Who should/could be a Bond actor?

19349359379399401235

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2022 Posts: 16,606
    Ah man, Ejiofor as C; what could have been there.
    I'm not massive fan of Scott.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    Crowe pre-Gladiator would have been interesting. One of my favourite performances of his was in Proof Of Life.

    And agreed about Ejiofor as C. He would have been much better.
  • edited July 2022 Posts: 4,303
    Maybe I'm in the minority on this one, but I never had a problem with Scott as C. I'm not a fan of him in Sherlock (terrible show), and I understand the criticism that casting him immediately gives off a 'this guy is a baddie' vibe.

    That said, was there ever meant to be much ambiguity about C? I always got the sense that much of the drama relied on the audience getting the sense that something was 'off' about him from the get go. Would Ejiofor have been able to convey that same sense? I mean, personally I find Scott's involvement the least of SP's problems as a film...
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited July 2022 Posts: 8,231
    Considering the rest of the film's scripting issues, the fact that C is so obviously a villain is actually a bit of relief as far as I'm concerned. It's one of the few things that is just.....simple and straightforward. There's no big reveal or dramatic moment about his treachery.

    But I still think Ejiofor would have been better in the part.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2022 Posts: 16,606
    Yeah I don't mind that he's obviously a villain: the film doesn't try and hide it- he's an antagonist from his very first scene and we trust Bond's reaction to him (even though Bond was wrong about Mallory in the previous film!). It's just that Scott's not all that great. He's fine, he doesn't destroy the film or anything; it's just nicer to have better people in it.
  • edited July 2022 Posts: 4,303
    Indeed. Honestly, I feel a bit bad for Scott. There was a sense that he was half-way to being typecast after Sherlock and his role as C was cementing that. I actually like him as an actor, but he never had the gravitas to play a main villain for me. Perhaps that's why I don't mind him in SP - he's not the main villain but simply another piece in Blofeld's plan. To be fair to Ejiofor he does have much more screen presence and gravitas, but perhaps in such a role he would have been just a bit too overpowering compared to Waltz's Blofeld? Like, the audience would constantly be wishing he was the main villain.

    Wasn't he also considered for Blofeld? Would have been interesting seeing him against Craig's Bond.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,606
    Yes it's a good point. It is a problem with the film that C is one of two villains but in a subplot which never really intersects with Bond- he's M's villain to defeat. Bond only meets him once at the beginning and never again after that.
  • Posts: 15,229
    mtm wrote: »
    Ah man, Ejiofor as C; what could have been there.
    I'm not massive fan of Scott.

    Neither am I for that matter. That said I always thought Ejiofor was too "soft" (for lack of a better word) looking for a Bond villain. I like them to be either brutish or creepy, and that doesn't quite come off with Ejiofor. I still think he would have been better than Scott.
  • edited July 2022 Posts: 784
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Ah man, Ejiofor as C; what could have been there.
    I'm not massive fan of Scott.

    Neither am I for that matter. That said I always thought Ejiofor was too "soft" (for lack of a better word) looking for a Bond villain. I like them to be either brutish or creepy, and that doesn't quite come off with Ejiofor. I still think he would have been better than Scott.

    I dunno, I personally believe Ejiofor would have portrayed his character with more psychopathic poise than the the last three. But C wasn’t written very well so I could be mistaken.

    I want an actor with a bit of range, who won’t just play a stuck up version of him/herself. Has there ever been a better villain than Willem Defoe as green goblin?

    The character should be menacing like Ralph Fiennes in In Bruges or relatable like Phoenix’s Joker.

    Sometimes being emotionally conservative is more creepy than being very emotive, e.g. Lalo or Fring in BB/BCS
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,158
    I haven't liked either of them in anything I've seen them in, tbh!

  • Posts: 1,650
    On the subject of teeth, is that not somewhat distracting with regard to N Hoult ?
  • What about Nikesh Patel?
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited July 2022 Posts: 1,318
    What about Nikesh Patel?

    How about Patel as 006. Should suffice.

    @Since62

    Teeth are my pet peeve. He has little boys teeth and I cannot stand it. Bond Jr, perhaps.
  • Posts: 4,303
    Aidan does have a nice set of chompers to be fair to him, although I think he's been whitening them, haha.

    f760551a04c47544bf0b911ea137eee0--aidan-turner.jpg
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    Wow we've really gone down the rabbit hole. We're now judging teeth?
  • edited July 2022 Posts: 784
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Wow we've really gone down the rabbit hole. We're now judging teeth?

  • Posts: 4,303
    First they came for the jawlines. And then the teeth...
  • edited July 2022 Posts: 784
    007HallY wrote: »
    First they came for the jawlines. And then the teeth...

    More interesting than what could rule someone out is what criteria makes someone preferable, besides being Aidan Turner of course.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    007HallY wrote: »
    First they came for the jawlines. And then the teeth...

