Who should/could be a Bond actor?

12862872892912921229

Comments

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited May 2017 Posts: 15,713
    What kind of argument is that? Honestly, try being serious for once.

    Answer the question, please. You just said that no one is getting cast in a lead role on a blockbuster film without carrying a film first.

    Be god damn serious. Are you going to use Daniel Radcliffe as an example too, since he didn't have 20+ years of leading star experience before getting cast as Harry Potter? 'The Force Awakens' was not marketed as a Daisy Ridley film in the same way Mission Impossible, Jack Reacher or Edge of Tomorrow are indeed Tom Cruise films.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    What kind of argument is that? Honestly, try being serious for once.

    Answer the question, please. You just said that no one is getting cast in a lead role on a blockbuster film without carrying a film first.

    Be god damn serious. Are you going to use Daniel Radcliffe as an example too, since he didn't have 20+ years of leading star experience before getting cast as Harry Potter? 'The Force Awakens' was not marketed as a Daisy Ridley film in the same way Mission Impossible, Jack Reacher or Edge of Tomorrow are indeed Tom Cruise films.

    And Layer Cake was not marketed solely as a Daniel Craig vehicle either, in the same way as Mission Impossible is with Cruise. He's barely a main character in it.

    But regardless, Daisy Ridley was cast in a 200 million dollar production when they could have just as easily gone with a more experienced 20 year old woman. And this new chap playing Han Solo doesn't appear to have carried a film on his own either, so when all is said and done, being a relatively under the radar actor is not a deal breaker when it comes to starring in big budget films.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited May 2017 Posts: 9,509
    A big f/x extravaganza film will spend their budget on the effects, especially something like the original TRANSFORMERS (an unknown Shia LaBoeuf) and TFA. They are not going to blow their budget on casting, since their brand sells itself.

    Bond may be big budget action, but, it does rely on the actor in this role to sell it to an international market. More than anything, Babs will be looking for someone with presence enough to carry the film. IMHO, Turner fails in this regard. He's a capable tv actor, but his presence doesn't radiate further than that.

    I also think the distributors, since they will be marketing the film for international audiences, want someone who at least has had supporting roles in films they can reference.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited May 2017 Posts: 15,713
    What kind of argument is that? Honestly, try being serious for once.

    Answer the question, please. You just said that no one is getting cast in a lead role on a blockbuster film without carrying a film first.

    Be god damn serious. Are you going to use Daniel Radcliffe as an example too, since he didn't have 20+ years of leading star experience before getting cast as Harry Potter? 'The Force Awakens' was not marketed as a Daisy Ridley film in the same way Mission Impossible, Jack Reacher or Edge of Tomorrow are indeed Tom Cruise films.

    And Layer Cake was not marketed solely as a Daniel Craig vehicle either, in the same way as Mission Impossible is with Cruise. He's barely a main character in it.

    But regardless, Daisy Ridley was cast in a 200 million dollar production when they could have just as easily gone with a more experienced 20 year old woman. And this new chap playing Han Solo doesn't appear to have carried a film on his own either, so when all is said and done, being a relatively under the radar actor is not a deal breaker when it comes to starring in big budget films.

    There's no point talking to you, is there? Stop being so oblivious to what people are saying. Use actual, serious arguments please. The main marketing point of a Bond film is the lead actor playing Bond. Daisy Ridley was not the main aspect TFA rely on to sell the film. And why the hell did you bring Layer Cake into this? The film had a budget of less than 7 million dollars, it didn't need to be marketed as a Daniel Craig vehicle in order to make profit at the box office, but he did carry the film, and prior to that he had several films where he was the lead star.

    Nobody is questioning Turner's talents or that his movie career will never take off, but he is not getting cast as Bond until he can prove he can headline a film.

    'At the end of the day', as you say, Daisy Ridley is not in any way remotely responsible for the huge success of TFA, but whoever is in Bond 25, be it Daniel Craig or a new actor, will be one of the key aspects of the film's marketing and ultimately to the film's success.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    Benny wrote: »
    It could be argued that a number of the Bonds either didn't have a high enough profile, or were tv actors. It could be argued that all 6 fall under either category.

    This is true, but apart from Lazenby, and perhaps Dalton and Craig (though they were very well respected theatre actors) all have had a known presence on a global scale.
    Connery was the first and he sold the role whilst in it.

