› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…266267269271272…2507

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Yes, If facelifts work like that, I recommand them. Even though, there was one article/pic, wehre he looked all puffy and red, but I suppose, that was temporarely.

    Who are we talking about here, @Germanlady?
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    Tom Cruise
  • BounineBounine
    Posts: 2,598
    Is it not possible that he's just put on weight?

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Bounine wrote: »
    Is it not possible that he's just put on weight?
    Yes, I noticed he was heftier by the time Ghost Protocol came out... And it's for the better.
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    I think he put on weight but maybe had some botox done on his face. When you get older and stay lean, your face tends to look a little sallow and too gaunt. Look at Madonna. Ugh. Someone probably told Cruise he was looking fit but too ghoulish and needed to thicken the jowls up a bit.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    It's highly likely.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,893
    Okay what in the Lords name has Tom Cruise got to do with Bond 25?
    Let's get this back on track please.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Age of actors, @Benny... Assuming Craig won't return... Assuming...
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,006
    He did put on weight for the film Mena (2017). Any way you look at it, a bit of work done or not, he looks great, gives his all to any film he does and has a track record that beyond impressive. He's a skilled actor and as an "action star" the man is a beast. Yes he's a bit quirky off screen but that's not my business.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    talos7 wrote: »
    He did put on weight for the film Mena (2017). Any way you look at it, a bit of work done or not, he looks great, gives his all to any film he does and has a track record that beyond impressive. He's a skilled actor and as an "action star" the man is a beast. Yes he's a bit quirky off screen but that's not my business.
    100% in agreement. A beast indeed. Complete respect for The Cruise.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Given the lack of news, I thought I'd post the latest on Hiddleswift, for those inclined to bone up on the situation.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3654868/PICTURE-EXCLUSIVE-Taylor-Swift-flaunts-toned-tum-holds-hands-Tom-Hiddleston-Selena-Gomez-concert.html
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Hiddles with two women? Lucky bastard!!! :))
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    I wasn't overly impressed by Hiddles in the Night Manager but there are worse choices out there.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    Getafix wrote: »
    I wasn't overly impressed by Hiddles in the Night Manager but there are worse choices out there.

    Yeah, Rupert Friend for one!
  • JeffreyJeffrey The Netherlands
    Posts: 308
    Lancaster007 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I wasn't overly impressed by Hiddles in the Night Manager but there are worse choices out there.

    Yeah, Rupert Friend for one!

    Why no Rupert Friend for you?
  • DisneyBond007DisneyBond007 Welwyn Garden City
    Posts: 100
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Hiddles with two women? Lucky bastard!!! :))

    Speaking of which, the Youtuber from NI called Cavan Day is the one meaning bastard when he's smocking with me and everyone else.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 15,845
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Heavens no. What is it with these boyish actors? Bond becoming male model fashion show?

    Nothing new for a franchise whose past Bonds have been a Mr. Universe contender and the male sex symbol of his generation, an Australian model and a pretty boy who did modeling on the side, respectively. Throw in Brosnan, who many women fawn over to this day just as in his heyday, and the rugged looks of Craig I know many are attracted to, and there you have it.
    Moore also did a little modeling in the late 40s to early 50s. However, my point was that those actors who are picked look like they are soft-natured teenagers, and Bond isn't that. And of course I have to agree about Brosnan being a pretty boy type of portrait in the 80s, but by the time he got into the role, particularly post-GoldenEye, he already was suitable for the part in a combination of a Moore and Dalton pattern.

    I meant Roger in that pretty boy modeling statement, the last in the list, but Brosnan fit that too, yes.

    I do agree that super young Bond castings are usually weird, as the chosen ones often look overly boyish to a degree. The crazy thing about Riley is that he's 36, but barely looks out of university. Genetics can be crazy like that sometimes.
    Agreed. Which is why I want the actors to be over 40 years of age where some ruggedness is present on their faces, and if someone like Stallone nearing 70 can do the unimaginable action stunts by himself, then why can't a Bond actor do that in his 50s? Tom Cruise is 53 years old but he just keeps getting more fit and more powerful you'd think he's in his late 30s.

