Who should/could be a Bond actor?

Getafix

Cavill and to an extent Turner look like fanboy ideas of what Bond looks like. I don't see EON venturing down this Avenue again.

Roadphill

Getafix wrote: »

Roadphill wrote: »

Cavill has the classic Bond look, to a tee. Plus in a couple of fight scenes, not least the latest M:I film, he looks like he hits like a Freight Train. He's also improved a lot as an actor.
My only concern would be his huge build, which he would definitely need to trim down a bit. Other than that, the guy absolutely screams Bond.

Ironic as wasn't it Campbell who told him he needed to lose a bit of weight during the CR auditions?

Strange. Then again, I think he got himself in top condition for Man Of Steel, so I am guessing he wasn't anywhere near that level for his CR audition.

Roadphill

thelivingroyale wrote: »

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

Is Henry Cavill basically 2019's Pierce Brosnan?

I don't meant that in the sense that they were both once actors who came close to playing Bond (1986 and 2005, respectively). But in terms of looks and style.

They are both drop-dead gorgeous, they both have a certain air of mystery to them. If Cavill was to play Bond, he'd probably have a hint of Craig's brutality, Moore's charm and Connery's sexual charisma. Which is another way of saying he'd be 'Pierce Brosnan's Bond.'

They have that 'movie star' quality to them, despite being middling actors at best. People used to say that Pierce was born to play Bond and Cavill seems not dissimilar.

I think Cavill would be Pierce Brosnan 2.0.



Personally, I've grown acclimatised to the more dangerous Bond

I don't see it personally. I've seen Cavill in a couple of things now (UNCLE, Mission Impossible) and to me he just doesn't have that movie star quality that Brosnan had in spades.

Brosnan isn't an amazing actor, that's true. I think he is much better than people give him credit for, he was great in The Tailor of Panama, The Matador and The Foreigner, but he does have a tendency to overact at times if he doesn't have a good director to reign him in. But he is capable of great performances in the right circumstances. And like you said, he has a movie star quality about him. Charisma and presence. The guy just oozes cool, and he can carry a film very well. Look at DAD. A mess of a film in a lot of ways but especially tonally. We go from hard edged North Korea stuff to Roger Moore meets XxX from one scene to another. But Brosnan carries it effortlessly. He stops the film from being unwatchable and makes it feel weirdly consistent.

Cavill imo doesn't have that presence. He can't carry a film like Brosnan. He looks the part but he's not a movie star. He's a model. A block of wood. And like I said, Brosnan is capable of genuine greatness under the right circumstances/director. Is Cavill? I haven't seen him in anything that suggests he is.

I can see why you made the comparison but Brosnan is just in another league completely to Cavill imo. I'm not against another Brosnan type Bond at all (although I don't think it will happen while BB is in charge, those days are gone). I loved him as Bond. But Cavill is not Brosnan and I think it would show. I think he'd be a terrible choice. Thank god he doesn't seem like Barbara's type at all (I don't even think she'd have casted Pierce, he was Cubby's final Bond really). I'm expecting another Craig type personally. Someone a bit more edgy and dangerous.

I think it says something about Cavill that there have been a couple of attempts at building a franchise around him and both failed. He was Superman, one of the most iconic superhero characters, in an age where any old superhero crap makes a billion dollars. And it didn't work. He had his own Bond esque vehicle with UNCLE. And it didn't work. And now he's gone back to TV (I know, the gap between them has closed a lot, but still, you'd think a big franchise actor who's openly said he's in it for the money wouldn't have to take a lower paying TV gig). Sure, the films themselves weren't up to much. But a movie star can turn terrible films into money makers. Look at Brosnan. Massive as Bond, heralded as the best since Connery, even when he had some seriously dodgy scripts to work with. As well as being bad in the role, I think Cavill could also be bad for the success of the series. He just doesn't seem to have "it" imo. Keep him well away from Bond please.

I think that's a bit unfair. The Superman stuff was destined to fail, as the attempt at creating the DC Universe in the Marvel vein was poorly executed on every level. And the MFU film looked great, but had no substance. Neither of those things can be blamed on Henry.

I really don't see what's wrong with going for a 'movie star' type, rather than a genuine thesp. It worked perfectly well with Connery, Moore and Brosnan. The only super serious actors that have portrayed Bond are Dalton and Craig.

As long as the film around Henry is good, he would make an excellent Bond.

thelivingroyale

Roadphill wrote: »

thelivingroyale wrote: »

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

Is Henry Cavill basically 2019's Pierce Brosnan?

I don't meant that in the sense that they were both once actors who came close to playing Bond (1986 and 2005, respectively). But in terms of looks and style.

They are both drop-dead gorgeous, they both have a certain air of mystery to them. If Cavill was to play Bond, he'd probably have a hint of Craig's brutality, Moore's charm and Connery's sexual charisma. Which is another way of saying he'd be 'Pierce Brosnan's Bond.'

They have that 'movie star' quality to them, despite being middling actors at best. People used to say that Pierce was born to play Bond and Cavill seems not dissimilar.

I think Cavill would be Pierce Brosnan 2.0.



Personally, I've grown acclimatised to the more dangerous Bond

I don't see it personally. I've seen Cavill in a couple of things now (UNCLE, Mission Impossible) and to me he just doesn't have that movie star quality that Brosnan had in spades.

Brosnan isn't an amazing actor, that's true. I think he is much better than people give him credit for, he was great in The Tailor of Panama, The Matador and The Foreigner, but he does have a tendency to overact at times if he doesn't have a good director to reign him in. But he is capable of great performances in the right circumstances. And like you said, he has a movie star quality about him. Charisma and presence. The guy just oozes cool, and he can carry a film very well. Look at DAD. A mess of a film in a lot of ways but especially tonally. We go from hard edged North Korea stuff to Roger Moore meets XxX from one scene to another. But Brosnan carries it effortlessly. He stops the film from being unwatchable and makes it feel weirdly consistent.

Cavill imo doesn't have that presence. He can't carry a film like Brosnan. He looks the part but he's not a movie star. He's a model. A block of wood. And like I said, Brosnan is capable of genuine greatness under the right circumstances/director. Is Cavill? I haven't seen him in anything that suggests he is.

