Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1725726728730731767

Comments

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 3,559
    Good call @talos7, he looks great.
  • edited October 13 Posts: 233
    As @Denbigh , I think it seems clear that Pattinson is now completely out of the running, and, to be honest, I don't think he's ever been part of it: too well known for the role. On the other hand, since we are talking about The Batman, Nicholas Hoult, who almost got the part and even had an audition in costume, could be a very interesting Bond. He will be 31 at the end of the year and will therefore still be quite young (36 perhaps) when Bond 26 goes into production.

    Hoult-The-Banker.png
    Hoult-The-Banker-2.png
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 5,470
    Right now my top 3 are, in no particular order, J. Lowden, A. Turner an N. Hoult.
    I would be happy with any one of them.
  • Posts: 12,682
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Only if you stand next to them, surely?
    A quick google says he's 5'10.5" - obviously I've no idea if that's accurate but it hardly seems short. It's just the size of a man.

    I remember being amazed when I saw Paul Merton and Jonathan Ross in the flesh somewhere (actually I think Ross was at the John Barry concert I went to!) to discover they're both very tall- I thought that never really came across on the telly.

    That's literally the point I am making.

    You've lost me. I thought you said Crowe was too short?

    I said to John Glen that he was, about 20 years ago. And John Glen told me it didn't matter. And so now I don't worry about the height of the actor. I don't care about Russell Crowe's height. That wasn't the point.

    Cubby cared about height though, so Glen wouldn’t have got a say really.

    True. Anyway, Glen thought Russell Crowe was the best choice, back in about 2000.

    Well I have to disagree with Glen. I don't think his face looks right at all for Bond. Something too puffy about it. I think he was mentioned/rumoured for Batman as well, back around 2000, and I could not see him as Batman either.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 469
    Ludovico wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Only if you stand next to them, surely?
    A quick google says he's 5'10.5" - obviously I've no idea if that's accurate but it hardly seems short. It's just the size of a man.

    I remember being amazed when I saw Paul Merton and Jonathan Ross in the flesh somewhere (actually I think Ross was at the John Barry concert I went to!) to discover they're both very tall- I thought that never really came across on the telly.

    That's literally the point I am making.

    You've lost me. I thought you said Crowe was too short?

    I said to John Glen that he was, about 20 years ago. And John Glen told me it didn't matter. And so now I don't worry about the height of the actor. I don't care about Russell Crowe's height. That wasn't the point.

    Cubby cared about height though, so Glen wouldn’t have got a say really.

    True. Anyway, Glen thought Russell Crowe was the best choice, back in about 2000.

    Well I have to disagree with Glen. I don't think his face looks right at all for Bond. Something too puffy about it. I think he was mentioned/rumoured for Batman as well, back around 2000, and I could not see him as Batman either.

    Absolutely. Think he would have been awful. He was just 'the name' at the time though because of Gladiator.

    Good actor. Not for Bond.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 4,869
    Ludovico wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Only if you stand next to them, surely?
    A quick google says he's 5'10.5" - obviously I've no idea if that's accurate but it hardly seems short. It's just the size of a man.

    I remember being amazed when I saw Paul Merton and Jonathan Ross in the flesh somewhere (actually I think Ross was at the John Barry concert I went to!) to discover they're both very tall- I thought that never really came across on the telly.

    That's literally the point I am making.

    You've lost me. I thought you said Crowe was too short?

    I said to John Glen that he was, about 20 years ago. And John Glen told me it didn't matter. And so now I don't worry about the height of the actor. I don't care about Russell Crowe's height. That wasn't the point.

    Cubby cared about height though, so Glen wouldn’t have got a say really.

    True. Anyway, Glen thought Russell Crowe was the best choice, back in about 2000.

    Well I have to disagree with Glen. I don't think his face looks right at all for Bond. Something too puffy about it. I think he was mentioned/rumoured for Batman as well, back around 2000, and I could not see him as Batman either.

    Crowe as Batman? He’d be pretty ideal for it wouldn’t he? All brooding intensity and violence.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Wattenscheid
    Posts: 118
    [...]

    If Dune and Batman become the benchmarks, I think we may see a younger and more angsty Bond. I wouldn't say we'd necessarily get 'emo Bond.'

    [...]

    Considering the film won't be out until at least 2023 or 2024 at the earliest, the following names jump out for a more angst-ridden and moody Bond...

    [...]

    Timothee Chalamet
    Harris Dickinson
    Jacob Elordi
    Harry Styles
    Austin Butler
    Jack O'Connell
    Nicholas Hoult
    Charlie Heaton
    Aaron Altaras
    Paul Mescal

    Man, I thought I had one Bond actor to go before this happens but your post really forced me to consider that the next actor could be younger then me. And I'm not happy about it.
    I turn 30 next year and even though in a way I think all of this talk about the different generations is overdone and technically I don't think any of these guys even are Gen-Z themselves, some of them (Chalamet, Styles, Butler, Heaton) just look like stars for a different generation. And I think there is a non-zero chance Eon go down that route.
  • Posts: 12,682
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Only if you stand next to them, surely?
    A quick google says he's 5'10.5" - obviously I've no idea if that's accurate but it hardly seems short. It's just the size of a man.

