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
Opposite with Daniel for me, not a knock out. At first, but getting much better the more you discover him until you see the beauty.
Think about it carefully before answering please (if you in fact choose to answer such a personal question), so as to strip out any potential subconscious bias.
My question is then can 'Looks alone, no matter how good, make anyone good to play a role'?
--
The reason for my question, somewhat ashamedly, is because I'll admit that looks are quite important to me when assessing a Bond female actress, or should I say a lead actress in a Bond film. When I say looks. I want to clarify that I don't mean that she has to be conventionally beautiful. What I'm saying is that I am more likely to like (or be more forgiving of) her acting (even if it is mediocre) if she is stunningly attractive' to my eyes '. Having said that, if she's god awful, then I don't know me finding her beautiful could save her.
As an example, I don't have a problem with Barbara Bach in TSWLM, although I realize she's not much of an actress and many find her awful (perhaps correctly so). I thought she did a great job. I also find her stunningly attractive however, particularly in that black dress, and wonder if that affected my impressions. Actually I'm sure it did.
However, I found Talisa Soto awful, & Denise Richards also. I also found Maryam D'abo pretty poor too. I don't find them particularly attractive personally, although I realize they are all conventionally very beautiful.
So I'll admit to having this bias with some shame (and it's probably automatic/subconscious), and wondered if it worked the other way as well.
--
I'm asking the question also because of the title of this thread, which suggests that sexiness is important. I don't personally look for that in a Bond actor, being a guy. Credibility & confidence perhaps, but not necessarily sexiness.
I admit I wasn't even thinking of sexiness in my earlier reply, so thanks for pointing that aspect out as well. I was merely thinking about look since that's what you asked about. For instance... take Philipp Seymour Hoffman, a brilliant and versatile actor and one of my all time faves, but couldn't have realistically been a great Bond, right? That was kind of what I meant... It's not all about acting.
Lazenby isn't bad looking I suppose, but I find him utterly terrible and uninteresting and that ruins the movie for me as well. Of the Bond actors I think Brosnan was the best looking, but that doesn't make him the best actor for me. I think Dalton was quite good looking, and a good actor, too, but just didn't have any charm for me. I don't find Connery attractive, nevermind sexy as Bond, but I thought he was a great Bond. I don't think Moore is particularly good looking, but he is charming - not to be confused with sexy, which I don't personally find him to be. I wouldn't say Craig is particularly good looking, either, but he looks interesting (unlike Moore) and is a much better actor, in my opinion, and I find him attractive - he has also been my favorite Bond ever since I saw CR for the first time. (I wasn't familiar with the actor prior to that, but have since then seen pretty much everything he has done.)
I guess sexiness may be important in Bond actors, but since it isn't for most men, there actually is no reason why it should be for women, either. I'm sure it is for some, but it's not really essential, I suppose. I certainly managed to be a Bond fan for a couple of decades before I found a Bond actor who I thought was sexy, so... And considering how popular the franchise has been for over half a century... and considering a lot of women do go see it, too... One wouldn't assume that all or even the majority of the women have found all Bond actors to be sexy - yet they can enjoy the films.
It's like movies in general where the male lead is playing a character that is attractive to women in the movie and all... if the acting is good and the chemistry with actresses work... then that aspect of the movie works even if I don't personally find the actor to be desirable. In Bond movies - and indeed movies in general - there is so much more to the male lead than being attractive to the women, than women can equally enjoy their performance and the movie even if they don't find the actor sexy.
I understand what you're saying about attractive to your eyes vs conventionally beautiful. I assume it's like that for anyone. What people find attractive is not the same as conventionally beautiful, though the two may coincide as well, of course. But after all, "conventionally beautiful" refers to looks only, and being charming or attractive or sexy is not that. It's both complex and simple at the same time. No amount of attempts of explaining why someone is attractive will ever convince another person who just doesn't see the actor (or whoever it is) that way. (Naturally when I say "see" I don't mean literally just "see" as in "looks-wise" as I said before looks is not where it really is in the end.) And even when one agrees about the person, there can still be lots of disagreement about why/when, etc. Btw, I'm frequently just as confused about what women find sexy as I am about what men find sexy. ;)
Did I answer to your question at all? I often tend to ramble beside the point...
