Who should/could be a Bond actor?

148495153541198

Comments

  • Posts: 6,601
    Oh please. He is never going to be close to anything handsome. I like him, but noo.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I don't agree @SirHilary. This guy does not have it. Quite pedestrian imho.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Speak truthfully, had anyone mentioned Craig as a potential Bond lets say around the time Brosnan was gunning goons down in 1999, who would have championed the casting?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Agreed @doubleoego, no doubt Craig was off the radar casting. However, he has an interesting look, which I think is necessary for Bond. Some of the suggestions on here just don't have character in their faces imho.....They're just somewhat plain looking to me.

    No matter what, Bond must have facial character I think, even if he's not conventionally handsome. It's a matter of opinion of course.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    I personally think Jamie Bell a few years from now will be a strong contender, he has been quite clever with his project choices and he's done everything from comedy/drama/musical/Period/Independant. He has worked with Dan spoke highly of him when working with him on Defiance and TinTin so I am pretty sure he will be getting the inside backing. He going to be the right age, acting credentials and British.

    2qdsm7s.jpg
    148luna.jpg

    Jamie Bell is indeed a good actor. However, as he is just 1.70m tall (a border line midget) I assume this will mean he has no chance I'm afraid.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited June 2015 Posts: 1,727
    Throwing around all these names are very good and well, but at the end of DC’s stint EoN cannot simply settle for just any 30 year old Brit who looks the part (even though this has now broadened) and can act a bit.

    Dan has raised the bar. James Bond is no longer just a slick action hero in a suit.
    We need someone with fortitude & ice-cold intelligence in their eyes - not the (public school)-boy next door (Dan Stevens, et al.). Gone are the days when talent was a secondary 007 requirement, an excellent actor is now needed, one who can convincingly convey the tricky balance between utter psychopath and a broken hero simultaneously.

    So that basically knocks off 95% of all the names currently bandied around on this board and in the popular media. Tom Hardy could do it, yes, but he will be 43 by the time the role is up for grabs and I don’t see him aging that well.

    It is, however, that other Thomas who is the only one mentioned that actually has the ability & presence to follow in the footsteps of this new brand of 007 that Daniel Craig has become. Tom Hiddleston is simply the only actor on any of these lists who would shine in the role, rather than just be ‘serviceable’.
    And don't give me any of the 'not handsome enough' malarkey, Craig wasn't considered beefcake material before CR either.
    Hiddleston has character & presence, both psychically and as an actor. He’ll age well – lean ectomorphic Brits like him and Ralph Fiennes always do, so the fact he’d be pushing 40 wouldn’t be an issue.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    I thought Bell was excellent in Filth. He would have to hit the gym Doubleego spot on.

    We all never saw Dan is Bond back when this was going on

    German lady would you have wanted a bit of Dan back then?

    2wn4t95.png
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited June 2015 Posts: 5,131
    Yes Bell was excellent in Filth. But he is 5ft 5 in tall! He would make a better Nick Nack than a 007.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    suavejmf lol here we go again with the height issue that Craig got hit with. I think considering the critisim he received over his appearance he has shown your either have the screen presence to play the role or you don't height and all that stuff can be compensated for in the way the film is shot.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Craig is 5f 10 1/2 inches....i.e. perfectly acceptable as an average UK man. I don't and never had a problem with Craig's height. 5 ft 5 inches (Bells' height) would be small for a woman. Slight difference there. Yes you can 'hide' height in film. But good luck at film premieres with a midget promoting the 007 brand if Bell got the part??
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Completely agree on Hiddleston for all the reasons you mention @AceHole. He has a certain unconventional handsomeness and a menace that is exactly what we need to take the mantle post-Craig.

    If Bell really is 5ft 5 I don't thank any number of camera angles will be able to save him to be quite honest, and it will limit the ladies he could play off of.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited June 2015 Posts: 1,727
    bondjames wrote: »
    Completely agree on Hiddleston for all the reasons you mention @AceHole. He has a certain unconventional handsomeness and a menace that is exactly what we need to take the mantle post-Craig.


