Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1120012011203120512061231

Comments

  • meshypushymeshypushy Ireland
    Posts: 143
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Anyone asking Bond to be a role model is comical.

    He should definitely be a role model. This is not Gladiator part 2. Stay consistent with the character, be professional, look sophisticated etc. I rather the utmost positive take on the character on and off screen. I know a man.
    Bond the character may not be a role model but I cannot imagine the actor who plays Bond being allowed to be anything but going forwards.
  • Posts: 946
    meshypushy wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Anyone asking Bond to be a role model is comical.

    He should definitely be a role model. This is not Gladiator part 2. Stay consistent with the character, be professional, look sophisticated etc. I rather the utmost positive take on the character on and off screen. I know a man.
    Bond the character may not be a role model but I cannot imagine the actor who plays Bond being allowed to be anything but going forwards.

    Well maybe (and this is my vision) Bond could be a role model and a positive influence for young adults while still being the adventurous spy.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 5 Posts: 16,423
    007HallY wrote: »
    Veering away from the topic a bit, but I think whatever way the next actor is going to get some sort of internet (perhaps even public) criticism about something superficial to do with their personal life that’ll clash with Bond in some way.

    I mean, look at all the flack Craig got. Off the top of my head this included him saying he wasn’t a fan of guns, him admitting he preferred going to gay bars with friends rather than a typical pub, and him carrying his infant child in a baby carrier. I’m sure all the Bond actors at some point have gotten criticism about being dressed down or having a beard or whatever.

    Not to say it’s a good idea for the next Bond actor to be snapped snorting ketamine every weekend, but I think it’s an impossible task to expect the next actor to be James Bond 24/7.

    Wasn't he caught up in all that Sienna Miller/Jude Law soap opera around the time/before he was cast as Bond? Which I don't think painted anyone in a good light (I didn't follow it at all but I think the papers were full of it).
    I just don't think anyone cares about this stuff: Mescal is hardly going to get erased from Gladiator 2 for it. They wouldn't want Bond to do it, but he's not Bond right now, and if he were I'm sure he'd be being told to be very careful. It's kind of funny that some folks want the character of Bond to effectively encourage young people to smoke, but the actor should be pure in all ways when he's not being watched on massive movie screens.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,217
    And Craig was an extremely heavy smoker, which is not a good look either these days and the films have actively distanced the character from - he was fine.

    Not a Mescal advocate (undoubtedly a good actor, but having met him more than once I am yet to be convinced that he'll manage a long haul career) but him snorting something at a music festival isn't the reason why I wouldn't want him as Bond.
  • meshypushymeshypushy Ireland
    Posts: 143
    I don’t think there’s a chance in hell in that EON would choose an actor for Bond that would present any risk of reputational damage to their commercial partners. The last thing they need is some idiot getting caught behaving badly by a tabloid or getting ‘cancelled’ in any form - not in today’s society. I suspect they will be uber cautious with background checks for the next guy.
  • Posts: 181
    Pretty sure doing a key bump isn't going to get anyone cancelled. What an overreaction.
  • Posts: 348
    And Craig was an extremely heavy smoker, which is not a good look either these days and the films have actively distanced the character from - he was fine.

    Not a Mescal advocate (undoubtedly a good actor, but having met him more than once I am yet to be convinced that he'll manage a long haul career) but him snorting something at a music festival isn't the reason why I wouldn't want him as Bond.

    Please don't make comments like that unless you're willing to back them up.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited July 5 Posts: 8,217
    M_Blaise wrote: »
    And Craig was an extremely heavy smoker, which is not a good look either these days and the films have actively distanced the character from - he was fine.

    Not a Mescal advocate (undoubtedly a good actor, but having met him more than once I am yet to be convinced that he'll manage a long haul career) but him snorting something at a music festival isn't the reason why I wouldn't want him as Bond.

    Please don't make comments like that unless you're willing to back them up.

    There's nothing to back-up, it's a personal opinion on character. It can be taken on board or disregarded as such at your own choosing.
  • meshypushymeshypushy Ireland
    Posts: 143
    Pretty sure doing a key bump isn't going to get anyone cancelled. What an overreaction.
    I assume that comment was aimed at me but I was not referring to Mescal. I said that perceived bad behaviour (offscreen) of any kind by the future Bond would likely put EON in an extremely uncomfortable position, if it received enough media / social media attention.
    My comment was stating the bloody obvious that in contemporary society that is uber sensitive and where brands are even more sensitive, there is no way in hell that EON would not consider an actor’s character when selecting the next Bond. Whoever plays Bond will be one of the most high profile brand ambassadors in the world and EON’s commercial partners are key to the movies’ production. If anyone thinks someone who has any potential to cause any kind of reputational damage to any commercial partner would be snapped up by EON, I think that is an incredibly naive perspective. This is not 2005 nor 1967 and I assume now more than ever, that will be a consideration when casting the next Bond. Lazenby, Ollie Reed, Richard Harris etc in their prime would have zero chance of getting the gig in today’s society.
  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    Posts: 190
  • meshypushymeshypushy Ireland
    Posts: 143
    Craig’s Bond was an emblem of toxic masculinity? A contemporary man would’ve made his daughter cut her own apples, I assume.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    meshypushy wrote: »
    Craig’s Bond was an emblem of toxic masculinity? A contemporary man would’ve made his daughter cut her own apples, I assume.

