Who should/could be a Bond actor?

19409419439459461178

Comments

  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited August 2022 Posts: 8,255
    The only bet that I'd put on the next James Bond: he will be younger in his first film than Craig was in CR.... My guess is an actor who is presently in his late 20s/very early 30s.

    (Edit: typos: walking dogs with fat thumbs isn't a good combo)
  • Posts: 88
    Just for conversation sake. If the under 40 and at least 5'10 were to be the actual requirements here's a few that come to mind for me in no particular order.

    1.) Tom Cullen-37 and 6'1
    2.) Nicolous Hoult-32 and 6'3
    3.) Tom Bateman-6'2 and 33
    4.) Regea Jean-Page-5'11 and 34
    5.) Richard Madden-5'10 and 36

    I left my favorite Aidan Turner out of this list because he is 39 right on the line.

    I also left out my favorite darkhouse for the role Ben Starr because he is so unknown (he was on Jamestown and in Survivor with Pierce Brosnan) that his age and height are not listed anywhere I can find.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,890
    Speaking of dark horses, mine fits the bill.

    ZRjm3LT.jpg

    1FAaer6.jpg

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    mtm wrote: »
    If that's the case then I'd have to question his ability to convincingly portray different characters regardless of his intent, as his voice hasn't changed all that much in any of the many things I've seen him in. I've yet to see Bullet Train but the accent I've seen in clips is.....irritating.

    He was good in Kick Ass and Nocturnal Animals, and that's about as contrasty as it gets in terms of his range.

    I'd still give him a screen test though. Hell, I'd never deprive any actor of that in case we find a diamond in the rough. You never know.

    Taylor-Johnson was good in Nocturnal Animals yes indeed, but I was watching the Godzilla movie on a plane the other day and there's a point at which he becomes the lead character of the film, and he just isn't up to it. The film suddenly becomes lead-less - he's shockingly poor in terms of being a movie star.
    I realise that film is a few years old now, but I wouldn't be looking at him.

    I agree with this. One of those guys who seems to be best when they are in a supporting role. No bad thing, of course - many have great careers doing that sort of thing. But it's not what you need for Bond.
  • parkert5 wrote: »
    Just for conversation sake. If the under 40 and at least 5'10 were to be the actual requirements here's a few that come to mind for me in no particular order.

    1.) Tom Cullen-37 and 6'1
    2.) Nicolous Hoult-32 and 6'3
    3.) Tom Bateman-6'2 and 33
    4.) Regea Jean-Page-5'11 and 34
    5.) Richard Madden-5'10 and 36

    I left my favorite Aidan Turner out of this list because he is 39 right on the line.

    I also left out my favorite darkhouse for the role Ben Starr because he is so unknown (he was on Jamestown and in Survivor with Pierce Brosnan) that his age and height are not listed anywhere I can find.

    Now would be a good time to mention that under 40 and at least 5'10 is the exact criteria for my famous next Bond list on IMDB. And all of those names are on there.
  • Posts: 88
    parkert5 wrote: »
    Just for conversation sake. If the under 40 and at least 5'10 were to be the actual requirements here's a few that come to mind for me in no particular order.

    1.) Tom Cullen-37 and 6'1
    2.) Nicolous Hoult-32 and 6'3
    3.) Tom Bateman-6'2 and 33
    4.) Regea Jean-Page-5'11 and 34
    5.) Richard Madden-5'10 and 36

    I left my favorite Aidan Turner out of this list because he is 39 right on the line.

    I also left out my favorite darkhouse for the role Ben Starr because he is so unknown (he was on Jamestown and in Survivor with Pierce Brosnan) that his age and height are not listed anywhere I can find.

    Now would be a good time to mention that under 40 and at least 5'10 is the exact criteria for my famous next Bond list on IMDB. And all of those names are on there.

    Great list. A few standouts to me are Sean Teale and Tom Forbes who looks very Conneryesque in the photo you have there.

    There are a few I've never heard of on there need to check those out.

    Excellant work.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,483
    Is this report about the next Bond being taller than 5 '10 and younger than 40, come from a reliable source?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 2022 Posts: 14,861
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    If that's the case then I'd have to question his ability to convincingly portray different characters regardless of his intent, as his voice hasn't changed all that much in any of the many things I've seen him in. I've yet to see Bullet Train but the accent I've seen in clips is.....irritating.

    He was good in Kick Ass and Nocturnal Animals, and that's about as contrasty as it gets in terms of his range.

    I'd still give him a screen test though. Hell, I'd never deprive any actor of that in case we find a diamond in the rough. You never know.

    Taylor-Johnson was good in Nocturnal Animals yes indeed, but I was watching the Godzilla movie on a plane the other day and there's a point at which he becomes the lead character of the film, and he just isn't up to it. The film suddenly becomes lead-less - he's shockingly poor in terms of being a movie star.
    I realise that film is a few years old now, but I wouldn't be looking at him.