I can see why you made the comparison but Brosnan is just in another league completely to Cavill imo. I'm not against another Brosnan type Bond at all (although I don't think it will happen while BB is in charge, those days are gone). I loved him as Bond. But Cavill is not Brosnan and I think it would show. I think he'd be a terrible choice. Thank god he doesn't seem like Barbara's type at all (I don't even think she'd have casted Pierce, he was Cubby's final Bond really). I'm expecting another Craig type personally. Someone a bit more edgy and dangerous.

I think it says something about Cavill that there have been a couple of attempts at building a franchise around him and both failed. He was Superman, one of the most iconic superhero characters, in an age where any old superhero crap makes a billion dollars. And it didn't work. He had his own Bond esque vehicle with UNCLE. And it didn't work. And now he's gone back to TV (I know, the gap between them has closed a lot, but still, you'd think a big franchise actor who's openly said he's in it for the money wouldn't have to take a lower paying TV gig). Sure, the films themselves weren't up to much. But a movie star can turn terrible films into money makers. Look at Brosnan. Massive as Bond, heralded as the best since Connery, even when he had some seriously dodgy scripts to work with. As well as being bad in the role, I think Cavill could also be bad for the success of the series. He just doesn't seem to have "it" imo. Keep him well away from Bond please.

I think that's a bit unfair. The Superman stuff was destined to fail, as the attempt at creating the DC Universe in the Marvel vein was poorly executed on every level. And the MFU film looked great, but had no substance. Neither of those things can be blamed on Henry.

I really don't see what's wrong with going for a 'movie star' type, rather than a genuine thesp. It worked perfectly well with Connery, Moore and Brosnan. The only super serious actors that have portrayed Bond are Dalton and Craig.

As long as the film around Henry is good, he would make an excellent Bond.

My issue is I don't think he is a movie star type, and I think his lack of success in that area (despite pretty much exclusively doing blockbusters and saying he's in acting for the money) proves that. He doesn't have the acting ability of Dalton and Craig or the charisma and presence of Brosnan and Moore imo. He has nothing except the look.

Bond should be able to carry a bad film imo. Like Moore in MR or Brosnan in DAD. That's real movie star ability. Making the audience go along for the ride no matter what.

I'm not convinced Cavill has what it takes to do that nor the acting ability to pull off a Craig type film. I think he'd be just about passable in a solid, bog standard formula Bond film. Try to do anything more interesting than that and he'd be out of his depth. Give him a bad script and the whole thing would fall apart. All I can picture him managing is doing an okay job in a middling Bond film. Can't see him elevating a bad one or pulling off a really good one. I reckon we can do a lot better than that, especially now Craig had raised the bar in terms of acting ability.

My attitude is always "wait and see how they'll do before judging" but if they cast Cavill I'd find it genuinely hard to do that. I really hate the idea of him as Bond. The only way I can see it happening is if Disney or someone took over. While EON are still running things I don't think he'll be in the running.

JeremyBondon

Disney? God forbid. If Disney would take over then Bond would be a dead man, a relic of the past indeed.

Cavill looks like the next Magic Mike, that about sums it up. Turner on the other hand has the combined rare ingredients only the likes of Connery et al had. A true Bond connaisseur appreciates that.

Univex

This "they look too much like a fanboy's fantasy" argument is, IMO, a nonsense. Bond has a template, in which all, yes all, actors who have played him have fitted, with some room (not much) for manoeuvrability. Who can't see some Connery in Craig? I know I always did. Who can't see some Moore in Pierce? I always did. Connery, Lazenby and Craig moved like big cats, Moore and Brosnan were the stiff dancers, Dalton was a though cookie. All were Bond. I see Bond in all of them. They're all fanboy's fantasies of Bond, as far as I'm concerned. And so should be the next one. I'm not advocating for this one or that one, but I do think we all should see some recognisable traits in him. And I reckon that's what the producers will be looking for. Cavill was brilliant in UNCLE. Turner has the acting chops and intensity. Many others will have many things we're not even taking into account because we're not there in the auditions. Cavill's audition was said to be terrific, btw. I'd like to see Turner do that FRWL audition scene. Or/and I'd love to be surprised again like I was with Craig.

That being said, in Babs I trust.

Getafix

thelivingroyale wrote: »

Roadphill wrote: »

thelivingroyale wrote: »

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

Is Henry Cavill basically 2019's Pierce Brosnan?

I don't meant that in the sense that they were both once actors who came close to playing Bond (1986 and 2005, respectively). But in terms of looks and style.

They are both drop-dead gorgeous, they both have a certain air of mystery to them. If Cavill was to play Bond, he'd probably have a hint of Craig's brutality, Moore's charm and Connery's sexual charisma. Which is another way of saying he'd be 'Pierce Brosnan's Bond.'

They have that 'movie star' quality to them, despite being middling actors at best. People used to say that Pierce was born to play Bond and Cavill seems not dissimilar.

I think Cavill would be Pierce Brosnan 2.0.



Personally, I've grown acclimatised to the more dangerous Bond

I don't see it personally. I've seen Cavill in a couple of things now (UNCLE, Mission Impossible) and to me he just doesn't have that movie star quality that Brosnan had in spades.

Brosnan isn't an amazing actor, that's true. I think he is much better than people give him credit for, he was great in The Tailor of Panama, The Matador and The Foreigner, but he does have a tendency to overact at times if he doesn't have a good director to reign him in. But he is capable of great performances in the right circumstances. And like you said, he has a movie star quality about him. Charisma and presence. The guy just oozes cool, and he can carry a film very well. Look at DAD. A mess of a film in a lot of ways but especially tonally. We go from hard edged North Korea stuff to Roger Moore meets XxX from one scene to another. But Brosnan carries it effortlessly. He stops the film from being unwatchable and makes it feel weirdly consistent.

Cavill imo doesn't have that presence. He can't carry a film like Brosnan. He looks the part but he's not a movie star. He's a model. A block of wood. And like I said, Brosnan is capable of genuine greatness under the right circumstances/director. Is Cavill? I haven't seen him in anything that suggests he is.

