Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1940941943945946961

Comments

  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,154
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    40 is the new 25.
    If Tom Cruise can play Ethan Hunt into his 60's, and nobody whines about it, no doubt Cavill could play Bond at 40. Same for Aidan Turner.

    Starting at 40 isn't the problem, it's the gaps between films.

    I will say for Cruise though, I noticed in Fallout he was looking a little older. But him looking mature suited the tone of the film, and he carried it well.

    Exactly this.
  • ByRoyalDecreeByRoyalDecree Stockholm/London
    edited August 12 Posts: 450
    Damson Idris

    The bait has been set! Wait I got a better proposition. Guaranteed to be Bond!

    @JeremyBondon people like you get more offended than any woke mob I have ever seen. You don’t like Tom Doherty given he resembles Sean Connery the way Aidan does Dalton?

    I can see Amazon insist on a nostalgic candidate that aesthetically reminds of previous actors or a big name because they paid big bucks for the franchise, and hope to convert the next film into paying subscribers.

    But producers exert too much creative control in the industry already, and in-house producers and editors at streamers have a track record of ruining IP completely. It isn’t about ethnic diversity as much as it is censorship, bad casting decisions, hollow and repetitive writing and generic direction. If I was Amazon I would sit back, there is more to it than movie posters.

    Aaron Taylor Johnson has good eyes.
  • Informe_James_BondInforme_James_Bond Dominican Republic
    Posts: 24
    These are my options to play James Bond:
    • Aidan Turner
    • Richard Madden
    • Aaron Taylor-Johnson

    ;)
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,659
    Yes, he’s 60 and starting to look 40, scandalous.
  • Posts: 217
    EBLw6t-SX4-AAp-I.jpg
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,004
    Regarding Taylor-Johnson, to get away from the obvious conversation again, the beauty of an actor whose only drawback for some people is his voice is that he's an actor and can easily change and shape it around the type of person he wants to play.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,659
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Regarding Taylor-Johnson, to get away from the obvious conversation again, the beauty of an actor whose only drawback for some people is his voice is that he's an actor and can easily change and shape it around the type of person he wants to play.

    More than his voice is his complete lack of charisma; yes I know that’s subjective.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 7,235
    If that's the case then I'd have to question his ability to convincingly portray different characters regardless of his intent, as his voice hasn't changed all that much in any of the many things I've seen him in. I've yet to see Bullet Train but the accent I've seen in clips is.....irritating.

    He was good in Kick Ass and Nocturnal Animals, and that's about as contrasty as it gets in terms of his range.

    I'd still give him a screen test though. Hell, I'd never deprive any actor of that in case we find a diamond in the rough. You never know.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,154
    Damson Idris

    The bait has been set! Wait I got a better proposition. Guaranteed to be Bond!

    @JeremyBondon people like you get more offended than any woke mob I have ever seen. You don’t like Tom Doherty given he resembles Sean Connery the way Aidan does Dalton?

    I can see Amazon insist on a nostalgic candidate that aesthetically reminds of previous actors or a big name because they paid the big bucks for the franchise, and hope to convert the next film into paying subscribers.

    But producers exert too much creative control in the industry already, and in-house producers and editors at streamers on top of it have a track record for ruining IP completely. It isn’t about ethnic diversity as much as it is censorship, bad casting decisions, hollow and repetitive writing and generic direction. If I was Amazon I would sit back, there is more to it than movie posters.

    Aaron Taylor Johnson has good eyes.

    Offended? Not the least bit. I truly stand by my woke feminist trans lesbian proposition. It's the last shackle in Bond casting evolution anyway so why not do it right after Craig instead.

    I do like Tom Doherty his look, what is your point?
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 1,556
    Since the dust has settled on NTTD, I'm really beginning to understand what Barbara meant when she said "I can't imagine Bond after Daniel"
  • Damson Idris
    MV5BNzM5OTJiM2QtZjM0Zi00YjQxLThmNDktNTg5ODFmNWE3NDNkXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjkyMzI3MjU@._V1_.jpg
    the-2022-met-gala-celebrating-in-america-an-anthology-of-fashion-red-carpet-3
    GJ_DamonIdris_REh_04-2502x1200-c-center.jpg
    4a03423d9030d8952aa1b123cf24d769.jpg
    MV5BNThlMDQ3ZjAtOGM2Yi00M2IzLTlmZGUtODliNDMwZmFhNTI3XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjkyMzI3MjU@._V1_.jpg