    It was a pretty ugly article, written by a man who obviously despises the character. That was just putrid reading.
  • meshypushymeshypushy Ireland
    Posts: 143
    peter wrote: »
    meshypushy wrote: »
    Craig’s Bond was an emblem of toxic masculinity? A contemporary man would’ve made his daughter cut her own apples, I assume.

    It was a pretty ugly article, written by a man who obviously despises the character. That was just putrid reading.
    Absolutely - I have no idea how an editor approved this piece.
  • Posts: 4,166
    Yeah, weird article. I don't think the writer understands the character or the films despite sprouting off very generalised facts here and there (I don't actually mind if people have criticisms of Bond, but they do have to show they understand the character if they're going to write about it). Not sure I ever got the sense Craig's Bond was one step away from becoming an Andrew Tate type. Bizarrely the writer even says that if it weren't for the writing - no further examples or explanations given - and Craig's acting this is what the character would have become... which surely nullifies the whole idea of needing to set these films in the past, as it shows you can actually have a version of the character who isn't a horrible, toxic figure while still retaining his fundamental qualities/even flaws. The writer even acknowledges that Bond's selflessness/virtues complicates this picture, again nullifying what he's trying to say. The final paragraph shows the man for some deeper ideological reason simply doesn't like the character.

    There are writers out there who actually understand Bond and have a lot to say about the film franchise's future. It's a shame this sort of rubbish is given such a large platform.
  • meshypushymeshypushy Ireland
    Posts: 143
    The idea that a Bond movie set in the 60s, with a Connery type character behaving like men did in that era would be accepted by audiences these days (who need trigger warning before kids tv shows), based on the notion that audiences these days are more sophisticated than in the 60s, 70s and 80s, without providing any evidence / context on why he thinks that is bullshit, frankly.
    I often wonder what a 60s period piece could look like but there is no way in hell the character could not conform to contemporary social behaviour. In my view, contemporary audiences would not accept it - that’s what makes me appreciate the old movies for what they are.
  • edited July 6 Posts: 4,166
    meshypushy wrote: »
    The idea that a Bond movie set in the 60s, with a Connery type character behaving like men did in that era would be accepted by audiences these days (who need trigger warning before kids tv shows), based on the notion that audiences these days are more sophisticated than in the 60s, 70s and 80s, without providing any evidence / context on why he thinks that is bullshit, frankly.
    I often wonder what a 60s period piece could look like but there is no way in hell the character could not conform to contemporary social behaviour. In my view, contemporary audiences would not accept it - that’s what makes me appreciate the old movies for what they are.

    I think a problem with setting a Bond film in the past is that it requires an element of self-referentiality. That can be through pretty superficial things like emphasising certain events from the time, some sort of irony through a character's opinions being wrong with hindsight or whatever.

    What this writer seems to prefer is a sort of Mad Men approach. And to be fair, Don Draper is a pretty complex, flawed, and even quite cool character, albeit one who has little moments where the viewer is meant to be abruptly 'taken out' of the show through some of his timely and unsavoury opinions/behaviour (not so much through his drinking, cheating, or smoking by the way - more stuff like him bitterly firing a gay character and using the term 'you people', making the occasional derogatory comments about Jews in series 1 etc). But then again Mad Men is explicitly a show about how we view that era of history and its change, whereas Bond is... well, Bond. It's good vs evil, escapist fare, albeit a brand of it with some very subtle/interesting ideas at its heart. It's never been a series which looks at the past as such, even in Fleming's novels, but instead draws upon contemporary fears about the world (and indeed how these evils can be defeated).

    It's why I find the writer's comments about Craig's Bond so weird. He basically acknowledges Bond isn't an Andrew Tate-esque, alt-right figure (despite the title of the article), and by all accounts if you look a bit deeper into what he says you can come to the conclusion that Bond, while certainly not always a completely virtuous figure, and often a b*stard (which he even seems to suggest the films can acknowledge) does have his virtues which put him at odds with those sorts... It's almost as if he can't quite justify his gripes with the character through the modern version of Bond, which leads to a weird, confused argument.
  • Posts: 12,474
    Terrible article on every level. Craig’s Bond was quite literally a family man by the end of NTTD, and in none of his tenure did I ever feel like the character or series was even remotely a champion for rightwing values, or leftwing either for that matter. The series wouldn’t have such mass appeal if there was obvious catering to a political party. Maybe for the extremists out there, certain elements will make one angry (Nomi’s character for right-wingers for instance, or gun violence for left-wingers), but there’s never sides taken or propaganda used.

