The initial parameter I responded to was "a particularly notable performance," which is subjective, but I think provided
That parameter was in the context of the conversation being about whether he was the 'best actor to play Bond' or not, though. And although he's certainly been in some fun films we all remember, I don't think he's ever given strong dramatic performances onscreen in the way Connery or Craig have. They'll be remembered as great movie actors who played James Bond; Dalton will be remembered as the fourth James Bond.
Dependent on opportunity that may be, but without opportunity granting us a reason to believe he's the best, it's hard to do so.
That's fair; ironically I'd say Connery's Bond performances were all very charismatic movie star appearances, but not great acting. Not a knock on him; it wasn't a particularly nuanced character he was tasked with. He was a great actor elsewhere, but anytime I see chatter about Craig thinking the role was "beneath him," I feel like folks are forgetting about half Connery's at-bats. (And I love Connery's Bond above all others!)
If the barometer is notable performances outside of Bond to declare someone a “great actor”, then how on earth does Craig qualify? He’s good in Knives Out (I haven’t seen the second one), but it’s an ensemble cast and, frankly, I thought his hammy performance was a bit distracting. Ditto for Logan Lucky.
He's given quite a few other excellent performances, including in films made before Bond. Road To Perdition, Enduring Love, Infamous, The Trench, Copenhagen, Love is the Devil, The Mother etc. An awful lot in the way of awards and nominations too; subjective I know, but as a metric of qualification as a decent actor, it's more measurable than most and would at least prove he does qualify as being considered one I think. The only actor to get a BAFTA nomination for playing Bond too.
How does Dalton qualify as the 'best actor'? He's hammy in Rocketeer after all, so shouldn't qualify on that logic I guess..?
I watched Girl With The Dragon Tattoo again just before Christmas, and although it's not pushing him dramatically hugely far, he's really excellent in it. I'd have given quite a bit to see those films continue, I thought he suited that role very well indeed.
"The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" succeeded where "The Snowman" failed. (I'm talking about the movies, not the novels that were both excellent). I agree with emtiem that it wasn't Craig's most challenging role, but I wish it had been the first of a series of movies starring Craig. Instead he finally found a successful movie series outside of Bond in Knives Out.
I agree with emtiem that it wasn't Craig's most challenging role, but I wish it had been the first of a series of movies starring Craig. Instead he finally found a successful movie series outside of Bond in Knives Out.
And bizarrely both of them involve him investigating Christopher Plummer's unusual family(!).
Not sure the comparisons are entirely fair. People who perceive Connery as not doing much clearly don't realize how difficult that is to pull off. Watch Connery in roles before Bond, and you can clearly see he is effecting a character so well, it looks easy.
What makes a Craig performance interesting is not just that he brought Bond's physical mojo back, but he had to overcome so much doubt in people for any number of reasons. So, he had to inhabit the role to make it his own -- much as Connery did. The difference is Connery's Bond was the smooth and likable Alpha male while Craig's Bond was the neurotic and obsessive toxic male.
Not sure about Aaron Taylor-Johnson yet. He's like Bryan Brown and Matthew McConaughey had a child together. his voice doesn't sound Bond-like. But he's an actor, so who knows. People flipping out about Craig's height aren't going to be happy.
I don't know if that's quite right; while he was often part of ensemble cast, he had certainly been the lead in a few things like Enduring Love, and co-leads in others like The Mother, plus he had been the co-lead of big TV dramas like Our Friends in the North most notably, and main lead in big productions like Sword of Honour and Archangel, which were pretty much movie-scale. I take your point, but I think he was pretty well proven.
Obviously Taylor-Johnson has played the lead in stuff like Kick Ass and Godzilla, but he was young and I don't think he was very strong in those and has hopefully improved since; and also he's had an arthouse lead, but it'd be good to see him really prove he can do it now.
Incidentally a trailer for Nicholas Hoult's new vampire action comedy Renfield has just appeared, in which he plays the lead.
I'm on board for ATJ (although I hope he can lower his voice an octave or two for Bond).
That scene from NOCTURNAL ANIMALS reminds me that, despite incredible talent and a great career, Gyllenhaal is still in search of the role that will define him for future generations. He's done great work in NIGHTCRAWLER, ZODIAC, and others but hasn't had his superstar moment. I'd argue that BROKEBACK was Ledger's show.
Yeah I know what you mean; I really enjoyed Nightcrawler too but for such an excellent screen actor you make a good point that it's hard to point to a really iconic role of his.
