› ›

Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1…748749751753754…1193

Comments

  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,771
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Olivia Colman would be a great future M, if they went for a woman again.

    agreed
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,980
    Univex wrote: »
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    Jackson-Cohen has shot to the top of my favourites list, too.

    I'd even go as far as saying I prefer him to Turner now. But he has to be styled the appropriate way. None of that modern spiked hairs with skinny suits. He needs to get his 50s/60s groove on. That hair from Bly Manor and some clean cut Saville Row single breasted navy blue suits with black oxfords, and knitted ties will do. Still, i find that my list is changing a bit in its order. Hoult, Jackson-Cohen, Turner. But to be fair, I’d be happy with any of the three.

    :)
    As I find with Hugh Jackman, possibly Jackson-Cohen looks better on screen than in photos, but I just don’t see Bond. Based on his photos he looks like a standard “ guy next door “ character actor.
    And to not pick, his mouth is distractingly small for his face.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    edited November 2020 Posts: 467
    Another OJC screen cap from Bly Manor already posted on Reddit. Keep in mind that his character in the show is a cad and a thug, who assumes he's entitled, from his skills, to great things. His character is a not as smart-as-he-thinks, manipulative villain who benefits from his good looks (which is a little different from Brando, who played Peter Quint in The Nightcomers in 1971). Anyway, while I was watching Bly Manor, there were a few moments where I thought that the guy had potential, some others not so much (his Scottish accent in the show isn't great, but nobody would ask him to imitate Connery). I checked if others had the same reaction, and it turns out that we're not alone.

    916isi12l6s51.jpg?width=790&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d6ffdf057f3952582c8b0d67e38809f72ef0efed

    As MSL49 said, he's definitely screen-test material. He wouldn't be necessarily convincing, but he belongs, at this point, on any serious list of contenders.


    https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/j8css5/oliver_jacksoncohen_would_make_an_incredible_007/
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    edited November 2020 Posts: 395
    Good screentest is the key factor when there is lot of actor's for one part.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,600
    Please help me out here, did they pick DC on the basis that they had already decided on a more "rough and ready" Bond or did he effectively define the role once cast? We need to consider the direction that they want to take the character as that will surely impact casting.
  • Since62Since62
    Posts: 1,571
    As I understand it, the producers knew it was time for a change. In turn, they believed it would work best with a new actor portraying Bond. That lead to the somewhat unceremonious release of P Brosnan. I perceive it is time for a tonal shift again. They've explored this path deeply for what will be 5 films. This is why I suggest that the selection of actor this time should be for someone appropriate for the planned next (unknown number) of films.
    There are interesting avenues available.
    Go with "Period Bond" (1950s-early 1960s) for just a couple or three ? This would allow for working with an older actor who would not be around (in the same great shape) for, say, 4 or 5 films spread out over normal timeframe. Go with one actor for just a few period films, film them quickly together (as was done with H Potter and Lord of the Rings, and with the 2nd and 3rd Back to the Future films), even if they get released a year or more apart.
    Then back to modern day ?
    Change actors at each juncture.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    edited November 2020 Posts: 17,293
    mtm wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    The Night Manager is just great, even if you're not a Hiddleston fan. I mean, look at the cast: Hugh Laurie, Elizabeth Debicki, Olivia Colman, Tom Hollander, David Harewood. I'd be happy to see any (if not all!) of these actors in a Bond film.

    It is great (and as I've said before, is a loose remake of Licence To Kill) but although Hiddleston is a decent enough lead I think he shows he's not Bond material in it.

    I wouldn't be totally against Hiddleston personally, but The Night Manager made me think of him more as a Simon Templar candidate than a Bond candidate.
  • Since62Since62
    Posts: 1,571
    Hiddleston certainly has that Megawatt Smile which works so well for the Saint, combined with the physicality and the ability to portray the naughty rogue. Yes ! Quite right ! He'd make a devilishly good Saint !
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    Since62 wrote: »
    Go with "Period Bond" (1950s-early 1960s) for just a couple or three?
    The major drawback with setting Bond as a period drama would be kissing goodbye to all its product placement sponsorship which helps cofinance these movies in the first place. Bond more than any other franchise relies heavily on present-day product placement to offset its production costs, so I don't see the producers or the studio rushing to set a future Bond movie in the 50s or 60s. Not unless they want to cover more of the exorbitant production costs themselves. Which begs the question: why would they want to do that?
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    I wouldn't be totally against Hiddleston personally, but The Night Manager made me think of him more as a Simon Templar candidate than a Bond candidate.
    Myself, I'm perfectly fine with Hiddleston portraying Simon Templar, so long as he stays clear of Bond. Not that I think Hiddleston is still in contention anymore. I think that ship sailed long ago.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,771
    HildebrandRarity wrote: »
    Another OJC screen cap from Bly Manor already posted on Reddit. Keep in mind that his character in the show is a cad and a thug, who assumes he's entitled, from his skills, to great things. His character is a not as smart-as-he-thinks, manipulative villain who benefits from his good looks (which is a little different from Brando, who played Peter Quint in The Nightcomers in 1971). Anyway, while I was watching Bly Manor, there were a few moments where I thought that the guy had potential, some others not so much (his Scottish accent in the show isn't great, but nobody would ask him to imitate Connery). I checked if others had the same reaction, and it turns out that we're not alone.

