Who should/could be a Bond actor?

16836846866886891228

Comments

  • Posts: 727
    It warms my heart to envision that one day James Bond will be played by a refugee.
  • Posts: 17,733
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I don't think anyones saying that no-ones interested in whose playing James Bond, my point anyway is that whoever you cast, it's gonna get a conversation going online, whether it's Cavill or Chalamet or whoever, or whether the conversation is positive or negative, because people do get excited and heated about James Bond.

    Yes, Cavill would be safer choice ( I think it's just never gonna happen cause of Superman and The Witcher), but to cast someone specifically for that online reaction isn't a good enough reason, and not something I imagine EON doing.

    Just because Cavill is a safer choice, it doesn't mean they're gonna need someone like Chalamet to completely catch people of the guard and cause a stir, cause the idea is that no matter who is James Bond, audiences will watch and give their thoughts. Their opinions may differ and alter based on who it is initially, but either way, the conversation starts.
    I'm not saying that person is Chalamet, not at all, just that freshness is what it needs every time, they can't coast along on Bond himself being enough.
    Ok, I see what you're saying @mtm, and of course we want it to be an exciting choice and someone that will be refreshing and be something new, and I think it will be. I also think what you mention is what's gonna get those people, that maybe lost interest during Craig's era, on board, not whether they appeal to youthful online culture.

    Being one of those who have lost interest, I'd rather have a "safer" candidate than an "edgy" one.
    I mean to me this is why they need someone whose gonna strike that balance of something fresh and new, but something that still honours the original creation, which is why I nominate Callum a lot cause I feel he could have that fresh take but could also personify that original creation - in my opinion.

    Callum whom, @Denbigh?
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I don't think anyones saying that no-ones interested in whose playing James Bond, my point anyway is that whoever you cast, it's gonna get a conversation going online, whether it's Cavill or Chalamet or whoever, or whether the conversation is positive or negative, because people do get excited and heated about James Bond.

    Yes, Cavill would be safer choice ( I think it's just never gonna happen cause of Superman and The Witcher), but to cast someone specifically for that online reaction isn't a good enough reason, and not something I imagine EON doing.

    Just because Cavill is a safer choice, it doesn't mean they're gonna need someone like Chalamet to completely catch people of the guard and cause a stir, cause the idea is that no matter who is James Bond, audiences will watch and give their thoughts. Their opinions may differ and alter based on who it is initially, but either way, the conversation starts.
    I'm not saying that person is Chalamet, not at all, just that freshness is what it needs every time, they can't coast along on Bond himself being enough.
    Ok, I see what you're saying @mtm, and of course we want it to be an exciting choice and someone that will be refreshing and be something new, and I think it will be. I also think what you mention is what's gonna get those people, that maybe lost interest during Craig's era, on board, not whether they appeal to youthful online culture.

    Being one of those who have lost interest, I'd rather have a "safer" candidate than an "edgy" one.

    I struggled to adjust to the Craig era until SF came round, so I can relate, but I think anyone hoping for a safe return to tradition is going to be disappointed. The new films have seen enormous critical and financial success, and the producers seem much more passionate about Craig than they were about the Brosnan era. Even Spectre, seen as pretty disappointing, made over 800 million. So, I don’t think they need to worry about getting the few who are dissatisfied back onboard.

    Craig has changed Bond I reckon. Even if the films differ in tone, the next one will be similar to him.

    I'm certainly not counting on a return to "safer" candidates to happen. I expect they will continue down the path with edgy choices from now on.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I don't think anyones saying that no-ones interested in whose playing James Bond, my point anyway is that whoever you cast, it's gonna get a conversation going online, whether it's Cavill or Chalamet or whoever, or whether the conversation is positive or negative, because people do get excited and heated about James Bond.

    Yes, Cavill would be safer choice ( I think it's just never gonna happen cause of Superman and The Witcher), but to cast someone specifically for that online reaction isn't a good enough reason, and not something I imagine EON doing.

    Just because Cavill is a safer choice, it doesn't mean they're gonna need someone like Chalamet to completely catch people of the guard and cause a stir, cause the idea is that no matter who is James Bond, audiences will watch and give their thoughts. Their opinions may differ and alter based on who it is initially, but either way, the conversation starts.
    I'm not saying that person is Chalamet, not at all, just that freshness is what it needs every time, they can't coast along on Bond himself being enough.
    Ok, I see what you're saying @mtm, and of course we want it to be an exciting choice and someone that will be refreshing and be something new, and I think it will be. I also think what you mention is what's gonna get those people, that maybe lost interest during Craig's era, on board, not whether they appeal to youthful online culture.

