Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1102310241026102810291179

Comments

  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,282
    QsCat wrote: »
    daniel-craig-new-james-bond.jpg



    I’d like to revisit the thread where Craig was announced, and the build up to it. Would that still be on here somewhere?

    This is exactly how I wanted Craig's Bond to look like. Longer hair and the comma. His inner Dalton shows more with longer hair.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,891
    Benny wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    And Taylor-Johnson will end up being a Craig or a Cavill.

    Craig = Bond
    Cavill = Almost Bond

    Craig = the perfect KGB henchman
    Cavill = made of wood

    Five films and billions of dollars later suggest not.

    In an alternate universe, say a Fassbender Bond vs a Craig henchmen could have been epic; a hero needs a strong adversary. Craig would have been chilling as a villain.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    talos7 wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    And Taylor-Johnson will end up being a Craig or a Cavill.

    Craig = Bond
    Cavill = Almost Bond

    Craig = the perfect KGB henchman
    Cavill = made of wood

    Five films and billions of dollars later suggest not.

    In an alternate universe, say a Fassbender Bond vs a Craig henchmen could have been epic; a hero needs a strong adversary. Craig would have been chilling as a villain.

    Exactly this. Thanks @talos7
  • Posts: 296
    Benny wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    And Taylor-Johnson will end up being a Craig or a Cavill.

    Craig = Bond
    Cavill = Almost Bond

    Craig = the perfect KGB henchman
    Cavill = made of wood

    ;))
    oh-you-naughty-boy-jpg.1774558

  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,816
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I imagine it’ll be horrible!

    It was rough but okay. In my memory, members behaved rather well back then. The idiots who set up that retarded CraigNotBond website were generally disliked and made unwelcome here. ;-)

    It still wasn't in vogue to demand that "Babs" be fired for some reason, to call things one disagreed with "woke", to write letters to EON saying that fans should get involved in the creative process, and to keep posting pictures of Aidan Turner for some reason. Yes, those were better days.

    I remember AJB was full of people posting stupid monkey pictures; I think CBN (is that still going?) was a bit better, I don't really remember the reaction there now.

    I'm going to be honest and I'm not looking to all of them (some or few of them there were good), but yes, those people in the AJB tend to complain and criticize all things Bond, the majority of them were focusing on the accesories, luxuries of Bond (think of The Bond Experience channel with that Zaritsky guy, they're pretty much that way), and it's hard to understand them really with regards to their thoughts.

    Yes CBN is much better, it's still going until now, haven't checked Bond and Beyond yet.

    So going on my maths, having celebrated your 20th birthday in April last year, that would make you 6 when Daniel Craig was announced as James Bond?
    That’s an impressive interest in Bond from such a young age.
  • edited January 2023 Posts: 14,800
    For the life of me, I never understood the appeal of Clive Owen as Bond. So whoever is the new Clive Owen: I'm glad he won't be Bond. You can probably have him do a BMW advert or something.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    talos7 wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    And Taylor-Johnson will end up being a Craig or a Cavill.

    Craig = Bond
    Cavill = Almost Bond

    Craig = the perfect KGB henchman
    Cavill = made of wood

    Five films and billions of dollars later suggest not.

    In an alternate universe, say a Fassbender Bond vs a Craig henchmen could have been epic; a hero needs a strong adversary. Craig would have been chilling as a villain.

    He would have made an excellent villain, perhaps even too strong and overshadowed the lead. A great film actor is often equally good as hero or villain.
  • edited January 2023 Posts: 6,665
    Craig should be given a true villainous role. He would ace it. Dalton was also a good villain in some films. Brosnan was unremarkable as the baddie in Butterfly on a wheel an Urge. Did Connery ever play a true vill…oh, yes he did, dressed as teddy bear… ;)

    DAoDYQZXUAEBk2a.jpg

    MV5BYzI1NTdlZjMtZDM1Zi00YzcxLTljODQtMDJhMDQxYjJjOGE5XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTIzOTk5ODM@._V1_.jpg

    mcya5y66qcie2ctmwery.png?quality=80&w=1040

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    Univex wrote: »
    Craig should be given a true villainous role. He would ace it. Dalton was also a good villain in some films. Brosnan was unremarkable as thw baddie in Butterfly on a wheel. Did Connery ever play a true vill…oh, yes he did, dressed as teddy bear… ;)

    DAoDYQZXUAEBk2a.jpg

    mcya5y66qcie2ctmwery.png?quality=80&w=1040

    Sir August De Winter was ahead of his time, @Univex. We need a bloke who can control the weather more than ever.

