Who should/could be a Bond actor?

13243253273293301231

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Tuulia wrote: »
    Do Brits not do terrible American accents?
    That's an interesting question. Generally, I've been extremely impressed by Brits doing American accents in large productions. Bale is a perfect example. Damian Lewis is excellent too.

    Actually some of the worst examples of 'American' that I have seen by a Brit are ironically in Bond films. They tend to exaggerate the drawl. An example is Dulice Liecier (who played one of Felix's operatives) in TLD. There are other instances but it's not coming to me now.
    Tuulia wrote: »
    As for the differences in American and British (and other, such as Irish or Australian) variants of English, there are still all those differences within them, so the whole issue is complex and tricky to evaluate.
    True, and it goes the other way too. There are dialects in 'American' as well. NYC is different from Boston is different from L.A.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,266
    Fascinating. I know Dutch actors on average are terrible with foreign accents. Even Famke Jansen, who's lived in the US for such a long time, has a clear Dutch accent.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    bondjames wrote: »
    Keanu is not known for his acting skills though. At least not as far as I'm aware. He's a bit of a block. His best roles have been Bill and Ted, Matrix, Speed and John Wick and these have not been all that challenging from an acting standpoint.

    Keanu Reeves excels at roles where he essentially plays himself. Although I've heard theater actors speak highly of him.

  • Posts: 2,081
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I wonder why so few from North America can do accents though.
    I've always speculated it's because of a relative lack of theatrical training and because American English is more of a drawl, with less emphasis on elocution and diction. Less formal. I find that English requires more emphasis and enunciation and perhaps the nuances aren't easy to capture for someone who speaks American English regularly.

    I don't know how much theatrical training actually helps with learning specific accents later on, but maybe actors get taught some trickery there that might be useful somehow. (I really have no idea.) I've wondered to what extent formal training in acting is helpful and makes aspects of acting work easier in general.

    As for the differences in American and British (and other, such as Irish or Australian) variants of English, there are still all those differences within them, so the whole issue is complex and tricky to evaluate.

    Do Brits not do terrible American accents? If it's an American production, maybe they wouldn't get the job in the first place and they'd find Americans for the roles, but Americans doing bad British accents would still get jobs in American productions... Something like that... Just an additional idea.

    TBH ive been staggered by how good our actors/actresses are at doing an American accent.

    I have had to point out to my other half that the person on screen is in fact British,and she is very surprised when it happens.

    British actors are getting plum roles on American TV and films atm.

    I know many of them do American accents very well and get good roles playing Americans all the time. (And if they couldn't do the accents they wouldn't get the roles so much.) I was just thinking that surely they aren't all good at it.

    bondjames wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    Do Brits not do terrible American accents?
    That's an interesting question. Generally, I've been extremely impressed by Brits doing American accents in large productions. Bale is a perfect example. Damian Lewis is excellent too.

    Actually some of the worst examples of 'American' that I have seen by a Brit are ironically in Bond films. They tend to exaggerate the drawl. An example is Dulice Liecier (who played one of Felix's operatives) in TLD. There are other instances but it's not coming to me now.

    I know many are excellent, that's what I mostly hear, but I was thinking that some must be bad, too. Just like some Americans can surely do impeccable British accents. My thinking is that it's probably more who's good (or not) at accents, that it depends on the individual rather than people being good or bad at it mainly based on where they're from. I might be wrong as well, but it would just make more sense to me that way.

    And then there are Brits doing various British accents or Americans doing various American accents. In both cases, presumably some folks are good at it and others not so much, right?
    bondjames wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    As for the differences in American and British (and other, such as Irish or Australian) variants of English, there are still all those differences within them, so the whole issue is complex and tricky to evaluate.
    True, and it goes the other way too. There are dialects in 'American' as well. NYC is different from Boston is different from L.A.

