Cillian Murphy! Is he the new James Bond?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

super_furry wrote: »

Jesus Christ, are people still pissy about girls being Ghostbusters?

No it's about ethics in ghost busting...

Deebles McBeebles

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

I have no issue with it being a female cast, I was looking forward to it and was disappointed in it. Its not always about male v female.

super_furry wrote: »

Jesus Christ, are people still pissy about girls being Ghostbusters?

Are people still being pissy because others didn't like a movie?

Grayson

Woke Hogan wrote: »

Ghostbusters II came out thirty years ago. It's like asking why nobody on the internet got mad when Aussie George Lazenby was cast in On Her Majesty's Secret Service in 1969. Totally different climate.

People did get pissed off. Even before the internet lazenby was known as a bad Bond (either fairly or unfairly. A someone who's a james bond nut I'd argue that he didn't get a fair shake, but that's another argument).

conorhal

Grayson wrote: »

Except they made a bourne movie in the 80's. The new one was nothing like it or the book. All they took was the basic idea that a guy is pulled out of the sea and doesn't know who he is. He also has a swiss bank account number.

that's everything. Besides that everything else is new.
So what you're saying is that they can remake a movie/book and change everything they want except the gender of the lead?


As someone else said, the problem with ghostbusters wasn't that there were women, it's that it was just not a good movie. However the same can be said about ghostbusters 2. It was cashing in on the success of the first movie. And that can be said about so many sequels (And don't get me started on the starwars prequels).

Yeah, I'm not playing 20 questions to pass a purity test for permission to disagree thanks.

And yes I'll be $h1tting on Ghostbusters 2020 also. Sony are a dumpster fire notorious for cash grabs lately because they're basically going slowly bankrupt so their churing IP's for cash and give literally zero $h1ts about the quality of those films let alone having any respect for the IP, in fact there was absolute contempt for the project from pretty much everybody involved.

If you want an insight into just how true that is you can google 'Sony leaks Amy Pascal' and read all about what was going on behind the scenes.

Their 2020 offering is no less cynical a cash grab by an utterly cluless studio and it shows. I don't know what else we expected from the people who gave us The Emoji Movie though.

Woke Hogan

Braxton Raspy Six-shooter wrote: »

It was very entertaining at the time watching all the people who were only objecting to the new GB because they loved the original, thought it was amazing and didn't want a bad film sullying its memory who were apparently entirely unaware of the fact that it already had a very bad sequel and survived :rolleyes:

I actually remember when the sequel came out. I didn't go to see it and neither did any of my friends: not because it was a disgrace to the original but because it's a film for children and we were men in our twenties. Back in those days adults didn't get upset about kids movies. How things have changed.

JP Liz V1

Cillian would be a better villian

eagle eye

py2006 wrote:

He is tiny in real life. Not sure he could pull off Bond.

He is an inch shorter than Daniel Craig.

gmisk

Braxton Raspy Six-shooter wrote: »

No it's about ethics in ghost busting...

Why didnt they call it Ghostbust-hers?!

DEFTLEFTHAND

Woke Hogan wrote: »

I actually remember when the sequel came out. I didn't go to see it and neither did any of my friends: not because it was a disgrace to the original but because it's a film for children and we were men in our twenties. Back in those days adults didn't get upset about kids movies. How things have changed.

I remember George Lucas upset a lot of people when he said Star Wars is for 12 year olds.

Grayson

conorhal wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not playing 20 questions to pass a purity test for permission to disagree thanks.

And yes I'll be $h1tting on Ghostbusters 2020 also. Sony are a dumpster fire notorious for cash grabs lately because they're basically going slowly bankrupt so their churing IP's for cash and give literally zero $h1ts about the quality of those films let alone having any respect for the IP, in fact there was absolute contempt for the project from pretty much everybody involved.

If you want an insight into just how true that is you can google 'Sony leaks Amy Pascal' and read all about what was going on behind the scenes.

Their 2020 offering is no less cynical a cash grab by an utterly cluless studio and it shows.

How many fecking spiderman reboots did we need from sony

btw, I'd heard some of the stuff about Amy pascal but if you google that the first results is about how she thought Pixels was a great movie.

I nominate Anthony Joshua. Ain’t no one gonna mess with him.

tylercheribini

"The name is binary, non-binary."

Giveaway

Big Words wrote: »

He could wear shoes four times to big for himself.

