Where does Bond go after Craig?

1432433435437438700

Comments

  • edited January 5 Posts: 7,507
    Benny wrote: »
    I'm an unashamed Roger Moore fan, who will say he was a very under rated actor.
    Maybe not an Brando, Hackman or Nicolson. Even a Connery or Craig. Despite his penchant for self deprecation and soft comedy, Roger was actually a good actor. As Bond he brought his on style and made the character his own, but also in his non- Bond films where he could show a much deeper side to his usual acting style.
    The Man Who Haunted Himself, The Wild Geese and The Naked Face being examples of where Roger acted against his normal light style.

    I hope you didn't misinterpret me. I didn't have a dig at Moore, I was just pointing put that there are different requirements for the role today than back in the day.
  • mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Thing is I don’t need an actor on the caliber of Brando, DeNiro, or Day-Lewis to take on the role of Bond. At the end of the day, the Bond films are essentially stories about a guy beating up villains and looking good while doing so, and while the Craig era has done more to improve on the formula, those core tenants were still there.

    I tend to think it's a bit better when you do have someone really good though. Connery won an Oscar, Craig's been nominated and won various awards; they're pretty good.

    Oh yeah it certainly helps, but then would you be able to say that Lazenby is one of the best? I mean he was also nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Newcomer back in 1970. Brosnan hasn’t won any awards and yet I think he’s one of the best men to play the part. Same with Moore and Dalton

    I think that's just semantics. It's not a massively unusual point of view to regard Sean Connery as a pretty good screen actor. You mentioned Day-Lewis and he's won tons of Oscars, so it's not an unreasonable point.

    I didn’t say it was though, merely that I don’t think the next Bond actor needs to be a critical darling.
  • edited January 5 Posts: 1,473
    M_Blaise wrote: »
    I find it strange when people think such a wooden actor is a "safe" choice, or that they would be better for a lighter Bond. Wooden acting wouldn't make a film more comedic unless you're laughing at him.

    I don't know if we really want a "good actor" trying to win an Oscar playing Bond.

    We need an actor who really wants to make these movies.

  • Posts: 4,323
    mtm wrote: »
    Thing is I don’t need an actor on the caliber of Brando, DeNiro, or Day-Lewis to take on the role of Bond. At the end of the day, the Bond films are essentially stories about a guy beating up villains and looking good while doing so, and while the Craig era has done more to improve on the formula, those core tenants were still there.

    I tend to think it's a bit better when you do have someone really good though. Connery won an Oscar, Craig's been nominated and won various awards; they're pretty good.

    Oh yeah it certainly helps, but then would you be able to say that Lazenby is one of the best? I mean he was also nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Newcomer back in 1970. Brosnan hasn’t won any awards and yet I think he’s one of the best men to play the part. Same with Moore and Dalton

    My point is that I wouldn’t mind a big name like Cavill being cast, but my preference lies with somebody who hasn’t made a big splash yet. If Cavill was cast, it’d take a bit of time for me to get used to because I’d expect Cavill to rip off the tuxedo and start flying away or shooting lasers out of his eyes, know what I mean?

    I'm sure when it comes to Bond EON would actually consider what previous roles the actor has done, at least when it could ultimately create that sort of dissonance. That's not to say that any vaguely Bondian or relatively high profile role would rule out a candidate, but I think when an actor has previously played Superman and is so associated with it as Cavill is (although I thought he wasn't a memorable Superman myself) I can imagine that being a minor issue.

    That said I think there's much more that rules out Cavill. He's a bit too high profile, and I can't imagine his casting as Bond would create as much buzz in comparison to someone less well known. I think he's a bit limited as an actor as well, and likely they'd want an actor who they could stretch a bit more.
  • 007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Thing is I don’t need an actor on the caliber of Brando, DeNiro, or Day-Lewis to take on the role of Bond. At the end of the day, the Bond films are essentially stories about a guy beating up villains and looking good while doing so, and while the Craig era has done more to improve on the formula, those core tenants were still there.

    I tend to think it's a bit better when you do have someone really good though. Connery won an Oscar, Craig's been nominated and won various awards; they're pretty good.

