Who should/could be a Bond actor?

Jordo007

Aidan Turner is my top pick, out of all the suggestions he's the only one I can picture in the role
Admittedly though I'm no casting director and I trust Eon will get it right

JeremyBondon

Benny wrote: »

Aidan Turners, age, looks and current star power make him a very credible chance of becoming the next Bond.
He’s certainly one I’d be quite happy about if cast.
He’s still quite unknown to many, and I think that helps. He has an air of mystery about him, and looks like a man’s man.

*High fives Benny* It is indeed also that very rare mystery ingredient that makes him stand above the others.

ByRoyalDecree wrote: »

I haven’t really been impressed by any of his performances yet (including the one of Lombard in ATTWN) but these wimbledon pictures of Aidan Turner make me wet.

His chin and jawline are rather weak without the beard/long hair though.

He doesn't even have a weak jawline and/or chin. Craig however has such a weak jawline he looks Russian, look at Putin alone :)

Venutius

Same: Aidan Turner is the only one of the current potentials that I can actually see as Bond.

MajorDSmythe

With the long hair, Turner looks like the chap Bond drowns in the opening of CR. Someone else pointed it out, and now I can't unsee it

007HallY

I've said it before - Turner as Bond seems almost slightly too plausible to turn out to be true. Not quite along the lines of Henry Cavill - certainly more a fan favourite - but not that far off either.

The guy looks like Bond. He's a very good actor from what I've seen. Like all of these actors being suggested though it's different when you actually see them try to portray the role. He just might not have that 'certain something' about him, might not bring anything new to the part. I've not seen any roles from him that even strike me as particularly 'Bondian' in the way I've seen from other actors on this thread less hyped than him. Even in 'And Then There Were None' I got more a sense he was doing a sort of impression of a mysterious Bond type character - the sort of man consciously acting in a particular way who has secrets to hide - rather than something more authentically Bond-esque like we got from Craig in Layer Cake. Again, that's the character he's playing in that, so it's not a slight against his acting. I could, as always, be wrong though but my gut instinct is he won't get the part and wouldn't be a particularly memorable Bond in the unlikely event that he did. The guy certainly looks good in a tuxedo and suit however.

Jordo007

MajorDSmythe wrote: »

With the long hair, Turner looks like the chap Bond drowns in the opening of CR. Someone else pointed it out, and now I can't unsee it

Haha I'll never be able to unsee that now

Informe_James_Bond

Risico007 wrote: »

Obviously

My top 5 is still

1. Fassbender
2. Hardy
3. Hiddleston
4. Hemsworth
5. Cavill

I still don't understand how you guys keep mentioning these actors. Famous, very popular, some of them linked to other franchises and others with an unfavorable age.

The history of the choice of each actor is there, don't behave like the tabloids. Be a real Bond Fan.

;)

ByRoyalDecree

With the bar so high I wouldn’t be surprised if they go with a famous actor. Times are different.

talos7

ByRoyalDecree wrote: »

With the bar so high I wouldn’t be surprised if they go with a famous actor. Times are different.

I agree these are different times; the next actor will have achieved a certain amount of success. Of course social media , and the internet as a whole, has made fore an entirely different environment that has changed exponentially even since the announcement of Craig.

Risico007

peter wrote: »

GadgetMan wrote: »

Always feared when too many writers were touching NTTD. That's why the Matera sequence and the bunker shootout looked like scenes that could easily be in CR, QoS and SF. The tonal shifts were just too massive in NTTD.

Script doctoring is the most lucrative job as a writer in Hollywood. Every major film you’ve watched in the past 25-30 years likely had way more writers than were credited.

(I’m talking blockbusters, not indies or smaller budget art house films, but even then, doctors aren’t foreign to these productions either).

A doctor, like Burns, usually comes on board for a specific reason and only work a few days to a couple to three weeks, focused solely on their assignment.

In NTTD the original story and draft goes to P&W, then CF and PWB did some heavy lifting (therefore they’re recognized in the credits); the doctors don’t really change the overall tone of a script because their assignments are so specific (give us more action in our set pieces starting on pages 12- 24, and I want you to find a better way of utilizing the climactic action sequence, or; so-and-so was hired because the dialogue between our protagonist and his love interest is weak….).

A doctor writes within the tone set by the draft they are working, and is specific to his or her assignment.

Saying that, once a script is written, making a film isn’t just point a camera and shoot what’s on the page. As soon as the director calls “Action!”, anything can change what was written on the page and what we see in the final film….

