Who should/could be a Bond actor?

19019029049069071195

Comments

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,011
    007HallY wrote: »
    But why would 5'6 or even 5'4 be a problem if the actor was otherwise ideal for the role? Is it a deciding factor?

    Many people - including actors - are around this height. Tom Cruise is roughly 5'7 and Al Pacino is 5'6, the latter of which I found surprising (if you'd have told me his character in The Godfather was meant to be 5'10 or so I'd have believed it). I was surprised to read that Scott Cann is 5'5. Anyway, filmmakers are always going to be working around something with these actors - maybe it's the fact that they're hairline is receding or thinning at the back, maybe they're too short, too tall, have a beer belly, have a tattoo, have a funny mole on their neck... whatever, it can be worked around. Just get the best actor for the part.

    A 5’4 James Bond ? Well obviously you’re more enlightened than I am. Lol.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 750
    I think characters need a coherent identity, and part of that for me is visual. I don't like it when they change super-heroes' costumes, or worse yet, discard them completely, I'm not keen on changing hair-colour, I think altering things like height and attractiveness alter the way others interact with said character in a number of ways. Yes I think realistically every so often we might have to compromise on one aspect which strays from baseline, but I do think that baseline should be observed where possible.

    I know lots of people don't care if what they get on the screen is accurate to source, they care if it is successful critically and commercially, and whether it is 'good' on its own terms. I get that. I hear lots of people say Hugh Jackman was the perfect Wolverine; well, even ignoring the height (and I'll admit that having Logan quite as short as the comics probably wouldn't work), the director didn't understand the character and kind of merged him with Cyclops to the detriment of both characters. And I love Charlie Cox's Daredevil more than the comic version, but part of that is because he is not particularly accurate to the comic version - not just the height and the hair-colour, but ditching the swinging and acrobatics, it moves him away from DD and closer to other heroes, and he loses his individuality.

    That is, I stress, just my opinion. I'm not trying to tell anyone they are wrong for having a contrary view, or prevent anyone from posting suggestions that deviate from baseline, I just wanted to make clear why I tend to think casting Bond should line up with Fleming's original if possible.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    00Heaven wrote: »
    I know this may get poo poo'd but one of my friends keeps banging on about it and honestly I think she may be on to something... What about Taron Egerton? Decent looking, pretty good actor, only 32 years of age... The massive thing going against him is that he's on the short side.

    Too short indeed and an annoying block face

    That awkward moment when my sister told me I remind her of Taron Egerton...guess that puts me out the running as well 😅

    I bet a 100 quid you look better than him.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited April 2022 Posts: 3,393
    I just come to realize.....

    Lazenby - 1
    Dalton - 2
    Brosnan - 4
    Craig - 5
    Connery - 6
    Moore - 7

    So maybe the next Bond actor will do three (3) Bond films to complete the pattern.

    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    I just come to realize.....

    Lazenby - 1
    Dalton - 2
    Brosnan - 4
    Craig - 5
    Connery - 6
    Moore - 7

    So maybe the next Bond actor (3) will do three bond films to complete the pattern.

    1,2,3,4,5,6,7

    If they don't, we should riot.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,860
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    I just come to realize.....

    Lazenby - 1
    Dalton - 2
    Brosnan - 4
    Craig - 5
    Connery - 6
    Moore - 7

    So maybe the next Bond actor will do three (3) Bond films to complete the pattern.

    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

    Either that or they should do eight. ;)
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,011
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    I just come to realize.....

    Lazenby - 1
    Dalton - 2
    Brosnan - 4
    Craig - 5
    Connery - 6
    Moore - 7

    So maybe the next Bond actor will do three (3) Bond films to complete the pattern.

    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

    Either that or they should do eight. ;)

    A single actor doing a strong trilogy would not be a bad thing.

  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    talos7 wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    I just come to realize.....

    Lazenby - 1
    Dalton - 2
    Brosnan - 4
    Craig - 5
    Connery - 6
    Moore - 7

    So maybe the next Bond actor will do three (3) Bond films to complete the pattern.

    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

    Either that or they should do eight. ;)

    A single actor doing a strong trilogy would not be a bad thing.

    Certainly not the worst thing, but being a pessimist that would probably lead to a solid ending for the third film and then everyone wants to continue with the creative team in place; it takes ages for contracts to be sorted out; the tidy ending of the third film is frayed by the story suddenly having to go on, leading to the fourth film being underwhelming, so they want to do a fifth which is plagued by the same problems and before you know it, it's 15 years later and our guy is catching a set of missiles on the head. Wait, what were we talking about?
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited April 2022 Posts: 4,247
    talos7 wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    I just come to realize.....

