Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1789790792794795806

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 11 Posts: 7,047
    Yes I think it's more that casting a new guy and picking an approach is more work than just pressing ahead with the next in the series: it will most probably take a little time. They don't even appear to have opened a company for the next film yet which is unusual.
  • edited April 12 Posts: 2,356
    mtm wrote: »
    Yes I think it's more that casting a new guy and picking an approach is more work than just pressing ahead with the next in the series: it will most probably take a little time. They don't even appear to have opened a company for the next film yet which is unusual.

    I think all their energies are focused on making NTTD as profitable as possible after all that has happened over the last year - I suspect they're not really thinking much more in advance of it's release right now.
  • Posts: 13,083
    echo wrote: »
    I blame Mendes. He saw how SF delved into Bond's past, and doubled down in SP. At least in SF he knew enough to have Bond brush M off: "You know the whole story." (I didn't buy Bond being the heir to that estate house, either.)

    Blofeld should not have been Oberhauser! That made zero sense.

    Now, Spectre recruiting Oberhauser and using him to ensnare Bond (kind of a twist on FRWL) has potential, but would require a page 1 rewrite.

    I just hope that in NTTD they forget the past and let Blofeld be Blofeld.

    God help me, I think I need a reboot for B26. And a fresh, largely unknown actor. One of the best things BB ever did was to look beyond the obvious contenders and cast Craig.
    They had already forgotten that Oberhauser was Blofeld by the end of SP. Bond him called him Blofeld! I think it might be mentioned briefly, then ignored.
  • edited April 12 Posts: 4,302
    Hoult as a supporting role in a contempory Hollywood action movie wearing a suit and firing a gun. Got to be a positive sign. 500 to 1 at William Hilll - max bet 50p worth a go :-)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 7,047
    500 to 1? That does sound worth a punt! :)
  • Posts: 4,302
    now and again, the bookies offer silly odds with limited stake just to get punters attention. They are offering Margot Robbie also at 500 to 1 so clearly, these adds are not market based but for 50 pence, worth a shot. Especially looking at that trailer (trying to find some still shots of Hoult in this film) Some Hoult doubters raised the point that he had never played a Bond type role but this loooks perfect to me.
  • Posts: 13,083
    patb wrote: »
    now and again, the bookies offer silly odds with limited stake just to get punters attention. They are offering Margot Robbie also at 500 to 1 so clearly, these adds are not market based but for 50 pence, worth a shot. Especially looking at that trailer (trying to find some still shots of Hoult in this film) Some Hoult doubters raised the point that he had never played a Bond type role but this loooks perfect to me.

    Not that I ever bet, but Nicholas Hoult would be one I'd imagine getting the role, at least at better odds than he is now. This is not saying I think he would be my choice, a good casting decision or even that he's on EON radar. But if he was to be cast, I wouldn't be so surprised.
  • Posts: 4,302
    Dont want to come over as a betting addict but now and then, there are advantages to be had by exploiting knowledge gained from a hobby and seeing small opportunities. Even those not fans of Hoult here would surely admit that he is less than 500 to 1?
  • Posts: 13,083
    patb wrote: »
    Dont want to come over as a betting addict but now and then, there are advantages to be had by exploiting knowledge gained from a hobby and seeing small opportunities. Even those not fans of Hoult here would surely admit that he is less than 500 to 1?

    I think casting is still terra incognita for bookies. What were the odds for Jude Law, Hugh Grant, Robbie Williams or even George Clooney circa 2005?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 4,301
    It's all about timing. If Dalton had stayed a bit longer, we might have gotten Clive Owen. So some wonderful 30ish actor is right at this moment missing out on the chance of a lifetime!
  • Posts: 13,083
    echo wrote: »
    It's all about timing. If Dalton had stayed a bit longer, we might have gotten Clive Owen. So some wonderful 30ish actor is right at this moment missing out on the chance of a lifetime!

