Who should/could be a Bond actor?

18158168188208211231

Comments

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217
    Some keep saying that they don’t want someone with “ conventional “ good looks ; I for one am ready for a return to a more conventional Bond , both in storytelling and with the next actor cast. Conventional does not mean inferior.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 575
    To each their own, of course! Attractiveness is highly subjective.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2021 Posts: 5,970
    The problem i have with someone like Rege Jean-Page is that he seems to more about looks than actual acting talent. He’s a fine actor but, from what I’ve seen, his fame and popularity, for me, seems to be just based on looks and I think Jean-Page knows it. I’d just prefer someone who has the acting chops to match.
  • Posts: 6,709
    talos7 wrote: »
    Some keep saying that they don’t want someone with “ conventional “ good looks ; I for one am ready for a return to a more conventional Bond , both in storytelling and with the next actor cast. Conventional does not mean inferior.

    Absolutely. And it seems we now have to apologise for wanting just that. One produces a viable candidate, with the looks, the presence, the curriculum, and he's immediately thrown overboard because he's not fringe enough and is too conventional.

    Moreover, I do believe there are some personal issues going on here; people find it a deterrent if he's heterosexual, if he's good looking, if he's white, and find somewhat of a personal offence when we depict the character as such. I would love for Luke Evans to be Bond, and he's gay. But he's manly. He's not Rege or Chalamet, who are both heterosexual but, frankly, don't look manly at all. People confuse things. Being gay and looking gay are not the same, being that when people refer to the latter (rather in poor taste, I might add) they're referring to an histrionical fashion or mannerisms, which are not homosexual exclusive, as Chalamet has so aptly showed in any red carpet venue he's been. So, people, stop confusing things that get you into stupid arguments.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    edited October 2021 Posts: 575
    Luke Evans would have been a fine pick.

    I was just thinking with Madden as an overarching thing... We just had "outrage" for the past two years over this movie. I can't be doing that again with having to explain that "he's just an actor playing a part" ad nauseum as it especially shouldn't preclude him.

    It's like some people expect the heterosexual actors to be Bond IRL to back it up.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2021 Posts: 5,970
    I do get your point @Univex, but I just find it incredibly offensive and simply frustrating when people use terms or phrases in a negative way. I get the point they’re making, and yes James Bond will always be heterosexual. Of course he will, not one person is asking for that to change, but when being gay or trans is used as an insult or a joke just to make that point (very poorly), it really grinds my gears.

    And exactly @00Heaven, you make a great point. The actor isn’t going to fully represent the character in real life, which some people seem to be looking for.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 942
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I do get your point @Univex, but I just find it incredibly offensive and simply frustrating when people use terms or phrases in a negative way. I get the point they’re making, and yes James Bond will always be heterosexual. Of course he will, not one person is asking for that to change, but when being gay or trans is used as an insult or a joke just to make that point (very poorly), it really grinds my gears.

    And exactly @00Heaven, you make a great point. The actor isn’t going to fully represent the character in real life, which some people seem to be looking for.
    I think the vast majority of us agree with that and support you. Obviously we all have strong views on who will play the character next, and what qualities are desirable, but we should all try to express our views in ways that aren't outright offensive.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,318
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I’m not virtue signalling whatsoever, what I am doing is pointing out that using trans and terms related to gay people as a way to basically insult an actor whose just wearing a shirt that you find “feminine” is stupid and unnecessarily offensive. The funny thing is is that I’m not even a personal fan of the idea of Jean-Page as James Bond, for my own reasons, but what I don’t like even more is whether someone looks gay or not being treated as a negative. Who the actor has sex with in his spare time, or how “effeminate” the actor usually is, should have no bearings. It’s acting.

    Yes you are virtue signalling, according to me and for good reason. Again, he looks like a woman to me with extreme feminine facial features, let alone his style. Yes, this is subjective but this is my honest opinion. Were you born offended, or? I don't need some PC police to 'correct' me where they find necessary. The term power bottom is intrinsically ridiculous, we all know that. The gay community uses that term to type certain gay men within the community, often said in jest, like myself in this case.

    Again, stop virtue signalling moreover gaslighting as you are seeking issues that aren't there. Again, p2d has a 180 degree different view from mine and many others. Often his posts, whether him being honest or not, come over as looking for conflict. Isn't he familiar with the body of work by Fleming? Chalamet, really? Page, really? Many many other ridiculous propositions that are bordering on offensive. This is MY opinion. So there you have it, action - reaction, again and again.

