4014 replies to this topic

[Satorious]

Ray Stevenson - agghh - I'm getting flashback of Punisher: Warzone.

[Odd Jobbies]

Titus Pullo is Bond....

 

There's something very exciting about that prospect, Titus being a truly great character - made great by Stevenson's performance, which reminded me oddly of Gibson's visceral, unpredictable portrayal of Martin Riggs in the first 2 Lethal Weapon movies (3 & 4 changed genre moving towards the Marx Brothers).

 

Because of his huge size he's often cast a the Heavy and in such roles, particularly in poorly scripted roles like the awful Punisher: Warzone, he risk type casting, it being hard to see him tackle anything more refined.

 

But don't be fooled, Stevenson is a gifted actor with far more range than his 'look' would suggest. His turn in Dexter  proved his eye for detail as his character moved successfully from being an intimmidating threat to a sympathetic victim of 'forbidden love' (almost mirroring Dexter's predicament with his step sister). Other good actors have been given this arc in other seasons of Dexter, but never pulled off the sympathy bit.

 

All that said, apart from the fact that he's now too old for Bond, he was never quite right. My reason's completely contradict what i've just said in that his 'look' indeed isn't quite right. He's such an intimidating presence it would be hard to put his Bond in jeopardy.

 

But i'm always happy to see his name in a cast as IMO he always delivers something interesting and, when the part allows, very detailed.

[AMC Hornet]

Alex Price.

 

See Father Brown. Sure, he looks a bit gawky now, but imagine him in a few years. He has a lot of character in his face, and with a bit of bulking up, I can see it.

 

Besides, he's 6'1".

[Odd Jobbies]

Alex Price.

 

See Father Brown. Sure, he looks a bit gawky now, but imagine him in a few years. He has a lot of character in his face, and with a bit of bulking up, I can see it.

 

Besides, he's 6'1".

 

 

 

Might cause some confusion in the briefings  

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 04 May 2014 - 09:44 AM.

[AMC Hornet]

Good catch.

But Q wears glasses, so that should help.

[The Krynoid man]

You mean besides myself?

I think Fassbender would be great. Only trouble is that he might be too old by the time Craig is done.

[Bourbon Woman]

A few more for the dossier... 

 

Jamie Dornan, born 1982 in Northern Ireland.

 

Pros: The right age; reminiscent of a young Roger Moore; definitely knows how to wear a suit.

 

Cons: Maybe a little too pretty and light.

 

 

Ben Aldridge, born 1985 in Devon

 

Pros: Looks pretty much like Fleming's Bond.

 

Cons: Thin resume, with nothing but TV roles; and perhaps too young. 

 

 

Matthew McNulty, born 1982 in Manchester

 

 

Pros: The right age; 10+ years of credits, including prominent roles in theatrical films; has the dark, cruel look.

 

Cons: 5'10" and quite skinny. 

[S K Y F A L L]

Back-to-back films! 1 & 2, 3, then 4 & 5 and 6 & 7. It's not exactly Shakespeare...

[seawolfnyy]

Matt Damon! *looks around suspicially and waits for inevitable and cliched Jason Bourne hate*

[Iceskater101]

Jamie Dornan will never get it because he is going to be Christian Gray in the 50 Shades of Gray film adaptation. He will be too well known after that. 

[Bourbon Woman]

Matt Damon! *looks around suspicially and waits for inevitable and cliched Jason Bourne hate*

 

Mark Wahlberg would be closer to Fleming's vision.

[AMC Hornet]

Mark Wahlberg would be closer to Fleming's vision.

 

Fleming was myopic?

[Odd Jobbies]

 

Mark Wahlberg would be closer to Fleming's vision.

 

Fleming was myopic?

 

Apparently...

[Orion]

I stand by Tom Hardy - though do people think he'd be too known now?

[The Krynoid man]

Matt Damon! *looks around suspicially and waits for inevitable and cliched Jason Bourne hate*

http://m.youtube.com...h?v=BUa5oHgYV2k

Edited by The Krynoid man, 18 May 2014 - 07:00 PM.

[Guy Haines]

I was going to start a new topic on this question, but I might as well add to this thread. My question to members is: do you feel anticipation or a bit apprehensive when a new Bond actor is announced? Allow me to expand on this.

 

George Lazenby was my first Bond, but I watched him at an age when it didn't occur to me that other actors could be measured against one performance. Then I caught up with the Sean Connery movies and he became Bond for me, and still is. When Roger Moore was announced as  his successor, I didn't worry - he'd been such an obvious choice and went on to prove it in his Bond films. I never objected to Moore's performance, but I wasn't always thrilled with the direction some - but by no means all - of his Bond films took.