    Lazenby - 1
    Dalton - 2
    Brosnan - 4
    Craig - 5
    Connery - 6
    Moore - 7

    So maybe the next Bond actor will do three (3) Bond films to complete the pattern.

    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

    Either that or they should do eight. ;)

    A single actor doing a strong trilogy would not be a bad thing.

    Honestly, I wouldn't mind a well-thought-out solid trilogy. Especially if they want to serialize the films again for Bond 7.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,551
    Given the rate at which these films are released anymore, I can't imagine the next actor doing more than 3-4 installments max.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 784
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Given the rate at which these films are released anymore, I can't imagine the next actor doing more than 3-4 installments max.

    Sadly true. I’d rather see more well-written lower budget iterations than fewer grandiose expensive spectacles hiding mediocre storytelling.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,860
    talos7 wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    I just come to realize.....

    Lazenby - 1
    Dalton - 2
    Brosnan - 4
    Craig - 5
    Connery - 6
    Moore - 7

    So maybe the next Bond actor will do three (3) Bond films to complete the pattern.

    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

    Either that or they should do eight. ;)

    A single actor doing a strong trilogy would not be a bad thing.

    Certainly not the worst thing, but being a pessimist that would probably lead to a solid ending for the third film and then everyone wants to continue with the creative team in place; it takes ages for contracts to be sorted out; the tidy ending of the third film is frayed by the story suddenly having to go on, leading to the fourth film being underwhelming, so they want to do a fifth which is plagued by the same problems and before you know it, it's 15 years later and our guy is catching a set of missiles on the head. Wait, what were we talking about?

    That does found familiar. As Robert Burns put it, "The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men/Gang aft agley”.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    That's kind of the point I've been trying to make for the last couple of days. Sure, having a plan and it coming off is pretty good, but what if they do a plan for a three-film arc and then the first one sucks? They might have everyone signed-up - Bond actor and the MI6 regulars of course, but also side characters like someone who'll turn out to be a villain by the end of film 2, writers and so on. It would only make sense for them to plan out pre-production to work quickly, so renting out studio space for three films, keeping sets after production of the first film is done etc and then people hate the way the series is going. Then what? Just charge on, because it will all work out in the third film that will be released in 4 to 6 years? Throw everything overboard? And that's before we get into external factors, like something happening to your cast or crew, or some geopolitical development making your planned out story problematic.
    People like to say "Well, they just have to plan it out better" as if serialized storytelling on a blockbuster scale is the easiest thing in the world and all of these people, who's literal job it is to do this, just haven't been smart enough to come up with that one.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,551
    That's kind of the point I've been trying to make for the last couple of days. Sure, having a plan and it coming off is pretty good, but what if they do a plan for a three-film arc and then the first one sucks? They might have everyone signed-up - Bond actor and the MI6 regulars of course, but also side characters like someone who'll turn out to be a villain by the end of film 2, writers and so on. It would only make sense for them to plan out pre-production to work quickly, so renting out studio space for three films, keeping sets after production of the first film is done etc and then people hate the way the series is going. Then what? Just charge on, because it will all work out in the third film that will be released in 4 to 6 years? Throw everything overboard? And that's before we get into external factors, like something happening to your cast or crew, or some geopolitical development making your planned out story problematic.
    People like to say "Well, they just have to plan it out better" as if serialized storytelling on a blockbuster scale is the easiest thing in the world and all of these people, who's literal job it is to do this, just haven't been smart enough to come up with that one.

    That's a gamble they'd have to take in such a situation and another reason why I'd rather these films (as unlikely as it is, after the success of the Craig era and its retroactive plotting that didn't always hit the mark) stick to standalone releases in the next era.
  • Posts: 14,859
    That's kind of the point I've been trying to make for the last couple of days. Sure, having a plan and it coming off is pretty good, but what if they do a plan for a three-film arc and then the first one sucks? They might have everyone signed-up - Bond actor and the MI6 regulars of course, but also side characters like someone who'll turn out to be a villain by the end of film 2, writers and so on. It would only make sense for them to plan out pre-production to work quickly, so renting out studio space for three films, keeping sets after production of the first film is done etc and then people hate the way the series is going. Then what? Just charge on, because it will all work out in the third film that will be released in 4 to 6 years? Throw everything overboard? And that's before we get into external factors, like something happening to your cast or crew, or some geopolitical development making your planned out story problematic.
    People like to say "Well, they just have to plan it out better" as if serialized storytelling on a blockbuster scale is the easiest thing in the world and all of these people, who's literal job it is to do this, just haven't been smart enough to come up with that one.

