› ›

Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1…157158160162163…1231

Comments

  • daltondalton
    Posts: 1,631
    There have been many times before in which the press has been flat out wrong regarding the search for a new Bond.

    The search that resulted in Craig's hiring saw countless headlines suggesting Brosnan was returning after all (even as late as a couple of weeks before Craig's press conference), the confirmation of a "Final Four" consisting of Henry Cavill, Goran Visnjic, Alex O'Lachlan, and a 47-year-old Ewan Stewart (most notably absent there, Daniel Craig), and all of the usual stories about Ewan McGregor, Hugh Jackman, and other such A-list talent supposedly meeting with EON to discuss taking the part.

    Supposedly, Idris Elba met with Bond producers in 2012 to discuss playing Bond. I would very much doubt that, in a process where the last time out there was supposedly a list with over 200 names on it, that EON would manage to whittle it down to just two people before they are even faced with a vacancy in the role.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited May 2016 Posts: 16,351
    Wrong thread.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    RC7 wrote: »
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    It was the same with Sam Smith, I'm suspicious.
    Such media reports don't just appear out of the blue.
    They could be wrong, but there must have been happening something that triggered them.
    By the way, the same goes for Radiohead. Only last December (when I'm not mistaken) they finally admitted to have been rejected by EON and released their Spectre song.

    The more they deny, the more likely it is there is something to it.
    Otherwise they could just shut up and sit it out.

    The best thing to do is to ignore this drivel until official channels deliver something more concrete, or until there are multiple relevant pieces of evidence to form a more solid point of view.

    If people have so little going on in their lives they have to lose their shit over some tabloid spin they should probably take a long hard look at themselves. Go and have a walk, a talk, a pint, a shag, anything. Something to save us all from the overflowing bullshit.

    Well, you are here too posting on it...

    But I agree, ignoring would be best. But that's not so easy for a fan.

    What do you think I was going through when rumours/details about BvS or Star Trek in 2009 appeared?

    Well, I'll take your advice anyway. It's too late for a walk or talk. A pint would be nice, just no pub open anymore :(
    the other thing though could very well happen :D it's been almost a week =P~
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,138
    Wow. What happened here. A tabloid puts out a story and everybody loses their minds. Really people.
    This is the who could / should be James Bond. Far too many of the posts in this thread are posted as fact. When in reality the only fact is, Daniel Craig is still James Bond. That is fact till we get official confirmation from EON otherwise.
    Till then, some of you need to calm down. Take a breath and relax. Kind of what @RC7 was saying.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Yes, calm down! you're all acting like Bond fans. ;)
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited May 2016 Posts: 15,423
    Over the last few pages of this thread, it's safe to say the most convenient title to give it is:
    MI6 Community: Civil War.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Over the last few pages of this thread, it's safe to say the most convenient title to give it is:
    MI6 Community: Civil War.

    :))
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Who are the mascots of the opposing sides of this internal civil war? =))
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,169
    Benny wrote: »
    Wow. What happened here. A tabloid puts out a story and everybody loses their minds. Really people.
    This is the who could / should be James Bond. Far too many of the posts in this thread are posted as fact. When in reality the only fact is, Daniel Craig is still James Bond. That is fact till we get official confirmation from EON otherwise.
    Till then, some of you need to calm down. Take a breath and relax. Kind of what @RC7 was saying.

    I couldn't agree more. Craig never once flatly said he was not coming back. He just didn't feel like talking about doing another Bond film while promoting SP.
    All this who is going to be the next Bond is just tired, redundant obligatory media speculation.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    Nice to see some people talking sense, but I doubt, it will survive the next hour. Maybe if Mendes does the reality check, we have a chance to make it two.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    Strange how the Metro, which is the early morning Daily Mail free addition for those that don't come from London, counters its own story the very next day. Most odd. Nevertheless, we're not going to get anything official for months (if not another year) so those clamoring for topics to discuss are sadly going to be confined to The Great Bond Kills Elimination Game, Bond movie ranking (Simple list, no details), or the Bond Movie Meter 2016 discussions. Not much to sink one's teeth into, really. Or, we can continue to discuss the likelihood that Craig might not be returning, which is something the actor himself has created by his post Spectre comments and his desire to sign up to a new 20 episode TV drama series called Purity. Until we hear news that Craig has 100% commited himself to Bond 25, I'll assume the worse for now.
  • TroyTroy
    edited May 2016 Posts: 342
    Probably these rumours are leaked to pressurise DC to make up his mind and to temper his salary claims, by reminding him he is replaceable
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    Troy wrote: »
    Probably these rumours are leaked to pressurise DC to make up his mind and to temper his salary claims, by reminding him he is replaceable