    People who dismiss Hiddleston (if they exist) for the role should read up on Fleming and listen to his narration of OP/TLD on audiobook. As you say - he is unconventional & would be a far more edgy, interesting choice than any Henry 'YAWN' Cavill clone...
    Less critical, but also worth pointing out as we are on about it anyway - at almost 6'2" he would be easy to film.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Fleming had Bond at 6ft (Yes Craig at just over 5ft 10 inches is acceptable and blonde hair is acceptable). However, this is the 'height measure from the creator'.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    bondjames wrote: »
    Completely agree on Hiddleston for all the reasons you mention @AceHole. He has a certain unconventional handsomeness and a menace that is exactly what we need to take the mantle post-Craig.

    If Bell really is 5ft 5 I don't thank any number of camera angles will be able to save him to be quite honest, and it will limit the ladies he could play off of.

    Not sure if many women will 'swoon' over such a short actor either.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Fleming had Bond at 6ft (Yes Craig at just over 5ft 10 inches is acceptable and blonde hair is acceptable). However, this is the 'height measure from the creator'.

    6ft (1.83m) back in the 1950's would roughly equate to a solid 6'1.5" these days. Fleming was 6ft, which was pretty tall in his time.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    suavejmf wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Completely agree on Hiddleston for all the reasons you mention @AceHole. He has a certain unconventional handsomeness and a menace that is exactly what we need to take the mantle post-Craig.

    If Bell really is 5ft 5 I don't thank any number of camera angles will be able to save him to be quite honest, and it will limit the ladies he could play off of.

    Not sure if many women will 'swoon' over such a short actor either.

    Tom Cruise has made a living out it dude
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited June 2015 Posts: 1,727
    suavejmf wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Completely agree on Hiddleston for all the reasons you mention @AceHole. He has a certain unconventional handsomeness and a menace that is exactly what we need to take the mantle post-Craig.

    If Bell really is 5ft 5 I don't thank any number of camera angles will be able to save him to be quite honest, and it will limit the ladies he could play off of.

    Not sure if many women will 'swoon' over such a short actor either.

    Tom Cruise has made a living out it dude

    Short or tall - more important when it comes to 'appeal' is that the fella needs to be striking, if you see what I mean. This is why Hiddleston also fits the bill even though he's not 'soap opera' good looking.
    Handsome, but in an unconventional, interesting kind of way.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    AceHole wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Completely agree on Hiddleston for all the reasons you mention @AceHole. He has a certain unconventional handsomeness and a menace that is exactly what we need to take the mantle post-Craig.

    If Bell really is 5ft 5 I don't thank any number of camera angles will be able to save him to be quite honest, and it will limit the ladies he could play off of.

    Not sure if many women will 'swoon' over such a short actor either.

    Tom Cruise has made a living out it dude

    Short or tall - more important when it comes to 'appeal' is that the fella needs to be striking, if you see what I mean. This is why Hiddleston also fits the bill even though he's not 'soap opera' good looking.
    Handsome, but in an unconventional, interesting kind of way.

    For me he would have to put on some weight and turn it too muscle, he's a bit thin and gaunt looking at present. Not convinced I would want someone who has done the Marvel movie thing, I think there is plenty of better candidates.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited June 2015 Posts: 1,727
    AceHole wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Completely agree on Hiddleston for all the reasons you mention @AceHole. He has a certain unconventional handsomeness and a menace that is exactly what we need to take the mantle post-Craig.

    If Bell really is 5ft 5 I don't thank any number of camera angles will be able to save him to be quite honest, and it will limit the ladies he could play off of.

    Not sure if many women will 'swoon' over such a short actor either.

