› ›

Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1…10351036103810401041…1234

Comments

  • Scaramanga1974Scaramanga1974
    Posts: 738
    James Norton should be nowhere near Bond role. Villain maybe but not Bond. Aaron Taylor Johnson is not a bad shout if true. I'd still prefer the Toms ,Hiddleston or Hardy though. But I suspect they are too old now.
  • ByRoyalDecreeByRoyalDecree
    edited February 2023 Posts: 784
    It depends on who they cast for the main.

    He’d pair well with a Madden, Cillian, Dirisu but might he be too down to earth and natural for an ATJ, Hoult, Jean-Page, Cavill or Aidan?

    I’d bring back either Moneypenny/Q or M/Nomi (or any other combination) from the Craig era, despite the continuity error, sooner or later, if it fits the tone. It would help the transition.

    But most important is building a compellingly coherent world, artistically and aesthetically.

    So it all comes down to the protagonist.

    If he is brought back we should see an udpdated portrayal, ie. character development and a new dynamic between him and Bond. Perhaps less cartoony yet still more reminiscent of the old days. I would also keep him from joining the mission completion every single time, he could still be implicated in the plot in other ways.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,574
    I don't mind continuity errors, having a new version of Dench's M appear for Craig's rebooted Bond was no problem for me, but I do think it becomes a bit more of a problem when we've seen Whishaw's Q watch Bond die. I think that would be a bit harder for the audience to reconcile if he were to meet a new, suddenly not dead Bond.
  • ByRoyalDecreeByRoyalDecree
    edited February 2023 Posts: 784
    Wouldn’t it feel like too much of a full reboot if no one was brought back?

    I could see him returning for the second or third one, if M/Moneypenny/Nomi remains. Otherwise I’d have him appear in B26 already.

    I think Lashana Lynch is dashing and would be excellent with better writing/direction.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,163
    The current discussion would be better suited here...

    https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/19084/should-we-get-a-new-m-q-moneypenny-for-bond-26-and-beyond#latest

  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,218
    Benny wrote: »
    I really hope the James Norton rumours are false. He's by far the blandest of all names mentioned. I hope it's just a media name thrown in for good measure, without actually holding any merit.
    If chosen, I'd of course, give him a chance to prove himself. But I wouldn't be looking forward to the experience.

    In McMafia et looked and sounded like a contender in The Apprentice. He might prove me wrong and I'll give him a chance, but he didn't impressed me as a lead.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    edited February 2023 Posts: 699
    007HallY wrote: »
    George_Kaplan wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Will the new Bond be in the mold of SC or RM? For me that's how it always breaks down. Dark, cruel good looks, grittier, and tough. Or lighter, more refined, lacking the inherent danger projected by SC. I like Norton as an actor, but would prefer to see him in a secondary role.

    I think there'll be a desire to contrast the new Bond with Craig who fits more into that first archetype. And if we're going back to more fantastical adventures, a lighter Bond would make sense. I don't think he'll be as soft as Roger though. Craig set a new precedent for the physical side of the character that they'll probably have to maintain.

    I don't think any actor will approach Bond like this - that's to say I don't think they'll consciously try to go more 'Connery' or 'Moore', or even a Brosnan-esque mix of the two. Usually Bond actors tend to incorporate their own strengths to their performances as well as their idiosyncrasies.

    It's also arguably a bit simplified in regards to those two Bonds. Moore had his dark moments as the character that I'd argue were more impactful than a lot of Connery's scenes (there are a few scenes in TMWTGG especially that I think showcase this). At the same time Connery's entire take on Bond was arguably a more tongue in cheek and somewhat ironic portrayal of Fleming's character. It's impossible to say what we'll get from the next Bond actor in this regard.

