› ›

Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1…129913001301130213031305»

Comments

  • UnivexUnivex
    edited 1:11pm Posts: 7,020
    I don't disagree. I'd rather have a mature Bond in his late 30s, early 40s.

    I've only proposed Louis Partridge because, in the (very) young Bond scenario, he is definitely the best choice, and, like Connery, he can pass for older. He could very well be in his late 20s. Antithetically, Tom Holland is 29 and looks no older than 17/18. Craig always looked older than his age, and it suited him nicely. So did Connery.

    I say Partridge, in 2028, will look like a 30 year old, with perfect hair, deep voice, and...oh boy, it sounds like we're talking about horses here. I found myself using my Tommy Shelby inner voice. I'll shut up now :D
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,583
    Not that I would want this, but an argument could be made that at one time Bond was in his mid to late 20’s , what if we begin this incarnation there?

    I don’t support this, but I’m not closed minded to it either; it would all be in the execution. Watching an actor like Partridge mature in the role could be interesting.

    I would pair him with Jon Hamm as Felix; I can see him as a mentor like figure
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited 1:31pm Posts: 18,884
    I’m not averse to a younger Bond, it could take it to places we haven’t seen before. Plus Bond is a serious guy who’s been in the special forces: those guys mature quickly. He wouldn’t be Peter Parker.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,829
    mtm wrote: »
    I’m not averse to a younger Bond, it could take it to places we haven’t seen before. Plus Bond is a serious guy who’s been in the special forces: those guys mature quickly. He wouldn’t be Peter Parker.

    Yes. I agree. A younger Bond would show us something different and new.
  • Reflsin2bourbonsReflsin2bourbons
    Posts: 504
    If the actor's good enough they're old enough. Fleming's Bond in Casino Royale was any age from 26-34 (although he probably intended for him to be 34/35 when first writing it), and with filming of the next film in about two years, an actor in their early-mid twenties could just sneak into that age range.

    I don't see what's to gain from explicitly making the character in their mid/late 20s though. I agree that Bond's experience probably dictates him being at least in his 30s and I don't the next film should try and contradict that.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 2,074
    Kinda naive to suggest a full grown man in his mid-20s isn't expected to be mature enough to be a... cop, soldier, or spy.
  • Reflsin2bourbonsReflsin2bourbons
    Posts: 504
    Well, it is a bit too young to be among the 3 most elite of your profession. Some corporate heads are in their 30s or 40s, doesn't mean that M should suddenly get younger because at that age he'd have the "maturity" required to lead MI6
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 2,074
    You people have weird ideas about experience and leadership. There's even an entire scene in Skyfall between Bond and Q about it.

    It's also make believe. I agree that a younger Bond would be interesting, because of how it would need to be different. No one is asking for a 23 year old to play older.
  • UnivexUnivex
    edited 2:15pm Posts: 7,020
    Well if he looks 30 and you treat him as a prodigy in maturity and boldness, you have a new angle, non-cliché, to explore. All you have in the past 30 years or so, with the exception of Batman, maybe, are stories about rogue youngsters who disobey orders for the sale of being a rebel without a cause (a bit like they’ve done in the new game, I reckon). They could now do quite the opposite, an orphan forced to grow up and grow a pair as well, sooner than all others. A prodigal young Bond, who already knows his way around the world. Wouldn’t that be something for the Gen z to aspire to?
  • Reflsin2bourbonsReflsin2bourbons
    Posts: 504
    I'd imagine, that in a job that is quite tense and as subjective as Bond's is, there is no substitute for experience. And wasn't that part of the message in Skyfall? The ability to manage having lives in your hands can only really come from real world experience.

    Bond's character supposedly got loads of this experience over WWII (with also some periods before and after). If we read about Bond during the war or before we'd get a different character.

    I'm not saying that Bond should be veteran in the exact same way, but I personally believe that Bond should have a period of 7-10 years of experience before we see him. His "war" some may say.
  • dewiparrydewiparry
    Posts: 238
    Young Bond can work on screen. What about the real job? Even A-listers are terrified or not comfortable with it.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,884
    Reflsin2bourbons wrote: »
    Well, it is a bit too young to be among the 3 most elite of your profession. Some corporate heads are in their 30s or 40s, doesn't mean that M should suddenly get younger because at that age he'd have the "maturity" required to lead MI6

    To be fair, in CR M wonders aloud if she promoted Bond too soon: I don’t mind that idea. Maybe there’s some kind of loss of a number of double Os which leads to Bond’s premature promotion to the role, or perhaps the double O programme is a new innovative concept which involves getting the brightest of the new agents into the field.
    I dunno, I know what you’re saying: the whole concept of the licence to kill is that Bond is trusted to operate solo, and that implies a level of experience, but I think CR showed it can work.
  • dewiparrydewiparry
    Posts: 238
    Damn, now I think a young Bond has legs. The story could be a heavy and compelling journey forged into the man. Might be a better watch than me in my prime.
Sign In or Register to comment.