› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…121122124126127…2507

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    I think the only person who has said they won't return if Craig doesn't is Waltz. Why would the likes of Whishaw, Harris, and Fiennes leave if he does?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Regardless, he is the only serious candidate i have seen. He's just the right age, just the right amount of famous (by which I mean he isn't a film star, but he can handle being in the spotlight) he has the look of Bond to a tee, and is a significant departure from Craig.

    The reason the press is picking up on him is because he fits the mould of the tall dark handsome leading man. I don't care about that. I want him to be Bond because, from the small hints from his television work I already know he has the potential to be the best Bond ever created. I just hope EON don't screw it up and plump for Hiddleston for his media courting abilities. I think post Craig, they don't want any more problems with the press, so I wouldn't put it past them.

    To put it another way, I want my Bond to have a burning intensity about him that is self-evident. I want a cunning agent, solely devoted to his mission, prepared to do whatever it takes. He should be cynical, dry and abrasive. Tom Hiddleston and his toothy grin don't communicate any of that.

    He has a very brooding look, but I think a lot of people are thus far unconvinced that he brings the presence and gravitas that is necessary 'on screen', not just in decontextualised stills. He was good in 'And Then There Were None', but he didn't own the screen. He reminded me much more of Dalton, visually appropriate, but lacking the electricity and charisma of a Connery or Moore, the je ne sais qois that elevates the character. To reference a more recent example, Craig during Silva's monologue and the ensuing dialogue - Bardem is a man with enormous screen presence and the nature of his character allowed him to thrive, but at no point is Craig overshadowed. He matches Bardem with every beat. I don't see that in Turner. People should feel Bond walk into a room before they've even seen him. Hiddleston (to use another potential candidate) seems to have this, to me. He never blends into the background or feels like his performance is superficial, there's a kineticism to his performance, not even in a literal sense, but you can see his mind working. That's not an easy thing to pull off.

    Yes, but be honest, no Bond actor had that BEFORE they were Bond. It's something they gain from the role, its the challenge they have to take on when they agree to the part. Connery became Bond AFTER he agreed to the role, its well documented. At this stage in the process looks carry a lot of weight because its one of the few things we can be sure the actor will bring with him. You nailed it with your comparison of Aidan with Dalton. There is a huge parallel there. Both very dark and brooding. Thats their mystique. That's what the character is, IMO. What Turner lacks now, in your eyes, he may well more than make up for in the 2 years he has to get to grips with the character. That's what happened with Connery and Craig after all.

    He may well be able to bring that, but both Connery and Craig had something special that was very evident in their pre-Bond work. I haven't seen that, yet, in Turner and that's not something you learn or even develop. You either have it, or you don't.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    Another strong comparison to Turner is Lee Van Cleef. They share the same on screen presence, I think. They both exude cunning and menace. Those two qualities just drip of both actors. Someone on here mentioned 'Machiavellian' in regards to Turner, and I think that really fits. He would fight to gain control of a situation. As soon as I heard that, I immediately thought of Dr No, with Bond waiting for Dent. That would be Turners strong suit, being a closed off, cold hearted prick. That's the sort of dirty work that James Bond does on a daily basis. He has to be good at portraying that. I think Turner would do well with humour, if it was all very cynical and sarcastic. He wouldn't do well with gags.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Regardless, he is the only serious candidate i have seen. He's just the right age, just the right amount of famous (by which I mean he isn't a film star, but he can handle being in the spotlight) he has the look of Bond to a tee, and is a significant departure from Craig.

    The reason the press is picking up on him is because he fits the mould of the tall dark handsome leading man. I don't care about that. I want him to be Bond because, from the small hints from his television work I already know he has the potential to be the best Bond ever created. I just hope EON don't screw it up and plump for Hiddleston for his media courting abilities. I think post Craig, they don't want any more problems with the press, so I wouldn't put it past them.

    To put it another way, I want my Bond to have a burning intensity about him that is self-evident. I want a cunning agent, solely devoted to his mission, prepared to do whatever it takes. He should be cynical, dry and abrasive. Tom Hiddleston and his toothy grin don't communicate any of that.

