Who should/could be a Bond actor?

13973984004024031228

Comments

  • edited August 2018 Posts: 17,733
    Haven't seen Dornan in anything, but isn't he not considered the "lesser" actor of these?
    Fassbender is most likely to old now.
    NicNac wrote: »
    The one that springs to mind is at the concert in Vienna when he seems quite relaxed with Kara.

    tumblr_mlqfu0R2uN1rm6lyno1_500.gif
    And here. (bet @barryt007 secretly wishes he was Dalton here!)
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited August 2018 Posts: 9,509
    Fassbender's 41. If three years between films is the norm, he would be 44 in his first film...

    I used to be of the mind that Hardy is a top echelon actor. During the time of Inception, and before that Rock n Rolla and especially Bronson, he felt edgy and fresh. As I continued to follow his career, I felt less this way, unfortunately, and see him playing too much a variation of the same character (mumbling, thuggish, and too often doesn't feel intelligent). There are flashes of his brilliance (Legend, Dunkirk), but too often, for me, it's the same guy over and over (I liked him in Warrior, but that sameness is found in The Drop, The Revenant, Peaky Blinders and it seems his Eddy Brock is more of this). Just my opinion, and more my disappointment that it feels I'm onto his bag of tricks (which every actor has, but the more tricks an actor collects, the more varied their performances). So this is my long-winded way of saying I hope Hardy never becomes Bond.
  • Posts: 9,842
    From all the names that Have been mentioned, I can see no one as suitable as Aidan Turner for the role. Why? Because he ticks just about every box. He is a move back towards the traditional look, and a venture into new territory AT THE SAME TIME. I think this will satisfy the purists and the loony lefties looking for more diversity ~Or at least they can both take it as a victory~ Let's not bother with deciding on the relative merits of the Craig Bond here, but instead simply say that Bond has been the same way, good or bad, for a long time. You can hardily expect any different, it was the same when Moore was cranking them out. You cannot avoid a staleness or a saminess for setting in, it just happens. I have always said the perfect replacement for Craig would be someone gregarious and outgoing. People have long noted the similarity between Dalton and Craig, and if Dalton was the perfect counter to the Moore romping years, then another showman like Moore (or Brozza) should prove the perfect replacement to Craig, no? This is where Aidan Turner has a great strength. While he may be bashful, he never gets annoyed or combative with press, he maintains a relaxed, cheery demeanour at all times. Even when he is pressed into awkward question from the tabloids, he plays it off with a laugh and a joke.
    So we established he has a strength outside of acting, but what about in the role itself? Well for starters, he is ofcourse the right height, age, right hair colour, not too famous, excetera, excetera. But can we see any insight as to how he would approach the role, and take on becoming James Bond himself? Well, In my opinion Turner has a darkness to him, in his aura. Watch Poldark, watch And Then There Were None, and it's something he plays with over and over. He has the "dark hero" or "anti-heroic" role pretty much nailed down at this point. I was surprised with my recent viewing of Desolation of Smaug to find that he played it differently, more honest and pure. Aidan Turner characters, most of the time, feel like they have a dark past filled with bad experiences and it is often proven the case. Does this remind us of anyone? James Bond. So Turner is has a darkness, but he is also going to be much more capable of playing the comic, the cheery and the smooth. Basically the areas that Craig struggled with in SP. And the best part is that it has very little to do with his ability to act this way. You only have to look at his to see there is an edge, you only have to watch an interview to see the gregarious side, which is desperately needed for Bond. He simply has the personality traits, as well as the looks, features, body excetera which would make him the ideal candidate. What I see from the other guys, is that many are too famous (Tom Hardy), or slightly older (Fassbinder), or they don't have an aura (Henry Cavill IMO), or they are short (Jack Oconnoll), or they are too stereotypically English (Hiddleston). Aidan Turner is none of these, the worst complaints I see of him is that he is too baby-faced (he has 4 years to age still), too thin (I'd argue Bond should cut a slim figure, it's how I always imagined him in the books, but even then Aidan can gain a few pounds I'm sure, if it's essential) or not good enough of an actor or not a proven leading man quality (again, he has time, and having watched him closely through four seasons of Poldark, I can see him relaxing into it more and feeling more natural. Many saying this seem to be basing it on only a few clips they watch years ago and made up their mind). Craig did not have much leading man quality and what he did get HE GOT IN THE FOUR YEARS PRIOR to becoming Bond if I am correct? Most of the roles people associate with him winning the Bond job were in the 2002 - 2006 period. Bare in mind that the earliest we will get a new Bond is 2022, so Turner is on track and improving.

