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
The closest to a "period-piece" faithful adaptation we'll get is something like the piss-poor quality of alterations like Agatha Christie's books are done as of late. We don't want that, do we?
Nooo, we don't, Sir. Nothing like the Granada times. Those were the days.
With regards to Turner, I find him far too similar to Brosnan. And that's coming from a Brosnan fan.
Assessing potential Bonds is like a Rorschach test. Lol
I agree on the viewpoint that a Bond actor requires a little edginess or darkness. Moore did have that. It wasn't in his overall look, but he could turn it on with ease when he wanted to and there are numerous examples I could cite. Brosnan less so, but he had it in his look. I'm not sure Hemsworth has that, although I think he's a decent actor within his range of comfort, which is in more lighter based fare. He wasn't impressive during the dramatic moments as Thor imho.
I'm keeping an open mind on Turner. He has a suitable look but as I've noted previously, I've not seen him in enough to formulate an accurate judgment. I agree that he has the best chance of getting it out of these three since he's not as well known.
Yeah, casting the next James Bond must certainly be both stressful and enjoyable!
Some of us haven't been negative to the idea of Turner at all. He's been on my top three list since ATTWN. Luke Evans is still my preferred choice, but given his age, that won't happen now unfortunately.
In an ideal word (IMO) it would have been Hugh Jackman playing the part post-Brosnan with Luke Evans being cast around 2012.
That's the thing though, he's worse.
Another point though I know Liam Neeson is in his 60’s but he can still pass for 48 so come on just one bond film with him please
True. Same for me, and the main reason I do find him suitable. He reminds me of Dalton. But then again, I have seen the Poldark series, and I think he's more than just a decent actor. Not wooden at all, and with a wide range of acting masks so to speak. I'm a big Brosnan fan, but Turner is the superior actor by a long margin.
1) He's got the looks and the intensity (not just a pretty boy model lookalike like Brozza);
2) He's got the voice. Not that Irish americanised stuff you'd get from Brozza;
3) He can be cruel, he can be romantically sweet;
4) He's got a commanding presence, or he wouldn't have been suited for the Captain Poldark character, who is a natural born leader of men;
5) He has a way with the ladies, as Bond should;
6) He's not an A lister;
7) He could commit to the role for a long time;
8) He's a mixture of Connery, Dalton and, ok, Brosnan a bit (but who wouldn't want that for the role?)
9) He's polite and funny as an interviewee, and defends his roles to the max;
10) Do watch the Agatha Christie And then there were none tv series - best Bond audition probably ever. Way better than, say, Remington Steele, Layer Cake,... And I know Poldark is a bit of a sopa operetta, but do watch it to get a sense of his acting range and, particularly, his voice (as in the Christie show he had his Irish natural speaking voice).
As an exemple:
I'm sure he's on their list, although I'm not sure at what rank.
Excellent post, could have written it myself ;) All I can say is preach and amen. Babs, if you're reading all of this and lurking in the shadows and all that, just give Turner the job. The man is probably Dalton's lost son anyway. The 007 DNA oozes from his pores. How much more proof do we need.
GIVE THAT MAN THE JOB! in 5 years time. Guy's my age now.
When I was growing up, I did like Brosnan as Bond, mainly because I identified myself with him physically - yes, even the GE hair. And as I had read all the books twice, I identified with the character as well - physically speaking, that is, and in some regards, not all. The dark type, the suave type. So I'm tired of the brutish bouncer blonde battering ram type we've got for the last 13 years. So sue me if I want to go back to a phenotype which I can relate to. That was one of the reasons I chose Bond as my hero when I was a kid.
So I'm a Turner supporter. And if they go and choose Hemsworth, Hardy, Cavill, ..., or whomever fits that macho ape bruiser muscle inflated half monk half killer wall breaking wondering idiot Ivan Draco lookalike, I'll stop my fandom. Enough is enough. As a writer, I defend the writer's creation, not the pc idiocy or the blonde police. I do like Craig, but he's over inflated as an actor, IMO. Not the thespian everyone says he is. And if they pulled a Boyle on Craig, and had him replaced with Turner immediately, for an original, non continated script, I wouldn't loose any sleep over it. In fact, I'd welcome it.
There, said it, off my chest at last.
I notice that my stance on Turner has changed for the better ;-). Interesting.
With Mr. Burns voice: Excellent...
Yes, can we please return to that?
Regarding tailoring of a film to the actor's strengths: I'd argue that this is precisely what EON have been doing with Craig, until SP at least.
The films must follow the actor's strengths, and I think they will cast going forward based on what kind of films they want to make. I also think there will be a variation, in order to distinguish and differentiate the future entries from the departing Craig era.
I reckon he has given that impression as he mostly starred in TV productions and not really in films made for the cinema. The guy has been tied down in whichever series he starred in, as the main protagonist mind you. In this day and age TV is no longer a dirty word, especially since Netflix/HBO have been around. A-list actors make cross overs to TV and vice versa, so that point is moot imo. Also, have seen you 'And then there were none' yet? A cinematic performance right there, also because the production itself doesn't really come over as 'TV'. TV actors to me sounds like flat, lesser equipped actors than the higher tier ones seen in film. I reckon most people in here are of the opinion Turner certainly isn't '2D', rather a strong potential for the next Bond and Bond does need some '3D acting'.
He has done the Hobbit films by Peter Jackson and quite well actually