Eh, I still don't see it, but then he's not groomed, made up, and doing Bond things, either. I will say I saw right away why Craig was chosen. The only thing that threw me was the blond hair, which I'd assumed they'd darken, but it was never a deal breaker. I got a definite Connery vibe from Craig, or at least I felt he was going to bring a level to Bond we hadn't seen since. My girlfriend at the time was less optimistic and asked why. I said because he doesn't look like the modern cliche of Bond, which Brosnan embodied. Craig was going to have to win people over rather than just come right out of the box as Bond. He'd have to work harder, and if he was a good actor, that would succeed.
At the same time, having recently celebrated a milestone birthday, I can say that I'm not as invested in Bond. It became clear with the Craig arc that they'd chosen to move further away from the cinematic stylings and toward something more current. It proved financially robust. So, they may well tack even further away with the next iteration of Bond. It's harder for me as a result to get as excited. I hope I'm wrong, of course, but if that's the case, then they will certainly cast someone without regard to strong sense of character continuity.
But wouldn’t Taylor Johnson, based on looks alone, hue closer to the traditional cinematic Bond than Craig (while still not being the “modern cliche,” as you put it)? Like you, I would be surprised by such a conventional choice.
Here's the thing, Miles: With Connery, Lazenby, Craig, etc., I clearly see/saw the potential. They're old school masculine with character to their faces. Good looking, but every crag, scar, wrinkle, and hair out of place just added to it all. Sure, they could easily be blue collar guys, but they have that unknown factor that gave them wit, style, and panache that was always there. It's in the eyes -- cool but bright, confident but not arrogant (though Craig tended to play his version that way).
This guy looks to me more like a swaggering Appalachian construction worker, living with his tattooed dancer GF in a double wide, driving a muddy blue and silver F-150, and fighting at the local honkytonk on Saturday nights. In a scene, he might be in a tuxedo playing chemin de fer with a mysterious beautiful woman at 3 a.m. in a Monte Carlo casino, but I'd still be thinking he really wants to be at home in a wife beater playing X-Box while killing a 12-pack of Coors Light.
Now, that's almost entirely unfair. He's not made up, cleaned up, nor acting as Bond in anything I've seen. He may be a far, far better actor than I give him credit for. Make up and hair go a long way in transforming someone. On some level, his acting style I've seen so far comes across as a poor man's Tom Hardy, and I like Hardy, who also doesn't have all of Bond's qualities either but based purely on talent might be able to pull it off. So, my first impression could be way off. But, to me, Taylor-Johnson's got criminal eyes, much like Bryan Brown. It's a hard-to-hide quality that fits the bad guy more than the good.
Now, he does have the good cheekbones and broader forehead of the hero. To me, the more convincing Bonds -- Connery, Lazenby, and Craig -- had a similar physiognomy in this regard. That's old school for both handsome and intelligent, and if you look at the actors who've played spies to iconic levels -- Patrick McGoohan, Patrick MacNee, Edward Woodward, Robert Vaughn, Robert Conrad, Richard Burton, Sean Connery, etc. -- they've all had some version of that quality. Idris elba does, too, though perhaps not as pronounced. So, this guy has that going for him. But put a broad forehead with criminal eyes, and you usually get the villain.
So, in the sense that he's got dark hair and more conventional features for Bond works in his favor. What I'm not sensing -- yet -- is the whole range of qualities Bond should have.
no, not jesting. I think since EON has already warned us, we should expect an interpretation of Bond even less conventional than Craig. Going back to a more classic image would not be a reinvention.
The reinvention doesn't have to be about looks. It can also be argued that the James Bond series has been reinvented every time a new lead has been hired. Most likely more so this time than in most precious cases because of the way NTTD ended.
Having said that, Daniel Craig was tipped to be Bond in April 2005 by the UK newspapers, with the tabloid The Sun breaking the story, and was officially announced six months later.
At the same time DC was being touted in April 2005, other actors were still being suggested as the new Bond. But from what I can see ATJ is now the only name circulating. Yes, there are news stories listing the same old tired list but for stories relating to alleged auditions etc his name seems to be the only one.
Comments
The initial parameter I responded to was "a particularly notable performance," which is subjective, but I think provided
That parameter was in the context of the conversation being about whether he was the 'best actor to play Bond' or not, though. And although he's certainly been in some fun films we all remember, I don't think he's ever given strong dramatic performances onscreen in the way Connery or Craig have. They'll be remembered as great movie actors who played James Bond; Dalton will be remembered as the fourth James Bond.
Dependent on opportunity that may be, but without opportunity granting us a reason to believe he's the best, it's hard to do so.
I think his performance in LTK was so good it's noteworthy.