 

Which, oddly enough, made me apprehensive when he stood down. What would his replacement be like? Timothy Dalton said he would be taking Bond "back to basics", but the stills showing him riding a "magic carpet" suggested otherwise. In the end I needn't have worried - the director and editor sensibly cut that scene and others that didn't fit Dalton's take on Bond, and he did what he promised - a Bond closer to Fleming's creation.

 

Next came Pierce Brosnan. I have to say that initially my heart sank when he was announced. Too lightweight, I thought. Another one who said he would stay true to Bond, but would he? In the end, again, I needn't have worried - he was a little lighter than Dalton but remained true to Bond as I saw him.

 

Finally we had Daniel Craig. And here, for the first time in years, I anticipated a new Bond without feeling apprehensive. Everything I'd heard about him, and the articles about Casino Royale, suggested a Bond and a Bond film I'd enjoy watching as much as I did those Connery movies I watched as a kid. And it turned out that way.

 

I hope Daniel Craig is around for a while yet - certainly another couple of movies. But will I feel a sense of excitement or apprehension about "Bond 7"? I wonder. And I wonder if other members have felt like me in the past, and will do so when Craig leaves the role, as in the end he must.

[Odd Jobbies]

Haines, good question.

 

Moore was my first. He was perfect for the direction they went in the mid 70s, but i think MR jumped the shark (i love the movie, but it turned motif into parody). After that it was always anticipation for me. Early 80's i wanted Lewis Collins, James Brolin, or Ian Ogilvy (hey, i was 13).

 

There was a spread in a tabloid newspaper at the time about these candidates, as well as several others. I remember there was some bloke i'd never heard of called Pierce Brosnan, illustrated with a pic of him walikng along a beach topless, hairy chest and all that stuff. Thought he looked more like a model than an actor and without having seen him in anything i wasn't rooting for him. Then Remington Steel aired in the UK and he quickly became my first choice (though i think Collins could've been great in a grittier era, like now).

 

Sadly Moore ended up doing another 2 movies - definitely 2 too many (no disrespect, he was great in his day). So my anticipation went sour.

 

Dalton, IMO was let down by producers and crew that were stuck in their ways - if he'd been given the service that Craig has had he'd doubtless had another 3 or 4 good movies in him. So, sadly for Dalton it was again anticipation when his departure was announced - and jubilation at finally getting Brosnan.

 

GE was even better than i expected, but things quickly turned south and before you knew it motif had been replaced by parody once again. I guess Eon/Purvis & Wade thought they were playing to Brosnan's comedic strengths, but i'm sure if they'd trusted him he could've turned in a fine dramatic performance, which movies like The Matador and Seraphim Falls have shown he's capable of.

 

But after the fiasco that was the third act of DAD i think most of us anticipated the next Bond in the hope that a change would get the franchise out of its downward spiral. Although in retrospect, and IMO, changing writers was probably just as important as the brave selection of Craig in changing Bond's fortunes (i stress that's 'critical' fortunes, since i believe it's finances were pretty good throughout Brosnan's era).

 

I'd been suggesting Craig as Bond since seeing him in Love Is The Devil in 1998 - a suggestion that was always met with either a blank stare, or outrage. So when it was revealed that he was in the mix i was anticipating with relish.

 

 

Anticipation  and  Apprehension  of what's coming next always depends upon what we've got now.

 

And so... This is the first time i've ever felt apprehensive about the next Bond

 

Craig is the best since Connery. I'd even say that in some respects he's better, but that has much to do with the high quality of script and direction he's been afforded in the main.

 

The best two candidates are too old (Clive Owen & Fassbender). I'm worried that they'll go with a pretty boy to make it feel fresh and different to Craig, but there's none i can think of with the acting chops (IMO Henry Cavill is no match for Craig - maybe U.N.C.L.E will change that opinion, but since it's a guy ritchie movie i seriously doubt it).

 

Unless a new contender suddenly appears on the scene (like Brosnan did in the early 80s), we may be in trouble.

 

I'd be very happy if i thought that Tom Hardy really might take over, but taking on such a type casting role when you're as good and as busy an actor as he is sounds like madness. He's no doubt looking forward to his first (of many) Oscars when the right role turns up. Picking Bond might mean that right role goes to someone else.

 

And it has to happen in the not too distant future if he's to have enough mileage left in him for the role.

 

But, it seemed like Brosnan had missed the boat and yet he got his chance. It seemed like suggesting Craig to my friends in the 90's was lunacy, yet he's now a lauded Bond. So who knows, maybe Hardy will want Bond more than an Oscar, or he'll get his Oscar before Craig leaves, or he's nuts enoogh to think he can get an Oscar while playing Bond, or heck, even for playing Bond. If anyone could i think Hardy's the man.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 29 May 2014 - 08:59 AM.