I didn’t have an issue with tone of NTTD, but for those that did, I have to figure that it likely wasn’t too many chefs in the kitchen this time, but perhaps just the nature of wrapping a bow onto the five film arc of this era.

(Even Spectre’s unevenness wasn’t due to the amount of writers/doctors/producers and distributors all jumping in; more that they really didn’t have a clear vision and not one of them were able to come up with a solution (personally I would have scrapped Spectre as it wasn’t working; I would have begged to delay the film and start with a page one draft developing a wholly new script).

too many writers can work well case in point Jaws

the USS indianoplis speech

Gottlieb wrote like 2 lines
Howard Sackler expanded it
Spielberg expanded it more
Shaw expanded it to what we have.

ImpertinentGoon

talos7 wrote: »

ByRoyalDecree wrote: »

With the bar so high I wouldn’t be surprised if they go with a famous actor. Times are different.

I agree these are different times; the next actor will have achieved a certain amount of success. Of course social media , and the internet as a whole, has made fore an entirely different environment that has changed exponentially even since the announcement of Craig.

Loads of people have already said it, but the amount of hate that will be thrown at the new guy - and it doesn't matter at all who it will be, they'd all get it - will make CraigNotBond look like childsplay.

peter

Risico007 wrote: »

peter wrote: »

GadgetMan wrote: »

Always feared when too many writers were touching NTTD. That's why the Matera sequence and the bunker shootout looked like scenes that could easily be in CR, QoS and SF. The tonal shifts were just too massive in NTTD.

Script doctoring is the most lucrative job as a writer in Hollywood. Every major film you’ve watched in the past 25-30 years likely had way more writers than were credited.

(I’m talking blockbusters, not indies or smaller budget art house films, but even then, doctors aren’t foreign to these productions either).

A doctor, like Burns, usually comes on board for a specific reason and only work a few days to a couple to three weeks, focused solely on their assignment.

In NTTD the original story and draft goes to P&W, then CF and PWB did some heavy lifting (therefore they’re recognized in the credits); the doctors don’t really change the overall tone of a script because their assignments are so specific (give us more action in our set pieces starting on pages 12- 24, and I want you to find a better way of utilizing the climactic action sequence, or; so-and-so was hired because the dialogue between our protagonist and his love interest is weak….).

A doctor writes within the tone set by the draft they are working, and is specific to his or her assignment.

Saying that, once a script is written, making a film isn’t just point a camera and shoot what’s on the page. As soon as the director calls “Action!”, anything can change what was written on the page and what we see in the final film….

I didn’t have an issue with tone of NTTD, but for those that did, I have to figure that it likely wasn’t too many chefs in the kitchen this time, but perhaps just the nature of wrapping a bow onto the five film arc of this era.

(Even Spectre’s unevenness wasn’t due to the amount of writers/doctors/producers and distributors all jumping in; more that they really didn’t have a clear vision and not one of them were able to come up with a solution (personally I would have scrapped Spectre as it wasn’t working; I would have begged to delay the film and start with a page one draft developing a wholly new script).

too many writers can work well case in point Jaws

the USS indianoplis speech

Gottlieb wrote like 2 lines
Howard Sackler expanded it
Spielberg expanded it more
Shaw expanded it to what we have.

That's the point of a script doctor, and my point: their job is to improve upon sections of the script that they've been assigned to, but rarely would their involvement change tones of an entire script or finished film.

Venutius

And, ironically, a lot of it will be 'he's not as good as Daniel Craig'! Although, realistically, he actually won't be, no matter who it is, so that'll be fair comment! ;)

talos7

Script Doctor…my dream job.

007HallY

ImpertinentGoon wrote: »

talos7 wrote: »

ByRoyalDecree wrote: »

With the bar so high I wouldn’t be surprised if they go with a famous actor. Times are different.

I agree these are different times; the next actor will have achieved a certain amount of success. Of course social media , and the internet as a whole, has made fore an entirely different environment that has changed exponentially even since the announcement of Craig.

Loads of people have already said it, but the amount of hate that will be thrown at the new guy - and it doesn't matter at all who it will be, they'd all get it - will make CraigNotBond look like childsplay.

It has always and will continue to be the case that many people will simply not be happy with the next Bond initially. I completely agree in that sense, whoever it is they'll get some sort of internet hate thrown at them. Nothing they can do except put in their best performance. Heck, even on these forums I can see some people being sceptical of the next actor when it's confirmed Aidan Turner did not in fact get the role and was most likely never considered. Even if it is Turner many will be unhappy and poke fun at his weak jawline or whatever.

