› ›

Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1…11861187118911911192…1231

Comments

  • Informe_James_BondInforme_James_Bond Dominican Republic
    Posts: 112
    echo wrote: »
    After pages and pages of this, I must ask:

    Who is Aidan Turner?

    He is an Irish actor, that a few years ago it was rumored that he would be the perfect candidate to be the next James Bond. He has been nominated and won awards for his role in the TV-Series "Poldark".

    8io3fy3o5j181-transformed.png

    ;)
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,044
    Funnily enough, I don't think Aidan Turner wants to be James Bond.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,138
    SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »
    Funnily enough, I don't think Aidan Turner wants to be James Bond.

    918zj4vvwa6h.gif
  • UnivexUnivex
    edited April 15 Posts: 6,709
    Benny wrote: »
    SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »
    Funnily enough, I don't think Aidan Turner wants to be James Bond.

    918zj4vvwa6h.gif

    batman.gif

    Let’s try to put some water over this, shall we? I’ll steer it away from another AT debate with this one:

    Would anyone on their perfect mind want to be Bond after Daniel Craig? No one wants to be another Lazenby. One would have to be one cocky b. to want that job. Oh, damn, I only know one cocky actor, and that’s another can of worms. I guess this thread is properly doomed :)

    Still want Theo James as the next Bond, though. Still my number one candidate. That he doesn’t want the job only makes him lucid and even more of a good choice, IMO.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited April 15 Posts: 3,152
    It's a good point. Even Dalton said that one of the reasons he turned down Bond originally was because he thought it was impossible to follow Connery. It took George's cocksure Aussie larrikin approach not to be daunted by the prospect. Whoever follows Craig will have the hardest job in Bond since then. Ironically, the new guy's almost certainly going to get criticised for not being as good as Daniel Craig. Whoever takes it on will be volunteering to be in an uphill battle for a while.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,216
    Craig’s shadow is one of the reasons that I think they are in no hurry to launch the next incarnation of Bond; they want some distance
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,709
    next-james-bond.png?height=675&width=1200

    Very different. Yet, it would make sense. As it should.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,216
    Univex wrote: »
    next-james-bond.png?height=675&width=1200

    Very different. Yet, it would make sense. As it should.

    He would be an excellent excellent choice…
  • DewiWynBondDewiWynBond
    Posts: 944
    Fingers crossed I get Daniel Craig's blessing.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited April 15 Posts: 4,520
    Now he is official not doing a voice For Sonic 3, how long it wil take before Eon wil anouch Hayden Christensen as new Bond. Born in 1981 he is mabey already to old, but mabey not for three movie's.

    c555de5dd9c7a82e695c7d8622572182.jpgpcskiciz.webp

    emma-roberts-hayden-christensen-world-premiere-little-italy-in-toronto-03.jpg

    ob2j0231_70a190a4.jpeg?region=417,162,3135,1761&width=960
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited April 15 Posts: 3,152
    talos7 wrote: »
    Craig’s shadow is one of the reasons that I think they are in no hurry to launch the next incarnation of Bond; they want some distance
    Agreed. Had they installed the next guy too soon, they'd run the risk of fans still missing Craig too much to give the new guy a fair shake. They're probably hoping that the length of the gap will mean that they reach a point where that's overridden by people's desire to see more Bond, even though it's not Dan in the role.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    edited April 15 Posts: 2,270
    I understand Craig has his fans, but pretending this is a situation that’s even remotely similar to where EON was in the late 60’s is just inaccurate. First off we all know whoever EON picks, butts are going to be in those audience chairs on opening weekend without a doubt; whereas I’m not sure if that was a given back in ‘69. Second despite how radically culture seems to have changed these days, the film franchise is on arguably stronger grounds now than it was back in the late 60’s/early 70’s, where many of the changing social trends of that day put Bond’s relevance into question more than any other period of time since (with the exception of the end of the Cold War.) Third, everybody is acting as if Craig’s interpretation was the “be all; end all” version of Bond and automatically making their minds up that the next fellow won’t be as good. Now nothing is wrong with that because people are entitled to their opinions; but I can also recall fans exasperating similarly over Brosnan’s departure while prematurely dismissing Craig and saying “he won’t be as good” and yet things turned out just fine didn’t they? The character of Bond and the series as a whole is now an institution in a way. No actors portrayal can be called “the definitive” interpretation (at least not anymore) because everyone now has a different concept of who/what Bond is, and what the films should be. The only “definitive” version of James Bond would be the literary character, and even then (from what limited knowledge I have of Fleming’s books) the Bond of Fleming’s Doctor No comes across as an entirely different character than the man introduced in Fleming’s Casino Royale. Will it be tough finding Craig’s successor? Absolutely. It was tough for EON to find successors to Connery, Moore, and Brosnan before. But do I think that Craig has entered into this new status as the “Bond to Beat/End all other Bonds?” No because there is no such thing.

