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
One for the ladies.
I find it hard to argue against the presented evidence ;)
I suggest EON do what they must, before DC or Marvel grab him (like they did Bale before Craig came along) or we could be left with B candidates.
If Daniel does another that will be another 2 to 3 years, then another 2 to 3 for the next. Were looking at another 4 to 6 years before another actor may be needed. Chances are he is on the younger side at the moment. In Turner's case he will be just under or at 40 if he were to be cast.
Oh and on a side note I found Toby Stephens surprisingly good in it. He'd make a decent Hugo Drax now with the right script.
This guy, even as the old girl I am, he wouldn't be welcome in my bed chamber. And this is not even about not liking dark haired guys, he is just meh in my book. But maybe others are more appreciating.
I think that with the right haircut, Fassbender could probably play that part.
I think, we totally got that with Spectre. The elegance was there, the wink was there and certainly the arrogance. Whatever the opinion is on the film, this Bond actually gave all that. I can't see, how anyone can disagree on that.
Why do you think, anything is wrong with that or that the ladies would not approve. Its just, that the attitude has to bring up all of this and make in convincing. Connery and Dc did that. All the others did either one or the other. (DC only in Spectre as well)
And speaking just for myself, fitting the Bond look is only part of it. The actor needs to bring certain qualities. Casting an actor based only on him fitting into the classic Bond look, is as bad as casting an actor only because he looks far away from the Bond image. I would be fine with a blonde actor as Bond, if he could give of the intelligence, charm, danger etc... of Bond.
I think, it would be smart to cast a dark haired actor next just to make a difference and if this is, what you think pleases the crowds, so be it. B-)
DC as the weird type has proven, that it doesn't matter in the end, whether a Bond is dark, blonde or probably red or green as long as he has IT. Then he can make the world forget any hair colour.
However (or but), I was not as impressed with his turn in SP as I was with him in CR/QoS. Not by a long shot. In those earlier films he filled out the role in a way that I didn't feel he was acting. He felt real. Authentic Moreover, I felt I was watching James Bond up there on the screen.
In SP, it's the first time he appeared as though he was acting to me and that was strange to see. It's difficult to explain, but the performance didn't seem authentic to him (in my eyes) but rather appeared like he was trying to channel traditional film Bond with the quips and all. As I said earlier, he has never given a bad performance, but this one didn't work at the same level as his earlier work (including SF) for me. I felt an almost, dare I say, Brosnan'esque affectation to some of the performance.
I have wondered why that is. It could very well be the script/dialogue/direction, which I have been highly critical of, because I didn't really find any of the actors completely convincing in SP. It could also be because the change in tone of his Bond performance was too much for me to take in comparison to his earlier work. Or it could just be because it's not natural to him.
For me, his best turn in SP was at L'Americaine. That, as far as I'm concerned, is quintessential Daniel Craig as Bond. He was very authentic in that scene and that's why it's one of the best scenes in the film for me.
So my point is, a naturally more suave actor (like Moore) is what I want next, because I personally will be more convinced if they are going to go back to the casual 'quip' route in future films rather than the brooding / deep stuff (which I find naturally suits Craig better). It's entirely a matter of 'degree' though because Craig can play the part any way.
Probably too old now as well.
After the divided opinion on Sp. I can't believe, they are going to back to quip, but more then ever to dark, may that be with DC or the next one.
Thing is, if they had stuck to emotional and dark PLUS some of quips (mostly Bond and Q), it would have worked beautifully.
I don't think it's a secret that I think MI-RN was the far superior effort this year, and that had a nice blend of Bondian style irony and action without descending into parody or too obvious trope insertion.
I'm all for dark (I've always preferred Bond films to be more thriller than action personally) as long as they don't go heavy on the angst.
I agree, and think they had the balance right in SF (including back and forth with Q), although I know the SP fans here disagree. The Q bits in SP were the best humour as well imho.
This is true. I'm not sure where the claim that Turner "won't wet any panties" is coming from. One only has to google him to see that the female reaction to him in the UK is bordering on hysteria. I've not seen a reaction in the UK like this since Richard Armitage "wet panties" in North And South. Turner is being well and truly objectified at the moment but he seems to be relishing the attention.
I googled him and found him still very meh. But if he managed to be the wow man of the moment, he might have smething, I just dont see. Talk about taste.. ;) But his films might be the first ones, I wouldnt bother to pay for. Guess he could live with that. :P