Who should/could be a Bond actor? *SPOILERS*

1827828830832833856

Comments

  • Posts: 12,882
    Denbigh wrote: »
    And if Billy Magnussen hadn't already played Logan Ash, he would've made a good Felix Leiter in the next era.

    Good choice!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 20 Posts: 8,839
    RC7 wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I just hope whoever they pick next, they map out a cohesive story and tone then see it through. Enough with trying to tie everything together.
    Pick a direction with Bond #7 and try to get everyone pulling in the same direction

    I don’t think that’ll happen. The films are reactionary. My personal choice would be to follow through on continuity of character rather than narrative. Have each story be it’s own thing but have a subtle character thread run through it. And I don’t mean an ‘arc’ but something akin to Fleming.

    Yeah I think when you're making these films and throwing everything you have at the one you're in production on, and bringing on a new director every time and asking him to invest in it, it would be tricky to have a plan for four or five films ahead. Maybe very general, sketchy ones, but nothing much more.
    Does Jack O’Connell seem likely to any of you who are more clued up on the industry than me? He’s the only suggestion so far I’d be really excited to see (although I’d give anyone a chance to convince me) and he’s the right age. But at the same time, I’m wondering if he’ll be on their radar. He made a big splash a few years ago and there were a lot of pundits predicting he’d be the next big thing, but he’s had a patchy filmography since, and I can’t decide if that’d work in his favour or not. On the one hand, it’s not like the others all had a flawless critically acclaimed body of work behind them, and him not blowing up the way he seemed poised to a few years ago means he’s not too famous for the role. But on the other hand, will he have fallen off their radar a bit? I’m not sure.

    He’s in a new TV series from Steven Knight (Peaky Blinders) about the formation of the SAS, so that might be something to keep an eye out for, could help establish his action hero credentials a bit.

    Oh yeah; he's playing Paddy Mayne in that isn't he? That should be a hell of a part.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    edited October 21 Posts: 272
    The second trailer for Kenneth Branagh's Belfast has dropped. This film is supposed to be an awards contender, and the lead is Jamie Dornan, who's been mentioned here a few times. Now Dornan has been said by detractors to be lacking as an actor (I don't know, I've never seen him in anything), but if he turns in a good performance in an award-winning film, I think it will strengthen his chances of being taken seriously as a Bond contender.

    I'm pretty sure Eon want to continue the Craig paradigm of having a strong, well respected acting talent in the lead role, so any of the 007 hopefuls grabbing an acting award (especially those who look the part but are seen as acting lightweights) I think get their chances strengthened considerably.

    Incidentally, Judy Dench is in the film, too.
  • edited October 21 Posts: 5,735
    The second trailer for Kenneth Branagh's Belfast has dropped. This film is supposed to be an awards contender, and the lead is Jamie Dornan, who's been mentioned here a few times. Now Dornan has been said by detractors to be lacking as an actor (I don't know, I've never seen him in anything), but if he turns in a good performance in an award-winning film, I think it will strengthen his chances of being taken seriously as a Bond contender.

    I'm pretty sure Eon want to continue the Craig paradigm of having a strong, well respected acting talent in the lead role, so any of the 007 hopefuls grabbing an acting award (especially those who look the part but are seen as acting lightweights) I think get their chances strengthened considerably.

    Incidentally, Judy Dench is in the film, too.

    That trailer is very good. And so is Dornan in it. And Branagh's due a good film, as he's been doing some pretty bad stuff lately, like that new awful Poirot iteration. Well, to be fair, when he's good, he's really good, as an actor and as a director.

    About Dornan, well, he's about 40, so.. I don't believe that batch of 40ish actors, like Turner or Dornan will have their chance. They're goners as far as Bond is concerned, IMO and unfortunately.

    I reckon, right now, 2 or 3 years make a huge difference.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    edited October 21 Posts: 272
    Wow, I assumed Dornan was mid-thirties!

    Yes, I think you're right, he's too old to get a shot now. I simply didn't think to check his age.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 411
    I'm surprised no one has complained that Jack O'Connell is too short yet.

    I can see it though.

    On Dornan, I wouldn't have minded, but yeah he's due to turn 40.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 272
    00Heaven wrote: »
    I'm surprised no one has complained that Jack O'Connell is too short yet.

    I can see it though.

    On Dornan, I wouldn't have minded, but yeah he's due to turn 40.

    Go back through the thread, it's been said repeatedly by many of us. There's something of a split between those of us who think 5'10'' is minimum height, and those that don't think height is an issue.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    edited October 21 Posts: 411
    00Heaven wrote: »
    I'm surprised no one has complained that Jack O'Connell is too short yet.

    I can see it though.

    On Dornan, I wouldn't have minded, but yeah he's due to turn 40.

