Who should/could be a Bond actor?

15215225245265271229

Comments

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,196
    I’ve also noted that Hoult is one to watch. A couple of years ago someone mentioned him and I thought they were daft. I strongly opposed him; but he has really grown into his Looks and matured as an actor. The time between 25 and 26 will only enhance his suitability.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    talos7 wrote: »
    I’ve also noted that Hoult is one to watch. A couple of years ago someone mentioned him and I thought they were daft. I strongly opposed him; but he has really grown into his Looks and matured as an actor. The time between 25 and 26 will only enhance his suitability.

    So he just turned 25?
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,196
    talos7 wrote: »
    I’ve also noted that Hoult is one to watch. A couple of years ago someone mentioned him and I thought they were daft. I strongly opposed him; but he has really grown into his Looks and matured as an actor. The time between 25 and 26 will only enhance his suitability.

    So he just turned 25?

    Ah, I poorly worded that , Bond 25 and 26.... or 27, depending on what Daniel does

  • Posts: 4,408
    With all due respect, I don't believe that Idris Elba's 'career narrative' has been shaped around the role of Bond. And to suggest that whoever is cast after Craig will be 'in Elba' s shadow as much as Craig's' is just plain daft (given that, you know, Craig has ACTUALLY been playing Bond since 2006 and is not merely a self-promoting 'wannabe').
    I like Elba as an actor - his portrayal of John Luther is epic - and he seems a good bloke, but he simply is not Bond material.
    My own (personal) view is that Nicholas Hoult would be worth a punt on, as he seems to be maturing into a solid actor with the right look.
    But as I said, that's just my personal view.... 😁

    Elba is a Bond in waiting for the public at large. People expect him to get the role. If he isn't cast, it would just confuse folk. Even Stormzy is rapping about Idris as if he's Bond already.



    It's anticipated that he gets cast, just as much as Pierce was the considered the natural choice after Dalton.

    Elba needs to get the role. He's too perfect not to cast.
  • Posts: 16,149
    If we're really going for actors who will probably be too old by the time B26 begins casting, I hereby nominate the legend known as DENNIS WATERMAN to take over from Craig.
    Not only does he usually play tough guy roles, Eon might even convince him to sing the film's title song, in which he would do an outstanding job.Dennis_Waterman.jpg
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,196
    With all due respect, I don't believe that Idris Elba's 'career narrative' has been shaped around the role of Bond. And to suggest that whoever is cast after Craig will be 'in Elba' s shadow as much as Craig's' is just plain daft (given that, you know, Craig has ACTUALLY been playing Bond since 2006 and is not merely a self-promoting 'wannabe').
    I like Elba as an actor - his portrayal of John Luther is epic - and he seems a good bloke, but he simply is not Bond material.
    My own (personal) view is that Nicholas Hoult would be worth a punt on, as he seems to be maturing into a solid actor with the right look.
    But as I said, that's just my personal view.... 😁

    Elba is a Bond in waiting for the public at large. People expect him to get the role. If he isn't cast, it would just confuse folk. Even Stormzy is rapping about Idris as if he's Bond already.



    It's anticipated that he gets cast, just as much as Pierce was the considered the natural choice after Dalton.

    Elba needs to get the role. He's too perfect not to cast.

    He is profoundly imperfect for the role of James Bond, he has never been considered and will never be cast.
  • edited June 2019 Posts: 6,709
    Nah, here's our next man.

    IMG_8582_2croppedshrunk.jpg

    Henry Golding. What? He's English-Malaysian. His accent is spot on. If Elba can be Bond, why can't Golding? Guy's cool right?

    Who cares who the character is or the way his author wanted him to be? Male? Who cares? Caucasian? Please, who cares? Slim? Nah, make him fat. Give him a long beard and a man bun, ffs. What?! Heterosexual? How dare you. In the very least, lets make him bi, or pansexual. Let's transhumanize him (go watch Years and Years, excellent show, btw).

    And please join the equality politically correct bandwagon, it'll give you a good social curriculum. We're all the same. It's all the same.

    Who cares?

    I'm ranting. But I'm right, and you know it.