    Not necessarily following the specific mould of a previous actor, but the tone of the films will greatly determine the type of actor they go for, and how that actor will portray the him. And I think the desire will be there to make the next Bond noticeably different from Craig's version. I don't expect any actor to approach it by imitating the others but we can expect some resemblance to previous versions.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited February 2023 Posts: 3,154
    Yes, unlike Pierce, Dan's left the series in a good place artistically. No major course-correction needed at this point. There'll be enough variation to distinguish the new guy from DC, but it'd be perverse to squander what they've achieved by chucking it overboard and risking something drastically different. Er, probably.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 4,273
    George_Kaplan wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    George_Kaplan wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Will the new Bond be in the mold of SC or RM? For me that's how it always breaks down. Dark, cruel good looks, grittier, and tough. Or lighter, more refined, lacking the inherent danger projected by SC. I like Norton as an actor, but would prefer to see him in a secondary role.

    I think there'll be a desire to contrast the new Bond with Craig who fits more into that first archetype. And if we're going back to more fantastical adventures, a lighter Bond would make sense. I don't think he'll be as soft as Roger though. Craig set a new precedent for the physical side of the character that they'll probably have to maintain.

    I don't think any actor will approach Bond like this - that's to say I don't think they'll consciously try to go more 'Connery' or 'Moore', or even a Brosnan-esque mix of the two. Usually Bond actors tend to incorporate their own strengths to their performances as well as their idiosyncrasies.

    It's also arguably a bit simplified in regards to those two Bonds. Moore had his dark moments as the character that I'd argue were more impactful than a lot of Connery's scenes (there are a few scenes in TMWTGG especially that I think showcase this). At the same time Connery's entire take on Bond was arguably a more tongue in cheek and somewhat ironic portrayal of Fleming's character. It's impossible to say what we'll get from the next Bond actor in this regard.

    Not necessarily following the specific mould of a previous actor, but the tone of the films will greatly determine the type of actor they go for, and how that actor will portray the him. And I think the desire will be there to make the next Bond noticeably different from Craig's version. I don't expect any actor to approach it by imitating the others but we can expect some resemblance to previous versions.

    It's a bit of give and take with regards to whether it's the actor or the script that determines these creative decisions I think. Of course the most interesting example is where CR went after they cast Craig (remember, before that the premise seems to have been about a Bond in his 20s who'd never even worn a tuxedo in one draft, so much more 'Bond begins' than what we ultimately got).

    But ultimately yes, I think they'll want the next Bond to be different from Craig's, and the script will have a major impact. But it's also worth saying that whenever a new Bond actor is cast even if their portrayal of the character is noticeably different to their predecessors, their first films tend to retain elements from the previous era. LALD retained the more fantastical/lighter tone of DAF, TLD had specific moments which wouldn't have been out of place in one of the Moore films, and even CR had elaborate action set pieces and Bond going rogue like he did in DAD etc. We might get something similar for Bond 26 - a lead actor who is noticeably different to Craig, who has their distinct approach to the role, while the film itself holds onto or expands upon ideas, visuals, the tone etc. of the later Craig films.
  • redherringredherring Netherlands
    edited February 2023 Posts: 15
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    George_Kaplan wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Will the new Bond be in the mold of SC or RM? For me that's how it always breaks down. Dark, cruel good looks, grittier, and tough. Or lighter, more refined, lacking the inherent danger projected by SC. I like Norton as an actor, but would prefer to see him in a secondary role.

    I think there'll be a desire to contrast the new Bond with Craig who fits more into that first archetype. And if we're going back to more fantastical adventures, a lighter Bond would make sense. I don't think he'll be as soft as Roger though. Craig set a new precedent for the physical side of the character that they'll probably have to maintain.

    I don't think any actor will approach Bond like this - that's to say I don't think they'll consciously try to go more 'Connery' or 'Moore', or even a Brosnan-esque mix of the two. Usually Bond actors tend to incorporate their own strengths to their performances as well as their idiosyncrasies.

    It's also arguably a bit simplified in regards to those two Bonds. Moore had his dark moments as the character that I'd argue were more impactful than a lot of Connery's scenes (there are a few scenes in TMWTGG especially that I think showcase this). At the same time Connery's entire take on Bond was arguably a more tongue in cheek and somewhat ironic portrayal of Fleming's character. It's impossible to say what we'll get from the next Bond actor in this regard.

