It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I agree he wasn't very threatening bad guy but I think it was the character that was the problem rather than him. Moon was a petulant kid wasn't he, lashing out at his dad, and wrapped up in a smug Bond impression as Graves. I'm not a massive fan of the character but I think Stephens actually played it very well, and he does have a few entertaining pantomime villain moments ("oh look, parachutes for both of us, whoops!").
I always thought after seeing him as Graves that he would have been too posh and poncey to play Bond. But then I saw more of him as an actor and realised that's just how the character was. After seeing him as a tough pirate captain in Black Sails and listening to him as Bond in the audio plays I think Stephens could have actually been a great choice a few years ago.
Sounds like Cavill needs to be more choosy about whom he associates with if this is an example of the backbite and workplace gossip he receives from those that know him. I'm not sure I'd agree that Cavill is a poor actor. Daisy Ridley, now that's a poor actor (or actress if you prefer). Her delivery is so stiff and unconvincing it's as if she were reading it from an autocue. Cavill certainly isn't that bad. Not once have I thought: That was a poor delivery. Bring on Daniel Day-Lewis to show him how it should be done.
Also, I'm not sure that one needs to be a "great actor" to be Bond. An accomplished actor is enough. Dalton was said to be a very good actor but there's a lot of Bond fans (and critics alike) that think he was guilty of too much scenery-chewing. Of course, I expect a certain crowd to declare that Craig has now changed all of that and that the bar has now been raised. Yes, perhaps, but only if the producers want to continue down the "emo route" with deep sensitivity playing a key role in Bond's personal make-up. Connery, too, set the bar incredibly high but that didn't stop the producers altering course and going with un-Connery type actors to play 007 afterwards. The same will no doubt happen after Craig has gone. To have a Craig-clone could prove a terrible mistake as audiences might be wanting something different by then.
I've mentioned this before, but in my opinion 'screen Bond' is about presence, self confidence, swagger, voice projection, authority and authenticity. In other words, comfort in one's own skin.
Most of the time the actor is in the scene, and so he must command it. Dominate it. That, to a large degree, cannot be acted. One either has it, or one doesn't.
Now, it's possible to create scripts that accommodate 'actors' and give them something to delve into. In this instance, they rise to the occasion and become interesting and fascinating to watch as they practice their craft. Such was the case with Craig in CR. The script was excellent and there were plenty of moments for him to do his thing. Since then the opportunities have been more limited.
None of this is required however. It's a matter of what direction they want to take going forward. That will determine who they cast. If history is any indication, they will go for an entirely different sort post-Craig. Particularly given his run has been so long and of a certain flavour.
+1 I always said that casting Bond is only partly about acting ability. It is much more important to find someone with a natural coolness. Someone that has a certain style and confidence about him, that makes you immediately look up to him.
You cannot 'act' that if you don't have it. No matter how hard you try. And then it will only looked forced. I think Lazenby taught us that lesson decades ago. Dude was selected out of hundreds of 'actors' for a reason with not one day of acting experience himself.
Yes that is a big Problem.
The film industry has completely changed. Back in the golden age they were looking for characters, good looking guys with the it-factor.
The concept of 'acting' was fairly new anyway. Now you have hundreds of Drama schools all over the world where anybody can get a degree in acting. Which is all that matters nowadays.
That is one of the reasons why I was very positively suprised when I learned that Aidan Turner started acting very late. He never cared for that career in the begining, only gave it a shot more or less by accident. And he has reached a certain Level of success which shows that he is a natural.
I know some of you guys are so/so on him, but i did some Research on him and so far he is my favorite choice.
I think he has the right attitude for the job.
Yes, i guess in the end the audition will matter the most. All we can do is try to predict who would do good in it or who would even be considered for it at all.
But on the topic of audition, keep in mind that they are still doing basically the same couple scenes that they always did, the one from FRWL and some action stuff. Its a fairly simple process. Again i think they are just looking for the right attitude, presence.
