Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1108310841086108810891193

Comments

  • Henry Cavill 100% he's attractive has slick black hair and he loves James Bond.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited June 2023 Posts: 40,498
    I'd still be excited for Cavill to play Bond but not with a hairdo like that promo shot for his new spy thriller. Horrible.
  • Posts: 3,279
    talos7 wrote: »
    I absolutely love Craig’s Bond, but like his predecessor, Brosnan, the material he was given often let him down; the next incarnation needs a clear vision for the character and direction of the storylines.

    I agree. Both Brosnan and Craig started off on such highs in their debuts, that despite some solid follow ups, the filmmakers in both eras never quite surpassed their first films. Brosnan perhaps got the shorter end of the stick because he was stuck with some pretty poor material, but the stuff Craig was given all ranged from perfection, to some of the worst creative decisions made in this series, most of which is stemming from the interconnected nature of his era. I think the reason most fans might prefer Casino Royale (or even Skyfall) to the rest of Craig’s tenure is that on their own, both films work as standalone stories. Whereas the rest of Craig’s tenure hinders on whether or not you’ve seen the previous film in order to be caught up, and I think that’s what ultimately drags down the Craig era for me.

    I’m sure I’ve talked about this on the forum before, but to put my cards on the table fully, I really enjoy Daniel Craig’s portrayal of Bond, but I really dislike the Daniel Craig era as a whole, and it’s probably the era I go back to and revisit the least, and a lot of it is down to the polarizing nature of the films. The fact is for me, as much as I would love to stand on a box and proclaim that both CR and Skyfall are masterpieces, I can’t bring myself to do that because both films feel retroactively “violated” by the revelations made in SP. The moment SP tried to convince me that Blofeld was Bond’s evil, long lost “step brother” who behind the events of all the previous Craig films, and that he was doing it out of revenge of Bond due to “daddy spending more time with you than he did with me” is the moment the Craig era broke for me. I’ve used the term “lazy” to describe that plot element before, but perhaps a better word to use would be “cheap”. Those revelations in SP were nothing else to me but a cheap illusion of continuity, a cheap attempt to jump on the shared continuity bandwagon that every single franchise was latching too back in 2015. To quote Eyebrow Cinema (one of my favorite YouTubers); “Why abandon episodic storytelling in a film franchise built upon just that?” And he’s right.

    The reason Bond has survived and lasted for so long is that in addition to constant reinvention, people could always just dip in and out of any Bond film without needing to be caught up on continuity. Yeah it was nice seeing Roger Moore lay flowers at Tracy’s grave, and it gives me that little OHMSS sequel I crave, but it’s nothing than some small fan service, and that’s fine. Craig’s tenure abandoned all of that in favor of stretching a poorly planned arc across five films. That’s why I always say that if EON insists on another Multi-Film arc for Bond, then to actually plan with care ahead of time, and who knows, maybe that’s what they’re doing now.

    I apologize if this seems a bit “fantastical” from my view, but it’s hard for me to appreciate Craig’s era as a whole when I take those points into consideration. Plus perhaps I am a bit biased in some ways, my favorite Bond is Brosnan, and seeing some fans tear down his portrayal/his era just to prop up Craig’s does irritate me to some extent, especially when some of those jabs are being posed as fact, and not opinion. But given NTTD’s reactions, I think that battlefield has been evened out.

    If anything, Craig’s era just strengthened my love and respect for OTHER Bond films. Without Craig’s tenure, I certainly wouldn’t be singing the praises of OHMSS, FYEO, and LTK. I certainly wouldn’t be flying my Brosnan flag high and pride if it wasn’t for seeing how much people love and adore Craig. Heck my favorite film in the series probably wouldn’t be FRWL if it wasn’t for Craig’s era.


    EDIT: As for Cavil’s haircut, that’s atrocious.