    Also, last but not least, Bond is a type. If the type is not right he could act like Day-Lewis and still not get away with it. For this reason I still don't like Craig. He still looks like a bouncer to me, from Russian descent. Not Bond. Glad his tenure is finally over. No more emo Bond with all his sulking. Back to the roots of Bond or nothing for me, personally.

    @Univex

    Read what I actually wrote please, regarding your reply above. You are literally being gaslit about something I didn't even say.

    @00Heaven

    Solid post, I can only agree.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 6,709
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I do get your point @Univex, but I just find it incredibly offensive and simply frustrating when people use terms or phrases in a negative way. I get the point they’re making, and yes James Bond will always be heterosexual. Of course he will, not one person is asking for that to change, but when being gay or trans is used as an insult or a joke just to make that point (very poorly), it really grinds my gears.

    And exactly @00Heaven, you make a great point. The actor isn’t going to fully represent the character in real life, which some people seem to be looking for.
    I think the vast majority of us agree with that and support you. Obviously we all have strong views on who will play the character next, and what qualities are desirable, but we should all try to express our views in ways that aren't outright offensive.

    That is so true. Diplomacy is still a thing.

    Things that just don't sit well are, for example:

    a) compulsory suggesting fringe candidates of other ethnicities or of phenoptipes diametrical opposite and divergent of what the character is supposed to look like, only for shock value;

    b) referring to histrionical fashionistas as gay looking;

    c) referring to fans as purists, as if that implied other connotations such as homofobia or bigotry;

    d) distinguishing true fans from false fans;

    ...; and I'm sure I'd think of others if I had the time.

    @Denbigh is a valuable member of the forums, such as yourself @JeremyBondon, and he does not gaslight, trust me, he's a good fella.

    @Denbigh, @JeremyBondon is a nice fella with strong opinions who does not want to engage you the wrong way.

    And both of you were thrown into the ring by another who I will not mention, but has the covert tendency to do so. So chill, guys, you'd get along in another circumstances, I'm sure. As a friend of both, I'd like you to shake hands, and carry on.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,318
    Univex wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I do get your point @Univex, but I just find it incredibly offensive and simply frustrating when people use terms or phrases in a negative way. I get the point they’re making, and yes James Bond will always be heterosexual. Of course he will, not one person is asking for that to change, but when being gay or trans is used as an insult or a joke just to make that point (very poorly), it really grinds my gears.

    And exactly @00Heaven, you make a great point. The actor isn’t going to fully represent the character in real life, which some people seem to be looking for.
    I think the vast majority of us agree with that and support you. Obviously we all have strong views on who will play the character next, and what qualities are desirable, but we should all try to express our views in ways that aren't outright offensive.

    That is so true. Diplomacy is still a thing.

    Things that just don't sit well are, for example, compulsory suggesting fringe candidates of other ethnicities or of phenoptipes diametrical opposite and divergent of what the character is supposed to look like, only for shock value; referring to histrionical fashionistas as gay looking; referring to fans as purists, as if that implied other connotations such as homofobia or bigotry; distinguishing true fans from false fans; ...; and I'm sure I'd think of others if I had the time.

    @Denbigh is a valuable member of the forums, such as yourself @JeremyBondon, and he does not gaslight, trust me, he's a good fella.

    @Denbigh, @JeremyBondon is a nice fella with strong opinions who does not want to engage you the wrong way.

    And both of you were thrown into the ring by another who I will not mention, but has the covert tendency to do so. So chill, guys, you'd get along in another circumstances, I'm sure. As a friend of both, I'd like you to shake hands, and carry on.

    Truth to be told, I don't like denbigh, nor do I like (especially) mtm for good reasons that go back years. It'd be better if one could block all posts by certain members, but I reckon not realistic on a forum. Over and out.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2021 Posts: 16,420
    talos7 wrote: »
    An actor in the Hugh Jackman mold would be perfect, one who is equally deft with the light and intense material. I’ve always said that Jackman would have been an outstanding Bond; he has the charm of Moore and can be more brutal than Craig.

    Yeah, he wouldn't have been perhaps one to shake it up as Craig did (and perhaps arguably it did need that at that point: it certainly worked anyway), but he'd have done everything perfectly and he's a properly charismatic star. Sort of on the Brosnan level of all-rounder, but with the added ability to do the action/tough stuff perhaps a bit more convincingly too.
  • Posts: 6,709
    Univex wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I do get your point @Univex, but I just find it incredibly offensive and simply frustrating when people use terms or phrases in a negative way. I get the point they’re making, and yes James Bond will always be heterosexual. Of course he will, not one person is asking for that to change, but when being gay or trans is used as an insult or a joke just to make that point (very poorly), it really grinds my gears.