    Absolutely . The quality of “Godzilla “ plummeted once Cranston’s character was gone. The human aspect of the story should have been focused on him and Ken Watanabe. Taylor-Johnson did nothing to show that he could carry a film of this scale.
    I remember Cranston got top billing in that film, and then in the first act they show a closeup of them zipping up the bodybag he was in as if to show the audience they knew they had just played a joke on us.
    Aaron Taylor-Johnson sucks and would be an extremely disappointing choice for Bond.

    Yes, I'd never seen it before- I was watching it on a plane and had no idea Cranston died in it. I tried pressing on with on it after the lead switched to Taylor-Johnson but had to switch it off because he was so bad. I can't believe they killed him off: I'm sort of surprised that test audiences didn't tell them how bad a decision it was.
    peter wrote: »
    The only bet that I'd put on the next James Bond: he will be younger in his first film than Craig was in CR.... My guess is an actor who is presently in his late 20s/very early 30s.

    (Edit: typos: walking dogs with fat thumbs isn't a good combo)

    Yeah I think that's certainly who they'll be looking at, but I also think it doesn't necessarily mean that's who they'll go for. If they see someone a little older and think he's brilliant, they'll go for him.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Is this report about the next Bond being taller than 5 '10 and younger than 40, come from a reliable source?

    Oh yes, it comes from Random Hunch.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,483
    I can't make up my mind whether a delay between NTTD and the casting of Bond #7 will be a good or bad thing.

    It'll be good in one way, it'll allow the general audience time to see Bond after Craig and give the new man a clean slate

    Given the ending of NTTD though, you don't want Bond's demise lingering over the general audiences mind for too long as audiences are more fickle these days. The longer Bond is off screen the more the characters relevance will be questioned
  • edited August 2022 Posts: 784
    .
  • edited August 2022 Posts: 15,785
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    If that's the case then I'd have to question his ability to convincingly portray different characters regardless of his intent, as his voice hasn't changed all that much in any of the many things I've seen him in. I've yet to see Bullet Train but the accent I've seen in clips is.....irritating.

    He was good in Kick Ass and Nocturnal Animals, and that's about as contrasty as it gets in terms of his range.

    I'd still give him a screen test though. Hell, I'd never deprive any actor of that in case we find a diamond in the rough. You never know.

    Taylor-Johnson was good in Nocturnal Animals yes indeed, but I was watching the Godzilla movie on a plane the other day and there's a point at which he becomes the lead character of the film, and he just isn't up to it. The film suddenly becomes lead-less - he's shockingly poor in terms of being a movie star.
    I realise that film is a few years old now, but I wouldn't be looking at him.

    Absolutely . The quality of “Godzilla “ plummeted once Cranston’s character was gone. The human aspect of the story should have been focused on him and Ken Watanabe. Taylor-Johnson did nothing to show that he could carry a film of this scale.
    I remember Cranston got top billing in that film, and then in the first act they show a closeup of them zipping up the bodybag he was in as if to show the audience they knew they had just played a joke on us.
    Aaron Taylor-Johnson sucks and would be an extremely disappointing choice for Bond.

    Yes, I'd never seen it before- I was watching it on a plane and had no idea Cranston died in it. I tried pressing on with on it after the lead switched to Taylor-Johnson but had to switch it off because he was so bad. I can't believe they killed him off: I'm sort of surprised that test audiences didn't tell them how bad a decision it was.
    peter wrote: »
    The only bet that I'd put on the next James Bond: he will be younger in his first film than Craig was in CR.... My guess is an actor who is presently in his late 20s/very early 30s.

    (Edit: typos: walking dogs with fat thumbs isn't a good combo)

    Yeah I think that's certainly who they'll be looking at, but I also think it doesn't necessarily mean that's who they'll go for. If they see someone a little older and think he's brilliant, they'll go for him.

    I couldn't agree more. Under 40 is a general guideline, but the actor most qualified will get the role.
    For CR I remember Eon initially announcing they were looking for someone between 28-32 for Bond's origin story. Instead they chose a then 37 year old Craig.
    The next Bond will be whoever is right for the next film, and can also carry on the series' legacy for a decade or so.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,483
    Did they announce that they were looking for someone that young? I know people were surprised got it, given his age and the fact it was meant to be an origin story
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited August 2022 Posts: 3,382
    Has anyone watched Sandman?
    If it's good then I would also add Tom Sturridge as a contender
    talos7 wrote: »
    Speaking of dark horses, mine fits the bill.

    ZRjm3LT.jpg

    1FAaer6.jpg

    It's a sign of the times.....
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,890
    :))
  • Posts: 14,800
    Dark horse? More like light horse.
  • edited August 2022 Posts: 175


    Here's the trailer for The Invitation. And Thomas Doherty looks, well, like young James Bond... He first appears at 43 seconds into the trailer.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489


    Here's the trailer for The Invitation. And Thomas Doherty looks, well, like young James Bond... He first appears at 43 seconds into the trailer.

