Who should/could be a Bond actor?

16146156176196201178

Comments

  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 686
    peter wrote: »
    @sandbagger1 -- welcome man! Nice reviews of your picks.

    As an aside-- I heard Hoult is no longer in the next M:I films. "Scheduling" concerns...

    Wow, hadn't heard that. I guess there will be a fair amount of this kind of thing happening, what with the virus delaying shoots.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255
    I think that will be the case, @sandbagger1 , but I'm suspicious with the re-casting in this case. If you've seen Ozark, you will know the actor Esai Morales. This very intense and quite a bit older thesp, replaces Hoult.

    My Spidey Senses tingled that, in retrospect (and now with enough time to do a switch), the producers ended up feeling that the younger Hoult just wasn't intimidating/threatening enough. You can't go much opposite than casting Morales.

    This is conjecture on my part; I do think Hoult is a very solid actor and has shown an abundance of talent for his entire career.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 686
    That does seem plausible. Everyone on Ozark is/was top-notch, him included. He was also on the DC Comics show Titans as Deathstroke, and predictably had much more screen presence than anyone else there.

    Still, we know Hoult was a finalist for Batman, so he's definitely someone who casting people think is in the ballpark for this kind of thing.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255
    I agree. I certainly think Hoult’s name will be on the list for the next James Bond— as he should: good looking and growing into those looks, and; he’s a very strong actor as well. As you noted, he’s played various characters. Like Craig, he has more of a character-actor career than just being plunked into one archetype.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,834
    peter wrote: »
    Like Craig, he has more of a character-actor career than just being plunked into one archetype.
    That's exactly the reason my second choice is Aaron Taylor-Johnson. I think he falls into the same category.
  • edited May 2020 Posts: 6,665
    peter wrote: »
    I agree. I certainly think Hoult’s name will be on the list for the next James Bond— as he should: good looking and growing into those looks, and; he’s a very strong actor as well. As you noted, he’s played various characters. Like Craig, he has more of a character-actor career than just being plunked into one archetype.

    Yes, from a kid that outshines Hugh Grant, to the Beast in X Men, from Peter the (not-so-great) II of Russia, to a Zombie, from a Mad Max's Nux to Kenny in A Single Man, from Tolkien, to... The guy is a character actor, and has had far more success than any of the candidates mentioned. He's in a different league. And, on all accounts, if he does eventually get it, he deserved it.
  • Posts: 9,736
    Nicolas Hoult as Bond number 7 wouldn't be the worse thing he has a brosnan vibe..
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 686
    Denbigh wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Like Craig, he has more of a character-actor career than just being plunked into one archetype.
    That's exactly the reason my second choice is Aaron Taylor-Johnson. I think he falls into the same category.

    I do think he's a good actor, and I think he looks right, but I'm a bit embarrassed to say that I, like others, am put off by his real voice, which has a David Beckham-like squeak to it. It shouldn't make a difference, but it does. I agree he's got better acting cred than most, though, I just don't think he'll get the nod.

    Someone I don't remember being mentioned was Charlie Cox. Probably too old now that the virus has thrown any new film back several years, and at 5'10'' on the edge of being too short, but he really impressed me as Matt Murdock/Daredevil in the Netflix show. I would not have guessed the floppy-haired kid from Stardust would be so strong in such a serious a role. Not exactly how I picture Bond, but definitely deserving of an audition, imo.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2020 Posts: 14,861
    peter wrote: »
    I think that will be the case, @sandbagger1 , but I'm suspicious with the re-casting in this case. If you've seen Ozark, you will know the actor Esai Morales. This very intense and quite a bit older thesp, replaces Hoult.

    My Spidey Senses tingled that, in retrospect (and now with enough time to do a switch), the producers ended up feeling that the younger Hoult just wasn't intimidating/threatening enough. You can't go much opposite than casting Morales.

