Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,818MI6 Agent
edited January 2017
The only 'office staff' chsracter in danger is Tanner, and that's becauae the character is underused.
One of the reasons Ralph Fiennes, Naomi Harris and Ben Wishaw were cast is because they are damned fine actors. The other is longevity. They can play their characters for the duration that Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell and Desmond Llewellyn all did, may they rest in peace.
No this is all about Bond, and who plays him.
If Craig does do one more, it should be seperate from the arty farty theatrics of the last three. Make it a stand alone, damned good classic Bond film fun without Blofeld, Spectre, M-Manf, Bond's trauma, the lot of it!
And no Mendez and Newman! One does pretentious, the other is simply Crap. (Finding Nemo excepted.)
(We now return you to TB2's regular analysis.)
On the other hand, the time is ripe for a new Bond that within himself is fun and exciting (not too much, don't repeat Sir Roger) while his world is dangerous. Get a feel of the books and TLD in the present, as CR-06 did.
Trouble is, I can only see Dan Stevens, Aiden Turner or perhaps Tom Hardy making that work. That's why I think thete is an unknown, not on our radar.
The House Of Eon need to think about this carefully. Thankfully, they usually do.
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
The only 'office staff' chsracter in danger is Tanner, and that's becauae the character is underused.
One of the reasons Ralph Fiennes, Naomi Harris and Ben Wishaw were cast is because they are damned fine actors. The other is longevity. They can play their characters for the duration that Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell and Desmond Llewellyn all did, may they rest in peace.
No this is all about Bond, and who plays him.
If Craig does do one more, it should be seperate from the arty farty theatrics of the last three. Make it a stand alone, damned good classic Bond film fun without Blofeld, Spectre, M-Manf, Bond's trauma, the lot of it!
And no Mendez and Newman! One is pretentious, the other is Crap.
(We now return you to TB2's regular analysis.)
On the other hand, the time is ripe for a new Bond that within himself is fun and exciting (not too much, don't repeat Sir Roger) while his world is dangerous. Get a feel of the books and TLD in the present, as CR-06 did.
Trouble is, I can only see Dan Stevens, Aiden Turner or perhaps Tom Hardy making that work. That's why I think thete is an unknown, not on our radar.
The House Of Eon need to think about this carefully. Thankfully, they usually do.
I think Rory kinnear Is also a fine actor, he is excellent in penny dreadful, and southcliffe.
And, if Elba is nonsensical as Bond, so was Craig, and yet he got the role.
Why do you think Craig was a nonsensical choice for Bond ?
Craig was "nonsensical" in the sense that it went against what we imagined Bond to look like. Yet he gained a large following. I don't think Elba would be any different.
Well, Bond's history changes. I don't see that as a problem at all. And, if Elba is nonsensical as Bond, so was Craig, and yet he got the role.
I do realize that we will not see Elba as Bond, but this is a poll about who we would like to see as Bond, not who will be Bond!
You are right about this poll being about who the memers would like to see play Bond. That's why I included all the candidates I could think of, also those I didn't believe in myself.
Bond can and must change to a certain degree, but not too much. The problem is that if Bond and his history changes too much, he will not be Bond anymore. How much he can change is always a matter of debate.
I have aslo googled "nonsensical" and can now reply that Craig isn't ...... that. )
Craig stretched the limits of what the cinematic Bond should look like, but his look never gainsaid Fleming in any important way.
Bond changes partly because the times change. Craig's Bond is certainly not the cold-war era spy who trained during World War 2. It's been half a century, and our world is different. The next Bond will need to reflect our times too.
Bond changes partly because the times change. Craig's Bond is certainly not the cold-war era spy who trained during World War 2. It's been half a century, and our world is different. The next Bond will need to reflect our times too.
Agreed. The Bond who bought a car in 1933 can't be the Bond who uses a Sony phone in 2006, for example. The world has moved on, and Bond must move too... though not too much!
Bond is always about 37-42 now whenever now is- or the whole conceit falls apart. As Kingsley Amis said, a few years either way is acceptable but it mustn't be stretched too far: Bond can't be 21 or 62.
