Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1126712681269127012711273»

Comments

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,455
    Comic purists wanted Bob Hoskins cast as Wolverine. Lol.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 1,023
    talos7 wrote: »
    Comic purists wanted Bob Hoskins cast as Wolverine. Lol.

    Not many that I remember.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,455
    talos7 wrote: »
    Comic purists wanted Bob Hoskins cast as Wolverine. Lol.

    Not many that I remember.

    Did you take a poll? 😏
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 1,023
    No, but I was on the net (well, I was on dial-up so I wasn’t on it that often!). I think someone on Ain’t it Cool suggested Hoskins at one point, but it wouldn’t have been a popular suggestion.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,455
    The creator of the character…

    Chris Claremont, the writer of the 1982 Wolverine comics, said that in 1988 it seemed perfectly rational to cast Hoskins as Logan, citing the harshness and brutality that he portrayed as perfect compliments to Wolverine’s character at the time.

    https://screenrant.com/xmen-wolverine-bob-hoskins-perfect-franchise-bad-movies/
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 1,023
    talos7 wrote: »
    The creator of the character…

    Chris Claremont, the writer of the 1982 Wolverine comics, said that in 1988 it seemed perfectly rational to cast Hoskins as Logan, citing the harshness and brutality that he portrayed as perfect compliments to Wolverine’s character at the time.

    https://screenrant.com/xmen-wolverine-bob-hoskins-perfect-franchise-bad-movies/

    Yeah, Claremont was a great writer (not by that point though, he was burning out quite badly and becoming quite self-indulgent, imo) but Hoskins would have been a bad pick - not a bad height, good actor, but bad for the rest.

    I wasn’t keen in the way Singer was determined to only cast a tall actor in the role, and he didn’t understand the character at all, but Jackman worked for the script they had (though I will argue we only get flashes of the comic-book Wolverine on screen, leaving room for an another actor to give us a Wolverine that feels like the comic character).
  • weboffearweboffear Scotland
    Posts: 60
    start at 26:30 doesn't last long but worth knowing
  • Posts: 1,789
    When I think about what works for me looks wise for Bond, I've recently began to apply what I call the Q test. Regarding previous Bonds they all would have been horribly miscast as Q, even with a pair of glasses and a white coat. I can't say that about some of the current candidates especially some of the younger ones. I'm not going to name names because I don't want to appear rude, especially as these are good looking guys, but some of them do have an element of geek which personally I don't think works for Bond.

    One of the reasons Craig works as Bond is because he looks like what he is - a killer. One of the reasons for Brosnan's success was that he looked like people's idea of a traditionally handsome leading man. I feel all the Bonds have at least one of these traits and some have elements of both. When I look at potential Bonds I look for candidates within this spectrum. There may be potential to go a bit further left field but I think there are limits.

    The Q test is a good idea.
    talos7 wrote: »
    The creator of the character…

    Chris Claremont, the writer of the 1982 Wolverine comics, said that in 1988 it seemed perfectly rational to cast Hoskins as Logan, citing the harshness and brutality that he portrayed as perfect compliments to Wolverine’s character at the time.

    https://screenrant.com/xmen-wolverine-bob-hoskins-perfect-franchise-bad-movies/

    Yeah, Claremont was a great writer (not by that point though, he was burning out quite badly and becoming quite self-indulgent, imo) but Hoskins would have been a bad pick - not a bad height, good actor, but bad for the rest.

    I wasn’t keen in the way Singer was determined to only cast a tall actor in the role, and he didn’t understand the character at all, but Jackman worked for the script they had (though I will argue we only get flashes of the comic-book Wolverine on screen, leaving room for an another actor to give us a Wolverine that feels like the comic character).

    Jackman was a more romantic Clint Eastwood. It worked fine, I guess.

    I don't think we'll see the real Wolverine. The actors who could play him are either old or dead.

  • Posts: 15,480
    weboffear wrote: »
    start at 26:30 doesn't last long but worth knowing

    I thought he was the best of the bunch of youngsters, personally. Which isn't saying much.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    edited April 2 Posts: 753
    A question that I have, which maybe isn't so much an actor question as much as a general character question, is how different should the next Bond be? And how far can we actually get from the core of the character before he simply isn't James Bond anymore?
  • edited April 2 Posts: 4,956
    A question that I have, which maybe isn't so much an actor question as much as a general character question, is how different should the next Bond be? And how far can we actually get from the core of the character before he simply isn't James Bond anymore?