    Being one of those who have lost interest, I'd rather have a "safer" candidate than an "edgy" one.
    I mean to me this is why they need someone whose gonna strike that balance of something fresh and new, but something that still honours the original creation, which is why I nominate Callum a lot cause I feel he could have that fresh take but could also personify that original creation - in my opinion.
    Callum whom, @Denbigh?
    Turner.
  • edited August 2020 Posts: 17,733
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I don't think anyones saying that no-ones interested in whose playing James Bond, my point anyway is that whoever you cast, it's gonna get a conversation going online, whether it's Cavill or Chalamet or whoever, or whether the conversation is positive or negative, because people do get excited and heated about James Bond.

    Yes, Cavill would be safer choice ( I think it's just never gonna happen cause of Superman and The Witcher), but to cast someone specifically for that online reaction isn't a good enough reason, and not something I imagine EON doing.

    Just because Cavill is a safer choice, it doesn't mean they're gonna need someone like Chalamet to completely catch people of the guard and cause a stir, cause the idea is that no matter who is James Bond, audiences will watch and give their thoughts. Their opinions may differ and alter based on who it is initially, but either way, the conversation starts.
    I'm not saying that person is Chalamet, not at all, just that freshness is what it needs every time, they can't coast along on Bond himself being enough.
    Ok, I see what you're saying @mtm, and of course we want it to be an exciting choice and someone that will be refreshing and be something new, and I think it will be. I also think what you mention is what's gonna get those people, that maybe lost interest during Craig's era, on board, not whether they appeal to youthful online culture.

    Being one of those who have lost interest, I'd rather have a "safer" candidate than an "edgy" one.
    I mean to me this is why they need someone whose gonna strike that balance of something fresh and new, but something that still honours the original creation, which is why I nominate Callum a lot cause I feel he could have that fresh take but could also personify that original creation - in my opinion.
    Callum whom, @Denbigh?
    Turner.

    Ah, yes. I don't think I quite see Bond with this guy myself. I much prefer him to someone like Chalamet of course (where does that suggestion come from anyway?), but still. Then again, I don't see Bond when I see Craig either. A modern day Red Grant type, yes, but not Bond.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I don't think anyones saying that no-ones interested in whose playing James Bond, my point anyway is that whoever you cast, it's gonna get a conversation going online, whether it's Cavill or Chalamet or whoever, or whether the conversation is positive or negative, because people do get excited and heated about James Bond.

    Yes, Cavill would be safer choice ( I think it's just never gonna happen cause of Superman and The Witcher), but to cast someone specifically for that online reaction isn't a good enough reason, and not something I imagine EON doing.

    Just because Cavill is a safer choice, it doesn't mean they're gonna need someone like Chalamet to completely catch people of the guard and cause a stir, cause the idea is that no matter who is James Bond, audiences will watch and give their thoughts. Their opinions may differ and alter based on who it is initially, but either way, the conversation starts.
    I'm not saying that person is Chalamet, not at all, just that freshness is what it needs every time, they can't coast along on Bond himself being enough.
    Ok, I see what you're saying @mtm, and of course we want it to be an exciting choice and someone that will be refreshing and be something new, and I think it will be. I also think what you mention is what's gonna get those people, that maybe lost interest during Craig's era, on board, not whether they appeal to youthful online culture.

    Being one of those who have lost interest, I'd rather have a "safer" candidate than an "edgy" one.
    I mean to me this is why they need someone whose gonna strike that balance of something fresh and new, but something that still honours the original creation, which is why I nominate Callum a lot cause I feel he could have that fresh take but could also personify that original creation - in my opinion.
    Callum whom, @Denbigh?
    Turner.
    (where does that suggestion come from anyway?)
    He's been strongly suggested by Pierce.
  • Posts: 17,733
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I don't think anyones saying that no-ones interested in whose playing James Bond, my point anyway is that whoever you cast, it's gonna get a conversation going online, whether it's Cavill or Chalamet or whoever, or whether the conversation is positive or negative, because people do get excited and heated about James Bond.