    I only hope that once Craig quits, we can stop labelling Turner as the boogeyman around here who is going to take the Job from Craig. Let's face if it's not him, someone else will do it. Craig can not be bond forever, I was heartbroken when Brosnan left, but there's nothing that can be done about it. So let's try and be a bit more fair and open-minded in future. Thank you.

    1638664_original.jpg

    My issue with turner has nothing to do with Craig one day leaving the role but everything to do with fassbender Hardy Hiddleston Cavil and even both hemsworth’s existing not to mention Luke Evans and a few others who I just happen to prefer over Turner so much so that Aidan Turner is not in my top 10

    That being said don’t think I would become one of this silly people if he was cast. But yeah my issues with him are simply because there are so many other good actors
  • Posts: 15,086
    00Agent wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    People have long noted the similarity between Dalton and Craig

    Never could see this myself.

    They both play it straight, I agree, but where Dalton's Bond was fidgety, always on edge, and every thought and mood could be read on his face, Craig's Bond is more insular, holding his feelings back, quietly wrestling with his own demons.

    They don't play it the same at all, as far as I can see.

    I agree, Dalton was always tense, whereas Craig has some of the Connery/Moore DNA of a guy trying to enjoy his life, food, drinks and women, while at the same time wrestling with some inner demons and the messy nature of his job. Craig has many moments throughout his movies, where you see him smiling and relaxed, i can't think of one in the Dalton films.

    I never saw many similarities between Craig and Dalton myself.

    I also think the difference of tone between Craig and his successor might not be as important as people think (hope?). Yes there was a shift in tone with Dalton but let's not forget that: 1)that change was not unanimously accepted by the audiences and 2)Dalton was second choice in any case.

    And was Roger Moore's Bond that different to Connery's Bond when Connery left the role in DAF? Don't get me wrong: I think there will be differences but not as steep as people here seem to assume.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2018 Posts: 23,883
    It's a big no from me regarding Henry Cavill.

    However, Tom Hardy is perfect for the role and Hiddleston is wholly inappropriate.

    96a545795ac2982fbf73847165cae414.png

    Also, why have we stopped talking about Michael Fassbender? He'd be my no.1 choice.

    _86194461_jobs-kate-michael-ap.jpg

    Also, if you give Kit Harrington a shave and a haircut, he could make a great young Bond

    Kit-Harington-Haircut-Slicked-Back-Sides-and-Hard-Side-Part.jpg

    I even think Jamie Dornan has the look

    fb1715b6930275852fd65372088ddc04--james-dornan-christian-grey.jpg

    Eon have a lot of options. I almost wish we were getting a Danny Boyle reboot opposed to another Craig movie.
    You lost me at Kit Harrington.
    0KuONL0.jpg

    Dornan has humiliated himself with those chick flicks he made. I doubt he's a contender anymore, although he could once have been.
  • Posts: 15,086
    Jamie Dornan should be kept away from Bond at any cost. He's got the acting skills and charisma of a plank of wood. I'd easily take Adrian Turner or Henry Cavill over him in spite of my reservations towards them.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,193
    Jamie Dornan looks more psychotic then suave.
  • Posts: 15,086
    talos7 wrote: »
    Jamie Dornan looks more psychotic then suave.

    He looks neither psychotic nor suave. He wasn't even convincing as a sadist. As a spoiled brat however I guess he was OK.
  • Posts: 17,733
    Risico007 wrote: »
    My issue with turner has nothing to do with Craig one day leaving the role but everything to do with fassbender Hardy Hiddleston Cavil and even both hemsworth’s existing not to mention Luke Evans and a few others who I just happen to prefer over Turner so much so that Aidan Turner is not in my top 10

    That being said don’t think I would become one of this silly people if he was cast. But yeah my issues with him are simply because there are so many other good actors

    Same here, I have other favourites; that being said, I have few issues with the guy being cast. Poldark seems like a popular series (it airs outside UK too - at least here in Scandinavia), and that doesn't hurt his chances, I guess. We might see a similar situation as with Moore, who was cast coming from success with two TV series, in The Saint and The Persuaders (I might forget some major acting credits, though).

