Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1100410051007100910101178

Comments

  • Posts: 9,730
    I don’t hate lazenby I just don’t know what to make of Johnson ……
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,328
    Not a fan of Johnson, nothing about him screams Bond to me. He's got a face for a henchmen though.
  • Posts: 2,742
    Denbigh wrote: »

    I like Calvin’s videos. He’s most likely right about the first rumblings of Bond 26 being mundane registering of companies or renting of studios rather than an actor’s casting being leaked. Heck there’s been no sign of a director or even a confirmation of screenwriter(s). While I admire Johnson as an actor I don’t think he’ll be our next Bond, and as Calvin hinted it’s worth noting that these people’s agents often get them into the same events as Broccoli
  • edited December 2022 Posts: 784

    Luv these and ur profile pic, well done!
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    007HallY wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »

    I like Calvin’s videos. He’s most likely right about the first rumblings of Bond 26 being mundane registering of companies or renting of studios rather than an actor’s casting being leaked. Heck there’s been no sign of a director or even a confirmation of screenwriter(s). While I admire Johnson as an actor I don’t think he’ll be our next Bond, and as Calvin hinted it’s worth noting that these people’s agents often get them into the same events as Broccoli

    I haven't watched the video yet, but yes I feel like we need to build some kind of automated social media bot that just posts in regular intervals: "Until they have incorporated B26 Ltd. or something like that, they have no vehicle to pay people to do screentests, let alone a lead actor!"
    We have speculated before about how they might throw out the playbook because Craig somehow convinced them that the actor is the be all end all of the films and everything else falls into place after that. Even then, I can't see them throwing decades of business best practice out of the window. Yes, they might go actor before screenplay, but I can't see them go actor before budget. Imagine they sign Tom Hardy for 20 mil a film and then MGM can't come up with more than 150 for the entire film. Yes, it's unlikely given Amazon's coffers, but that's still not how your run a business.
  • Posts: 2,742
    007HallY wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »

    I like Calvin’s videos. He’s most likely right about the first rumblings of Bond 26 being mundane registering of companies or renting of studios rather than an actor’s casting being leaked. Heck there’s been no sign of a director or even a confirmation of screenwriter(s). While I admire Johnson as an actor I don’t think he’ll be our next Bond, and as Calvin hinted it’s worth noting that these people’s agents often get them into the same events as Broccoli

    I haven't watched the video yet, but yes I feel like we need to build some kind of automated social media bot that just posts in regular intervals: "Until they have incorporated B26 Ltd. or something like that, they have no vehicle to pay people to do screentests, let alone a lead actor!"
    We have speculated before about how they might throw out the playbook because Craig somehow convinced them that the actor is the be all end all of the films and everything else falls into place after that. Even then, I can't see them throwing decades of business best practice out of the window. Yes, they might go actor before screenplay, but I can't see them go actor before budget. Imagine they sign Tom Hardy for 20 mil a film and then MGM can't come up with more than 150 for the entire film. Yes, it's unlikely given Amazon's coffers, but that's still not how your run a business.

    Indeed. It’s also telling how this rumour about Johnson has developed. We’ve gone from reports of him being the front runner to him apparently having filmed a gun barrel sequence.

    I’m just waiting for an article to come out claiming he’s actually shot the entire film.
  • Luv these and ur profile pic, well done!
    Cheers bro. I'll just screen test myself over the next few months; I could tease my voice but don't really want to overexpose.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,447
    I strongly recommend people to wait for an official EON announcement. Internet rumours about Bond have rarely turned out true in the past.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I strongly recommend people to wait for an official EON announcement. Internet rumours about Bond have rarely turned out true in the past.

    This. Next.
  • Posts: 14,797
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    And I know @Denbigh and I would like some more of those in future films, wouldn't we? ;)
    100%

    The only thing that truly grated me about the Craig-era was the lack of a proper femme-fatale akin to Xenia and Fiona. The fact that Valenka in Casino is the closest we got was a damn shame.

