Who should/could be a Bond actor?

112661267126912711272

Comments

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,621
    bondywondy wrote: »
    I think one of the main things they've got to do (especially now with Amazon at the helm) is to find an actor that is or seems like he could be on the verge of becoming a big screen movie star, as opposed to someone that's been a TV actor for a decade plus. Lets face it, most of these candidates are decent actors and look decent in a tux, but they're just not big screen stars for whatever reason. They just don't have that "it factor" or whatever you want to call it.

    And honestly it may be more important now that Amazon is doing this. With EON people might at least have thought that Barbara had found another hidden gem like Craig again. But people associate Amazon with shows, aka streaming content. Someone like say Aidan Turner or Theo James or Leo Suter just screams "streaming content" or "James Bond TV show." They are going to want people to believe that Bond will be a big theatrical event again. It needs a proper big screen leading man.

    But they also shouldn't choose someone that's already too famous. And especially one that hasn't been a flop. So hopefully they don't just choose Henry Cavill, the safe pick. Nicholas Hoult has been getting some good film roles lately, so I think he could fit the bill a bit. Though I don't know about him being Lex Luthor and Bond at the same time. That's just too odd. Maybe Mescal, but it sounds like he bombed in the Gladiator movie.

    My pick out of the all of the candidates at this time would be Josh O'Connor. I know a lot of people don't think he looks right for Bond, and I didn't either when I first saw him. But after seeing him in Challengers (produced by Amy Pascal for Amazon by the way), La Chimera, the Aston Martin ad, and some various interviews he has become my favorite. He's got a coolness and charisma about him that starts to come across after actually watching him. And it's more subtle and effortless and comes naturally from the actor, unlike with a try-hard like ATJ. It's not something you can see by just looking at a few pictures. And he seems to be on the verge of stardom. He's about to be starring in the next Knives Out film with DC, and he's in Spielberg's next film as well. I realize the only reply this is going to get is someone saying something about his ears or nose or something, but I'm telling you, I think he has something. And to the person who said he wasn't handsome, a lot of women seem to thirst over him online. And I showed Challengers to my gay male roommate who said he thought he was "hot." So I don't know...

    Josh-OConnor-in-La-Chimera-Credit-Simona-Pampaollona.jpg

    Aston_Martin_DBX_x_Luca_Guadagnino05.jpg

    485851452_1051632633666895_3744213295555071984_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s600x600_tt6&_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=127cfc&_nc_ohc=VEUiwIxZjecQ7kNvgHBrVsf&_nc_oc=AdmrVWU0wBQomrGrppPgfPc7DMBwoqEdbMfjnYw4ZijMfcjAoadsPTbJl47Yqs1rmpCq0SQe5OQ376N4QX0GvP48&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&_nc_gid=gUQ5hXG6AluNPEG6iH_Fvw&oh=00_AYHed4VfTiu8iHO_TR1B5_ZymStHXWzFlsnAH6brAVijWw&oe=67E8AD9A

    485858601_1051632627000229_8463002052300080385_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s600x600_tt6&_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=127cfc&_nc_aid=0&_nc_ohc=8BcXPxb87OoQ7kNvgFFhVJm&_nc_oc=Adk-BcOybFutQbtFSi6Lk0ZOAD5S_MA5OvBARA_uYAaJfCp_zXdmutB2FDu76IPeAq3B2vnR4wPyQOM9Tao03Bq-&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&_nc_gid=gUQ5hXG6AluNPEG6iH_Fvw&oh=00_AYGPBSodQelhW-uJwhdYhzEbQPDQHFyA51tGSlqNDLmFNQ&oe=67E8BE30

    Someone suggested him before, and I remember seeing that first image, and thinking that he has a touch of Lewis Collins to him. I think it's the hair.

    rexfeatures-69299b-3-400x240-20131129-115125-862.jpg

    Josh O’Connor has huge ears. It's not a shallow observation, they're unnaturally sticking out.

