Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1101210131015101710181234

Comments

  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,055
    Univex wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    Aaron Taylor-Johnson's name is too long. If you think I'm joking, I'm not. One fan who just saw the film recommends it to another film-goer. Oh, what is the name of the person now playing Bond ? Wait, it's what ? No one will remember all that. "Oh, but he's really good" is already an apologetic, "yes, but..." statement. This is silly ? It's childish ? It's also marketing. Quick, direct and easily remembered matters. Same with a film's title.

    We are talking about Bond franchise here. No problem for titles, or complicated names of actors. Bond sells itself, not a new actor playing the role.

    The film is not going to lose fans at the BO because they cannot spell the actor's name correctly. And any title becomes meaningless at the BO too. For the past 3 decades or more, whenever I paid for tickets at the BO counter, I'd say `2 tickets for Bond please'.

    I don't ever recall saying the title of the film at the counter. `Bond' is all that is needed.

    And I hate to rain on your parade, but Idris Elba definitely WON'T be the next Bond. I'd bet my house on it.

    Right? It's not like Pierce Brosnan was a common name everyone could easily remember. And it worked ;)

    Exactly, when he started his career, nobody knew who Pierce Bronson was. But after parts like Remington Steele and James Bond, we all know his name. And I'm sure if he gets the role, it'll be the same for Arthur-Taylor Johnson. The role of Bond, I mean, not Paddington Steele. Sorry, Stone. Anyway, I fully agree with you, @Unitel. This is mattajones signing out.
  • Posts: 6,710
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    Aaron Taylor-Johnson's name is too long. If you think I'm joking, I'm not. One fan who just saw the film recommends it to another film-goer. Oh, what is the name of the person now playing Bond ? Wait, it's what ? No one will remember all that. "Oh, but he's really good" is already an apologetic, "yes, but..." statement. This is silly ? It's childish ? It's also marketing. Quick, direct and easily remembered matters. Same with a film's title.

    We are talking about Bond franchise here. No problem for titles, or complicated names of actors. Bond sells itself, not a new actor playing the role.

    The film is not going to lose fans at the BO because they cannot spell the actor's name correctly. And any title becomes meaningless at the BO too. For the past 3 decades or more, whenever I paid for tickets at the BO counter, I'd say `2 tickets for Bond please'.

    I don't ever recall saying the title of the film at the counter. `Bond' is all that is needed.

    And I hate to rain on your parade, but Idris Elba definitely WON'T be the next Bond. I'd bet my house on it.

    Right? It's not like Pierce Brosnan was a common name everyone could easily remember. And it worked ;)

    Exactly, when he started his career, nobody knew who Pierce Bronson was. But after parts like Remington Steele and James Bond, we all know his name. And I'm sure if he gets the role, it'll be the same for Arthur-Taylor Johnson. The role of Bond, I mean, not Paddington Steele. Sorry, Stone. Anyway, I fully agree with you, @Unitel. This is mattajones signing out.

    :D Loved your post, @MadJobs!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,574
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    Aaron Taylor-Johnson's name is too long. If you think I'm joking, I'm not. One fan who just saw the film recommends it to another film-goer. Oh, what is the name of the person now playing Bond ? Wait, it's what ? No one will remember all that. "Oh, but he's really good" is already an apologetic, "yes, but..." statement. This is silly ? It's childish ? It's also marketing. Quick, direct and easily remembered matters. Same with a film's title.

    We are talking about Bond franchise here. No problem for titles, or complicated names of actors. Bond sells itself, not a new actor playing the role.

    The film is not going to lose fans at the BO because they cannot spell the actor's name correctly. And any title becomes meaningless at the BO too. For the past 3 decades or more, whenever I paid for tickets at the BO counter, I'd say `2 tickets for Bond please'.

    I don't ever recall saying the title of the film at the counter. `Bond' is all that is needed.

    And I hate to rain on your parade, but Idris Elba definitely WON'T be the next Bond. I'd bet my house on it.

    Right? It's not like Pierce Brosnan was a common name everyone could easily remember. And it worked ;)

    Exactly, when he started his career, nobody knew who Pierce Bronson was.

    I think even to this day there are still people who call him Piers Bronson!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,249
    talos7 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    "Too tall", "too long a name", ... I'm hearing some weird things around here.

    You don’t think that an actor can be too tall…or short?

    The magic of movie cameras can correct it all. That is, unless we focus on the extremes. Look at Cruise. He gets away with being the shortest member of the team, usually. 😉
  • Posts: 15,218
    talos7 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    "Too tall", "too long a name", ... I'm hearing some weird things around here.

