Who should/could be a Bond actor?

112491250125112521254

Comments

  • edited February 21 Posts: 6,754
    I don't want Guy Ritchie or Matthew Vaughn near Bond, Please. Those two guys are the same thing. They were good in their early days, but not anymore. Also, what they both see as style isn't better than cartoons.

    Well, yes, I get that. You’re probably right, even though I prefer one to the other, but yes, quite right. I wouldn’t mind Theo James, though, as Bond, I mean. Would be better than Cavill.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,652
    An essential quality of Bond is a kind of enigmatic quality, and I think Aidan Turner has that in spades, whereas Henry Cavill and Theo James feel a bit stiff by comparison. Watch A Turner interviews he has a natural self-effacing charm which I think Bond needs on some level.
  • Univex wrote: »
    I don't want Guy Ritchie or Matthew Vaughn near Bond, Please. Those two guys are the same thing. They were good in their early days, but not anymore. Also, what they both see as style isn't better than cartoons.

    Well, yes, I get that. You’re probably right, even though I prefer one to the other, but yes, quite right. I wouldn’t mind Theo James, though, as Bond, I mean. Would be better than Cavill.

    I think he would.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,364
    Coming back here after months, but do we think that everything that has been said about the next Bond by BB and MGW is out the window now? Specifically their age requirement?
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,364
    Coming back here after months, but do we think that everything that has been said about the next Bond by BB and MGW is out the window now? Specifically their age requirement?
  • Posts: 6,754
    An essential quality of Bond is a kind of enigmatic quality, and I think Aidan Turner has that in spades, whereas Henry Cavill and Theo James feel a bit stiff by comparison. Watch A Turner interviews he has a natural self-effacing charm which I think Bond needs on some level.

    Oh, I absolutely agree. Captain Poldark would be the better choice for Commander Bond. Alas, I don’t think he is interested.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited February 21 Posts: 2,281
    Univex wrote: »
    I don't want Guy Ritchie or Matthew Vaughn near Bond, Please. Those two guys are the same thing. They were good in their early days, but not anymore. Also, what they both see as style isn't better than cartoons.

    Well, yes, I get that. You’re probably right, even though I prefer one to the other, but yes, quite right. I wouldn’t mind Theo James, though, as Bond, I mean. Would be better than Cavill.

    Yeah. Also, Theo wouldn't hurt. With Amazon at the helm now, I guess a 40yr+ Bond is now back on. I just hope Amazon delivers....whatever it is they have in store for Bond.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,220
    Yes, IMO - everything that BB and MGW have said about Bond 26 is off the table now.
  • meshypushymeshypushy Ireland
    Posts: 155
    I suspect there is less chance of Amazon casting a lesser known actor in the role, which will be a shame. I’d take Turner over James or Cavill. I’d actually take a plank of wood over Cavill. I was looking forward to seeing a left of centre choice for the next Bond but I suspect my reaction will now be an eye roll.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,675
    I found that quote in the Deadline article interesting, mentioning ATJ met with EON but it was nothing serious. Also how to Barbara there wasn't an obvious choice, and perhaps that's why she chose now to exit the series.

    I do get the feeling that had Craig have left after Spectre, the pool of suitable candidates might have been more widespread
  • Posts: 15,380
    patb wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    I know this may wind up some fans but expanding the universe to other double 0 agents provides opportunities for the more mature actors to star as more mature agents. Fassbender in his own movie plus as a "father figure" to a new Bond was legs IMHO and he would bring instant talent and class to the screen, something the Amazon will need.

    Which immediatly brings up the question: What if the spin-off is better than the main series? Do you really want to create your own competition and let whatever 30ish actor you pick as the standard-bearer - as THE James Bond - have to go up against Fassbender inside your own franchise? Does that mean you'll intentionally have to make the 005 project worse in order to make sure it doesn't kneecap the main films?

    I'll add a couple of other objections:
    -How do you make these other 00s distinct from Bond yet relevant to the Bond universe as a whole? From conception it has always been very Bond-centrist, with classic tropes stemming from the character.
    -Why use plot ideas for these spin-offs instead of, well, the core franchise?
    -What about budgets, creative teams, continuity? They risk stretching themselves thin in so many ways.

    Fair points, great writing will get you far. Other 00s need their own characteristics to be memorable and identifiable with their own backgrounds and journies. Enough room (as with Bond and M in SF) to have friction on the surface but respect underneath. As for plots, I dont think we need a bad guy looking for World domination every time. And plots can be connected with back stories of agents or exploiting their own strengths. Standalone missions with the ocasional "cross over" could work. I keep seeing reference to the "Bond universe" and I get that but I think it will change to the "MI6 universe". It's allways been there since the books, just never explored.

