Who should/could be a Bond actor?

17087097117137141231

Comments

  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited September 2020 Posts: 5,970
    @Pierce2Daniel I think the problem with both is that they're too young. Paul is only 24, and Harry is only 26. Although I don't think they'll ever consider Harry Styles, for obvious reasons. Yes, he's getting into acting, (can't wait to see him opposite Florence Pugh and Dakota Johnson), but I think he'd need to fully abandon his music to become James Bond, which I doubt will happen. I can't them having a huge music star play James Bond.

    Paul is really good in Normal People, but is only just getting his foot in the door acting wise, and is and looks really young. I mean I'm only older than Paul by a few of months and I really can't see EON going for anyone our age.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    edited September 2020 Posts: 395
    I think he is too young and unexperiensed.
  • DeathToSpies84DeathToSpies84 Newton-le-Willows, England
    Posts: 257
    Is anyone talking about Paul Mescal? He's young, buzzy, and popular. He's certainly looking more and more Bondian each time I've seen him. I've only seen a brief clip of him in Normal People and he seems like a good actor, and I've seen him in interviews where he is charming.

    gettyimages-1275867674.jpg
    Ehj625-XgAA0gNY.jpg

    Also, though I do acknowledge is a little more 'out there' but Harry Styles has become a very buzzworthy actor. He's booked two big projects for next year. He's probably too big a name to be Bond. But he was considered for Han Solo. So perhaps it's not that crazy a suggestion. He's filming a Bond-esque music video in Italy at the moment....He has a look of a young Leonardo DiCaprio.

    MV5BZjc2OGZiZmEtMmU5ZC00MDU2LTlhMzYtMTc2YjQxYzU1OTEzXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjExMjE5OTM@._V1_.jpg
    EioOA9hXYAEeOgQ?format=jpg&name=900x900
    EipNeaeWkAA_9-B?format=jpg&name=medium
    EipNeadXgAId8B2?format=jpg&name=900x900

    No thanks - Harry Styles is overrated.
  • Posts: 15,114
    Denbigh wrote: »
    @Pierce2Daniel I think the problem with both is that they're too young. Paul is only 24, and Harry is only 26. Although I don't think they'll ever consider Harry Styles, for obvious reasons. Yes, he's getting into acting, (can't wait to see him opposite Florence Pugh and Dakota Johnson), but I think he'd need to fully abandon his music to become James Bond, which I doubt will happen. I can't them having a huge music star play James Bond.

    Paul is really good in Normal People, but is only just getting his foot in the door acting wise, and is and looks really young. I mean I'm only older than Paul by a few of months and I really can't see EON going for anyone our age.

    At this rate they might have the right age when a new Bond is cast.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Just watched The True History of the Kelly Gang and now would put Nicholas Hoult as my favourite out of all the contenders. He's British, 6'2, has some bulk, can act, has a profile that's not too big or too small, he'll commit to a franchise (X-Men), is handsome, looks like Fleming's Bond enough, is likeable, but can play it cold, can do arrogance.

    He's young looking. But people look younger these days. If we want Bond to look like he's got some age to him, then we are going to have to accept that it's only likely to be actors in their forties that can do that.

    It was The Kelly Gang film that swing it for me, because in that he is cold and arrogant and doesn't come across as young. There is a manly maturity about him.
  • Posts: 6,709
    Yep, Nic Hoult is one of my favs as well.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,368
    Just watched The True History of the Kelly Gang and now would put Nicholas Hoult as my favourite out of all the contenders. He's British, 6'2, has some bulk, can act, has a profile that's not too big or too small, he'll commit to a franchise (X-Men), is handsome, looks like Fleming's Bond enough, is likeable, but can play it cold, can do arrogance.

    He's young looking. But people look younger these days. If we want Bond to look like he's got some age to him, then we are going to have to accept that it's only likely to be actors in their forties that can do that.

    It was The Kelly Gang film that swing it for me, because in that he is cold and arrogant and doesn't come across as young. There is a manly maturity about him.

    He's the one I'd possibly say is the most likely, yes, mostly because of his film experience.
  • edited September 2020 Posts: 6,709
    To think that Marcus of About a Boy could very well be Bond. What a world, eh? Hey, I'm all for it. And he's worked with Tom Ford, so the passing of the suits would work out nicely ;)
  • Hoult ticks all the boxes - dashing looks, great experience across a variety of movie genres and directors, holds the screen opposite powerhouse actors, can play both polished and unhinged, and is a genuinely likeable fellow.

    I'd say he's the best candidate from the under-30 bunch, and should be considered for Bond 26, unless of course some other big franchise grabs him for a leading role in the next few years.
  • Posts: 6,709
    Hoult ticks all the boxes - dashing looks, great experience across a variety of movie genres and directors, holds the screen opposite powerhouse actors, can play both polished and unhinged, and is a genuinely likeable fellow.

