I watched a trailer for assassins creed earlier today it looks surprisingly good will be a trip to the cinema I think. Used to play the assassins creed games a lot I have syndicate but I have barely touched it. The games lost their charm a long time ago for me.
One can only hope. Ubisoft were extensively involved in making the film, largely as an attempt to avoid the trend of terrible video game adaptations. As most of us know, they’re often made with no input from the developers. Just ask Uwe Boll.
CD Projekt RED are doing the same with the Witcher film, which is being directed by an Oscar-nominated animator who’s company made some of the cinematic trailers for the game.
I can’t think what the main actors name is but I love him in X men as magneto.
Michael Fassbender is his name and he’s very awesome! Love him as Frank in Frank!
I tried to watch Macbeth but couldn’t get on with how they spoke found it too annoying .
And as Lieutenant Archie Hicox in Inglourious Basterds.
Watch “Hunger” with Fassbender. It’s a powerfull story by Steve McQueen and might be Fassbenders best acting performance. He does a Christian Bale by loosing a shit ton of weight.
So apparently Gillian Anderson want’s to be the next James / Jane Bond. I would love to see her play an agent, I think she would be great for such a role. But taking male characters and doing a gender switch has nothing to do with Gender Equality. Create a new character, do something interesting and not just a lazy copy past. It seems like such and easy and lazy solution, to pick a character who got 50+ years on the Silver Screen and doing a gender switch for the sake of gender “equality”.
I’m all for leading female characters, but this is beyond me. Do something “original”, though i don’t for one second believe it will ever happen. I don’t even mind the new Ghostbuster movies female twist, however like most reboots it looks horrible.
Agreed do something original.
I don’t know. I can’t see Gillian Anderson as a female Bond …
I think more of it as a publicity stunt, where she is actually fishing after a spy role in a movie, rather then actually going after 007. I would love to see her as an spy in a movie, but i want it to be original role.
Is David Duchovny going to play Moneypenny? If so I’m all for it
It’s not necessarily anything to do with “equality”, rather a new interpretation of a character that has had so many different actors portray them over the years, with so many different characteristics and traits.
We’ve seen serious consideration given to a black actor to play James Bond, which is awesome and fascinating after 50 years of white men - So why not look into a female interpretation of Bond?
Would you tell a black woman she can’t play MacBeth in a Shakespeare play because it’s an “established role”? No, you wouldn’t. So why deny black male actors or female actors the opportunity to add their mark on an iconic character?
Denying someone something purely on the basis of gender is incredibly sexist. Sorry to be the one to have to break that to you.
No not necessarily, however in this day and age it’s a hot topic. Both for the right and the wrong reasons, but as i said i think this more of a publicity stunt on her side.
Just because it’s a “new interpretation” does not mean it’s a good idea. I’m begning to warm up to the thought of Idris Elba playing bond, though he’s not my number one contender.
Because then it’s not Bond, and it would be a disrespect towards Ian Fleming character as well as the fans. I’m all for a female spy character, but it find it incredible dull and lazy way to bring a female spy onto the Silver Screen. James Bond is male, all his character traits revolts around him being Sexual Dinosaur. The character was written to reflect Fleming himself, and his “life”.
It’s not like what they did with Ghostbusters where they replaced it with a female crew, they are “new” characters. Though they seem to be based on the same traits, just female counterparts. Thought that movie, like most reboots looks horrible.
On the topic of a female James Bond, I agree with Christoph Waltz’s opinion in this video:
The thing is its a public discussion whether we like it or not, because of the visibility of the character. That doesn’t mean it’s a publicity stunt.
He’s been cast as Roland in The Dark Tower now and he’s getting the same exact shit that he got when people suggested he should be Bond too.
So would you equally say that a black actress playing MacBeth is disrespectful to Shakespeare because it’s not what he imagined when he wrote the script? Besides, have you seen the contempt with which Fleming treated female characters n his Bond novels? I really don’t care about respecting him when he can’t be respectful himself.
I don’t mind having the discussion, that is all fin. It’s interesting to say at least, however it does not mean i think it’s the right direction for neither the Franchise or character.
Well that comment is tied to what i wrote earlier, but i’m going to be jolly old chap and sum it up. I think it could be a publicity stunt form Gillian, where the goal is not James Bond/007, but rather to bring it to our attention she wan’ts to play such a role. One that is more likely then any female getting to play Bond for a long time.
That’s a shame, but people are invested in certain characters. But it has nothing to do with the point i made, “New does not equal good”. Doing it for the sake of it is beyond me.
It all comes down to the what they want to do, if it’s a historical picture/play then it would be a wired casting choice. However if it’s one of the many movies/plays where play with the setting and characters then go wild. Like they did with Romeo and Juliet (1996), or Shakespeare in Love (1998) which mirrors many of his plays. There are hundreds of interpretations of his plays, all from 10 Things I Hate About You (1999) or She’s the Man (2006). In the end, it’s all about context.
Yeah she’ll probably beat up a few 250 lbs thugs with her bare hands using imaginary secret martial art techniques too, like every female protagonist. Apparently Hollywood’s way of writing a strong female character is to write a stereotype of the strong male character, cut his dick off and cast a sexy female lead in high heels instead.
So what is your problem with a new interpretation of Bond that isn’t a white man? You’re not really helping your argument when you say it’s all about context but then proceed to say certain things should be excluded!
Don’t you think with the right context there could be a black James Bond? Or even a female Bond? It’s not exactly a franchise with a strict timeline. Craig’s series has only introduced characters like Moneypenney and Blofeld.
I would like to point out to you, that i said i was warming up to the idea of Idris Elba playing Bond. Though not my number one pick at the moment. So either you’re just fishing or you missed some of my points.
Well it is, it is about context. Under the right circumstances everything can work, that does not mean that I like the idea, or ever wish to see it play out that way on the Silver Screen.
I choose to edit this frase and remove the your impression that i don’t think a man of colour could play Bond.
Under the right context yes, but then it should be successor to Bond, a new character taking over the 007 mantle. But re imagine James as Jane Bond, where they totally reboot the Franchise that i’m not in favor for. There is something ironic when George Lazenby says “this never happened to the other guy” in ‘On Her Majesty’s Secret Service’ (1969), the fact that he acknowledged Sean Connery or hint towards the change in Bond, is perfect. Or Daniel Craig dusting off the old Bond Car, that Connery made famous.
Yes it is true that the Franchise timeline is bit of a mystery, but other then having an odd canon timeline i don’t see the idea about doing a Gender Switch. It’s dull and beyond lazy. I said it hundred of times, give her a spy role, i’m very much for that. I think she could be a hell of a spy, but doing it with an already existing franchise seems like a bandwagon move.