4014 replies to this topic

[Pussfeller]

I admit Cavill is looking more Bondian as he ages. Back in 2005, and for a while after that, he was totally baby-faced. His features are inherently un-cruel, which puts him at a disadvantage where Bond is concerned. He has a friendly, open face with a small nose and wide-set eyes - perfect for playing Superman, Mark Trail, or Yuri Gagarin, but very far from the long, cruel, lupine features generally expected of a Bond actor. He's just too handsome and wholesome. But as he approaches thirty, he's starting to crag up ever so slightly. If he dropped some of the brawn, he could probably pull off a Bond, but I bet he'd follow in the tradition of Brosnan, or perhaps Lazenby.

But that's all beside the point. For reasons that have nothing to do with his appearance or acting ability or personal suitability for the role, it's hugely unlikely that he'll ever have a chance to play Bond. A hundred to one that he's even considered. It's all to do with the trajectory of his career and his earning power. You might remember how Clive Owen's chance at Bond was scuppered by his insistence on gross points, i.e. a cut of the gross earnings rather than the net, which is typical for all but the biggest stars. This is the sort of thing that would happen with Cavill. However much he might want to play Bond, he's never going to accept less money than he's worth. And however much Eon may want Cavill (and there's no indication that they will), the studio will never agree to waste money on a superstar. All they need is a suitable actor, preferably one whose low asking price makes him a bargain. It doesn't matter if the actor is obscure when he's cast, because Bond will automatically make him famous. Granted a certain baseline of professional success and good repute, all that really matters is the actor's fundamentals - his looks, his charisma, his acting ability, and whatever Bondian je ne sais quoi the producers are able to divine with their spidey sense.

[bonded56]

Adrian Paul

[Pussfeller]

Poor Adrian Paul. He could have been a contender. I think his uncanny resemblance to Connery actually worked against him. But if they ever do a remake of Operation Kid Brother, he's in like Flynn.

[The Shark]

Connery had a small nose.

[Nick Bone]

At first Connery established himself as a cinematic icon and as the real James Bond. In 2006 they rebooted the series with Casino Royale and started the whole thing again. When Connery left they hired an unknown Aussie to play James Bond.

So when Craig leaves isn´t it a time for some unknown Aussie to play James Bond again? O´Loughlin and Worthington are widely known actors today so they have to find somebody else.

And this was my lazy attempt to be funny.

I´m beginning to feel like Pussfeller, Henry Cavill won´t be the next James Bond. Whoever the poor fella will be, he´s gonna have some hard times ahead of him and a couple of HUGE boots to fill...

[Frankie]

Adrian Paul

Would have been the perfect choice at the time. I think this is one EON totally dropped the ball on.

[kissarmy71]

Henry would be great.....I still would like to see Clive Owen get it. The guy has to be the part - handsome and English. Craig doesnt fit the mold.

[JimmyBond]

I think it's important to keep in mind that Craig could quite possibly be Bond for at least 3 more films. Assuming that (and assuming they'll be out at two year intervals), I doubt anyone right now that would be a viable choice would still be a good chioce in 2020.

[Iceskater101]

Yeah I hope Craig stays at it for a lot more Bond films.

[Frankie]

I think it's important to keep in mind that Craig could quite possibly be Bond for at least 3 more films.

Gee I sure hope not. I was never for a short, blonde Bond with a buzz cut and i'm getting fed up already with it. No matter how capable of an actor Daniel Craig is.

[JimmyBond]

It's not like it's a matter of speculation, he is contracted for two more with an option for a third. Whether or not he does that sixth film is up in the air, but he has the option to do it.

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

It would be nice if his number of films would equal with Connery, the only Bond who surpasses him.

[seawolfnyy]

I think it's important to keep in mind that Craig could quite possibly be Bond for at least 3 more films. Assuming that (and assuming they'll be out at two year intervals), I doubt anyone right now that would be a viable choice would still be a good chioce in 2020.

Henry Cavill would be 37 in 2020, one year younger than Craig in 2006. So he would still be in. Clive Owen can't he'll be well too old. Sam Worthington and Alex O'Loughlin would be great, but in 2020 both would be 44, much too old. However, let's say for arguments sake that Craig quits after Bond 25 in 2016. Then Bond 26 presumably would release in either 2018 or 2019, making O'Loughlin and Worthington 42 or 43 about Brosnan and Dalton's ages when they started, so that's a possibility. But I would still put my money on Henry Cavill for Bond 7. Remember that Moore, Dalton and Brosnan were all considered earlier than they were cast and all eventually were. So just because Cavill wasn't chosen in 2005, doesn't mean he couldn't be chosen during the next go around.

