› ›

Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1…10851086108810901091…1231

Comments

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited June 2023 Posts: 3,152
    Someone on here made a good point a while back that none of the suggested candidates are actually playing Bond in their photos, so we're not seeing what they might do to 'inhabit' the role and they might actually be able to convey something a lot more Bondian than we're seeing from them at the moment. That's true - but there has to be something there in the first place that puts them in contention, right? And that's what I'm not seeing in a lot of the suggestions, tbh.
  • DewiWynBondDewiWynBond
    Posts: 942
    Growing a set doesn't happen overnight.
  • M_BlaiseM_Blaise
    Posts: 348
    Venutius wrote: »
    Someone on here made a good point a while back that none of the suggested candidates are actually playing Bond in their photos, so we're not seeing what they might do to 'inhabit' the role and they might actually be able to convey something a lot more Bondian than we're seeing from them at the moment. That's true - but there has to be something there in the first place that puts them in contention, right? And that's what I'm not seeing in a lot of the suggestions, tbh.

    Thing is most of the Bonds have convinced as Bond before being cast. See: The Saint; Remington Steele; Flash Gordon; Layer Cake.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited June 2023 Posts: 3,152
    Aidan Turner in And Then There None would be another to add to that list. To be honest, I'd say he was more Bondian in parts of that than Craig had been at any point prior to being cast - but look how genuinely great Dan actually was in the role. Just shows that there's quite a gulf between potential and actualising it, I guess.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,213
    So Hoult just missed out on Batman and Superman; that may be a plus for Bond. I still see him as a strong contender.
  • M_BlaiseM_Blaise
    Posts: 348
    talos7 wrote: »
    So Hoult just missed out on Batman and Superman; that may be a plus for Bond. I still see him as a strong contender.

    Now that he's known for losing big parts?
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited June 2023 Posts: 8,213
    M_Blaise wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    So Hoult just missed out on Batman and Superman; that may be a plus for Bond. I still see him as a strong contender.

    Now that he's known for losing big parts?

    Absolutely, his not getting those specific roles has no bearing on his suitability for Bond. On the contrary it shows his strength and appeal. I see him as much more suited to play a new generation Bond than he is Superman or Batman.
  • UnivexUnivex
    edited June 2023 Posts: 6,709
    Has he lost Superman, though? Already?

    Edit: just found out he did. Not a super hero fan, but the guy who landed the role looks the part. Good for him :) And good for Hoult, he's meant for other things. Even if not for Bond.
  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    Posts: 190
    Hoult is the always 'never really good enough and will always miss out' actor type. There, I said it.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 4,155
    To be fair to Hoult losing out on big parts is relatively common, even for very good actors. I get the sense he just wasn't quite right for Superman or Batman, and that's fine.

    That said, I'm not seeing anything too substantial that indicates he'd make the best contender for Bond, nor do I think he'll get the part (for starters he's much more famous than the average Bond contender). But again, it's nothing against him as an actor.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    edited June 2023 Posts: 15,122
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be fair to Hoult losing out on big parts is relatively common, even for very good actors. I get the sense he just wasn't quite right for Superman or Batman, and that's fine.

    That said, I'm not seeing anything too substantial that indicates he'd make the best contender for Bond, nor do I think he'll get the part (for starters he's much more famous than the average Bond contender). But again, it's nothing against him as an actor.

    And sometimes it's better to refuse a role or a project you're not suitable for, irrespective of your qualities as an actor or the quality of the project. Sean Connery did not understand LOTR and I think he made the right call to refuse to play Gandalf.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited June 2023 Posts: 4,155
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be fair to Hoult losing out on big parts is relatively common, even for very good actors. I get the sense he just wasn't quite right for Superman or Batman, and that's fine.

    That said, I'm not seeing anything too substantial that indicates he'd make the best contender for Bond, nor do I think he'll get the part (for starters he's much more famous than the average Bond contender). But again, it's nothing against him as an actor.

    And sometimes it's better to refuse a role or a project you're not suitable for, irrespective of your qualities as an actor or the quality of the project. Sean Connery did not understand LOTR and I think he made the right call to refuse to play Gandalf.

