Who should/could be a Bond actor?

15535545565585591178

Comments

  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    A bigger name that to me seems a bit more viable is Cillian Murphy. Don't really think he has the look but my wife really fancies him and you only have to go on twitter when Peaky Blinders is on to know that other women feel the same, so he must have something about him on that end. And he's a really good actor. Connery levels of cool in Peaky Blinders.

    Probably too old and maybe too famous but I think if you look at the sort of stuff he's done he's a more realistic choice than someone like Cavill. It'll probably be someone none of us had thought of anyway but I think if we do want to try and actually predict the next Bond we're better off looking at the casts of indie dramas, highly regarded TV stuff, theatre stuff, than the cast of Mission Impossible.

    O Connell, Norton, Turner, even Jamie Bell. They've all been slated by different members but those are the sort of names that genuinely have a shot imo. Wishing for Cavill is as pointless as wishing for Connery to wake up tomorrow suddenly looking like he did in DN and come out of retirement. Not gonna happen.

    No offense but majority of women on twitter like pattison as well and not because of his acting skills but solely based on looks. They still think that he is perfect for Batman and i laugh whenever i hear that. Murphy is phenomenal actor just not a good choice for bond. He kind of reminds of Wishaw's Q as well sometimes.

    This and this. He looks quite effeminate to me as well. Cillian with a wig, yesh pleashe.
    Edit: he sure is a pretty lass *lol* What has been seen... Say what you will about Cavill, he'd sure make for an unattractive lady :D
    4467f3a333083bf71c084afe360b9136.jpg

    eda47c2f93f48f9ca6a1219b884f9869.jpg

    4d7bc9d771a02ee4ddacb29ff00e4dce.jpg

    For me Murphy lacks the alpha male attributes. The way he walked, his voice says it all and don't get me started on his face. If Women find him sexy, good for them but that doesn't mean he is fit to be bond. I saw him in peaky blinders which I liked very much but never ever thought that this guy can be bond, still don't.

    Murphy, pattison, Cavill or any other simply lacks the charisma. I liked other roles they played but not strong enough to impress me, surely critics may like them but never cared about critics . To be honest i am not really thrilled about pattison playing batman, he is nowhere near craig or bale acting skills. What Craig lacked in looks he makeup from his acting but pattison have neither for bond, for me he is just another Hollywood pretty boy who can get women excited. I can tell you mostly women are the one's defending him for his take on batman. Yes he will be better than the last batman but Affleck didn't really set the bar very high.

    Murphy does looks like Q and here's the two photos for better comparison.

    3aea40e93f7e3435beb0aa974f1d0c67.jpg
    MV5BY2M4MjczMWItN2Q2OC00ZmI4LWFmMWQtMjUxN2QwOGIxYWQ1XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjUwNzk3NDc@._V1_.jpg

    I could not agree more with this post. Nice.
  • Posts: 2,887
    Murphy is also on record as saying Bond should be played by a woman, which means he has no interest in the part.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Revelator wrote: »
    Murphy is also on record as saying Bond should be played by a woman, which means he has no interest in the part.

    Didn’t Brosnan say that as well though? Fairly sure he was interested...

    :D
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    Revelator wrote: »
    Murphy is also on record as saying Bond should be played by a woman, which means he has no interest in the part.

    He meant himself. Smart (wo)man. Proof:
    eda47c2f93f48f9ca6a1219b884f9869.jpg
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    Revelator wrote: »
    Murphy is also on record as saying Bond should be played by a woman, which means he has no interest in the part.

    He can play bond as a woman.
    mtm wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    Murphy is also on record as saying Bond should be played by a woman, which means he has no interest in the part.

    Didn’t Brosnan say that as well though? Fairly sure he was interested...

    :D

    Maybe brosnan was high :D and he is done with the role so he can say whatever he wants to.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,882
    If not Cavill (who I would be okay with, as the next Bond), then they should have gone with an actor of similar age. That or re-write CR. Craig was too old to be playing Bond as wet behind the ears naive. "When James became Bond", would have made more sense with a younger Bond, gradually maturing over the course of his era.

    Wasn't Cavill only 22/23/24 though? Too young even for a rookie Bond imo.

    I can see what you mean and I used to think exactly the same at first, that Craig seemed a bit old to be a rookie. But when you think about it, Bond is meant to have had some sort of military experience (whether it's Navy like in the books or army/marines and then SAS/SBS, which I think the CR film website said was the case for Craig) and then a few years as a spy before being a 00. It makes sense that he'd be in his 30s. I don't think this contradicts him being reckless/inexperienced either because it's still a very different job to serving in the forces. E.g. killing Obanno the way he did, that'd still affect him, because he might have shot people before, but he probably hasn't had to maul and then strangle the life out of a man before. And if he's fairly inexperienced as a spy then letting his guard down for Vesper still makes sense despite his military experience.

    So don't think Craig was too old for CR. I think the problem was the four year gap between QoS and SF. We went straight from rookie to older Bond. Just one more film in 2010, preferrably a standalone mission, showing Bond in his prime, would have eased that transition I think.
    If not Cavill (who I would be okay with, as the next Bond), then they should have gone with an actor of similar age. That or re-write CR. Craig was too old to be playing Bond as wet behind the ears naive. "When James became Bond", would have made more sense with a younger Bond, gradually maturing over the course of his era.

    Wasn't Cavill only 22/23/24 though? Too young even for a rookie Bond imo.

    I can see what you mean and I used to think exactly the same at first, that Craig seemed a bit old to be a rookie. But when you think about it, Bond is meant to have had some sort of military experience (whether it's Navy like in the books or army/marines and then SAS/SBS, which I think the CR film website said was the case for Craig) and then a few years as a spy before being a 00. It makes sense that he'd be in his 30s. I don't think this contradicts him being reckless/inexperienced either because it's still a very different job to serving in the forces. E.g. killing Obanno the way he did, that'd still affect him, because he might have shot people before, but he probably hasn't had to maul and then strangle the life out of a man before. And if he's fairly inexperienced as a spy then letting his guard down for Vesper still makes sense despite his military experience.

    So don't think Craig was too old for CR. I think the problem was the four year gap between QoS and SF. We went straight from rookie to older Bond. Just one more film in 2010, preferrably a standalone mission, showing Bond in his prime, would have eased that transition I think.

    He was about that age, yes. But here's the thing, I was (and am...) not in favour of throwing out the 40+ year legacy to show Bond at the start of his career. But if it had to be done, it should be done with a Bond of younger age. The only reboot I would be in favour of, is something like Curse Of Chucky. Keeps the momentum going foward, but reboots the tone only.

    You bring up a solid point about Bonds career in the forces. That would be hard to work in, with a younger Bond. But at the same time, I can't buy Bond in CR as having SAS/SBS trainng, he just comes off as too.... immature (for want of a better word). Another re-write, could have solved that. Based of Craigs appearance, I can believe Bond has been part of one of our elite fighting units. It's just the way Bond comes off in the film that sits awkward.
  • Posts: 2,887
    mtm wrote: »
    Didn’t Brosnan say that as well though? Fairly sure he was interested...