    I don't see a planned "Bond trilogy" working either. Trilogies work better when they have an existing source material to work on. That said, it would be useful to have some ideas where to go once the first film has been done and released. Have some sort of open ends (I might be the only one in favour of a recurring threat) and a few ideas for development.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2022 Posts: 15,108
    That's kind of the point I've been trying to make for the last couple of days. Sure, having a plan and it coming off is pretty good, but what if they do a plan for a three-film arc and then the first one sucks? They might have everyone signed-up - Bond actor and the MI6 regulars of course, but also side characters like someone who'll turn out to be a villain by the end of film 2, writers and so on. It would only make sense for them to plan out pre-production to work quickly, so renting out studio space for three films, keeping sets after production of the first film is done etc and then people hate the way the series is going. Then what? Just charge on, because it will all work out in the third film that will be released in 4 to 6 years? Throw everything overboard? And that's before we get into external factors, like something happening to your cast or crew, or some geopolitical development making your planned out story problematic.
    People like to say "Well, they just have to plan it out better" as if serialized storytelling on a blockbuster scale is the easiest thing in the world and all of these people, who's literal job it is to do this, just haven't been smart enough to come up with that one.

    Yeah, I also tend to think that with Bond films they put all of their effort into the next one: 100% with nothing left over. Intentionally holding stuff back for the next film (other than very vague thoughts like 'we might introduce Q and Moneypenny at some point') isn't really what they do: everything goes in now. Bond films aren't really about delayed gratification.
    It doesn't mean you can't do a serialised story, just that you make it up as you go along. Does anyone think Ian Fleming had the plot of TMWTGG all mapped out when he wrote OHMSS? I would be willing to bet he made it up as he went along.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited April 2022 Posts: 4,247
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    That's kind of the point I've been trying to make for the last couple of days. Sure, having a plan and it coming off is pretty good, but what if they do a plan for a three-film arc and then the first one sucks? They might have everyone signed-up - Bond actor and the MI6 regulars of course, but also side characters like someone who'll turn out to be a villain by the end of film 2, writers and so on. It would only make sense for them to plan out pre-production to work quickly, so renting out studio space for three films, keeping sets after production of the first film is done etc and then people hate the way the series is going. Then what? Just charge on, because it will all work out in the third film that will be released in 4 to 6 years? Throw everything overboard? And that's before we get into external factors, like something happening to your cast or crew, or some geopolitical development making your planned out story problematic.
    People like to say "Well, they just have to plan it out better" as if serialized storytelling on a blockbuster scale is the easiest thing in the world and all of these people, who's literal job it is to do this, just haven't been smart enough to come up with that one.

    That's a gamble they'd have to take in such a situation and another reason why I'd rather these films (as unlikely as it is, after the success of the Craig era and its retroactive plotting that didn't always hit the mark) stick to standalone releases in the next era.

    Yeah, I would love a return to standalone films as well. But after Craig, I really don't know if that would be possible. It might be EON wanting to correct the mistakes of Craig's era and do it better with Bond 7, still in serialized fashion.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Some of the suggestions here have given me a good chuckle. :))

    Most likely, the Bond producers have already chosen their man—they are just keeping him underwraps until the appropriate time. My money is probably on Regé-Jean Page. Not because I think he's the ideal choice for the role, but because he left Bridgerton to pursue a big movie career and the timing is rather suspicious. Though the Russo Brother's upcoming $200 million movie The Gray Man, where Page plays a top CIA asset might have put the kibosh on that for now. Plus, he's also got the upcoming Dungeons & Dragons for Paramount Pictures to grapple with.

    One thing's for sure. I look around at the slim picking for a suitable Bond candidate and I'm far from impressed. Apart from the few obvious names that the bookies throw around, there's nobody I can see who'll want to make me buy a ticket for Bond 26. Seriously, nobody. I can't be alone on this. Which should be a slight worry for Eon going forwards.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 784
    If it’s Jean-Page I will not pay to watch it in cinemas.

    I am not saying he would be bad, but like with Cavill I suspect it his performance will be bland.

  • Posts: 12,837
    bondsum wrote: »
    there's nobody I can see who'll want to make me buy a ticket for Bond 26. Seriously, nobody. I can't be alone on this. Which should be a slight worry for Eon going forwards.

