Who should/could be a Bond actor?

17527537557577581178

Comments

  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    There is a big difference with AVTAK and TLD.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    mtm wrote: »
    Gosh, Jai Courtney. He was much like Sam Worthington: for some reason someone had decided he was going to be a star so they put him in everything at the same time but without apparently checking to see if he had anything interesting about him at all.
    Maybe it takes these guys such a long time to travel from Australia that they book ahead in lots of films.

    Agreed. Bland and blander.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    It's not always about a great actor either. Roger was hardly the world's greatest thespian, but he had charisma in spades. Cavill doesn't even have that. I trust EoN to choose well.

    Roger was the epitome of star quality.

    I do think Cavill has charisma too. He gets by on it.

    But nothing compared to Moore.
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    I've never fully understand or agreed with the Moore wasn't a good actor thing (I'm not replying directly to the above post BTW because that's not what Drclatterhand said)
    It was largely driven by Sir Roger himself and as self deprecating as he was it frustrated me at times. I was lucky enough to attend one of his ' Evening With' shows and both Gareth Owen and the audience fed him questions about his acting and thoughts on acting over the years. I would have loved him to talk seriously about it for a bit but as usual he just threw it away with jokes.
    To watch some of his films, including some great moments in various Bonds, he was very very good at what he did. Much better actor than he is remembered for.
  • Roger Moore was far from a poor actor. He was fantastic in The Man Who Haunted Himself. He's my second favourite Bond too. His comic timing was brilliant and he sold every moment on screen. Acting is about truth and Rog always sold that. I was lucky enough to see him tell his life story too. His persona outside of Bond too helped sell the whole experience. God, I miss him. He was PR gold for EoN.

  • Posts: 15,785
    Sir Roger was an excellent actor, IMO. Far more versatile than either he or the critics gave him credit for.
    I'd love for a future Bond to be just as at home in a Fleming environment as he would be in a fantastical MR setting.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Sir Roger was an excellent actor, IMO. Far more versatile than either he or the critics gave him credit for.
    I'd love for a future Bond to be just as at home in a Fleming environment as he would be in a fantastical MR setting.

    To be honest I’m not sure there’s much evidence that he was versatile at all. Maybe he could have been, but he didn’t seem to chance it.
    I think he was brilliant and hugely talented, but his talent was perhaps in being a star rather than an actor per se.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited November 2020 Posts: 5,131
    mtm wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Sir Roger was an excellent actor, IMO. Far more versatile than either he or the critics gave him credit for.
    I'd love for a future Bond to be just as at home in a Fleming environment as he would be in a fantastical MR setting.

    To be honest I’m not sure there’s much evidence that he was versatile at all. Maybe he could have been, but he didn’t seem to chance it.
    I think he was brilliant and hugely talented, but his talent was perhaps in being a star rather than an actor per se.

    I’m not sure he cared either. He loved the cash (especially as Bond). Good for him.

    He was a true star, icon and national treasure.
  • Posts: 14,799
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Hunnam reportedly talked his way into the starring role in King Arthur, convincing Guy Ritchie that he could carry the ball. He could not carry the ball, as we now know. The film lost the studio £153m.

    Good for him for making a fortune from a profession he lacks talent within. However, personally I wouldn’t want him ‘trying’ to be James Bond.

    Hunnam must be a very good talker, but Bond is a role that you can't talk yourself into.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,882
    Ludovico wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Hunnam reportedly talked his way into the starring role in King Arthur, convincing Guy Ritchie that he could carry the ball. He could not carry the ball, as we now know. The film lost the studio £153m.

    Good for him for making a fortune from a profession he lacks talent within. However, personally I wouldn’t want him ‘trying’ to be James Bond.

    Hunnam must be a very good talker, but Bond is a role that you can't talk yourself into.

    I'm not endorsing Hunnam, but Lazenby had a good go at talking his way into Bond. I think it's fair to say that he suceeded at it too.
  • edited November 2020 Posts: 14,799
    Ludovico wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Hunnam reportedly talked his way into the starring role in King Arthur, convincing Guy Ritchie that he could carry the ball. He could not carry the ball, as we now know. The film lost the studio £153m.

    Good for him for making a fortune from a profession he lacks talent within. However, personally I wouldn’t want him ‘trying’ to be James Bond.

    Hunnam must be a very good talker, but Bond is a role that you can't talk yourself into.

    I'm not endorsing Hunnam, but Lazenby had a good go at talking his way into Bond. I think it's fair to say that he suceeded at it too.

    True, but it was another time and it didn't quite work on the long term.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited November 2020 Posts: 5,131
    Ludovico wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Hunnam reportedly talked his way into the starring role in King Arthur, convincing Guy Ritchie that he could carry the ball. He could not carry the ball, as we now know. The film lost the studio £153m.

    Good for him for making a fortune from a profession he lacks talent within. However, personally I wouldn’t want him ‘trying’ to be James Bond.

    Hunnam must be a very good talker, but Bond is a role that you can't talk yourself into.