Mathis1

Risico007 wrote: »

peter wrote: »

GadgetMan wrote: »

Always feared when too many writers were touching NTTD. That's why the Matera sequence and the bunker shootout looked like scenes that could easily be in CR, QoS and SF. The tonal shifts were just too massive in NTTD.

Script doctoring is the most lucrative job as a writer in Hollywood. Every major film you’ve watched in the past 25-30 years likely had way more writers than were credited.

(I’m talking blockbusters, not indies or smaller budget art house films, but even then, doctors aren’t foreign to these productions either).

A doctor, like Burns, usually comes on board for a specific reason and only work a few days to a couple to three weeks, focused solely on their assignment.

In NTTD the original story and draft goes to P&W, then CF and PWB did some heavy lifting (therefore they’re recognized in the credits); the doctors don’t really change the overall tone of a script because their assignments are so specific (give us more action in our set pieces starting on pages 12- 24, and I want you to find a better way of utilizing the climactic action sequence, or; so-and-so was hired because the dialogue between our protagonist and his love interest is weak….).

A doctor writes within the tone set by the draft they are working, and is specific to his or her assignment.

Saying that, once a script is written, making a film isn’t just point a camera and shoot what’s on the page. As soon as the director calls “Action!”, anything can change what was written on the page and what we see in the final film….

I didn’t have an issue with tone of NTTD, but for those that did, I have to figure that it likely wasn’t too many chefs in the kitchen this time, but perhaps just the nature of wrapping a bow onto the five film arc of this era.

(Even Spectre’s unevenness wasn’t due to the amount of writers/doctors/producers and distributors all jumping in; more that they really didn’t have a clear vision and not one of them were able to come up with a solution (personally I would have scrapped Spectre as it wasn’t working; I would have begged to delay the film and start with a page one draft developing a wholly new script).

too many writers can work well case in point Jaws

the USS indianoplis speech

Gottlieb wrote like 2 lines
Howard Sackler expanded it
Spielberg expanded it more
Shaw expanded it to what we have.

I thought John Milius wrote that speech, and Shaw edited it to the one depicted?

mtm

ImpertinentGoon wrote: »

talos7 wrote: »

ByRoyalDecree wrote: »

With the bar so high I wouldn’t be surprised if they go with a famous actor. Times are different.

I agree these are different times; the next actor will have achieved a certain amount of success. Of course social media , and the internet as a whole, has made fore an entirely different environment that has changed exponentially even since the announcement of Craig.

Loads of people have already said it, but the amount of hate that will be thrown at the new guy - and it doesn't matter at all who it will be, they'd all get it - will make CraigNotBond look like childsplay.

I think it will be interesting to see because for a lot of younger people the next Bond film has always starred Daniel Craig. Obviously they're aware he wasn't the first and have seen those, but he was their Bond, and for a very long time.

Venutius wrote: »

And, ironically, a lot of it will be 'he's not as good as Daniel Craig'! Although, realistically, he actually won't be, no matter who it is, so that'll be fair comment! ;)

Ha! I think it's possible that will be true.

Risico007

Mathis1 wrote: »

Risico007 wrote: »

peter wrote: »

GadgetMan wrote: »

Always feared when too many writers were touching NTTD. That's why the Matera sequence and the bunker shootout looked like scenes that could easily be in CR, QoS and SF. The tonal shifts were just too massive in NTTD.

Script doctoring is the most lucrative job as a writer in Hollywood. Every major film you’ve watched in the past 25-30 years likely had way more writers than were credited.

(I’m talking blockbusters, not indies or smaller budget art house films, but even then, doctors aren’t foreign to these productions either).

A doctor, like Burns, usually comes on board for a specific reason and only work a few days to a couple to three weeks, focused solely on their assignment.

In NTTD the original story and draft goes to P&W, then CF and PWB did some heavy lifting (therefore they’re recognized in the credits); the doctors don’t really change the overall tone of a script because their assignments are so specific (give us more action in our set pieces starting on pages 12- 24, and I want you to find a better way of utilizing the climactic action sequence, or; so-and-so was hired because the dialogue between our protagonist and his love interest is weak….).

A doctor writes within the tone set by the draft they are working, and is specific to his or her assignment.

Saying that, once a script is written, making a film isn’t just point a camera and shoot what’s on the page. As soon as the director calls “Action!”, anything can change what was written on the page and what we see in the final film….

I didn’t have an issue with tone of NTTD, but for those that did, I have to figure that it likely wasn’t too many chefs in the kitchen this time, but perhaps just the nature of wrapping a bow onto the five film arc of this era.

