Who should/could be a Bond actor?

11811821841861871120

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    What should I watch to see Jamie Bell in an action oriented capacity? I know he was in Tintin, which I enjoyed, but that was motion capture.

    Jamie Bell is not going to be James Bond.
    From your lips to God's ears, or at least Bab's, hopefully.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Craig as Bond, Heath Ledger as The Joker, etc. It's amazing how people never learn. IF he does get the role, then even if you don't like Hiddleston, I think we should all at least trust EON's judgement and give him a fair chance. Judging him before we've even seen him in action is dumb imo. We'd be no better than the DCINB lot were.

    Precisely. I'd even include Affleck as Batman. He got some next level hate and now he's WB/DC's great hope.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Not to like Hiddleston is perfectly ok. But nobody can deny that he would look the part.

    Ben Affleck always looked the part of Bruce Wayne, but he was highly controversial because of his acting past (mainly Daredevil I believe). Furthermore BvS being such crap helped Affleck a lot in becoming the only positive thing in it.

    One thing is for sure who ever will be chosen will not win the hearts of everyone. But I believe there can be choices that would generally get accepted with positivity.

    Tom Hiddleston certainly belongs into that category. Fassbender or Aidan Turner certainly too.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,837
    peter wrote: »
    Hiddles is not going to be Bond.
    Turner is not going to be Bond.
    Bell is not going to be Bond.

    At this point, DC has the best chance of returning as Bond, if he wants it.

    And even then, even if he does want it back, the role still may be taken away from him...

    Am I that arrogant to be making these above, sweeping predictions?

    No.

    I only say this because, until a distributor is attached, no one is 100% guaranteed to be wearing the tux.

    It's the distributor who has to agree to the cast (after all they're going to be selling the film in the markets around the world).

    That's why I say Craig has the best, although, not guaranteed, chance of being 007 (providing he wants to). He's been big bank for the franchise, so, if Sony comes back again, they may want to stick with the goose who lays the golden eggs.

    If it's a new partnership, with another company, they may think the same: we can lessen risk, make guaranteed bank with this guy over two films (providing he wants to. And if he does, lock him up for two more films. If he's not going to commit to two more, then, 'bye-'bye). After this two pic deal, they send him off, make some great capital, then move into the more grinding process of re-casting. Or;

    They might also say: Craig's done, we're the new Sheriff in town, we want a re-boot. We wanna start fresh. We'll take however long it takes to get the casting right, then we'll move into the next film.

    But the casting decision WILL NOT BE MADE without the distribs consent.

    So the media can report all it wants about Hiddles, Turner, et al... But, realistically, and no matter how much it pains to say: this is going to take a while.

    Even if DC said tomorrow, I'm out, good luck to the next gent, the reality is, the casting will take a backseat to the deal with a distrib. The interested company, with Eon, will hafta hash out an agreeable Plan A, B and C (do we want Craig; does he want us? How many films?; if we re-boot, what's the dream casting list look like; who can we get? How many movies? Soft or hard re-boot?). All this hasta be agreed upon, with all parties agreeing to terms. Then, and only then, will the search for a new 007 start in earnest.

    So, since DC hasn't said a word, one way, or the other, he truly is Bond until he makes his retirement known, or a distrib resigns his licence to kill.

    It's all in the hands of EoN's big deal with the distributing company. That's when the fireworks will begin.

    Woah!
  • Posts: 1,631
    Very much agreed, @peter .

    None of this gets done until there is a distribution deal. Until then, it's all media reports and agents trying to get their clients' name out into the press.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,837
    Forgive me if I am mistaken, but wasn't it said that a deal would be struck in the first half of 2016?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Forgive me if I am mistaken, but wasn't it said that a deal would be struck in the first half of 2016?
    Yes, originally by EON I think, but more recent statements at the annual meeting by the MGM CEO seem to suggest this is going to be a prolonged process and there is no rush.
  • Posts: 1,631
    Forgive me if I am mistaken, but wasn't it said that a deal would be struck in the first half of 2016?

    Not by anyone actually involved in the negotiations. EON stated that they thought it would be done by February, but it's not up to them.

  • Posts: 1,661
    Actor Matthew Goode criticizes Bond franchise!

    Matthew, 38, told Phillip Schofield and Holly Willoughby: 'I went in for it last time and Barbara [Broccoli, James Bond producer] who is completely lovely but she hasn't brought me in this time.' He continued: 'I think they should half the budget. Reboot it. I don’t think modern Bond is working as well [as old Bond].' Phillip, 54, didn't beat around the bush and told him: 'Well, you've blown your chances now,' to which he replied: 'Well, I have now.'

    =))

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3552308/Matthew-Goode-takes-swipe-Bond-film-franchise-reveals-hasn-t-invited-second-audition.html
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,837
    To be fair, I agree with his comments.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,142
    I do agree with him when he says that the budget should be cut in half.
  • Posts: 1,631
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I do agree with him when he says that the budget should be cut in half.