    Actually, I'm glad there weren't any. The "bad" Bond girl gets old pretty quickly and too often becomes a lazy trope. Fiona Volpe was great. After her, I found most of them derivative.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Camp ones like Xenia are pretty played out, but a seriously-played one would have been good. Like how Lea Seydoux is rather chilling in Mission Impossible as a baddie.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,282
    mtm wrote: »
    Camp ones like Xenia are pretty played out, but a seriously-played one would have been good. Like how Lea Seydoux is rather chilling in Mission Impossible as a baddie.

    Yeah, I agree. Also that might be Seydoux's best performance to date. She still looked very dangerous even when disarmed.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited December 2022 Posts: 5,834
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    And I know @Denbigh and I would like some more of those in future films, wouldn't we? ;)
    100%

    The only thing that truly grated me about the Craig-era was the lack of a proper femme-fatale akin to Xenia and Fiona. The fact that Valenka in Casino is the closest we got was a damn shame.

    Actually, I'm glad there weren't any. The "bad" Bond girl gets old pretty quickly and too often becomes a lazy trope. Fiona Volpe was great. After her, I found most of them derivative.
    I mean I personally disagree, it's never felt like a trope to me because of how little it's been done throughout the franchise compared to henchmen like Jaws and Hink, but I think the Craig-era would have made a conscious effort to create a more dynamic and nuanced version of the "bad Bond girl".

    I can understand it not fitting with the stories they had but at the same time when you're making a conscious effort with the Bond girls overall, why wouldn't you consider one that remains an antagonist throughout the story? I sometimes wonder if hesitancy with female villains is their demise, do producers and writers worry they'll be antagonised if our main hero has to dispatch of a female character directly?

    But then if that's the case, why is a sacrificial lamb more accepted by them than a female antagonist considering the criticism that trope gets? Or is that because its easier to portray a Bond girl being killed by the villains as opposed to Bond himself?
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited December 2022 Posts: 3,382
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    And I know @Denbigh and I would like some more of those in future films, wouldn't we? ;)
    100%

    The only thing that truly grated me about the Craig-era was the lack of a proper femme-fatale akin to Xenia and Fiona. The fact that Valenka in Casino is the closest we got was a damn shame.

    Actually, I'm glad there weren't any. The "bad" Bond girl gets old pretty quickly and too often becomes a lazy trope. Fiona Volpe was great. After her, I found most of them derivative.
    I mean I personally disagree, it's never felt like a trope to me because of how little it's been done throughout the franchise compared to henchmen like Jaws and Hink, but I think the Craig-era would have made a conscious effort to create a more dynamic and nuanced version of the "bad Bond girl".

    I can understand it not fitting with the stories they had but at the same time when you're making a conscious effort with the Bond girls overall, why wouldn't you consider one that remains an antagonist throughout the story? I sometimes wonder if hesitancy with female villains is their demise, do producers and writers worry they'll be antagonised if our main hero has to dispatch of a female character directly?

    But then if that's the case, why is a sacrificial lamb more accepted by them than a female antagonist considering the criticism that trope gets? Or is that because its easier to portray a Bond girl being killed by the villains as opposed to Bond himself?

    Actually they should have explored this in Monica Bellucci's character, Lucia Sciarra, she had a potential to be a Bad Bond Girl given her backstory and her connections to SPECTRE.

    I do find it lacking on equality, I mean if there's a female baddie and Bond killed them, then that's when Bond look at each equally, he used his Licenced To Kill for women the same as he did on men.

    He used to kill men, but why not have a female baddie too? Like the Craig films always portraying women as innocents who became sacrificial lambs like Solange, Strawberry Fields, Severine, and nearly with Lucia Sciarra, like women should always be good and only men could be bad.

    It's a bit of equality to have a female baddie at least.
  • Posts: 6,682

    You've got a cool look. Bond or not, you wouldn't look out of place in the movies.
  • zebrafishzebrafish <°)))< in Octopussy's garden in the shade
    Posts: 4,311
    The silencer is crooked, better not shoot with that.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited December 2022 Posts: 13,879
    zebrafish wrote: »
    The silencer is crooked, better not shoot with that.
    Just like in the GoldenEye poster. Attention to detail.
  • Posts: 6,682
    So apparently the GoldenEye posters are a complete disaster.