    Luke Evans is (as I've mentioned earlier) my favourite, but I fear he's a few years too old now. Younger than Fassbender, but only by two years.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,193
    Ludovico wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Jamie Dornan looks more psychotic then suave.

    He looks neither psychotic nor suave. He wasn't even convincing as a sadist. As a spoiled brat however I guess he was OK.

    He’s got “Crazy” eyes .
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,383
    I would take Cavill, only if it means that Campbell directs B26. I have my reservations with Cavill but he at least looks the part and is very professional and knows the business. During the media catastrophe surrounding BvS and JL, he completed all his duties like a trooper, and kept a smile on his face. This franchise needs that kind of person right now.
  • Posts: 15,086
    talos7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Jamie Dornan looks more psychotic then suave.

    He looks neither psychotic nor suave. He wasn't even convincing as a sadist. As a spoiled brat however I guess he was OK.

    He’s got “Crazy” eyes .

    He's probably just drunk.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,193
    Ludovico wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Jamie Dornan looks more psychotic then suave.

    He looks neither psychotic nor suave. He wasn't even convincing as a sadist. As a spoiled brat however I guess he was OK.

    He’s got “Crazy” eyes .

    He's probably just drunk.

    Hey, everyone sees things differently; every time I see him , I see serial killer. Lol.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    talos7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Jamie Dornan looks more psychotic then suave.

    He looks neither psychotic nor suave. He wasn't even convincing as a sadist. As a spoiled brat however I guess he was OK.

    He’s got “Crazy” eyes .

    He's probably just drunk.

    Hey, everyone sees things differently; every time I see him , I see serial killer. Lol.
    He was actually very convincing as one in The Fall. It was his breakout role.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited August 2018 Posts: 8,193
    I’ll have to check it out. :D
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    bondjames wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Jamie Dornan looks more psychotic then suave.

    He looks neither psychotic nor suave. He wasn't even convincing as a sadist. As a spoiled brat however I guess he was OK.

    He’s got “Crazy” eyes .

    He's probably just drunk.

    Hey, everyone sees things differently; every time I see him , I see serial killer. Lol.
    He was actually very convincing as one in The Fall. It was his breakout role.

    It's the only thing I've seen him in and he was excellent. Looking at photos though he's one of those men who looks so much better with a beard. Which is a shame I guess.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,383
    He always looks too serious to me.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    peter wrote: »
    Fassbender's 41. If three years between films is the norm, he would be 44 in his first film...

    I used to be of the mind that Hardy is a top echelon actor. During the time of Inception, and before that Rock n Rolla and especially Bronson, he felt edgy and fresh. As I continued to follow his career, I felt less this way, unfortunately, and see him playing too much a variation of the same character (mumbling, thuggish, and too often doesn't feel intelligent). There are flashes of his brilliance (Legend, Dunkirk), but too often, for me, it's the same guy over and over (I liked him in Warrior, but that sameness is found in The Drop, The Revenant, Peaky Blinders and it seems his Eddy Brock is more of this). Just my opinion, and more my disappointment that it feels I'm onto his bag of tricks (which every actor has, but the more tricks an actor collects, the more varied their performances). So this is my long-winded way of saying I hope Hardy never becomes Bond.

    I do have a lot of time for Hardy and he can be varied, Locke is worth a look and he pretty much carries that film, his work in Dunkirk is a great tribute to his abilities considering he's behind a mask for most of the film. Although I've never got this desire to see him as Bond.

    Great actor but it doesn't necessarily make you Bond, Fassbender is too old but boy he would have made a stunning Bond at the right point.

    As for Turner I just don't see it, it takes more than just looking good in a tux and looking like you are trying cos play Bond.

    Personally I see more in James Norton, he's done a far more varied set of roles than Turner, his Tommy Lee Royce in Happy Valley is terrifying but he can play the dashing lead. Also McMafia showed me he was a better candidate than Turner all the way.

    Maybe Turner needs to do something outside of his previous roles to convince, being Ross Poldark is far from Craig's performance in Layer Cake, this is where I saw it and I wasn't on my own. So I'm open to Aidan Turner proving me wrong but on the evidence so far, must try harder.

    Tom Hughes would be my next choice apart from being most well know for playing Prince Albert in Victoria he already played a spy in The Game, a rather good BBC drama that only got one series but is worth a look, more LeCarre than Bond but it has it's Fleming like moments.

