› ›

Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1…172173175177178…1192

Comments

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited May 2016 Posts: 15,690
    I can imagine EON pumping GE level films every 3 years with Brosnan from 1995 all the way to his record breaking 8th outing in 2016. I sure enjoy Craig and his films, but I would pay good money to see this alternate Bond timeline.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,330
    RC7 wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    He can still be Bond in my book. :D
    HlvzogYl.jpg

    He looks absolutely fantastic in this. I love the man.
    Thanks, that's from a very recent picture of him too. :)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    Brosnan? Nah, too old. How about this up and coming British actor? He's smooth and suave and rumor has it he almost got the part in 1962, so he's perfectly positioned for the gig right now.

    roger-moore.jpg?w=400

    Is God allowed to be Bond again?
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    RC7 wrote: »
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    Brosnan? Nah, too old. How about this up and coming British actor? He's smooth and suave and rumor has it he almost got the part in 1962, so he's perfectly positioned for the gig right now.

    roger-moore.jpg?w=400

    Is God allowed to be Bond again?

    Agreed.
  • GideonBondGideonBond MI20 HQ - Netherlands
    Posts: 75
    RC7 wrote: »
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    Brosnan? Nah, too old. How about this up and coming British actor? He's smooth and suave and rumor has it he almost got the part in 1962, so he's perfectly positioned for the gig right now.

    roger-moore.jpg?w=400

    Is God allowed to be Bond again?

    Well that's his prophet. The one and true God? Sure. Anytime.

    Son-Koneri-e1452594766304.jpg
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,330
    Heck bring them all back!
    4NkRNU1h.jpg
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    Murdock wrote: »
    Heck bring them all back!
    4NkRNU1h.jpg

    Yeess that would be fun, Pierce as the Villain( traitor 00) Moore as a Bond Ally, Timothy Dalton as M, Sean Connery as new Q and George Lazeny Villain henchmen.



  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    RC7 wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    He can still be Bond in my book. :D
    HlvzogYl.jpg

    He looks absolutely fantastic in this. I love the man.

    He always looks great.
    I loved him as Bond and woshed he could have done one more but 4 films is not a bad number and age wise he retired on a high note.
    So i quite moved on, I don't want Pierce to comeback as Bond but i want a Pierce similar for his replacement. Though it would be fun to bring him as Villain in the style of Alec Trevelyan.

  • fanbond123fanbond123
    edited May 2016 Posts: 1,661
    Those images of Aiden Turner look quite good. Perhaps he has the darker looks that might make for a nice contrast compared to Craig?
  • daltondalton
    edited May 2016 Posts: 1,631
    deleted
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Saw High-Rise yesterday. Interesting film. Not quite recommended though because it's rather weird. I also happened to coincidentally catch the finale of The Night Manager yesterday. Great show all round.

    The best thing in both was Hiddleston imho. He's the one for me going forward. Completely sold.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited May 2016 Posts: 4,116
    I appreciate your opinion @bondjames but I'm back voting Hardy even though he doesn't really look the part for me. He does look more lethal to me than Hiddleston and that's why I'm not swayed to Hiddleston yet.

    Or a digitally recreated Dalton. Would be more life like than Turner or Cavill.
  • daltondalton
    Posts: 1,631
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Or a digitally recreated Dalton. Would be more life like than Turner or Cavill.

    =))

    Couldn't agree more.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited May 2016 Posts: 4,116
    dalton wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Or a digitally recreated Dalton. Would be more life like than Turner or Cavill.

    =))

    Couldn't agree more.

    :D .btw that could be interpreted as a jab at Dalton being too theatrical. Wasn't intended that way though.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I understand the interest in Hardy @mcdonbb. He is an excellent actor. Truly brilliant.

    I do lean towards the more naturally suave Bond though, and I think it's something we haven't really had since Moore hung up the PPK in 1985.

    Hiddleston reminds me of Craig on many occasions (there is an underrated intensity to him) but he is just smoother. Silkier. More refined & polished.

