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
In an alternate universe, say a Fassbender Bond vs a Craig henchmen could have been epic; a hero needs a strong adversary. Craig would have been chilling as a villain.
Exactly this. Thanks @talos7
;))
So going on my maths, having celebrated your 20th birthday in April last year, that would make you 6 when Daniel Craig was announced as James Bond?
That’s an impressive interest in Bond from such a young age.
He would have made an excellent villain, perhaps even too strong and overshadowed the lead. A great film actor is often equally good as hero or villain.
Sir August De Winter was ahead of his time, @Univex. We need a bloke who can control the weather more than ever.
Seriously though, I think Craig could be a good villain indeed. I just want him to do more Benoit Blanc for a while first. ;-)
Good point. In fact, how many villains from the past films would be hailed as heroes, nowadays? Well, not all, obviously. But Drax and Stromberg were environmentalists, weren’t they? And who can blame Dr. Noah for wanting to wipe out all tall men to get the girls? Granted, their means were a bit on the hyperbolic and histerical side of things, but… :)
I suppose Craig’s villain, Dr. James Blond, would set to genetically change every man’s hair colour to, well, blonde. Maybe make them short as well ;)
He did a fun turn as the cackling villain in Tintin.
You’re right, he did, as Ivan Ivanovitch Sakharine.
He did. And he did a fine job too!
We are on the same page, sir. I wouldn't mind living in Drax' space paradise or Stromberg's underwater base at all. Sounds like fun. ;-) Oh, and Dr. Noah can take care of all the tall men out there too. I'm not the tallest person myself, so perhaps I'd finally have a shot with Kendall Jenner.
Yeah I thought he was good fun. I think I remember watching it and it even taking me a while to work out who it was- I certainly knew the voice!
It's a surprise that Connery played so few antagonists as well.
Over the mysteries of Connery's post-Bond roles there is drawn a veil best left undisturbed. ;-)
Do a search for "Aaron Taylor-Johnson" on this site and you'll get 22 pages of results, going back to 2014. He's been mentioned quite a few times over the years. Each page has 20 results, so that's 440 mentions in the past 9 years.
I was merely jokingly referring to the 'big' roles he notoriously refused, including John Hammond, Gandalf and Dumbledore. Obviously, I'm very pleased with his later roles. Too bad LXG didn't turn out the way it could have, but FINDING FORRESTER is a brilliant movie in which Connery may have played the most interesting role of his life. I treat that role (and not Sir Billie) as his swan song.
I'm sure it's not that hard to follow.
1) Sean let a few roles slip that have huge fan bases behind them. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but some might argue those are missed opportunities. Nothing more.
2) My original remark was obviously in jest. I then re-emphasised that I was merely joking. So again: not that hard to follow.
Besides, we're going seriously off-topic here. ;-)
On a side note, Oona Chaplin and Olga Kurylenko are still good looking. It's strange to see them playing together again.
@mtm, with respect:
So here I am, thinking that quite a few people (though not everyone) think it's sad that he angrily retired after the disappointing shoot of LXG in 2003, while he could have gone out with The Return Of The King, also in 2003; they think that it's unfortunate that he didn't "understand" Tolkien (while Christopher Lee, for example, has always been a big Tolkien fanatic) but chose to get a part in an adaptation of Alan Moore's dieselpunk comic (presumably because he did know Quartermain). And so for years, I and others have joked about these "mysterious" choices. Nothing more.
So when I read your post about his roles, I spontaneously thought about the above and decided to hint at what I assumed was general knowledge. I was too cryptic; I apologise. And also: nothing more.
So I hope, @mtm, that this clarifies things. You didn't get where I was coming from; I take it others did. But...
...fair enough indeed. Now let's get back on topic, friend.
You could say Connery enjoyed a post Bond successful career almost on parallel with his Bondmania one.
Indiana Jones father, The Rock, Hunt for Red October, Entrapment, Man who Would be King, Robin & Marion, Untouchables, Bridge Too Far, Highlander, Russia House, Name of the Rose, etc.
Even in lesser known films Connery still manages to shine out - Rising Sun, Presidio, Zardoz, Outland.
And his two greatest ever screen performances are even less well known - The offence and The Hill.
I think overall whatever bad choices Connery made (or didn't make), his greater films outweigh everything else.
And with that, let's get back on topic before this tragic sequence of nitpicking after a silly remark that (oh boy) I have been regretting for hours now, turns even more farcical than it already is. :-)
I'm still wrestling with Kinnear's comments on the ATJ rumours. Reading the headline of the article linked a few posts back, my initial response was that Kinnear spoke from direct authority. Reading the article, he's merely inferring from past instances of rumours getting out of control.
On the one hand, I'm inclined to think like him; hence my motto that I won't lend any news too much credence unless it's an official statement from B & W themselves. On the other hand, there's no law that prevents a rumour with some truth in it to get out. I mean, it might be true.
And how does the room feel about letting out a rumour just to test the temperature? Would EON use the Internet as a petri dish? I don't tink so, but times change and the Internet keeps growing, so it wouldn't necessarily be a false strategy. Politicians do it all the time, after all...
And not to extend the off-topic matter, but I do agree with you, @DarthDimi. Connery said he knew and understood Quartermain because he's a big literary character, even bigger than any character Tolkien had created. Alan Quartermain is the main character in King Solomon's Mines, a 19th century novel by Sir H. Rider Haggard, and Alão Quartelmar, in the (internationally recognised as being better) Portuguese adaptation of the novel, written 6 years later by the bigger writer Eça de Queirós, who is considered one of the best writers of all time, much, much bigger than Tolkien in the literary community, trust me. It is a golden literary character put in a rather so and so Alan Moore comic and later in the awful film by Stephen Norrington. THIS is why I'm so adamant on protecting literary intelectual property and being the most faithful one can be to its origins. THIS is why I've been raging on and on about keeping Bond close to his literary depiction, even to his physical traits. Because, if not, it all gets diluted and impoverished over time.
Anyway, coming back to the our topic, yes I think they have people for that, feeling the proverbial waters on the internet. I have on good authority that they read the forums from time to time. Yes, it's true. They have people read the forums, three forums to be exact. Nowadays, probably just one or two, seeing the third party has been a bit dormant.
Interesting. Do they read this forum by any chance? ;-)