Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Who do you want for Bond 7? * POLL ADDED*


4014 replies to this topic

Poll: In lieu of proper news, let's have an opinion...

Do you think Daniel Craig will return for BOND 25?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

Now that's out of the way, do you WANT Daniel Craig to return as Bond?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

Suppose Daniel Craig will be back as 007, for how many films would you wish to see him back?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

Should Daniel Craig not return as James Bond, would you want the current timeline continued?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#331 dinovelvet

dinovelvet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8038 posts
  • Location:Jupiter and beyond the infinite

Posted 22 December 2010 - 07:20 PM

Being a big name is not sort of the point with Bond. Connery, Lazenby, Dalton and Craig were hardly box office names when they got the gig. The very fact he is not wholly on the radar puts Cavill in better stead than most and just because he is not known to the man on the street does not mean that industry circles are unaware of him.


I agree, BUT all that buzz he had five years ago doesn't seem to have been parlayed into very much. Other actors who were relative nobodies when they auditioned for CR have gone up in stock since (Sam Worthington, Matthew Goode, etc), but Cavill seems to be in the exact same place he was in 05. If he is this alleged great undiscovered talent then you'd think he might have broken through by now...

#332 Doctor Whom

Doctor Whom

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 108 posts
  • Location:Omaha, Nebraska

Posted 22 December 2010 - 07:46 PM


Being a big name is not sort of the point with Bond. Connery, Lazenby, Dalton and Craig were hardly box office names when they got the gig. The very fact he is not wholly on the radar puts Cavill in better stead than most and just because he is not known to the man on the street does not mean that industry circles are unaware of him.


I agree, BUT all that buzz he had five years ago doesn't seem to have been parlayed into very much. Other actors who were relative nobodies when they auditioned for CR have gone up in stock since (Sam Worthington, Matthew Goode, etc), but Cavill seems to be in the exact same place he was in 05. If he is this alleged great undiscovered talent then you'd think he might have broken through by now...

Have to hand it to his management, though. He still gets a certain abount of buzz even though his resume is very thin. Kind of reminds me of Virginia Madsen, back in the day. She was Tne Next Big Thing for years. She's done all right, but she never became a huge star.

#333 Frankie

Frankie

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 624 posts

Posted 22 December 2010 - 07:53 PM

Being a big name is not sort of the point with Bond. Connery, Lazenby, Dalton and Craig were hardly box office names when they got the gig. The very fact he is not wholly on the radar puts Cavill in better stead than most and just because he is not known to the man on the street does not mean that industry circles are unaware of him.

Exactly. The more Cavill stays obscure the more he increases his chance of getting the role. I do not think Bond producers ever want somebody who can be identified with another role before he is Bond.

Again, Cavill is not my first choice, but I would prefer him to many mentioned here in this thread.

#334 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 22 December 2010 - 08:01 PM



Well, Cavill is is 27 if the DOB on wiki is correct. If B23 is 2012 and B24 is 2014 and Craig leaves after that, we're looking at 31 at the time of Craig's last outing, probably 32 by the time things got in motion. Would he stick around for a long time? Who knows. Connery was 32 when Dr No came out and he had a decent run. Lazenby was 30 when OHMSS was released and he, of course, only did the one. I think bar any new financial crises, changes of staff, etc. whoever comes next will be around for at least four or five films, but who knows?


Is this Cavill guy ever going to happen as an actor? Or is he still the next big thing, five years after he "almost became Bond"? For years we heard all about how he was thisclose to being Bond, Batman, and whatever else. That was five years ago. What has he done since then? Some straight to video efforts, a blink and you'll miss it in a Woody Allen film, and a supporting role on a now dead cable show. Meanwhile, a whole crop of up and coming Brit actors has emerged - Michael Fassbender, Tom Hardy, Dominic Cooper etc, and these are the guys getting the plum offers from Hollywood, and Cavill is STILL that guy who was almost Bond five years ago. Either he has the worst world's agent (Sam Worthington wasn't exactly lacking in offers after he failed to get Bond), or he's all looks and is just not that exciting a screen presence. Maybe with all his near misses, he's become, what's the expression - damaged goods?
Hell, if we're talking young 'uns to replace Craig when his time is up, I reckon Jamie Bell has a better shot!