    I find it funny that when Connery agreed to do The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen he admitted that he didn't understand that script either, but since he'd passed on LOTR thought it'd be worth accepting. I think he made the right call passing on Gandalf, I agree. Ian Mckellen is very well suited to that part.
  • shimplyshocking007shimplyshocking007
    Posts: 116
    If I was Connery I don't think I'd have been up for spending so much time in New Zealand when I could be in the Bahamas! I think that's where he lived!
  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    edited July 2023 Posts: 190
    Turner still going strong at Amazon Prime. Soon 'Fifteen Love' will premier on it, which looks quite interesting. Think tennis, intrigue, ambiguous layers and the necessary thrills. Per usual Turner looks dashing, the part.

    8256.jpg
    4228.jpg
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,213
    I know some are sick of seeing his name, and I'm not saying that he should be anointed but he absolutely deserves a screentest.
  • zebrafishzebrafish <°)))< in Octopussy's garden in the shade
    Posts: 4,341
    I think he looks more the part (of Bond) now than before. The face has a harder, more manly look.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    talos7 wrote: »
    I know some are sick of seeing his name

    I know I am.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,138
    I'd say be prepared to see a few of these names get mentioned in this thread for a while yet.
    I don't think we're going to get a casting for the next actor in the near future. At least while the writers strike is ongoing.
    I wonder how many names that have been touted in this thread, have either aged out, or are simply not seen as a potential Bond anymore?
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,213
    In this age of social media I wonder how much will be revealed of the process;. Using the casting of Superman as a template , they probably started with a considerable number of candidates; this was whittled down to three who were given a screentest. I find it interesting the the identities of these three were revealed during the testing process. Will the same be done for Bond? Will we know , in real-time, who the finalists are.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,213
    echo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    I know some are sick of seeing his name

    I know I am.

    Hey, I get that; even though I like Turner, I understand becoming aggravated with being bombarded with posts about him. If the internet had been around at the time, I have to think that many would have felt the same about Brosnan.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited July 2023 Posts: 3,789
    I think that the next Bond actor are not being recommended by any media, or at least out of their radar (and I prefer so).

    Now that Turner is one of those actors heavily speculated for the role, I doubt (in my opinion) he would've likely to get cast, the same for Taylor - Johnson, once an actor have been covered by the media, or at least caught their attention and became noisy, I doubt the Producers would've get them for the role.

    I think the Producers will just suddenly suprise us about their pick.

    Remember, it's Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson, and they've did the impossible with Daniel Craig, whom at the time no one could imagine, the most speculated actors at the time were Hugh Jackman, Henry Cavill, Sam Worthington and none of them were cast, but who would've thought it's the most oddest one in Craig?

    So, probably the same in here, this is not Cubby Broccoli who would've picked for the most obvious ones like Moore from The Saint/Persuaders and Brosnan from Remington Steele (although he did once with Dalton, whom was another unexpected choice at the time).

    Probably what would Barbara and Michael pick would've been another shocking one for sure.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,138
    I wonder if we can throw in one of the other actors to reportedly lose out on the Superman role into the ring.
    Tom Brittney.
    Right age, height. Not seen his acting to be fair so can't comment.
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 7,426
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    I think that the next Bond actor are not being recommended by any media, or at least out of their radar (and I prefer so).

    Now that Turner is one of those actors heavily speculated for the role, I doubt (in my opinion) he would've likely to get cast, the same for Taylor - Johnson, once an actor have been covered by the media, or at least caught their attention and became noisy, I doubt the Producers would've get them for the role.

    I think the Producers will just suddenly suprise us about their pick.

    Remember, it's Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson, and they've did the impossible with Daniel Craig, whom at the time no one could imagine, the most speculated actors at the time were Hugh Jackman, Henry Cavill, Sam Worthington and none of them were cast, but who would've thought it's the most oddest one in Craig?

    So, probably the same in here, this is not Cubby Broccoli who would've picked for the most obvious ones like Moore from The Saint/Persuaders and Brosnan from Remington Steele (although he did once with Dalton, whom was another unexpected choice at the time).

    Probably what would Barbara and Michael pick would've been another shocking one for sure.

    Dalton was on Cubbys radar for a long time, Moore too! He had to be convinced about Brossa, who Wilson and John Glen favoured,but Cubby was unsure! According to John Glens book!
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    Posts: 684
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    I think that the next Bond actor are not being recommended by any media, or at least out of their radar (and I prefer so).

    Now that Turner is one of those actors heavily speculated for the role, I doubt (in my opinion) he would've likely to get cast, the same for Taylor - Johnson, once an actor have been covered by the media, or at least caught their attention and became noisy, I doubt the Producers would've get them for the role.

    I think the Producers will just suddenly suprise us about their pick.