    Seriously though, I think Craig could be a good villain indeed. I just want him to do more Benoit Blanc for a while first. ;-)
  • edited January 2023 Posts: 6,665
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Craig should be given a true villainous role. He would ace it. Dalton was also a good villain in some films. Brosnan was unremarkable as thw baddie in Butterfly on a wheel. Did Connery ever play a true vill…oh, yes he did, dressed as teddy bear… ;)

    DAoDYQZXUAEBk2a.jpg

    mcya5y66qcie2ctmwery.png?quality=80&w=1040

    Sir August De Winter was ahead of his time, @Univex. We need a bloke who can control the weather more than ever.

    Seriously though, I think Craig could be a good villain indeed. I just want him to do more Benoit Blanc for a while first. ;-)

    Good point. In fact, how many villains from the past films would be hailed as heroes, nowadays? Well, not all, obviously. But Drax and Stromberg were environmentalists, weren’t they? And who can blame Dr. Noah for wanting to wipe out all tall men to get the girls? Granted, their means were a bit on the hyperbolic and histerical side of things, but… :)

    I suppose Craig’s villain, Dr. James Blond, would set to genetically change every man’s hair colour to, well, blonde. Maybe make them short as well ;)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2023 Posts: 14,861
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Craig should be given a true villainous role. He would ace it. Dalton was also a good villain in some films. Brosnan was unremarkable as thw baddie in Butterfly on a wheel. Did Connery ever play a true vill…oh, yes he did, dressed as teddy bear… ;)

    DAoDYQZXUAEBk2a.jpg

    mcya5y66qcie2ctmwery.png?quality=80&w=1040

    Sir August De Winter was ahead of his time, @Univex. We need a bloke who can control the weather more than ever.

    Seriously though, I think Craig could be a good villain indeed. I just want him to do more Benoit Blanc for a while first. ;-)

    He did a fun turn as the cackling villain in Tintin.
  • Posts: 6,665
    mtm wrote: »
    He did a fun turn as the cackling villain in Tintin.

    You’re right, he did, as Ivan Ivanovitch Sakharine.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Craig should be given a true villainous role. He would ace it. Dalton was also a good villain in some films. Brosnan was unremarkable as thw baddie in Butterfly on a wheel. Did Connery ever play a true vill…oh, yes he did, dressed as teddy bear… ;)

    DAoDYQZXUAEBk2a.jpg

    mcya5y66qcie2ctmwery.png?quality=80&w=1040

    Sir August De Winter was ahead of his time, @Univex. We need a bloke who can control the weather more than ever.

    Seriously though, I think Craig could be a good villain indeed. I just want him to do more Benoit Blanc for a while first. ;-)

    He did a fun turn as the cackling villain in Tintin.

    He did. And he did a fine job too!
    Univex wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Craig should be given a true villainous role. He would ace it. Dalton was also a good villain in some films. Brosnan was unremarkable as thw baddie in Butterfly on a wheel. Did Connery ever play a true vill…oh, yes he did, dressed as teddy bear… ;)

    DAoDYQZXUAEBk2a.jpg

    mcya5y66qcie2ctmwery.png?quality=80&w=1040

    Sir August De Winter was ahead of his time, @Univex. We need a bloke who can control the weather more than ever.