    %2Fmethode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2F5b9ddaae-199c-11e9-944c-54b267eb465b.jpg?crop=2474%2C3710%2C1552%2C922

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTVMCQ9G0n8Jv50ZcMAeKJKDLkDDbN3NLd_zA&usqp=CAU

    tumblr_inline_pealkn8Jzm1qbb1wr_400.jpg

    If Amazon want to consider him then he should have his ears pinned back. And personally I don't think he looks remotely James Bond but I thought the same about Daniel Craig. The general public accepted him so fair enough.

    I personally don't think there is a stand out candidate for Bond 26. I'm not sure the franchise has any exciting future ahead. I don't have any faith Pascal and Heyman will have any clue who to cast. What do these people know about Bond? Not much or anything.


    Pascal was involved in CR-SF. So she knows something.
  • edited March 26 Posts: 1,773
    Univex wrote: »
    Daniel Craig has very, very big ears. Just saying. Never found him to be handsome. Alpha male charismatic swaggering brute with a nice physique? Yes. Classically handsome? Nop.
    Were’s a new Dalton when we need one? Does that type still exist? Handsome, rugged, cultured, intense?

    We had better candidates 20 years ago. Even ridiculous candidates like Ewan McGregor seem better than the current ones.
  • edited March 26 Posts: 4,920
    O'Connor is another one who's actually pretty tradBond looking when you break it down; tall, lean, dark-haired, and handsome. I'm sure some will disagree with that last one, but it's undeniable that plenty of women find him attractive. The Grauniad even said he was too handsome and charismatic to be playing Prince Charles.

    I will say, he's a bit of a lightweight, but that's easily rectified with a gym and a trainer. As for his ears, I doubt anyone will notice (or care) after his first few minutes on screen. And he can always grow his hair to cover them a bit.

    Yeah, he’s basically a variation of tall, dark and handsome. It’s been pointed out to death by now but his big ears don’t seem to have stalled his career in film, and of course it’s about as useful as pointing out any other ‘flaw’ with the other Bonds (Moore’s mole, Craig’s ears, Connery’s duck mouth etc).

    I’ll admit I’m more on the fence about him, but I think he has flashes of Bond potential. It’s tricky to say what exactly he’d bring to it though, but I’d be interested if he were cast.
    Univex wrote: »
    Daniel Craig has very, very big ears. Just saying. Never found him to be handsome. Alpha male charismatic swaggering brute with a nice physique? Yes. Classically handsome? Nop.
    Were’s a new Dalton when we need one? Does that type still exist? Handsome, rugged, cultured, intense?

    Was Dalton ever considered rugged? Might just be me but I always got the intensity off of him but not quite the ruggedness. Connery and Craig I’d say more fit that description (insofar as that also comes down to screen presence in large part - again, Dalton brought something more intense and even broody to Bond). Also worth saying not everyone was thrilled with Dalton as Bind in his day - much as I love his performances and films - so there’s always hindsight with Bond which actors we feel we ‘need’ in the current time.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    Posts: 746
    007HallY wrote: »
    Was Dalton ever considered rugged? Might just be me but I always got the intensity off of him but not quite the ruggedness. Connery and Craig I’d say more fit that description (insofar as that also comes down to screen presence in large part - again, Dalton brought something more intense and even broody to Bond). Also worth saying not everyone was thrilled with Dalton as Bind in his day - much as I love his performances and films - so there’s always hindsight with Bond which actors we feel we ‘need’ in the current time.

    Yes, rugged isn't really a word I'd use to describe Dalton. Romantic, I think, would be the best way to describe his looks. In that way, he was very suited to playing characters like Heathcliff and Rochester.
  • Posts: 4,920
    007HallY wrote: »
    Was Dalton ever considered rugged? Might just be me but I always got the intensity off of him but not quite the ruggedness. Connery and Craig I’d say more fit that description (insofar as that also comes down to screen presence in large part - again, Dalton brought something more intense and even broody to Bond). Also worth saying not everyone was thrilled with Dalton as Bind in his day - much as I love his performances and films - so there’s always hindsight with Bond which actors we feel we ‘need’ in the current time.