Ian flemming and the bond from the books were small and wiry. Timothy Dalton would probably most match this asthetic

bazz26

I thought the rumor was that Henry Cavill was being lined up as Craig's replacement? He's a Brit and does fit the Bond persona but could easily play a villain too (he did it well in MI: Fallout).

Lirange

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Saw him in Toners about 10 years ago. The lad is about 5 foot tall. He might make a good villain though - a tiny little lad with small man syndrome plotting to put a death laser on the moon.

Perhaps better suited to portray my Av in a live action Looney Tunes then?

Edgware

We need Chuck Norris to bring a bit of realism to the role.

bazz26

tylercheribini

bazz26 wrote: »

I thought the rumor was that Henry Cavill was being lined up as Craig's replacement? He's a Brit and does fit the Bond persona but could easily play a villain too (he did it well in MI: Fallout).

Cavill is a truly atrocious actor, Rassie-worthy performance in last Mission Impossible.

SexBobomb

Murphy is a great actor, I think his bond would be interesting, more of an actual spy than a street brawling enforcer potentially. He'd probably get the marvel makeover to get his six pack and veins popping, height really isn't an issue at all.

SexBobomb

As long as they don't give it to Taron Egerton

Arghus

People saying Cillian Murphy is too small and someone like Tom Hardy would be a better fit should bear in mind that they're both the same height.

professore

tylercheribini wrote: »

Cavill is a truly atrocious actor, Rassie-worthy performance in last Mission Impossible.

Come on, James Bond is as hammy a role as you can get. I think he'd be ideal. Cillian Murphy is far too ugly - looks like a failed experiment to clone a Neanderthal from old DNA.

Ipso

Arghus wrote: »

People saying Cillian Murphy is too small and someone like Tom Hardy would be a better fit should bear in mind that they're both the same height.

As great an actor that he is, I don't think he's got the physicality for this type of a role.
His audition for Batman Begins should be on youtube, he doesn't seem right for the role but still he did an excellent job as Jonathan Crane.

tylercheribini

professore wrote: »

Come on, James Bond is as hammy a role as you can get

It used to be pre-Craig before the franchise started taking itself waaaaaay too seriously.

seasidedub

In the books James was not black. Just a fact. He was white. Nothing implied in anyway here. Just that he was imagined as white.

As were Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty etc. (Or the idea of their characters as they are fairy tales).

I don't understand why we "need" a black James Bond.

If we made a traditionally black character white it would be cultural "appropriation".

But a,say, black Tarzan would completely change the point of the storyline.

Why does everything have to be changed ?

Now, cue the outrage.....

Feisar

B_ecke_r wrote: »

Tom Cruise. Jack Reacher.

think he could be a good choice for a dark Bond, good actor IMO

Josh Brolin should have been Jack Reacher.

McDermotX

Get back to when Bond was a real man

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpGFESbLMKU

Arghus

seasidedub wrote: »

In the books James was not black. Just a fact. He was white. Nothing implied in anyway here. Just that he was imagined as white.

As were Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty etc. (Or the idea of their characters as they are fairy tales).

I don't understand why we "need" a black James Bond.

If we made a traditionally black character white it would be cultural "appropriation".

But a,say, black Tarzan would completely change the point of the storyline.

Why does everything have to be changed ?

Now, cue the outrage.....

Yes, but times change. Should all Bond films be totally faithful to the character is depicted in the books? If that's the case then they better stop setting them in the modern day too.

I don't think someone should be cast as Bond just because they're black, but equally they shouldn't be discounted just because they are black. If an actor fits the role their skin colour shouldn't come into it. Idris Elba would have ticked many of the boxes in my view, not because of his ethnicity but that he's a sauve dude with charisma who could believably handle himself in a fight - but I think he's too old now to do multiple films.

Teddy Daniels

B_ecke_r wrote: »

but that's his character. imagine trying to make the below characters white

Axel Foley
Apollo Creed
Red from Shawshank
Jules from Pulp Fiction

all "Fictional" but they're all definitely black in a remake

Interesting fact but red is called red because he has red hair white skin and freckles.
So yes I can imagine it.

velo.2010

AFAIK, the reason Danny Boyle left the latest Bond project was over the killing off of James Bond (not sure whether he was actually in favour or against it). That would indicate that there may be a new 007 which could be played by a man or woman of any ethnicity. James Bond was envisioned as this by Ian Fleming.





I think Timothy Dalton came closest to fully capturing Fleming's vision of Bond on screen.

