Who should/could be a Bond actor?

19189199219239241230

Comments

  • Posts: 4,122
    I can definitely image a scenario where the next Bond is an actor who's only done theatre or something...

    Either that or Aidan Turner will in fact be cast in the next Bond film... as the villain.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,963
    007HallY wrote: »
    I can definitely image a scenario where the next Bond is an actor who's only done theatre or something...

    Either that or Aidan Turner will in fact be cast in the next Bond film... as the villain.

    Now that would be an interesting twist after these last few years.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Redmayne would be an awful choice.

    Yes, just like at least 95 percent of everyone mentioned here.

    Absolutely. And after almost 1,000 pages of discussion and the same few names being offered, I'd find it hilarious if it's some complete unknown selected as the next Bond that was never even mentioned as a choice here.

    I think this scenario is highly likely.
  • Posts: 16,153
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Redmayne would be an awful choice.

    Yes, just like at least 95 percent of everyone mentioned here.

    Absolutely. And after almost 1,000 pages of discussion and the same few names being offered, I'd find it hilarious if it's some complete unknown selected as the next Bond that was never even mentioned as a choice here.

    I think this scenario is highly likely.

    I agree, but unfortunately I think we can get to 2,000 pages before Barbara and Michael actually begin their search.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,963
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Redmayne would be an awful choice.

    Yes, just like at least 95 percent of everyone mentioned here.

    Absolutely. And after almost 1,000 pages of discussion and the same few names being offered, I'd find it hilarious if it's some complete unknown selected as the next Bond that was never even mentioned as a choice here.

    I think this scenario is highly likely.

    I agree, but unfortunately I think we can get to 2,000 pages before Barbara and Michael actually begin their search.

    That's possible too. Hopefully we're wrong.
  • Posts: 16,153
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Redmayne would be an awful choice.

    Yes, just like at least 95 percent of everyone mentioned here.

    Absolutely. And after almost 1,000 pages of discussion and the same few names being offered, I'd find it hilarious if it's some complete unknown selected as the next Bond that was never even mentioned as a choice here.

    I think this scenario is highly likely.

    I agree, but unfortunately I think we can get to 2,000 pages before Barbara and Michael actually begin their search.

    That's possible too. Hopefully we're wrong.

    I hope so. I sincerely hope Barbara and Michael aren't secretly following this thread and taking their cue from us. Especially after my wonderful suggestions for Bond: Paddington Bear, Willie Nelson, Jason Alexander, Kenny Loggins, etc.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Redmayne would be an awful choice.

    Yes, just like at least 95 percent of everyone mentioned here.

    Absolutely. And after almost 1,000 pages of discussion and the same few names being offered, I'd find it hilarious if it's some complete unknown selected as the next Bond that was never even mentioned as a choice here.

    I think this scenario is highly likely.

    I agree, but unfortunately I think we can get to 2,000 pages before Barbara and Michael actually begin their search.

    That's possible too. Hopefully we're wrong.

    I hope so. I sincerely hope Barbara and Michael aren't secretly following this thread and taking their cue from us. Especially after my wonderful suggestions for Bond: Paddington Bear, Willie Nelson, Jason Alexander, Kenny Loggins, etc.

    Don t they at least deserve a screen test?
  • edited June 2022 Posts: 831
    I suspect the next Bond actor will be quite young, quite excellent at his craft, and a rising star from the theater world without too much experience on the screen. Also likely a name few of us would know offhand in regular cinematic circles.

    And I'm fine with that. Let the man become the part. Let the face become iconic as James Bond, as opposed to mapping the James Bond icon onto a known face.

    I'm far more interested in seeing what the films will do creatively, tonally, and aesthetically moving forward. It's such an interesting time to be a Bond fan!

    Will we move beyond deeper character examinations and existential drama into (or back to) a more kinetic and superficially entertaining cinematic experience? Will Bond take another step toward brutally reflecting our real world, or a step further away from it into something more heightened? Will iconic elements, precedents and assumptions of the past continue to be embraced and updated, or cast aside altogether in favour of a more dramatic reinvention of the series and its expectations?

    For the first time since the mid-90s, I feel truly no anxiety about the future direction of Bond. I'm just open to wherever it takes us.
  • Posts: 4,122
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I can definitely image a scenario where the next Bond is an actor who's only done theatre or something...

    Either that or Aidan Turner will in fact be cast in the next Bond film... as the villain.

    Now that would be an interesting twist after these last few years.