I do take attractiveness in a big porcentage on how much i like a Bond actor: i could say overall attractiveness its an 80% for me. On how much i care in a Bond actor
That 80% includes: looks, sense of humor, charisma and Voice
And definitely Pierce and connery Fit the bill of the attractivness department at its fullest.
That leaves a 10% for acting and 10% in the action department.
The reason on why i care so much by his attractiveness its because that's what separates him from any other spy on screen.
When the Bond woman go ohh James is very important for me to belive them they are swooning for Bond.
Bond is not only a spy he is the Ultimate ladies man.
Daniel perfectly matches his portayal of the manly, ruthless, but still emotional Bond.
Brosnan didn't. He is something in between, not fish, not meat for me. His looks, which is just good on first view (as I pointed out in another post) doesn't save the day - for me.
I see what you're saying but you have to remember that good looks plays a small role when it comes to sexines and seduction. Bond doesnt have to have fragrance-model looks.
To have a woman swoon and go weak in the knees depends mainly on the character of the man. Is he charming? Is he confident? Does he make you feel sexy? Does he have a cool, manly disposition? Does he present himself well appearance-wise? If yes to all these things then the bra and panties are coming off!
On it's own, yes. So called good looks alone are simply not interesting.
I think @Szonana's reply is quite telling. First she stresses the importance of looks (earlier as well as above), but then says "looks or overall attractiveness", including in the latter "looks, sense of humor, charisma and voice" which is a hell of a lot more than a person's looks - in other words she also doesn't really think of it in terms of looks alone. Neither, apparently, did @bondjames, even though "look" was the word used in the question.
Now, Szonana mentioning "sense of humor" ...I assume that means not the person, the actor as himself, since their sense of humor as themselves, outside the role, shouldn't make a difference when it comes to how much one likes them in the role. How much one may like them otherwise as people and so on, sure, but in a specific role, no. Their sense of humor as themselves is irrelevant to how good they are as Bond, just like how good they really are with women or guns or airplanes etc. in real life is irrelevant to how good they are in the role. It's down to acting, surely. So I assume Szonana is actually talking about acting after all with the "sense of humor" bit. Right? If so, those percentages must be all messed up. ;)
By "voice" I'm also assuming Szonana means the actor's voice (possibly including the actual voice and the accent?) in the role, not their own voice (or accent), though that may often be the same thing as well. But isn't always, at all, actors can change their voices (and accents) quite radically for roles, and may therefore sound completely different in different roles and so on.
I agree voice is important for characters in general, and so obviously also important for Bond. I love Daniel's voice and accent, and think all (?) the others were fine, I guess... though I must admit I can't remember poor George's voice at all (and can't be bothered to look for samples), so no comment on that.
Yes, absolutely to the bolded part at least. ;) Isn't it the same way for men about women though? I often get the impression that it isn't, and looks really rule - at least in movies, or "Bond girls" and so on... Obviously opinions about looks differ anyway, but still it seems to be mostly about looks how good for instance a woman in a Bond movie is considered to be.
Daniel may not be good looking to some, but he has a rugged masculinity that is very attractive and like Sean and Timothy he’s more of a maverick which sets him apart from the rest. Added to that he is also unpredictable and with his sometimes stoic responses, those all seeing piercing blue eyes which can either melt or cut you dead to me makes his on screen persona more dynamic and believable. To put it mildly he’s very much an alpha male and just draws you in with or without the accoutrements.
I like this comment you made:
"I guess sexiness may be important in Bond actors, but since it isn't for most men, there actually is no reason why it should be for women, either."
