Cavill is a decent actor who certainly "looks" the part but I don't know if he can move well enough to be an outstanding Bond and what I mean by "outstanding" is that there are plenty of actors who can look and attempt to act like Bond in a generic way but will the audience really believe they are Bond? A good example of this was the first time we see Timothy Dalton in TLD the audience immediately recognizes him as Bond with no introduction. I think Fassbender could pull this off with ease and inhabit the role. IMO, Dan Stevens may also be able to pull it off. I continue to stand by my theory that "poster boy" Bonds don't generally translate well to the screen.
What is Cavill good in? I've only seen him as Superman and as Napoleon Solo, and he's terribly wooden as both.
I don't think I would like HC if it came to him - but again, I didn't think I would appreciate DC when he was announced and then CR happened. So I can't really rule him out. Especially since his worst performance (Superman) is imho more attributable to the ghastly directing (lack of) quality of a certain Mr. Snyder.
That being said, when DC was cast I was all for the Clive Owen option, which I'd say is a bit too old nowadays. So I'd rather have the producers surprise me and cast a relative, or complete, newcomer / unknown for him to own the role, but I'll understand if they want to be a bit less risktaking and play it a bit safer.
What would be the worst situation, I think, would be DC phoning it in for a fifth, contractually-mandated, outing. If he can be convinced with a good story and director, great. But if he's grown tired of the role, better for all interested parties to move on and find someone else. I didn't love Spectre and I think it was partially due to this lack of interest beginning to show.
"Enjoy it while it lasts."
"The very words I live by."
What would be the worst situation, I think, would be DC phoning it in for a fifth, contractually-mandated, outing. If he can be convinced with a good story and director, great. But if he's grown tired of the role, better for all interested parties to move on and find someone else. I didn't love Spectre and I think it was partially due to this lack of interest beginning to show.
My choice would be Daniel Craig to return one more time with Martin Campbell directing. I wouldn't be keen on Fassbender or Hiddlestone playing the role. Tom Hardy would maybe be my choice but as I say I would prefer one more from Daniel Craig.
Yes. Considerably!
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,693MI6 Agent
For the record I want Daniel Craig to return for at least one more Bond film too but things seems to be all up in the air at the moment.
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
What would be the worst situation, I think, would be DC phoning it in for a fifth, contractually-mandated, outing. If he can be convinced with a good story and director, great. But if he's grown tired of the role, better for all interested parties to move on and find someone else. I didn't love Spectre and I think it was partially due to this lack of interest beginning to show.
I agree 100%. It's time. -{
I also agree, but think that Craig is unlikely to phone it in. He is in my view an actor of integrity who takes his craft and himself seriously. I don't think he'd 'do a Connery' and do it just for the cash. If he does it (which is looking increasingly unlikely ) he would i think commit to it and give it everything. I do not think he was the problem with Spectre. I also agree though that it's time.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
What would be the worst situation, I think, would be DC phoning it in for a fifth, contractually-mandated, outing. If he can be convinced with a good story and director, great. But if he's grown tired of the role, better for all interested parties to move on and find someone else. I didn't love Spectre and I think it was partially due to this lack of interest beginning to show.
I agree 100%. It's time. -{
I also agree, but think that Craig is unlikely to phone it in. He is in my view an actor of integrity who takes his craft and himself seriously. I don't think he'd 'do a Connery' and do it just for the cash. If he does it (which is looking increasingly unlikely ) he would i think commit to it and give it everything. I do not think he was the problem with Spectre. I also agree though that it's time.
I'm probably in the minority but I think Craigs performance in SP was the weakest of his four films actually. I think its because he was lighter and not as hard edge as the previous three films that made me think that way. I think he has a good screen presence but less so in SP then the others.
I also agree, but think that Craig is unlikely to phone it in. He is in my view an actor of integrity who takes his craft and himself seriously. I don't think he'd 'do a Connery' and do it just for the cash. If he does it (which is looking increasingly unlikely ) he would i think commit to it and give it everything. I do not think he was the problem with Spectre. I also agree though that it's time.
I'm probably in the minority but I think Craigs performance in SP was the weakest of his four films actually. I think its because he was lighter and not as hard edge as the previous three films that made me think that way. I think he has a good screen presence but less so in SP then the others.
I know you're not the only one who feels this way, but I actually thought it was his best. I think it's his hard edge and lack of emotion and expression in his other films that make him seem like he's hardly acting in his other films.