    I'm actually up for it too, haha. As much as I've slagged off Turner/don't think he's right for Bond I do think he's a good actor.
  • Posts: 16,153
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Redmayne would be an awful choice.

    Yes, just like at least 95 percent of everyone mentioned here.

    Absolutely. And after almost 1,000 pages of discussion and the same few names being offered, I'd find it hilarious if it's some complete unknown selected as the next Bond that was never even mentioned as a choice here.

    I think this scenario is highly likely.

    I agree, but unfortunately I think we can get to 2,000 pages before Barbara and Michael actually begin their search.

    That's possible too. Hopefully we're wrong.

    I hope so. I sincerely hope Barbara and Michael aren't secretly following this thread and taking their cue from us. Especially after my wonderful suggestions for Bond: Paddington Bear, Willie Nelson, Jason Alexander, Kenny Loggins, etc.

    Don t they at least deserve a screen test?

    Haha! Well, Paddington at least does. :D
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,773
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I can definitely image a scenario where the next Bond is an actor who's only done theatre or something...

    Either that or Aidan Turner will in fact be cast in the next Bond film... as the villain.


    Now that would be an interesting twist after these last few years.

    They could reveal Turner first in the teaser trailer.

    Then the Bond actor.


  • Posts: 4,122
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I can definitely image a scenario where the next Bond is an actor who's only done theatre or something...

    Either that or Aidan Turner will in fact be cast in the next Bond film... as the villain.


    Now that would be an interesting twist after these last few years.

    They could reveal Turner first in the teaser trailer.

    Then the Bond actor.


    They could be really cheeky and throw in a "what, you were expecting someone else?"
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,359
    AgentM72 wrote: »
    I suspect the next Bond actor will be quite young, quite excellent at his craft, and a rising star from the theater world without too much experience on the screen. Also likely a name few of us would know offhand in regular cinematic circles.

    Honestly, I don't see it. I don't think it's likely that they'd put all of this on the shoulders of someone with little screen experience; having heard Craig talk about how much was on him day-to-day on the set alone, I don't think they'll be getting someone green. And you have to know how to work the screen in order to be the star in these films, I just think it's way more likely to be someone who has proven themselves in a film lead at some point.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,152
    Agreed - it's too big an ask for someone with little film experience. There's too much riding on it.
  • edited June 2022 Posts: 784
    While theatre actors have had more time and training to immerse themselves and explore their craft, the overdramatic performances required for the stage rarely translate well onto the screen, which demands much more subtlety, preciseness and naturalism.

    It’s not rocket science. If Henry Cavill can be a movie star anyone can. Experience is however necessary for an actor to showcase their range and fit for a role, and be personally vetted.

    Like I said before, any decent director should be able to bring out star quality out of anyone with even a tiny bit of acting ability, even if that person is unexperienced.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/mikespohr/amazing-performances-by-nonactors-1

    Since Brits keep stealing American roles, it’d be funny if an American Robert Downey Jr’d this one.
  • edited June 2022 Posts: 4,122
    While theatre actors have had more time and training to immerse themselves and explore their craft, the overdramatic performances required for the stage rarely translate well onto the screen, which demands much more subtlety, preciseness and naturalism.

    It’s not rocket science. If Henry Cavill can be a movie star anyone can. Experience is however necessary for an actor to showcase their range and fit for a role, and be personally vetted.

    Like I said before, any decent director should be able to bring out star quality out of anyone with even a tiny bit of acting ability, even if they are unexperienced.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/mikespohr/amazing-performances-by-nonactors-1

    To be fair, I think there's an element of finding the right person for the role, inexperienced or professional. They have to have something about them that resonates with the part. I once worked with a Director on a short film back in my camera assistant days who put it more or less like this: "The hardest part is actually casting the role. You have to get the right person. Ideally, I prefer to direct the actors as little as possible on set. You can only do that once you have the right person."

    I mean, there's the technical stuff (lighting, camera, editing etc.) which helps, but even piss poor actors seem to end up being 'stars' for whatever reason, and very good actors who get consistent work don't always fall into that category.

    But yes, it would be funny if an American got the role.
  • edited June 2022 Posts: 784
    007HallY wrote: »
    While theatre actors have had more time and training to immerse themselves and explore their craft, the overdramatic performances required for the stage rarely translate well onto the screen, which demands much more subtlety, preciseness and naturalism.

    It’s not rocket science. If Henry Cavill can be a movie star anyone can. Experience is however necessary for an actor to showcase their range and fit for a role, and be personally vetted.