    I'm not endorsing Hunnam, but Lazenby had a good go at talking his way into Bond. I think it's fair to say that he suceeded at it too.

    He did a good job, considering his lack of experience. He benefited from great supporting actors, a brilliant script and a great Director.

    His walk and accent were bad. His acting was just about good enough and he had the physicality.

    Hunnam makes Lazenby look like Robert Di Nero.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 2020 Posts: 14,861
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Sir Roger was an excellent actor, IMO. Far more versatile than either he or the critics gave him credit for.
    I'd love for a future Bond to be just as at home in a Fleming environment as he would be in a fantastical MR setting.

    To be honest I’m not sure there’s much evidence that he was versatile at all. Maybe he could have been, but he didn’t seem to chance it.
    I think he was brilliant and hugely talented, but his talent was perhaps in being a star rather than an actor per se.

    I’m not sure he cared either. He loved the cash (especially as Bond). Good for him.

    He was a true star, icon and national treasure.

    Oh absolutely. I think he had a good time and he gave back as best he could, so I don’t think anyone could begrudge him at all. He made people happy and actually tried to make the world a better place: who of us could claim that of ourselves?
    I loved Sir Sean onscreen as much as the next guy and I don’t speak ill of the man, but I knew we weren’t really likely to see the warmth and lovely stories that came out when Roger passed away.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    How many actor's EON has selected at screentest's stage?
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Sir Roger was an excellent actor, IMO. Far more versatile than either he or the critics gave him credit for.
    I'd love for a future Bond to be just as at home in a Fleming environment as he would be in a fantastical MR setting.

    To be honest I’m not sure there’s much evidence that he was versatile at all. Maybe he could have been, but he didn’t seem to chance it.
    I think he was brilliant and hugely talented, but his talent was perhaps in being a star rather than an actor per se.

    I’m not sure he cared either. He loved the cash (especially as Bond). Good for him.

    He was a true star, icon and national treasure.

    Oh absolutely. I think he had a good time and he gave back as best he could, so I don’t think anyone could begrudge him at all. He made people happy and actually tried to make the world a better place: who of us could claim that of ourselves?
    I loved Sir Sean onscreen as much as the next guy and I don’t speak ill of the man, but I knew we weren’t really likely to see the warmth and lovely stories that came out when Roger passed away.

    Exactly.
  • Posts: 14,799
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Hunnam reportedly talked his way into the starring role in King Arthur, convincing Guy Ritchie that he could carry the ball. He could not carry the ball, as we now know. The film lost the studio £153m.

    Good for him for making a fortune from a profession he lacks talent within. However, personally I wouldn’t want him ‘trying’ to be James Bond.

    Hunnam must be a very good talker, but Bond is a role that you can't talk yourself into.

    I'm not endorsing Hunnam, but Lazenby had a good go at talking his way into Bond. I think it's fair to say that he suceeded at it too.

    He did a good job, considering his lack of experience. He benefited from great supporting actors, a brilliant script and a great Director.

    His walk and accent were bad. His acting was just about good enough and he had the physicality.

    Hunnam makes Lazenby look like Robert Di Nero.

    Lazenby was aware of his shortcomings. Hunnam is not. I don't think he's the reason why King Arthur failed, but his casting was symptomatic of the whole train wreck.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Ludovico wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Hunnam reportedly talked his way into the starring role in King Arthur, convincing Guy Ritchie that he could carry the ball. He could not carry the ball, as we now know. The film lost the studio £153m.

    Good for him for making a fortune from a profession he lacks talent within. However, personally I wouldn’t want him ‘trying’ to be James Bond.

    Hunnam must be a very good talker, but Bond is a role that you can't talk yourself into.

    I'm not endorsing Hunnam, but Lazenby had a good go at talking his way into Bond. I think it's fair to say that he suceeded at it too.

    He did a good job, considering his lack of experience. He benefited from great supporting actors, a brilliant script and a great Director.

    His walk and accent were bad. His acting was just about good enough and he had the physicality.

    Hunnam makes Lazenby look like Robert Di Nero.

    Lazenby was aware of his shortcomings. Hunnam is not. I don't think he's the reason why King Arthur failed, but his casting was symptomatic of the whole train wreck.

    Agreed.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    Ludovico wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Hunnam reportedly talked his way into the starring role in King Arthur, convincing Guy Ritchie that he could carry the ball. He could not carry the ball, as we now know. The film lost the studio £153m.

    Good for him for making a fortune from a profession he lacks talent within. However, personally I wouldn’t want him ‘trying’ to be James Bond.

    Hunnam must be a very good talker, but Bond is a role that you can't talk yourself into.

    I'm not endorsing Hunnam, but Lazenby had a good go at talking his way into Bond. I think it's fair to say that he suceeded at it too.

    He did a good job, considering his lack of experience. He benefited from great supporting actors, a brilliant script and a great Director.

    His walk and accent were bad. His acting was just about good enough and he had the physicality.