    Yes, Cavill would be safer choice ( I think it's just never gonna happen cause of Superman and The Witcher), but to cast someone specifically for that online reaction isn't a good enough reason, and not something I imagine EON doing.

    Just because Cavill is a safer choice, it doesn't mean they're gonna need someone like Chalamet to completely catch people of the guard and cause a stir, cause the idea is that no matter who is James Bond, audiences will watch and give their thoughts. Their opinions may differ and alter based on who it is initially, but either way, the conversation starts.
    I'm not saying that person is Chalamet, not at all, just that freshness is what it needs every time, they can't coast along on Bond himself being enough.
    Ok, I see what you're saying @mtm, and of course we want it to be an exciting choice and someone that will be refreshing and be something new, and I think it will be. I also think what you mention is what's gonna get those people, that maybe lost interest during Craig's era, on board, not whether they appeal to youthful online culture.

    Being one of those who have lost interest, I'd rather have a "safer" candidate than an "edgy" one.
    I mean to me this is why they need someone whose gonna strike that balance of something fresh and new, but something that still honours the original creation, which is why I nominate Callum a lot cause I feel he could have that fresh take but could also personify that original creation - in my opinion.
    Callum whom, @Denbigh?
    Turner.
    (where does that suggestion come from anyway?)
    He's been strongly suggested by Pierce.

    The way he's been mentioned lately, I thought this thread had found a new Aidan Turner!
  • edited August 2020 Posts: 6,709
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I don't think anyones saying that no-ones interested in whose playing James Bond, my point anyway is that whoever you cast, it's gonna get a conversation going online, whether it's Cavill or Chalamet or whoever, or whether the conversation is positive or negative, because people do get excited and heated about James Bond.

    Yes, Cavill would be safer choice ( I think it's just never gonna happen cause of Superman and The Witcher), but to cast someone specifically for that online reaction isn't a good enough reason, and not something I imagine EON doing.

    Just because Cavill is a safer choice, it doesn't mean they're gonna need someone like Chalamet to completely catch people of the guard and cause a stir, cause the idea is that no matter who is James Bond, audiences will watch and give their thoughts. Their opinions may differ and alter based on who it is initially, but either way, the conversation starts.
    I'm not saying that person is Chalamet, not at all, just that freshness is what it needs every time, they can't coast along on Bond himself being enough.
    Ok, I see what you're saying @mtm, and of course we want it to be an exciting choice and someone that will be refreshing and be something new, and I think it will be. I also think what you mention is what's gonna get those people, that maybe lost interest during Craig's era, on board, not whether they appeal to youthful online culture.

    Being one of those who have lost interest, I'd rather have a "safer" candidate than an "edgy" one.
    I mean to me this is why they need someone whose gonna strike that balance of something fresh and new, but something that still honours the original creation, which is why I nominate Callum a lot cause I feel he could have that fresh take but could also personify that original creation - in my opinion.
    Callum whom, @Denbigh?
    Turner.
    (where does that suggestion come from anyway?)
    He's been strongly suggested by Pierce.

    The way he's been mentioned lately, I thought this thread had found a new Aidan Turner!

    Oh damn, yeah, it's time for some Turner again ;)

    Cause I just love it when people react negatively to an obvious choice, just as they once did to a roguish different one. #jamesbondnotflemingbond, #jamesbondnotwhite, #jamesbondnotdarkhaired,...

    :)

    48ea5eac1f0b4c3554c3e4d44ba445c6.jpg
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    Battle of the Turners @Univex haha :D
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,199
    I like how you changed photos, @Univex ;) I like your second choice!
  • edited August 2020 Posts: 6,709
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Battle of the Turners @Univex haha :D

    haha, yeah. But alphabetically, this one wins ;)

    But I can see this other guy ageing well, my friend.

    CallumTurner.jpg
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    Univex wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Battle of the Turners @Univex haha :D
    haha, yeah. But alphabetically, this one wins ;)
    Well it's a good job I'm not in the battle then cause I'd lose to both haha :D
  • edited August 2020 Posts: 6,709
    I like how you changed photos, @Univex ;) I like your second choice!

    Yeah, I hadn't seen it here before. The other's been on repeat since page 1, probably ;)

    Another good candidate I often suggest here is Theo James.

    https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fsarahwu%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F04%2FForbes1-1200x800.jpg
  • edited August 2020 Posts: 17,733
    Univex wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I don't think anyones saying that no-ones interested in whose playing James Bond, my point anyway is that whoever you cast, it's gonna get a conversation going online, whether it's Cavill or Chalamet or whoever, or whether the conversation is positive or negative, because people do get excited and heated about James Bond.

