Who should/could be a Bond actor?

18308318338358361200

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,423

    Risico007 wrote: »
    Oh I can answer that he is a fan of Aidan turner only

    :D
    I guess I would be OK with Turner, but for some reason I have trouble telling him apart from Kit Harrington X_X

    Ouch! :D I remain to be convinced that Turner has what it takes to be a movie star, but he is at least a better lead than Harrington! :D
    Of all of the main actors Spooks had over the years, what a shame they used him for the film version! :) I said on the previous page that Richard Armitage was the weakest they had, but he would have been way better in the film than Kit!
  • Posts: 131
    mtm wrote: »

    Of all of the main actors Spooks had over the years, what a shame they used him for the film version! :) I said on the previous page that Richard Armitage was the weakest they had, but he would have been way better in the film than Kit!

    Totally! I am certain I watched the film at the time, but re-watching the trailer now, cannot even remember it. I get it that they wanted to capitalise on Kit's popularity in GoT, but there is no way he can carry a film - not even alongside Peter Firth.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,584
    I could see Theo James as Bond. Good suggestion

    The problem with most of these actors suggested for me is, is I've never seen them in any Bondian roles and also most of them have beards, so it's tough to imagine them as Bond.
    Perhaps I lack the required imagination, and I'm not an accountant 😉
  • The more I think about it, the more I like @Pierce2Daniel’s suggestion of someone much younger. My preference has always been for Bond to be a bit more seasoned, but after three films of old man Bond, I think an early years reboot is probably the right call.

    Plus there’s the new Batman reboot heading in that direction, which could inspire them in the same way Batman Begins did CR. Young, edgy lead. Stripped down budget. That’s what I’m expecting. I still think Jack O’Connell could pull that off nicely, but I’m not sure if it’ll be him. The smart money might be on a POC getting it next. I think that’s probably inevitable one day, and if it’s going to happen, now seems like a good time to do it, because they’ve got such a clean slate. Everyone knows the next one will be a whole new man to Craig, there’s no question of him playing the same incarnation, so I think it’d be easier for audiences to accept.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    The more I think about it, the more I like @Pierce2Daniel’s suggestion of someone much younger. My preference has always been for Bond to be a bit more seasoned, but after three films of old man Bond, I think an early years reboot is probably the right call.

    Plus there’s the new Batman reboot heading in that direction, which could inspire them in the same way Batman Begins did CR. Young, edgy lead. Stripped down budget. That’s what I’m expecting. I still think Jack O’Connell could pull that off nicely, but I’m not sure if it’ll be him. The smart money might be on a POC getting it next. I think that’s probably inevitable one day, and if it’s going to happen, now seems like a good time to do it, because they’ve got such a clean slate. Everyone knows the next one will be a whole new man to Craig, there’s no question of him playing the same incarnation, so I think it’d be easier for audiences to accept.

    Isn't Robert Pattinson 35? It seems that 35 is considered young, but 39 is considered too old. That's a very tight window to work in!

    I used to think Jack O'Connell would be good, but I have finally been convinced that he might be too short at 5'8.
  • The more I think about it, the more I like @Pierce2Daniel’s suggestion of someone much younger. My preference has always been for Bond to be a bit more seasoned, but after three films of old man Bond, I think an early years reboot is probably the right call.

    Plus there’s the new Batman reboot heading in that direction, which could inspire them in the same way Batman Begins did CR. Young, edgy lead. Stripped down budget. That’s what I’m expecting. I still think Jack O’Connell could pull that off nicely, but I’m not sure if it’ll be him. The smart money might be on a POC getting it next. I think that’s probably inevitable one day, and if it’s going to happen, now seems like a good time to do it, because they’ve got such a clean slate. Everyone knows the next one will be a whole new man to Craig, there’s no question of him playing the same incarnation, so I think it’d be easier for audiences to accept.

    Isn't Robert Pattinson 35? It seems that 35 is considered young, but 39 is considered too old. That's a very tight window to work in!

    I used to think Jack O'Connell would be good, but I have finally been convinced that he might be too short at 5'8.