I can see why you made the comparison but Brosnan is just in another league completely to Cavill imo. I'm not against another Brosnan type Bond at all (although I don't think it will happen while BB is in charge, those days are gone). I loved him as Bond. But Cavill is not Brosnan and I think it would show. I think he'd be a terrible choice. Thank god he doesn't seem like Barbara's type at all (I don't even think she'd have casted Pierce, he was Cubby's final Bond really). I'm expecting another Craig type personally. Someone a bit more edgy and dangerous.

I think it says something about Cavill that there have been a couple of attempts at building a franchise around him and both failed. He was Superman, one of the most iconic superhero characters, in an age where any old superhero crap makes a billion dollars. And it didn't work. He had his own Bond esque vehicle with UNCLE. And it didn't work. And now he's gone back to TV (I know, the gap between them has closed a lot, but still, you'd think a big franchise actor who's openly said he's in it for the money wouldn't have to take a lower paying TV gig). Sure, the films themselves weren't up to much. But a movie star can turn terrible films into money makers. Look at Brosnan. Massive as Bond, heralded as the best since Connery, even when he had some seriously dodgy scripts to work with. As well as being bad in the role, I think Cavill could also be bad for the success of the series. He just doesn't seem to have "it" imo. Keep him well away from Bond please.

I think that's a bit unfair. The Superman stuff was destined to fail, as the attempt at creating the DC Universe in the Marvel vein was poorly executed on every level. And the MFU film looked great, but had no substance. Neither of those things can be blamed on Henry.

I really don't see what's wrong with going for a 'movie star' type, rather than a genuine thesp. It worked perfectly well with Connery, Moore and Brosnan. The only super serious actors that have portrayed Bond are Dalton and Craig.

As long as the film around Henry is good, he would make an excellent Bond.

My issue is I don't think he is a movie star type, and I think his lack of success in that area (despite pretty much exclusively doing blockbusters and saying he's in acting for the money) proves that. He doesn't have the acting ability of Dalton and Craig or the charisma and presence of Brosnan and Moore imo. He has nothing except the look.

Bond should be able to carry a bad film imo. Like Moore in MR or Brosnan in DAD. That's real movie star ability. Making the audience go along for the ride no matter what.

I'm not convinced Cavill has what it takes to do that nor the acting ability to pull off a Craig type film. I think he'd be just about passable in a solid, bog standard formula Bond film. Try to do anything more interesting than that and he'd be out of his depth. Give him a bad script and the whole thing would fall apart. All I can picture him managing is doing an okay job in a middling Bond film. Can't see him elevating a bad one or pulling off a really good one. I reckon we can do a lot better than that, especially now Craig had raised the bar in terms of acting ability.

My attitude is always "wait and see how they'll do before judging" but if they cast Cavill I'd find it genuinely hard to do that. I really hate the idea of him as Bond. The only way I can see it happening is if Disney or someone took over. While EON are still running things I don't think he'll be in the running.

That's being very generous to Brosnan.
Anyway I basically agree. Not sure Cavill has the acting chops or charisma.
That said, he's a lot better than he used to be although still pretty wooden.

DrClatterhand

I wish Jack O'Connell wasn't so short. He has presence, an air of danger and can act very well. There's a swagger about him that's rare these days. There's something a bit Oliver Reed/Richard Burton about him. That's the kind of edge I want in the next Bond actor. Cavill has zero charisma, presence and acting talent. He may look the part, but he's so damned mediocre. I'd be gutted if he was chosen. Moot point really, as he won't be. Babs will choose wisely again.

Ludovico

Univex wrote: »

Richard Madden - 33 (1,77m)
Henry Cavill - 36 (1,85m)
Aidan Turner - 36 (1,83m)
Tom Mison - 37 (1,85m)
Dan Stevens - 37 (1,83m)
Aaron Taylor-Johnson - 29 (1,80m)
Tom Barnes - 38 (1,85m)
Harry Lloyd - 36 (1,80m)
Matthew McNulty - 37 (1,78m)
Tom Hughes - 34 (1,85m)
Tom Hiddleston - 38 (1,88m)
Jack Huston - 37 (1,82m)
Theo James - 34 (1,83m)

Just thought I'd organise this. if someone remembers anyone else, please inflate the list.

BTW, looking at that list, I think they'll all be too old. Maybe we should be looking for people in their late 20s.

Based on age and eight alone, I'd say only Aaron Taylor-Johnson would be suitable. On these two criterias alone mind you. I know nothing of his acting skills, screen presence and charisma and from the pictures I saw of him (always with a beard it seems), I'm really, really, really not convinced.

talos7

Whew, Aaron Taylor-Johnson ? If Cavill is wooden then Taylor is petrified wood. 😏

Ludovico

talos7 wrote: »

Whew, Aaron Taylor-Johnson ? If Cavill is wooden then Taylor is petrified wood. 😏

Like I said, I know zilch about the guy. He's from High Wycombe apparently and I'm not sure it's a hood thing.

Thunderfinger

Getafix wrote: »

thelivingroyale wrote: »

Roadphill wrote: »

thelivingroyale wrote: »

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

Is Henry Cavill basically 2019's Pierce Brosnan?

I don't meant that in the sense that they were both once actors who came close to playing Bond (1986 and 2005, respectively). But in terms of looks and style.

They are both drop-dead gorgeous, they both have a certain air of mystery to them. If Cavill was to play Bond, he'd probably have a hint of Craig's brutality, Moore's charm and Connery's sexual charisma. Which is another way of saying he'd be 'Pierce Brosnan's Bond.'

They have that 'movie star' quality to them, despite being middling actors at best. People used to say that Pierce was born to play Bond and Cavill seems not dissimilar.

I think Cavill would be Pierce Brosnan 2.0.



Personally, I've grown acclimatised to the more dangerous Bond

I don't see it personally. I've seen Cavill in a couple of things now (UNCLE, Mission Impossible) and to me he just doesn't have that movie star quality that Brosnan had in spades.