    I never understood what people see in Clive Owen. Be that as it may and my skepticism notwithstanding, wasn't he a name often mentioned in public, but not seriously considered by Eon?
  • DragonpolDragonpol Writer @ http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 14,442
    Ludovico wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    It's all about timing. If Dalton had stayed a bit longer, we might have gotten Clive Owen. So some wonderful 30ish actor is right at this moment missing out on the chance of a lifetime!

    I never understood what people see in Clive Owen. Be that as it may and my skepticism notwithstanding, wasn't he a name often mentioned in public, but not seriously considered by Eon?

    I know he was certainly mentioned a lot on Bond forums like CBn at the time as a replacement for Brosnan. He was one of the frontrunners at that time, at least amongst the forum members possibly because he'd already been in a few spy related things. I'm not sure how seriously Eon considered him though, if at all. It could just all be fan pipe dreaming which has been known to happen on Bond forums from time to time.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 5,890
    He showed potential in his series of mini-films for BMW. If he had been selected, they could have done worse.

    This is one of my favorites; I find him very “Craig-like” in his intensity. This roughly 8 minutes is more exciting than all of SPECTRE.

  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 147
    That is a great mini-movie, and better than any 8 minutes that you'll find in Spectre. Owen appeared to be the public's favourite for the role (he was mine, certainly), but the rumour was that he wanted a share of the profits rather than the usual flat fee, and that was a no-go.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 7,047
    I think I remember the Frankenheimer one being pretty cracking.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 706
    talos7 wrote: »
    He showed potential in his series of mini-films for BMW. If he had been selected, they could have done worse.

    This is one of my favorites; I find him very “Craig-like” in his intensity. This roughly 8 minutes is more exciting than all of SPECTRE.


    That's a really great short film, I'd never even heard of before to be honest.
    Clive Owen is a good actor and he definitely gives off Bond vibes, especially when he's driving.
    The big drawback for me on him, is his voice. It just sounds a bit dull and plain. A lot of potential candidates for Bond #7 fall into that category
  • Posts: 13,083
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    It's all about timing. If Dalton had stayed a bit longer, we might have gotten Clive Owen. So some wonderful 30ish actor is right at this moment missing out on the chance of a lifetime!

    I never understood what people see in Clive Owen. Be that as it may and my skepticism notwithstanding, wasn't he a name often mentioned in public, but not seriously considered by Eon?

    I know he was certainly mentioned a lot on Bond forums like CBn at the time as a replacement for Brosnan. He was one of the frontrunners at that time, at least amongst the forum members possibly because he'd already been in a few spy related things. I'm not sure how seriously Eon considered him though, if at all. It could just all be fan pipe dreaming which has been known to happen on Bond forums from time to time.

    I wonder what the bookies put his odds at the time. My bet (no pun intended) is that they were much better than his true chances of obtaining the role.
  • edited April 14 Posts: 11,842
    Ludovico wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    It's all about timing. If Dalton had stayed a bit longer, we might have gotten Clive Owen. So some wonderful 30ish actor is right at this moment missing out on the chance of a lifetime!

    I never understood what people see in Clive Owen. Be that as it may and my skepticism notwithstanding, wasn't he a name often mentioned in public, but not seriously considered by Eon?

    I think it was media and fan speculation mostly. Similar to Aidan Turner or Idris Elba now. I don't believe Owen ever auditioned for the part. I remember thinking at the time he might have been a stronger candidate than many of the other names tossed around who possibly did audition: the guy from the new Hawaii 5-O, the guy from Nip/Tick, etc
    I almost believe his films at the time: CLOSER, SIN CITY, DERAILED may have gotten a little extra audience attention due to his Bond hype. I certainly saw SIN CITY to see what he might be like.
  • DragonpolDragonpol Writer @ http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 14,442
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    It's all about timing. If Dalton had stayed a bit longer, we might have gotten Clive Owen. So some wonderful 30ish actor is right at this moment missing out on the chance of a lifetime!

    I never understood what people see in Clive Owen. Be that as it may and my skepticism notwithstanding, wasn't he a name often mentioned in public, but not seriously considered by Eon?