    I didn’t realise Pattinson was that old to be honest, thought he was younger. I reckon the next guy will be somewhere in the 25-35 bracket. As well as younger being the current trend, it just makes sense to get someone with longetivity when you’re casting for a franchise, especially one with such staggered releases as Bond.
  • StarkStark France
    Posts: 177
    Perhaps NTTD disappointing score will force the producers to cast a rather famous actor to succeed Craig.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,423
    Yeah I can imagine a younger one this time. It would be a way of giving it a new flavour.
  • weboffearweboffear Scotland
    Posts: 49
    Anyone seen this interesting , not great but interesting
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,096
    I don't know if you can go too much younger than Craig was in CR unless you're going to change Bond's backstory or do his origin story again.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,875
    I don't know if you can go too much younger than Craig was in CR unless you're going to change Bond's backstory or do his origin story again.
    I think you can, as long as you can adapt Bond's backstory to fit with that age, which will have to happen anyway as the franchise continues.
  • Posts: 25
    Stark wrote: »
    Perhaps NTTD disappointing score will force the producers to cast a rather famous actor to succeed Craig.

    Was rooting for Tom Hardy and thought that he was a shoe in. But after the luke warm acceptance of NTTD. And on line grumblings from some quarters for a return to form of a more debonair and charming Bond. I think it would be better to go in a new direction. The suggestions above for Nicolas Hoult are interesting. He almost was cast as Batman/Bruce Wayne.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited October 2021 Posts: 8,096
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I don't know if you can go too much younger than Craig was in CR unless you're going to change Bond's backstory or do his origin story again.
    I think you can, as long as you can adapt Bond's backstory to fit with that age, which will have to happen anyway as the franchise continues.

    Why would it have to happen anyway? There are certain things you can change, but there are certain things you'd have to get rid of full stop if you went too young. It would have been plausible for a 30-year old to be a Commander in the 1950s, but not so plausible for that age bracket now. If you go too young, you'd have to adjust Bond's service record, and when you do that......it somewhat dilutes the whole "for Queen and Country" aspect. He just becomes another assassin. So I don't think you can go too young. That's just how I see it.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2021 Posts: 5,875
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I don't know if you can go too much younger than Craig was in CR unless you're going to change Bond's backstory or do his origin story again.
    I think you can, as long as you can adapt Bond's backstory to fit with that age, which will have to happen anyway as the franchise continues.
    Why would it have to happen anyway? There are certain things you can change, but there are certain things you'd have to get rid of full stop if you went too young. It would have been plausible for a 30-year old to be a Commander in the 1950s, but not so plausible for that age bracket now. If you go too young, you'd have to adjust Bond's service record, and when you do that......it somewhat dilutes the whole "for Queen and Country" aspect. He just becomes another assassin. So I don't think you can go too young. That's just how I see it.
    Oh I see, yeah, he shouldn't be younger than 30. I just meant that it's gonna be harder to keep some of the original backstory as time goes on because as you mentioned some things are just not plausible anymore.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited October 2021 Posts: 8,096
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I don't know if you can go too much younger than Craig was in CR unless you're going to change Bond's backstory or do his origin story again.
    I think you can, as long as you can adapt Bond's backstory to fit with that age, which will have to happen anyway as the franchise continues.
    Why would it have to happen anyway? There are certain things you can change, but there are certain things you'd have to get rid of full stop if you went too young. It would have been plausible for a 30-year old to be a Commander in the 1950s, but not so plausible for that age bracket now. If you go too young, you'd have to adjust Bond's service record, and when you do that......it somewhat dilutes the whole "for Queen and Country" aspect. He just becomes another assassin. So I don't think you can go too young. That's just how I see it.
    Oh I see, yeah, he shouldn't be younger than 30. I just meant that it's gonna be harder to keep some of the original backstory as time goes on because as you mentioned some things are just not plausible anymore.

    But it is more possible for someone around the age of 35-36 to achieve that rank. They already changed Bond in the Craig era to being an SBS commando to make that work but you wouldn't get away with much below that (I don't think - if there's any military experts here I would love to hear their thoughts). I think that age - 35 or 36 years old - is about right, especially when it comes to casting someone who (from an acting point of view) has good experience at carrying a film. Best of both worlds.

    Although, personally...I'd be fine with a 40 year old actor for a couple of films playing a seasoned agent who is in the midst of enjoying his work.
  • A few pages back we decided it’d be pretty
    much impossible for Bond to still be a commander, but then someone pointed out that in the novels, it was a sort of honorary rank anyway, given to him as a cover (or as a reward?) for his war time espionage. So, maybe they could keep that aspect after all. Just make it some sort of honorary rank given to 00s. As long as Bond is still old enough to have done some sort of military service beforehand, I don’t think it really matters too much.