    Seriously though, I think Craig could be a good villain indeed. I just want him to do more Benoit Blanc for a while first. ;-)

    Good point. In fact, how many villains from the past films would be hailed as heroes, nowadays? Well, not all, obviously. But Drax and Stromberg were environmentalists, weren’t they? And who can blame Dr. Noah for wanting to wipe out all tall men to get the girls? Granted, their means were a bit on the hyperbolic and histerical side of things, but… :)

    I suppose Craig’s villain, Dr. James Blond, would set to genetically change every man’s hair colour to, well, blonde. Maybe make them short as well ;)

    We are on the same page, sir. I wouldn't mind living in Drax' space paradise or Stromberg's underwater base at all. Sounds like fun. ;-) Oh, and Dr. Noah can take care of all the tall men out there too. I'm not the tallest person myself, so perhaps I'd finally have a shot with Kendall Jenner.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited January 2023 Posts: 2,898
    Craig played several villains on British tv before Bond. Usually smallish roles, like his turn in Sharpe, but he was really good at it and would still make a convincing bad guy. I used to imagine a post-modern skit, where Dan had a train fight with Adrian Paul and you had to work out who was Bond and who was Red Grant... ;)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Craig should be given a true villainous role. He would ace it. Dalton was also a good villain in some films. Brosnan was unremarkable as thw baddie in Butterfly on a wheel. Did Connery ever play a true vill…oh, yes he did, dressed as teddy bear… ;)

    DAoDYQZXUAEBk2a.jpg

    mcya5y66qcie2ctmwery.png?quality=80&w=1040

    Sir August De Winter was ahead of his time, @Univex. We need a bloke who can control the weather more than ever.

    Seriously though, I think Craig could be a good villain indeed. I just want him to do more Benoit Blanc for a while first. ;-)

    He did a fun turn as the cackling villain in Tintin.

    He did. And he did a fine job too!

    Yeah I thought he was good fun. I think I remember watching it and it even taking me a while to work out who it was- I certainly knew the voice!
    It's a surprise that Connery played so few antagonists as well.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited January 2023 Posts: 5,834
    Univex wrote: »
    Dalton was also a good villain in some films.

    DAoDYQZXUAEBk2a.jpg
    My favourite role of Dalton's is Malcolm Murray in Penny Dreadful. One of my favourite shows and him and Eva Green are fantastic in it. Not a villainous role by no means but certainly a conflicted one.

    CeFTvrmUsAAfrGb.jpg
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Craig should be given a true villainous role. He would ace it. Dalton was also a good villain in some films. Brosnan was unremarkable as thw baddie in Butterfly on a wheel. Did Connery ever play a true vill…oh, yes he did, dressed as teddy bear… ;)

    DAoDYQZXUAEBk2a.jpg

    mcya5y66qcie2ctmwery.png?quality=80&w=1040

    Sir August De Winter was ahead of his time, @Univex. We need a bloke who can control the weather more than ever.

    Seriously though, I think Craig could be a good villain indeed. I just want him to do more Benoit Blanc for a while first. ;-)

    He did a fun turn as the cackling villain in Tintin.

    He did. And he did a fine job too!

    Yeah I thought he was good fun. I think I remember watching it and it even taking me a while to work out who it was- I certainly knew the voice!
    It's a surprise that Connery played so few antagonists as well.

    Over the mysteries of Connery's post-Bond roles there is drawn a veil best left undisturbed. ;-)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    How do you mean? I thought he did incredibly well; he was one of the biggest stars for years. A few duff choices, but that's not unusual.
  • edited January 2023 Posts: 175
    bondywondy wrote: »
    If Aaron Taylor-Johnson does get the part he'll join Craig as someone that noone ever mentioned on online forums nor on any website list of candidates.

    I don't recall Craig getting mentioned in 2004 - 2005 and ATJ was never mentioned* in 2019 - 2021.

    *Someone will probably say "just to correct you... in 2020 i said Aaron Taylor-Johnson should be Bond."
    ;))
    Okay, almost no-one. 😉

    Do a search for "Aaron Taylor-Johnson" on this site and you'll get 22 pages of results, going back to 2014. He's been mentioned quite a few times over the years. Each page has 20 results, so that's 440 mentions in the past 9 years.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    You made the search work? :D
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    mtm wrote: »
    How do you mean? I thought he did incredibly well; he was one of the biggest stars for years. A few duff choices, but that's not unusual.

