› ›

Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1…11881189119111931194…1231

Comments

  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 4,139
    I think there are only a handful of times when the Bond series has really 'course corrected' in quite drastic ways. DAF coming after OHMSS is a big example, as is CR following DAD. GE is definitely a film which brought Bond back into the limelight, and of course Brosnan's breezier take on the role contrasted Dalton's, but GE is a film which retains a certain level of darkness and a personal element that was discernibly there in LTK. I don't see it as a course correction film fundamentally, fresh as it was at the time. But Brosnan taking the role helped sell that freshness, same as when Moore took over in LALD. Both brought something a bit different to Bond.

    Despite what some members think, there's no reason to course correct from the Craig era in an overly drastic way, at least in terms of the film itself. That's just not where we're at. If anything it gives EON the opportunity to look for a new leading man who can bring something a bit different to the part. Obviously it's way too early to predict what/who exactly that could be, and I'm sure there's countless routes they could go with this.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,266
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think there are only a handful of times when the Bond series has really 'course corrected' in quite drastic ways. DAF coming after OHMSS is a big example, as is CR following DAD. GE is definitely a film which brought Bond back into the limelight, and of course Brosnan's breezier take on the role contrasted Dalton's, but GE is a film which retains a certain level of darkness and a personal element that was discernibly there in LTK. I don't see it as a course correction film fundamentally, fresh as it was at the time. But Brosnan taking the role helped sell that freshness, same as when Moore took over in LALD. Both brought something a bit different to Bond.

    Despite what some members think, there's no reason to course correct from the Craig era in an overly drastic way, at least in terms of the film itself. That's just not where we're at. If anything it gives EON the opportunity to look for a new leading man who can bring something a bit different to the part. Obviously it's way too early to predict what/who exactly that could be, and I'm sure there's countless routes they could go with this.

    I think one of the ways in which GE corrects LTK is the lack of gratuitous violence in the film. I love LTK, but holy sh@* that film is brutal and outright bloody at times. It’s one of the reasons I tended to gravitate towards TLD when I was younger, and why I still think GE manages to be a better viewing experience.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 4,139
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think there are only a handful of times when the Bond series has really 'course corrected' in quite drastic ways. DAF coming after OHMSS is a big example, as is CR following DAD. GE is definitely a film which brought Bond back into the limelight, and of course Brosnan's breezier take on the role contrasted Dalton's, but GE is a film which retains a certain level of darkness and a personal element that was discernibly there in LTK. I don't see it as a course correction film fundamentally, fresh as it was at the time. But Brosnan taking the role helped sell that freshness, same as when Moore took over in LALD. Both brought something a bit different to Bond.

    Despite what some members think, there's no reason to course correct from the Craig era in an overly drastic way, at least in terms of the film itself. That's just not where we're at. If anything it gives EON the opportunity to look for a new leading man who can bring something a bit different to the part. Obviously it's way too early to predict what/who exactly that could be, and I'm sure there's countless routes they could go with this.

    I think one of the ways in which GE corrects LTK is the lack of gratuitous violence in the film. I love LTK, but holy sh@* that film is brutal and outright bloody at times. It’s one of the reasons I tended to gravitate towards TLD when I was younger, and why I still think GE manages to be a better viewing experience.

    I do always think the way Onatopp kills the General is quite brutal/very non-PG. Perhaps for slightly different reasons than LTK’s deaths though. I also find Travelyan’s death with his broken body after he falls surprisingly violent too.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,266
    007HallY wrote: »
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think there are only a handful of times when the Bond series has really 'course corrected' in quite drastic ways. DAF coming after OHMSS is a big example, as is CR following DAD. GE is definitely a film which brought Bond back into the limelight, and of course Brosnan's breezier take on the role contrasted Dalton's, but GE is a film which retains a certain level of darkness and a personal element that was discernibly there in LTK. I don't see it as a course correction film fundamentally, fresh as it was at the time. But Brosnan taking the role helped sell that freshness, same as when Moore took over in LALD. Both brought something a bit different to Bond.

    Despite what some members think, there's no reason to course correct from the Craig era in an overly drastic way, at least in terms of the film itself. That's just not where we're at. If anything it gives EON the opportunity to look for a new leading man who can bring something a bit different to the part. Obviously it's way too early to predict what/who exactly that could be, and I'm sure there's countless routes they could go with this.

    I think one of the ways in which GE corrects LTK is the lack of gratuitous violence in the film. I love LTK, but holy sh@* that film is brutal and outright bloody at times. It’s one of the reasons I tended to gravitate towards TLD when I was younger, and why I still think GE manages to be a better viewing experience.