I also agree, but think that Craig is unlikely to phone it in. He is in my view an actor of integrity who takes his craft and himself seriously. I don't think he'd 'do a Connery' and do it just for the cash. If he does it (which is looking increasingly unlikely ) he would i think commit to it and give it everything. I do not think he was the problem with Spectre. I also agree though that it's time.
I'm probably in the minority but I think Craigs performance in SP was the weakest of his four films actually. I think its because he was lighter and not as hard edge as the previous three films that made me think that way. I think he has a good screen presence but less so in SP then the others.
I know you're not the only one who feels this way, but I actually thought it was his best. I think it's his hard edge and lack of emotion and expression in his other films that make him seem like he's hardly acting in his other films.
I can understand that, I think its because I've become so accustomed to his hard edged take on Bond from the previous films that the lighter approach taken in SP seemed almost out of character too me, especially following SF. Like it was just a mellowed out version of his Bond even though its more in line with the cinematic incarnation of Bond, if that makes any sense.
I'd like to see Craig return one more time..again as previously mentioned with Martin Campbell directing for his swan song. I'm still definitely with Cavill for the role but then again back in 2005 I was hoping Hugh Jackman might get the role...but then again it's down to old Wilson & Broccolli with a bit of added imput from the casting director Debbie Mc Williams!!
I'm probably in the minority but I think Craigs performance in SP was the weakest of his four films actually. I think its because he was lighter and not as hard edge as the previous three films that made me think that way. I think he has a good screen presence but less so in SP then the others.
I know you're not the only one who feels this way, but I actually thought it was his best. I think it's his hard edge and lack of emotion and expression in his other films that make him seem like he's hardly acting in his other films.
I can understand that, I think its because I've become so accustomed to his hard edged take on Bond from the previous films that the lighter approach taken in SP seemed almost out of character too me, especially following SF. Like it was just a mellowed out version of his Bond even though its more in line with the cinematic incarnation of Bond, if that makes any sense.
I wouldn't say that DC's take on the character lacks emotion and expression. I think there's a lot of underlying emotion (especially in CR and QoS) and to show how you try to contain it usually requires way more acting effort than simply releasing said emotions. I believe CR and QoS were perfectly performed from his side, and that my problems with SF and (especially) Sp come from Sam Mendes' interpretation of the character and its lore.
Sp's shortcomings have been lengthy discussed in the forum, and at the end of the day I'd say the consensus was it was trying to be too many things at the same time. Had it decided how it wanted to portray the character and what story to tell, it would have worked better.
That being said, I concur that DC's integrity and professionality would stop him from "phoning it in" (that was an exaggeration on my part) but I do think that if he came back "forced" instead of completely enthusiastic, his being less engaged with the character (as he clearly was in the promotion tour for Sp) WOULD show onscreen.
"Enjoy it while it lasts."
"The very words I live by."
Trying to recall the last time I have seen Cavill in a role where he actually uses his natural English accent....maybe "The Tudors"? Funny thing is when I saw Man From Uncle I didn't sit there thinking, "boy this Cavill should be the next Bond". So I guess he didn't pass my audition.
Five-Thirty Eight, a site devoted to using statistics to analyze all sorts of things, has weighed in on whether Hiddleston (or Elba) would be smart to take on Bond.
Trying to recall the last time I have seen Cavill in a role where he actually uses his natural English accent....maybe "The Tudors"? Funny thing is when I saw Man From Uncle I didn't sit there thinking, "boy this Cavill should be the next Bond". So I guess he didn't pass my audition.
I dunno, he sort of reminded me of a Moore-era Bond. In fact, The Man From Uncle reminded me of a Moore-Era Bond film, except more entertaining.
If you wanted the Bond franchise to return to Moore-era type films, Cavill would be an excellent choice.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,992Quartermasters
Trying to recall the last time I have seen Cavill in a role where he actually uses his natural English accent....maybe "The Tudors"? Funny thing is when I saw Man From Uncle I didn't sit there thinking, "boy this Cavill should be the next Bond". So I guess he didn't pass my audition.
I dunno, he sort of reminded me of a Moore-era Bond. In fact, The Man From Uncle reminded me of a Moore-Era Bond film, except more entertaining.
If you wanted the Bond franchise to return to Moore-era type films, Cavill would be an excellent choice.