    This is conjecture on my part; I do think Hoult is a very solid actor and has shown an abundance of talent for his entire career.

    I think it's likely it is what they say it is: scheduling issues. That they've cast a different type doesn't really mean much of anything- MacQuarrie famously writes these as he goes along so I doubt he's even got a fully-formed idea of what Morales' role is even now.

    I do agree that Hoult is a possibility for 007.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,834
    Denbigh wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Like Craig, he has more of a character-actor career than just being plunked into one archetype.
    That's exactly the reason my second choice is Aaron Taylor-Johnson. I think he falls into the same category.
    I do think he's a good actor, and I think he looks right, but I'm a bit embarrassed to say that I, like others, am put off by his real voice, which has a David Beckham-like squeak to it. It shouldn't make a difference, but it does. I agree he's got better acting cred than most, though, I just don't think he'll get the nod.
    I can understand that, but I think I'm happy to look past it as I think a voice is something that can easily be changed and adapted if the actors good enough - but obviously there are plenty of actors who already have the voice, but if they want Aaron want and he wants to do - I'll be happy. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on my first choice @sandbagger1, Callum Turner.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255
    mtm wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I think that will be the case, @sandbagger1 , but I'm suspicious with the re-casting in this case. If you've seen Ozark, you will know the actor Esai Morales. This very intense and quite a bit older thesp, replaces Hoult.

    My Spidey Senses tingled that, in retrospect (and now with enough time to do a switch), the producers ended up feeling that the younger Hoult just wasn't intimidating/threatening enough. You can't go much opposite than casting Morales.

    This is conjecture on my part; I do think Hoult is a very solid actor and has shown an abundance of talent for his entire career.

    I think it's likely it is what they say it is: scheduling issues. That they've cast a different type doesn't really mean much of anything- MacQuarrie famously writes these as he goes along so I doubt he's even got a fully-formed idea of what Morales' role is even now.

    I do agree that Hoult is a possibility for 007.

    @mtm: Hoult's upcoming dance card is quite open: he's in a couple films for 2020 that are already in the can, and he's lending his voice to an animated film I believe.

    Being in not one, but two M:I films is a huge deal (and yes, they do know his character, or the head villain's character, will be in both of the upcoming films), and he was backing out because of scheduling conflicts? Not only would these two films give him excellent exposure opposite arguably the biggest film star of our time (something his agents and managers would be over the moon with-- M:I, Bond, Batman, rarely come around more than one time...), but it'd fill his bank account for decades to come.

    Conjecture on my part, but it doesn't pass the smell test at all: this was likely a producer(s) decision and it happens more often than you'd think.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    I thought Kittridge was coming back as the villain for the next two M:I films.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2020 Posts: 14,861
    peter wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I think that will be the case, @sandbagger1 , but I'm suspicious with the re-casting in this case. If you've seen Ozark, you will know the actor Esai Morales. This very intense and quite a bit older thesp, replaces Hoult.

    My Spidey Senses tingled that, in retrospect (and now with enough time to do a switch), the producers ended up feeling that the younger Hoult just wasn't intimidating/threatening enough. You can't go much opposite than casting Morales.

    This is conjecture on my part; I do think Hoult is a very solid actor and has shown an abundance of talent for his entire career.

    I think it's likely it is what they say it is: scheduling issues. That they've cast a different type doesn't really mean much of anything- MacQuarrie famously writes these as he goes along so I doubt he's even got a fully-formed idea of what Morales' role is even now.

    I do agree that Hoult is a possibility for 007.

    @mtm: Hoult's upcoming dance card is quite open: he's in a couple films for 2020 that are already in the can, and he's lending his voice to an animated film I believe.

    I doubt we have full access to his schedule.
    peter wrote: »
    Being in not one, but two M:I films is a huge deal (and yes, they do know his character, or the head villain's character, will be in both of the upcoming films), and he was backing out because of scheduling conflicts?

