Maybe....I may have been looking at things a bit superficially. The trailers were for the new King Arthur film and The Lost City of Z. These trailers were some of the few times I've actually seen Hunnam acting in his actual British accent rather than playing an American (or Australian). In these trailers at least, especially in the Lost City of Z where he plays a WWI era British Army Officer he did convey good screen presence. I will admit that my previous impression of Hunnam, who is 100% British ironically was that he was a bit too "California Surfer Dude" looking for Bond but I think that has changed as he has matured a bit in looks. I still have Hiddleston as my number one choice if Craig does not return. I believe he has the ability to bring both the charm and the darkness of the role.
Was at the movies today and saw two trailers of films starring Charlie Hunnam. I have to say, if DC doesn't return and Barbara Broccoli is still attached to the Craig- type for Bond IMO Hunnam would be perfect. Hunnam basically is a taller, younger (37), more classically handsome version of Craig without the overly weathered look. With the softest of re-boots (some vague references to past adventures, etc EON could slip Hunnam into the tux and not miss a beat). They could easily get 5 or 6 films out of the more youthful looking for his age Hunnam. Just my two cents worth.
Was at the movies today and saw two trailers of films starring Charlie Hunnam. I have to say, if DC doesn't return and Barbara Broccoli is still attached to the Craig- type for Bond IMO Hunnam would be perfect. Hunnam basically is a taller, younger (37), more classically handsome version of Craig without the overly weathered look. With the softest of re-boots (some vague references to past adventures, etc EON could slip Hunnam into the tux and not miss a beat). They could easily get 5 or 6 films out of the more youthful looking for his age Hunnam. Just my two cents worth.
so is Warwick Davies ) ) sorry couldn't resist -{
EON couldn't use Warwick because they would be accused of copying Austin Powers
Purvis and Wade huh.. well I do hope Sony decide to bring back Martin Campbell. He did a fab job on Casino. This may offset any bad story line by Purvis and Wade.
My apologies Matt. It was late, I was hung over... a beautiful woman kept me up until 5 AM yesterday... her lips were like nectar... her smell.. that of a rose.. she tasted more delicious than you can imagine.. long legs.. thick dark curly hair you can run your hands through for ever..
This is why I did not take the time to thoroughly read the beginning of the thread. Please forgive me...
Purvis and Wade huh.. well I do hope Sony decide to bring back Martin Campbell. He did a fab job on Casino. This may offset any bad story line by Purvis and Wade.
Looks like a cross between Brosnan with a dash of Aiden Turner. But tall, dark, and British doesn't guarantee a good Bond...but it's not a bad starting point. The difference maker when it comes to most of the actors who fit the classic cinematic Bond look is charisma and screen presence. They look great in a still photo with the right clothing but as soon as they start to move and open their mouths they get reduced to generic 80's TV movie pseudo Bond-a- likes. Which is why EON vets and screen tests the hell out of these guys.
Looks like a cross between Brosnan with a dash of Aiden Turner. But tall, dark, and British doesn't guarantee a good Bond...but it's not a bad starting point. The difference maker when it comes to most of the actors who fit the classic cinematic Bond look is charisma and screen presence. They look great in a still photo with the right clothing but as soon as they start to move and open their mouths they get reduced to generic 80's TV movie pseudo Bond-a- likes. Which is why EON vets and screen tests the hell out of these guys.
indeed they do and if I remember correctly Craig just pipped Cavill at the post so they must have seen something in Cavill and yet so many members on here dismiss him ( their prerogative of course) I just find that interesting!
I think Cavill, because he was so young and certainly fit the cinematic Bond mold looks-wise was a good fit for the idea of the re-boot; a younger newly appointed "oo" who would grow into the fully formed Bond. Again I think that EON, primarily Barbara, saw something special in Craig and certainly more "out of the box" than the classically handsome Cavill.
I think Cavill, because he was so young and certainly fit the cinematic Bond mold looks-wise was a good fit for the idea of the re-boot; a younger newly appointed "oo" who would grow into the fully formed Bond. Again I think that EON, primarily Barbara, saw something special in Craig and certainly more "out of the box" than the classically handsome Cavill.
Though I don't think Craig is a good actor, I think Cavill is even worse. Both are wooden, but Craig is an aged walnut while Cavill is a soft pine. Cavill would never have been able to fit the vision that Craig took on.
Cavill is both wooden and outwardly smug. This worked for tmfu, in interviews he has outwardly spoken of how smug he is about his life and job, some may say he's entitled to but it makes him a touch less likeable to me.
I think Cavill, because he was so young and certainly fit the cinematic Bond mold looks-wise was a good fit for the idea of the re-boot; a younger newly appointed "oo" who would grow into the fully formed Bond. Again I think that EON, primarily Barbara, saw something special in Craig and certainly more "out of the box" than the classically handsome Cavill.
