The backstory is irrelevant to the choice of Craig since it was changed to fit Daniel Craig's age and modern times, and it was a bit different from the literary character's backstory. We know he was 37 in Moonraker, and if he ages normally he was 35 in Casino Royale. But since Bond is not a new 00-agent in the the Casino Royale novel, we don't know how old he would have been when he became a 00. I think that Bond acted far too immaturely in the CR film for a 38-year-old. I do happen to personally know a very immature 55-year-old, but for someone in Bond's position it just doesn't make sense. I think someone younger would have been better for that origin story, though not Henry Cavill. 23 would be too young. Late 20s would have made the most sense.
All fine points....but despite the age Bond was in the novels or even other Bond films, EON chose to re-boot the series and had enough faith in Craig to make some adjustments to fit him. Despite what we may think or want, EON can pretty much do whatever they want with the cinematic Bond; fortunately that has worked very well with the Craig films.
The backstory is irrelevant to the choice of Craig since it was changed to fit Daniel Craig's age and modern times, and it was a bit different from the literary character's backstory. We know he was 37 in Moonraker, and if he ages normally he was 35 in Casino Royale. But since Bond is not a new 00-agent in the the Casino Royale novel, we don't know how old he would have been when he became a 00. I think that Bond acted far too immaturely in the CR film for a 38-year-old. I do happen to personally know a very immature 55-year-old, but for someone in Bond's position it just doesn't make sense. I think someone younger would have been better for that origin story, though not Henry Cavill. 23 would be too young. Late 20s would have made the most sense.
All fine points....but despite the age Bond was in the novels or even other Bond films, EON chose to re-boot the series and had enough faith in Craig to make some adjustments to fit him. Despite what we may think or want, EON can pretty much do whatever they want with the cinematic Bond; fortunately that has worked very well with the Craig films.
I know that the novels and previous films don't matter at all to Daniel Craig's film universe. After repeated viewings, I'm no longer convinced.
Back to Henry Cavill...I saw Man From Uncle last week. Very disappointing. Not Henry Cavill's fault as he wasn't given much to work with. At least he has Superman to fall back on (he was very well cast in that role and did an excellent job IMO). I have a feeling that Man From Uncle is one and done. Just not a good film at all.
I saw Hitman:Agent 47 last night, starring Rupert Friend. Since I'm one of the people who has imagined Friend to be a good candidate for Bond, I thought it was worth watching. Agent 47 is ment to have little or no emotions, so it's hard to judge his charisma in a movie like this. In spite of this he manages to portray an engaging character, something of an acting triumph in itself. He is also a convincing leading man and action star in my opinion. I'd say Rupert Friend is still a good candidate for Bond.
I'm in the minority here but I've always favored Henry Cavill or Michael Fassbender as suitable heirs once Daniel Craig leaves the role. I haven't seen The Man From U.N.C.L.E., but from the trailers HC looks to have the right amount of acting ability and charisma to pull off Bond. He definitely have the chops for action.
I feel very much the same way about Michael Fassbender.
I'd go with Fassbender before Cavill. Fassbender has everything it takes to be a modern Bond and he just has much better command of the screen and is a great actor. Not knocking Cavill at all, Fassbender will probably be too old to have any longevity in the role by the time Craig is done anyway. Fassbender would be Bond, Cavill would be an actor playing Bond. To get a better read on Rupert Friend I would recommend watching the series "Homeland" where he plays a very deadly CIA black ops specialist. IMO, with a bit more maturity, Friend would make a good Bond. The character he plays on "Homeland" has more depth than one would expect and Friend does a very good job with it especially considering the character doesn't express his emotions verbally.
Had Craig not returned for Skyfall (which was a possibility when you consider the poor reception of QoS and the lapse of time caused by the MGM financial saga), I think Fassbender would've been a great choice. He's now too well-established and, as many have pointed out, too old to assume the role.
I actually enjoyed Cavill in UNCLE. As a fan of the original series, I appreciated his take on the Solo character. But I still don't think he's right for Bond for many of the same reasons that Fassbender won't get the part. I agree that it will go to an unknown.
Had Craig not returned for Skyfall (which was a possibility when you consider the poor reception of QoS and the lapse of time caused by the MGM financial saga), I think Fassbender would've been a great choice. He's now too well-established and, as many have pointed out, too old to assume the role.
