How should the next actor play Bond and is there anything new he could bring?

thelivingroyale

Once Craig's gone, how do you think the next actor should play it and how will he set himself apart from the others? Is there really anything new he could bring to the role?

4EverBonded

Well, that is interesting. I don't see any particular actor really clearly in contention yet, and I don't want this to turn into another thread just about who we think we be the next Bond. But what qualities...?

I think whoever it is has to be different. Craig is so physical, confident, a real "blunt instrument" yet also vulnerable and torn. His Bond is getting back to a more well rounded life now and being able to have more peace and happiness ... yet I think Craig will be remembered for being one of the toughest and most serious Bonds (along with Connery, in my opinion). Really tough, strong, physical, fearless. He went thru the whole Vesper experience.

When Moore took over after the Lazenby interlude, it was Connery was being compared to. Moore was quite smart in going in a different direction (whether you took to that right away or not at all). An actor should not try to be the exact same type as the last actor, when taking on a recurring role (unless maybe it is in a play; that is different).

Over the years, we have come to expect something different from "the next Bond" so that is acceptable. I know I do not want high comedy, cheesy humor, strong self parody ... but I also do not want a brooding, serious Bond.

Man, I think following Craig will be tough! He will have to be balanced and yet also different from Craig. I think the actor will need to emphasize more the following attributes:

1) More suave, smooth, elegant (Craig can be, but it is not his dominant characteristic; however, that is like Bond)

2) Wry humor but with a lighter touch than Craig (oh, the danger of not going overboard here); that would be welcome

3) Charm - let's hope for an actor with natural charm where he can be himself and let that shine through (so it would not seem faked). For example - just my opinion as an example, folks, don't shoot me - George Clooney has his own style, his own natural charm. That is what I mean. (And I do not mean Clooney should be Bond.)

What else? I'll have to give it more thought.
It we can keep this thread on topic, it will be interesting. Thanks, @thelivingroyale.

Murdock

I want a lighter Bond next. Craig is great but I think it should switch every actor.

LegateDamar

Craig has been one of the most popular Bonds to date and he truly created a new 007 for the 00s+.

The next actor should be a much different kind of Bond, like Moore was different from Connery.

@4EverBonded, agreed.

pachazo

The next Bond needs to focus on his own personal strengths as an actor so that he can be allowed to create his own unique spin on the character. He can't be forced to be a lighter or darker Bond just for the sake of it. So it's hard to say without knowing who this man will eventually be. Just as long as we don't have a situation like Brosnan feeling forced to be a combination of Connery and Moore then everything will turn out alright.

LegateDamar

Whoever is next to play 007, I hope that they retain Harris, Fiennes and Whishaw.

4EverBonded

Those 3 are a lock - I believe already contracted. :)

I do hope the producers go for a different type of Bond, albeit with another actor of high caliber. And I hope one with his own charm; that would be nice.

Samuel001

It would not surprise me if they change things, or keep going as they are now. It all depends on what type of films the public want to see and without knowing that we'll have no real clue as to what type of actor, or really person, will be cast next.

LegateDamar wrote:

Whoever is next to play 007, I hope that they retain Harris, Fiennes and Whishaw.

Only until Bond 25 so far but I would think they would all stay on, except for Harris. You could not have Moneypenny older than Bond.

royale65

Yes, good point. The next 007 is going to have problems, due to Craig genre-busting shadow.

The things that would make this 007 fan happy are, charm, elegance, a gentleman concealing a damaged, callous man.

thelivingroyale

pachazo wrote:

The next Bond needs to focus on his own personal strengths as an actor so that he can be allowed to create his own unique spin on the character.

I think the question now is though, can you still have a completely fresh, unique spin on the character without being too different? We've had campy, dark, action hero, everyman, etc. Is there a unique approach left?

Samuel001

There will always be facets to tap into, just look at Doctor Who.

thelivingroyale

Samuel001 wrote:

There will always be facets to tap into, just look at Doctor Who.

I think the difference there is that they have much more leeway. He's basically a different man every time he dies, his personality, tastes, etc, change completely. Bond (despite what Lee Tamahori and others might think) is meant to be the same character so although it's important to put your own spin on it, you can't be too different,

There probably are some unique approaches left, I'm just struggling to think of any. Maybe make him more of an anti hero? He pretty much is one anyway but maybe make his methods a bit more questionable, have him manipulate people, etc. Although I think there's a danger there of making him too unlikeable.

Any more ideas?

MajorDSmythe

Both Brosnan and Craig were/are greatest hits Bonds, not really bringing anything new to the table imo. The only option I can think of is to go period, and change Bond accordingly. If not, then like the tree, I am stumped.

thelivingroyale

MajorDSmythe wrote:

Both Brosnan and Craig were/are greatest hits Bonds, not really bringing anything new to the table imo.

I understand why some people think that but I disagree, I think they've both been pretty original.

Brosnan was a cool, flashy action hero, almost sociopathic, who justified the massive amount of people he killed because it was "for England". You do get moments where he seemed to struggle but overall he's pretty cold blooded because like he said to Natalya, he needs to be so he can survive.

