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've heard that too from here. Doesn't surprise me either. I don't think he's an overly natural actor, but he gets the job done.
I do think for Bond they need a strong screen actor though. Not necessarily someone who's going to win an Oscar, but someone with the confidence and ability to know their approach to Bond and convey it naturally.
I suppose another aspect here is that a future Bond could potentially be working with three different directors throughout their run at least! You want the actor to adapt their Bond performance to the movie, not have each director micromanage their performance to the point it lacks consistency.
Are you getting Jon Lovitz SNL vibes ? "I was ACTING !"
I love Craig's Bond, but he probably had the most inconsistent Bond perfomance of them all.
I like Glen as an actor and as a potential movie star, but yes, there's no way he's getting James Bond, but he would make a great felix. Not going to happen though. He would upstage Bond, just like Jack Lord did.
To each their own. I wouldn't say that personally. You don't really want directors micromanaging performances of the lead actors whatever way.
That's interesting, how do you mean? I find him very consistent: his Bond has a particular attitude which follows him all the way through, even if he matures over time.
I'd say Connery is much more inconsistent, even ranging from being good in one film to not-engaged in the next, to comedic in the one after. And he starts off as playing Bond as a total git in his first one.
In Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace he's playing a reckless young recruit with a chip on his shoulder.
Skyfall, a seasoned agent with a wry sense of humour, mumbles a lot.
Spectre, he's playing the James Bond we all know and love. In his Quipping and eyebrow raising glory
No Time to die, He's playing like some sort of hip, rebel teenager who doesn't know his 51. He's licking his fingers and badmouthing M.
Some of this is do to the script, and each new director, it seems he has a new way to play Bond in each of his movies, really.
Different than I would say, Connery, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan, who didn't really radically change their portrayal between each film.
But as I said, to each their own.
Yes, pretty much every actor save Lazenby and maybe Dalton played Bond differently in different parts in their tenure. Brosnan is far lighter in TND compared to GE.
Connery didn't change? Watch Dr No and DAF next to each other! Likewise Roger has three fairly distinct versions: the Hamilton total git version who bends women's arms behind their backs, the totally laid back Gilbert charmer, and then the more romantic Glen one.
I just can't really see the difference in Craig you're talking about: he plays Bond very consistently- even the walk is the same (and that's not Craig's walk). Yes, he becomes more relaxed in himself by Spectre, but that's characterisation, not inconsistency.
Personally I'd say Brosnan is probably the most consistent, in as far as he's equally good in all of them and his portrayal doesn't seem to vary over time to me.
from Dr.no to from russia with love he got more confidence in the role, Goldfinger he's playing it with more ethuiasm. Thunderball, he's cool as a cucumber.
Connery changed in YOLT because he was bored with the role, in Diamonds, he was just having fun with a silly movie, so I'll give you that.
Perhaps there is a change between LALD - TMWTGG and TSWLM-AVTAK. I'll give you that as well. Moore does play it a bit more harder edged in his first two films. The humour is still there, but he has rougher moments.
Yes, I'm on board the Elordi wagon. He seems to have this different sensitivity to life and acting. And has range. And a good voice. He's a giant, that's for sure, but one that has a sense of movement. He's probably the most fashionable candidate now that Frankenstein is having rave reviews. He's good at interviews, seems to have a functional brain, and if he's dark and moody enough for Heathcliff, then why not for Bond?
Yeah, for once, @Pierce2Daniel, we're in the same - casting - page :)>-
Generally, these interviews are a bit futile, or show how frivolous actors are, but he has good choices here, specially regarding books and bookshops, and carrying fountain pens, notebooks, watercolors,... :)
And, he can really shoot. I mean cameras. A very good photographer. Directors seem to love him.
I love Craig because it seems a believable evolution of his Bond over five films.
Connery definitely was a mixed bag that by DAF— although I have great fun watching the film— he seems like an entirely different man than the one seen in DN.
Moore did have some changes but, there was an anchor to all his performances. I still can sense that this man was the one I met in LALD and he was anchored in his performances through to AVTAK. I’d say the same about Brosnan too— slight changes, but his performances were anchored and when we see him in DAD I feel it’s the same guy from GE, just a few steps later.
The only movie of his I didn't love his portrayal is No Time to Die.
Until he was dubbed!
Same here. The dubbing of Lazenby doesn’t really bother me - in fact neither does Laz himself. He’s obviously ranked last for people and for good reason - but I can’t say that I don’t enjoy him in the film.
Exactly. OHMSS is too great a Bond film, rather. I love Lazenby's Bond and OHMSS too.