Who should/could be a Bond actor?

18248258278298301231

Comments

  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,318
    Mallory wrote: »
    @mtm I would say just avoid the issue all together by not having them. IMO the facial scarring Safin has is purely aesthetic and doesnt serve any character development or aid in any motivation. Safin (afaicr) never mentions them. Swann does in a fairly throwaway line.

    Compared to say, the facial disfigurement Silva has, and the narrative reasons given and the use of it in driving his character’s motivation, make that more impactful than what we had with Safin.

    Did you miss the plot point where Safin survived dioxin poisoning as a child? Dioxin among other horrible things destroys skin. Look at former Ukranian president Yuschenko who was poisoned with the stuff some years ago. It makes total sense plot wise why Safin looks the way he looks.

    O5Fm-_CDjJnFqGepO5Qt1ESkCf_k2SIjaJCfDQCce7E.jpg?auto=webp&s=535818d808cd2f18026153131e508fcdfb2c74e5
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,138
    Univex wrote: »
    Mallory wrote: »
    @mtm I would say just avoid the issue all together by not having them. IMO the facial scarring Safin has is purely aesthetic and doesnt serve any character development or aid in any motivation. Safin (afaicr) never mentions them. Swann does in a fairly throwaway line.

    Compared to say, the facial disfigurement Silva has, and the narrative reasons given and the use of it in driving his character’s motivation, make that more impactful than what we had with Safin.

    Then, why not write the scar in a prologue? ;) Make it a thing.

    If Bond 26 is going to be another reboot ??? It could be part of the pts, to show where Bond gets a facial scar.
    Similar to how Indiana Jones gets his scar in The Last Crusade, to match that of Harrison Fords.
    It's a subtle piece of character, that Fleming fans would enjoy, and the general audience wouldn't really worry about.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2021 Posts: 16,413
    Mallory wrote: »
    @mtm I would say just avoid the issue all together by not having them. IMO the facial scarring Safin has is purely aesthetic and doesnt serve any character development or aid in any motivation. Safin (afaicr) never mentions them. Swann does in a fairly throwaway line.

    Compared to say, the facial disfigurement Silva has, and the narrative reasons given and the use of it in driving his character’s motivation, make that more impactful than what we had with Safin.

    Well it is a big plot point, but I think they should avoid giving them to just the baddies. After all, quite a few of the women in Fleming's novels had something imperfect about their physical appearances: it is an invention of the films that only the baddies have scars etc. I know Camille had an injury, but it was conveniently out of sight! :)
    Benny wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Mallory wrote: »
    @mtm I would say just avoid the issue all together by not having them. IMO the facial scarring Safin has is purely aesthetic and doesnt serve any character development or aid in any motivation. Safin (afaicr) never mentions them. Swann does in a fairly throwaway line.

    Compared to say, the facial disfigurement Silva has, and the narrative reasons given and the use of it in driving his character’s motivation, make that more impactful than what we had with Safin.

    Then, why not write the scar in a prologue? ;) Make it a thing.

    If Bond 26 is going to be another reboot ??? It could be part of the pts, to show where Bond gets a facial scar.
    Similar to how Indiana Jones gets his scar in The Last Crusade, to match that of Harrison Fords.
    It's a subtle piece of character, that Fleming fans would enjoy, and the general audience wouldn't really worry about.

    Yes I think that would be good. It'd be a nice thing to just distinguish him a bit from the last.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 12,837
    Univex wrote: »
    (...) purists have that to enjoy.

    Again with this "purists" thing [-X @thelivingroyale. Please don't. It's like you want "us" who simply want to keep it close to the original literary material to feel like conservative hegemonic squares. And I assure you, I'm nothing like that. One of the things that is appealing for me in the Bond canon is having something of the past translated in the present. That, for me, is what Bond is all about. There's nothing "pure" to it, you made it sound as if I'm an arian neo nazi a-hole because I defend the idea of Bond as a caucasian male close to what the author has written. Cast new brilliant roles of other genders and races around that, and I'll be one happy fan, as the democratic liberal humanist I am.

    I didn’t mean it in a derogatory way. it’s just less of a mouthful than typing “fans who want things to stick as closely as possible to the novels” every time. Purist by definition means sticking to traditions, and I’ve definitely seen it used in the context of source material before (the google definition gives this example, “the production has yet to offend Gilbert and Sullivan purists"), nothing to do with nazis or whatever.
  • BenjaminBenjamin usa
    Posts: 59
    I thought Theo James was good in the Jane Austen show Sanditon.