    He has a very brooding look, but I think a lot of people are thus far unconvinced that he brings the presence and gravitas that is necessary 'on screen', not just in decontextualised stills. He was good in 'And Then There Were None', but he didn't own the screen. He reminded me much more of Dalton, visually appropriate, but lacking the electricity and charisma of a Connery or Moore, the je ne sais qois that elevates the character. To reference a more recent example, Craig during Silva's monologue and the ensuing dialogue - Bardem is a man with enormous screen presence and the nature of his character allowed him to thrive, but at no point is Craig overshadowed. He matches Bardem with every beat. I don't see that in Turner. People should feel Bond walk into a room before they've even seen him. Hiddleston (to use another potential candidate) seems to have this, to me. He never blends into the background or feels like his performance is superficial, there's a kineticism to his performance, not even in a literal sense, but you can see his mind working. That's not an easy thing to pull off.

    Yes, but be honest, no Bond actor had that BEFORE they were Bond. It's something they gain from the role, its the challenge they have to take on when they agree to the part. Connery became Bond AFTER he agreed to the role, its well documented. At this stage in the process looks carry a lot of weight because its one of the few things we can be sure the actor will bring with him. You nailed it with your comparison of Aidan with Dalton. There is a huge parallel there. Both very dark and brooding. Thats their mystique. That's what the character is, IMO. What Turner lacks now, in your eyes, he may well more than make up for in the 2 years he has to get to grips with the character. That's what happened with Connery and Craig after all.

    He may well be able to bring that, but both Connery and Craig had something special that was very evident in their pre-Bond work. I haven't seen that, yet, in Turner and that's not something you learn or even develop. You either have it, or you don't.

    But its been established that Connery DID develop it. There are countless documentaries that delve into how much Terrence Young had an influence on shaping Sean. He taught him everything he needed to become Bond.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    What is everyone basing these strong views of Turner on? Is there something particular I should be watching him in to see if he'd be a great Bond? I had to look him up, and the only thing I recognized him from was 'The Hobbit' trilogy, and his role is pretty forgettable for me in that.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I'm just as lost as you are, Creasy. Lol!
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    What is everyone basing these strong views of Turner on? Is there something particular I should be watching him in to see if he'd be a great Bond? I had to look him up, and the only thing I recognized him from was 'The Hobbit' trilogy, and his role is pretty forgettable for me in that.

    Watch 'And Then There Were None'. He goes full Dalton in that and its magnificent.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    What is everyone basing these strong views of Turner on? Is there something particular I should be watching him in to see if he'd be a great Bond? I had to look him up, and the only thing I recognized him from was 'The Hobbit' trilogy, and his role is pretty forgettable for me in that.

    Watch 'And Then There Were None'. He goes full Dalton in that and its magnificent.

    I've never heard of the adaptation of this, but Toby Stephens and Burn Gorman are in it, and I'm a big fan of murder mysteries, so I'll check this out ASAP. I was going to say, there's no way people would think he'd make a great Bond based on 'The Hobbit,' so I knew there was something I'm missing.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    Speaking just for myself, I thought Turner was very good in And Then There Were None. I think he definitely has the presence for Bond. Hiddleston, I have seen more of, some of the Marvel films, Deep Blue Sea, 2 episodes of The Night Manager and War Horse, but he lacks that certain extra something. If Craig isn't interested, then i'd be happy if Turner replaces him.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    What is everyone basing these strong views of Turner on? Is there something particular I should be watching him in to see if he'd be a great Bond? I had to look him up, and the only thing I recognized him from was 'The Hobbit' trilogy, and his role is pretty forgettable for me in that.

    Watch 'And Then There Were None'. He goes full Dalton in that and its magnificent.

    I've never heard of the adaptation of this, but Toby Stephens and Burn Gorman are in it, and I'm a big fan of murder mysteries, so I'll check this out ASAP. I was going to say, there's no way people would think he'd make a great Bond based on 'The Hobbit,' so I knew there was something I'm missing.

