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

1849850852854855872

Comments

  • It wouldn't be authentic. I think the role requires something above the acting. To bring your own personality as they say
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 9,174
    None of the men who have played Bond so far have been actual spies; they all managed pretty well despite that I think.
  • He should have been in one of the Craig movies as an MI6 Agent. Imagine a team-up scene.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,221
    Univex wrote: »
    He has to play a ladies man, not be one. It’s called acting.

    But what’s interesting is that, from the handicap, to endless ethnicities, sexual identities and many others, more and more various groups are expressing “ outrage “ when someone is cast who isn’t, in real life, the character they’re portrayed.

    This isn’t limited to gay and straight, but within that context there’s often a bit of hypocrisy going on; within the gay community there would be those who would be “ outraged “ if , because of his sexuality, a gay actor was not cast as Bond, but, many of those same people would be “ outraged “ if a straight actor were to be cast in a gay roll.

  • If it were up to me I would cast Dan Stevens.
    Great actor who has a varied portfolio of roles. He is not a big name star either which I believe is the way the casting process should take into account. Daniel Craig was not a household name until he became James Bond. He performed alongside household names in some renowned movies before but Bond was what elevated him to stardom. James Bond is the blockbuster attraction. That character is uniquely coveted for that reason.
  • Posts: 13,273
    cwl007 wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    263097522_242768037948181_6508289543761748031_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=0debeb&_nc_ohc=LiIbOuTwkK4AX-TJb0s&_nc_ht=scontent.fcxh3-1.fna&oh=c0bed5a9461ae636e223c17db4fdbf2d&oe=61AF276E

    Too old now probably, but I'll still post every picture that confirms Luke Evans would have made an awesome Bond.

    Have to agree, he would be a great Bond I feel. Although he's coming up 43 it's possible he could do a 3 film stint. Sir Rog was 45 when he took on the role in LALD.

    +1
    43 is not too old. 43 IS NOT TOO OLD. NOT NOT NOT. Not over the hill, I won't accept it. A 43 year can and SHOULD still play Bond.
    (BTW I'm 43 years old!😅)

    Couldn't agree more. Luke Evans looks great for the part, IMO. Also made an excellent Dracula. I'd much rather see a Bond who has some mileage in his facial features rather than a young kid who looks like he probably doesn't even know who Roger Moore was.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited December 2021 Posts: 5,593
    talos7 wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    He has to play a ladies man, not be one. It’s called acting.

    But what’s interesting is that, from the handicap, to endless ethnicities, sexual identities and many others, more and more various groups are expressing “ outrage “ when someone is cast who isn’t, in real life, the character they’re portrayed.

    This isn’t limited to gay and straight, but within that context there’s often a bit of hypocrisy going on; within the gay community there would be those who would be “ outraged “ if , because of his sexuality, a gay actor was not cast as Bond, but, many of those same people would be “ outraged “ if a straight actor were to be cast in a gay roll.

    I think it comes from the fact that historically in film/tv/media, straight white men are overwhelmingly overrepresented, so if there's a character that doesn't adhere to one of those three characteristics, we should give that work to an actor that can more accurately represent that character.

    Outrage towards a straight character not being portrayed by a gay actor is not something I've ever seen, but to me that would only make sense if they intentionally did not cast an actor for the sole reason that they were gay.

    For example, if Aidan Turner was cast as the seventh Bond, I highly doubt I'd see a headline that says "GAY ACTOR NOT CAST AS BOND, CAUSES OUTRAGE" or what have you.

    On the other hand, though, if Luke Evans did an interview and revealed something along the lines of "I was screen tested and we were in the final steps of putting me in as James Bond, and then Barbara found out I was gay and suddenly I was out", I could see outrage (justified, IMO) outrage stemming from that hypothetical situation.