    Of course. (Even much smaller areas and much smaller populations have different accents.) I thought I was acknowledging that, but I may have messed up the sentence then. Not being a native speaker or any sort of an expert on accents, I can't generally pick up nuances and can't necessarily tell how well or how badly somebody does an accent, but I'm also not deaf or anything so even I can tell there are definitely lots of different variants of American English. :)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Tuulia wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    Do Brits not do terrible American accents?
    That's an interesting question. Generally, I've been extremely impressed by Brits doing American accents in large productions. Bale is a perfect example. Damian Lewis is excellent too.

    Actually some of the worst examples of 'American' that I have seen by a Brit are ironically in Bond films. They tend to exaggerate the drawl. An example is Dulice Liecier (who played one of Felix's operatives) in TLD. There are other instances but it's not coming to me now.

    I know many are excellent, that's what I mostly hear, but I was thinking that some must be bad, too. Just like some Americans can surely do impeccable British accents. My thinking is that it's probably more who's good (or not) at accents, that it depends on the individual rather than people being good or bad at it mainly based on where they're from. I might be wrong as well, but it would just make more sense to me that way.

    And then there are Brits doing various British accents or Americans doing various American accents. In both cases, presumably some folks are good at it and others not so much, right?
    Yes, I definitely agree. I don't believe it's fair to rule someone out or exclude them based on where they're from. I'm sure there's an American actor out there who can do a decent British accent. John Lithgow is an example.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited September 2017 Posts: 5,131
    There is no example in cinema history (in my experience) of an American performing a convincing British accent (classic English).

    We Englishmen can spot the fakes a mile off!
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,266
    suavejmf wrote: »
    There is no example in cinema history (in my experience) of an American performing a convincing British accent (classic English).

    We Englishmen can spot the fakes a mile off!

    Ha! So why was it then an Englishman asked me how it came to be that my Dutch is so good?
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited October 2017 Posts: 4,520
    Billy Howle http://www.imdb.com/name/nm6247071/

    the-witness-for-the-prosecution-rn-lst228505.jpg

    171513ec6df1f9a65be9e64b84bfe772--billy-howle-book-boyfriends.jpg

    Billy-Howle-Freya-Mavor-The-Sense-of-an-Ending-Movie-Premiere-Red-Carpet-Fashion-Christian-Dior-Tom-Lorenzo-Site-1.jpg

    Pro:
    Young, so that there can make more movies
    Worked with Andrea Risenbourgh (Bondgirl wish)
    Looks like a bit Clive Owen, Brosnan and Roger Moore

    Con:
    From 1989, but in 2022 he is 33 and in 2025 he is 36.
    Worked with Christopher Nolan
    Mabey Eon need more control again and less input from him.


    Mabey Max Irons will be considerd if you watch trailer of Crooked House
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Edward Holcroft. Manly enough for his age, young, and suitable for Bond. Liked him in Kingsman: The Secret Service and I would swap him for Taron Egerton in the role of Eggsy without any hesitation.

    6f73766c3f81c1d4f40860cfd5355b33--kingsman-this-man.jpg
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    M_Balje wrote: »
    Billy Howle
    I've never heard of Billy Howle before. Must do some research.
    M_Balje wrote: »
    Mabey Eon need more control again and less input from him.
    Couldn't come soon enough imho.
    M_Balje wrote: »
    Mabey Max Irons will be considerd if you watch trailer of Crooked House
    I wondered about that after I saw the trailer. He's Jeremy's son. With a few more years in him I can see it. Plus, period based Agatha Christie adaptations have already catapulted one actor into the mix (Turner) so it could happen again. Ironic that there doesn't seem to be a hopeful in the Kenneth Branagh film adaptation of Murder On The Orient Express.
  • Posts: 9,847
    So with Craig back for Bond 25 the issue becomes many of the actors I initially wanted are going to be too old specifically Fassbender and Hardy (as the first film likely wouldn't be till 2021 at the earliest

    Hardy would be 44 which could work if it's every other year (Calvin Dyson makes the point when discussing 007 apart from Lazenby everyone has done more then one bond film so you need to think in terms of that versus just right now) so Hardy could work if he does a film every other year (doing a trilogy at 44, 46, and 48) but since the production issues keep pushing 3-4 years between Hardy is out (much to others joy and chagrin)


    Fassbender is also 40 (see above)

