Who should/could be a Bond actor?

15405415435455461230

Comments

  • Posts: 19,339
    Benny wrote: »
    https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/1185605/James-Bond-replace-Daniel-Craig-Odds-Fassbender-Hiddleston-Elba-Madden-007-bookie-bet

    Massive pinch of salt, but still a worthy choice.
    If they ramped up the release schedule, then Fassbender could still be viable.

    Fassbender was always my first choice to replace Craig, but alas, time is against his casting unfortunately.

    Agreed,its such a shame.

    If we knew Craig definitely WASNT coming back,back in 2015,then Fassbender still could have made about 3 films imo.
  • Posts: 348
    Getafix wrote: »
    IF Nolan directs a Bond film in the NEAR future, I think he would push hard for Robert Pattinson.

    Some big ifs there.

    Yeah because he's cast him once. I can see no other outcome.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,996
    M_Blaise wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    IF Nolan directs a Bond film in the NEAR future, I think he would push hard for Robert Pattinson.

    Some big ifs there.

    Yeah because he's cast him once. I can see no other outcome.

    What Nolan film was Pattinson in?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,963
    M_Blaise wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    IF Nolan directs a Bond film in the NEAR future, I think he would push hard for Robert Pattinson.

    Some big ifs there.

    Yeah because he's cast him once. I can see no other outcome.

    What Nolan film was Pattinson in?

    He's in his upcoming film, Tenet.
  • Posts: 6,709
    M_Blaise wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    IF Nolan directs a Bond film in the NEAR future, I think he would push hard for Robert Pattinson.

    Some big ifs there.

    Yeah because he's cast him once. I can see no other outcome.

    What Nolan film was Pattinson in?

    He was the thirteen year old kid walking in the background in Memento.

    (just kidding)
  • Posts: 12,526
    Just never seen Pattinson as Bond.
  • Posts: 6,709
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Just never seen Pattinson as Bond.

    Gotta say, me neither.
  • edited October 2019 Posts: 12,837
    I don't think I've actually seen him in anything that I can remember, but I know he's meant to be a really good actor and he's got a great broody sort of look to him, I could see him as a Dalton type Bond.

    Won't happen now that he's Batman but he's the sort of actor we should expect imo. Someone a bit edgy and different. Those expecting the likes of Henry Cavill will be disappointed I think.

    And to those above saying he could do a sixth, I hope not. I love Craig but I think it really is time for a change after NTTD. Change is what keeps the series going and he has been Bond for nearly 14 years. Any longer and things really will start to feel stale imo.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,132
    Agree with all you've said @thelivingroyale as much as I'd be with aokay sixth Craig Bond, I think after all the publicity of NTTD being Craig's last, it could have a negative effect if he came back one last time. I think the general audience would grow tired of DC Bond.
    After NTTD, I think it's time for a new actor in the lead role.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,203
    If Daniel has told Barbara that this is absolutely his last film, I think the vetting of candidates has already begun, even if informally.
  • talos7 wrote: »
    If Daniel has told Barbara that this is absolutely his last film, I think the vetting of candidates has already begun, even if informally.

    I don't think they'll be thinking about it right now, because they seem to take things one film at a time. But I do think the rumours of actors being considered and even screentested after SP might have had a glimmer of truth to them. It took Craig a very long time to say he was doing a fifth, which I don't think would have been the case if he knew from the start he was doing one. I think he genuinely hadn't made his mind up yet during that period. And I'm sure he was still EON's top choice, but I bet they did start to shop around a bit just in case he decided he was done.

    All that's a bit redundant now though because a lot can change over a few years. An actor they may have really liked in 2016 and thought of as a good fallback if Craig said no might have been snapped up to do some other franchise by now, or might be too old, etc. They will be back to square one again once Craig's gone.
  • Posts: 11,425
    We can't rule anything out. DC has come to love being Bond so I can see him wanting to do another, esp if NTTD does well at the BO.


  • Getafix wrote: »
    We can't rule anything out. DC has come to love being Bond so I can see him wanting to do another, esp if NTTD does well at the BO.


    I'm sure Barbara will be trying to persuade him after all is finished with NTTD.
  • Calling it now, Harris Dickinson will be the next Bond.....

    MV5BMjQxMjM2MGUtMTMwMy00MTQ4LWFhODMtYTNkNTFhMTNlNTdiXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjQwMDg0Ng@@._V1_UY1200_CR326,0,630,1200_AL_.jpg

    kingsman1-5d28.png?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=644%2C347&ssl=1

    4599378-6217011-image-a-15_1538095341448.jpg
  • Daniel Craig is starting to look more like James Bond's grandfather than James Bond himself. Im a huge Craig fan but even with NTTD he's probably paste time for him to move on. With that said I think there are some underrated candidates out there. Im surprised Tom Cullen (who has been mentioned here) isn't talked about more. Another name I ll add to that list is Rupert Friend. I know he was in Hitman but his work on Homeland shows he could be a Daltonish Bond. Aidan Turner is my current favorite for the role but I think there are some others that should get more talk.
  • manovermanover uk
    Posts: 170
    I think it will be jack lowden
    Oh dear no regards to harris dickinson.
  • Posts: 6,709
    Harris Dickinson could be Fleming, though. But not Bond, IMO.
  • I'm going to give an "honourable mention" mostly because he's probably too old.
    I recently watched The Death Of Stalin and I thought Jason Isaac showed a lot of potential to be a very good Bond.
  • edited October 2019 Posts: 3,327
    united1878 wrote: »
    I'm going to give an "honourable mention" mostly because he's probably too old.
    I recently watched The Death Of Stalin and I thought Jason Isaac showed a lot of potential to be a very good Bond.

    He would have been brilliant as Bond. Reminds me a lot of Dalton, but he's sadly too old now.

