› ›

Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1…880881883885886…1235

Comments

  • Since62Since62
    Posts: 1,650
    Mr Goode not good for the part of Bond. Watch him in anything and you'll see. He presently appears in The King's Man, btw.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    Actors in their forties are too old now.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,223
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Actors in their forties are too old now.

    Yes. They'd probably be in their late sixties by the time B26 actually gets around to the early planning stages anyway.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Actors in their forties are too old now.

    Yes. They'd probably be in their late sixties by the time B26 actually gets around to the early planning stages anyway.
    On the plus side they can play M ;)
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,223
    Denbigh wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Actors in their forties are too old now.

    Yes. They'd probably be in their late sixties by the time B26 actually gets around to the early planning stages anyway.
    On the plus side they can play M ;)

    Quite true!
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Actors in their forties are too old now.

    Yes. They'd probably be in their late sixties by the time B26 actually gets around to the early planning stages anyway.

    Well maybe not that far, but since Bond 26 hasn't even been written yet as far as we know and they're finding their feet, by the time they get things rolling they need an actor who can do a few. And given the delays between films now, they can't govthe Moore route.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 951
    I saw The King's Man the other day. Bit of a mess of a film, but lots of good actors and nice sequences. The very small role Aaron Taylor-Johnson played in it did remind me that, as @Denbigh (I think it was Denbigh) has said in the past, he'd be at least solid in the part. I do think he'll not be in the running, however, as he's not a particularly charismatic interviewee, and despite some good character work he's not garnered the kind of acclaim Craig had.

    Still, I am coming around to the idea he'd be a good straight take on the role, given a good script.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,602
    I know he's not given anything to do in King's Man (why is he in it? He is a bit of a name so was the role edited out of the film, or is the idea he'll get more to do in a sequel?) but I found he didn't exactly draw the eye with his star quality. But maybe that's unfair: he really does only get a few lines and is basically just being a messenger in those.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 951
    Oh, you're not wrong, he doesn't exude charisma, but I think he disappears into a part - I'm always surprised when I realise it's him in a role I'm watching. But that's what I think would make him a good choice if you had a really good (serious) script - I think he'd be very believable in the role. What he doesn't have is star quality, which is needed when you don't have a decent script and you need someone who has that cool 'look at me' factor to distract the audience from that fact.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,602
    I must admit, if I have to choose between him being a top actor and star quality (hopefully you’d get both, as with Connery or Craig), I’d pick star quality. It means audiences connect with the lead better and just like him: I’d say Pierce and Roger are good examples of that.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    When I watched The King's Man it was very much a cae of "wait, is that him?", partly because he disappears into the role a bit, partly because the part is so small, as you say. Not to spoil the film, but he pretty obviously being set up for a sequel, which is a bit of a strange choice, but that's that.

    As for Bond, I agree with you two. There is a great case to be made on paper - English, right age, right look, not signed up to a superhero franchise for the long term (I think?), solid career with experience leading films, but not a superstar - but he does kind of seem to fall short in reality. But if anyone here keeps a list, he should probably be on there in the lower ranks.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    mtm wrote: »
    I must admit, if I have to choose between him being a top actor and star quality (hopefully you’d get both, as with Connery or Craig), I’d pick star quality. It means audiences connect with the lead better and just like him: I’d say Pierce and Roger are good examples of that.

    I agree. I think star quality is intrinsic though. You watch actors like Gary Cooper, James Stewart & Steve McQueen. They are very subtle, yet audiences can't seem to get enough of them.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2022 Posts: 5,970
    Yeah, Aaron Taylor Johnson is in my top three. I just think he's an actor whose shown good range throughout his career, and could definitely do a lot with James Bond. The same with Sam Claflin, although I'd say Claflin has more range. I know some would say the actor doesn't need to be that skilled or have that much of a range, but its more about the fact that those kind of actors can do a lot with very little in my opinion, and would be more interesting than someone who would just play James Bond in a 2-Dimensional way.

    Although Taylor-Johnson is about to do Kraven The Hunter, a solo Spider Man spin-off akin to Venom and Morbius, so either this could throw him out the race or keep him in cause this could just be the thing he needs to prove himself as a lead. I think his appearance in David Leitch's Bullet Train will show his capabilities in a proper action film, even if hes not the lead there.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,252
    I just can’t get on board with Taylor-Johnson, he’s even more wooden than Cavill.

    Claflin Is definitely high on my list.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2022 Posts: 5,970
    talos7 wrote: »
    I just can’t get on board with Taylor-Johnson, he’s even more wooden than Cavill.
    See I really don’t think that’s the case, although I understand your opinion here. But I feel if you compare Cavill’s filmography to some of Taylor-Johnson’s projects like Nocturnal Animals, Outlaw King and even Kick Ass, I think he’s at least proven himself more than Cavill. I don’t think Cavill is a terrible actor, he just doesn’t tend to go beyond being Cavill in my opinion.

