Who should/could be a Bond actor? *SPOILERS*

1802803805807808824

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,306
    I keep meaning to watch The Guest. It’s one of those I just forget to catch.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 234
    mtm wrote: »
    I keep meaning to watch The Guest. It’s one of those I just forget to catch.

    I agree with Craig when he says that Stevens is great in it, but the third act has got problems. Worth catching, though.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited July 23 Posts: 3,845
    I also agree that the film's momentum dropped in its third act. But Dan Stevens still maintained his menacing demeanour.
  • edited July 24 Posts: 13,234
    In any case (and I know nothing of the actor himself) Dan Steven will be a bit old when the time comes to choose a successor. If he was to be cast now for a Bond film being released next year, maybe he'd have a chance, but again I think he might have missed the train.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 708
    I think we seem to be in a bit of a bind regarding actor's ages. Everyone over 40 is considered too old, but everyone under 35 is considered 'baby faced'. That leaves only a very specific and narrow window that could prove restricting when it comes to casting.

    People look younger these days. 40 year olds don't look as old as they used to. I don't think we should rule people out just because of the numbers on someone's birth certificate.

    Of course, if they are in their late 40s then it might be more difficult for them to make 4 or 5 films, but I don't think 40 or early forties is too old to get a run in the role.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited July 24 Posts: 3,845
    I think we seem to be in a bit of a bind regarding actor's ages. Everyone over 40 is considered too old, but everyone under 35 is considered 'baby faced'. That leaves only a very specific and narrow window that could prove restricting when it comes to casting.

    People look younger these days. 40 year olds don't look as old as they used to. I don't think we should rule people out just because of the numbers on someone's birth certificate.

    Of course, if they are in their late 40s then it might be more difficult for them to make 4 or 5 films, but I don't think 40 or early forties is too old to get a run in the role.

    Yeah. With Moore, Dalton & Brosnan. EON of old didn't bother about them being in their 40s. So EON can still bring back that style of casting. Personally, I think they should, because Craig should have made more than 5 Bond films, considering he joins Connery & Lazenby as the youngest Bonds.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 708
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think we seem to be in a bit of a bind regarding actor's ages. Everyone over 40 is considered too old, but everyone under 35 is considered 'baby faced'. That leaves only a very specific and narrow window that could prove restricting when it comes to casting.

    People look younger these days. 40 year olds don't look as old as they used to. I don't think we should rule people out just because of the numbers on someone's birth certificate.

    Of course, if they are in their late 40s then it might be more difficult for them to make 4 or 5 films, but I don't think 40 or early forties is too old to get a run in the role.

    Yeah. With Moore, Dalton & Brosnan. EON of old didn't bother about them being in their 40s. So EON can still bring back that style of casting. Personally, I think they should, because Craig should have made more than 5 Bond films, considering he joins Connery & Lazenby as the youngest Bonds.

    Yes I agree with this. Obviously the optimum is to get an actor who is 35. But 35 year old good looking actors are likely to look mid/late twenties these days.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 3,845
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think we seem to be in a bit of a bind regarding actor's ages. Everyone over 40 is considered too old, but everyone under 35 is considered 'baby faced'. That leaves only a very specific and narrow window that could prove restricting when it comes to casting.

    People look younger these days. 40 year olds don't look as old as they used to. I don't think we should rule people out just because of the numbers on someone's birth certificate.

    Of course, if they are in their late 40s then it might be more difficult for them to make 4 or 5 films, but I don't think 40 or early forties is too old to get a run in the role.

    Yeah. With Moore, Dalton & Brosnan. EON of old didn't bother about them being in their 40s. So EON can still bring back that style of casting. Personally, I think they should, because Craig should have made more than 5 Bond films, considering he joins Connery & Lazenby as the youngest Bonds.

    Yes I agree with this. Obviously the optimum is to get an actor who is 35. But 35 year old good looking actors are likely to look mid/late twenties these days.

    Exactly.
  • BennyBenny ...OctobennyAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 11,918
    The only trouble with hiring an actor who's slightly older, say in their 40's is they become more and more susceptible to being injury prone. Not always of course, but the risk is probably high enough for the studio and EON to be concerned.
    One of the reasons I believe factored in Pierce Brosnan not returning for a fifth film, was the injury his sustained to his knee whilst film DAD. It's never been confirmed obviously, but at the time it put the film schedule into disarray. Just a theory I have with bringing in the younger Daniel Craig, and rebooting the series with CR.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 708
    Benny wrote: »
    The only trouble with hiring an actor who's slightly older, say in their 40's is they become more and more susceptible to being injury prone. Not always of course, but the risk is probably high enough for the studio and EON to be concerned.
    One of the reasons I believe factored in Pierce Brosnan not returning for a fifth film, was the injury his sustained to his knee whilst film DAD. It's never been confirmed obviously, but at the time it put the film schedule into disarray. Just a theory I have with bringing in the younger Daniel Craig, and rebooting the series with CR.