    He made sure to say that after he had played the role.

  • Posts: 319
    Revelator wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Didn’t Brosnan say that as well though? Fairly sure he was interested...

    He made sure to say that after he had played the role.
    He's clearly more free to say stupid things.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    edited January 2020 Posts: 754
    talos7 wrote: »
    As has been pointed out, actors often look younger at a given age than actors of a comparable age did in the past. Between 35 and 40 seems like a good age to begin. If a film were to be released every 3 years, which is a very reasonable time table, a 40 year old actor could do 5 films in 12 years 40, 43, 46,49,52. Perfect.

    I don’t agree with the 40 something Bond. 49, 52 are too old. This happened as Cubby got old and kept Old Roger in the part. Bond should be in his prime and 40s ain’t prime. No one gives a s@*$ (excuse me) about people in their 40s for a reason. It’s past prime.

    Men want to be Bond and women want to be with him... that should be someone young, vibrant, with sex appeal... not lost a step, on viagra and looking distinguished. I agree some guys and people generally look younger, mostly from not smoking, but the aim should be to get a few movies in before the actor gets into their 40s and only a couple in early 40s. I mean look at how they’ve played Craig as lost a step and out of touch with the times...that’s lame. Bond should be one step ahead of everyone (like in CR)... and middle aged doesn’t fit that.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited January 2020 Posts: 7,889
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    As has been pointed out, actors often look younger at a given age than actors of a comparable age did in the past. Between 35 and 40 seems like a good age to begin. If a film were to be released every 3 years, which is a very reasonable time table, a 40 year old actor could do 5 films in 12 years 40, 43, 46,49,52. Perfect.

    I don’t agree with the 40 something Bond. 49, 52 are too old. This happened as Cubby got old and kept Old Roger in the part. Bond should be in his prime and 40s ain’t prime. No one gives a s@*$ (excuse me) about people in their 40s for a reason. It’s past prime.

    Men want to be Bond and women want to be with him... that should be someone young, vibrant, with sex appeal... not lost a step, on viagra and looking distinguished. I agree some guys and people generally look younger, mostly from not smoking, but the aim should be to get a few movies in before the actor gets into their 40s and only a couple in early 40s. I mean look at how they’ve played Craig as lost a step and out of touch with the times...that’s lame. Bond should be one step ahead of everyone (like in CR)... and middle aged doesn’t fit that.
    I know, it’s a shame how poorly the Mission Impossible films have done ever since Tom Cruise turned 40, or should I say 50. They’ve lost millions for the studios, haven’t they? 😏
    Viagra, really 😆
  • edited January 2020 Posts: 12,837
    A bigger name that to me seems a bit more viable is Cillian Murphy. Don't really think he has the look but my wife really fancies him and you only have to go on twitter when Peaky Blinders is on to know that other women feel the same, so he must have something about him on that end. And he's a really good actor. Connery levels of cool in Peaky Blinders.

    Probably too old and maybe too famous but I think if you look at the sort of stuff he's done he's a more realistic choice than someone like Cavill. It'll probably be someone none of us had thought of anyway but I think if we do want to try and actually predict the next Bond we're better off looking at the casts of indie dramas, highly regarded TV stuff, theatre stuff, than the cast of Mission Impossible.

    O Connell, Norton, Turner, even Jamie Bell. They've all been slated by different members but those are the sort of names that genuinely have a shot imo. Wishing for Cavill is as pointless as wishing for Connery to wake up tomorrow suddenly looking like he did in DN and come out of retirement. Not gonna happen.

    No offense but majority of women on twitter like pattison as well and not because of his acting skills but solely based on looks. They still think that he is perfect for Batman and i laugh whenever i hear that. Murphy is phenomenal actor just not a good choice for bond. He kind of reminds of Wishaw's Q as well sometimes.

    This and this. He looks quite effeminate to me as well. Cillian with a wig, yesh pleashe.
    Edit: he sure is a pretty lass *lol* What has been seen... Say what you will about Cavill, he'd sure make for an unattractive lady :D
    4467f3a333083bf71c084afe360b9136.jpg

    eda47c2f93f48f9ca6a1219b884f9869.jpg

    4d7bc9d771a02ee4ddacb29ff00e4dce.jpg

    For me Murphy lacks the alpha male attributes. The way he walked, his voice says it all and don't get me started on his face. If Women find him sexy, good for them but that doesn't mean he is fit to be bond. I saw him in peaky blinders which I liked very much but never ever thought that this guy can be bond, still don't.

    Murphy, pattison, Cavill or any other simply lacks the charisma. I liked other roles they played but not strong enough to impress me, surely critics may like them but never cared about critics . To be honest i am not really thrilled about pattison playing batman, he is nowhere near craig or bale acting skills. What Craig lacked in looks he makeup from his acting but pattison have neither for bond, for me he is just another Hollywood pretty boy who can get women excited. I can tell you mostly women are the one's defending him for his take on batman. Yes he will be better than the last batman but Affleck didn't really set the bar very high.

    Murphy does looks like Q and here's the two photos for better comparison.

    3aea40e93f7e3435beb0aa974f1d0c67.jpg
    MV5BY2M4MjczMWItN2Q2OC00ZmI4LWFmMWQtMjUxN2QwOGIxYWQ1XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjUwNzk3NDc@._V1_.jpg

    Pattinson seems to have successfully shed his pretty boy image though. He's more of an indie darling than anything else now. Not a big Batman fan but I think he'll be good. I doubt it's just women defending him. I'd heard how good he was in stuff long before he was Batman so it makes sense that people are giving him the benefit of the doubt. He isn't just the guy from Twilight anymore.

    And you said he reminds you of Wishaw's Q, not that he looked like him (in a role where he's made up to look sort of geeky). I could find stills where he looks nothing like that. Swings and roundabouts. He's certainly nothing like him as an actor, and whether he's Bond material or not, I don't get how you could actually watch him in Peaky Blinders and think he doesn't have an alpha male quality or charisma (he pretty much carries that whole show). But there you go, subjective I suppose. Still think he'd be good personally, but probably is too old now anyway.
    I think Campbell has admitted that he was thinking along the ‘Pierce Brosnan’ lines when casting CR. Remember in 2005, casting someone like Daniel Craig was a very iconoclastic move. Now we are used to him, but then it was a big sea change.

    Cavill is very wooden – it also doesn’t help that he’s been lumped with playing stoic heroes. He can’t really pull off the ‘mean and moody’ vibe as it just comes across as meagre and pouty. He’s a bit of an empty vessel and can’t do haunted and angst-ridden. It just draws attention to how bland he is……..

    Though, I did see him in Man from UNCLE and recall him injecting some personality into that film…..though his performance in these clips is a little shaky. But boy, doesn’t he just look like James Bond…….





    But I think Superman still rules him out. There are pretty much four/five hugely iconic roles in film history that get recast openly. Both Superman and James Bond are on that very short list. You can’t play two of them - especially in franchise films where you are the 'face of the campaign.' From a marketing perspective it's a nightmare and these are $200 million business enterprises.