    Yes, rugged isn't really a word I'd use to describe Dalton. Romantic, I think, would be the best way to describe his looks. In that way, he was very suited to playing characters like Heathcliff and Rochester.

    Yes, a kind of dark, handsome but broody and mysterious type. Nothing wrong with that incidentally and that's absolutely fine for his Bond, but it's a slightly different impression than the other Bonds gave off.
  • Posts: 6,811
    Sure, I'd go with Romantic, dark, handsome and broody. Quite right :)
  • edited March 26 Posts: 4,920
    For what it's worth I think there are actors who give off a similar impression to Dalton in that sense and their appearance goes hand in hand with that. It's very possible we could get a quieter, more intense Bond if the right actor turns out to be the best option. Just depends.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,594
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Was Dalton ever considered rugged? Might just be me but I always got the intensity off of him but not quite the ruggedness. Connery and Craig I’d say more fit that description (insofar as that also comes down to screen presence in large part - again, Dalton brought something more intense and even broody to Bond). Also worth saying not everyone was thrilled with Dalton as Bind in his day - much as I love his performances and films - so there’s always hindsight with Bond which actors we feel we ‘need’ in the current time.

    Yes, rugged isn't really a word I'd use to describe Dalton. Romantic, I think, would be the best way to describe his looks. In that way, he was very suited to playing characters like Heathcliff and Rochester.

    Yes, a kind of dark, handsome but broody and mysterious type. Nothing wrong with that incidentally and that's absolutely fine for his Bond, but it's a slightly different impression than the other Bonds gave off.

    Yes I want someone with a stronger presence than him. The guy needs to be a star in the role.
  • edited March 26 Posts: 4,920
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Was Dalton ever considered rugged? Might just be me but I always got the intensity off of him but not quite the ruggedness. Connery and Craig I’d say more fit that description (insofar as that also comes down to screen presence in large part - again, Dalton brought something more intense and even broody to Bond). Also worth saying not everyone was thrilled with Dalton as Bind in his day - much as I love his performances and films - so there’s always hindsight with Bond which actors we feel we ‘need’ in the current time.

    Yes, rugged isn't really a word I'd use to describe Dalton. Romantic, I think, would be the best way to describe his looks. In that way, he was very suited to playing characters like Heathcliff and Rochester.

    Yes, a kind of dark, handsome but broody and mysterious type. Nothing wrong with that incidentally and that's absolutely fine for his Bond, but it's a slightly different impression than the other Bonds gave off.

    Yes I want someone with a stronger presence than him. The guy needs to be a star in the role.

    I do agree with that (again, as much as I like Dalton's Bond and respect him as an actor). I do think it's possible to have a mysterious, intense Bond played by an actor with more star quality at any rate.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,354
    Josh O’Connor is a fine actor, who has potential. However to launch the next era of the Bond franchise, I think as @mtm says we need a stronger presence.
    I’m wondering if PasHey will go with a bigger name than EON probably would.
    It’s a massive turning point for the series, and the casting of Bond needs to be right.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,401
    I think Craig's casting might influence Pascal & Heyman.... especially Pascal and they might want someone of that ilk.
  • Posts: 1,773
    Benny wrote: »
    Josh O’Connor is a fine actor, who has potential. However to launch the next era of the Bond franchise, I think as @mtm says we need a stronger presence.
    I’m wondering if PasHey will go with a bigger name than EON probably would.
    It’s a massive turning point for the series, and the casting of Bond needs to be right.

    They might follow the Superman (1978) formula. Lots of stars except Bond.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,449
    The next actor will have to posses star qualities, but he may not yet be one; the role will make him a star.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,401
    I hope Amazon, like EON continue casting European actors, alongside a few familiar Hollywood faces.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,993
    talos7 wrote: »
    The next actor will have to posses star qualities, but he may not yet be one; the role will make him a star.
    100%. I also wanna mention that overall, speculating about who should be the next Bond is fun and interesting, but ultimately, a limited exercise.