    Yes I'm often struck that, contrary to how they're often described, Connery's version is actually more cartoonish and lightweight than Moore's is, even if he gets to be a bit more ruthless occasionally. It's all relative as neither are exactly deep, but Sean's Bond is a walking quip/kiss/kill machine whereas Moore's gets to display some warmth and kindness and sometimes even an emotional response. Connery was such an excellent actor that he lends it the illusion of being a more interesting character, but really he's winking at the audience most of the time anyway.

    Sean Connery was a one trick pony in my opinion, not really an excellent actor. This tongue in cheek approach worked for Bond but he played the exact same character in different movies of the time, which is really odd for example when he's playing rapist in Marnie (both him and Tippi Hedren were terrible in that).
    Venutius wrote: »
    Yes, unlike Pierce, Dan's left the series in a good place artistically. No major course-correction needed at this point. There'll be enough variation to distinguish the new guy from DC, but it'd be perverse to squander what they've achieved by chucking it overboard and risking something drastically different. Er, probably.

    This feels like a disservice to Brosnan. Before Craig, he was the first one play a more self-aware and 'psychologically complete' charcter (Roger Ebert's words). But yes, Craig has become the gold standard I think. I hope the franchise continues in that vein.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited February 2023 Posts: 1,318
    I prefer Pierce over Daniel any ol day of the week. At least he has charisma and when he smiles he smiles heartedly, not as if he just went to the dentist to get a molar removed.

    Oldish "news", but potentially exciting nonetheless:

    https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/1727556/Next-James-Bond-announcement-new-007-Aaron-Taylor-Johnson
  • QsCatQsCat London
    edited February 2023 Posts: 253
    redherring wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    George_Kaplan wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Will the new Bond be in the mold of SC or RM? For me that's how it always breaks down. Dark, cruel good looks, grittier, and tough. Or lighter, more refined, lacking the inherent danger projected by SC. I like Norton as an actor, but would prefer to see him in a secondary role.

    I think there'll be a desire to contrast the new Bond with Craig who fits more into that first archetype. And if we're going back to more fantastical adventures, a lighter Bond would make sense. I don't think he'll be as soft as Roger though. Craig set a new precedent for the physical side of the character that they'll probably have to maintain.

    I don't think any actor will approach Bond like this - that's to say I don't think they'll consciously try to go more 'Connery' or 'Moore', or even a Brosnan-esque mix of the two. Usually Bond actors tend to incorporate their own strengths to their performances as well as their idiosyncrasies.

    It's also arguably a bit simplified in regards to those two Bonds. Moore had his dark moments as the character that I'd argue were more impactful than a lot of Connery's scenes (there are a few scenes in TMWTGG especially that I think showcase this). At the same time Connery's entire take on Bond was arguably a more tongue in cheek and somewhat ironic portrayal of Fleming's character. It's impossible to say what we'll get from the next Bond actor in this regard.

    Yes I'm often struck that, contrary to how they're often described, Connery's version is actually more cartoonish and lightweight than Moore's is, even if he gets to be a bit more ruthless occasionally. It's all relative as neither are exactly deep, but Sean's Bond is a walking quip/kiss/kill machine whereas Moore's gets to display some warmth and kindness and sometimes even an emotional response. Connery was such an excellent actor that he lends it the illusion of being a more interesting character, but really he's winking at the audience most of the time anyway.

    Sean Connery was a one trick pony in my opinion, not really an excellent actor. This tongue in cheek approach worked for Bond but he played the exact same character in different movies of the time, which is really odd for example when he's playing rapist in Marnie (both him and Tippi Hedren were terrible in that).
    .

    Conney not an excellent actor ?! :))
    Have you not seen The Hill? Outland, The Offence, The Molly Maguires?
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    This story saying the announcement is in a few weeks and they've performed the gunbarrell, reminds of Pierce's "expecting someone else" promo advert for Goldeneye.

    I wonder if the producers would do something similar?
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,179
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    This story saying the announcement is in a few weeks and they've performed the gunbarrell, reminds of Pierce's "expecting someone else" promo advert for Goldeneye.

    I wonder if the producers would do something similar?

