Who should/could be a Bond actor?

17407417437457461231

Comments

  • peter wrote: »
    @Murdock ; I’m not saying that “safe” is a bad thing.

    I’m not saying that the future films won’t get “lighter”.

    What I’m guessing from the little first hand that I get, is that the talent moving forward will be of a more elite level then a Cavill type Bond can deliver.

    They won’t hire journey-men for the foreseeable future ...

    Absolutely spot on.
    There's a higher calibre of production now. Cavill is a below average actor. He's stiff, clearly 'acting' when onscreen, and has the presence of a turnip.
    It would be laughable to go from Craig to Cavill. It's like going from Waitrose to SPAR.
    Accept that Cavill and his ilk are not on EoN's radar. The bar has been raised.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    MSL49 wrote: »
    James Brolin, his screentest is on youtube.

    It’s a really really bad screen test isn’t it.

    Bond with a solid American Accent and ‘wooden’ acting.

    Thank the heavens Sir Roger returned.....
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Accept that Cavill and his ilk are not on EoN's radar. The bar has been raised.
    I never said Cavill was on Eon's radar nor do I expect him to be. He's just who I would like to be the next Bond. 8-|

    As for the bar being raised because of Craig. That's just laughable.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    peter wrote: »
    @Murdock ; I’m not saying that “safe” is a bad thing.

    I’m not saying that the future films won’t get “lighter”.

    What I’m guessing from the little first hand that I get, is that the talent moving forward will be of a more elite level then a Cavill type Bond can deliver.

    They won’t hire journey-men for the foreseeable future ...

    Absolutely spot on.
    There's a higher calibre of production now. Cavill is a below average actor. He's stiff, clearly 'acting' when onscreen, and has the presence of a turnip.
    It would be laughable to go from Craig to Cavill. It's like going from Waitrose to SPAR.
    Accept that Cavill and his ilk are not on EoN's radar. The bar has been raised.

    Who counts as 'Cavill's ilk'?
  • Shout out to @Denbigh - I hope he doesn't mind me sharing this....

    He created this terrific piece of concept art for what a potential 'Timothee Chalamet as 007' could look like. Personally, I can seriously see it. He's admittedly on the young side, but ever since his big debut on the world stage with Call Me By Your Name, he has seriously matured. I think by the time Bond 26, he'd have shaped up perfectly.

    He'd be my top pick for Batman, but since that franchise already poached Robert Pattinson and Chalamet has a great proficiency in doing an English accent, let's make him 007. I could see him playing Bond not dissimilarly to Matt Damon in the first Bourne but with a hint of that Pattinson edge.

    VazyTpV.jpg
  • peter wrote: »
    @Murdock ; I’m not saying that “safe” is a bad thing.

    I’m not saying that the future films won’t get “lighter”.

    What I’m guessing from the little first hand that I get, is that the talent moving forward will be of a more elite level then a Cavill type Bond can deliver.

    They won’t hire journey-men for the foreseeable future ...

    Absolutely spot on.
    There's a higher calibre of production now. Cavill is a below average actor. He's stiff, clearly 'acting' when onscreen, and has the presence of a turnip.
    It would be laughable to go from Craig to Cavill. It's like going from Waitrose to SPAR.
    Accept that Cavill and his ilk are not on EoN's radar. The bar has been raised.

    Who counts as 'Cavill's ilk'?

    Basically, any subpar actor with very little screen presence.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    peter wrote: »
    @Murdock ; I’m not saying that “safe” is a bad thing.

    I’m not saying that the future films won’t get “lighter”.

    What I’m guessing from the little first hand that I get, is that the talent moving forward will be of a more elite level then a Cavill type Bond can deliver.

    They won’t hire journey-men for the foreseeable future ...

    Absolutely spot on.
    There's a higher calibre of production now. Cavill is a below average actor. He's stiff, clearly 'acting' when onscreen, and has the presence of a turnip.
    It would be laughable to go from Craig to Cavill. It's like going from Waitrose to SPAR.
    Accept that Cavill and his ilk are not on EoN's radar. The bar has been raised.

    Who counts as 'Cavill's ilk'?

    Basically, any subpar actor with very little screen presence.

