Who should/could be a Bond actor?

17137147167187191178

Comments

  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    Was Iain Glen too villain to be consired in the past?
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Tom Hiddleston from villain to hero? He remind's me little bit of Roger Moore.

    Yes, certainly in ‘The Night Manager’ with a hint of Daniel Craig.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    mtm wrote: »
    Dalton was in his element in the serious, dramatic scenes, but never seemed relaxed, which meant that the lighter scenes didn't work for him so well.

    And I think that's why in general his Bond didn't hit the mark for people: for better or worse Bond has moved beyond Fleming and the audience expect certain things from 007, and one of those is suaveness and cool and confidence. And by being on edge and slightly frantic, Dalton seemed on the edge of nervousness, and that's not the swaggering, super-cool Bond people expect. Bond is in control. Now, he doesn't have to be that all the time: even Moore's Bond got scared and rattled from time to time, but you do need a sense that in general Bond thinks he's got the biggest balls in the room. Most of the moments we love and which make us smile from the Bond films involve him being cool and swaggery. Would Dalton's Bond have popped that grape into his mouth in Derval's room in Thunderball?

    Craig went serious with his Bond, but his Bond had the huge self-belief that Dalton's Bond missed- and CR even made us question whether his huge self-confidence was a fault of his character and misplaced which was a brave place to go, but it was crucially still there, so he still felt like James Bond 007 next to Connery and Moore.
    Now it may well be that John Glen is to blame for Dalton's Bond missing that swagger as a director is supposed to guide the performances, but nevertheless I think it's an aspect which really damaged his portrayal.

    I’m not going to disagree with anything above, as it’s all true IMO. That is why Connery is the best Bond IMO.

    But, the box office results showed that Dalton was popular with the British audience, it’s with the US audience that he failed to gain a following. For all the reasons you list above.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Was Iain Glen too villain to be consired in the past?

    I too have thought about him as a decent Bond candidate.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited September 2020 Posts: 5,131
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Was Iain Glen too villain to be consired in the past?

    I too have thought about him as a decent Bond candidate.

    When he was young, I see what you mean.

    When he’s older, he would make a good M too.

    Great English accent and voice.

    This is one of Roger Moore’s major strength’s, as well as being a master class actor in terms of screen presence and star quality.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Dalton was in his element in the serious, dramatic scenes, but never seemed relaxed, which meant that the lighter scenes didn't work for him so well.

    And I think that's why in general his Bond didn't hit the mark for people: for better or worse Bond has moved beyond Fleming and the audience expect certain things from 007, and one of those is suaveness and cool and confidence. And by being on edge and slightly frantic, Dalton seemed on the edge of nervousness, and that's not the swaggering, super-cool Bond people expect. Bond is in control. Now, he doesn't have to be that all the time: even Moore's Bond got scared and rattled from time to time, but you do need a sense that in general Bond thinks he's got the biggest balls in the room. Most of the moments we love and which make us smile from the Bond films involve him being cool and swaggery. Would Dalton's Bond have popped that grape into his mouth in Derval's room in Thunderball?

    Craig went serious with his Bond, but his Bond had the huge self-belief that Dalton's Bond missed- and CR even made us question whether his huge self-confidence was a fault of his character and misplaced which was a brave place to go, but it was crucially still there, so he still felt like James Bond 007 next to Connery and Moore.
    Now it may well be that John Glen is to blame for Dalton's Bond missing that swagger as a director is supposed to guide the performances, but nevertheless I think it's an aspect which really damaged his portrayal.

    I’m not going to disagree with anything above, as it’s all true IMO. That is why Connery is the best Bond IMO.

    But, the box office results showed that Dalton was popular with the British audience, it’s with the US audience that he failed to gain a following. For all the reasons you list above.

    Yeah no Bond film has yet been a disaster, it's all relative. Some are just bigger hits than others.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Was Iain Glen too villain to be consired in the past?

    I too have thought about him as a decent Bond candidate.

    When he was young, I see what you mean.

    When he’s older, he would make a good M too.

    Great English accent and voice.