    I do always think the way Onatopp kills the General is quite brutal/very non-PG. Perhaps for slightly different reasons than LTK’s deaths though. I also find Travelyan’s death with his broken body after he falls surprisingly violent too.

    Good points, GE’s deaths were very brutal too. I don’t know maybe it’s just the image of Anthony Zerbe’s prosthetic head swelling before exploding has become permanently imprinted in my brain haha.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    edited April 19 Posts: 1,340
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think there are only a handful of times when the Bond series has really 'course corrected' in quite drastic ways. DAF coming after OHMSS is a big example, as is CR following DAD. GE is definitely a film which brought Bond back into the limelight, and of course Brosnan's breezier take on the role contrasted Dalton's, but GE is a film which retains a certain level of darkness and a personal element that was discernibly there in LTK. I don't see it as a course correction film fundamentally, fresh as it was at the time. But Brosnan taking the role helped sell that freshness, same as when Moore took over in LALD. Both brought something a bit different to Bond.

    Despite what some members think, there's no reason to course correct from the Craig era in an overly drastic way, at least in terms of the film itself. That's just not where we're at. If anything it gives EON the opportunity to look for a new leading man who can bring something a bit different to the part. Obviously it's way too early to predict what/who exactly that could be, and I'm sure there's countless routes they could go with this.


    They made 2 movies in 10 years. Yes, I think an update is necessary.

    A natural evolution can't work if you don't make movies
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    It's too early for a "Theo James is not Bond".
    Look guys. They said the same thing about Brosnan.

    No, they didn't.

    Brosnan was "the best Bond after Connery" too. "The man who saved the franchise", they said.

    History repeats itself, I guess.

    True, people have short memories.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,152
    I'd've loved Dalton to come back in triumph for a third but, yes, Brosnan was the right Bond at the right time and the right Bond for those films.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 4,139
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think there are only a handful of times when the Bond series has really 'course corrected' in quite drastic ways. DAF coming after OHMSS is a big example, as is CR following DAD. GE is definitely a film which brought Bond back into the limelight, and of course Brosnan's breezier take on the role contrasted Dalton's, but GE is a film which retains a certain level of darkness and a personal element that was discernibly there in LTK. I don't see it as a course correction film fundamentally, fresh as it was at the time. But Brosnan taking the role helped sell that freshness, same as when Moore took over in LALD. Both brought something a bit different to Bond.

    Despite what some members think, there's no reason to course correct from the Craig era in an overly drastic way, at least in terms of the film itself. That's just not where we're at. If anything it gives EON the opportunity to look for a new leading man who can bring something a bit different to the part. Obviously it's way too early to predict what/who exactly that could be, and I'm sure there's countless routes they could go with this.


    They made 2 movies in 10 years. Yes, I think an update is necessary.

    A natural evolution can't work if you don't make movies

    Yeah, there was unfortunately a small pandemic which delayed the last film (dunno if you remember it).

    Delays or slow output (for whatever reason) isn’t the same thing as deciding what to do creatively. So I don’t see your point personally.
  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    edited April 20 Posts: 190
    Guys, this is what we have been waiting for... It's just hysterical, these rags. Feast your eyes on this Pullitzer prize winning article

    https://metro.co.uk/2024/04/19/aaron-taylor-johnson-lose-james-bond-role-new-star-tipped-20680274/

    😂
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited April 20 Posts: 4,515
    Collide-between-worlds.jpg

    Funny is that Hayden sound like ''heden'' when you say the name in English what mean present (now) in Dutch.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 942
    Part of the reason Dalton had problems was that he was such a departure from Moore, and though everyone (or almost everyone) agreed that Moore was not as good as Connery in the role, people weren't actually tired of Moore's depiction of Bond so much as feeling that Moore had aged out of the part some time ago.

    Brosnan was kind of a combination of Moore and Connery - Moore's comic timing with a dash of Connery's grit, and I think in retrospect the general public needed that. Brosnan's era also got bigger actors in supporting roles, and threw more money at the screen, with Goldeneye making LTK look cheap by comparison, and I think that's something that can't be overlooked - Eon started to the move to the prestige product in Brosnan's era, and they simply kicked it up a notch in Craig's.

    I think we're in a similar position now as we were when Moore quit, in that I don't think the general audience are tired with the way Craig's Bond has been played and they don't want a radically different performance or change in style. We've actually seen some course-corrections in Craig's era, with Skyfall making concessions to the old formula: going back to the gadget-laden DB5, and reintroducing Q and Moneypenny, so I don't think the eras are quite as cohesive in style as we sometimes talk about them as being. Whatever direction Eon start out in, they'll course-correct several times depending on what they think is working.