Craig's Bond is a badass with a softer side. He's great in the action bits but he's also vulnerable. In CR he was a naive rookie who was wondering if he was really cut out for the job but after Vesper died he became harder, he's more adjusted to killing now than he was before. Good example of this: In CR, after the stair fight, he stares at himself in the mirror as he tries to come to terms with it. In QOS after he kills Slate in an equally brutal fight, he just cleans himself up and moves on. He's vulnerable but unlike Dalton he doesn't let his emotions get in the way of his job, he's motivated by his duty. He's the most brutal Bond and he also has a dryer sense of humour compared to the others.

I think both of them had fresh takes on Bond. Not exactly unique, they do have stuff in common with earlier Bond actors, but they do enough to stand out imo.

Ludovico

I wouldn't want to make the successor of Craig so different than him and his approach a radical departure. As someone said above, it is not like Dr. Who, he is the same character, at the core. Out to stand out from him? Make him a little bit more arrogant, or sure of himself? not to the point of being vain, but enough to make him make mistakes. Bond is a competent spy, he is also not a super-genius, that is the lot of the villain and maybe of M.

It might sound like a shallow, cosmetic change, but I want more a variation than a departure, so a change they could bring is have his successor be sensibly (but believably)younger than him when he took the role. Early 30s, maybe, like Connery? Fleming's Bond was around 35 in the early novels, so it would also tie it with the source material. With the 3 years gap, it also has a practical aspect.

Of course, a lot would depend of the actor they cast.

Dragonpol

I'd like the fidelity to Fleming to continue and for Bond's vulnerabilities to be explored in some new way.

LegateDamar

@thelivingroyale, great points.

The next Bond will reflect the zeitgeist of whatever the state of the world is and whatever audiences crave. Craig is perfect for the post-911 era, but in the next 10-15 years, audiences might want something else.

FoxRox

I think the next Bond should be lighter; really can't get much darker than Craig. I see the actors thus far kinda like this:
Sean Connery - most well-balanced, the iconic original
George Lazenby - most human Bond, funny and serious when necessary
Roger Moore - the funny Bond, occasionally too much
Timothy Dalton - first non-funny Bond at all, lethal and hard-edged
Pierce Brosnan - intense but still very funny at times, least original of the bunch
Daniel Craig - most serious, cold-blooded and harsh of the lot

I think most have brought something new to the table, and it will be difficult for any actor after Craig to make the role their own without changing Bond too much. I think it'd be good to have a light Bond again after Dalton/Craig eras, but not as much as Moore.

Ludovico

Making Bond a tad closer to Jimmy McNulty from The Wire? Except not as vulgar, obviously. But the same kind of compulsive womanizer, so keep a dark, even tragic side to his pleasure seeking habits.

Thunderfinger

Making this role your own while still recognizable becomes harder and harder for every new actor. How is James Bond no. 10 going to make it his own for instance?

fanbond123

I remember when actor Ioan Gruffudd (he played Reed Richards in two Fanastic Four films) was asked about the possibility of playing James Bond, he said he'd treat his Bond women with respect.

I don't know if that's how Bond is meant to be with women, but hey, it's a different approach!

Ludovico

fanbond123 wrote:

I remember when actor Ioan Gruffudd (he played Reed Richards in two Fanastic Four films) was asked about the possibility of playing James Bond, he said he'd treat his Bond women with respect.

I don't know if that's how Bond is meant to be with women, but hey, it's a different approach!

Not keen on this approach. He might as well say he'd play Sherlock Holmes as a womanizer. That said Bond did treat women, some of them at least, with deference and respect, as early as the novels. But of course when say he learns of Vesper's betrayal, he's not going to be happy about her or think very highly of her.

doubleoego

The next actor should find that middle ground of conveying the best elements of Connery, Dalton and Craig. Whoever can accomplish that is a sure winner.

Ludovico

But how he'd do that?

Thunderfinger

Maybe Fassbender can do that.

Ludovico

Fassbender is too old to succeed to Craig.

Samuel001

Let's not turn this into what the other discussion is for.

thelivingroyale wrote:

Samuel001 wrote:

There will always be facets to tap into, just look at Doctor Who.

I think the difference there is that they have much more leeway. He's basically a different man every time he dies, his personality, tastes, etc, change completely. Bond (despite what Lee Tamahori and others might think) is meant to be the same character so although it's important to put your own spin on it, you can't be too different,

There probably are some unique approaches left, I'm just struggling to think of any. Maybe make him more of an anti hero? He pretty much is one anyway but maybe make his methods a bit more questionable, have him manipulate people, etc. Although I think there's a danger there of making him too unlikeable.

Any more ideas?

What I meant by the comment is each new actor has elements of the others, the same way some Bond actors do now. I believe this will continue to be the case. In that respect each new actor will appear different, yet is not. After all a new man means changes will occur.

Thunderfinger

Ludovico wrote:

Fassbender is too old to succeed to Craig.

Unless they reboot again, I disagree. He is nine years younger and can easily do at least three films once Craig is done.

Samuel001

This all goes back to my discussion with @willygalore, no one knows what age they will want to cast but I would always think along the lines of mid-thirties.

Ludovico

Thunderfinger wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

Fassbender is too old to succeed to Craig.

Unless they reboot again, I disagree. He is nine years younger and can easily do at least three films once Craig is done.

With now three years between each film and most.likely more between a recast, he will most likely be too old. Craig was 15 years younger than Brosnan and the gap may be even wider for Craig's successor.

Ludovico

Samuel001 wrote:

This all goes back to my discussion with @willygalore, no one knows what age they will want to cast but I would always think along the lines of mid-thirties.

I think it is the most likely age range.