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 think Pierce Brosnan had this cool vibe like Sean Connery. You could see from the beginning in Goldeneye he was born to play Bond.
The only flaw there was came from the hair and dress style departments, He just needed a better fitted suits and better hair cutwhich were fixed right away in his second film but his acting was great since his first film.
That coolness, Charisma and Charm to me is more important than the fighting and action skills.
Anyway saying so i agree with you the screen test should have more than just one scene and all the ones you mentioned are the perfect ones to know if an actor is right for Bond.
Jamie Dornan could work he definitely has the good looks and but he is much more aimed at the female crowd.
i know I've always said i want a Bond actor which will be loved by the females and could make them look forward to watch Bond as long as the next actor stays but now im afraid Jamie could alienate the guys which is the fan base i guess Eon cares more about.
We need a bond actor which will be almost equally loved by both gendres like Sean Connery did
Agree with both of you. You just won't find a Connery these days, he's a relic of a bygone era. Finding someone who embodies the Fleming model is incredibly difficult and I still think Connery was the only one to come close. I know there's a school that thinks Dalton nailed it, but even he fell short. I mean, he's just not in Connery's league whichever way you cut it.
This is part of the reason I admire Roger as much as I do, he was an agent of change. Not too much, but he shifted the goalposts enough that it helped the cinematic incarnation take on a life of its own. Throw of the shackles so to speak.
There are several shades of Bond and every fan and casual fan has a preference that lies somewhere on that spectrum.
I honestly don't think we'd be here talking about this if every iteration were to stick stringently to the Fleming archetype.
Going forward I think it's always about keeping Fleming right to the heart of it, but allowing a shift in character that's beneficial to the actor portraying him. That should always involve one foot in the past and one in the present. That's the balance they have to find for Bond to 'be' Bond, whilst also staying relevant.
Depending of course in which year he'll actually take over the role.
Craig might do another one or even two.
Sean Connery's Bond is a memory from the past. There won't be a Sean Connery version 2 and perhaps that's for the best. Each actor has to bring their own qualities to the role and if some fans don't like it, so be it! I have grown to be 'okay' with Craig as Bond and I suspect some fans will feel the same about the next bloke in the role.
you have a point there, the casting of Craig has proven that "any" guy could work being Bond if he is confident and masculine enough.
Which is sad really. I rather have someone that resembles Fleming's vision (Dalton) or that simply creates his own iconic version of Bond (Moore) or someone that combines the best of the predecessors (Brosnan).
I also Agree with this.
One of my big regrets was not seeing him live on Broadway in 2014 when he was doing an adaptation of A Raisin in the Sun. I had tickets and was all set for it, but unfortunately work priorities kept me in Canada and I couldn't make the trip. Fortunately, I got a refund from the Theatre.
If you've not seen Crimson Tide, I highly recommend it. Two legends (Washington and Hackman) square off in a submarine. Great stuff.
And an epic soundtrack and score.
I still cant work out who was right or wrong in what happened...I think you just have to say they were both right and both wrong.
I remember Gene Siskel commenting that Denzel would have been his choice for Bond during the Brosnan era.
I still need to see Devil In A Blue Dress, as that film would be right up my alley.
Another good film,but watch it on your own as it needs concentration.
So far in all the candidates for Bond #7 I don't see anyone with Craig's acting skills (bar Fassbender), or anyone who can ace the effortless factor like Connery.
I thought that Brosnan was good in GE & DAD. I personally prefer his more generic GE Bond. Having said that, he brings more of 'Brosnan' in DAD and it's a suitable interpretation (I actually prefer him in DAD to Craig in SP because I feel Brosnan is being more himself in DAD than Craig is himself in SP, if that makes any sense).
A Bond actor really needs to bring an extension of their personality to succeed imho. That's why I prefer Craig when he's the tough as nails character (QoS) or the cynical, jaded character (SF). I think both of those attributes are inherent to Craig's persona, and therefore it's quite natural when he accentuates that via his acting.