    Plus, Cavill is a tad boring and obvious for my liking…….I think you need someone edgy and interesting. I feel that person is still Jack O’Connell. He has something slightly provocative about him. He kinda reminds me of a cross between Sean Connery and Tom Hardy.

    JACk-OCONNELL.WEB_-696x442.jpg

    JACk-OCONNELL.WEB8_-1024x650.jpg

    JACk-OCONNELL.WEB7_-1024x650.jpg

    JACk-OCONNELL.WEB6_-1024x650.jpg

    He looks so much better without that crap goatee. Proper Bond material there, have always said he'd be good when he was older and he's really starting to look the part now as well as having the acting chops.

    Short or not he's by far the most likely choice so far imo. This is just a personal hunch mind and EON will probably surprise us like they did with Craig, but I dunno. I think he's the sort of actor Barbara will want. If the bookies have odds on him when the race heats up I might stick some money on it.

    @MajorDSmythe To be honest I wasn't keen on the reboot/origin story idea either. The two kills bit in the novel was a flashback to who knows how many missions earlier and I think Bond letting his guard down for Vesper could have easily been portrayed as him "going soft" (the bit where he stares in the mirror after killing Obanno really reminded me of the bit in GF at the airport after he's killed the Mexican) and thinking he'd found another chance at happiness after Tracey. But I do think that angle worked fine with Craig, I don't think he was too old for it for the reasons I mentioned.
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    As has been pointed out, actors often look younger at a given age than actors of a comparable age did in the past. Between 35 and 40 seems like a good age to begin. If a film were to be released every 3 years, which is a very reasonable time table, a 40 year old actor could do 5 films in 12 years 40, 43, 46,49,52. Perfect.

    I don’t agree with the 40 something Bond. 49, 52 are too old. This happened as Cubby got old and kept Old Roger in the part. Bond should be in his prime and 40s ain’t prime. No one gives a s@*$ (excuse me) about people in their 40s for a reason. It’s past prime.

    Men want to be Bond and women want to be with him... that should be someone young, vibrant, with sex appeal... not lost a step, on viagra and looking distinguished. I agree some guys and people generally look younger, mostly from not smoking, but the aim should be to get a few movies in before the actor gets into their 40s and only a couple in early 40s. I mean look at how they’ve played Craig as lost a step and out of touch with the times...that’s lame. Bond should be one step ahead of everyone (like in CR)... and middle aged doesn’t fit that.

    The lost a step thing, I get why that's grating, but out of touch is pretty much the only way you can do modern Bond anymore imo. The character is a dinasour at this point in so many ways and it'd be silly for the films not to acknowledge that. What matters is he keeps winning and proving he's still relevant in the end.

    I actually think they could go further with it. Make him a proper old school, "did he really just say that" Gene Hunt type anti-hero, play up his more undesirable traits like his sexism for comedy's sake, let him start smoking again, etc.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 754
    talos7 wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    As has been pointed out, actors often look younger at a given age than actors of a comparable age did in the past. Between 35 and 40 seems like a good age to begin. If a film were to be released every 3 years, which is a very reasonable time table, a 40 year old actor could do 5 films in 12 years 40, 43, 46,49,52. Perfect.

    I don’t agree with the 40 something Bond. 49, 52 are too old. This happened as Cubby got old and kept Old Roger in the part. Bond should be in his prime and 40s ain’t prime. No one gives a s@*$ (excuse me) about people in their 40s for a reason. It’s past prime.

    Men want to be Bond and women want to be with him... that should be someone young, vibrant, with sex appeal... not lost a step, on viagra and looking distinguished. I agree some guys and people generally look younger, mostly from not smoking, but the aim should be to get a few movies in before the actor gets into their 40s and only a couple in early 40s. I mean look at how they’ve played Craig as lost a step and out of touch with the times...that’s lame. Bond should be one step ahead of everyone (like in CR)... and middle aged doesn’t fit that.
    I know, it’s a shame how poorly the Mission Impossible films have done ever since Tom Cruise turned 40, or should I say 50. They’ve lost millions for the studios, haven’t they? 😏
    Viagra, really 😆

    Yeah I know Tom Cruise is great and they handle those movies better by not making his age an issue at all. But he’s pretty exceptional and no matter how good he looks he looked better younger. Harrison Ford also aged awesome in his day, but as great as he looked in Last Crusade and as Jack Ryan, he looked better in Star Wars and Raiders. It’s about prime and stage of life, relationships to people and world, not just looking great for your age. Box office is another issue that I wasn’t referring to at all. Viagra, Lipitor, Prilosec, Orthopedic Insoles...😉
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,889
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    As has been pointed out, actors often look younger at a given age than actors of a comparable age did in the past. Between 35 and 40 seems like a good age to begin. If a film were to be released every 3 years, which is a very reasonable time table, a 40 year old actor could do 5 films in 12 years 40, 43, 46,49,52. Perfect.

    I don’t agree with the 40 something Bond. 49, 52 are too old. This happened as Cubby got old and kept Old Roger in the part. Bond should be in his prime and 40s ain’t prime. No one gives a s@*$ (excuse me) about people in their 40s for a reason. It’s past prime.

    Men want to be Bond and women want to be with him... that should be someone young, vibrant, with sex appeal... not lost a step, on viagra and looking distinguished. I agree some guys and people generally look younger, mostly from not smoking, but the aim should be to get a few movies in before the actor gets into their 40s and only a couple in early 40s. I mean look at how they’ve played Craig as lost a step and out of touch with the times...that’s lame. Bond should be one step ahead of everyone (like in CR)... and middle aged doesn’t fit that.
    I know, it’s a shame how poorly the Mission Impossible films have done ever since Tom Cruise turned 40, or should I say 50. They’ve lost millions for the studios, haven’t they? 😏
    Viagra, really 😆

    Yeah I know Tom Cruise is great and they handle those movies better by not making his age an issue at all. But he’s pretty exceptional and no matter how good he looks he looked better younger. Harrison Ford also aged awesome in his day, but as great as he looked in Last Crusade and as Jack Ryan, he looked better in Star Wars and Raiders. It’s about prime and stage of life, relationships to people and world, not just looking great for your age. Box office is another issue that I wasn’t referring to at all. Viagra, Lipitor, Prilosec, Orthopedic Insoles...😉

    An amazing display of condescending , ignorant ageism. Actors in their 40s and 50s are among the highest grossing, most successful performers in film today.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 754
    talos7 wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    As has been pointed out, actors often look younger at a given age than actors of a comparable age did in the past. Between 35 and 40 seems like a good age to begin. If a film were to be released every 3 years, which is a very reasonable time table, a 40 year old actor could do 5 films in 12 years 40, 43, 46,49,52. Perfect.

    I don’t agree with the 40 something Bond. 49, 52 are too old. This happened as Cubby got old and kept Old Roger in the part. Bond should be in his prime and 40s ain’t prime. No one gives a s@*$ (excuse me) about people in their 40s for a reason. It’s past prime.