    I'm not disputing that, but my comment was in response to what @Ludovico wrote, that other people are saying that Turner doesn't have a high profile, and/or is a tv actor. All of the Bond fall under this category. Connery, Dalton & Craig had experience behind them, but weren't household names. Moore and Brosnan, I would ague that despite some film experience, were more tv actors.

    Benny wrote: »
    Turner isn't a known actor globally.
    Connery created the role, Moore was well known, as was Brosnan. If history repeats itself, after Craig, a more well known actor will assume the role. Hardy, Fassbender, Hiddleston.

    You might have a point about Turner, but then I don't think Brosnan was that well known in the UK, before being cast, even with Remington Steele. He had Remington Steele, which I gather was a big thing, in the US... in the 1980's. But between that and Bond, he was knocking around in stuff like Live Wire.

    Personally, I wouldn't mind Turner being cast, but if it doesn't happen, then it's no tragedy.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 2017 Posts: 8,392
    @DaltonCraig I'm sorry to say it, but you keep changing your definitions. Daisy Ridley was the main character in Force Awakens, and therefore she headlined the film despite being an unknown actress. That the important bit, but then you change it to "she wasn't responsible for its success". Well, I'm sure many would disagree with that statement, but let's say for the sake of argument you're right about that. She still headlined the film, as an unknown actress. They still chose her over more experienced actresses her age. There's no way we can look at it that will make that no longer the case.

    But you do touch on something that is very much worth bringing up when you say that the actor hired for Bond will be ultimately one of the key aspects to the films successful. I agree with that in a sense, however the exact way in which the actor will affect the success of the film could be very different than how it is done now. For instance, in terms of pure performance Craig is highly regarded as Bond, but in other areas he is lacking, his handling of press commitments being probably the most known blot on his record. Some of his comments aren't exactly good PR for EON and it's possible that they might try and remedy this with the next actor.

    Film marketing these days is beginning to cost more than actually making the films themselves. I remember hearing that Roger was absolutely amazing at charming the press, he could talk for days on end and never get tired. Brosnan was a similar although he was touchy on occasion. I was thinking maybe they would go for a lower profile actor that would not create any more PR disasters. Honestly, I think the talent aspect of Bond actors is overstated in importance, especially these days. What EON really needs is stamina for these long shoots and gruelling press tours. This occurred to me, because someone like Turner is very cheery and upbeat whatever the weather. That is a very valuable trait for EON to exploit.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,129
    I'd be happy to see another Welsh actor as Bond. Dalton was short changed.
    The Welsh have a good acting pedigree, Burton, Dalton, Hopkins...Bale. Are there any up and coming potential Welsh Bonds?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @Mendes4Lyfe you're ignoring the fact that the HP franchise, TRANSFORMERS, TFA don't spend on cast. They're SFX extravaganzas and their brand is sold through visual eye candy. Daisy Ridley, or someone else? It matters very little; TFA was going to be a smash, regardless.

    Bond is a different beast: don't confuse talent with presence. Luckily Craig has both, but a new actor would at least need the latter (and hopefully the former); Turner is a competent TV actor, with not a lot of big-screen balls attached to him.

    I would think, after Craig, Babs will go for a dynamic personality, someone who will make us temporarily forget what came before him.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Turner has zero leading star status in movies, at this moment in time. This is why he won't be Bond.

    Neither did Brosnan before Bond, unless you count a slew of B-Movies and made-for-television tommyrot as leading star status?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 2017 Posts: 8,392
    bondsum wrote: »
    Turner has zero leading star status in movies, at this moment in time. This is why he won't be Bond.

    Neither did Brosnan before Bond, unless you count a slew of B-Movies and made-for-television tommyrot as leading star status?

    Exactly. There are a lot of similarities between Brosnan and Turner IMO.

    @peter maybe your right. They would certainly save money with Turner compared to Craig.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @bondsum, we're in a different global market now. A B-actor will not be playing Bond
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 3,333
    What global market is that exactly, @peter? Surely, you're not suggesting that EON can now only cast an A-list actor in the role that's happened to have had a major hit movie in China, Russia and India? Because outside of Bond, Craig hasn't had a hit movie in those regions either.