    True. True. I thought about this as well.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,218
    007HallY wrote: »
    George_Kaplan wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    George_Kaplan wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Will the new Bond be in the mold of SC or RM? For me that's how it always breaks down. Dark, cruel good looks, grittier, and tough. Or lighter, more refined, lacking the inherent danger projected by SC. I like Norton as an actor, but would prefer to see him in a secondary role.

    I think there'll be a desire to contrast the new Bond with Craig who fits more into that first archetype. And if we're going back to more fantastical adventures, a lighter Bond would make sense. I don't think he'll be as soft as Roger though. Craig set a new precedent for the physical side of the character that they'll probably have to maintain.

    I don't think any actor will approach Bond like this - that's to say I don't think they'll consciously try to go more 'Connery' or 'Moore', or even a Brosnan-esque mix of the two. Usually Bond actors tend to incorporate their own strengths to their performances as well as their idiosyncrasies.

    It's also arguably a bit simplified in regards to those two Bonds. Moore had his dark moments as the character that I'd argue were more impactful than a lot of Connery's scenes (there are a few scenes in TMWTGG especially that I think showcase this). At the same time Connery's entire take on Bond was arguably a more tongue in cheek and somewhat ironic portrayal of Fleming's character. It's impossible to say what we'll get from the next Bond actor in this regard.

    Not necessarily following the specific mould of a previous actor, but the tone of the films will greatly determine the type of actor they go for, and how that actor will portray the him. And I think the desire will be there to make the next Bond noticeably different from Craig's version. I don't expect any actor to approach it by imitating the others but we can expect some resemblance to previous versions.

    It's a bit of give and take with regards to whether it's the actor or the script that determines these creative decisions I think. Of course the most interesting example is where CR went after they cast Craig (remember, before that the premise seems to have been about a Bond in his 20s who'd never even worn a tuxedo in one draft, so much more 'Bond begins' than what we ultimately got).

    But ultimately yes, I think they'll want the next Bond to be different from Craig's, and the script will have a major impact. But it's also worth saying that whenever a new Bond actor is cast even if their portrayal of the character is noticeably different to their predecessors, their first films tend to retain elements from the previous era. LALD retained the more fantastical/lighter tone of DAF, TLD had specific moments which wouldn't have been out of place in one of the Moore films, and even CR had elaborate action set pieces and Bond going rogue like he did in DAD etc. We might get something similar for Bond 26 - a lead actor who is noticeably different to Craig, who has their distinct approach to the role, while the film itself holds onto or expands upon ideas, visuals, the tone etc. of the later Craig films.

    Except for CR and maybe (maybe) OHMSS, I do not think there was a big tonal departure from previous tenure when the new actor took over. In fact, the biggest tonal departure was done by a returning actor: Sean Connery in DAF. I'd argue that Moore would not have been accepted as Bond in DAF. So it's very likely imo that the new actor will carry a lot from the Craig era, at least in his early tenure.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,574
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    George_Kaplan wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    George_Kaplan wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Will the new Bond be in the mold of SC or RM? For me that's how it always breaks down. Dark, cruel good looks, grittier, and tough. Or lighter, more refined, lacking the inherent danger projected by SC. I like Norton as an actor, but would prefer to see him in a secondary role.

    I think there'll be a desire to contrast the new Bond with Craig who fits more into that first archetype. And if we're going back to more fantastical adventures, a lighter Bond would make sense. I don't think he'll be as soft as Roger though. Craig set a new precedent for the physical side of the character that they'll probably have to maintain.

    I don't think any actor will approach Bond like this - that's to say I don't think they'll consciously try to go more 'Connery' or 'Moore', or even a Brosnan-esque mix of the two. Usually Bond actors tend to incorporate their own strengths to their performances as well as their idiosyncrasies.

    It's also arguably a bit simplified in regards to those two Bonds. Moore had his dark moments as the character that I'd argue were more impactful than a lot of Connery's scenes (there are a few scenes in TMWTGG especially that I think showcase this). At the same time Connery's entire take on Bond was arguably a more tongue in cheek and somewhat ironic portrayal of Fleming's character. It's impossible to say what we'll get from the next Bond actor in this regard.