    First it was this:
    5d9f740b51cac7a1d235b6acd0cfb513

    And now the silencer.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited December 2022 Posts: 13,879
    The other poster, I mean!
  • Posts: 6,682
    QBranch wrote: »
    The other poster, I mean!

    Haha, I know.
  • Posts: 322
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    And I know @Denbigh and I would like some more of those in future films, wouldn't we? ;)
    100%

    The only thing that truly grated me about the Craig-era was the lack of a proper femme-fatale akin to Xenia and Fiona. The fact that Valenka in Casino is the closest we got was a damn shame.

    Actually, I'm glad there weren't any. The "bad" Bond girl gets old pretty quickly and too often becomes a lazy trope. Fiona Volpe was great. After her, I found most of them derivative.
    I mean I personally disagree, it's never felt like a trope to me because of how little it's been done throughout the franchise compared to henchmen like Jaws and Hink, but I think the Craig-era would have made a conscious effort to create a more dynamic and nuanced version of the "bad Bond girl".

    I can understand it not fitting with the stories they had but at the same time when you're making a conscious effort with the Bond girls overall, why wouldn't you consider one that remains an antagonist throughout the story? I sometimes wonder if hesitancy with female villains is their demise, do producers and writers worry they'll be antagonised if our main hero has to dispatch of a female character directly?

    But then if that's the case, why is a sacrificial lamb more accepted by them than a female antagonist considering the criticism that trope gets? Or is that because its easier to portray a Bond girl being killed by the villains as opposed to Bond himself?

    Actually they should have explored this in Monica Bellucci's character, Lucia Sciarra, she had a potential to be a Bad Bond Girl given her backstory and her connections to SPECTRE.

    I do find it lacking on equality, I mean if there's a female baddie and Bond killed them, then that's when Bond look at each equally, he used his Licenced To Kill for women the same as he did on men.

    He used to kill men, but why not have a female baddie too? Like the Craig films always portraying women as innocents who became sacrificial lambs like Solange, Strawberry Fields, Severine, and nearly with Lucia Sciarra, like women should always be good and only men could be bad.

    It's a bit of equality to have a female baddie at least.

    Bond gets enough bad press by having casual sex with women, let alone killing them….

    Given the high profile campaigns (here in the UK, at least) against male violence towards women, not sure Bond shoul be going there
  • mattjoes wrote: »
    You've got a cool look. Bond or not, you wouldn't look out of place in the movies.
    Thanks man. Being in movies does not interest me, but this haunts me.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,727
    mattjoes wrote: »
    You've got a cool look. Bond or not, you wouldn't look out of place in the movies.
    Thanks man. Being in movies does not interest me, but this haunts me.

    You could play David Dragonpol. Villainous parts are always more fun.
  • edited December 2022 Posts: 2,742
    Troy wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    And I know @Denbigh and I would like some more of those in future films, wouldn't we? ;)
    100%

    The only thing that truly grated me about the Craig-era was the lack of a proper femme-fatale akin to Xenia and Fiona. The fact that Valenka in Casino is the closest we got was a damn shame.

    Actually, I'm glad there weren't any. The "bad" Bond girl gets old pretty quickly and too often becomes a lazy trope. Fiona Volpe was great. After her, I found most of them derivative.
    I mean I personally disagree, it's never felt like a trope to me because of how little it's been done throughout the franchise compared to henchmen like Jaws and Hink, but I think the Craig-era would have made a conscious effort to create a more dynamic and nuanced version of the "bad Bond girl".

    I can understand it not fitting with the stories they had but at the same time when you're making a conscious effort with the Bond girls overall, why wouldn't you consider one that remains an antagonist throughout the story? I sometimes wonder if hesitancy with female villains is their demise, do producers and writers worry they'll be antagonised if our main hero has to dispatch of a female character directly?

    But then if that's the case, why is a sacrificial lamb more accepted by them than a female antagonist considering the criticism that trope gets? Or is that because its easier to portray a Bond girl being killed by the villains as opposed to Bond himself?