    Tom Cruise has made a living out it dude

    Short or tall - more important when it comes to 'appeal' is that the fella needs to be striking, if you see what I mean. This is why Hiddleston also fits the bill even though he's not 'soap opera' good looking.
    Handsome, but in an unconventional, interesting kind of way.

    For me he would have to put on some weight and turn it too muscle, he's a bit thin and gaunt looking at present. Not convinced I would want someone who has done the Marvel movie thing, I think there is plenty of better candidates.

    Don't see his build as a problem really, both Lazenby and Dalton had the same build when young, and Hiddleston could easily add the needed 5kg to his frame.

    Couldn't care less what the actor did previously. DC did Tombraider & SC did Derby O'Gill & The Little People (go figure...), but who gives a monkey's, really...?
  • Posts: 6,601
    I thought Bell was excellent in Filth. He would have to hit the gym Doubleego spot on.

    We all never saw Dan is Bond back when this was going on

    German lady would you have wanted a bit of Dan back then?

    2wn4t95.png

    Yep, because he always had IT, even back then.

    I don't feel TH, he is more of a wheezle and has that slightly off vibe. I think, he is better suited with baddie roles then as a womanizer.

    BTW, I think, its funny, that I always get singled out for being a fangirl over the current actor, whereas so many of the guys here are fan-boying like crazy over Dalton or even Brosnan. I don't mind that much, but its noticeable. Because I am a woman and as such an easy targent for jokes?

  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited June 2015 Posts: 2,138
    AceHole wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Completely agree on Hiddleston for all the reasons you mention @AceHole. He has a certain unconventional handsomeness and a menace that is exactly what we need to take the mantle post-Craig.

    If Bell really is 5ft 5 I don't thank any number of camera angles will be able to save him to be quite honest, and it will limit the ladies he could play off of.

    Not sure if many women will 'swoon' over such a short actor either.

    Tom Cruise has made a living out it dude

    Short or tall - more important when it comes to 'appeal' is that the fella needs to be striking, if you see what I mean. This is why Hiddleston also fits the bill even though he's not 'soap opera' good looking.
    Handsome, but in an unconventional, interesting kind of way.

    For me he would have to put on some weight and turn it too muscle, he's a bit thin and gaunt looking at present. Not convinced I would want someone who has done the Marvel movie thing, I think there is plenty of better candidates.

    Don't see his build as a problem really, both Lazenby and Dalton had the same build when young, and Hiddleston could easily add the needed 5kg to his frame.

    Couldn't care less what the actor did previously. DC did Tombraider & SC did Derby O'Gill & The Little People (go figure...), but who gives a monkey's, really...?

    DC was a bit part in Tomb Raider was in 2001 5 years pre Bond and DC's in with entrance to Holywood. Hiddleston an already established American TV star and played the main villain in not 1 but 3 summer Marvel blockbusters. Not for me thanks. And as for the Lazenby and Dalton being of the same buid as Hiddleston, thats really not true both of them were broad men, well built, Hiddleston is a tooth pick by comparison and has baby face features like a sick Matthew Mcconaughey. Not Bond material for me can honeslty say I would rather have another look at Idris Elba, and if you scroll back some pages you will see how opposed I was to that.

    P.S Dalton and Lazenby often score the bottom two of most polls of popular Bonds.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    P.S Dalton and Lazenby often score the bottom two of most polls of popular Bonds.

    Popular polls are about as interesting & relevant as a pair of very old socks that haven't been washed since the Queen's jubilee. They say absolutely nothing about quality or ability.

    'The Macarena' was far more popular than any of the Smashing Pumpkins output in 1996... do I need to continue?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    doubleoego wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Obviously @suzannestone is using Puffy to express and illustrate an ardent refusal to accept Rupert Friend as Bond. No one's considering Puff for the role.

    No one is considering Friend either, friend.

    @dominicgreen brought him up as a suitable candidate.