    No reason to think not, scheduling has been pretty notably messed up. Dumping two massive blockbusters into your schedule is not a small matter.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255
    sure.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    Posts: 280
    I thought Kittridge was coming back as the villain for the next two M:I films.
    It isn't Vanessa Kirby's character that's the villain? Kittridge was a good guy.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2020 Posts: 14,861
    Agent_One wrote: »
    I thought Kittridge was coming back as the villain for the next two M:I films.
    It isn't Vanessa Kirby's character that's the villain? Kittridge was a good guy.

    I think it's more likely to be Hayley Atwell, but even then I'm not convinced she is (and her role may very well change). Kirby and Kittridge are more likely to stay incidental characters I'd guess. I don't think it's likely an old character is going to get promoted to main villain.

    Mind you, it is quite interesting that Kitteridge is back: McQ has said he's often tried to bring back older characters to please fans but hasn't found a way to service their characters when he tries. So he's obviously got a good reason to use Kitteridge, he won't just be there for the sake of it.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    edited May 2020 Posts: 280
    mtm wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    I thought Kittridge was coming back as the villain for the next two M:I films.
    It isn't Vanessa Kirby's character that's the villain? Kittridge was a good guy.

    I think it's more likely to be Hayley Atwell, but even then I'm not convinced she is (and her role may very well change). Kirby and Kittridge are more likely to stay incidental characters I'd guess. I don't think it's likely an old character is going to get promoted to main villain.
    McQuarrie described Atwell as having shifting loyalties, so I'd say she's not going to be the main antagonist. But yeah, they already did the 'old character comes back as a baddie' thing with Phelps and nobody liked it, so I'd say they'll probably steer clear of that.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Agent_One wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    I thought Kittridge was coming back as the villain for the next two M:I films.
    It isn't Vanessa Kirby's character that's the villain? Kittridge was a good guy.

    I think it's more likely to be Hayley Atwell, but even then I'm not convinced she is (and her role may very well change). Kirby and Kittridge are more likely to stay incidental characters I'd guess. I don't think it's likely an old character is going to get promoted to main villain.
    McQuarrie described her as having shifting loyalties, so I'd say she's not going to be the main antagonist.

    Yeah I got that impression too: it felt like they have slightly more interesting plans for her than just straight up baddie.
    Have they mentioned if Angela Bassett is back? He was setting her up to be the new unpredictable boss.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    edited May 2020 Posts: 280
    mtm wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    I thought Kittridge was coming back as the villain for the next two M:I films.
    It isn't Vanessa Kirby's character that's the villain? Kittridge was a good guy.

    I think it's more likely to be Hayley Atwell, but even then I'm not convinced she is (and her role may very well change). Kirby and Kittridge are more likely to stay incidental characters I'd guess. I don't think it's likely an old character is going to get promoted to main villain.
    McQuarrie described her as having shifting loyalties, so I'd say she's not going to be the main antagonist.

    Yeah I got that impression too: it felt like they have slightly more interesting plans for her than just straight up baddie.
    Have they mentioned if Angela Bassett is back? He was setting her up to be the new unpredictable boss.
    A quick scroll through Wikipedia doesn't provide any info on Bassett, but then the postion of IMF Boss hasn't ever had much continuity. First Hopkins, then Fishburne, Wilkinson etc.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Agent_One wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    I thought Kittridge was coming back as the villain for the next two M:I films.
    It isn't Vanessa Kirby's character that's the villain? Kittridge was a good guy.

    I think it's more likely to be Hayley Atwell, but even then I'm not convinced she is (and her role may very well change). Kirby and Kittridge are more likely to stay incidental characters I'd guess. I don't think it's likely an old character is going to get promoted to main villain.
    McQuarrie described her as having shifting loyalties, so I'd say she's not going to be the main antagonist.