Yes, I agree, there is no logical reason why it should be important, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is, and that's ok, because Bond is of a different sex for women and is supposed to be magnetic to women (as @Szonana said) and so there perhaps should be something sexy (which will be very personal to each woman) about the actor's looks, persona and his performance to make such magnetism credible. As a man, I don't really think about that. I just automatically always assume that all of the Bond actors are magnetic to women (male hubris on my part I guess).
@Szonana, thanks. Yes, I personally think voice, sense of humour and charisma are quite important, in addition to looks. They can impact my impressions of an actor's suitability as well.
@Germanlady, I agree with you too on the 'manly' dept, especially for Bond (I think this is actually more important for us men in how we see a Bond actor as being credible). I thought Moore pulled it off quite well personally, since he is an actor who could very easily have been seen as 'too fey' if he wasn't a better actor, since his looks are far from rugged. I don't think he's given enough credit on that front. His voice in particular was quite 'manly' too me, despite his somewhat gentle looks.
----
In the end this is very personal to each of us I suppose, which is as it should be. That is what I find fascinating. It is not really objective. I personally think a lot of it operates at a subconscious level. Bond should be attractive I think. The question then is what is attractive to each of us? That is the fundamental element and I think it differs for all of us, as can be seen in our responses here (pure looks, deep voice, big shoulders, height to width ratio, facial proportions etc.etc.).
Maybe I should have actually asked this differently........in the sense if there is something that you find unattractive about a Bond actor in some way (voice or looks or something else) then will you be able to look beyond that and like his performance?
The next major screen role where I will have to fight possible negative bias on my part and try to be objective is Wonder Woman in the new upcoming Batman/Superman film. I was a huge fan of Lynda Carter in her prime (and thought she was a complete stunner), and so far have been terribly unimpressed by Gal Gadot (based on her photos and the trailer). I realize this is 'shallow' and unfair since I've yet to see her act in the film. I look forward to seeing if she can overcome her looks deficit (for me) with her acting.
About the sexiness, obviously it's preferable if one finds the Bond actor magnetic, but it's not necessary, like I said. I certainly didn't find any previous Bond actors magnetic. To some extent charming or attractive or good anyway - apart from Lazenby - so that was fine. (The same would apply to any man in a leading role beyond Bond as well ... I'm not even talking about being attractive or anything, but just interesting in some way. It takes something special to convince me to go watch a movie with lead(s) I find meh in general. For instance, Ben Affleck would be near impossible to sell to me on his own, but add a name like David Fincher, and I'm ready to buy a ticket right away...)
I don't think I can answer your re-formulated question. I can't think of anything about Bond actors I've needed to "look beyond" in that way, and for me it always ultimately comes down to the performance in the end anyway. I can't look beyond Lazenby's hopelessness (for me) in that area, though - I mean just nothing to like, sorry...
About being unimpressed by an actor based on photos is something I don't understand. Can one actually be impressed by an actor based on photos alone? I know you mentioned trailer as well, and that's another matter - though it may be too brief to give a proper idea, but it actually shows some acting I presume, not just the look, so one gets some impression at least. But photos... I couldn't have possibly said if any Bond actor was suitable for the role from just seeing a photo (or lots of photos). The same with potential future Bonds. If I haven't seen a person act at all, or very little in something very different, how could I know if they might be a good Bond or not from looking at pictures? I would also say that photos often don't show the personality and therefore attractiveness of a person. Heck, most photos of Craig don't do him justice at all - including the official SF and SP posters (especially those) as well. And they're used for marketing, those bland, boring pics of him. Go figure.
I'm trying to understand the overcoming-the-looks-deficit-with-acting thing. I understand it only in theory. For me looks alone gets no actor anywhere (I don't mean in the business, obviously, I mean in my evaluation), and acting is what makes an actor interesting, attractive, otherwise really worth looking at (both men and women), so I just can't look at it as looks-first thing. I absolutely have to see an actor act to form an opinion... and one role may not do it, either, because maybe it was a crap role with a crap script and director and editor that didn't do the actor's talents justice. (All actors, no matter how good, have some of those sooner or later.)