Brosnan isn't an amazing actor, that's true. I think he is much better than people give him credit for, he was great in The Tailor of Panama, The Matador and The Foreigner, but he does have a tendency to overact at times if he doesn't have a good director to reign him in. But he is capable of great performances in the right circumstances. And like you said, he has a movie star quality about him. Charisma and presence. The guy just oozes cool, and he can carry a film very well. Look at DAD. A mess of a film in a lot of ways but especially tonally. We go from hard edged North Korea stuff to Roger Moore meets XxX from one scene to another. But Brosnan carries it effortlessly. He stops the film from being unwatchable and makes it feel weirdly consistent.

Cavill imo doesn't have that presence. He can't carry a film like Brosnan. He looks the part but he's not a movie star. He's a model. A block of wood. And like I said, Brosnan is capable of genuine greatness under the right circumstances/director. Is Cavill? I haven't seen him in anything that suggests he is.

I can see why you made the comparison but Brosnan is just in another league completely to Cavill imo. I'm not against another Brosnan type Bond at all (although I don't think it will happen while BB is in charge, those days are gone). I loved him as Bond. But Cavill is not Brosnan and I think it would show. I think he'd be a terrible choice. Thank god he doesn't seem like Barbara's type at all (I don't even think she'd have casted Pierce, he was Cubby's final Bond really). I'm expecting another Craig type personally. Someone a bit more edgy and dangerous.

I think it says something about Cavill that there have been a couple of attempts at building a franchise around him and both failed. He was Superman, one of the most iconic superhero characters, in an age where any old superhero crap makes a billion dollars. And it didn't work. He had his own Bond esque vehicle with UNCLE. And it didn't work. And now he's gone back to TV (I know, the gap between them has closed a lot, but still, you'd think a big franchise actor who's openly said he's in it for the money wouldn't have to take a lower paying TV gig). Sure, the films themselves weren't up to much. But a movie star can turn terrible films into money makers. Look at Brosnan. Massive as Bond, heralded as the best since Connery, even when he had some seriously dodgy scripts to work with. As well as being bad in the role, I think Cavill could also be bad for the success of the series. He just doesn't seem to have "it" imo. Keep him well away from Bond please.

I think that's a bit unfair. The Superman stuff was destined to fail, as the attempt at creating the DC Universe in the Marvel vein was poorly executed on every level. And the MFU film looked great, but had no substance. Neither of those things can be blamed on Henry.

I really don't see what's wrong with going for a 'movie star' type, rather than a genuine thesp. It worked perfectly well with Connery, Moore and Brosnan. The only super serious actors that have portrayed Bond are Dalton and Craig.

As long as the film around Henry is good, he would make an excellent Bond.

My issue is I don't think he is a movie star type, and I think his lack of success in that area (despite pretty much exclusively doing blockbusters and saying he's in acting for the money) proves that. He doesn't have the acting ability of Dalton and Craig or the charisma and presence of Brosnan and Moore imo. He has nothing except the look.

Bond should be able to carry a bad film imo. Like Moore in MR or Brosnan in DAD. That's real movie star ability. Making the audience go along for the ride no matter what.

I'm not convinced Cavill has what it takes to do that nor the acting ability to pull off a Craig type film. I think he'd be just about passable in a solid, bog standard formula Bond film. Try to do anything more interesting than that and he'd be out of his depth. Give him a bad script and the whole thing would fall apart. All I can picture him managing is doing an okay job in a middling Bond film. Can't see him elevating a bad one or pulling off a really good one. I reckon we can do a lot better than that, especially now Craig had raised the bar in terms of acting ability.

My attitude is always "wait and see how they'll do before judging" but if they cast Cavill I'd find it genuinely hard to do that. I really hate the idea of him as Bond. The only way I can see it happening is if Disney or someone took over. While EON are still running things I don't think he'll be in the running.

That's being very generous to Brosnan.
Anyway I basically agree. Not sure Cavill has the acting chops or charisma.
That said, he's a lot better than he used to be although still pretty wooden.

One can be wooden, but still have charisma.

thelivingroyale

DrClatterhand wrote: »

I wish Jack O'Connell wasn't so short. He has presence, an air of danger and can act very well. There's a swagger about him that's rare these days. There's something a bit Oliver Reed/Richard Burton about him. That's the kind of edge I want in the next Bond actor. Cavill has zero charisma, presence and acting talent. He may look the part, but he's so damned mediocre. I'd be gutted if he was chosen. Moot point really, as he won't be. Babs will choose wisely again.

I don't care about his height personally. He's got more than enough presence to make up for it. They can just cast short Bond girls and villains. Problem solved. Fleming loved a short bad guy anyway.

O Connell might be shorter than some of the other suggestions but he still towers over them imo. He's the only realistic choice I like so far. The others I like (Elba, Fassbender, Hardy) seem like pipe dreams. So if it's going to be anyone mentioned in this thread, I'm rooting for O Connell.

I think he'd be a natural successor to Craig. Similarly edgy and dangerous and with plenty of proper acting cred, but young enough to feel fresh and different no matter how he played it.

I think they need to go younger, after what will have been three films of older/grizzled Bond. But the problem is most of the younger actors suggested just don't seem tough enough imo. But O Connell does.

Getafix wrote: »

thelivingroyale wrote: »

Roadphill wrote: »

thelivingroyale wrote: »

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

Is Henry Cavill basically 2019's Pierce Brosnan?

I don't meant that in the sense that they were both once actors who came close to playing Bond (1986 and 2005, respectively). But in terms of looks and style.

They are both drop-dead gorgeous, they both have a certain air of mystery to them. If Cavill was to play Bond, he'd probably have a hint of Craig's brutality, Moore's charm and Connery's sexual charisma. Which is another way of saying he'd be 'Pierce Brosnan's Bond.'

They have that 'movie star' quality to them, despite being middling actors at best. People used to say that Pierce was born to play Bond and Cavill seems not dissimilar.

I think Cavill would be Pierce Brosnan 2.0.



Personally, I've grown acclimatised to the more dangerous Bond

I don't see it personally. I've seen Cavill in a couple of things now (UNCLE, Mission Impossible) and to me he just doesn't have that movie star quality that Brosnan had in spades.

