Who should/could be a Bond actor?

19109119139159161190

Comments

  • edited May 2022 Posts: 784
    00Heaven wrote: »
    I can't believe we're back on chins and jaws again lol.

    It’s better than arguing about skin colour tbh
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 574
    00Heaven wrote: »
    I can't believe we're back on chins and jaws again lol.

    6fplvu.jpg

    :))
  • edited May 2022 Posts: 2,871
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    @FoxRox To be fair in order for Bond to truly be an anti-hero more along the lines of Fleming's original character, the films themselves have to make the effort. The truth is the Bond films have tended to glorify Bond's flaws. Even Fleming had issues with Bond killing Professor Dent in cold blood in DN, and it's the sort of thing we see in TSWLM, FYEO and even NTTD. Bond in the novels was always much more conflicted about assassination and killing. It's a very human idea and having a scene similar to the opening of the GF novel would be interesting to see incorporated. Hell, look at Bond's womanising. In the novels Bond's relationships with women aren't as simple as 'women are all attracted to him'. Bond in CR was so arrogant and sexist even the writing gives off a distinct 'this man is a cad' vibe. After Vesper he tended to fall in love rather easily and had this odd attraction to women who were damaged in some way (what are the phrases used in the novels? "Birds with one wing broken' and Bond having a 'St. George Complex"?) Why not have a Bond film which points this out?

    Then you'll have people complaining that Bond is too broody, too dark, too negative, too toxic, or whatever. I would rather have what you describe than a return to Moore or Brosnan, personally, but there you go.

    It depends. You're never going to please everyone and some people simply don't want to see a Bond with any of these flaws at all. I think if this approach to Bond was taken you'd have more push back from that type of audience rather than those who dislike the cinematic Bond's more... I suppose you could say 'questionable' qualities. I do think they'll have to go down this sort of route in order to remain true to the character while doing something new. A film more self-conscious about Bond's flaws might even help getting younger audiences, especially in tandem with things like more well rounded, better written femme fatale Bond girls you got more of in the novels (Tiffany Case etc) as well as the more 'fun' elements of the films (action sequences, fantastical concepts, gadgets etc).
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    00Heaven wrote: »
    I can't believe we're back on chins and jaws again lol.

    6fplvu.jpg

    “Watch the Planet, Dave, it’ll all be over shortly...”
  • Posts: 14,816
    007HallY wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    @FoxRox To be fair in order for Bond to truly be an anti-hero more along the lines of Fleming's original character, the films themselves have to make the effort. The truth is the Bond films have tended to glorify Bond's flaws. Even Fleming had issues with Bond killing Professor Dent in cold blood in DN, and it's the sort of thing we see in TSWLM, FYEO and even NTTD. Bond in the novels was always much more conflicted about assassination and killing. It's a very human idea and having a scene similar to the opening of the GF novel would be interesting to see incorporated. Hell, look at Bond's womanising. In the novels Bond's relationships with women aren't as simple as 'women are all attracted to him'. Bond in CR was so arrogant and sexist even the writing gives off a distinct 'this man is a cad' vibe. After Vesper he tended to fall in love rather easily and had this odd attraction to women who were damaged in some way (what are the phrases used in the novels? "Birds with one wing broken' and Bond having a 'St. George Complex"?) Why not have a Bond film which points this out?

    Then you'll have people complaining that Bond is too broody, too dark, too negative, too toxic, or whatever. I would rather have what you describe than a return to Moore or Brosnan, personally, but there you go.

    It depends. You're never going to please everyone and some people simply don't want to see a Bond with any of these flaws at all. I think if this approach to Bond was taken you'd have more push back from that type of audience rather than those who dislike the cinematic Bond's more... I suppose you could say 'questionable' qualities. I do think they'll have to go down this sort of route in order to remain true to the character while doing something new. A film more self-conscious about Bond's flaws might even help getting younger audiences, especially in tandem with things like more well rounded, better written femme fatale Bond girls you got more of in the novels (Tiffany Case etc) as well as the more 'fun' elements of the films (action sequences, fantastical concepts, gadgets etc).

