be brought up or discussed, it's not the best look.

    If that's what it is at the end then I will have peace with it. Then I know what the producers will miss out on. That is my feeling and opinion. I never liked Craig for example, their decision not mine. Personally speaking, I have mentioned other candidates and supported other names from other members, so that's that.

    We've moved onto another topic, but fine

    You don't get to decide that. It's a forum for Pete's sake. How are you this arrogant?
Sign In or Register to comment.