    This is one of Roger Moore’s major strength’s, as well as being a master class actor in terms of screen presence and star quality.

    I'm not sure I've heard him do an English accent?
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Dalton was in his element in the serious, dramatic scenes, but never seemed relaxed, which meant that the lighter scenes didn't work for him so well.

    And I think that's why in general his Bond didn't hit the mark for people: for better or worse Bond has moved beyond Fleming and the audience expect certain things from 007, and one of those is suaveness and cool and confidence. And by being on edge and slightly frantic, Dalton seemed on the edge of nervousness, and that's not the swaggering, super-cool Bond people expect. Bond is in control. Now, he doesn't have to be that all the time: even Moore's Bond got scared and rattled from time to time, but you do need a sense that in general Bond thinks he's got the biggest balls in the room. Most of the moments we love and which make us smile from the Bond films involve him being cool and swaggery. Would Dalton's Bond have popped that grape into his mouth in Derval's room in Thunderball?

    Craig went serious with his Bond, but his Bond had the huge self-belief that Dalton's Bond missed- and CR even made us question whether his huge self-confidence was a fault of his character and misplaced which was a brave place to go, but it was crucially still there, so he still felt like James Bond 007 next to Connery and Moore.
    Now it may well be that John Glen is to blame for Dalton's Bond missing that swagger as a director is supposed to guide the performances, but nevertheless I think it's an aspect which really damaged his portrayal.

    I’m not going to disagree with anything above, as it’s all true IMO. That is why Connery is the best Bond IMO.

    But, the box office results showed that Dalton was popular with the British audience, it’s with the US audience that he failed to gain a following. For all the reasons you list above.

    Yeah no Bond film has yet been a disaster, it's all relative. Some are just bigger hits than others.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Was Iain Glen too villain to be consired in the past?

    I too have thought about him as a decent Bond candidate.

    When he was young, I see what you mean.

    When he’s older, he would make a good M too.

    Great English accent and voice.

    This is one of Roger Moore’s major strength’s, as well as being a master class actor in terms of screen presence and star quality.

    I'm not sure I've heard him do an English accent?

    In Game of Thrones he has an English accent. I didn’t even know he was Scottish!!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Dalton was in his element in the serious, dramatic scenes, but never seemed relaxed, which meant that the lighter scenes didn't work for him so well.

    And I think that's why in general his Bond didn't hit the mark for people: for better or worse Bond has moved beyond Fleming and the audience expect certain things from 007, and one of those is suaveness and cool and confidence. And by being on edge and slightly frantic, Dalton seemed on the edge of nervousness, and that's not the swaggering, super-cool Bond people expect. Bond is in control. Now, he doesn't have to be that all the time: even Moore's Bond got scared and rattled from time to time, but you do need a sense that in general Bond thinks he's got the biggest balls in the room. Most of the moments we love and which make us smile from the Bond films involve him being cool and swaggery. Would Dalton's Bond have popped that grape into his mouth in Derval's room in Thunderball?

    Craig went serious with his Bond, but his Bond had the huge self-belief that Dalton's Bond missed- and CR even made us question whether his huge self-confidence was a fault of his character and misplaced which was a brave place to go, but it was crucially still there, so he still felt like James Bond 007 next to Connery and Moore.
    Now it may well be that John Glen is to blame for Dalton's Bond missing that swagger as a director is supposed to guide the performances, but nevertheless I think it's an aspect which really damaged his portrayal.

    I’m not going to disagree with anything above, as it’s all true IMO. That is why Connery is the best Bond IMO.

    But, the box office results showed that Dalton was popular with the British audience, it’s with the US audience that he failed to gain a following. For all the reasons you list above.

    Yeah no Bond film has yet been a disaster, it's all relative. Some are just bigger hits than others.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Was Iain Glen too villain to be consired in the past?

    I too have thought about him as a decent Bond candidate.

    When he was young, I see what you mean.

    When he’s older, he would make a good M too.

    Great English accent and voice.

    This is one of Roger Moore’s major strength’s, as well as being a master class actor in terms of screen presence and star quality.