    Such as?
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611

    I personally think that Henry Cavill being Superman has done him no favours in terms of his leading man potential as Bond. At least certainly not in the way the portrayal was written and therefore acted out. In terms of him being able to display his acting chops he (as all Supermen are) will be compared to Christopher Reeve's version and in that regard he falls well short.
    Also a huge globally famous role like that kind of cements a version of him as an actor in the public's mind. There a fairly limited ways of playing Superman before he stops being Superman, so doesn't give an actor much to play with. I know he has done other roles but he hasn't shaken that image off yet I don't think.
    He looks good and has great physicality and that is why he 'looks' the part in a dinner jacket or in a fan poster, add to that the way he moves in UNCLE also screams Bond. But his delivery of lines is just a bit boring, he just sort of 'says them' , there's no intrigue or uniqueness to him.
    I don't dislike Cavill as such and if he got the gig I wouldn't be too upset but he is far from my first choice.
    I feel that Craig has changed the way Bond can be presented. He's made the part open to a different more interesting type of actor. Bond no longer has to be dark haired with model looks.
    This can only be a good thing and means the scope of where they go next is wide open.
    Cavill would be a regressive move in my opinion.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    peter wrote: »
    @Murdock ; I’m not saying that “safe” is a bad thing.

    I’m not saying that the future films won’t get “lighter”.

    What I’m guessing from the little first hand that I get, is that the talent moving forward will be of a more elite level then a Cavill type Bond can deliver.

    They won’t hire journey-men for the foreseeable future ...

    Absolutely spot on.
    There's a higher calibre of production now. Cavill is a below average actor. He's stiff, clearly 'acting' when onscreen, and has the presence of a turnip.
    It would be laughable to go from Craig to Cavill. It's like going from Waitrose to SPAR.
    Accept that Cavill and his ilk are not on EoN's radar. The bar has been raised.

    Who counts as 'Cavill's ilk'?

    Basically, any subpar actor with very little screen presence.

    Cavill may not be the best actor ever. But I think one thing he does have is ‘screen presence.’

    The lad from from Jersey has done remarkably well in Hollywood.

    He’s not my choice for Bond, but the Studios love him and have made him a star.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited October 2020 Posts: 5,131
    Shout out to @Denbigh - I hope he doesn't mind me sharing this....

    He created this terrific piece of concept art for what a potential 'Timothee Chalamet as 007' could look like. Personally, I can seriously see it. He's admittedly on the young side, but ever since his big debut on the world stage with Call Me By Your Name, he has seriously matured. I think by the time Bond 26, he'd have shaped up perfectly.

    He'd be my top pick for Batman, but since that franchise already poached Robert Pattinson and Chalamet has a great proficiency in doing an English accent, let's make him 007. I could see him playing Bond not dissimilarly to Matt Damon in the first Bourne but with a hint of that Pattinson edge.

    VazyTpV.jpg

    No, IMO to this little American.

    I’m not sure this post is accurate using Craig’s physique. 🧐🤔🤣
  • I really have a hard time understanding what can make Chalamet appealing as a contender: he is American, he looks frail. I actually don't even understand how the idea came about.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2020 Posts: 16,369
    cwl007 wrote: »
    He looks good and has great physicality and that is why he 'looks' the part in a dinner jacket or in a fan poster, add to that the way he moves in UNCLE also screams Bond. But his delivery of lines is just a bit boring, he just sort of 'says them' , there's no intrigue or uniqueness to him.
    I don't dislike Cavill as such and if he got the gig I wouldn't be too upset but he is far from my first choice.

    Yes, that's exactly where I stand too. It wouldn't be the end of the world, but equally it would be nothing to be excited about.

    I like to be a bit challenged- I thought it was exciting when Craig was named because he was a new angle on it. Same with Downey Jr when he was named as playing Iron Man: he wasn't the usual square-jawed leading man type safe pair of hands- he did quirky roles, not heroes.
    Shout out to @Denbigh - I hope he doesn't mind me sharing this....

    He created this terrific piece of concept art for what a potential 'Timothee Chalamet as 007' could look like.

    He is stuck on Craig's body there though, which has changed his physicality completely and is not really how he would look.
  • peter wrote: »
    @Murdock ; I’m not saying that “safe” is a bad thing.

    I’m not saying that the future films won’t get “lighter”.

    What I’m guessing from the little first hand that I get, is that the talent moving forward will be of a more elite level then a Cavill type Bond can deliver.

    They won’t hire journey-men for the foreseeable future ...

    Absolutely spot on.
    There's a higher calibre of production now. Cavill is a below average actor. He's stiff, clearly 'acting' when onscreen, and has the presence of a turnip.
    It would be laughable to go from Craig to Cavill. It's like going from Waitrose to SPAR.
    Accept that Cavill and his ilk are not on EoN's radar. The bar has been raised.

    Who counts as 'Cavill's ilk'?

    Basically, any subpar actor with very little screen presence.

    Such as?

    James Norton. Aidan Turner to a degree.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    peter wrote: »
    @Murdock ; I’m not saying that “safe” is a bad thing.

    I’m not saying that the future films won’t get “lighter”.

    What I’m guessing from the little first hand that I get, is that the talent moving forward will be of a more elite level then a Cavill type Bond can deliver.