    I don't think we need a villain bent on world domination every time either. But see that's the thing: the badguy who wants to rule the world trope, like the gadgets, is in no way essential to Bond or quintessential to him either. It's a trope that sometimes came into prominence when the films got bigger and bigger.

    And here's another fear I have: that Amazon will give us Bond movies and spinoff content with an approach that is both shallow and based on clichés and stereotypes. They can't get Tolkien right, so I'm skeptical they can do Bond right.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited February 21 Posts: 470
    @JeffBezos
    Who’d you pick as the next Bond?

    President Donald J. Trump
    @POTUS
    I have a suggestion...
    Make James Bond American Again (remember Barry Nelson)

    382d3cf9-0a5a-4c3f-ae2a-cf10d2ba4c31.jpeg?crop=1560%2C1040%2Cx0%2Cy0&width=1200


  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    Posts: 243
    @Mendes4Lyfe @Univex

    Gents, hold on to your seatbelts, for the powers that be are moving and it'll be quite the ride. I'm certain.

    tumblr_plhsu5GqVX1vjmqa0o4_r3_500.gif

  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 14,113
    Stamper wrote: »
    Tom Cruise is going to be the next Bond for Amazon. It's a no brainer.
    Too old. WAY too old.

  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 860
    An essential quality of Bond is a kind of enigmatic quality, and I think Aidan Turner has that in spades, whereas Henry Cavill and Theo James feel a bit stiff by comparison. Watch A Turner interviews he has a natural self-effacing charm which I think Bond needs on some level.

    Yes, yes, yes.

    And if he isn't interested, *make* him interested.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,843
    @Mendes4Lyfe @Univex

    Gents, hold on to your seatbelts, for the powers that be are moving and it'll be quite the ride. I'm certain.

    tumblr_plhsu5GqVX1vjmqa0o4_r3_500.gif
    You were expecting Henry Cavill?

    Aidan Turner IS James Bond

    in

    -O
    COMMANDER
    -7
  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    Posts: 243
    QBranch wrote: »
    @Mendes4Lyfe @Univex

    Gents, hold on to your seatbelts, for the powers that be are moving and it'll be quite the ride. I'm certain.

    tumblr_plhsu5GqVX1vjmqa0o4_r3_500.gif
    You were expecting Henry Cavill?

    Aidan Turner IS James Bond

    in

    -O
    COMMANDER
    -7
    [enter gunbarrel]
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 860
    I would love it if some crazy talented Bond fan could make an Aidan Turner gunbarrel. I'd imagine that'd be very hard to pull off.
  • Posts: 4,646
    still holding out for this fella.....
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,093
    Oh yeah that's on Prime now isn't it, must give that a watch. I think he's a real candidate too: he's showing a bit of steel there.

    (Quite funny to have two Brits talking to each other as Americans!)
  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    Posts: 243
    I'd take Jude Law over Chucky any ol day
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 14,065
    I'd be ok with Hoult, if Turner and Cavill were out of the running.

    gettyimages-1172503183.jpg

    I think he could age into the part.
  • edited 11:29am Posts: 4,628
    Coming back here after months, but do we think that everything that has been said about the next Bond by BB and MGW is out the window now? Specifically their age requirement?

    Perhaps. But honestly, I'm not sure there's some inevitable casting choice they'll make, even with this development. At the moment I think there's so many different interpretations of Amazon getting creative control and much of it is contradictory in regards to casting. Ask one person and they'd say it's a guarantee the next Bond won't be played by a white actor. Others will claim it's a guarantee he will be. Same with how famous the actors are, or their age, or if they'll be American.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,652
    007HallY wrote: »
    Coming back here after months, but do we think that everything that has been said about the next Bond by BB and MGW is out the window now? Specifically their age requirement?

    Perhaps. But honestly, I'm not sure there's some inevitable casting choice they'll make, even with this development. At the moment I think there's so many different interpretations of Amazon getting creative control and much of it is contradictory in regards to casting. Ask one person and they'd say it's a guarantee the next Bond won't be played by a white actor. Others will claim it's a guarantee he will be. Same with how famous the actors are, or their age, or if they'll be American.

    It's going to be a populist choice, someone people can easily see in the role like Brosnan in the 90's. Amazon realise how weary the fans are, they have to do something popular and not rock the boat, Just look at The Force Awakens.
  • edited 11:53am Posts: 4,628
    007HallY wrote: »
    Coming back here after months, but do we think that everything that has been said about the next Bond by BB and MGW is out the window now? Specifically their age requirement?

    Perhaps. But honestly, I'm not sure there's some inevitable casting choice they'll make, even with this development. At the moment I think there's so many different interpretations of Amazon getting creative control and much of it is contradictory in regards to casting. Ask one person and they'd say it's a guarantee the next Bond won't be played by a white actor. Others will claim it's a guarantee he will be. Same with how famous the actors are, or their age, or if they'll be American.

