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
But going back to what I originally said, the Tarzan comparison (and Sherlock Holmes comaprison for that matter) can be found in numerous publications on Bond. One such that springs to mind is Sean Connery: The Measure of a Man by Christopher Bray, who states:
"Saltzman all through his life would remain adamant that the actor who played Bond mattered little in the scheme of things. What mattered was the character of Bond himself. He was what audiences fantasied about, Saltzman said. Like Tarzan or Sherlock Holmes, it followed, anyone could play him. In this view, director Terence Young would remember, Saltzman had the backing of Ian Fleming. Despite his protestations about David Niven and Cary Grant, Fleming was most taken with the idea of an unknown actor incarnating his hero. That way the movies could be sold as 'Ian Fleming's James Bond, played by Norman Nobody' rather than 'Sid Somebody IS James Bond' (the poster-line formula that would eventually accrete around Connery's name)."
At that point, I realized that the actor is in fact critical. I really don't think any actor can play Bond. One has to 'be Bond'. It has to appear natural. He is a far more complex character than many give him credit for.
We all know who Connery is now, but when we look back on those older performances, even knowing who he is, we still see Bond. That's from the performance, rather than from him being unknown (because he's not any more) in my view. I think people who know Connery first for other things can then watch a Connery Bond film and see a near perfect Bond.
Have you seen And Then There Were None yet? That was the clincher for me.
Personally, I think Connery was a near perfect Bond. I don't think Brosnan was though (his performance changed in nearly every film) and I think that was because he was having trouble finding the essence of the character, and that is what I mean about Bond being complex, and not able to be played by anyone. I wasn't referring to box office success where he of course did deliver (in my view that was his greatest contribution to the series, and he cannot be faulted for that at all).
From someone who has watched both And Then There Were None and The Night Manager I much prefer what I've seen of Turner as opposed to Hiddleston. Of course, there's never going to be a unanimous consensus on the next Bond as we all have our own idea who we think JB is. And because there have been so many different takes on the character: Moore vs Connery, Moore vs Dalton, Dalton vs Brosnan, Brosnan vs Craig, there will be many opposing views on what makes the perfect Bond. I just happen to like what I've seen of Turner more than what I've seen of Hiddleston.
You are right, I do see him as closest to Dalton. And since Dalton is my favourite (despite his films not being my favourite), naturally I see this as a massive plus.
Obviously the premise of ATTWN is that a group of strangers are summoned to a strange house on an island under false pretenses when it appears there is a murderer in their midst. When I sat down last Christmas to watch it, I had no idea that this guy was even suitable. I had seen the ads, and it may have crossed my mind that he looked bondian in his suit, but I never expected much from him. After watching part 1 I was absolutely buzzing!! I won't spoil anything, but Turner was extremely Daltonesque from the start. Since then it struck me that Craig is very rarely intense as Bond in the same way that Dalton was. Craig is calm and ruthless, or he is distressed. Rarely does he have that flare in his eyes, that passion. He tends to demonstrate his passion by performing impossible stunts. A top five Bond moment ever for me is when Dalton turns to camera and says "Yes, I got the message" that's so Bond it hurts!! That's what Turner has is spades, that intensity!!
I agree as well @Mendes4Lyfe that Dalton definitely did intense better than all the other actors. If 'stares' could kill. It was more than just the 'stare' though - it was the mannerisms and the voice/delivery. That's what made Dalton menacing and credible as Bond. I didn't find him all that suave though.
I agree with you @bondsum about all the different takes on the character and the difficulty in finding agreement. I happen to think that Connery (in DN - TB) and Moore (in LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM & FYEO) were the best all rounders (along with Craig in CR) because they all were able to bring 'smooth' along with 'intense' nicely in those films. A difficult combination to deliver.
I couldn't agree more, @Mendes4Lyfe. That was exactly the same thought that crossed my mind, too. I thought he was a slam dunk Dalton replacement if ever I saw one. The good thing with Turner is he's younger, fitter and would have plenty of years left open to him to make 5 or 6 Bond movies.
And I agree, @bondjames, those Bond movie choices of yours (though I'd include OHMSS in there and Dalton's) would be my prefered take on JB, too.
Exactly right! There are several moments during his short tenure when Dalton would flick up his eyelids in such a way that floors me everytime. I consider it the equivilant of Roger's arched eyebrow, a signature facial gestue, as it were. To me that intense quality is the fundamental quality that EON should be looking for. I can forego some of the more superficial aspects for that. Craig is most definitely a serious Bond, but his stares were largely conveying fear, loss, anxiety, pain, regret etc. That is the complete opposite of Dalton whose stares conveyed anger, contempt, hosility, cynicism etc.
I watched it at Christmas. He has the look, but he's missing something for me. Hiddleston has that superb ability to convey internal machinations with only a look. I never got this from Turner, it was all surface level. I actually think he'd be spot on in a 50s era Bond TV series, but up their on the silver screen as a modern, multi-layered 007, Hiddleston trumps him for presence and ability imo.
So for example, Moore was arguably a little more finessed than Connery. Dalton was rougher edged than Moore. Brosnan was similarly more finessed & smoother than Dalton. Then came Craig as the rough blunt instrument. So based on this, it's likely they will go with someone more smoother this time around.
I think it's probably because they maybe prefer to avoid direct comparisons to the prior actor, so take a different tack each time.
This has been my impression as well, but I have to watch that film to make sure. I agree with you on Hiddleston's ability to convey a lot with a look, but I can also see other's point/suspicion about him not seeming 'intense or dangerous' enough. As I said, I personally think it's just because he hasn't been called on yet to give 'that look' but I think he can, based on what I've seen of his acting so far.
I think Fassbender probably trumps them all though, but I don't think he'll get it due to his fame and age.
As Loki he has many moments where he's pretty unhinged and definite moments of intensity. I don't see it as a problem at all. I think people are getting too wrapped up in the visuals and not in the abilities of these candidates. Hiddleston was not playing Bond in TNM, but there were echoes. He's completely capable of a darker shift.
Why do you keep conflating Hiddleston with being a comedy Bond? Have you even seen The Night Manager?
This I would definitely agree with, and I'm not even one that would rank Fassbender particularly near the top of my list of people to replace Craig. Still, he'd be a far better choice than Elba, Hiddleston, or Turner, but at the same time is, as you said, bordering on being to old to take over the gig. If they moved right now on Fassbender, they could probably make it work, but if we're looking at the next film being released in 2019 or later, he'll be too old to be starting out in the role.
I still think that it's most likely we're going to get someone replacing Craig that hasn't come up in this round of discussions to this point.
Ah, so you're basing your entire opinion on one episode. That explains a lot.
I'm sure Hiddleston is a better actor than Hugh Grant, of course he is. What I mean is he shares the same charmingly befuddled persona. I have tried to watch some of his interviews on american TV talk shows. He spends all his time shifting nervously and spamming that toothy grin and the audience laps it up. I find it hard to believe he won't play up to that as Bond on screen.
Yeah, sorry, I probably just caught the one where he gets all the Mooreisms out of the way.
No doubt he is more naturally sophisticated than Craig (imho) but that doesn't make him a pansy. He's far more than that on screen.
He's an actor, and a fairly decent one. Why would he play up something that's completely unrelated to the character of Bond if he were to get the part? He's managed to create a fairly popular villain in Loki, a character which I can't imagine would have catapulted him to his current standing if he bore any resemblance to Hugh Grant.
Which 'Mooreisms' were those?
Well, tripping over himself with platitudes for those diners for a start. Turner never cared for others in ATTWN, he had the "If he fires me, I'll thank him for it" attitude down to a tee.