    You don’t think that an actor can be too tall…or short?

    Well let's say it's a fairly unusual reservation. No idea how tall Hoult is, but I'd tend to agree that an actor could be too tall for the role.
    mtm wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    Aaron Taylor-Johnson's name is too long. If you think I'm joking, I'm not. One fan who just saw the film recommends it to another film-goer. Oh, what is the name of the person now playing Bond ? Wait, it's what ? No one will remember all that. "Oh, but he's really good" is already an apologetic, "yes, but..." statement. This is silly ? It's childish ? It's also marketing. Quick, direct and easily remembered matters. Same with a film's title.

    We are talking about Bond franchise here. No problem for titles, or complicated names of actors. Bond sells itself, not a new actor playing the role.

    The film is not going to lose fans at the BO because they cannot spell the actor's name correctly. And any title becomes meaningless at the BO too. For the past 3 decades or more, whenever I paid for tickets at the BO counter, I'd say `2 tickets for Bond please'.

    I don't ever recall saying the title of the film at the counter. `Bond' is all that is needed.

    And I hate to rain on your parade, but Idris Elba definitely WON'T be the next Bond. I'd bet my house on it.

    Right? It's not like Pierce Brosnan was a common name everyone could easily remember. And it worked ;)

    Exactly, when he started his career, nobody knew who Pierce Bronson was.

    I think even to this day there are still people who call him Piers Bronson!

    Yes I remember people misspelling his name.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    Aidan too old? Perfect age to start actually.

    65753845-11556115-image-m-10_1671493009068.jpg
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 575
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    "Too tall", "too long a name", ... I'm hearing some weird things around here.

    You don’t think that an actor can be too tall…or short?

    The magic of movie cameras can correct it all. That is, unless we focus on the extremes. Look at Cruise. He gets away with being the shortest member of the team, usually. 😉

    Yup. I instantly think of the music industry in that regard. They've gotten away with it for years with artists like Lady Gaga, etc, who are very, very short but you can't tell when they are placed with people of a similar height or with perspective together with camera angles.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,249
    00Heaven wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    "Too tall", "too long a name", ... I'm hearing some weird things around here.

    You don’t think that an actor can be too tall…or short?

    The magic of movie cameras can correct it all. That is, unless we focus on the extremes. Look at Cruise. He gets away with being the shortest member of the team, usually. 😉

    Yup. I instantly think of the music industry in that regard. They've gotten away with it for years with artists like Lady Gaga, etc, who are very, very short but you can't tell when they are placed with people of a similar height or with perspective together with camera angles.

    Indeed. Remember Craig's casting and complaints about him being too short. I recall perhaps one or two shots where it shows, though barely.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,574
    He's not a short guy though. Not unusually tall, but not short.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    Daniel's Bond height never bothered me to be honest. He had that much swagger and confidence on screen, it never occurred to me he wasn't as tall as the others
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,243
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Daniel's Bond height never bothered me to be honest. He had that much swagger and confidence on screen, it never occurred to me he wasn't as tall as the others

    There are scenes where Craig’s height is noticeable, but in general it wasn’t a problem. But what if he was two inches shorter? While camera angles, and other tricks of the film trade, can compensate, it’s not an ideal situation. I’ve always Thor that the sweet spot for the height of a Bond actor is between 5’10” and 6’3” ; anything north or south of this could be problematic.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,163
    talos7 wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Daniel's Bond height never bothered me to be honest. He had that much swagger and confidence on screen, it never occurred to me he wasn't as tall as the others

    There are scenes where Craig’s height is noticeable, but in general it wasn’t a problem. But what if he was two inches shorter? While camera angles, and other tricks of the film trade, can compensate, it’s not an ideal situation. I’ve always Thor that the sweet spot for the height of a Bond actor is between 5’10” and 6’3” ; anything north or south of this could be problematic.

    Well that keeps Nicholas Hoult in the frame then.
    ;)
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,243
    He is a hot commodity

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    As the guys in the clip say, Hoult is a great actor and has never disappointed— whether as a child actor (that’s saying something, since most kids are annoying in films), as a teen, or as a young man.

    He could make a fantastic Bond, or a fantastic Batman/Bruce Wayne. Whatever he’s in, he’s been terrific.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,007
    Considering Turner is nearly 10 year older than what they've said they're looking for, I'd imagine he's not the right age. A 40 year old just isn't going to work anymore when they take 4-5 years to release new installments.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited December 2022 Posts: 2,178
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Considering Turner is nearly 10 year older than what they've said they're looking for, I'd imagine he's not the right age. A 40 year old just isn't going to work anymore when they take 4-5 years to release new installments.