    I know and I agree. I just say you'll have people moaning about it. I know enough people who think Bond should not fall in love, should always use outlandish gadgets, etc.
  • Posts: 12,837
    Slight Spoilers for Better Call Saul

    Tony Dalton is slightly too old, moustachioed and Mexican but in every other respect he exudes James Bond energy that I'd hope the next actor has. As Lalo he's able to be charming while at the same time showing that coldness behind the eyes of Fleming's Bond. I've not listened to the companion podcast yet but I'd be interested to know hoe much they intentionally leaned into that because in the latest episode they have him snooping about with a silenced pistol and ordering a martini, I mean come on 😂

    Maybe too obvious a suggestion, but he could make a really great Scaramanga type baddy.
  • CharmianBondCharmianBond Pett Bottom, Kent
    Posts: 534
    Maybe too obvious a suggestion, but he could make a really great Scaramanga type baddy.

    Yeah, and I fear he'd be unfairly compared to Lalo but that's a great suggestion, I'd love him to play a Bond villain. Maybe in another lifetime.
  • Posts: 3,279
    mtm wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think to satisfy everyone, Bond 26 needs to be ultra-modern and outlandish, yet grounded at the same time. A reasonable return of Bond's Gadgets and a solid plot too. I think it's that simple though.

    Yeah that seems good to me. I think sort of Mendes level of outlandish is fine, maybe even a touch more.
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Well that happened right from the start when he didn't have his facial scar and walked around with a Scottish accent, then Roger Moore played a fair-haired version etc. As they showed, you can change Bond, and he remains Bond.

    The films are not literal transcriptions of the books, they're adaptations of them i.e. they have been adapted, as you might adapt a plug into a socket in a foreign country. You change it to make it fit in the new medium. As long as he feels and acts like Bond, and has adventures like Bond, that's Bond.

    If it's set in the modern day he can't be a man from the 50's who fought in WW2, smokes 2000 cigarettes a day, has an exercise regime consisting of nothing but four press ups and a cold shower etc.

    You know exactly what I mean. I'm not going to start splitting hairs on Moore not having the exact black comma hair, or a scar down his cheek so there is no way on earth he could possibly resemble Fleming's 1950's Bond from the books.

    I read what you wrote and you said you wanted the guy from the 50's out of the books: I explained that you've never had that and you never will.

    The point of adaptations is to capture the spirit and flavour of the original material and translate it- not to make exact copies of everything which is written down. Sometimes you can get very close, sometimes it doesn't matter so much. If there's no reason why, for example, Daniel Craig having blond hair makes him no longer believably a suavely handsome, tough superspy; other than 'it's not what was written down in the books!', then it's not worth worrying about.

    .
    Splitting hairs again. I wanted Bond to be as close as possible to the Fleming character, and this includes how he looks. Sometimes it's been deviated by lighter hair colour, or darker eyes. I know you are not that bothered about keeping Bond as close to the books as possible, but I am.

    What is it that you think 'splitting hairs' means? I'm not making trivial distinctions: I'm saying the opposite in fact, that trivial distinctions don't matter!

    I'm not bothered about them being as close as possible to the books, no; and I've been explaining why that is. I'm not seeing any reasons to change my mind either.

    And yes, other than early Connery and then Dalton, we've never really had a decent, very accurate portrayal of Fleming's Bond on screen, which explains why many of the films I'm not a huge fan of.

    But I can still live in hope that we get another actor like Dalton who wants to go back to the novels. That may sound like an absolute nightmare to you, but to me it sounds like pure heaven.

    Dalton wasn't very popular or successful in the role, so I wouldn't want another one like him, no. If he's like Craig, who takes the best of the books and combines it with what made Bond so successful on the screen, then I'm all for it.
    I know James Bond films are a nightmare for you but I happen to really enjoy the films, it's why I'm here. I like the books too, but if I enjoyed them more than the films then I'd probably talk about them more and post in threads about them more heavily than I do in ones about the films.

    Some of the Bond films are a nightmare for me. Big difference!

    Whereas the likes of OHMSS, GF, and LTK are some of my favourite films of all time (outside of the franchise). Therefore I still want to post in threads regarding the films (which may annoy the hell out of you)! ;)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,930
    Slight Spoilers for Better Call Saul

    Tony Dalton is slightly too old, moustachioed and Mexican but in every other respect he exudes James Bond energy that I'd hope the next actor has. As Lalo he's able to be charming while at the same time showing that coldness behind the eyes of Fleming's Bond. I've not listened to the companion podcast yet but I'd be interested to know hoe much they intentionally leaned into that because in the latest episode they have him snooping about with a silenced pistol and ordering a martini, I mean come on 😂

    Maybe too obvious a suggestion, but he could make a really great Scaramanga type baddy.

