› ›

Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1…541542544546547…1193

Comments

  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I also don't believe an actor like Aidan Turner would want to play a lighter Bond, most actors looking to play this role have been turned onto it because Daniel Craig showed the potential the character has to be much more than suave, spy with little depth.

    It will be sometime before Bond takes a step backwards, expect the character to evolve not digress.
    I couldn't disagree more with that last sentence. I don't think that's a step backwards at all. It's a step sideways. The character of Bond can be compelling and fulfilling to watch purely on account of his confidence, intelligence, resourcefulness and charm, without the necessity of profound psychological depth. His deeper thoughts and emotions --about himself, his profession and others-- can be kept as an exquisitely unsolvable mystery, only to be alluded to with the subtlest of touches on certain occasions, such as when a character like Kerim Bey or Aki dies.

    We've had the Connery, Moore and Brosnan eras mostly featuring that type of characterization, and the Lazenby, Dalton and Craig eras generally leaning toward the other type, with the Craig era being no doubt more interested than any other in understanding what drives Bond as a person. (Even if, as you say, the Dalton era was not that far removed from the Moore era in some respects, the character still exhibited much greater depth than in the Roger era, by virtue of both Dalton's acting and certain aspects of the scripts.) My point is that both takes on the role are equally valid, and one isn't inherently superior to the other. Personally, I find both to be enjoyable.

    Also, I don't think the potential of Bond as a character, in the sense you're referring to, is as much as you think. There is a limitation. We can come to understand something about who he is and why he is the way he is --both through learning about his past and, more importantly, witnessing his reactions to new situations--, but we shouldn't ever feel like we've "cracked the code" on him. If that happens, the appeal of the character will dissipate, and the fantasy aspect of the films, and Bond himself, will turn into banality. He should always be a mystery to some extent, a dull man to whom exciting things happen. And the general approach to a deeper characterization of Bond shouldn't be about visiting his childhood home or learning about his foster brother, but about seeing him react to the death of a loved one he met in a mission, or considering the possibility of having a life outside the secret service. Things that arise naturally and organically out of his job, and the formula of the films.

    +1
    I think we have our 'post of the day' right there.
    Totally agree with EVERYTHING.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,779
    barryt007 wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I also don't believe an actor like Aidan Turner would want to play a lighter Bond, most actors looking to play this role have been turned onto it because Daniel Craig showed the potential the character has to be much more than suave, spy with little depth.

    It will be sometime before Bond takes a step backwards, expect the character to evolve not digress.
    I couldn't disagree more with that last sentence. I don't think that's a step backwards at all. It's a step sideways. The character of Bond can be compelling and fulfilling to watch purely on account of his confidence, intelligence, resourcefulness and charm, without the necessity of profound psychological depth. His deeper thoughts and emotions --about himself, his profession and others-- can be kept as an exquisitely unsolvable mystery, only to be alluded to with the subtlest of touches on certain occasions, such as when a character like Kerim Bey or Aki dies.

    We've had the Connery, Moore and Brosnan eras mostly featuring that type of characterization, and the Lazenby, Dalton and Craig eras generally leaning toward the other type, with the Craig era being no doubt more interested than any other in understanding what drives Bond as a person. (Even if, as you say, the Dalton era was not that far removed from the Moore era in some respects, the character still exhibited much greater depth than in the Roger era, by virtue of both Dalton's acting and certain aspects of the scripts.) My point is that both takes on the role are equally valid, and one isn't inherently superior to the other. Personally, I find both to be enjoyable.

    Also, I don't think the potential of Bond as a character, in the sense you're referring to, is as much as you think. There is a limitation. We can come to understand something about who he is and why he is the way he is --both through learning about his past and, more importantly, witnessing his reactions to new situations--, but we shouldn't ever feel like we've "cracked the code" on him. If that happens, the appeal of the character will dissipate, and the fantasy aspect of the films, and Bond himself, will turn into banality. He should always be a mystery to some extent, a dull man to whom exciting things happen. And the general approach to a deeper characterization of Bond shouldn't be about visiting his childhood home or learning about his foster brother, but about seeing him react to the death of a loved one he met in a mission, or considering the possibility of having a life outside the secret service. Things that arise naturally and organically out of his job, and the formula of the films.