Being a big name is not sort of the point with Bond. Connery, Lazenby, Dalton and Craig were hardly box office names when they got the gig. The very fact he is not wholly on the radar puts Cavill in better stead than most and just because he is not known to the man on the street does not mean that industry circles are unaware of him.


Exactly. That's what I fear. While other far superior actors (where's Cavill's BRONSON?) have moved on to stardom, the producers might opt Cavill because of his unknown status and prettiness, but not his acting chops.

#335 Bond Bombshell

Bond Bombshell

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 461 posts

Posted 22 December 2010 - 08:30 PM

Nobody's mentioned that Cavill already has two roles filmed and ready to come out in 2011. He plays the lead role of Theseus in the Greek myth saga Immortals co-starring Mickey Rourke and John Hurt. He also has the lead in thriller The Cold Light Of Day co-starring Bruce Willis and Sigourney Weaver.

This doesn't seem to me to be an actor whose career is going nowhere who is stuck in the same place as five years ago. I think his career has been undersold in some of the previous posts.

#336 mttvolcano

mttvolcano

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 396 posts

Posted 22 December 2010 - 10:22 PM

I think Cavill will maybe get it, just because he's known by Eon now....I haven't really seen him in anything other than as a teen in the Count o Monte Cristo...(I at least hope it was him and I am not getting him confused). As for the others actors mentioned I really know nothing about either.
As for acting, I think if he's able to pull it off, maybe; especially following Craig.

#337 Frankie

Frankie

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 624 posts

Posted 22 December 2010 - 11:28 PM

I think Cavill will maybe get it, just because he's known by Eon now....I haven't really seen him in anything other than as a teen in the Count o Monte Cristo...(I at least hope it was him and I am not getting him confused).

It WAS him.

#338 The sniper was a woman

The sniper was a woman

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 125 posts
  • Location:East Berlin, behind a curtain...

Posted 23 December 2010 - 09:19 AM

I would like to see him in an adaption of the Gardner novel Icebreaker.


How could you have a SO BIG sig banner ? :confused:

#339 x007AceOfSpades

x007AceOfSpades

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4369 posts
  • Location:Sunny Southern California

Posted 23 December 2010 - 09:26 AM


I would like to see him in an adaption of the Gardner novel Icebreaker.


How could you have a SO BIG sig banner ? :confused:

Because I can and because It's Olga Kurylenko :)

#340 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 23 December 2010 - 11:01 AM

Exactly. That's what I fear. While other far superior actors (where's Cavill's BRONSON?) have moved on to stardom, the producers might opt Cavill because of his unknown status and prettiness, but not his acting chops.

But where was Connery's BRONSON? Or Moore's? Or Dalton's?

#341 Doctor Whom

Doctor Whom

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 108 posts
  • Location:Omaha, Nebraska

Posted 23 December 2010 - 03:03 PM


Exactly. That's what I fear. While other far superior actors (where's Cavill's BRONSON?) have moved on to stardom, the producers might opt Cavill because of his unknown status and prettiness, but not his acting chops.

But where was Connery's BRONSON? Or Moore's? Or Dalton's?

A valid point. I would argue that Craig is the only Bond cast (so far) who wasn't either: a) a journeyman actor with a decent, if unspectacular career (Connery, Dalton), B) a faded tv-star with a poor track record in films (Moore, Broasnan) or c) a complete unknown (Lazenby). Given the success they've had with Craig (both critical and box-office), I wouldn't be surprised if EON tries to get an actor of similar stature next time, which leads me to put Tom Hardy in the top ranks right now. Cavill, too, as long as he can maintain some buzz. Of course, if Craig does two more films, this discussion is probably moot, since someone else we've never heard of may very well enter the picture.

Edited by Doctor Whom, 23 December 2010 - 08:42 PM.


#342 x007AceOfSpades

x007AceOfSpades

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4369 posts
  • Location:Sunny Southern California

Posted 23 December 2010 - 07:49 PM



Exactly. That's what I fear. While other far superior actors (where's Cavill's BRONSON?) have moved on to stardom, the producers might opt Cavill because of his unknown status and prettiness, but not his acting chops.