    That’s a great idea :)
  • edited May 2022 Posts: 4,599
    Just found this, IMHO they would both make great Bonds but, extremely different Bonds. Surely, it's about the Bond that the producers want in future as much as a great leading actor...........

  • Posts: 2,871
    The issue with Hardy is that he's both too famous so won't be committed, and is also perhaps a touch too old (at least for the rate at which Bond films are currently being made). Having seen Legend though there are definitely shades of Bond in there, but he's been hyped up a bit too much for the part with the infamous rumour about him being considered that came out a while back.

    I can see a character actor not unlike him being picked for the role (someone like Jack O Connell arguably fits into that category and has a similar screen presence). Hoult is just an unlikely choice all round for me.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    Hardy is way too rough around the edges, like a bouncer, while Hoult is more or less a schoolboy still. Indeed opposites of the spectrum.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,026
    Hardy would be fine if he played Bond like Ronnie Kray, but my instinct is that he would play him closer to Reggie - he can't seem to help but weird up any performance he's given in the last decade, even the guys who are relatively straight-laced on paper.
  • Posts: 14,816
    Hardy is way too rough around the edges, like a bouncer, while Hoult is more or less a schoolboy still. Indeed opposites of the spectrum.

    Hardy is to me now what Clive Owen was back in 2005: I just don't see him as Bond and I am baffled that people suggest him.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,484
    Hardy would be fine if he played Bond like Ronnie Kray, but my instinct is that he would play him closer to Reggie - he can't seem to help but weird up any performance he's given in the last decade, even the guys who are relatively straight-laced on paper.

    This^….

    Did you see his Capone portrayal? It was like a Bugs Bunny cartoon on acid. He was absolutely atrocious in it… he’s also got into a mumbling-habit he needs to be broken of….
  • Posts: 14,816
    peter wrote: »
    Hardy would be fine if he played Bond like Ronnie Kray, but my instinct is that he would play him closer to Reggie - he can't seem to help but weird up any performance he's given in the last decade, even the guys who are relatively straight-laced on paper.

    This^….

    Did you see his Capone portrayal? It was like a Bugs Bunny cartoon on acid. He was absolutely atrocious in it… he’s also got into a mumbling-habit he needs to be broken of….

    He played Capone? Doesn't really look like him.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,484
    @Ludovico ... If you want to watch a mess of a film that is unintentionally one of the funniest films I've ever seen, look it up, lol!
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,026
    peter wrote: »
    @Ludovico ... If you want to watch a mess of a film that is unintentionally one of the funniest films I've ever seen, look it up, lol!

    But only if you're interested in seeing one of the Kings of Crime go through a severely flatulent moment or two.
  • Posts: 14,816
    peter wrote: »
    @Ludovico ... If you want to watch a mess of a film that is unintentionally one of the funniest films I've ever seen, look it up, lol!

    But only if you're interested in seeing one of the Kings of Crime go through a severely flatulent moment or two.

    My eyes are already bleeding reading this.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,026
    Ludovico wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @Ludovico ... If you want to watch a mess of a film that is unintentionally one of the funniest films I've ever seen, look it up, lol!

    But only if you're interested in seeing one of the Kings of Crime go through a severely flatulent moment or two.

    My eyes are already bleeding reading this.

    Wait til you experience the sound mix. Your ears will share that pain.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,507
    One reason I hope we're not faced with a long delay for Bond 26, is those ridiculous articles about the series relevance and so called journalists pointing out the sexism in the 60's film's. As if they haven't progressed

    Sometimes I think the long delays between films and the drought of news, cause people to exaggerate problems the film's have had in the past. One way to ease this would be to release more consistently
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,484
    I also think that the sexism from the 60s is, for the most part, exaggeration of someone not well versed in these films.

    Yes there are some problematic scenes when looked at through the lens of today, but there are far more interesting, complex and very advanced and independent women in the films of the 60s. I find them much more progressive than some of the female characters we met in the films from the 70s through to the 90s.