    Yes I agree with all of this.
  • Posts: 2,963
    I apologize if this seems a bit “fantastical” from my view, but it’s hard for me to appreciate Craig’s era as a whole when I take those points into consideration. Plus perhaps I am a bit biased in some ways, my favorite Bond is Brosnan, and seeing some fans tear down his portrayal/his era just to prop up Craig’s does irritate me to some extent, especially when some of those jabs are being posed as fact, and not opinion. But given NTTD’s reactions, I think that battlefield has been evened out.

    To be fair I think every aspect of the Bond series undergoes some sort of revision amongst fans/general viewers at one point or another. I think this is true of Brosnan too. I mean, for many people he was 'their Bond' growing up. I've certainly noticed that there are people nowadays who remember not only GE, but TND rather fondly (it's not a perfect film, but the 'fake news' element and 90s nostalgia seems to resonate). Heck, I'd even say that his performance in DAD is actually pretty solid even if the film is questionable.

    In a sense it's similar to the Moore era. I've always been a fan of his Bond personally, but I've noticed he's been somewhat looked down upon by some fans, at least perhaps until recently. Like Brosnan he has highlights in his tenure that deserve appreciation.

    Personally I've also noticed Timothy Dalton's Bond seems to get more love nowadays after Craig's films. At least amongst non-fans.
  • 007HallY wrote: »
    I apologize if this seems a bit “fantastical” from my view, but it’s hard for me to appreciate Craig’s era as a whole when I take those points into consideration. Plus perhaps I am a bit biased in some ways, my favorite Bond is Brosnan, and seeing some fans tear down his portrayal/his era just to prop up Craig’s does irritate me to some extent, especially when some of those jabs are being posed as fact, and not opinion. But given NTTD’s reactions, I think that battlefield has been evened out.

    To be fair I think every aspect of the Bond series undergoes some sort of revision amongst fans/general viewers at one point or another. I think this is true of Brosnan too. I mean, for many people he was 'their Bond' growing up. I've certainly noticed that there are people nowadays who remember not only GE, but TND rather fondly (it's not a perfect film, but the 'fake news' element and 90s nostalgia seems to resonate). Heck, I'd even say that his performance in DAD is actually pretty solid even if the film is questionable.

    In a sense it's similar to the Moore era. I've always been a fan of his Bond personally, but I've noticed he's been somewhat looked down upon by some fans, at least perhaps until recently. Like Brosnan he has highlights in his tenure that deserve appreciation.

    Personally I've also noticed Timothy Dalton's Bond seems to get more love nowadays after Craig's films. At least amongst non-fans.

    I’ve noticed the love for Dalton’s Bond from non-fans too, and it’s quite nice to see. Maybe this is just the effect of having multiple actors play the same character, so people are obviously going to have their preferences, but it just feels so odd to me that fans have just suddenly switched up on Brosnan like that after they heralded so much praise at him back in his day, and I have a strange feeling that after the backlash to NTTD, we’re going to see more of that revisionist attitude thrown towards Craig’s way.
  • Posts: 2,963
    007HallY wrote: »
    I apologize if this seems a bit “fantastical” from my view, but it’s hard for me to appreciate Craig’s era as a whole when I take those points into consideration. Plus perhaps I am a bit biased in some ways, my favorite Bond is Brosnan, and seeing some fans tear down his portrayal/his era just to prop up Craig’s does irritate me to some extent, especially when some of those jabs are being posed as fact, and not opinion. But given NTTD’s reactions, I think that battlefield has been evened out.

    To be fair I think every aspect of the Bond series undergoes some sort of revision amongst fans/general viewers at one point or another. I think this is true of Brosnan too. I mean, for many people he was 'their Bond' growing up. I've certainly noticed that there are people nowadays who remember not only GE, but TND rather fondly (it's not a perfect film, but the 'fake news' element and 90s nostalgia seems to resonate). Heck, I'd even say that his performance in DAD is actually pretty solid even if the film is questionable.