    Henry Golding for Bond! There, now give me my PC medal.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,196
    😆
  • edited June 2019 Posts: 6,709
    talos7 wrote: »
    😆

    Someone had to do it ;)

    Now I'll be called a racist, a bigot, a Fleming purist (this one's a classic), an extremist,... And the PC crowd will even earn points by doing so. Burn the witch, get your pitchforks out. One who is not pro Elba is not pro...something, well, pro...so is anti. He's an anti, ffs. What a creep. Old generation Weinstein worshiper, for sure.

    It's soooooo cool to want a black James Bond. Heck, it's even cooler if you're white. And gay. Or none of those and you just want a bloody cause to evade figuratively killing you daddy and mommy, cause this generation just doesn't have the ba**s to do it.

    Sad, sad times, these are. But then again, what the hell do I know? I just studied the human condition for decades. But I tell you one thing, I couldn't have dreamed what we'd become. What a sad, sad species. From bad to worse in two decades.

    Instead of promoting difference as a good thing, we want uniformity. Instead of equal rights, we want equality. We've been warned by dystopians for decades and decades, only to fall for the mistakes they've warned us about.

    Damn it, Bond is a white heterosexual male. He is a written character adapted for cinema. Have some respect for the author. If you don't, please go be a fan of something else. Create a character of your own. Do it yourself. Right?

    But hey, I'm a Fleming purist, that's the kind of fan I am, and that's a bad, bad thing.

    Henry Golding for Bond!

    BTW, not a Henry Cavil fan here. But I'd thought I get this pic from UNCLE here. It's just too cool to waste. But I have to warn you all, it's a picture of a white heterosexual male in his thirties. I know, I know, I apologise to the more sensitive folk. He's the devil. I know. But here, there ya go:

    tumblr_pttilqhxq01rj8djo_500.jpg
  • Posts: 17,744
    Univex wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    😆
    He's the devil. I know. But here, there ya go:

    tumblr_pttilqhxq01rj8djo_500.jpg

    He's a handsome devil, that's what he is. You know, the sort of actor to be considered to play Bond.
  • edited June 2019 Posts: 11,425
    Benny wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I hope I'm wrong, but I think we're in for such a longer gap after B25 it will make the LTK-GE era look like the blink of an eye. Elba, Hiddleston, Turner, etc all will have moved on by then. I think the next Bond actor is probably only about 5 years old at the moment.

    Where do you get this idea @ToTheRight ?
    I see no reason to suggest we'll get an extensive delay after Bond 25.

    It's pretty logical thinking when you look at the gaps between films when recasting. 5 years between LTK and GE. 4 years between DAD and CR. And 4 and 5 year gaps between the last 2 films and B25.

    Regarding Cavill he was an awful actor in his early 20s. Anyone who doubts it should watch the Woody Allen film he was in around then. He was truly abysmal.

    He has improved since then but is still not IMO good enough for Bond. Still quite wooden. Not much on screen charisma.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,196
    He’s got the look but he has an underwhelming screen presence.
    When MI:FO came out there were raves for his performance; when I saw it I was unimpressed; one can always sense that he’s “ acting”
  • Posts: 6,709
    I agree about Cavill's acting.
    I'm a Turner supporter myself. The guy can act. Although, to be fair, after Craig... no one will be a good enough actor, thespian wise.
  • Posts: 17,744
    Not saying they should go for a "lesser" actor or anything, but depending on the direction they go for, the next era might not require the same thespian qualities.
  • edited June 2019 Posts: 6,709
    Not saying they should go for a "lesser" actor or anything, but depending on the direction they go for, the next era might not require the same thespian qualities.

    And that's why I like Turner. A good compromise. A good actor and not very known. Poldark shows his full range as a thespian. He's got quite a few good masks.
  • edited June 2019 Posts: 17,744
    Univex wrote: »
    Not saying they should go for a "lesser" actor or anything, but depending on the direction they go for, the next era might not require the same thespian qualities.

    And that's why I like Turner. A good compromise. A good actor and not very known. Poldark shows his full range as a thespian. He's got quite a few good masks.