    Actually they should have explored this in Monica Bellucci's character, Lucia Sciarra, she had a potential to be a Bad Bond Girl given her backstory and her connections to SPECTRE.

    I do find it lacking on equality, I mean if there's a female baddie and Bond killed them, then that's when Bond look at each equally, he used his Licenced To Kill for women the same as he did on men.

    He used to kill men, but why not have a female baddie too? Like the Craig films always portraying women as innocents who became sacrificial lambs like Solange, Strawberry Fields, Severine, and nearly with Lucia Sciarra, like women should always be good and only men could be bad.

    It's a bit of equality to have a female baddie at least.

    Bond gets enough bad press by having casual sex with women, let alone killing them….

    Given the high profile campaigns (here in the UK, at least) against male violence towards women, not sure Bond shoul be going there

    I think it depends on how this hypothetical female villain and her death are portrayed. I think if Bond were to kill her in the manner he did Green in QOS, or even Safin in NTTD, there would be more complaints of that ilk. It's worth noting though that both these villains were notably weaker and less of a physical match for Bond, and Bond's killing of them were especially cruel.

    If, however, this female villain were more along the lines of Silva - that's to say they're a physical and intellectual match for Bond with, let's face it, more interesting motivations - then I don't think it'd be as much a problem. Their death won't likely be a case of Bond breaking their arm or leaving them in the desert with a can of oil, but in the context of a more equally weighted showdown. Heck, I don't think Silva and Bond even fight each other directly (that's to say they don't have hand to hand combat), which is the case with a lot of Bond villains, so if the producers were keen to avoid comparisons to male violence against women with such scenes then it'd be a very easy thing to accomplish.

    Personally, I'd like to see a female villain or henchwoman. Plenty of great actresses around who could do it and it'd open up a lot of creative possibilities that could be interesting.
  • Posts: 14,797
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    And I know @Denbigh and I would like some more of those in future films, wouldn't we? ;)
    100%

    The only thing that truly grated me about the Craig-era was the lack of a proper femme-fatale akin to Xenia and Fiona. The fact that Valenka in Casino is the closest we got was a damn shame.

    Actually, I'm glad there weren't any. The "bad" Bond girl gets old pretty quickly and too often becomes a lazy trope. Fiona Volpe was great. After her, I found most of them derivative.
    I mean I personally disagree, it's never felt like a trope to me because of how little it's been done throughout the franchise compared to henchmen like Jaws and Hink, but I think the Craig-era would have made a conscious effort to create a more dynamic and nuanced version of the "bad Bond girl".

    I can understand it not fitting with the stories they had but at the same time when you're making a conscious effort with the Bond girls overall, why wouldn't you consider one that remains an antagonist throughout the story? I sometimes wonder if hesitancy with female villains is their demise, do producers and writers worry they'll be antagonised if our main hero has to dispatch of a female character directly?

    But then if that's the case, why is a sacrificial lamb more accepted by them than a female antagonist considering the criticism that trope gets? Or is that because its easier to portray a Bond girl being killed by the villains as opposed to Bond himself?

    I think the question of their death is probably key. A sacrificial lamb is generally killed by a villain, someone already morally in the wrong. If you think about it, Bond very rarely kills a female villain directly. On the top of my head I can only think of Onatopp and Elektra. He throws Fiona Volpe in harm's way, but does not pull the trigger. The others are killed by the villain or a henchman. I don't think it's incidental.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited December 2022 Posts: 17,727
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    And I know @Denbigh and I would like some more of those in future films, wouldn't we? ;)
    100%

    The only thing that truly grated me about the Craig-era was the lack of a proper femme-fatale akin to Xenia and Fiona. The fact that Valenka in Casino is the closest we got was a damn shame.

    Actually, I'm glad there weren't any. The "bad" Bond girl gets old pretty quickly and too often becomes a lazy trope. Fiona Volpe was great. After her, I found most of them derivative.
    I mean I personally disagree, it's never felt like a trope to me because of how little it's been done throughout the franchise compared to henchmen like Jaws and Hink, but I think the Craig-era would have made a conscious effort to create a more dynamic and nuanced version of the "bad Bond girl".