    Hunnam makes Lazenby look like Robert Di Nero.

    Lazenby was aware of his shortcomings. Hunnam is not. I don't think he's the reason why King Arthur failed, but his casting was symptomatic of the whole train wreck.

    When King Arthur came out?
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Hunnam reportedly talked his way into the starring role in King Arthur, convincing Guy Ritchie that he could carry the ball. He could not carry the ball, as we now know. The film lost the studio £153m.

    Good for him for making a fortune from a profession he lacks talent within. However, personally I wouldn’t want him ‘trying’ to be James Bond.

    Hunnam must be a very good talker, but Bond is a role that you can't talk yourself into.

    I'm not endorsing Hunnam, but Lazenby had a good go at talking his way into Bond. I think it's fair to say that he suceeded at it too.

    He did a good job, considering his lack of experience. He benefited from great supporting actors, a brilliant script and a great Director.

    His walk and accent were bad. His acting was just about good enough and he had the physicality.

    Hunnam makes Lazenby look like Robert Di Nero.

    Lazenby was aware of his shortcomings. Hunnam is not. I don't think he's the reason why King Arthur failed, but his casting was symptomatic of the whole train wreck.

    When King Arthur came out?

    2017.

    “In a pan of the film for the Chicago Tribune, Michael Phillips questioned the long-term longevity of the projected series of six Arthur films from Ritchie: "I'm no businessman, but plans for a six-film franchise may be optimistic. “
  • edited November 2020 Posts: 31
    Jon Hamm...??
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    Christian Bale.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    What is a perfect starting age?
  • edited November 2020 Posts: 15,785
    MSL49 wrote: »
    What is a perfect starting age?

    Between 35 and 40. Go back to 2 year intervals and get 5 films within a decade.
  • I always thought that Sam Shepard - from around his Days of Heaven period -could have been a perfect Bond. He had that brooding quality. There was just something so romantic and steely about him. He had something quiet and thoughtful to him. He would have been a very good Bond....If only there was an actor today who was preferably English who had Shepard's talents and looks. Who is this actor?!?

    tumblr_lb6pvxKAsh1qawgyho1_500.gif
    ZRFW.gif

    Shepard in 1978 had that 'soft boy' energy that would make the woman weak at the knees these days. Who is that person today? I think perhaps that actor probably is Robert Pattinson. Barring the Batman film not working out and Broccoli coaxing him away from that franchise to Bond, I kinda think that by the time Bond 26 begins (optimistically for release in 2023!) that Timothee Chalamet may be the answer to Eon's prayers. He's brooding and mysterious. He just needs to hit the gym and eat more.

    A9434-CC5-5-B7-A-410-E-A702-928341-B73-D21.jpg
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    edited November 2020 Posts: 554
    B26 in 2023 isn't optimistic, it's ludicrous. And I'm sorry @Pierce2Daniel, I just can't see Chalamet as Bond, especially so close from now.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited November 2020 Posts: 7,518
    B26 in 2023 isn't optimistic, it's ludicrous. And I'm sorry @Pierce2Daniel, I just can't see Chalamet as Bond, especially so close from now.

    Agreed. I wasn’t as vehemently opposed to Chalamet as some, but it should be obvious now that continuously suggesting him is inviting vitriol.

    B26 in 2030
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,811
    Timothee Chalamet is about the most polar opposite of Ian Fleming's, James Bond as I think you could get.
    As an American he immediately rules himself out for me. As an actor, well to be fair he can act. Looks wise, he looks like a stiff breeze would blow him over, he doesn't have that tough, steely look of Bond. A man with confidence, a man who doesn't fear death. He looks like he'd be looking to make sure his mum would be around when he gets the nerve to take on Red Grant.
    It's still a big no from me, and I cannot see that changing.
  • Anyone familiar with Tom Austen? He was on The Royals and Grantchester, and stars in some new show on Hulu called Helstrom. 32 years old, 6'1.

    MV5BM2ZkNGI1ZjAtMTRjNC00MWRlLTk1YWUtMzljMGNiYjMwMzBmXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjk3MzQ2MDk@._V1_.jpg

    Nick-thompson-feature-.jpg?fit=2048%2C1317&ssl=1

    Nick-Images-.jpg

    EkjTzzGWkAIX7_y?format=jpg&name=900x900


  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    pattabra wrote: »
    Jon Hamm...??

    No chance, as he’s American.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Benny wrote: »
    Timothee Chalamet is about the most polar opposite of Ian Fleming's, James Bond as I think you could get.
    As an American he immediately rules himself out for me. As an actor, well to be fair he can act. Looks wise, he looks like a stiff breeze would blow him over, he doesn't have that tough, steely look of Bond. A man with confidence, a man who doesn't fear death. He looks like he'd be looking to make sure his mum would be around when he gets the nerve to take on Red Grant.
    It's still a big no from me, and I cannot see that changing.

    Great post. It remains a ludicrous nomination.
Sign In or Register to comment.