    If we're talking about the actor specifically (and not how Bond is written), it's a bit like asking how long a piece of string is (the answer is it depends incidentally, haha).

    It's annoying and even vague when put like that, but since picking an actor for any role is somewhat an intuitive process it becomes tricky having a list of specific qualities that this character should have - the exact hair colour, the exact accent, the exact ear and jawline size etc. With Bond especially each actor has been different and unique, even when they're playing the same character with Bond's fundamental qualities intact.

    Obviously there's some points of disagreement here on a very broad level about what we want from Bond (the biggest one is obviously whether Bond needs to be white or can he be played by an actor of any other race, and there are obviously different arguments for or against this). I think all of us agree that the actor needs to convey a sense of masculinity, gravitas, charisma, confidence, Britishness, and sex appeal, but those in itself are qualities that can look very different dependent on the actor in question.
  • Posts: 66
    Find a better agent. I'll wait.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,643
    I just saw the terrific BBC spy show The Capture is coming back (produced by David Heyman's company no less) and that reminded me of just how great Paapa Essiedu was in S2, so I guess as a good-looking British guy in his 30s and a brilliant actor, he should be on the list. I know it's not the first time he's come up, but stick him on, should be a film star by now.
  • weboffearweboffear Scotland
    Posts: 60
    Paapa Essiedu has been cast as Snape in the Harry Potter series
  • edited April 3 Posts: 4,956
    Only so many racially inflected casting controversies an actor can take!

    Joking of course, and of course if he's busy he's busy. I actually haven't seen much of Essidu to say one way or the other. I have absolutely no opinion about him as Snape if anybody cares, haha.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,643
    Heh! Yes me neither; totally missed the Snape thing. More Heyman work! :D
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    Posts: 753
    007HallY wrote: »
    A question that I have, which maybe isn't so much an actor question as much as a general character question, is how different should the next Bond be? And how far can we actually get from the core of the character before he simply isn't James Bond anymore?

    If we're talking about the actor specifically (and not how Bond is written), it's a bit like asking how long a piece of string is (the answer is it depends incidentally, haha).

    It's annoying and even vague when put like that, but since picking an actor for any role is somewhat an intuitive process it becomes tricky having a list of specific qualities that this character should have - the exact hair colour, the exact accent, the exact ear and jawline size etc. With Bond especially each actor has been different and unique, even when they're playing the same character with Bond's fundamental qualities intact.

    Obviously there's some points of disagreement here on a very broad level about what we want from Bond (the biggest one is obviously whether Bond needs to be white or can he be played by an actor of any other race, and there are obviously different arguments for or against this). I think all of us agree that the actor needs to convey a sense of masculinity, gravitas, charisma, confidence, Britishness, and sex appeal, but those in itself are qualities that can look very different dependent on the actor in question.

    I just wonder if there are any limits? Any areas that the character shouldn't go? Of course, it's a bit of a subjective question, since we all have our own idea of who Bond is. But I doubt many would be happy if Bond went to work for Greenpeace. Obviously, that's an extreme example. But I guess what I'm asking is how much change is too much? When do we cross the line of it simply being a new interpretation, to going against the fundamentals of the character and the series? At what point does it become unrecognisable?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 3 Posts: 17,643
    Well it's a fairly subtle line and kind of hard to know. I thought that showing a Bond who made big mistakes and was headstrong and impulsive might've been too much and not feel like the superspy of old, but when we got that in CR somehow he still felt like Bond. There was enough swagger and suaveness there which made him still recognisably him.

    I don't think there's anything which needs to change too much: the Bond we got in NTTD didn't feel out of step with the world and yet was still 007. Give me a new spin on that guy and he'll still be Bond.
    I guess when you ask how much can you change him... well how much do you want to change him? What's the suggestion?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited April 3 Posts: 6,632
    It's a good question. I still think Bond will remain a straight, womanizing male, because that's the core audience.

    What about Bond's actions?

    Something like DAD infamously had Bond surfing and that didn't feel like Bond to me. The fencing did.