    I don't know that it has to be cut that drastically, but they do need to do something about how they spend their money.

    I do wonder what a film would look like where they spent the kind of money they did on Spectre, but actually spent the money wisely. That was the biggest problem with Spectre, not necessarily the amount of money itself.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 2016 Posts: 7,837
    peter wrote: »
    If Goode, or Mendes4, don't like the direction of the series, that's a matter of personal opinion.

    As is the alternative. Don't confuse quality with success.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,142
    Maybe not that drastically, but when your budget for vehicles/vehicles destroyed is $40 million, it's time you dial things back considerably.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    peter wrote: »
    Hiddles is not going to be Bond.
    Turner is not going to be Bond.
    Bell is not going to be Bond.

    At this point, DC has the best chance of returning as Bond, if he wants it.

    And even then, even if he does want it back, the role still may be taken away from him...

    Am I that arrogant to be making these above, sweeping predictions?

    No.

    I only say this because, until a distributor is attached, no one is 100% guaranteed to be wearing the tux.

    It's the distributor who has to agree to the cast (after all they're going to be selling the film in the markets around the world).

    That's why I say Craig has the best, although, not guaranteed, chance of being 007 (providing he wants to). He's been big bank for the franchise, so, if Sony comes back again, they may want to stick with the goose who lays the golden eggs.

    If it's a new partnership, with another company, they may think the same: we can lessen risk, make guaranteed bank with this guy over two films (providing he wants to. And if he does, lock him up for two more films. If he's not going to commit to two more, then, 'bye-'bye). After this two pic deal, they send him off, make some great capital, then move into the more grinding process of re-casting. Or;

    They might also say: Craig's done, we're the new Sheriff in town, we want a re-boot. We wanna start fresh. We'll take however long it takes to get the casting right, then we'll move into the next film.

    But the casting decision WILL NOT BE MADE without the distribs consent.

    So the media can report all it wants about Hiddles, Turner, et al... But, realistically, and no matter how much it pains to say: this is going to take a while.

    Even if DC said tomorrow, I'm out, good luck to the next gent, the reality is, the casting will take a backseat to the deal with a distrib. The interested company, with Eon, will hafta hash out an agreeable Plan A, B and C (do we want Craig; does he want us? How many films?; if we re-boot, what's the dream casting list look like; who can we get? How many movies? Soft or hard re-boot?). All this hasta be agreed upon, with all parties agreeing to terms. Then, and only then, will the search for a new 007 start in earnest.

    So, since DC hasn't said a word, one way, or the other, he truly is Bond until he makes his retirement known, or a distrib resigns his licence to kill.

    It's all in the hands of EoN's big deal with the distributing company. That's when the fireworks will begin.

    I understand but I don't get that feeling.
  • StanKobraStanKobra Serbia
    Posts: 108
    Regarding studio deal, in the following article it says "seeing as the bidding for the Bond rights won’t even begin until later this year".

    http://collider.com/lucky-logan-daniel-craig-katherine-heigl/
  • Posts: 1,631
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Maybe not that drastically, but when your budget for vehicles/vehicles destroyed is $40 million, it's time you dial things back considerably.

    Yeah, that was definitely far too much, especially for a car chase that wasn't really even a chase, but rather a backdrop for an awkward information dump.

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,837
    I have no idea why they don't make Bond films half an hour shorter and they are at the moment. Surely that would help keep the costs down.
  • Posts: 74
    I honestly don't see why Dan Stevens isn't being touted as the next likliest actor to be Bond. I appreciate everyone has their favourites but I can't see Tom Hiddleston as 007. He's a great actor, has a good voice and presence but just doesn't have the 'persona' for Bond somehow. The only reason he's mentioned is because of the old Jag 'good to be bad' ad and his role in The Night Manager where he was a reluctant 'spy' anyway.

    If you've seen Dan Stevens in The Guest then you can easily see why he'd be ideal for the role. The guy has it all. If I were EON (perhaps they already are) I would get onto his agent quicker than George Galloway over a rug and saucer of milk.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,836
    peter wrote: »
    also old Bond had less sophisticated competition as modern Bond, and modern Bond comes out still winning every time...

    Never mind the competition, old Bond was sophisticated itself. But i'm all for cutting the running time down, and making a spy thriller with less action.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    peter wrote: »
    also old Bond had less sophisticated competition as modern Bond, and modern Bond comes out still winning every time...

    Never mind the competition, old Bond was sophisticated itself. But i'm all for cutting the running time down, and making a spy thriller with less action.
    I'm open to this as well, especially the shorter run time. I'd be even more open to it if we had Bond films every 2 yrs again. Not so long to wait for the next one then, so I can more readily live with a shorter run time.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,837
    peter wrote: »
    also old Bond had less sophisticated competition as modern Bond, and modern Bond comes out still winning every time...

