Classic Bond Forum

Haven't seen any mention of Armitage here, though ISTR Alternative 007 mentioning him as one of the actors who was being talked about as a potential Bond before Craig was cast. He plays Sir Guy of Gisbourne in the BBC/BBC America co-production of Robin Hood, and if you look beyond the faux-medieval costuming, I believe he has a good Bond look, as well as a certain brooding intensity that would suit the role well. What do you think?

Kristatos wrote:Haven't seen any mention of Armitage here, though ISTR Alternative 007 mentioning him as one of the actors who was being talked about as a potential Bond before Craig was cast. He plays Sir Guy of Gisbourne in the BBC/BBC America co-production of Robin Hood, and if you look beyond the faux-medieval costuming, I believe he has a good Bond look, as well as a certain brooding intensity that would suit the role well. What do you think?

I'm a fan, and I think he would be great. He reminds me a bit of Iain Glen.

I did not enjoy the Robin Hood programme - i did not like the choice of Robin Hood much. Is it shown in the US? It's interesting that the BBC put it on in the early Saturday evening slot occupied by Dr Who: so the success of Dr Who led the BBC to try out another "drama" in place of the the usual variety programmes.

I quite enjoy it myself. It obviously owes a lot to Prince of Thieves. Keith Allen isn't as good as Alan Rickman as the Sheriff, of course, but at least here, the Sheriff isn't the whole show.

He's tall, has black hair and is conventionally handsome...so is obviously wrong for the part. He has more websites dedicated to him than Craig anyway.

007 wrote:He's tall, has black hair and is conventionally handsome...so is obviously wrong for the part.

I Googled "Richard Armitage James Bond" and it took me to a thread on the subject on CBn. The consensus seemed to be that he will be too old by the time Craig retires in a million years' time and that he is "too pretty". Is this going to become the standard objection from the Craigians to any actor who doesn't look like something the cat dragged in?

It's a tactic to prop Craig up. I noticed this theme not long after he was cast. Any alternative is invariably called a pretty boy or lightweight etc for being handsome. Even the nuttiest Craig fan knows he's not Cary Grant so I suppose they had to come up with something. God knows what these people are going to do if Eon go back to a traditional handsome suave Bond actor after Craig. They've just spent nearly three years trying to convince us that Bond should be a craggy little oik who does a load of bodybuilding.

007 wrote:God knows what these people are going to do if Eon go back to a traditional handsome suave Bond actor after Craig. They've just spent nearly three years trying to convince us that Bond should be a craggy little oik who does a load of bodybuilding.

90% of them will just blow with the wind and pretend they never liked Craig to begin with.

Kristatos wrote:

007 wrote:God knows what these people are going to do if Eon go back to a traditional handsome suave Bond actor after Craig. They've just spent nearly three years trying to convince us that Bond should be a craggy little oik who does a load of bodybuilding.

90% of them will just blow with the wind and pretend they never liked Craig to begin with.

Many fans seem to have rejected the "traditional Bond look", so it will be interesting to see what their reaction is if a male model type is chosen again.

I also heard that Robin Hood has quit the BBC series.

carl stromberg wrote:I also heard that Robin Hood has quit the BBC series.

Do you mean the actor who played Robin Hood (Jonas Armstrong)? That's OK, the series came to a natural end at the end of Season 2 anyway. With Marian dead and the outlaws being knighted by King Richard, there isn't really anywhere left for it to go.

Kristatos wrote:

carl stromberg wrote:I also heard that Robin Hood has quit the BBC series.

Do you mean the actor who played Robin Hood (Jonas Armstrong)? That's OK, the series came to a natural end at the end of Season 2 anyway. With Marian dead and the outlaws being knighted by King Richard, there isn't really anywhere left for it to go.

You will be pleased to know that they are making a third series but Jonas Armstrong will be leaving at the end!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7545979.stm

carl stromberg wrote:You will be pleased to know that they are making a third series but Jonas Armstrong will be leaving at the end!

Not really, since I think it came to a natural end in the last episode of season 2.

Kristatos wrote:Haven't seen any mention of Armitage here

Doh, maybe I should have scrolled down to the bottom of the forum index

Kristatos wrote:

007 wrote:God knows what these people are going to do if Eon go back to a traditional handsome suave Bond actor after Craig. They've just spent nearly three years trying to convince us that Bond should be a craggy little oik who does a load of bodybuilding.

90% of them will just blow with the wind and pretend they never liked Craig to begin with.

You guys are putting waaaay too much emphasise on looks alone.

We had the `perfect' `ideal' looking Bond in Brosnan, who tallied up very closely to the Fleming description (even I admit that) yet his films were all dire, so at the end of the day who really cared how perfect Brozza looked for the role? It didn't stop DAD being the worst film ever made, nor did it stop his others being pretty awful too.

Put Craig in a film like DAD and I will hate it regardless of the actor. Likewise, all these other contenders for the role, I don't care if they are all rugged, handsome, unconventionally handsome, pretty-boy, ruthless looking, short, tall or average. Put them in another DAD film and it will still be crap.