    He (Turner) steals the show. If that performance isn't a clear statement of intent I don't know what is. He even smokes and everything.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    @MajorDSmythe, you had me rushing to IMDB again as I tried to figure out who in the hell he played in 'Deep Blue Sea,' until I find out it's NOT the 1999 shark movie.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @MajorDSmythe, you had me rushing to IMDB again as I tried to figure out who in the hell he played in 'Deep Blue Sea,' until I find out it's NOT the 1999 shark movie.
    You, too?! :))
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    If the alternative is Hiddleston, I'd consider anyone. I think John Boyega is more Bondian.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Regardless, he is the only serious candidate i have seen. He's just the right age, just the right amount of famous (by which I mean he isn't a film star, but he can handle being in the spotlight) he has the look of Bond to a tee, and is a significant departure from Craig.

    The reason the press is picking up on him is because he fits the mould of the tall dark handsome leading man. I don't care about that. I want him to be Bond because, from the small hints from his television work I already know he has the potential to be the best Bond ever created. I just hope EON don't screw it up and plump for Hiddleston for his media courting abilities. I think post Craig, they don't want any more problems with the press, so I wouldn't put it past them.

    To put it another way, I want my Bond to have a burning intensity about him that is self-evident. I want a cunning agent, solely devoted to his mission, prepared to do whatever it takes. He should be cynical, dry and abrasive. Tom Hiddleston and his toothy grin don't communicate any of that.

    He has a very brooding look, but I think a lot of people are thus far unconvinced that he brings the presence and gravitas that is necessary 'on screen', not just in decontextualised stills. He was good in 'And Then There Were None', but he didn't own the screen. He reminded me much more of Dalton, visually appropriate, but lacking the electricity and charisma of a Connery or Moore, the je ne sais qois that elevates the character. To reference a more recent example, Craig during Silva's monologue and the ensuing dialogue - Bardem is a man with enormous screen presence and the nature of his character allowed him to thrive, but at no point is Craig overshadowed. He matches Bardem with every beat. I don't see that in Turner. People should feel Bond walk into a room before they've even seen him. Hiddleston (to use another potential candidate) seems to have this, to me. He never blends into the background or feels like his performance is superficial, there's a kineticism to his performance, not even in a literal sense, but you can see his mind working. That's not an easy thing to pull off.

    Yes, but be honest, no Bond actor had that BEFORE they were Bond. It's something they gain from the role, its the challenge they have to take on when they agree to the part. Connery became Bond AFTER he agreed to the role, its well documented. At this stage in the process looks carry a lot of weight because its one of the few things we can be sure the actor will bring with him. You nailed it with your comparison of Aidan with Dalton. There is a huge parallel there. Both very dark and brooding. Thats their mystique. That's what the character is, IMO. What Turner lacks now, in your eyes, he may well more than make up for in the 2 years he has to get to grips with the character. That's what happened with Connery and Craig after all.

    He may well be able to bring that, but both Connery and Craig had something special that was very evident in their pre-Bond work. I haven't seen that, yet, in Turner and that's not something you learn or even develop. You either have it, or you don't.

    But its been established that Connery DID develop it. There are countless documentaries that delve into how much Terrence Young had an influence on shaping Sean. He taught him everything he needed to become Bond.

    Connery was moulded into the character. That's not what I'm talking about, though. As I mentioned before, what I'm talking about is the indefinable quality that elevates stars above mere mortals. Something innate. Something that can't be taught. Connery had that magnetism about him, even in his earlier films. His acting is not up to scratch to begin with, but you know you are watching a man with genuine presence, magnetism, swagger... and it's all, and here's the key, natural. From what I've seen of Turner it's superficial.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Regardless, he is the only serious candidate i have seen. He's just the right age, just the right amount of famous (by which I mean he isn't a film star, but he can handle being in the spotlight) he has the look of Bond to a tee, and is a significant departure from Craig.

