Who should/could be a Bond actor?

15975986006026031228

Comments

  • That being said, I wonder if that would even be a factor, anymore?

    Suppose this is not an automatic exclusion criterion, one's can assume that this would be a way of rule out one of two actors who could be neck and neck for the role. The jurisprudence established by Tom Cruise may suggest that a profile like O'Connell may be initially selected alongside other candidates. On the other hand, if one of the other candidates presents as many qualities as him and, in addition, stood taller, O'Connell's size would then be an unfavorable factor for him.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    suavejmf wrote: »
    The guy on the right was Bane in Dark Knight Rises......in that film Bane is a giant. It's all movie-magic. Tom Hardy is only 5'9 and Bane is easily meant to be 6'5

    MV5BMTUxMjU0NzQ5NF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMjExODQxOA@@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,775,1000_AL_.jpg

    do-you-feel-in-charge.jpg?fit=736%2C489&ssl=1

    I was shocked that Hardy was quite so small, in fact he's shorter than O'Connell! I don't think height is that important especially in film where it's fairly easy to manipulate. Look at Tom Cruise, he photographs as at least 5'10 in his films.

    Speaking of Hardy, it was always a bit of a crying shame that he never got the role. He was perfect for the part in 2011/2012. Probably too big a star now and too old for the next film. Plus, for my money, Hardy was once a terribly brave and exciting performer. However, in recent years he has become a caricature of himself. Just stupid voices, OTT performances whilst pulling dumb faces. But I keep coming back.....weirdly excited to see how OTT he is as Capone.

    tom-hardy-This-Means-War.jpg?w=980&q=75

    But back to the discussion....Jack O'Connell.....I think he needs a Bond-esque performance in the next few years. Something akin to Craig in Layer Cake. For people to see him in action. But it doesn't seem he has anything on the docket that fits that bill. He does have a film coming this year called 'Little Fish' but that looks destined to be watched by no one.

    DMB-VOGUE_TIFFANY_BAFTA_PARTY087.jpg

    Though, here he is with Idris Elba and he does look like a boy. Idris is 6'2....

    idris-elba-and-jack-oconnell-attend-harvey-weinsteins-prebafta-dinner-picture-id509829384

    suavejmf wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Although I am now going to move on to Jack O'Connell (29, Derby). I know he's only 5′ 8" but come on! Look at him, and if Tom Cruise can do it while being shorter so can any other actor :D
    JACk-OCONNELL.WEB8_.jpg

    He is certainly neither my first nor my second choice, but I could do with him. I especially retain your second image, where he actually embodies something that I had not necessarily seen in the others. From what film does it come from?
    I don't even think he's my first or second choice tbh @Herr_Stockmann, but I've been a fan of his for quite a while now and he certainly has potential. Again taking into account how long it'll be before anyone is actually cast, I can see it happening and he's only 28 at the moment.

    And this is from a film called Seberg, with Kristen Stewart playing Jean Seberg and O'Connell playing an FBI agent investigating her involvement with the civil rights movement.

    That shot is from Seberg. A recent film that sees O'Connell play an FBI agent. He has certainly matured recently and looks masculine. For a while O'Connell seemed to be the 'next big British actor' primed for a breakout akin to Michael Fassbender or Tom Hardy. He got the coveted lead in Unbroken and won a BAFTA, though he has disappeared slightly in the last few years. O'Connell has that same fiery, unpredictable intensity of Tom Hardy (also, believe it or not, Hardy is very short). His performance in Starred Up is mesmerising.

    I think O'Connell looks good for the Bond role in a few years. Remember than both Yann Demange and David MacKenize were frontrunners to direct NTTD. So it seems that Eon have liked what they have seen in 71 and Starred Up. So there is some circumstantial evidence that Barbara is at least keeping an eye on O'Connell.

    JACk-OCONNELL.WEB_.jpg

    He literally looks like Nick Nack next to Elba though! 🤣
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited April 2020 Posts: 5,131
    He literally looks like Nick Nack next to Elba though! 🤣

    Apologies, I’m not sure what went on above and I can’t delete.

    For me, the actors height is important as it was with all past actors in the role. The role is a ‘brand’ off screen as well as on. Hence, ‘Nick nack’ or ‘Willow’ in a tux doesn’t cut it IMO. But that’s just my personal view.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    That being said, I wonder if that would even be a factor, anymore?

    Suppose this is not an automatic exclusion criterion, one's can assume that this would be a way of rule out one of two actors who could be neck and neck for the role. The jurisprudence established by Tom Cruise may suggest that a profile like O'Connell may be initially selected alongside other candidates. On the other hand, if one of the other candidates presents as many qualities as him and, in addition, stood taller, O'Connell's size would then be an unfavorable factor for him.