It's really a good scene to base an audition around. It's a scene that showed the charisma of Connery very well, and one that probably reveals the "Bond charisma" an actor is capable of bringing to the role - or not.
I know The Hobbit keeps on being brought up by some here as some sort of minus but let's not forget that Sean Connery also appeared in Darby O'Gill and the Little People before becoming James Bond. A film that was released as a double feature with a Donald Duck cartoon called Donald in Mathmagic Land, but no one held that against him. I'm sure had people wanted to make disparaging remarks about the suitability of Connery for the role then there was plenty of lousy movies he'd appeared in before Bond that could've been used as a minus as well, including On the Fiddle.
I'll bet that the seduction scene is the one that is most difficult to nail.
Thats exactly where i was hooked on him as well. I have only Seen a couple episodes though. Haven't gotten the whole season yet. Maybe i should.
Also i loved his extremely calm and cool demeanor in Then there were none. I love the whole series but for me he steals the show.
I think he has what it takes for the job.
And he seems the least needy for the role atm, which is a smart move. Thats the last thing you should come across as.
Look at poor Craig, they had to convince him a full year lol
Exactly, and I think that, again, either you have it or you don't. No amount of acting technique will save your ass in that scene. You have to be a natural. It's what matters most.
Regarding the famous FRWL scene: it never ceases to impress me. Both Connery and Bianchi are absolutely superb in it. One of the best.
Maybe even a Turner would be unwilling after a gruelling, pain intensive production. You forget, if you glamour up your favourites, what they would be after 10 year plus. Of course now, they are after the fame, the money (which DC was not from the beginning) but let them have four of those monsters behind them and ask again. Just saying.
This scene wasn't it - on the train?
I think he was written that way in None, his character was more of a likeable villain really.
In my opinion, Bond should always have a little bit of an unlikeable or 'edgy' quality about him. You root for him of course, but there is always an Element of questionable morals about him.
Like the exchange in CR,
"doesn't it bother you killing all those people?"
"I wouldn't be very good at my job if it did"
There is also a genius conversation that Turner has in ATTWN with a girl that went something like this (from what i remember):
"did you really kill all those people?"
"yes"
"but why?!"
"I don't know it seemd like a good idea at that time"
Always has me cracking up lol.
For that reason alone i do not want a bland pretty Boy in the role. I want someone who can make me believe that he has seen and done some very questionable things in his life.
Which is only natural in his profession.
Wait, you make it Sound like I was trashing Craig. I was not. I have nothing but respect for the guy, and he is close to becoming my favorite Bond actor.
Whatever the motivations for an actor are, to take on Bond, is purely up to them and none of my Business until they decide to Talk about it openly.
I just said that Turner plays it very close to the chest, instead of like a dog chasing a frisbee everytime someone mentions the role to him. Others do just that.
In that case it's ok then.
I agree on your point that Bond must have a slightly unlikeable and edgy quality to him. I think it's essential that he's a bit of a rogue. However it mustn't descend into nastiness, and that's a fine line. As an example, I personally think Craig crossed that line several times in SP. By the end of it I couldn't care less if he lived or died, lost or won. He just came across as a prick, first in M's office, then at the health club where he snarled at Ms. Swann and elsewhere.
At the end of the day, the actor must still appear sympathetic while playing Bond for who he is.
As for Turner - its certainly wise to not appear too desperate.
Oh ok, you thought I was talking about Spectre. I was talking about Casino Royale.
It took them one year, if not more, from the first meeting with Craig where he definitly said NO to them, until the Contract was signed.
He didn't wanna do it until he saw the Script, which must have been still in production on their first meeting. After that it Clicked for him.
Here is the scene (in very poor quality)
I agree with you. Some of those who want Craig to move on are like vultures, with their sanctimonious diatribes. If you want him to move on, not a problem, just say it rather than misrepresenting the bloke, or cherry picking out of context morsels, like a hack journalist.