    Oh yeah it certainly helps, but then would you be able to say that Lazenby is one of the best? I mean he was also nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Newcomer back in 1970. Brosnan hasn’t won any awards and yet I think he’s one of the best men to play the part. Same with Moore and Dalton

    My point is that I wouldn’t mind a big name like Cavill being cast, but my preference lies with somebody who hasn’t made a big splash yet. If Cavill was cast, it’d take a bit of time for me to get used to because I’d expect Cavill to rip off the tuxedo and start flying away or shooting lasers out of his eyes, know what I mean?

    I'm sure when it comes to Bond EON would actually consider what previous roles the actor has done, at least when it could ultimately create that sort of dissonance. That's not to say that any vaguely Bondian or relatively high profile role would rule out a candidate, but I think when an actor has previously played Superman and is so associated with it as Cavill is (although I thought he wasn't a memorable Superman myself) I can imagine that being a minor issue.

    That said I think there's much more that rules out Cavill. He's a bit too high profile, and I can't imagine his casting as Bond would create as much buzz in comparison to someone less well known. I think he's a bit limited as an actor as well, and likely they'd want an actor who they could stretch a bit more.

    I agree, although I think that Cavill being so associated with Superman would pose to be more than just a minor issue. Despite the overall reception towards his Superman films, I think a lot of people did like him and his take (I’m one of them), and so I definitely think it’d pose a bit of a problem to remold Cavill’s public image from Superman to Bond, one that’d be damn near impossible.

    On the other hand, if EON really wanted the easiest way to earn a box office success, casting Cavill would be their best option. Especially with all the casual Bond fans who champion him being cast. But I want to make it clear that I completely prefer an unknown actor to get the part as opposed to Cavill, or even some of the other names in the tabloids.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,178
    jobo wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    I'm an unashamed Roger Moore fan, who will say he was a very under rated actor.
    Maybe not an Brando, Hackman or Nicolson. Even a Connery or Craig. Despite his penchant for self deprecation and soft comedy, Roger was actually a good actor. As Bond he brought his on style and made the character his own, but also in his non- Bond films where he could show a much deeper side to his usual acting style.
    The Man Who Haunted Himself, The Wild Geese and The Naked Face being examples of where Roger acted against his normal light style.

    I hope you didn't misinterpret me. I didn't have a dig at Moore, I was just pointing put that there are different requirements for the role today than back in the day.

    Not at all my friend.
    Bond is a very unique character in so much as he looks like a straight forward action hero. But he’s much more complex than that, in a subtle way. If that makes sense.
    He has a uniquely British way about him. Whilst appealing to a generic international audience.
  • Posts: 4,323
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Thing is I don’t need an actor on the caliber of Brando, DeNiro, or Day-Lewis to take on the role of Bond. At the end of the day, the Bond films are essentially stories about a guy beating up villains and looking good while doing so, and while the Craig era has done more to improve on the formula, those core tenants were still there.

    I tend to think it's a bit better when you do have someone really good though. Connery won an Oscar, Craig's been nominated and won various awards; they're pretty good.

    Oh yeah it certainly helps, but then would you be able to say that Lazenby is one of the best? I mean he was also nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Newcomer back in 1970. Brosnan hasn’t won any awards and yet I think he’s one of the best men to play the part. Same with Moore and Dalton

    My point is that I wouldn’t mind a big name like Cavill being cast, but my preference lies with somebody who hasn’t made a big splash yet. If Cavill was cast, it’d take a bit of time for me to get used to because I’d expect Cavill to rip off the tuxedo and start flying away or shooting lasers out of his eyes, know what I mean?

    I'm sure when it comes to Bond EON would actually consider what previous roles the actor has done, at least when it could ultimately create that sort of dissonance. That's not to say that any vaguely Bondian or relatively high profile role would rule out a candidate, but I think when an actor has previously played Superman and is so associated with it as Cavill is (although I thought he wasn't a memorable Superman myself) I can imagine that being a minor issue.

    That said I think there's much more that rules out Cavill. He's a bit too high profile, and I can't imagine his casting as Bond would create as much buzz in comparison to someone less well known. I think he's a bit limited as an actor as well, and likely they'd want an actor who they could stretch a bit more.