Though I don't think Craig is a good actor, I think Cavill is even worse. Both are wooden, but Craig is an aged walnut while Cavill is a soft pine. Cavill would never have been able to fit the vision that Craig took on.
What an awesome analogy. I tend to agree with you that Craig has a very limited range as an actor, but I think that's equally true for every actor who has played Bond aside from Dalton. So I don't hold it against Craig. And, as you point out, he was the right fit for the version of Bond they wanted to portray. Cavill would have been abysmal in every way.
What I think is interesting about the idea of Cavill back in 2005 is if you look at the screenplay for Casino Royale, taking out the visuals and Craig's performance it becomes much more obvious, to me at least, it was written with a much younger actor in mind. I don't particularly think it would have worked with Cavill but I would be very interested to visit the parallel universe where he was cast just to see how the script held up with the younger, public school boy, impulsive, character that from my perspective, the screenplay invokes.
I feel that Craig had to contort himself as an actor to make the script work with his idea of Bond and it is not until his later movies that we see Bond films crafted around his idea for the character. Maybe this is why CR is my favourite Craig film as he is having to work harder to make his character work than he has to in later films.
What I think is interesting about the idea of Cavill back in 2005 is if you look at the screenplay for Casino Royale, taking out the visuals and Craig's performance it becomes much more obvious, to me at least, it was written with a much younger actor in mind. I don't particularly think it would have worked with Cavill but I would be very interested to visit the parallel universe where he was cast just to see how the script held up with the younger, public school boy, impulsive, character that from my perspective, the screenplay invokes.
I feel that Craig had to contort himself as an actor to make the script work with his idea of Bond and it is not until his later movies that we see Bond films crafted around his idea for the character. Maybe this is why CR is my favourite Craig film as he is having to work harder to make his character work than he has to in later films.
The CR script really doesn't work so much for Craig based on his age, and he's not quite believable as the public school boy. Cavill would have been perfect for that, but not for the rougher parts of the film.
I think Cavill, because he was so young and certainly fit the cinematic Bond mold looks-wise was a good fit for the idea of the re-boot; a younger newly appointed "oo" who would grow into the fully formed Bond. Again I think that EON, primarily Barbara, saw something special in Craig and certainly more "out of the box" than the classically handsome Cavill.
Though I don't think Craig is a good actor, I think Cavill is even worse. Both are wooden, but Craig is an aged walnut while Cavill is a soft pine. Cavill would never have been able to fit the vision that Craig took on.
What an awesome analogy. I tend to agree with you that Craig has a very limited range as an actor, but I think that's equally true for every actor who has played Bond aside from Dalton. So I don't hold it against Craig. And, as you point out, he was the right fit for the version of Bond they wanted to portray. Cavill would have been abysmal in every way.
Craig does have a limited range, but he's very good within that range. Fortunately, the current iteration of Bond falls squarely in Craig's limited range.
What I think is interesting about the idea of Cavill back in 2005 is if you look at the screenplay for Casino Royale, taking out the visuals and Craig's performance it becomes much more obvious, to me at least, it was written with a much younger actor in mind. I don't particularly think it would have worked with Cavill but I would be very interested to visit the parallel universe where he was cast just to see how the script held up with the younger, public school boy, impulsive, character that from my perspective, the screenplay invokes.
I feel that Craig had to contort himself as an actor to make the script work with his idea of Bond and it is not until his later movies that we see Bond films crafted around his idea for the character. Maybe this is why CR is my favourite Craig film as he is having to work harder to make his character work than he has to in later films.
The CR script really doesn't work so much for Craig based on his age, and he's not quite believable as the public school boy. Cavill would have been perfect for that, but not for the rougher parts of the film.
I think it's clear CR was written for a younger Bond. It would be interesting to see a younger actor play him in that movie, but I would prefer Michael Fassbender over Cavill in that role. To me it will remain one of the great "what if" scenarios of the series.
I like Craig very much within the scope / parameters of the Bond of the re-boot. I think we actually can appreciate how fabulous Connery's performance was as Bond better in hindsight because at the time it just didn't seem like a "performance". Connery was such a force of nature on the screen as Bond and that combined with being the first movie Bond and a relative unknown (especially outside of the UK) he for all intents and purposes was Bond.
I like Craig very much within the scope / parameters of the Bond of the re-boot. I think we actually can appreciate how fabulous Connery's performance was as Bond better in hindsight because at the time it just didn't seem like a "performance". Connery was such a force of nature on the screen as Bond and that combined with being the first movie Bond and a relative unknown (especially outside of the UK) he for all intents and purposes was Bond.