    That seems fair.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    That being said, I wonder if that would even be a factor, anymore?

    Suppose this is not an automatic exclusion criterion, one's can assume that this would be a way of rule out one of two actors who could be neck and neck for the role. The jurisprudence established by Tom Cruise may suggest that a profile like O'Connell may be initially selected alongside other candidates. On the other hand, if one of the other candidates presents as many qualities as him and, in addition, stood taller, O'Connell's size would then be an unfavorable factor for him.

    That seems fair.

    Unless he is twice as tall. Then it isn t really a plus, is it?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    That being said, I wonder if that would even be a factor, anymore?

    Suppose this is not an automatic exclusion criterion, one's can assume that this would be a way of rule out one of two actors who could be neck and neck for the role. The jurisprudence established by Tom Cruise may suggest that a profile like O'Connell may be initially selected alongside other candidates. On the other hand, if one of the other candidates presents as many qualities as him and, in addition, stood taller, O'Connell's size would then be an unfavorable factor for him.

    That seems fair.

    Unless he is twice as tall. Then it isn t really a plus, is it?

    No, it wouldn't be.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    That being said, I wonder if that would even be a factor, anymore?

    Suppose this is not an automatic exclusion criterion, one's can assume that this would be a way of rule out one of two actors who could be neck and neck for the role. The jurisprudence established by Tom Cruise may suggest that a profile like O'Connell may be initially selected alongside other candidates. On the other hand, if one of the other candidates presents as many qualities as him and, in addition, stood taller, O'Connell's size would then be an unfavorable factor for him.

    That seems fair.

    But O’Connell is very small. He’s not borderline like Craig. He is literally short. If you were describing him to the Police you would literally say ‘the short guy’. That isn’t suitable for Bond IMO. It ruins the illusion that Fleming created, I.e. the man people aspire to be.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited April 2020 Posts: 8,205
    suavejmf wrote: »
    That being said, I wonder if that would even be a factor, anymore?

    Suppose this is not an automatic exclusion criterion, one's can assume that this would be a way of rule out one of two actors who could be neck and neck for the role. The jurisprudence established by Tom Cruise may suggest that a profile like O'Connell may be initially selected alongside other candidates. On the other hand, if one of the other candidates presents as many qualities as him and, in addition, stood taller, O'Connell's size would then be an unfavorable factor for him.

    That seems fair.

    But O’Connell is very small. He’s not borderline like Craig. He is literally short. If you were describing him to the Police you would literally say ‘the short guy’. That isn’t suitable for Bond IMO. It ruins the illusion that Fleming created, I.e. the man people aspire to be.

    Yes, again, I agree that he is on the short side. I wouldn't describe Fleming's Bond as someone I'd "aspire to be", though. I never get that when reading them. I spend a lot of time feeling sorry for him. The films are a different story, however.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited April 2020 Posts: 5,970
    suavejmf wrote: »
    That being said, I wonder if that would even be a factor, anymore?

    Suppose this is not an automatic exclusion criterion, one's can assume that this would be a way of rule out one of two actors who could be neck and neck for the role. The jurisprudence established by Tom Cruise may suggest that a profile like O'Connell may be initially selected alongside other candidates. On the other hand, if one of the other candidates presents as many qualities as him and, in addition, stood taller, O'Connell's size would then be an unfavorable factor for him.

    That seems fair.

    But O’Connell is very small. He’s not borderline like Craig. He is literally short. If you were describing him to the Police you would literally say ‘the short guy’. That isn’t suitable for Bond IMO. It ruins the illusion that Fleming created, I.e. the man people aspire to be.
    I mean I don't think every aspect of the actor needs to present this. I mean I don't want to look like Connery, Moore or even Craig, and I don't see any of them as the height of physical "perfection". There are elements of them that are attractive to people, but there's always gonna be something not "right".

    I think someones height is something that can be just as forgotten as someones hair colour, Also, nothing about Bond as a character, despite Fleming's description, is defined by his height. Also 5"8 isn't even short to me anyway. He's below average, not a dwarf.

    And you know I didn't mean growing like that @GeneralGogol haha :D

    Also got bored and made this

    hp6336n.jpg
  • Posts: 727
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    Golding has a few too many tattoos. Not good for a secret agent.

    You can't be serious?

    Each to their own. But in the tradition of an English Gentleman, tattoos are not seen as ‘upper crust.’ This is the whole reason the Bond actors who had them had to hide them with make up or CGI. It doesn’t befit the image or the character.

