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

Dragonpol

cooperman2 wrote:

I see a lot of movies and watch a lot of TV and i cant see any British actor out there at the moment that i could point to and say there's your next Bond. I do think that the next incumbant needs to be a little lighter in tone to distance himself from Craig's brooding nature. Also a slightly more sophisticated Bond i think ,someone who revels in the finest food and drink and high class surroundings much like Flemings original creation. Whoever that may be i dont envy him, Craig's going to be a tough act to follow. It's going to have to be someone with real balls to take him on.

Yes, well said. I agree. A sort of return to Roger Moore suavity.

jbohoh7

I also agree, with most comments here, that they need to bring back a more sauve, sophisticated Bond. Someone with a strong on-screen presence and a commanding stature (height over 5'10"). And a good spokesperson for the brand.

Unfortunately, the "reboot" exercise was not done properly, imo, and was a missed opportunity to really explore the James Bond early years.

EON will probably play it safe and see what the Americans bring to the table, and are successful with, so they can easily copy, like they did with Jason Bourne series.

Szonana

jason_bourne wrote: »

Demeanor: Suave, more mature, experienced ( I don't want another rookie Bond reboot), witty, shows an artsy side more often, more diplomatic. I prefer a "wilder" and more adventurous Bond again when it comes to women.

Fighting style: Not so deadly and physical, strategic in using environment (remember Brosnan's bank escape), relies more on gadgets like the old, resourceful.

Looks: taller at least 6-foot tall, classically good looking. even though I don't think it's as important as the 2 above.

Agree with this but how is that someone with a username of Jason_Bourne asks for Bond like this ?

fanbond123

Barbara Broccoli and MG Wilson will cast based on harsh economic factors, not based on some fan-based wish list of what Bond should be like. You could argue Daniel Craig is not classically handsome, not that smooth, sophisticated, elegant etc. The franchise did not stop prior to his casting. B Broccoli didn't say "we can't find the ideal candidate, let's stop the franchise for x amount of years." They cast someone and hoped for the best. Same will be true for the next Bond actor. He may have little Bond attributes. if the film is marketed well enough people won't care if he is right or wrong for the part. They have zero interest, they just see Bond cos it's another Bond film.

I don't mean to sound bitter but fans shouldn't delude themselves this ideal candidate is out there that will tick all your boxes. It's amusing to read this thread with fans' wishlist of classic Bond traits. Why didn't they find such a person after Brosnan if most of you want someone sophisticated, refined, not just a blunt instrument type of Bond - which Craig is. You want a return to some earlier incarnation but why should you expect that when you haven't got it with Craig? And why do people praise Craig if he lacks most of the traits mentioned in this thread? This thread is one of the most revealing on the site. An anti-Craig thread disguised as "what should the next actor bring to the part."

Great insight into the way some Bond fans think. This thread reveals all Craig's failings in the part and yet you don't come out and say "he's miscast."

chrisisall

IMHO, SP will deliver the perfect Bond, and anyone taking over the role from Craig will have a tough time of it... Bond will have to be leaner, meaner, and more suave to deal with the coming times. And retain the Craig Bond dry wit.

Szonana

fanbond123 wrote: »

Barbara Broccoli and MG Wilson will cast based on harsh economic factors, not based on some fan-based wish list of what Bond should be like. You could argue Daniel Craig is not classically handsome, not that smooth, sophisticated, elegant etc. The franchise did not stop prior to his casting. B Broccoli didn't say "we can't find the ideal candidate, let's stop the franchise for x amount of years." They cast someone and hoped for the best. Same will be true for the next Bond actor. He may have little Bond attributes. if the film is marketed well enough people won't care if he is right or wrong for the part. They have zero interest, they just see Bond cos it's another Bond film.

I don't mean to sound bitter but fans shouldn't delude themselves this ideal candidate is out there that will tick all your boxes. It's amusing to read this thread with fans' wishlist of classic Bond traits. Why didn't they find such a person after Brosnan if most of you want someone sophisticated, refined, not just a blunt instrument type of Bond - which Craig is. You want a return to some earlier incarnation but why should you expect that when you haven't got it with Craig? And why do people praise Craig if he lacks most of the traits mentioned in this thread? This thread is one of the most revealing on the site. An anti-Craig thread disguised as "what should the next actor bring to the part."

Great insight into the way some Bond fans think. This thread reveals all Craig's failings in the part and yet you don't come out and say "he's miscast."

Belive me we know that Barbara doesn't care about Bond fans wishlist.
With Daniel Craig she made it clear as cristal which is a good thing, i like producers and directors who firmly bellive in their choices no matter what people like us say behind our comptures.

Christopher Nolan surprised everyone when he cast heath ledger as the Joker.
The hate was no that different from Craig is not bond and well many years Before the internet era
Stephen Frears got Glenn Close as the super sexy manipulative woman in Dangerous Liaisons and look how she turned out to be.

I may not be the biggest fan of Craig's version of Bond but Barbara succeded with her intentions which is bringing Ian Fleming's bond and most people responded very well to him.

So i really admire her guts.


And now even more after what happened with 50 shades of Grey and Charlie Hunnam who latter prefered not to do this part thanks to the comments he read on the net about him not being woman's ideal choice for Grey.

If E.L James and Sam would have insisted a bitt more he would have stayed. They just needed to be on his side a liitle more.

I have nothing against Jamie but its sad that those two(E.L James and Sam Taylor) listened more to what fans wanted to what looked for in the first place.

I think the craig is not Bond is over for good, some may prefer other portrayals but we all respect what Craig brought to this part.
That craig is not Bond is over, at least for Bond fans.

