My candidate for the next Bond...
qn
Posts: 11MI6 Agent
Michael Fassbender
Check him out in Inglorious Basterds. Tough, calm, and collected -- Connery style. Please someone at Sony look into this guy for Bond!
Check him out in Inglorious Basterds. Tough, calm, and collected -- Connery style. Please someone at Sony look into this guy for Bond!
Comments
James Bond- Licence To Kill
Firstly all reports in the business say he is an absolute nightmare to work with, he makes Mariah Carey look easy going.
Secondly the guy couldn't do "English" to save his life. Let's not forget James Bond the character is "terribly" English. {:)
Oscar Wilde
As for this fellow, I have not seen in anything so I can't comment.
Where is Mr. Bale from, again...?
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Also I seriously think the Batman cape will have already ruled him out as a Bond contender in the producer's books.
Oscar Wilde
Thankfully yes. EON usually wants actors with rather modest names in the US *cough*...Chris Hunnam...*cough*.
http://apbateman.com
Ford usually plays himself in almost every movie he did so it's easier for him to bounce around another franchises. There is no tremendous difference between Jack Ryan, Han Solo, or Indiana Jones.
Anyway, if Christian Bale would want to play Bond he would have to get out of the sourpuss attitude he has in every film he is and have some actual charisma. I really doubt he could pull it off.
He really his the ideal canindate.
I don't mind Bale. Although I didn't like him in TDK, I thought he was fantastic in Batman Begins, The Prestige and The Machinist, was fine in 3:10 to Yuma, was highly impressive in The New World, and was absolutely astonishing in American Psycho; IMO one of the greatest non-nominated performances of all time. I think he is a very good actor, however, I don't think he's as good as he thinks he is, and I don't want him to play Bond, regardless of any attitude he may have.
Yes like demanding an ass load of money from each.
I think he is limited in the sense that he can't break out from being grim but yes, he plays the parts he gets well. Just like Clint Eastwood is best playing rough and tumble tough guys and you could never see him as Bond either.
Sorry but I disagree immensely. Daniel Craig is a far superior actor because he is alot more versatile.
You mean ones that weren't big the US, Moore was pretty popular in the UK as the Saint. And honestly I don't see how it is a shame. MGM rejected Connery at first because they thought was too rough around the edges and he didn't have a name. Simular complaints were against Craig as well. Both men became the ideal Bonds.
Being a character actor is a great asset. Very few are leading men are good characters. I definetly don't agree with any of the names you mention are good at both, except Ewan McGregor. Johnny Depp is a great example as well.
And IMO Bale is not versatile at all. If he isn't a tough guy, he is someone else that is usually grim or maudlin.
I'm not denying that Connery was great for four films, and Craig was good in CR.
I am merely bemoaning the fact that the likes of Morgan Freeman, Sean Penn, Al Pacino etc. have never been in a Bond film, and when we finally see an english actor as successful and brilliant as Bale, they ignore him in favour of a good but not great actor
Being versatile is more than simply being a good lead a good character actor; it's about playing entirely different roles, at which IMO Criag is unconvincing. The actors I mentioned are IMO extremely versatile; they are also great actors anyway, as versatility IMO isn't the only measurement of a good actor. (For example, IMO De Niro was close to being the greatest actor of all time, if not the greatest, and he wasn't the most versatile actor of all time.)
He's actually of a different generation, otherwise I would have mentioned Sean Penn, Brad Pitt, Russell Crowe, Javier Bardem and Edward Norton.
American Psycho, Batman Begins, The Prestige and Shaft are completely different roles.
Sorry but I don't agree. His preformances in Road to Perdition, both Bond films, Arkangel, Defiance, and Layer Cake say otherwise. Not he is a great leading man and character actor, he is one the very rare in Hollywood today who come off as a true manly man.
Buh ?
It's very much an essential. That is why actors such as James Cagney (number #1) and Kirk Douglas are tops. Okay I'll admit Jude Law does something interesting once in a while but I hardly call him a great actor. Colin Farell is as limited as Bale, and Di Caprio is a good lead man but a horrid character actor. His accents are TERRIBLE.
As for De Niro, he's a very good actor but pales in comparison to the likes of Cagney and Douglas.
I didn't say he was the same character, I am saying they are usually of the nature of being rough, un-charasimatic, and lacking colour. That is why I feel he is a limited actor.
No comment.
Firstly, I don't think that Cagney was all that versatile; he was to a degree, but people like Jimmy Stewart was much more versatile. Secondly, I don't regard Cagney or Douglas as the absolute best actors of all time (certainly not Douglas.) That said, I don't think it is an essential. It's important, no doubt, but I don't think it's the primary criteria of greatness.
I think he is. Although he doesn't always make good choices, I think he's among the best actors of his generation.
I don't think that Bale is all that limited. As for Farrel, I think he is a great actor. In Bruges is an example of his greatness.
I can't coment on his accents, and nor do they concern me. From What's Eating Gilbert Grape to The Quick and the Dead to Romeo + Juliet to Titanic, I think he has constantly produced terrific performances in all kinds of roles.
I strongly disagree. De Niro is IMO, along with Brando, one of the two best actors of all time. I wouldn't put Cagney in the top 5 (maybe the top 10) and I wouldn't put Douglas in the top 20.
This is entirely subjective, and I disagree.
I just didn't understand what you were saying.
Jimmy Stewart ?????????
And you are dead wrong about Cagney and Douglas. Cagney could not only could act, he could fight, sing, and dance beautifully. That is an actor, period. Sometimes I can't believe the same man that did Yankee Doodle Dandy was also in White Heat. Douglas is not far off either. He commands the screen with being subtle as well as being postively enraged and it all comes natural to him.
I think more servicable then terrific.
Marlon Brando is certaintly terrific but once again, you are wrong about Cagney and Douglas.
No not really. That generally sums up the characters he played because that is how they were written and I don't blame him for the way they turned out since that is what Bale is better at doing.
Westerns, thrillers, comedies, romances; he was extraordinarily versatile. You're dead wrong.
He was a fantastic actor, however I do not regard him as the greatest ever (or in the top 5.)
He was capable of fantastic performances (such as in Paths of Glory), however I think that Michael is a much better actor.
Fair enough.
No, you are.
I like Micheal Douglas alot but I can't say he is better. He just dosen't have that raw energy like Daddy Douglas.
That's okay, you never see alot.
Yes he was in a variety of films but I still don't think he was versatile.
I like Micheal Douglas alot but I can't say he is better. He just dosen't have that raw energy like Daddy Douglas. I think he is fantastic and never fails to impress me. His performances in Wall Street, Wonderboys and Falling Down were IMO electrifying.
No comment.