    I couldn't agree more. In the 60s it was acceptable for Bond to be in his early 30s because, well, men that age had grown up in the depression, lived through WW2 and had a lifetime of experience by 32. In 2016 a typical 32 year old would have got to live through the invention of smart phones, Guitar Hero, and Facebook. None of which agent 007 should give a crap about.
    If Bond is cast younger he should at least look rugged and masculine. I always thought Lazenby at 30 looked far closer to, say 38 in OHMSS. Very rugged and he holds up to this day.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    DisneyBond007 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Hiddles with two women? Lucky bastard!!! :))

    Speaking of which, the Youtuber from NI called Cavan Day is the one meaning bastard when he's smocking with me and everyone else.
    You'll have to forgive my ignorance. I don't speak John Titor. ;)
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Heavens no. What is it with these boyish actors? Bond becoming male model fashion show?

    Nothing new for a franchise whose past Bonds have been a Mr. Universe contender and the male sex symbol of his generation, an Australian model and a pretty boy who did modeling on the side, respectively. Throw in Brosnan, who many women fawn over to this day just as in his heyday, and the rugged looks of Craig I know many are attracted to, and there you have it.
    Moore also did a little modeling in the late 40s to early 50s. However, my point was that those actors who are picked look like they are soft-natured teenagers, and Bond isn't that. And of course I have to agree about Brosnan being a pretty boy type of portrait in the 80s, but by the time he got into the role, particularly post-GoldenEye, he already was suitable for the part in a combination of a Moore and Dalton pattern.

    I meant Roger in that pretty boy modeling statement, the last in the list, but Brosnan fit that too, yes.

    I do agree that super young Bond castings are usually weird, as the chosen ones often look overly boyish to a degree. The crazy thing about Riley is that he's 36, but barely looks out of university. Genetics can be crazy like that sometimes.
    Agreed. Which is why I want the actors to be over 40 years of age where some ruggedness is present on their faces, and if someone like Stallone nearing 70 can do the unimaginable action stunts by himself, then why can't a Bond actor do that in his 50s? Tom Cruise is 53 years old but he just keeps getting more fit and more powerful you'd think he's in his late 30s.

    I couldn't agree more. In the 60s it was acceptable for Bond to be in his early 30s because, well, men that age had grown up in the depression, lived through WW2 and had a lifetime of experience by 32. In 2016 a typical 32 year old would have got to live through the invention of smart phones, Guitar Hero, and Facebook. None of which agent 007 should give a crap about.
    If Bond is cast younger he should at least look rugged and masculine. I always thought Lazenby at 30 looked far closer to, say 38 in OHMSS. Very rugged and he holds up to this day.
    Well said, sir.
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    talos7 wrote: »
    He did put on weight for the film Mena (2017). Any way you look at it, a bit of work done or not, he looks great, gives his all to any film he does and has a track record that beyond impressive. He's a skilled actor and as an "action star" the man is a beast. Yes he's a bit quirky off screen but that's not my business.

    Don't get me wrong. I admire Cruise to no end. He's my second favorite actor of all time after Harrison Ford. Right now he's the greatest action star on the planet, bar none.
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Heavens no. What is it with these boyish actors? Bond becoming male model fashion show?

    Nothing new for a franchise whose past Bonds have been a Mr. Universe contender and the male sex symbol of his generation, an Australian model and a pretty boy who did modeling on the side, respectively. Throw in Brosnan, who many women fawn over to this day just as in his heyday, and the rugged looks of Craig I know many are attracted to, and there you have it.
    Moore also did a little modeling in the late 40s to early 50s. However, my point was that those actors who are picked look like they are soft-natured teenagers, and Bond isn't that. And of course I have to agree about Brosnan being a pretty boy type of portrait in the 80s, but by the time he got into the role, particularly post-GoldenEye, he already was suitable for the part in a combination of a Moore and Dalton pattern.

    I meant Roger in that pretty boy modeling statement, the last in the list, but Brosnan fit that too, yes.

    I do agree that super young Bond castings are usually weird, as the chosen ones often look overly boyish to a degree. The crazy thing about Riley is that he's 36, but barely looks out of university. Genetics can be crazy like that sometimes.
    Agreed. Which is why I want the actors to be over 40 years of age where some ruggedness is present on their faces, and if someone like Stallone nearing 70 can do the unimaginable action stunts by himself, then why can't a Bond actor do that in his 50s? Tom Cruise is 53 years old but he just keeps getting more fit and more powerful you'd think he's in his late 30s.