    But I agree if it’s between Taylor-Johnson and Sam Claflin, I’d go for Claflin.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,157
    Y'know, I could sort of see Claflin as Avon in a remake of Blake's 7, but as Bond? Going by General Gogol's criteria from the other week - could he hold his own in a dramatic scene with the likes of Mads Mikkelson, could you see him seducing Monica Bellucci and would you believe he could beat Dave Battista? Not really, tbh. IMO, obvs.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    Venutius wrote: »
    Y'know, I could sort of see Claflin as Avon in a remake of Blake's 7, but as Bond? Going by General Gogol's criteria from the other week - could he hold his own in a dramatic scene with the likes of Mads Mikkelson, could you see him seducing Monica Bellucci and would you believe he could beat Dave Battista? Not really, tbh. IMO, obvs.
    I mean I personally could, in the context of James Bond obviously, the problem with the example of Dave Bautista, is that I don't really believe any of the actors who have played James Bond could really beat him up.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,382
    mtm wrote: »
    I must admit, if I have to choose between him being a top actor and star quality (hopefully you’d get both, as with Connery or Craig), I’d pick star quality. It means audiences connect with the lead better and just like him: I’d say Pierce and Roger are good examples of that.

    Agreed. And I think Timothy Dalton is the opposite. Disappearing into a role, etc.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited February 2022 Posts: 3,157
    Denbigh wrote: »
    the problem with the example of Dave Bautista, is that I don't really believe any of the actors who have played James Bond could really beat him up.
    Indeed. The CraigBond of CR would've put up the best fight against Hinx but, in real life, that behind the scenes footage of the train fight where Mendes calls cut and Craig shrieks like a Victorian schoolgirl and runs away from Bautista is closer to reality, eh! :))
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    Venutius wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    the problem with the example of Dave Bautista, is that I don't really believe any of the actors who have played James Bond could really beat him up.
    Indeed. The CraigBond of CR would've put up the best fight against Hinx but, in real life, that behind the scenes footage of the train fight where Mendes calls cut and Craig shrieks like a Victorian schoolgirl and runs away from Bautista is closer to reality, eh! :))
    Precisely haha :D
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,602
    It's off topic but I really like the Hinx fight: especially how Bond tires out and runs out of energy. It's unusual to see that happen in a fight in a film like this.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,675
    mtm wrote: »
    I know he's not given anything to do in King's Man (why is he in it? He is a bit of a name so was the role edited out of the film, or is the idea he'll get more to do in a sequel?) but I found he didn't exactly draw the eye with his star quality. But maybe that's unfair: he really does only get a few lines and is basically just being a messenger in those.

    Didn't that happen to him in Godzilla and Tenet? The exact same thing, where he should have been in more of the movie but gets cut out for some reason? Is he a bad actor? I'm serious, there are reports that he had a bigger role in Godzilla, and then in Tenet, and now Kingsman. Either his agent sucks or something is up.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2022 Posts: 5,970
    LucknFate wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I know he's not given anything to do in King's Man (why is he in it? He is a bit of a name so was the role edited out of the film, or is the idea he'll get more to do in a sequel?) but I found he didn't exactly draw the eye with his star quality. But maybe that's unfair: he really does only get a few lines and is basically just being a messenger in those.

    Didn't that happen to him in Godzilla and Tenet? The exact same thing, where he should have been in more of the movie but gets cut out for some reason? Is he a bad actor? I'm serious, there are reports that he had a bigger role in Godzilla, and then in Tenet, and now Kingsman. Either his agent sucks or something is up.
    No, the thing with Godzilla was how Johnson had a bigger role than Bryan Cranston, when people thought it was the other way around. As for Tenet, his role was just small, same with The Kings Man. These directors obviously just want to work with him, especially Matthew Vaughn as Johnson was his leading man in Kick Ass, and Johnson's character is one that can be carried over into a sequel if they did, although I don't think they will considering the prequel's success.

    I think he was rumoured to play Eggsy as well, before Egerton was cast.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    mtm wrote: »
    It's off topic but I really like the Hinx fight: especially how Bond tires out and runs out of energy. It's unusual to see that happen in a fight in a film like this.

    I really liked it too for the same reasons. It makes Bond come off as vulnerable in spite of his skills as a fighter.
  • ByRoyalDecreeByRoyalDecree
    edited March 2022 Posts: 784
    talos7 wrote: »
    I just can’t get on board with Taylor-Johnson, he’s even more wooden than Cavill.

    Claflin Is definitely high on my list.

    aaron-taylor-johnson-wife-sam-a-million-little-pieces-premiere-02.jpg

    Sam Claflin would make a great Robin Hood but otherwise he screams tv-actor to me, albeit not a bad one at all (could really see him in a Game of Thrones/Rome type series. Aaron is def a more versatile actor than Cavill lol, but I am not sure enough to compete with Superman (who definitely needs to slim down btw).
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,252
    ByRoyalDecree wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    I just can’t get on board with Taylor-Johnson, he’s even more wooden than Cavill.

    Claflin Is definitely high on my list.

    aaron-taylor-johnson-wife-sam-a-million-little-pieces-premiere-02.jpg

    Sam Claflin screams tv actor to me. Aaron is def a more versatile actor than Cavill lol.

    Zzzzzzzz… 😉

  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    Not sure. He needs to get rid of the beard!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,602
    Rolex Explorer though I think, nice.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    Why do so many actors today have to sport beards or stubbles to (I presume) look masculine?
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,252
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Why do so many actors today have to sport beards or stubbles to (I presume) look masculine?
    In part to compensate for their thin voices.

Sign In or Register to comment.