Brosnan isn't an amazing actor, that's true. I think he is much better than people give him credit for, he was great in The Tailor of Panama, The Matador and The Foreigner, but he does have a tendency to overact at times if he doesn't have a good director to reign him in. But he is capable of great performances in the right circumstances. And like you said, he has a movie star quality about him. Charisma and presence. The guy just oozes cool, and he can carry a film very well. Look at DAD. A mess of a film in a lot of ways but especially tonally. We go from hard edged North Korea stuff to Roger Moore meets XxX from one scene to another. But Brosnan carries it effortlessly. He stops the film from being unwatchable and makes it feel weirdly consistent.

Cavill imo doesn't have that presence. He can't carry a film like Brosnan. He looks the part but he's not a movie star. He's a model. A block of wood. And like I said, Brosnan is capable of genuine greatness under the right circumstances/director. Is Cavill? I haven't seen him in anything that suggests he is.

I can see why you made the comparison but Brosnan is just in another league completely to Cavill imo. I'm not against another Brosnan type Bond at all (although I don't think it will happen while BB is in charge, those days are gone). I loved him as Bond. But Cavill is not Brosnan and I think it would show. I think he'd be a terrible choice. Thank god he doesn't seem like Barbara's type at all (I don't even think she'd have casted Pierce, he was Cubby's final Bond really). I'm expecting another Craig type personally. Someone a bit more edgy and dangerous.

I think it says something about Cavill that there have been a couple of attempts at building a franchise around him and both failed. He was Superman, one of the most iconic superhero characters, in an age where any old superhero crap makes a billion dollars. And it didn't work. He had his own Bond esque vehicle with UNCLE. And it didn't work. And now he's gone back to TV (I know, the gap between them has closed a lot, but still, you'd think a big franchise actor who's openly said he's in it for the money wouldn't have to take a lower paying TV gig). Sure, the films themselves weren't up to much. But a movie star can turn terrible films into money makers. Look at Brosnan. Massive as Bond, heralded as the best since Connery, even when he had some seriously dodgy scripts to work with. As well as being bad in the role, I think Cavill could also be bad for the success of the series. He just doesn't seem to have "it" imo. Keep him well away from Bond please.

I think that's a bit unfair. The Superman stuff was destined to fail, as the attempt at creating the DC Universe in the Marvel vein was poorly executed on every level. And the MFU film looked great, but had no substance. Neither of those things can be blamed on Henry.

I really don't see what's wrong with going for a 'movie star' type, rather than a genuine thesp. It worked perfectly well with Connery, Moore and Brosnan. The only super serious actors that have portrayed Bond are Dalton and Craig.

As long as the film around Henry is good, he would make an excellent Bond.

My issue is I don't think he is a movie star type, and I think his lack of success in that area (despite pretty much exclusively doing blockbusters and saying he's in acting for the money) proves that. He doesn't have the acting ability of Dalton and Craig or the charisma and presence of Brosnan and Moore imo. He has nothing except the look.

Bond should be able to carry a bad film imo. Like Moore in MR or Brosnan in DAD. That's real movie star ability. Making the audience go along for the ride no matter what.

I'm not convinced Cavill has what it takes to do that nor the acting ability to pull off a Craig type film. I think he'd be just about passable in a solid, bog standard formula Bond film. Try to do anything more interesting than that and he'd be out of his depth. Give him a bad script and the whole thing would fall apart. All I can picture him managing is doing an okay job in a middling Bond film. Can't see him elevating a bad one or pulling off a really good one. I reckon we can do a lot better than that, especially now Craig had raised the bar in terms of acting ability.

My attitude is always "wait and see how they'll do before judging" but if they cast Cavill I'd find it genuinely hard to do that. I really hate the idea of him as Bond. The only way I can see it happening is if Disney or someone took over. While EON are still running things I don't think he'll be in the running.

That's being very generous to Brosnan.
Anyway I basically agree. Not sure Cavill has the acting chops or charisma.
That said, he's a lot better than he used to be although still pretty wooden.

Haha, you know you love him really @Getafix. I reckon you'll be on your deathbed one day and will finally admit it. Make a last request for a Goldeneye/Mama Mia double bill.

Roadphill

Chaps, I think you are forgetting that, apart from one exception (George Lazenby) every Bond actor cast has been, in some ways at least, a reaction to the the last actor. It has always been someone completely different. Connery-Moore-Dalton-Brosnan-Craig. The only pattern is that they are always a big departure from their direct predecessor. If that continues it will almost certainly be a Cavill/Turner type.
And I won't have a problem with that.

Torgeirtrap

Roadphill wrote: »

Chaps, I think you are forgetting that, apart from one exception (George Lazenby) every Bond actor cast has been, in some ways at least, a reaction to the the last actor. It has always been someone completely different. Connery-Moore-Dalton-Brosnan-Craig. The only pattern is that they are always a big departure from their direct predecessor. If that continues it will almost certainly be a Cavill/Turner type.
And I won't have a problem with that.

I don't know… The way Babs speaks about Craig; I expect they will cast someone close to the way Craig's done Bond – probably also with a different kind of look, like Craig has. Not what I want, but what looks likely, IMO.

Roadphill

Torgeirtrap wrote: »

Roadphill wrote: »

Chaps, I think you are forgetting that, apart from one exception (George Lazenby) every Bond actor cast has been, in some ways at least, a reaction to the the last actor. It has always been someone completely different. Connery-Moore-Dalton-Brosnan-Craig. The only pattern is that they are always a big departure from their direct predecessor. If that continues it will almost certainly be a Cavill/Turner type.
And I won't have a problem with that.

I don't know… The way Babs speaks about Craig; I expect they will cast someone close to the way Craig's done Bond – probably also with a different kind of look, like Craig has. Not what I want, but what looks likely, IMO.

I know she loves him ,but the cinematic trend is moving towards lighter, more adventurous fair. Regardless of personal preference, EON always follow the trends.

