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
That's my feeling about both Cavill and Turner (other considerations notwithstanding) : they are like younger Brosnan. They are 25 years too late for the role.
I agree with you with regards to the Brosnan comparison and I don’t particularly want Cavill as Bond.
However, I think that Cavill actually gets by on charisma and star quality, rather than acting prowess. I thought he showed this in ‘The Man From Uncle’ and ‘Man of Steel.’
Good post @Univex.
Had the piss ripped out of me so many times when I was young for being a Bond fan.
Much more confident these days and I have to say I don't want it to become respectable.
I am willing to be put right, but I would guess that those fans who say they don't want Bond to become 'woke' are really alluding to this idea of 'respectability'. They don't want it to be the sort of franchise The Guardian likes, if you know what I mean? And personally, I completely agree with them.
No charisma? Erm.. it's not great.
See, I think UNCLE is a complete blank spot in the lead- I don't see any charisma there. He's like a handsome robot. Compare with Guy Richie's previous big Hollywood action buddy films 'Sherlock Holmes'- which one has the movie stars in it?
I will grant you that Hugh Grant is in UNCLE and he's always great. Who is the camera liking the best in the scenes where Grant is there with the two leads?
That said, I do think Cavill does a reasonable job in Fallout. His diction is a bit weird but he has a bit of presence.
On that subject I finally watched The Gentlemen tonight, Richie's most recent, and Charlie Hunnam (who occasionally gets mentioned as a possible Bond, although I know he's not really been championed here) is in that, and, well... no. He's rubbish.
I'm surprised you've had that experience. Granted I rarely ever mention that I'm a Bond fan but surely it would be quite different from being a Star Wars or Star Trek fan, both of which are associated with the stereotypical idea of a socially awkward nerd. I'd be more worried about people thinking I was some kind of smarmy pervert who tries to score women with cheesy one liners.
Who is Cavill fit?
That could be it, I'm just curious as to what people were so ashamed of, for someone who wasn't around during the Brosnan era.
When I first went to college and said I was a big fan of Bond they would look at me strangely. I think people felt it was camp silliness. Or even just plain naff.
I have heard loads of comments along the lines of 'I like the new ones, but not the old, shit ones'. The 'new ones' in this case would refer to either Brosnan's films or Craig's films, depending on when the conversation took place.
Nowadays Brosnan's films are generally thought of as less classy than Craig's efforts. (and they are, to be fair - for better or for worse).
I’ve never met anyone who thought that Bond wasn’t cool. It’s the epitome of suave Britishness. I’ve heard the phrases ‘cheesy’ or ‘don’t like it’. But never ever, ‘not cool’.
I get what your saying, but TMFU was the first Guy Richie film I’ve liked in years and I admit I liked the lead’s. I wasn’t keen on Sherlock at all, as it wasn’t my idea of ‘Sherlock’ at all. So my opinion is negatively biased. Jude Law was great, but I think Downey Jr was miss cast. I really like the BBC update with Benedict Cumberbatch.
I haven’t seen ‘The Gentleman’ yet, but I agree, Hunnam has very low acting ability in everything I’ve seen him in thus far. His first Hollywood lead with King Arthur was a massive loss to the studio. He’s not worth a mention as a potential Bond IMO.
Good actor
Charismatic
Good look
Popular with men and women
Right age group.
Might be on the higher price of potential actors, but I think he'd be interested in the role.
I agree with everything you say above.
But his pantomime ‘faux’ British accent from Thor, Rush and MIB makes him unviable IMO. It just sounds forced and false IMO.
Mtm being contraire again, didn't see that one coming. Have you even heard his set rant? He is known as a diva and his comments regarding Bond don't even make sense(?) I could literally reply to every comment you make on here spouting the old 'I hAvE a DiFfeReNt OPiNion tHaN YoU, pLz ReSpEcT tHaT'. @Univex was right about you
I've found most people like Bond films more or less so I don't think I've encountered anyone acting like that to be honest, but then I tend to have fun with the cheesy elements of it anyway (like Roger's films!) so folks know it's just a bit of fun for me.
I thought UNCLE was fun and I wasn't as down on it as some reviews, but the leads just didn't impress. I also understand what your issue is with his Holmes films but to be honest I'm fine with films that play around with their subject matter and give us new takes on it- I don't need things to be 100% faithful all the time. We hadn't had Holmes treated as an action movie hero so I thought it was a fun approach to try, and I think Downey was a proper lead star in it.
Yeah he tries to play the hard man in it, but it's not very convincing. Another one where Hugh Grant wins the screen! :)
We don't usually agree on the accent thing, but I must admit I do find his British accent to be pretty distracting. It was such a relief to watch him play his character as Australian in that Netflix action thing he did - I don't know why they can't let him do it more often.