    +1
    I think we have our 'post of the day' right there.
    Totally agree with EVERYTHING.

    This is honestly why Hardy is my main guy I feel he would be lighter then Craig but not too light
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Risico007 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I also don't believe an actor like Aidan Turner would want to play a lighter Bond, most actors looking to play this role have been turned onto it because Daniel Craig showed the potential the character has to be much more than suave, spy with little depth.

    It will be sometime before Bond takes a step backwards, expect the character to evolve not digress.
    I couldn't disagree more with that last sentence. I don't think that's a step backwards at all. It's a step sideways. The character of Bond can be compelling and fulfilling to watch purely on account of his confidence, intelligence, resourcefulness and charm, without the necessity of profound psychological depth. His deeper thoughts and emotions --about himself, his profession and others-- can be kept as an exquisitely unsolvable mystery, only to be alluded to with the subtlest of touches on certain occasions, such as when a character like Kerim Bey or Aki dies.

    We've had the Connery, Moore and Brosnan eras mostly featuring that type of characterization, and the Lazenby, Dalton and Craig eras generally leaning toward the other type, with the Craig era being no doubt more interested than any other in understanding what drives Bond as a person. (Even if, as you say, the Dalton era was not that far removed from the Moore era in some respects, the character still exhibited much greater depth than in the Roger era, by virtue of both Dalton's acting and certain aspects of the scripts.) My point is that both takes on the role are equally valid, and one isn't inherently superior to the other. Personally, I find both to be enjoyable.

    Also, I don't think the potential of Bond as a character, in the sense you're referring to, is as much as you think. There is a limitation. We can come to understand something about who he is and why he is the way he is --both through learning about his past and, more importantly, witnessing his reactions to new situations--, but we shouldn't ever feel like we've "cracked the code" on him. If that happens, the appeal of the character will dissipate, and the fantasy aspect of the films, and Bond himself, will turn into banality. He should always be a mystery to some extent, a dull man to whom exciting things happen. And the general approach to a deeper characterization of Bond shouldn't be about visiting his childhood home or learning about his foster brother, but about seeing him react to the death of a loved one he met in a mission, or considering the possibility of having a life outside the secret service. Things that arise naturally and organically out of his job, and the formula of the films.

    +1
    I think we have our 'post of the day' right there.
    Totally agree with EVERYTHING.

    This is honestly why Hardy is my main guy I feel he would be lighter then Craig but not too light

    I wouldn't mind Hardy,after seeing him as a Bond-like character in Inception.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,989
    Getafix wrote: »
    Cillian Murphy is a good actor but too odd looking.

    I agree, he's got an interesting but odd look, definitely not Bond.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    We'll just have to see what Barbara Broccoli has in store for the character but I don't think it will be going back to the Moore/Brosnan type just yet.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,888
    An out of left field choice, who at first I thought would be all wrong. But has grown on me as a potential Bond is Benedict Cumberbatch. I realise it's highly unlikely due to his star status, along with probably not wanting to attach himself to another franchise.
    However I think he's a terrific actor, who would possibly bring a Dalton style interpretation to the character.
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,677
    Benny wrote: »
    An out of left field choice, who at first I thought would be all wrong. But has grown on me as a potential Bond is Benedict Cumberbatch. I realise it's highly unlikely due to his star status, along with probably not wanting to attach himself to another franchise.
    However I think he's a terrific actor, who would possibly bring a Dalton style interpretation to the character.
    I believe Cumberbatch is capable of portraying anything and anyone. He really is a brilliant thespian.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Benny wrote: »
    An out of left field choice, who at first I thought would be all wrong. But has grown on me as a potential Bond is Benedict Cumberbatch. I realise it's highly unlikely due to his star status, along with probably not wanting to attach himself to another franchise.
    However I think he's a terrific actor, who would possibly bring a Dalton style interpretation to the character.