    I think he’d have the look with a little bit more bulk. Something about his voice though… a little weak or high pitched for me.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited August 10 Posts: 1,470
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Since the dust has settled on NTTD, I'm really beginning to understand what Barbara meant when she said "I can't imagine Bond after Daniel"
    Me too, Jordo. This is the trickiest point in Bond since the end of the Connery era - and even if I imagine a more TradBond like Ai*an T*rner, I don't think there'll be anything like a wholesale reversion to type, so I can't yet picture what the next few films are going to be like.
  • Posts: 193
    I think if an actor is big enough to get publicity for other blockbuster roles they probably won't be cast as Bond.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger we are in this together
    Posts: 44,865
    I have often thought the Bond should be in his 30s or 40s as that is how Fleming wrote him.
    Then again, for DN Fleming himself wanted Niven who was in his 50s at the time.
    So if we use The Man as a parameter, a goy in his 50s isn t out of the question.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 37,415
    My issue has less to do with their age at the start of a new era and more to do with the gaps in between films. If they can get them back to 2-3 years in between releases, it's more feasible to cast someone that's a bit older to begin, but if we're waiting 4-5 years in between each installment, you'll be lucky to even get 2-3 installments out of a guy in his 30s.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited August 11 Posts: 1,470
    That's a good point, actually - if the recent rate continues, every new Bond's going to be pushing the end of his 00 career by his third film. They did interesting stuff with it in the Craig era, but it's not something I'd like to see become a trope.
  • ByRoyalDecreeByRoyalDecree Stockholm/London
    edited August 12 Posts: 450
    Unfortunately less frequent films translate into bigger audiences and lesser risk. That incentive might change with Amazon premiering steady VoD revenues over box office.

    Cinema still remains a credible marketing window akin to pre screenings, but other than that we see shrinking showing periods.

    This is where the main conflict between EON and MGM/Amazon lies long term. Mediocrity might be in the interest of someone looking to purchase a controlling interest down the line or wanting to instill brand loyalty with children (which video games are better at anyway).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 11,121
    If that's the case then I'd have to question his ability to convincingly portray different characters regardless of his intent, as his voice hasn't changed all that much in any of the many things I've seen him in. I've yet to see Bullet Train but the accent I've seen in clips is.....irritating.

    He was good in Kick Ass and Nocturnal Animals, and that's about as contrasty as it gets in terms of his range.

    I'd still give him a screen test though. Hell, I'd never deprive any actor of that in case we find a diamond in the rough. You never know.

    Taylor-Johnson was good in Nocturnal Animals yes indeed, but I was watching the Godzilla movie on a plane the other day and there's a point at which he becomes the lead character of the film, and he just isn't up to it. The film suddenly becomes lead-less - he's shockingly poor in terms of being a movie star.
    I realise that film is a few years old now, but I wouldn't be looking at him.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,659
    mtm wrote: »
    If that's the case then I'd have to question his ability to convincingly portray different characters regardless of his intent, as his voice hasn't changed all that much in any of the many things I've seen him in. I've yet to see Bullet Train but the accent I've seen in clips is.....irritating.

    He was good in Kick Ass and Nocturnal Animals, and that's about as contrasty as it gets in terms of his range.

    I'd still give him a screen test though. Hell, I'd never deprive any actor of that in case we find a diamond in the rough. You never know.

    Taylor-Johnson was good in Nocturnal Animals yes indeed, but I was watching the Godzilla movie on a plane the other day and there's a point at which he becomes the lead character of the film, and he just isn't up to it. The film suddenly becomes lead-less - he's shockingly poor in terms of being a movie star.
    I realise that film is a few years old now, but I wouldn't be looking at him.

    Absolutely . The quality of “Godzilla “ plummeted once Cranston’s character was gone. The human aspect of the story should have been focused on him and Ken Watanabe. Taylor-Johnson did nothing to show that he could carry a film of this scale.

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 6,260
    I remember Cranston got top billing in that film, and then in the first act they show a closeup of them zipping up the bodybag he was in as if to show the audience they knew they had just played a joke on us.
    Aaron Taylor-Johnson sucks and would be an extremely disappointing choice for Bond.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited August 11 Posts: 1,470
    This is where the main conflict between EON and MGM/Amazon lies long term. Mediocrity might be in the interest of someone looking for a controlling interest.
    Yes, that's another good point. In reference to the gap between films, EON recently said 'we're not a factory' - but Amazon might well be satisfied with mediocrity if it meant that they got more regular returns, so they could well butt heads with EON by pushing for shorter gaps. I'm damn sure they didn't buy into Bond for the artistic fulfilment, after all.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited August 12 Posts: 6,355
    The only bet that I'd put on the next James Bond: he will be younger in his first film than Craig was in CR.... My guess is an actor who is presently in his late 20s/very early 30s.

    (Edit: typos: walking dogs with fat thumbs isn't a good combo)
  • Posts: 85
    Just for conversation sake. If the under 40 and at least 5'10 were to be the actual requirements here's a few that come to mind for me in no particular order.

    1.) Tom Cullen-37 and 6'1
    2.) Nicolous Hoult-32 and 6'3
    3.) Tom Bateman-6'2 and 33
    4.) Regea Jean-Page-5'11 and 34
    5.) Richard Madden-5'10 and 36

    I left my favorite Aidan Turner out of this list because he is 39 right on the line.

    I also left out my favorite darkhouse for the role Ben Starr because he is so unknown (he was on Jamestown and in Survivor with Pierce Brosnan) that his age and height are not listed anywhere I can find.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,659
    Speaking of dark horses, mine fits the bill.