    I've only seen a few scenes of Poldark but I have no objections to Turner acting wise, that's for sure. I've mentioned it before, but Luke Evans would be my dream casting. It will never happen though, unfortunately. Turner still got a shot as he's still young enough (depending on the gap between the films).
  • Posts: 6,709
    Univex wrote: »
    Not saying they should go for a "lesser" actor or anything, but depending on the direction they go for, the next era might not require the same thespian qualities.

    And that's why I like Turner. A good compromise. A good actor and not very known. Poldark shows his full range as a thespian. He's got quite a few good masks.

    I've only seen a few scenes of Poldark but I have no objections to Turner acting wise, that's for sure. I've mentioned it before, but Luke Evans would be my dream casting. It will never happen though, unfortunately. Turner still got a shot as he's still young enough (depending on the gap between the films).

    Yes, I see what you mean. I too championed for Evans at some point. Turner has more of a Dalton look to him. But Evans can be quintessential english. Almost a period Bond.

    luke_evans_2769878b.jpg

  • Posts: 17,744
    Univex wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Not saying they should go for a "lesser" actor or anything, but depending on the direction they go for, the next era might not require the same thespian qualities.

    And that's why I like Turner. A good compromise. A good actor and not very known. Poldark shows his full range as a thespian. He's got quite a few good masks.

    I've only seen a few scenes of Poldark but I have no objections to Turner acting wise, that's for sure. I've mentioned it before, but Luke Evans would be my dream casting. It will never happen though, unfortunately. Turner still got a shot as he's still young enough (depending on the gap between the films).

    Yes, I see what you mean. I too championed for Evans at some point. Turner has more of a Dalton look to him. But Evans can be quintessential english. Almost a period Bond.

    luke_evans_2769878b.jpg

    That's what I like about Evans; he's got the look that would fit a period Bond as much as a present day one. He's also not too far away from the image I get when reading the books, which is another thing I like about him. Good actor too.

    The "period look" could be said of Turner too, of course.
  • Posts: 6,709
    Univex wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Not saying they should go for a "lesser" actor or anything, but depending on the direction they go for, the next era might not require the same thespian qualities.

    And that's why I like Turner. A good compromise. A good actor and not very known. Poldark shows his full range as a thespian. He's got quite a few good masks.

    I've only seen a few scenes of Poldark but I have no objections to Turner acting wise, that's for sure. I've mentioned it before, but Luke Evans would be my dream casting. It will never happen though, unfortunately. Turner still got a shot as he's still young enough (depending on the gap between the films).

    Yes, I see what you mean. I too championed for Evans at some point. Turner has more of a Dalton look to him. But Evans can be quintessential english. Almost a period Bond.

    luke_evans_2769878b.jpg

    That's what I like about Evans; he's got the look that would fit a period Bond as much as a present day one. He's also not too far away from the image I get when reading the books, which is another thing I like about him. Good actor too.

    The "period look" could be said of Turner too, of course.

    Indeed. Both would make me a happy fan. Alas, I do think Evan's time has come and gone. Even if in two years he'd be Pierce's age in GE. I think they'll look for younger actors. Which, IMO, is a big mistake. Craig looked older when he started. Bond should be 40ish. Even if each actor just gets to do 3 films in a decade.
  • Posts: 17,744
    Univex wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Not saying they should go for a "lesser" actor or anything, but depending on the direction they go for, the next era might not require the same thespian qualities.

    And that's why I like Turner. A good compromise. A good actor and not very known. Poldark shows his full range as a thespian. He's got quite a few good masks.

    I've only seen a few scenes of Poldark but I have no objections to Turner acting wise, that's for sure. I've mentioned it before, but Luke Evans would be my dream casting. It will never happen though, unfortunately. Turner still got a shot as he's still young enough (depending on the gap between the films).

    Yes, I see what you mean. I too championed for Evans at some point. Turner has more of a Dalton look to him. But Evans can be quintessential english. Almost a period Bond.

    luke_evans_2769878b.jpg

    That's what I like about Evans; he's got the look that would fit a period Bond as much as a present day one. He's also not too far away from the image I get when reading the books, which is another thing I like about him. Good actor too.

    The "period look" could be said of Turner too, of course.

    Indeed. Both would make me a happy fan. Alas, I do think Evan's time has come and gone. Even if in two years he'd be Pierce's age in GE. I think they'll look for younger actors. Which, IMO, is a big mistake. Craig looked older when he started. Bond should be 40ish. Even if each actor just gets to do 3 films in a decade.