    In a sense it's similar to the Moore era. I've always been a fan of his Bond personally, but I've noticed he's been somewhat looked down upon by some fans, at least perhaps until recently. Like Brosnan he has highlights in his tenure that deserve appreciation.

    Personally I've also noticed Timothy Dalton's Bond seems to get more love nowadays after Craig's films. At least amongst non-fans.

    I’ve noticed the love for Dalton’s Bond from non-fans too, and it’s quite nice to see. Maybe this is just the effect of having multiple actors play the same character, so people are obviously going to have their preferences, but it just feels so odd to me that fans have just suddenly switched up on Brosnan like that after they heralded so much praise at him back in his day, and I have a strange feeling that after the backlash to NTTD, we’re going to see more of that revisionist attitude thrown towards Craig’s way.

    I legitimately don't know how Craig will be remembered. He is, despite some of the criticisms of his films, a very popular Bond though. For a lot of younger viewers he even surpasses Connery.

    Of course as time goes on the next Bond actor will be cast, films will get released and discussions will be had on the internet. It's plausible that some elements of Craig's performance throughout his films will be criticised. Heck, I always argue that Connery looked bored is underwhelming for at least two of his six official James Bond films.

    If anything it's more likely that certain aspects of Craig's era will be re-evaluated more fondly. It's already happening with QOS. I can see NTTD having more supporters as time goes on too. And of course CR and SF remain favourites amongst the general public.
  • 007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I apologize if this seems a bit “fantastical” from my view, but it’s hard for me to appreciate Craig’s era as a whole when I take those points into consideration. Plus perhaps I am a bit biased in some ways, my favorite Bond is Brosnan, and seeing some fans tear down his portrayal/his era just to prop up Craig’s does irritate me to some extent, especially when some of those jabs are being posed as fact, and not opinion. But given NTTD’s reactions, I think that battlefield has been evened out.

    To be fair I think every aspect of the Bond series undergoes some sort of revision amongst fans/general viewers at one point or another. I think this is true of Brosnan too. I mean, for many people he was 'their Bond' growing up. I've certainly noticed that there are people nowadays who remember not only GE, but TND rather fondly (it's not a perfect film, but the 'fake news' element and 90s nostalgia seems to resonate). Heck, I'd even say that his performance in DAD is actually pretty solid even if the film is questionable.

    In a sense it's similar to the Moore era. I've always been a fan of his Bond personally, but I've noticed he's been somewhat looked down upon by some fans, at least perhaps until recently. Like Brosnan he has highlights in his tenure that deserve appreciation.

    Personally I've also noticed Timothy Dalton's Bond seems to get more love nowadays after Craig's films. At least amongst non-fans.

    I’ve noticed the love for Dalton’s Bond from non-fans too, and it’s quite nice to see. Maybe this is just the effect of having multiple actors play the same character, so people are obviously going to have their preferences, but it just feels so odd to me that fans have just suddenly switched up on Brosnan like that after they heralded so much praise at him back in his day, and I have a strange feeling that after the backlash to NTTD, we’re going to see more of that revisionist attitude thrown towards Craig’s way.

    I legitimately don't know how Craig will be remembered. He is, despite some of the criticisms of his films, a very popular Bond though. For a lot of younger viewers he even surpasses Connery.

    Of course as time goes on the next Bond actor will be cast, films will get released and discussions will be had on the internet. It's plausible that some elements of Craig's performance throughout his films will be criticised. Heck, I always argue that Connery looked bored is underwhelming for at least two of his six official James Bond films.

    If anything it's more likely that certain aspects of Craig's era will be re-evaluated more fondly. It's already happening with QOS. I can see NTTD having more supporters as time goes on too. And of course CR and SF remain favourites amongst the general public.