    I know he was certainly mentioned a lot on Bond forums like CBn at the time as a replacement for Brosnan. He was one of the frontrunners at that time, at least amongst the forum members possibly because he'd already been in a few spy related things. I'm not sure how seriously Eon considered him though, if at all. It could just all be fan pipe dreaming which has been known to happen on Bond forums from time to time.

    I wonder what the bookies put his odds at the time. My bet (no pun intended) is that they were much better than his true chances of obtaining the role.

    They usually are but I suppose the bookies just pocket the profits and smirk to themselves at how many mugs are out there who would bet on anything. It's more often than not someone you haven't heard of who ultimately gets the Bond role and not a known name linked to the role.
  • Posts: 13,083
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    It's all about timing. If Dalton had stayed a bit longer, we might have gotten Clive Owen. So some wonderful 30ish actor is right at this moment missing out on the chance of a lifetime!

    I never understood what people see in Clive Owen. Be that as it may and my skepticism notwithstanding, wasn't he a name often mentioned in public, but not seriously considered by Eon?

    I think it was media and fan speculation mostly. Similar to Aidan Turner or Idris Elba now. I don't believe Owen ever auditioned for the part. I remember thinking at the time he might have been a stronger candidate than many of the other names tossed around who possibly did audition: the guy from the new Hawaii 5-O, the guy from Nip/Tick, etc
    I almost believe his films at the time: CLOSER, SIN CITY, DERAILED may have gotten a little extra audience attention due to his Bond hype. I certainly saw SIN CITY to see what he might be like.

    Oh that guy from Nip/Tuck I remember about that one. Another one I never understood the appeal.
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    It's all about timing. If Dalton had stayed a bit longer, we might have gotten Clive Owen. So some wonderful 30ish actor is right at this moment missing out on the chance of a lifetime!

    I never understood what people see in Clive Owen. Be that as it may and my skepticism notwithstanding, wasn't he a name often mentioned in public, but not seriously considered by Eon?

    I know he was certainly mentioned a lot on Bond forums like CBn at the time as a replacement for Brosnan. He was one of the frontrunners at that time, at least amongst the forum members possibly because he'd already been in a few spy related things. I'm not sure how seriously Eon considered him though, if at all. It could just all be fan pipe dreaming which has been known to happen on Bond forums from time to time.

    I wonder what the bookies put his odds at the time. My bet (no pun intended) is that they were much better than his true chances of obtaining the role.

    They usually are but I suppose the bookies just pocket the profits and smirk to themselves at how many mugs are out there who would bet on anything. It's more often than not someone you haven't heard of who ultimately gets the Bond role and not a known name linked to the role.

    True that bookies tend to be prophets almost after the fact.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Nigeria
    Posts: 3,716
    To be honest, I thought it was going to be Owen. And Owen has a bit a Lazenby look about him. I'm happy we got Craig. But if Owen were cast, the Bond franchise would have still been intact.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited April 14 Posts: 3,732
    Clive Owen was my first choose as follow up of Brosnan for Bond 22.

    But atleast Casino Royale get a bit of Twine style and return of Martin Campbell what also stay on people list include me. You must see it as Twine is Spy, DAD is MR and Bond 21 have been FYEO. Back to earth.

    Brosnan was offical Bond off/ Fired on 14 October 2004, but Dana Broccoli also died that year and MGM have money problems in 2004 too. When it stil going to look like Brosnan going to return in Bond 21 the plan was for 2005.

    With Clive Owen (1964) i expect not more then 3 because of his age. Jeremy Northam (1961) was my second choose, but with only 2 mabey 3 movies. With what we know now that is funny with Daniel Craig (1968) being much older now.

    Beyond Borders (2003) brings Owen up as Bond, return of Martin Campbell and Angelina Jolie as Bondgirl. Closer (2003) was second movie.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 7,047
    Yes I thought Jeremy Northam was a possible too. I think he'd have been fine.

