Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1118111821184118611871231

Comments

  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    Posts: 682
    One of the reasons I still think it could be ATJ is because, I believe The Sun started saying it would be Craig in April of 2005 and he was later announced in October. Also, I can't remember fully if there was a script ready in April of 2005 or if Martin Campbell was announced in April, before The Sun started saying it would be Craig.

    That's true, but I don't think Craig had actually been signed when The Sun reported it, so it was more of a lucky guess that came true.

    Campbell had already been confirmed as director by April '05.
  • Posts: 579
    I just woke up from a dream in which Ralph Fiennes played Bond in Bond 26.
  • Posts: 4,139
    I just woke up from a dream in which Ralph Fiennes played Bond in Bond 26.

    Was he any good?
  • Posts: 937
    007HallY wrote: »
    I just woke up from a dream in which Ralph Fiennes played Bond in Bond 26.

    Was he any good?

    We don't want to know the details if his Ralph Fiennes dream 😂
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 942
    Did he also play M?

    Because that would be trippy.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    Posts: 682
    It could like that Will Smith movie where the new Bond is a younger clone of M.
  • Posts: 346
    I doubt Ewan McGregor and Hugh Jackman would have been Bond. The reason - wanting too much money. McGregor would have used the success of the Star Wars prequels as leverage to ask for an astronomical fee (three Bond films is a lot of cash). 💰

    Had McGregor not been cast as Ben Kenobi his minimum salary threshold would have been much lower. Same scenario applies to Hugh Jackman.

    By 2005, Jackman had appeared in three successful X-Men films so it's very likely he would have wanted a huge amount to commit to the Bond franchise. "If you want me to commit to Bond for a decade, and you see how popular I am as Wolverine, I'll want x amount."

    Maybe the main reason Daniel Craig was cast was because he was comparatively cheap (as was Cavill). There's no reason why Eon would cast McGregor, Jackman (possibly Owen too?) if they could find a cheaper guy. I've no idea how much Aaron Taylor-Johnson got for Kraven but it's not a well known comic book character so maybe he didn't get paid a vast amount. Maybe Eon believe now is the right time to cast Johnson before his market value goes up and his salary demands go up.

    I personally feel going with a tv actor and/or with limited film work would be the best money option but I guess Eon won't cast a near total unknown.
  • Posts: 579
    007HallY wrote: »
    I just woke up from a dream in which Ralph Fiennes played Bond in Bond 26.

    Was he any good?

    All I remember is that he was dead serious as Bond. Absolutely no jokes.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    I've just seen ATJ's Giorgio Armani advert on telly and it's noticeable that he doesn't speak in it, but he is shirtless throughout 😅 that would probably sum up his Bond
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    edited April 6 Posts: 682
    bondywondy wrote: »
    I doubt Ewan McGregor and Hugh Jackman would have been Bond. The reason - wanting too much money. McGregor would have used the success of the Star Wars prequels as leverage to ask for an astronomical fee (three Bond films is a lot of cash). 💰

    Had McGregor not been cast as Ben Kenobi his minimum salary threshold would have been much lower. Same scenario applies to Hugh Jackman.

    By 2005, Jackman had appeared in three successful X-Men films so it's very likely he would have wanted a huge amount to commit to the Bond franchise. "If you want me to commit to Bond for a decade, and you see how popular I am as Wolverine, I'll want x amount."

    Maybe the main reason Daniel Craig was cast was because he was comparatively cheap (as was Cavill). There's no reason why Eon would cast McGregor, Jackman (possibly Owen too?) if they could find a cheaper guy. I've no idea how much Aaron Taylor-Johnson got for Kraven but it's not a well known comic book character so maybe he didn't get paid a vast amount. Maybe Eon believe now is the right time to cast Johnson before his market value goes up and his salary demands go up.

    I personally feel going with a tv actor and/or with limited film work would be the best money option but I guess Eon won't cast a near total unknown.

    I personally find McGregor very bland. Jackman can play charming, and he can play tough, but I'm not sure he'd have been able to marry those two elements together in the right way. I can imagine him playing a more physical Roger Moore-type Bond, which I don't think was right for CR.
  • Posts: 4,139
    007HallY wrote: »
    I just woke up from a dream in which Ralph Fiennes played Bond in Bond 26.

    Was he any good?

    All I remember is that he was dead serious as Bond. Absolutely no jokes.

    Sounds about right 😂
  • edited April 6 Posts: 9,846
    Risico007 wrote: »
    https://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=4253
    I knew Ewan McGregor was considered for Bond for CR. But I didnt know it was that serious.