    Outrage towards a gay character being portrayed by a straight actor is not something I've seen either, and we've recently had Remi Malek and Benedict Cumberbatch both portray famously gay historical figures. I don't doubt there were some people who were upset that these characters weren't portrayed by gay actors, but society at large seems like it was fine with these casting choices, and I would have trouble passing judgement onto someone who was upset about the casting for my above-mentioned reasons.

    It's unfair to expect the solutions to inequality to be immediately and perfectly fair.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Far, far, far, far, far, far, far away.
    Posts: 42,565
    Any pervert can play any fictional character, it happens all the time and what does it matter? People are free, don t stick your noses into their private lives.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 5,593
    Any pervert can play any fictional character, it happens all the time and what does it matter? People are free, don t stick your noses into their private lives.

    Couldn't agree more with the last part of your post, but in the context of the discussion, I can't help but feel like you're referring to gay people as perverts?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Far, far, far, far, far, far, far away.
    Posts: 42,565
    Any pervert can play any fictional character, it happens all the time and what does it matter? People are free, don t stick your noses into their private lives.

    Couldn't agree more with the last part of your post, but in the context of the discussion, I can't help but feel like you're referring to gay people as perverts?

    I don t mind perverts, let that be stated.
  • Luke Evans sexuality is a complete non-issue, he's convincingly played straight characters throughout his career and an actors real-world sexuality should have no bearing on their ability to play Bond. They are ACTORS paid to ACT. Some may be surprised to know that Daniel Craig is in fact not a self-destructive, cold-blooded killer, but a warm family man who is a pretty sweet guy.

    The only issue for Evans for me is his age, but I think he's similar to Craig in the sense that he could convincingly play Bond into his 50's, but this likely would still put a ticking clock on his run and effectively eliminate any "early years" type reboot.
  • Posts: 13,273
    Luke Evans sexuality is a complete non-issue, he's convincingly played straight characters throughout his career and an actors real-world sexuality should have no bearing on their ability to play Bond. They are ACTORS paid to ACT. Some may be surprised to know that Daniel Craig is in fact not a self-destructive, cold-blooded killer, but a warm family man who is a pretty sweet guy.

    The only issue for Evans for me is his age, but I think he's similar to Craig in the sense that he could convincingly play Bond into his 50's, but this likely would still put a ticking clock on his run and effectively eliminate any "early years" type reboot.

    I think Evans could probably play Bond into his '50's and be great. At this point I wouldn't really want an early years re-boot. Eon did a superb job giving us an origin story for Bond in CR, which I feel was a masterpiece.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 5,593
    I'm totally with you @battleshipgreygt and @ToTheRight.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited December 2021 Posts: 600
    There was recently a bit of a kerfuffle around the idea that straight actors shouldn't play gay characters in future - if that becomes accepted practice, wouldn't it work the other way too? Seems a bit undermining of the very idea of 'acting', really! After all, I doubt that Craig had to have had two kills before he was hired to play Bond...
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 5,593
    Venutius wrote: »
    There was recently a bit of a kerfuffle around the idea that straight actors shouldn't play gay characters in future - if that becomes accepted practice, wouldn't it work the other way too? Seems a bit undermining of the very idea of 'acting', really!

    I wouldn't want to know how they'd intend to "prove" an actor's sexual orientation! ;)

    And I agree, it's easy to see how something like this undermines the idea of acting; the idea, inherently, is to portray someone who you're not.

    With regards to "wouldn't it work the other way too?" In an ideal world, yes, but IMO it's a pendulum swing; it has swung far in one direction, and it's unfair (IMO) to expect the pendulum to suddenly stop in the perfect center.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Far, far, far, far, far, far, far away.
    Posts: 42,565
    mtm wrote: »
    None of the men who have played Bond so far have been actual spies; they all managed pretty well despite that I think.

    Hm, how would you know?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 9,174
    Venutius wrote: »
    There was recently a bit of a kerfuffle around the idea that straight actors shouldn't play gay characters in future - if that becomes accepted practice, wouldn't it work the other way too?

