47 replies to this topic

[Pussfeller]

He's a good long-term prospect, but I would stay away from Serkis in the immediate future, just because the last several Bond villains have been snivelling pasty little shrimpy guys who don't pose a physical threat. In fact, every male villain since Trevelyan has been a diminutive weaselly type. This has made Bond seem like a big meathead by comparison. One of the best things about Bardem's casting is that it broke this trend. I can actually imagine Bardem posing a physical threat to Craig.

[JB007YH]

Great observation pussfeller. Bond needs some physical competition. Robert Shaw was great because he topped Connery to an extent in FRWL. Bond needs a guy like that to keep him honest. The great thing about James Bond in my opinion is that he knows his strengths. If he fights a man with lesser or equal strength to himself he can use his brawn to overpower and win. If he fights a bigger man its him using his wits plus his physical talents to reign supreme. Bond is a problem solver in my book. He analyzes every situation and knows how to use his talents to come out on top.

[Vauxhall]

He looks loke Nigel Smallfawcet!!!

You must give me the name of your occulist.

[Captain Tightpants]

He's a good long-term prospect, but I would stay away from Serkis in the immediate future, just because the last several Bond villains have been snivelling pasty little shrimpy guys who don't pose a physical threat. In fact, every male villain since Trevelyan has been a diminutive weaselly type. This has made Bond seem like a big meathead by comparison. One of the best things about Bardem's casting is that it broke this trend. I can actually imagine Bardem posing a physical threat to Craig.

When I suggested Serkis, I never thought of him as the primary villain, but more of a henchman. Maybe an interrogator for Robert Redford.

A couple of years ago, I went to a naturopath for some reason or another that escapes my memory. She did half a dozen different procedures on me, and I found them to be fascinating, but also kind of unsettling. Like iridology, studying changes in the patterns and colours of my iris as a diagnostic technique. I remember the last test involved holding onto two metal cylinders that were connected to a machine ful of vials, and the naturopath moved all the vials around in this grid-like pattern on the face of the machine, trying to read my body's conductivity or something. None of it actually did anything, but a lot of the tests worked on a similar principal, reading minute changes in the body to come to a conclusion. At the time, I wodnered if it could work like a polygraph, then forgot about it. I've only jsut remembered now.

So I could see Serkis as a villain who uses naturopathic techniques to carry out interrogations, because he believes torture is ineffective; anyone who is tortured will ultimately confess to anything to make it stop. But naturopathy is compeltely non-invasive, and it's unsettling to experience.

[SecretAgentFan]

... especially on one´s wallet, I presume.

[Captain Tightpants]

Nah, it was covered by my health insurer. Weird, I know.

[univex]

He's a good long-term prospect, but I would stay away from Serkis in the immediate future, just because the last several Bond villains have been snivelling pasty little shrimpy guys who don't pose a physical threat. In fact, every male villain since Trevelyan has been a diminutive weaselly type. This has made Bond seem like a big meathead by comparison. One of the best things about Bardem's casting is that it broke this trend. I can actually imagine Bardem posing a physical threat to Craig.

When I suggested Serkis, I never thought of him as the primary villain, but more of a henchman. Maybe an interrogator for Robert Redford.

A couple of years ago, I went to a naturopath for some reason or another that escapes my memory. She did half a dozen different procedures on me, and I found them to be fascinating, but also kind of unsettling. Like iridology, studying changes in the patterns and colours of my iris as a diagnostic technique. I remember the last test involved holding onto two metal cylinders that were connected to a machine ful of vials, and the naturopath moved all the vials around in this grid-like pattern on the face of the machine, trying to read my body's conductivity or something. None of it actually did anything, but a lot of the tests worked on a similar principal, reading minute changes in the body to come to a conclusion. At the time, I wodnered if it could work like a polygraph, then forgot about it. I've only jsut remembered now.