    And exactly @00Heaven, you make a great point. The actor isn’t going to fully represent the character in real life, which some people seem to be looking for.
    I think the vast majority of us agree with that and support you. Obviously we all have strong views on who will play the character next, and what qualities are desirable, but we should all try to express our views in ways that aren't outright offensive.

    That is so true. Diplomacy is still a thing.

    Things that just don't sit well are, for example, compulsory suggesting fringe candidates of other ethnicities or of phenoptipes diametrical opposite and divergent of what the character is supposed to look like, only for shock value; referring to histrionical fashionistas as gay looking; referring to fans as purists, as if that implied other connotations such as homofobia or bigotry; distinguishing true fans from false fans; ...; and I'm sure I'd think of others if I had the time.

    @Denbigh is a valuable member of the forums, such as yourself @JeremyBondon, and he does not gaslight, trust me, he's a good fella.

    @Denbigh, @JeremyBondon is a nice fella with strong opinions who does not want to engage you the wrong way.

    And both of you were thrown into the ring by another who I will not mention, but has the covert tendency to do so. So chill, guys, you'd get along in another circumstances, I'm sure. As a friend of both, I'd like you to shake hands, and carry on.

    Truth to be told, I don't like denbigh, nor do I like (especially) mtm for good reasons that go back years. It'd be better if one could block all posts by certain members, but I reckon not realistic on a forum. Over and out.

    @JeremyBondon, my friend, ...I tried to get you to shake hands. That's all. I find no fault in either of you.

    About member blockage, we'll, it's been suggested, mostly because of certain members who are downright difficult. But I don't think that's feasible. Just skip their comments altogether, and read the ones you identify with. That's what I try to do.

    That being said, I'd happily return to the 60s as you say, but we have to make due with what we've got :)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2021 Posts: 16,420
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I do get your point @Univex, but I just find it incredibly offensive and simply frustrating when people use terms or phrases in a negative way. I get the point they’re making, and yes James Bond will always be heterosexual. Of course he will, not one person is asking for that to change, but when being gay or trans is used as an insult or a joke just to make that point (very poorly), it really grinds my gears.

    And exactly @00Heaven, you make a great point. The actor isn’t going to fully represent the character in real life, which some people seem to be looking for.
    I think the vast majority of us agree with that and support you. Obviously we all have strong views on who will play the character next, and what qualities are desirable, but we should all try to express our views in ways that aren't outright offensive.

    Well said. Everyone's obviously welcome to have their own preferences, but playing the martyr and claiming they're being made to apologise for that, rather than for just using homophobic phrasing, is disingenuous at best.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    Univex wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I do get your point @Univex, but I just find it incredibly offensive and simply frustrating when people use terms or phrases in a negative way. I get the point they’re making, and yes James Bond will always be heterosexual. Of course he will, not one person is asking for that to change, but when being gay or trans is used as an insult or a joke just to make that point (very poorly), it really grinds my gears.

    And exactly @00Heaven, you make a great point. The actor isn’t going to fully represent the character in real life, which some people seem to be looking for.
    I think the vast majority of us agree with that and support you. Obviously we all have strong views on who will play the character next, and what qualities are desirable, but we should all try to express our views in ways that aren't outright offensive.

    That is so true. Diplomacy is still a thing.

    Things that just don't sit well are, for example, compulsory suggesting fringe candidates of other ethnicities or of phenoptipes diametrical opposite and divergent of what the character is supposed to look like, only for shock value; referring to histrionical fashionistas as gay looking; referring to fans as purists, as if that implied other connotations such as homofobia or bigotry; distinguishing true fans from false fans; ...; and I'm sure I'd think of others if I had the time.

    @Denbigh is a valuable member of the forums, such as yourself @JeremyBondon, and he does not gaslight, trust me, he's a good fella.

    @Denbigh, @JeremyBondon is a nice fella with strong opinions who does not want to engage you the wrong way.

    And both of you were thrown into the ring by another who I will not mention, but has the covert tendency to do so. So chill, guys, you'd get along in another circumstances, I'm sure. As a friend of both, I'd like you to shake hands, and carry on.

    Truth to be told, I don't like denbigh, nor do I like (especially) mtm for good reasons that go back years. It'd be better if one could block all posts by certain members, but I reckon not realistic on a forum. Over and out.

    @JeremyBondon, my friend, ...I tried to get you to shake hands. That's all. I find no fault in either of you.

    About member blockage, we'll, it's been suggested, mostly because of certain members who are downright difficult. But I don't think that's feasible. Just skip their comments altogether, and read the ones you identify with. That's what I try to do.