    Tattoos can be rather easily removed. Which is the incredulous part. It seems you know it too. Which makes it all the more baffling..
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited April 2020 Posts: 5,970
    @suavejmf What are yours and other people's thoughts on Aaron Taylor-Johnson? I understand and aware of his not so effective role in Godzilla that didn't go down well, and has never truly sparked on screen, but despite that, I believe he is a very talented actor, and has done some interesting projects, and also impressed everyone with his range in Nocturnal Animals.

    Plus he is supposedly in Tenet and The King's Man. If we can't get Rob and Jack O'Connell as people suggest is too 'short' for the producers, why not Aaron Taylor-Johnson?

    He's 5"11, taller than Craig, and 29 years old. Plus he's an actor who could definitely handle and push himself with the fight choreography due to his dance and acrobatic skills.




  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited April 2020 Posts: 5,131
    suavejmf wrote: »
    That being said, I wonder if that would even be a factor, anymore?

    Suppose this is not an automatic exclusion criterion, one's can assume that this would be a way of rule out one of two actors who could be neck and neck for the role. The jurisprudence established by Tom Cruise may suggest that a profile like O'Connell may be initially selected alongside other candidates. On the other hand, if one of the other candidates presents as many qualities as him and, in addition, stood taller, O'Connell's size would then be an unfavorable factor for him.

    That seems fair.

    But O’Connell is very small. He’s not borderline like Craig. He is literally short. If you were describing him to the Police you would literally say ‘the short guy’. That isn’t suitable for Bond IMO. It ruins the illusion that Fleming created, I.e. the man people aspire to be.

    So to expand on the above. For example, Roger Moore is a star.....tall, suave, handsome and cool. Someone many people would aspire to be like.

    O’Connell, IMO looks like an short average looking man. Not Bond material in that sense, despite being a good actor.

    Bond is a ‘larger than life’ aspirational character. Not an average short man from a local Council Estate (looks wise).
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited April 2020 Posts: 5,131
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    Golding has a few too many tattoos. Not good for a secret agent.

    You can't be serious?

    Each to their own. But in the tradition of an English Gentleman, tattoos are not seen as ‘upper crust.’ This is the whole reason the Bond actors who had them had to hide them with make up or CGI. It doesn’t befit the image or the character.

    Tattoos can be rather easily removed. Which is the incredulous part. It seems you know it too. Which makes it all the more baffling..

    The odd tattoo, fine. But if an actor is ‘covered’ in tattoos they won’t suit the brand on the red carpet. Unless the tattoos are covered up. Yes, this is being snobby. But the character is a snob after all.

    The said actor in this instance looks Chinese, so won’t get the part of Bond anyhow. Again, because he doesn’t look the part.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited April 2020 Posts: 5,970
    [deleted]
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    Indeed, are we casting Nick Nack or Bond? Let's get back to business

    7.gif.e87dff19ffe7a2989fb689ceb6b4d16f.gif
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited April 2020 Posts: 5,970
    A bit of variety in discussion is always good :)

    I was actually to saying to someone on here, and on another site that I'm actually quite into the idea of a younger Bond this time around. When I say younger, I mean 30s as opposed to 40s. I think it'll offer a new dynamic for the era and then leaves the more familiar 40 year old Bond for the future with the same actor. It'd be an interesting aspect to see such growth of the character physically and mentally, even if they didn't approach those things too much narratively.

    I'm also into the idea of seeing this younger Bond with maybe an older Felix Leiter, and if they decide to keep Q young as well, what would that dynamic be? And I don't mean in the way of an origin story. That doesn't have to be the case even with a "younger" Bond, I just think it would offer something new as well as keeping the traditional elements.

    ...and after today I'm leaning towards Jack and Aaron, as well as Callum Turner and Oliver Jackson-Cohen
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Indeed, are we casting Nick Nack or Bond? Let's get back to business

    7.gif.e87dff19ffe7a2989fb689ceb6b4d16f.gif

    Right height, looks, age. Decent actor. Turner is a sensible suggestion. +1.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Denbigh wrote: »
    A bit of variety in discussion is always good :)

    I was actually to saying to someone on here, and on another site that I'm actually quite into the idea of a younger Bond this time around. When I say younger, I mean 30s as opposed to 40s. I think it'll offer a new dynamic for the era and then leaves the more familiar 40 year old Bond for the future with the same actor. It'd be an interesting aspect to see such growth of the character physically and mentally, even if they didn't approach those things too much narratively.

