› ›

Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1…704705707709710…1231

Comments

  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I still think Sam Claflin is one to keep an eye on.

    barbour-supa-beaufort-wax-mwx1691ny92-2.jpg
    waMTky.jpg
    Sam-Claflin-in-Journeys-End.jpg
    I don't think he'd cut it as Bond, especially after Craig.
    How come?
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited September 2020 Posts: 1,318
    In a way it could be Hardy, as Nolan has mentioned multiple times he'd happily take on a Bond film, but also on his terms. We all know he loves to work with Hardy and he has the tendency to recycle the people he works with. At least a few. Perhaps we're up for Nolan next. Now that would be something. Not something I'd particularly prefer, but it's not a bad route either. I wouldn't be surprised anyway, if we'd get a Nolan - Hardy combo.

    Edit: check out this interview from a couple of years ago. Voila.

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/jan/16/tom-hardy-next-james-bond-rumour-christopher-nolan
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,709
    Well, if we must...
    But really, coming back to high profile directors can only be good if he writes the damn thing, porbably with his brother. That’d be the silver lining for me in that scenario. Still, he can’t do sexy. And that’s a big problem, IMO.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 814
    Really really don’t want Hardy. I think he’d be a joyless, charmless thug made of granite. BORING. I’d take Cavill over him, and I don’t want Cavill at all.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/sep/21/007-heaven-why-tom-hardy-as-the-new-bond-is-too-good-to-be-true?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
    This weekend it was reported that Tom Hardy had been cast as the next James Bond. And that’s a perfectly reasonable thing to believe, so long as you’re prepared to go on the say-so of an unsourced post on a Star Trek blog that hardly anyone has heard of.

    If that’s the case, then we should probably adjust our expectations for the next era of Bond. When Daniel Craig was announced as the new 007, it was via a big-budget stunt where he raced up the river Thames on an assault boat. If the Tom Hardy news is true, then the world will have to remember hearing about it from a 470-word blogpost on something called the Vulcan Reporter, which had to spend a fifth of its word count explaining who James Bond is. Tighten your belts, lads, because it looks like Bond is going absolutely threadbare.
    [...]
    A Tom Hardy Bond, too, has the potential to be fascinating. Hardy doesn’t exactly shy away from villainy – he’s been Al Capone and both Kray twins, and even his superhero managed to decapitate people with his teeth – so his could be a Bond who muddies the water between light and dark more than usual. After all, James Bond is an alcoholic murderer with sociopathic tendencies and a long history of sexual impropriety, so wouldn’t it be great to see a version where he actually gets a kick out of it? Where his innate sadism comes to the fore a smudge more than usual? If that’s the path that 007 wants to go down, Hardy would be the perfect choice.

    Then again, I’m not sure it is. The announcement of a new Bond is an opportunity for the franchise to chase the big-screen trends of the day with renewed vigour – competing against 90s one-man army movies with Brosnan, the Bourne films with Daniel Craig – and his competition now is Marvel and Mission: Impossible. Big, expensive, brightly coloured, self-aware, easily defined fare characterised by visual spectacle. That’s what people want to see now, and the assumption was that’s what Bond would become. And if that’s the path that 007 wants to go down – and I say this with regret to the Vulcan Reporter – Tom Hardy might be a bit too complicated for the job.
    Stuart Heritage is often too clever and cynical for his own good, but I like his take on the whole Hardy situation.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    If we are going to have a 43 year old playing Bond for the first time (45 by the time he does it, most likely), I would rather it be Fassbender.
  • ColonelSunColonelSun
    Posts: 1,493
    Denbigh wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I still think Sam Claflin is one to keep an eye on.

    barbour-supa-beaufort-wax-mwx1691ny92-2.jpg
    waMTky.jpg
    Sam-Claflin-in-Journeys-End.jpg
    I don't think he'd cut it as Bond, especially after Craig.
    How come?

    I don't think he possesses the qualities for Bond.

  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I've spoken to @peter about this and both of us find it very strange that on the eve of releasing a new film that EON would make a move to cast a new actor to take the series forward and that leak.

    Surely something like this if it was true would derail all the publicity for NTTD, just they start doing interviews the interviewers will be asking about Hardy being the new Bond rather than talking about NTTD.

    It is a very strange move if it is true, I'm inclined to paraphrase Sir Rog's Bond here and say "there is a usual 4 letter word and this rumour is full of it"
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    edited September 2020 Posts: 1,351
    FatherValentine wrote: »
    If we are going to have a 43 year old playing Bond for the first time (45 by the time he does it, most likely), I would rather it be Fassbender.