    I think this might be a consideration. But it still leaves us with the same problem. That actors who are between 30-35 look very young these days, are still going to look younger than previous actors in the role until they get to 40, and then they are considered too old.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,306
    Craig got an injury on only his second film, I'm not sure they'd worry too much about that.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,030
    • run
    mtm wrote: »
    Craig got an injury on only his second film, I'm not sure they'd worry too much about that.

    I agree 100% ; as a man who has always been heavily involved in health and fitness, and has a very physically taxing occupation as a firefighter, I can confidently say that physical durability for an actor in his 40’s , into his 50’s is a non-issue for an actor who maintains their body.

  • Posts: 5,793
    mtm wrote: »
    Craig got an injury on only his second film, I'm not sure they'd worry too much about that.

    Didn’t he get a couple of his teeth knocked out in a fight rehearsal in CR?
    Right out of the hop, Craig’s body got mangled in one way or the other— was SF his only injury-free film?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,306
    peter wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Craig got an injury on only his second film, I'm not sure they'd worry too much about that.

    Didn’t he get a couple of his teeth knocked out in a fight rehearsal in CR?

    I don't know; I feel like that may have been in that round of 'Craig can't drive a manual car' silly season rumours from people who didn't like a blond guy playing 007. I'm not sure if it was true or not.

  • All this talk about all these fellas, and it's just going to end up being Jack Lowden.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited July 24 Posts: 6,030
    All this talk about all these fellas, and it's just going to end up being Jack Lowden.

    One of my top 3 choices. He’s got more than a hint of Connery’’s mischievous confidence

    zWon4kS.jpg

  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 3,845
    talos7 wrote: »
    All this talk about all these fellas, and it's just going to end up being Jack Lowden.

    One of my top 3 choices. He’s got more than a hint of Connery’’s mischievous confidence

    zWon4kS.jpg

    Yeah. Lowden works for me as well. His performance in Dunkirk was good.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 234
    Shallow comment from me here, but I just find his face incredibly... bland, I guess. I don't hate him, but I don't find him interesting at all.
  • Posts: 13,234
    I think we seem to be in a bit of a bind regarding actor's ages. Everyone over 40 is considered too old, but everyone under 35 is considered 'baby faced'. That leaves only a very specific and narrow window that could prove restricting when it comes to casting.

    People look younger these days. 40 year olds don't look as old as they used to. I don't think we should rule people out just because of the numbers on someone's birth certificate.

    Of course, if they are in their late 40s then it might be more difficult for them to make 4 or 5 films, but I don't think 40 or early forties is too old to get a run in the role.

    It's not so much about looking old or mature enough as it is about lasting in the position for a good time. Now that the delays are quite long between Bond films, an actor will age considerably more between them. And even a youthful looking man I'm his 40s, like Moore and Brosnan were, will sooner or later look old, and often sooner than later. Ideally, I'd say a new Bond actor should be in his early 30s to late 30s when cast. I'd take a younger actor, providing he can act the part and is sufficiently masculine, to mature in the role, over one that may look mature but can quickly look like someone's dirty minded uncle.
  • talos7 wrote: »
    All this talk about all these fellas, and it's just going to end up being Jack Lowden.

    One of my top 3 choices. He’s got more than a hint of Connery’’s mischievous confidence

    zWon4kS.jpg

    I've said for a couple of years that I feel it's going to be him. Like some sort of sixth sense thing. He ticks all the boxes. I was a little concerned his profile might go up too much. He feels so right.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 932
    talos7 wrote: »
    All this talk about all these fellas, and it's just going to end up being Jack Lowden.

    One of my top 3 choices. He’s got more than a hint of Connery’’s mischievous confidence

    zWon4kS.jpg

    I've said for a couple of years that I feel it's going to be him. Like some sort of sixth sense thing. He ticks all the boxes. I was a little concerned his profile might go up too much. He feels so right.

    How about Tintin? Fits the bill just right.
  • talos7 wrote: »
    All this talk about all these fellas, and it's just going to end up being Jack Lowden.