    I was merely jokingly referring to the 'big' roles he notoriously refused, including John Hammond, Gandalf and Dumbledore. Obviously, I'm very pleased with his later roles. Too bad LXG didn't turn out the way it could have, but FINDING FORRESTER is a brilliant movie in which Connery may have played the most interesting role of his life. I treat that role (and not Sir Billie) as his swan song.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Okay, not entirely following there; I don’t think his career exactly suffered from not doing Harry Potter. I’m glad he didn’t to be honest!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited January 2023 Posts: 23,449
    mtm wrote: »
    Okay, not entirely following there; I don’t think his career exactly suffered from not doing Harry Potter. I’m glad he didn’t to be honest!

    I'm sure it's not that hard to follow.

    1) Sean let a few roles slip that have huge fan bases behind them. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but some might argue those are missed opportunities. Nothing more.

    2) My original remark was obviously in jest. I then re-emphasised that I was merely joking. So again: not that hard to follow.

    Besides, we're going seriously off-topic here. ;-)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2023 Posts: 14,861
    Right okay, not entirely getting where you’re coming from, but fair enough.
  • Posts: 14,800
    Anybody mentioned Joe Macaulay? He plays a sniper in Treason. Not exactly a challenging role, but I do like his face.

    On a side note, Oona Chaplin and Olga Kurylenko are still good looking. It's strange to see them playing together again.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    mtm wrote: »
    I don’t really get why those are missed opportunities though. They’re either not great roles, or in things which wouldn’t have done him much good. I don’t see those as bad or mysterious decisions at all. I don’t think I knew he was up for Jurassic Park, he could have been good in that (maybe a bit too Henry Jones?) but I don’t think he or the film suffered from not doing it.
    When I say I’m not following I just mean the thought process behind the joke; I dunno, to me the first thing I think of with regards to Connery post-Bond is that he was one of the biggest Hollywood movie stars and won an Oscar, not that he failed to play a kids’ book wizard, but I guess everyone sees it differently and some jokes can’t be analysed too deeply. He was pretty much retiring as those films started anyway.

    @mtm, with respect:
    • Over the years, I've read the occasional list with "roles Sean Connery turned down", provided by people who think it's just unfortunate that he played Quartermain in a generally disliked film -- his final role -- while some roles offered to him could have allowed him to go out with a bang. Surely, playing Gandalf and Magneto hasn't done Sir Ian McKellan's career a disservice.
    • Several friends of mine who are way more into LOTR, HP and the like have told me time and again how much they regret that Connery wasn't in these films.
    • When Connery died, one of the things a filmmaker in my country talked about on TV was the fact that Connery turned down roles like Gandalf etc. because allegedly he didn't understand them, and how sad that was.

    So here I am, thinking that quite a few people (though not everyone) think it's sad that he angrily retired after the disappointing shoot of LXG in 2003, while he could have gone out with The Return Of The King, also in 2003; they think that it's unfortunate that he didn't "understand" Tolkien (while Christopher Lee, for example, has always been a big Tolkien fanatic) but chose to get a part in an adaptation of Alan Moore's dieselpunk comic (presumably because he did know Quartermain). And so for years, I and others have joked about these "mysterious" choices. Nothing more.

    So when I read your post about his roles, I spontaneously thought about the above and decided to hint at what I assumed was general knowledge. I was too cryptic; I apologise. And also: nothing more.

    So I hope, @mtm, that this clarifies things. You didn't get where I was coming from; I take it others did. But...
    mtm wrote: »
    Right okay, not entirely getting where you’re coming from, but fair enough.