    I think some people are trying to push that revisionist narrative currently on Craig. Just seemed to odd that in the build up to NTTD, and after the release of the film, there were a bunch of attacks on Craig himself, and his portrayal of Bond, and I have a bad feeling that’ll only get worse as time goes by. I hope I’m wrong, Craig was the first Bond I saw on the big screen, so I have loads of love and appreciation for his Bond, even if his films felt a bit hit or miss for me.
  • Posts: 9,779
    Cavill would be fine with me

    Personally if we had video games i wouldnt mind the gap in films as much as i do…

    But i am rereading the benson novels and enjoying it
  • Posts: 2,963
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I apologize if this seems a bit “fantastical” from my view, but it’s hard for me to appreciate Craig’s era as a whole when I take those points into consideration. Plus perhaps I am a bit biased in some ways, my favorite Bond is Brosnan, and seeing some fans tear down his portrayal/his era just to prop up Craig’s does irritate me to some extent, especially when some of those jabs are being posed as fact, and not opinion. But given NTTD’s reactions, I think that battlefield has been evened out.

    To be fair I think every aspect of the Bond series undergoes some sort of revision amongst fans/general viewers at one point or another. I think this is true of Brosnan too. I mean, for many people he was 'their Bond' growing up. I've certainly noticed that there are people nowadays who remember not only GE, but TND rather fondly (it's not a perfect film, but the 'fake news' element and 90s nostalgia seems to resonate). Heck, I'd even say that his performance in DAD is actually pretty solid even if the film is questionable.

    In a sense it's similar to the Moore era. I've always been a fan of his Bond personally, but I've noticed he's been somewhat looked down upon by some fans, at least perhaps until recently. Like Brosnan he has highlights in his tenure that deserve appreciation.

    Personally I've also noticed Timothy Dalton's Bond seems to get more love nowadays after Craig's films. At least amongst non-fans.

    I’ve noticed the love for Dalton’s Bond from non-fans too, and it’s quite nice to see. Maybe this is just the effect of having multiple actors play the same character, so people are obviously going to have their preferences, but it just feels so odd to me that fans have just suddenly switched up on Brosnan like that after they heralded so much praise at him back in his day, and I have a strange feeling that after the backlash to NTTD, we’re going to see more of that revisionist attitude thrown towards Craig’s way.

    I legitimately don't know how Craig will be remembered. He is, despite some of the criticisms of his films, a very popular Bond though. For a lot of younger viewers he even surpasses Connery.

    Of course as time goes on the next Bond actor will be cast, films will get released and discussions will be had on the internet. It's plausible that some elements of Craig's performance throughout his films will be criticised. Heck, I always argue that Connery looked bored is underwhelming for at least two of his six official James Bond films.

    If anything it's more likely that certain aspects of Craig's era will be re-evaluated more fondly. It's already happening with QOS. I can see NTTD having more supporters as time goes on too. And of course CR and SF remain favourites amongst the general public.

    I think some people are trying to push that revisionist narrative currently on Craig. Just seemed to odd that in the build up to NTTD, and after the release of the film, there were a bunch of attacks on Craig himself, and his portrayal of Bond, and I have a bad feeling that’ll only get worse as time goes by. I hope I’m wrong, Craig was the first Bond I saw on the big screen, so I have loads of love and appreciation for his Bond, even if his films felt a bit hit or miss for me.

    To be fair Craig has always had 'attacks' on him when it comes to the press and some people on the internet (usually very superficial things that have nothing to do with his performances as Bond - anyone remember the weird Piers Morgan episode after Craig was photographed carrying his child in a papoose?) I never particularly got the sense that his Bond portrayal was criticised overly. Just the films.

    Like I said, for a generation of people he is James Bond. But I'm sure when the new guy comes along there'll be aspects of his performance (and hopefully his films) that will make people go 'that was actually better handled than in the previous era'. And I hope they do.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,381
    It's beginning to feel like Craig's Bond might be looked back at and criticized, if Bond 7 is ultra-stellar. Same way Brosnan's Bond was unfairly maligned, when Craig's Bond took over.
  • Posts: 6,677
    All very unpredictable. They've been in this place before, only it didn't took them so long to decide and move forwards.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,990
    Patrick Stewart
    IS
    Ian Fleming's James Bond 007
    in
    You Asked For It!
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,522
    It depends on the direction of Bond 26 I suppose. I remember people raving about the lighter toned Heineken advert for Spectre and then when they saw the film they felt let down by the lighter tone overall.

