The great Iron Man quagmire...

[Arkham]

Craig plays Bond as a stonefaced killer with none of the charm, intelligence, refinement, or playfulness that we expect from Bond. Sean Connery covered the entire range of Craig's "acting skills" with just a look, or an exchange, and showed us so much more in each of his movies. Craig is scraping the bottom of the barrel along with Timothy Dalton for worst Bond, but benefits from better special effects.

 

 

I assume that you haven't seen On Her Majesty's Secret Service where Aussie actor George Lazenby produced the worst Bond performance ever, as a one-shot performance, and inspired the Austin Powers pisstakes.

 

 

Dalton was hired because he was about as close as they could get to Brosnan, but Brosnan was still contracted to NBC's Remington Steele.

 

Broccoli had wanted Brosnan for the role since his wife was first on set.

 

Dalton is low in my list of Bonds, but I think Brosnan was a great JB. He just did one too many. That fight scene at the "fencing" school was a bit unconvincing, and as terrible as it is to say it, because Brosnan was a bit tubby in that suit and looked a bit out of shape - which is fine in life, but not how James Bond should be.

 

Connery was always my favourite growing up... but, for me, Daniel Craig may have nudged him out to take the title.

 

The reason for this is exactly what you stated - Craig portray's a stone-faced killer (although I'd argue he does still offer charm, intelligence and refinement.. but more subtly). True operatives are stone-faced killers, not lady-killers. It takes a borderline socio-pyscho-path to walk into a room and execute everyone inside it because they have been instructed to.

 

I've always loved early Sean Connery Bond work, but I think it's fair to say that it has dated. These days it presents a little bit too cheesy... and it objectifies women past the point of comfort. I know that was just the era, but we're in a new era now.

 

The modern Craig version of Bond is gritty, ruthless etc while still oozing a confident persona that woo's women and has all the class and style of a James Bond courtesy of the wardrobe department.

 

For me, is way truer to Fleming's novels than any of the playful portrayals that came from previous adaptations for the screen. Fleming's Bond is a wet blanket. Not a cheerful, one-handed-bra-removing charm pit.

 

All of that said, the whole arguing about who is a better Bond is stupid because it's a subjective process. You might like black jellybeans. Who am I to tell you that you're if so?

 

Skyfall was awful, just awful. Just because they break out some of the old toys doesn't make it a Bond movie. You must be a Javier Bardem fan. While you were dazzled by his presence, the rest of us were bored to tears by him, and never bought him as a credible threat. Only Never Say Never Again was less of a Bond movie than this was.

 

Sad to hear you thought Skyfall was awful. I thought it was great - but its run-time just went a little too long for me...

 

I thought that Javier Bardem started strong, but, overall, the movie (including Bardem's performance) finished a little weakly (in comparison to its start)... That's the scripting and direction more so than being any particular actor's fault.

 

Bardem was amazing in "No Country For Old Men"... IMO, that is one of the best films of the past decade.

[FineCollector]

Because it's still a discussion of Iron Man, no, I don't think anyone else would work. It's too close, and every time you see the new guy, you'll think "too bad, money issues." The Batman movies suffered from the novelty of seeing different Bruce Waynes in rapid succession, but you never forgot that it was a new actor taking his shot at the role.

 

I assume that you haven't seen On Her Majesty's Secret Service where Aussie actor George Lazenby produced the worst Bond performance ever, as a one-shot performance, and inspired the Austin Powers pisstakes.

 

I feel bad for you for being so wrong... the story demanded that Lazenby fall in love with Diana Rigg, and pretend to be an awkward genealogist in order to infiltrate a Spectre facility. He was happy, and typically cocky. Stonefaced Craig couldn't have handled the range of emotion in this one. The plot was good, and had the scope of a Bond movie. My only complaint was that they accelerated the fight scenes, the rest was fine.

[Arkham]

I feel bad for you for being so wrong...

 

lol lol

 

My opinion is never wrong. It is my opinion. I could play at the same level and say your opinion is wrong.. but no, your opinion simply differs, which illustrates that we have different tastes.

 

Obviously my taste is superior.

[Tony S]

Ok, we know it's coming at some point.

We've had at least a dozen different Batmen, a handful of Supermen and we're three for three with Hulks.

 

At some point RDJ will be replaced and someone new will take over as Tony Stark.

Is the suit strong enough to endure someone else driving it or is the entire franchise tied to a single actor?

 

 

Why do the statistics add up to about 118%

[Boboset]

Guy Pierce would be a great Tony Stark.

 

Oh, very nice choice. I'm a big Guy Pierce fan. It's too bad that it won't happen because he was the villain in IM3.

[slym2none]

I still think Jon Hamm could be a good Tony Stark.

 

 

 

-slym

[media_junkie]

I still think Jon Hamm could be a good Tony Stark.

 

 

 

-slym

 

I could see that.

[asr0462]

I loved On Her Majesty's Secret Service. If they had done the same style of movie for Diamonds are Forever as a continuation story, it could have only gotten better.

[Porcelain Monkey-migration]

I voted yes, but I think what will make it work is time. Some time needs to go by in between actors. There are plenty of marvel superheros to make movies about, and if it is desired to have Iron Man as a guest star / cameo, all you need is a voice over from RDJ. I'm guessing a few million for an afternoon's work could be arranged. As far as a full movie, an IM trilogy and two Avengers movies may be about enough to ask from one actor.

 

Ten years from now, assuming superheros are still popular, a young actor could be cast in a re-boot of the franchise. This seems to be the best solution, and what worked for Batman. The mistake they made with Batman was getting greedy and making Clooney in the nipple suit to begin with.

 

In the mean time, let IM and Avengers leave on a strong note, with everyone wanting more, pivot to Ant Man, Sub Mariner, Fantastic Four (surely this could be better done than the previous ones), Defenders, Moon Knight, Spider Woman (take your pick), include some guest appearances, and keep everything as fresh as possible.

[sakaridis]

Ok, we know it's coming at some point.

We've had at least a dozen different Batmen, a handful of Supermen and we're three for three with Hulks.

 

At some point RDJ will be replaced and someone new will take over as Tony Stark.

Is the suit strong enough to endure someone else driving it or is the entire franchise tied to a single actor?

 

 

Why do the statistics add up to about 118%

They look OK to me.

[Tony S]

Ok, we know it's coming at some point.

We've had at least a dozen different Batmen, a handful of Supermen and we're three for three with Hulks.

 

At some point RDJ will be replaced and someone new will take over as Tony Stark.

Is the suit strong enough to endure someone else driving it or is the entire franchise tied to a single actor?

 

 

Why do the statistics add up to about 118%

They look OK to me.

 

What I see as a result is

124 votes

Yes 58.47%

No 60.48%

The logic is cracked 6.5%

 

Those numbers add up to more that 100%

Maybe you are seeing something different?

[slym2none]

Look again - you are putting a decimal where there shouldn't be one.

 

58 votes, 47%

60 votes, 48%

6 votes, 5%

 

I hope you feel better now.

 

 

 

-slym (edited in an example with lines separating the #s)

[Comicdey]

Solid yes vote from me