    That's how I prefer my Bond, but I do appreciate Hardy's attractiveness as a candidate, although I'd really want him more as a villain rather than the lead.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited May 2016 Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    I understand the interest in Hardy @mcdonbb. He is an excellent actor. Truly brilliant.

    I do lean towards the more naturally suave Bond though, and I think it's something we haven't really had since Moore hung up the PPK in 1985.

    Hiddleston reminds me of Craig on many occasions (there is an underrated intensity to him) but he is just smoother. Silkier. More refined & polished.

    That's how I prefer my Bond, but I do appreciate Hardy's attractiveness as a candidate, although I'd really prefer him as a villain rather than the lead.

    I appreciate that and I actually agree. Hardy or not I really haven't found my true candidate.

    I guess it will be whomever they pick lol ...doubt they'll consult me. :(
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I understand the interest in Hardy @mcdonbb. He is an excellent actor. Truly brilliant.

    I do lean towards the more naturally suave Bond though, and I think it's something we haven't really had since Moore hung up the PPK in 1985.

    Hiddleston reminds me of Craig on many occasions (there is an underrated intensity to him) but he is just smoother. Silkier. More refined & polished.

    That's how I prefer my Bond, but I do appreciate Hardy's attractiveness as a candidate, although I'd really prefer him as a villain rather than the lead.

    I appreciate that and I actually agree. Hardy or not I really haven't found my true candidate.

    I guess it will be whomever they pick lol ...doubt they'll consult me. :(
    Or me.

    True, they could surprise us. Somehow I think it will be a 'known' though. It's much harder to hide a decent actor these days. With Disney and Co out in full force scouting for SW or the Marvel properties, the great future talent is being snapped up fast. Tom Holland is a perfect example.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I understand the interest in Hardy @mcdonbb. He is an excellent actor. Truly brilliant.

    I do lean towards the more naturally suave Bond though, and I think it's something we haven't really had since Moore hung up the PPK in 1985.

    Hiddleston reminds me of Craig on many occasions (there is an underrated intensity to him) but he is just smoother. Silkier. More refined & polished.

    That's how I prefer my Bond, but I do appreciate Hardy's attractiveness as a candidate, although I'd really prefer him as a villain rather than the lead.

    I appreciate that and I actually agree. Hardy or not I really haven't found my true candidate.

    I guess it will be whomever they pick lol ...doubt they'll consult me. :(
    Or me.

    True, they could surprise us. Somehow I think it will be a 'known' though. It's much harder to hide a decent actor these days. With Disney and Co out in full force scouting for SW or the Marvel properties, the great future talent is being snapped up fast. Tom Holland is a perfect example.

    Again I agree that it will be a known actor this time. Whomever the distributor will be I'm sure they'll want that chance to hit 1 billion mark and they will want us to forget Craig.

    Please understand I'm not anti Hiddleston I just foresee a harder sell here in NA.

    Judging from Jason's poll thread Hiddleston is scoring high but compared to other polls Hardy is scoring high.

    Just like the Presidential race here in the US my candidates never seem to make it very far :( ...I just am not sold on either Hiddleston or Hardy.

    Need someone with Brosnan's looks circa 1997 and Hiddleston's acting skill and the presence of a Connery or Moore.

    .....maybe Lazenby's price tag.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    mcdonbb wrote: »

    .....maybe Lazenby's price tag.

    Lazenby's price tag was never removed so luckily Cubby was able to return him to Harrod's and shop for another one.