  • I’ve only ever seen him in the Inbetweeners movie, but he’s been mentioned a few times on here over the years, and he’s definitely got the look for it. Might be worth a screen test.
  • Posts: 6,709
    Benny wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Mallory wrote: »
    @mtm I would say just avoid the issue all together by not having them. IMO the facial scarring Safin has is purely aesthetic and doesnt serve any character development or aid in any motivation. Safin (afaicr) never mentions them. Swann does in a fairly throwaway line.

    Compared to say, the facial disfigurement Silva has, and the narrative reasons given and the use of it in driving his character’s motivation, make that more impactful than what we had with Safin.

    Then, why not write the scar in a prologue? ;) Make it a thing.

    If Bond 26 is going to be another reboot ??? It could be part of the pts, to show where Bond gets a facial scar.
    Similar to how Indiana Jones gets his scar in The Last Crusade, to match that of Harrison Fords.
    It's a subtle piece of character, that Fleming fans would enjoy, and the general audience wouldn't really worry about.

    Exactly! :)
    Univex wrote: »
    (...) purists have that to enjoy.

    Again with this "purists" thing [-X @thelivingroyale. Please don't. It's like you want "us" who simply want to keep it close to the original literary material to feel like conservative hegemonic squares. And I assure you, I'm nothing like that. One of the things that is appealing for me in the Bond canon is having something of the past translated in the present. That, for me, is what Bond is all about. There's nothing "pure" to it, you made it sound as if I'm an arian neo nazi a-hole because I defend the idea of Bond as a caucasian male close to what the author has written. Cast new brilliant roles of other genders and races around that, and I'll be one happy fan, as the democratic liberal humanist I am.

    I didn’t mean it in a derogatory way. it’s just less of a mouthful than typing “fans who want things to stick as closely as possible to the novels” every time. Purist by definition means sticking to traditions, and I’ve definitely seen it used in the context of source material before (the google definition gives this example, “the production has yet to offend Gilbert and Sullivan purists"), nothing to do with nazis or whatever.

    That's alright, @thelivingroyale, I only reacted badly to it because some member do make a point of using it in a derogatory fashion. Not you, of course.
    Benjamin wrote: »
    I thought Theo James was good in the Jane Austen show Sanditon.


    My main candidate, as of late ;) And only because I believe he's the right age, has the right looks, right voice, good presence, curriculum - good and bad -, and...the bloody eyebrows ;)
  • JamesKJamesK Canada
    Posts: 35
    I wish Henry Cavil hadn't done Superman - none of those films were very compelling and after watching Man from UNCLE I remember thinking he had the presence, style and humor to take Bond in a lighter direction, which would be a refreshing change after the last five progressively darker outings. Unfortunately, I think he's too big, and the DC/Superman thing probably kills it.
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611

    Benjamin wrote: »
    I thought Theo James was good in the Jane Austen show Sanditon.


    I have never considered him at all but yes I could see that potentially.
    I too have only seen him in the Inbetweeners film and he's so odious in that to the point where his performance had coloured my opinion of him. Just shows what a good actor he is I suppose!
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,216
    James is one to keep an eye on; in a world of actors wit thin , unimpressive voices his stands out.

    Watching the clip above, the first image that came to mind was him exchanging flirtatious banter as he waits to be called into M’s office.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,138
    I hadn't really considered Theo James, till I saw the clip posted above.
    I know it's hard to judge from a clip, but I wouldn't be opposed to his casting. Certainly has the right looks, height, acting ability and charisma. One to keep tabs on for sure. Be surprised if he's not on a shortlist.
  • JamesKJamesK Canada
    Posts: 35
    Hmm, there's definite elements in that clip that make him seem well suited. He seems very young though, perhaps not quite seasoned enough. Maybe that's something that is just a feature of the character he's playing in that series though.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,216
    JamesK wrote: »
    Hmm, there's definite elements in that clip that make him seem well suited. He seems very young though, perhaps not quite seasoned enough. Maybe that's something that is just a feature of the character he's playing in that series though.

    Well, he’s 36, an ideal age, and will steadily become more seasoned. At the rate these films are made a youthful appearance is an asset.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    At least Theo James looks like a proper MAN, which seems to be a rare element among many Bond propositions.
  • JamesKJamesK Canada
    Posts: 35
    talos7 wrote: »
    JamesK wrote: »
    Hmm, there's definite elements in that clip that make him seem well suited. He seems very young though, perhaps not quite seasoned enough. Maybe that's something that is just a feature of the character he's playing in that series though.

    Well, he’s 36, an ideal age, and will steadily become more seasoned. At the rate these films are made a youthful appearance is an asset.

