Who should/could be a Bond actor?

13183193213233241228

Comments

  • Posts: 15,099
    We don't have the same definition of good acting. Granted, playing a Dwarf among twelve in a fantasy movie is not exactly the best way to prove your skills as an actor but the role was definitely not "big" by any stretch of the imagination. He had a relatively small role in a big blockbuster. He was good as Philip Lombard but then he played an English stereotype in a whodunnit.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Turner is not an actor with a lot of big screen charisma, IMHO. He's very "okay" on the small screen.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited August 2017 Posts: 8,392
    I don't know where this recent trend of treating Bond as a role for serious thespians has come from.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I don't know where this recent trend of treating Bond as a role for serious thespians has come from.
    I'll give you a guess. ;)
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited August 2017 Posts: 8,392
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't know where this recent trend of treating Bond as a role for serious thespians has come from.
    I'll give you a guess. ;)

    Yes, you're right. The same place which states that too many candidates are pretty boys, or too young, or too thin. Basically anything which deviates from the Craig interpretation is not right, which is strange when you think about it, since Craig himself was such a departure.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't know where this recent trend of treating Bond as a role for serious thespians has come from.
    I'll give you a guess. ;)

    Yes, you're right. The same place which states that too many candidates are pretty boys, or too young, or too thin. Basically anything which deviates from the Craig interpretation is not right, which is strange when you think about it, since Craig himself was such a departure.
    It's understandable to an extent. People find it difficult to embrace the prospect of change and always compare to the immediate predecessor, especially when he's been around for a while. Remember the Brosnan switch? Folks went ballistic.

    What I find hilarious is the 5ft 10 threshold that suddenly popped up here. That's nonsense. Bond was described as 6ft at a time when average heights were less. He's not average by any means. Far from it.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited August 2017 Posts: 15,423
    Well, I'm not putting up a huge endorsement on the Craig flag, but let's face it outright here... 99.9% of the names that came up in this thread are pretty boys and youngsters who haven't matured enough by appearance. And appearance matters for Bond. An appearance that gives him a macho look, or a sophisticated gentleman who's also rugged, rough around the edges, and while Etonian, can kick some arse with danger and manly heroism screaming out of him and take names, not some male model who is some female young adult's fantasy or high school sweetheart.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @ClarkDevlin, I think it's a bit harsh to make a judgement based on a photo, appearance or even a specific performance.

    A lot of these chaps mentioned here are solid actors and can play the part (in their own way) if given the chance. They may not bring Craig levels of intensity, but then again Craig doesn't even have that anymore based on his last two outings (at least imho).

    I'm always optimistic about a new Bond actor (when it happens) because they've all been successful in their debut (imho). The pressure is immense and everyone brings their A game on the switch. It's the film after that which should be the concern.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited August 2017 Posts: 15,423
    Oh, my apologies, @bondjames. My intention was not to submit an offensive response. Sure, they all may be talented chaps and have a very bright future ahead of them for their careers and whatnot... Bless them all...

    ...But, as I was saying... Just because somebody is a good actor doesn't automatically make him suitable for any role that's invented. I'm not on the Craig league, mind? I want Bond to be intense, but not overtly, and I want him to be charming at the same time. Connery/Moore/Brosnan (TWINE/DAD era) level. Heck, even Dalton level. They all look like men who have experienced time in the army, battlefield and have put some experience years in their pockets.

    They don't have to just act it, but also look the part. For example, I can't see Tom Hiddleston pull a convincing image as being a former army veteran or a man of action. At best I can see him being a charming adventurer, a Scarlet Pimpernel type, who spent years learning combat in the hands of expensive teachers indoors.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    We disagree on Hiddleston @ClarkDevlin. I think he would be perfect. However, I'm open to Turner, Goode, Hardy, Fassbender, Norton etc. etc. Basically any of the big names are ok with me.

    I think they are all good enough actors that they can embody and therefore 'look' the part. That's my point. If we can accept Craig physically, then any of these chaps is up to the task from a look perspective (even Hardy imho, based on his work in Inception).

    EDIT: That doesn't mean they are ideal, but then again, where are we going to find a Connery today? They don't make 'em like that any more.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Sure, it's all a matter of perspective.

    Regardless, however, there will be critiques of the next actor to be chosen for the part the way ever actor has received. There will be a positive, a neutral and negative ground. But, above all things... whether we like it or not, that actor is already James Bond.

    The rest is all just a matter of preference. Heck, detractors don't even have to see it, so I see no harm done here. Well, maybe a few years ago, I would've been a radical extremist about my opinion, but you learn that at the end of the day, your voice doesn't change anything. So why bother?

    I'm sure at some point the actor would grow on me, just the way Craig did over the years.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    There will definitely be detractors for Bond OO"7". He will inevitably be shat on by many from the get-go. Such is the way it is today.

    Also, it becomes more difficult to replace the actor each time because there is one more in the frame. Now EON don't only have to consider all the actors from the 'classic' era, but also 'reboot Craig' when making the decision.

    The trick is to go in a different direction each time imho, to avoid direct comparisons with the immediate predecessor. That has always seemed to work.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    That, I absolutely agree with. No further additions.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    That's why I feel they need to take advantage of recent trends, like they always do. 2006 was a gritty reboot, so pure acting craft was a very crucial sticking point when it came to casting Bond. I don't feel like that was the case for any of the other Bond's, so why assume it will be the case for whoever takes over from Craig. In fact, if the evidence is to be believed, it won't be the case. Films are becoming shorter, and more wordless experiences. It's almost like a return to the silent era, kind of. In that kind of climate hiring an actor like Craig is nothing short of a waste of money. Directors are learning how to tell a story being less reliant on the actors to explain it, or to "sell it". Modern editing and music can pretty much achieve whatever kind of effect that's needed for the scene, and directors are taking advantage of it. What they really need is someone who will look the part, and who can handle the brutal press tours/premiers.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I'd be happy with Fassbender. And a Hardy with Nolan tag-team. I certainly don't want a DC clone (just as I wouldn't want a SC clone, or a RM clone)

    I do want charisma.