    No matter how much we discuss and comment on an actor’s past roles, looks, or perceived suitability, we’re only seeing a fraction of what they might bring to the character. Bond isn’t just about an actor’s existing qualities, it’s about how they rise to the role when given the chance...
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited March 26 Posts: 2,401
    Denbigh wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    The next actor will have to posses star qualities, but he may not yet be one; the role will make him a star.
    100%. I also wanna mention that overall, speculating about who should be the next Bond is fun and interesting, but ultimately, a limited exercise.

    No matter how much we discuss and comment on an actor’s past roles, looks, or perceived suitability, we’re only seeing a fraction of what they might bring to the character. Bond isn’t just about an actor’s existing qualities, it’s about how they rise to the role when given the chance...

    Exactly. I keep saying this. The actor can't be James Bond, until he's James Bond.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited March 28 Posts: 8,778
    I would not be surprised if Tom Holland ends up becoming Bond. Remember that Amy Pascal has a good relationship with him through Spider-man, plus Amazon ideally want someone young enough to be established by the time Bond enters the public domain. Not to mention he has a massive presence of social media, and Amazon want someone with a lot of cultural cache. He is someone who appeals to young and old demographics, and just generally very likable. He ticks a lot of boxes in a spreadsheet sense, even if he's very different to what we as Bond fans would expect to see.
  • Posts: 1,773
    I would not be surprised if Tom Holland ends up becoming Bond. Remember that Amy Pascal has a good relationship with him through Spider-man, plus Amazon ideally want someone young enough to be established by the time Bond enters the public domain. Not to mention he has a massive presence of social media, and Amazon want someone with a lot of cultural cache. He is someone who appeals to young and old demographics, and just generally very likable. He ticks a lot of boxes in a spreadsheet sense, even if he's very different to what we as Bond fans would expect to see.

    If it has to be a Spider-Man, let it be Andrew Garfield.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,354
    I would not be surprised if Tom Holland ends up becoming Bond. Remember that Amy Pascal has a good relationship with him through Spider-man, plus Amazon ideally want someone young enough to be established by the time Bond enters the public domain. Not to mention he has a massive presence of social media, and Amazon want someone with a lot of cultural cache. He is someone who appeals to young and old demographics, and just generally very likable. He ticks a lot of boxes in a spreadsheet sense, even if he's very different to what we as Bond fans would expect to see.


    I like Tom Holland as an actor, but as Bond I really don’t see it.
    If people have an issue with Nicholas Hoult due to his boyish looks, then they would surely have a similar issue with Holland.
  • edited March 28 Posts: 4,920
    I’d be very surprised if Holland got it. I think there’s a difference between casting a suitable actor who has wider appeal, and outright stunt casting.

    But who knows, maybe there is something Bondian about Holland and he could play a younger version of the character. But I don’t see it personally.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,738
    Benny wrote: »
    Josh O’Connor is a fine actor, who has potential. However to launch the next era of the Bond franchise, I think as @mtm says we need a stronger presence.
    I’m wondering if PasHey will go with a bigger name than EON probably would.
    It’s a massive turning point for the series, and the casting of Bond needs to be right.

    They might follow the Superman (1978) formula. Lots of stars except Bond.

    Good shout. Richard Donner was apparently insistent that Superman had to be 'a clean slate', an actor unassociated with any other roles, for the verisimilitude (a term Donner used on several occasions...)
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited March 28 Posts: 1,773
    007HallY wrote: »
    I’d be very surprised if Holland got it. I think there’s a difference between casting a suitable actor who has wider appeal, and outright stunt casting.

    But who knows, maybe there is something Bondian about Holland and he could play a younger version of the character. But I don’t see it personally.

    I genuinely think Spiderman will become an Avenger proper and maybe the next major overarching character for the franchise. They already have schedule issues with Holland for Avengers and Homecoming 4, they won't make him Bond if it kills Spiderman.

    And there are far, far better candidates.