    It's going to be a populist choice, someone people can easily see in the role like Brosnan in the 90's. Amazon realise how weary the fans are, they have to do something popular and not rock the boat, Just look at The Force Awakens.

    I'll say what I've been saying a lot recently, none of us know what we're talking about, and we know nothing about any of the decisions ahead. I don't know if that'll turn out to be true or not by the way. It could well do, but it's early days.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,652
    Well, we know that with EON no longer running the show the playbook has been thrown out the window. Amazon could be comfortable keeping an actor in the role way into his 50's, Tom Cruise or Robert Downey JR style, or they may fast track the films, so that someone 43/4 could fit in 5 films in 10 years. Someone 34/6 who is unestablished and doesn't have much of a public image really doesn't have a lot of offer. Amazon have already invested billions in getting bond, and they need to make decisions with a view to getting that investment back. Saving a few million by hiring an unknown is counterproductive for them, its in for a penny, in for a pound, look at The Force Awakens or Jurassic World for a similar kind of thing.
  • edited 12:47pm Posts: 4,628
    Well, we know that with EON no longer running the show the playbook has been thrown out the window. Amazon could be comfortable keeping an actor in the role way into his 50's, Tom Cruise or Robert Downey JR style, or they may fast track the films, so that someone 43/4 could fit in 5 films in 10 years. Someone 34/6 who is unestablished and doesn't have much of a public image really doesn't have a lot of offer. Amazon have already invested billions in getting bond, and they need to make decisions with a view to getting that investment back. Saving a few million by hiring an unknown is counterproductive for them, its in for a penny, in for a pound, look at The Force Awakens or Jurassic World for a similar kind of thing.

    The Force Awakens is actually a bit of a different story, and did go for relatively little known leads. But of course it had the benefit of high profile and even iconic cast members around them. Bond of course is an iconic property too so there's that to consider. It's very similar to Superman or Spiderman in that way, whose most recent leads have been on the lesser known side. They could go big with the supporting cast but have a lesser known lead in any one of the number of scenarios this could play out as. There are also inherent risks to casting any actor. Even with a Henry Cavill or someone that high profile. But ultimately I don't know. It'll depend on the creatives and who's put in that position of responsibility.

    Again, I see a lot of claims and they're so contradictory at this point. It is very humbling to know we know nothing.
  • Posts: 6,754
    007HallY wrote: »
    Again, I see a lot of claims and they're so contradictory at this point. It is very humbling to know we know nothing.
    Our status quo for the last odd 13 years, I’d say. Maybe it has always been that way.
  • edited 1:11pm Posts: 4,628
    Univex wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Again, I see a lot of claims and they're so contradictory at this point. It is very humbling to know we know nothing.
    Our status quo for the last odd 13 years, I’d say. Maybe it has always been that way.

    Haha, not wrong.

    My two pence on it: we know they've had conversations about casting, even met with actors (at least EON have), and I'm sure the benefits and risks have been weighed up. Even just taking this at the most cynical, PR driven perspective as opposed to the altruistic view of who's best for the role, I'm sure the point has come up that going with a lesser known actor might engage fans/viewers a bit more than a big (or indeed obvious) name would, and potentially drum up interest. The same can be applied to a controversial pick (again, being cynical you can apply this to a non-white actor unfortunately). Hell, even if there's negativity it'll keep the conversation going about the film and will create strong feelings on either side regardless of the final product (look at the new Superman film and some of the reaction towards the lead, good or bad. It's kept the film in the limelight and detractors and defenders are piling on it. I don't think any side are not going to see the film).

    I don't think there are any guarantees no matter which way this swings.
  • Posts: 6,754
    007HallY wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Again, I see a lot of claims and they're so contradictory at this point. It is very humbling to know we know nothing.
    Our status quo for the last odd 13 years, I’d say. Maybe it has always been that way.

    Haha, not wrong.

    My two pence on it: we know they've had conversations about casting, even met with actors (at least EON have), and I'm sure the benefits and risks have been weighed up. Even just taking this at the most cynical, PR driven perspective as opposed to the altruistic view of who's best for the role, I'm sure the point has come up that going with a lesser known actor might engage fans/viewers a bit more than a big (or indeed obvious) name would, and potentially drum up interest. The same can be applied to a controversial pick (again, being cynical you can apply this to a non-white actor unfortunately). Hell, even if there's negativity it'll keep the conversation going about the film and will create strong feelings on either side regardless of the final product (look at the new Superman film and some of the reaction towards the lead, good or bad. It's kept the film in the limelight and detractors and defenders are piling on it. I don't think any side are not going to see the film).

    I don't think there are any guarantees no matter which way this swings.

    True. And the same can be said about the state of the world. It’s all very worrisome and uncertain. We just have to stand our ground and voice our (more) informed opinions, perchance more than ever.
Sign In or Register to comment.