› ›

Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1…9798100102103…1231

Comments

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Murdock wrote: »
    Yeah I don't see it. looks like C-Level henchmen to me.
    600px-DH5_73.jpg

    Oh now I know who he is now... sort of.

    No no no ....please no no no nada no
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    He looks like Patrice with crazy eyes. :))
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Murdock wrote: »
    He looks like Patrice with crazy eyes. :))

    Lol ...btw nice avatar. I now have the Ghostbuster theme in my head.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    He looks like Patrice with crazy eyes. :))

    Lol ...btw nice avatar. I now have the Ghostbuster theme in my head.

    Thanks. :P
  • smittysmitty
    Posts: 725
    My .02 on some names constantly mentioned,

    Elba, great actor, race less and less a factor, but too old

    Hiddleston, good actor, but not macho in person (comes off fey in interviews)

    Hugh Jackman, too old

    Worthington, Cahill; dumb as lumber in interviews. Doing Bond is 50% promotion.

    Damon Lewis; too old, too homely

    Hardy, great actor, beyond doing Bond no matter what he says

    Fassbinder; great actor, perfect looks, but serious personal issues will kill any chance that Babs would ever hire him.

    If Craig doesn't return, and Bond 25 opens in 2017, I'd put my money on Hunnam. He's bigger, and more conventionally handsome than Craig when he cleans himself up, and his career has a similar trajectory to Craig's, but then objectively, his resemblance may kill off his chances.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    bondjames wrote: »
    Richard Armitage

    His name has come up a couple of times. I've seen him in the Hobbit and Hannibal tv series. Does anyone know of something closer to Bond that he may have done which I could check out?
    566dd6cbe7f48215f89db12c95cf4ed8.jpg

    British TV spy series about Mi5, called SPOOKS, don't know how many series he was in, but pretty sure he wasn't in the recent film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Thanks @Lancaster007. I will try to get in some seasons of SPOOKS, as well as STRIKE BACK. Armitage certainly has the presence, although I realize he's over 40 and probably past it if they are going to go younger next time.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    Oh so Idris Elba thinks he's more famous than Sean Connery or Roger Moore?!
    Direct quote from a recent article.
    “It feels like I’m campaigning, and I’m not. At first it was harmless — oh, I know, wouldn’t it be great? — and now it’s started off racial debates. I’m probably the most famous Bond actor in the world, and I’ve not even played the role.”

    Sort of glad he will never be Bond. Let's get off this now and not worry about the next Bond till we know for sure that DC has left the role - so after Bond 25.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    He's just having a bit of fun with it. He has a point. The media have blown it up so much that he's the most talked about Bond actor that never was. This sort of reminds me of the draft Brosnan period from 86 to 95.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    bondjames wrote: »
    He's just having a bit of fun with it. He has a point. The media have blown it up so much that he's the most talked about Bond actor that never was. This sort of reminds me of the draft Brosnan period from 86 to 95.

    Yes, I can understand he's fed up with it (aren't we all), and you can't be a 'Bond actor' if you haven't had the role, perhaps he meant 'actor talked about for the role', doesn't trip of the tongue so well though! There is too much media BS about, an unfortunate sign of the times.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Joseph Mawle just saw him in The hallow, thought he was decent
    Born: March 21, 1974 in Oxford, England, UK - 41 years old probably going to be too old now.

    he has a bit of Dalton intensity thing about him.


    4tvdyx.jpg

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,399
    Sam Huntington
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Lancaster007 wrote: »
    Oh so Idris Elba thinks he's more famous than Sean Connery or Roger Moore?!
    Direct quote from a recent article.
    “It feels like I’m campaigning, and I’m not. At first it was harmless — oh, I know, wouldn’t it be great? — and now it’s started off racial debates. I’m probably the most famous Bond actor in the world, and I’ve not even played the role.”

    Sort of glad he will never be Bond. Let's get off this now and not worry about the next Bond till we know for sure that DC has left the role - so after Bond 25.

    Elba is so 'Mr Big'.
  • dinovelvetdinovelvet
    Posts: 709
    I imagine Elba is probably getting pissed off about the whole Bond thing at this point (and its partially his own doing). He's trying to promote other movies and projects that actually DO exist, and Bond is all anyone wants to ask him about.
    SirHilaryBray wrote: »
    Joseph Mawle just saw him in The hallow, thought he was decent
    Born: March 21, 1974 in Oxford, England, UK - 41 years old probably going to be too old now.

    he has a bit of Dalton intensity thing about him.

    Ha...he looks a bit TOO much like Dalton. He would probably play him if they made a biopic of his life!
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited November 2015 Posts: 4,116
    We are finding all these potentially great candidates ten years too late it seems.

    Although I actually prefer an actor in his 40s.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Although I actually prefer an actor in his 40s.
    I agree. It takes quite an actor to portray Bond's finesse and worldly manner in their 30's. Most aren't quite there in life yet, and it may show. Connery and even Lazenby were exceptions, and they don't make 'em like that any more.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Although I actually prefer an actor in his 40s.
    I agree. It takes quite an actor to portray Bond's finesse and worldly manner in their 30's. Most aren't quite there in life yet, and it may show. Connery and even Lazenby were exceptions, and they don't make 'em like that any more.

    Agree ..plus 40 is the new 30 :)
  • Problem_EliminatorProblem_Eliminator Ojai, CA
    edited November 2015 Posts: 613


    That's just something older people say lol.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Problem_Eliminator wrote: »

    That's just something older people say lol.

    [-X ...be nice to your elders. :D
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    bondjames wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Although I actually prefer an actor in his 40s.
    I agree. It takes quite an actor to portray Bond's finesse and worldly manner in their 30's. Most aren't quite there in life yet, and it may show. Connery and even Lazenby were exceptions, and they don't make 'em like that any more.