    Remember, it's Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson, and they've did the impossible with Daniel Craig, whom at the time no one could imagine, the most speculated actors at the time were Hugh Jackman, Henry Cavill, Sam Worthington and none of them were cast, but who would've thought it's the most oddest one in Craig?

    So, probably the same in here, this is not Cubby Broccoli who would've picked for the most obvious ones like Moore from The Saint/Persuaders and Brosnan from Remington Steele (although he did once with Dalton, whom was another unexpected choice at the time).

    Probably what would Barbara and Michael pick would've been another shocking one for sure.

    Dalton was on Cubbys radar for a long time, Moore too! He had to be convinced about Brossa, who Wilson and John Glen favoured,but Cubby was unsure! According to John Glens book!

    I'm pretty sure Craig was one of the names rumoured in the press. He's even asked about it in this interview promoting Layer Cake in 2005 (start at 8:04):

    I guess the only reason he wasn't mentioned as often as guys like Clive Owen and Hugh Jackman was because he seemed like such a long shot compared to them.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,122
    George_Kaplan wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    I think that the next Bond actor are not being recommended by any media, or at least out of their radar (and I prefer so).

    Now that Turner is one of those actors heavily speculated for the role, I doubt (in my opinion) he would've likely to get cast, the same for Taylor - Johnson, once an actor have been covered by the media, or at least caught their attention and became noisy, I doubt the Producers would've get them for the role.

    I think the Producers will just suddenly suprise us about their pick.

    Remember, it's Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson, and they've did the impossible with Daniel Craig, whom at the time no one could imagine, the most speculated actors at the time were Hugh Jackman, Henry Cavill, Sam Worthington and none of them were cast, but who would've thought it's the most oddest one in Craig?

    So, probably the same in here, this is not Cubby Broccoli who would've picked for the most obvious ones like Moore from The Saint/Persuaders and Brosnan from Remington Steele (although he did once with Dalton, whom was another unexpected choice at the time).

    Probably what would Barbara and Michael pick would've been another shocking one for sure.

    Dalton was on Cubbys radar for a long time, Moore too! He had to be convinced about Brossa, who Wilson and John Glen favoured,but Cubby was unsure! According to John Glens book!

    I'm pretty sure Craig was one of the names rumoured in the press. He's even asked about it in this interview promoting Layer Cake in 2005 (start at 8:04):

    I guess the only reason he wasn't mentioned as often as guys like Clive Owen and Hugh Jackman was because he seemed like such a long shot compared to them.

    Even if I was skeptical when Daniel Craig was cast, I still preferred him than Hugh Jackman and Clive Owen. I never understood the appeal of Owen as Bond.

    On a side note I'm watching the new season of The Witcher and I know I mentioned him before, but what about Bart Edwards? I have seen very little of him so won't start a movement here but he does have the looks.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,213
    I still think Jackman would have surpassed Craig; he would have combined the light charm of Moore and the physicality of Connery and Lazenby. Actors like that are a rare commodity.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,122
    talos7 wrote: »
    I still think Jackman would have surpassed Craig; he would have combined the light charm of Moore and the physicality of Connery and Lazenby. Actors like that are a rare commodity.

    But I don't think it was time for a "light" Bond like Moore, regardless of physicality. And he was already Wolverine.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,213
    Ludovico wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    I still think Jackman would have surpassed Craig; he would have combined the light charm of Moore and the physicality of Connery and Lazenby. Actors like that are a rare commodity.

    But I don't think it was time for a "light" Bond like Moore, regardless of physicality. And he was already Wolverine.

    He is also a great actor who would have also brought equal depth to the role as did Daniel
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited July 2023 Posts: 6,304
    IMHO, Craig is much more intense than Jackman, which is what the role required in 2006. I have a difficult time envisioning Jackman being interrogated by Le Chiffre, for example. They made the right choice with Craig.

    I like Jackman a lot, but he is more theatrical, and I have seen him onstage twice, and he's great. Theatrical is not what Bond needed in 2006. Even if we fans didn't realize it, Eon did.

    Good luck to Eon following up Craig.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,213
    echo wrote: »
    IMHO, Craig is much more intense than Jackman, which is what the role required in 2006. I have a difficult time envisioning Jackman being interrogated by Le Chiffre, for example. They made the right choice with Craig.

    I like Jackman a lot, but he is more theatrical, and I have seen him onstage twice, and he's great. Theatrical is not what Bond needed in 2006. Even if we fans didn't realize it, Eon did.

    Good luck to Eon following up Craig.

    Have you not seen Prisoners?
Sign In or Register to comment.