    916isi12l6s51.jpg?width=790&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d6ffdf057f3952582c8b0d67e38809f72ef0efed

    As MSL49 said, he's definitely screen-test material. He wouldn't be necessarily convincing, but he belongs, at this point, on any serious list of contenders.


    https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/j8css5/oliver_jacksoncohen_would_make_an_incredible_007/
    he is older then me by a few months so he has my vote lol ;)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,961
    bondsum wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    Go with "Period Bond" (1950s-early 1960s) for just a couple or three?
    The major drawback with setting Bond as a period drama would be kissing goodbye to all its product placement sponsorship which helps cofinance these movies in the first place. Bond more than any other franchise relies heavily on present-day product placement to offset its production costs, so I don't see the producers or the studio rushing to set a future Bond movie in the 50s or 60s. Not unless they want to cover more of the exorbitant production costs themselves. Which begs the question: why would they want to do that?

    Yeah, I think it would just make it so much harder to make the films in so many ways, plus it makes the series feel suddenly very backwards-looking and make it look like it wants to be the Connery years again. I've never thought it was a particularly good idea.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    mtm wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    Go with "Period Bond" (1950s-early 1960s) for just a couple or three?
    The major drawback with setting Bond as a period drama would be kissing goodbye to all its product placement sponsorship which helps cofinance these movies in the first place. Bond more than any other franchise relies heavily on present-day product placement to offset its production costs, so I don't see the producers or the studio rushing to set a future Bond movie in the 50s or 60s. Not unless they want to cover more of the exorbitant production costs themselves. Which begs the question: why would they want to do that?

    Yeah, I think it would just make it so much harder to make the films in so many ways, plus it makes the series feel suddenly very backwards-looking and make it look like it wants to be the Connery years again. I've never thought it was a particularly good idea.

    Agreed.
  • Benjamin_Weekly69Benjamin_Weekly69 London
    Posts: 727
    I would love a 60's film directed by Quentin Tarantino.
  • R1s1ngs0nR1s1ngs0n France
    Posts: 2,020
    Benjamin_Weekly69 wrote: »
    I would love a 60's film directed by Quentin Tarantino.
    ...with nothing but barefoot Bond girls.
  • Benjamin_Weekly69Benjamin_Weekly69 London
    Posts: 727
    Hell yes.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    Adam Rayner.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    mtm wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    Go with "Period Bond" (1950s-early 1960s) for just a couple or three?
    The major drawback with setting Bond as a period drama would be kissing goodbye to all its product placement sponsorship which helps cofinance these movies in the first place. Bond more than any other franchise relies heavily on present-day product placement to offset its production costs, so I don't see the producers or the studio rushing to set a future Bond movie in the 50s or 60s. Not unless they want to cover more of the exorbitant production costs themselves. Which begs the question: why would they want to do that?

    Yeah, I think it would just make it so much harder to make the films in so many ways, plus it makes the series feel suddenly very backwards-looking and make it look like it wants to be the Connery years again. I've never thought it was a particularly good idea.
    Agreed. Very backward-looking. Though the period Bond movies really wouldn't be an accurate portrayal of that period at all, as the writers/directors would consciously or subconsciously view the past through a modern lens of political correctness and whatnot. It would simply end up being a terrible pastiche of something done better 50-60 years before it.

    James Bond has been evolving in sync with the rest of the world very successfully since 1962. There's no reason to suddenly rewind the clock and pretend it's the early Sixties all over again for the sake of faux nostalgia or a cheap novelty effect.
  • Since62Since62
    Posts: 1,571
    I enjoy Q Tarantino's films a great deal, so, in Good Humor, I note the following
    If Tarantino made a Bond film it would have:
    Samuel L. Jackson
    the F word, a zillion times
    things out of time order
    actual songs which previously were released, in the soundtrack
    at least one long, drawn out action sequence with a LOT of talking before the violent action starts or -- if the duelling monologues occur mid-fight -- concludes