    Am I missing something?
    Moore, Dalton and Brosnan were all in their 40 for their first movies. Moore was 46. Except for Lazenby, every actor has done at least one movie at the age of 43 or older.
    Given the production time of the movies nowadays, I agree that he is very much at the upper end of the possible age range and I would personally prefer someone younger. But it's not like Hardy would be some unprecedented senior citizen in the role...
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,167
    ImpertinentGoon wrote: »
    FatherValentine wrote: »
    If we are going to have a 43 year old playing Bond for the first time (45 by the time he does it, most likely), I would rather it be Fassbender.

    Am I missing something?
    Moore, Dalton and Brosnan were all in their 40 for their first movies. Moore was 46. Except for Lazenby, every actor has done at least one movie at the age of 43 or older.
    Given the production time of the movies nowadays, I agree that he is very much at the upper end of the possible age range and I would personally prefer someone younger. But it's not like Hardy would be some unprecedented senior citizen in the role...

    Well said.
    I have a feeling as 5 year gaps become the new normal we probably won't get the next Bond actor to sign a 3-4 film contract. Actors don't like to be tied down for 15 years. Hardy could easily play Bond as he'd probably just do the one film regardless.
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,709
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I've spoken to @peter about this and both of us find it very strange that on the eve of releasing a new film that EON would make a move to cast a new actor to take the series forward and that leak.

    Surely something like this if it was true would derail all the publicity for NTTD, just they start doing interviews the interviewers will be asking about Hardy being the new Bond rather than talking about NTTD.

    It is a very strange move if it is true, I'm inclined to paraphrase Sir Rog's Bond here and say "there is a usual 4 letter word and this rumour is full of it"

    Lucidity. How wonderful ;) Been waiting for it. Where have you guys been?
    Thunderball wrote: »
    Really really don’t want Hardy. I think he’d be a joyless, charmless thug made of granite. BORING. I’d take Cavill over him, and I don’t want Cavill at all.

    +1
    FatherValentine wrote: »
    If we are going to have a 43 year old playing Bond for the first time (45 by the time he does it, most likely), I would rather it be Fassbender.

    +1
  • DrClatterhandDrClatterhand United Kingdom
    Posts: 349
    I remember rumours going round that Craig returned to the role when he heard Hardy was waiting in the wings. Craig apparently doesn't like Hardy. Is this a ploy to have Craig come back for one more? If it is Hardy, I'm buzzing. I don't want Aidan Turner or Henry Cavill. Hardy is an electric performer. He has the gravitas, depth, presence and acting chops to follow Craig.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,756
    Grain of salt and all that, but say if Hardy was cast, how many films do we realistically think he would do? A one-off, two or even three?
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,167
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Grain of salt and all that, but say if Hardy was cast, how many films do we realistically think he would do? A one-off, two or even three?

    Given the gaps I believe anyone cast after Craig will only do one film.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,756
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Grain of salt and all that, but say if Hardy was cast, how many films do we realistically think he would do? A one-off, two or even three?

    Given the gaps I believe anyone cast after Craig will only do one film.

    With the current gaps, I think I agree that it would be less likely to see an actor in his forties sign up for a lengthy deal. A younger actor would be different, IMO.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,847
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Grain of salt and all that, but say if Hardy was cast, how many films do we realistically think he would do? A one-off, two or even three?

    my guess is a trilogy
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    I personally think Hardy would be an excellent Bond. They need a very strong actor to match Craig. Also, he's an international star with a strong fan base, so MGM and Universal would feel they were in safe hands.

    If they are choosing Hardy for Cinematic bond without much personal story, then i will be Happy.

    If you mean abandoning the inner life which has been central to the Craig era (and we originally had that with OHMSS as well), I suspect that won't be the case, firstly because we are in an era in which characters are more deeply explored now, secondly, because Hardy is a very strong actor who, even playing Mad Max with few words, conveys a lot of inner life.

    Yes but franchise like mission impossible have been doing that except fallout. If story is great then i don't see any reason for inner life.
  • UnivexUnivex
    edited September 2020 Posts: 6,709
    Wait, that's true, there were talks about how Craig and Hardy didn't get along in LC, and that they don't particularly like each other. Babs being a strong friend of DC would cast TH as his replacement? Not. My mind is at ease with this logic. I'll stick with it.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,167
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Grain of salt and all that, but say if Hardy was cast, how many films do we realistically think he would do? A one-off, two or even three?

    Given the gaps I believe anyone cast after Craig will only do one film.

    With the current gaps, I think I agree that it would be less likely to see an actor in his forties sign up for a lengthy deal. A younger actor would be different, IMO.

    It might be difficult to get an actor to commit to a 3-4 film contract in this day and age, especially as 4-5 years between films becomes the norm.

    Say the first outing comes out in 2025, the next in 2030, then 2036 and finally 2040. That type of commitment is too much to ask even an up and coming 32 year old.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Do you guys really think they won't try to make the next actor more structured and do a film, every 2-3 years?
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,847
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    Do you guys really think they won't try to make the next actor more structured and do a film, every 2-3 years?

    yes
  • DrClatterhandDrClatterhand United Kingdom
    Posts: 349
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    Do you guys really think they won't try to make the next actor more structured and do a film, every 2-3 years?