    Not only all this, but to suggest setting a film(s) in the past will make everything “right,” so to speak, regarding Bond’s character is preposterous. Slapping a “1962” or whatever year label on the synopses, posters, film itself etc. will do next to nothing to make people react differently if Bond’s character acts questionably. I’m not opposed to period piece Bond films in an overall sense, but everyone’s going to have the same complaints and the same debates will rage on no matter when the movies are set.

    I get so tired and frustrated with the lack of nuance regarding anything political, and certainly when it extends to something like James Bond. It’s the reason I fear the crew is going to go out of their way to make Bond a one-woman man only and no lady killer, so they can stay as far from the “misogynistic” accusations as possible, rather than depict Bond with multiple women in a movie while still being respectful and not say or do some of the unacceptable things he did in the 60s. It CAN be done, and it really shouldn’t be that hard, but like with seemingly everything else now, I have no faith in people with influence to be nuanced.

  • meshypushymeshypushy Ireland
    Posts: 143
    007HallY wrote: »
    meshypushy wrote: »
    The idea that a Bond movie set in the 60s, with a Connery type character behaving like men did in that era would be accepted by audiences these days (who need trigger warning before kids tv shows), based on the notion that audiences these days are more sophisticated than in the 60s, 70s and 80s, without providing any evidence / context on why he thinks that is bullshit, frankly.
    I often wonder what a 60s period piece could look like but there is no way in hell the character could not conform to contemporary social behaviour. In my view, contemporary audiences would not accept it - that’s what makes me appreciate the old movies for what they are.

    I think a problem with setting a Bond film in the past is that it requires an element of self-referentiality. That can be through pretty superficial things like emphasising certain events from the time, some sort of irony through a character's opinions being wrong with hindsight or whatever.

    What this writer seems to prefer is a sort of Mad Men approach. And to be fair, Don Draper is a pretty complex, flawed, and even quite cool character, albeit one who has little moments where the viewer is meant to be abruptly 'taken out' of the show through some of his timely and unsavoury opinions/behaviour (not so much through his drinking, cheating, or smoking by the way - more stuff like him bitterly firing a gay character and using the term 'you people', making the occasional derogatory comments about Jews in series 1 etc). But then again Mad Men is explicitly a show about how we view that era of history and its change, whereas Bond is... well, Bond. It's good vs evil, escapist fare, albeit a brand of it with some very subtle/interesting ideas at its heart. It's never been a series which looks at the past as such, even in Fleming's novels, but instead draws upon contemporary fears about the world (and indeed how these evils can be defeated).

    It's why I find the writer's comments about Craig's Bond so weird. He basically acknowledges Bond isn't an Andrew Tate-esque, alt-right figure (despite the title of the article), and by all accounts if you look a bit deeper into what he says you can come to the conclusion that Bond, while certainly not always a completely virtuous figure, and often a b*stard (which he even seems to suggest the films can acknowledge) does have his virtues which put him at odds with those sorts... It's almost as if he can't quite justify his gripes with the character through the modern version of Bond, which leads to a weird, confused argument.
    I fully agree with this. As a major Mad Men fan, though, I could not imagine any network signing off on it today and I don’t think today’s audience would accept it.
    It’s an obvious statement to make but I always wondered what Hamm would have been like as Bond in a period piece (as I would have done with Jeremy Brett years before).
  • "If it weren't for the writing and acting, Bond would be a posh Andrew Tate." I mean you could say the same about Iron Man, Batman or any clever male hero who often says one-liners. He's basically gone and said if you strip the character clean of all its other elements (and mostly positive ones): the vulnerability, the selflessness, the dedication to duty, that you get a negative character. Yeah... if I strip the positive aspects of anybody then I'm bound to get a horrible person. Never mind that the worst aspect of Craig's Bond in regard to women is the Severine debacle, which is oft-debated and unclear in terms of wrongdoing. And his overpowering ego only exists in Casino Royale.

    But then he doesn't go and slam the Fleming novels at all and calls them "magic." There is no reason provided as to why they can't exist in present time (where Casino Royale thrived, and two adaptations of YOLT certainly didn't feel dated). Certainly a bizarre article.
  • edited July 6 Posts: 4,166
    meshypushy wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    meshypushy wrote: »
    The idea that a Bond movie set in the 60s, with a Connery type character behaving like men did in that era would be accepted by audiences these days (who need trigger warning before kids tv shows), based on the notion that audiences these days are more sophisticated than in the 60s, 70s and 80s, without providing any evidence / context on why he thinks that is bullshit, frankly.
    I often wonder what a 60s period piece could look like but there is no way in hell the character could not conform to contemporary social behaviour. In my view, contemporary audiences would not accept it - that’s what makes me appreciate the old movies for what they are.