I actually enjoyed Cavill in UNCLE. As a fan of the original series, I appreciated his take on the Solo character. But I still don't think he's right for Bond for many of the same reasons that Fassbender won't get the part. I agree that it will go to an unknown.
Cavill did a great job with Solo. I think Armie Hammer was great as Kuriyakin and Hugh Grant did great as Mr. Waverly despite being 25 years younger than the original. The only problems I had was with how the characters were altered from the originals in the writing. In portrayal they were great and true to the originals in personality and manner. But from what I've seen Cavill in, I don't picture him as Bond.
Cavill did a great job with Solo. I think Armie Hammer was great as Kuriyakin and Hugh Grant did great as Mr. Waverly despite being 25 years younger than the original. The only problems I had was with how the characters were altered from the originals in the writing. In portrayal they were great and true to the originals in personality and manner. But from what I've seen Cavill in, I don't picture him as Bond.
I agree with everything you said about the cast, but IMO the film just really missed the mark on so many other levels. They may have been better off with a bit more serious tone. I really expected more from Guy Ritchie. Maybe Matthew Vaughn would have done a better job balancing things out a bit. Loved the TV show when I was a kid.
Cavill did a great job with Solo. I think Armie Hammer was great as Kuriyakin and Hugh Grant did great as Mr. Waverly despite being 25 years younger than the original. The only problems I had was with how the characters were altered from the originals in the writing. In portrayal they were great and true to the originals in personality and manner. But from what I've seen Cavill in, I don't picture him as Bond.
I agree with everything you said about the cast, but IMO the film just really missed the mark on so many other levels. They may have been better off with a bit more serious tone. I really expected more from Guy Ritchie. Maybe Matthew Vaughn would have done a better job balancing things out a bit. Loved the TV show when I was a kid.
The plot was very much like plots from the show and the dialogue was also in the spirit of the show. But it didn't have many of the things that made the TV show so cool, like the secret and futuristic headquarters. It didn't have the cool gadgets, which were a bigger part of U.N.C.L.E. than they were for Bond at the time. The gadgets were on the level of Moore's Moonraker gadgets. And since there were no gadgets, they couldn't open channel D. They tried to compensate for the coolness lacking in the futuristic aspects with making the film look extra slick. On the show, Solo was slick, but the show overall was not. The tone was most like the show's second season: a little silly but not over the top like the third season. The more serious first and four seasons, however, were the best. And I can't believe they didn't include Thrush. It wouldn't have been that difficult to make the villains Thrush agents. And why not include U.N.C.L.E.? It's just a meaningless word at the end of the film, whilst it meant so much in the series. The whole title of the movie doesn't even make sense in the new context of the film. Essentially, Kingsman included many of the things the U.N.C.L.E. film left out.
Overall, my biggest complaint is that the futuristic aspect of the TV was not present in the movie. It's impossible to make a film set in the past seem futuristic without being cheesy. I think it should have been updated and set in the present. But then it would be so much like Kingsman.
Had Craig not returned for Skyfall (which was a possibility when you consider the poor reception of QoS and the lapse of time caused by the MGM financial saga), I think Fassbender would've been a great choice. He's now too well-established and, as many have pointed out, too old to assume the role.
I actually enjoyed Cavill in UNCLE. As a fan of the original series, I appreciated his take on the Solo character. But I still don't think he's right for Bond for many of the same reasons that Fassbender won't get the part. I agree that it will go to an unknown.
Cavill did a great job with Solo. I think Armie Hammer was great as Kuriyakin and Hugh Grant did great as Mr. Waverly despite being 25 years younger than the original. The only problems I had was with how the characters were altered from the originals in the writing. In portrayal they were great and true to the originals in personality and manner. But from what I've seen Cavill in, I don't picture him as Bond.
I just watched it over the weekend. I'm so glad that Straight out of Compton drew away the crowd! What I enjoyed the most was the retro treatment though some parts were inadequately treated (like the chase between the modern looking dune buggy and the literally modern Land Rover) and of course the 2 leads. What I didn't like was the weak ending. Henry Cavill seems like he's channeling Roger Moore, in fact, playing the role as if Roger Moore in the 60's was cast to play Napoleon Solo as an American.