    Go back through the thread, it's been said repeatedly by many of us. There's something of a split between those of us who think 5'10'' is minimum height, and those that don't think height is an issue.

    Ah. Normal service was never suspended then ;).

    I must admit he did look a little odd standing next to Angelina Jolie in one pic when I put him into Google images. It's not an outright no from me though. Just put him on stilts when he has to stand next to someone ;). On a more serious note there's all kinds of things they can do to give the illusion of height... Whether that pleases some people, I don't know.
  • Posts: 5,735
    00Heaven wrote: »
    00Heaven wrote: »
    I'm surprised no one has complained that Jack O'Connell is too short yet.

    I can see it though.

    On Dornan, I wouldn't have minded, but yeah he's due to turn 40.

    Go back through the thread, it's been said repeatedly by many of us. There's something of a split between those of us who think 5'10'' is minimum height, and those that don't think height is an issue.

    Ah. Normal service was never suspended then ;).

    I must admit he did look a little odd standing next to Angelina Jolie in one pic when I put him into Google images. It's not an outright no from me though. Just put him on stilts when he has to stand next to someone ;). On a more serious note there's all kinds of things they can do to give the illusion of height... Whether that pleases some people, I don't know.

    A brief note on identification, which goes to show my exemption as a fan. I’m a short guy, even if quite fit ;) , but short nonetheless, and I really want Bond to be around the height Fleming gave him on the page. See? It’s not all about race, gender, hair colour,... And the only two things I lack, going by Fleming’s, are blue eyes and height. Still, I want Bond to be as close to the page as possible. Heck, give him the scar on the cheek and the one in the hand ;)

    Also, I don’t think O’ Connell has the finesse or the style or the charisma. But those are other matters alltogether.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 272
    Univex wrote: »
    00Heaven wrote: »
    00Heaven wrote: »
    I'm surprised no one has complained that Jack O'Connell is too short yet.

    I can see it though.

    On Dornan, I wouldn't have minded, but yeah he's due to turn 40.

    Go back through the thread, it's been said repeatedly by many of us. There's something of a split between those of us who think 5'10'' is minimum height, and those that don't think height is an issue.

    Ah. Normal service was never suspended then ;).

    I must admit he did look a little odd standing next to Angelina Jolie in one pic when I put him into Google images. It's not an outright no from me though. Just put him on stilts when he has to stand next to someone ;). On a more serious note there's all kinds of things they can do to give the illusion of height... Whether that pleases some people, I don't know.

    A brief note on identification, which goes to show my exemption as a fan. I’m a short guy, even if quite fit ;) , but short nonetheless, and I really want Bond to be around the height Fleming gave him on the page. See? It’s not all about race, gender, hair colour,... And the only two things I lack, going by Fleming’s, are blue eyes and height. Still, I want Bond to be as close to the page as possible. Heck, give him the scar on the cheek and the one in the hand ;)

    Also, I don’t think O’ Connell has the finesse or the style or the charisma. But those are other matters alltogether.

    I'm in a similar position. And I'm not tall, either. I do like stories where the hero isn't that tall or that muscular and wins through via smarts and determination (or, you know a radioactive spider-bite), but... that's not really Bond.
  • Posts: 8,813
    Tom Hardy as Bond or bust.

    I enjoy him as well I think he is almost too perfect even though he is 44 he could in theory do a quick trilogy
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 411
    Unfortunately "quick trilogy" isn't in EON's vocabulary :(.
  • Posts: 8,813
    00Heaven wrote: »
    Unfortunately "quick trilogy" isn't in EON's vocabulary :(.

    that you know of but Maybe

    Again if we go to Fleming an Actor wiling to do one film eery other year and with Amazon's bankroll I have a feeling IF HARDY WAS CAST He could do 3 or even 4 films

    The Property of a Lady 2023 Hardy at 46
    Slay it with Flowers 2025 Hardy at 48
    A whisper of love a Whisper of hate 2027 Hardy at 50

    and depending on how he feels/looks he could do more
  • Posts: 5,735
    if it were, they could get Luke Evans :)
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 411
    Univex wrote: »
    if it were, they could get Luke Evans :)

    Good point.
  • edited October 21 Posts: 5,735
    00Heaven wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    if it were, they could get Luke Evans :)

    Good point.

    Or Michael Fassbender, everybody’s favourite ;)

    They’ll be missing so many cool candidates if they go younger. And speaking of short people, Cillian Murphy is larger than life, despite his size, because he oozes charisma. So many cool candidates...
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 272
    Fassbender is certainly the one that got away as far as I'm concerned.
  • edited October 21 Posts: 5,735
    Fassbender is certainly the one that got away as far as I'm concerned.

    We all like him. It’s that common possible ground I’ve been talking about.