    Yeah I got that impression too: it felt like they have slightly more interesting plans for her than just straight up baddie.
    Have they mentioned if Angela Bassett is back? He was setting her up to be the new unpredictable boss.
    A quick scroll through Wikipedia doesn't provide any info on Bassett, but then the postion of IMF Boss hasn't ever had much continuity. First Hopkins, then Fishburne, Wilkinson etc.

    Weird if she's not, he specifically said that he was gifting her for the next director (when he wasn't going to do another one!) so they could use her in a sort of half-ally/half-obstacle way.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited May 2020 Posts: 5,834
    Lets try and keep it on topic. There is a Mission Impossible page :)
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Lets try and keep it on topic. There is a Mission Impossible page :)

    Lol for a second i thought I was in the wrong page :))
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 686
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Like Craig, he has more of a character-actor career than just being plunked into one archetype.
    That's exactly the reason my second choice is Aaron Taylor-Johnson. I think he falls into the same category.
    I do think he's a good actor, and I think he looks right, but I'm a bit embarrassed to say that I, like others, am put off by his real voice, which has a David Beckham-like squeak to it. It shouldn't make a difference, but it does. I agree he's got better acting cred than most, though, I just don't think he'll get the nod.
    I can understand that, but I think I'm happy to look past it as I think a voice is something that can easily be changed and adapted if the actors good enough - but obviously there are plenty of actors who already have the voice, but if they want Aaron want and he wants to do - I'll be happy. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on my first choice @sandbagger1, Callum Turner.

    I'm afraid I'm one of those that really doesn't like him. I don't like his face, and his very contemporary London accent is just too downmarket for Bond, imo. It probably doesn't help that I've only seen him play rather dim, unsympathetic characters (War & Peace, The Capture).

    Actually, I've now gone on YouTube to watch him give interviews and I like him more. I still don't get his looks, but I'm a straight guy and that happens sometimes. Lots of girls in the comments section certainly seem to think he's hot. I think I need to see him in something where he's got a more middle-class accent, and is playing someone actually smart and likeable.

    He does have the height, and he has dark hair which is a plus. Yeah, I'll try to remain open-minded on him, but at the moment I just haven't seen him in anything where he's won me over. Still, yesterday he was pretty much at the bottom of my list, now he's moved to the 'maybe he wouldn't be so bad' category, so that's something.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,891
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Like Craig, he has more of a character-actor career than just being plunked into one archetype.
    That's exactly the reason my second choice is Aaron Taylor-Johnson. I think he falls into the same category.
    I do think he's a good actor, and I think he looks right, but I'm a bit embarrassed to say that I, like others, am put off by his real voice, which has a David Beckham-like squeak to it. It shouldn't make a difference, but it does. I agree he's got better acting cred than most, though, I just don't think he'll get the nod.
    I can understand that, but I think I'm happy to look past it as I think a voice is something that can easily be changed and adapted if the actors good enough - but obviously there are plenty of actors who already have the voice, but if they want Aaron want and he wants to do - I'll be happy. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on my first choice @sandbagger1, Callum Turner.

    I'm afraid I'm one of those that really doesn't like him. I don't like his face, and his very contemporary London accent is just too downmarket for Bond, imo. It probably doesn't help that I've only seen him play rather dim, unsympathetic characters (War & Peace, The Capture).

    Actually, I've now gone on YouTube to watch him give interviews and I like him more. I still don't get his looks, but I'm a straight guy and that happens sometimes. Lots of girls in the comments section certainly seem to think he's hot. I think I need to see him in something where he's got a more middle-class accent, and is playing someone actually smart and likeable.

    He does have the height, and he has dark hair which is a plus. Yeah, I'll try to remain open-minded on him, but at the moment I just haven't seen him in anything where he's won me over. Still, yesterday he was pretty much at the bottom of my list, now he's moved to the 'maybe he wouldn't be so bad' category, so that's something.

