No Time To Die: Production Diary

17357367387407412507

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Tom Holland reportedly wears white face, so this Ankler whatever could be on to something.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,539
    What the hell is the Ankler anyway? I'm sorry, but this isn't a thing.

    But they're right, Hardy is the only option.

    Here's a brief article explaining the Ankler.
    laist.com/2017/05/03/ankler.php

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited May 2017 Posts: 15,423
    What do people see in Hardy, really? Outstanding actor, yes. Top notch performances, charisma in ruggedness (perhaps too much of a dose of it), but he lacks one thing: Elegance. People can cite Inception all they want, he didn't sound Bondian to me at all. Just because he's British, tough, great actor doesn't immediately qualify him to be a suitable template for Bond. Seriously.

    In a Bond film, Hardy would be a supporting character at best. A Red Grant-like henchman or a SAS commando team leader. Nothing more.

    Heck, if people nominate Hardy, I'll nominate WWF wrestler, Wade Barrett.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,539
    Thing about Hardy is, he doesn't really strike me as an actor to join a franchise in anything other than a one time role.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited May 2017 Posts: 7,551
    He's signed on for several Mad Max films
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I'd much rather see Hardy as Max, because he works for that role, even more than Mel in appearance. He's rough, looks at home in dirt and filth, and has a real corrosive feeling about him. Max is inelegant, brutish, animalistic and forlorn. Hardy can play that, but I don't want to see him walking a casino floor in a tuxedo flipping chips between his fingers because it's obvious that he's not naturally credible for that. Keep him out on the wasteland where he has the most utility as an actor.
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    Thing about Hardy is, he doesn't really strike me as an actor to join a franchise in anything other than a one time role.

    I agree, @Red_Snow. He definitely doesn't seem like a man who would allow himself to be tied down in a studio system and contract for a series of films like Bond would require.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I'd much rather see Hardy as Max, because he works for that role, even more than Mel in appearance. He's rough, looks at home in dirt and filth, and has a real corrosive feeling about him. Max is inelegant, brutish, animalistic and forlorn. Hardy can play that, but I don't want to see him walking a casino floor in a tuxedo flipping chips between his fingers because it's obvious that he's not naturally credible for that. Keep him out on the wasteland where he has the most utility as an actor.
    Precisely!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @ClarkDevlin, everything you noted about Hardy I see in Craig. He's hardly elegant in my view. I know his biggest fans will say otherwise, but not from my perspective. That doesn't mean I haven't enjoyed his first three films and that he is an outstanding actor and a very good Bond. It's just that I don't associate elegance with Craig, especially in comparison to all of his predecessors (and yes, that includes the often maligned Dalton).

    Hardy would be more of the same (+ a few inches shorter) which is why I'm not keen on him, but I think he's actually a more versatile actor than Craig and can certainly be Bond if cast. Just not my type for the role, which I'd prefer go back to the 'tall slim and dark' to quote Andrea from TMWTGG.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,216
    The evaluation of an actor's suitability to play Bond is the equivalent of a human Rorschach test.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,807
    Among many criterion, there's the idea of casting against type like nice guy Dick Powell as tough as nails Philip Marlowe.

    To me it's much more important what the filmmakers do with the Bond character over any individual actor in the role. Within reason, of course.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited May 2017 Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    @ClarkDevlin, everything you noted about Hardy I see in Craig. He's hardly elegant in my view. I know his biggest fans will say otherwise, but not from my perspective. That doesn't mean I haven't enjoyed his first three films and that he is an outstanding actor and a very good Bond. It's just that I don't associate elegance with Craig, especially in comparison to all of his predecessors (and yes, that includes the often maligned Dalton).

    Hardy would be more of the same (+ a few inches shorter) which is why I'm not keen on him, but I think he's actually a more versatile actor than Craig and can certainly be Bond if cast. Just not my type for the role, which I'd prefer go back to the 'tall slim and dark' to quote Andrea from TMWTGG.
    I was expecting the comparison, @bondjames. But, you see, even though I'm not Craig's biggest fan, his level of elegance is certainly way above Hardy's. Hardy may be the more versatile or better actor, but Craig undoubtedly has by far more elegance.