    We've had Bond skiing, but not really snowboarding, with the odd exception of AVTAK. Snowboarding feels like a bridge too far, pandering to a younger audience.

    Video games also feel a bit weird in NSNA. Again, he's too old.

    If we have a younger Bond--and surely we will--do have to accept nods to current technology? I semi-facetiously ask about TikTok because Amazon is trying to buy it.

    Will we have to endure (I sound old) Bond sending a covert (ha!) message over TikTok?
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    edited 8:38am Posts: 1,379
    echo wrote: »
    It's a good question. I still think Bond will remain a straight, womanizing male, because that's the core audience.

    What about Bond's actions?

    Something like DAD infamously had Bond surfing and that didn't feel like Bond to me. The fencing did.

    We've had Bond skiing, but not really snowboarding, with the odd exception of AVTAK. Snowboarding feels like a bridge too far, pandering to a younger audience.

    Video games also feel a bit weird in NSNA. Again, he's too old.

    If we have a younger Bond--and surely we will--do have to accept nods to current technology? I semi-facetiously ask about TikTok because Amazon is trying to buy it.

    Will we have to endure (I sound old) Bond sending a covert (ha!) message over TikTok?

    I do think Bond does zag quite often. Meaning, when we think someone like him would abhor TikTok, I could see Fleming writing a little sentence that he actually finds it quite interesting to see what people are into or a good way to stay on top of multiple subjects or just a good way to spy on someone or something like that. It's not like he's always been some kind of conservative mainstream guy. He obviously wouldn't try to be a content creator doing funny little dances in between missions, but if the next Bond would make some kind of dismissive one liner while not being able to navigate TikTok to send a covert message or contact an asset, I would think he's just an Old Guy.

    Edit: To make it more broadly: The next Bond needs to be someone for whom a smartphone (do we even still call them that?) is second nature and not something he tolerates because he has to.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,737
    Don't get my wrong I have my preferences of who I would want to be Bond #7, but ultimately I just want them to feel like Bond
  • Posts: 4,956
    007HallY wrote: »
    A question that I have, which maybe isn't so much an actor question as much as a general character question, is how different should the next Bond be? And how far can we actually get from the core of the character before he simply isn't James Bond anymore?

    If we're talking about the actor specifically (and not how Bond is written), it's a bit like asking how long a piece of string is (the answer is it depends incidentally, haha).

    It's annoying and even vague when put like that, but since picking an actor for any role is somewhat an intuitive process it becomes tricky having a list of specific qualities that this character should have - the exact hair colour, the exact accent, the exact ear and jawline size etc. With Bond especially each actor has been different and unique, even when they're playing the same character with Bond's fundamental qualities intact.

    Obviously there's some points of disagreement here on a very broad level about what we want from Bond (the biggest one is obviously whether Bond needs to be white or can he be played by an actor of any other race, and there are obviously different arguments for or against this). I think all of us agree that the actor needs to convey a sense of masculinity, gravitas, charisma, confidence, Britishness, and sex appeal, but those in itself are qualities that can look very different dependent on the actor in question.

    I just wonder if there are any limits? Any areas that the character shouldn't go? Of course, it's a bit of a subjective question, since we all have our own idea of who Bond is. But I doubt many would be happy if Bond went to work for Greenpeace. Obviously, that's an extreme example. But I guess what I'm asking is how much change is too much? When do we cross the line of it simply being a new interpretation, to going against the fundamentals of the character and the series? At what point does it become unrecognisable?

    Well, Bond helped out the Mujahideen so an odd alliance with Greenpeace types could work in certain contexts I guess... Not that I'm particularly wanting to see it!

    Again, it really depends. I think you can have a scenario where the character is changed too much and doesn't feel like Bond, and another one where they try so hard to make him 'Bondian' that it becomes too superficial and not the character we know anymore.
  • Posts: 1,789
    Adapting novels helps. It's hard to derail when you already know the path.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 1,023
    For me it took until Skyfall for Daniel Craig to feel really settled into the role of 007. Part of that was that in both CR and QoS Bond was still very rough around the edges, but I think they kept just enough to make it feel like Bond. I do think there is a certain amount of leeway with what you can leave out or add in, provided it works for the story you are tellling.
Sign In or Register to comment.