    To be honest if DC is gone after Bond 25 and I don't think it should be a given he won't be back for Bond 26, I think that the whole it's his last suits DC at the moment but if they want 26 out for the 60th don't count out DC's return.

    If he goes after B25 then maybe some of the people bandied around here are up for a shot at the role but if DC sticks around I can imagine a whole new set of candidates for the role we don't even have on our radars yet.

    Also it will depend on which way they choose to go, I think a reboot is pretty much a foregone conclusion and it will come down if they want to introduce Bond younger, I'm thinking they'll be looking for a younger man and trying to get more mileage out of him than they've had off DC but I guess we'll see.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    If there is a 60th anniversary film, @Shardlake, I wouldn't bet against DC returning home for B26. I can't see a new actor being introduced on the 60th and all the pressure that comes with that.

    If there's no plan for a 60th, especially if B26 comes in 2023 or later, I think DC will have safely passed the baton onto the new actor.

    There's also a third thought: this may all depend how Boyle and Craig end 25. Will they do what no other Bond film has done, and conclude the Craig era with a definitive ending? If so, it could be there is no way Craig can come back...
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    peter wrote: »
    If there is a 60th anniversary film, @Shardlake, I wouldn't bet against DC returning home for B26. I can't see a new actor being introduced on the 60th and all the pressure that comes with that.

    If there's no plan for a 60th, especially if B26 comes in 2023 or later, I think DC will have safely passed the baton onto the new actor.

    There's also a third thought: this may all depend how Boyle and Craig end 25. Will they do what no other Bond film has done, and conclude the Craig era with a definitive ending? If so, it could be there is no way Craig can come back...


    Yeah I think if they don't do one for the 60th I think you are right but if they do capitilise on this like you say too much pressure to put on a newby on such an event.

    Guess we'll see.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,383
    Just watched The Man From U.N.C.L.E. Solid flick and it made me think Cavill may have some potential after all. Might be my third option.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,193
    Just watched The Man From U.N.C.L.E. Solid flick and it made me think Cavill may have some potential after all. Might be my third option.

    Interesting, I just got back from seeing MI:F and find myself stepping back somewhat from considering Cavill. He’s got a great look for the part and while he can be a good actor, too often I can sense that he IS acting. Bond should also have a bit of mischief in his DNA; I’m not getting that from Cavill.
    If I had to choose between the two super heroes right now, I’d have to go with Hemsworth.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    talos7 wrote: »
    Just watched The Man From U.N.C.L.E. Solid flick and it made me think Cavill may have some potential after all. Might be my third option.

    Interesting, I just got back from seeing MI:F and find myself stepping back somewhat from considering Cavill. He’s got a great look for the part and while he can be a good actor, too often I can sense that he IS acting. Bond should also have a bit of mischief in his DNA; I’m not getting that from Cavill.
    If I had to choose between the two super heroes right now, I’d have to go with Hemsworth.

    I’m with you. Cavill is a good looking, physically imposing, block of wood.

    Hemsworth has far more talent and a natural charm— check out Cavill during the Graham Norton interview: he’s stiff, tries to look relaxed, but, the boy is out of his league. He’s sadly, terrible.
  • edited August 2018 Posts: 3,333
    Reading some of the comments here, it does appear that some would rather choose a soft thespian type over an actor that has the right physical attributes and naturally gifted cajones because a) They have yet to prove themselves as a lead in any other movie, or b) They don’t meet their own personal requirements as an actor.

    One name keeps cropping up, James Norton, who I agree has a certain masculine appearance in a 6th Form rugby player kind-of-way, but lacks any external or internal kind of threat. He sounds way too nice and too softly spoken to play Bond. He might send a few ladies all aquiver in his bodice-ripping BBC adaptations but beyond that he hasn’t crossed over into the “man’s man” league of actors. Sure, people can cite McMafia, which did nothing to impress or convince me otherwise, but that’s hardly an endorsement or requirement of their first argument (see category a which is used against Turner but not against Norton). Okay, I’m guilty of category b with regards to Norton, but for a reason: He just comes over to me as a pubescent schoolboy in a man’s body that’s way too soft. I’d rather see the other Norton play Bond... Graham Norton, that is.