So I could see Serkis as a villain who uses naturopathic techniques to carry out interrogations, because he believes torture is ineffective; anyone who is tortured will ultimately confess to anything to make it stop. But naturopathy is compeltely non-invasive, and it's unsettling to experience.

That´s actually quite brilliant! An anti torture interrogator of sorts.

[Captain Tightpants]

Well, I think it would be tricky to pull off. If a character is being tortured, then there are stakes to play for in the film. If they're not being tortured, there is no sense of danger to them. Maybe if Serkis interrogated Bond with iridology - looking at changes in the eye, the one thing Bond cannot physically see - and held a gun to someone's head on pain of lying, there would be something at stake.

[BourneAgainBond]

i think Serkis would make a good villain for a Johnny English film

i know it would never happen but since quantum i thought it might be cool if they brought back colin salmon as charles robinson but as a villain and traitor working for quantum since i assume they will never bring him back away (maybe one day they'll bring the character back but not for a while i would guess)

[thecasinoroyale]

For a few years now, I've always thought about if they brought back Jaws as a character for Craig's Bond to go up against, that Liev Schreiber would be a good actor for that, or at least an imposing villain like Red Grant or Tee-Hee.

A bit of muscle to go up against Bond and pose a good threat, but not over-acted as a manical tree-trunk, like I thought Stamper was at times in 'Tomorrow Never Dies'.

[Captain Tightpants]

I don't know about Schreiber - he's kind of an all-purpose bad guy. Whether he's John Clark in THE SUM OF ALL FEARS or Sabretooth in X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE, he is fairly typecast in the role of being the muscle. He actually reminds me of the torturer in LETHAL WEAPON, who shows up as one of the Germans in DIE HARD: everywhere you look, you see him in the villainous role. So I think that having him as a henchman in a Red Grant-like role would be more of the same.

[thecasinoroyale]

He impressed me actually in SALT, that was quite good, again he was the bad-guy, but carried it off really well, quite a bit of intellect there rather than just loud, proud shooting etc.

[Captain Tightpants]

But the problem is that he's always the bad guy.

[Pussfeller]

In that case, he'd be an interesting choice for an anti-ally, like Colombo or Draco, who begins the film as an apparent adversary, but eventually joins forces with Bond to defeat a nastier foe.

[Captain Tightpants]

If that were the case, I could see him using the alias "Rene Mathis" to demonstrate to Bond that he can be trusted.

But I still think he's all wrong for Bond.

[Guy Haines]

I don't know about Schreiber - he's kind of an all-purpose bad guy. Whether he's John Clark in THE SUM OF ALL FEARS or Sabretooth in X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE, he is fairly typecast in the role of being the muscle. He actually reminds me of the torturer in LETHAL WEAPON, who shows up as one of the Germans in DIE HARD: everywhere you look, you see him in the villainous role. So I think that having him as a henchman in a Red Grant-like role would be more of the same.

I think there's more to Liev Schreiber than all purpose villain. Did you see him in the remake of "The Manchurian Candidate"? He played a rather complex, disturbed man running for US Vice President, completely manipulated by his mother and her cronies even though he thinks he isn't. A much more sympathetic portrayal than that of Laurence Harvey in the equivalent role in the original movie.

I think he would make for an interesting Bond adversary, not as a henchman but as lead villain.

[Miles Miservy]

4. Robert Redford- He's a likable actor who would nail the philanthropist/american businessman but has the acting chops to really put a twist on his character and be venomously evil. I think he'd be great to add to the franchise.

Now that would be interesting.

Inspired idea.

Can't see Robert Redford as a Bond villain (or ANY villain for that matter).

[The Shark]

4. Robert Redford- He's a likable actor who would nail the philanthropist/american businessman but has the acting chops to really put a twist on his character and be venomously evil. I think he'd be great to add to the franchise.

Now that would be interesting.

Inspired idea.

Can't see Robert Redford as a Bond villain (or ANY villain for that matter).

That's why it's inspired.