    Like I said before, any decent director should be able to bring out star quality out of anyone with even a tiny bit of acting ability, even if they are unexperienced.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/mikespohr/amazing-performances-by-nonactors-1

    To be fair, I think there's an element of finding the right person for the role, inexperienced or professional. They have to have something about them that resonates with the part. I once worked with a Director on a short film back in my camera assistant days who put it more or less like this: "The hardest part is actually casting the role. You have to get the right person. Ideally, I prefer to direct the actors as little as possible on set. You can only do that once you have the right person."

    I mean, there's the technical stuff (lighting, camera, editing etc.) which helps, but even piss poor actors seem to end up being 'stars' for whatever reason, and very good actors who get consistent work don't always fall into that category.

    But yes, it would be funny if an American got the role.

    Casting is key, and seems to be done worse and worse across the industry. But some actors have such range they can transform into anything, like Gary Oldman in True Romance, or Colin Farrell in The Batman.
  • edited June 2022 Posts: 4,122
    007HallY wrote: »
    While theatre actors have had more time and training to immerse themselves and explore their craft, the overdramatic performances required for the stage rarely translate well onto the screen, which demands much more subtlety, preciseness and naturalism.

    It’s not rocket science. If Henry Cavill can be a movie star anyone can. Experience is however necessary for an actor to showcase their range and fit for a role, and be personally vetted.

    Like I said before, any decent director should be able to bring out star quality out of anyone with even a tiny bit of acting ability, even if they are unexperienced.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/mikespohr/amazing-performances-by-nonactors-1

    To be fair, I think there's an element of finding the right person for the role, inexperienced or professional. They have to have something about them that resonates with the part. I once worked with a Director on a short film back in my camera assistant days who put it more or less like this: "The hardest part is actually casting the role. You have to get the right person. Ideally, I prefer to direct the actors as little as possible on set. You can only do that once you have the right person."

    I mean, there's the technical stuff (lighting, camera, editing etc.) which helps, but even piss poor actors seem to end up being 'stars' for whatever reason, and very good actors who get consistent work don't always fall into that category.

    But yes, it would be funny if an American got the role.

    Casting is key, and seems to be done worse and worse across the industry. But some actors have such range they can transform into anything, like Gary Oldman in True Romance, or Colin Farrell in The Batman.

    Yes, and then you get your Jared Letos who believe they can transform into anything/get these roles for whatever reason but come off as weird and uncanny... but yes, casting is important. It always helps to be open to the possibilities.
  • 007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    While theatre actors have had more time and training to immerse themselves and explore their craft, the overdramatic performances required for the stage rarely translate well onto the screen, which demands much more subtlety, preciseness and naturalism.

    It’s not rocket science. If Henry Cavill can be a movie star anyone can. Experience is however necessary for an actor to showcase their range and fit for a role, and be personally vetted.

    Like I said before, any decent director should be able to bring out star quality out of anyone with even a tiny bit of acting ability, even if they are unexperienced.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/mikespohr/amazing-performances-by-nonactors-1

    To be fair, I think there's an element of finding the right person for the role, inexperienced or professional. They have to have something about them that resonates with the part. I once worked with a Director on a short film back in my camera assistant days who put it more or less like this: "The hardest part is actually casting the role. You have to get the right person. Ideally, I prefer to direct the actors as little as possible on set. You can only do that once you have the right person."

    I mean, there's the technical stuff (lighting, camera, editing etc.) which helps, but even piss poor actors seem to end up being 'stars' for whatever reason, and very good actors who get consistent work don't always fall into that category.

    But yes, it would be funny if an American got the role.

    Casting is key, and seems to be done worse and worse across the industry. But some actors have such range they can transform into anything, like Gary Oldman in True Romance, or Colin Farrell in The Batman.

    Yes, and then you get your Jared Letos who believe they can transform into anything/get these roles for whatever reason but come off as weird and uncanny... but yes, casting is important. It always helps to be open to the possibilities.

    Some people take themselves too seriously :)

    He’d be great in comedies. Sad none are being made.
  • Posts: 4,122
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    While theatre actors have had more time and training to immerse themselves and explore their craft, the overdramatic performances required for the stage rarely translate well onto the screen, which demands much more subtlety, preciseness and naturalism.

    It’s not rocket science. If Henry Cavill can be a movie star anyone can. Experience is however necessary for an actor to showcase their range and fit for a role, and be personally vetted.