(Even Spectre’s unevenness wasn’t due to the amount of writers/doctors/producers and distributors all jumping in; more that they really didn’t have a clear vision and not one of them were able to come up with a solution (personally I would have scrapped Spectre as it wasn’t working; I would have begged to delay the film and start with a page one draft developing a wholly new script).

too many writers can work well case in point Jaws

the USS indianoplis speech

Gottlieb wrote like 2 lines
Howard Sackler expanded it
Spielberg expanded it more
Shaw expanded it to what we have.

I thought John Milius wrote that speech, and Shaw edited it to the one depicted?

I forgot about Milius but there were like 5-6 writers and shaw basically too the best bits from each writer

JeremyBondon

007HallY wrote: »

ImpertinentGoon wrote: »

talos7 wrote: »

ByRoyalDecree wrote: »

With the bar so high I wouldn’t be surprised if they go with a famous actor. Times are different.

I agree these are different times; the next actor will have achieved a certain amount of success. Of course social media , and the internet as a whole, has made fore an entirely different environment that has changed exponentially even since the announcement of Craig.

Loads of people have already said it, but the amount of hate that will be thrown at the new guy - and it doesn't matter at all who it will be, they'd all get it - will make CraigNotBond look like childsplay.

It has always and will continue to be the case that many people will simply not be happy with the next Bond initially. I completely agree in that sense, whoever it is they'll get some sort of internet hate thrown at them. Nothing they can do except put in their best performance. Heck, even on these forums I can see some people being sceptical of the next actor when it's confirmed Aidan Turner did not in fact get the role and was most likely never considered. Even if it is Turner many will be unhappy and poke fun at his weak jawline or whatever.

It seems you are projecting your own insecurities. Do you suffer from a weak jawline or?

007HallY

JeremyBondon wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

ImpertinentGoon wrote: »

talos7 wrote: »

ByRoyalDecree wrote: »

With the bar so high I wouldn’t be surprised if they go with a famous actor. Times are different.

I agree these are different times; the next actor will have achieved a certain amount of success. Of course social media , and the internet as a whole, has made fore an entirely different environment that has changed exponentially even since the announcement of Craig.

Loads of people have already said it, but the amount of hate that will be thrown at the new guy - and it doesn't matter at all who it will be, they'd all get it - will make CraigNotBond look like childsplay.

It has always and will continue to be the case that many people will simply not be happy with the next Bond initially. I completely agree in that sense, whoever it is they'll get some sort of internet hate thrown at them. Nothing they can do except put in their best performance. Heck, even on these forums I can see some people being sceptical of the next actor when it's confirmed Aidan Turner did not in fact get the role and was most likely never considered. Even if it is Turner many will be unhappy and poke fun at his weak jawline or whatever.

It seems you are projecting your own insecurities. Do you suffer from a weak jawline or?

Haha, I don't as far as I'm aware, just a reference to something discussed on the previous page. I don't really care about his jawline.

TFC1

Not sure if he has been mentioned before, but I saw something called Miss Scarlett and the Duke tonight and the lead in it is called Stuart Martin. He plays a police detective in victorian england and there was a scene where he had to question and intimidate some posh chap in his club and he definitely looks like he could have the menace. His previous large role was in Jamestown.

He bears an uncanny resemblance to Hugh Jackman but is Scottish, 36 and 6ft 2. Physically and in looks he certainly fits the bill. Not sure he has star factor but could be worth a test!

talos7

TFC1 wrote: »

Not sure if he has been mentioned before, but I saw something called Miss Scarlett and the Duke tonight and the lead in it is called Stuart Martin. He plays a police detective in victorian england and there was a scene where he had to question and intimidate some posh chap in his club and he definitely looks like he could have the menace. His previous large role was in Jamestown.

He bears an uncanny resemblance to Hugh Jackman but is Scottish, 36 and 6ft 2. Physically and in looks he certainly fits the bill. Not sure he has star factor but could be worth a test!

He’s been brought up from time to time. talk about weak jawlines ; without a beard, his lower face is virtually non existent. Of course I exaggerate , but he really is overly dependent on a beard.

007HallY

My sarcastic jab at Turner aside, do these aspects of an actor's face matter that much? Does Craig having ears that stick out and a wide nose impact his ability to play Bond? Does Robert Pattinson's astonishingly flat nose impair his ability to play Batman? Hell, Michael Keaton practically has no chin and he played that part well too. I'm sure if you look hard enough all the Bond actors will have similar 'weak' aspects of their features. Surely an actor having a 'weak jawline' or whatever can be forgiven if their interpretation of the role is strong?