    Not necessarily following the specific mould of a previous actor, but the tone of the films will greatly determine the type of actor they go for, and how that actor will portray the him. And I think the desire will be there to make the next Bond noticeably different from Craig's version. I don't expect any actor to approach it by imitating the others but we can expect some resemblance to previous versions.

    It's a bit of give and take with regards to whether it's the actor or the script that determines these creative decisions I think. Of course the most interesting example is where CR went after they cast Craig (remember, before that the premise seems to have been about a Bond in his 20s who'd never even worn a tuxedo in one draft, so much more 'Bond begins' than what we ultimately got).

    But ultimately yes, I think they'll want the next Bond to be different from Craig's, and the script will have a major impact. But it's also worth saying that whenever a new Bond actor is cast even if their portrayal of the character is noticeably different to their predecessors, their first films tend to retain elements from the previous era. LALD retained the more fantastical/lighter tone of DAF, TLD had specific moments which wouldn't have been out of place in one of the Moore films, and even CR had elaborate action set pieces and Bond going rogue like he did in DAD etc. We might get something similar for Bond 26 - a lead actor who is noticeably different to Craig, who has their distinct approach to the role, while the film itself holds onto or expands upon ideas, visuals, the tone etc. of the later Craig films.

    Except for CR and maybe (maybe) OHMSS, I do not think there was a big tonal departure from previous tenure when the new actor took over. In fact, the biggest tonal departure was done by a returning actor: Sean Connery in DAF. I'd argue that Moore would not have been accepted as Bond in DAF.

    That's a fair point, I think you're probably right there. All at once that would have felt quite a big change.
    I guess LALD did try and distance itself from the previous entries in quite a few ways (no dinner jacket, no Q, no martini, no M's office, no cigarettes, rock song etc.) but it was still tonally not a million miles from DAF.
  • QsCatQsCat London
    Posts: 253
    I'm getting nervous now. I hope ATJ isn't announced as Bond. I would rather they waited a few years...
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,218
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    George_Kaplan wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    George_Kaplan wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Will the new Bond be in the mold of SC or RM? For me that's how it always breaks down. Dark, cruel good looks, grittier, and tough. Or lighter, more refined, lacking the inherent danger projected by SC. I like Norton as an actor, but would prefer to see him in a secondary role.

    I think there'll be a desire to contrast the new Bond with Craig who fits more into that first archetype. And if we're going back to more fantastical adventures, a lighter Bond would make sense. I don't think he'll be as soft as Roger though. Craig set a new precedent for the physical side of the character that they'll probably have to maintain.

    I don't think any actor will approach Bond like this - that's to say I don't think they'll consciously try to go more 'Connery' or 'Moore', or even a Brosnan-esque mix of the two. Usually Bond actors tend to incorporate their own strengths to their performances as well as their idiosyncrasies.

    It's also arguably a bit simplified in regards to those two Bonds. Moore had his dark moments as the character that I'd argue were more impactful than a lot of Connery's scenes (there are a few scenes in TMWTGG especially that I think showcase this). At the same time Connery's entire take on Bond was arguably a more tongue in cheek and somewhat ironic portrayal of Fleming's character. It's impossible to say what we'll get from the next Bond actor in this regard.

    Not necessarily following the specific mould of a previous actor, but the tone of the films will greatly determine the type of actor they go for, and how that actor will portray the him. And I think the desire will be there to make the next Bond noticeably different from Craig's version. I don't expect any actor to approach it by imitating the others but we can expect some resemblance to previous versions.

    It's a bit of give and take with regards to whether it's the actor or the script that determines these creative decisions I think. Of course the most interesting example is where CR went after they cast Craig (remember, before that the premise seems to have been about a Bond in his 20s who'd never even worn a tuxedo in one draft, so much more 'Bond begins' than what we ultimately got).

    But ultimately yes, I think they'll want the next Bond to be different from Craig's, and the script will have a major impact. But it's also worth saying that whenever a new Bond actor is cast even if their portrayal of the character is noticeably different to their predecessors, their first films tend to retain elements from the previous era. LALD retained the more fantastical/lighter tone of DAF, TLD had specific moments which wouldn't have been out of place in one of the Moore films, and even CR had elaborate action set pieces and Bond going rogue like he did in DAD etc. We might get something similar for Bond 26 - a lead actor who is noticeably different to Craig, who has their distinct approach to the role, while the film itself holds onto or expands upon ideas, visuals, the tone etc. of the later Craig films.