    The reason the press is picking up on him is because he fits the mould of the tall dark handsome leading man. I don't care about that. I want him to be Bond because, from the small hints from his television work I already know he has the potential to be the best Bond ever created. I just hope EON don't screw it up and plump for Hiddleston for his media courting abilities. I think post Craig, they don't want any more problems with the press, so I wouldn't put it past them.

    To put it another way, I want my Bond to have a burning intensity about him that is self-evident. I want a cunning agent, solely devoted to his mission, prepared to do whatever it takes. He should be cynical, dry and abrasive. Tom Hiddleston and his toothy grin don't communicate any of that.

    He has a very brooding look, but I think a lot of people are thus far unconvinced that he brings the presence and gravitas that is necessary 'on screen', not just in decontextualised stills. He was good in 'And Then There Were None', but he didn't own the screen. He reminded me much more of Dalton, visually appropriate, but lacking the electricity and charisma of a Connery or Moore, the je ne sais qois that elevates the character. To reference a more recent example, Craig during Silva's monologue and the ensuing dialogue - Bardem is a man with enormous screen presence and the nature of his character allowed him to thrive, but at no point is Craig overshadowed. He matches Bardem with every beat. I don't see that in Turner. People should feel Bond walk into a room before they've even seen him. Hiddleston (to use another potential candidate) seems to have this, to me. He never blends into the background or feels like his performance is superficial, there's a kineticism to his performance, not even in a literal sense, but you can see his mind working. That's not an easy thing to pull off.

    Yes, but be honest, no Bond actor had that BEFORE they were Bond. It's something they gain from the role, its the challenge they have to take on when they agree to the part. Connery became Bond AFTER he agreed to the role, its well documented. At this stage in the process looks carry a lot of weight because its one of the few things we can be sure the actor will bring with him. You nailed it with your comparison of Aidan with Dalton. There is a huge parallel there. Both very dark and brooding. Thats their mystique. That's what the character is, IMO. What Turner lacks now, in your eyes, he may well more than make up for in the 2 years he has to get to grips with the character. That's what happened with Connery and Craig after all.

    He may well be able to bring that, but both Connery and Craig had something special that was very evident in their pre-Bond work. I haven't seen that, yet, in Turner and that's not something you learn or even develop. You either have it, or you don't.

    But its been established that Connery DID develop it. There are countless documentaries that delve into how much Terrence Young had an influence on shaping Sean. He taught him everything he needed to become Bond.

    Connery was moulded into the character. That's not what I'm talking about, though. As I mentioned before, what I'm talking about is the indefinable quality that elevates stars above mere mortals. Something innate. Something that can't be taught. Connery had that magnetism about him, even in his earlier films. His acting is not up to scratch to begin with, but you know you are watching a man with genuine presence, magnetism, swagger... and it's all, and here's the key, natural. From what I've seen of Turner it's superficial.

    Eh, that's a load of cobblers. I'm sorry, but what you are suggesting is that certain people are destined to be film stars. But cinema is a medium that humans invented, so there's no evolutionary proclivity for that. I just don't believe it.
  • Oddjobs_hatOddjobs_hat
    Posts: 79
    'Craig had something very special'.

    I think Craig is a decent Bond but I can't agree with that. He is a journeyman actor.
  • RC7RC7
    edited April 2016 Posts: 10,512
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Regardless, he is the only serious candidate i have seen. He's just the right age, just the right amount of famous (by which I mean he isn't a film star, but he can handle being in the spotlight) he has the look of Bond to a tee, and is a significant departure from Craig.

    The reason the press is picking up on him is because he fits the mould of the tall dark handsome leading man. I don't care about that. I want him to be Bond because, from the small hints from his television work I already know he has the potential to be the best Bond ever created. I just hope EON don't screw it up and plump for Hiddleston for his media courting abilities. I think post Craig, they don't want any more problems with the press, so I wouldn't put it past them.

    To put it another way, I want my Bond to have a burning intensity about him that is self-evident. I want a cunning agent, solely devoted to his mission, prepared to do whatever it takes. He should be cynical, dry and abrasive. Tom Hiddleston and his toothy grin don't communicate any of that.