But where was Connery's BRONSON? Or Moore's? Or Dalton's?

A valid point. I would argue that Craig is the only Bond cast (so far) who wasn't either: a) a journeyman actor with a decent, if unspectacular career (Connery, Dalton), B) a faded tv-star with a poor track record in films (Moore, Broasnan) or c) a complete unknown (Lazenby). Given the success they've had with Craig (both critical and box-office), I wouldn't be surprised if EON tries to get an actor of similar stature next time, which leads me to put Tom Hardy in the top ranks right now. Cavill, too, as long as he can maintain some buzz. Of course, if Craig does two more films, this discussion is probably moot, since someone else we've never heard of may very well enter the picture.

I wouldn't mind Tom Hardy at all as well. I thought his performance in Inception was good.

#343 Frankie

Frankie

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 624 posts

Posted 23 December 2010 - 07:58 PM

Given the success they've had with Craig (both critical and box-office), I wouldn't be surprised if EON tries to get an actor of similar stature next time, which leads me to put Tom Hardy in the top ranks right now.

Dammit, he's even shorter than Craig. Who's the next Bond after Hardy? yeah, Elijah Wood is only 29.

#344 x007AceOfSpades

x007AceOfSpades

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4369 posts
  • Location:Sunny Southern California

Posted 23 December 2010 - 09:06 PM


Given the success they've had with Craig (both critical and box-office), I wouldn't be surprised if EON tries to get an actor of similar stature next time, which leads me to put Tom Hardy in the top ranks right now.

Dammit, he's even shorter than Craig. Who's the next Bond after Hardy? yeah, Elijah Wood is only 29.

Daniel Craig is 5 foot 10 Inches and Tom Hardy is 5 foot 9 inches. Just an Inch Shorter but I'm sure his shoes will make him 5 foot 10 or 5 foot 11 if he's lucky.

#345 Frankie

Frankie

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 624 posts

Posted 24 December 2010 - 12:42 AM

Daniel Craig is 5 foot 10 Inches and Tom Hardy is 5 foot 9 inches. Just an Inch Shorter but I'm sure his shoes will make him 5 foot 10 or 5 foot 11 if he's lucky.

Those are stats from IMDB which is notorious for listing actors about 2 inches taller than they really are when they are under 6 feet to begin with. We should draw a line as to how short an unimposing the character Bond should get as a minimum. I really think that minimum should be 6'.

Edited by Frankie, 24 December 2010 - 12:43 AM.


#346 x007AceOfSpades

x007AceOfSpades

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4369 posts
  • Location:Sunny Southern California

Posted 24 December 2010 - 12:46 AM


Daniel Craig is 5 foot 10 Inches and Tom Hardy is 5 foot 9 inches. Just an Inch Shorter but I'm sure his shoes will make him 5 foot 10 or 5 foot 11 if he's lucky.

Those are stats from IMDB which is notorious for listing actors about 2 inches taller than they really are when they are under 6 feet to begin with. We should draw a line as to how short an unimposing the character Bond should get as a minimum. I really think that minimum should be 6'.

If the actor has the look, but not the height that shouldn't stop him from becoming Bond.

#347 Frankie

Frankie

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 624 posts

Posted 24 December 2010 - 12:53 AM

If the actor has the look, but not the height that shouldn't stop him from becoming Bond.

Would you take Tom Cruise as 007?

#348 x007AceOfSpades

x007AceOfSpades

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4369 posts
  • Location:Sunny Southern California

Posted 24 December 2010 - 01:10 AM


If the actor has the look, but not the height that shouldn't stop him from becoming Bond.

Would you take Tom Cruise as 007?

Absolutely not, But I would take Tom Hardy (second choice) as 007.

#349 Frankie

Frankie

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 624 posts

Posted 24 December 2010 - 04:33 AM

Absolutely not, But I would take Tom Hardy (second choice) as 007.

Well to each his own I guess. I am as tall as Hardy and I believe he's too short for Bond. So is Craig, BTW. Connery at 6'-2" has set the standard for the right physicality for James Bond, IMO. Anyone under 6' would be betraying that standard badly.