    I agree, although I think that Cavill being so associated with Superman would pose to be more than just a minor issue. Despite the overall reception towards his Superman films, I think a lot of people did like him and his take (I’m one of them), and so I definitely think it’d pose a bit of a problem to remold Cavill’s public image from Superman to Bond, one that’d be damn near impossible.

    On the other hand, if EON really wanted the easiest way to earn a box office success, casting Cavill would be their best option. Especially with all the casual Bond fans who champion him being cast. But I want to make it clear that I completely prefer an unknown actor to get the part as opposed to Cavill, or even some of the other names in the tabloids.

    I don't think it would automatically result in a big box office success. Maybe more publicity in the initial stages (more so than if a director like Nolan ever got the directing job certainly, as actors are always more known to the public than directors) but it's a high risk and often low rewards situation. Like I said, I don't think Cavill would be able to create that same buzz around the new Bond/era in comparison to someone less well known and, to the general public, more enigmatic. With Cavill I think the initial excitement of his casting would fizzle out relatively quickly. He's quite high profile, but honestly he's not a heavy hitter with a guaranteed box office draw (ie. The Man From UNCLE didn't perform especially well, and he's had his share of 'unsuccessful' films). I don't think a Bond film under him would bomb (short of a complete Batman and Robin style creative disaster, no Bond film will bomb) but his involvement would be far more inconsequential than some think.

    Otherwise yeah, I agree. They'll want an actor who will be, for at least 10 years, their James Bond. Even Brosnan had his Remington Steele issue which prevented him from taking the role first time round.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 5 Posts: 16,660
    No I can't see Cavill bringing a box office with him either: Bond is a bigger draw than him and I'm not sure he has a massive fanbase. I feel like the main reaction would be indifference- a fairly average actor who people will recognise and who looks like James Bond has become James Bond. I tend to think that if Nolan got the gig, as much as he's not to my taste, there would be way more buzz.
  • edited January 5 Posts: 1,473
    mtm wrote: »
    No I can't see Cavill bringing a box office with him either: Bond is a bigger draw than him and I'm not sure he has a massive fanbase. I feel like the main reaction would be indifference. I tend to think that if Nolan got the gig, as much as he's not to my taste, there would be way more buzz.

    Bond is bigger draw than anyone.

    The key is to hire someone that the public will accept.
  • Posts: 6,710
    mtm wrote: »
    No I can't see Cavill bringing a box office with him either: Bond is a bigger draw than him and I'm not sure he has a massive fanbase. I feel like the main reaction would be indifference- a fairly average actor who people will recognise and who looks like James Bond has become James Bond. I tend to think that if Nolan got the gig, as much as he's not to my taste, there would be way more buzz.
    I agree with both points, about Cavill and Nolan.
  • Posts: 4,323
    mtm wrote: »
    No I can't see Cavill bringing a box office with him either: Bond is a bigger draw than him and I'm not sure he has a massive fanbase. I feel like the main reaction would be indifference- a fairly average actor who people will recognise and who looks like James Bond has become James Bond. I tend to think that if Nolan got the gig, as much as he's not to my taste, there would be way more buzz.

    I reckon even Nolan wouldn't create that much buzz outside of the fan/film circles. I don't think his name alone would make a huge difference to the success of the film. If you don't keep up with these things, which is the vast majority of people, then it's unlikely you'd see Nolan as anything beyond a name on a poster or some films you may or may not like.

    It's the same with any director or actor really. A vastly successful Bond film requires so much more than the talent involved.
  • edited January 5 Posts: 7,507
    mtm wrote: »
    No I can't see Cavill bringing a box office with him either: Bond is a bigger draw than him and I'm not sure he has a massive fanbase. I feel like the main reaction would be indifference. I tend to think that if Nolan got the gig, as much as he's not to my taste, there would be way more buzz.

    Bond is bigger draw than anyone.

    The key is to hire someone that the public will accept.

    Is that so key though? Very few people accepted Craig to begin with, but the vast majority of doubters were immediately swayed after watching Casino Royale.