I think it would depend a great deal on the writing. I apparently enjoy Cavill's acting more than many, and think he'd be an excellent Bond, but again it's probably academic, as he seems quite the long shot at this point.
Having been set straight on the contractual situation, my fallback position is hoping that Craig isn't too cranky to give it his all if he ends up doing one more Bond film than he would clearly prefer to do
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I think for some of us our frame of reference for an actor wanting to move on is Connery and the belief that he did not put forth his best in YOLT. I'm in the middle of reading "Some Kind of Hero" and the reasons for Connery wanting to leave appear to be much more deep seated and involved money, alleged broken promises, Connery's struggle to maintain a private life, the direction the films had taken, and the film per year schedule that made it very difficult for him to pursue other roles. With regards to Craig, my guess is that money is probably not the main issue (although it would be foolish to dismiss it entirely), he has been able to maintain his privacy pretty well for a celeb of his status, and the films are spaced far enough apart that he can pursue other things. My guess is that Craig may just be physically and mentally fatigued and all "Bonded out". A good rest, another project, a really great script and director on EON's part (plus a huge bushel of cash) could possibly get him back for one more. As far as we know, his relationship with EON is still good (unlike Connery) which also could figuire into his return. My feeling is if he comes back, he won't "phone it in". My guess is that is not his nature and I don't think he would do that to EON nor do I believe EON would force him into that situation. By the way, I highly recommend "Some Kind of Hero". It's fasinating stuff for the Bond fan.
I don't think Craig is in the same place as Connery either -- at the same time, Craig is also not Connery. His career will stumble once he leaves Bond, except in smaller pictures and possibly TV. There is always the off chance that he'll turn up in some big franchise film as the star, but I do think he's much more limited than Connery when it comes to box office.
In some ways, the decision to go so dark with Bond has limited the productions, to the degree that things seem repetitive. What was fresh a decade ago now is old hat. The attempt to make Bond "fun" again was admirable, but the writers were just not up to speed, and Mendes is not the director that Campbell would have been with the same premise.
I think it's 50-50 that Craig will return. To me, he'd be foolish not to, but he sees himself an artist, so logic doesn't guide him.
Another thing to factor in the "Craig isn't Connery" column is that Craig put his body through hell for the films. Connery created the role and there would be no franchise without his iconic turn, but Craig has truly given himself over in service of the role in a way Connery was never required to. Craig might have had his fill for very different reasons, and it'd be harder to blame him for moving on. I hope he sees fit to do one more, a final, "fate of the world" larger than life finale.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,992Quartermasters
Another thing to factor in the "Craig isn't Connery" column is that Craig put his body through hell for the films. Connery created the role and there would be no franchise without his iconic turn, but Craig has truly given himself over in service of the role in a way Connery was never required to. Craig might have had his fill for very different reasons, and it'd be harder to blame him for moving on. I hope he sees fit to do one more, a final, "fate of the world" larger than life finale.
Well put, and I'll second that {[]
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
BIG TAMWrexham, North Wales, UK.Posts: 773MI6 Agent
I think for some of us our frame of reference for an actor wanting to move on is Connery and the belief that he did not put forth his best in YOLT. I'm in the middle of reading "Some Kind of Hero" and the reasons for Connery wanting to leave appear to be much more deep seated and involved money, alleged broken promises, Connery's struggle to maintain a private life, the direction the films had taken, and the film per year schedule that made it very difficult for him to pursue other roles. With regards to Craig, my guess is that money is probably not the main issue (although it would be foolish to dismiss it entirely), he has been able to maintain his privacy pretty well for a celeb of his status, and the films are spaced far enough apart that he can pursue other things. My guess is that Craig may just be physically and mentally fatigued and all "Bonded out". A good rest, another project, a really great script and director on EON's part (plus a huge bushel of cash) could possibly get him back for one more. As far as we know, his relationship with EON is still good (unlike Connery) which also could figuire into his return. My feeling is if he comes back, he won't "phone it in". My guess is that is not his nature and I don't think he would do that to EON nor do I believe EON would force him into that situation. By the way, I highly recommend "Some Kind of Hero". It's fasinating stuff for the Bond fan.