What I also like is Guy Ritchie's vision of the elegant 60's, which was very unlike the world of Austin Powers. I've always been a stickler how a key trait of Bond (since we're comparing the movie's merits to 007) is him being handsome and how that should really be inviolable; this has been firmly established by Ian Fleming and for the most (lol) part, the casting of the Bond actors. Cavill could use a bit more maturity, a challenge a 29-year old Lazenby managed to successfully convey despite his lack of acting experience. He also came off as smarmy, but despite all that I liked his playing up of the leading man. Another property that used a handsome protagonist is Mad Men, because that trait was so ingrained in the cultural consciousness of the time.
According to "James Bond: The Man and His World" by Henry Chancellor, Fleming purposefully wrote about a glamorous world for a generation used to austerity, but were readers who were exposed to mass advertising that featured handsome men pitching cigarettes and aftershave, and it's no mistake that Bond on the page was compared to a Hollywood leading man, despite his displeasure (but surely to the pleasure of the author!) In summary, I went to the theater to catch a glimpse of the world of Bond in the 60's and despite the fact that this movie is a remake of a key Bond imitator (though there's a Fleming connection), and in that regard I was not disappointed!
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I saw the Film the other Week, and I thought that if he ever did play Bond then his take could be more like Moores/Brosnans.
Brosnan played it "hard" in GE, but devolved into Moorisms in degrees in his later movies. If Cavill is eventually chosen, I hope they do know what they're doing whether they choose to make Bond harder or softer. Just watching "Man of Steel," Cavill is capable in playing hard and serious, just as he can be light as seen in U.N.C.L.E.
I'm reading the "James Bond: A Legacy" book by Cork and Scivaly and about the productions of DAF and LALD, it explained the contexts and rationales why the producers moved toward more humor and lightness in both cases of Connery's return and Moore's debut. It actually made a lot of sense in terms of strategy and how they assessed the movie market and cultural influences during those times. With that said, it seems that artistic considerations (or adherence to the core Bond elements) will always take a back seat to business, and that means whatever will get people into the theaters. It will be interesting to see the direction of the Bond series after DC leaves, because EON may deem they need more of the same, or depending on the social tastes of the present and near future and Bond's place in that context, there may be a need for something totally different and maybe a recycling of a Bond template from the past.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I've thought for a while maybe Gerard butler After a hot shave? Hes played rough characters before but he has done a soft role too. He doesn't look too much like a hardened war veteran instead looks good in a suit but has the physique to kill a man. He's also Scottish, dark haired. He's not everyone's idea of bond but I personally think it's not a bad way to go. Another thing to consider is what bond can do to your career as an actor. Cavill is still quite young and could go on to other films, with the bond reputation this would be harder though. Butler hasn't really done anything for a while, he's older so not only arguably would be a career boost but also I can't see him going on to do a franchise anytime soon? Going back to the character of bond, his age and appearance is suited to a naval commander who's now in secret service. He's got a look but blends in with society.
Gerard Butler is a plank of wood who was never going to be contacted by EON.
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,818MI6 Agent
I wouldn't say he's a plank of wood, but He has been in he background of TND, and on Graham Norton his comments implied he likes the films, but has no desire to play Bond. Plus he is already established to for doing action films already.
Suggesting anyone already known and established, or 45+ is a waste of time. They are already outside the 007 equasion.
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
Not that I'm in any hurry to see Craig move on (at least one more after SPECTRE), but I think the next Bond will be in the mold of Craig's pre-Bond career: not a complete unknown, but an actor who has not yet had a leading role in a high profile commercial film but is considered to be talented and well regarded for roles in smaller films.
Comments
All fine points....but despite the age Bond was in the novels or even other Bond films, EON chose to re-boot the series and had enough faith in Craig to make some adjustments to fit him. Despite what we may think or want, EON can pretty much do whatever they want with the cinematic Bond; fortunately that has worked very well with the Craig films.
I know that the novels and previous films don't matter at all to Daniel Craig's film universe. After repeated viewings, I'm no longer convinced.
I feel very much the same way about Michael Fassbender.
I actually enjoyed Cavill in UNCLE. As a fan of the original series, I appreciated his take on the Solo character. But I still don't think he's right for Bond for many of the same reasons that Fassbender won't get the part. I agree that it will go to an unknown.
Cavill did a great job with Solo. I think Armie Hammer was great as Kuriyakin and Hugh Grant did great as Mr. Waverly despite being 25 years younger than the original. The only problems I had was with how the characters were altered from the originals in the writing. In portrayal they were great and true to the originals in personality and manner. But from what I've seen Cavill in, I don't picture him as Bond.