This shows up a basic difference between James Bond and other major franchises (Star Wars, The Lord Of The Rings/The Hobbit, Marvel, DC etc)- these strive for consistency (and their failures occupy much Internet forums) while there is no way the Bond "universe" can be consistent since it centres on one man, who couldn't possibly have experienced all the adventures he's meant to have had,. My attitude is to sit back and enjoy it. 007 had adventures in the 1930s (the Young Bond series), the 1940s (largely undocumented... so far), the 1950s (the bulk of Fleming), the 1960s (the Connery films, Fleming's latter novels, the first continuation novels), the 1970s (the Moore films), the 1980s (Moore hands over to Dalton, Gardner's series begins)..... you get the idea.
James Bond stops being a possibly real person in the 80s- both the films and the novels quietly make him ageless and immortal at around this point.
And, if Elba is nonsensical as Bond, so was Craig, and yet he got the role.
Why do you think Craig was a nonsensical choice for Bond ?
Craig was "nonsensical" in the sense that it went against what we imagined Bond to look like. Yet he gained a large following. I don't think Elba would be any different.
Personally I think Elba would be very different in outcome...but your point is valid -{
Idris Elba (Bond is not black!)
Tom Hardy (too short)
Unsure about:
Michael Fassbender
Tom Hiddleston
Benedict Cumberbatch
The above are big names and fantastic actors, but I'm not so sure that they'd be fantastic as Bond. I'm not convinced that Fassbender or Hiddleston in particular looks enough like Bond, but Cumberbatch could work. Of the three, I think Cumberbatch can pull off Bond the best, but I do wonder if there'll be the inevitable comparison between his Bond and Sherlock Holmes.
Also unsure about:
Charlie Hunnam
Dan Stevens
James Norton
Damian Lewis
Luke Evans
Barry Sloane
Oliver Jackson-Cohen
Matthew Goode
I'm not convinced that they look enough like Bond to pull it off.
I like:
Nicholas Hoult Henry Cavill
Aaron Taylor-Johnson
Aidan Turner
Since I had to pick one, I went with Nicholas Hoult.
Aiden Tuner is my top choice, but Poldark just got picked up for a fourth season. Per Turner, “We start filming series four in September." Not sure how long the shooting schedule is, but that could impact his availability for Bond 25.
Of those on the list, I'd have to say only Aiden Turner and Clive Standen seem to have the right combination of elements (age, look, physicality, etc.), though I could live with Hiddleston. The rest are either too old (Elba, Fassbender), too young (any of them with baby faces), or just dopey.
I've liked the idea of Clive Standen as Bond for years now. Right age, level of fame, nationality etc. He would also handle the physical aspect of the job superbly, since he's an accomplished Thai boxer, advanced gold certificate in sword fighting from the British Academy of Stage and Screen Combat and he climbs, hikes etc.
I'm actually relieved Elba didn't get votes. In my opinion it shows that AJB007 members are realistic. Elba is great actor, looks good on screen and did fantastic work in The Wire. But he is 44 years old and simply the age one might think of leaving the James Bond role, not getting cast in it. There is also another issue. Both the books and particularily the Daniel Craig movies has stressed the fact that Bond is the son of a Scottish laird and a Swiss woman, and few would argue that Elba looks like the son of such a couple. Race is a touchy issue, but there are simply some roles an actor's ethic background is problematic for. In a franchise were the main character has no history, such as Mission Impossible, this wouldn't be a problem. Bond has a history, and I think it's strength for the franchise.
I'm coming to this poll a little late but wanted to say that this is a very well argued point which I agree with. I like Elba, think he's a damn fine actor and would love to go for a pint with him but he's not Bond
I was torn between Hardy and Cavill - I think Cavill would be superb but Hardy edged it just.
Tom Hardy is 5 ft 9 Craig is only an inch taller..
Connery, Lazenby, and Dalton are 6'2.5", and Moore and Brosnan are 6'1".