    Men want to be Bond and women want to be with him... that should be someone young, vibrant, with sex appeal... not lost a step, on viagra and looking distinguished. I agree some guys and people generally look younger, mostly from not smoking, but the aim should be to get a few movies in before the actor gets into their 40s and only a couple in early 40s. I mean look at how they’ve played Craig as lost a step and out of touch with the times...that’s lame. Bond should be one step ahead of everyone (like in CR)... and middle aged doesn’t fit that.
    I know, it’s a shame how poorly the Mission Impossible films have done ever since Tom Cruise turned 40, or should I say 50. They’ve lost millions for the studios, haven’t they? 😏
    Viagra, really 😆

    Yeah I know Tom Cruise is great and they handle those movies better by not making his age an issue at all. But he’s pretty exceptional and no matter how good he looks he looked better younger. Harrison Ford also aged awesome in his day, but as great as he looked in Last Crusade and as Jack Ryan, he looked better in Star Wars and Raiders. It’s about prime and stage of life, relationships to people and world, not just looking great for your age. Box office is another issue that I wasn’t referring to at all. Viagra, Lipitor, Prilosec, Orthopedic Insoles...😉

    An amazing display of condescending , ignorant ageism. Actors in their 40s and 50s are among the highest grossing, most successful performers in film today.
    Um, you’re taking it way too seriously. missing my point. Mischaracterizing me
  • edited January 2020 Posts: 11,425
    Can't we have Robert Pattinson? He has that drop-dead gorgeous Pierce Brosnan vibe, but there is something a little more edgy and contemporary about him.

    I suppose the answer is that Batman rules him out. But the same can be said of Henry Cavill.

    ENouHSIXsAA5HgI?format=png&name=900x900

    Danny Boyle has said he thinks Pattinson should be the next Bond. And Nolan has cast him in Tenet.

    So of all the names mentioned I actually think he might be the most likely.

    Don't see EON going for Turner or Cavill.
  • Posts: 15,785
    With 40 being the new 20. a prime Bond candidate would now be about 55 to represent one's mid 30's peak of life.
  • edited January 2020 Posts: 17,241
    talos7 wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    As has been pointed out, actors often look younger at a given age than actors of a comparable age did in the past. Between 35 and 40 seems like a good age to begin. If a film were to be released every 3 years, which is a very reasonable time table, a 40 year old actor could do 5 films in 12 years 40, 43, 46,49,52. Perfect.

    I don’t agree with the 40 something Bond. 49, 52 are too old. This happened as Cubby got old and kept Old Roger in the part. Bond should be in his prime and 40s ain’t prime. No one gives a s@*$ (excuse me) about people in their 40s for a reason. It’s past prime.

    Men want to be Bond and women want to be with him... that should be someone young, vibrant, with sex appeal... not lost a step, on viagra and looking distinguished. I agree some guys and people generally look younger, mostly from not smoking, but the aim should be to get a few movies in before the actor gets into their 40s and only a couple in early 40s. I mean look at how they’ve played Craig as lost a step and out of touch with the times...that’s lame. Bond should be one step ahead of everyone (like in CR)... and middle aged doesn’t fit that.
    I know, it’s a shame how poorly the Mission Impossible films have done ever since Tom Cruise turned 40, or should I say 50. They’ve lost millions for the studios, haven’t they? 😏
    Viagra, really 😆

    Yeah I know Tom Cruise is great and they handle those movies better by not making his age an issue at all. But he’s pretty exceptional and no matter how good he looks he looked better younger. Harrison Ford also aged awesome in his day, but as great as he looked in Last Crusade and as Jack Ryan, he looked better in Star Wars and Raiders. It’s about prime and stage of life, relationships to people and world, not just looking great for your age. Box office is another issue that I wasn’t referring to at all. Viagra, Lipitor, Prilosec, Orthopedic Insoles...😉

    An amazing display of condescending , ignorant ageism. Actors in their 40s and 50s are among the highest grossing, most successful performers in film today.

    Personal preference of course, but I find seeing actors in their 40's-60's kicking ass on screen to be highly enjoyable. I'd love to see Pierce Brosnan as an older spy in a film, for example – be it popcorn action or more of a Le Carré type film.

    I like it if a Bond actor is in his late 30's/40-42 when he stars in his first film. He's got to look like he's been doing the job for some time, IMO.
  • Posts: 15,785
    talos7 wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    As has been pointed out, actors often look younger at a given age than actors of a comparable age did in the past. Between 35 and 40 seems like a good age to begin. If a film were to be released every 3 years, which is a very reasonable time table, a 40 year old actor could do 5 films in 12 years 40, 43, 46,49,52. Perfect.

    I don’t agree with the 40 something Bond. 49, 52 are too old. This happened as Cubby got old and kept Old Roger in the part. Bond should be in his prime and 40s ain’t prime. No one gives a s@*$ (excuse me) about people in their 40s for a reason. It’s past prime.

    Men want to be Bond and women want to be with him... that should be someone young, vibrant, with sex appeal... not lost a step, on viagra and looking distinguished. I agree some guys and people generally look younger, mostly from not smoking, but the aim should be to get a few movies in before the actor gets into their 40s and only a couple in early 40s. I mean look at how they’ve played Craig as lost a step and out of touch with the times...that’s lame. Bond should be one step ahead of everyone (like in CR)... and middle aged doesn’t fit that.
    I know, it’s a shame how poorly the Mission Impossible films have done ever since Tom Cruise turned 40, or should I say 50. They’ve lost millions for the studios, haven’t they? 😏
    Viagra, really 😆

    Yeah I know Tom Cruise is great and they handle those movies better by not making his age an issue at all. But he’s pretty exceptional and no matter how good he looks he looked better younger. Harrison Ford also aged awesome in his day, but as great as he looked in Last Crusade and as Jack Ryan, he looked better in Star Wars and Raiders. It’s about prime and stage of life, relationships to people and world, not just looking great for your age. Box office is another issue that I wasn’t referring to at all. Viagra, Lipitor, Prilosec, Orthopedic Insoles...😉

    An amazing display of condescending , ignorant ageism. Actors in their 40s and 50s are among the highest grossing, most successful performers in film today.

    Personal preference of course, but I find seeing actors in their 40's-60's kicking ass on screen to be highly enjoyable. I'd love to see Pierce Brosnan as an older spy in a film, for example – be it popcorn action or more of a Le Carré type film.

    I like it if a Bond actor is in his late 30's/40-42 when he stars in his first film. He's got to look like he's been doing the job for some time, IMO.

    Well said.
  • edited January 2020 Posts: 12,837
    Getafix wrote: »
    Can't we have Robert Pattinson? He has that drop-dead gorgeous Pierce Brosnan vibe, but there is something a little more edgy and contemporary about him.

    I suppose the answer is that Batman rules him out. But the same can be said of Henry Cavill.

    ENouHSIXsAA5HgI?format=png&name=900x900

    Danny Boyle has said he thinks Pattinson should be the next Bond. And Nolan has cast him in Tenet.