    Whatever happened to him? Seemed to sort of disappear. Is he in the US now?
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 4,340
    mtm wrote: »
    Whatever happened to him? Seemed to sort of disappear. Is he in the US now?
    He played Anthony Eden in The Crown.
  • edited April 15 Posts: 12,317
    A bit of fan wisdom on here, for as long as I’ve been a member, has always been “the next Bond will have to be young enough to build a franchise around”. Makes sense obviously. But now I’m wondering if that really has to be the case?

    Joker came out as a stand alone film and did very well, and DC are apparently planning more one offs like that. There was Logan too, a few years ago, which despite having Hugh Jackman was pretty much its own one off thing, right? I don’t really keep up with those superhero franchises, but do we think this could be the start of a trend, with experimental one offs from the big brands becoming more common? I think the idea of there being a “casual viewer” who’d find it too confusing is holding less and less weight as time goes on. I think pop culture is so full of reboots and alternate takes now that most people are accustomed to it, and we’ve seen these stories so many times that they don’t need much in the way of backstory/set up. Could we see EON do something like Joker in the future? Some sort of experimental one off Bond, R rated or a period piece or something maybe, a whole seperate entity to the the main film series, with a big name who’d only commit to the one film? If they ever did do something like that then the actor’s age wouldn’t matter at all.

    My first choice would still be Jack O’Connell either way, although he seems to have disappeared off the face of the earth lately, haven’t seen him in anything for a while. Not sure if that’ll hurt or help his chances.
  • Posts: 3
    Hello everyone, new here:)

    For some time I think Nicholas Hoult could be an interesting choice and I'm happy to see I'm not the only one with the idea. The interesting thing about him is it's hard to imagine how he would play the role since he is acting in so much different genres.
    However, I can't really believe they will jump from an actor born in '68 to one born in '89 which is more than 20 years. Also, we basically already had a "Bond Begins" movie with CR and I've always thought they will probably choose an actor born in the first half of the 80s so I'm not sure if he (or others mentioned around that age) are realistic suggestions? What do you think?

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 5,890
    Yep, one of my top prospects.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 15 Posts: 7,047
    Hi Kojak!
    It is a bit of a leap, but then don't forget Craig has been the current Bond for 15 years! And he was already, what, 6 or so years older than Connery was when he did his first one? So a leap of 20 years kind of makes sense with that.
    I would say Hoult is looking pretty grown-up there: imagine the sort of makeover and training regime that would take place if he were to be given the lead in a Bond movie (there he's playing sort of third/fourth credited role in a lower budgeted movie), and I think he'd be feeling right.
  • Posts: 11,842
    A bit of fan wisdom on here, for as long as I’ve been a member, has always been “the next Bond will have to be young enough to build a franchise around”. Makes sense obviously. But now I’m wondering if that really has to be the case?

    Joker came out as a stand alone film and did very well, and DC are apparently planning more one offs like that. There was Logan too, a few years ago, which despite having Hugh Jackman was pretty much its own one off thing, right? I don’t really keep up with those superhero franchises, but do we think this could be the start of a trend, with experimental one offs from the big brands becoming more common? I think the idea of there being a “casual viewer” who’d find it too confusing is holding less and less weight as time goes on. I think pop culture is so full of reboots and alternate takes now that most people are accustomed to it, and we’ve seen these stories so many times that they don’t need much in the way of backstory/set up. Could we see EON do something like Joker in the future? Some sort of experimental one off Bond, R rated or a period piece or something maybe, a whole seperate entity to the the main film series, with a big name who’d only commit to the one film? If they ever did do something like that then the actor’s age wouldn’t matter at all.

    My first choice would still be Jack O’Connell either way, although he seems to have disappeared off the face of the earth lately, haven’t seen him in anything for a while. Not sure if that’ll hurt or help his chances.

    I could see an occasional one off being the next phase of the Bond franchise. If 5-6 year gaps continue, which I sadly believe could be the case, the most I could see a new actor sticking around is 2-3 films regardless of his age.
    I have this hunch, moving forward, that Bond could become an occasional or even rare event in the future. Rare enough that there would be no point in planning anything long term for Craig's replacement. A one off in 2029, then another film in 2041, then 2062 for the 100th and so forth.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Wattenscheid
    Posts: 461
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    A bit of fan wisdom on here, for as long as I’ve been a member, has always been “the next Bond will have to be young enough to build a franchise around”. Makes sense obviously. But now I’m wondering if that really has to be the case?