PWEI

Colin Farrell would make a better Bond that Cillian Murphy, he looks more like Bond.


Karl Urban would me my choice for the role.

Teddy Daniels

Feisar wrote: »

Josh Brolin should have been Jack Reacher.

Reacher is 6’5 230 and should be to do it right.
I have no idea why cruise whantwd to play him and Child simply said his fans should understand that they gave him loads of money.

Tuco88

Id give Cillian Murphy the role, they gave it to that plonk Brosnan. Murphy is outstanding actor and unreal in peaky blinders.

If they change bond to be more darker (Continue on from Craig's direction)
Craig was excellent, tough boots for anyone to fill.

The height argument is just stupid imo.
Can the man act...

Force Carrier

I don't think the height is a factor.
Lots of Hollywood actors were short.
They would put Alan Ladd standing on a crate. Tom Cruise wore lifts.
Cillian Murphy is a good actor. He might be miscast as Bond though. Lack of gravitas and stolidity. That said he could turn out to be brilliant in the role.

Feisar

Plus a load of whey and he could whack on 30 lbs

TomSweeney

Pter wrote: »

It failed because it wasn't a good movie. Script was bad. Pacing was off. Was predictable. Nothing to do with the gender of the cast.

Never said it was cos of the gender of the cast, I said it was cos of the fact that it was unoriginal, a remake.

Do you not think that is levelled at you because you focus on it being 'tripe' because of the gender of the actors, and not some of the above?

If there was a female bond it wouldn't bother me as long as the factors other than gender, which I mentioned above, were in order.

ehhhh ... NO ... sorry, never said it was tripe cos of the gender of the actors, it's tripe cos it's a remake of something that can't be remade.


If they wanna make good films, move forward with original scripts.

riclad

He doesnt look tough enough to play bond,
he,s not ugly , he just does not look like the standard leading man.
i,m not saying Brosnan is a great actor but he looked good.
in 2019 bond has to be more realistic .They need to get an actor who is not very famous,
someone who has not appeared in any hit films but is a good actor ,
and looks right .
Its not an easy role to cast.
it.s ridiculous to criticise films made in the 80s, or the 90,s for being
crude or sexist . That was a different time .Sean Connery was not famous when he got the role as james bond .
Its like buying an old iphone 2 and saying ,wtf, this phone is slow , hard to use
and does not run the latest apps .

salmocab

I could see Murphy doing a good Bond, it could go a different direction from Craig’s Bond, bit more espionage and spying without being big on explosions and fight scenes.

Sleepy

If Murphy can carry off a decent Scottish / English accent he could work quite well as an take on Bond that portrays him as less of a brawler and more of a "real-world" assassin. Would love to see them go more towards the Dalton portrayal again.

Mister Vain

Wayne Molloy would have been a better choice.

liam7831

A lot depends on whether she wins Dancing with the Stars

tylercheribini

Im surprised Sony havent gone back and removed all the unpolitically-correct content from the previous films for a "Snowflake Edition" boxset.

letsgo2018

suicide_circus wrote: »

well considering only black actors should play black characters i dont even see how you'd have a black JB

Just rename the character James Black and it'd be grand

Heckler

I think it could work if they went away from the Bourne direction brawling thats all the rage. Height isn't an issue. Camera work can do that as been seen over and over.

Hes a great actor. For whoever said he looks like a cross between a DNA experiment and whatever, Murphy is regularly considered in the top ten of any hot male lists.

I met him once and he has mad piercing blue eyes and a bone structure to his face that makes him stand out.

Maybe take Bond away from the action and make it more Spooks with the occasional action scene.

Capt'n Midnight

McDermotX wrote: »

Get back to when Bond was a real man

The technology exists to use a body double and morph Sean Connery's image.

Capt'n Midnight

ShooterSF wrote: »

He's also been played by English, Scottish and Irish actors. I don't see the problem here as long as the character at it's core remains the same.

And Welsh and Australian.

Of course if you include the original Casino Royale , James Bond has already been played by Swiss, Israeli and English women. And a sea lion.

janfebmar

Who is Cillian Murphy? Never heard of her.

eagle eye

janfebmar wrote:

Who is Cillian Murphy? Never heard of her.

She is the star of a movie called Peacock.

janfebmar

janfebmar wrote: »

Who is Cillian Murphy? Never heard of her.

Have you not heard of Google?

Her? Plonker.

Stacksofwacks

Hopefully he does it with an Irish accent, an Irish bond would be cool to watch