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.
Hunnan is just Daniel Craig-lite, next Bond will probably be a return to the classic description of the character.
Yes, Hunnan is a lot like Craig. And Craig was Barbra Broccoli's favourite. Before that in 1995 Sean Bean was her favourite. She likes his type and that's why I think I could be the next Bond.
This reminds me of that whole Jennifer Anniston is pregnant story after a photograph of her, it turned out the photo was taken just after she had eaten a large meal.
While being interviewed during qos promotion Sarah Cox asked him is he ever got a muffin top between films, he said of course I do, I'm only human and the level of commitment needed to maintain that look is just not my natural way.
I'm sure he could get into shape for one more. Interesting how a few weeks ago when he wore similar jeans with the same jacket but with a cardigan and white Henley he was described as looking dapper.
Eh, he didn't go shirtless in the last one. No one expects him to be in CR shape in the next one.
He still looked as fit as a Butchers Dog though and on the photo evidence he could be in 'Bond shape' in a couple of months, or well before there is a script, Distributor, Director,or cast...I don't think he's coming back, but not because of his condition.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Apparently Craig put weight on for his role in "Logan Lucky" (along with the bleached hair). With the support system stars like Craig have access to: personal trainers, personal chefs, nutritionists and just as important, the time and motivation he would have no problem getting back into "Bond shape".
Apparently Craig put weight on for his role in "Logan Lucky" (along with the bleached hair). With the support system stars like Craig have access to: personal trainers, personal chefs, nutritionists and just as important, the time and motivation he would have no problem getting back into "Bond shape".
Yup. Furthermore, especially with access to all these sources, if he hasn't been in a gym in a year he can gain back all that muscle in a couple of months.
Eh, he didn't go shirtless in the last one. No one expects him to be in CR shape in the next one.
He's shirtless in the title sequence.
And largely in shadow. That's not a coincidence. And I'm not knocking him. He shouldn't be expected to look like a fitness cover model in every film.
Yes he was in shadow from just under the pectorals down, however he was displaying well toned arms, shoulders and chest so it's safe to assume he had hit the gym and was in decent shape. Usually if men have a flabby stomach the chest area is in a similar condition. But your right, he shouldn't be expected to look like a fitness cover model. I think the work he put into looking like he did for casino royale set a standard many expect him to maintain. Have you heard Hugh Jackmans description of his procedure for topless scenes as wolverine? It's definitely not medically recommended, in fact if he maintained doing it for any length of time he'd do himself serious long term damage. Even Tom Hardy at 39 has been complaining recently about his ailments due to building up etc for roles. I quite like ageing along with bond :007)
It was either that.....or the priesthood
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,777MI6 Agent
On that point, Sir Sean, Sir Roger, in fact all the forner Bonds seem to to have taken care of themselves over time and Sir Patrick Stewart is another one who keeps himself in great shape. But there is a distinct difference in being fit (healthy and strong) and overbuilt (superhero actor / extreme bodybuilder build.) To pkay Bond you need to find a balance. But Craig's build, the cars, the scripting and music have all waved in different directions during the Craig era.
Can he do another? Without question. Should he do another? I say no. Spectre was built as his swan song. That should stand for something.
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
I agree, Thunderbird. Spectre is BY FAR my least favorite Bond film since DAD. But, for better or worse, it ties off Craig's films. They've covered the spread from a rookie 00 agent, to a revenge mission, to the aging spy, to the burned out assasin choosing to walk away from that life. It's a satisfying arc in many ways. Why would he come back? Craig might do it for the money, but Bond has no reason to return other than those that have already been covered in the last four films.
I struggle with Spectre being any sort of finale or Swan song when its the film that reintroduced Blofeld. The two thing are just at odds for me.
I agree. It was a mistake to reintroduce the character in a "final chapter." But I hate what they did to the character so much I don't want them to continue with this direction. At this point, I'd rather not see Blofeld again for a long time. Some day they should make the Blofeld trilogy, but now is not the right time.
I agree, Thunderbird. Spectre is BY FAR my least favorite Bond film since DAD. But, for better or worse, it ties off Craig's films. They've covered the spread from a rookie 00 agent, to a revenge mission, to the aging spy, to the burned out assasin choosing to walk away from that life. It's a satisfying arc in many ways. Why would he come back? Craig might do it for the money, but Bond has no reason to return other than those that have already been covered in the last four films.
Did Bond chose to walk away from the life of a spy in SPECTRE?
