Where does Bond go after Craig?

1431432434436437528

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 4 Posts: 14,980
    Most people who are more-or-less casual fans saw the Craig films first and don't even know there were twenty films and five Bonds prior to him. They think Dan is the only one.

    I remember in high school a lot of kids my age knew who Sean Connery was but they didn’t know he was Bond, they only ever knew him as the old movie star from the 90s that was in movies like THE ROCK.

    It’s slightly off-topic, but that’s why I was a bit surprised at all of the Bond references in the papers etc. when he died: if any of the Bonds had proven themselves to be proper movie stars beyond Bond I thought it was him! :)
  • JustJamesJustJames London
    Posts: 204
    Spy stuff is bigger than it’s been in years atm, Bond played a part in that. Plenty of kids will move from Young Bond and Alex Ryder onto big boy Bond. There’s a renaissance in the harder, Le Carre stuff — Night Manager, and now Slow Horses. There’s been two or three shaky, big star vehicles on streaming services — Citadel, that one with Gal Gadot I forget the name of, the cool French/Anglo thing with Eva Green — as well as sundry others like Treadstone and Spy City. The genre is doing well, not least in part to the Craig Bonds widening the audience for such things (popular with the ladies in wide appeal not seen since… actually most Bonds have a bit of that) as well as the hangover and crossover from the popularity of the other JB too. What’s his name? I forget. Or he does.
    These things have long tails these days.
    The market is there, the character is as much in the public zeitgeist as ever — you don’t sell luxury Swiss watches at seven grand a pop off the back of a has been for a start, let alone Heineken.

    I wouldn’t hang about making a new one, if I were EON, but I am not; they aren’t going to suffer too much if it comes out after the death throes of the MCU either though. They also won’t retool him for modern audiences in the way people imagine either — that isn’t working for other long-term characters, likely won’t work for Bond, and they already had a sly test with Nomi in NTTD.

    Personally, I think they should grab Cavill while he’s about.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    Cavill is way too old at this point
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Not a red herring
    Posts: 566
    Cavill is way too old at this point

    40?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    Cavill is way too old at this point

    40?

    Yup.

    They said they would be looking for an actor in his 30s, that rules out Cavill.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Not a red herring
    edited January 4 Posts: 566
    Cavill is way too old at this point

    40?

    Yup.

    They said they would be looking for an actor in his 30s, that rules out Cavill.

    I wouldn't say he's way too old though, and if they did find an actor who's a little past their 30s but impresses as much as Craig did, I doubt it would prevent them from hiring him.

    I got the impression they were after someone a little younger for CR, seeing as it’s Bond at the beginning of his career, but they went with the late-30s Craig because he was the best candidate, even if he was a little older than they might’ve liked.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    Perhaps. I’d still disqualify Cavill regardless of his age.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Not a red herring
    Posts: 566
    Perhaps. I’d still disqualify Cavill regardless of his age.

    So would I.
  • Posts: 1,394
    Cavill is only 40 and looks at least 5 years younger than that.Both Brosnan and Moore started their tenure in their early forties and it only really became an issue for Moore when he did at least one Bond too many.

    Besides,I believe Bond should have a few years on him.I don’t want a twenty something Bond played by Timothy Chalamet or Tom Holland!
  • edited January 5 Posts: 7,500
    Cavill is a terrible actor, that's what disqualifies him. He's nothing but a pretty face.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,521
    jobo wrote: »
    Camilla is a terrible actor, that's what disqualifies him. He's nothing but a pretty face.

    And that's even starting to crack, 😂.

    On a serious note, Cavill is a good guy, he's known for it ( a good friend of mine worked with him on both The Tudors and Immortals; they remain friends to this day), but he's weak sauce, unfortunately.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Besides,I believe Bond should have a few years on him.I don’t want a twenty something Bond played by Timothy Chalamet or Tom Holland!

    Given that Eon says they’re looking for someone in their 30s, those two would not make the cut.

    Whoever Bond will be should be played by someone at least born in the late 80s early 90s.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Not a red herring
    edited January 5 Posts: 566
    peter wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Camilla is a terrible actor, that's what disqualifies him. He's nothing but a pretty face.

    And that's even starting to crack, 😂.

    On a serious note, Cavill is a good guy, he's known for it ( a good friend of mine worked with him on both The Tudors and Immortals; they remain friends to this day), but he's weak sauce, unfortunately.

    Yes, he seems like a nice chap and he'd probably be a great ambassador for the franchise, but when the Bond actor he reminds me of most is Lazenby, my instincts tell me he's not the right man for the job.
  • I think you guys might be a bit too harsh on Cavill personally. He’s not the worlds greatest actor, but also isn’t the “terrible” actor that some of you claim.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    He’s not terrible, he just seems too safe a choice and I don’t think he has the necessary roughness that I think Bond should have. He’s way too much of a pretty boy. I want an actor that can project a scoundrel quality to the character the way past actors have.
  • edited January 5 Posts: 2,079
    He’s not terrible, he just seems too safe a choice and I don’t think he has the necessary roughness that I think Bond should have. He’s way too much of a pretty boy. I want an actor that can project a scoundrel quality to the character the way past actors have.

    That’s at least a diplomatic way of putting it. I agree that Cavill is a safe choice, and perhaps a choice that is a bit uninteresting compared to others, but to dismiss his acting skills just seems disingenuous a bit to me.

    Though the anarchist in me wants to see Cavill cast just to see the reactions from folks 😂😂😂.
  • Posts: 1,523
    What I would like to see at the beginning of future Bond films as a reminder of the history of the series, is a split second shot of each the previous Bond walk ons before the new gun barrel sequence begins.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,980
    He’s not terrible, he just seems too safe a choice and I don’t think he has the necessary roughness that I think Bond should have. He’s way too much of a pretty boy. I want an actor that can project a scoundrel quality to the character the way past actors have.