Good points, HowardB. I've also read the excellent book. I noted how the generally perceived affable Roger Moore was no slouch when it came to negotiating good pay deals after his contract ended. And that was as a personal friend of Cubby Broccoli, something Connery never really was. Daniel Craig's relationship to Barbara Broccoli seems more akin to that of Moore to her father, but it is ultimately a business. Something I think we as Bond fans tend to forget. Acting is a paid job, not a hobby. Though we may love watching 007s exploits unfold on the screen, it may not always be so much fun to actually play it. I've spoken to fellow fans who find it inconceivable that any actor wouldn't want to play James Bond. I'm more mindful of the pitfalls that go with playing such an iconic character.
I'm only up to OHMSS in "Some Kind of Hero" but the book really puts things in perspective and really has remained very objective in presenting the issues Connery had with EON. IMO Craig, who is a very fine actor, will have success on a critical / artistic level post Bond. As a non-Bond box office draw I don't believe his name above the titles can carry a film but it certainly won't hurt it either. IMO, Craig could have great success in premium cable television productions which in many instances have eclipsed theatrical releases in quality of writing and a willingness to take more risks with subject matter and material. Partially due to the development of CGI the production values of many cable movies, mini series, etc has rose to the level of theatrical releases.
Anyone know what he meant by "last time" when he mentioned that he had tested? Surely he can't mean 2005-6 he would have been too young surely. I agree with him re halving the budget though.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Anyone know what he meant by "last time" when he mentioned that he had tested? Surely he can't mean 2005-6 he would have been too young surely. I agree with him re halving the budget though.
It reads like he means 2005...and I would say that would be right...
Anyone know what he meant by "last time" when he mentioned that he had tested? Surely he can't mean 2005-6 he would have been too young surely. I agree with him re halving the budget though.
It reads like he means 2005...and I would say that would be right...
I took it he meant 2005 also, they were rebooting then so maybe they did consider a young bond, also given the CR story involved bond starting out as a 00 agent.
I'm treating everything I hear as pure supposition at the moment. I'm quite confident if DC is not doing his last one, his replacement will appeal to some fans if not all. It's the scripts and quality of the writing I'm more concerned about, I'm not sure they need a vast budget to produce a great bond film, but personally I've been a very happy bunny with DC's tenure as Bond, and with the colossal amount of box office takings his films have enjoyed the franchise is in good health to continue on. Like DC or hate him (have I mentioned before I've been a fan since pre bond ) he has done good for bond in many ways.
Can't say I'm disappointed about him not being considered... I never thought he'd be right for the role... I feel he has a quirkiness that's more suited to Q than Bond. I'm wondering how he'd know they're auditioning a new Bond if he hasn't been called back... I imagine he and his agent would be pushing for it, but to know when they're auditioning the role is usually only know to those who got the audition - unless of course, his agent reps other actors who are suited and they got called in... I'll check out IMDBpro...
Anyway, if this is true, I'm glad Craig has quit. Suppose casting Bond is underway while the script is being written?
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
A helpful tip for folks: you can make a signature file in your profile that will add that line of text to every one of your posts. Over time it will add up to a lot of saved effort, not having to add "I hope Craig is gone" to each post by hand, over and over
I don't think these comments confirm anything. Most people assume Craig has quit, even though there has been no official word. This guy is obviously just going on that assumption. I would not presume that he has any inside knowledge. Just more rumors.
A helpful tip for folks: you can make a signature file in your profile that will add that line of text to every one of your posts. Over time it will add up to a lot of saved effort, not having to add "I hope Craig is gone" to each post by hand, over and over
I hope Craig is gone. :v
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
Comments
What is Cavill good in? I've only seen him as Superman and as Napoleon Solo, and he's terribly wooden as both.
That being said, when DC was cast I was all for the Clive Owen option, which I'd say is a bit too old nowadays. So I'd rather have the producers surprise me and cast a relative, or complete, newcomer / unknown for him to own the role, but I'll understand if they want to be a bit less risktaking and play it a bit safer.
What would be the worst situation, I think, would be DC phoning it in for a fifth, contractually-mandated, outing. If he can be convinced with a good story and director, great. But if he's grown tired of the role, better for all interested parties to move on and find someone else. I didn't love Spectre and I think it was partially due to this lack of interest beginning to show.
"The very words I live by."
I agree 100%. It's time. -{
I also agree, but think that Craig is unlikely to phone it in. He is in my view an actor of integrity who takes his craft and himself seriously. I don't think he'd 'do a Connery' and do it just for the cash. If he does it (which is looking increasingly unlikely ) he would i think commit to it and give it everything. I do not think he was the problem with Spectre. I also agree though that it's time.