    I remember being amazed when I saw Paul Merton and Jonathan Ross in the flesh somewhere (actually I think Ross was at the John Barry concert I went to!) to discover they're both very tall- I thought that never really came across on the telly.

    That's literally the point I am making.

    You've lost me. I thought you said Crowe was too short?

    I said to John Glen that he was, about 20 years ago. And John Glen told me it didn't matter. And so now I don't worry about the height of the actor. I don't care about Russell Crowe's height. That wasn't the point.

    Cubby cared about height though, so Glen wouldn’t have got a say really.

    True. Anyway, Glen thought Russell Crowe was the best choice, back in about 2000.

    Well I have to disagree with Glen. I don't think his face looks right at all for Bond. Something too puffy about it. I think he was mentioned/rumoured for Batman as well, back around 2000, and I could not see him as Batman either.

    Crowe as Batman? He’d be pretty ideal for it wouldn’t he? All brooding intensity and violence.

    Yes but his face is round and puffy. Even his body is too bulky for Batman imo. Or Bond. He'd make a great Bane. But Batman or Bond? No.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 14 Posts: 4,869
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Only if you stand next to them, surely?
    A quick google says he's 5'10.5" - obviously I've no idea if that's accurate but it hardly seems short. It's just the size of a man.

    I remember being amazed when I saw Paul Merton and Jonathan Ross in the flesh somewhere (actually I think Ross was at the John Barry concert I went to!) to discover they're both very tall- I thought that never really came across on the telly.

    That's literally the point I am making.

    You've lost me. I thought you said Crowe was too short?

    I said to John Glen that he was, about 20 years ago. And John Glen told me it didn't matter. And so now I don't worry about the height of the actor. I don't care about Russell Crowe's height. That wasn't the point.

    Cubby cared about height though, so Glen wouldn’t have got a say really.

    True. Anyway, Glen thought Russell Crowe was the best choice, back in about 2000.

    Well I have to disagree with Glen. I don't think his face looks right at all for Bond. Something too puffy about it. I think he was mentioned/rumoured for Batman as well, back around 2000, and I could not see him as Batman either.

    Crowe as Batman? He’d be pretty ideal for it wouldn’t he? All brooding intensity and violence.

    Yes but his face is round and puffy. Even his body is too bulky for Batman imo. Or Bond. He'd make a great Bane. But Batman or Bond? No.

    I don't really get where you're coming from: they wear a mask as Batman. He'd look the same as any other one.
    And Batman has the physique of a huge bodybuilder in the comics quite often.
  • Posts: 12,682
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Only if you stand next to them, surely?
    A quick google says he's 5'10.5" - obviously I've no idea if that's accurate but it hardly seems short. It's just the size of a man.

    I remember being amazed when I saw Paul Merton and Jonathan Ross in the flesh somewhere (actually I think Ross was at the John Barry concert I went to!) to discover they're both very tall- I thought that never really came across on the telly.

    That's literally the point I am making.

    You've lost me. I thought you said Crowe was too short?

    I said to John Glen that he was, about 20 years ago. And John Glen told me it didn't matter. And so now I don't worry about the height of the actor. I don't care about Russell Crowe's height. That wasn't the point.

    Cubby cared about height though, so Glen wouldn’t have got a say really.

    True. Anyway, Glen thought Russell Crowe was the best choice, back in about 2000.

    Well I have to disagree with Glen. I don't think his face looks right at all for Bond. Something too puffy about it. I think he was mentioned/rumoured for Batman as well, back around 2000, and I could not see him as Batman either.

    Crowe as Batman? He’d be pretty ideal for it wouldn’t he? All brooding intensity and violence.

    Yes but his face is round and puffy. Even his body is too bulky for Batman imo. Or Bond. He'd make a great Bane. But Batman or Bond? No.

    I don't really get where you're coming from: they wear a mask as Batman. He'd look the same as any other one.
    And Batman has the physique of a huge bodybuilder in the comics quite often.

    He'd still have to be Bruce Wayne. I know Batman had the physique of a bodybuilder in the comics, which I find a poor artistic choice. I just don't think Crowe would work, for the same reason I don't think he'd work as Bond. Too brutish.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 4,869
    I'm surprised anyone has tight conceptions of how Bruce Wayne should look: we've had a fairly disparate range of types playing him (obviously all within the 'handsome white guy' range of course!).
  • Posts: 528
    Speaking of appearance, in a new interview Barbara Broccoli said there is no reason Bond has to be a white man. So we can expand our range of bond actors behind handsome white men too.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 5,470
    Speaking of appearance, in a new interview Barbara Broccoli said there is no reason Bond has to be a white man. So we can expand our range of bond actors behind handsome white men too.

    If accurate, she’ll being diplomatic.

  • edited October 14 Posts: 233

    The most interesting seems to me to be the following quote from Broccoli:
    Once the film’s come out, then some time will pass, and then we’ll have to get on to the business of the future.