    My preference would be for a 40 year old too, even if they could only give us a couple of films, but I’m not sure how likely that is. And like @mtm said, a younger actor would feel pretty fresh, especially after a few films of Bond as an “old dog”. I’m warming to the idea of an actor in their late 20/early 30s doing it personally. The only problem I can think of is that it immediately makes the list of viable candidates even shorter. You’d have to be really, really good to pull it off so young, and so far I can only think of a couple of actors that age who could manage it. It’d be a risky move, but I think it could feel very fresh if they found someone that age who could do it.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2021 Posts: 15,423
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I don't know if you can go too much younger than Craig was in CR unless you're going to change Bond's backstory or do his origin story again.
    I think you can, as long as you can adapt Bond's backstory to fit with that age, which will have to happen anyway as the franchise continues.

    Why would it have to happen anyway? There are certain things you can change, but there are certain things you'd have to get rid of full stop if you went too young. It would have been plausible for a 30-year old to be a Commander in the 1950s, but not so plausible for that age bracket now. If you go too young, you'd have to adjust Bond's service record, and when you do that......it somewhat dilutes the whole "for Queen and Country" aspect. He just becomes another assassin. So I don't think you can go too young. That's just how I see it.

    We were talking about how implausible it is for Bond to be a Commander anyway a few pages back. Just use the Fleming version which is that he attains the rank whilst basically working for intelligence. And he kind of is just another assassin, isn't he? He's number seven.
    We've just had a 31 year old double-O: it'd be fine.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited October 2021 Posts: 8,096
    Fair enough, fellas. I missed that discussion. Apologies.
  • Posts: 131
    With people looking increasingly younger for their ages compared to some 50 years ago, a twentysomething might look too boyish. I think 30 is a good lower threshold, considering Connery and Lazenby were the youngest Bonds at 32 and 30 respectively, but would personally prefer someone closer to 35.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,727
    Fassbender must surely be the most glaring 'What if...' ever of actors who could have been Bond.

    No other actor that hasn't been in the role has ever been such an Absolute dead-on fit for 007 that it actually hurts, as a fan, to know I'll never see him onscreen as Bond.

    And he is a completely different case to Brosnan, who was the people's choice only because he LOOKED like a viable candidate.

    Fassbender can ACTUALLY act, and do it well. I can confidently say he would have out-acted both Dalton and Craig (whom I both rate as the only true character actors to have taken on the job).
    Plus he speaks perfect German and a fair bit of French (007 is after all half Swiss...)

    There really isn't a standout anywhere close to him amongst the current crop of 30-38 yr old actors...

  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 816
    AceHole wrote: »
    Fassbender must surely be the most glaring 'What if...' ever of actors who could have been Bond.

    No other actor that hasn't been in the role has ever been such an Absolute dead-on fit for 007 that it actually hurts, as a fan, to know I'll never see him onscreen as Bond.

    And he is a completely different case to Brosnan, who was the people's choice only because he LOOKED like a viable candidate.

    Fassbender can ACTUALLY act, and do it well. I can confidently say he would have out-acted both Dalton and Craig (whom I both rate as the only true character actors to have taken on the job).
    Plus he speaks perfect German and a fair bit of French (007 is after all half Swiss...)

    There really isn't a standout anywhere close to him amongst the current crop of 30-38 yr old actors...
    Agreed. It's unfortunate that the timing wasn't better. When you look at his turns in Inglorious Basterds and X-Men: First Class...

  • Posts: 9,813
    Fassbender is currently 44

    If they hustled they could do a trilogy with him


    again first film in 2023 at 46
    Second film 2025 at 48
    third film 2027 at 50

    Of course you need strong Plots a good director and strong writers...

    But if you go to Fleming you have enough for all three films

    The Property of Lady a terrorist organization is using stolen arts and black market sales to create profits to fund terroism
    The Diamond Smugglers basically Diamonds Are Forever but with a different fleming title
    The Death Collector A mixture of The Man with the golden gun and the supposed backstory John Logan created for blofeld


    it could work :D
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    With people looking increasingly younger for their ages compared to some 50 years ago, a twentysomething might look too boyish. I think 30 is a good lower threshold, considering Connery and Lazenby were the youngest Bonds at 32 and 30 respectively, but would personally prefer someone closer to 35.

    That is kind of where I'm at with the question of age. I am very bad at guessing people's ages anyway, but to me there is a large corridor that is basically just "grown-up adult man" that goes from like 30 to 50 and with movie magic you could probably tack a few years on the beginning or end depending on the actor. Craig was still a young gun in QoS in 2008 and then a burned out old dog in Skyfall in 2012 and then he is kind of back to being Prime Bond in SP (or rather the second half of SF). He himself has talked about how it would take longer and longer to get back into Bond shape, but you don't see that on film, I think.

    This is a long-winded way of saying: For me, they shouldn't adress his age for the next one. Get an actor that can believably be in that range and is young enough to stay there for 15 years. That probably means someone in their thirties.