    Except for CR and maybe (maybe) OHMSS, I do not think there was a big tonal departure from previous tenure when the new actor took over. In fact, the biggest tonal departure was done by a returning actor: Sean Connery in DAF. I'd argue that Moore would not have been accepted as Bond in DAF.

    That's a fair point, I think you're probably right there. All at once that would have felt quite a big change.
    I guess LALD did try and distance itself from the previous entries in quite a few ways (no dinner jacket, no Q, no martini, no M's office, no cigarettes, rock song etc.) but it was still tonally not a million miles from DAF.
    It was less of a spoof than DAF, but it's DAF that first set the biggest tonal change. And I don't think anyone else than Connery could have been accepted as Bond in it. He sold the movie because he was Bond to the public. If there's going to be a tonal change in the franchise, my bet is that it will happen in the third film of the new actor's tenure. Otherwise he might be very much Craig 2.0, the way the early Moore seemed closer to Connery in his early films (and even in TSWLM, come to think of it. I think we will have some continuity between entries (recurring villains, overarching arcs, etc), similarly darker tones, etc. And, while I doubt we'll have a "Bond begins" movie, I would not be surprised to see a "early years Bond."
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    QsCat wrote: »
    I'm getting nervous now. I hope ATJ isn't announced as Bond. I would rather they waited a few years...

    38177636-8700-4552-a1d8-d29341f11258_text.gif
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,667
    Id still be shocked if we got anything official about Bond 26 until summer, and it wont be actor news. We'll see
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,007
    I'll be shocked to get an announcement of the next actor this year. I'd love to be wrong.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 4,273
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    George_Kaplan wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    George_Kaplan wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Will the new Bond be in the mold of SC or RM? For me that's how it always breaks down. Dark, cruel good looks, grittier, and tough. Or lighter, more refined, lacking the inherent danger projected by SC. I like Norton as an actor, but would prefer to see him in a secondary role.

    I think there'll be a desire to contrast the new Bond with Craig who fits more into that first archetype. And if we're going back to more fantastical adventures, a lighter Bond would make sense. I don't think he'll be as soft as Roger though. Craig set a new precedent for the physical side of the character that they'll probably have to maintain.

    I don't think any actor will approach Bond like this - that's to say I don't think they'll consciously try to go more 'Connery' or 'Moore', or even a Brosnan-esque mix of the two. Usually Bond actors tend to incorporate their own strengths to their performances as well as their idiosyncrasies.

    It's also arguably a bit simplified in regards to those two Bonds. Moore had his dark moments as the character that I'd argue were more impactful than a lot of Connery's scenes (there are a few scenes in TMWTGG especially that I think showcase this). At the same time Connery's entire take on Bond was arguably a more tongue in cheek and somewhat ironic portrayal of Fleming's character. It's impossible to say what we'll get from the next Bond actor in this regard.

    Not necessarily following the specific mould of a previous actor, but the tone of the films will greatly determine the type of actor they go for, and how that actor will portray the him. And I think the desire will be there to make the next Bond noticeably different from Craig's version. I don't expect any actor to approach it by imitating the others but we can expect some resemblance to previous versions.

    It's a bit of give and take with regards to whether it's the actor or the script that determines these creative decisions I think. Of course the most interesting example is where CR went after they cast Craig (remember, before that the premise seems to have been about a Bond in his 20s who'd never even worn a tuxedo in one draft, so much more 'Bond begins' than what we ultimately got).

    But ultimately yes, I think they'll want the next Bond to be different from Craig's, and the script will have a major impact. But it's also worth saying that whenever a new Bond actor is cast even if their portrayal of the character is noticeably different to their predecessors, their first films tend to retain elements from the previous era. LALD retained the more fantastical/lighter tone of DAF, TLD had specific moments which wouldn't have been out of place in one of the Moore films, and even CR had elaborate action set pieces and Bond going rogue like he did in DAD etc. We might get something similar for Bond 26 - a lead actor who is noticeably different to Craig, who has their distinct approach to the role, while the film itself holds onto or expands upon ideas, visuals, the tone etc. of the later Craig films.