    Yes, Cavill would be safer choice ( I think it's just never gonna happen cause of Superman and The Witcher), but to cast someone specifically for that online reaction isn't a good enough reason, and not something I imagine EON doing.

    Just because Cavill is a safer choice, it doesn't mean they're gonna need someone like Chalamet to completely catch people of the guard and cause a stir, cause the idea is that no matter who is James Bond, audiences will watch and give their thoughts. Their opinions may differ and alter based on who it is initially, but either way, the conversation starts.
    I'm not saying that person is Chalamet, not at all, just that freshness is what it needs every time, they can't coast along on Bond himself being enough.
    Ok, I see what you're saying @mtm, and of course we want it to be an exciting choice and someone that will be refreshing and be something new, and I think it will be. I also think what you mention is what's gonna get those people, that maybe lost interest during Craig's era, on board, not whether they appeal to youthful online culture.

    Being one of those who have lost interest, I'd rather have a "safer" candidate than an "edgy" one.
    I mean to me this is why they need someone whose gonna strike that balance of something fresh and new, but something that still honours the original creation, which is why I nominate Callum a lot cause I feel he could have that fresh take but could also personify that original creation - in my opinion.
    Callum whom, @Denbigh?
    Turner.
    (where does that suggestion come from anyway?)
    He's been strongly suggested by Pierce.

    The way he's been mentioned lately, I thought this thread had found a new Aidan Turner!

    Oh damn, yeah, it's time for some Turner again ;)

    *Oh no! X_X

    *(I'm not against Aidan Turner though, but he's being hyped up like a Connery 2.0 at times)
  • edited August 2020 Posts: 6,709
    Univex wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I don't think anyones saying that no-ones interested in whose playing James Bond, my point anyway is that whoever you cast, it's gonna get a conversation going online, whether it's Cavill or Chalamet or whoever, or whether the conversation is positive or negative, because people do get excited and heated about James Bond.

    Yes, Cavill would be safer choice ( I think it's just never gonna happen cause of Superman and The Witcher), but to cast someone specifically for that online reaction isn't a good enough reason, and not something I imagine EON doing.

    Just because Cavill is a safer choice, it doesn't mean they're gonna need someone like Chalamet to completely catch people of the guard and cause a stir, cause the idea is that no matter who is James Bond, audiences will watch and give their thoughts. Their opinions may differ and alter based on who it is initially, but either way, the conversation starts.
    I'm not saying that person is Chalamet, not at all, just that freshness is what it needs every time, they can't coast along on Bond himself being enough.
    Ok, I see what you're saying @mtm, and of course we want it to be an exciting choice and someone that will be refreshing and be something new, and I think it will be. I also think what you mention is what's gonna get those people, that maybe lost interest during Craig's era, on board, not whether they appeal to youthful online culture.

    Being one of those who have lost interest, I'd rather have a "safer" candidate than an "edgy" one.
    I mean to me this is why they need someone whose gonna strike that balance of something fresh and new, but something that still honours the original creation, which is why I nominate Callum a lot cause I feel he could have that fresh take but could also personify that original creation - in my opinion.
    Callum whom, @Denbigh?
    Turner.
    (where does that suggestion come from anyway?)
    He's been strongly suggested by Pierce.

    The way he's been mentioned lately, I thought this thread had found a new Aidan Turner!

    Oh damn, yeah, it's time for some Turner again ;)

    *Oh no! X_X

    *(I'm not against Aidan Turner though, but he's being hyped up like a Connery 2.0 at times)

    lol, yes. But there's no Connery 2.0 There'll never be. Although I reckon Aidan Turner could do a fine job.

    I thought you of all people would appreciate a more classic choice like this. He does remind of Connery. Even his assertiveness and confidence as Ross Poldark, his voice, his eyebrows, and his demeanour.