    I don't think equality always means that things should be the same for both sets of people: more it means that there's a levelling up required.
    mtm wrote: »
    None of the men who have played Bond so far have been actual spies; they all managed pretty well despite that I think.

    Hm, how would you know?


    You make a very good point! :D They do seem to travel a lot...
  • Venutius wrote: »
    There was recently a bit of a kerfuffle around the idea that straight actors shouldn't play gay characters in future - if that becomes accepted practice, wouldn't it work the other way too? Seems a bit undermining of the very idea of 'acting', really!

    I wouldn't want to know how they'd intend to "prove" an actor's sexual orientation! ;)
    Lazenby would love to tell you some stories.

    It's a weird one. I know places like Twitter aren't the majority but it's one hell of an echo chamber for a vocal minority that can and has caused serious damage to people's reputations. I remember people going crazy and "cancelling" JK Rowling for her comments regarding her position on the trans community. Elizabeth Olsen had to quit social media due to the harassment she endured because she didn't make a statement that was scheduled in time with the timeline of MCU fans about Chadwick Boseman's death and we have Eddie Redmayne lamenting his role for the Danish Girl (which he won an Oscar for) to avoid backdated backlash. You can't sneeze these days without grossly offending someone.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 9,174
    Is that relevant? Are you talking about the sexuality thing? I'm not sure why anyone would be offended by that.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe JenaMaloneforBond.comModerator
    edited December 2021 Posts: 12,228
    I would be happy with Luke Evans as Bond, he has a good Bondian look to him., a little more on the chilled side than smooth. He looks like a live action Serpents Tooth Bond.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 456
    Luke Evans would be great but with the rate EON put out Bond movies recently it just wouldn't work beyond one or maybe two. I think that's the problem with any actor in the early 40s range.

    As for his sexuality... I don't care as long as he can pull off straight, hetero "up for it" male. Actors act. It's madness that this is a topic of conversation (though I have said before it would likely come up for some).
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 9,619
    But an American actor as Bond.
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 586
    But an American actor as Bond.

    I wouldn't have a huge problem with that TBH. So long as he was good. The best actor for the role, end of as far as I'm concerned. Spiderman and Batman have been played by English and Welsh actors and the world is still spinning.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2021 Posts: 9,174
    It is weird how the current Superman, Batman and Spider Man are all played by British actors, and it's not even a new situation (although we are now in the slightly odd situation where there's more than one of most of them!). In a way I'd expect a bit more backlash about that.

    I don't hate the idea of an American playing Bond as long as he can do it convincingly, but that is a tough ask. Mind you, Brosnan's accent was fine and I'm not entirely sure what that was! :D
    Technically we've just had an American playing Bond, apparently! :)
  • Posts: 8,944
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    There was recently a bit of a kerfuffle around the idea that straight actors shouldn't play gay characters in future - if that becomes accepted practice, wouldn't it work the other way too? Seems a bit undermining of the very idea of 'acting', really!

    I wouldn't want to know how they'd intend to "prove" an actor's sexual orientation! ;)
    Lazenby would love to tell you some stories.

    It's a weird one. I know places like Twitter aren't the majority but it's one hell of an echo chamber for a vocal minority that can and has caused serious damage to people's reputations. I remember people going crazy and "cancelling" JK Rowling for her comments regarding her position on the trans community. Elizabeth Olsen had to quit social media due to the harassment she endured because she didn't make a statement that was scheduled in time with the timeline of MCU fans about Chadwick Boseman's death and we have Eddie Redmayne lamenting his role for the Danish Girl (which he won an Oscar for) to avoid backdated backlash. You can't sneeze these days without grossly offending someone.

    you sneezed that offends me ;)

