For Those Richard Armitage as 007 Fans, This Variety Article is Relevant.


The article chronicles some of Daniel Craig’s other film endeavors – not so successful – as well as the careers of other former James Bonds. It concludes that only Sean Connery was able to break out of the mold, and even then, he had to go back to the role after a series of flops ( but also some success, – an oscar for The Untouchables)

The article also acknowledges Craig’s considerable acting talent, and hints that it just hasn’t been recognized ( or maybe he isn’t selecting the best roles).

The description of his new style Bond makes one think that if the Bond franchise stayed with that sort of image, i.e darker, rougher, a little less suave,  a Bond without that twinkle in his eye shared by Connery, Moore and Brosnan, then  Richard Armitage would be even better than we think he would be – but at what cost?

Yes, I would love to see Richard Armitage as James Bond – in one film, just to test it out – and then be done, it being his own choice.  But the franchise doesn’t want that.

On the other hand, one of the benefits to Craig’s  continuing with Bond and earning gazillions, is that he is able to finance, or anyway, skip the big salary, in order to do some theater and other smaller works.

It seems like the powers that be are pretty sure Craig has at least one more Bond film in him. That being the case, it is more than likely that the next casting turn will leave Armitage completely out of the loop on account of age.

So the downsides are: it’s not a career builder except as Bond, it doesn’t  stretch an actor’s range or talent ( although I don’t think we’ve seen Richard Armitage play suave, except in one episode of Spooks – undercover as Pete, the finance guy) and it doesn’t seem to be in the direction he wants to go.

On the other hand, his name recognition would be world wide, he’d do a fine job and he’d have the capital to pursue the sort of work he really seems to crave.

Still, in my book, I’ve out this one to bed.

11 thoughts on “For Those Richard Armitage as 007 Fans, This Variety Article is Relevant.

  1. I’m with you on this one. If RA were asked, and he accepted, I believe the only positive outcome would be the financial means to produce his own material (which wouldn’t be too bad :-)), but it would be waving goodbye to what’s left of his anonymity.


  2. Mr. Lang didn’t do a hell of a lot of research there, I’m afraid. But I do agree in general that Connery’s career had taken off the best post-Bond, but I think that was due to the fact that he endured the longest. He made Bond and Bind made him. But he also had several stinkers between and just after. (Largely Zardoz comes to mind.) But in those 20 years AS Bond he also made a lot of films during, so that is also potential potential for any actor playing Bond if they want to do art or theatre (And no I am not calling Zardoz art, by any means.)

    Moore as a television actor did well mostly prior, it’s true. (The Saint was a fave.) And yes he did make bad decisions in post-Bond projects, but honestly I always felt his range was already limited. (Still loved him.) Bond made him an icon otherwise and they paid him well for those stinkers.

    Same with Timothy Dalton, although I was thrilled when he became Bond. He had everything I felt Bond should possess and I think he did well. But he too had some stinkers. (Shall I start with THAT TV Cleopatra? *shivers*,) and since I think he has done fairly well. But again, to be honest, I always felt his range was limited as well. He’s good when he finds directors who take advantage of his strengths, because otherwise he can tear up the scenery to shreds if they let him.

    For Brosnan, I thought his career was decent before hand, although not so much a fan then (I became more impressed with him as Bond than I thought I would be, because I was not fond of Remington Steele at all.) But after—and something Lang missed completely—The Thomas Crown Affair was surely nothing to sneeze at. In fact, he has done an average of three films a year post-Bond and produces.

    With Daniel Craig, I was on the Clive-Owen-as-James-Bond Team before Craig was chosen—and I was already a Craig fan (The Mother still gives me the chills.) Craig was also was doing pretty decently career-wise before Bond and worked a lot, but Bond did A-List him for sure. And now his potential with The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is also nothing to sneeze at as a future trilogy. (Fincher pullout not withstanding—it’s not dead yet.) But in line with your issue, I do think Bond has held that potential back, schedule-wise. And that is possibly why he wants to go.

    With Richard, I think he could do it and definitely do it very well. He wants to produce AND do theatre, but only he would know if being contractually obligated for up to three pictures and risking entering into a well-known and beloved franchise would work for him and his future projects. We all know that commitment to a project is not an issue with him, but I think for a studio these days to ask any actor to go beyond three pictures contractually, initially, is pushing it. So I think he might be safe in that. Maybe. (Unless three pictures takes 10 years.)

    My biggest fears if he took Bond: a) Richard, the perfectionist, would work himself to death doing it and any other work scheduled around it and b) the George Lazenby affect.


    • I agree that the writer undersold Daniel Craig’s other work – so much of it is the films these actors choose. I thought he was terrific in Defiance, and there’s another small film, is it Mother, I don’t know, where he plays a handyman scoundrel who has an affair with a much older woman ( forgot the actress’s name, but we know her, I think from Last Tango in Halifax.I just wonder, how does an actor say no to James Bond? I have a wonderful story about Pierce Brosnan, Remington Steele and James Bond. I loved Remington Steele – well I loved Pierce Brosnan in it, and aside from a very early crush on another actor when I was 15, he was the only actor I ever was over the moon about. I had the opportunity, at a family event, to discuss the show with people from NBC ( OK, I had a little too much champagne, it was a happy event) in which I gave unsolicited advice about how to make the show better. (Stephanie Zimbalist and PB had absolutely no chemistry, but the real issue for me was that the mysteries were terrible.And I said so. a year later, I approached the same men at another event, and gave them a piece of my mind about not not letting Brosnan do Bond when he had the first opportunity.I thought he was a good Bond. There’s another film of his I like – can’t recall the name, but he played some high level British politician ( Prime Minister, maybe?), and other film, maybe made for TV, where he played a psychopath. He works steadily, so what’s to complain?.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. And I should say here, it’s not that I don’t think Richard is already A-list. He is. But Bond would indeed keep him there for a while. And I think he wants A-list, or he wouldn’t have taken The Hobbit or have agents on two continents.


    • I think The Hobbit was impossible to refuse for him. I think he definitely wants A-List, but I don’t think he’s there yet.If he is, I’ll have to change the name of the blog.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s