    And how did John Boyega and Daisy Ridley fit into this global market of yours for Star Wars?
    peter wrote: »
    @Mendes4Lyfe you're ignoring the fact that the HP franchise, TRANSFORMERS, TFA don't spend on cast. They're SFX extravaganzas and their brand is sold through visual eye candy. Daisy Ridley, or someone else? It matters very little; TFA was going to be a smash, regardless.
    Sorry, @peter, but you can't have your cake and eat it. Bond is the granddaddy of all the franchises. You could use the same "it was going to be a smash, regardless" retort equally for Bond. Only difference here is that we don't have a new Bond picture starring a new unknown Bond to prove it.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I don't follow @bondsum: films like TRANSFORMERS and TFA are SFX extravaganza's. They're global smashes before casting.

    Bond is also global, but so much of that success is on the shoulders of the man wearing the tux. The distributors will want a presence that they know they can sell to the global audiences.

    If the new actor is a B-level, and the global audience turns their back, the franchise is in real trouble. I'm not saying they need to go A-list (please don't put words in my mouth); but they do need someone who can carry the character, someone they can reference in their marketing who has a history of interesting roles, and someone who, once the film comes out, will make us have temporary amnesia of who came before him.

    The role of Bond is a lot more difficult than saying, man he looks good in a tux...

    as for Boyega: you do know that the Chinese market shrunk his face on all their ads, don't you?
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited May 2017 Posts: 5,131
    Daniel Craig is a great Bond because he screen presence, charisma, acting process, a great voice and can play natural cool easily. Aidan Turner displays not one of these qualities. He is a good looking average and forgettable TV actor.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,244
    It is rather obvious that if you're running a franchise with several characters, side stories etc. and you need a young person (story-wise) you probably won't hire an experienced actor. As you do need a bit of age always for experience. Whereas if you're casting for a series depending on one main character for the last 60 odd years, you do want someone with a couple of (well -received) films under their belt. I think this is what @peter implies. Comparing Transformers and SW to Bond makes thus little sense.

    If Turner is the new Brosnan we get an unsure actor who'll regret his own performance in the series but is still very grateful for what it brought him. I don't think we want to go down that road again, dispite Brosnan beeing very honest and open about his tenure.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Absolutely @suavejmf, DC has it all and it will be terribly difficult to re-cast since he "re-invented" the character for this generation.
    And I believe it won't be as easy to "just going back" to what was done before Craig.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I don't know if the actor needs to be a star really.

    However, he definitely needs screen presence, charisma, a decent voice, a reasonable physique, and he'd better look half decent as well (although we don't need a fashion model).

    he doesn't need to be able to 'act cool'. He needs to 'be cool'. It must emanate naturally. All of the Bond actors, to varying degrees, have exhibited that characteristic including Brosnan (albeit less so imho).

    I personally believe that EON will go for a slightly bigger name (than Craig) next time out. Bond has been redefined and is looked upon more favourably critically these days (the last film is still seen as an unfortunate hiccup, rather than an ongoing declining trend, as was the case in the 90s and even the mid to late 80s).

    They will not want to lose what Craig has given them, but rather build on it with a new actor.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't know if the actor needs to be a star really.

    I agree.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @CommanderRoss, absolutely, SW and the like, are different beasts to Bond. One is a brand that is SFX eye candy. The investment will go into this area to continue building its universe; casting, of course is important, but you can't tell me the producers of TFA were expecting their cast to carry the film.
    Bond's success, on the other hand, is all about the man in the tux. The casting here is very tricky: the actor will have to have many appealing traits about him that will have to sell globally.
    In this day and age, and a crowded marketplace, just simply handing the reigns over to a TV actor with little film experience, would be a silly gamble (unless that actor has shown something remarkable in what is his body of work-- just being Brosnan-lite won't cut it).
  • Posts: 676
    Aidan Turner impressed me in And Then There Were None. But I think they can and should pick someone more interesting.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Milovy wrote: »
    Aidan Turner impressed me in And Then There Were None. But I think they can and should pick someone more interesting.
    This is the key word imho. A Bond actor must have a little je ne sais quoi about him. He must command the screen. We must want to watch him even if he's just standing there. This is not so much an Oscar bait role as it is a role requiring immense screen charisma & confidence.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Other than those wanting Hardy or Fassbender (and for various reasons I believe they will never be Bond (although I wouldn't mind seeing one or the other do it)), no one has been calling for a "star" to play the role.

    @bondjames has listed the important components; one of the most important @Mendes4Lyfe, is not "acting" cool but "being" cool. IMHO that's Turner's downfall: he acts rather than "being" (and he seems to have only one dramatic face: bratty scowl)
  • Posts: 3,333
    No, I'm not putting words in your mouth, @peter. I'm just trying to unravel what you meant by 'global market' and how it applied to Bond and not to any of the other franchises. Actually, I see a lot of sense it what you say, but I just don't see how you can prove it either way until you've physically cast the new Bond, made the movie and released it in one of those regions. It could still bomb with a so-called popular Western choice in the lead. It'll depend on so many other factors, such as a straight-forward story, big action, good word-of-mouth and current trends, to name just a few.

