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
EDIT: of course they could hire a big name director like Nolan and then people will be focused on that, rather than the actor. That is indeed a possibility here.
I'm curious to see how this one plays out. It will be a very interesting changeover when it finally comes.
Totally agree with this @bondjames .
All I can say is, if I was the CEO of MGM, I'd cause as little obstruction as possible and let EON get on with doing what they do best, that is continuing to make money for the studio.
He was good in it and after watching ATTWN I even suggested his name here. Then I thought twice and it struck me that: 1)he was playing an English stereotype in a whodunit and 2)he was not as dark and menacing as in the source material.
You're both correct. There is nothing offensive about Turner. He has a certain look that adheres to a generic vision many have of Bond, but for me he's simply (as hinted at above) not interesting enough. The facets he supposedly brings are found better elsewhere. The combination most attribute to him; a brooding intensity, is nothing compared with fellow bookies favourite, Norton. Granted, Turner may be aesthetically more Fleming, but in terms of delivering a performance that is at once charismatic, yet incredibly intense (at times psychotic), see Norton in Happy Valley. The guy blows Turner out of the water.
Several people have tested, as far as I'm aware (this is nothing new) and I'm sure Turner is one. Likewise many of the others, bar Elba, have also tested. As and when they recast, the landscape will, in part, dictate the decision,
Unless Turner has delivered something I'm yet to see even a glimmer of, I simply can't see him getting the gig. There just isn't the angle on which to sell his Bond.
+1. But I am questioning Turners lack of star quality and thus unsuitably to Bond.
By acting cool I meant 'acting'. Was Connery suave in real life...no....but oncreen absolutely. Is Craig cool in real life....no idea.....he is portrayed as guarded and fairly shy for a star.....but who cares because he is cool on screen.
Bang on.
I guess Turner is tall, dark and handsome in a way many perceive Bond to be. For strictly commercial reasons he might be the right choice the way Brosnan was when cast. But unlike Brosnan he's no heir apparent, he would not be succeeding a controversial and unloved Bond actor (whatever the Dalton fans say they were an endangered species back in the 90s) from a disappointing and shortened tenure and thus he won't be plebiscited. Which seriously diminishes his appeal.
Exactly! My top choice definitely! 41 yrs old currently and he'd be the first Canadian actor to play Bond if he gets picked. Speaks with a nice British accent in the show as well. Perfect.
Excellent post. I think he will be plebiscited, though - for one main reason. People are tired of a dramatic Bond. I would argue that Craig's style of Bond film is becoming dated, much like Moore's films in the 80's. We've been working from the same rough model for a decade now, and I think people are ready for something different like how they how something darker in the 80's (SP reminds me of FYEO, with Craig and Moore adapting their styles to try and satisfy audiences changing tastes). When you look at how things have changed since 2006, back then patriotism, populism, and overall merriment were at an all time low. It was all about gritty reboots, dour origin stories etc. That worked back then, but since we have seen a gradual culture-wide reawakening. People are ready for a good time at the movies again, and if you look at the new franchises starting up like Deadpool, they are a lot more irreverent. Who is the natural Ryan Reynolds for Bond - Aidan Turner. He is proving it in interviews, he has that same happy-go-lucky style Reynolds has and I think that, along with Chris Pratt of course, is the model for starring roles in the 2020's. The Bale, Craig, Jackson type leading man is a dying breed in today's cinematic landscape.
EON, if they are as smart as some seem to think, will have anticipated this shift. It may seem out of the blue, in the afterglow of Craig that Bond should take such a turn, but then again no one saw CR coming of the heels DAD. The idea of a irreverent Bond seems strange at the moment, because it's been so long, but it will be the new standard in the years to come.
Sorry if this doesn't make sense but I tried to explain my perspective on the matter...
Chris Pratt is indeed a very good example of the kind of effortless rugged star quality they should look for going forward imho. He does humour very well in addition to having a little machismo.
Not sure if I would lump Bale in with Craig. He can do the easy going very well too, although I'll admit that his Batman films were on the deep side.
Just to be clear, I don't think that the character in ATTWN matches up with how Turner would play the role of Bond. He's playing a headstrong, virile male, but not Bond and certainly not his Bond. I believe that Turner would play Bond far looser, and have fun with it. The character he plays in ATTWN is quite severe by comparison, more like a Dalton than a Brosnan.
When I first saw him in it in Dec 2015, I thought he would more a Dalton type. It's only after watching some interviews with him on YouTube that I found his true character. And this is where I think many people have problems seeing him as Bond. He has never really played a laid back, irreverent figure. Both in Poldark and in ATTWN he is playing serious, stoic men. I mention this because one of the criticisms I see made of Turner is that he doesn't have presence or that he appears stiif and too much like he is acting and not simply being. I think that's because, just like Brosnan a bit in GE (another similarity with Broz!), he is not really playing to his strengths. As soon as you look at him in interviews he is completely bubbly, jovial, not taking himself seriously. That's perhaps why he seems so stiff to some.
But when you compare him with Reynolds and Pratt, suddenly it starts to make far more sense. Those actors get to bring their natural warmth and humour onto screen with them, instead of leaving it on the door. That's why I'm convinced Turner can make a good Bond.
P.s. I'm not at all saying that And Then There Were None isn't worth watching - far from. It's a great show, and Turner definetly demonstrates a lot of positive Bondian traits. It just occurred to me recently that he may not play Bond that way, and I wouldn't want that false perception to colour your experience.
I'm not sure I would lump Reynolds in with Pratt either though. Pratt has skills. Reynolds finally hit the big league in costume, but isn't worthy of comparison. Useless actor imho.
Now he looks like bond
http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/804408/James-Bond-Aidan-Turner-Eleanor-Tomlinson-Poldark
charlize theron is releasing a jane bond movie this summer as "at0mic blonde" maybe a hint this bitch is a suggestion for the next bond, what a joke!