ATJ is back in the news today, seems a more legitimate source backed up that he had a meeting. (Paywalled) https://puck.news/newsletter_content/what-im-hearing-subscribers-ad-test-1-2-23-2/
That's fair; ironically I'd say Connery's Bond performances were all very charismatic movie star appearances, but not great acting. Not a knock on him; it wasn't a particularly nuanced character he was tasked with. He was a great actor elsewhere, but anytime I see chatter about Craig thinking the role was "beneath him," I feel like folks are forgetting about half Connery's at-bats. (And I love Connery's Bond above all others!)
If the barometer is notable performances outside of Bond to declare someone a “great actor”, then how on earth does Craig qualify? He’s good in Knives Out (I haven’t seen the second one), but it’s an ensemble cast and, frankly, I thought his hammy performance was a bit distracting. Ditto for Logan Lucky.
He's given quite a few other excellent performances, including in films made before Bond. Road To Perdition, Enduring Love, Infamous, The Trench, Copenhagen, Love is the Devil, The Mother etc. An awful lot in the way of awards and nominations too; subjective I know, but as a metric of qualification as a decent actor, it's more measurable than most and would at least prove he does qualify as being considered one I think. The only actor to get a BAFTA nomination for playing Bond too.
How does Dalton qualify as the 'best actor'? He's hammy in Rocketeer after all, so shouldn't qualify on that logic I guess..?
I think Craig’s best performance outside of Bond was in Layer Cake.
I watched Girl With The Dragon Tattoo again just before Christmas, and although it's not pushing him dramatically hugely far, he's really excellent in it. I'd have given quite a bit to see those films continue, I thought he suited that role very well indeed.
"The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" succeeded where "The Snowman" failed. (I'm talking about the movies, not the novels that were both excellent). I agree with emtiem that it wasn't Craig's most challenging role, but I wish it had been the first of a series of movies starring Craig. Instead he finally found a successful movie series outside of Bond in Knives Out.
I agree with emtiem that it wasn't Craig's most challenging role, but I wish it had been the first of a series of movies starring Craig. Instead he finally found a successful movie series outside of Bond in Knives Out.
And bizarrely both of them involve him investigating Christopher Plummer's unusual family(!).
Strange, but true.
Agreed on both counts. Craig is excellent in Layer Cake as well.
Not sure the comparisons are entirely fair. People who perceive Connery as not doing much clearly don't realize how difficult that is to pull off. Watch Connery in roles before Bond, and you can clearly see he is effecting a character so well, it looks easy.
What makes a Craig performance interesting is not just that he brought Bond's physical mojo back, but he had to overcome so much doubt in people for any number of reasons. So, he had to inhabit the role to make it his own -- much as Connery did. The difference is Connery's Bond was the smooth and likable Alpha male while Craig's Bond was the neurotic and obsessive toxic male.
Not sure about Aaron Taylor-Johnson yet. He's like Bryan Brown and Matthew McConaughey had a child together. his voice doesn't sound Bond-like. But he's an actor, so who knows. People flipping out about Craig's height aren't going to be happy.
He is great in that, I just want reassurance he can be the lead successfully.
I don't know if that's quite right; while he was often part of ensemble cast, he had certainly been the lead in a few things like Enduring Love, and co-leads in others like The Mother, plus he had been the co-lead of big TV dramas like Our Friends in the North most notably, and main lead in big productions like Sword of Honour and Archangel, which were pretty much movie-scale. I take your point, but I think he was pretty well proven.
Obviously Taylor-Johnson has played the lead in stuff like Kick Ass and Godzilla, but he was young and I don't think he was very strong in those and has hopefully improved since; and also he's had an arthouse lead, but it'd be good to see him really prove he can do it now.
Incidentally a trailer for Nicholas Hoult's new vampire action comedy Renfield has just appeared, in which he plays the lead.
I don’t think Aaron Taylor Johnson has ever won a BAFTA. Nominated yes, won no.
I'm on board for ATJ (although I hope he can lower his voice an octave or two for Bond).
That scene from NOCTURNAL ANIMALS reminds me that, despite incredible talent and a great career, Gyllenhaal is still in search of the role that will define him for future generations. He's done great work in NIGHTCRAWLER, ZODIAC, and others but hasn't had his superstar moment. I'd argue that BROKEBACK was Ledger's show.
Yeah I know what you mean; I really enjoyed Nightcrawler too but for such an excellent screen actor you make a good point that it's hard to point to a really iconic role of his.
Eh, I still don't see it, but then he's not groomed, made up, and doing Bond things, either. I will say I saw right away why Craig was chosen. The only thing that threw me was the blond hair, which I'd assumed they'd darken, but it was never a deal breaker. I got a definite Connery vibe from Craig, or at least I felt he was going to bring a level to Bond we hadn't seen since. My girlfriend at the time was less optimistic and asked why. I said because he doesn't look like the modern cliche of Bond, which Brosnan embodied. Craig was going to have to win people over rather than just come right out of the box as Bond. He'd have to work harder, and if he was a good actor, that would succeed.