    I rate CR and Skyfall very highly; I'm less keen on the other three Craig entries. I think the Craig era relied too much on big 'character defining' moments which ultimately leads to having to reboot the character, so I'm worried that we are going to get more of the same. The general public probably isn't worried, though. I don't think Eon is going to change much about the way they're doing things.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,296
    sandbagger1 wrote: »
    Part of the reason Dalton had problems was that he was such a departure from Moore, and though everyone (or almost everyone) agreed that Moore was not as good as Connery in the role, people weren't actually tired of Moore's depiction of Bond so much as feeling that Moore had aged out of the part some time ago.

    Brosnan was kind of a combination of Moore and Connery - Moore's comic timing with a dash of Connery's grit, and I think in retrospect the general public needed that. Brosnan's era also got bigger actors in supporting roles, and threw more money at the screen, with Goldeneye making LTK look cheap by comparison, and I think that's something that can't be overlooked - Eon started to the move to the prestige product in Brosnan's era, and they simply kicked it up a notch in Craig's.

    I think we're in a similar position now as we were when Moore quit, in that I don't think the general audience are tired with the way Craig's Bond has been played and they don't want a radically different performance or change in style. We've actually seen some course-corrections in Craig's era, with Skyfall making concessions to the old formula: going back to the gadget-laden DB5, and reintroducing Q and Moneypenny, so I don't think the eras are quite as cohesive in style as we sometimes talk about them as being. Whatever direction Eon start out in, they'll course-correct several times depending on what they think is working.

    I rate CR and Skyfall very highly; I'm less keen on the other three Craig entries. I think the Craig era relied too much on big 'character defining' moments which ultimately leads to having to reboot the character, so I'm worried that we are going to get more of the same. The general public probably isn't worried, though. I don't think Eon is going to change much about the way they're doing things.

    I think people *were* tired of Moore. Look at the contemporaneous reviews of TLD.

    Eon's march toward prestige started with...wait for it...Halle Berry.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 942
    echo wrote: »
    sandbagger1 wrote: »
    Part of the reason Dalton had problems was that he was such a departure from Moore, and though everyone (or almost everyone) agreed that Moore was not as good as Connery in the role, people weren't actually tired of Moore's depiction of Bond so much as feeling that Moore had aged out of the part some time ago.

    Brosnan was kind of a combination of Moore and Connery - Moore's comic timing with a dash of Connery's grit, and I think in retrospect the general public needed that. Brosnan's era also got bigger actors in supporting roles, and threw more money at the screen, with Goldeneye making LTK look cheap by comparison, and I think that's something that can't be overlooked - Eon started to the move to the prestige product in Brosnan's era, and they simply kicked it up a notch in Craig's.

    I think we're in a similar position now as we were when Moore quit, in that I don't think the general audience are tired with the way Craig's Bond has been played and they don't want a radically different performance or change in style. We've actually seen some course-corrections in Craig's era, with Skyfall making concessions to the old formula: going back to the gadget-laden DB5, and reintroducing Q and Moneypenny, so I don't think the eras are quite as cohesive in style as we sometimes talk about them as being. Whatever direction Eon start out in, they'll course-correct several times depending on what they think is working.

    I rate CR and Skyfall very highly; I'm less keen on the other three Craig entries. I think the Craig era relied too much on big 'character defining' moments which ultimately leads to having to reboot the character, so I'm worried that we are going to get more of the same. The general public probably isn't worried, though. I don't think Eon is going to change much about the way they're doing things.

    I think people *were* tired of Moore. Look at the contemporaneous reviews of TLD.
    The reviews were always positive in the British press, but word of mouth was less glowing. I was a schoolkid at the time, I remember we were all ready for a younger actor (we generally wanted Lewis Collins), but Dalton's almost Shakespearean, more Fleming-esque, Bond and his unease with humorous lines wasn't what people were used to, and he wasn't embraced as readily by the public as he was by reviews. I liked him and thought he'd found his feet by LTK, but I remember a friend in 6th form scoffing at him, saying he wasn't as cool as Moore, and that wasn't entirely unusual.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 4,139
    I remember watching an interview with Daniel Craig where he talked about how he wanted to play Bond differently to his predecessors. According to him he wanted his portrayal to be 'humourless' which ironically got a bit of a laugh.