    @Thunderfinger Eon briefly considered him for casting in 2005. According to what I read he even gave an "impressive reading". So that would make him even more likely, because he was on their radar then, I don't see why not now.

    Didn t know that. But even Sam Neill gave an impressive reading according to Wilson.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    AceHole wrote: »
    P.S Dalton and Lazenby often score the bottom two of most polls of popular Bonds.

    Popular polls are about as interesting & relevant as a pair of very old socks that haven't been washed since the Queen's jubilee. They say absolutely nothing about quality or ability.

    'The Macarena' was far more popular than any of the Smashing Pumpkins output in 1996... do I need to continue?

    Do you really think that warrants a response?

    We are talking polls from the pople who love the Franchise when listing their Bonds in order of favorite you happened to pick the two as an example who are most commonly considered the least favorite. So why therefore should Hiddleston be Bond because he has the same stature as Lazenby and Dalton, when we can have another actor with the stature of Connery or Craig far more popular and succesfull actors to have played the role.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Germanlady wrote: »
    I thought Bell was excellent in Filth. He would have to hit the gym Doubleego spot on.

    We all never saw Dan is Bond back when this was going on

    German lady would you have wanted a bit of Dan back then?

    2wn4t95.png

    Yep, because he always had IT, even back then.

    I don't feel TH, he is more of a wheezle and has that slightly off vibe. I think, he is better suited with baddie roles then as a womanizer.

    BTW, I think, its funny, that I always get singled out for being a fangirl over the current actor, whereas so many of the guys here are fan-boying like crazy over Dalton or even Brosnan. I don't mind that much, but its noticeable. Because I am a woman and as such an easy targent for jokes?

    No German lady, its not just you because you are a woman, Brosnan fans get there fair share of grief when they try to defend everything after Goldeneye. Which for the record (Everything Or Nothing Documentary) in his own words Brosnan says he can't remember anything after Goldeneye. We were only pointing out that when they were casting for Bond in 2004-05 for Casino Royale nobody was on here saying "Daniel Craig, must be Bond" because A. people either had not heard of him B. Some said he was too ugly to be Bond. C. Some said he had Blonde hair therefore he could'nt be Bond. Dan was a pick from left field by Brocolli and together with his hard work in gym, some good story writting to showcase his ability they together turned Daniel Craig in to James Bond. The point we were making is you can not say Jamie Bell for example is not Bond material. The boy could grow in to his face in 4 years, maturity may be kind to him, he could hit the Gym and look every bit the part as he matures. Bell could be moulded in a similar way Dan was.

    Im sorry you thought we were picking on you because your a girl, not the case, my mother was a female. :0)
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    AceHole wrote: »
    P.S Dalton and Lazenby often score the bottom two of most polls of popular Bonds.

    Popular polls are about as interesting & relevant as a pair of very old socks that haven't been washed since the Queen's jubilee. They say absolutely nothing about quality or ability.

    'The Macarena' was far more popular than any of the Smashing Pumpkins output in 1996... do I need to continue?

    Do you really think that warrants a response?

    We are talking polls from the pople who love the Franchise when listing their Bonds in order of favorite you happened to pick the two as an example who are most commonly considered the least favorite. So why therefore should Hiddleston be Bond because he has the same stature as Lazenby and Dalton, when we can have another actor with the stature of Connery or Craig far more popular and succesfull actors to have played the role.

    Well I don't see any problem with my my criticism of your 'popular poll logic' - I said his frame is no problem and can be bulked (he filled it out just fine for 'Thor') and very similar to Dalton/Lazenby when they were younger (ie. before they played Bond).
    You chose not to agree with this (which is fine), and then for some reason threw in the quite pointless fact that his frame is similar to the Bond actors who came last in some unimportant poll.
    I'm merely explaining why I don't find that in the least bit relevant.

    Take it with some humor and a pinch of salt, as all such discussions should be taken :>
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited June 2015 Posts: 2,138
    AceHole wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    P.S Dalton and Lazenby often score the bottom two of most polls of popular Bonds.