    I'd say he's the best candidate from the under-30 bunch, and should be considered for Bond 26, unless of course some other big franchise grabs him for a leading role in the next few years.

    Although not actually under 30, but 30, which for me is actually the minimal acceptable age considering the film won't be happening anytime soon, but probably not that distant that we should look at under-30s. One really important aspect, that Craig doesn't have and that's ok because he's Craig, is eyebrows, and Hoult has them in spades. And he has a good voice as well, as long as he's not singing Killing me Softly.
  • Univex wrote: »
    Hoult ticks all the boxes - dashing looks, great experience across a variety of movie genres and directors, holds the screen opposite powerhouse actors, can play both polished and unhinged, and is a genuinely likeable fellow.

    I'd say he's the best candidate from the under-30 bunch, and should be considered for Bond 26, unless of course some other big franchise grabs him for a leading role in the next few years.

    Although not actually under 30, but 30, which for me is actually the minimal acceptable age considering the film won't be happening anytime soon, but probably not that distant that we should look at under-30s. One really important aspect, that Craig doesn't have and that's ok because he's Craig, is eyebrows, and Hoult has them in spades. And he has a good voice as well, as long as he's not singing Killing me Softly.

    I suppose Craig does not tick all the boxes!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2020 Posts: 16,368
    And as I posted last time his name came up, this perfume ad has him doing the usual perfume ad things which overlap quite a bit with Bond style things: posing, looking confident, romancin', suit-wearin', sportscar drivin':



    Considering we know he's a very good actor who can easily hold his own in big movies, I think he's got to be right up towards the top of the list.
  • Posts: 6,709
    Univex wrote: »
    Hoult ticks all the boxes - dashing looks, great experience across a variety of movie genres and directors, holds the screen opposite powerhouse actors, can play both polished and unhinged, and is a genuinely likeable fellow.

    I'd say he's the best candidate from the under-30 bunch, and should be considered for Bond 26, unless of course some other big franchise grabs him for a leading role in the next few years.

    Although not actually under 30, but 30, which for me is actually the minimal acceptable age considering the film won't be happening anytime soon, but probably not that distant that we should look at under-30s. One really important aspect, that Craig doesn't have and that's ok because he's Craig, is eyebrows, and Hoult has them in spades. And he has a good voice as well, as long as he's not singing Killing me Softly.

    I suppose Craig does not tick all the boxes!

    Thing is, he doesn't have to. Charisma trumps it. Although that particular verb just doesn't sound right these days, does it? To "trump" something. Quite the opposite in fact. But I digress :D
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    edited September 2020 Posts: 395
    I think Theo James had made some ad's too.
  • Posts: 6,709
    MSL49 wrote: »
    I think Theo James had made some ad's too.

    And he's got a brilliantly low voice. And good eyebrows ;) But somehow he reminds me of Rupert Everett. Must be the long face. Still, not a bad choice.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Univex wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Hoult ticks all the boxes - dashing looks, great experience across a variety of movie genres and directors, holds the screen opposite powerhouse actors, can play both polished and unhinged, and is a genuinely likeable fellow.

    I'd say he's the best candidate from the under-30 bunch, and should be considered for Bond 26, unless of course some other big franchise grabs him for a leading role in the next few years.

    Although not actually under 30, but 30, which for me is actually the minimal acceptable age considering the film won't be happening anytime soon, but probably not that distant that we should look at under-30s. One really important aspect, that Craig doesn't have and that's ok because he's Craig, is eyebrows, and Hoult has them in spades. And he has a good voice as well, as long as he's not singing Killing me Softly.

    I suppose Craig does not tick all the boxes!

    Thing is, he doesn't have to. Charisma trumps it. Although that particular verb just doesn't sound right these days, does it? To "trump" something. Quite the opposite in fact. But I digress :D

    +1.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    Univex wrote: »
    MSL49 wrote: »
    I think Theo James had made some ad's too.

    And he's got a brilliantly low voice. And good eyebrows ;) But somehow he reminds me of Rupert Everett. Must be the long face. Still, not a bad choice.

    But not the best either.
  • Posts: 9,846


    i dont care he is in i guess 60's 70's the man needs to be bond in one film dam it!
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    I don't think that'll happen; as you mention too old - but also incredibly problematic. I'm sure people haven't forgotten his controversial statements.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I don't think that'll happen; as you mention too old - but also incredibly problematic. I'm sure people haven't forgotten his controversial statements.