    I think they will try to get films out more regularly. There's been quite a few unforeseen issues in the Craig run of films. Plus, Daniel has appeared quite undecided and jaded at times. It would be a nice change to have a film every three years; that's realistic. I'd like them to take pitches and have more of an open mind to ideas from others. I'd love Hardy in a trilogy of films. I'm sold on him already and it's all most likely untrue. At least it keeps us talking until NTTD.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,167
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    Do you guys really think they won't try to make the next actor more structured and do a film, every 2-3 years?

    It would be nice to return to a 2 year gap for the next actor, but I think Barbara may be more focused on other projects than Bond.
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,709
    Everything's up in the air right now. Who knows? Who knows if theatres will remain a viable option in coming years? Who knows how studios will cope? What formats will arise? What kind of productions will see the light of day? These are troubled and undefined times, and no decision is set in stone as of yet, and won't be for some time.

    That's the way I see it anyway.
  • GeneralGogolGeneralGogol
    Posts: 928
    A new film every 3-5 years looks to be the new norm, and is comparable to the M:I series: 1996, 2000, 2006, 2011, 2015, 2018, 2021, and 2022. That's 8 films with the same lead across a whopping 26 years... it'd be like if Brosnan was still Bond and NTTD was to be his swansong! (Not that a Bond actor needs to be in the role that long))
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    These films are made when they can be made. No amount of planning can anticipate what each production will face. Also, a consistent time between films might be more pleasing for us, but it wouldn't mean the films would be good whatsoever - some films suffer with less time, and some films suffer with more - it's specific to each production.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    ImpertinentGoon wrote: »
    FatherValentine wrote: »
    If we are going to have a 43 year old playing Bond for the first time (45 by the time he does it, most likely), I would rather it be Fassbender.

    Am I missing something?
    Moore, Dalton and Brosnan were all in their 40 for their first movies. Moore was 46. Except for Lazenby, every actor has done at least one movie at the age of 43 or older.
    Given the production time of the movies nowadays, I agree that he is very much at the upper end of the possible age range and I would personally prefer someone younger. But it's not like Hardy would be some unprecedented senior citizen in the role...

    The responses to you were the reason I highlight his age as an issue. The gaps between the films are too long.

    I have said before that what I would prefer them to do is immediately cast a safe pair of hands and commit to making 3 films in 6 years starting with one in 2022. That way, the older actors such as Fassbender, or even Hardy, could have a nice little story arc and still only be 50ish by the time their tenure has finished.

    They could easily do this if they committed. I understand it is a totally different set up, but the fact that there have been 4 or 5 Star Wars films since Spectre shows it can happen. The new MI films are being shot back to back too, I understand.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,756
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Grain of salt and all that, but say if Hardy was cast, how many films do we realistically think he would do? A one-off, two or even three?

    my guess is a trilogy

    That would really depend on shortening the gaps between each films though. He's 43 now, and there will be a gap between NTTD and the next film. But who knows what they have in mind; maybe they'll keep up with an "old dog" Bond theme?
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Grain of salt and all that, but say if Hardy was cast, how many films do we realistically think he would do? A one-off, two or even three?

    Given the gaps I believe anyone cast after Craig will only do one film.

    With the current gaps, I think I agree that it would be less likely to see an actor in his forties sign up for a lengthy deal. A younger actor would be different, IMO.

    It might be difficult to get an actor to commit to a 3-4 film contract in this day and age, especially as 4-5 years between films becomes the norm.

    Say the first outing comes out in 2025, the next in 2030, then 2036 and finally 2040. That type of commitment is too much to ask even an up and coming 32 year old.

    That's true. But it will depend on the gaps though. Say they do a three picture deal with a younger actor, in which they make a film every three-four years, they might be able to tie someone down to that. Money will be an incentive too of course.
  • DewiWynBondDewiWynBond
    edited June 2022 Posts: 944
    .
  • UnivexUnivex
    edited September 2020 Posts: 6,709
    DewiWynBond wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Everything's up in the air right now. Who knows? Who knows if theatres will remain a viable option in coming years? Who knows how studios will cope? What formats will arise? What kind of productions will see the light of day? These are troubled and undefined times, and no decision is set in stone as of yet, and won't be for some time.

    That's the way I see it anyway.

    Yeah man, what if this is the end.

    Well, for many things it has been already. I'm not being hyperbolic here, just facing the facts. I'm sure Bond and films will survive. I'm just not sure we're in a position to say exactly how. And seriously talking about casting a new Bond when the new film isn't even out there is, to put it mildly, being very naive.
Sign In or Register to comment.