    +1 👍🏼
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Yeah a lot of these folks need to convince me. I wouldn't have thought Craig could have done it before I saw Layer Cake.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited May 2020 Posts: 5,834
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Like Craig, he has more of a character-actor career than just being plunked into one archetype.
    That's exactly the reason my second choice is Aaron Taylor-Johnson. I think he falls into the same category.
    I do think he's a good actor, and I think he looks right, but I'm a bit embarrassed to say that I, like others, am put off by his real voice, which has a David Beckham-like squeak to it. It shouldn't make a difference, but it does. I agree he's got better acting cred than most, though, I just don't think he'll get the nod.
    I can understand that, but I think I'm happy to look past it as I think a voice is something that can easily be changed and adapted if the actors good enough - but obviously there are plenty of actors who already have the voice, but if they want Aaron want and he wants to do - I'll be happy. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on my first choice @sandbagger1, Callum Turner.
    Actually, I've now gone on YouTube to watch him give interviews and I like him more. I still don't get his looks, but I'm a straight guy and that happens sometimes. Lots of girls in the comments section certainly seem to think he's hot. I think I need to see him in something where he's got a more middle-class accent, and is playing someone actually smart and likeable.

    He does have the height, and he has dark hair which is a plus. Yeah, I'll try to remain open-minded on him, but at the moment I just haven't seen him in anything where he's won me over. Still, yesterday he was pretty much at the bottom of my list, now he's moved to the 'maybe he wouldn't be so bad' category, so that's something.
    Haha I'm glad he's progressed :)
    I don't know, I just see something in him - a certain potential. Like I've said before if Bond 26 was coming out next year, I'd say don't cast him, but with Bond 26's release up to the hands of fate currently, I'd say he has a good a shot as anyone. I think people should also check him out in Fantastic Beasts, it shows him playing a character whose a little more higher class and he adapts his voice well in my opinion - but give the guy four/five years and I think he could really be Bond.

    He also has a Fleming quality to him that I like. He'd be a good parallel of modern and classic Bond.

    And you're right, a lot of my friends and certainly Twitter goes crazy for him - but more importantly to me he's just a really good actor whose adapted well to each project I've seen him in; whether they're Bond-like or not.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited May 2020 Posts: 5,834
    @Pierce2Daniel @SaintMark @CraigMooreOHMSS @Univex @DaltonCraig007

    I don't really understand this with Hardy.

    Like I understand he likes these roles and likes to cover up sometimes, but I think he has respect for the character's he plays; in Mad Max: Fury Road and Legend for example.

    He works appropriately, and I imagine if he was to be James Bond, he'd understand what's required and know how he'd need to approach the role. Also as for the comments regarding his "thuggish"-ness, again they're actors, I don't think this is enough of a criticism to not worth being considered...

    ...but either way his age is an issue and he is in Venom so I don't think he'll ever be Bond.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Sorry you do not understand my not liking Tom Hardy, i'd prefer the next 007 to be a bit more the English gentleman and less of a thug. That is how Hardy comes across and I prefer Mel Gibsons Mad Max anyhow, no fan of Fury Road.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited May 2020 Posts: 5,834
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Sorry you do not understand my not liking Tom Hardy, i'd prefer the next 007 to be a bit more the English gentleman and less of a thug. That is how Hardy comes across and I prefer Mel Gibsons Mad Max anyhow, no fan of Fury Road.
    I can sure understand it to an extent, but I do think as an actor he's capable of that personally, but again I think there are other reasons that push him out anyway - and its a shame you weren't a fan of his performance in Fury Road.

    On a side-note, it's a real shame Christopher Abbott isn't British :(
    I'll be honest he's like a better Kit Harington.

    catch-22-christopher-abbott-03.jpg

  • Knowing that Cavill's return to the DCEU seems to be happening, probably for a crossover between Shazam and Black Adam which shouldn't be released before at least 2023, I guess he's out of the running again for the role of Bond.
Sign In or Register to comment.