    Hiddleston is still viable though at 36 now he would be 40 for his first film and could do a trilogy at say 40 44 and 48 possibly...

    so right now Hiddleston wins out.
  • Posts: 15,124
    I'm glad Craig is returning just because it means many names brought forward to succeed him will be different.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Hiddleston is still viable though at 36 now he would be 40 for his first film and could do a trilogy at say 40 44 and 48 possibly...

    so right now Hiddleston wins out.
    They could do a lot worse than him, but quite frankly I'd rather see him keep doing what he's doing in film and theatre, with a variety of roles. He's an exceptionally versatile and chameleon like actor, and it's a treat to see him in action.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I'm glad Craig is returning just because it means many names brought forward to succeed him will be different.
    It's certainly a huge perk.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    As much as I would like to see something different now, I would agree that it is for the best Craig is returning. The list of potential candidates is so uninspiring presently.
  • Posts: 15,124
    Roadphill wrote: »
    As much as I would like to see something different now, I would agree that it is for the best Craig is returning. The list of potential candidates is so uninspiring presently.

    That is an understatement.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    As much as I would like to see something different now, I would agree that it is for the best Craig is returning. The list of potential candidates is so uninspiring presently.

    That is an understatement.
    I couldn't disagree more.
  • Posts: 15,124
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    As much as I would like to see something different now, I would agree that it is for the best Craig is returning. The list of potential candidates is so uninspiring presently.

    That is an understatement.
    I couldn't disagree more.

    I mean the pool of candidates as a whole. Adrian Turner, Mr Fifty Shades of Beige, Charlie what's his name from that King Arthur train wreck... I'm surprised nobody mentioned Jude Law and Hugh Grant. Or Robbie Williams.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    As much as I would like to see something different now, I would agree that it is for the best Craig is returning. The list of potential candidates is so uninspiring presently.

    That is an understatement.
    I couldn't disagree more.

    I mean the pool of candidates as a whole. Adrian Turner, Mr Fifty Shades of Beige, Charlie what's his name from that King Arthur train wreck... I'm surprised nobody mentioned Jude Law and Hugh Grant. Or Robbie Williams.
    Some of the suggestions on this thread have been underwhelming but there is always, at any point in time, an actor who can take on and deliver a worthy James Bond. There are a few out there right now as well. They won't give you the same kind of Bond, but they definitely have the charisma and acting chops to deliver a successful interpretation - just a different one.

    I keep reminding people: If Daniel Craig can be James Bond, so can others. It's all a matter of perspective.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    obama-putin-trump-which-political-figure-would-play-james-bond-best-4__880.jpg
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    They should replace the Walther PPK with a Makarov PM59.
  • Posts: 15,124
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    As much as I would like to see something different now, I would agree that it is for the best Craig is returning. The list of potential candidates is so uninspiring presently.

    That is an understatement.
    I couldn't disagree more.

    I mean the pool of candidates as a whole. Adrian Turner, Mr Fifty Shades of Beige, Charlie what's his name from that King Arthur train wreck... I'm surprised nobody mentioned Jude Law and Hugh Grant. Or Robbie Williams.
    Some of the suggestions on this thread have been underwhelming but there is always, at any point in time, an actor who can take on and deliver a worthy James Bond. There are a few out there right now as well. They won't give you the same kind of Bond, but they definitely have the charisma and acting chops to deliver a successful interpretation - just a different one.

    I keep reminding people: If Daniel Craig can be James Bond, so can others. It's all a matter of perspective.

    Maybe it's the nostalgia talking but back in 2005 the names brought forward seemed more interesting: James Purefoy, Dominic West, Jason Isaacs... Heck even Henry Cavill then had not been associated with a block of wood yet! Like a lot of people I was skeptical about Craig but it has nothing to do with him. It was about the choices available.
  • Posts: 16,169
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    As much as I would like to see something different now, I would agree that it is for the best Craig is returning. The list of potential candidates is so uninspiring presently.

    That is an understatement.
    I couldn't disagree more.