    What I've thought all along, as well as keeping their eye open for when he does leave, whether it be now or after the next one - can't see him doing more than one more.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    Troy wrote: »
    Probably these rumours are leaked to pressurise DC to make up his mind and to temper his salary claims, by reminding him he is replaceable

    I think this is nonsense. Not how it works. I am sure there is a clear agreement between those parties in question and who gave you the impression he is asking for too much money? He is not Brosnan.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 2016 Posts: 8,400
    I don't know, 30 million dollars is one helluva chunk of dough.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    I don't know, 30 million dollars is one helluva chunk of dough.

    It's only money :P
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Troy wrote: »
    Probably these rumours are leaked to pressurise DC to make up his mind and to temper his salary claims, by reminding him he is replaceable

    I think this is nonsense. Not how it works. I am sure there is a clear agreement between those parties in question and who gave you the impression he is asking for too much money? He is not Brosnan.

    His agent will be getting the best deal for him, that's what agents are paid to do. When Moore kept coming back to the negotiation table he just left it completely to his agent - which would make sense since from his perspective cos he was good friends with Cubby.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    There is a difference between getting the best deal and asking over the top money.

    I think, its strange people actually believe, EON and Co just leave DC alone and wait it out till he makes his decision. Ridiculous. There is a difference to Mendes, who really, I believe, didn't want to come back but it was their decision to change his mind and wait.

    DC said, he needs some time to think it over but as closely as he is involved in the whole process, he won't play hard to get. I am sure, there is an agreed deadline and that's it. It could well be, the decision is already made.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Hiddleston also fits with the well know Bond formula, ( Unless no one has heard of it before,
    Then it becomes comes my idea )
    Lazenby an unknown  followed by Moore who was established
    Moore followed by Dalton an unknown followed by Brosnan ( Established)
    Followed by Craig an unknown, so Hiddleston would fit as an established
    actor ? :D
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    Thunderpussy wrote: »
    Hiddleston also fits with the well know Bond formula, ( Unless no one has heard of it before,
    Then it becomes comes my idea )
    Lazenby an unknown  followed by Moore who was established
    Moore followed by Dalton an unknown followed by Brosnan ( Established)
    Followed by Craig an unknown, so Hiddleston would fit as an established
    actor ? :D

    But so would Turner. I have had people tell me that Turner is such an obvious choice, and EON would never choice someone with such a following, so I guess he fits the bill too. :-bd
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I'd be happy with either, but my female intuition tells me Hiddleson, has it. :D
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Thunderpussy wrote: »
    Hiddleston also fits with the well know Bond formula, ( Unless no one has heard of it before,
    Then it becomes comes my idea )
    Lazenby an unknown  followed by Moore who was established
    Moore followed by Dalton an unknown followed by Brosnan ( Established)
    Followed by Craig an unknown, so Hiddleston would fit as an established
    actor ? :D

    But so would Turner. I have had people tell me that Turner is such an obvious choice, and EON would never choice someone with such a following, so I guess he fits the bill too. :-bd

    Both ( Aidan Turner and Tom Hidleston fit this bill or tradition of one unknown then established, then unknown, established again, unknown and established.



  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I am sorry. but Aidan Turner is a pretty unknown name by most. Hiddleston isn t a huge star, either.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    The "unknown actors" label came from the early days when it was Cubby and Saltzman's belief that James Bond was comparable to the Tarzan role, in that you didn't need a big name actor to play the role as it was the character that was the most important thing. Let's not forget that Tarzan had seen numerous actors in the lead role at this stage, such as Elmo Lincoln, Herman Brix, Lex Barker, Buster Crabbe, Johnny Weissmuller, Bruce Bennett, Glenn Morris, Gordon Scott, and Denny Miller to name but a few. Which was why they searched for an "unknown" to fill the role and not a big star name. Roger Moore was the exception, though not a "big star" at the time, apart from his TV role in the popular The Saint, he seemed like a good safe bet to pick up after Sean Connery. In fact, Saltzman and Cubby didn't quite see eye-to-eye on Moore's appointment, as Saltzman felt he wasn't right for the role and wanted to go with someone else. Nevertheless, he relented and the rest, as they say, is history. But yes, they believed that the star of the movie was James Bond and not the actor playing him.

