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.