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Unnatural and stagy acting. I won’t buy A. Turner until he does something modern and executes it with naturalism and charisma.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,122
    It’s actually an incredibly difficult role to fill. And as an actor to pull it off. It’s not as simple as merely looking the part. But you have to be able to act, Bond isn’t Shakespeare but you do need the ability to convey the story and character.
    It’s also a role that wouldn’t appeal to all actors. I don’t think Timothee Chalamet would be interested in taking on a well established, franchise role. With a multi picture contract. For me he tucks none of the boxes for the role. As a potential villain down the track. Sure.
    A.Turner has the looks and charisma. And he’s not a bad actor at all. But his body of work in film is very limited. He’s not done anything that a studio or EON could say has made him a box office draw. I’m sure he’d make a descent Bond. I’m not so sure the gamble would be taken, by those in power.
  • I think he’s the new, less famous Clive Owen. Not a particularly bad actor, but a pretty boring one, and everyone will have forgotten about him in a few years.

    When I said edgy it doesn’t just mean looking different either. It means having done cool stuff, that really shows you can live up to the lofty standard Craig set in terms of acting ability. Turner has one of the weaker CVs in that regard imo. TV drama in itself isn’t a bad thing, but there’s a difference between something like Our Friends in the North and something like Poldark. He’s got to appeal to the same producers who cast Craig. Not just Bond fans who think he’s got the look, and middle aged women who watch his bland historical dramas because they fancy him.

    He might have a chance but it’s all about how he plays it imo. He’ll probably have most of the next decade to be fair, so plenty of time. But I think he needs to show he can actually follow Craig as an actor if he wants a shot. Pick the right projects. Go for BAFTAs/BIFAs rather than NTAs (and Poldark hasn’t even won one of those for a few years, the fevour around him already seems to be dying down).
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    Cast Tobias Menzies, bang out two simple mission movies, produced back to back. Release them two years apart. Take that time to get the company on solid footing after Covid and figure out where you want the franchise to go, without having another 6 year gap. Done and done.

    178.jpg

    161104-news-outlander-tobias-menzies.jpg

  • Getting an older actor for a couple of films as a stopgap between franchises isn’t a bad idea. But I think they’d rather stick with the long gaps. BB does other projects, and they won’t want to face recasting Craig for a while.

    I don’t think we’ll see Bond 26 for a long time. Latter half of the decade, 2026 at the absolute earliest. I’m not proper keen on this being the new norm, but if it’s what it takes to avoid them selling to a big studio who will suck the magic out of it, then I’m fine with that.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    Posts: 280
    The gaps wouldn't be so bad if there was some other Bond media to tide us over.
  • Posts: 6,709
    I guess Connery, Lazenby, Dalton and Pierce would've never been Bond by those standards. They'd done nothing edgy or cool until Bond.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 2020 Posts: 16,291
    Benny wrote: »
    It’s actually an incredibly difficult role to fill. And as an actor to pull it off. It’s not as simple as merely looking the part. But you have to be able to act, Bond isn’t Shakespeare but you do need the ability to convey the story and character.
    It’s also a role that wouldn’t appeal to all actors. I don’t think Timothee Chalamet would be interested in taking on a well established, franchise role. With a multi picture contract. For me he tucks none of the boxes for the role. As a potential villain down the track. Sure.
    A.Turner has the looks and charisma. And he’s not a bad actor at all. But his body of work in film is very limited. He’s not done anything that a studio or EON could say has made him a box office draw. I’m sure he’d make a descent Bond. I’m not so sure the gamble would be taken, by those in power.

    Yeah you need someone who's been proven to be a strong lead in a movie.

    It's a bit like how they cast the villains: they don't just get anyone who looks a bit bad, they get big actors who have impressed. They didn't get Christoph Waltz because they thought he'd look good with a scar and a cat: they got him because he'd been a chilling villain in other movies like Inglorious Basterds. No, it doesn't work every time because it's an art not a science, but even so you don't get an unknown in their first movie to be the main baddie, so you certainly don't do the same with Bond.
  • edited August 2020 Posts: 181
    It's an interesting idea to try to figure out the type Barbara might want to cast. Nicholas Hoult seems like he could be, not too famous but a lot of movie acting experience. (But on the other hand I also think she will pick someone very rugged like DC and not boyish looking like Hoult, so I don't know.) To me Jack Lowden really seems like the type she might pick. 6'1, English, 30 years old, has played in some more prestigious/well liked and very British films (Dunkirk, etc), but not really famous at all. He seems kind of Craig-like to me.

    Jack-Lowden-HEADER-1800x756-c-center.jpg
    Univex wrote: »
    I like how you changed photos, @Univex ;) I like your second choice!