[bond_azoozbond]

I think it's important to keep in mind that Craig could quite possibly be Bond for at least 3 more films. Assuming that (and assuming they'll be out at two year intervals), I doubt anyone right now that would be a viable choice would still be a good chioce in 2020.

Henry Cavill would be 37 in 2020, one year younger than Craig in 2006. So he would still be in. Clive Owen can't he'll be well too old. Sam Worthington and Alex O'Loughlin would be great, but in 2020 both would be 44, much too old. However, let's say for arguments sake that Craig quits after Bond 25 in 2016. Then Bond 26 presumably would release in either 2018 or 2019, making O'Loughlin and Worthington 42 or 43 about Brosnan and Dalton's ages when they started, so that's a possibility. But I would still put my money on Henry Cavill for Bond 7. Remember that Moore, Dalton and Brosnan were all considered earlier than they were cast and all eventually were. So just because Cavill wasn't chosen in 2005, doesn't mean he couldn't be chosen during the next go around.

The only problem with Cavill he is superman .. he didn't wait for bond after craig .. and if the superman film was a hit then forget the idea ..

[SecretAgentFan]

How about Dan Stevens?

Yes, the guy from "Downton Abbey". Blond again, okay, but that could easily be darkened. He is a very capable actor, on screen and on stage, British, handsome but not too handsome. I could imagine him to be the Roger to Craig´s Connery.

[Pussfeller]

Good lord, Dan Stevens? He's downright homely, and not in a strong, craggy, masculine way like Craig. His features are weak and plain. Worse, he's becoming increasingly puffy around the mouth and neck, which exacerbates his already weak jaw and gives him an unfortunate Beaky Buzzard quality. Even when he's been cleaned up and put in a dinner jacket, he doesn't look suave. He looks like a lily-livered trust-fund brat.

[SecretAgentFan]

Well, what did people say after Moore took over...

And besides, could a "Craig clone" work after Craig? Must it be someone exactly like him - or someone even craggier?

[Iceskater101]

One thing I do miss about Craig is the hair. I mean Brosnan and Dalton had really great hair. Not that Daniel doesn't have good hair, it is just shorter.

[Frankie]

One thing I do miss about Craig is the hair. I mean Brosnan and Dalton had really great hair. Not that Daniel doesn't have good hair, it is just shorter.

For me, there is more than just "one thing." But I agree with you here to the extent that his haircuts for the role are attrocious.

When they hired Craig to play Bond (against many fans's wishes including myself) I saw the very first poster coming out. This one:



Notice the more Bond-like haircut, darkened, complete with darker more pronounced eyebrows. So I said to myself, OK, maybe I can try to live with this choice, hoping that camera angles would correct the woefully inadequate height.

THEN, they pulled a switcheroo and gave me this guy as Bond. ..... (@#$%expletive*&^#!!!)

Edited by Frankie, 12 November 2012 - 05:02 PM.

[seawolfnyy]

One thing I do miss about Craig is the hair. I mean Brosnan and Dalton had really great hair. Not that Daniel doesn't have good hair, it is just shorter.

For me, there is more than just "one thing." But I agree with you here to the extent that his haircuts for the role are attrocious.

When they hired Craig to play Bond (against many fans's wishes including myself) I saw the very first poster coming out. This one:



Notice the more Bond-like haircut, darkened, complete with darker more pronounced eyebrows. So I said to myself, OK, maybe I can try to live with this choice, hoping that camera angles would correct the woefully inadequate height.

THEN, they pulled a switcheroo and gave me this guy as Bond. ..... (@#$%expletive*&^#!!!)

Wow cry more.

[Double-0-Seven]

Woefully inadequate height? Yes, 5'11'' is so much shorter than 6' - it's a crime. Also, anyone who still says he isn't handsome enough - isn't that incredibly subjective? I know plenty of people, even girls my age (20) who think he's incredibly attractive. To each their own.

I suppose I agree that his hair was a little too short in Skyfall, but needless to say the film was so good that I wasn't focused much on his hair.

On topic, I've never seen Henry Cavill act in anything but he definitely fits in the bill looks wise and he'll be a good age when Craig is done. Depending on how he fares with Superman, he may or may not be considered when the time comes. Plus, with the success Craig is having in the role, maybe they might go the route of picking another actor who's a bit unconventional for role.

[tdalton]

That initial publicity still of Craig as Bond was never how Bond was going to look. The photo was taken at some point during Craig's work on the Nicole Kidman sci-fi film THE INVASION, so they couldn't cut his hair for a publicity still.

[Frankie]

Woefully inadequate height? Yes, 5'11'' is so much shorter than 6' - it's a crime. Also, anyone who still says he isn't handsome enough - isn't that incredibly subjective? I know plenty of people, even girls my age (20) who think he's incredibly attractive. To each their own.