I don't think anyone truly believes that Daniel is 5ft 10 really. Actors bios tend towards the 'optimistic'. I think that it's likely that Daniel is also 5ft 9 barefoot.i don't think that height itself would count against him. He would not be my first choice as I think that a return towards the Archetype is in order. However like Craig he has some great qualities and would be a continuation of the current interpretation. His role in Inception could be viewed as a Bond tryout and I thought he was great in it.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Tom Hardy is 5 ft 9 Craig is only an inch taller..
Connery, Lazenby, and Dalton are 6'2.5", and Moore and Brosnan are 6'1".
I don't think anyone truly believes that Daniel is 5ft 10 really. Actors bios tend towards the 'optimistic'. I think that it's likely that Daniel is also 5ft 9 barefoot.i don't think that height itself would count against him. He would not be my first choice as I think that a return towards the Archetype is in order. However like Craig he has some great qualities and would be a continuation of the current interpretation. His role in Inception could be viewed as a Bond tryout and I thought he was great in it.
I'm thinking more like 4'10 or 4'11" for DC. They do a great job hiding his big, hairy feet too. )
Connery, Lazenby, and Dalton are 6'2.5", and Moore and Brosnan are 6'1".
I don't think anyone truly believes that Daniel is 5ft 10 really. Actors bios tend towards the 'optimistic'. I think that it's likely that Daniel is also 5ft 9 barefoot.i don't think that height itself would count against him. He would not be my first choice as I think that a return towards the Archetype is in order. However like Craig he has some great qualities and would be a continuation of the current interpretation. His role in Inception could be viewed as a Bond tryout and I thought he was great in it.
I'm thinking more like 4'10 or 4'11" for DC. They do a great job hiding his big, hairy feet too. )
Trying to work out if your comment is a swipe at DC, or me, or both (I see Venn diagrams)
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Joanna Lumley and I agree on Idris Elba - he's a fine actor and movie star, but he simply doesn't fit the description of the character in the books (and he's too old too)
Joanna Lumley and I agree on Idris Elba - he's a fine actor and movie star, but he simply doesn't fit the description of the character in the books (and he's too old too)
Oh not Elba again! Its irrelivent, he doesn't want the part!!
Elba will go down in history as Daniel Craig's replacement, with Craig's actual replacement as Bond number 8. People have been asking me for a few years now when Elba's Bond film is coming out.
I think Elba said it best when he acknowledged that whatever marginal chance he might have had of becoming Bond was destroyed by the media's wild speculation about him becoming Bond. I doubt anyone ever seriously considered him, but he's right that the whole thing burned itself out.
And to Matt's point, people ask me all the time if I'm excited about Elba as Bond. )
I'm guessing that EON will entice Craig back for a swansong, which means that by the time EON starts seriously looking for a new Bond Elba will be too old anyway.
Comments
One of the reasons Ralph Fiennes, Naomi Harris and Ben Wishaw were cast is because they are damned fine actors. The other is longevity. They can play their characters for the duration that Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell and Desmond Llewellyn all did, may they rest in peace.
No this is all about Bond, and who plays him.
If Craig does do one more, it should be seperate from the arty farty theatrics of the last three. Make it a stand alone, damned good classic Bond film fun without Blofeld, Spectre, M-Manf, Bond's trauma, the lot of it!
And no Mendez and Newman! One does pretentious, the other is simply Crap. (Finding Nemo excepted.)
(We now return you to TB2's regular analysis.)
On the other hand, the time is ripe for a new Bond that within himself is fun and exciting (not too much, don't repeat Sir Roger) while his world is dangerous. Get a feel of the books and TLD in the present, as CR-06 did.
Trouble is, I can only see Dan Stevens, Aiden Turner or perhaps Tom Hardy making that work. That's why I think thete is an unknown, not on our radar.
The House Of Eon need to think about this carefully. Thankfully, they usually do.
Craig was "nonsensical" in the sense that it went against what we imagined Bond to look like. Yet he gained a large following. I don't think Elba would be any different.
Bond changes partly because the times change. Craig's Bond is certainly not the cold-war era spy who trained during World War 2. It's been half a century, and our world is different. The next Bond will need to reflect our times too.