At the same time, having recently celebrated a milestone birthday, I can say that I'm not as invested in Bond. It became clear with the Craig arc that they'd chosen to move further away from the cinematic stylings and toward something more current. It proved financially robust. So, they may well tack even further away with the next iteration of Bond. It's harder for me as a result to get as excited. I hope I'm wrong, of course, but if that's the case, then they will certainly cast someone without regard to strong sense of character continuity.
But wouldn’t Taylor Johnson, based on looks alone, hue closer to the traditional cinematic Bond than Craig (while still not being the “modern cliche,” as you put it)? Like you, I would be surprised by such a conventional choice.
Here's the thing, Miles: With Connery, Lazenby, Craig, etc., I clearly see/saw the potential. They're old school masculine with character to their faces. Good looking, but every crag, scar, wrinkle, and hair out of place just added to it all. Sure, they could easily be blue collar guys, but they have that unknown factor that gave them wit, style, and panache that was always there. It's in the eyes -- cool but bright, confident but not arrogant (though Craig tended to play his version that way).
This guy looks to me more like a swaggering Appalachian construction worker, living with his tattooed dancer GF in a double wide, driving a muddy blue and silver F-150, and fighting at the local honkytonk on Saturday nights. In a scene, he might be in a tuxedo playing chemin de fer with a mysterious beautiful woman at 3 a.m. in a Monte Carlo casino, but I'd still be thinking he really wants to be at home in a wife beater playing X-Box while killing a 12-pack of Coors Light.
Now, that's almost entirely unfair. He's not made up, cleaned up, nor acting as Bond in anything I've seen. He may be a far, far better actor than I give him credit for. Make up and hair go a long way in transforming someone. On some level, his acting style I've seen so far comes across as a poor man's Tom Hardy, and I like Hardy, who also doesn't have all of Bond's qualities either but based purely on talent might be able to pull it off. So, my first impression could be way off. But, to me, Taylor-Johnson's got criminal eyes, much like Bryan Brown. It's a hard-to-hide quality that fits the bad guy more than the good.
Now, he does have the good cheekbones and broader forehead of the hero. To me, the more convincing Bonds -- Connery, Lazenby, and Craig -- had a similar physiognomy in this regard. That's old school for both handsome and intelligent, and if you look at the actors who've played spies to iconic levels -- Patrick McGoohan, Patrick MacNee, Edward Woodward, Robert Vaughn, Robert Conrad, Richard Burton, Sean Connery, etc. -- they've all had some version of that quality. Idris elba does, too, though perhaps not as pronounced. So, this guy has that going for him. But put a broad forehead with criminal eyes, and you usually get the villain.
So, in the sense that he's got dark hair and more conventional features for Bond works in his favor. What I'm not sensing -- yet -- is the whole range of qualities Bond should have.
EON has said they will be reinventing James Bond for Bond26 though, so maybe we shouldn't be expecting conventional leading man looks
by the way welcome back @Gassy Man !
I know this is in jest, but I think there may be something to it.
no, not jesting. I think since EON has already warned us, we should expect an interpretation of Bond even less conventional than Craig. Going back to a more classic image would not be a reinvention.
The reinvention doesn't have to be about looks. It can also be argued that the James Bond series has been reinvented every time a new lead has been hired. Most likely more so this time than in most precious cases because of the way NTTD ended.
Sorry, I misread your post. I read it to say we should expect conventional Bond looks.
Hey, buddy, right back at you!
Rory Kinnear does not think ATJ is going to be the next Bond.
Having said that, Daniel Craig was tipped to be Bond in April 2005 by the UK newspapers, with the tabloid The Sun breaking the story, and was officially announced six months later.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2005/apr/06/jamesbond.news
At the same time DC was being touted in April 2005, other actors were still being suggested as the new Bond. But from what I can see ATJ is now the only name circulating. Yes, there are news stories listing the same old tired list but for stories relating to alleged auditions etc his name seems to be the only one.
The ATJ barrel sequence filming claim, also originally from The Sun (https://metro.co.uk/2022/12/11/aaron-taylor-johnson-already-filmed-classic-007-gun-barrel-sequence-17918767/) is interesting, I'm wondering if they're going to sort of copy the famous Pierce Brosnan Goldeneye teaser for social media?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN1bkIEs8oo
Just watching new season of Happy Valley on British TV , still think James Norton would make a cracking Bond .
Am I the only one (it often is) who thinks Brosnan sounds Irish when he says "You were expecting someone else?"
I know he's from Ireland, but he usually sounds mid-Atlantic to me.