    That scene in the train in Royale as he smoothly and coolly pours the wine from the bottle into Vesper's glass just spoke volumes about him. And also before Bond, Craig had some very sophisticated roles even at times he had to be brutish a bit. These are evident in Elizabeth (1998) and his TV film Sword of Honour (2001).

    Craig was indeed a thespian long before being Bond, and of sorts has a tough ring to him in a Shakespearean way. Hardy, on the other hand, doesn't. He's a very charismatic screen presence, sure. But, his elegance is a lackluster in comparison with Craig's.

    For instance, a film like Legend (2015) set against the backdrop of the 1960s East London, has two kinds of different suits strapped on Hardy and - as saddening as it is, people fawn over him and cry Bond when he looks like a thug from the streets given a suit or two by his new rich employer to blend in with the rest of his crew. He just doesn't have it.

    Craig, on the other hand, in Layer Cake, even though he wouldn't have been my vision for Bond, had the suit complimenting him, you'd see how fitting he is for the elegant role. Hardy doesn't have that. Great actor, but definitely not Bond.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    That's where we disagree @ClarkDevlin. I didn't see anything especially elegant about Craig pouring wine in CR. He did it well enough but I can assure you most folks (myself included) with decent bit of public (read private) schooling would have known what to do. I like Craig as Bond, but I just don't find him 'elegant' or refined at all. That's where the Connery comparisons fall flat for me. Sean had it all. A natural.

    Regarding Hardy: He is a tremendous actor, and actors like him can inhabit roles completely. Again, definitely not my choice, but I have no doubt the man could play the role with considerable ease if called upon to do so.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    No worries at all, @bondjames. Like you, I also find the Craig and Connery comparisons absurd and utterly unfounded. Craig is universes, dimensions and solar systems away from being effortlessly cool as Connery.
  • Posts: 4,619
    No worries at all, @bondjames. Like you, I also find the Craig and Connery comparisons absurd and utterly unfounded. Craig is universes, dimensions and solar systems away from being effortlessly cool as Connery.

    Even in this image? https://d35fkdjhhgt99.cloudfront.net/static/use-media-items/4/3784/upto-700xauto/56701908/04ew_bondcover.jpeg
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    No worries at all, @bondjames. Like you, I also find the Craig and Connery comparisons absurd and utterly unfounded. Craig is universes, dimensions and solar systems away from being effortlessly cool as Connery.

    Even in this image? https://d35fkdjhhgt99.cloudfront.net/static/use-media-items/4/3784/upto-700xauto/56701908/04ew_bondcover.jpeg
    Sorry for the offense, but yes. ;)
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    That's hardly the coolest picture of Craig. I'd say this is:

    6005%205%20010_v2.jpg
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    He looks lethal in that earlier photo which Panchito posted, but it's difficult to convey elegance in a photo. It's more about the way one moves, talks, behaves etc. There must be a lightness in combination with the lethal attributes. A certain suaveness.

    Craig is no doubt very 'cool' in CR. That's where he's at his coolest imho, from the opening scene to the ending scene. Heck, he's even cool when his nuts are being brutalized and that's not easy to convey (his predecessor wouldn't have been able to do it).

    Still, cool does not equal elegant.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    bondjames wrote: »
    That's where we disagree @ClarkDevlin. I didn't see anything especially elegant about Craig pouring wine in CR. He did it well enough but I can assure you most folks (myself included) with decent bit of public (read private) schooling would have known what to do. I like Craig as Bond, but I just don't find him 'elegant' or refined at all. That's where the Connery comparisons fall flat for me. Sean had it all. A natural.

    Regarding Hardy: He is a tremendous actor, and actors like him can inhabit roles completely. Again, definitely not my choice, but I have no doubt the man could play the role with considerable ease if called upon to do so.
    Connery is about as working class as you can get. sick of everybody piling on Craig after the release of SP. SP is not my favorite but I have faith in Craig's ability and liked his first 3 movies. Want to see him make another great one or two.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Well, for the record, I do love Spectre and Craig. There's no Bond actor I don't love.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Connery Is the pinnacle I'm not going to dispute that, for me FRWL is where he is at his zenith but lets face it and maybe Bond isn't supposed to be deep but his Bond hasn't much depth.