    Joker came out as a stand alone film and did very well, and DC are apparently planning more one offs like that. There was Logan too, a few years ago, which despite having Hugh Jackman was pretty much its own one off thing, right? I don’t really keep up with those superhero franchises, but do we think this could be the start of a trend, with experimental one offs from the big brands becoming more common? I think the idea of there being a “casual viewer” who’d find it too confusing is holding less and less weight as time goes on. I think pop culture is so full of reboots and alternate takes now that most people are accustomed to it, and we’ve seen these stories so many times that they don’t need much in the way of backstory/set up. Could we see EON do something like Joker in the future? Some sort of experimental one off Bond, R rated or a period piece or something maybe, a whole seperate entity to the the main film series, with a big name who’d only commit to the one film? If they ever did do something like that then the actor’s age wouldn’t matter at all.

    My first choice would still be Jack O’Connell either way, although he seems to have disappeared off the face of the earth lately, haven’t seen him in anything for a while. Not sure if that’ll hurt or help his chances.

    I could see an occasional one off being the next phase of the Bond franchise. If 5-6 year gaps continue, which I sadly believe could be the case, the most I could see a new actor sticking around is 2-3 films regardless of his age.
    I have this hunch, moving forward, that Bond could become an occasional or even rare event in the future. Rare enough that there would be no point in planning anything long term for Craig's replacement. A one off in 2029, then another film in 2041, then 2062 for the 100th and so forth.

    I don't think they will go that far, but yes, the current regime is clearly of the opinion that a Bond film should be a rare, luxury event and not a common occurrence like say Marvel films (those are of course a totally different beast, but you kind of get what I mean, I hope). Covid is of course a massive intervening factor, but I would assume they will do a lot of thinking after NTTD's results are in on whether absence makes the heart grow fonder or too long of a hiatus just leads to Bond dropping out of the public consciousness. I think the idea of Bond is very ingrained in western culture. The question is whether they are jeopordizing this with not really giving a younger generation that much to latch onto.

    Furthermore, I believe the current EON regime is inherently conservative. They want one Bond in cinemas and that's it. I don't see them doing one-offs, alternates, period pieces or TV stuff. All of those are possibilities for a franchise at the moment, but Eon clearly isn't interested. Again, they look at Bond as a luxury cinematic experience. And part of that for them I think is the intense debate over who gets cast. If the films are to be prestigious, the role has to be, too. I don't think there is any other role in the world (The Doctor in the UK, perhaps, but not worldwide) that is pored over quite like this. And that is excellent marketing for them. And what they absolutely don't want is for someone like Tom Hardy to do one film and then shove them aside.

    The obvious curveballs we have been discussing for quite some time are the sale of MGM and the change of leadership at EON. If one of the big streamers buys MGM they will very certainly push for more Bond content to be produced (because that is the current modus operandi in Hollywood) but the way I understand their arrangement, EON is very much in the driver's seat on all of that. So would Michael and Barbara buckle? (When) Will they give up operational control of EON and to whom? Would they possibly even sell EON/Danjaq?

    One last thought: I personally always thought Bond was the franchise best positioned to do experimental stuff with different actors and timelines and whatever. People are already very accustomed to the idea that there are multiple actors playing him and that there is no use trying to puzzle all of it together. Yes, now and again someone comes up with codename theory and amnesiac-double-codename theory and all the other ridiculousness and us fans will always debate connections and disconnections, but I would bet general viewers seeing a Bond trailer with a new actor coming across their YouTube wouldn't think "Oh, I guess they must have rebooted the franchise to an alternate timeline which confirms there is a James Bond multiverse, what does it all mean?!!" but rather "Oh, there's a new Bond. I might check that out." But EON clearly thinks differently about this.

    Sorry, this went so long.
Sign In or Register to comment.