    In all seriousness we have three issues

    1. if the net bond actor checks off a minority box there will be many who will wonder if its just because of that minority aspect rather ten that they were the best candidate for the role.
    2. Even though I have moved past the days of being ignorant about actors and actresses (the later Craig era has actors and actresses I either saw in something else like Rami Malek and Lea Seadoux or that I heard on this forum as the best next villain in the case of Javier Bardem and Christoph Waltz) I dont see a frontrunner that isn't already huge because of (insert comic book movie role they did)
    3. Even in terms of direction I hate to say it but post 2020 and Me Too I feel for the first time since the end of the cold war does Bond fit in this world? now obviously I want the answer to be yes as Bond is someone I want to learn from be etc but yeah
  • Risico007 wrote: »
    3. Even in terms of direction I hate to say it but post 2020 and Me Too I feel for the first time since the end of the cold war does Bond fit in this world? now obviously I want the answer to be yes as Bond is someone I want to learn from be etc but yeah

    I've been reading 'is Bond outdated?' for years, possibly back to the first Brosnan picture, (where he was even called a dinosaur). But like you, it's only recently I've actually thought current sensibilities have made even the recent cinematic Bond redundant.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2021 Posts: 9,174
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    There was recently a bit of a kerfuffle around the idea that straight actors shouldn't play gay characters in future - if that becomes accepted practice, wouldn't it work the other way too? Seems a bit undermining of the very idea of 'acting', really!

    I wouldn't want to know how they'd intend to "prove" an actor's sexual orientation! ;)
    Lazenby would love to tell you some stories.

    It's a weird one. I know places like Twitter aren't the majority but it's one hell of an echo chamber for a vocal minority that can and has caused serious damage to people's reputations. I remember people going crazy and "cancelling" JK Rowling for her comments regarding her position on the trans community. Elizabeth Olsen had to quit social media due to the harassment she endured because she didn't make a statement that was scheduled in time with the timeline of MCU fans about Chadwick Boseman's death and we have Eddie Redmayne lamenting his role for the Danish Girl (which he won an Oscar for) to avoid backdated backlash. You can't sneeze these days without grossly offending someone.

    you sneezed that offends me ;)

    In all seriousness we have three issues

    1. if the net bond actor checks off a minority box there will be many who will wonder if its just because of that minority aspect rather ten that they were the best candidate for the role.
    2. Even though I have moved past the days of being ignorant about actors and actresses (the later Craig era has actors and actresses I either saw in something else like Rami Malek and Lea Seadoux or that I heard on this forum as the best next villain in the case of Javier Bardem and Christoph Waltz) I dont see a frontrunner that isn't already huge because of (insert comic book movie role they did)
    3. Even in terms of direction I hate to say it but post 2020 and Me Too I feel for the first time since the end of the cold war does Bond fit in this world? now obviously I want the answer to be yes as Bond is someone I want to learn from be etc but yeah

    Yes, fair points I think. I think in terms of the first one it's tricky because the person who gets the gig is never just the best candidate, there are lots of other real world issues too: just look at Brosnan and Dalton and how, despite being good enough to eventually get the job, they weren't able to actually take it first time. I'm a fan of Doctor Who and I think Peter Capaldi was great as the Doctor, and you might say he was the best candidate when he got it, but it's not as if he wasn't acting when the previous four or five Doctors were cast! :) There is no one best person in the world to take a role; there are just those who available, want to do it, and fit the job at that particular moment in time.
    So it will be a decision to even choose to consider non-white actors, and I think all the signs are that they will do that, but anyone who wonders whether that person was 'the best person they could have picked' is oversimplifying the task they have. And if their race is part of the decision and they've decided that they want to say something with that, well that's up to them. I don't think calling it 'box-ticking' is helpful.
    Ultimately people will complain about anything. Look at all of the ridiculous complaints about Nomi in NTTD we got before the film came out. Besides all of the stupid 'I won't accept another character as 007' stuff, we had people on here who knew for certain that she would make Bond look bad and old and show him up and she'd be totally perfect all the way through the film. And then we saw the film and guess what: it was all absolutely fine: none of those terrible things actually came to pass, and it turned out that another character being 007 didn't actually make any difference after all. So if folk go on Twitter or here and whine about the new guy not looking exactly how they want, well so what. It happened last time and, guess what? Yup, it turned out fine then too.

