Who should/could be a Bond actor?

112541255125612571259

Comments

  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,699
    talos7 wrote: »
    My picks may seem, for the most part conventional, but if Amazon came to me and asked for a half dozen actors to bring in for screentests, at the moment they would be

    Suter, James, Hoult , A.Turner and someone in whom I recently have seen potential, Harry Lawtey.

    Aside from Hoult, I completely agree with your picks mate. Nothing against Hoult at all, he just doesn't seem like Bond to me
  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    Posts: 278
    “The Barbara Broccoli group had a very realistic idea of how the franchise should continue. In other words: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Bond fits a certain profile, and you don’t want to mess with that too much,” film history lecturer and Bond expert Max Alvarez says, suggesting 41-year-old “Poldark” alum Aidan Turner as a fitting 007. “One of the reasons the series has been hanging on for so long, for so many decades, is that they didn’t mess with the formula too much.”

    What can I say, the man is truly an expert ;)
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited February 24 Posts: 8,382
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    My picks may seem, for the most part conventional, but if Amazon came to me and asked for a half dozen actors to bring in for screentests, at the moment they would be

    Suter, James, Hoult , A.Turner and someone in whom I recently have seen potential, Harry Lawtey.

    Aside from Hoult, I completely agree with your picks mate. Nothing against Hoult at all, he just doesn't seem like Bond to me

    And I can understand that, but he is incredibly talented and versatile , is continuously growing into his looks and might be what the character needs following the intensity of Craig.
    He’s not my first choice, but I’d like to see what he would do with some classic Bond scenes

    This prompts another question, will the next generation continue the tradition of using classic Bond scenes as the basis of their screentests?
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,699
    Hoult is one of the actors who should be screentested 100%.

    I do wonder how the next Bond will be tested and cast, especially given Debbie McWilliams retirement
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,505
    To me Hoult is a good contender and the right age (presumably late 30s upon the film's release). He's a fine actor and handsome, but not a pretty boy. Believable as an undercover agent.

    You also have to consider Hoult's The Favourite co-star, Joe Alwyn. 35 and more of a pretty boy, but he was so tied to Taylor Swift that I'm sure they'll consider *his* online popularity.

    The artisanal bent of James Bond casting is all gone now. I'm not sure we'd get a Craig in 2025. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't get a Giannini or a Christensen in supporting roles.

    We're all at the mercy of Amazon's algorithm.
  • edited 1:41am Posts: 474
    I'm just throwing this idea out just to be provocative....

    What if there's no actor out there? What if Amazon can't find anyone they really go "wow, this guy is great!"

    What if everyone they consider is a bit wishy washy? Kinda bland. 🤭

    Maybe Eon saw the writing on the wall (sounds like a song lyric, that!) and they realised "there is nobody out there that excites us." Perhaps Eon killing off Bond was a statement... there is no suitable replacement. Let's pack up and quit.

    I'm not saying I agree 100 percent with the above but just throwing the suggestion out there.



  • edited 1:54am Posts: 4,670
    bondywondy wrote: »
    I'm just throwing this idea out just to be provocative....

    What if there's no actor out there? What if Amazon can't find anyone they really go "wow, this guy is great!"

    What if everyone they consider is a bit wishy washy? Kinda bland. 🤭

    Maybe Eon saw the writing on the wall (sounds like a song lyric, that!) and they realised "there is nobody out there that excites us." Perhaps Eon killing off Bond was a statement... there is no suitable replacement. Let's pack up and quit.

    I'm not saying I agree 100 percent with the above but just throwing the suggestion out there.



    I suppose the nature of casting is they have to find the most suitable candidate from a list of options available to them. Not get some sort of 'chosen one'. The Bonds we've gotten have all been good, if not excellent. But none of them were the only possibility (we of course know that particularly from the whole Remington Steele contract issue with Brosnan and how that gave us Dalton).

    So even if none are perfect (and incidentally I don't think any actor is perfect) they'll have to pick someone or convince a good candidate to audition if they want to make a film.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,382
    Everyone might not be in agreement a to the specific actor, but absolutely believe that a successor to Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan and Craig can be found.

    I will say though that much of their success and acceptance will depend on the talent that surrounds them.

    In a way, “Bond”is a sum of its parts. Greatness is not a necessity; a solid script + solid production values + solid direction and an actor who embodies the role will be a great start for this next era.