    There are some films in the canon that everybody admits to being good, like FRWL. And there are possible choices going forwards, narrative wise and casting wise that would please everyone, I’m sure of it.

    The “you can’t please everyone “ motto seems to rule every discussion nowadays, being it political or the choosing of drapes. But the truth is consensus exists, we just have to go down the canonical path and tweek it to make it one of quality and freshness. That’s all.

    You don’t need to subvert to inovate or keep something fresh, but you have to bring a new form of high quality and value to it, constantly. So far, I’d say EON has done so, with some margin for exaggeration and miss.

    So I do hope they recognise this common ground, the need to get back to what has always worked, even in the DC tenure, and do it again with increased quality.

    IMO, the production values have increased significantly over the DC tenure, and there’s constantly one thing that is missing, always, ever since CR, and that is solid, quality, intelligent writing. But that’s a matter for other threads.

    There is common ground amongst fans, of this I am sure.

    If they made a solidly writen spy thriller, contained in an exotic location, with the production values of CR, SF or NTTD, with someone like Michael Fassbender, would any fan complain of said choices? Really, anyone?
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Univex wrote: »
    Fassbender is certainly the one that got away as far as I'm concerned.

    We all like him. It’s that common possible ground I’ve been talking about.

    There are some films in the canon that everybody admits to being good, like FRWL. And there are possible choices going forwards, narrative wise and casting wise that would please everyone, I’m sure of it.

    The “you can’t please everyone “ motto seems to rule every discussion nowadays, being it political or the choosing of drapes. But the truth is consensus exists, we just have to go down the canonical path and tweek it to make it one of quality and freshness. That’s all.

    You don’t need to subvert to inovate or keep something fresh, but you have to bring a new form of high quality and value to it, constantly. So far, I’d say EON has done so, with some margin for exaggeration and miss.

    So I do hope they recognise this common ground, the need to get back to what has always worked, even in the DC tenure, and do it again with increased quality.

    IMO, the production values have increased significantly over the DC tenure, and there’s constantly one thing that is missing, always, ever since CR, and that is solid, quality, intelligent writing. But that’s a matter for other threads.

    There is common ground amongst fans, of this I am sure.

    If they made a solidly writen spy thriller, contained in an exotic location, with the production values of CR, SF or NTTD, with someone like Michael Fassbender, would any fan complain of said choices? Really, anyone?

    Surely not. And if they did a quick trilogy - which let's be honest they won't - then I would want Fassbender over Hardy. Fassbender is a name but not too big. Although I haven't seen how he looks recently - it seems an age since he was in a film.
  • Posts: 5,735
    Univex wrote: »
    Fassbender is certainly the one that got away as far as I'm concerned.

    We all like him. It’s that common possible ground I’ve been talking about.

    There are some films in the canon that everybody admits to being good, like FRWL. And there are possible choices going forwards, narrative wise and casting wise that would please everyone, I’m sure of it.

    The “you can’t please everyone “ motto seems to rule every discussion nowadays, being it political or the choosing of drapes. But the truth is consensus exists, we just have to go down the canonical path and tweek it to make it one of quality and freshness. That’s all.

    You don’t need to subvert to inovate or keep something fresh, but you have to bring a new form of high quality and value to it, constantly. So far, I’d say EON has done so, with some margin for exaggeration and miss.

    So I do hope they recognise this common ground, the need to get back to what has always worked, even in the DC tenure, and do it again with increased quality.

    IMO, the production values have increased significantly over the DC tenure, and there’s constantly one thing that is missing, always, ever since CR, and that is solid, quality, intelligent writing. But that’s a matter for other threads.

    There is common ground amongst fans, of this I am sure.

    If they made a solidly writen spy thriller, contained in an exotic location, with the production values of CR, SF or NTTD, with someone like Michael Fassbender, would any fan complain of said choices? Really, anyone?

    Surely not. And if they did a quick trilogy - which let's be honest they won't - then I would want Fassbender over Hardy. Fassbender is a name but not too big. Although I haven't seen how he looks recently - it seems an age since he was in a film.

    Loosing a bit of hair, going by the LeMans documentary, but I'm sure he'd clean up nicely :)
  • Posts: 8,813
    Univex wrote: »
    Fassbender is certainly the one that got away as far as I'm concerned.

    We all like him. It’s that common possible ground I’ve been talking about.

    There are some films in the canon that everybody admits to being good, like FRWL. And there are possible choices going forwards, narrative wise and casting wise that would please everyone, I’m sure of it.

    The “you can’t please everyone “ motto seems to rule every discussion nowadays, being it political or the choosing of drapes. But the truth is consensus exists, we just have to go down the canonical path and tweek it to make it one of quality and freshness. That’s all.

    You don’t need to subvert to inovate or keep something fresh, but you have to bring a new form of high quality and value to it, constantly. So far, I’d say EON has done so, with some margin for exaggeration and miss.