    He has a very brooding look, but I think a lot of people are thus far unconvinced that he brings the presence and gravitas that is necessary 'on screen', not just in decontextualised stills. He was good in 'And Then There Were None', but he didn't own the screen. He reminded me much more of Dalton, visually appropriate, but lacking the electricity and charisma of a Connery or Moore, the je ne sais qois that elevates the character. To reference a more recent example, Craig during Silva's monologue and the ensuing dialogue - Bardem is a man with enormous screen presence and the nature of his character allowed him to thrive, but at no point is Craig overshadowed. He matches Bardem with every beat. I don't see that in Turner. People should feel Bond walk into a room before they've even seen him. Hiddleston (to use another potential candidate) seems to have this, to me. He never blends into the background or feels like his performance is superficial, there's a kineticism to his performance, not even in a literal sense, but you can see his mind working. That's not an easy thing to pull off.

    Yes, but be honest, no Bond actor had that BEFORE they were Bond. It's something they gain from the role, its the challenge they have to take on when they agree to the part. Connery became Bond AFTER he agreed to the role, its well documented. At this stage in the process looks carry a lot of weight because its one of the few things we can be sure the actor will bring with him. You nailed it with your comparison of Aidan with Dalton. There is a huge parallel there. Both very dark and brooding. Thats their mystique. That's what the character is, IMO. What Turner lacks now, in your eyes, he may well more than make up for in the 2 years he has to get to grips with the character. That's what happened with Connery and Craig after all.

    He may well be able to bring that, but both Connery and Craig had something special that was very evident in their pre-Bond work. I haven't seen that, yet, in Turner and that's not something you learn or even develop. You either have it, or you don't.

    But its been established that Connery DID develop it. There are countless documentaries that delve into how much Terrence Young had an influence on shaping Sean. He taught him everything he needed to become Bond.

    Connery was moulded into the character. That's not what I'm talking about, though. As I mentioned before, what I'm talking about is the indefinable quality that elevates stars above mere mortals. Something innate. Something that can't be taught. Connery had that magnetism about him, even in his earlier films. His acting is not up to scratch to begin with, but you know you are watching a man with genuine presence, magnetism, swagger... and it's all, and here's the key, natural. From what I've seen of Turner it's superficial.

    Eh, that's a load of cobblers. I'm sorry, but what you are suggesting is that certain people are destined to be film stars. But cinema is a medium that humans invented, so there's no evolutionary proclivity for that. I just don't believe it.

    Yeah, that is what I'm suggesting. Some people are destined to be world-beating sports stars or record breaking athletes, others are destined to create indelible works of art, or make incredible scientific discoveries. There's a varying level of craft and hard work that goes alongside that, but the best people in their respective fields have an innate ability that allows them to transcend the norm. Gary Neville won a lot of accolades as a footballer, but he'll be the first to admit he isn't 'gifted'. Ronaldo on the other hand married his 'gift' with 'graft', hence he is in a league of his own. Connery was that level as Bond. Turner feels like he could be a Neville.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    Oddjobs_hat wrote: »
    'Craig had something very special'.

    I think Craig is a decent Bond but I can't agree with that. He is a journeyman actor.

    That's kind of my feeling.
  • Oddjobs_hatOddjobs_hat
    Posts: 79
    And then there were none was a typically crap adaptation of the book by the bbc.

    I agree with Turner as Bond though. I can't see Hiddleston playing a 'nastier' Bond which I would prefer.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited April 2016 Posts: 28,694
    For heaven's sake, why is everyone so quick to dramatics? We're MI6 Community, not Theatre 101.

    "Fiennes doesn't know if he's doing Bond 25, it's the end of all days, crowd under an awning and prepare for the apocalypse!" Hardly.

    What he's saying now, of being uncertain about his next contractual film is nothing that we didn't already hear in the long wait for SP post SF.