    Never mind the competition, old Bond was sophisticated itself. But i'm all for cutting the running time down, and making a spy thriller with less action.

    The action is what costs, afterall. You can have a scene with great suspense on a shoestring budget. All you need is a bit of ingenuity.
  • StanKobraStanKobra Serbia
    Posts: 108
    I honestly don't see why Dan Stevens isn't being touted as the next likliest actor to be Bond. I appreciate everyone has their favourites but I can't see Tom Hiddleston as 007. He's a great actor, has a good voice and presence but just doesn't have the 'persona' for Bond somehow. The only reason he's mentioned is because of the old Jag 'good to be bad' ad and his role in The Night Manager where he was a reluctant 'spy' anyway.

    If you've seen Dan Stevens in The Guest then you can easily see why he'd be ideal for the role. The guy has it all. If I were EON (perhaps they already are) I would get onto his agent quicker than George Galloway over a rug and saucer of milk.

    Completely agree. After probably unattainable Fassbender, he's my first pick.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    peter wrote: »
    also old Bond had less sophisticated competition as modern Bond, and modern Bond comes out still winning every time...

    Never mind the competition, old Bond was sophisticated itself. But i'm all for cutting the running time down, and making a spy thriller with less action.

    The action is what costs, afterall. You can have a scene with great suspense on a shoestring budget. All you need is a bit of ingenuity.
    Arguably they did this with SF. That film had more suspense in it than SP (China, London, finale), at a much lower cost.
  • Posts: 1,631
    bondjames wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    also old Bond had less sophisticated competition as modern Bond, and modern Bond comes out still winning every time...

    Never mind the competition, old Bond was sophisticated itself. But i'm all for cutting the running time down, and making a spy thriller with less action.

    The action is what costs, afterall. You can have a scene with great suspense on a shoestring budget. All you need is a bit of ingenuity.
    Arguably they did this with SF. That film had more suspense in it than SP (China, London, finale), at a much lower cost.

    Agreed. Action scenes like the stairwell fight in CR, the silhouette fight in SF, and the other smaller-scale action sequences of the three pre-SP films should be the template for the action scenes moving forward.

    That'll never happen, of course. I just hope that they never subject us to a car chase like the one in SP ever again. That was essentially a joint Aston Martin-Jaguar commercial produced for the sole purpose of giving us one of the worst lines in the franchise's history.

  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,586
    StanKobra wrote: »
    Regarding studio deal, in the following article it says "seeing as the bidding for the Bond rights won’t even begin until later this year".

    http://collider.com/lucky-logan-daniel-craig-katherine-heigl/
    That's pure speculation on their part.
  • Posts: 1,631
    jake24 wrote: »
    StanKobra wrote: »
    Regarding studio deal, in the following article it says "seeing as the bidding for the Bond rights won’t even begin until later this year".

    http://collider.com/lucky-logan-daniel-craig-katherine-heigl/
    That's pure speculation on their part.

    It's also incorrect speculation on their part as well. It's not the rights to Bond that are being "auctioned" off.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    StanKobra wrote: »
    I honestly don't see why Dan Stevens isn't being touted as the next likliest actor to be Bond. I appreciate everyone has their favourites but I can't see Tom Hiddleston as 007. He's a great actor, has a good voice and presence but just doesn't have the 'persona' for Bond somehow. The only reason he's mentioned is because of the old Jag 'good to be bad' ad and his role in The Night Manager where he was a reluctant 'spy' anyway.

    If you've seen Dan Stevens in The Guest then you can easily see why he'd be ideal for the role. The guy has it all. If I were EON (perhaps they already are) I would get onto his agent quicker than George Galloway over a rug and saucer of milk.

    Completely agree. After probably unattainable Fassbender, he's my first pick.
    What is Dan Stevens working on these days? He's been a bit quiet lately, no?
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,836
    peter wrote: »
    also old Bond had less sophisticated competition as modern Bond, and modern Bond comes out still winning every time...

    Never mind the competition, old Bond was sophisticated itself. But i'm all for cutting the running time down, and making a spy thriller with less action.

    The action is what costs, afterall. You can have a scene with great suspense on a shoestring budget. All you need is a bit of ingenuity.

    I'd like to see a Bond film more along the lines of The International. That film had one action sequence, and look how much that sequence was talked about. Put one other action sequence in the film, space them apart, and that's what i'm thinking about.
  • edited May 2016 Posts: 6,601

    I'd like to see a Bond film more along the lines of The International. That film had one action sequence, and look how much that sequence was talked about. Put one other action sequence in the film, space them apart, and that's what i'm thinking about.

    Much talked about? The film rather flopped as far as I remember. QOS time, I believe
Sign In or Register to comment.