    ...fair enough indeed. Now let's get back on topic, friend.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2023 Posts: 14,861
    Well look, if Bronholm had turned those down it would indeed be a mystery as his career could have done with it (‘Sure I’ll play Dr Fate! Who’s Dr Fate?’), but Connery won an Oscar, and got knighted for no other reason than being an amazing movie star: he would have turned down loads of stuff and it did him no harm whatsoever, because he was already a huge movie star. One of the very top movie stars.
  • Posts: 3,275
    mtm wrote: »
    Well look, if Bronholm had turned those down it would indeed be a mystery as his career could have done with it (‘Sure I’ll play Dr Fate! Who’s Dr Fate?’), but Connery won an Oscar, and got knighted for no other reason than being an amazing movie star: he would have turned down loads of stuff and it did him no harm whatsoever, because he was a huge movie star. One of the very top movie stars.

    You could say Connery enjoyed a post Bond successful career almost on parallel with his Bondmania one.

    Indiana Jones father, The Rock, Hunt for Red October, Entrapment, Man who Would be King, Robin & Marion, Untouchables, Bridge Too Far, Highlander, Russia House, Name of the Rose, etc.

    Even in lesser known films Connery still manages to shine out - Rising Sun, Presidio, Zardoz, Outland.

    And his two greatest ever screen performances are even less well known - The offence and The Hill.

    I think overall whatever bad choices Connery made (or didn't make), his greater films outweigh everything else.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited January 2023 Posts: 23,449
    mtm wrote: »
    Well look, if Bronholm had turned those down it would indeed be a mystery as his career could have done with it (‘Sure I’ll play Dr Fate! Who’s Dr Fate?’), but Connery won an Oscar, and got knighted for no other reason than being an amazing movie star: he would have turned down loads of stuff and it did him no harm whatsoever, because he was already a huge movie star. One of the very top movie stars.

    And with that, let's get back on topic before this tragic sequence of nitpicking after a silly remark that (oh boy) I have been regretting for hours now, turns even more farcical than it already is. :-)

    I'm still wrestling with Kinnear's comments on the ATJ rumours. Reading the headline of the article linked a few posts back, my initial response was that Kinnear spoke from direct authority. Reading the article, he's merely inferring from past instances of rumours getting out of control.

    On the one hand, I'm inclined to think like him; hence my motto that I won't lend any news too much credence unless it's an official statement from B & W themselves. On the other hand, there's no law that prevents a rumour with some truth in it to get out. I mean, it might be true.

    And how does the room feel about letting out a rumour just to test the temperature? Would EON use the Internet as a petri dish? I don't tink so, but times change and the Internet keeps growing, so it wouldn't necessarily be a false strategy. Politicians do it all the time, after all...
  • edited January 2023 Posts: 6,665
    After 2006 and the dark cloud that loomed over Daniel, even though it threw him to work non stop in CR, I’d say it could be possible they wanted to test the waters, specially to prevent the actor from suffering like Craig, again, even though he nonchalantly says he didn’t.

    And not to extend the off-topic matter, but I do agree with you, @DarthDimi. Connery said he knew and understood Quartermain because he's a big literary character, even bigger than any character Tolkien had created. Alan Quartermain is the main character in King Solomon's Mines, a 19th century novel by Sir H. Rider Haggard, and Alão Quartelmar, in the (internationally recognised as being better) Portuguese adaptation of the novel, written 6 years later by the bigger writer Eça de Queirós, who is considered one of the best writers of all time, much, much bigger than Tolkien in the literary community, trust me. It is a golden literary character put in a rather so and so Alan Moore comic and later in the awful film by Stephen Norrington. THIS is why I'm so adamant on protecting literary intelectual property and being the most faithful one can be to its origins. THIS is why I've been raging on and on about keeping Bond close to his literary depiction, even to his physical traits. Because, if not, it all gets diluted and impoverished over time.

    Anyway, coming back to the our topic, yes I think they have people for that, feeling the proverbial waters on the internet. I have on good authority that they read the forums from time to time. Yes, it's true. They have people read the forums, three forums to be exact. Nowadays, probably just one or two, seeing the third party has been a bit dormant.
Sign In or Register to comment.