    Yes he can convey the suave dead pan assured Bond but not much more, Craig is the first actor to truly convey the depth of the character, yes he doesn't look as cool and comfortable as Connery.

    Although actually investing the character with a compelling realness and emotional resonance, Craig as far as acting is concerned and not playing Bond as cool and assured is the best actor to play the role and moments in Royale prove that.

    I'm sure Dalton fans will argue he went there before but to me as far as cinematic Bond with depth, Craig wins hands down, there is no theatrical vibe or awkwardness to his performance, you believe it and Craig is clearly not just doing this for the money.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    IMG_4713.png?dl=1&_ga=2.189081064.270673818.1494113886-618072579.1484242294
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited May 2017 Posts: 15,423
    Now, THAT'S news! Not a big important one, but the most concrete news we've heard in two damn years!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    That's where we disagree @ClarkDevlin. I didn't see anything especially elegant about Craig pouring wine in CR. He did it well enough but I can assure you most folks (myself included) with decent bit of public (read private) schooling would have known what to do. I like Craig as Bond, but I just don't find him 'elegant' or refined at all. That's where the Connery comparisons fall flat for me. Sean had it all. A natural.

    Regarding Hardy: He is a tremendous actor, and actors like him can inhabit roles completely. Again, definitely not my choice, but I have no doubt the man could play the role with considerable ease if called upon to do so.
    Connery is about as working class as you can get. sick of everybody piling on Craig after the release of SP. SP is not my favorite but I have faith in Craig's ability and liked his first 3 movies. Want to see him make another great one or two.
    I too commented on the fact that I enjoyed his first three films. I'm open to a fifth from him but I'm not wed to the idea, and if it's not to be I won't lose sleep over it in the slightest.

    My comments related to comparisons to Hardy and the fact that Craig is 'elegant' in comparison. One can perhaps compare him to Hardy and make such remarks, but elegant is not an adjective I would use to describe Craig, certainly not in comparison to every other Bond actor that has come before. That doesn't mean he's not a good Bond or that he hasn't made good films with some depth to them (that's what he's brought to the character certainly). Similarly, I think Hardy can do relatively 'elegant' if called upon. I just don't want him to.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    IMG_4713.png?dl=1&_ga=2.189081064.270673818.1494113886-618072579.1484242294

    This credible?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    IMG_4713.png?dl=1&_ga=2.189081064.270673818.1494113886-618072579.1484242294

    This credible?
    Well, the guy seems to have worked on Spectre previously, so he's no other reason to post it up... Unless he tends to be ridiculed by the media, which is unlikely.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    IMG_4713.png?dl=1&_ga=2.189081064.270673818.1494113886-618072579.1484242294

    This credible?
    Looks to be...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I don't understand the significance of this? Someone who worked on SP is working on B25. Wouldn't this be more likely than not when it comes to the back end?

    Is this the stuntman that someone commented on a few pages back when predicting Craig's return?
  • There's no Bond actor I don't love.

    Likewise. I count myself fortunate in this respect. I may prefer three or so of them to three or so of the others—and I may have favorite and less favorite performances of the lot—but I genuinely like all six as Bond. I fear for the day an actor I dislike takes the part and hope it never comes.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I think the role is such that it's difficult to dislike an actor playing it.

    It's the consummate guy role. Who doesn't look good playing Bond? Exactly.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited May 2017 Posts: 6,304
    I'd much rather see Hardy as Max, because he works for that role, even more than Mel in appearance. He's rough, looks at home in dirt and filth, and has a real corrosive feeling about him. Max is inelegant, brutish, animalistic and forlorn. Hardy can play that, but I don't want to see him walking a casino floor in a tuxedo flipping chips between his fingers because it's obvious that he's not naturally credible for that. Keep him out on the wasteland where he has the most utility as an actor.
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    Thing about Hardy is, he doesn't really strike me as an actor to join a franchise in anything other than a one time role.

    I agree, @Red_Snow. He definitely doesn't seem like a man who would allow himself to be tied down in a studio system and contract for a series of films like Bond would require.

    Tom Hardy has been effective in many different roles.
Sign In or Register to comment.