    You're not wrong there. Plus the experience of making one, if the Daniel Craig films are anything to go by, will age a person pretty bloody quickly.
  • Posts: 9,847
    AceHole wrote: »
    I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Jeremy Irvine, as this board has done so a few pages back

    He is growing into a method actor a la Christian Bale, and has exactly the kind of profile that Broccoli and Wilson will (probably) be looking for:
    right age (31 now, prob 34 by the the time B26 gets into prod)
    -British
    -not too well known
    -6ft and obviously has the necessary appeal
    -shown that he can convince in an action-based role (Treadstone series)

    He is a better actor than many give him credit for, don't be fooled by the youngish looks.

    jeremy-irvine-treadstone-3c8c6f-1@1x.jpeg


    I would be fine with him

  • edited October 2021 Posts: 4,409
    Univex wrote: »
    (...) purists have that to enjoy.

    Again with this "purists" thing [-X @thelivingroyale. Please don't. It's like you want "us" who simply want to keep it close to the original literary material to feel like conservative hegemonic squares. And I assure you, I'm nothing like that. One of the things that is appealing for me in the Bond canon is having something of the past translated in the present. That, for me, is what Bond is all about. There's nothing "pure" to it, you made it sound as if I'm an arian neo nazi a-hole because I defend the idea of Bond as a caucasian male close to what the author has written. Cast new brilliant roles of other genders and races around that, and I'll be one happy fan, as the democratic liberal humanist I am.

    I really hear this debate. Often, I weirdly do find myself agreeing with both sides.

    If you take away the core of the character and make him a different ethnicity or gender, aren't you ridding Bond of some of the fundamental DNA which the character was built upon? What then distinguishes Bond from Atomic Blonde or The Protagonist in Tenet? Aside from the tropes of the franchise (gunbarrel, theme music, etc), what would make this any different from another spy franchise without the core of the character maintained?

    Nevertheless, I do find that there have been instances where the franchise broke the rules themselves. For example, Daniel Craig was really someone on paper that didn't tick many of the boxes. That move payed off in dividends. In many respects, someone like Daniel Craig seems more revolutionary a choice on paper than someone like Rege-Jean Page who seems far more traditional.

    It's for this reason that, on balance, I believe the riskier and more edgy choice should be made. I quite like this new era Eon have entered where bold choices are not shied away from. I don't necessarily think it's likely they will cast an actor of colour as Bond. However, if Idris Elba was 35 today, he'd be hard to say 'no' to....The same could be said about Rege-Jean Page. He's literally done one thing so far, so if he can bring the goods in his upcoming projects, he would, again be someone difficult for Eon to say 'no' to.....He's basically treating his life as a James Bond audition. He was at the premiere for 'The Tragedy of Macbeth' and all I see is 007

    rege-jean-page-emily-brown-macbeth-red-carpet-07.jpg
    regjean-page-attends-the-tragedy-of-macbeth-european-premiere-during-picture-id1347104677
    regjean-page-attends-the-tragedy-of-macbeth-european-premiere-during-picture-id1347099217
    regejean-page-attends-the-tragedy-of-macbeth-european-premiere-during-picture-id1347211240
  • Posts: 6,709
    Must say, a well balanced post, @Pierce2Daniel. Well done.

    Am I right to assume that, so far, Theo James gets the more consensus? Have we found our common ground? I’m so happy we did, if we did. Maybe we have found our “FRWL” candidate. In the sense that no Bond fan would say it’s the worst Bond film or that it’s bad. And most of us love it.

    So there IS the possibility of common ground amongst us. Cool.
  • Posts: 9,847
    The difference is Cubby cast the first four Bonds, Barbara is in charge now. She cast Craig, and she’s on record as saying Bond can be any colour, so I don’t think she’s as bothered about “canonical” looks as people on here are.

    I’m not going to try and predict it myself, because I really think it could be anyone. That’s what’s so exciting for me. Jack O’Connell would still be my first choice, but after we were talking about him a few days back, I googled to try and find out if John Boyega would be up for it, and I found this

    https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/james-bond-john-boyega-steve-mcqueen-b1723677.html?amp

    Wouldn’t say no to that combo. Steve Mcqueen does seem like the sort of director they’ve been going for lately.

    who casted Brosnan then ;)

    it should be Cubby cast the first 5 and Babs casted Craig
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Mallory wrote: »
    @mtm I would say just avoid the issue all together by not having them. IMO the facial scarring Safin has is purely aesthetic and doesnt serve any character development or aid in any motivation. Safin (afaicr) never mentions them. Swann does in a fairly throwaway line.