    Maybe Barbara shouldn't remove it as well from the new actor.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I've not been disappointed by any of the actors who've played 007, so I don't
    expect to be disappointed by the next choice. :)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Thunderpussy wrote: »
    I've not been disappointed by any of the actors who've played 007, so I don't
    expect to be disappointed by the next choice. :)

    I haven't either. However, I'm leaning towards the archetypal Bond next time. I feel like DC has (not alone) opened the floodgates to the point where the discussion has become ludicrous. People are literally naming names these days, as if absolutely anyone could be Bond. They should fan the reactionary flames by casting a tall, dark, handsome, white bloke. Put everyone back in their boxes.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I stand ready for the call. ;)
  • GideonBondGideonBond MI20 HQ - Netherlands
    Posts: 75
    RC7 wrote: »
    Thunderpussy wrote: »
    I've not been disappointed by any of the actors who've played 007, so I don't
    expect to be disappointed by the next choice. :)

    I haven't either. However, I'm leaning towards the archetypal Bond next time. I feel like DC has (not alone) opened the floodgates to the point where the discussion has become ludicrous. People are literally naming names these days, as if absolutely anyone could be Bond. They should fan the reactionary flames by casting a tall, dark, handsome, white bloke. Put everyone back in their boxes.

    A lot of this, sir.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,087
    GideonBond wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Thunderpussy wrote: »
    I've not been disappointed by any of the actors who've played 007, so I don't
    expect to be disappointed by the next choice. :)

    I haven't either. However, I'm leaning towards the archetypal Bond next time. I feel like DC has (not alone) opened the floodgates to the point where the discussion has become ludicrous. People are literally naming names these days, as if absolutely anyone could be Bond. They should fan the reactionary flames by casting a tall, dark, handsome, white bloke. Put everyone back in their boxes.

    A lot of this, sir.

    Yeah, I never knew he was a Turner fan until now.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Of course a Turner has already appeared in a bond film .
    "The Fighting Temeraire" by Turner,Bond was looking at in
    Skyfall. ;)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    GideonBond wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Thunderpussy wrote: »
    I've not been disappointed by any of the actors who've played 007, so I don't
    expect to be disappointed by the next choice. :)

    I haven't either. However, I'm leaning towards the archetypal Bond next time. I feel like DC has (not alone) opened the floodgates to the point where the discussion has become ludicrous. People are literally naming names these days, as if absolutely anyone could be Bond. They should fan the reactionary flames by casting a tall, dark, handsome, white bloke. Put everyone back in their boxes.

    A lot of this, sir.

    Yeah, I never knew he was a Turner fan until now.

    I'm a fan of his look, just unconvinced, thus far, that he has the presence and gravitas.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,087
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    GideonBond wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Thunderpussy wrote: »
    I've not been disappointed by any of the actors who've played 007, so I don't
    expect to be disappointed by the next choice. :)

    I haven't either. However, I'm leaning towards the archetypal Bond next time. I feel like DC has (not alone) opened the floodgates to the point where the discussion has become ludicrous. People are literally naming names these days, as if absolutely anyone could be Bond. They should fan the reactionary flames by casting a tall, dark, handsome, white bloke. Put everyone back in their boxes.

    A lot of this, sir.

    Yeah, I never knew he was a Turner fan until now.

    I'm a fan of his look, just unconvinced, thus far, that he has the presence and gravitas.

    So you could still be convinced then?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    GideonBond wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Thunderpussy wrote: »
    I've not been disappointed by any of the actors who've played 007, so I don't
    expect to be disappointed by the next choice. :)

    I haven't either. However, I'm leaning towards the archetypal Bond next time. I feel like DC has (not alone) opened the floodgates to the point where the discussion has become ludicrous. People are literally naming names these days, as if absolutely anyone could be Bond. They should fan the reactionary flames by casting a tall, dark, handsome, white bloke. Put everyone back in their boxes.

    A lot of this, sir.

    Yeah, I never knew he was a Turner fan until now.

    I'm a fan of his look, just unconvinced, thus far, that he has the presence and gravitas.

    So you could still be convinced then?

    I'm always optimistic, but there are better candidates imo.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Why try and convince anyone ? I doubt the Producers will base any decisions on
    The views of eight or nine fans here. :))
  • GideonBondGideonBond MI20 HQ - Netherlands
    Posts: 75
    Thunderpussy wrote: »
    Why try and convince anyone ? I doubt the Producers will base any decisions on
    The views of eight or nine fans here. :))

    Haha, we seem to be an entitled lot here. 'The chosen ones', adepts of Fleming.
Sign In or Register to comment.