James Bond: Tom Hardy's odds cut AGAIN as he surges in race to replace Daniel Craig

[Phil McCaverty]

27 minutes ago, watthong said:

In this day and age, it's almost comical to believe that if a guy is married (especially in bold face,) then it's 100 percent proof of his sexuality, whatever that might be. I guess some folks still reside in the 20th century...

I guess you're not married then?

[tribalfusion001]

I wonder if they will change the name of the new Bond film that we cannot see as they are no cinemas open, No Time To Die.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 5/5/2020 at 3:36 PM, Logosone said:

the new producers are taking Bond far too seriously, with his boss of course having to be a female and all the other bs that lately has ruined Bond. Judi Dench as M was the worst move this franchise ever made, totally unbelievable and pure political correctness. Bond has now basically been reduced to special effects and pure action movies, all the charm is gone thanks to the politically correct brigade.

Agreed, but ALL big production movies are riddled with PC, now. The recent Star Wars movies are less than they could be because of PC BS.

I love Game of Thrones, and am watching it again, but everytime I watch it I see more evidence of PC riddling it. Men are invariably bad guys or stupid ( with a few exceptions ) and most women are "strong". They even made the Imp an emasculated wimp that cared about his silly wife too much to have sex with the woman he loved.

Bah humbug.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 5/6/2020 at 6:06 AM, watthong said:

In this day and age, it's almost comical to believe that if a guy is married (especially in bold face,) then it's 100 percent proof of his sexuality, whatever that might be. I guess some folks still reside in the 20th century...

Does it matter what they do in their own time? The movie is the thing, not which gender the actors boom boom off set. It only matters when it affects the actors on set as in 6 days 7 nights when Anne Heche allowed her ( unknown at that time ) sexuality make her less connected to Harrison.

[bodga]

On 5/4/2020 at 7:35 PM, scubascuba3 said:

Did it ever get confirmed whether he was gay? seemed to become a story around the time of Mad Max

They need a  transgender  Bond  now to be oh  so correct, better still abort the whole thing, it's  well past it's   sell by date.

[owl sees all]

On 5/5/2020 at 12:02 AM, bartender100 said:

I edge a bit towards James Norton

 

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3584268/

What about Vinny Jones?

[Logosone]

On 5/5/2020 at 10:58 PM, lamyai3 said:

Although Moore and Connery presided over the golden years of the Bond franchise with several of the the most exciting films, as actors they're both rather wooden and narrow in range. Any other parts they've played are really just 007 tweaked a bit. 

 

Craig on the other hand is a skilled actor with great versatility. He's not afraid to take on comic and unflattering roles - check out Hot Knives, Layer Cake, Logan Lucky and Dragon Tattoo for four very different characters, none of which remotely resemble his 007. As Bond he upset some purists by reinventing the role as something grittier and less caddish than past actors (people even objected that his hair colour was wrong), but in doing so has succeeded in avoiding just churning out another revamp. 

 

The low point of the Bond franchise for me was late era Moore in the 80's along with the Dalton and Brosnan years. These two both seemed better suited to playing handsome geography teachers or responsible dads than international spies. 

Moore and Connery were not "wooden" or narrow in range. They both had a lightness of touch as Bond which Craig never had. Moore was just 60 by the time he finished playing Bond and came from TV so he never got the chance to make a transition into major film roles after 60. Connery was a much better actor than people give him credit for, Michael Caine is emphatic on this. But again he was 53 by the time he finished Bond and relegated to side roles mostly.

 

Craig is an okay actor but he can not do comedy, totally impossible for him. As such he was completely unsuited for Bond. The Bond series was successful because it was a unique blend of humour, glamour and excitement that was different. Craig was also totally devoid of rapport with his female characters.

 

Of course that became formulaic but different does not always mean good. It's like that Grant Morrison, the Brit who turned Batman from a superhero experience where good always wins into a psychotic, dark, vile and extreme sicko fantasy.

 

Batman was ruined. Bond was ruined. Again they thought they had to tamper with perfection and screwed it up. Daniel Craig as Bond was the definitive low point for the series. In their attempts to make Bond more relevant and different they came up with a female boss. Anyone who bought the cuddly Judi Dench as the head of a secret service has to have their head examined. But of course female boss, check, so relevant now and in compliance with PC Dogma.

 

But the worst by far was Daniel Craig. My God, is this man boring. No humour, no rapport with the female characters, all action all the time, tortured pretense of manhood. Connery and Moore were the real thing, men who everyone believed were men.