    He proved he could do a Bond type character when he was Khan in Star Trek Into Darkness,imo.

    Excellent actor.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,312
    Don't think I see Benedict Cumberbatch as Bond. Then again, Craig was a left field choice too, so…

    The one thing working in Cumberbatch's favour besides the fact that he's an excellent actor, is that he has the right kind of voice for the part.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 776
    Cumberbatch is fantastic, but I don't quite see him as Bond. He'd play an OUTSTANDING super villain though.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2019 Posts: 5,869
    Not now. He's only 22, but Jack Rowan looks like he could be a good future Bond :)

    There's an essence of young Connery about him.

    Peaky_Blinders_Portrait_01-664x801-c-center.jpg
    EBiQ3ksUcAI_LNW.jpg
    MV5BODJkZTVjZTktNjhhMy00YjEwLWE2MzItODU1ZjdlNzFmNmI2XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTExNDQ2MTI@._V1_.jpg
    Peaky_Blinders_02-1296x864-c-center.jpg
    Peaky_Blinders_03-1296x864-c-center.jpg
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,565
    https://deadline.com/2019/10/poldark-aidan-turner-leonardo-davinci-series-frank-spotnitz-1202762599/
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    peter wrote: »
    https://deadline.com/2019/10/poldark-aidan-turner-leonardo-davinci-series-frank-spotnitz-1202762599/

    Another score indeed for Turner, after the news he snagged a part in Malick's new film. Turner doesn't need Bond ;)
  • mattjoesmattjoes
    Posts: 6,754
    barryt007 wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I also don't believe an actor like Aidan Turner would want to play a lighter Bond, most actors looking to play this role have been turned onto it because Daniel Craig showed the potential the character has to be much more than suave, spy with little depth.

    It will be sometime before Bond takes a step backwards, expect the character to evolve not digress.
    I couldn't disagree more with that last sentence. I don't think that's a step backwards at all. It's a step sideways. The character of Bond can be compelling and fulfilling to watch purely on account of his confidence, intelligence, resourcefulness and charm, without the necessity of profound psychological depth. His deeper thoughts and emotions --about himself, his profession and others-- can be kept as an exquisitely unsolvable mystery, only to be alluded to with the subtlest of touches on certain occasions, such as when a character like Kerim Bey or Aki dies.

    We've had the Connery, Moore and Brosnan eras mostly featuring that type of characterization, and the Lazenby, Dalton and Craig eras generally leaning toward the other type, with the Craig era being no doubt more interested than any other in understanding what drives Bond as a person. (Even if, as you say, the Dalton era was not that far removed from the Moore era in some respects, the character still exhibited much greater depth than in the Roger era, by virtue of both Dalton's acting and certain aspects of the scripts.) My point is that both takes on the role are equally valid, and one isn't inherently superior to the other. Personally, I find both to be enjoyable.

    Also, I don't think the potential of Bond as a character, in the sense you're referring to, is as much as you think. There is a limitation. We can come to understand something about who he is and why he is the way he is --both through learning about his past and, more importantly, witnessing his reactions to new situations--, but we shouldn't ever feel like we've "cracked the code" on him. If that happens, the appeal of the character will dissipate, and the fantasy aspect of the films, and Bond himself, will turn into banality. He should always be a mystery to some extent, a dull man to whom exciting things happen. And the general approach to a deeper characterization of Bond shouldn't be about visiting his childhood home or learning about his foster brother, but about seeing him react to the death of a loved one he met in a mission, or considering the possibility of having a life outside the secret service. Things that arise naturally and organically out of his job, and the formula of the films.

    +1
    I think we have our 'post of the day' right there.
    Totally agree with EVERYTHING.