    I'm also into the idea of seeing this younger Bond with maybe an older Felix Leiter, and if they decide to keep Q young as well, what would that dynamic be? And I don't mean in the way of an origin story. That doesn't have to be the case even with a "younger" Bond, I just think it would offer something new as well as keeping the traditional elements.

    ...and after today I'm leaning towards Jack and Aaron, as well as Callum Turner and Oliver Jackson-Cohen

    I understand your point of view. But it’s not something I’m interested in personally. I’m happy to remain with tradition.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    I've never seen Turner in anything other than The Secret Scripture, which was a pretty rubbish film and he didn't leave much of an impression. I've never watched Poldark.

    But he is a Clondalkin man, so he can't be all bad.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    I've never seen Turner in anything other than The Secret Scripture, which was a pretty rubbish film and he didn't leave much of an impression. I've never watched Poldark.

    But he is a Clondalkin man, so he can't be all bad.
    What are your thoughts on Aaron @CraigMooreOHMSS? :)
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I've never seen Turner in anything other than The Secret Scripture, which was a pretty rubbish film and he didn't leave much of an impression. I've never watched Poldark.

    But he is a Clondalkin man, so he can't be all bad.
    What are your thoughts on Aaron @CraigMooreOHMSS? :)

    He's fine. I find him a bit vanilla, personally. The two films I did quite like him were Savages and Nocturnal Animals, but neither of those were particularly Bondian.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited April 2020 Posts: 1,318
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I've never seen Turner in anything other than The Secret Scripture, which was a pretty rubbish film and he didn't leave much of an impression. I've never watched Poldark.

    But he is a Clondalkin man, so he can't be all bad.
    What are your thoughts on Aaron @CraigMooreOHMSS? :)

    He's fine. I find him a bit vanilla, personally. The two films I did quite like him were Savages and Nocturnal Animals, but neither of those were particularly Bondian.

    Regarding Turner, check out And Then There Were None and while you're at The Man Who Killer and Then the Bigfoot. Both great.



  • Denbigh wrote: »
    I was actually to saying to someone on here, and on another site that I'm actually quite into the idea of a younger Bond this time around. When I say younger, I mean 30s as opposed to 40s. I think it'll offer a new dynamic for the era and then leaves the more familiar 40 year old Bond for the future with the same actor. It'd be an interesting aspect to see such growth of the character physically and mentally, even if they didn't approach those things too much narratively.

    For my part, this is something that would interest me. I never thought of Craig as a young Bond, whether in Casino Royale or even less in the last two installments. In fact, after three films dedicated to an aging character, it would be with great joy that I would a thirty-something 007. It also doesn't seem like a particularly younger representation of the character as Connery was 32 in Dr. No.

    Meanwhile, Turner continues to be my favorite contender. Unfortunately, as the production time between each movie has lengthened, I am more and more afraid that he is too old when it will be the time to announce a new actor. At best, he will be forty when he would play Bond for the first time, meaning he would star in three movies before being 50. This would be a pretty short run. Sure, he could always star in a fourth installment, but he might already be almost too old.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited April 2020 Posts: 1,318
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I was actually to saying to someone on here, and on another site that I'm actually quite into the idea of a younger Bond this time around. When I say younger, I mean 30s as opposed to 40s. I think it'll offer a new dynamic for the era and then leaves the more familiar 40 year old Bond for the future with the same actor. It'd be an interesting aspect to see such growth of the character physically and mentally, even if they didn't approach those things too much narratively.

    For my part, this is something that would interest me. I never thought of Craig as a young Bond, whether in Casino Royale or even less in the last two installments. In fact, after three films dedicated to an aging character, it would be with great joy that I would a thirty-something 007. It also doesn't seem like a particularly younger representation of the character as Connery was 32 in Dr. No.

    Meanwhile, Turner continues to be my favorite contender. Unfortunately, as the production time between each movie has lengthened, I am more and more afraid that he is too old when it will be the time to announce a new actor. At best, he will be forty when he would play Bond for the first time, meaning he would star in three movies before being 50. This would be a pretty short run. Sure, he could always star in a fourth installment, but he might already be almost too old.

    Which actually implies they should get a move on at EoN HQ. No Time to Sit Still!

    da9255a55591eae890bac44793c4ccf6.gif
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited April 2020 Posts: 5,970
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I was actually to saying to someone on here, and on another site that I'm actually quite into the idea of a younger Bond this time around. When I say younger, I mean 30s as opposed to 40s. I think it'll offer a new dynamic for the era and then leaves the more familiar 40 year old Bond for the future with the same actor. It'd be an interesting aspect to see such growth of the character physically and mentally, even if they didn't approach those things too much narratively.