    This is true because society is generally different now. By that I mean that people in their 30's are less mature than the generation before (grow up slower), because there are more choices in life. So the mature Connerys and Lazenbys at 30 don't really exist....People just look and act younger now....generally.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    suavejmf wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Although I actually prefer an actor in his 40s.
    I agree. It takes quite an actor to portray Bond's finesse and worldly manner in their 30's. Most aren't quite there in life yet, and it may show. Connery and even Lazenby were exceptions, and they don't make 'em like that any more.

    This is true because society is generally different now. By that I mean that people in their 30's are less mature than the generation before (grow up slower), because there are more choices in life. So the mature Connerys and Lazenbys at 30 don't really exist....People just look and act younger now....generally.

    Quite true. People mature later. Or may be they stay younger longer...
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,169
    Keep Bond in his 40s. The 57 year old Moore of AVTAK could mop the floor with most of the 32 year olds today. In addition to Bond remaining a vague late 30s-40s- bring back the two year cycle so the new actor could feasibly do 5 films within his 40s. This nonsense of a 3 year, four year and six year gap between films got old when it robbed us of a 3rd Dalton film. As for who to replace Craig when his time is up- I'd say all the actors currently mentioned in recent polls, articles, forums- i.e Hardy, Elba, Fassbender, etc are about as Bondian as country singer Kenny Rogers. May sound kind of harsh, but really today there are no real leading men that quite embody Bond. Most actors out there are franchise actors as opposed to movie stars who truly carry a film like Sean Connery.
    Hopefully the next Bond will be as under the radar as Craig was when he was cast and will surprise audiences by being a great Bond.
  • SJK91SJK91
    edited December 2015 Posts: 1,310
    SirHilaryBray wrote: »
    I think this young man has that special something to be Bond
    Played the lead in War horse

    Jeremy Irvine 25 years old, one for the future.

    wtbzab.jpg

    If you have seen the film, Stonewall, Jeremy Irvine gives a career ending performance there. The film was a pile of garbage, granted, but man was he horrible.

    Him, along with Jamie Dornan (who gives a similarly terrible performance in 50 Shades)...what ever little chance they might have had...I might recommend saying your goodbyes now.
  • smittysmitty
    edited December 2015 Posts: 725
    The delays between films were not nonsense as they were not EON's decision. Only the extra year waiting on Mendes for SP was their decision. MGM's bankruptcy, and other studio craziness caused most of the delays. It's wishful thinking EON can mount a film every 2 years going forward. To much crap happens in the film business. People die, they get sick, critical figures are not available, huge financial and studio problems occur, EON could undergo some critical personnel changes, and on and on.

    Also, there is no way EON is going to double the risk of recasting by hiring someone who could be will be into their 50s before their 4-5 films are up. They are not going to be able to go back to having stunt doubles do all the stunt work. The audience will expect the next Bond to be credible in the action scenes. They need someone younger to deal with doing most of their own stunt work, and also to appeal to an ever younger audience. I'd bet the next Bond is going be young (30s) or even younger (late 20s)and all the actors in their 40s the press keeps yammering about haven't a chance.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    smitty wrote: »
    The delays between films were not nonsense as they were not EON's decision. Only the extra year waiting on Mendes for SP was their decision. MGM's bankruptcy, and other studio craziness caused most of the delays. It's wishful thinking EON can mount a film every 2 years going forward. To much crap happens in the film business. People die, they get sick, critical figures are not available, huge financial and studio problems occur, EON could undergo some critical personnel changes, and on and on.

    Also, there is no way EON is going to double the risk of recasting by hiring someone who could be will be into their 50s before their 4-5 films are up. They are not going to be able to go back to having stunt doubles do all the stunt work. The audience will expect the next Bond to be credible in the action scenes. They need someone younger to deal with doing most of their own stunt work, and also to appeal to an ever younger audience. I'd bet the next Bond is going be young (30s) or even younger (late 20s)and all the actors in their 40s the press keeps yammering about haven't a chance.

    Yup. Look for little known British actors with strong screen presence and decent athleticism that are about 26-28 years of age right now, the next Bond will be amoungst them somewhere...
  • IGUANNAIGUANNA
    Posts: 1,296
    I was thinking Andrew Garfield? His physical exquisitry is not immediately apparent, just like Craig's.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    Oh yeah. He is a lock in. Why havent we thought of him before?
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    IGUANNA wrote: »
    I was thinking Andrew Garfield? His physical exquisitry is not immediately apparent, just like Craig's.

    Too fey. Can't see him in the role at all.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Garfield won't be Bond. He's a tremendous actor though but he's too boyish.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,169
    The four year delay after DAD was EON's decision as Wilson at the time had estimated it would be at least 3 years before B21 would be released. The 3 year delay after TWINE was both Brosnan's and EON's decision as well. I'll agree that the 4 year gap after QOS was out of their hands as was the 6 year period after LTK. Now it's become so common to have a lengthier period between films it's almost expected. For a series like Bond it's best to keep a reliable 2 year cycle as much as possible. People who aren't Bond aficionados tend to assume the series is over or basically lose interest during these gaps. Then it becomes an issue of having to re-introduce the character for a new generation and prove he's still relevant.
    That gets old when every few films there's a running theme of Bond being passe as in GE, or SF. Bond has been going on for decades and decades. They shouldn't have to prove anything even when a new actor gets hired.
    As for age- frankly I don't think the producers obsess about the matter as much as fans or the general public. Certainly they wouldn't cast a 20 something in the role, but Craig is approaching 50 and they're not expressing any desire to replace him. Also had CR not been done as a reboot/origin story, Brosnan would stayed on for a 5th film after the age of 50. Same with Dalton had he chosen to stick around for GE.
Sign In or Register to comment.