    Except for CR and maybe (maybe) OHMSS, I do not think there was a big tonal departure from previous tenure when the new actor took over. In fact, the biggest tonal departure was done by a returning actor: Sean Connery in DAF. I'd argue that Moore would not have been accepted as Bond in DAF. So it's very likely imo that the new actor will carry a lot from the Craig era, at least in his early tenure.

    Indeed. And it’s also worth saying that SF, SP and NTTD had a variety of tones within them (ranging from lighter, almost Moore/Brosnan esque moments to ones which wouldn’t seem out of place in a horror film). So there’ll likely be that same variety but honed in certain respects. I doubt it’ll just be a straightforwardly more ‘light’ film or whatever.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,853
    Aaron Taylor Johnson is the next James Bond


    I heard it from a guy who knows a guy who is married to a girl who lives next to a guy who knows another guy who


    I am starting to doubt my own story
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,710
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Aaron Taylor Johnson is the next James Bond


    I heard it from a guy who knows a guy who is married to a girl who lives next to a guy who knows another guy who


    I am starting to doubt my own story

    I believe that guy. One of them. The others, not so much…
    ;)
  • Bentley007Bentley007 Manitoba, Canada
    Posts: 579
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Id still be shocked if we got anything official about Bond 26 until summer, and it wont be actor news. We'll see
    Any more news on that Christopher Nolan rumour? That he will be announced this summer following the release of Oppenheimer. Then the new actor could be announced in October with Global James Bond Day.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited February 2023 Posts: 1,667
    Bentley007 wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Id still be shocked if we got anything official about Bond 26 until summer, and it wont be actor news. We'll see
    Any more news on that Christopher Nolan rumour? That he will be announced this summer following the release of Oppenheimer. Then the new actor could be announced in October with Global James Bond Day.

    I just don't think Global James Bond day has the significance some here think it does. Maybe we'll get something we can buy that day, but I won't hold my breath for news. As for Nolan, that's speculation on a rumor, leaning heavily on the apparent timing convenience. What if Eon wants to wait and see if Opp... well, bombs?

    Greta Gerwig has just as much a chance right now with Barbie releasing the same time.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,574
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Bentley007 wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Id still be shocked if we got anything official about Bond 26 until summer, and it wont be actor news. We'll see
    Any more news on that Christopher Nolan rumour? That he will be announced this summer following the release of Oppenheimer. Then the new actor could be announced in October with Global James Bond Day.

    I just don't think Global James Bond day has the significance some here think it does. Maybe we'll get something we can buy that day, but I won't hold my breath for news.

    I tend to agree. I also think that when the new Bond is cast with the contract signed etc., they won't sit on it for very long at all because it'll leak to the press. So unless he is coincidentally signed a few days before JB Day, I don't think there's any chance of them holding out until then to reveal it.
    I mean, we'll know who it is before Eon reveal it anyway, but they won't want it to be out there for that long before they take control of it.

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,154
    redherring wrote: »
    This feels like a disservice to Brosnan. Before Craig, he was the first one play a more self-aware and 'psychologically complete' character (Roger Ebert's words).
    No, no, it's not meant as a disservice to Pierce. He didn't write, produce or direct DAD, after all. But I do think it's fair to say that DAD was one of the series's artistic low points. Dan said he'd've been left with a niggling dissatisfaction if he'd finished his run with SP, so I imagine Brozza can't've been happy to go out on DAD.
  • HarmonyRocketsHarmonyRockets
    Posts: 181
    Has anyone seen a show called Hotel Portofino? I wonder if Judi Dench's nephew Oliver Dench could end up being a candidate?

    lucian-ainsworth-oliver-dench.jpg
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,243
    HarmonyRockets wrote: »
    Has anyone seen a show called Hotel Portofino? I wonder if Judi Dench's nephew Oliver Dench could end up being a candidate?

    lucian-ainsworth-oliver-dench.jpg

    I’m not familiar with him, but based on this photo he could have potential.
Sign In or Register to comment.