    That being said, I'd happily return to the 60s as you say, but we have to make due with what we've got :)

    I know and you are a proper gent so I appreciate it. But it is what it is at the end of the day. Some things don't change. Cheers and a high five.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2021 Posts: 5,970
    I appreciate it @Univex, and I have no hard feelings towards anyone on this site. I just wish people would be more careful sometimes with how they phrase things because it can come across in the wrong way, even if I do understand the opinion they're trying to make.

    Anyway, @4EverBonded, I forgot to reply to your message about Claflin. He's done a lot of things. He's quite a good character actor. Here's a clip of him in Peaky Blinders:

  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I appreciate it @Univex, and I have no hard feelings towards anyone on this site. I just wish people would be more careful sometimes with how they phrase things because it can come across in the wrong way, even if I do understand the opinion they're trying to make.

    Exactly! That's what's wrong in the world today. Draw conclusions and condemn. Perhaps you should have asked why I wrote what I wrote and how I meant it. I have gay friends and they all use 'certain' terms that could be offensive but in the core are not. It's not black and white often, such as in this case. Again, if p2d would read some Fleming novels in the future we won't be having this debate again.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    Denbigh wrote: »
    The problem i have with someone like Rege Jean-Page is that he seems to more about looks than actual acting talent. He’s a fine actor but, from what I’ve seen, his fame and popularity, for me, seems to be just based on looks and I think Jean-Page knows it. I’d just prefer someone who has the acting chops to match.

    That is actually an interesting point, I think. I have read a few pieces about NTTD and the Craig era in general that argued, that an actor portraying Bond doesn't really have to be a great actor, he has to be a great screenpresence. Which arguably is an even harder thing to do.
    So what is the stance of you guys and girls on that. Does our next Bond need the chops to also do Iago in Othello or play MacBeth as Craig has or do you not care?

    Sidenote: There is something about Rege-Jean Page's upper teeth (upper jaw? What do you call that in English?) when he smiles that freaks me out. He looks great when he is smoldering into the camera, but watching Bridgerton, every few scenes he turns into Mr. Burns for a few seconds. Really weird.
  • Posts: 7,507
    00Heaven wrote: »
    To each their own, of course! Attractiveness is highly subjective.

    Question out of curiosity: What do you think of Brosnan looks wise? Was he in the "pretty boy, not rugged enough" category or not?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2021 Posts: 16,420
    Denbigh wrote: »
    The problem i have with someone like Rege Jean-Page is that he seems to more about looks than actual acting talent. He’s a fine actor but, from what I’ve seen, his fame and popularity, for me, seems to be just based on looks and I think Jean-Page knows it. I’d just prefer someone who has the acting chops to match.

    That is actually an interesting point, I think. I have read a few pieces about NTTD and the Craig era in general that argued, that an actor portraying Bond doesn't really have to be a great actor, he has to be a great screenpresence. Which arguably is an even harder thing to do.
    So what is the stance of you guys and girls on that. Does our next Bond need the chops to also do Iago in Othello or play MacBeth as Craig has or do you not care?

    Well I guess Roger and, to a lesser extent, Pierce prove that's true in some way. Personally I'd want a really good actor as well, but if I put my priorities for what a Bond actor needs in order I'd probably put screen presence above raw acting talent, yeah.
    I guess you can look at Ralph Fiennes -brilliant actor- in 98's The Avengers and say that his acting ability wasn't helping him there.
  • Posts: 3,333
    The one thing I keep seeing repeated is the casting of a much older actor as the next 007. I think you've got to think younger and little outside of the box. It's my belief that EON are not going to repeat themselves by casting an actor in his late thirties again, but more likely in his early thirties. Anyone over 40, you can forget about. Of course Regé-Jean Page fits the age bracket, but will he fit the Bond criteria they're looking for?

    I've got a sneaking suspicion it could well be Josh O'Connor for Bond 26. Don't hold me to it, but don't rule it out either.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 482
    talos7 wrote: »
    An actor in the Hugh Jackman mold would be perfect, one who is equally deft with the light and intense material. I’ve always said that Jackman would have been an outstanding Bond; he has the charm of Moore and can be more brutal than Craig.

    And the interesting thing with Jackman is that he looks nothing like the Wolverine from the comics, who's very short and larger. Yet, Jackman was the standout character from the early X-Men movies even if almost every casting choice had nailed physically the source material.

    The same thing happened to Craig and Bond. Not the obvious candidate, but the best choice in retrospect.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 575
    jobo wrote: »
    00Heaven wrote: »
    To each their own, of course! Attractiveness is highly subjective.

    Question out of curiosity: What do you think of Brosnan looks wise? Was he in the "pretty boy, not rugged enough" category or not?