    Thank you!
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,988
    Thunderball wrote: »
    Cumberbatch is fantastic, but I don't quite see him as Bond. He'd play an OUTSTANDING super villain though.

    Agree.
  • UnivexUnivex
    edited October 2019 Posts: 6,677
    Jonah Hauer-King, if they go for even younger. Guy's 24.

    1513945930-little-women-jonah-hauer-king.jpg?resize=480:*
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,989
    I don’t know anything about him, and it not only be this one photo, but like so many of today’s young actors, he appears to have a very effete air about him.,
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2019 Posts: 5,869
    I know a lot of you don't agree but I personally believe he's got huge potential :)
    9a6773b88f5acd1cf620f972de6427b8.jpg
    1091571-800w.jpg
    aaron-taylor-johnson-givenchy.jpg
  • Pierce2DanielPierce2Daniel
    Posts: 4,400
    Taylor-Johnson is a little boring and bland. However, he looks the part and if he can find a great breakout role in the next few years, I can't see why not.

    Though, Martin Campbell seems to think that a black actor should be the next Bond...



    It's a shame that Michael B. Jordan is American. He'd make a terrific Bond...I mean we have had an English actor play Batman and Superman. So anything is possible.

    CcWnYWFUMAA5oDJ.jpg

    Michael-B-Jordan-Cannes-2018-Fahrenheit-451-Red-Carpet-Fashion-Tom-Lorenzo-Site-5.jpg
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,989
    Johnson is a one note, dull actor and Bond has not been, is not, and never will be black.
    If someone wants a black super spy, then create an original character.
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,677
    Not this again...
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,989
    🙄
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited November 2019 Posts: 5,185
    Pierce2Daniel wrote: »
    Taylor-Johnson is a little boring and bland. However, he looks the part and if he can find a great breakout role in the next few years, I can't see why not.

    Though, Martin Campbell seems to think that a black actor should be the next Bond...

    He said a black Bond is "legitimate" and might offer something interesting.
    Nowhere in his statement was a should.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,571
    Univex wrote: »
    Not this again...

    No, I agree, this discussion will not happen...just yet.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 776
    Please, not this again. Could there be a black Bond? Yes. Will there be? Not likely, at least not any time soon. Elba was right, he knew that of he became Bond he'd ne forever known colloquially as the 'Black Bond' for all time and he understandably didn't want that.
    Let's move on.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    edited November 2019 Posts: 45,489
    talos7 wrote: »
    Johnson is a one note, dull actor and Bond has not been, is not, and never will be black.
    If someone wants a black super spy, then create an original character.

    Jordan was the weakest link in both FF and BP.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    edited November 2019 Posts: 776
    Michael B. Jordan was great as Killmonger in Black Panther. Great in both Creeds too.

    Off topic, sorry.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,989
    Thunderball wrote: »
    Michael B. Jordan was great as Killmonger in Black Panther. Great in both Creeds too.

    Off topic, sorry.
    Even in Creed I was not impressed; Carl Weathers was so great as Apollo. One of his strengths as an actor is his strong, deep voice; Jordan is plagued by a quality that hampers so many young actors today, a thin voice that undermines their performances.
    To tie this into the topic, the next Bond needs a strong, commanding voice.

  • DrClatterhandDrClatterhand United Kingdom
    Posts: 349
    I'm currently watching The Game with Tom Hughes. Very impressed by his acting chops and commanding authority. Got a good look too.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,888
    DrClatterhand wrote: »
    I'm currently watching The Game with Tom Hughes. Very impressed by his acting chops and commanding authority. Got a good look too.

    I like Tom Hughes. I think he could play the role of Bond.
    Also his profile is about right for the part as well. Not too famous, but known. He's a very good actor as well, which is a bonus. I'd be happy if he became Bond #7
    And at 33/34 he'd be a great age to debut as OO7.
Sign In or Register to comment.