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
100% agree with this.
Craig is my favourite Bond but his casting in 2005 caused two "problems" going forwards.
One being his appearance veering away from Fleming's description, it opens up the casting pool to more diverse choices that don't look like Fleming's Bond. Which is fine but it's bad in the sense that it makes the search longer and more drawn out, then you can have a potential backlash for picking an actor that does looks the part for being uninspired casting.
The other problem is the bigger one, in that Craig's a fantastic actor and he's took the role to new heights. There's many actors on the list who would be a massive step down in terms of acting ability. It's much more than just looking the part these days
But Brosnan built his pre Bond career, or at least the marketing around it, on a role he almost had.
Edit: I almost forgot this, further showing how Brosnan was not staying quiet about his dissatisfaction of not getting Bond.
What I mean is that he was at least justified in that he had been cast as Bond. Not even almost cast, not merely considered: it was a done deal... until it wasn't. He didn't play or market himself as a crypto-Bond out of the blue, or based on his own assessment of his merit. Unlike say Idris Elba or Julian McMahon.
I agree 100%
Yes, but in addition to being a strong actor, there are intangibles, primarily charisma, that are important. It’s possible for an outstanding actor to have little charisma, and vice versa, for a good actor to have loads of it . Following Craig’s often brooding Bond , I think casting someone who has a certain “ spark “ will be important; just because someone is a master “ thespian “ doesn’t me he’s right for Bond. The same could be said for directors; being a great director doesn’t necessarily mean that person is right for Bond . In the end, for both, I hope they avoid prestige casting alone.
I'm not quite sure where this idea that Adrian Paul looked like Sean Connery came from. To me he looks more like Bobby Carnavale.
Anyway, he would have been a poor choice for Bond. I doubt he would have even gotten past the audition stage.
Now, I don't think the next Bond actor will necessarily get the same material Craig did. Remember, Craig had scenes which specifically played up to his ability to convey emotion (M's death in SF, Vesper's death in CR, much of NTTD etc.) That said most of playing Bond isn't about showing that heightened emotion. It's about knowing when to be understated, how to subtly convey what the character is thinking in the scene. It's much harder than it looks.
Well he was playing a hit man
Thing about Robert Pattinson is that even if he wasn't Batman I think his early role in Twilight would have made him slightly too famous/talked about as a contender for him him to actually get the part this time round. Personally, the idea of Henry Cavill as Bond sounds awful to me, but Robert Pattinson as Bond is an interesting 'what if'. The guy's a very good actor and would be an unusual choice, but no more than Craig or Connery were arguably. In some strange way I can see it working. I don't think it'd be quite like any other portrayal of Bond, for better or for worse.
Perhaps they'll even go for an actor like Robert Pattinson for the next Bond: younger, a bit more 'unconventionally handsome' (he's a very good looking guy but has a flat nose/a unique face and funny hair) or at least less rugged on the surface compared to Craig, very much a 'character actor' - someone whose involvement in the film is down to how interesting they find the script/how much can get their teeth into the part.
Whenever I see that, I can never quite shake the idea that Daylights would have been better with him. I like Dalton in TLD, he looks great (and Pierce was a bit thin and over-coiffed at that point), but Pierce bringing a bit of that Fourth Protocol intensity together with the sort of charm and charisma you see there.. I can imagine it being a bigger hit.
From his face I think ;)
Yes, Pattinson is exactly the sort of person who could have made it his own, I think. Very clearly not Craig or any of his predecessors, but still could have found a new take on Bond. Someone fresh like him please.
Maybe I'm just not seeing it. At all really. Like I said, Bobby Carnivale was my first thought.
Pattinson's also an interesting example in the sense that we know from his portrayal of Batman that he can do the fight scenes and be suitably intimidating. One criticism I've seen of certain candidates suggested on these forums is that they're perceived as not being 'tough' enough, that they wouldn't be believable in fight scenes as Bond etc. Sometimes people have to watch these actors and try to see if the potential for that intensity is there.
Another interesting thing about his Batman/Bruce Wayne was his approach to that role compared to Christian Bale's. I know Pattinson lied (as he seems to do with interviews/the press often, haha) and said he didn't work out for the role (he did prepare, with ju jitsu specifically), but there was a sense that he was more interested in reading the graphic novels that the film was inspired by, doing something different with his portrayal of a younger Bruce Wayne etc. I suspect if they went with an actor like Pattinson for Bond, they'd take a similar approach. They'll get fit, but there will be less emphasis on the actor getting 'ripped' for a moment like in CR where Bond comes out of the water. Instead it'll be more about embodying the character.
I agree, but most other incarnations balanced the brood with a bit of charm and humor.?
Cannavale and Paul could be the Spang brothers, with Rose Byrne as Tiffany Case!
Same. For some reason I don't want to actually spend money to see Pattinson as Batman. I am intrigued by the apparent detective story tone of the new film , though.
Perhaps a while ago, but not so much now, given the fact Mr. Paul looks not like his TV heyday self any longer...but, gangsters as the villain for Bond to pursue ? For me, that was a weak link in the book, too. It seemed to me that Fleming derived his villain(s) from the setting, and the result was...meh. Bond is at a higher level...
Until Casino Royale came out. The Craig era made me an even greater Bond fan than before and now my Top 5 Bond movies are a mix of Connery's and Craig's (GF, TB, CR, QoS, FRWL).
I would prefer to be surprised by the new actor - Cavill and Hardy etc. - they are all too famous in my opinion or try to emulate the "new mold" for Bond that Craig defined. I'd rather see a new blend of the cinematic and novel Bond. And I doubt I will become such a fan again for the new tenure than I am for the Connery/Craig era but I am sure I will enjoy all future movies like I did any Moore/Dalton/Brosnan/Lazenby film.
Agreed. @Creasy47 in a tux is the personification of Fleming’s Bond. And his penis is massive.
Who is modding the modmen?
Consider yourself slimed.
What? Too much? 😉
But enough about Fleming.
@Creasy47
as Ian Fleming's James Bond 007
in
The Man With The Golden Spam Javelin