    Yeah, I hadn't seen it here before. The other's been on repeat since page 1, probably ;)

    Another good candidate I often suggest here is Theo James.

    https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fsarahwu%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F04%2FForbes1-1200x800.jpg

    I was just thinking about him the other day. I used to not take him seriously because he seemed too boyish and I only associated him with those teen dystopian films. But he has matured and grown up a bit. I was watching an interview of him the other day and he has a low, almost Connery-esque voice. I watched a couple episodes of some period TV drama and he was playing a more manly character, and he has definitely gone up my list. I think we have to consider the actors we previously thought were too boyish (Hoult, Theo James, maybe Tom Hughes) as they age and mature.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    mtm wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    It’s actually an incredibly difficult role to fill. And as an actor to pull it off. It’s not as simple as merely looking the part. But you have to be able to act, Bond isn’t Shakespeare but you do need the ability to convey the story and character.
    It’s also a role that wouldn’t appeal to all actors. I don’t think Timothee Chalamet would be interested in taking on a well established, franchise role. With a multi picture contract. For me he tucks none of the boxes for the role. As a potential villain down the track. Sure.
    A.Turner has the looks and charisma. And he’s not a bad actor at all. But his body of work in film is very limited. He’s not done anything that a studio or EON could say has made him a box office draw. I’m sure he’d make a descent Bond. I’m not so sure the gamble would be taken, by those in power.

    Yeah you need someone who's been proven to be a strong lead in a movie.

    It's a bit like how they cast the villains: they don't just get anyone who looks a bit bad, they get big actors who have impressed. They didn't get Christoph Waltz because they thought he'd look good with a scar and a cat: they got him because he'd been a chilling villain in other movies like Inglorious Basterds. No, it doesn't work every time because it's an art not a science, but even so you don't get an unknown in their first movie to be the main baddie, so you certainly don't do the same with Bond.

    And that is the problem this thread is constantly circling:
    You need somebody who has shown they "have it", but can't go with somebody for Bond who is already too big.

    Hollywood has basically killed the "medium movie". Everything that used to be a character driven 90-120 minute film for people over the age of 20 is now stretched to 8 hours and made a limited series. Therefore, we are in very short supply of actors who have shown they can lead a movie (or three) on their own, but haven't fully broken through and/or aren't under contract to play somebody wearing spandex in their free time for 6 movies.

    Is there any doubt Layer Cake would either be a 5-episode mini-series or simply not made in 2020?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,199
    mtm wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    It’s actually an incredibly difficult role to fill. And as an actor to pull it off. It’s not as simple as merely looking the part. But you have to be able to act, Bond isn’t Shakespeare but you do need the ability to convey the story and character.
    It’s also a role that wouldn’t appeal to all actors. I don’t think Timothee Chalamet would be interested in taking on a well established, franchise role. With a multi picture contract. For me he tucks none of the boxes for the role. As a potential villain down the track. Sure.
    A.Turner has the looks and charisma. And he’s not a bad actor at all. But his body of work in film is very limited. He’s not done anything that a studio or EON could say has made him a box office draw. I’m sure he’d make a descent Bond. I’m not so sure the gamble would be taken, by those in power.

    Yeah you need someone who's been proven to be a strong lead in a movie.

    It's a bit like how they cast the villains: they don't just get anyone who looks a bit bad, they get big actors who have impressed. They didn't get Christoph Waltz because they thought he'd look good with a scar and a cat: they got him because he'd been a chilling villain in other movies like Inglorious Basterds. No, it doesn't work every time because it's an art not a science, but even so you don't get an unknown in their first movie to be the main baddie, so you certainly don't do the same with Bond.

    And that is the problem this thread is constantly circling:
    You need somebody who has shown they "have it", but can't go with somebody for Bond who is already too big.

    Hollywood has basically killed the "medium movie". Everything that used to be a character driven 90-120 minute film for people over the age of 20 is now stretched to 8 hours and made a limited series. Therefore, we are in very short supply of actors who have shown they can lead a movie (or three) on their own, but haven't fully broken through and/or aren't under contract to play somebody wearing spandex in their free time for 6 movies.

    Is there any doubt Layer Cake would either be a 5-episode mini-series or simply not made in 2020?