    ZRjm3LT.jpg

    1FAaer6.jpg

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 7,235
    mtm wrote: »
    If that's the case then I'd have to question his ability to convincingly portray different characters regardless of his intent, as his voice hasn't changed all that much in any of the many things I've seen him in. I've yet to see Bullet Train but the accent I've seen in clips is.....irritating.

    He was good in Kick Ass and Nocturnal Animals, and that's about as contrasty as it gets in terms of his range.

    I'd still give him a screen test though. Hell, I'd never deprive any actor of that in case we find a diamond in the rough. You never know.

    Taylor-Johnson was good in Nocturnal Animals yes indeed, but I was watching the Godzilla movie on a plane the other day and there's a point at which he becomes the lead character of the film, and he just isn't up to it. The film suddenly becomes lead-less - he's shockingly poor in terms of being a movie star.
    I realise that film is a few years old now, but I wouldn't be looking at him.

    I agree with this. One of those guys who seems to be best when they are in a supporting role. No bad thing, of course - many have great careers doing that sort of thing. But it's not what you need for Bond.
  • parkert5 wrote: »
    Just for conversation sake. If the under 40 and at least 5'10 were to be the actual requirements here's a few that come to mind for me in no particular order.

    1.) Tom Cullen-37 and 6'1
    2.) Nicolous Hoult-32 and 6'3
    3.) Tom Bateman-6'2 and 33
    4.) Regea Jean-Page-5'11 and 34
    5.) Richard Madden-5'10 and 36

    I left my favorite Aidan Turner out of this list because he is 39 right on the line.

    I also left out my favorite darkhouse for the role Ben Starr because he is so unknown (he was on Jamestown and in Survivor with Pierce Brosnan) that his age and height are not listed anywhere I can find.

    Now would be a good time to mention that under 40 and at least 5'10 is the exact criteria for my famous next Bond list on IMDB. And all of those names are on there.
  • Posts: 85
    parkert5 wrote: »
    Just for conversation sake. If the under 40 and at least 5'10 were to be the actual requirements here's a few that come to mind for me in no particular order.

    1.) Tom Cullen-37 and 6'1
    2.) Nicolous Hoult-32 and 6'3
    3.) Tom Bateman-6'2 and 33
    4.) Regea Jean-Page-5'11 and 34
    5.) Richard Madden-5'10 and 36

    I left my favorite Aidan Turner out of this list because he is 39 right on the line.

    I also left out my favorite darkhouse for the role Ben Starr because he is so unknown (he was on Jamestown and in Survivor with Pierce Brosnan) that his age and height are not listed anywhere I can find.

    Now would be a good time to mention that under 40 and at least 5'10 is the exact criteria for my famous next Bond list on IMDB. And all of those names are on there.

    Great list. A few standouts to me are Sean Teale and Tom Forbes who looks very Conneryesque in the photo you have there.

    There are a few I've never heard of on there need to check those out.

    Excellant work.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 1,556
    Is this report about the next Bond being taller than 5 '10 and younger than 40, come from a reliable source?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 12 Posts: 11,121
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    If that's the case then I'd have to question his ability to convincingly portray different characters regardless of his intent, as his voice hasn't changed all that much in any of the many things I've seen him in. I've yet to see Bullet Train but the accent I've seen in clips is.....irritating.

    He was good in Kick Ass and Nocturnal Animals, and that's about as contrasty as it gets in terms of his range.

    I'd still give him a screen test though. Hell, I'd never deprive any actor of that in case we find a diamond in the rough. You never know.

    Taylor-Johnson was good in Nocturnal Animals yes indeed, but I was watching the Godzilla movie on a plane the other day and there's a point at which he becomes the lead character of the film, and he just isn't up to it. The film suddenly becomes lead-less - he's shockingly poor in terms of being a movie star.
    I realise that film is a few years old now, but I wouldn't be looking at him.

    Absolutely . The quality of “Godzilla “ plummeted once Cranston’s character was gone. The human aspect of the story should have been focused on him and Ken Watanabe. Taylor-Johnson did nothing to show that he could carry a film of this scale.
    I remember Cranston got top billing in that film, and then in the first act they show a closeup of them zipping up the bodybag he was in as if to show the audience they knew they had just played a joke on us.
    Aaron Taylor-Johnson sucks and would be an extremely disappointing choice for Bond.

    Yes, I'd never seen it before- I was watching it on a plane and had no idea Cranston died in it. I tried pressing on with on it after the lead switched to Taylor-Johnson but had to switch it off because he was so bad. I can't believe they killed him off: I'm sort of surprised that test audiences didn't tell them how bad a decision it was.
    peter wrote: »
    The only bet that I'd put on the next James Bond: he will be younger in his first film than Craig was in CR.... My guess is an actor who is presently in his late 20s/very early 30s.

    (Edit: typos: walking dogs with fat thumbs isn't a good combo)

    Yeah I think that's certainly who they'll be looking at, but I also think it doesn't necessarily mean that's who they'll go for. If they see someone a little older and think he's brilliant, they'll go for him.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger we are in this together
    Posts: 44,865
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Is this report about the next Bond being taller than 5 '10 and younger than 40, come from a reliable source?

    Oh yes, it comes from Random Hunch.
Sign In or Register to comment.