    Mcgregor was my top choice before i new craig existed…. Again i watch popcorn flicks hence why i am usually quiet in these chats i dont watch bbc dramas about 1500 scotland where a lot of these actors are from

    Oh, fair enough. I love engaging flicks. Medieval stuffs as well.

    Again if you asked me in 2004 who should be Bond my top choices were

    1. Adrian Paul
    2. Ewan Mcgreggor
    3. Collin farrell
    4. Hugh jackman


    And now i am somewhat glad none of them got it and craig did

    Right now my list includes Henry Cavil James Norton etc and i am sure (insert bbc drama actor they will cast) will blow my choices away and I will be happy with him.
  • Posts: 937
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I've just seen ATJ's Giorgio Armani advert on telly and it's noticeable that he doesn't speak in it, but he is shirtless throughout 😅 that would probably sum up his Bond

    "This isn't a beach resort, Bond. Put a shirt on!"
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,016
    One of the reasons I still think it could be ATJ is because, I believe The Sun started saying it would be Craig in April of 2005 and he was later announced in October. Also, I can't remember fully if there was a script ready in April of 2005 or if Martin Campbell was announced in April, before The Sun started saying it would be Craig.

    That's true, but I don't think Craig had actually been signed when The Sun reported it, so it was more of a lucky guess that came true.

    Campbell had already been confirmed as director by April '05.

    Oh, is that right? Well, we'll see how things end up.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    One of the reasons I still think it could be ATJ is because, I believe The Sun started saying it would be Craig in April of 2005 and he was later announced in October. Also, I can't remember fully if there was a script ready in April of 2005 or if Martin Campbell was announced in April, before The Sun started saying it would be Craig.

    That's true, but I don't think Craig had actually been signed when The Sun reported it, so it was more of a lucky guess that came true.

    Campbell had already been confirmed as director by April '05.

    Oh, is that right? Well, we'll see how things end up.

    Yeah, I think they were still auditioning at that point. Maybe they caught wind of the re-calls. But I think their lucky guess was just that…
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,016
    peter wrote: »
    One of the reasons I still think it could be ATJ is because, I believe The Sun started saying it would be Craig in April of 2005 and he was later announced in October. Also, I can't remember fully if there was a script ready in April of 2005 or if Martin Campbell was announced in April, before The Sun started saying it would be Craig.

    That's true, but I don't think Craig had actually been signed when The Sun reported it, so it was more of a lucky guess that came true.

    Campbell had already been confirmed as director by April '05.

    Oh, is that right? Well, we'll see how things end up.

    Yeah, I think they were still auditioning at that point. Maybe they caught wind of the re-calls. But I think their lucky guess was just that…

    Yeah, it seems so @peter
  • Posts: 1,630
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I've just seen ATJ's Giorgio Armani advert on telly and it's noticeable that he doesn't speak in it, but he is shirtless throughout 😅 that would probably sum up his Bond

    So even some advertisement folks don't find his high-pitched voice helpful to their cause ?
  • Posts: 2,599
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    https://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=4253
    I knew Ewan McGregor was considered for Bond for CR. But I didnt know it was that serious.

    Mcgregor was my top choice before i new craig existed…. Again i watch popcorn flicks hence why i am usually quiet in these chats i dont watch bbc dramas about 1500 scotland where a lot of these actors are from

    Oh, fair enough. I love engaging flicks. Medieval stuffs as well.

    Again if you asked me in 2004 who should be Bond my top choices were

    1. Adrian Paul
    2. Ewan Mcgreggor
    3. Collin farrell
    4. Hugh jackman


    And now i am somewhat glad none of them got it and craig did

    Right now my list includes Henry Cavil James Norton etc and i am sure (insert bbc drama actor they will cast) will blow my choices away and I will be happy with him.

    I’d love to see Collin Farrell as Bond. I’d probably laugh even if he was being serious. This guy cracks me up.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    Since62 wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I've just seen ATJ's Giorgio Armani advert on telly and it's noticeable that he doesn't speak in it, but he is shirtless throughout 😅 that would probably sum up his Bond

    So even some advertisement folks don't find his high-pitched voice helpful to their cause ?

    Yeah it'd seem so mate. I don't mean to be harsh to ATJ but I just thought it was interesting, the main thing most of us see as his biggest weakness is being "hidden" like that
  • Despite all the muscles I don't find ATJ manly in the slightest.
  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    Posts: 190
    Despite all the muscles I don't find ATJ manly in the slightest.

    Exactly. A boy with some steroid muscles. Big nope.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,207
    I’m not a fan of his in the least, but nothing about him says steroids. It is so tiresome that if someone is fit and has any decent amount of muscle , they are accused of using steroids. The physique that ATJ is absolutely obtainable through hard work and diet.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Agree with you @talos7 ... He doesn't appear to be a Juice Monkey... Connor MacGregor and Jake Gyllenhaal would be exhibits one and two that best represent an overload of PEDs...