    Then we have actors that are far too short because there’s a belief that said actor will bring something edgy to his performance. This would be suitable casting if Eon were looking for an actor to play Napoleon Bonaparte, but this is Bond we’re discussing here and not about the vertically-challenged French emperor. Personally, I don’t want to see a half-pint-sized 007 and most likely nor does anyone else.

    The key and future success of choosing the right actor to play 007 is finding a “man’s man” type of actor. Hiddles and Norton do not fall into this particular category IMO, nor will they ever. Cavill is probably about halfway there with his UNCLE and MI roles, but has yet to convince maybe about one third of you yet. One thing is for sure, we’re never going to be unanimous in our choice of who plays the next 007.

    PS. In fairness to Cavill on the Graham Norton Show, neither does Craig come over as particularly comfortable or engaging @peter in front of a live audience. Some might prefer to choose the term enigmatic, though. Same goes for De Niro, who is probably the worst actor in the world to interview. In spite of this, I’m sure you wouldn’t hold that against him as a performer.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,122
    bondsum wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    I didn't say he was well known though.
    I said he'd had experience playing a lead before Bond.
    True. But will you concede that those 3 movies didn’t prove that Craig could carry the role of James Bond either, especially as they made zero impact at the B.O on both sides of the Atlantic.

    I agree with @bondjames that if they deliver a decent film then the box office will come.

    I would agree those three films don't necessarily prove Craig had Bond potential.
    However Layer Cake you could see little bits of Bond at times.
    However based on screen tests, the casting director obviously saw something in Craig that saw him land the role.
    Having at least some lead experience has too help to some degree.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @bondsum , I agree DeNiro's a terrible interview. What personally bothered me about Cavill on the Norton show was the poseur, trying the cool look, but he really is not engaging/engaged, has nothing to add, and truly seems like an amazing looking, empty suit.
  • edited August 2018 Posts: 1,661
    peter wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Just watched The Man From U.N.C.L.E. Solid flick and it made me think Cavill may have some potential after all. Might be my third option.

    Interesting, I just got back from seeing MI:F and find myself stepping back somewhat from considering Cavill. He’s got a great look for the part and while he can be a good actor, too often I can sense that he IS acting. Bond should also have a bit of mischief in his DNA; I’m not getting that from Cavill.
    If I had to choose between the two super heroes right now, I’d have to go with Hemsworth.

    I’m with you. Cavill is a good looking, physically imposing, block of wood.

    Hemsworth has far more talent and a natural charm— check out Cavill during the Graham Norton interview: he’s stiff, tries to look relaxed, but, the boy is out of his league. He’s sadly, terrible.

    You could argue Timothy Dalton was a bit out of his league. Dalton admitted he was "terrified" to be on tv chat show Wogan.




    I thought Dalton was a cool Bond but he did struggle a bit with the promotional side of the role. The point being is you can find an actor that fits the role - right look, confident, charming etc - but he is a bit unsure of himself in real life interviews. When I watch Dalton as Bond I don't think of Dalton in interviews. If Cavill has the acting chops for the part (open to debate!) then I'm not too bothered if he's stiff in some interviews. Daniel Craig said he'd only return for the money, that interview did him no favours (!) but I'm sure most Bond fans will forget that when Bond 25's gun barrel starts. Finding the ideal chap to replace Craig - one that can handle the role and the media - is a hard ask. If the next guy is a bit media-unsure, it's not a major problem. Most of the actors these days seem confident with the media. Probably due to social media and selfies and instagram!
  • edited June 2022 Posts: 932
    .
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @fanbond123 , I agree with you.

    I will say this about Dalton-- he may not have been a good interview, but the man had substance. He may've been uncomfortable in the spotlight, but he never came off as anything but an intelligent man.

    What worries me about Cavill is he's as empty and vacuous in an interview as he is when he's acting. In M:I I loved his physical attributes-- the man was a monster. But any time he opened his mouth to... speak... his lines... he did so... as if... he was... struggling to... remember... how the... director wanted him... to say it...

    And he had to have had some of the shortest lines in the entire film.

    The first part of M:I he was raising eyebrows as a way to emote (and he's no Roger). In the second part of the film he might as well have
    twirled his mustache
    .

    I'm afraid that's as good as we're going to get with this bloke. And I say this knowing he's actually a really good guy in "real" life (a friend of mine is very good friends with him).
  • edited June 2022 Posts: 932
    .
Sign In or Register to comment.