    I enjoy C Nolan's films a great deal, so, in Good Humor, I note the following, as well.
    If Nolan made a Bond film it would have:
    Michael Caine
    a catch-phrase, used multiple times, which describes the plot and/or theme
    something weird going on with time and/or characters' perceptions
    a Zimmer score with as few notes used as possible
    an ambiguous ending
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    All very good points @Since62. I've watched an awful lot of Tarantino interviews and he claims that he doesn't like being hired to write screenplays, citing the Crimson Tide as a very unhappy creative experience. He said he just can't be required to pull dialogue and ideas out of thin air, and that his writing method is naturally organic. Which makes me wonder would Tarantino have ever truly delivered a workable screenplay within the pre-production timeframe, or would it have been like waiting for Godot?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited November 2020 Posts: 7,526
    I enjoy NWR's films a great deal, so, in Good Humor, I note the following
    If NWR made a Bond film it would have:
    Ryan Gosling
    Hammer based violence and cannibalism
    Absolutely slamming electronic soundtrack by Cliff Martinez
    Lots of slo-mo
    Lots of neon lights
    classy-custom-made-royal-blue-men-wedding.jpg
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 2020 Posts: 14,961
    bondsum wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    Go with "Period Bond" (1950s-early 1960s) for just a couple or three?
    The major drawback with setting Bond as a period drama would be kissing goodbye to all its product placement sponsorship which helps cofinance these movies in the first place. Bond more than any other franchise relies heavily on present-day product placement to offset its production costs, so I don't see the producers or the studio rushing to set a future Bond movie in the 50s or 60s. Not unless they want to cover more of the exorbitant production costs themselves. Which begs the question: why would they want to do that?

    Yeah, I think it would just make it so much harder to make the films in so many ways, plus it makes the series feel suddenly very backwards-looking and make it look like it wants to be the Connery years again. I've never thought it was a particularly good idea.
    Agreed. Very backward-looking. Though the period Bond movies really wouldn't be an accurate portrayal of that period at all, as the writers/directors would consciously or subconsciously view the past through a modern lens of political correctness and whatnot. It would simply end up being a terrible pastiche of something done better 50-60 years before it.

    Plus would it even be an attempt to do the 50s/60s setting accurately or to just attempt to recreate the version Ken Adam gave us the first time round?
    As you say, Bond should keep moving on and be up to date.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    Cavill would be a good starting age now, shame.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited November 2020 Posts: 7,980
    I’m calling it now,; with production , minimally, at least 3 to 5 years off, Nicholas Hoult will be the next James Bond. He’s got the look, the acting chops and a great name for the credits.

    NICHOLAS HOULT
    As
    Ian Fleming’s
    JAMES BOND 007

    Of course, I could be wrong . :D
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    talos7 wrote: »
    I’m calling it now,; with production , minimally, at least 3 to 5 years off, Nicholas Hoult will be the next James Bond. He’s got the look, the acting chops and a great name for the credits.

    NICHOLAS HOULT
    As
    Ian Fleming’s
    JAMES BOND 007

    Of course, I could be wrong . :D

    Thankfully dear @talos7 you are wrong :) For I bring you the chosen one

    tumblr_o3way0waTL1srpvwao6_r1_400.gif
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    mtm wrote: »
    Plus would it even be an attempt to do the 50s/60s setting accurately or to just attempt to recreate the version Ken Adam gave us the first time round?
    As you say, Bond should keep moving on and be up to date.
    It would probably end up looking more like Austin Powers' interpretation of the Swinging Sixties London than what it really looked like. Everything would be amplified and dialed up a notch to 11. That's if Tarantino even managed to get a script written in time. Considering his own Star Trek movie, which we know he didn't write but oversaw the story line, can't even get off the ground.

    Acting chops aside, I think Nicholas Hoult looks too babyfaced for the role of Bond. My own favourites are still Turner and Cavill.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,600
    talos7 wrote: »
    I’m calling it now,; with production , minimally, at least 3 to 5 years off, Nicholas Hoult will be the next James Bond. He’s got the look, the acting chops and a great name for the credits.

    NICHOLAS HOULT
    As
    Ian Fleming’s
    JAMES BOND 007

    Of course, I could be wrong . :D

    +1
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    I just don't really like his weak jawline/ roundish face

    NicholasHoultLSpecialScreeningFoxSearchlightMRkQ33bEU3ux.jpg
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited November 2020 Posts: 16,331
    If Hoult was the next Bond, I'd check out. Nothing about him screams Bond to me.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    I think EON should give them screentest.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 15,818
    JeremyBondon wrote: »
    I just don't really like his weak jawline/ roundish face

    NicholasHoultLSpecialScreeningFoxSearchlightMRkQ33bEU3ux.jpg

    I'm not sold on him, really........unless Eon were adapting the Young Bond novels.
    Still he's not quite imposing enough for my tastes.
Sign In or Register to comment.