  • Posts: 184
    With Amazon and them possibly using an algorithm to find the next Bond, I wonder if Harry Styles could be a possibility. I see the last movie he did was one for Amazon called My Policeman. They might believe he could bring in a younger audience. Or is he even that popular anymore?
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,382
    I think the belief that the next actor will be chosen based on an “ algorithm “ is ridiculous.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    edited 5:43am Posts: 708
    I've had a look at Callum Turner recently, since he's been mentioned here several times, and I'm afraid it's a very firm no from me. I've found him pretty uncharismatic and forgettable in everything I've seen him in. I'm not sure what people see in him. As great as it would be to have a Callum play Bond. I can't see it at the moment.
  • Posts: 21
    The internet speaks. The algorithm listens. DEWI FOR BOND.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,297
    dewiparry wrote: »
    The internet speaks. The algorithm listens. DEWI FOR BOND.

    I admire your optimism @dewiparry
  • Posts: 21
    Benny wrote: »
    dewiparry wrote: »
    The internet speaks. The algorithm listens. DEWI FOR BOND.

    I admire your optimism @dewiparry

    Thanks! Part of my training... 007
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,177
    bondywondy wrote: »
    I'm just throwing this idea out just to be provocative....

    What if there's no actor out there? What if Amazon can't find anyone they really go "wow, this guy is great!"

    What if everyone they consider is a bit wishy washy? Kinda bland. 🤭

    Maybe Eon saw the writing on the wall (sounds like a song lyric, that!) and they realised "there is nobody out there that excites us." Perhaps Eon killing off Bond was a statement... there is no suitable replacement. Let's pack up and quit.

    I'm not saying I agree 100 percent with the above but just throwing the suggestion out there.



    That is what the Variety (was it?) piece said, that people close to Dame Barbara said that she may have stayed on if there was a candidate who had really excited her but she hadn’t found him. If that’s true I can see it, the whole series is about this one man after all. But they’ll find someone.
  • Posts: 15,394
    007HallY wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    I'm just throwing this idea out just to be provocative....

    What if there's no actor out there? What if Amazon can't find anyone they really go "wow, this guy is great!"

    What if everyone they consider is a bit wishy washy? Kinda bland. 🤭

    Maybe Eon saw the writing on the wall (sounds like a song lyric, that!) and they realised "there is nobody out there that excites us." Perhaps Eon killing off Bond was a statement... there is no suitable replacement. Let's pack up and quit.

    I'm not saying I agree 100 percent with the above but just throwing the suggestion out there.



    I suppose the nature of casting is they have to find the most suitable candidate from a list of options available to them. Not get some sort of 'chosen one'. The Bonds we've gotten have all been good, if not excellent. But none of them were the only possibility (we of course know that particularly from the whole Remington Steele contract issue with Brosnan and how that gave us Dalton).

    So even if none are perfect (and incidentally I don't think any actor is perfect) they'll have to pick someone or convince a good candidate to audition if they want to make a film.

    I often say you don't look for perfection, you look for the best.
  • Posts: 1,633
    Perfect is the enemy of good.
  • edited 10:18am Posts: 474
    Perfect is the enemy of good.

    😄 That's an interesting saying.

    I asked ChatGPT
    Henry Cavill has never had a moderate to big hit when not playing Superman. Wouldn't this be a potential big obstacle to overcome for Amazon when casting James Bond? Why would Amazon cast an actor with a very poor box office record (when not playing Superman) when Amazon could cast a new actor with no negative box office history/no major box office duds on his resume.

    ChatGPT's reply
    That’s a very solid argument. Henry Cavill’s box office track record outside of Superman is unimpressive, and that could be a major red flag for Amazon when casting the next James Bond.

    Cavill’s Non-Superman Box Office Record:

    The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (2015) – Well-received but flopped ($107m worldwide on a $75m budget).

    Night Hunter (2018) – A tiny release, barely registering at the box office.

    Enola Holmes (2020, 2022) – Netflix hits, but streaming success doesn’t translate directly to box office bankability.

    Argylle (2024) – A massive disaster, likely losing Apple hundreds of millions.

    Why This Matters for James Bond:

    1. Amazon Needs a Proven Box Office Draw or a Fresh Start – They’re investing heavily in the franchise, and casting someone with a weak box office record (outside of Superman) is risky.

    2. Newcomers Have No Box Office Baggage – A fresh face might be a better choice, as they wouldn’t have previous flops hanging over them.