    More interesting than what could rule someone out is what criteria makes someone preferable, besides being Aidan Turner of course.

    Hoult looks like Chucky from Child's Play, it's certainly not only his teeth. In other words too boyish, he looks 25 tops.
  • Posts: 4,303
    007HallY wrote: »
    First they came for the jawlines. And then the teeth...

    More interesting than what could rule someone out is what criteria makes someone preferable, besides being Aidan Turner of course.

    True, and I don't think we'll ever have a firm grasp on that in this thread. Personally, I'd prioritise character actors who have, in one form or another, a sort of 'X factor' about them onscreen that could translate into a portrayal of Bond. That's pretty vague/general though, and subject to interpretation...
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    I actually cackled out loud at this page. I hope nobody was judging my teeth while I did so.
  • Posts: 88
    Soooo...

    Anyone else other than Midget O'Connell? And no, it doesn't have to be Turner.

    Tom Bateman is growing on me.
    Ben Starr is a complete unknown but he is my favorite dark horse candidate
  • edited July 2022 Posts: 784
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    First they came for the jawlines. And then the teeth...

    More interesting than what could rule someone out is what criteria makes someone preferable, besides being Aidan Turner of course.

    True, and I don't think we'll ever have a firm grasp on that in this threads. Personally, I'd prioritise character actors who have, in one form or another, a sort of 'X factor' about them onscreen that could translate into a portrayal of Bond. That's pretty vague/general though, and subject to interpretation...

    Can you have an X factor in different aspects or is it a holistic quality? Some look more appropriate than others, some act better than others, some are more masculine etc.

    Is X factor someone who fits all the checks on the list or is uniquely attractive/charismatic?

    Teeth and hairlines are easily fixable nowadays. So I wouldn’t rule people out on these points.
  • edited July 2022 Posts: 4,303
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    First they came for the jawlines. And then the teeth...

    More interesting than what could rule someone out is what criteria makes someone preferable, besides being Aidan Turner of course.

    True, and I don't think we'll ever have a firm grasp on that in this threads. Personally, I'd prioritise character actors who have, in one form or another, a sort of 'X factor' about them onscreen that could translate into a portrayal of Bond. That's pretty vague/general though, and subject to interpretation...

    Can you have an X factor in different aspects or is it a holistic quality? Some look more appropriate than others, some act better than others, some are more masculine etc.

    Is X factor someone who fits all the checks on the list or is uniquely attractive/charismatic?

    Teeth and hairlines are easily fixable nowadays. So I wouldn’t rule people out on these points.

    I think you know what it is when you see it... if you do even see it, that is. I don't think there's a standard criteria you can go with. I'm sure there are many great actors out there who do have that certain 'something', a unique charisma and presence, but perhaps their interpretation of Bond simply won't be right for the film's tone, or perhaps what the producers are looking for at that time etc. Perhaps one actor's portrayal is more brooding, low key, another more tongue in cheek and ironic, another a mixture of both... That's why it's so hard in this case - we don't even know what Bond 26 is going to be like yet, let alone know who the actor could be.

    Yes, I agree about teeth and hairlines. I think sometimes these aspects of an actor's appearance can be a red herring.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    I expect we'll be analysing nose hairs tomorrow. Then next week we'll be turning away actors whose parents didn't die in a climbing accident in the French Alps.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I expect we'll be analysing nose hairs tomorrow. Then next week we'll be turning away actors whose parents didn't die in a climbing accident in the French Alps.

    *quickly Googles Aidan Turner's biography*

    Well, I'll be damned....
  • Posts: 1,650
    I think I shall intentionally throw a wrench into the gears right now. Yes, I noted that Nicholas Hoult's teeth are just distracting, whereas, overall, he's a handsome guy. Having noted that - and I might have proposed this before - what about Benedict Cumberbatch for Bond ? He could even blend in that snob-Bond from the books. I am not suggesting he should be racist, colonial or a smoker, and I never found the know-it-all stuff (started when, GF ? Got pretty extreme with R Moore) amusing. So Bond need not vocally declare his love of fine things, just quietly enjoy them. Bond is a mix, after all. He had some of that posh-boy background, but also his parents died and he also got kicked out of school and later joined the military. He's capable of the strength and brutality of a much cruder person without that high-end in his background. Fassbender could play this well, too, methinks...and is more handsome.
  • edited July 2022 Posts: 784
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    First they came for the jawlines. And then the teeth...

    More interesting than what could rule someone out is what criteria makes someone preferable, besides being Aidan Turner of course.

    True, and I don't think we'll ever have a firm grasp on that in this threads. Personally, I'd prioritise character actors who have, in one form or another, a sort of 'X factor' about them onscreen that could translate into a portrayal of Bond. That's pretty vague/general though, and subject to interpretation...

    Can you have an X factor in different aspects or is it a holistic quality? Some look more appropriate than others, some act better than others, some are more masculine etc.