    This quite confirms what has already been said here: the wait before Bond 26 will undoubtedly be more or less long.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 3,982
    Once the film’s come out, then some time will pass, and then we’ll have to get on to the business of the future.
    This quite confirms what has already been said here: the wait before Bond 26 will undoubtedly be more or less long.
    ...which makes perfect sense, and necessary in my view. While No Time to Die has finished filming and the film is delayed, this also means EON still have work to do, and considering they've been working on the film for a few years now, they definitely deserve some time to get their bearings on the franchise and the industry in general, especially the way it is, before they properly start working on Bond 26.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 5,470
    Do the numerous delays effect the timetable?
  • Posts: 129
    You don't announce a new Bond before you even get the next movie out ! And even then- you wait an appropriate period of time. For one -- get the digital sales and BluRay sales out in their first big runs. Announcing the next one while you're still trying to get people to see the last one is bad for business -- whether that be in theaters, on VOD or both. Come on -- this is pretty basic.
  • Posts: 528
    It's possible we see the next Bond film in 2030. Five years to procastinate and find a shiny new Bond. Five years to make and release the film. The landscape could be totaly different in a decade. It could be the first Bond film released on streaming service. Provided NTTD isn't the first.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 14 Posts: 4,869
    Speaking of appearance, in a new interview Barbara Broccoli said there is no reason Bond has to be a white man. So we can expand our range of bond actors behind handsome white men too.

    There tends to be a lot of clutching of pearls and hysterics if that idea is mentioned around here. Prepare the smelling salts!
    I think she's perfectly right, incidentally.

    That's a good little interview excerpt: quite open of them to talk about where they are with that process.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 5,470
    Well obviously a replacement is not going to be announced prior to the release of
    NTTD; but the numerous delays, starting with changing directors, followed by Craig's injury and , at the moment , ongoing because of COVID may or may not have an effect on starting the next incarnation of Bond.

    Now I accept that they may have absolutely no specific candidate in mind; but if they do, the age of the actor may dictate starting a new era. If they are keen on an actor who is at the upper part of age range for a candidate things may move along a bit more quickly. If they really like an actor who is on the younger side, but feel that he needs a bit more time on the vine, then our wait may be longer. Of course there are studio considerations.

    One factor alone won't dictate how long we have to wait.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,017
    talos7 wrote: »
    Speaking of appearance, in a new interview Barbara Broccoli said there is no reason Bond has to be a white man. So we can expand our range of bond actors behind handsome white men too.

    If accurate, she’ll being diplomatic.

    She’s being diplomatic, I agree.
  • Posts: 528
    You know, Dev Patel has filled up lately.
  • Posts: 10,983
    It's possible we see the next Bond film in 2030. Five years to procastinate and find a shiny new Bond. Five years to make and release the film. The landscape could be totaly different in a decade. It could be the first Bond film released on streaming service. Provided NTTD isn't the first.

    I agree. 2030 sounds about right. I really have a hunch that NTTD will be the only Bond film released during this new decade.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited October 14 Posts: 5,017
    You know, Dev Patel has filled up lately.

    He'd make a good Vijay reboot Ally for the new Bond.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 271
    My top 3 (not in order)
    Rupert Friend
    Aidan Turner
    Dan Stevens
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 4,869
    You know, Dev Patel has filled up lately.

    Do you mean his diary or his dinner plate? :D
    I've not seen him play the strong confident lead yet: usually he's the innocent. He's a very good actor though and has starred in movies which is better than a lot of candidates here.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 82
    He's going to be playing Gawain in the upcoming film The Green Knight.
  • edited October 15 Posts: 4,240


    I think based on Barbara's comments above, I think they may be looking to 'reinvent' and cast an actor who is not white. Which I would welcome. I think there is a healthy split of people who aren't keen on this idea (more traditionalist fans who are on this forum) and those who actively want it (more casual fans on Twitter).

    But there are some pretty great choices emerging. In fact, some of the more dynamic young actors emerging today in Britain are black. In particular, I was impressed with Ṣọpẹ Dìrísù in Gangs of London. Perhaps not the most polished actor yet, but he has a fantastic physicality. The fight scenes were damn good and Ṣọpẹ made each feel so crunchy and real. Next, he'll appear in Netflix's His House, which could be a big hit on the service next month when it comes out (the trailer is below and looks sick). I think we will be hearing a lot from Ṣọpẹ in the tabloids regarding 'Next 007' rumours going into the new year and NTTD is out. He's also very handsome.....

    EjLPj0tWkAEbJRO?format=jpg&name=4096x4096


    There is also Kingsley Ben-Adir. Perhaps not as handsome as Sope, but he is getting rave reviews for his portrayal of Malcolm X in One Night in Miami. There are awards pundits saying he's in line for an Oscar nomination. He certainly has a following from The OA and is someone I could imagine getting at least an audition.

    EkDUdYtWkAALcQX?format=jpg&name=medium

    In a complete 180°, my preference is still for a 'Robert Pattinson-type', in lieu of the man himself. If they start filming in 2023, then I'd take Chalamet over most names. Timothee has the energy to be a brooding, byronic leading man.

    original.gif
Sign In or Register to comment.