[Guy Haines]

I know what you mean about apprehension once Daniel Craig has left. However, I think looking at the returns - critical and financial - of his films so far, the producers wouldn't want to ruin a good thing by changing direction too far once "Bond 7" is in place, whoever he might be. Certainly that actor would be wise to be himself rather than imitate some previous Bond ("Sean was Sean and you are you", Roger Moore was advised, allegedly) but I'd be surprised if there will be a radical change of direction post Craig.

 

(On the other hand, there might well have been a reversion back to a "tried and tested" approach had Craig's first movie bombed at the box office - a situation we didn't have to contemplate, fortunately!)

[The Krynoid man]

Does anyone else think James McAvoy might be a good choice?

[Bourbon Woman]

I know what you mean about apprehension once Daniel Craig has left. However, I think looking at the returns - critical and financial - of his films so far, the producers wouldn't want to ruin a good thing by changing direction too far once "Bond 7" is in place, whoever he might be. Certainly that actor would be wise to be himself rather than imitate some previous Bond ("Sean was Sean and you are you", Roger Moore was advised, allegedly) but I'd be surprised if there will be a radical change of direction post Craig.

 

(On the other hand, there might well have been a reversion back to a "tried and tested" approach had Craig's first movie bombed at the box office - a situation we didn't have to contemplate, fortunately!)

 

I don't worry about Craig's successor. One of the best things Craig has done is to broaden people's horizons about who Bond is, what he looks like, and what kind of actor can play him. The next actor will benefit from this broad-mindedness. If he's another unconventional choice, say a redhead or non-British, people will say, "Give him a chance. Craig was a left-field choice, and he turned out great." On the other hand, if the next actor is a very conventional pick -- tall, dark, handsome, and British, people will respond favorably. They'll say, "Classic Bond is back." Either way, the next actor will be in a more comfortable position than Craig occupied in 2005. I trust the producers not to screw up and cast a lightweight pretty boy who can't act. Whoever succeeds Craig will be charismatic and well-vetted. 

[Yellow Pinky]

Does anyone else think James McAvoy might be a good choice?

 At only 5'7" tall, I'd say it's going to be a near impossibility for him to ever play Bond.

[dtuba]

After watching The Americans season 2, I'm going to once again contradict myself and declare that Matthew Rhys would make a great Bond.

[paulcusack]

im going for the part of James Bond when Craig leaves my names paul cusack 

[AMC Hornet]

Is that where you work?

[glidrose]

Here's a crazy theory... What if the producers decide to take a hiatus after Craig leaves? They don't need the money. Maybe do non-Bond projects? Or "Young Bond" adaptations featuring modern animation techniques?

[Bourbon Woman]

Perhaps a gritty reboot of Call Me Bwana.

[tdalton]

EON would be absolutely foolish to take an extended hiatus following Bond 25.  They've managed to raise the bar for the franchise to the point where it's not only at its highest level of commercial success, but it's also at its highest level of critical success, which has garnered it a few Oscars, with the franchise also actually making the conversation for some of the major awards.  

 

They should keep riding that momentum as long as they can.  After Craig, they'll be able to cast the net wider for the next Bond, as those who might have otherwise scoffed at the idea of playing Bond might give it another look.  Pus, they will still have the ability to attract better actors for the supporting parts as well as better talent behind the camera.  Their ability to do that probably diminishes if they just put the franchise on the back burner for an extended period and go off and do something else.

[SecretAgentFan]

Absolutely.  The three-year rhythm will probably stay, unfortunately, but in an age where franchises and established brands are the only elements that are valued by people who green light productions, EON and SONY will continue to milk their cash cow.

 

Also, I do believe that after Craig has done two more films, totaling 5 Bonds, the next generation will hunger for a new Bond and grow tired of Craig.  Happened to every Bond actor.

[tdalton]

They may tire of him, but I'd love to see Craig continue on past Bond 25, even if that's unlikely.  I'll take Craig over any of the other supposed contenders out there at the moment.  I think the actor I'd be willing to see in a Bond film right now other than Craig would be for them to bring Dalton back for a Never Say Never Again-type of one-off, coming-out-of-retirement film.  That aside, Craig is by far the best fit for the role at the moment, and most likely will continue to be for several years more to come.

[SecretAgentFan]

I agree.  Right now, Craig really is the only actor I can think of who can do Bond justice.

 

But audiences change quickly, and the older Craig gets the louder people/studios/marketing experts/journalists will cry for a rejuvenation.

 

As for a one-off with Dalton - yeah, that would be very interesting.  But the biggest chance at that would be if Dalton got a cable series about a "retired" spy.  Or a movie like Brosnan obviously has pulled off with "November Man".