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 only read the first book so I can't speak for Ana's character in the other parts, but there was nothing likable about her, and I doubt Dakota Johnson feels differently. You can see both her and Dornan are in actual pain when they have to say that embarassing dialogue aloud. There really is no complexity to either of their characters, so I applaud Dakota in particular for making Ana seem like an actual human. I feel worst for the screenwriter though. She wanted to scrap out all of the book's worst elements, but was vetoed by the author. E.L. James had way to much influence over all of the creative elements, and I blame her solely for Dornan's robotic performance and everything else that's wrong with both the movie and the book (which is a lot!). Poisoning the world with her ridiculous books is one thing, but it pisses me off when someone is willing to cash in the money by selling the filmrights and then craps all over the creative input and ideas of other (more skilled and experienced) people who not only know more about film, but are trying to elevate her piece of shit book into something that isn't entirely embarassing. She's the one who wanted to stick to the idiot dialogue as described in her books and the unrealistic motivations and behavior of her characters. And so I have no problem with Johnson and Dornan simply using this franchise as a tool to attain a greater level of fame and thus better movie roles.
I sort of wished Craig was made to look a bit more like the traditional image of James Bond. Had Eon gone with this look with Casino Royale I think fans and general film goers would have accepted it:
Has a slight Sean Connery look, perhaps? Not as strikingly handsome as Sean Connery, but with darker hair he seems closer to the Connery template.
Had Craig started off with darker hair, darker contact lenses from the pre-credit scene in Casino Royale, I doubt many or any fans would say "they should have kept him with his natural hair/eye colour." I think we'd just accept he's playing Bond so he's got darker hair/eyes. It wasn't meant to be but it's an intriguing 'what if' scenario.
Agreed. That pic looks more like Norm McDonald than James Bond.
http://www.hotflick.net/pictures/big/006INF_Daniel_Craig_008.html
I suppose Craig has always been "natural" in the Bond movies, or am I wrong?
Totally agree.
How I wish the rest of TLD was up to the same standard as the opening half hour. It has plenty of fine moments after that, and remains one of my favourites, but it just shows how damn amazing the Dalton era could have been.
But isn't the Dalton era damn amazing? For me it is.
I'm not sure on your ranking. Where do TLD and LTK stand? (if you do rankings)
TLD sits in my top ten. LTK probably just outside.
I rank Dalton third or fourth probably.
Yes. The Dalton era is class. LTK is the best Bond film of the 80's.
I think it's just a matter of opinion really.
I want my Bond to be credibly handsome, sexy and a womanizer as well (although I'm a male & quite hetro).
I've found some Bonds more effective in this area than others. My top 3 are SC, RM & DC in that order. The worst was TD, unquestionably, imho.
Craig has acted with darker hair/darker eyes. The film Infamous:
Can't see anything ridiculous about how he looks. He looks like a guy with darker hair and eyes. What's the big deal? It's a case of adjusting your perception of Craig. We know he's naturally fair with bright blue eyes. You need to readjust, that's all. :D
I still maintain he looks closer to the Sean Connery James Bond image with darker hair. But I accept that wasn't the look Eon wanted to go with. Times change!
Agreed. That was one of many defining scenes in CR that screamed early Connery.....the likes of which we hadn't seen for 40+ yrs at that point.
Hi 1984 Arnold Schwarzenegger. We knew you'd be back ;)
Also, he needs eyebrow extensions, and some lipstick.
Haha! Precisely
Yep. Bond has blue eyes according to Fleming. As for hair colour Craigs natural hair colour is the way to go and suits him. Dying hair for the role is camp.
Ok a very late replay but is better lattter than ever right ?
Ok i read the three books and they were fun guilty pleasures, sure they are written like if you were reading US, people and Ok magazine but i was entertained.
Now yes im not saying Anna was the greatest movie character or something like it im just saying that she truly stole the show from Jamie and her character for some reason turned out to be better than Jamie's on screen while in the Book Christian is the more interesting.
I guess too much wrambling ended up messing my post.
I would be happy I think for Fassbender or Hardy to play Bond, but Damien Lewis would be good too I think, I believe he's done some Bond on Bond audio books? What about his hair colouring?