    Good candidate, but the fangs might be a problem.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255
    At least he’s the lead actor in a feature film— unlike some other “candidates”, 😂…
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247


    Here's the trailer for The Invitation. And Thomas Doherty looks, well, like young James Bond... He first appears at 43 seconds into the trailer.

    I think Thomas Doherty would be good as James Bond. I've always thought so.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    Not this muppet anyway

    61353053-11108601-image-a-2_1660401228423.jpg
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,483


    Here's the trailer for The Invitation. And Thomas Doherty looks, well, like young James Bond... He first appears at 43 seconds into the trailer.

    I know he's been mentioned before. He definitely has that Connery look, I'd have to see him in more but he's a good suggestion
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    He looks good, but he seems incredibly wooden in just those quick clips.
    I like the look of 'England' in that trailer :D
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,890
    Not this muppet anyway

    61353053-11108601-image-a-2_1660401228423.jpg

    Hey, I say dark horse for a reason, and I get the , justified, skepticism; but I see something in him that goes beyond his more flamboyant antics. If I’m right, his performance in the upcoming “ Don't Worry Darling” bill be an eye opener.

    Remember, the most beautiful diamond was once an unlikely lump of coal.
  • redherringredherring Netherlands
    edited October 2022 Posts: 15
    Dev Patel or Nicholas Hoult.

    Harry Styles as the next Bond title track artist!!!
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    edited August 2022 Posts: 1,351
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I can't make up my mind whether a delay between NTTD and the casting of Bond #7 will be a good or bad thing.

    It'll be good in one way, it'll allow the general audience time to see Bond after Craig and give the new man a clean slate

    Given the ending of NTTD though, you don't want Bond's demise lingering over the general audiences mind for too long as audiences are more fickle these days. The longer Bond is off screen the more the characters relevance will be questioned

    Obviously, the wish is the father of the thought (is that a saying in English?), but I think if they manage to put out a positive, young, adrenaline-packed next film the long time since Bond has been that could play in it's favour. They'll do their usual thing of going back to Fleming and going back to Connery and Gen Z will do their usual thing of rediscovering cool stuff from decades past and acting as if they were the first people to know about it (see Kate Bush via Stranger Things for example) and all will be well in Bond world.
    Now that I think of it, maybe the move this time would be to shout about going back to Moore. Not my personal favourite Bonds, but people obviously love them, 80s nostalgia has taken over from the 60s nostalgia of the 2010s (again, see Stranger Things and Top Gun) and if those films are one thing, they are fun.

    Edit: And to graft this observation onto the actual topic of the thread: I think Hoult would be the man to do the go back to Moore thing. He's a good dramatic actor, but he's also capable and willing to do silly stuff and sell it well.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited August 2022 Posts: 3,382
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Now that I think of it, maybe the move this time would be to shout about going back to Moore. Not my personal favourite Bonds, but people obviously love them, 80s nostalgia has taken over from the 60s nostalgia of the 2010s (again, see Stranger Things and Top Gun) and if those films are one thing, they are fun.

    Edit: And to graft this observation onto the actual topic of the thread: I think Hoult would be the man to do the go back to Moore thing. He's a good dramatic actor, but he's also capable and willing to do silly stuff and sell it well.

    I saw many people considering Moore as the worst one.

    That's why Dalton's two films came into renaissance today, I'm keep seeing people that wants the next Bond to be like The Living Daylights, because it struck the balance.

    I don't think people would have likely to accept the campiness and cheesiness of the Moore Era again.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 686
    I always thought TLD was a weaker entry. I know it has fans, but it really does nothing for me.
  • Posts: 2,751
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Now that I think of it, maybe the move this time would be to shout about going back to Moore. Not my personal favourite Bonds, but people obviously love them, 80s nostalgia has taken over from the 60s nostalgia of the 2010s (again, see Stranger Things and Top Gun) and if those films are one thing, they are fun.

    Edit: And to graft this observation onto the actual topic of the thread: I think Hoult would be the man to do the go back to Moore thing. He's a good dramatic actor, but he's also capable and willing to do silly stuff and sell it well.

    I saw many people considering Moore as the worst one.

    That's why Dalton's two films came into renaissance today, I'm keep seeing people that wants the next Bond to be like The Living Daylights, because it struck the balance.

    I don't think people would have likely to accept the campiness and cheesiness of the Moore Era again.

    The problem with harkening back to the 80s Bond films in this tactic is that while there are some noteworthy films in there, it's not exactly the most tonally consistent or distinctive of Bond eras. Are they going to evoke the lightheartedness of Moore generally, or the more low key aspects of FYEO or OP. You also have LTK and TLD in there too which are quite different films.

    Basically, I don't think there's all that much nostalgia to mine from that time in Bond history. At least not for younger viewers. That's why many of the callbacks from the Craig era tend to come from the 60s Bond movies.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Although I guess it did move that way with Craig getting Tim's car.
Sign In or Register to comment.