    An important point.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    edited August 2020 Posts: 984
    Benny wrote: »
    It’s actually an incredibly difficult role to fill. And as an actor to pull it off. It’s not as simple as merely looking the part. But you have to be able to act, Bond isn’t Shakespeare but you do need the ability to convey the story and character.
    It’s also a role that wouldn’t appeal to all actors. I don’t think Timothee Chalamet would be interested in taking on a well established, franchise role. With a multi picture contract. For me he tucks none of the boxes for the role. As a potential villain down the track. Sure.
    A.Turner has the looks and charisma. And he’s not a bad actor at all. But his body of work in film is very limited. He’s not done anything that a studio or EON could say has made him a box office draw. I’m sure he’d make a descent Bond. I’m not so sure the gamble would be taken, by those in power.

    @Benny have any of the Bond's been a 'box office draw' prior to their casting by EON?

    Connery wasn't overly well known, Lazenby had never acted. Roger Moore was a TV star, but not really a film one. Dalton was known as a theater actor. Pierce was, like Roger, known for TV. And Craig had only really been the lead in a couple of small films.
  • edited August 2020 Posts: 17,733
    Univex wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I don't think anyones saying that no-ones interested in whose playing James Bond, my point anyway is that whoever you cast, it's gonna get a conversation going online, whether it's Cavill or Chalamet or whoever, or whether the conversation is positive or negative, because people do get excited and heated about James Bond.

    Yes, Cavill would be safer choice ( I think it's just never gonna happen cause of Superman and The Witcher), but to cast someone specifically for that online reaction isn't a good enough reason, and not something I imagine EON doing.

    Just because Cavill is a safer choice, it doesn't mean they're gonna need someone like Chalamet to completely catch people of the guard and cause a stir, cause the idea is that no matter who is James Bond, audiences will watch and give their thoughts. Their opinions may differ and alter based on who it is initially, but either way, the conversation starts.
    I'm not saying that person is Chalamet, not at all, just that freshness is what it needs every time, they can't coast along on Bond himself being enough.
    Ok, I see what you're saying @mtm, and of course we want it to be an exciting choice and someone that will be refreshing and be something new, and I think it will be. I also think what you mention is what's gonna get those people, that maybe lost interest during Craig's era, on board, not whether they appeal to youthful online culture.

    Being one of those who have lost interest, I'd rather have a "safer" candidate than an "edgy" one.
    I mean to me this is why they need someone whose gonna strike that balance of something fresh and new, but something that still honours the original creation, which is why I nominate Callum a lot cause I feel he could have that fresh take but could also personify that original creation - in my opinion.
    Callum whom, @Denbigh?
    Turner.
    (where does that suggestion come from anyway?)
    He's been strongly suggested by Pierce.

    The way he's been mentioned lately, I thought this thread had found a new Aidan Turner!

    Oh damn, yeah, it's time for some Turner again ;)

    *Oh no! X_X

    *(I'm not against Aidan Turner though, but he's being hyped up like a Connery 2.0 at times)

    lol, yes. But there's no Connery 2.0 There'll never be. Although I reckon Aidan Turner could do a fine job.

    I thought you of all people would appreciate a more classic choice like this. He does remind of Connery. Even his assertiveness and confidence as Ross Poldark, his voice, his eyebrows, and his demeanour.


    It's probably the period setting, but I'd rather look at And Then There Were None as something to measure his suitability by. Admittedly, ATTWN is a period series too, but these series that take place even further back in history do have a bit stagy(?) feel to them – and very much so in the way the characters speak.
  • edited August 2020 Posts: 181
    Agent_One wrote: »
    I maintain that Bond No. 7 is someone none of us have ever really considered. Most didn't have Craig down as a contender, after all.
    Denbigh wrote: »
    That's true @Agent_One, but I also think it's more difficult to do so; we have a wider net and better access to the various possibilities. I think if we had the kind of access we have now back 2004/2005, I imagine people would have probably pinpointed Craig as a suggestion. Even if people weren't certain.