    Women like Sylvia and Honey, Pussy and Tilly, Fiona and Aki and Kissy and, of course, Tracy... These critics of this era really need to watch these films, lol!!!
  • edited May 2022 Posts: 2,871
    Yes, certainly a character like Pussy Galore in the film is far less problematic through the lens of today than she is in the novel (although this is more likely due to films at the time not wanting to explicitly write a bisexual character). Still, as in the novels, there are interesting female characters in the films and some uninteresting ones.

    I would say that something to keep in mind about the early Bond films is that they do try to evoke the care free, sexual liberation of the 'Swinging 60s' rather overtly. You get stuff in them such as receptionists randomly fawning over Bond, or Bond sleeping with a woman written explicitly in the film for him to do so. Bond slept around in the Fleming novels (although nowhere near as much as he does in the films) but he fell in love often, seemed attracted to damaged women and had this element of chivalry in how he interacted with them (a 'St. George complex', which isn't depicted uncritically). These traits are notably absent in the Connery films, and only really appear in OHMSS, although even Bond's attraction to Tracy because of how 'damaged' she is is downplayed. Heck, early in CR he's outwardly arrogant and sexist towards Vesper, and not in a 'charming' way, but in a way in which Fleming seems to want the reader to see this man... well, as a bit of a 'cad'. Anyway, my point is there's a more liberal, arguably superficial approach to sex in the early films that might have led indirectly to what is being criticised in hindsight... arguably anyway.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,507
    peter wrote: »
    I also think that the sexism from the 60s is, for the most part, exaggeration of someone not well versed in these films.

    Yes there are some problematic scenes when looked at through the lens of today, but there are far more interesting, complex and very advanced and independent women in the films of the 60s. I find them much more progressive than some of the female characters we met in the films from the 70s through to the 90s.

    Women like Sylvia and Honey, Pussy and Tilly, Fiona and Aki and Kissy and, of course, Tracy... These critics of this era really need to watch these films, lol!!!

    Yeah absolutely mate. They never give credit for strong well written female characters, of which there are many throughout the series
  • Posts: 14,816
    peter wrote: »
    I also think that the sexism from the 60s is, for the most part, exaggeration of someone not well versed in these films.

    Yes there are some problematic scenes when looked at through the lens of today, but there are far more interesting, complex and very advanced and independent women in the films of the 60s. I find them much more progressive than some of the female characters we met in the films from the 70s through to the 90s.

    Women like Sylvia and Honey, Pussy and Tilly, Fiona and Aki and Kissy and, of course, Tracy... These critics of this era really need to watch these films, lol!!!

    This.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @Ludovico ... If you want to watch a mess of a film that is unintentionally one of the funniest films I've ever seen, look it up, lol!

    But only if you're interested in seeing one of the Kings of Crime go through a severely flatulent moment or two.

    My eyes are already bleeding reading this.

    Wait til you experience the sound mix. Your ears will share that pain.

    There should be a thread about those actors the general public and media suggested as potential Bond that we consider simply... baffling. Robbie Williams, Hugh Grant, etc.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited May 2022 Posts: 4,247
    Harry Lawtey looks like James Bond, even if he's 25.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,930
    peter wrote: »
    I also think that the sexism from the 60s is, for the most part, exaggeration of someone not well versed in these films.

    Yes there are some problematic scenes when looked at through the lens of today, but there are far more interesting, complex and very advanced and independent women in the films of the 60s. I find them much more progressive than some of the female characters we met in the films from the 70s through to the 90s.

    Women like Sylvia and Honey, Pussy and Tilly, Fiona and Aki and Kissy and, of course, Tracy... These critics of this era really need to watch these films, lol!!!

    Yeah I think the low point in terms of treatment of women in the series was actually the first three films of the 70s rather than the 60s.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,960
    With all accusations of inappropriate behavior, legitimate and unfounded, can you imagine the vetting that will be done for the next actor? Not even Craig was placed under that microscope.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,484
    talos7 wrote: »
    With all accusations of inappropriate behavior, legitimate and unfounded, can you imagine the vetting that will be done for the next actor? Not even Craig was placed under that microscope.

    You’re right about that @talos7 … and vetting of all: directors, actors, music etc….
  • edited May 2022 Posts: 784
    Another could have been. Apparently grew up in Oxford?

    wentworth-5.jpg

    bpjy75.jpg

    Michael-michael-scofield-997136_600_600.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.