    I couldn't agree more. In the 60s it was acceptable for Bond to be in his early 30s because, well, men that age had grown up in the depression, lived through WW2 and had a lifetime of experience by 32. In 2016 a typical 32 year old would have got to live through the invention of smart phones, Guitar Hero, and Facebook. None of which agent 007 should give a crap about.
    If Bond is cast younger he should at least look rugged and masculine. I always thought Lazenby at 30 looked far closer to, say 38 in OHMSS. Very rugged and he holds up to this day.

    Agreed and that's what annoys me about people saying 50 is too old to play Bond. Well, 50 today is much different than it was decades ago. It's just a number. The way Craig looks he could go to 60 without breaking a sweat. Again, look at Tom Cruise; biggest/best action star alive and he's 53.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Heavens no. What is it with these boyish actors? Bond becoming male model fashion show?

    Nothing new for a franchise whose past Bonds have been a Mr. Universe contender and the male sex symbol of his generation, an Australian model and a pretty boy who did modeling on the side, respectively. Throw in Brosnan, who many women fawn over to this day just as in his heyday, and the rugged looks of Craig I know many are attracted to, and there you have it.
    Moore also did a little modeling in the late 40s to early 50s. However, my point was that those actors who are picked look like they are soft-natured teenagers, and Bond isn't that. And of course I have to agree about Brosnan being a pretty boy type of portrait in the 80s, but by the time he got into the role, particularly post-GoldenEye, he already was suitable for the part in a combination of a Moore and Dalton pattern.

    I meant Roger in that pretty boy modeling statement, the last in the list, but Brosnan fit that too, yes.

    I do agree that super young Bond castings are usually weird, as the chosen ones often look overly boyish to a degree. The crazy thing about Riley is that he's 36, but barely looks out of university. Genetics can be crazy like that sometimes.
    Agreed. Which is why I want the actors to be over 40 years of age where some ruggedness is present on their faces, and if someone like Stallone nearing 70 can do the unimaginable action stunts by himself, then why can't a Bond actor do that in his 50s? Tom Cruise is 53 years old but he just keeps getting more fit and more powerful you'd think he's in his late 30s.

    I couldn't agree more. In the 60s it was acceptable for Bond to be in his early 30s because, well, men that age had grown up in the depression, lived through WW2 and had a lifetime of experience by 32. In 2016 a typical 32 year old would have got to live through the invention of smart phones, Guitar Hero, and Facebook. None of which agent 007 should give a crap about.
    If Bond is cast younger he should at least look rugged and masculine. I always thought Lazenby at 30 looked far closer to, say 38 in OHMSS. Very rugged and he holds up to this day.

    Agreed and that's what annoys me about people saying 50 is too old to play Bond. Well, 50 today is much different than it was decades ago. It's just a number. The way Craig looks he could go to 60 without breaking a sweat. Again, look at Tom Cruise; biggest/best action star alive and he's 53.
    Yep!
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited June 2016 Posts: 5,767
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Heavens no. What is it with these boyish actors? Bond becoming male model fashion show?

    Nothing new for a franchise whose past Bonds have been a Mr. Universe contender and the male sex symbol of his generation, an Australian model and a pretty boy who did modeling on the side, respectively. Throw in Brosnan, who many women fawn over to this day just as in his heyday, and the rugged looks of Craig I know many are attracted to, and there you have it.
    Moore also did a little modeling in the late 40s to early 50s. However, my point was that those actors who are picked look like they are soft-natured teenagers, and Bond isn't that. And of course I have to agree about Brosnan being a pretty boy type of portrait in the 80s, but by the time he got into the role, particularly post-GoldenEye, he already was suitable for the part in a combination of a Moore and Dalton pattern.

    I meant Roger in that pretty boy modeling statement, the last in the list, but Brosnan fit that too, yes.

    I do agree that super young Bond castings are usually weird, as the chosen ones often look overly boyish to a degree. The crazy thing about Riley is that he's 36, but barely looks out of university. Genetics can be crazy like that sometimes.
    Agreed. Which is why I want the actors to be over 40 years of age where some ruggedness is present on their faces, and if someone like Stallone nearing 70 can do the unimaginable action stunts by himself, then why can't a Bond actor do that in his 50s? Tom Cruise is 53 years old but he just keeps getting more fit and more powerful you'd think he's in his late 30s.