I'm sure you're right about the subconscious level. It's more or less impossible to properly explain (even to oneself) why someone is attractive, since it's a combination of many things, and it's always, to an extent, a bit of a mystery. One can try and make a list of things, but in the end that is rationalization after the fact, sort of like a shopping list of what's attractive, and in reality that's not how it really works, is it...
Regarding Wonder Woman and Gal Gadot: I think my issue has to do with 'expectations'. As I said, I thought Lynda Carter was a stunner, and she is my only previous memory of Wonder Woman. So she set a visual benchmark (and one that I first encountered as a child when such views on physicality are more likely to be formed/melded), and I automatically associate her (including her undeniable looks in my eyes) with that character. Gal Gadot is not Lynda Carter (obviously) and so in comparison to the preset physical expectations, my opinion is negative (for now). She could impress me, but I'm not sure.
What's most interesting about my above view to me though is that I'm sure I'm being more judgmental and more harsh because Gadot is a woman and because I'm a man. I realize that's unfair.
I was not so harsh on Craig, even though I admit that I personally don't think he's as movie star handsome as Brosnan. When I found out he had been cast, I looked him up, realized he was not necessarily as 'male model' good looking, but didn't really think too much about it. I was more able to give him the benefit of the doubt in other words, and that was, from my perspective, because he is a man and so am I (so there is no subconscious need for attraction).
Kind of shallow I know (Re: Gadot) but let's see how my view is after I see her perform. As mentioned earlier, I'm also the same way re: the Bond girls (if I don't like how they look personally, I realize now that I'm more inclined to be less objective and not like their performance as well), although it's not such a big deal or such a damning crime on my part for the Bond 'girls' since they tend to be more eye candy rather than meaningful characters for the most part with a few exceptions.....to me at least.
That's interesting. I would agree that's kinda unfair, but I understand your reasoning. On the other hand I don't quite understand the importance of looks to you.
I agree Craig isn't "as movie star handsome as Brosnan" and most people would surely agree as well. But I honestly don't find men attractive primarily based on their looks. I really, really don't. "Movie star handsome" does not mean attractive to me, it just means someone looks good. Again: attractive and good-looking are such different things to me. Not that there is no connection at all, but it's rather that if I find someone attractive then I quite like how they look, not the other way around. Even the same actor can be attractive in some roles and not others and it's not necessarily about looks (which can change a lot), but rather has to do with the character they play. Do you know what I mean and does that make sense to you?
I know looks are not all when it comes to sex appeall, but i do think Pierce has that sex appeall for me and so does Connery thats big part of why they are my two favorite Bond actors.
and one thing that makes a great impact is the Voice.
Many of you said Pierce had a weak voice but i always found it very sexy and even more since Tomorrow never dies.
And out of topic i never paid attention to your username but now that idi i had to compliment you on that its really clever and original.
I like it
:D Thanks!
Since QOS she's got the hots for Craig, which has only gotten worse with Skyfall. She can't get enough of that movie just because of him and especially because of him crying in the end. That won her over completely.
Well she got the guys (pierce and Connery) and you got the girls so you are even hehe
and in quantity you have have advantage of Eye candy.
We the ladies just get Bond, in a very few cased the bad guy was quite handsome as well( Sean Beam and Tobey Stephens)
Yes, you're correct @Tuulia. It is in fact acting. I guess what I'm saying is, if an actor portrays himself through his character in an endearing fashion, with credible humour (which is not 'forced', and which seems like it truly comes from somewhere 'real' in him) then it will cause the actor to be seen as 'attractive', since humour is attractive.
If however, the humour seems 'tacked on' or 'forced', then the actor may not appear attractive (and I don't mean sexy now.....I mean appealing or captivating). If the actor exhibits no humour, then he may seem even less interesting perhaps, due to its infectious nature.
As an example, I've always said that DC's cutting, dry, sarcastic humour in SF (psyche eval....e.g "wasted".. and Q first meet) are actually closer to his own personal humour (as evidenced in his interviews). That's probably why it seemed 'real' to me on screen, and I liked those scenes. One could say DC seemed 'attractive' (not sexually mind you, because I am a hetero) at that point.