    I think the reason for the delay in announcing the next actor is because they need to map out a direction to take the series that hasn’t really been done before. Lazenby’s film, Moore’s era, Dalton’s era, Brosnan’s era, and Craig’s era were all unlike anything the series had attempted before in retrospect, and that’s one of the factors for why the series has lasted as long as it has. EON is probably examining what worked/didn’t work in Craig’s era to try and figure out what can be done next (as well as digging deep into Fleming I’d imagine.)
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 1,368
    Craig's Bond was Craig's Bond. They just need a completely different actor.

    It's not that hard.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 4,162
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    I understand Craig has his fans, but pretending this is a situation that’s even remotely similar to where EON was in the late 60’s is just inaccurate. First off we all know whoever EON picks, butts are going to be in those audience chairs on opening weekend without a doubt; whereas I’m not sure if that was a given back in ‘69. Second despite how radically culture seems to have changed these days, the film franchise is on arguably stronger grounds now than it was back in the late 60’s/early 70’s, where many of the changing social trends of that day put Bond’s relevance into question more than any other period of time since (with the exception of the end of the Cold War.) Third, everybody is acting as if Craig’s interpretation was the “be all; end all” version of Bond and automatically making their minds up that the next fellow won’t be as good. Now nothing is wrong with that because people are entitled to their opinions; but I can also recall fans exasperating similarly over Brosnan’s departure while prematurely dismissing Craig and saying “he won’t be as good” and yet things turned out just fine didn’t they? The character of Bond and the series as a whole is now an institution in a way. No actors portrayal can be called “the definitive” interpretation (at least not anymore) because everyone now has a different concept of who/what Bond is, and what the films should be. The only “definitive” version of James Bond would be the literary character, and even then (from what limited knowledge I have of Fleming’s books) the Bond of Fleming’s Doctor No comes across as an entirely different character than the man introduced in Fleming’s Casino Royale. Will it be tough finding Craig’s successor? Absolutely. It was tough for EON to find successors to Connery, Moore, and Brosnan before. But do I think that Craig has entered into this new status as the “Bond to Beat/End all other Bonds?” No because there is no such thing.

    I think the reason for the delay in announcing the next actor is because they need to map out a direction to take the series that hasn’t really been done before. Lazenby’s film, Moore’s era, Dalton’s era, Brosnan’s era, and Craig’s era were all unlike anything the series had attempted before in retrospect, and that’s one of the factors for why the series has lasted as long as it has. EON is probably examining what worked/didn’t work in Craig’s era to try and figure out what can be done next (as well as digging deep into Fleming I’d imagine.)

    Nice post, completely agreed. The next actor has big shoes to fill, but we’re really not in a situation similar to ‘69. And yes, there’s so much they can potentially do with a new Bond even before they’ve cast the actor.
  • WhyBondWhyBond USA
    Posts: 69
    Craig is severely overrated. This is not the situation when Connery stepped down.

    I believe the problem lies with the producers trying to bring Bond back after having him blown up and they have hit a wall on how to do it.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    WhyBond wrote: »
    Craig is severely overrated. This is not the situation when Connery stepped down.

    I believe the problem lies with the producers trying to bring Bond back after having him blown up and they have hit a wall on how to do it.