    3. Cavill Might Be Too Associated with Other Franchises – He’s been Superman, Geralt of Rivia, and now Argylle. Bond works best when the actor is known but not overexposed.

    4. Financial Logic – If Cavill’s non-Superman films have consistently underperformed, why risk the Bond franchise on him instead of casting a rising star with no history of big-budget flops?

    Unless Amazon is prioritising name recognition over long-term success, casting Cavill seems like a financial gamble rather than a smart business move.

    I think the reply was valid. I'd say the same thing was true about Idris Elba. Both Cavill and Elba heavily promoted/marketed by Hollywood as the next big thing. Both given very high profile roles in Hollywood. Elba was the main star of the planned Stephen King Dark Tower franchise.
    The proposed Dark Tower film trilogy faced several challenges that ultimately led to its cancellation. In 2017, a film adaptation was released, but it received mixed reviews and underperformed at the box office, which impacted its potential for sequels.

    Will Amazon pick a guy with a consistently bad box office history? My guess is no. I don't think Cavill is completely out of the race nor Aaron Taylor-Johnson whom recently bombed very hard with Kraven The Hunter. I think it's extremely unlikely Cavill's box office resume will convince Amazon but if Amazon feel the fans (or casual film goers/ gen z) want him to be Bond he may have a chance. And maybe if Amazon wanted an older Bond for a tv spin off maybe Elba is still in contention.

    I think guys like Elordi, not yet making huge budget films with the potential to have huge losses if they fail, are more likely to be cast over Cavill, Elba, Johnson. I think any actor that seriously believe he has a chance/wants the role should avoid any huge budget films. Just stay lower profile because we saw what happened to Johnson. He was the main guy (if the reports were accurate) and then he's "maybe not the main guy" when Kraven tanked. Bad box office is not going to impress Amazon. I could be wrong though. My gut feeling is they'll cast an actor with no high profile huge budget films on his resume.



  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 997
    I'm assuming that the new director will have a big say in the casting of 007. If they follow the recent Batman model we'll probably get three films from one director with the same actor, then recast for the next director. We might see a faster turnaround in terms of casting under Amazon.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,177
    If they do follow 'The Batman' films though we'll have five years between films.
  • Posts: 474
    Christopher Nolan made three Batman films over ten years or so. Batman Begins was released in 2005. Two years or so of work on that so let's say 2003. Nolan's last Batman film The Dark Knight released in 2012. Around 10 years or so in total. The guy doesn't waste time. Hard working!

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,505
    Tom Holland and Zendaya in a reboot of Live and Let Die.

    I don't hate it.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,177
    The Batman was '22, The Batman 2 is 2027.
  • edited 1:21pm Posts: 4,670
    I’m always hesitant to blame EON for their gaps in the later Craig films (much of which came down to factors well out of their control, including MGM issues), nor do I expect an Amazon Bond film imminently nor even consistent two year gaps. Even Reeve’s The Batman series has had two release date changes for various reasons.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,177
    Yeah I don't really want two year gaps to be honest: I don't think any film series can realistically manage that now. Most big budget TV shows can barely get a series out every couple of years: Slow Horses is almost the only exception.
    When Star Wars tried to do the two year gap thing I think generally it was thought that it suffered as a result.
  • Posts: 4,662
    Just to stir things up, how about a full "traditional" Bond movie every 4 years and a Bond universe movie in between. One movie every two years would not be too much IMHO, a chance to gently expand the universe, keep the brand in the public eye and be more creative with Directors, ideas etc ....like the World Cup and the Euros :-)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,177
    Which is what they tried to do with Star Wars isn't it: but they gave up after Solo.
  • Posts: 1,677
    echo wrote: »
    Tom Holland and Zendaya in a reboot of Live and Let Die.

    I don't hate it.

    Isn't Tom Holland rather short ? There's a reason he got to play Spiderman - he looks like a young, immature, not yet fully grown teenager.
  • edited 2:35pm Posts: 4,662
    Fair point but I think the "MI6 Universe" has a broader fan base to exploit. There is something about Science fiction that puts off a big section of the demographic, my in laws would not dream about seeing Star Wars etc but went to see SF twice, plus Im not talking about "young Bond" (desperate like young Solo), I'm thinking about the double 0 team (I'm very aware that just mention of this ill raise the blood pressure of some fans so sorry in advance),
Sign In or Register to comment.