I know you're not the only one who feels this way, but I actually thought it was his best. I think it's his hard edge and lack of emotion and expression in his other films that make him seem like he's hardly acting in his other films.
I wouldn't say that DC's take on the character lacks emotion and expression. I think there's a lot of underlying emotion (especially in CR and QoS) and to show how you try to contain it usually requires way more acting effort than simply releasing said emotions. I believe CR and QoS were perfectly performed from his side, and that my problems with SF and (especially) Sp come from Sam Mendes' interpretation of the character and its lore.
Sp's shortcomings have been lengthy discussed in the forum, and at the end of the day I'd say the consensus was it was trying to be too many things at the same time. Had it decided how it wanted to portray the character and what story to tell, it would have worked better.
That being said, I concur that DC's integrity and professionality would stop him from "phoning it in" (that was an exaggeration on my part) but I do think that if he came back "forced" instead of completely enthusiastic, his being less engaged with the character (as he clearly was in the promotion tour for Sp) WOULD show onscreen.
"The very words I live by."
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pray-your-favorite-actor-doesnt-become-james-bond/
I dunno, he sort of reminded me of a Moore-era Bond. In fact, The Man From Uncle reminded me of a Moore-Era Bond film, except more entertaining.
If you wanted the Bond franchise to return to Moore-era type films, Cavill would be an excellent choice.
I think it would depend a great deal on the writing. I apparently enjoy Cavill's acting more than many, and think he'd be an excellent Bond, but again it's probably academic, as he seems quite the long shot at this point.
Having been set straight on the contractual situation, my fallback position is hoping that Craig isn't too cranky to give it his all if he ends up doing one more Bond film than he would clearly prefer to do
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
In some ways, the decision to go so dark with Bond has limited the productions, to the degree that things seem repetitive. What was fresh a decade ago now is old hat. The attempt to make Bond "fun" again was admirable, but the writers were just not up to speed, and Mendes is not the director that Campbell would have been with the same premise.
I think it's 50-50 that Craig will return. To me, he'd be foolish not to, but he sees himself an artist, so logic doesn't guide him.
Well put, and I'll second that {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Good points, HowardB. I've also read the excellent book. I noted how the generally perceived affable Roger Moore was no slouch when it came to negotiating good pay deals after his contract ended. And that was as a personal friend of Cubby Broccoli, something Connery never really was. Daniel Craig's relationship to Barbara Broccoli seems more akin to that of Moore to her father, but it is ultimately a business. Something I think we as Bond fans tend to forget. Acting is a paid job, not a hobby. Though we may love watching 007s exploits unfold on the screen, it may not always be so much fun to actually play it. I've spoken to fellow fans who find it inconceivable that any actor wouldn't want to play James Bond. I'm more mindful of the pitfalls that go with playing such an iconic character.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3552308/Matthew-Goode-takes-swipe-Bond-film-franchise-reveals-hasn-t-invited-second-audition.html
Anyone know what he meant by "last time" when he mentioned that he had tested? Surely he can't mean 2005-6 he would have been too young surely. I agree with him re halving the budget though.
Has he not read of the success of Craig's Movies ?
He might be best staying doing a period soap opera.
It reads like he means 2005...and I would say that would be right...
I'm treating everything I hear as pure supposition at the moment. I'm quite confident if DC is not doing his last one, his replacement will appeal to some fans if not all. It's the scripts and quality of the writing I'm more concerned about, I'm not sure they need a vast budget to produce a great bond film, but personally I've been a very happy bunny with DC's tenure as Bond, and with the colossal amount of box office takings his films have enjoyed the franchise is in good health to continue on. Like DC or hate him (have I mentioned before I've been a fan since pre bond
Can't say I'm disappointed about him not being considered... I never thought he'd be right for the role... I feel he has a quirkiness that's more suited to Q than Bond. I'm wondering how he'd know they're auditioning a new Bond if he hasn't been called back... I imagine he and his agent would be pushing for it, but to know when they're auditioning the role is usually only know to those who got the audition - unless of course, his agent reps other actors who are suited and they got called in... I'll check out IMDBpro...
Anyway, if this is true, I'm glad Craig has quit. Suppose casting Bond is underway while the script is being written?
I hope Craig is gone. :v