    I figure it has almost nothing to do with that and more with figuring out what type of era they want for the next actor, along with just how much storytelling they want to inject in, i.e. a sweeping storyline across the entire tenure vs. individual standalone installments.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    edited April 16 Posts: 1,368
    There are many franchises out there. Jonathan Bailey is in early talks to star the new Jurassic World movie.

    If they want someone like him or Theo James they have to hurry.
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 871
    Univex wrote: »
    next-james-bond.png?height=675&width=1200

    Very different. Yet, it would make sense. As it should.

    Just dropped in to voice my support for Theo James.
    If for nothing else, it's time for Bond to be brown-eyed again after more than 50 years. B-)


    s-l1200.jpg
  • Reflsin2bourbonsReflsin2bourbons
    Posts: 261
    Except the literary character has blue eyes. Anyway no one cares too much about the eyes of an actor: if we've gotten over hair we can certainly get over eyes
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited April 16 Posts: 4,162
    Well, in fairness Craig’s eyes were quite extraordinary. It’s not just that they were blue, but an icy blue which was very similar to the vibe of Fleming’s Bond. It just kinda stood out with his face and complimented his features. Gave him that extra something I guess, and as an actor he knew where to look/how to glare etc. Moore had them too and had that ability.

    But I do agree, it’s not just about having a specific colour of eyes or hair etc. But I think those special actors often have those distinctive features which stand out.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 16 Posts: 16,413
    I like that his eyes were so striking it actually became a plot point in NTTD. And that kid in the Skyfall titles was obviously hired because he had such similar eyes (I guess they might have been tweaked a bit too).
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,152
    mtm wrote: »
    that kid in the Skyfall titles was obviously hired because he had such similar eyes.

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,399
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    Craig's Bond was Craig's Bond. They just need a completely different actor.

    It's not that hard.

    Bingo.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,413
    Venutius wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    that kid in the Skyfall titles was obviously hired because he had such similar eyes.


    Heh! I had a quick google-
    Kleinman: "There was a bit of a stumble over Daniel Craig’s eyes at the end of the sequence, which were meant to be a reprise of his young eyes from earlier on, witnessing something we know not what, yet. The problem was that although I filmed Daniel himself, many people didn’t recognise the eyes as his!"
    https://www.artofthetitle.com/title/skyfall/
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 4,162
    Staying out of this one 😂 Don’t want a repeat of this debate from ‘22. Was a dark time, no news of the next Bond film, only brief tabloid rumours to keep us going…

    … actually it was pretty much the same as now come to think of it. Oh well…
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    Craig's Bond was Craig's Bond. They just need a completely different actor.

    It's not that hard.

    It is what it is.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    echo wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    Craig's Bond was Craig's Bond. They just need a completely different actor.

    It's not that hard.

    It is what it is.

    @echo you’re a patient man.

    I mean, I wasn’t even going to respond to Deke’s latest, but… sigh…

    It’s sooo obvious he’s got his finger on the pulse of casting now!! I shouldn’t be surprised! The man’s a genius!

    I mean, of course “it’s not that hard” to find a leading man!! That’s why anyone can be a casting director!

    “It’s not that hard” to find a leading man ready to not only excel in the role, but to be a great ambassador, and appeal not just to audiences in the UK, or the US, or Canada, but worldwide appeal!!

    I mean it’s just so easy to find leading men like this that Batman’s George Clooney (on paper a perfect choice), would never falter; it so easy that Superman can toss in any old bloke, cuz it ain’t hard, and ppl will go crazy for Brandon Routh or Henry Cavill.

    Casting a leading man in a huge tent pole ain’t hard at all!!! Just like:

    Scripts aren’t meant to be read, and all of the other words of knowledge and wisdom that Deke deems worthy to share with us!!
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    Ah, Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder. Not obvious casting but--wow--did it work.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    echo wrote: »
    Ah, Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder. Not obvious casting but--wow--did it work.

    Exactly!! 💯 💯 💯…

    But it’s not too hard, 😂 😂 😂
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,216
    I don't know, aside from having to put on some muscle and color his hair black, Reeve looked like a pretty obvious choice.
Sign In or Register to comment.