    So of all the names mentioned I actually think he might be the most likely.

    Don't see EON going for Turner or Cavill.

    Nolan casting him in Tenet makes him less likely if anything imo. I just can't picture the next guy having done blockbusters, think it'll be someone a bit more alternative, although to be fair Craig did do that dire Tomb Raider film pre Bond.

    Plus he's literally just signed on for Batman and you know what those films are like. He'll probably be doing it for the next 5-10 years. And even if he only did the one I think that'd make him famous enough again to rule him out for Bond.

    If he wasn't playing Batman I think he'd be a realistic choice. But now I think he's firmly in the could have been category. Twilight, Tenet, Batman. Too Hollywood I reckon. Think we should be looking for guys a bit more under the radar.

    Still more likely than Cavill, because he can actually act. But I think of the three you mentioned Turner is the most likely. I'd still put my money on someone like O Connell over him though. He hasn't been in that much lately but he's got a few things coming up, including playing Shaun Ryder in a biopic directed by the guy who made the Ian Curtis one.

    I think his star's going to be rising again at just the right time. If I were him I'd try to find a Layer Cake. A guy who plays Bond in a Bond pastiche (like UNCLE) will probably never get the gig, but if O Connell found something that proves he can do suave and smooth as well as he does raw and dangerous then I reckon he'd be in with a very good chance.
  • DrClatterhandDrClatterhand United Kingdom
    Posts: 349
    Those photos of Jack O'Connell are brilliant. He's really matured. He has onscreen presence in spades and has swagger. Shame he's a little short. Still, I'd take him over Cavill immediately. Quite simply, Cavill is a really poor actor. He looks every bit Bond, but that's not enough. Craig has elevated the role of Bond and Cavill would seem like a huge step backwards. Jack O'Connell feels like someone to take Bond forward. I quite fancy Jack Lowden for the role too.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,811
    We're all nominating actors of a certain age because we're sure EON will go with a younger Bond as they always have.
    What if they cast an actor already in his late 40's early 50's and explore a more mature Bond at the end of his career.
    Unlikely, but who knows.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,889
    Benny wrote: »
    We're all nominating actors of a certain age because we're sure EON will go with a younger Bond as they always have.
    What if they cast an actor already in his late 40's early 50's and explore a more mature Bond at the end of his career.
    Unlikely, but who knows.

    That unlikely scenario would allow for the continuation of the Craig timeline; get Hugh Jackman on the line. 😏

  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    A bigger name that to me seems a bit more viable is Cillian Murphy. Don't really think he has the look but my wife really fancies him and you only have to go on twitter when Peaky Blinders is on to know that other women feel the same, so he must have something about him on that end. And he's a really good actor. Connery levels of cool in Peaky Blinders.

    Probably too old and maybe too famous but I think if you look at the sort of stuff he's done he's a more realistic choice than someone like Cavill. It'll probably be someone none of us had thought of anyway but I think if we do want to try and actually predict the next Bond we're better off looking at the casts of indie dramas, highly regarded TV stuff, theatre stuff, than the cast of Mission Impossible.

    O Connell, Norton, Turner, even Jamie Bell. They've all been slated by different members but those are the sort of names that genuinely have a shot imo. Wishing for Cavill is as pointless as wishing for Connery to wake up tomorrow suddenly looking like he did in DN and come out of retirement. Not gonna happen.

    No offense but majority of women on twitter like pattison as well and not because of his acting skills but solely based on looks. They still think that he is perfect for Batman and i laugh whenever i hear that. Murphy is phenomenal actor just not a good choice for bond. He kind of reminds of Wishaw's Q as well sometimes.

    This and this. He looks quite effeminate to me as well. Cillian with a wig, yesh pleashe.
    Edit: he sure is a pretty lass *lol* What has been seen... Say what you will about Cavill, he'd sure make for an unattractive lady :D
    4467f3a333083bf71c084afe360b9136.jpg

    eda47c2f93f48f9ca6a1219b884f9869.jpg

    4d7bc9d771a02ee4ddacb29ff00e4dce.jpg

    For me Murphy lacks the alpha male attributes. The way he walked, his voice says it all and don't get me started on his face. If Women find him sexy, good for them but that doesn't mean he is fit to be bond. I saw him in peaky blinders which I liked very much but never ever thought that this guy can be bond, still don't.

    Murphy, pattison, Cavill or any other simply lacks the charisma. I liked other roles they played but not strong enough to impress me, surely critics may like them but never cared about critics . To be honest i am not really thrilled about pattison playing batman, he is nowhere near craig or bale acting skills. What Craig lacked in looks he makeup from his acting but pattison have neither for bond, for me he is just another Hollywood pretty boy who can get women excited. I can tell you mostly women are the one's defending him for his take on batman. Yes he will be better than the last batman but Affleck didn't really set the bar very high.

    Murphy does looks like Q and here's the two photos for better comparison.

    3aea40e93f7e3435beb0aa974f1d0c67.jpg
    MV5BY2M4MjczMWItN2Q2OC00ZmI4LWFmMWQtMjUxN2QwOGIxYWQ1XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjUwNzk3NDc@._V1_.jpg

    Pattinson seems to have successfully shed his pretty boy image though. He's more of an indie darling than anything else now. Not a big Batman fan but I think he'll be good. I doubt it's just women defending him. I'd heard how good he was in stuff long before he was Batman so it makes sense that people are giving him the benefit of the doubt. He isn't just the guy from Twilight anymore.

    And you said he reminds you of Wishaw's Q, not that he looked like him (in a role where he's made up to look sort of geeky). I could find stills where he looks nothing like that. Swings and roundabouts. He's certainly nothing like him as an actor, and whether he's Bond material or not, I don't get how you could actually watch him in Peaky Blinders and think he doesn't have an alpha male quality or charisma (he pretty much carries that whole show). But there you go, subjective I suppose. Still think he'd be good personally, but probably is too old now anyway.
    I think Campbell has admitted that he was thinking along the ‘Pierce Brosnan’ lines when casting CR. Remember in 2005, casting someone like Daniel Craig was a very iconoclastic move. Now we are used to him, but then it was a big sea change.

    Cavill is very wooden – it also doesn’t help that he’s been lumped with playing stoic heroes. He can’t really pull off the ‘mean and moody’ vibe as it just comes across as meagre and pouty. He’s a bit of an empty vessel and can’t do haunted and angst-ridden. It just draws attention to how bland he is……..

    Though, I did see him in Man from UNCLE and recall him injecting some personality into that film…..though his performance in these clips is a little shaky. But boy, doesn’t he just look like James Bond…….





    But I think Superman still rules him out. There are pretty much four/five hugely iconic roles in film history that get recast openly. Both Superman and James Bond are on that very short list. You can’t play two of them - especially in franchise films where you are the 'face of the campaign.' From a marketing perspective it's a nightmare and these are $200 million business enterprises.

    Plus, Cavill is a tad boring and obvious for my liking…….I think you need someone edgy and interesting. I feel that person is still Jack O’Connell. He has something slightly provocative about him. He kinda reminds me of a cross between Sean Connery and Tom Hardy.