    Regarding your point .3; well I know what you mean, sometimes I wonder if Bond really does belong. But when you look at the Craig Bond films I actually think Bond has changed quite a bit from the guy with the slightly dodgier traits of the past and yet remained recognisably Bond, I'm not too worried that they'll find a way ahead with that. I certainly didn't see any objections which gained traction about NTTD being an offensive film from the perspective of social justice. They need to lose that 'old dog' thing which gave them a bit of an excuse for him to be a bit less than progressive in some of his attitudes and make him fit in today's world, but I don't think that's impossible to reconcile. He'll still be a male fantasy figure driving fast cars and all that, but I think you'd have to be quite the entrenched feminist to object too much to that.
    But if you're a Bond fan you've had Dalton's safer sex Bond, Roger's Bond packing in the fags, Pierce's even had a cry quite regularly etc. - he's always moved with the times, albeit not too fast.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited December 2021 Posts: 600
    mtm wrote: »
    we had people on here who knew for certain that she would make Bond look bad and old and show him up and she'd be totally perfect all the way through the film. And then we saw the film and guess what: it was all absolutely fine: none of those terrible things actually came to pass, and it turned out that another character being 007 didn't actually make any difference after all. So if folk go on Twitter or here and whine about the new guy not looking exactly how they want, well so what. It happened last time and, guess what? Yup, it turned out fine then too.

    Much truth, here. I learned this lesson in 2011, when I heard the rumours that SF was going to be a full-on gags and gadgets fest - I was gutted and sulked and pouted for a long time. Then, when I finally saw the film, it wasn't at all the trope-by-trope reversion that'd been threatened, so I'd been narked for nothing. These things can drain your energy and it's all pointless, because they're going to make whatever film they like anyway, so...
  • I think Bond in today's overly sensitive climate still works. Things just need a bit of adjusting here and there. In the last 35 years, what exactly has Bond done that was offensive to women? The closest thing I can think of is the Severine shower scene (which I didn't see a problem with).
    The films need to unashamedly embrace who Bond is and not try to turn him into something he's not. The Craig era started off great, exploring how Bond became the man we know him to be but then it all changed with SF and it became something else.
    It's simple. Bond is a licensed hitman/spy for the British government. He's a lady's man that enjoys the indulgences and trappings of the finer things in life, while beating up bad guys to save the world. That's the only blueprint you need to build a compelling story that honors the character and silences those think Bond is an abominable misogynist who has no place in today's entertainment.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 456
    I always think the Severine shower scene is so overblown. She literally has the champagne on ice expecting him to show up and when he doesn't is visibly disappointed.

    They'd have more to cling onto with his seduction of Lucia Sciarra IMHO.

    I also think that Bond being called a misogynist is way off the mark. He likes women because of what they provide (whether that be sex or anything else - depending on if they become important to him). If anything then you could argue he has chauvinistic beliefs but misogyny? No, I never saw it that way.

    However, he can still have some of those archaic beliefs and "be in our time". There are plenty of men that think that way and even though it may not have been stated in NTTD there was an element of Nomi still having to earn his respect. You can choose to view this through that lens or not. It's really up to the viewer. It's ambiguous on purpose.

    Well, this is the wrong thread for it, I guess, but I felt compelled to reply.

    But I agree with @mtm overall. They will think long and hard about it and I trust in EON to make something that will resonate regardless... And not completely trash Bond or his ego/persona/legacy while completely reinventing him for the time. Whether this turns out to be a POC or not they will end up making a great film (Just like they did with CR even with the backlash for Craig) and people will be chomping at the bit to see it.
Sign In or Register to comment.