    This for example is bad:
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,594
    I mean if we’re limiting it to actors the producers have used before then we may as well talk about Daniel Radcliffe. I think he’d probably be better than Holland, but still not going to happen.
    They’ll be looking at everyone, they don’t just cast the same people over and over again.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited March 28 Posts: 5,993
    I agree, I think when trying to consider professional relationships already explored, it's worth noting that I think producers are more likely to consider directors and writers they've worked with before as opposed to actors.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,773
    mtm wrote: »
    I mean if we’re limiting it to actors the producers have used before then we may as well talk about Daniel Radcliffe. I think he’d probably be better than Holland, but still not going to happen.
    They’ll be looking at everyone, they don’t just cast the same people over and over again.

    Or Robert Pattinson... that'd be nice.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,993
    LucknFate wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I mean if we’re limiting it to actors the producers have used before then we may as well talk about Daniel Radcliffe. I think he’d probably be better than Holland, but still not going to happen.
    They’ll be looking at everyone, they don’t just cast the same people over and over again.
    Or Robert Pattinson... that'd be nice.
    If it wasn’t for Batman, I’d be championing Robert Pattinson massively.
  • Posts: 4,920
    Denbigh wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I mean if we’re limiting it to actors the producers have used before then we may as well talk about Daniel Radcliffe. I think he’d probably be better than Holland, but still not going to happen.
    They’ll be looking at everyone, they don’t just cast the same people over and over again.
    Or Robert Pattinson... that'd be nice.
    If it wasn’t for Batman, I’d be championing Robert Pattinson massively.

    As he's Batman he obviously won't be considered. But in a parallel world Robert Pattinson would be a somewhat unusual, but potentially really interesting and unique choice for Bond (which is how I'd describe him as Batman anyway!) I don't know how it'd go in practice, but he's got the good looks and that enigmatic, dark, but confident vibe to him onscreen (a bit like how we were describing Dalton's Bond, but I'd say Pattinson has more star power, and is much more a leading man). He can do the fighting/physicality too going from Batman and he can handle humour.

    Again, won't happen, and it's all hypothetical. I think he's better off playing Batman anyway. But a very good, unique actor. If someone like him was picked as Bond I'd be interested.
  • Posts: 380
    I feel like Bond should have more than one facial expression.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,773
    M_Blaise wrote: »
    I feel like Bond should have more than one facial expression.

    If you're referring to Battinson... have you seen Mickey 17?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 28 Posts: 17,594
    007HallY wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I mean if we’re limiting it to actors the producers have used before then we may as well talk about Daniel Radcliffe. I think he’d probably be better than Holland, but still not going to happen.
    They’ll be looking at everyone, they don’t just cast the same people over and over again.
    Or Robert Pattinson... that'd be nice.
    If it wasn’t for Batman, I’d be championing Robert Pattinson massively.

    As he's Batman he obviously won't be considered. But in a parallel world Robert Pattinson would be a somewhat unusual, but potentially really interesting and unique choice for Bond (which is how I'd describe him as Batman anyway!) I don't know how it'd go in practice, but he's got the good looks and that enigmatic, dark, but confident vibe to him onscreen (a bit like how we were describing Dalton's Bond, but I'd say Pattinson has more star power, and is much more a leading man). He can do the fighting/physicality too going from Batman and he can handle humour.

    Again, won't happen, and it's all hypothetical. I think he's better off playing Batman anyway. But a very good, unique actor. If someone like him was picked as Bond I'd be interested.

    Yeah absolutely, someone like him would be ideal for me. Talented, ticks the handsome box for those who need it, is an interesting actor who'd bring something new to it. Basically I want someone who is good and who I don't quite know how they would play it. A Cavill or someone, well I know exactly how he'd play it, and it would be fine, but it's not very exciting for me. As you say, it won't be him, but he would have been a great choice.
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I agree, I think when trying to consider professional relationships already explored, it's worth noting that I think producers are more likely to consider directors and writers they've worked with before as opposed to actors.

    Yep, absolutely. This is a very important bit of casting that I think everyone from the producers to the senior folk at Amazon will be involved with, but what you say here is right because the producers will have more of a relationship with the director than they will the star, or indeed any of the actors they've had in their films previously.
Sign In or Register to comment.