    Like I said before, any decent director should be able to bring out star quality out of anyone with even a tiny bit of acting ability, even if they are unexperienced.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/mikespohr/amazing-performances-by-nonactors-1

    To be fair, I think there's an element of finding the right person for the role, inexperienced or professional. They have to have something about them that resonates with the part. I once worked with a Director on a short film back in my camera assistant days who put it more or less like this: "The hardest part is actually casting the role. You have to get the right person. Ideally, I prefer to direct the actors as little as possible on set. You can only do that once you have the right person."

    I mean, there's the technical stuff (lighting, camera, editing etc.) which helps, but even piss poor actors seem to end up being 'stars' for whatever reason, and very good actors who get consistent work don't always fall into that category.

    But yes, it would be funny if an American got the role.

    Casting is key, and seems to be done worse and worse across the industry. But some actors have such range they can transform into anything, like Gary Oldman in True Romance, or Colin Farrell in The Batman.

    Yes, and then you get your Jared Letos who believe they can transform into anything/get these roles for whatever reason but come off as weird and uncanny... but yes, casting is important. It always helps to be open to the possibilities.

    Some people take themselves too seriously :)

    He’d be great in comedies. Sad none are being made.

    I remember saying the same thing about Daniel Day Lewis in his hay day. Even in There Will Be Blood and Gangs of New York his over the top menace had that undercurrent of comedy (it was kind of touched on in Phantom Thread, but I don't think he ever did out and out comedy). Could have played Ralph Fiennes' part in Grand Budapest Hotel or something similar.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,132
    Eddie Redmayne would be a big no. He’s alright in the right role. Soft, character pieces. Period dramas and the like. As James Bond, not even close. Even with the right director.
    Even though his height would go against him, I could see Barbara Broccoli casting Jamie Bell.
    I don’t think she would, but I wouldn’t be shocked.
  • Posts: 4,122
    I can see the logic in casting Jamie Bell, especially as a 'left field' candidate. I don't think it'll happen either, and I think such a space will more likely be filled by someone like Jack O'Connell - another talented, versatile, under 6 foot tall and seemingly 'odd' choice for the role - should he audition
  • Posts: 15,110
    I think there should be a thread about the actors people think should not be Bond.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,359
    007HallY wrote: »
    But yes, it would be funny if an American got the role.

    I guess so many American superheroes get played by Brits (even two out of the three Spider Men in the last film were Brits!*) it would be only fair :)


    *yes I know Garfield is half American
  • edited June 2022 Posts: 4,122
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    But yes, it would be funny if an American got the role.

    I guess so many American superheroes get played by Brits (even two out of the three Spider Men in the last film were Brits!*) it would be only fair :)


    *yes I know Garfield is half American

    Yep, Batman, Superman... Wow, even Henry 'Action Man' Cavill can do the American accent. Makes sense I suppose. America's the bigger market so its more likely actors wanting to break in would spend more time trying to emulate that accent than the other way around... that and your Dick Van Dykes etc. have enough star power and likability in the role to get away with dodgy accents.

    Anyway, as I've said before I don't think it's unlikely the next Bond will have to put on an accent for the role, even if they're British.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I think there should be a thread about the actors people think should not be Bond.

    Surely it'd be more or less the same as this thread? Just with slightly more of me whinging about why I don't think Aidan Turner should get the part.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,359
    It is kind of funny how Superman is the only one of the big three superheroes to have been played by a Brit only once :)
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    edited June 2022 Posts: 554
    007HallY wrote: »
    Anyway, as I've said before I don't think it's unlikely the next Bond will have to put on an accent for the role, even if they're British.
    Give us Bond with a Birmingham accent, damnit.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited June 2022 Posts: 8,203
    I’m not recommending Jon Hamm for the role of James Bond; these are two very interesting looks at the casting process. I can very much see it being played out in much the same way as they cast the next 007.



  • edited June 2022 Posts: 4,122
    Interesting. It's a far cry from the early days of Cubby where he seems to (or at least claimed to have) met his first few Bonds at parties or something, haha. It sounds very similar to Craig though in the sense that early on he was the stand-out amongst the lead producer, and others had to be convinced.

    I do wonder if Barbara Broccoli could use (or has used) a similar excuse to cast someone less well known in the part for this incarnation (ie. not Henry Cavill or someone Amazon might fight for).
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    Imagine how often it must have happened to Broccoli or Wilson that some wannabe tries to impress them with his Bondishness at some kind of function.. Must be the absolute worst.
Sign In or Register to comment.