I agree with everything you said about the cast, but IMO the film just really missed the mark on so many other levels. They may have been better off with a bit more serious tone. I really expected more from Guy Ritchie. Maybe Matthew Vaughn would have done a better job balancing things out a bit. Loved the TV show when I was a kid.
The plot was very much like plots from the show and the dialogue was also in the spirit of the show. But it didn't have many of the things that made the TV show so cool, like the secret and futuristic headquarters. It didn't have the cool gadgets, which were a bigger part of U.N.C.L.E. than they were for Bond at the time. The gadgets were on the level of Moore's Moonraker gadgets. And since there were no gadgets, they couldn't open channel D. They tried to compensate for the coolness lacking in the futuristic aspects with making the film look extra slick. On the show, Solo was slick, but the show overall was not. The tone was most like the show's second season: a little silly but not over the top like the third season. The more serious first and four seasons, however, were the best. And I can't believe they didn't include Thrush. It wouldn't have been that difficult to make the villains Thrush agents. And why not include U.N.C.L.E.? It's just a meaningless word at the end of the film, whilst it meant so much in the series. The whole title of the movie doesn't even make sense in the new context of the film. Essentially, Kingsman included many of the things the U.N.C.L.E. film left out.
Overall, my biggest complaint is that the futuristic aspect of the TV was not present in the movie. It's impossible to make a film set in the past seem futuristic without being cheesy. I think it should have been updated and set in the present. But then it would be so much like Kingsman.
I just watched it over the weekend. I'm so glad that Straight out of Compton drew away the crowd! What I enjoyed the most was the retro treatment though some parts were inadequately treated (like the chase between the modern looking dune buggy and the literally modern Land Rover) and of course the 2 leads. What I didn't like was the weak ending. Henry Cavill seems like he's channeling Roger Moore, in fact, playing the role as if Roger Moore in the 60's was cast to play Napoleon Solo as an American.
What I also like is Guy Ritchie's vision of the elegant 60's, which was very unlike the world of Austin Powers. I've always been a stickler how a key trait of Bond (since we're comparing the movie's merits to 007) is him being handsome and how that should really be inviolable; this has been firmly established by Ian Fleming and for the most (lol) part, the casting of the Bond actors. Cavill could use a bit more maturity, a challenge a 29-year old Lazenby managed to successfully convey despite his lack of acting experience. He also came off as smarmy, but despite all that I liked his playing up of the leading man. Another property that used a handsome protagonist is Mad Men, because that trait was so ingrained in the cultural consciousness of the time.
According to "James Bond: The Man and His World" by Henry Chancellor, Fleming purposefully wrote about a glamorous world for a generation used to austerity, but were readers who were exposed to mass advertising that featured handsome men pitching cigarettes and aftershave, and it's no mistake that Bond on the page was compared to a Hollywood leading man, despite his displeasure (but surely to the pleasure of the author!) In summary, I went to the theater to catch a glimpse of the world of Bond in the 60's and despite the fact that this movie is a remake of a key Bond imitator (though there's a Fleming connection), and in that regard I was not disappointed!
Brosnan played it "hard" in GE, but devolved into Moorisms in degrees in his later movies. If Cavill is eventually chosen, I hope they do know what they're doing whether they choose to make Bond harder or softer. Just watching "Man of Steel," Cavill is capable in playing hard and serious, just as he can be light as seen in U.N.C.L.E.
I'm reading the "James Bond: A Legacy" book by Cork and Scivaly and about the productions of DAF and LALD, it explained the contexts and rationales why the producers moved toward more humor and lightness in both cases of Connery's return and Moore's debut. It actually made a lot of sense in terms of strategy and how they assessed the movie market and cultural influences during those times. With that said, it seems that artistic considerations (or adherence to the core Bond elements) will always take a back seat to business, and that means whatever will get people into the theaters. It will be interesting to see the direction of the Bond series after DC leaves, because EON may deem they need more of the same, or depending on the social tastes of the present and near future and Bond's place in that context, there may be a need for something totally different and maybe a recycling of a Bond template from the past.
I think it would be interesting to see what Dougray Scott could do -{
Suggesting anyone already known and established, or 45+ is a waste of time. They are already outside the 007 equasion.