#350 x007AceOfSpades

x007AceOfSpades

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4369 posts
  • Location:Sunny Southern California

Posted 24 December 2010 - 04:49 AM


Absolutely not, But I would take Tom Hardy (second choice) as 007.

Well to each his own I guess. I am as tall as Hardy and I believe he's too short for Bond. So is Craig, BTW. Connery at 6'-2" has set the standard for the right physicality for James Bond, IMO. Anyone under 6' would be betraying that standard badly.

I feel Cavill is around Connery's Height and would make a perfect Bond. Yes, Hardy is short, but So is Craig and he makes a good Bond for being 5 foot 10

#351 Frankie

Frankie

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 624 posts

Posted 24 December 2010 - 06:07 AM

I feel Cavill is around Connery's Height and would make a perfect Bond. Yes, Hardy is short, but So is Craig and he makes a good Bond for being 5 foot 10

Cavill is listed as 2 inches shorter than Connery. But at 6'-0" he just makes the cut. I think Moore was also 6'-0".

This should put all that Tom Hardy love to rest.

Attached Files


Edited by Frankie, 24 December 2010 - 06:07 AM.


#352 jaguar007

jaguar007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5608 posts
  • Location:Portland OR

Posted 24 December 2010 - 06:36 AM

. So is Craig, BTW. Connery at 6'-2" has set the standard for the right physicality for James Bond, IMO. Anyone under 6' would be betraying that standard badly.


Bond in the books is 6'. Craig my be 2 inches too short, but Connery is 2 inches too tall.

#353 x007AceOfSpades

x007AceOfSpades

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4369 posts
  • Location:Sunny Southern California

Posted 24 December 2010 - 06:36 AM



I feel Cavill is around Connery's Height and would make a perfect Bond. Yes, Hardy is short, but So is Craig and he makes a good Bond for being 5 foot 10

Cavill is listed as 2 inches shorter than Connery. But at 6'-0" he just makes the cut. I think Moore was also 6'-0".

This should put all that Tom Hardy love to rest.

I still think he could be a good Bond.

#354 dinovelvet

dinovelvet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8038 posts
  • Location:Jupiter and beyond the infinite

Posted 24 December 2010 - 07:30 AM


. So is Craig, BTW. Connery at 6'-2" has set the standard for the right physicality for James Bond, IMO. Anyone under 6' would be betraying that standard badly.


Bond in the books is 6'. Craig my be 2 inches too short, but Connery is 2 inches too tall.


What is this obsession with height, anyway? Unless we're talking Danny Devito, the camera can make anyone look as tall as they need to be, it's a non-issue that has nothing to do with an actor's ability to play Bond. Hell, there are apparently five inches between Craig and Dalton (ahem, height wise, that is), and I find Craig to be the more physically imposing figure.

#355 x007AceOfSpades

x007AceOfSpades

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4369 posts
  • Location:Sunny Southern California

Posted 24 December 2010 - 07:44 AM



. So is Craig, BTW. Connery at 6'-2" has set the standard for the right physicality for James Bond, IMO. Anyone under 6' would be betraying that standard badly.


Bond in the books is 6'. Craig my be 2 inches too short, but Connery is 2 inches too tall.


What is this obsession with height, anyway? Unless we're talking Danny Devito, the camera can make anyone look as tall as they need to be, it's a non-issue that has nothing to do with an actor's ability to play Bond. Hell, there are apparently five inches between Craig and Dalton (ahem, height wise, that is), and I find Craig to be the more physically imposing figure.

I don't care for height at all my choices still stand with Cavill and Hardy. I would think that Craig was actually 3 foot 1 inch (even though he isn't) And I agree with you, I think Craig is the more physically imposing figure.

#356 jaguar007

jaguar007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5608 posts
  • Location:Portland OR

Posted 24 December 2010 - 04:17 PM



. So is Craig, BTW. Connery at 6'-2" has set the standard for the right physicality for James Bond, IMO. Anyone under 6' would be betraying that standard badly.


Bond in the books is 6'. Craig my be 2 inches too short, but Connery is 2 inches too tall.


What is this obsession with height, anyway? Unless we're talking Danny Devito, the camera can make anyone look as tall as they need to be, it's a non-issue that has nothing to do with an actor's ability to play Bond. Hell, there are apparently five inches between Craig and Dalton (ahem, height wise, that is), and I find Craig to be the more physically imposing figure.