    I'm not quite sure that will be the case nowadays because the studio has a much bigger say in who is cast as JB. That aside, I still believe Aidan Turner is closer to what Cubby or Saltzman would have gone with back in their day. More so than Hiddleston, who has had a lot of exposure due to his role in a big Marvel franchise.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    bondsum wrote: »
    The "unknown actors" label came from the early days when it was Cubby and Saltzman's belief that James Bond was comparable to the Tarzan role, in that you didn't need a big name actor to play the role as it was the character that was the most important thing. Let's not forget that Tarzan had seen numerous actors in the lead role at this stage, such as Elmo Lincoln, Herman Brix, Lex Barker, Buster Crabbe, Johnny Weissmuller, Bruce Bennett, Glenn Morris, Gordon Scott, and Denny Miller to name but a few. Which was why they searched for an "unknown" to fill the role and not a big star name. Roger Moore was the exception, though not a "big star" at the time, apart from his TV role in the popular The Saint, he seemed like a good safe bet to pick up after Sean Connery. In fact, Saltzman and Cubby didn't quite see eye-to-eye on Moore's appointment, as Saltzman felt he wasn't right for the role and wanted to go with someone else. Nevertheless, he relented and the rest, as they say, is history. But yes, they believed that the star of the movie was James Bond and not the actor playing him.

    I'm not quite sure that will be the case nowadays because the studio has a much bigger say in who is cast as JB. That aside, I still believe Aidan Turner is closer to what Cubby or Saltzman would have gone with back in their day. More so than Hiddleston, who has had a lot of exposure due to his role in a big Marvel franchise.

    Absolutely correct, sir! I'm surprised that more people can't see this. =D>
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217
    Yep.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I also would've gone with Turner and not Hiddleston. Both from a business point of view, and a matter of preference. From a business point of view, Hiddleston is already too much of a popular name among the Marvel fans, and knowing Cubby he wouldn't have wanted to have that around. James Bond is the star of the film, not the actor in the role.

    From a personal side of preference, I am slowly coming to be convinced that Turner can really do what he'd be given to do. Despite not having that rugged look I'd want Bond to have, he always has that serious, snobbish and "danger is my middle name" type of portrait alas leaving the impression of "I don't give a damn about your opinion" kind of metaphor. And that's indeed a Bondian trait.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Turner looks great in 'still photos'. I have yet to see him demonstrate convincingly that he can be Bond 'in motion' and 'through acting'.

    That is what I see in Hiddle, even though he can look awkward at times. It's his acting that suggests Bond to me. The only thing he needs to bring a little more of is the 'danger emanating from within', which can come from just a look or stare. He has the chops to deliver that and I don't think he's done it because the roles to date have not called for it. IF he brings that, it's game over.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    I also would've gone with Turner and not Hiddleston. Both from a business point of view, and a matter of preference. From a business point of view, Hiddleston is already too much of a popular name among the Marvel fans, and knowing Cubby he wouldn't have wanted to have that around. James Bond is the star of the film, not the actor in the role.

    From a personal side of preference, I am slowly coming to be convinced that Turner can really do what he'd be given to do. Despite not having that rugged look I'd want Bond to have, he always has that serious, snobbish and "danger is my middle name" type of portrait alas leaving the impression of "I don't give a damn about your opinion" kind of metaphor. And that's indeed a Bondian trait.


    Precisely! Great point, sir! =D>
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    It's probably much harder to find an actor nowadays that's both young and has a rugged look because actors look after themselves so much better today, and also they didn't live through the Post War Years of social hard knocks along with the bad eating, drinking, smoking habits of yesteryear. The lived-in rugged look seems to come much later with a lot of actors today, unless they happen to have had a bad drug habbit that ages them prematurely.

    But going back to what I originally said, the Tarzan comparison (and Sherlock Holmes comaprison for that matter) can be found in numerous publications on Bond. One such that springs to mind is Sean Connery: The Measure of a Man by Christopher Bray, who states:

    "Saltzman all through his life would remain adamant that the actor who played Bond mattered little in the scheme of things. What mattered was the character of Bond himself. He was what audiences fantasied about, Saltzman said. Like Tarzan or Sherlock Holmes, it followed, anyone could play him. In this view, director Terence Young would remember, Saltzman had the backing of Ian Fleming. Despite his protestations about David Niven and Cary Grant, Fleming was most taken with the idea of an unknown actor incarnating his hero. That way the movies could be sold as 'Ian Fleming's James Bond, played by Norman Nobody' rather than 'Sid Somebody IS James Bond' (the poster-line formula that would eventually accrete around Connery's name)."
Sign In or Register to comment.