    JACk-OCONNELL.WEB_-696x442.jpg

    JACk-OCONNELL.WEB8_-1024x650.jpg

    JACk-OCONNELL.WEB7_-1024x650.jpg

    JACk-OCONNELL.WEB6_-1024x650.jpg

    He looks so much better without that crap goatee. Proper Bond material there, have always said he'd be good when he was older and he's really starting to look the part now as well as having the acting chops.

    Short or not he's by far the most likely choice so far imo. This is just a personal hunch mind and EON will probably surprise us like they did with Craig, but I dunno. I think he's the sort of actor Barbara will want. If the bookies have odds on him when the race heats up I might stick some money on it.

    @MajorDSmythe To be honest I wasn't keen on the reboot/origin story idea either. The two kills bit in the novel was a flashback to who knows how many missions earlier and I think Bond letting his guard down for Vesper could have easily been portrayed as him "going soft" (the bit where he stares in the mirror after killing Obanno really reminded me of the bit in GF at the airport after he's killed the Mexican) and thinking he'd found another chance at happiness after Tracey. But I do think that angle worked fine with Craig, I don't think he was too old for it for the reasons I mentioned.
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    As has been pointed out, actors often look younger at a given age than actors of a comparable age did in the past. Between 35 and 40 seems like a good age to begin. If a film were to be released every 3 years, which is a very reasonable time table, a 40 year old actor could do 5 films in 12 years 40, 43, 46,49,52. Perfect.

    I don’t agree with the 40 something Bond. 49, 52 are too old. This happened as Cubby got old and kept Old Roger in the part. Bond should be in his prime and 40s ain’t prime. No one gives a s@*$ (excuse me) about people in their 40s for a reason. It’s past prime.

    Men want to be Bond and women want to be with him... that should be someone young, vibrant, with sex appeal... not lost a step, on viagra and looking distinguished. I agree some guys and people generally look younger, mostly from not smoking, but the aim should be to get a few movies in before the actor gets into their 40s and only a couple in early 40s. I mean look at how they’ve played Craig as lost a step and out of touch with the times...that’s lame. Bond should be one step ahead of everyone (like in CR)... and middle aged doesn’t fit that.

    The lost a step thing, I get why that's grating, but out of touch is pretty much the only way you can do modern Bond anymore imo. The character is a dinasour at this point in so many ways and it'd be silly for the films not to acknowledge that. What matters is he keeps winning and proving he's still relevant in the end.

    I actually think they could go further with it. Make him a proper old school, "did he really just say that" Gene Hunt type anti-hero, play up his more undesirable traits like his sexism for comedy's sake, let him start smoking again, etc.

    All right let's break it down slowly.
    "Pattinson seems to have successfully shed his pretty boy image though"
    Give one film where he has successfully did that. He is average at best in every single role he played not just twilight.

    "Not a big Batman fan but I think he'll be good"
    You aren't a Batman fan but i am that's why I know he isn't fit to play. He is a bit pale for my taste and since he started bulking, he looks like tall dwarf to me. His face is trying desperately to fit in a grown man's body. To be very honest most won't admit but they are just trying to please women with this just like making 007 a woman, It's not a coincidence that all of this happening in 2020. What's next Kristen Stewart for Catwoman?

    "I doubt it's just women defending him"
    I said mostly women defending him not just women. Has any women gave you any reason why he should be bond or batman besides how sexy he looks? They won't admit because they are still living in their twilight bubble and their biased views. Not many hated twilight in the beginning, the hatred start afterwards when it became popular.

    "you said he reminds you of Wishaw's Q, not that he looked like him (in a role where he's made up to look sort of geeky). I could find stills where he looks nothing like that"
    You are welcome to post those stills and compare him with Connery if you would like, still not convinced that what exactly about him that you think he should have been bond. Bond isn't just about smoking or drinking but I said he kind of reminds me of Q and I even posted two photos for better comparison, yes i agree that he has played different characters as well doesn't mean he has what it takes to be bond. The reason you mentioned the first time is because you think women finds him hot without giving any benefit of doubt why or what possible reason but how many women actually watch James bond films or know much about the character may I ask,not many sadly.

    "He's certainly nothing like him as an actor, and whether he's Bond material or not"
    Whishaw won golden globe last year in case you care about what critics or award says and not for playing a feminine character.

    "I don't get how you could actually watch him in Peaky Blinders and think he doesn't have an alpha male quality or charisma (he pretty much carries that whole show)"

    Smoking and drinking doesn't make you an alpha, for me it's the act and how someone walks and carries himself, his voice should be something that command respect. An alpha doesn't need to pretend or shout out that he is one. As I said he is a phenomenal actor just not for bond and about carrying the show peaky blinders, i and many others i know started watching that show because of tom Hardy not Murphy but as started watching the show I liked him more than Hardy and watched him and pattison in a lot of films not just the one's they are known for. I don't dismiss someone solely based on one film or the series.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited January 2020 Posts: 5,131
    Risico007 wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Matthew Goode anyone?
    👎🏼
    I saw only one scene of him on Jeopardy the greatest of all time last night and he struck me as a possibility so why don't you like him Talos7...

    They say a picture is worth a 1000 words but sadly the thumbs down doesn't give more then 3 words
    Obviously you lack vision. 😏
    Lol, I was in a hurry. I’ve seen him in a few things and find him very “soft” ; he doesn’t have a hint of the alpha-make quality that the role of Bond needs

    fair enough I saw him for 30 seconds and felt he could do it.... but then again I am still convinced Tom Hardy could be a brilliant 007 so who am I to judge.


    And I have tried to not think of Hardy as 007 I really have but …. I see that man and his performance in Inception and think man...he would be like the second coming of Connery... if only...

    Hardy is a great actor. But you can’t have a 5ft 8in actor as Bond. He’s too short. 5ft 10in is the absolute minimum as per Daniel Craig, as it’s UK average. 5ft 8in is noticeably short for a man.....Fleming had him as 6ft and Cubby always wanted tall actors.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah Man From UNCLE was Cavill's chance to show he could play Bond, and I think he was very ordinary. When you compare to something like Fassbender in First Class (which was an instant 'well: that's a pretty perfect fully-formed, charismatic, sexy, dangerous James Bond') there's nothing really there other than some good looks. I've nothing against him, he's decent enough, but he's sort of just 'fine'.

    Fassbender would have been the dream choice, but alas, age is not on his side.
  • edited January 2020 Posts: 12,837
    A bigger name that to me seems a bit more viable is Cillian Murphy. Don't really think he has the look but my wife really fancies him and you only have to go on twitter when Peaky Blinders is on to know that other women feel the same, so he must have something about him on that end. And he's a really good actor. Connery levels of cool in Peaky Blinders.

    Probably too old and maybe too famous but I think if you look at the sort of stuff he's done he's a more realistic choice than someone like Cavill. It'll probably be someone none of us had thought of anyway but I think if we do want to try and actually predict the next Bond we're better off looking at the casts of indie dramas, highly regarded TV stuff, theatre stuff, than the cast of Mission Impossible.