Connery as Bond was one of those perfect instances when the character and the actor mesh completely.
The history of Bond onscreen contains so many fascinating what ifs? What if a young Dalton had been cast instead of Lazenby? What if Connery didn't return for Diamonds Are Forever and Lazenby had another film to establish himself? Or a young Brosnan had been cast in The Living Daylights instead of Dalton?
Ultimately, though, the history can't be rewritten.
I like Craig very much within the scope / parameters of the Bond of the re-boot. I think we actually can appreciate how fabulous Connery's performance was as Bond better in hindsight because at the time it just didn't seem like a "performance". Connery was such a force of nature on the screen as Bond and that combined with being the first movie Bond and a relative unknown (especially outside of the UK) he for all intents and purposes was Bond.
There also was not yet any sort of "template" for who and what Bond was. Sure, he was cut in the mold of some existing TV and film heroes -- Peter Gunn, in the U.S., was dressy, urbane, and popular with women -- and he had his own jazzy theme, for instance. But Connery had to add elements to distinguish himself from the others. All succeeding Bonds have, in one way or another, based their characterizations in part on how they played against Connery's original.
I like Craig very much within the scope / parameters of the Bond of the re-boot. I think we actually can appreciate how fabulous Connery's performance was as Bond better in hindsight because at the time it just didn't seem like a "performance". Connery was such a force of nature on the screen as Bond and that combined with being the first movie Bond and a relative unknown (especially outside of the UK) he for all intents and purposes was Bond.
There also was not yet any sort of "template" for who and what Bond was. Sure, he was cut in the mold of some existing TV and film heroes -- Peter Gunn, in the U.S., was dressy, urbane, and popular with women -- and he had his own jazzy theme, for instance. But Connery had to add elements to distinguish himself from the others. All succeeding Bonds have, in one way or another, based their characterizations in part on how they played against Connery's original.
We can't forget the significant contribution that Terence Young made to Connery's Bond and all who followed him. There's a lot of Terence Young in the cinematic Bond.
Comments
Maybe....I may have been looking at things a bit superficially. The trailers were for the new King Arthur film and The Lost City of Z. These trailers were some of the few times I've actually seen Hunnam acting in his actual British accent rather than playing an American (or Australian). In these trailers at least, especially in the Lost City of Z where he plays a WWI era British Army Officer he did convey good screen presence. I will admit that my previous impression of Hunnam, who is 100% British ironically was that he was a bit too "California Surfer Dude" looking for Bond but I think that has changed as he has matured a bit in looks. I still have Hiddleston as my number one choice if Craig does not return. I believe he has the ability to bring both the charm and the darkness of the role.
EON couldn't use Warwick because they would be accused of copying Austin Powers
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/bond-25-daniel-craig-tom-hiddleston-who-will-play-007-barbara-brocolli-a7667276.html
You should read the thread before jumping in.
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
Yes, he does.
I've been saying this for years :007)
Though I don't think Craig is a good actor, I think Cavill is even worse. Both are wooden, but Craig is an aged walnut while Cavill is a soft pine. Cavill would never have been able to fit the vision that Craig took on.
What an awesome analogy. I tend to agree with you that Craig has a very limited range as an actor, but I think that's equally true for every actor who has played Bond aside from Dalton. So I don't hold it against Craig. And, as you point out, he was the right fit for the version of Bond they wanted to portray. Cavill would have been abysmal in every way.
I feel that Craig had to contort himself as an actor to make the script work with his idea of Bond and it is not until his later movies that we see Bond films crafted around his idea for the character. Maybe this is why CR is my favourite Craig film as he is having to work harder to make his character work than he has to in later films.
The CR script really doesn't work so much for Craig based on his age, and he's not quite believable as the public school boy. Cavill would have been perfect for that, but not for the rougher parts of the film.
Craig does have a limited range, but he's very good within that range. Fortunately, the current iteration of Bond falls squarely in Craig's limited range.
I think it's clear CR was written for a younger Bond. It would be interesting to see a younger actor play him in that movie, but I would prefer Michael Fassbender over Cavill in that role. To me it will remain one of the great "what if" scenarios of the series.
Connery as Bond was one of those perfect instances when the character and the actor mesh completely.
The history of Bond onscreen contains so many fascinating what ifs? What if a young Dalton had been cast instead of Lazenby? What if Connery didn't return for Diamonds Are Forever and Lazenby had another film to establish himself? Or a young Brosnan had been cast in The Living Daylights instead of Dalton?
Ultimately, though, the history can't be rewritten.
We can't forget the significant contribution that Terence Young made to Connery's Bond and all who followed him. There's a lot of Terence Young in the cinematic Bond.
Helped to make Bond a cinema icon. -{