    But I am also wildly fluctuation all the time between what I want the next film to be and what I want from the new actor. And in the end, I will probably have some idea in my head and Eon will do something different, I will like it anyway, because I'm a big-old fanboy :))
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,727
    With people looking increasingly younger for their ages compared to some 50 years ago, a twentysomething might look too boyish. I think 30 is a good lower threshold, considering Connery and Lazenby were the youngest Bonds at 32 and 30 respectively, but would personally prefer someone closer to 35.
    ...
    This is a long-winded way of saying: For me, they shouldn't address his age for the next one. Get an actor that can believably be in that range and is young enough to stay there for 15 years. That probably means someone in their thirties.
    ...

    +1

    They didn't address 007's age in the early Connery years (Sean himself always looked more mature than his 31-36 in DN to YOLT), or with Lazenby and certainly not in Roger's later films :))

    This 'Bond is washed out/Bond is a dinosaur/Bond is (<insert woke-ism to put down cool middle-class white dude>)' is all very post Brosnan.

    007 being shown to be in his prime - yet still human and with the odd mistake or bout of overconfidence thrown in can also be very effective in the heightened-reality universe in which Bond should exist.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,727
    weboffear wrote: »
    Anyone seen this interesting , not great but interesting

    Timothy Dalton still looks more like Bond than Cavill ever will...

    When reading Fleming it's ALWAYS Dalton in my mind's eye. Always.
  • Posts: 131
    AceHole wrote: »
    Timothy Dalton still looks more like Bond than Cavill ever will...

    When reading Fleming it's ALWAYS Dalton in my mind's eye. Always.

    +1

    ...but I could live with Cavill if it comes to that
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,727
    AceHole wrote: »
    Timothy Dalton still looks more like Bond than Cavill ever will...

    When reading Fleming it's ALWAYS Dalton in my mind's eye. Always.

    +1

    ...but I could live with Cavill if it comes to that

    Well, I couldn't. Henry is a lovely chap, no doubt, but he has the acting range of a hippo.
  • AceHole wrote: »
    Fassbender must surely be the most glaring 'What if...' ever of actors who could have been Bond.

    No other actor that hasn't been in the role has ever been such an Absolute dead-on fit for 007 that it actually hurts, as a fan, to know I'll never see him onscreen as Bond.

    And he is a completely different case to Brosnan, who was the people's choice only because he LOOKED like a viable candidate.

    Fassbender can ACTUALLY act, and do it well. I can confidently say he would have out-acted both Dalton and Craig (whom I both rate as the only true character actors to have taken on the job).
    Plus he speaks perfect German and a fair bit of French (007 is after all half Swiss...)

    There really isn't a standout anywhere close to him amongst the current crop of 30-38 yr old actors...

    He’d have been brilliant, but I think Idris Elba (still the ultimate what could have been for me) and Tom Hardy would have been just as good.

    I can see what you mean though. I’m glad Craig stayed as long as he did, but I do think we missed out on some very good contenders because of that. There were a lot more names that excited me a few years ago. But I’m sure whoever it is will convince me. I don’t think Bond has ever been miscast, that’s one area I have complete faith in the producers to get right.
    With people looking increasingly younger for their ages compared to some 50 years ago, a twentysomething might look too boyish. I think 30 is a good lower threshold, considering Connery and Lazenby were the youngest Bonds at 32 and 30 respectively, but would personally prefer someone closer to 35.

    I think it depends on the twenty something. People do generally look younger, because quality of life has improved. But I think you can still tell that some actors from poorer backgrounds have lived and grafted a bit.

    And some just have a natural presence and masculinity that compensates for their youthful faces. Young Tom Hardy for example, or Jack O’Connell. That’s the main thing I want to see, and that’s why I never have strong opinions on suggestions from just looking at photos as some seem to. I think presence is what counts, because that’s what really shows on screen. O’Connell could’ve done it a few years ago, when he still looked quite fresh faced, and I think he’d have been more convincing as a hardened killer than some of the older names that have been suggested, because he actually seems tough.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 131
    My issue with Jack O'Connell and Tom Hardy (and with DC, much of the time) is that while convincing as killers, they would not be as convincing as gentlemen/playboys. I'd prefer a Bond who can be both. But I agree, presence is what counts most.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 575
    AceHole wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Timothy Dalton still looks more like Bond than Cavill ever will...

    When reading Fleming it's ALWAYS Dalton in my mind's eye. Always.

    +1

    ...but I could live with Cavill if it comes to that

    Well, I couldn't. Henry is a lovely chap, no doubt, but he has the acting range of hippo.

    :))
Sign In or Register to comment.