Torgeirtrap

Roadphill wrote: »

Torgeirtrap wrote: »

Roadphill wrote: »

Chaps, I think you are forgetting that, apart from one exception (George Lazenby) every Bond actor cast has been, in some ways at least, a reaction to the the last actor. It has always been someone completely different. Connery-Moore-Dalton-Brosnan-Craig. The only pattern is that they are always a big departure from their direct predecessor. If that continues it will almost certainly be a Cavill/Turner type.
And I won't have a problem with that.

I don't know… The way Babs speaks about Craig; I expect they will cast someone close to the way Craig's done Bond – probably also with a different kind of look, like Craig has. Not what I want, but what looks likely, IMO.

I know she loves him ,but the cinematic trend is moving towards lighter, more adventurous fair. Regardless of personal preference, EON always follow the trends.

Well, there's always the chance they'll go against the current trend in their casting – which I think they'll do. But we will see.

Univex

Aidan Turner and Theo James having a brawl. Both good contenders, IMO

talos7

Torgeirtrap wrote: »

Roadphill wrote: »

Torgeirtrap wrote: »

Roadphill wrote: »

Chaps, I think you are forgetting that, apart from one exception (George Lazenby) every Bond actor cast has been, in some ways at least, a reaction to the the last actor. It has always been someone completely different. Connery-Moore-Dalton-Brosnan-Craig. The only pattern is that they are always a big departure from their direct predecessor. If that continues it will almost certainly be a Cavill/Turner type.
And I won't have a problem with that.

I don't know… The way Babs speaks about Craig; I expect they will cast someone close to the way Craig's done Bond – probably also with a different kind of look, like Craig has. Not what I want, but what looks likely, IMO.

I know she loves him ,but the cinematic trend is moving towards lighter, more adventurous fair. Regardless of personal preference, EON always follow the trends.

Well, there's always the chance they'll go against the current trend in their casting – which I think they'll do. But we will see.

True, but I hope that they wouldn’t pass on an actor because he is a “ fanboy “ favorite.
Going against the grain can be admirable and creatively successful, but sometimes the fans are right.

Torgeirtrap

talos7 wrote: »

Torgeirtrap wrote: »

Roadphill wrote: »

Torgeirtrap wrote: »

Roadphill wrote: »

Chaps, I think you are forgetting that, apart from one exception (George Lazenby) every Bond actor cast has been, in some ways at least, a reaction to the the last actor. It has always been someone completely different. Connery-Moore-Dalton-Brosnan-Craig. The only pattern is that they are always a big departure from their direct predecessor. If that continues it will almost certainly be a Cavill/Turner type.
And I won't have a problem with that.

I don't know… The way Babs speaks about Craig; I expect they will cast someone close to the way Craig's done Bond – probably also with a different kind of look, like Craig has. Not what I want, but what looks likely, IMO.

I know she loves him ,but the cinematic trend is moving towards lighter, more adventurous fair. Regardless of personal preference, EON always follow the trends.

Well, there's always the chance they'll go against the current trend in their casting – which I think they'll do. But we will see.

True, but I hope that they wouldn’t pass on an actor because he is a “ fanboy “ favorite.
Going against the grain can be admirable and creatively successful, but sometimes the fans are right.

Indeed, I hope they won't either. There's nothing wrong with a "fanboy favourite" in my view – be it Cavill, Turner or whoever it might be. As long as they're a good match for the part (and I'd be open to either Cavill or Turner, personally).

thelivingroyale

Roadphill wrote: »

Chaps, I think you are forgetting that, apart from one exception (George Lazenby) every Bond actor cast has been, in some ways at least, a reaction to the the last actor. It has always been someone completely different. Connery-Moore-Dalton-Brosnan-Craig. The only pattern is that they are always a big departure from their direct predecessor. If that continues it will almost certainly be a Cavill/Turner type.
And I won't have a problem with that.

I agree the next guy will and should be different to Craig to an extent. I'm sure Barbara, like Cubby did, will understand the importance of setting themselves apart. They definitely won't just copy Craig. Something different is a must.

But, Barbara isn't Cubby. I think we can tell a lot about her taste from the decision to cast Craig, the amount of creative control he's been given, and her Bond and non Bond films. The Brosnan era was her finding her feet. He was Cubby's choice, she doesn't seem too proud of that era, and even then, there are traces of what they're doing now (TWINE is basically a prototype for the Craig films).

I think arty, Oscar baity (I don't mean that in a derogatory way, just not sure how else to word it) Bond films are the sort of Bond films she's always wanted to do. Even if the next era shifts away from the "this time it's personal" stuff, I think things like the fancy cinematography and the super famous Oscar winning/nominated actors are here to stay. That's Bond's niche now. A more upmarket blockbuster in comparison to stuff like Marvel and DC.

And I think the next actor will reflect that. Even if they play it lighter than Craig, I think it'll be another edgy choice with a bit of indy cred who wouldn't look out of place among a cast of Oscar winners being directed by some award winning arthouse director.

Cavill just isn't good enough for that imo. As I said earlier, I don't even think he's good enough for a Moore or Brosnan type Bond film, but even if he was, I think those days are behind us. Craig has raised the bar. Even if the next film is a straightforward Bond on a mission film, it'll be Bond on a mission made by people with the same pedigree of the last few films, with a Bond who will be different to Craig, but probably just as layered.

I think Bond is a proper actor's part now. I get that a lot of you don't want Jack O Connell because you think he's too short, but even if you take him out of the running, I think the next actor will be someone like him. Someone with that sort of body of work (edgy indy stuff, theatre stuff). Not a fairly wooden actor who's made a name for themselves in superhero films and other blockbusters who says he's only in it for the money.

Turner I think is a much more realistic choice than Cavill to be fair but I'm not really convinced by him either. Just seems a bit too hipstery and hasn't really convinced me as an actor in what I've seen him in (isn't bad, just nothing special imo). Definitely a more viable option than Cavill though, who I don't think has any chance whatsoever of getting the job. I'm honestly surprised he's still being mentioned.

Shardlake

I think some are hoping for lightening to strike twice in the case of Cavill.

They are thinking a Brosnan situation, he was at one point very close then fate intervened but due to public wanting him in the role and likely the studio he was cast.

The fact Cavill auditioned and was apparently Campbell choice but was overruled by BB and MGW that his time will come.