    I'm not sure I've heard him do an English accent?

    In Game of Thrones he has an English accent. I didn’t even know he was Scottish!!

    I've never seen it, but just watched a few clips and he seems to be speaking in his normal Scottish burr to me. I thought you were the accent police! :D
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Dalton was in his element in the serious, dramatic scenes, but never seemed relaxed, which meant that the lighter scenes didn't work for him so well.

    And I think that's why in general his Bond didn't hit the mark for people: for better or worse Bond has moved beyond Fleming and the audience expect certain things from 007, and one of those is suaveness and cool and confidence. And by being on edge and slightly frantic, Dalton seemed on the edge of nervousness, and that's not the swaggering, super-cool Bond people expect. Bond is in control. Now, he doesn't have to be that all the time: even Moore's Bond got scared and rattled from time to time, but you do need a sense that in general Bond thinks he's got the biggest balls in the room. Most of the moments we love and which make us smile from the Bond films involve him being cool and swaggery. Would Dalton's Bond have popped that grape into his mouth in Derval's room in Thunderball?

    Craig went serious with his Bond, but his Bond had the huge self-belief that Dalton's Bond missed- and CR even made us question whether his huge self-confidence was a fault of his character and misplaced which was a brave place to go, but it was crucially still there, so he still felt like James Bond 007 next to Connery and Moore.
    Now it may well be that John Glen is to blame for Dalton's Bond missing that swagger as a director is supposed to guide the performances, but nevertheless I think it's an aspect which really damaged his portrayal.

    I’m not going to disagree with anything above, as it’s all true IMO. That is why Connery is the best Bond IMO.

    But, the box office results showed that Dalton was popular with the British audience, it’s with the US audience that he failed to gain a following. For all the reasons you list above.

    Yeah no Bond film has yet been a disaster, it's all relative. Some are just bigger hits than others.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Was Iain Glen too villain to be consired in the past?

    I too have thought about him as a decent Bond candidate.

    When he was young, I see what you mean.

    When he’s older, he would make a good M too.

    Great English accent and voice.

    This is one of Roger Moore’s major strength’s, as well as being a master class actor in terms of screen presence and star quality.

    I'm not sure I've heard him do an English accent?

    In Game of Thrones he has an English accent. I didn’t even know he was Scottish!!

    I've never seen it, but just watched a few clips and he seems to be speaking in his normal Scottish burr to me. I thought you were the accent police! :D

    So did I!? Ha ha.

    I missed that Scottish burr completely. I thought he was English based on GoT.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Heh! Fair enough, it's not the strongest and he may well have been toning it down a bit for that.
  • mtm wrote: »
    That's debatable, and I think the official account of events has been massaged slightly! :)

    Cubby was interested in him from 1968 on.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    mtm wrote: »
    That's debatable, and I think the official account of events has been massaged slightly! :)

    Cubby was interested in him from 1968 on.

    Indeed, that's not the same thing though.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    edited October 2020 Posts: 395
    mtm wrote: »
    That's debatable, and I think the official account of events has been massaged slightly! :)

    Cubby was interested in him from 1968 on.

    On Dalton or who?
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,882
    MSL49 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    That's debatable, and I think the official account of events has been massaged slightly! :)

    Cubby was interested in him from 1968 on.

    On Dalton or who?

    Dalton I believe. He was offered, or given his age, maybe just considered for Bond back in 68. Even in my dream timeline, that was much too early for Dalton to be cast.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    Connery shouldn't have come back after OHMSS and Moore shouldn't have come back after OP and i think Craig shouldn't have come back after SP.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,882
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Connery shouldn't have come back after OHMSS and Moore shouldn't have come back after OP and i think Craig shouldn't have come back after SP.