    O Connell, Norton, Turner, even Jamie Bell. They've all been slated by different members but those are the sort of names that genuinely have a shot imo. Wishing for Cavill is as pointless as wishing for Connery to wake up tomorrow suddenly looking like he did in DN and come out of retirement. Not gonna happen.

    No offense but majority of women on twitter like pattison as well and not because of his acting skills but solely based on looks. They still think that he is perfect for Batman and i laugh whenever i hear that. Murphy is phenomenal actor just not a good choice for bond. He kind of reminds of Wishaw's Q as well sometimes.

    This and this. He looks quite effeminate to me as well. Cillian with a wig, yesh pleashe.
    Edit: he sure is a pretty lass *lol* What has been seen... Say what you will about Cavill, he'd sure make for an unattractive lady :D
    4467f3a333083bf71c084afe360b9136.jpg

    eda47c2f93f48f9ca6a1219b884f9869.jpg

    4d7bc9d771a02ee4ddacb29ff00e4dce.jpg

    For me Murphy lacks the alpha male attributes. The way he walked, his voice says it all and don't get me started on his face. If Women find him sexy, good for them but that doesn't mean he is fit to be bond. I saw him in peaky blinders which I liked very much but never ever thought that this guy can be bond, still don't.

    Murphy, pattison, Cavill or any other simply lacks the charisma. I liked other roles they played but not strong enough to impress me, surely critics may like them but never cared about critics . To be honest i am not really thrilled about pattison playing batman, he is nowhere near craig or bale acting skills. What Craig lacked in looks he makeup from his acting but pattison have neither for bond, for me he is just another Hollywood pretty boy who can get women excited. I can tell you mostly women are the one's defending him for his take on batman. Yes he will be better than the last batman but Affleck didn't really set the bar very high.

    Murphy does looks like Q and here's the two photos for better comparison.

    3aea40e93f7e3435beb0aa974f1d0c67.jpg
    MV5BY2M4MjczMWItN2Q2OC00ZmI4LWFmMWQtMjUxN2QwOGIxYWQ1XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjUwNzk3NDc@._V1_.jpg

    Pattinson seems to have successfully shed his pretty boy image though. He's more of an indie darling than anything else now. Not a big Batman fan but I think he'll be good. I doubt it's just women defending him. I'd heard how good he was in stuff long before he was Batman so it makes sense that people are giving him the benefit of the doubt. He isn't just the guy from Twilight anymore.

    And you said he reminds you of Wishaw's Q, not that he looked like him (in a role where he's made up to look sort of geeky). I could find stills where he looks nothing like that. Swings and roundabouts. He's certainly nothing like him as an actor, and whether he's Bond material or not, I don't get how you could actually watch him in Peaky Blinders and think he doesn't have an alpha male quality or charisma (he pretty much carries that whole show). But there you go, subjective I suppose. Still think he'd be good personally, but probably is too old now anyway.
    I think Campbell has admitted that he was thinking along the ‘Pierce Brosnan’ lines when casting CR. Remember in 2005, casting someone like Daniel Craig was a very iconoclastic move. Now we are used to him, but then it was a big sea change.

    Cavill is very wooden – it also doesn’t help that he’s been lumped with playing stoic heroes. He can’t really pull off the ‘mean and moody’ vibe as it just comes across as meagre and pouty. He’s a bit of an empty vessel and can’t do haunted and angst-ridden. It just draws attention to how bland he is……..

    Though, I did see him in Man from UNCLE and recall him injecting some personality into that film…..though his performance in these clips is a little shaky. But boy, doesn’t he just look like James Bond…….





    But I think Superman still rules him out. There are pretty much four/five hugely iconic roles in film history that get recast openly. Both Superman and James Bond are on that very short list. You can’t play two of them - especially in franchise films where you are the 'face of the campaign.' From a marketing perspective it's a nightmare and these are $200 million business enterprises.

    Plus, Cavill is a tad boring and obvious for my liking…….I think you need someone edgy and interesting. I feel that person is still Jack O’Connell. He has something slightly provocative about him. He kinda reminds me of a cross between Sean Connery and Tom Hardy.

    JACk-OCONNELL.WEB_-696x442.jpg

    JACk-OCONNELL.WEB8_-1024x650.jpg

    JACk-OCONNELL.WEB7_-1024x650.jpg

    JACk-OCONNELL.WEB6_-1024x650.jpg

    He looks so much better without that crap goatee. Proper Bond material there, have always said he'd be good when he was older and he's really starting to look the part now as well as having the acting chops.

    Short or not he's by far the most likely choice so far imo. This is just a personal hunch mind and EON will probably surprise us like they did with Craig, but I dunno. I think he's the sort of actor Barbara will want. If the bookies have odds on him when the race heats up I might stick some money on it.

    @MajorDSmythe To be honest I wasn't keen on the reboot/origin story idea either. The two kills bit in the novel was a flashback to who knows how many missions earlier and I think Bond letting his guard down for Vesper could have easily been portrayed as him "going soft" (the bit where he stares in the mirror after killing Obanno really reminded me of the bit in GF at the airport after he's killed the Mexican) and thinking he'd found another chance at happiness after Tracey. But I do think that angle worked fine with Craig, I don't think he was too old for it for the reasons I mentioned.
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    As has been pointed out, actors often look younger at a given age than actors of a comparable age did in the past. Between 35 and 40 seems like a good age to begin. If a film were to be released every 3 years, which is a very reasonable time table, a 40 year old actor could do 5 films in 12 years 40, 43, 46,49,52. Perfect.

    I don’t agree with the 40 something Bond. 49, 52 are too old. This happened as Cubby got old and kept Old Roger in the part. Bond should be in his prime and 40s ain’t prime. No one gives a s@*$ (excuse me) about people in their 40s for a reason. It’s past prime.

    Men want to be Bond and women want to be with him... that should be someone young, vibrant, with sex appeal... not lost a step, on viagra and looking distinguished. I agree some guys and people generally look younger, mostly from not smoking, but the aim should be to get a few movies in before the actor gets into their 40s and only a couple in early 40s. I mean look at how they’ve played Craig as lost a step and out of touch with the times...that’s lame. Bond should be one step ahead of everyone (like in CR)... and middle aged doesn’t fit that.

    The lost a step thing, I get why that's grating, but out of touch is pretty much the only way you can do modern Bond anymore imo. The character is a dinasour at this point in so many ways and it'd be silly for the films not to acknowledge that. What matters is he keeps winning and proving he's still relevant in the end.

    I actually think they could go further with it. Make him a proper old school, "did he really just say that" Gene Hunt type anti-hero, play up his more undesirable traits like his sexism for comedy's sake, let him start smoking again, etc.

    All right let's break it down slowly.
    "Pattinson seems to have successfully shed his pretty boy image though"
    Give one film where he has successfully did that. He is average at best in every single role he played not just twilight.