    Popular polls are about as interesting & relevant as a pair of very old socks that haven't been washed since the Queen's jubilee. They say absolutely nothing about quality or ability.

    'The Macarena' was far more popular than any of the Smashing Pumpkins output in 1996... do I need to continue?

    Do you really think that warrants a response?

    We are talking polls from the pople who love the Franchise when listing their Bonds in order of favorite you happened to pick the two as an example who are most commonly considered the least favorite. So why therefore should Hiddleston be Bond because he has the same stature as Lazenby and Dalton, when we can have another actor with the stature of Connery or Craig far more popular and succesfull actors to have played the role.

    Well I don't see any problem with my my criticism of your 'popular poll logic' - I said his frame is no problem and can be bulked (he filled it out just fine for 'Thor') and very similar to Dalton/Lazenby when they were younger (ie. before they played Bond).
    You chose not to agree with this (which is fine), and then for some reason threw in the quite pointless fact that his frame is similar to the Bond actors who came last in some unimportant poll.
    I'm merely explaining why I don't find that in the least bit relevant.

    Take it with some humor and a pinch of salt, as all such discussions should be taken :>

    I agree with that. Good chat. Your a gent.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Germanlady wrote: »
    I thought Bell was excellent in Filth. He would have to hit the gym Doubleego spot on.

    We all never saw Dan is Bond back when this was going on

    German lady would you have wanted a bit of Dan back then?

    2wn4t95.png

    Yep, because he always had IT, even back then.

    I don't feel TH, he is more of a wheezle and has that slightly off vibe. I think, he is better suited with baddie roles then as a womanizer.

    BTW, I think, its funny, that I always get singled out for being a fangirl over the current actor, whereas so many of the guys here are fan-boying like crazy over Dalton or even Brosnan. I don't mind that much, but its noticeable. Because I am a woman and as such an easy targent for jokes?

    No German lady, its not just you because you are a woman, Brosnan fans get there fair share of grief when they try to defend everything after Goldeneye. Which for the record (Everything Or Nothing Documentary) in his own words Brosnan says he can't remember anything after Goldeneye. We were only pointing out that when they were casting for Bond in 2004-05 for Casino Royale nobody was on here saying "Daniel Craig, must be Bond" because A. people either had not heard of him B. Some said he was too ugly to be Bond. C. Some said he had Blonde hair therefore he could'nt be Bond. Dan was a pick from left field by Brocolli and together with his hard work in gym, some good story writting to showcase his ability they together turned Daniel Craig in to James Bond. The point we were making is you can not say Jamie Bell for example is not Bond material. The boy could grow in to his face in 4 years, maturity may be kind to him, he could hit the Gym and look every bit the part as he matures. Bell could be moulded in a similar way Dan was.

    Im sorry you thought we were picking on you because your a girl, not the case, my mother was a female. :0)


    I am somewhat releaved to hear that ;)

    Truth is, I got a good many "insults" over the years, but of course, am ready to take them for my man Dan :D

    But seriously, some of the suggestions here are so cringeworthy, that I often think, the poster is just joking - only to find out, he is not. Jamie is one of them. Sorry...he will always be more Tin Tin then Bond. No amount of muscling up can change that.

    But when the time comes, it will be interesting after all this talk, what sort of guy they choose. My interest will fade, never mind who it is, but I am curious never the less. After all, I am a woman ;;)
  • Posts: 14,888
    Because he was/is Tintin I doubt he will be Bond.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Because he was/is Tintin I doubt he will be Bond.

    Actors can be a lot of things, but some roles are just too far stretched.

    I think the worst suggestion was Cumberbitch. My name is Otter - Otterface.
    Sorry, I know I am being Craigisnotbond mean here, just can't help it. He is just too creepy. But I am aware of the fact, that he has a big female following, which just shows, there is one for everybody.

Sign In or Register to comment.