    I mean the pool of candidates as a whole. Adrian Turner, Mr Fifty Shades of Beige, Charlie what's his name from that King Arthur train wreck... I'm surprised nobody mentioned Jude Law and Hugh Grant. Or Robbie Williams.
    Some of the suggestions on this thread have been underwhelming but there is always, at any point in time, an actor who can take on and deliver a worthy James Bond. There are a few out there right now as well. They won't give you the same kind of Bond, but they definitely have the charisma and acting chops to deliver a successful interpretation - just a different one.

    I keep reminding people: If Daniel Craig can be James Bond, so can others. It's all a matter of perspective.

    Maybe it's the nostalgia talking but back in 2005 the names brought forward seemed more interesting: James Purefoy, Dominic West, Jason Isaacs... Heck even Henry Cavill then had not been associated with a block of wood yet! Like a lot of people I was skeptical about Craig but it has nothing to do with him. It was about the choices available.

    Back then I thought James Purefoy looked like a decent Bond candidate along with Dougray Scott. Far better than today's so called contenders who look more like contestants on American Idol rather than the suave gentleman agent who knows his way around the gambling tables.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    As much as I would like to see something different now, I would agree that it is for the best Craig is returning. The list of potential candidates is so uninspiring presently.

    That is an understatement.
    I couldn't disagree more.

    I mean the pool of candidates as a whole. Adrian Turner, Mr Fifty Shades of Beige, Charlie what's his name from that King Arthur train wreck... I'm surprised nobody mentioned Jude Law and Hugh Grant. Or Robbie Williams.
    Some of the suggestions on this thread have been underwhelming but there is always, at any point in time, an actor who can take on and deliver a worthy James Bond. There are a few out there right now as well. They won't give you the same kind of Bond, but they definitely have the charisma and acting chops to deliver a successful interpretation - just a different one.

    I keep reminding people: If Daniel Craig can be James Bond, so can others. It's all a matter of perspective.

    Maybe it's the nostalgia talking but back in 2005 the names brought forward seemed more interesting: James Purefoy, Dominic West, Jason Isaacs... Heck even Henry Cavill then had not been associated with a block of wood yet! Like a lot of people I was skeptical about Craig but it has nothing to do with him. It was about the choices available.
    Yes, I can understand that. All were good choices (except Cavill imho). We're all a decade older and we're looking back at it through a nostalgic lens. I'm not looking at this physically, but conceptually. There are actors who can bring a different spin to the character, and once the change is finally upon us I think you'll see what I mean.
  • Posts: 16,169
    I must say some of the candidates then I thought seemed pretty bad: Julian McMahon for example never felt particularly Bondian to me.
  • Posts: 15,124
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I must say some of the candidates then I thought seemed pretty bad: Julian McMahon for example never felt particularly Bondian to me.

    Neither did he to me. But now I feel like there's a dozen Julian McMahon instead of one.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Julian McMahon was never a serious contender back then (as far as I'm aware) and neither is Charlie Hunnam now (again as far as I'm aware). So I wouldn't worry about it.
  • Posts: 15,124
    bondjames wrote: »
    Julian McMahon was never a serious contender back then (as far as I'm aware) and neither is Charlie Hunnam now (again as far as I'm aware). So I wouldn't worry about it.