    One of my top 3 choices. He’s got more than a hint of Connery’’s mischievous confidence

    zWon4kS.jpg

    I've said for a couple of years that I feel it's going to be him. Like some sort of sixth sense thing. He ticks all the boxes. I was a little concerned his profile might go up too much. He feels so right.

    How about Tintin? Fits the bill just right.

    Lol!!! He does. Nothing wrong with taking both roles on.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited July 24 Posts: 3,845
    It's gearing up to be the most competitive James Bond screen test yet. I can imagine a Bond candidate sipping a martini with the wrong facial expression and missing out on the role. That's how tight it might be.
  • GadgetMan wrote: »
    It's gearing up to be the most competitive James Bond screen test yet. I can imagine a Bond candidate sipping a martini with the wrong facial expression and missing out on the role. That's how tight it might be.

    Definitely. Launching a new Bond is always squeaky bum time, but this feels especially monumental. Craig is the best since Connery, Amazon acquisition, and post-Covid.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited July 24 Posts: 3,845
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    It's gearing up to be the most competitive James Bond screen test yet. I can imagine a Bond candidate sipping a martini with the wrong facial expression and missing out on the role. That's how tight it might be.

    Definitely. Launching a new Bond is always squeaky bum time, but this feels especially monumental. Craig is the best since Connery, Amazon acquisition, and post-Covid.

    Honestly. The upcoming Bond screen test feels so huge. Apart from the usual FRWL scene, maybe scenes from some of Craig's Bond films might also be used to test the candidates, because Craig has been great. Maybe Bond and Dryden's exchange from CR or Bond & Severine's exchange from SF might be used to test the candidates.
  • Posts: 483
    How about Tintin? Fits the bill just right.
    Don't give me hope about the return of Tintin to the big screen. Nevertheless, Lowden could be a great choice.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    edited July 24 Posts: 708
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I think we seem to be in a bit of a bind regarding actor's ages. Everyone over 40 is considered too old, but everyone under 35 is considered 'baby faced'. That leaves only a very specific and narrow window that could prove restricting when it comes to casting.

    People look younger these days. 40 year olds don't look as old as they used to. I don't think we should rule people out just because of the numbers on someone's birth certificate.

    Of course, if they are in their late 40s then it might be more difficult for them to make 4 or 5 films, but I don't think 40 or early forties is too old to get a run in the role.

    It's not so much about looking old or mature enough as it is about lasting in the position for a good time. Now that the delays are quite long between Bond films, an actor will age considerably more between them. And even a youthful looking man I'm his 40s, like Moore and Brosnan were, will sooner or later look old, and often sooner than later. Ideally, I'd say a new Bond actor should be in his early 30s to late 30s when cast. I'd take a younger actor, providing he can act the part and is sufficiently masculine, to mature in the role, over one that may look mature but can quickly look like someone's dirty minded uncle.

    In which case people have to stop moaning about actors looking baby faced. Let's stick to the point. I am not saying the actor has to be in his forties. I am saying that on these boards people have a tendency to complain that actors look too young, but as soon as they hit 40 they say they are too old.

    We all want a mature looking 33-36 year old to take the role. The problem is that there's never one of those around when you want one.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,030
    As far as an actor aging in the the role, that is why it’s important to have a blueprint, and a path mapped out for the tenure of the next actor; they can’t just wing it.
  • Posts: 12,582
    talos7 wrote: »
    As far as an actor aging in the the role, that is why it’s important to have a blueprint, and a path mapped out for the tenure of the next actor; they can’t just wing it.

    I agree. Best idea for moving forward. However, I have a feeling they'll continue to release the films at their own leisure pace without a blueprint for the era planned. They'll take things as they come. Enough time will pass between films that there will be no point in planning ahead. Plot and character ideas created years previously may be deemed irrelevant by the time they get around to producing another film.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 708
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    As far as an actor aging in the the role, that is why it’s important to have a blueprint, and a path mapped out for the tenure of the next actor; they can’t just wing it.

    I agree. Best idea for moving forward. However, I have a feeling they'll continue to release the films at their own leisure pace without a blueprint for the era planned. They'll take things as they come. Enough time will pass between films that there will be no point in planning ahead. Plot and character ideas created years previously may be deemed irrelevant by the time they get around to producing another film.

    Yes, they have never had a coherent blueprint for any of the actors, so there's no reason to think they will start now. I agree with @talos7 that it would make sense, though.
Sign In or Register to comment.