    I agree except on Moore, who I think maybe should have left after MR.
  • Posts: 12,242
    I agree with Connery stopping with YOLT. I enjoy AVTAK and am very much looking forward to NTTD though, so I can't agree on the others.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,834
    I'm glad Craig is getting a proper send-off in what looks like a really good movie :)
  • Posts: 1,545
    I realize many people care not for the connecting arc between Craig's films. Had they known they'd go for certain number of films up front they could have written the stories more cleverly, up front. But, for whatever reasons -- apparently things were not developed in this manner. And it seems to have become a routine thing to read that the script is not ready, or was worked out just in time to film, and, generally, that they cook everything up one at a time. Perhaps after D Craig's turn they can plan for more than just the next one. At any rate -- I still think it all came out pretty well, and still is superior to the days of overly-silly and overly-reliant on gadgets and special effects. So, here's me hoping that before they start up after DC that they figure out in advance, for more than just the next film, where they're going with it all. Even if the plan changes to one-adventure-not-connected-with-the-next on about the level of most of the films, they still would do well to lay things out, plan ahead, and so on. Doing that should help avoid gaps, inconsistencies and those awkward "but wait ! it was really this not that !" moments. Surprises and twists are cool, if they're really worked out in advance.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Since62 wrote: »
    I realize many people care not for the connecting arc between Craig's films. Had they known they'd go for certain number of films up front they could have written the stories more cleverly, up front. But, for whatever reasons -- apparently things were not developed in this manner. And it seems to have become a routine thing to read that the script is not ready, or was worked out just in time to film, and, generally, that they cook everything up one at a time. Perhaps after D Craig's turn they can plan for more than just the next one. At any rate -- I still think it all came out pretty well, and still is superior to the days of overly-silly and overly-reliant on gadgets and special effects. So, here's me hoping that before they start up after DC that they figure out in advance, for more than just the next film, where they're going with it all. Even if the plan changes to one-adventure-not-connected-with-the-next on about the level of most of the films, they still would do well to lay things out, plan ahead, and so on. Doing that should help avoid gaps, inconsistencies and those awkward "but wait ! it was really this not that !" moments. Surprises and twists are cool, if they're really worked out in advance.

    Maybe, but Fleming linked his novels together and I doubt he had them all planned out years in advance. I think if you're interested in hiring good directors you want to give them some freedom over the story, I don't know how much you can plan ahead.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited October 2020 Posts: 8,009
    A loose idea of where you want to be at the end of an actor's tenure is enough, I would say - if they are going to continue the approach that they've taken with Craig, that is. Don't be creatively wandering around in the dark looking for a lightswitch, but don't be too rigid either. "The new Bond starts here, and we'd like him to be around here by film four or five."

    Plans rarely work out for numerous reasons, all the same. The Craig era is an example of that. An idea that can be loosely followed is the best way to go out about it, as it gives you an out.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    edited October 2020 Posts: 737
    I completely disagree that the Craig era is superior to previous incarnations. There is plenty of material in Craig's films which is as truly appalling/silly/bonkers as anything in even the worst/daftest Bond films that have come before.

    The plot holes in Skyfall and the Blofeld angle in SP obviously come to mind.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    I completely disagree that the Craig era is superior to previous incarnations. There is plenty of material in Craig's films which is as truly appalling/silly/bonkers as anything in even the worst/daftest Bond films that have come before.

    The plot holes in Skyfall and the Blofeld angle in SP obviously come to mind.

    It certainly has been inconsistent, with high highs and low lows. A lot like the previous era, for me.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    I completely disagree that the Craig era is superior to previous incarnations. There is plenty of material in Craig's films which is as truly appalling/silly/bonkers as anything in even the worst/daftest Bond films that have come before.

    The plot holes in Skyfall and the Blofeld angle in SP obviously come to mind.

    It certainly has been inconsistent, with high highs and low lows. A lot like the previous era, for me.

    Exactly. I was just responding to a previous comment that the Craig era was clearly superior to the previous ones. I just completely disagree.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2020 Posts: 14,861
    I completely disagree that the Craig era is superior to previous incarnations. There is plenty of material in Craig's films which is as truly appalling/silly/bonkers as anything in even the worst/daftest Bond films that have come before.

    The plot holes in Skyfall and the Blofeld angle in SP obviously come to mind.

    It certainly has been inconsistent, with high highs and low lows. A lot like the previous era, for me.