    Julian McMahon was a serious contender in his own eyes and acted like only a self-proclaimed Bond contender could do: he gloated about how great he'd be in the role. Not unlike Charlie Hunnam now, mind you (although the flop that was King Arthur probably gave him some humility). But all the same, these days there are far more Julian McMahon than back in 2005.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Didn't McMahon speak against Eon's producers in a bad form? I remember reading something like that.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 3,333
    Sorry folks, I've been busy recently so Haven't had time to look at any replys. But just to address these points below:
    Revelator wrote: »
    It's also a matter of fact that Fleming quickly reconciled himself to Connery's casting and began praising the actor, as shown in The Man With the Golden Typewriter, Lycett's biography, etc. The idea that Fleming despised Connery's casting is untrue beyond a brief period of discomfort.
    Sorry again, but how does a belated biography first published on 8 October 2015 be considered a "matter of fact". Most of what can be found in that book is going to be drawn from archive material, or even conjecture. It's not as if Mr Lycett actually sat down with Ian Fleming and sweated the answers out of him. There's plenty of other source material out there on The Making of Dr No - may I also suggest the excellent Cinema Retro 148-page Special Edition magazine which also has exclusives interviews with Ursula Andress and screenwriter Johanna Harwood - if you haven't seen it already? And you're wrong to assume Fleming didn't despise the original casting of Connery to start with, especially when he referred to him as QUOTE "that f***g lorry driver" UNQUOTE, which is certainly more than "a brief period of discomfort" as you so kindly put it. This so-called transitory "period of discomfort" lasted beyond Dr No and right up til the screening of FRWL. It was after the premiere of FRWL that Fleming changed his mind about Connery, and only then reluctantly. Let's not also forget that Fleming was a dyed-in-the-wool snob with a capital "S". The thought of a blue-collar actor playing his fictional character was not at all as well-received as you make out.
    Revelator wrote: »
    And as you say, "Fleming actually sat down at his typewriter in Jamaica whilst the first film in the Eon Productions series of films, Dr. No, was being filmed nearby." He was involved with the production and suggested screenwriters, locations, and actors and he visited the set on multiple occasions, met the stars, etc. Dr. No was very much on his mind when he wrote OHMSS--need I remind you that he even gave Ursula Andress a cameo in the book?
    I'm certainly not disputing his affection for Ursula Andress, nor her inclusion in his OHMSS book. Ursula had everything that Fleming loved in a woman.

    Indeed, Fleming did visit the set of Dr No on a number of occasions, but he wasn't at all involved in the production, like you suggest. As far as location scouting and musical input of local band suggestion goes, that was down to Chris Blackwell, the founder of Island Records, who subsequently bought Fleming's Goldeneye home after Fleming passed away.

    As I've already taken pains to point out, Fleming was not at all happy with the casting of Connery as his fictional hero to begin with, nor was he happy after he saw the final movie, either. Therefore, he's not very well going to change his character to suit an actor that he wasn't happy with to begin with, now is he? Your own argument hinges solely on the premise that Fleming loved Connery like a son on the few occasions he happened to be on the location shoot and wanted to endorse his own affection by giving Bond a Scottish ancestral background to match that of Connery's, even without having seen him fully immersed in the role. Not even a single frame of footage. Also, if Fleming had really wanted to tip a wink to Connery, why didn't he also give Bond an Irish-mixed ancestry to match that of Sean's? Then there'd have been no doubt. Not sure what Lycett has to say on the matter as you haven't included any of his conjecture for me to think otherwise.
    Revelator wrote: »
    No, but you seem to forget that before OHMSS Fleming consistently referred to Bond as English. If he was so keen on giving his character his own background, why didn't he do so in the nine previous books?
    No, I'm not forgetting it. Bond is still English, that didn't change in the books. What did change was that when Fleming decided to marry his character off and, at the same time chase Blofeld through the hereditary angle, he decided to give Bond a similar hereditary background that mirrored his own. Up until OHMSS, Fleming had always wanted to keep Bond's background sketchy.
    Revelator wrote: »
    Possibly. What would be the harm of it? If the Burton film was a success, then it would tied the properties together, if it was a failure, Bond at least would have a new and interesting background detail. But since Connery was Scottish, Fleming could tie the character both to himself and the actor--a win-win. I think the decision to make Bond Scottish was based on both Connery's and Fleming's backgrounds--both are intertwined.
    I was only joking. I could have said the same thing about if Patrick McGoohan had accepted the role and been cast in Dr No, that Fleming give Bond an American-Irish heritage in his OHMSS book. I was simply demonstrating how preposterous the notion was to begin with.

    Look, I speak as someone - that for many decades - also believed the myth. It's just there's too many authentic reports and archived incidences that place a huge question mark over Fleming having reappraised his character as a homage to Connery. It's a nice myth, though. If you want to continue to believe it, that's entirely up to you, and I mean no offence if you should do so.
Sign In or Register to comment.