Agreed. The Bond who bought a car in 1933 can't be the Bond who uses a Sony phone in 2006, for example. The world has moved on, and Bond must move too... though not too much!
Bond is always about 37-42 now whenever now is- or the whole conceit falls apart. As Kingsley Amis said, a few years either way is acceptable but it mustn't be stretched too far: Bond can't be 21 or 62.
This shows up a basic difference between James Bond and other major franchises (Star Wars, The Lord Of The Rings/The Hobbit, Marvel, DC etc)- these strive for consistency (and their failures occupy much Internet forums) while there is no way the Bond "universe" can be consistent since it centres on one man, who couldn't possibly have experienced all the adventures he's meant to have had,. My attitude is to sit back and enjoy it. 007 had adventures in the 1930s (the Young Bond series), the 1940s (largely undocumented... so far), the 1950s (the bulk of Fleming), the 1960s (the Connery films, Fleming's latter novels, the first continuation novels), the 1970s (the Moore films), the 1980s (Moore hands over to Dalton, Gardner's series begins)..... you get the idea.
James Bond stops being a possibly real person in the 80s- both the films and the novels quietly make him ageless and immortal at around this point.
Personally I think Elba would be very different in outcome...but your point is valid -{
Idris Elba (Bond is not black!)
Tom Hardy (too short)
Unsure about:
Michael Fassbender
Tom Hiddleston
Benedict Cumberbatch
The above are big names and fantastic actors, but I'm not so sure that they'd be fantastic as Bond. I'm not convinced that Fassbender or Hiddleston in particular looks enough like Bond, but Cumberbatch could work. Of the three, I think Cumberbatch can pull off Bond the best, but I do wonder if there'll be the inevitable comparison between his Bond and Sherlock Holmes.
Also unsure about:
Charlie Hunnam
Dan Stevens
James Norton
Damian Lewis
Luke Evans
Barry Sloane
Oliver Jackson-Cohen
Matthew Goode
I'm not convinced that they look enough like Bond to pull it off.
I like:
Nicholas Hoult
Henry Cavill
Aaron Taylor-Johnson
Aidan Turner
Since I had to pick one, I went with Nicholas Hoult.
I'm somewhat indifferent about the rest.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/apr/08/fourth-season-poldark-confirmed-aidan-turner-tv-festival-southbank
Connery, Lazenby, and Dalton are 6'2.5", and Moore and Brosnan are 6'1".
I'm coming to this poll a little late but wanted to say that this is a very well argued point which I agree with. I like Elba, think he's a damn fine actor and would love to go for a pint with him but he's not Bond
I was torn between Hardy and Cavill - I think Cavill would be superb but Hardy edged it just.
I don't think anyone truly believes that Daniel is 5ft 10 really. Actors bios tend towards the 'optimistic'. I think that it's likely that Daniel is also 5ft 9 barefoot.i don't think that height itself would count against him. He would not be my first choice as I think that a return towards the Archetype is in order. However like Craig he has some great qualities and would be a continuation of the current interpretation. His role in Inception could be viewed as a Bond tryout and I thought he was great in it.
http://www.bbc.com/news/video_and_audio/headlines/39786908/orlando-bloom-i-would-love-to-be-bond
So would I Orlando, so would I.
I'm thinking more like 4'10 or 4'11" for DC. They do a great job hiding his big, hairy feet too.
Hmm...
Trying to work out if your comment is a swipe at DC, or me, or both (I see Venn diagrams)
I guess that could work, although he's now 40 years old - I guess he can do two to three films.
Not sure if EON can afford him, though
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/may/09/idris-elba-james-bond-joanna-lumley-colour-blind-casting
Exactly. James Bond is clean-shaven!
Elba will go down in history as Daniel Craig's replacement, with Craig's actual replacement as Bond number 8. People have been asking me for a few years now when Elba's Bond film is coming out.
And to Matt's point, people ask me all the time if I'm excited about Elba as Bond.
I've been getting this for about 4 years! I'm tired of it!