    I can understand it not fitting with the stories they had but at the same time when you're making a conscious effort with the Bond girls overall, why wouldn't you consider one that remains an antagonist throughout the story? I sometimes wonder if hesitancy with female villains is their demise, do producers and writers worry they'll be antagonised if our main hero has to dispatch of a female character directly?

    But then if that's the case, why is a sacrificial lamb more accepted by them than a female antagonist considering the criticism that trope gets? Or is that because its easier to portray a Bond girl being killed by the villains as opposed to Bond himself?

    I think the question of their death is probably key. A sacrificial lamb is generally killed by a villain, someone already morally in the wrong. If you think about it, Bond very rarely kills a female villain directly. On the top of my head I can only think of Onatopp and Elektra. He throws Fiona Volpe in harm's way, but does not pull the trigger. The others are killed by the villain or a henchman. I don't think it's incidental.

    There's also Naomi in the helicopter in TSWLM but that was at arm's length I suppose. It's interesting that he never directly killed a woman in the original Fleming novels and short stories either. Irma Bunt is knocked out by Bond's stave and her fate in the dissolving Castle of Death is unknown (unless one counts John Pearson as canon which is problematic for several reasons). The closest he came to a kill outside of that was shooting "Trigger" in the hand in 'The Living Daylights' and she probably lost her hand there as opposed to her life. Bond hesitates to kill an attractive woman, a theme explored in TWINE with Elektra King.
  • Dragonpol wrote: »
    You could play David Dragonpol. Villainous parts are always more fun.

    Ha! That would be a non-speaking part. Coincidentally I'm watching American Psycho.
    I'm game.

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,727
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    You could play David Dragonpol. Villainous parts are always more fun.

    Ha! That would be a non-speaking part. Coincidentally I'm watching American Psycho.
    I'm game.

    Maybe you're thinking of the deaf mute twin brother Daniel Dragonpol? David Dragonpol could certainly speak, being an ex-actor in John Gardner's Never Send Flowers (1993). One of the most interesting and bizarre villains Gardner came up with and my namesake as a tribute to him.
  • Posts: 1,477
    I'm not interested in a celebrity or 'film star' being the next James Bond. I prefer an actor we do not know in any meaningful way. I don't like the baggage of previously established characters stars bring with them. I've seen Henry C in too many roles to buy him as Bond. He certainly doesn't sell me as Sherlock Holmes in the Enola series. I always felt RM and PB were more themselves than Bond. Dalton and Craig did much better taking on the role. My hope is there's an actor out there with the hard looks and demeanor of SC. Someone who at once is a charmer and ass kicker. The light comedic Bonds are a bit too slick, dapper, and fussy. The same goes for the Bond girl and villain. I am far more interested in an engaging character portrayal rather than a name playing a role.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited December 2022 Posts: 3,382
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I always felt RM and PB were more themselves than Bond.

    Yes, thanks I'm not alone in feeling this one, I always thought of it, I just see themselves rather than Bond himself, for me, I want my character on the front with being the actor on the backseat as a driving force for the character to move, like a puppet, you don't see the one who's moving the puppet, but you see the character themselves.

    Even Craig for me is already getting famous by the time he took the role because of Layer Cake, but then he's still owned the role because he's not a high A-lister like yes Cavill, Cumberbatch, and etc.

    To be honest, this is why I think yes, like Connery, or Dalton, or even Lazenby captured the role so very well, because they let the character took the front position and let their personalities as themselves hide in the backseat.

    Character first, actor at the back of the character, that's probably the most important, not just in Bond even at the other films.

    Don't let the audiences remember the actor, let them think of the character that you're playing.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    The same goes for the Bond girl and villain. I am far more interested in an engaging character portrayal rather than a name playing a role.

    I'm in for the villains, but when it comes to the Bond Girls, I think that's fine, think of both Honor Blackman and Diana Rigg, both are really famous and popular coming from The Avengers, but they became so memorable in their respective Bond Girl roles, Halle Berry I think was an inspired casting, it's only the script or the writing that put her down.
    I would also add Michelle Yeoh who's really a star and popular at the time of filming TND, but she carried the role very well too.
Sign In or Register to comment.