    I think a problem with setting a Bond film in the past is that it requires an element of self-referentiality. That can be through pretty superficial things like emphasising certain events from the time, some sort of irony through a character's opinions being wrong with hindsight or whatever.

    What this writer seems to prefer is a sort of Mad Men approach. And to be fair, Don Draper is a pretty complex, flawed, and even quite cool character, albeit one who has little moments where the viewer is meant to be abruptly 'taken out' of the show through some of his timely and unsavoury opinions/behaviour (not so much through his drinking, cheating, or smoking by the way - more stuff like him bitterly firing a gay character and using the term 'you people', making the occasional derogatory comments about Jews in series 1 etc). But then again Mad Men is explicitly a show about how we view that era of history and its change, whereas Bond is... well, Bond. It's good vs evil, escapist fare, albeit a brand of it with some very subtle/interesting ideas at its heart. It's never been a series which looks at the past as such, even in Fleming's novels, but instead draws upon contemporary fears about the world (and indeed how these evils can be defeated).

    It's why I find the writer's comments about Craig's Bond so weird. He basically acknowledges Bond isn't an Andrew Tate-esque, alt-right figure (despite the title of the article), and by all accounts if you look a bit deeper into what he says you can come to the conclusion that Bond, while certainly not always a completely virtuous figure, and often a b*stard (which he even seems to suggest the films can acknowledge) does have his virtues which put him at odds with those sorts... It's almost as if he can't quite justify his gripes with the character through the modern version of Bond, which leads to a weird, confused argument.
    I fully agree with this. As a major Mad Men fan, though, I could not imagine any network signing off on it today and I don’t think today’s audience would accept it.
    It’s an obvious statement to make but I always wondered what Hamm would have been like as Bond in a period piece (as I would have done with Jeremy Brett years before).

    I think it’d still be signed off today, but it would be a slightly different show (I can imagine a bit more focus being put on minority characters in earlier seasons, for instance). But I don’t think it would get any less criticism than it did when it was released (it wasn’t to do with what it showed necessarily but how it did it - some critics thought that by showing the 60s with its outdated views, it gave viewers the impression that the present day didn’t have any level of corporate sexism, racism, misogyny etc. Others thought it was a bit too white/middle class focused and there weren’t any significant minority characters earlier on, that it inadvertently glamourised Draper etc). People still love it though.

    I like Hamm, but he is a bit too American for Bond, haha.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/vikings-valhalla-leo-suter-interview-workout-body

    I haven’t caught up with this guy’s work yet, but some of you, especially @talos7 (who has a savvy eye), have touted him.

    Nice to see how he transformed into his character.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217
    Yep @peter , even with a relatively small body of work, Suter remains high on my list. I think he , as would have Jackman, would bring a combination of light charm combined with impressive physicality. I actually think his lower profile would be a positive; he would immediately be associated with Bond .

    Leo Suter deserves a screentest. Now I’m not naive, ultimately he may get one and bomb horribly, but there is enough potential in him for EoN to take a look.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    Leo Suter definitely deserves a screentest, he fits the criteria better than most people often suggested.
    I do think the producers will be aware of him and his career
  • Posts: 1,369
    All the young british actors are going to try their luck.
  • meshypushymeshypushy Ireland
    Posts: 143
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Leo Suter definitely deserves a screentest, he fits the criteria better than most people often suggested.
    I do think the producers will be aware of him and his career
    Although I have not seen much of Suter so far, he does appear to be one of those that I cannot see anything about him that would make me not want to see him as Bond. On that basis, I figured I’d place a cheeky bet on him getting the gig but none of the bookmakers appear have him in their markets.
  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    edited July 12 Posts: 190
    The name's chap, buddyoldchap. Should I give Barbara the call?

    IMG-20240712-203855.jpg
  • Posts: 15,125
    I still think my son should be auditioned. Sure, he's only seven now, but that makes for a great marketing stunt: meet the next James Bond, he's (00) seven. Sure, you'll have to twist a few things to make him fit into the role. But "Shirley Temple, shaken, not stirred" is a nice twist on the classic line. Plus, you'll get him in the role for a long tenure. Oh and he's British.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,812
    A water pistol?
  • Posts: 15,125
    A water pistol?

    Yeah, I guess daddy won't let him handle real guns. But no need for a water pistol: toy guns often look very close to real ones. We just need a bit of paint and that's it.
  • edited July 15 Posts: 946
    Bond quote
Sign In or Register to comment.