    Calm down, lads, we'll get through this. Just keep your heads.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited April 2016 Posts: 15,423
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    For heaven's sake, why is everyone so quick to dramatics? We're MI6 Community, not Theatre 101.

    "Fiennes doesn't know if he's doing Bond 25, it's the end of all days, crowd under an awning and prepare for the apocalypse!" Hardly.

    What he's saying now, of being uncertain about his next contractual film is nothing that we didn't already here in the long wait for SP post SF.

    Calm down, lads, we'll get through this. Just keep your heads.
    Sums up perfectly how I feel about the whole discussion.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    For heaven's sake, why is everyone so quick to dramatics? We're MI6 Community, not Theatre 101.

    "Fiennes doesn't know if he's doing Bond 25, it's the end of all days, crowd under an awning and prepare for the apocalypse!" Hardly.

    What he's saying now, of being uncertain about his next contractual film is nothing that we didn't already here in the long wait for SP post SF.

    Calm down, lads, we'll get through this. Just keep your heads.
    Sums up perfectly how I feel about the whole discussion.

    +1
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited April 2016 Posts: 10,592
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    For heaven's sake, why is everyone so quick to dramatics? We're MI6 Community, not Theatre 101.

    "Fiennes doesn't know if he's doing Bond 25, it's the end of all days, crowd under an awning and prepare for the apocalypse!" Hardly.

    What he's saying now, of being uncertain about his next contractual film is nothing that we didn't already here in the long wait for SP post SF.

    Calm down, lads, we'll get through this. Just keep your heads.
    This. All we know from this news is that Craig is still undecided.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    RC7 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    For heaven's sake, why is everyone so quick to dramatics? We're MI6 Community, not Theatre 101.

    "Fiennes doesn't know if he's doing Bond 25, it's the end of all days, crowd under an awning and prepare for the apocalypse!" Hardly.

    What he's saying now, of being uncertain about his next contractual film is nothing that we didn't already here in the long wait for SP post SF.

    Calm down, lads, we'll get through this. Just keep your heads.
    Sums up perfectly how I feel about the whole discussion.

    +1

    +1 again ...still grabbing digital headlines.
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    + infinity. Nothing to see here, nothing to see....
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489

    landscape_showbiz-venice-film-festival-ralph-fiennes-01.jpg
    I didn t know Fiennes was into hard drugs.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    landscape_showbiz-venice-film-festival-ralph-fiennes-01.jpg
    I didn t know Fiennes was into hard drugs.
    They all are. If you're not into it, you're not cut out for the industry. ;)

    All it takes is one little push.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    =))
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    landscape_showbiz-venice-film-festival-ralph-fiennes-01.jpg
    I didn t know Fiennes was into hard drugs.

    That's the exact same face I'll be making once we finally get some concrete information on 'Bond 25.'
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited April 2016 Posts: 9,117
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

    Eh, that's a load of cobblers. I'm sorry, but what you are suggesting is that certain people are destined to be film stars. But cinema is a medium that humans invented, so there's no evolutionary proclivity for that. I just don't believe it.

    Taylor Kitsch in John Carter anyone?

    If it was so easy studios would just get some guy off the street instead of paying millions.

    There's a big difference between being a good actor and a film star. Dalton is an exceptional actor but Roger Moore is an exceptional film star.
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Oddjobs_hat wrote: »
    'Craig had something very special'.

    I think Craig is a decent Bond but I can't agree with that. He is a journeyman actor.

    That's kind of my feeling.

    Classic.

    It's what I've come to expect from the Chuckle Brothers though.

    Craig is a far better actor than Laz, Rog and Brozza and it's easily arguable he's as good Sean and Tim.

    Not sure he's quite an amazing film star though.

    I'd rank the Bonds as following:

    Sean - Acting Ability 9, Film Starness 10
    Laz - AA 4, FS 7
    Rog - AA 7, FS 9
    Tim - AA 9, FS 2
    Broz - AA 5, FS 7
    Dan - AA 8.5, FS 8
Sign In or Register to comment.