    So I do hope they recognise this common ground, the need to get back to what has always worked, even in the DC tenure, and do it again with increased quality.

    IMO, the production values have increased significantly over the DC tenure, and there’s constantly one thing that is missing, always, ever since CR, and that is solid, quality, intelligent writing. But that’s a matter for other threads.

    There is common ground amongst fans, of this I am sure.

    If they made a solidly writen spy thriller, contained in an exotic location, with the production values of CR, SF or NTTD, with someone like Michael Fassbender, would any fan complain of said choices? Really, anyone?

    Fassbender and a fleming title sign me up
  • edited October 21 Posts: 12,512
    Common ground amongst fans is a very, very hard thing to achieve though (I’m sure they set out to make the next FRWL every time) and even then, fans are a minority. These are blockbusters made for a very wide audience. And when you try to please literally everyone in an audience that broad, that’s how you end up with something bland and safe like a Marvel film.

    Sam Mendes said it best, Bond isn’t a democracy. It’ll be cast based on the vision of the producers, rather than on what would get the least backlash on this site. I just hope it’s someone with presence, who can bring something new to it. If they manage that and stick him in a GE/CR esque reinvention then I’m sure I’ll be happy.
  • Posts: 7,227
    Common ground amongst fans is a very, very hard thing to achieve though (I’m sure they set out to make the next FRWL every time) and even then, fans are a minority. These are blockbusters made for a very wide audience. And when you try to please literally everyone in an audience that broad, that’s how you end up with something bland and safe like a Marvel film.


    I believe MGW has been quoted as saying; "every time we set out to make a new From Russia With Love, but we always end up with another Thunderball".
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded Riding a white swan to Matera
    Posts: 12,377
    RC7 wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I just hope whoever they pick next, they map out a cohesive story and tone then see it through. Enough with trying to tie everything together.
    Pick a direction with Bond #7 and try to get everyone pulling in the same direction

    I don’t think that’ll happen. The films are reactionary. My personal choice would be to follow through on continuity of character rather than narrative. Have each story be it’s own thing but have a subtle character thread run through it. And I don’t mean an ‘arc’ but something akin to Fleming.

    I like that actually. At least some thread through the next set of films. Subtle being a key point, but one that I think would make the films more interesting and give the audiences something "comfortable" or eager to see in the next one.

    The only thing I really do NOT want is a full reboot back to a true rookie 007 or a remake of Casino Royale. Fresh story, 007 agent already has a few missions under his belt. I definitely want Fukunaga back, not just because of his very skillful direction in NTTD, but also because he is versatile and can rise to the challenge of making Bond 26 a great Bond film, with us caring about the character, but not the same tone or heavier psychological delving we got with Daniel Craig's Bond. I love Craig's Bond, but I hope the next set are different enough, but fun and exciting. I do think Fukunaga is versatile enough to do that. And he seems to set himself challenges to go in different directions. I really want Sandgren back; especially if Fukunaga is back. They were a superb team.
  • Posts: 8,813
    https://www.thevulcanreporter.com/exclusives/tom-hardy-new-james-bond/?amp

    Well we have our 7th actor



    I wish this was true
  • BennyBenny Classified Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 12,090
    Not sold on Hardy as Bond. Wouldn’t be the worse choice, but he’s a bit to rough and thuggish to play James Bond.
    Also, the story is from 2020, so isn’t relevant. And with his Marvel contract and price range, I’d say he’s unlikely to fit EONs budget.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    edited October 22 Posts: 1,130
    Omg i think i participated here when Spectre was a big thing and since then I think my picks have changed a bit

    Here my top 3 picks

    1 Henry Cavill
    2 Chris Hemsworth
    3 Charlie Hunnam.

    Chris Hemsworth and Henry Cavill I like them because they both would Be similar takes on Pierce Brosnan who is my favorite Bond.

    Charlie Hunnam I think he is the middle ground between Craig and Brosnan. Let’s say if we Brosnan fans and Craig fans had to negotiate to choose a bond we’d come to the conclusion of choosing Charlie Hunnam.

    Suave and elegant but has the athletic body of Craig and has that rough edge Craig fans loved.
  • Posts: 2,245
    You know, I never really considered this before, but other than the fact that he was arguably at least two or three inches beyond "too tall" for the role, I actually think Christopher Lee had a perfect look to play Bond had he been cast for the first couple films. There is of course also his demeanor, voice, and the fact that he had extensive experience basically being the real-life equivalent of pre-Casino Royale book Bond. I wonder if all of that played into his later being cast as Scaramanga?
  • Antony_Starr_%28cropped%29.jpg
    I think Antony Starr could have been Bond but he's 45 now.
Sign In or Register to comment.