    I honestly don't think, if the next James Bond is a relative unknown, it'll make that much of a difference to the overseas market. The big draw for a Bond movie has always been its action set pieces. Get the action right and the Chinese market will flock to see it, as they do with those terrible, badly-acted Fast & Furious movies. Also, one thing that some of these other franchises do well is they cast supporting roles to established Indian and Chinese actors, to draw in the crowds overseas. It's cynical, but it does encompass your global market view of popular Western cinema. Maybe future Bond movies will do this, too?

    That's not to say I don't think the casting of a new Bond actor won''t affect our own Western BO returns, because it will. Get the casting wrong at our end, and audiences will dramatically drop off. As to who that might be, well, I could give half a dozen reasons as to why it won't be a big name, the major one being that EON will never be able to tie them down to more than a two-picture deal without first forfeiting their own profits. They'll want an actor that will be able to commit himself to the role and establish a series of movies, and that will do it for a certain fee and not a percentage. These established actors that have been bandied about here will all want a high fee and a percentage of the gross. I just don't see EON agreeing to that, no matter what the global market says.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited May 2017 Posts: 9,509
    I agree it won't be a big name star when casting Bond 7; but it will have to be someone who has all the attributes that @bondjames already stated. It's a more complex role, casting 007, than I think is understood.

    FF films are spectacle; I'd like to think of Bond films as elevated action compared to that franchise;

    I agree with your POV that other franchises do fill out supporting cast thinking of the various markets, and yes, I think Bond will have to do more of this in the future as well.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @peter, I personally think it will be a bigger name next time out than Craig. They hired him (A very unlikely candidate) for a specific purpose (they needed to reset course and do the novel & reboot justice).

    I don't think we're in for a Laz/Craig/Dalts run for the next one. More Moore/Brosnan levels of fame.

    Regarding salary and 'points' demands - I'm sure some accommodation can be made, especially if scripts and directors are up to snuff.
  • Posts: 3,333
    This is where I disagree with you, @bondjames, because we're talking about a series of movies in which they will be front and centre. There's no way an actor will be so accommodating, especially when you're talking about future scripts that they haven't seen or even been written nor planned. Sure, the one they might have signed up for could be exactly what they want to film, but its sequel or the one after that could go in a totally different direction. How could they possibly know beforehand? I don't think an established actor would take that risk unless it was for the wonga.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I agree that it's a long shot @bondsum, but the prestige of being James Bond surely goes some way towards addressing that, particularly if assurances can be provided up front in terms of what direction the franchise is headed in. I can imagine such discussions are ongoing at present, as the distribution deal is being worked out.

    Bond actors normally sign on for three films with an option for a fourth. It's not unreasonable to expect that a director may sign on for at least two films, especially if there is a known trajectory and path for the character. This can go some way towards appeasing an actor's salary demands.

    Moreover, other 'vanity' projects can be funded by the same studio. There are ways to make deals.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Of course, we're talking prestige from a fan's POV and not as an actor's. The likes of Fassbender are not fans, and know very little about the franchise, and judging by his most recent comments about which way the series could go next, he hasn't read a single Fleming book or watched a Bond movie in decades. Sure, some actors have put themselves forward for the role (We all know who they are), but so did plenty of others after Brosnan was considered surplus to requirements. None of them got the role.

    As you're quite aware, directors can drop out of making a sequel they originally agreed to make for a number of reasons. It happens all the time. Unless there's a script, etc, they just won't commit to the project. The actor is in a different position to the director as he has signed up for three more, regardless of the script.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Fair points. I just don't see them going with someone like Craig next time out. I think most people around the globe will have seen the next Bond actor somewhere, even if it's in a supporting role.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Personally, I think if EON have learned anything from the casting of Craig in the role, the next Bond will be exactly like another Craig. Maybe not the same sort of dramatic actor as Craig, but an actor that's on the rise and that they can tie down to a longish contract. Which is why I think the majority of the next Bond's work will be in either TV or the theatre, with the occasional supporting role in a popular movie. I could be entirely wrong, but my gut tells me otherwise.
Sign In or Register to comment.