    Compared to say, the facial disfigurement Silva has, and the narrative reasons given and the use of it in driving his character’s motivation, make that more impactful than what we had with Safin.

    Did you miss the plot point where Safin survived dioxin poisoning as a child? Dioxin among other horrible things destroys skin. Look at former Ukranian president Yuschenko who was poisoned with the stuff some years ago. It makes total sense plot wise why Safin looks the way he looks.

    O5Fm-_CDjJnFqGepO5Qt1ESkCf_k2SIjaJCfDQCce7E.jpg?auto=webp&s=535818d808cd2f18026153131e508fcdfb2c74e5

    Just look at this guy. You can tell right away he is evil.
  • Risico007 wrote: »
    The difference is Cubby cast the first four Bonds, Barbara is in charge now. She cast Craig, and she’s on record as saying Bond can be any colour, so I don’t think she’s as bothered about “canonical” looks as people on here are.

    I’m not going to try and predict it myself, because I really think it could be anyone. That’s what’s so exciting for me. Jack O’Connell would still be my first choice, but after we were talking about him a few days back, I googled to try and find out if John Boyega would be up for it, and I found this

    https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/james-bond-john-boyega-steve-mcqueen-b1723677.html?amp

    Wouldn’t say no to that combo. Steve Mcqueen does seem like the sort of director they’ve been going for lately.

    who casted Brosnan then ;)

    it should be Cubby cast the first 5 and Babs casted Craig

    Don’t know how I managed to miscount there haha. But yeah exactly, Brosnan was Cubby’s final Bond really, and I think the difference between his relationship with EON and Craig’s speaks volumes. Getting sacked vs getting a co-producer credit, creative control, etc. I’m sure she liked Pierce as a person, but they seem much more satisfied with their edgier choice. Why else would they go to such lengths to keep him happy?

    That doesn’t necessarily mean we’ll get someone similar to Craig next time. But I do think Craig’s casting, success, and how happy EON were with him has blown the net wide open in terms of potential candidates. Physically, I’d imagine it’s anything goes now, within limits obviously (he’ll still have to have sex appeal and be in decent shape, for example).
  • Posts: 1,630
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    May I ask, just out of curiosity, @thelivingroyale, when and where has Barbara Broccoli stated that "Bond can be any colour", as you put it. I know she's said Bond is a male character, addressing the gender question, but I thought she never addressed the race question. Just curious, of course, do you happen to know?
    Sorry to jump in, but it was actually in the same article she said Bond would always be a man, her words according to the articles, said ""James Bond can be of any colour, but he is male."

    God willing she was just being diplomatic.

    "God willing" ? Do you believe in a racist Almighty ?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2021 Posts: 16,413
    Univex wrote: »
    Must say, a well balanced post, @Pierce2Daniel. Well done.

    Am I right to assume that, so far, Theo James gets the more consensus? Have we found our common ground? I’m so happy we did, if we did. Maybe we have found our “FRWL” candidate. In the sense that no Bond fan would say it’s the worst Bond film or that it’s bad. And most of us love it.

    So there IS the possibility of common ground amongst us. Cool.

    I'd need to actually watch him in something to see if he's any good first, and he's not appeared in anything I've seen. I'm open to all suggestions but I need to see how good they are first. It looks like he's playing the co-lead in the new Steven Moffat version of The Time Traveler's wife, which I will certainly watch.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Must say, a well balanced post, @Pierce2Daniel. Well done.

    Am I right to assume that, so far, Theo James gets the more consensus? Have we found our common ground? I’m so happy we did, if we did. Maybe we have found our “FRWL” candidate. In the sense that no Bond fan would say it’s the worst Bond film or that it’s bad. And most of us love it.

    So there IS the possibility of common ground amongst us. Cool.

    I'd need to actually watch him in something to see if he's any good first, and he's not appeared in anything I've seen. I'm open to all suggestions but I need to see how good they are first. It looks like he's playing the co-lead in the new Steven Moffat version of The Time Traveler's wife, which I will certainly watch.

    He was good in Archive, which is also a great little film .
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 9,847
    Univex wrote: »
    Must say, a well balanced post, @Pierce2Daniel. Well done.

    Am I right to assume that, so far, Theo James gets the more consensus? Have we found our common ground? I’m so happy we did, if we did. Maybe we have found our “FRWL” candidate. In the sense that no Bond fan would say it’s the worst Bond film or that it’s bad. And most of us love it.

    So there IS the possibility of common ground amongst us. Cool.