I agree with you Dino, my post was in response to someone who thought that Connery at 6'2 was the ideal height for Bond and Craig was too short. My point being that both Connery and Craig were off the mark of Fleming's Bond by the same number of inches (height, we are talking height).

#357 Achille Aubergine

Achille Aubergine

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 101 posts

Posted 24 December 2010 - 05:39 PM




. So is Craig, BTW. Connery at 6'-2" has set the standard for the right physicality for James Bond, IMO. Anyone under 6' would be betraying that standard badly.


Bond in the books is 6'. Craig my be 2 inches too short, but Connery is 2 inches too tall.


What is this obsession with height, anyway? Unless we're talking Danny Devito, the camera can make anyone look as tall as they need to be, it's a non-issue that has nothing to do with an actor's ability to play Bond. Hell, there are apparently five inches between Craig and Dalton (ahem, height wise, that is), and I find Craig to be the more physically imposing figure.


I agree with you Dino, my post was in response to someone who thought that Connery at 6'2 was the ideal height for Bond and Craig was too short. My point being that both Connery and Craig were off the mark of Fleming's Bond by the same number of inches (height, we are talking height).


...The most important is the actor has no head for heights...

#358 Frankie

Frankie

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 624 posts

Posted 24 December 2010 - 06:14 PM

What is this obsession with height, anyway? Unless we're talking Danny Devito, the camera can make anyone look as tall as they need to be, it's a non-issue that has nothing to do with an actor's ability to play Bond. Hell, there are apparently five inches between Craig and Dalton (ahem, height wise, that is), and I find Craig to be the more physically imposing figure.


As much as we want Bond to be reasonably realistic, he is still somewhat of a hero. Heroic figures, for better or worse, have always been depicted as tall. It immediately gives a sense of the guy being able to stand up to villains. That makes the book Bond's height (6') to the original Bond's (6'-2") a great range of physicality. Anything over that starts getting into the 'Super Hero' category and anything below starts telegraphing wimpiness. As for Camera tricks, Bond women have always looked upward to him. With Craig they tend to face him nose to nose.

And while I respect your opinion. In mine, Dalton was no less imposing and actually somewhat more than Craig. In fact Dalton is my second favorite Bond next to Connery. The physicality that you see in Craig's Bond is more extra choreographed action to make up for his lack of height and make him more convincing as our hero.

#359 dinovelvet

dinovelvet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8038 posts
  • Location:Jupiter and beyond the infinite

Posted 24 December 2010 - 08:37 PM




. So is Craig, BTW. Connery at 6'-2" has set the standard for the right physicality for James Bond, IMO. Anyone under 6' would be betraying that standard badly.


Bond in the books is 6'. Craig my be 2 inches too short, but Connery is 2 inches too tall.


What is this obsession with height, anyway? Unless we're talking Danny Devito, the camera can make anyone look as tall as they need to be, it's a non-issue that has nothing to do with an actor's ability to play Bond. Hell, there are apparently five inches between Craig and Dalton (ahem, height wise, that is), and I find Craig to be the more physically imposing figure.


I agree with you Dino, my post was in response to someone who thought that Connery at 6'2 was the ideal height for Bond and Craig was too short. My point being that both Connery and Craig were off the mark of Fleming's Bond by the same number of inches (height, we are talking height).


Yeah I wasn't specifically addressing you, Jag, I just clicked on that post to address the height issue in general. And frankly it isn't an issue, and there's only one person in this thread going on about it. If EON are lucky enough to get someone of Tom Hardy's caliber interested in being Craig's successor, they're not going to let an arbitrary inch or two get in the way. They already let Craig in despite him being below this alleged magical six foot line, and came up with the best Bond ever :)

#360 Frankie

Frankie

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 624 posts

Posted 24 December 2010 - 08:58 PM

They already let Craig in despite him being below this alleged magical six foot line, and came up with the best Bond ever :)

Craig was handpicked by Babbs. Nobody else had a chance. Craig is 5'8", 5'9" at best. That makes Hardy 5'6" to 5'7". pretty soon Bond has to get om his toes to kiss the girl, if this trend continues.