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
Well, he didn't exactly make a great career move - that cannot have been the only movie job offer Dornan got after The Fall...
Regardless, Dornan will make the sequels and will probably be associated with this role (at least in the eyes of those outside the UK) for some time as you noted.
A pity, because I thought he had potential when I watched the Fall.
Anyone think he could do a decent villain, though? I'd like to see a main villain with a physical presence go up against Bond, in the style of Sean Bean in GoldenEye.
The film wasn't even soft core porn that's how tame it was.
You should check out the film headhunters he was pretty good in that. On a side note EoN approached the director of that film to direct what was Bond 24 at the time.
Morten Tyldum, Oscar nominated for The Imitation Game.
Um, ok... how?
I thought I hadn't seen him in anything except that boring trailer, but apparently I just saw him a couple of days ago in his first movie role in Marie Antoinette. So he was the guy whom all the women in the movie found irresistible for some unknown reason. I didn't know it was him when watching it.
Correct, sir.
Because of this @Tuulia
1. It's my understanding that the novels are geared to women. I had never heard of these until the movie started getting hyped, but here is some interesting context I found (the comments about women reading it on London's tube in the 3rd article/link is particularly noted). I don't know any men who have read these books (at least none who will admit to it):
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/nyregion/fifty-shades-of-grey-draws-in-the-curious-as-well-as-the-books-fans.html?_r=0
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/jul/06/why-women-love-fifty-shades-grey
http://elitedaily.com/dating/sex/female-attraction-dominant-men/
2. It was released on Valentines Day (traditionally an important day for women - at least where I come from):
3. Approx 68% of viewers were female (a pretty high %):
http://www.vogue.com/10935791/fifty-shades-of-grey-box-office-records-tweets/
A quote from the first article link above:
"At some New York City theaters, men appeared to be outnumbered about 10 to 1, though Universal Pictures, which released the film, said 32 percent of the North American audience was male."
4. the trailer appeared (at least to me) to be sort of from a female point of view (at least, she appeared to be the protagonist), with the male being incidental eye candy (and perhaps a villain). At least that was my perception from the trailer I saw. Also, Dornan's shirt was off a lot of the time in the trailer (giving it a somewhat Fabio'esque context for me)
Ok, fair enough. I don't personally know any women, either, who have read the books (or seen the movie for that matter). Valentine's Day release... I see, I was probably a grown-up before I even learned about such a day even existing, and being quite a big deal somewhere. It's been imported since then, but, well...
I barely remember the trailer, so I'll take your word for it. I don't remember Dornan's shirt being off - or on, either. I mostly remember thinking something along the lines of "isn't this movie supposed to be about sex, so why is it totally unsexy then, with such unsexy people in it?" I'm sorry I don't get the Fabio reference (I assume I should, but nothing comes to mind), so I don't know what context you're referring to. I do understand Dornan is supposed to be eye candy for women, but his type, the-obviously-supposed-to-be-eye-candy-type who do the obviously-eye-candy-roles just tend to make me recoil more than anything... Well, drifting badly off topic here already, so I guess I better stfu now. :)
The Fabio thing is a reference to Fabio Lanzoni, a male model who was known to adorn covers of romance novels geared to women shirtless. When I saw Dornan parading around topless in his jeans in the trailer while that awful song played in the background I just felt it was geared to someone other than a hot blooded male viewer.
I'm a girl who much prefers Dornan to the guy from Twilight.
I see your point. As a woman I see nothing interesting there, either, and frankly am not pleased about the idea that I'm presumably supposed to. If a guy isn't attractive with his shirt on, he won't be with it off, either (actually probably even less then, actually). Not to me, anyway. There's too much reliance on physical features anyway, in my opinion, in a tic-a-box on body parts and facial features and so on and as a result personality gets ignored.
It's obviously very much a personal opinion, always. I'm sure some women find Dornan more attractive than Craig, for instance. If one doesn't find someone attractive at all then nothing helps. And if one really does, then nothing really helps, either - just in a different way. :))
I haven't seen Twilight (no interest at all), so I don't know who people are talking about from it.
The guy from twilight is apparently very short, so I actually doubt that women would prefer him to Dornan, but I see your point.
That is a rumor I believe 100%. If I were to put money on a new Bond if Craig is out after SP, it would be Charlie Hunnam. He is a bit like Craig 2. Very similar career trajectories, only Hunnam is taller and more conventionally handsome, when he cleans up and still relatively young for Bond at 35. His film career is just starting to take off, and he has a strong tv background, and unlike Cavill, he's not saddled with other franchises and he's a proven actor.
I wouldn't want the next Bond to be Craig 2. DC has done his thing. They should make a concerted effort to find someone closer to the Bond of the novels next time out. Complete with facial scar.
Not going to happen, If Craig proven anything it is braking the mould reignites the franchise. Going back to the books is not possible without remaking films already done, and that sir is the death of a franchise. Evolution, I also think Hunnam would be able to put his own twist on it. He is looking better with age from when he did Sons of Anarchy. I think if the rumour is correct he would be a good choice. Interesting as well that even though he has been linked in the past he has never commented on it. Maybe he knows the golden rule that if you say you want it in the media you wont even be considered.
Most recent pic at CK fashion show last week. Think he would need to tone down the muscle building a little for the role.
I don't get your logic. Why would you have to remake films? I'm suggesting they get the modern day equivalent of the man Fleming described. The scar, the blue-grey eyes, the comma of black hair, the cruel mouth...
I don't see why Hunnam stands out above anyone else, personally. He just appears, to me, to be a poor man's Craig.
Why we had parts of that in Connery, Lazenby, Dalton and Brosnan. Craig was something new and it showed you might not look like how Fleming envisaged the charchter to be an amazing Bond, just good acting skills. I see no point in casting someone based on a drawing Fleming made of a man from his time period with slicked comb hair. Bond needs to keep evolving. I love Flemings novels but Bond is a case of the creation becoming bigger than the creator. Although we should respect Felmings work and that it his creation It should be open for interpretation and modernisation and not stuck on how one old man thought how another old man should look when he wrote a book written in 1952. I wouldnt welcome a period Bond film going back to that time, I wouldnt welcome hiring the next Bond actor based on Flemings drawing rather than acting ability.
I'm not suggesting they hire based on 'looks', over 'ability'. I'm suggesting that I'd like to see Bond return to being a cruel looking motherf***** and the most effortlessly stylish, suave and attractive man in the room. If they should mix anything up it should be the cinematic template, not the character.
That's exactly it. What I also like about Hunnam is he comes off modestly in interviews. Honestly I think Elba has given more interviews where he talks about playing Bond than Craig has in his last nine years as Bond.