However, his 'circle of life' joke fell completely flat with me, and I thought he looked like a twit saying it.
I'll admit to being shallow when it comes to women in movies (for the most part). I make exceptions for excellent talent (eg. Eva Green, Cate Blanchett, Jessica Chastain) but normally I'm looking for female characters to be physically attractive to me, especially in Bond films. I realize that's superficial and maybe it's a problem of mine, but then again it might be because many women in the kind of films I watch are not properly developed characters.....which is a different discussion altogether because maybe I'm frequenting the wrong kind of films then....
It took some effort to find your own comments from the middle in your post...
I take it then you were talking both about the acting (humor on screen) and the sense of humor the actors themselves have (humor off screen).
I absolutely agree, like I already said, that humor is very attractive in a person. There are also different types of humor, of course, some more appealing to one than others. I have seen too few Fiennes interviews and probably never read any to have an opinion about his sense of humor or much anything else, either, about him as a person - but I have always liked him a lot as an actor. I fully understand what you mean though. I'm sure that I like Christian Bale all the more because I find him hilarious (no doubt the same for people who work with him - that aspect always gets mentioned) .... I like Daniel Craig all the more as well because he makes me laugh (again, apparently the same for people who work with him).
Humor and laughter are very important in many ways.
Sounds nice. ;) I mean if you can handle that without getting silly about it, then it's very good.
I don't know. I wouldn't say so, and it's a huge generalization, anyway. Personally, I'd say it's not about crying itself necessarily - there are different kinds of crying for one, and some can be very off-putting as well.
But there is something to be said for seeing men cry (or being visibly close to it, which can be even more effective, in fact) exactly because there is such a big and ridiculous taboo about it, as if it was shameful or weak for men to cry. There is just a sort of basic humanity to crying.
Crying could be compared to humor, discussed above. Both can have an element of sharing, connecting, breaking boundaries between people. Laughter and tears are equally important and indeed necessary.
I see what you're saying, and I agree a lot, though I don't think humor really differs from other acting, and I see no reason why humor on screen should be similar to actor's own humor in order to work. There are, of course, different kinds of humor, and some is verbal and some is visual, and some is combination of both. And like with probably everything else in acting, nobody is likely to be able to do absolutely anything really, really well. There is also the question of character and what believably fits the character. I think there has been a mistake of mixing different types of humor too much with Craig's Bond. I might be just biased since I like the one kind (which I feel fits the character better) used and not the other (which feels jarring to me... but it's also that to me since I don't usually find it funny).
I agree about "circle of life" but I also think it wouldn't have been funny anyway, no matter who had said it. Not funny to me, I mean. It's similarly stupid (to me) as something like "he had a lot of guts" - the type of stuff that makes me cringe, not laugh. I agree with your other Craig Bond humor examples as well... I'd say it's not just about delivery, but also (and more so) about writing. The kind of stuff I find funny will always have more chances to entertain me than what I consider unfunny. Good humor beats bad humor, simple as that. Obviously what anyone considers funny depends on the person.
Your "exceptions" though... do you mean you don't find them physically attractive? I think they're all beautiful, but I understand if they're not physically attractive to you. (Blanchett and Chastain are also very versatile, I'm not sure Green is, but maybe I haven't see her enough - really liked her in CR, though). I think that for instance Matthew McConaughey is a great actor, but I don't find him even remotely physically attractive, but know he is considered to be. Or Leonardo DiCaprio and so on. So I understand, just asking. :)
Women in a lot of movies are indeed not properly developed characters, and are often there more as just women, not as meaningful characters, which is infuriating and endlessly frustrating and disappointing for many viewers and surely for female actors. There are obviously also simply far less roles for women and it's very noticeable - most movies seem to have mostly male cast, and then one or two women in the female roles (mostly as girlfriends or wifes). Even some male actors have bothered to comment on various issues (such as Clooney, Bale, and Hardy... Clooney can actually do something more about it since he writes, directs and produces, too), which is all good, but we'll see if anything actually changes in our lifetime.