    Exactly. I was just responding to a previous comment that the Craig era was clearly superior to the previous ones. I just completely disagree.

    Well Since said it was superior to the bad ones, not to all of them; which doesn't seem too controversial to me! :) I don't really have a list of which is best myself, but I have favourites and generally enjoy them all for different reasons.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    Craig's a great Bond. But EON didn't know if they wanted his era to be serialized or to be standalone adventures. For example, if Mr White mentioned Silva's name in CR, it would have helped. And if all went as EON made us believe, SF, SP & NTTD would have been standalone adventures. Coz QoS was the film that truly tied up everything. SF was meant to be a fresh start for Craig's Bond...and EON knows it's true. But let's hope NTTD gives Craig a stellar exit. Then EON can have a more linear approach and style with the next Bond.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Craig's a great Bond. But EON didn't know if they wanted his era to be serialized or to be standalone adventures. For example, if Mr White mentioned Silva's name in CR, it would have helped. And if all went as EON made us believe, SF, SP & NTTD would have been standalone adventures. Coz QoS was the film that truly tied up everything. SF was meant to be a fresh start for Craig's Bond...and EON knows it's true. But let's hope NTTD gives Craig a stellar exit. Then EON can have a more linear approach and style with the next Bond.

    +1.

    I personally could have done without the ‘Evil Step Brother’ behind everything bollocks, that was clearly bolted on in 2015.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    mtm wrote: »
    I completely disagree that the Craig era is superior to previous incarnations. There is plenty of material in Craig's films which is as truly appalling/silly/bonkers as anything in even the worst/daftest Bond films that have come before.

    The plot holes in Skyfall and the Blofeld angle in SP obviously come to mind.

    It certainly has been inconsistent, with high highs and low lows. A lot like the previous era, for me.

    Exactly. I was just responding to a previous comment that the Craig era was clearly superior to the previous ones. I just completely disagree.

    Well Since said it was superior to the bad ones, not to all of them; which doesn't seem too controversial to me! :) I don't really have a list of which is best myself, but I have favourites and generally enjoy them all for different reasons.

    This was the comment I was responding to:

    'still is superior to the days of overly-silly and overly-reliant on gadgets and special effects'.

    I disagree.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    mtm wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    I realize many people care not for the connecting arc between Craig's films. Had they known they'd go for certain number of films up front they could have written the stories more cleverly, up front. But, for whatever reasons -- apparently things were not developed in this manner. And it seems to have become a routine thing to read that the script is not ready, or was worked out just in time to film, and, generally, that they cook everything up one at a time. Perhaps after D Craig's turn they can plan for more than just the next one. At any rate -- I still think it all came out pretty well, and still is superior to the days of overly-silly and overly-reliant on gadgets and special effects. So, here's me hoping that before they start up after DC that they figure out in advance, for more than just the next film, where they're going with it all. Even if the plan changes to one-adventure-not-connected-with-the-next on about the level of most of the films, they still would do well to lay things out, plan ahead, and so on. Doing that should help avoid gaps, inconsistencies and those awkward "but wait ! it was really this not that !" moments. Surprises and twists are cool, if they're really worked out in advance.

    Maybe, but Fleming linked his novels together and I doubt he had them all planned out years in advance. I think if you're interested in hiring good directors you want to give them some freedom over the story, I don't know how much you can plan ahead.

    That’s true. Fleming definitely made it up as he went along.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited October 2020 Posts: 5,131
    I completely disagree that the Craig era is superior to previous incarnations. There is plenty of material in Craig's films which is as truly appalling/silly/bonkers as anything in even the worst/daftest Bond films that have come before.

    The plot holes in Skyfall and the Blofeld angle in SP obviously come to mind.

    It certainly has been inconsistent, with high highs and low lows. A lot like the previous era, for me.

    GE was average, but solid with Brosnan’s best performance IMO. But what are the other high points of the Brosnan era? I’m just interested in your opinion, as to me the era is the low point of the series. Still entertaining, but still the worst (IMO) in terms of scripts, Directors, villains, Bond girls and tone.
Sign In or Register to comment.