To me, the film itself is first and foremost. The actors look is second. But here, all you guys care about is looks alone. As long as he looks the part, you can forgive the film itself to be crap.

So in answer to your question, how would I cope if EON brought back another Brozza after Craig? I wouldn't care less, as long as the film he starred in was in the CR mould, and not the DAD mould. But I guess I'm wasting my time saying this, because the shallow level here just got a whole lot shallower....

The Sweeney wrote:

Kristatos wrote:

007 wrote:God knows what these people are going to do if Eon go back to a traditional handsome suave Bond actor after Craig. They've just spent nearly three years trying to convince us that Bond should be a craggy little oik who does a load of bodybuilding.

90% of them will just blow with the wind and pretend they never liked Craig to begin with.

You guys are putting waaaay too much emphasise on looks alone.

We had the `perfect' `ideal' looking Bond in Brosnan, who tallied up very closely to the Fleming description (even I admit that) yet his films were all dire, so at the end of the day who really cared how perfect Brozza looked for the role? It didn't stop DAD being the worst film ever made, nor did it stop his others being pretty awful too.

Put Craig in a film like DAD and I will hate it regardless of the actor. Likewise, all these other contenders for the role, I don't care if they are all rugged, handsome, unconventionally handsome, pretty-boy, ruthless looking, short, tall or average. Put them in another DAD film and it will still be crap.

To me, the film itself is first and foremost. The actors look is second. But here, all you guys care about is looks alone. As long as he looks the part, you can forgive the film itself to be crap.

So in answer to your question, how would I cope if EON brought back another Brozza after Craig? I wouldn't care less, as long as the film he starred in was in the CR mould, and not the DAD mould. But I guess I'm wasting my time saying this, because the shallow level here just got a whole lot shallower....

Interesting point. Would people here have jump all over bashing Bond breaking through thin walls if he were handsome? Or was Craig's looks a motive for them and so they try to look for more things to complain? Not accusing anyone specifically, just a thought.

I remember reading a critical review of CR from another place and the poster was bemoaning the fact that Craig lacked grace and a certain 'dashing' quality. I think he mentioned the construction chase and said it was like watching Wayne Rooney chasing after someone. I tend to agree with that sort of view. It's hard to explain but I prefer Bond to be more lean/graceful rather than a chunky/shortish type.

On the topic of Armitage, he's taking over the lead in Spooks so we'll see if he makes a good fictional spy soon enough.

Kristatos wrote:Haven't seen any mention of Armitage here, though ISTR Alternative 007 mentioning him as one of the actors who was being talked about as a potential Bond before Craig was cast. He plays Sir Guy of Gisbourne in the BBC/BBC America co-production of Robin Hood, and if you look beyond the faux-medieval costuming, I believe he has a good Bond look, as well as a certain brooding intensity that would suit the role well. What do you think?

He looks good enough.

They did have it on BBC America
I didnt care for the new robin hood, too political. Tried tooo hard to tie things up with the current situation in the middle east. And Robin was a pacifist,

That ties in the to 1920s-30s Robin hood, kid friendly. But not a brave new imagining of the legend.
A lot of teh new hood I didnt care for, I don't know if I saw Armitage since I tuned out early on. He looksthe parts. Wait, No. He is entirely too tall and too handsome.

stockslivevan wrote:Interesting point. Would people here have jump all over bashing Bond breaking through thin walls if he were handsome? Or was Craig's looks a motive for them and so they try to look for more things to complain? Not accusing anyone specifically, just a thought.

I think that had more to do with the fact that much of the praise for CR centred on its supposed "realism". Had that shot appeared in a Brosnan or Moore film, or even a Connery, I doubt it would even be mentioned, but in a supposedly realistic film, a moment that is, frankly, a bit silly does stick out like a sore thumb. Not as much as the Maggie Thatcher scene in FYEO, perhaps, or the winking fish in LTK, but it still sticks out nonetheless.

Kristatos wrote:

stockslivevan wrote:Interesting point. Would people here have jump all over bashing Bond breaking through thin walls if he were handsome? Or was Craig's looks a motive for them and so they try to look for more things to complain? Not accusing anyone specifically, just a thought.

I think that had more to do with the fact that much of the praise for CR centred on its supposed "realism". Had that shot appeared in a Brosnan or Moore film, or even a Connery, I doubt it would even be mentioned, but in a supposedly realistic film, a moment that is, frankly, a bit silly does stick out like a sore thumb. Not as much as the Maggie Thatcher scene in FYEO, perhaps, or the winking fish in LTK, but it still sticks out nonetheless.

The word "realism" is being misused a lot (I know I'm guilty of it). If Casino Royale were truly realistic, the government wouldn't send an agent to a game of luck. Casino Royale isn't the only film where people claim it's being "realistic". The same thing is happening to the Nolan Batman films.