5'11'' my butt! Connery (the perfect Bond) was 6'2" and so is the guy next to Craig in this picture. Do you see only 3" difference here? How did the EON PR Kool-Aid taste?

[tdalton]

Woefully inadequate height? Yes, 5'11'' is so much shorter than 6' - it's a crime. Also, anyone who still says he isn't handsome enough - isn't that incredibly subjective? I know plenty of people, even girls my age (20) who think he's incredibly attractive. To each their own.

5'11'' my butt! Connery (the perfect Bond) was 6'2" and so is the guy next to Craig in this picture. Do you see only 3" difference here? How did the EON PR Kool-Aid taste?

It looks to me as though Ifans is standing on the curb in the photo while Craig is standing on the street (or sidewalk) below that.

Edited by tdalton, 12 November 2012 - 08:44 PM.

[Frankie]

That initial publicity still of Craig as Bond was never how Bond was going to look. The photo was taken at some point during Craig's work on the Nicole Kidman sci-fi film THE INVASION, so they couldn't cut his hair for a publicity still.

They should have at least kept that look on him. Looks a lot more appropriate. The buzz cut looks awful and not Bond-like at all.

It looks to me as though Ifans is standing on the curb in the photo while Craig is standing on the street (or sidewalk) below that.

That's why I brought him down to street level in the pic on the right. I kept the original on the left to show there was no hanky panky in the alteration. Just make your judgement based on the pick on the right. Also note that Ifans legs are spread which makes him shorter. I would be real surprised if Craig wass 5'8".

[tdalton]

Even so, Ifans is standing on his toes in the picture (his other foot isn't even touching the ground), and the whole conceit of the photograph is for Ifans to look significantly taller than Craig. I don't doubt that Ifans is taller than Craig (it's quite obvious that he is), but no matter how much the photo is edited in terms of trying to paint a fair picture as to how much shorter than Ifans Craig actually is, it's still going to be a bit deceiving.

In the photo above, Craig doesn't even come up to Ifans' neck. Here, they're a bit closer in terms of height.

Edited by tdalton, 12 November 2012 - 09:04 PM.

[Frankie]

Even so, Ifans is standing on his toes in the picture (his other foot isn't even touching the ground), and the whole conceit of the photograph is for Ifans to look significantly taller than Craig. I don't doubt that Ifans is taller than Craig (it's quite obvious that he is), but no matter how much the photo is edited in terms of trying to paint a fair picture as to how much shorter than Ifans Craig actually is, it's still going to be a bit deceiving.

In the photo above, Craig doesn't even come up to Ifans' neck. Here, they're a bit closer in terms of height.

Make up any excuse as yo want. Ifans' legs in my pic are spread apart. Craig's are not. So even if your "standing on his toes" comment was astute it's only a wash at best against his wide spread stance.

Now in your pic:

1- Ifan's is bowing while Craig is on his talest stance.

2- We don't even see where they are standing. For all we know it could be Craig who is standing on something or sporting platform shoes.

In other words, you guys willingly drink the public relations Kool-Aid that EON has served you when the fact is Craig got the job for two reasons:

1- Bourne was short and blonde and was making money. Hence the whole Bond reboot. Basically, instead of Bond being the industry leaders in the genre they decided to copy someone else for extra profit.

2- Strong rumors that Babs was/is in lust with Daniel Craig. Something that showed itself in the widespread account that she insisted on being present while Craig's nude torture scene was beeing shot.

Edited by Frankie, 12 November 2012 - 09:57 PM.

[tdalton]

Perhaps Craig got the part because he performed his screentest better than the others they brought in.

I haven't been drinking any "public relations Kool-Aid", and contrary to that accusation, I'm not a brainless person (which is the basic meaning behind the term "drinking the kool-aid) that needs the almighty EON to tell me what's good and what isn't. . I've watched Craig in two Bond films and he's performed brilliantly as Bond in both of them, coming closer than probably any of the other actors to portraying the character that Fleming created. For whatever reason he got the job (and I'd say that it's very far from being a "fact" that he got it for the reasons you state), Broccoli and Wilson have been proven to be correct several times over in their choice of Craig for the role.

Edited by tdalton, 12 November 2012 - 10:18 PM.

[Double-0-Seven]

I've never seen a male so concerned with the height of another male to the point where it's almost obsessive that edited pictures are actually being posted to make the point. Does Craig look short in the movies? No, he doesn't. At shortest he's probably 5'10'' (that and 5'11'' seem to be the common heights given for him in biographies), which is still not "woefully" under 6 feet tall.

[The Shark]

1- Bourne was short and blonde and was making money. Hence the whole Bond reboot. Basically, instead of Bond being the industry leaders in the genre they decided to copy someone else for extra profit.

When was Bourne ever blonde?