    I am fine with Theo James
    and according to ths

    https://divergent.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Big_Brother_99/Theo_James_Confirmed_As_New_James_Bond:_Actor_To_Star_Next_To_Emilia_Clarke

    he is the next Bond and Bond 25 will be his first film... did I dream No time to die? lol
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 942
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Must say, a well balanced post, @Pierce2Daniel. Well done.

    Am I right to assume that, so far, Theo James gets the more consensus? Have we found our common ground? I’m so happy we did, if we did. Maybe we have found our “FRWL” candidate. In the sense that no Bond fan would say it’s the worst Bond film or that it’s bad. And most of us love it.

    So there IS the possibility of common ground amongst us. Cool.

    I'd need to actually watch him in something to see if he's any good first, and he's not appeared in anything I've seen. I'm open to all suggestions but I need to see how good they are first. It looks like he's playing the co-lead in the new Steven Moffat version of The Time Traveler's wife, which I will certainly watch.

    I thought he was good in Divergent, but it's a Young Adult adaptation, so you may not enjoy it (I found it entertaining myself).

    For a more grown-up role, Backstabbing For Beginners is worth checking out.

    I do think you'll be a little underwhelmed - Theo James is a very solid actor, but he can't lift lacklustre material like a true star can, imo. But then, there are very few of those around.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2021 Posts: 16,413
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Must say, a well balanced post, @Pierce2Daniel. Well done.

    Am I right to assume that, so far, Theo James gets the more consensus? Have we found our common ground? I’m so happy we did, if we did. Maybe we have found our “FRWL” candidate. In the sense that no Bond fan would say it’s the worst Bond film or that it’s bad. And most of us love it.

    So there IS the possibility of common ground amongst us. Cool.

    I'd need to actually watch him in something to see if he's any good first, and he's not appeared in anything I've seen. I'm open to all suggestions but I need to see how good they are first. It looks like he's playing the co-lead in the new Steven Moffat version of The Time Traveler's wife, which I will certainly watch.

    He was good in Archive, which is also a great little film .

    Okay thanks, I'll see if I can find it. Sounds very Ex Machina! :)
    I do think you'll be a little underwhelmed - Theo James is a very solid actor, but he can't lift lacklustre material like a true star can, imo. But then, there are very few of those around.

    Thanks. Yes that's the worry. I don't really want someone who's just fine.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Must say, a well balanced post, @Pierce2Daniel. Well done.

    Am I right to assume that, so far, Theo James gets the more consensus? Have we found our common ground? I’m so happy we did, if we did. Maybe we have found our “FRWL” candidate. In the sense that no Bond fan would say it’s the worst Bond film or that it’s bad. And most of us love it.

    So there IS the possibility of common ground amongst us. Cool.

    I'd need to actually watch him in something to see if he's any good first, and he's not appeared in anything I've seen. I'm open to all suggestions but I need to see how good they are first. It looks like he's playing the co-lead in the new Steven Moffat version of The Time Traveler's wife, which I will certainly watch.

    He was good in Archive, which is also a great little film .

    Okay thanks, I'll see if I can find it. Sounds very Ex Machina! :)

    Haven t seen that, but yes. The subject matter is sort of similar.
  • Posts: 6,709
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Must say, a well balanced post, @Pierce2Daniel. Well done.

    Am I right to assume that, so far, Theo James gets the more consensus? Have we found our common ground? I’m so happy we did, if we did. Maybe we have found our “FRWL” candidate. In the sense that no Bond fan would say it’s the worst Bond film or that it’s bad. And most of us love it.

    So there IS the possibility of common ground amongst us. Cool.

    I'd need to actually watch him in something to see if he's any good first, and he's not appeared in anything I've seen. I'm open to all suggestions but I need to see how good they are first. It looks like he's playing the co-lead in the new Steven Moffat version of The Time Traveler's wife, which I will certainly watch.
    Had no idea this was happening. Thank you.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,216
    Since62 wrote: »
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    May I ask, just out of curiosity, @thelivingroyale, when and where has Barbara Broccoli stated that "Bond can be any colour", as you put it. I know she's said Bond is a male character, addressing the gender question, but I thought she never addressed the race question. Just curious, of course, do you happen to know?
    Sorry to jump in, but it was actually in the same article she said Bond would always be a man, her words according to the articles, said ""James Bond can be of any colour, but he is male."

    God willing she was just being diplomatic.

    "God willing" ? Do you believe in a racist Almighty ?

    Wanting Bond to remain Caucasian is , for the vast majority who feel that way, not based In racism; it’s simply a preference. Jumping to the racism motive is prejudiced.

    I’ve said that I prefer Bond to remain white, but I would go see a spy film featuring someone like Idris Elba in the drop of a hat.
Sign In or Register to comment.