    I don’t think most people are as picky as fans are to be honest. Look at how DCINB turned out. Or the backlash to Matt Smith as Doctor Who, Heath Ledger as the Joker, Robert Pattinson as Batman, etc. As long as they cast an attractive British leading man, who’s a good actor, and they put him in a good film, then it’ll do well.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 3,044
    It most likely won't be Jean-Page. I think he's got a bit too much on his plate for Bond and I get the sense he's the sort of actor whose interpretation of the character might not be right for the film they want Bond 26 to be (depending on what they want it to be, that is). And I doubt the producers will have found their man. I think they have a list of preferred candidates, but not an actor yet. Auditions are where the real contenders shine.

    I personally think there are lots of interesting candidates who could bring something new to Bond. It's not Cavill, or Madden or even Jean-Page but someone the press simply aren't and wouldn't talk about at this stage. Unfortunately as audiences we won't get a sense of the actor's portrayal until the film is released. Anyway, before Bond I'm sure most people wouldn't have bought their tickets to see CR specifically because of Craig, or DN because of Connery. It just doesn't work like that with this series. If it did Cary Grant would have been the first Bond.
  • Posts: 12,837
    007HallY wrote: »
    Anyway, before Bond I'm sure most people wouldn't have bought their tickets to see CR specifically because of Craig, or DN because of Connery. It just doesn't work like that with this series. If it did Cary Grant would have been the first Bond.

    Plus, it’s generally working like that less and less anyway, there aren’t many movie stars who can light up the box office on name alone left anymore. Look at how well Robert Downey Jr’s last couple of non Iron Man films have done, and even big names like Cruise and Damon and Affleck have struggled to put bums in seats outside of their famous franchises in recent years. Obviously the casting is important to make the film work, but IP is what really sells now, and Bond is one of the biggest brands there is. People will be curious about the new one, no matter who it is.
  • Posts: 15,851
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Given the rate at which these films are released anymore, I can't imagine the next actor doing more than 3-4 installments max.

    Considering the rate the films have decreased, if this drop in productivity were to continue, it would approximately take the next 30 years just to get 3-4 more films out.
    I expect the next Bond actor (and his follow up) to be a one and done.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,551
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Given the rate at which these films are released anymore, I can't imagine the next actor doing more than 3-4 installments max.

    Considering the rate the films have decreased, if this drop in productivity were to continue, it would approximately take the next 30 years just to get 3-4 more films out.
    I expect the next Bond actor (and his follow up) to be a one and done.

    Shh, don't give them any ideas.
  • Posts: 15,851
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Given the rate at which these films are released anymore, I can't imagine the next actor doing more than 3-4 installments max.

    Considering the rate the films have decreased, if this drop in productivity were to continue, it would approximately take the next 30 years just to get 3-4 more films out.
    I expect the next Bond actor (and his follow up) to be a one and done.

    Shh, don't give them any ideas.

    Haha! I really do hope the Amazon deal gives Eon a push to get the next Bond actor's films out in a more timely manner.
  • Posts: 14,859
    007HallY wrote: »
    Anyway, before Bond I'm sure most people wouldn't have bought their tickets to see CR specifically because of Craig, or DN because of Connery. It just doesn't work like that with this series. If it did Cary Grant would have been the first Bond.

    Plus, it’s generally working like that less and less anyway, there aren’t many movie stars who can light up the box office on name alone left anymore. Look at how well Robert Downey Jr’s last couple of non Iron Man films have done, and even big names like Cruise and Damon and Affleck have struggled to put bums in seats outside of their famous franchises in recent years. Obviously the casting is important to make the film work, but IP is what really sells now, and Bond is one of the biggest brands there is. People will be curious about the new one, no matter who it is.

    You could say Bond was a precursor in that regard.
  • JustJamesJustJames London
    Posts: 205
    Let’s get James McAvoy. Sorted.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,531
    This might be nothing, but I noticed the release of the Daniel Craig retrospective book, Being Bond by Mark Salisbury, has been pushed back from May to September

    It's probably nothing, but could it be a sign they're not as far along with development of Bond 26 as we'd like? I didn't expect them to be celebrating Craig's Bond a year after he'd left the role
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited April 2022 Posts: 3,393
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    This might be nothing, but I noticed the release of the Daniel Craig retrospective book, Being Bond by Mark Salisbury, has been pushed back from May to September

    Was it the same as the documentary film (Being James Bond documentary)?
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,531
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    This might be nothing, but I noticed the release of the Daniel Craig retrospective book, Being Bond by Mark Salisbury, has been pushed back from May to September

    Was it the same as the documentary film (Being James Bond documentary)?

    Not as far as I'm aware mate. I know nothing about the book other than it's written by Mark Salisbury, who did a great making of NTTD book
Sign In or Register to comment.