    For my part, this is something that would interest me. I never thought of Craig as a young Bond, whether in Casino Royale or even less in the last two installments. In fact, after three films dedicated to an aging character, it would be with great joy that I would a thirty-something 007. It also doesn't seem like a particularly younger representation of the character as Connery was 32 in Dr. No.

    Meanwhile, Turner continues to be my favorite contender. Unfortunately, as the production time between each movie has lengthened, I am more and more afraid that he is too old when it will be the time to announce a new actor. At best, he will be forty when he would play Bond for the first time, meaning he would star in three movies before being 50. This would be a pretty short run. Sure, he could always star in a fourth installment, but he might already be almost too old.

    Which actually implies they should get a move on at EoN HQ. No Time to Sit Still!
    More like No Time Because We Haven't Even Released Craig's Last Film Yet haha :D
    I imagine their hands are tied until they actually make any money from the film, and see how well it does.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited April 2020 Posts: 1,318
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I was actually to saying to someone on here, and on another site that I'm actually quite into the idea of a younger Bond this time around. When I say younger, I mean 30s as opposed to 40s. I think it'll offer a new dynamic for the era and then leaves the more familiar 40 year old Bond for the future with the same actor. It'd be an interesting aspect to see such growth of the character physically and mentally, even if they didn't approach those things too much narratively.

    For my part, this is something that would interest me. I never thought of Craig as a young Bond, whether in Casino Royale or even less in the last two installments. In fact, after three films dedicated to an aging character, it would be with great joy that I would a thirty-something 007. It also doesn't seem like a particularly younger representation of the character as Connery was 32 in Dr. No.

    Meanwhile, Turner continues to be my favorite contender. Unfortunately, as the production time between each movie has lengthened, I am more and more afraid that he is too old when it will be the time to announce a new actor. At best, he will be forty when he would play Bond for the first time, meaning he would star in three movies before being 50. This would be a pretty short run. Sure, he could always star in a fourth installment, but he might already be almost too old.

    Which actually implies they should get a move on at EoN HQ. No Time to Sit Still!
    More like No Time Because We Haven't Even Released Craig's Last Film Yet haha :D

    I imagine their hands are tied until they actually make any money from the film.

    In a way sure. But that doesn't mean they cannot do any prep for the next film. There are tons of things they could actually already do.

    But yeah also, that gosh dang Corona virus... I'm sure that flippin Carol Baskin is responsible for it.
  • In a way sure. But that doesn't mean they cannot do any prep for the next film. There are tons of things they could actually already do.
    Of course they could. Nonetheless, I think given the popularity of Craig's iteration, we're not ready to see Eon hurrying to announce a new actor or just to produce a new film. Barbara Broccoli seems really attached to Craig, more than to continue with the franchise itself independently. It's just an impression, but I think she will take some time to think about the future of the series. In such a context, I can hardly imagine Eon already starting discussions with an actor (Turner or another).

    I don't know how you feel about it, but I don't think we will have a Bond 26 before 2024 at best.
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 11,425
    To be fair to EON I think the main cause of delays over the years have been issues beyond their control. Legal issues over TV rights and Kevin McClory. A fundamental challenge has been UA/MGM and all their problems over the years. And that dates back to Harry selling his stake, which was basically stabbing Cubby in the back. If Harry hadn't done that, I think the whole history of the series might have been quite different.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Denbigh wrote: »
    @suavejmf What are yours and other people's thoughts on Aaron Taylor-Johnson? I understand and aware of his not so effective role in Godzilla that didn't go down well, and has never truly sparked on screen, but despite that, I believe he is a very talented actor, and has done some interesting projects, and also impressed everyone with his range in Nocturnal Animals.

    Plus he is supposedly in Tenet and The King's Man. If we can't get Rob and Jack O'Connell as people suggest is too 'short' for the producers, why not Aaron Taylor-Johnson?

    He's 5"11, taller than Craig, and 29 years old. Plus he's an actor who could definitely handle and push himself with the fight choreography due to his dance and acrobatic skills.





    I haven’t seen enough of him to form an opinion TBH. However, I’ve had a further look at O’Connell. He looks ‘common’ to me....definitely not Bond material.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    I've never seen Turner in anything other than The Secret Scripture, which was a pretty rubbish film and he didn't leave much of an impression. I've never watched Poldark.

    But he is a Clondalkin man, so he can't be all bad.

    I’ve seen Poldark and I can see why members want him as Bond. He’s quite a sensible suggestion and I think he could pull off a ‘Dalton type’ approach.
Sign In or Register to comment.