What we saw was Bond showing up in Q branch and Q asked him what he was doing there. Then he Bond drive off with the Bond girl in the AM. They could be going away for the weekend or even for an overdue holiday. I agree it's possible Bond had resigned, but it's a rather extreme interpretion of the scene.
I agree, Thunderbird. Spectre is BY FAR my least favorite Bond film since DAD. But, for better or worse, it ties off Craig's films. They've covered the spread from a rookie 00 agent, to a revenge mission, to the aging spy, to the burned out assasin choosing to walk away from that life. It's a satisfying arc in many ways. Why would he come back? Craig might do it for the money, but Bond has no reason to return other than those that have already been covered in the last four films.
Did Bond chose to walk away from the life of a spy in SPECTRE?
What we saw was Bond showing up in Q branch and Q asked him what he was doing there. Then he Bond drive off with the Bond girl in the AM. They could be going away for the weekend or even for an overdue holiday. I agree it's possible Bond had resigned, but it's a rather extreme interpretion of the scene.
I think that's the ONLY interpretation of that scene given the context of the scene that precedes it. Bond is standing on the bridge with M on one side and Swan on the other. He throws his gun into the river, turns his back on M, and walks away with Swan. Swan has already told him he'll have to choose the life of a spy or a life with her. He makes his choice, which is only confirmed by the final scene.
Now, perhaps if Craig comes back they'll play it off like he was just going on holiday, but given that Mendes' brand of symbolism tends to be fairly on the nose, and I didn't see much ambiguity in that ending.
I had forgotten about Swansea comment about choosing, but your is far from the only interpretation. We are shown some scenes that can be seen in many ways. It's quite possible Sam Mendes wanted Bond to resign, but in that case he didn't get his way. The ending can be interpreted in several ways, perhaps as a compromize.
Bond has quit, gone rogue, attempted to resign, resigned, etc over the years and always managed to come back (sometimes in one film). Dirty Harry seemed to throw his badge away in every other film. There are lots of film series where the main character appears to quit or choose to walk away with the girl at the end. At the end of SPECTRE Bond was spent emotionally and physically. He threw the PPK in the river...what value did it have to him if he couldn't kill/execute Blofeld anyway. After a few weeks with the much younger Madeleine he will long for older married women and being back on the job for MI6. He will give her the old heave ho or she him and he will be accepting a mission from M.
I never took bond tossing the ppk as symbolic of his resignation, its his way when he runs out of ammo ( Skyfall in the pts) you could interpret him not killing Blofeld as finally listening to Judi denchs M and not killing every lead. Or just because Blofeld wanted him to?
In bonds world it's totally acceptable to right the wrongs of Spectre in the next film within m's office during a briefing.
" well 007 we've extensively interrogated your friend Blofeld and run some tests"
" oh yes sir "
" it seems he's not what or who he professes to be "
" what not the head of an international crime syndicate? "
" no not oberhauser, never was. Q will fill you in on the specifics, but for now id like you have a look at this " M slides a FYEO file accross the desk
" I want your undivided attention on this 007"
And swann never needs mentioning at all.
I never took bond tossing the ppk as symbolic of his resignation, its his way when he runs out of ammo ( Skyfall in the pts) you could interpret him not killing Blofeld as finally listening to Judi denchs M and not killing every lead. Or just because Blofeld wanted him to?
In bonds world it's totally acceptable to right the wrongs of Spectre in the next film within m's office during a briefing.
" well 007 we've extensively interrogated your friend Blofeld and run some tests"
" oh yes sir "
" it seems he's not what or who he professes to be "
" what not the head of an international crime syndicate? "
" no not oberhauser, never was. Q will fill you in on the specifics, but for now id like you have a look at this " M slides a FYEO file accross the desk
" I want your undivided attention on this 007"
And swann never needs mentioning at all.
That's an overly complicated and far-fetched method. My suggestion is this:
Simply never mention again that Bond and Blofeld grew up together. There is no need to mention it again, just let the movies be about evil plots and how to stop them. The Craig er Bond movies have focused far too much on his past, but they don't have to continue that way.
I never took bond tossing the ppk as symbolic of his resignation, its his way when he runs out of ammo ( Skyfall in the pts) you could interpret him not killing Blofeld as finally listening to Judi denchs M and not killing every lead. Or just because Blofeld wanted him to?
In bonds world it's totally acceptable to right the wrongs of Spectre in the next film within m's office during a briefing.