    They won’t hire journey-men for the foreseeable future ...

    Absolutely spot on.
    There's a higher calibre of production now. Cavill is a below average actor. He's stiff, clearly 'acting' when onscreen, and has the presence of a turnip.
    It would be laughable to go from Craig to Cavill. It's like going from Waitrose to SPAR.
    Accept that Cavill and his ilk are not on EoN's radar. The bar has been raised.

    Who counts as 'Cavill's ilk'?

    Basically, any subpar actor with very little screen presence.

    Such as?

    James Norton. Aidan Turner to a degree.

    James Norton lacks ‘screen presence’ IMO. He’s a BBC TV actor at best.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    I really have a hard time understanding what can make Chalamet appealing as a contender: he is American, he looks frail. I actually don't even understand how the idea came about.

    Exactly. He looks like Edward Scissorhand’s malnourished little brother in real life.

    Plus he’s American as you say.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    Well I tried @Pierce2Daniel, I do think it’ll be a reach for EON to cast him; I still think he has a chance of being a future villain, and it would be really interesting and creepy, but glad I could be of service regardless.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,134
    If Chalamet were cast as a Bond at any point, I’d find it hard not to distance myself from the character. Never thought I’d say that, but I cannot think of a more unsuitable actor for the role.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    Not disrespect to @Denbigh's efforts as I'm sure there wasn't much to work with, but that image really made me chuckle. I had flashbacks to watching a young Robert De Niro head on an old Robert De Niro body 'kicking' the shopkeeper in The Irishman for the first time.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    If Chalamet were cast, it would make me appreciate what we had with Craig. Let that sink in for a moment.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    If Chalamet were cast, it would make me appreciate what we had with Craig. Let that sink in for a moment.

    You not a fan of Craig?
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited October 2020 Posts: 5,131
    Benny wrote: »
    If Chalamet were cast as a Bond at any point, I’d find it hard not to distance myself from the character. Never thought I’d say that, but I cannot think of a more unsuitable actor for the role.

    +1. I’m not sure I’d watch it.

    Totally unsuitable, it would be almost comedic casting.
  • Posts: 15,114
    I'd rather have Cavill than Chalamet and I'm no fan of Cavill. Heck I'd rather have Norton and I think Norton would be a terrible idea!
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited October 2020 Posts: 5,131
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I'd rather have Cavill than Chalamet and I'm no fan of Cavill. Heck I'd rather have Norton and I think Norton would be a terrible idea!

    Agreed on all points. I’d rather no film at all than Chamalet as Bond.
  • I'd rather have Chamalet than Cavill. Not that I want Chamalet. Cavill reeks of lazy, unimaginative fan casting. The kind of Bond-by-numbers that would push the series into obscurity. God, Craig is going to be so hard to replace.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,205
    Chalamet Is inappropriate for many reasons, he’s not British, and has the physique of a pre-pubescent boy being the most notable.

    With that said ,with 10 years , or so , he would have a look that would suit Bond ; but as we know, the role is not based on looks alone.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    talos7 wrote: »
    Chalamet Is inappropriate for many reasons, he’s not British, and has the physique of a pre-pubescent boy being the most notable.

    With that said ,with 10 years , or so , he would have a look that would suit Bond ; but as we know, the role is not based on looks alone.

    But he’d still be American.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    I'd rather have Chamalet than Cavill. Not that I want Chamalet. Cavill reeks of lazy, unimaginative fan casting. The kind of Bond-by-numbers that would push the series into obscurity. God, Craig is going to be so hard to replace.

    Wow. That is extreme.

    You must really hate the Brosnan era?
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    I'd rather have Chamalet than Cavill. Not that I want Chamalet. Cavill reeks of lazy, unimaginative fan casting. The kind of Bond-by-numbers that would push the series into obscurity. God, Craig is going to be so hard to replace.

    Heaven forbid we pick someone who looks like Bond to play Bond.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,205
    suavejmf wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Chalamet Is inappropriate for many reasons, he’s not British, and has the physique of a pre-pubescent boy being the most notable.

    With that said ,with 10 years , or so , he would have a look that would suit Bond ; but as we know, the role is not based on looks alone.

    But he’d still be American.

    Gee, I wish that I had said that. ;)

  • suavejmf wrote: »
    I'd rather have Chamalet than Cavill. Not that I want Chamalet. Cavill reeks of lazy, unimaginative fan casting. The kind of Bond-by-numbers that would push the series into obscurity. God, Craig is going to be so hard to replace.

    Wow. That is extreme.

    You must really hate the Brosnan era?

    Apart from GoldenEye, yes. Bond's journeyman era.
Sign In or Register to comment.