It's something really weird to observe as a woman. Anyway, since it is as it is, I can't blame you; if there's nothing else to the character to be interested in then one might as well prefer them to be physically attractive rather than not to have at least that. I wouldn't say that's shallow, actually. That seems like such a sad state of affairs, though, and even more so from my point of view since I don't find people attractive merely based on looks anyway, there must be something else there to interest me beyond any kinds of looks. But if you can have even that, then fine, why not. It wouldn't work for me, for the aforementioned reason.. And that's also sort of what I meant with not quite understanding the importance of looks to you - I didn't mean it as a condescending put down (I hope it didn't seem that way, I just realized it might have), I meant I don't really understand because it's just not how it works me. I can assure you that the thing with women's roles is not a genre specific issue, so I don't know how much better you'd find it with different types of movies (whatever the types you watch).
@Tuulia, I agree with you, good humour works. Poor humour (or poorly delivered or acted humour......like 'circle of life') can actually be a put off. Whether humour works or not is definitely dependent on the writing and on the delivery/acting as you say. It can also be different dependent on the beholder as you note (some like slapstick, and some prefer wit for instance). Like everything, quality it subjective. However, when it works for you, it is infectious and can be 'attractive' or 'sexy' depending on the context I think.
Yes, those 'exceptions' were poor examples actually, because they are all very beautiful women (especially to me). My poorly made point is that I go to see a Jessica Chastain or a Cate Blanchett or an Eva Green film first because of their acting talent (at least I'd like to think so). The fact that they are very attractive is an added bonus. I am going to see 'Truth' with Blanchett (about the Dan Rather CBS debacle) as soon as I can. I know these actresses always deliver, so they're worth the trip. The fact that I like the way they look really helps (it's the clincher).
I won't make the effort to go and see a film in the theatre or on dvd/blu just because the actress in it is attractive if she's also a lousy actress though. If she's a half decent, then I will. So looks on its own is not enough.
Tilda Swinton or Helena Bonham Carter may be better examples of excellent talent who I don't find attractive (although they are not unattractive either imho), I won't make the effort to go and see one of their films just because they're in it, while I'll definitely do it for Chastain/Blanchett/Green. So once again, I'm proving that female beauty (in my eye) is a major influence on me (in terms of whether I make the effort to watch a film).
Yes, there is a lack of good roles for women in film, but much meatier roles on tv it seems (for both women and men). Game of Thrones, Penny Dreadful & Homeland have super roles. In particular Green (in Penny Dreadful) & Danes (in Homeland) really do excellent work, downplaying their beauty to deliver awe inducing performances.
Yes, absolutely.
Yes, I understand what you mean.
I quite like it when I get that bonus, though I don't consider it necessary.
Well, it's not like physical beauty is a bad thing, and it's perfectly healthy to enjoy looking at beauty. Everyone likes looking at people they find attractive. You said yourself that "looks on it's own is not enough", so there you go, it's more than looks.
It's unfortunate though if it's a requirement that actors look good. Which I suppose there is in the movie industry in general. Especially for women, but very much for men, too. I don't know if it's because that's what people want to see or because the movie industry assumes that's what people want to see.
I watch very little tv. I have concluded that the format of tv series isn't really my cup of tea, I much rather watch movies. I manage mini-series sometimes, and can dabble with longer ones, but, well... I made an effort with GoT, but never felt I liked it enough and gave up eventually, only watched one episode of Penny Dreadful (first one I think) and didn't bother after that, and have never seen Homeland at all, which is kinda pity since I like Claire Danes. Btw, she almost didn't get her role in Little Women (1994), because she wasn't considered beautiful enough... that crap starts at an early age. (Naturally she was great in the role.)
Btw, I'm not sure what you mean by "downplaying their beauty"? The characters still look good, right? If so, how do they downplay it?