    I was on internet forums (commander bond being the main one) in the mid-2000s and I followed Bond casting discussions closely. People discussed it in depth just like we're doing now. There were hundreds of pages of it with everyone throwing out the names of every British actor under the sun and posting pics, and everyone debating (is he too famous, does he look like Bond, can a black actor be Bond, etc). It's true Daniel Craig was never mentioned at all for quite a long time, (somewhat surprising since he at least did have a role in Road to Perdition, but he looked very un-bond-like in that), but he did start to be discussed on the message boards up closer to the end. I remember quite a bit of arguing about whether or not he looked like Bond in the months leading to the announcement (most were of the opinion he did not at all). So when he was finally announced, it wasn't completely out of the blue for those of us on the boards.
  • DrClatterhandDrClatterhand United Kingdom
    Posts: 349
    It's an interesting idea to try to figure out the type Barbara might want to cast. Nicholas Hoult seems like he could be, not too famous but a lot of movie acting experience. (But on the other hand I also think she will pick someone very rugged like DC and not boyish looking like Hoult, so I don't know.) To me Jack Lowden really seems like the type she might pick. 6'1, English, 30 years old, has played in some more prestigious/well liked and very British films (Dunkirk, etc), but not really famous at all. He seems kind of Craig-like to me.

    Jack-Lowden-HEADER-1800x756-c-center.jpg
    Univex wrote: »
    I like how you changed photos, @Univex ;) I like your second choice!

    Yeah, I hadn't seen it here before. The other's been on repeat since page 1, probably ;)

    Another good candidate I often suggest here is Theo James.

    https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fsarahwu%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F04%2FForbes1-1200x800.jpg

    I was just thinking about him the other day. I used to not take him seriously because he seemed too boyish and I only associated him with those teen dystopian films. But he has matured and grown up a bit. I was watching an interview of him the other day and he has a low, almost Connery-esque voice. I watched a couple episodes of some period TV drama and he was playing a more manly character, and he has definitely gone up my list. I think we have to consider the actors we previously thought were too boyish (Hoult, Theo James, maybe Tom Hughes) as they age and mature.

    I've been touting Jack Lowden for ages on here. He really does tick every box. I really believe it'll be him.
  • edited August 2020 Posts: 6,709
    So an actor who olds a tv series for 5 years being its main star would be, by today's standards, a proven actor (?) Since medium 90 to 120m films aren't a thing nowadays and we've only got the streaming services and studios to go on (?)

    I'd say, yes.

    :)
    Univex wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I don't think anyones saying that no-ones interested in whose playing James Bond, my point anyway is that whoever you cast, it's gonna get a conversation going online, whether it's Cavill or Chalamet or whoever, or whether the conversation is positive or negative, because people do get excited and heated about James Bond.

    Yes, Cavill would be safer choice ( I think it's just never gonna happen cause of Superman and The Witcher), but to cast someone specifically for that online reaction isn't a good enough reason, and not something I imagine EON doing.

    Just because Cavill is a safer choice, it doesn't mean they're gonna need someone like Chalamet to completely catch people of the guard and cause a stir, cause the idea is that no matter who is James Bond, audiences will watch and give their thoughts. Their opinions may differ and alter based on who it is initially, but either way, the conversation starts.
    I'm not saying that person is Chalamet, not at all, just that freshness is what it needs every time, they can't coast along on Bond himself being enough.
    Ok, I see what you're saying @mtm, and of course we want it to be an exciting choice and someone that will be refreshing and be something new, and I think it will be. I also think what you mention is what's gonna get those people, that maybe lost interest during Craig's era, on board, not whether they appeal to youthful online culture.

    Being one of those who have lost interest, I'd rather have a "safer" candidate than an "edgy" one.
    I mean to me this is why they need someone whose gonna strike that balance of something fresh and new, but something that still honours the original creation, which is why I nominate Callum a lot cause I feel he could have that fresh take but could also personify that original creation - in my opinion.
    Callum whom, @Denbigh?
    Turner.
    (where does that suggestion come from anyway?)
    He's been strongly suggested by Pierce.

    The way he's been mentioned lately, I thought this thread had found a new Aidan Turner!

    Oh damn, yeah, it's time for some Turner again ;)

    *Oh no! X_X

    *(I'm not against Aidan Turner though, but he's being hyped up like a Connery 2.0 at times)

    lol, yes. But there's no Connery 2.0 There'll never be. Although I reckon Aidan Turner could do a fine job.

    I thought you of all people would appreciate a more classic choice like this. He does remind of Connery. Even his assertiveness and confidence as Ross Poldark, his voice, his eyebrows, and his demeanour.


    It's probably the period setting, but I'd rather look at And Then There Were None as something to measure his suitability by. Admittedly, ATTWN is a period series too, but these series that take place even further back in history do have a bit stagy(?) feel to them – and very much so in the way the characters speak.

    Strangely edited video with an awful music, but...

Sign In or Register to comment.