Although the fact that BB thought him not ready then more than likely points to her not going back to him, Brosnan was all set to play the role as early as TLD so it isn't the same scenario and as @thelivingroyale says I don't think he has a cat in hell's chance anyway.

I'm far more willing to let Turner see what he can do than Cavill but none of the so called front runners get my blood pumping.

I think my perspective on this will change once NTTD has been released and we know how Daniel's Bond will end his time, then we can concern ourselves with the next guy.

Ludovico

thelivingroyale wrote: »

Roadphill wrote: »

thelivingroyale wrote: »

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

Is Henry Cavill basically 2019's Pierce Brosnan?

I don't meant that in the sense that they were both once actors who came close to playing Bond (1986 and 2005, respectively). But in terms of looks and style.

They are both drop-dead gorgeous, they both have a certain air of mystery to them. If Cavill was to play Bond, he'd probably have a hint of Craig's brutality, Moore's charm and Connery's sexual charisma. Which is another way of saying he'd be 'Pierce Brosnan's Bond.'

They have that 'movie star' quality to them, despite being middling actors at best. People used to say that Pierce was born to play Bond and Cavill seems not dissimilar.

I think Cavill would be Pierce Brosnan 2.0.



Personally, I've grown acclimatised to the more dangerous Bond

I don't see it personally. I've seen Cavill in a couple of things now (UNCLE, Mission Impossible) and to me he just doesn't have that movie star quality that Brosnan had in spades.

Brosnan isn't an amazing actor, that's true. I think he is much better than people give him credit for, he was great in The Tailor of Panama, The Matador and The Foreigner, but he does have a tendency to overact at times if he doesn't have a good director to reign him in. But he is capable of great performances in the right circumstances. And like you said, he has a movie star quality about him. Charisma and presence. The guy just oozes cool, and he can carry a film very well. Look at DAD. A mess of a film in a lot of ways but especially tonally. We go from hard edged North Korea stuff to Roger Moore meets XxX from one scene to another. But Brosnan carries it effortlessly. He stops the film from being unwatchable and makes it feel weirdly consistent.

Cavill imo doesn't have that presence. He can't carry a film like Brosnan. He looks the part but he's not a movie star. He's a model. A block of wood. And like I said, Brosnan is capable of genuine greatness under the right circumstances/director. Is Cavill? I haven't seen him in anything that suggests he is.

I can see why you made the comparison but Brosnan is just in another league completely to Cavill imo. I'm not against another Brosnan type Bond at all (although I don't think it will happen while BB is in charge, those days are gone). I loved him as Bond. But Cavill is not Brosnan and I think it would show. I think he'd be a terrible choice. Thank god he doesn't seem like Barbara's type at all (I don't even think she'd have casted Pierce, he was Cubby's final Bond really). I'm expecting another Craig type personally. Someone a bit more edgy and dangerous.

I think it says something about Cavill that there have been a couple of attempts at building a franchise around him and both failed. He was Superman, one of the most iconic superhero characters, in an age where any old superhero crap makes a billion dollars. And it didn't work. He had his own Bond esque vehicle with UNCLE. And it didn't work. And now he's gone back to TV (I know, the gap between them has closed a lot, but still, you'd think a big franchise actor who's openly said he's in it for the money wouldn't have to take a lower paying TV gig). Sure, the films themselves weren't up to much. But a movie star can turn terrible films into money makers. Look at Brosnan. Massive as Bond, heralded as the best since Connery, even when he had some seriously dodgy scripts to work with. As well as being bad in the role, I think Cavill could also be bad for the success of the series. He just doesn't seem to have "it" imo. Keep him well away from Bond please.

I think that's a bit unfair. The Superman stuff was destined to fail, as the attempt at creating the DC Universe in the Marvel vein was poorly executed on every level. And the MFU film looked great, but had no substance. Neither of those things can be blamed on Henry.

I really don't see what's wrong with going for a 'movie star' type, rather than a genuine thesp. It worked perfectly well with Connery, Moore and Brosnan. The only super serious actors that have portrayed Bond are Dalton and Craig.

As long as the film around Henry is good, he would make an excellent Bond.

My issue is I don't think he is a movie star type, and I think his lack of success in that area (despite pretty much exclusively doing blockbusters and saying he's in acting for the money) proves that. He doesn't have the acting ability of Dalton and Craig or the charisma and presence of Brosnan and Moore imo. He has nothing except the look.

Bond should be able to carry a bad film imo. Like Moore in MR or Brosnan in DAD. That's real movie star ability. Making the audience go along for the ride no matter what.

I'm not convinced Cavill has what it takes to do that nor the acting ability to pull off a Craig type film. I think he'd be just about passable in a solid, bog standard formula Bond film. Try to do anything more interesting than that and he'd be out of his depth. Give him a bad script and the whole thing would fall apart. All I can picture him managing is doing an okay job in a middling Bond film. Can't see him elevating a bad one or pulling off a really good one. I reckon we can do a lot better than that, especially now Craig had raised the bar in terms of acting ability.

My attitude is always "wait and see how they'll do before judging" but if they cast Cavill I'd find it genuinely hard to do that. I really hate the idea of him as Bond. The only way I can see it happening is if Disney or someone took over. While EON are still running things I don't think he'll be in the running.

This is pretty much how I feel about Cavill. Besides, being I'm The Witcher, which is quite successful in spite of mixed reviews, I think he won't be Bond now. Not that I could see Barbara casting him.

talos7

Based solely on his appearance, and a couple of early roles, I was very high on Cavill, but as time passed I steadily became disenchanted.
A great deal was made of his performance in MI:F, but to me he came off as a glorified henchmen, and as in most films, I could always sense that he was “acting”

Univex

Ludovico wrote: »

thelivingroyale wrote: »

Roadphill wrote: »

thelivingroyale wrote: »

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

Is Henry Cavill basically 2019's Pierce Brosnan?

I don't meant that in the sense that they were both once actors who came close to playing Bond (1986 and 2005, respectively). But in terms of looks and style.

They are both drop-dead gorgeous, they both have a certain air of mystery to them. If Cavill was to play Bond, he'd probably have a hint of Craig's brutality, Moore's charm and Connery's sexual charisma. Which is another way of saying he'd be 'Pierce Brosnan's Bond.'