    I couldn't agree more. In the 60s it was acceptable for Bond to be in his early 30s because, well, men that age had grown up in the depression, lived through WW2 and had a lifetime of experience by 32. In 2016 a typical 32 year old would have got to live through the invention of smart phones, Guitar Hero, and Facebook. None of which agent 007 should give a crap about.
    If Bond is cast younger he should at least look rugged and masculine. I always thought Lazenby at 30 looked far closer to, say 38 in OHMSS. Very rugged and he holds up to this day.

    Agreed and that's what annoys me about people saying 50 is too old to play Bond. Well, 50 today is much different than it was decades ago. It's just a number. The way Craig looks he could go to 60 without breaking a sweat. Again, look at Tom Cruise; biggest/best action star alive and he's 53.
    Decades ago it was common that the main characters were played by and portrayed as well beyond 30. The youthamania set in with this bloody origin story trend.

    I wouldn´t mind a young James Bond, as long as he doesn´t look very young, and, most importantly, he has to have charisma. The last young actor I remember qualifying was Jude Law in The Wisdom of Cocodiles.

  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    I'd like a younger Bond in a period movie
  • Pierce2DanielPierce2Daniel
    Posts: 4,400
    The Head of Sony, Tom Rothman, has stated that he believes Sony has the "advantage" in obtaining Bond distribution deal. Comments that talks are yet to begin
    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tom-rothman-spider-man-plans-904849
    _arg8190-thr_h_2016_0.jpg

    Rothman has a bad rep in Hollywood for being frugal. He also looks like an overfed smug git.

    I'm hoping Warner step in.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Pierce2Daniel wrote: »
    The Head of Sony, Tom Rothman, has stated that he believes Sony has the "advantage" in obtaining Bond distribution deal. Comments that talks are yet to begin
    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tom-rothman-spider-man-plans-904849
    _arg8190-thr_h_2016_0.jpg

    Rothman has a bad rep in Hollywood for being frugal. He also looks like an overfed smug git.

    I'm hoping Warner step in.

    Nice office though.
  • Pierce2DanielPierce2Daniel
    edited June 2016 Posts: 4,400
    Edit
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,780
    Personally I am hoping Fox step in bringing Vaughn as director and Fassbender as 007

    Of course this is assuming Craig doesn't want to do it if he did I would welcome him with open arms and even be willing to wait till 2019 lol
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    Pierce2Daniel wrote: »
    The Head of Sony, Tom Rothman, has stated that he believes Sony has the "advantage" in obtaining Bond distribution deal. Comments that talks are yet to begin
    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tom-rothman-spider-man-plans-904849
    _arg8190-thr_h_2016_0.jpg

    Rothman has a bad rep in Hollywood for being frugal. He also looks like an overfed smug git.

    I'm hoping Warner step in.

    'No discussions have started yet'!!! And I thought originally a deal was going to be sorted last Feb/March.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,497
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Pierce2Daniel wrote: »
    The Head of Sony, Tom Rothman, has stated that he believes Sony has the "advantage" in obtaining Bond distribution deal. Comments that talks are yet to begin
    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tom-rothman-spider-man-plans-904849
    _arg8190-thr_h_2016_0.jpg

    Rothman has a bad rep in Hollywood for being frugal. He also looks like an overfed smug git.

    I'm hoping Warner step in.

    'No discussions have started yet'!!! And I thought originally a deal was going to be sorted last Feb/March.

    According to this Deadline article from late May, they wont begin negotiations until later in the year.

    There have been no negotiations on where the Bond movie will land (Sony or Warner Bros. are out front on this) and although it was thought that negotiations might start after the first quarter 2016, parties are not likely to engage in negotiations until later this year. There is no workable script yet and the creative elements have yet to come into place.

    At present BB, MGW and DC all seem to be busy campaigning for the Brexit. Perhaps once there's a result on that, things will start to move forward a little.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Red_Snow wrote: »

    At present BB, MGW and DC all seem to be busy campaigning for the Brexit. Perhaps once there's a result on that, things will start to move forward a little.

    So they changed their minds? Good for them.
Sign In or Register to comment.