    I think if Bond 26-28 goes too lighthearted it will run dry quite quickly. I think people will look the first 3 Craig's similar to Connery's first 4, in that it's held up as the standard for Bond films
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 740
    Univex wrote: »
    All very unpredictable. They've been in this place before, only it didn't took them so long to decide and move forwards.
    I think this was probably always the plan. I don’t think they could have killed Bond off then given us a new version three years later without getting severe criticism. They have to make the death feel like something substantial rather than a lightweight shock move.
  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    edited June 2023 Posts: 155
    Univex wrote: »
    All very unpredictable. They've been in this place before, only it didn't took them so long to decide and move forwards.
    I think this was probably always the plan. I don’t think they could have killed Bond off then given us a new version three years later without getting severe criticism. They have to make the death feel like something substantial rather than a lightweight shock move.

    Or an unnecessary lazy ploy. I never really was a fan of the Craig era anyway, save from CR, but that's mostly due to the great Martin Campbell.

    Apart from that, I am thirsting for an official glimmer of information. Something, anything of value.


    This just in. It looks quite good, starring Aidan Turner. Operation Grandslam anyone? I'll see myself out...

  • Posts: 6,677
    Just hire that chap now and make a bloody Bond film :)
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited June 2023 Posts: 2,934
    Cubby would've hired Aidan Turner a week after SP left cinemas. Probably.
  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    edited June 2023 Posts: 155
    Venutius wrote: »
    Cubby would've hired Aidan Turner a week after SP left cinemas. Probably.

    Cubby was a genius, so he probably would have ;)
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    edited June 2023 Posts: 2,522
    As much Turner has been my personal favourite for Bond #7 for ages, I can't see them hiring an actor already in his 40's. I'm happy to be wrong though as he'd be my pick

    Not a big fan of the idea of Bond 26 being another origin story, which it probably would be if they cast a really young actor in the role, no just give us a TLD/GE style film with a younger but still experienced Bond
  • edited June 2023 Posts: 6,677
    But why younger? That is a studio/money decision against the artistic product. Why are we obliged to that vision when we live in an uncertain world? We should be enjoying each entry like it were the last, not planning for decades. And we should be giving new generations an adult identification figure and not one who is their pair.

    We are living in the zombie fase of cinema and art in general. The market dictates. AI dictates the market. And we all bow down to that. It all seems plastic and preachy. Thank heavens for Tom Cruise, really, the last movie star, crazy as he is.

    I don’t believe they will choose a young actor, nor do I believe they’ll choose someone against the grain of the source material. I still have faith in EON.
  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    Posts: 155
    Univex wrote: »
    But why younger? That is a studio/money decision against the artistic product. Why are we obliged to that vision when we live in an uncertain world? We should be enjoying each entry like it were the last, not planning for decades. And we should be giving new generations an adult identification figure and not one who is their pair.

    We are living in the zombie fase of cinema and art in general. The market dictates. AI dictates the market. And we all bow down to that. It all seems plastic and preachy. Thank heavens for Tom Cruise, really, the last movie star, crazy as he is.

    I don’t believe they will choose a young actor, nor do I believe they’ll choose someone against the grain of the source material. I still have faith in EON.