They have that 'movie star' quality to them, despite being middling actors at best. People used to say that Pierce was born to play Bond and Cavill seems not dissimilar.

I think Cavill would be Pierce Brosnan 2.0.



Personally, I've grown acclimatised to the more dangerous Bond

I don't see it personally. I've seen Cavill in a couple of things now (UNCLE, Mission Impossible) and to me he just doesn't have that movie star quality that Brosnan had in spades.

Brosnan isn't an amazing actor, that's true. I think he is much better than people give him credit for, he was great in The Tailor of Panama, The Matador and The Foreigner, but he does have a tendency to overact at times if he doesn't have a good director to reign him in. But he is capable of great performances in the right circumstances. And like you said, he has a movie star quality about him. Charisma and presence. The guy just oozes cool, and he can carry a film very well. Look at DAD. A mess of a film in a lot of ways but especially tonally. We go from hard edged North Korea stuff to Roger Moore meets XxX from one scene to another. But Brosnan carries it effortlessly. He stops the film from being unwatchable and makes it feel weirdly consistent.

Cavill imo doesn't have that presence. He can't carry a film like Brosnan. He looks the part but he's not a movie star. He's a model. A block of wood. And like I said, Brosnan is capable of genuine greatness under the right circumstances/director. Is Cavill? I haven't seen him in anything that suggests he is.

I can see why you made the comparison but Brosnan is just in another league completely to Cavill imo. I'm not against another Brosnan type Bond at all (although I don't think it will happen while BB is in charge, those days are gone). I loved him as Bond. But Cavill is not Brosnan and I think it would show. I think he'd be a terrible choice. Thank god he doesn't seem like Barbara's type at all (I don't even think she'd have casted Pierce, he was Cubby's final Bond really). I'm expecting another Craig type personally. Someone a bit more edgy and dangerous.

I think it says something about Cavill that there have been a couple of attempts at building a franchise around him and both failed. He was Superman, one of the most iconic superhero characters, in an age where any old superhero crap makes a billion dollars. And it didn't work. He had his own Bond esque vehicle with UNCLE. And it didn't work. And now he's gone back to TV (I know, the gap between them has closed a lot, but still, you'd think a big franchise actor who's openly said he's in it for the money wouldn't have to take a lower paying TV gig). Sure, the films themselves weren't up to much. But a movie star can turn terrible films into money makers. Look at Brosnan. Massive as Bond, heralded as the best since Connery, even when he had some seriously dodgy scripts to work with. As well as being bad in the role, I think Cavill could also be bad for the success of the series. He just doesn't seem to have "it" imo. Keep him well away from Bond please.

I think that's a bit unfair. The Superman stuff was destined to fail, as the attempt at creating the DC Universe in the Marvel vein was poorly executed on every level. And the MFU film looked great, but had no substance. Neither of those things can be blamed on Henry.

I really don't see what's wrong with going for a 'movie star' type, rather than a genuine thesp. It worked perfectly well with Connery, Moore and Brosnan. The only super serious actors that have portrayed Bond are Dalton and Craig.

As long as the film around Henry is good, he would make an excellent Bond.

My issue is I don't think he is a movie star type, and I think his lack of success in that area (despite pretty much exclusively doing blockbusters and saying he's in acting for the money) proves that. He doesn't have the acting ability of Dalton and Craig or the charisma and presence of Brosnan and Moore imo. He has nothing except the look.

Bond should be able to carry a bad film imo. Like Moore in MR or Brosnan in DAD. That's real movie star ability. Making the audience go along for the ride no matter what.

I'm not convinced Cavill has what it takes to do that nor the acting ability to pull off a Craig type film. I think he'd be just about passable in a solid, bog standard formula Bond film. Try to do anything more interesting than that and he'd be out of his depth. Give him a bad script and the whole thing would fall apart. All I can picture him managing is doing an okay job in a middling Bond film. Can't see him elevating a bad one or pulling off a really good one. I reckon we can do a lot better than that, especially now Craig had raised the bar in terms of acting ability.

My attitude is always "wait and see how they'll do before judging" but if they cast Cavill I'd find it genuinely hard to do that. I really hate the idea of him as Bond. The only way I can see it happening is if Disney or someone took over. While EON are still running things I don't think he'll be in the running.

This is pretty much how I feel about Cavill. Besides, being I'm The Witcher, which is quite successful in spite of mixed reviews, I think he won't be Bond now. Not that I could see Barbara casting him.

Michael G. Wilson liked his audition. Not that I'm a fan.

I still say so far Turner is the best man for the job. And he's not that of a "fanboy" version of Bond is he? I mean, I get it about Cavill, he looks like a cartoon version of Bond meets Superman. But Turner has that dark mysterious character look. Robert D. Krzykowski said he cast him because he had an understated sense of cool which Sam Elliot also had in his film. Mind you, I'm also not a Turner fanboy as some would put it. In his down time, he looks like a badly trimmed poodle. And his accent's only right on Poldark. Surely there must be some other candidates come 2024. If not, well, maybe the badly trimmed poodle can be trimmed and tailored for the role. My two cents, anyway.

Ludovico

I find it extremely difficult to find actors in their 20s, 30s nowadays that don't look like badly trimmed poodles. I think and hope the next Bond will be someone completely unexpected.

talos7

Well, in Turner’s defense, plenty of photos can be found of all of the Bond actors looking pretty scruffy in their down time.

Torgeirtrap

talos7 wrote: »

Well, in Turner’s defense, plenty of photos can be found of all of the Bond actors looking pretty scruffy in their down time.

Indeed!




…and here'as a young Connery looking quite poodle like:

DrClatterhand

I really think Jack Lowden ticks all the boxes at the moment. He's made some respectable choices, is very talented, is young enough to grow into the role in around 4-5 years, and isn't too big in the industry. I'm not saying it's going to be him, just someone of that age/ilk. Saying that, I would like him.

Ludovico

This last picture of Connery makes me think of Dominic West somehow. West would have made a great Bond had his tenure started circa 2000-2005.