    ATJ has a great and athletic physique that has obviously undergone guided progressive programming, a clean diet, and I'd put a couple bucks down on lots of mobility work and explosive strength training.

    Absolutely obtainable, drug free, physique.

    It's repping, clean eating, sleep...
  • edited April 7 Posts: 937
    They could be taking anything. Gyllenhaal's physique is good, looks like a fighter, pectoral muscles look like they've done press-ups. ATJ's pecs hang a bit low imo, probably just lifts.

    Edit: Hah, he was eating 6 meals a day!

    A favourite quote from Brandon Lee to Dolph Lundgren in a movie: "Y'know, all that upper-body weight really slows you down."
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    They could be taking anything. Gyllenhaal's physique is good, looks like a fighter, pectoral muscles look like they've done press-ups. ATJ's pecs hang a bit low imo, probably just lifts.

    I think Jake has been doing more than press ups— especially when you look no further to what the actor looked like only a couple months before shooting RH, and what he looks like post-shoot (a nice looking man with a slim dad bod. But at 42 of age, and to be able to build all that mass, combined with (likely) single digit body fat, simultaneously, in a very short period of time, indicates there was some lab work involved).

    And the worst kept secret was MacGregor as he healed from his busted shin (I think he must have taken everything under the sun…).
  • Posts: 937
    peter wrote: »
    They could be taking anything. Gyllenhaal's physique is good, looks like a fighter, pectoral muscles look like they've done press-ups. ATJ's pecs hang a bit low imo, probably just lifts.

    I think Jake has been doing more than press ups— especially when you look no further to what the actor looked like only a couple months before shooting RH, and what he looks like post-shoot (a nice looking man with a slim dad bod. But at 42 of age, and to be able to build all that mass, combined with (likely) single digit body fat, simultaneously, in a very short period of time, indicates there was some lab work involved).

    And the worst kept secret was MacGregor as he healed from his busted shin (I think he must have taken everything under the sun…).

    He kinda looks the same build from Prince of Persia (2010) and Southpaw (2015). I agree to have seen him with a dad bod between roles tho. I'd like him as Felix.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    peter wrote: »
    They could be taking anything. Gyllenhaal's physique is good, looks like a fighter, pectoral muscles look like they've done press-ups. ATJ's pecs hang a bit low imo, probably just lifts.

    I think Jake has been doing more than press ups— especially when you look no further to what the actor looked like only a couple months before shooting RH, and what he looks like post-shoot (a nice looking man with a slim dad bod. But at 42 of age, and to be able to build all that mass, combined with (likely) single digit body fat, simultaneously, in a very short period of time, indicates there was some lab work involved).

    And the worst kept secret was MacGregor as he healed from his busted shin (I think he must have taken everything under the sun…).

    He kinda looks the same build from Prince of Persia (2010) and Southpaw (2015). I agree to have seen him with a dad bod between roles tho. I'd like him as Felix.

    @DewiWynBond , @sandbagger1 brought that up today. I agree with you guys. He’d make a really good Leiter.
  • Posts: 937
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    They could be taking anything. Gyllenhaal's physique is good, looks like a fighter, pectoral muscles look like they've done press-ups. ATJ's pecs hang a bit low imo, probably just lifts.

    I think Jake has been doing more than press ups— especially when you look no further to what the actor looked like only a couple months before shooting RH, and what he looks like post-shoot (a nice looking man with a slim dad bod. But at 42 of age, and to be able to build all that mass, combined with (likely) single digit body fat, simultaneously, in a very short period of time, indicates there was some lab work involved).

    And the worst kept secret was MacGregor as he healed from his busted shin (I think he must have taken everything under the sun…).

    He kinda looks the same build from Prince of Persia (2010) and Southpaw (2015). I agree to have seen him with a dad bod between roles tho. I'd like him as Felix.

    @DewiWynBond , @sandbagger1 brought that up today. I agree with you guys. He’d make a really good Leiter.

    Ah yeah I've seen the post now. I also watched Enemy a few weeks ago. Probably my favourite modern actor, and he's into Buddhism and martial arts.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,207
    While I agree that Gyllenhaal would/could make a great Felix , I fear, depending on who is cast, that he could overshadow Bond. I could see this happening if a relatively unknown actor, like Leo Suter, were to be cast. Now. If they cast someone with a somewhat higher profile, say Theo James. It would not be as large of a problem.
  • Posts: 937
    Guess it all depends on screen time for supporting roles. Gyllenhaal's character could ground the audience while Bond is being larger than life.
Sign In or Register to comment.