    Eon need to cast an actor who 100% resembles Bond from the novels - dark hair, tall, blue eyes. Cillian Murphy may be a good shout. He has the acting chops and looks of a Dalton-type, yet has the charisma and toughness that exuded Connery and Craig too. Peaky Blinders proves he can play the tough guy and carry the lead.

    022bd71fc82b109c77ac3f42dce954e2-1564052342.jpg?crop=0.845xw:0.677xh;0.0935xw,0.0245xh&resize=980:*

  • Posts: 11,425
    Cillian Murphy is a good actor but too odd looking.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Getafix wrote: »
    Cillian Murphy is a good actor but too odd looking.

    You could say the same about Craig.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Nah. Murphy just looks creepy/strange. Which is good of course in the right role.
  • edited October 2019 Posts: 3,327
    Getafix wrote: »
    Nah. Murphy just looks creepy/strange. Which is good of course in the right role.

    I think giving him the right hair style and clothes, he would be perfect. I always pictured the Fleming Bond to be slightly unusual looking, yet still handsome. The cruel description Fleming gave Bond is embodied by Cillian - to me anyway.

    f0f024f0-41a5-11e9-9b8d-cdad32b65dd5_800_420.png
  • Posts: 9,846
    I like cillian to be honest
  • Posts: 19,339
    How old is Cillian ?
  • Posts: 17,753
    barryt007 wrote: »
    How old is Cillian ?

    43. Too old to be a likely candidate at this point.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Oooh I didn't know he was that old.
    No,it wont be him,they will aim for younger for sure.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I also don't believe an actor like Aidan Turner would want to play a lighter Bond, most actors looking to play this role have been turned onto it because Daniel Craig showed the potential the character has to be much more than suave, spy with little depth.

    It will be sometime before Bond takes a step backwards, expect the character to evolve not digress.
    I couldn't disagree more with that last sentence. I don't think that's a step backwards at all. It's a step sideways. The character of Bond can be compelling and fulfilling to watch purely on account of his confidence, intelligence, resourcefulness and charm, without the necessity of profound psychological depth. His deeper thoughts and emotions --about himself, his profession and others-- can be kept as an exquisitely unsolvable mystery, only to be alluded to with the subtlest of touches on certain occasions, such as when a character like Kerim Bey or Aki dies.

    We've had the Connery, Moore and Brosnan eras mostly featuring that type of characterization, and the Lazenby, Dalton and Craig eras generally leaning toward the other type, with the Craig era being no doubt more interested than any other in understanding what drives Bond as a person. (Even if, as you say, the Dalton era was not that far removed from the Moore era in some respects, the character still exhibited much greater depth than in the Roger era, by virtue of both Dalton's acting and certain aspects of the scripts.) My point is that both takes on the role are equally valid, and one isn't inherently superior to the other. Personally, I find both to be enjoyable.

    Also, I don't think the potential of Bond as a character, in the sense you're referring to, is as much as you think. There is a limitation. We can come to understand something about who he is and why he is the way he is --both through learning about his past and, more importantly, witnessing his reactions to new situations--, but we shouldn't ever feel like we've "cracked the code" on him. If that happens, the appeal of the character will dissipate, and the fantasy aspect of the films, and Bond himself, will turn into banality. He should always be a mystery to some extent, a dull man to whom exciting things happen. And the general approach to a deeper characterization of Bond shouldn't be about visiting his childhood home or learning about his foster brother, but about seeing him react to the death of a loved one he met in a mission, or considering the possibility of having a life outside the secret service. Things that arise naturally and organically out of his job, and the formula of the films.
  • Posts: 19,339
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I also don't believe an actor like Aidan Turner would want to play a lighter Bond, most actors looking to play this role have been turned onto it because Daniel Craig showed the potential the character has to be much more than suave, spy with little depth.

    It will be sometime before Bond takes a step backwards, expect the character to evolve not digress.
    I couldn't disagree more with that last sentence. I don't think that's a step backwards at all. It's a step sideways. The character of Bond can be compelling and fulfilling to watch purely on account of his confidence, intelligence, resourcefulness and charm, without the necessity of profound psychological depth. His deeper thoughts and emotions --about himself, his profession and others-- can be kept as an exquisitely unsolvable mystery, only to be alluded to with the subtlest of touches on certain occasions, such as when a character like Kerim Bey or Aki dies.

    We've had the Connery, Moore and Brosnan eras mostly featuring that type of characterization, and the Lazenby, Dalton and Craig eras generally leaning toward the other type, with the Craig era being no doubt more interested than any other in understanding what drives Bond as a person. (Even if, as you say, the Dalton era was not that far removed from the Moore era in some respects, the character still exhibited much greater depth than in the Roger era, by virtue of both Dalton's acting and certain aspects of the scripts.) My point is that both takes on the role are equally valid, and one isn't inherently superior to the other. Personally, I find both to be enjoyable.

    Also, I don't think the potential of Bond as a character, in the sense you're referring to, is as much as you think. There is a limitation. We can come to understand something about who he is and why he is the way he is --both through learning about his past and, more importantly, witnessing his reactions to new situations--, but we shouldn't ever feel like we've "cracked the code" on him. If that happens, the appeal of the character will dissipate, and the fantasy aspect of the films, and Bond himself, will turn into banality. He should always be a mystery to some extent, a dull man to whom exciting things happen. And the general approach to a deeper characterization of Bond shouldn't be about visiting his childhood home or learning about his foster brother, but about seeing him react to the death of a loved one he met in a mission, or considering the possibility of having a life outside the secret service. Things that arise naturally and organically out of his job, and the formula of the films.

    +1
    I think we have our 'post of the day' right there.
    Totally agree with EVERYTHING.
Sign In or Register to comment.