I do think that beyond that he's a pretty natural star though, and actually could take it back to a slightly more Roger Moore style, in a good way.
Yes, very good. I respect that you have a different opinion, I'm just saying I don't think it makes much sense. What I'm not doing is calling you a whiny baby because I disagree with you, that's the difference.
But I get that namecalling and personal attacks are encouraged around here, so I'll leave you to it. Call me as many names as you like, it doesn't mean much.
However, when I was around 15 I did walk around flaunting a JAMES BOND 007 FAN CLUB t-shirt that promoted the Bondage fan magazine. I got a few snickers. It was a rather hideous yellow shirt. Not my finest hour as a Bond fan.
Anytime I'd mention being a Bond fan to new friends/acquaintances it was inevitable we'd eventually be watching some Bond films together.
That said, I'd say for the most part movies goers are usually into whatever is currently popular. Indiana Jones and Star Wars in the '80's, Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, etc in the '90's, Bourne in the 00's and Marvel Universe today.
Bond has always been a mainstay that fits right in whenever a new film is released.................with the exception of LTK. Audiences in the States just didn't flock to that one.
I think the longer gaps make it more difficult for producers to keep Bond relevant, hence the constant need to reinvent the character and franchise during the Craig era. I have a hunch Barbara may feel at a loss with this next recasting. Big shoes to fill and this may take years of pondering which direction to go in and who to cast. Cubby on the other hand would get on with it, recast and have another film out on schedule. The style and tone would be modified to fit that actor's strengths even if it took a couple films to get it right.
I'm British, but I felt it. I wouldn't say I was 'made fun of', but just a sense that there weren't many die hard fans out there. Obviously the internet brought us together.
Exactly. It never bothered me in the slightest.
I think Bond itself is always considered vaguely cool (or certainly not uncool) because most people like to watch the occasional Bond movie, but it's just people being fans of it which can feel uncool, as with anything really! Loads of people enjoy the Marvel movies, but a grown person having big superhero statues on their shelves can look a bit funny! :)
The advantage of being a Bond fan of course is that you can indulge your fan passions by wearing a similar outfit to Bond or a nice watch and no-one will notice (and it has the bonus of usually looking actually rather good), and you can't do that if you're a Star Trek fan! :) Obviously some people can do it in an uncool way- like folks who have 007 numberplates on their cars or whatever! :D
I don't mean to dismiss the experience of people posting here, but back between 1989 and 1995 it felt completely different to now. Bond was thought of as dead. Maybe it was the circles I was hanging out in (bands, indie types, that sort of thing), but they just thought it was shit. We're used to 5 year gaps nowadays, but back then Bond seemed finished. And I am serious when people would just come out and say it was utter shit. No joke, or exaggeration. Also, I wasn't a geeky sort, I just had the books and the films and used to be happy to tell people I liked Bond. Nothing more nor less than that really.
I think things have changed in the last 25 years. Nerd culture and being a fan of things, cosplay, etc, is mainstream. Comic books and superheroes are mainstream culture, not at the fringes.
Obviously Bond was always bigger than that, and always mainstream. But the general viewpoint among the people I hung out with from 1990 till CR generally all thought Bond was rubbish. In fact, even at school there weren't many kids into it, especially through the Dalton era when Die Hard and Lethal Weapon were seen as far cooler. You never struggled to rent a Bond movie where I was from, let's put it that way.
Anyway, this is just my experience. It doesn't invalidate anyone elses. Everyone has a different perspective and origins story of how they first came to Bond. And like I said, it didn't bother me in the slightest.
Fair enough; I was more of a kid at that time so didn't really have a feel of how cool anything was. Certainly Batman was THE big film of '89 for me and my friends, and although we had Living Daylights stickers on our lunchboxes, LTK just wasn't available to us because it was a 15. I still read my James Bond Fact File all the time though! :)
That really is a weird choice of photos for the cover, isn't it?
True enough, although I remember being a Star Wars fan was somehow quite cool in the mid 90s, not any more though- it's gone back to geeky.
Fair enough; I've not really experienced that. Most of my friends and people I know have always seemed to like it, although not as much as me of course. With some exceptions, naturally.
Yes I think that's true: for a lot of people the Craig films are the only Bond films they find to their taste. Nothing wrong with that, and I think it shows that EON were rather canny to change direction and appeal to a new generation.
I had the Fact File, but really that was nothing on Sally Hibben's book that came out with TLD. I used to read that book religiously every night when I was 11 haha.
By the time I was going to college at 16 Bond for most people there seemed like a distant memory. It wasn't on TV every night of the week back then, remember. It was more of an event when one was on tele.