    "Not a big Batman fan but I think he'll be good"
    You aren't a Batman fan but i am that's why I know he isn't fit to play. He is a bit pale for my taste and since he started bulking, he looks like tall dwarf to me. His face is trying desperately to fit in a grown man's body. To be very honest most won't admit but they are just trying to please women with this just like making 007 a woman, It's not a coincidence that all of this happening in 2020. What's next Kristen Stewart for Catwoman?

    "I doubt it's just women defending him"
    I said mostly women defending him not just women. Has any women gave you any reason why he should be bond or batman besides how sexy he looks? They won't admit because they are still living in their twilight bubble and their biased views. Not many hated twilight in the beginning, the hatred start afterwards when it became popular.

    "you said he reminds you of Wishaw's Q, not that he looked like him (in a role where he's made up to look sort of geeky). I could find stills where he looks nothing like that"
    You are welcome to post those stills and compare him with Connery if you would like, still not convinced that what exactly about him that you think he should have been bond. Bond isn't just about smoking or drinking but I said he kind of reminds me of Q and I even posted two photos for better comparison, yes i agree that he has played different characters as well doesn't mean he has what it takes to be bond. The reason you mentioned the first time is because you think women finds him hot without giving any benefit of doubt why or what possible reason but how many women actually watch James bond films or know much about the character may I ask,not many sadly.

    "He's certainly nothing like him as an actor, and whether he's Bond material or not"
    Whishaw won golden globe last year in case you care about what critics or award says and not for playing a feminine character.

    "I don't get how you could actually watch him in Peaky Blinders and think he doesn't have an alpha male quality or charisma (he pretty much carries that whole show)"

    Smoking and drinking doesn't make you an alpha, for me it's the act and how someone walks and carries himself, his voice should be something that command respect. An alpha doesn't need to pretend or shout out that he is one. As I said he is a phenomenal actor just not for bond and about carrying the show peaky blinders, i and many others i know started watching that show because of tom Hardy not Murphy but as started watching the show I liked him more than Hardy and watched him and pattison in a lot of films not just the one's they are known for. I don't dismiss someone solely based on one film or the series.

    You're in the minority on Pattinson mate. There's a very real chance of him having an Oscar soon and he's won some very good reviews. If you're not a fan fair enough but I think you've got to accept he has something about him even if you don't see it. Why not just wait and see? People said Ledger would be a crap Joker and DC would be a crap Bond. The idea that they've cast him "just to please women" is ridiculous sorry. He's a highly respected actor whether you personally rate him or not.

    I mentioned women finding him hot to justify what I thought was a more unconventional look, because at the end of the day, a women's or gay man's opinion on sex appeal matters more than mine. It isn't all they care about though and you don't make a billion dollars without appealing to women too. This site or big fans in general are definitely more male dominated but we don't matter. The masses are what matters. A lot of those masses are women. So I think your dismissal of womens opinions (on looks as well, which surely the part where they're most relevant for Bond, the man who "men want to be, women want to be with") because "women don't know/care about Bond" to be a little shortsighted. They're not making the films for a bunch of male Bond fans on sites like this. They're making the films for a big diverse movie going public. At the end of the day lots of women find Cillian Murphy attractive and when it comes to Bond's sex appeal, female opinion matters more than ours, just as male opinion matters more for the sex appeal of the Bond girls.

    We could go round in circles about this all day because you clearly don't see what I see but he doesn't just shout in Peaky Blinders. His most commanding scenes are when he's way more restrained and subdued. I mentioned smoking and drinking to make a point that he hasn't just played effeminate characters. But those are minor gimmicks, you're right that what matters is how he carries and projects himself, and he does that very well. Effortless Connery levels of cool. You're not going to convince me otherwise because I know what I saw in him so as I said before, it's subjective, we're going to have to agree to disagree. He's nothing like Wishaw as an actor. He's shown he's much more versatile in how he's capable of much more masculine roles. Didn't Wishaw win a Golden Globe for A Very English Scandal? Where he played a poncey gay character? They're both good actors but they're not similar at all once you actually see them in action and posting a picture of him with glasses from Batman next to one of Wishaw as Q and saying "see! The same!" won't change that.

    And Hardy is great in Peaky Blinders but he's barely in it. It's Murphy that's in every episode and keeps the whole thing going despite it being very style over substance. That's what I meant by carries the show and that ability to carry a show/film is something a Bond actor needs to have imo.
  • edited January 2020 Posts: 4,400
    I think Jack O'Connell is the guy to beat. Remember, Barbara singled out David Mackenzie and Yann Demange for the NTTD directing job. The common factor between those two directors is Jack O'Connell.......so they are clearly paying a lot of attention to his filmography.

    Jack O'Connell is making a great name in indie cinema (much like Pattinson did post-Twilight). Plus, he's maturing excellently.

    EJTnXAdXYAA7ipZ?format=jpg&name=medium
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited January 2020 Posts: 8,009
    I think Jack O'Connell is the guy to beat. Remember, Barbara singled out David Mackenzie and Yann Demange for the NTTD directing job. The common factor between those two directors is Jack O'Connell.......so they are clearly paying a lot of attention to his filmography.

    Jack O'Connell is making a great name in indie cinema (much like Pattinson did post-Twilight). Plus, he's maturing excellently.

    EJTnXAdXYAA7ipZ?format=jpg&name=medium

    I like him. He's got talent. Wasn't the first name to pop into my head, but if he was announced tomorrow morning I'd be used to it by tomorrow evening.

    The only thing I'd wonder about is the accent. Unbroken is the only thing I've seen where his accent wasn't his trademark thick Midlands accent, from Skins to Tower Block to '71 to Starred Up.
  • SatoriousSatorious Brushing up on a little Danish
    Posts: 231
    Like the idea of Connell, solid actor. That said I get the sense he's more of a man's man - and I'm not sure he's going to have the x factor with the ladies?
  • DeerAtTheGatesDeerAtTheGates Belgium
    edited January 2020 Posts: 524
    Benny wrote: »
    We're all nominating actors of a certain age because we're sure EON will go with a younger Bond as they always have.
    What if they cast an actor already in his late 40's early 50's and explore a more mature Bond at the end of his career.
    Unlikely, but who knows.

    Depends really. If they are continuing the Craig timeline, sure. But I don't think they'll do that, as Craig himself has quite effectively fought for his Bond to be its own thing, and to tailor his ideas around the character.

    And I doubt it would work in a new time line. Because in terms of characterisation, we've seen the struggle of Bond getting older and not fitting in this modern world already. Once in SF, a bit of it in SP (though that was more '00 section against drones' instead of Bond), and we'll have it again in NTTD.

    SF concluded by saying that 'Sometimes the old ways are the best and Bond still has a place'. SP's message was 'Sometimes new technology isn't good and old spying work is effective'. We don't know yet what NTTD's message will be. But for an older Bond to work in a new timeline, the message should be different, I feel. That would mean the films would make a point of Bond *not* getting the girl, of Bond *not* succeeding, of Bond struggling to keep up with the younger folks and let him really feel useless.

    Interesting character study and a deconstruction of the character, but do people want to see this in a Bond film?
Sign In or Register to comment.