    Yeah. This isn't Cubby and Saltzman's era or the sophomore era of Barbara and Michael anymore. I think if the films were still standalone adventures, any actor can be whatever age and still star....like Moore, Dalton and Brosnan all in their 40s when they started. These days, the present films have to connect with the last and that takes time. Except the next era returns to standalone adventures....which I would like, but can't see happening at the moment.
  • edited December 2022 Posts: 6,710
    peter wrote: »
    As the guys in the clip say, Hoult is a great actor and has never disappointed— whether as a child actor (that’s saying something, since most kids are annoying in films), as a teen, or as a young man.

    He could make a fantastic Bond, or a fantastic Batman/Bruce Wayne. Whatever he’s in, he’s been terrific.

    And… he races Ferraris



    And what’s that on his wrist? A JLC reverso, I see. The boy has good taste. And it’s lovely to hear him use his own accent for a change. I’m back on board with Hoult for Bond :)

    But his voice isn’t that much lower than ATJ’s.

    Anyway, it’s between the two, for me.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    I just don't see Hoult as a contender for the role, he's a fine actor and seems like a nice fella but he looks too young and too nice. I can't describe it, he just doesn't look assured

    Of course if they cast him, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and I'm sure he'd do a good job.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,007
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Considering Turner is nearly 10 year older than what they've said they're looking for, I'd imagine he's not the right age. A 40 year old just isn't going to work anymore when they take 4-5 years to release new installments.

    Yeah. This isn't Cubby and Saltzman's era or the sophomore era of Barbara and Michael anymore. I think if the films were still standalone adventures, any actor can be whatever age and still star....like Moore, Dalton and Brosnan all in their 40s when they started. These days, the present films have to connect with the last and that takes time. Except the next era returns to standalone adventures....which I would like, but can't see happening at the moment.

    I'd also love to see such a return but fear it's no longer in the cards either. I just hope they can roadmap the future much better this go around at least.
  • Posts: 6,710
    Which means the first film of the era will be the best, with no need to connect to previous entries…well, probably. But so far, I’d say the best films of each era were the first ones: TLD, GE, CR,… well, at least from the last eras.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    I think Hoult would be a really good Bond villain actually.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,574
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I just don't see Hoult as a contender for the role, he's a fine actor and seems like a nice fella but he looks too young and too nice. I can't describe it, he just doesn't look assured

    Of course if they cast him, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and I'm sure he'd do a good job.

    I think he could move in that direction.
    This isn't Bond totally but has a touch of it.

  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Considering Turner is nearly 10 year older than what they've said they're looking for, I'd imagine he's not the right age. A 40 year old just isn't going to work anymore when they take 4-5 years to release new installments.

    They better amp it up then, 4-5 years is ridiculous anyway. They're not the world cup football. Every 2.5-3 years seems like the sweet spot.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    The camera really likes Hoult.

    His likability has always been off the charts, and now finding out he likes car racing, perhaps the producers can play with this aspect, and borrow from Tom Cruise: have sequences where Hoult is doing his own wild driving stunts (if chosen).

    I think he carries with him far more positives than negatives. There are more tools to play with (experienced and exceptionally talented, good looking, charismatic and the camera really does love him, fit, young, has a bit of a daredevil streak, natural charm...)
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,667
    That Armani video did a lot to sell me on Hoult
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited December 2022 Posts: 3,154
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I just don't see Hoult as a contender for the role, he's a fine actor and seems like a nice fella but he looks too young and too nice. I can't describe it, he just doesn't look assured.
    Agreed. Bond doesn't have to be capable of battering Mr. Hinx, but he can't look like he'd be easy meat. He's got to deal with formidable characters like Le Chiffre and contend with fatales like Lucia Sciarra without being eaten alive. I'd struggle to buy it from Hoult - 'too young and nice'.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,243
    Interesting…

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,007
    I forgot he nearly played the villain in these.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,163
    The good thing for Nicholas Hoult, should he be considered, is that he's well known enough to audiences.
    Without being too well known, to be cast.
    He's certainly the right age now, and although some claim he's too tall, he's really no taller than Connery or Dalton.
    He's also a very good actor, who I'm sure could take on the role and add his own spin on it.
    Definitely high on my list of potential Bonds.
  • Posts: 6,710
    Hoult and Taylor-Johnson are definitely hight on that list, yes. Perfect candidates, IMO.
Sign In or Register to comment.