    I want someone I can believe is a ruthless, sometimes cruel, assassin, but, after killing a man, could dust off his tuxedo and order a drink, as cool as ice.

    I've seen Turner, and I find it hard to believe he could deliver on elements that I do enjoy in the character. Same with Hiddles-- I can see him ordering his drink with puckered iciness, I just can't believe he would take another man's life. I have a harder time seeing him bed beautiful women from around the globe-- especially after his underwear 'shoot.

    But that's just me, I suppose.

    Of course, I'd give every man his due, and EoN has always done quite well with casting.

    I didn't want Brosnan after Dalton, yet I did grow to admire his work in some shoddy films.

    The man they choose as (00)7 will be appropriate enough. I just am of the mind they haven't found him yet-- or DC would be done (no matter what Babs thinks of him).
  • Posts: 15,099
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't know where this recent trend of treating Bond as a role for serious thespians has come from.
    I'll give you a guess. ;)

    Yes, you're right. The same place which states that too many candidates are pretty boys, or too young, or too thin. Basically anything which deviates from the Craig interpretation is not right, which is strange when you think about it, since Craig himself was such a departure.

    We've had in the past capable actors in the role and before Craig. Heck even Brosnan was a veteran actor who had done a few important roles.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't know where this recent trend of treating Bond as a role for serious thespians has come from.
    I'll give you a guess. ;)

    Yes, you're right. The same place which states that too many candidates are pretty boys, or too young, or too thin. Basically anything which deviates from the Craig interpretation is not right, which is strange when you think about it, since Craig himself was such a departure.

    We've had in the past capable actors in the role and before Craig. Heck even Brosnan was a veteran actor who had done a few important roles.

    Yes, but the actor has to fit the era.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    agreed @Mendes4Lyfe , and, unlike Connery, Moore, Brozzer or Craig, it really seems like no one has stepped up front for the new era.

    So, like DAF (but with better value in both production and an actor who loves his role), they've gone back to the well that makes the most sense from a business perspective. To make the best possible Bond film, right now, for whatever reason, DC is still the best choice.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited August 2017 Posts: 1,318
    Gut feeling poll (shits and giggles)

    Reply by answering two of the following questions:

    -Will Craig return, yes or no?

    -If not, who will it be?

    My gut feeling tells me Craig will not return

    Turner will be the next 007
  • Posts: 15,099
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't know where this recent trend of treating Bond as a role for serious thespians has come from.
    I'll give you a guess. ;)

    Yes, you're right. The same place which states that too many candidates are pretty boys, or too young, or too thin. Basically anything which deviates from the Craig interpretation is not right, which is strange when you think about it, since Craig himself was such a departure.

    We've had in the past capable actors in the role and before Craig. Heck even Brosnan was a veteran actor who had done a few important roles.

    Yes, but the actor has to fit the era.

    Yes of course. Many of the contenders now make me very wary of the era we live in. Acting skills notwithstanding a Bond actor needs charisma. Does that guy from King Arthur have any? And what about the guy from 50 Shades?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Acting skills notwithstanding a Bond actor needs charisma. Does that guy from King Arthur have any? And what about the guy from 50 Shades?
    Both useless imho. Dornan arguably had early potential, but he blew it by acting in a soft porn geared to the ladies. I hope they compensated him well for that career limiting move.
  • Posts: 15,099
    I guess back in 2005 there were rumours about that Aussie guy who played the Eurotrash version of Dr Doom and Robbie Williams. Still, the names brought forward now, seriously. I think 51 is way too old to play Bond but if Craig can do just one more so the pool of candidates for his succession can look like something decent.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    51 year old actor is too old if he's set to make a debut, but if it's already in the middle of his tenure, it's perfectly fine.
  • Posts: 15,099
    It's ok for the end of his tenure.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I guess back in 2005 there were rumours about that Aussie guy who played the Eurotrash version of Dr Doom and Robbie Williams. Still, the names brought forward now, seriously. I think 51 is way too old to play Bond but if Craig can do just one more so the pool of candidates for his succession can look like something decent.
    For some actors age is not a problem. It remains to be seen if it's the case for Craig. Based on the evidence of SP, I'm not convinced.
  • Posts: 15,099
    I'd say age is a problem at 51. Bond would be doing a desk job at this age.But given the actors mentioned here I'd rather see Craig one more time and let them sort out the next Bond casting properly.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    Yes, age 51 is no problem if Bond becomes a comic book character like he was during the Moore era, however a 51 year old Craig Bond is laughable.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I thought his Bond, though, and, according to his most recent passport, shows that he was born in 1971?
  • Posts: 15,099
    Yes, age 51 is no problem if Bond becomes a comic book character like he was during the Moore era, however a 51 year old Craig Bond is laughable.

    It was getting a problem with Moore and would have become a problem with Brosnan or indeed any Bond. Everyone starts looking his age some point.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Yes, age 51 is no problem if Bond becomes a comic book character like he was during the Moore era, however a 51 year old Craig Bond is laughable.

    It was getting a problem with Moore and would have become a problem with Brosnan or indeed any Bond. Everyone starts looking his age some point.
    While I'm not a big fan of him as Bond, Brosnan could have gone on for another two at least. He's aged very well.
Sign In or Register to comment.