It's a requirement for men too, at least in Hollywood. I think DC's success with Bond threw a lot of people there off, because Hollywood generally either goes for the slightly effete look (particularly for the younger actors) or what Arnie used to call 'girly men'. Alternatively, they go for the real tough guy look (Vin Diesel).
So DC doesn't fit that mold one bit and yet has been highly successful at the box office with Bond. The closest Hollywood has got to a DC look with one of their actors is probably Chris Pine (also somewhat rugged blue collar).
Having said that, the pressure on women is far more in Hollywood...to remain youthful and to remain thin......no wonder so many of them get cosmetic surgery later in life.
I mean that in both Penny Dreadful and in Homeland, Eva Green and Claire Danes respectively really look relatively Plain Jane. They don't wear a lot of visible makeup, dress very conservatively, and some of the dramatic acting they have to do makes them look pretty scary or quite crazy actually.......and that is refreshing to see.
They are both playing deeply disturbed & unhinged but extremely interesting characters. A real rarity. I am totally engrossed with their acting rather than their physicality.
tv is experiencing a Golden age era with great oportunities for almost everyone but i guess like Tulia I don't have much patience for tv series.
There have been very few which ive managed to love and finish. The longer i can stand is maybe 4 seasons series no more.
after the 4th season the creativty is thrown at the window and it just starts to get very repetitive and un inspired.
I wished each series just lasted what it has to. Prison Break dragged since the third season.
That one should have been one or two seasons no more.
We didn't need season 3 and even less season 4.
This should have ended in season 2 with Michael and Lincoln getting justice and being freed without no more need of running.
Maybe they should make more like American Horror story which each season is a whole nmew story with a new setting or like sex and the city where the episodes are not tied up but its not a sitt com either with fake laughs behind.
I love tne concept of Bond where each film is a different mission and story maybe thats part of why i loved it in the first place.
Each film is a new adventure with a new female lead each film and Bond is changed every decade.
Ofcourse i also love tne whole world of bond but its great that anyone can get into this franchise at any moment and you just can pop into your dvd or blueray any film of the franchise you want without the feeling of watching an incomplete story.
I used to prefer movies as well, and it wasn't until Mad Men came along that I really got hooked on some of the tv serials out there. Mad Men is absolutely brilliant imho. Every character has depth, and it's so incredibly stylish. You really get to follow the characters on their 'arc'. I was so disappointed that it wrapped up this year.
The reason I've sort of swung towards tv series also is because of the length. Sometimes I have limited time to see something (maybe an hour in the evening) and then sometimes I'll have a couple of hours. A continual story which builds but is an hr long each time gives me options (some days I can watch 2 episodes and other days I'll have time for just 1). I also don't have to invest so much in everything from scratch because it's just a continuation, and so I follow the plot and the performances more. I find I have to invest more concentration in a film (since it's a self-contained thing).
Mad Men, Homeland, Penny Dreadful, Masters of Sex, Game of Thrones, House of Cards & The Fall all have great character roles for women.
I get your point about some of these shows running out of gas by season 4, but the ones I've listed above that have made it that far are still very gripping, and have also reinvented themselves (Homeland Season 4 was excellent and sort of a rebirth of the series).
Ive enjoyed a few series. I loved The Tudors and The Borgias i think they were incredible historical series with great costumes and visually stunning.
I don't want to look like a prude since i loved and their love scenes but i felt those went a little too far in the sex department sometimes it looked more like historical porn than historical drama lol but both stories hooked me in.
Especially The Tudors since i love that dinasty.
Ive seen many film about them and i enjoyed everyone of them :The other Boleyn girl, Elizabeth, Elizabeth the golden age and Anne of the Thousand days.
In a past life i most have been British because its funny how to of my favorite film subjects are from England Bond and The Tudors
I've seen both and enjoyed them immensely. I get your point about the sex scenes....a bit much sometimes but I'll never complain...
The 2nd season finale of the Tudors (off with her head!) was incredibly tense and very well scored as well. I remember that being a show where it went downhill for me after Anne was killed. Natalie Dormer was outstanding in it.