    Hear, hear, amen, hallelujer!

    a2bpi32r8ie51.jpg

  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,381
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    As much Turner has been my personal favourite for Bond #7 for ages, I can't see them hiring an actor already in his 40's. I'm happy to be wrong though as he'd be my pick

    Not a big fan of the idea of Bond 26 being another origin story, which it probably would be if they cast a really young actor in the role, no just give us a TLD/GE style film with a younger but still experienced Bond

    Yeah. TLD/GE is the style I've always wanted for Bond 26.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,498
    Univex wrote: »
    But why younger? That is a studio/money decision against the artistic product. Why are we obliged to that vision when we live in an uncertain world? We should be enjoying each entry like it were the last, not planning for decades. And we should be giving new generations an adult identification figure and not one who is their pair.

    We are living in the zombie fase of cinema and art in general. The market dictates. AI dictates the market. And we all bow down to that. It all seems plastic and preachy. Thank heavens for Tom Cruise, really, the last movie star, crazy as he is.

    I don’t believe they will choose a young actor, nor do I believe they’ll choose someone against the grain of the source material. I still have faith in EON.

    I've always seen it from a practical standpoint: they clearly aren't able to release a new installment every other year anymore, so why spend years finding the next Bond if he's only going to be around for a couple of films before he's too old? Trust me, I wish we could still get a great actor cast at 40 and enjoy 5-7 installments with him in the role.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    edited June 2023 Posts: 2,522
    I agree with you completely @Univex just with the names being linked to it and the amount of time between films I can't see them going for a Pierce style mid 40's Bond, even though I'd prefer that

    Nothing against the film itself, but I had more faith in EON pre NTTD than I do now to be honest
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,063
    Venutius wrote: »
    Cubby would've hired Aidan Turner a week after SP left cinemas. Probably.

    Cubby was a genius, so he probably would have ;)

    It would be unfortunate for Mr. Turner to only do one Bond film, though.

  • Posts: 6,677
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I agree with you completely @Univex just with the names being linked to it and the amount of time between films I can't see them going for a Pierce style mid 40's Bond, even though I'd prefer that

    Nothing against the film itself, but I had more faith in EON pre NTTD than I do now to be honest

    We would all prefer that, my friend. We (fans) would all love to see an adult Commander Bond in his prime doing his thing with no excuses. So why do we have to understand practicality and studio agendas? Let us be vocal with one voice. They do listen.

    And yes, you are absolutely right. After NTTD I have less faith in EON, that much is true, even if hope springs eternal.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited June 2023 Posts: 2,934
    MGW's already said that they're not going younger, so I don't think we're in for an origin story with a 20-something Bond. I'm glad about that - like others here, I hope the next film has a Bond who already knows what he's doing and is on a mission in his prime.
    MGW also said that they want someone in their mid-30s. I'd hope they'd stretch that upwards a bit for the right guy but, yes, the practical considerations of films at three-year intervals (if we're lucky!) might well mitigate against it. Otherwise, as someone else said a while back, we'll run the risk of every new Bond approaching the end of his career in every actor's third film. That's a trope we'd be better off without, I think.
  • Posts: 14,843
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    But why younger? That is a studio/money decision against the artistic product. Why are we obliged to that vision when we live in an uncertain world? We should be enjoying each entry like it were the last, not planning for decades. And we should be giving new generations an adult identification figure and not one who is their pair.

    We are living in the zombie fase of cinema and art in general. The market dictates. AI dictates the market. And we all bow down to that. It all seems plastic and preachy. Thank heavens for Tom Cruise, really, the last movie star, crazy as he is.

    I don’t believe they will choose a young actor, nor do I believe they’ll choose someone against the grain of the source material. I still have faith in EON.

    I've always seen it from a practical standpoint: they clearly aren't able to release a new installment every other year anymore, so why spend years finding the next Bond if he's only going to be around for a couple of films before he's too old? Trust me, I wish we could still get a great actor cast at 40 and enjoy 5-7 installments with him in the role.

    I think that's the main reason, also even a youthful looking man in his 40s, like Moore and Brosnan, can age rather quickly between films.
  • Posts: 699

    I'm fine with that. It's good character development between forty and fifty.
Sign In or Register to comment.