    I'd say the key is to have a clear vision for what they want to do with the next Bond and cast the most suitable actor for that. Casting in order to satisfy conventions or expectations is not the way to go.
  • WhyBondWhyBond USA
    Posts: 69
    We are in a generation where people don't care about filmmaking like they used to.
    Personally I could care less what they do with 007. The last couple of films have ruined the trajectory for me.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,660
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    No I can't see Cavill bringing a box office with him either: Bond is a bigger draw than him and I'm not sure he has a massive fanbase. I feel like the main reaction would be indifference- a fairly average actor who people will recognise and who looks like James Bond has become James Bond. I tend to think that if Nolan got the gig, as much as he's not to my taste, there would be way more buzz.

    I reckon even Nolan wouldn't create that much buzz outside of the fan/film circles. I don't think his name alone would make a huge difference to the success of the film. If you don't keep up with these things, which is the vast majority of people, then it's unlikely you'd see Nolan as anything beyond a name on a poster or some films you may or may not like.

    I think there's truth to that, but any buzz on top of the buzz a new Bond film makes by itself wouldn't be unwelcome; and I think Nolan probably is the one director who actually has got a bit of name recognition with the more general public. I don't think people would have got so excited about Oppenheimer otherwise, and it was a massive hit.
  • edited January 5 Posts: 4,323
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    No I can't see Cavill bringing a box office with him either: Bond is a bigger draw than him and I'm not sure he has a massive fanbase. I feel like the main reaction would be indifference- a fairly average actor who people will recognise and who looks like James Bond has become James Bond. I tend to think that if Nolan got the gig, as much as he's not to my taste, there would be way more buzz.

    I reckon even Nolan wouldn't create that much buzz outside of the fan/film circles. I don't think his name alone would make a huge difference to the success of the film. If you don't keep up with these things, which is the vast majority of people, then it's unlikely you'd see Nolan as anything beyond a name on a poster or some films you may or may not like.

    I think there's truth to that, but any buzz on top of the buzz a new Bond film makes by itself wouldn't be unwelcome; and I think Nolan probably is the one director who actually has got a bit of name recognition with the more general public. I don't think people would have got so excited about Oppenheimer otherwise, and it was a massive hit.

    Oppenheimer's a weird one. I think it just happened to catch something that led to the degree of its success (I think it benefitted from coming out at the same time as Barbie which led to the 'Barbenheimer' memes/publicity, which in turn led to more people seeing Oppenheimer after Barbie. I don't think a chunk of that audience would otherwise have seen Oppenheimer in theatres). It may also have been because it was (or at least advertised as) the one big 'cinematic' film of that year, and touched on pretty general themes which were on people's minds/resonated with the zeitgeist (ie. end of the world, the idea of manmade technology leading to destruction etc.) That's not to say anything about the quality of the film, but I can imagine if it had been released outside of this context it wouldn't have been as successful. I can even imagine it underperforming given the right circumstances.

    Anyway, it's like I always say, I was quite surprised in my day to day life just how few people were familiar with Nolan in the run up to Oppenheimer. If you're a film fan you'd certainly know who he is, but I personally know people who are not and even if they had seen his Batman trilogy didn't especially care about his name or even his previous work. It simply wasn't the reason they went to see Oppenheimer. I can imagine it being the same story with a Nolan directed Bond film.
  • edited January 5 Posts: 1,473
    jobo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    No I can't see Cavill bringing a box office with him either: Bond is a bigger draw than him and I'm not sure he has a massive fanbase. I feel like the main reaction would be indifference. I tend to think that if Nolan got the gig, as much as he's not to my taste, there would be way more buzz.

    Bond is bigger draw than anyone.

    The key is to hire someone that the public will accept.

    Is that so key though? Very few people accepted Craig to begin with, but the vast majority of doubters were immediately swayed after watching Casino Royale.

    I'd say the key is to have a clear vision for what they want to do with the next Bond and cast the most suitable actor for that. Casting in order to satisfy conventions or expectations is not the way to go.

    Well, that vision can suck...
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,660
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    No I can't see Cavill bringing a box office with him either: Bond is a bigger draw than him and I'm not sure he has a massive fanbase. I feel like the main reaction would be indifference- a fairly average actor who people will recognise and who looks like James Bond has become James Bond. I tend to think that if Nolan got the gig, as much as he's not to my taste, there would be way more buzz.