    I personally don't see his Bond as humourless at all (none of the Bonds are). The closest we get to that is Dalton though. I do think there needs to be an element of humour, and while I rate Dalton's Bond highly, I'm not sure we're going to have another Bond quite like that. I think a big part of the cinematic Bond is that sardonic humour, and an actor needs to be able to play it with that element.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    edited April 20 Posts: 682
    buddyoldchap wrote: »
    Guys, this is what we have been waiting for... It's just hysterical, these rags. Feast your eyes on this Pullitzer prize winning article

    https://metro.co.uk/2024/04/19/aaron-taylor-johnson-lose-james-bond-role-new-star-tipped-20680274/

    😂

    Oh no! They'll have to throw out that gunbarrel scene they released last year, and all those suits they were making for him!
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 1,340
    echo wrote: »
    sandbagger1 wrote: »
    Part of the reason Dalton had problems was that he was such a departure from Moore, and though everyone (or almost everyone) agreed that Moore was not as good as Connery in the role, people weren't actually tired of Moore's depiction of Bond so much as feeling that Moore had aged out of the part some time ago.

    Brosnan was kind of a combination of Moore and Connery - Moore's comic timing with a dash of Connery's grit, and I think in retrospect the general public needed that. Brosnan's era also got bigger actors in supporting roles, and threw more money at the screen, with Goldeneye making LTK look cheap by comparison, and I think that's something that can't be overlooked - Eon started to the move to the prestige product in Brosnan's era, and they simply kicked it up a notch in Craig's.

    I think we're in a similar position now as we were when Moore quit, in that I don't think the general audience are tired with the way Craig's Bond has been played and they don't want a radically different performance or change in style. We've actually seen some course-corrections in Craig's era, with Skyfall making concessions to the old formula: going back to the gadget-laden DB5, and reintroducing Q and Moneypenny, so I don't think the eras are quite as cohesive in style as we sometimes talk about them as being. Whatever direction Eon start out in, they'll course-correct several times depending on what they think is working.

    I rate CR and Skyfall very highly; I'm less keen on the other three Craig entries. I think the Craig era relied too much on big 'character defining' moments which ultimately leads to having to reboot the character, so I'm worried that we are going to get more of the same. The general public probably isn't worried, though. I don't think Eon is going to change much about the way they're doing things.

    I think people *were* tired of Moore. Look at the contemporaneous reviews of TLD.

    Eon's march toward prestige started with...wait for it...Halle Berry.

    People were tired of Moore and they were tired of Bond itself.

    Dalton came too late IMO.
  • Informe_James_BondInforme_James_Bond Dominican Republic
    edited April 20 Posts: 112
    buddyoldchap wrote: »
    Guys, this is what we have been waiting for... It's just hysterical, these rags. Feast your eyes on this Pullitzer prize winning article

    https://metro.co.uk/2024/04/19/aaron-taylor-johnson-lose-james-bond-role-new-star-tipped-20680274/

    😂

    I don't think Taron Egerton is in EON's view. First, he is already in a franchise like Kingsman, he was already playing a very popular British man in the biopic of Elton John (for which he was also nominated) and he also has some films on his schedule that are in pre-production and development. ...and one of these is another upcoming Kingsman film.

    Definitely, those who write these and propose actors doesn't know nothing about James Bond. They don't know s#%@! about it.

    I'm sure EON will surprise us with the seventh actor because it will be someone who perhaps hasn't been mentioned much.

    ;)
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,296
    Informe_James_Bond wrote: »
    buddyoldchap wrote: »
    Guys, this is what we have been waiting for... It's just hysterical, these rags. Feast your eyes on this Pullitzer prize winning article

    https://metro.co.uk/2024/04/19/aaron-taylor-johnson-lose-james-bond-role-new-star-tipped-20680274/

    😂

    I don't think Taron Egerton is in EON's sights. First, he is already in a franchise like Kingsman, he was already playing a very popular British man in the biopic of Elton John (for which he was also nominated) and he also has some films on his schedule that are in pre-production and development. ...and one of these is another upcoming Kingsman film.

    Definitely, those who write these and propose actors doen't know nothing about James Bond. They don't know s#%@! about it.

    I'm sure EON will surprise us with the seventh actor because it will be someone who perhaps hasn't been mentioned much.

    ;)

    This was breaking news from 2019.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,571
    Since I'm pretty much the last one here on this forum to either be suggested or nominate themselves for the role of Bond, I might as well throw my hat into the ring too...and then perhaps...up on the rack? That's right Barbara; Michael. Let me be perfectly clear now, I'm just doing this to get the project moving along, and I'll be wearing a beard to the Premiere too. I'm just saying, I'm available.