    When I was a lot younger I used to think he was hot. As I've gotten older, not so much and I found that my taste changed drastically as I got older. Saying that it's a weird one because I think he suits silver fox a lot more.

    I can appreciate him, definitely, and he's certainly a nice blend of both.

    It's the same with Dalton. Back when I thought Pierce was hot, I didn't think much of Dalton... Now I'm older I think Dalton has just that little something about him.

    I think in terms of Bond actor attractiveness overall I don't think any of them have been particularly bad. Roger would score least for me.

    Again, it's very subjective in terms of what you would define as rugged or not rugged. I suppose some people might say Dalton isn't rugged enough but for me he's who I picture in my mind's eye as Bond.
  • Posts: 7,507
    @00Heaven

    Same here. When I read Fleming I picture Dalton in my head for the most part, with only a few exceptions.

    I asked because I have read people claim Brosnan had the perfect looks for Bond, while I have always considered him a bit too pretty in a way.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,420
    jobo wrote: »
    @00Heaven

    Same here. When I read Fleming I picture Dalton in my head for the most part, with only a few exceptions.

    I asked because I have read people claim Brosnan had the perfect looks for Bond, while I have always considered him a bit too pretty in a way.

    Craig, Connery, Moore and Dalton all look like they've been hewn from granite, whereas Brosnan is maybe a bit softer in the looks department; not sure if you'd agree with that?

    I gave DAD a watch the other night and I hadn't noticed before how bouffant his hair is in that one: I'm not sure that helps!
  • Posts: 7,507
    mtm wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    @00Heaven

    Same here. When I read Fleming I picture Dalton in my head for the most part, with only a few exceptions.

    I asked because I have read people claim Brosnan had the perfect looks for Bond, while I have always considered him a bit too pretty in a way.

    Craig, Connery, Moore and Dalton all look like they've been hewn from granite, whereas Brosnan is maybe a bit softer in the looks department; not sure if you'd agree with that?

    I gave DAD a watch the other night and I hadn't noticed before how bouffant his hair is in that one: I'm not sure that helps!


    Yes, I agree with that description. It seems very superficial, but I suppose this is one of the subconscious reasons why he is my least favorite Bond. The fact that he has a more high pitch voice than the others doesn't help either...

    But let's not turn this into a duscussion about Brosnan. I love the guy in general. A true gentleman! The point of the matter is that Bond#7 shouldn't necessarily be too much of a pretty boy. We need some edge to him.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2021 Posts: 16,420
    Well I think it's true to the point above: he may not look exactly like the perfect version of Bond and may not be the most physically intimidating or have the greatest voice, but he's got bags of charisma and presence and works very well in those films as the hero. So that's what I think is possibly the most important thing to be looking for.
  • Posts: 1,630
    As for finding Rege smarmy, please check to separate the role from the actor. As for Richard Madden, he's not credible. Please watch the film The Take. Madden looks like a high-schooler, but he's certainly old enough to be full-grown. Idris Elba stands literally head and shoulders about Madden. There is even a scene in which Madden's character remarks openly and honestly about how Elba's character is more physically imposing and better in a fight. There is just no comparison. Madden and a number of other lads promoted on here would be woefully miscast.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 6,709
    I'm more and more convinced that Theo James (Theodore Peter James Kinnaird Taptiklis) is a perfect candidate. Handsome, but in a very masculine and even in an odd way, with a very deep voice, which I can't distinguish from David Gandy's, well spoken, has charisma to boot, from Scottish and Greek ancestry, and trained at the old Vic. Recently he made a film with Sir Ben Kingsley and has his own film and TV production company. Oh, and he's 36 and has a huge fan base due to those Divergent films he made when he was younger. He recently voiced The Witcher: nightmare of the wolf. Oh, and he's also a representative for the brand Boss.

    Good curriculum for it, right?

    Also loved Richard Madden in The Bodyguard series. He's Scottish, and only 35 years old. Has presence and charisma. And his height is not that noticeable. ffs, he's 1,77, that's not that bad. Although Theo James is 1,83.

    I also am a fan of Nicholas Hoult (Nicholas Caradoc Hoult), since About a boy. He's a talent, and has the looks, even if a bit too tall at 1,90.
  • Goldeneye1994Goldeneye1994 Milford, Michigan
    Posts: 14
    I watched half of Calibre on Netflix last night and I can definitely see Jack Lowden being considered for bond.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217
    I watched half of Calibre on Netflix last night and I can definitely see Jack Lowden being considered for bond.

    Absolutely, he’s high on m list of candidates.

Sign In or Register to comment.