The regular people who say Craig is not Bond are the ones who arent aware of what Ian Fleming wrote. Do i prefer Pierce Brosnan yes but i do like Craig as well and you know what some bond watchers do like Daniel Craig as well.

One of my uncles who liked Pierce and Sean Connery also likes Craig a lot because he made more human in the sense that he bleeds and sweats like a regular action hero.

So some regular people who like James Bond do like Daniel Craig.

thelivingroyale

Thought it was worth bumping this with all the rumors about Craig's departure.

Something that I was wondering earlier was how much of this is actually down to the actor and how much is down to the script. I think that, unless there's a clear direction in mind (like how they wanted a grittier back to basics Bond for CR), it's unlikely for the actor to really nail their take first time round. I think the first film of the new era is likely to have a somewhat generic, bit of everything Bond and then they'll play to his strengths and weaknesses.

Moore is the biggest example of this (they tried early on to have him play it more like Connery but it just wasn't working) and you can see it with Brosnan too (he's quite restrained in GE but in TND they play up the one liners and all that stuff, there's more of a cockiness to him). It even applies to Dalton too, to a lesser extent (he pretty much nailed it from the off but in LTK they gave him a film that better suited his surroundings: it was more violent, the Mooreisms were gone completely, etc).

Mendes4Lyfe

I think whatever happens, Bond needs his air of mystery back. We know too much about the current Bond, and while it was a nice experiment, they need to make it clear for the off that next time we will be back on the outside looking in. Someone mentioned the phrase "wolf in sheep's clothing" earlier in this thread, and that perfectly encapsulates the direction the next Bond should take. They need to bring back a flippant, irreverant Bond, but in such a way that doesn't simply backtrack on the Craig era and act like it didn't happen.

I think the Craig era really destroys the mystery of Bond in that it answers the fundemental question to his character, that being "is Bond a gentleman who is cultivated to be a killer, or a killer who is cultivated to be a gentleman?" In order for the next Bond to work, they need to be able to 'switch'. They may have the outward appearance of a charming handsome English gent, but that, like any other identity that Bond might use on a mission, can drop in an instant. In this way, we would never truly be sure where his humanity began or ended.

This Bond would have the charm of Moore, when called for, but must also display that cold, calculating mind under the mask. He has a mission and he has to survive. Those are his only concerns.

bondsum

It'll be mostly down to the casting as the majority of actors, Daniel Day Lewis the exception, mostly play an extension of themselves. By that I mean their own personalities tend to break out regar

bondsum

It'll be mostly down to the casting as the majority of actors, Daniel Day Lewis the exception, mostly play an extension of themselves. By that I mean their own personalities tend to break out regardless of who they might be playing in a different film. If you want a lighter performance then you choose an actor that has strengths in the lighter roles. Likewise, if you want a tough Bond, you choose an actor that demonstrates grit, a testiness in his performances. Personally, I see no reason to go the lightweight route after Craig. It was agreed with Cubby that Moore alter his style down to the poor performance of TMWTGG, and decided to play more to his lighter side, which was his strength. It worked for TSWLM and to an extent his subsequent movies, but it wasn't the 007 the original fans wanted. A course that's only properly been corrected under Craig's tenure.

So, my belief is, employ the next actor who has an earthy, gritty charm and you're a third of the way there to having a good Bond.

Mendes4Lyfe

bondsum wrote: »

It'll be mostly down to the casting as the majority of actors, Daniel Day Lewis the exception, mostly play an extension of themselves. By that I mean their own personalities tend to break out regardless of who they might be playing in a different film. If you want a lighter performance then you choose an actor that has strengths in the lighter roles. Likewise, if you want a tough Bond, you choose an actor that demonstrates grit, a testiness in his performances. Personally, I see no reason to go the lightweight route after Craig. It was agreed with Cubby that Moore alter his style down to the poor performance of TMWTGG, and decided to play more to his lighter side, which was his strength. It worked for TSWLM and to an extent his subsequent movies, but it wasn't the 007 the original fans wanted. A course that's only properly been corrected under Craig's tenure.

So, my belief is, employ the next actor who has an earthy, gritty charm and you're a third of the way there to having a good Bond.

I disagree. Whether original fans want it is largely irrelevant, Its the fluctuation between light and dark that has kept things fresh. They can't afford to become complacent in this regard. Changing course like that has also led to some of the best entries in the series. If they didn't shake things up every now and again the franchise would have burnt itself out years ago.

Thunderfinger

Seems like the only new thing a new actor can bring to the role according to the tabloids is skin colour.

Any better ideas that haven t been mentioned?

bondsum

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

bondsum wrote: »

It'll be mostly down to the casting as the majority of actors, Daniel Day Lewis the exception, mostly play an extension of themselves. By that I mean their own personalities tend to break out regardless of who they might be playing in a different film. If you want a lighter performance then you choose an actor that has strengths in the lighter roles. Likewise, if you want a tough Bond, you choose an actor that demonstrates grit, a testiness in his performances. Personally, I see no reason to go the lightweight route after Craig. It was agreed with Cubby that Moore alter his style down to the poor performance of TMWTGG, and decided to play more to his lighter side, which was his strength. It worked for TSWLM and to an extent his subsequent movies, but it wasn't the 007 the original fans wanted. A course that's only properly been corrected under Craig's tenure.

So, my belief is, employ the next actor who has an earthy, gritty charm and you're a third of the way there to having a good Bond.

I disagree. Whether original fans want it is largely irrelevant, Its the fluctuation between light and dark that has kept things fresh. They can't afford to become complacent in this regard. Changing course like that has also led to some of the best entries in the series. If they didn't shake things up every now and again the franchise would have burnt itself out years ago.

The only thing irrelevant is your own ruminations on the subject @Mendes4Lyfe.