    Is X factor someone who fits all the checks on the list or is uniquely attractive/charismatic?

    Teeth and hairlines are easily fixable nowadays. So I wouldn’t rule people out on these points.

    I think you know what it is when you see it... if you do even see it, that is. I don't think there's a standard criteria you can go with. I'm sure there are many great actors out there who do have that certain 'something', a unique charisma and presence, but perhaps their interpretation of Bond simply won't be right for the film's tone, or perhaps what the producers are looking for at that time etc. Perhaps one actor's portrayal is more brooding, low key, another more tongue in cheek and ironic, another a mixture of both... That's why it's so hard in this case - we don't even know what Bond 26 is going to be like yet, let alone know who the actor could be.

    Yes, I agree about teeth and hairlines. I think sometimes these aspects of an actor's appearance can be a red herring.

    I can see many actors do the role justice, and I can see many different directions work. How do you choose? Do you do audience research? Do you pick a notable director and fit the actor to their vision.

    I have my own preferences, so I suspect the producers have theirs. I don’t buy that the tone of the film goes before the actor, as it depends too much on the latter.

    I wouldn’t rule out aged actors as they seem to possess more of that X factor.

    Look forward to seeing Turner in The Suspect.

    EMBARGOED-THE-SUSPECT-01-124ce5e.jpg?quality=45&resize=620,413

    So far most of his work has been period pieces.
  • edited July 2022 Posts: 4,303
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    First they came for the jawlines. And then the teeth...

    More interesting than what could rule someone out is what criteria makes someone preferable, besides being Aidan Turner of course.

    True, and I don't think we'll ever have a firm grasp on that in this threads. Personally, I'd prioritise character actors who have, in one form or another, a sort of 'X factor' about them onscreen that could translate into a portrayal of Bond. That's pretty vague/general though, and subject to interpretation...

    Can you have an X factor in different aspects or is it a holistic quality? Some look more appropriate than others, some act better than others, some are more masculine etc.

    Is X factor someone who fits all the checks on the list or is uniquely attractive/charismatic?

    Teeth and hairlines are easily fixable nowadays. So I wouldn’t rule people out on these points.

    I think you know what it is when you see it... if you do even see it, that is. I don't think there's a standard criteria you can go with. I'm sure there are many great actors out there who do have that certain 'something', a unique charisma and presence, but perhaps their interpretation of Bond simply won't be right for the film's tone, or perhaps what the producers are looking for at that time etc. Perhaps one actor's portrayal is more brooding, low key, another more tongue in cheek and ironic, another a mixture of both... That's why it's so hard in this case - we don't even know what Bond 26 is going to be like yet, let alone know who the actor could be.

    Yes, I agree about teeth and hairlines. I think sometimes these aspects of an actor's appearance can be a red herring.

    I can see many actors do the role justice, and I can see many different directions work. How do you choose? Do you do audience research? Do you pick a notable director and fit the actor to their vision.

    I have my own preferences, so I suspect the producers have theirs. I don’t buy that the tone of the film goes before the actor, as it depends too much on the latter.

    I wouldn’t rule out aged actors as they seem to possess more of that X factor.

    Look forward to seeing Turner in The Suspect.

    EMBARGOED-THE-SUSPECT-01-124ce5e.jpg?quality=45&resize=620,413

    So far most of his work have been period pieces.

    As is the case with these things it's subject to discussion, experimentation and changes. I do think the tone/general direction of the film has an impact on the types of actors they audition, but then again when Craig came along they made adjustments to the CR script (although I suspect the whole 'rookie Bond' who'd never worn a tuxedo angle was being diluted before this).

    Older actors are an example. There could be a great actor out there who is a bit older, but what if they wanted a younger Bond for whatever reason? Would they adjust the script to accommodate the actor if they liked them enough, or would they feel their vision is the best direction to go him, and thus decide to pass? I don't know and I suspect it depends.

    Anyway, like I said, I don't think we'll ever get a full grasp on what we'd all definitively like to see from an actor. I suspect the producers don't necessarily either until they go through they actor's filmography and decide who the want to audition.
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    Posts: 554
    Since62 wrote: »
    I think I shall intentionally throw a wrench into the gears right now. Yes, I noted that Nicholas Hoult's teeth are just distracting, whereas, overall, he's a handsome guy. Having noted that - and I might have proposed this before - what about Benedict Cumberbatch for Bond ? He could even blend in that snob-Bond from the books. I am not suggesting he should be racist, colonial or a smoker, and I never found the know-it-all stuff (started when, GF ? Got pretty extreme with R Moore) amusing. So Bond need not vocally declare his love of fine things, just quietly enjoy them. Bond is a mix, after all. He had some of that posh-boy background, but also his parents died and he also got kicked out of school and later joined the military. He's capable of the strength and brutality of a much cruder person without that high-end in his background. Fassbender could play this well, too, methinks...and is more handsome.
    Way, way too famous for one.
Sign In or Register to comment.