 

And you talk about the wrong hair colour, which is irrelevant, but Daniel Craig had the wrong look. I mean the man has gigantic floppy ears and looks like a Russian army corporal. Bond had to be one of the best looking men on the planet aestheticallly, and we got that with Roger Moore, with Connery and certainly with Pierce Brosnan. Craig was a real step down in aesthetics.

 

But the worst is this dour, tortured "gritty" pretense at realism. Hey, we know Bond is not real! We know he's a character.  But instead of entertaining the audience they just brutalise it now, like Batman.

 

I'm very happy to see Craig go. He's made the worst series of Bond movies I can remember. The Connery and Moore eras were the golden age by comparison. 

[CraigInBangkok]

8 hours ago, owl sees all said:

What about Vinny Jones?

NO!

[lamyai3]

19 hours ago, Logosone said:

Of course that became formulaic but different does not always mean good. It's like that Grant Morrison, the Brit who turned Batman from a superhero experience where good always wins into a psychotic, dark, vile and extreme sicko fantasy.

 

Batman was ruined. Bond was ruined. Again they thought they had to tamper with perfection and screwed it up. Daniel Craig as Bond was the definitive low point for the series. In their attempts to make Bond more relevant and different they came up with a female boss. Anyone who bought the cuddly Judi Dench as the head of a secret service has to have their head examined. But of course female boss, check, so relevant now and in compliance with PC Dogma.

Not heard of Grant Morrison, but if you're implying Batman has somehow lost it's mojo in the past two decades with the Dark Knight Trilogy, Joker and Gotham you're on shaky ground. 

 

I'm no fan of politically correct bs and agree the best Bond movies belonged to Connery and Moore, but if you're trying to make the case that Octopussy and For Your Eyes Only are worthy of serious consideration you're surely having a laugh. And no one looks back fondly on Brosnan and Dalton as 007 - the first time I was ever impressed with Dalton was in Hot Fuzz. 

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, Logosone said:

I'm very happy to see Craig go. He's made the worst series of Bond movies I can remember. The Connery and Moore eras were the golden age by comparison. 

Seriously? Dalton had to be the worst. To say he was wooden would be insulting to wood.

I thought Craig was OK in the part. Remember that the actor is not responsible for the script, and the tenor of a movie. The fault lies with the producer, for their decision to go PC and the actors employed.

 

22 hours ago, Logosone said:

Bond had to be one of the best looking men on the planet aestheticallly,

LOL. Bond had to have sexuality, but the last thing a spy would want was to be good looking. A spy depends on being one of the invisible people.

 

22 hours ago, Logosone said:

Connery and Moore were the real thing, men who everyone believed were men.

LOL. Moore was, IMO a bit suspect. Too smooth by far. Even the atrocious Lazenby was more manly.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, lamyai3 said:

if you're trying to make the case that Octopussy and For Your Eyes Only are worthy of serious consideration you're surely having a laugh.

Having recently watched all the Bond films, most of them were rubbish. Had they come out now they'd have been scorned.

Connery's Bond were movies for those times, and he carried them by himself. The special effects in Dr No were pathetic.

IMO Moore's Bond rode on the popularity of Connery's legacy, and if anything the production values were worse than Connery's.

Like many, I went to see the later ones because I hoped to relive the excitement of the earlier ones and was invariably disappointed. There have been many excellent thriller movies made in the past 20 years, but Bonds are not among them. For real excitement and excellent production values see movies like the Bourne franchise.

WETV in Chiang Mai had 2 farang movie channels, and played many movies, including the Bourne ones, but they never played a single Bond movie that I saw on it. I bought the Bond collection from a DVD shop and got a very good discount because the shop owner could not sell them.

[CraigInBangkok]

5 hours ago, lamyai3 said:

Not heard of Grant Morrison, but if you're implying Batman has somehow lost it's mojo in the past two decades with the Dark Knight Trilogy, Joker and Gotham you're on shaky ground. 

 

I'm no fan of politically correct bs and agree the best Bond movies belonged to Connery and Moore, but if you're trying to make the case that Octopussy and For Your Eyes Only are worthy of serious consideration you're surely having a laugh. And no one looks back fondly on Brosnan and Dalton as 007 - the first time I was ever impressed with Dalton was in Hot Fuzz. 

"If we let you carry on running around town, you'll continue to be exceptional... and we can't have that. You'll put us all out of a job."

 

I always thought Connery was the best Bond, but cinema has changed and now its just not same, so I don't see the point in making just another action movie.