    Indeed, I think they will be looking at actors in the 32/33-40-ish age group, depending on looks. Personally, I wouldn't be against the next guy only getting 3 or 4 films. It would be enough films to make an impression, and not long enough to have the role too long.
  • Posts: 678
    I like Golding for Bond. Sorry Univex.

  • Posts: 12,526
    I have no idea who it will be? But it better be a white male as Fleming created. Let's stop changing history? Well established history at that. What's next? Are people gonna demand the next Shaft be a white man or a woman? How about Mad Max becomes Mad Maxine?!!!! Tell you what how about Jack Ryan become Janet Ryan or Jason Bourne become Jeanette Bourne or change their racial background? Nope? Don't hear any of that do we? So let it go!!!!! Rant over!
  • edited July 2019 Posts: 11,425
    Fleming didn't envisage Bond as Scottish either but look what happened. The whole point of Shaft is that he's black. Is the whole point of Bond that he's white or is the character bigger than that?
  • Posts: 12,526
    Or M being a woman......etc. However Bond is who he is as PWB also states. Yeah you can tinker around with other characters and modernise them but not Bond.
  • edited July 2019 Posts: 11,425
    What were Cubby and Harry doing then when they cast a working class Scot as Bond? Tinkering surely. It took a couple of self made immigrant Americans to think outside that box. Connery was definitely not how Fleming envisaged Bond but in the end he came round to Sean. You need to be open to change. If not it'll come anyway and the world will leave you behind.

    I'm not hung up on a black Bond. But if the best actor happens to be black it would be a crying shame if EON simply ignored him.
  • Posts: 12,526
    I guess we just have to respect each others position? But after 25 movies almost, 27 unofficially, I think we have a red line of who Bond is to a certain degree.
  • Posts: 11,425
    He has to be played by a Scottish, southern (or northern) English, (or partly Welsh) Anglo Saxon Protestant. But Irish Catholics are also welcome. And then there was that other fella.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,247
    Getafix wrote: »
    What were Cubby and Harry doing then when they cast a working class Scot as Bond? Tinkering surely. It took a couple of self made immigrant Americans to think outside that box. Connery was definitely not how Fleming envisaged Bond but in the end he came round to Sean. You need to be open to change. If not it'll come anyway and the world will leave you behind.

    I'm not hung up on a black Bond. But if the best actor happens to be black it would be a crying shame if EON simply ignored him.

    Cubby and Harry went with the 'blunt instrument'discription Fleming himself had given. The fact that they thought Connery could be molded into the high-class spy Fleming envisaged says something about thm and the talent they saw in Connery. The whole idea of acting, after all, is that your personal background has nothing to do with the character you portray. In the end they didn't hire Terence Young for nothing, he brought the class to teach Connery how to behave.

    All in all Cubby and Harry stuck exactly with Fleming's description. Fleming only altered the background of Bond in honour of what they'd brought to the screen, and that certainly wasn't a 'working class Scot'. All in all, I disagree with your assessment. The didn't think outside the box, they did what filmproducers do: create make-believe.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Few English producers would have thought to cast a working class Scot in that role. It took people from outside the world of English class snobbery to see Connery's potential.
  • Posts: 6,709


    Ethnicity is NOT Nationality, ffs. Are we discussing this and confusing these two? Really? Nationality is the relationship between a person and the political state to which he or she belongs or is affiliated. Ethnicity is the identification of a person with a particular racial, cultural, or religious group.

    One thing is to tinker, as you say, with nationality. Having a Scot play an English is like having a Portuguese actor play a Spanish role. Or a French actor play an Italian. Other thing completely different is to tinker with the ethnicity of a character. A black person playing a white character is just ludicrous.

    You can fake an accent, but you can't fake an ethnicity, unless you're RDJ in Tropic Thunder ;) And before you say Connery didn't fake the accent. He never could, in any role. It's his fault as an actor. He played a Russian Submarine Captain with a Scots accent :)

    Stop confusing things. Bond is a white male. He's other things that can be faked. But you can't fake that.
Sign In or Register to comment.