    I reckon even Nolan wouldn't create that much buzz outside of the fan/film circles. I don't think his name alone would make a huge difference to the success of the film. If you don't keep up with these things, which is the vast majority of people, then it's unlikely you'd see Nolan as anything beyond a name on a poster or some films you may or may not like.

    I think there's truth to that, but any buzz on top of the buzz a new Bond film makes by itself wouldn't be unwelcome; and I think Nolan probably is the one director who actually has got a bit of name recognition with the more general public. I don't think people would have got so excited about Oppenheimer otherwise, and it was a massive hit.

    Oppenheimer's a weird one. I think it just happened to catch something that led to the degree of its success (I think it benefitted from coming out at the same time as Barbie which led to the 'Barbenheimer' memes/publicity, which in turn led to more people seeing Oppenheimer after Barbie. I don't think a chunk of that audience would otherwise have seen Oppenheimer in theatres).

    I think the Barbie thing definitely helped yeah, but there was also a lot of hype about it for a long time before it came out because it was the next Nolan, and that more or less spawned the Barbie combo thing.
  • Posts: 1,871
    I don't think the people who brought you Craig are going to bring you the guy who played Superman, Napoleon Solo and now Agent Argyle, which, they plan, to make into a franchise.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    delfloria wrote: »
    I don't think the people who brought you Craig are going to bring you the guy who played Superman, Napoleon Solo and now Agent Argyle, which, they plan, to make into a franchise.

    💯 💯 💯
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 5 Posts: 16,660
    I must admit I don't quite get Argylle: by the looks of the trailer he's barely in it, but he seems to have top billing. I guess it can't be telling the whole story.
  • Posts: 1,473
    delfloria wrote: »
    I don't think the people who brought you Craig are going to bring you the guy who played Superman, Napoleon Solo and now Agent Argyle, which, they plan, to make into a franchise.

    I just hope they bring someone soon.

  • Posts: 6,710
    I wouldn’t count on it. It’ll be a couple of years. I’d be surprised if they announced anything regarding Bond26 before 2026. Pleasantly surprised, mind you.
  • mtm wrote: »
    I must admit I don't quite get Argylle:

    I certainly don’t get that buzzcut they give him.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 5 Posts: 16,660
    Well it's unique to the extent of being potentially iconic (if the film is a hit), and makes him look unlike Bond, which is not a bad place to go I guess.
  • mtm wrote: »
    Well it's unique to the extent of being potentially iconic (if the film is a hit), and makes him look unlike Bond, which is not a bad place to go I guess.

    I suppose. The cut itself gives me serious “90’s frosted tip” vibes even though it isn’t dyed.
  • Posts: 1,394
    I think Cavill is a decent actor ( Seems like a genuinely nice bloke too )

    He looks like a guy who can score chicks and beat the crap out of people with ease.That’s a genuinely good fit for Bond.I think if he brings some if that hard edge he brought to Mission Impossible Fallout it would be a huge benefit as well.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,954
    Cavill would be great if they give him great things to do.

    And if they get 3-5 films out of him in ten years, all the better. If events have settled, Eon consistently tried to have 18 months to 2 years between missions with Craig but reality just didn't cooperate.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,251
    As said earlier, he’s already been Superman. Eon is not gonna pick an actor that has already lead in summer tentpole films. His best chance at getting Bond was way back in 2005.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,178
    As said earlier, he’s already been Superman. Eon is not gonna pick an actor that has already lead in summer tentpole films. His best chance at getting Bond was way back in 2005.

    This.
    Cavill will for the foreseeable future be linked to Bond. He was a finalist for the role almost 20 years ago. It’s been well documented since that time, and he’s still at an age that he could play Bond. That doesn’t mean he should. But the media will still run with it for a few more years, along with fans of Cavill.
    He’d be a safe bet for the role, but maybe not the best actor for the role now. Similar to Idris Elba.
    There are certain actors who will always be linked to the role, even though they’re never going to play James Bond.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,280
    The one time I thought of Cavill as a potential Bond was during the opening scenes of the UNCLE film. He looked absolutely Bondian to me. But even though I like the man and respect how committed he is, I just don't think he's got the finesse as an actor to play Bond. I will always defend his Superman, though. Wish I could have seen more of that.
Sign In or Register to comment.