Taking that one step further, is it a case where 'looking like Bond' simply isn't enough and in order to truly gauge these actor's potential (insofar as we can) we need to actually look at said actor's past performances and look a bit deeper to find something in them?

00Heaven

Honestly this thread makes me think you all want this damn guy....



He got the perfect jawline? Am I right? LOL.

Venutius

Maybe if Turner started on the mastic gum about now...

00Heaven

Venutius wrote: »

Maybe if Turner started on the mastic gum about now...

He just MIGHT meet Gigachad status, yes. lol.

JeremyBondon

00Heaven wrote: »

Honestly this thread makes me think you all want this damn guy....



He got the perfect jawline? Am I right? LOL.

That is one creepy CGI render. Or is it human? Ha.

mtm

007HallY wrote: »

My sarcastic jab at Turner aside, do these aspects of an actor's face matter that much? Does Craig having ears that stick out and a wide nose impact his ability to play Bond? Does Robert Pattinson's astonishingly flat nose impair his ability to play Batman? Hell, Michael Keaton practically has no chin and he played that part well too. I'm sure if you look hard enough all the Bond actors will have similar 'weak' aspects of their features. Surely an actor having a 'weak jawline' or whatever can be forgiven if their interpretation of the role is strong?

Taking that one step further, is it a case where 'looking like Bond' simply isn't enough and in order to truly gauge these actor's potential (insofar as we can) we need to actually look at said actor's past performances and look a bit deeper to find something in them?

Yes, this is spot on.

A bit of a random thought as he has a new show out, how about Will Poulter? He's a very good actor and becoming more and more prominent in film.

JeremyBondon

mtm wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

My sarcastic jab at Turner aside, do these aspects of an actor's face matter that much? Does Craig having ears that stick out and a wide nose impact his ability to play Bond? Does Robert Pattinson's astonishingly flat nose impair his ability to play Batman? Hell, Michael Keaton practically has no chin and he played that part well too. I'm sure if you look hard enough all the Bond actors will have similar 'weak' aspects of their features. Surely an actor having a 'weak jawline' or whatever can be forgiven if their interpretation of the role is strong?

Taking that one step further, is it a case where 'looking like Bond' simply isn't enough and in order to truly gauge these actor's potential (insofar as we can) we need to actually look at said actor's past performances and look a bit deeper to find something in them?

Yes, this is spot on.

A bit of a random thought as he has a new show out, how about Will Poulter? He's a very good actor and becoming more and more prominent in film.

I say the new Jason Bourne

sandbagger1

mtm wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

My sarcastic jab at Turner aside, do these aspects of an actor's face matter that much? Does Craig having ears that stick out and a wide nose impact his ability to play Bond? Does Robert Pattinson's astonishingly flat nose impair his ability to play Batman? Hell, Michael Keaton practically has no chin and he played that part well too. I'm sure if you look hard enough all the Bond actors will have similar 'weak' aspects of their features. Surely an actor having a 'weak jawline' or whatever can be forgiven if their interpretation of the role is strong?

Taking that one step further, is it a case where 'looking like Bond' simply isn't enough and in order to truly gauge these actor's potential (insofar as we can) we need to actually look at said actor's past performances and look a bit deeper to find something in them?

Yes, this is spot on.

A bit of a random thought as he has a new show out, how about Will Poulter? He's a very good actor and becoming more and more prominent in film.

Well this is what I said back in 2020:

sandbagger1 wrote: »

patb wrote: »

It's interesting that so many of you are basing the decision on looks when there are so many other factors. Based on that, DC would never had stood a chance but he's done a great job. It's so much more than looks IMHO.

Looks are a big part, though. The James Bond character doesn't require a great deal of range, but does require an audience to believe that they could occasionally kill professional assassins with their bare hands AND be very attractive to a wide range of women. If you really don't care what the actor looks like, there is a British actor who is young, well regarded, has acted alongside Tom Hardy and Leonardo DiCaprio, and is 6' 3'' - Will Poulter. Good actor, doesn't look like my idea of Bond. That's not to say I would turn him away from an audition, but he's not someone who jumps out at me as being right for the part.

My feeling haven't really changed - he is talented, he is physically big enough that they wouldn't have to worry about leading ladies' heights, or that of the actors surrounding him, his accent is very middle class/southern... all that works. But his brow/eyebrows are borderline comical. I've seen him play goofy, and I've seen him play mean, but I don't think I've ever seen him play a romantic lead. I guess Why Didn't They Ask Evans will answer whether he works in that context or not.