" well 007 we've extensively interrogated your friend Blofeld and run some tests"
" oh yes sir "
" it seems he's not what or who he professes to be "
" what not the head of an international crime syndicate? "
" no not oberhauser, never was. Q will fill you in on the specifics, but for now id like you have a look at this " M slides a FYEO file accross the desk
" I want your undivided attention on this 007"
And swann never needs mentioning at all.
That's an overly complicated and far-fetched method. My suggestion is this:
Simply never mention again that Bond and Blofeld grew up together. There is no need to mention it again, just let the movies be about evil plots and how to stop them. The Craig er Bond movies have focused far too much on his past, but they don't have to continue that way.
If Craig returns, that wouldn't be enough. Craig's Bond films have always been far-fetched. If there's a new Bond, your way could work.
Well, for starters they went out of their way to tie all of Craig's films together in Spectre. It would be pretty odd if Craig came back and they just pretended like that didn't happen in the next film.
Look, I know some of you are hoping Craig comes back, but the way Spectre ended painted them into a corner. I'm not saying they can't find a way out. I'm sure there's even a way to do it well. But it won't be easy and it could end up a mess. That's why my preference is for a clean slate with a new Bond.
Comments
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4471718/Daniel-Craig-appears-weight.html
While being interviewed during qos promotion Sarah Cox asked him is he ever got a muffin top between films, he said of course I do, I'm only human and the level of commitment needed to maintain that look is just not my natural way.
I'm sure he could get into shape for one more. Interesting how a few weeks ago when he wore similar jeans with the same jacket but with a cardigan and white Henley he was described as looking dapper.
He still looked as fit as a Butchers Dog though and on the photo evidence he could be in 'Bond shape' in a couple of months, or well before there is a script, Distributor, Director,or cast...I don't think he's coming back, but not because of his condition.
And largely in shadow. That's not a coincidence. And I'm not knocking him. He shouldn't be expected to look like a fitness cover model in every film.
Yup. Furthermore, especially with access to all these sources, if he hasn't been in a gym in a year he can gain back all that muscle in a couple of months.
Can he do another? Without question. Should he do another? I say no. Spectre was built as his swan song. That should stand for something.
I agree. It was a mistake to reintroduce the character in a "final chapter." But I hate what they did to the character so much I don't want them to continue with this direction. At this point, I'd rather not see Blofeld again for a long time. Some day they should make the Blofeld trilogy, but now is not the right time.
Did Bond chose to walk away from the life of a spy in SPECTRE?
What we saw was Bond showing up in Q branch and Q asked him what he was doing there. Then he Bond drive off with the Bond girl in the AM. They could be going away for the weekend or even for an overdue holiday. I agree it's possible Bond had resigned, but it's a rather extreme interpretion of the scene.
I think that's the ONLY interpretation of that scene given the context of the scene that precedes it. Bond is standing on the bridge with M on one side and Swan on the other. He throws his gun into the river, turns his back on M, and walks away with Swan. Swan has already told him he'll have to choose the life of a spy or a life with her. He makes his choice, which is only confirmed by the final scene.
Now, perhaps if Craig comes back they'll play it off like he was just going on holiday, but given that Mendes' brand of symbolism tends to be fairly on the nose, and I didn't see much ambiguity in that ending.
More like "Swann" song am I right...I'm sorry, intellectual conversation, I'll see myself out
In bonds world it's totally acceptable to right the wrongs of Spectre in the next film within m's office during a briefing.
" well 007 we've extensively interrogated your friend Blofeld and run some tests"
" oh yes sir "
" it seems he's not what or who he professes to be "
" what not the head of an international crime syndicate? "
" no not oberhauser, never was. Q will fill you in on the specifics, but for now id like you have a look at this " M slides a FYEO file accross the desk
" I want your undivided attention on this 007"
And swann never needs mentioning at all.
That's an overly complicated and far-fetched method. My suggestion is this:
Simply never mention again that Bond and Blofeld grew up together. There is no need to mention it again, just let the movies be about evil plots and how to stop them. The Craig er Bond movies have focused far too much on his past, but they don't have to continue that way.
If Craig returns, that wouldn't be enough. Craig's Bond films have always been far-fetched. If there's a new Bond, your way could work.
Well, for starters they went out of their way to tie all of Craig's films together in Spectre. It would be pretty odd if Craig came back and they just pretended like that didn't happen in the next film.
Look, I know some of you are hoping Craig comes back, but the way Spectre ended painted them into a corner. I'm not saying they can't find a way out. I'm sure there's even a way to do it well. But it won't be easy and it could end up a mess. That's why my preference is for a clean slate with a new Bond.