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
Yes, you're right. The same place which states that too many candidates are pretty boys, or too young, or too thin. Basically anything which deviates from the Craig interpretation is not right, which is strange when you think about it, since Craig himself was such a departure.
What I find hilarious is the 5ft 10 threshold that suddenly popped up here. That's nonsense. Bond was described as 6ft at a time when average heights were less. He's not average by any means. Far from it.
A lot of these chaps mentioned here are solid actors and can play the part (in their own way) if given the chance. They may not bring Craig levels of intensity, but then again Craig doesn't even have that anymore based on his last two outings (at least imho).
I'm always optimistic about a new Bond actor (when it happens) because they've all been successful in their debut (imho). The pressure is immense and everyone brings their A game on the switch. It's the film after that which should be the concern.
...But, as I was saying... Just because somebody is a good actor doesn't automatically make him suitable for any role that's invented. I'm not on the Craig league, mind? I want Bond to be intense, but not overtly, and I want him to be charming at the same time. Connery/Moore/Brosnan (TWINE/DAD era) level. Heck, even Dalton level. They all look like men who have experienced time in the army, battlefield and have put some experience years in their pockets.
They don't have to just act it, but also look the part. For example, I can't see Tom Hiddleston pull a convincing image as being a former army veteran or a man of action. At best I can see him being a charming adventurer, a Scarlet Pimpernel type, who spent years learning combat in the hands of expensive teachers indoors.
I think they are all good enough actors that they can embody and therefore 'look' the part. That's my point. If we can accept Craig physically, then any of these chaps is up to the task from a look perspective (even Hardy imho, based on his work in Inception).
EDIT: That doesn't mean they are ideal, but then again, where are we going to find a Connery today? They don't make 'em like that any more.
Regardless, however, there will be critiques of the next actor to be chosen for the part the way ever actor has received. There will be a positive, a neutral and negative ground. But, above all things... whether we like it or not, that actor is already James Bond.
The rest is all just a matter of preference. Heck, detractors don't even have to see it, so I see no harm done here. Well, maybe a few years ago, I would've been a radical extremist about my opinion, but you learn that at the end of the day, your voice doesn't change anything. So why bother?
I'm sure at some point the actor would grow on me, just the way Craig did over the years.
Also, it becomes more difficult to replace the actor each time because there is one more in the frame. Now EON don't only have to consider all the actors from the 'classic' era, but also 'reboot Craig' when making the decision.
The trick is to go in a different direction each time imho, to avoid direct comparisons with the immediate predecessor. That has always seemed to work.
I do want charisma.
I want someone I can believe is a ruthless, sometimes cruel, assassin, but, after killing a man, could dust off his tuxedo and order a drink, as cool as ice.
I've seen Turner, and I find it hard to believe he could deliver on elements that I do enjoy in the character. Same with Hiddles-- I can see him ordering his drink with puckered iciness, I just can't believe he would take another man's life. I have a harder time seeing him bed beautiful women from around the globe-- especially after his underwear 'shoot.
But that's just me, I suppose.
Of course, I'd give every man his due, and EoN has always done quite well with casting.
I didn't want Brosnan after Dalton, yet I did grow to admire his work in some shoddy films.
The man they choose as (00)7 will be appropriate enough. I just am of the mind they haven't found him yet-- or DC would be done (no matter what Babs thinks of him).
We've had in the past capable actors in the role and before Craig. Heck even Brosnan was a veteran actor who had done a few important roles.
Yes, but the actor has to fit the era.
So, like DAF (but with better value in both production and an actor who loves his role), they've gone back to the well that makes the most sense from a business perspective. To make the best possible Bond film, right now, for whatever reason, DC is still the best choice.
Reply by answering two of the following questions:
-Will Craig return, yes or no?
-If not, who will it be?
My gut feeling tells me Craig will not return
Turner will be the next 007
Yes of course. Many of the contenders now make me very wary of the era we live in. Acting skills notwithstanding a Bond actor needs charisma. Does that guy from King Arthur have any? And what about the guy from 50 Shades?
It was getting a problem with Moore and would have become a problem with Brosnan or indeed any Bond. Everyone starts looking his age some point.