32 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

That's where Craig is. He's a decent actor, nothing special.

That pretty much describes Brosnan as well though.

[spynovelfan]

Like who? I would suggest Christian Bale, Gerard Butler and Guy Pearce for three.

Interesting choices. Bale certainly looks the part, but I fail to see how he'd have taken things in another direction, unless it would be the precise same (and rather dull, I thought) direction of the characterisation of Batman in the latest film, which is surely just TWINE and not something we'd want to see agin, or a more ruthless psychotic Bond a la Bret Easton Ellis, which is an exciting idea for two seconds but then you realise it would kill the franchise. It would have been the Batman/TWINE thing, by a guy who's a good actor when he has the material, and looks fantastic. But then, why change Pierce Brosnan, really? They needed, I think, a radical change of direction. Bale would not have given that. Guy Pearce would have done, and I loved him in the films you mentioned. But he's not very suave and rather serious, isn't he (as well as looking increasingly skeletal in the face in the past few years). I think we've been down that road, and its name was Timothy Dalton.

I was never a big fan of Butler, but I've actually come round to him a bit. I agree, he was very good in ONE LAST KISS. I interviewed the director of that when it came out - well before Butler was a Bond contender - and one of the things he said was how magnetically attractive Butler was to women, wherever he went. But again, this would hardly have been much of a change of direction. A bit more brutish, a bit less smarmy, and a touch more of the Connery. But still very much a standard-issue Bond.

I see what you are saying - and I argued myself for a young unknown, which I think would have been the other option - but I think the general public had reached saturation point with the kind of Bond we've had and a much bigger break was needed. Bale and Butler would have given a bit more depth and dynamisn to the part, a bit more grit and physical menace, but they wouldn't have been enough, in my view: they would have been surface changes, really: highly chiselled British actors, beefier Brosnans, really not that much of a surprise. Pearce might have been more interesting, but I'm not sure he'd have had the physicality, laconic sense of humour and suaveness that is most necessary for the part - more, in my view, than precisely looking the part. Lots of people look the part. McLachlan, I am sure, could have looked the part. Daniel Craig *is* the part - just watch the latest clip from Belgian TV. He has a swagger and an arrogance and a suaveness and a voice that breathe Bond. Could Bale, Butler or Pearce have brought that to the table? I don't think so. But we'll never know.

I agree that it was a hugely ricky piece of casting. But I think it might have been precisely the move to save the series from oblivion. I think they're two steps ahead of the game.

[jake speed]

Perhaps they should have cast Alex O'Lachlan and got Daniel Craig to dub his voice. That way everyone is happy...I think...