    Not really that problematic. If they were, he wouldn't still be leading mid-budget actioners.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I don't think that'll happen; as you mention too old - but also incredibly problematic. I'm sure people haven't forgotten his controversial statements.

    Not really that problematic. If they were, he wouldn't still be leading mid-budget actioners.
    Problematic enough to get backlash as Bond though I think. Mid-budget action is easy to go over people’s heads these days.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,368
    Risico007 wrote: »


    i dont care he is in i guess 60's 70's the man needs to be bond in one film dam it!

    I was watching a 1991 film of his last week where he plays a 50's Brighton private eye (Under Suspicion) which was pretty fun, and I did think about whether he should have done Bond at the time. He's a pretty good star so I think he'd have been very decent at it.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I don't think that'll happen; as you mention too old - but also incredibly problematic. I'm sure people haven't forgotten his controversial statements.

    Not really that problematic. If they were, he wouldn't still be leading mid-budget actioners.
    Problematic enough to get backlash as Bond though I think. Mid-budget action is easy to go over people’s heads these days.

    What statements?
  • 007InAction007InAction Australia
    Posts: 2,526
    Risico007 wrote: »

    Congrats to Liam for getting the role.
    Irish eyes are smiling............. :)>-
  • Posts: 16,154
    As ridiculous as it sounds I'd probably actually prefer Neeson now as an older Bond for one outing than most of the names mentioned on this thread.
    I feel modern era Neeson could easily annihilate Timothee Chalamet .
    No doubt. It would be like Connery taking on Truman-Lodge.
  • 007InAction007InAction Australia
    Posts: 2,526
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    As ridiculous as it sounds I'd probably actually prefer Neeson now as an older Bond for one outing than most of the names mentioned on this thread.
    I feel modern era Neeson could easily annihilate Timothee Chalamet .
    No doubt. It would be like Connery taking on Truman-Lodge.

    Neeson is a big dude. 6' 4" (1.93 m) according to imdb.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    As ridiculous as it sounds I'd probably actually prefer Neeson now as an older Bond for one outing than most of the names mentioned on this thread.
    I feel modern era Neeson could easily annihilate Timothee Chalamet .
    No doubt. It would be like Connery taking on Truman-Lodge.

    We've already got a film with an older Bond out for one more outing. It's just that we haven't seen it yet.
  • Posts: 16,154
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    As ridiculous as it sounds I'd probably actually prefer Neeson now as an older Bond for one outing than most of the names mentioned on this thread.
    I feel modern era Neeson could easily annihilate Timothee Chalamet .
    No doubt. It would be like Connery taking on Truman-Lodge.

    We've already got a film with an older Bond out for one more outing. It's just that we haven't seen it yet.

    That's right!

    I think after a full era of novice to retired Bond, I'd like the next era to simply be Bond in his prime. Have him start mid to late thirties and continue for a decade with a new film every 2 years.
  • edited September 2020 Posts: 4,408
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    As ridiculous as it sounds I'd probably actually prefer Neeson now as an older Bond for one outing than most of the names mentioned on this thread.
    I feel modern era Neeson could easily annihilate Timothee Chalamet .
    No doubt. It would be like Connery taking on Truman-Lodge.

    Neeson made some very controversial comments about a year ago. Comments that may make it difficult for him to return to franchise films. But he's too old for Bond now, but could have made an interesting choice in 1995. He'd have been more brusque than Brosnan. More akin to Daniel Craig.

    But I'm still on Chalamet hype train. Though I do acknowledge that he'd need to 'transform' for the part. He's way too skinny at the moment. But hiring a trainer and working 8 hours at the gym is easy if you're being paid to do it.....

    original.gif

    Also, Henry Cavill is having a good weekend with Enola Holmes. Which I will be checking out. He's the right age, has the perfect look, would bring back the elegance and be a great counter-balance to the more brooding Craig. However, (1) He's fricking Superman and (2) He's a bad actor.

    a6fecb2468d3781421a8d694c17140f9a8f01a90.gifv
    EimrCH_WsAA00fO?format=jpg&name=large

    ...Because if we can have actors playing two iconic roles, then I want the new Batman to be 007

    EivO8xdWAAE3DGH?format=jpg&name=medium

    There's also his Devil All The Time cast member, Bill Skarsgard who looks like a movie star waiting to happen. Great poise and build. He could have been a good Batman as well...

    EiDbEkAXkAAWwyg?format=jpg&name=medium

    Also, Netflix have a new horror show with Oliver Jackson-Cohen who is the right age and the right level of famous to become the next Bond. He has the look - but I've never seen this guy act. Can anyone attest to his level or lack thereof?

    Eim1XQdXkAACIfM?format=jpg&name=medium
    EinUZBPXcAAbdns?format=jpg&name=large
Sign In or Register to comment.