    53666560741_591b014670_z.jpg
  • bondywondybondywondy Uk
    Posts: 346
    M_Balje wrote: »
    Now he is official not doing a voice For Sonic 3, how long it wil take before Eon wil anouch Hayden Christensen as new Bond. Born in 1981 he is mabey already to old, but mabey not for three movie's.

    c555de5dd9c7a82e695c7d8622572182.jpgpcskiciz.webp

    emma-roberts-hayden-christensen-world-premiere-little-italy-in-toronto-03.jpg

    ob2j0231_70a190a4.jpeg?region=417,162,3135,1761&width=960

    He's Canadian so I can't see Eon keen to cast him. I'm sure they'll look closer to home (as in the UK).
  • DewiWynBondDewiWynBond
    Posts: 937
    QBranch wrote: »
    Since I'm pretty much the last one here on this forum to either be suggested or nominate themselves for the role of Bond, I might as well throw my hat into the ring too...and then perhaps...up on the rack? That's right Barbara; Michael. Let me be perfectly clear now, I'm just doing this to get the project moving along, and I'll be wearing a beard to the Premiere too. I'm just saying, I'm available.

    53666560741_591b014670_z.jpg

    You might as well not jest. Trust the process and let it unfold naturally. Besides... Do you get comments like this: "You'd be a great looking model in a catalogue"?
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,571
    @DewiWynBond Well, I do have this insanely hot and younger female co-worker that sometimes asks me how I remain so youthful, so yeah, this 41-year old could pass for an early-30s Bond. Just need to lose a whole lotta muscle so I can fit through the turnstiles at Heathrow.
  • DewiWynBondDewiWynBond
    Posts: 937
    QBranch wrote: »
    @DewiWynBond Well, I do have this insanely hot and younger female co-worker that sometimes asks me how I remain so youthful, so yeah, this 41-year old could pass for an early-30s Bond. Just need to lose a whole lotta muscle so I can fit through the turnstiles at Heathrow.

    Lol, that's good, it must be all the right minerals you consume. What's the catch with the insanely hot younger female? That spells trouble.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,571
    Nothing of concern to me. An unavailable woman who's a total knockout but thinks she's fat. It's surprisingly common. That's 1 of 2 at my work. Reading the wrong magazines, I would think.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,116
    For some obscure reason, Facebook's algorithms have suggested this chap as a possible friend: https://www.facebook.com/share/Bdi5MS1RUqekWy6R/
    No idea who the hell he is or if he's been mentioned before, but hey, I'll add him to the list.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,206
    Ludovico wrote: »
    For some obscure reason, Facebook's algorithms have suggested this chap as a possible friend: https://www.facebook.com/share/Bdi5MS1RUqekWy6R/
    No idea who the hell he is or if he's been mentioned before, but hey, I'll add him to the list.

    I have to ask, which list?
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,116
    talos7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    For some obscure reason, Facebook's algorithms have suggested this chap as a possible friend: https://www.facebook.com/share/Bdi5MS1RUqekWy6R/
    No idea who the hell he is or if he's been mentioned before, but hey, I'll add him to the list.

    I have to ask, which list?

    I mean potential Bond. No idea how he came as friend suggestion, he's got like a thousand of them and none I'm common with me. So I'm wondering if he hasn't been mentioned on a Bond page, sometimes algorithms pick up on it.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,206
    Ludovico wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    For some obscure reason, Facebook's algorithms have suggested this chap as a possible friend: https://www.facebook.com/share/Bdi5MS1RUqekWy6R/
    No idea who the hell he is or if he's been mentioned before, but hey, I'll add him to the list.

    I have to ask, which list?

    I mean potential Bond. .

    I knew that, just being snarky... ;)
  • Kojak007Kojak007
    Posts: 133
    Surprised nobody has mentioned Luke Newton (from "Bridgerton") yet. Too young, I guess. Don't know anything about his acting, haven't seen the show.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    edited April 23 Posts: 15,116
    Kojak007 wrote: »
    Surprised nobody has mentioned Luke Newton (from "Bridgerton") yet. Too young, I guess. Don't know anything about his acting, haven't seen the show.

    I think I might have had. I did mention a Bridgerton actor. At 31, he's not too young. At the pace things are going, he might be too old when the next Bond is cast.

    I'm still advocating for my son: he's only seven, but he's British, he's very popular with girls, he's a fan (albeit he has yet to watch a full Bond movie) and he's got blue eyes. And like James Bond, he's from a mixed family.
Sign In or Register to comment.