    I think after Craig, who was something special, it would be a bit of a shock to see a rather more ordinary actor like Cavill in the part. I hope they can find someone as good.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    What I would like to see at the beginning of future Bond films as a reminder of the history of the series, is a split second shot of each the previous Bond walk ons before the new gun barrel sequence begins.

    I’m not keen on that.
  • edited January 5 Posts: 714
    Cavill is a safe choice like Moore o Brosnan and that's why is a fine choice.

    He doesn't look anything like Craig which is good. We don't need a clone of Craig.

    But he is too old now.
  • MalloryMallory Do mosquitoes have friends?
    Posts: 2,060
    Cavill is a safe choice like Moore o Brosnan and that's why is a fine choice.

    He doesn't look anything like Craig which is good. We don't need a clone of Craig.

    But he is too old now.

    I dont think Cavill is necessarily too old, but given EoN's current production turnaround, it would likely be only 1 or 2 movies in his 40's. Long gone are the days of a movie every two or three years. Unless Amazon give them a kick up the backside to get them going once they start.

    FWIW I am not a huge fan of Cavill taking on the role. I would rather see someone in their early to mid 30's, but like most people it seems, there isnt an obvious choice presenting.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited January 5 Posts: 7,981
    While I don’t think Cavill is right for the part, too often I can sense him “ acting “ , I chuckle, and get frustrated, when I read that a suggested actor is “ too safe a choice “ ; that could me that he’s an excellent prospect. Thinking outside of the box is fine, but often the obvious choice is the right one. Sometimes there seems to be a certain “ looksism” at play; if an actor is too traditionally good looking then he is too safe a pick.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,980
    I don't think it's anything to do with his looks, I have nothing against his looks (maybe he's a bit too big but that would sort itself out), it's just purely his ability. If anything he's become a(n occasional) lead because of his looks and not his ability, which is maybe not ideal, and apart from Lazenby I don't think that's anything you could accuse the previous Bond actors of. Roger and Pierce undoubtably got started because they were basically models, but they do also have something a lot more than that.
  • Posts: 7,500
    I am not even sure Cavill is a safe choice. Bond needs to be bold and inventive to adapt to modern times. Cavill is bland and forgetable. The Man From U.N.C.L.E was the definitive proof for me he is very unfit for a modern Bond. It might have worked in the seventees, not today.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,882
    I'm an unashamed Roger Moore fan, who will say he was a very under rated actor.
    Maybe not an Brando, Hackman or Nicolson. Even a Connery or Craig. Despite his penchant for self deprecation and soft comedy, Roger was actually a good actor. As Bond he brought his on style and made the character his own, but also in his non- Bond films where he could show a much deeper side to his usual acting style.
    The Man Who Haunted Himself, The Wild Geese and The Naked Face being examples of where Roger acted against his normal light style.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 13,944
    I can see through Cavill's acting as well...but at least if he got the role, the cast would each receive a custom coin, and we, the audience, would get to see a photo of it online.

    And then we can all be satisfied that the money's up on the screen. 😅
  • Thing is I don’t need an actor on the caliber of Brando, DeNiro, or Day-Lewis to take on the role of Bond. At the end of the day, the Bond films are essentially stories about a guy beating up villains and looking good while doing so, and while the Craig era has done more to improve on the formula, those core tenants were still there.

    Personally I think all the Bond actors have been quite good in the role despite some of the scripts they may have been given. I’m sure if Cavill was cast he’d be good too; but over these last few years my stance on the subject has changed and I now think that an unknown should get the part, and you can hardly call yourself unknown when you’ve been freaking Superman.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,980
    Thing is I don’t need an actor on the caliber of Brando, DeNiro, or Day-Lewis to take on the role of Bond. At the end of the day, the Bond films are essentially stories about a guy beating up villains and looking good while doing so, and while the Craig era has done more to improve on the formula, those core tenants were still there.

    I tend to think it's a bit better when you do have someone really good though. Connery won an Oscar, Craig's been nominated and won various awards; they're pretty good.
  • Posts: 332
    I find it strange when people think such a wooden actor is a "safe" choice, or that they would be better for a lighter Bond. Wooden acting wouldn't make a film more comedic unless you're laughing at him.
  • mtm wrote: »
    Thing is I don’t need an actor on the caliber of Brando, DeNiro, or Day-Lewis to take on the role of Bond. At the end of the day, the Bond films are essentially stories about a guy beating up villains and looking good while doing so, and while the Craig era has done more to improve on the formula, those core tenants were still there.

    I tend to think it's a bit better when you do have someone really good though. Connery won an Oscar, Craig's been nominated and won various awards; they're pretty good.

    Oh yeah it certainly helps, but then would you be able to say that Lazenby is one of the best? I mean he was also nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Newcomer back in 1970. Brosnan hasn’t won any awards and yet I think he’s one of the best men to play the part. Same with Moore and Dalton

    My point is that I wouldn’t mind a big name like Cavill being cast, but my preference lies with somebody who hasn’t made a big splash yet. If Cavill was cast, it’d take a bit of time for me to get used to because I’d expect Cavill to rip off the tuxedo and start flying away or shooting lasers out of his eyes, know what I mean?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 5 Posts: 14,980
    mtm wrote: »
    Thing is I don’t need an actor on the caliber of Brando, DeNiro, or Day-Lewis to take on the role of Bond. At the end of the day, the Bond films are essentially stories about a guy beating up villains and looking good while doing so, and while the Craig era has done more to improve on the formula, those core tenants were still there.

    I tend to think it's a bit better when you do have someone really good though. Connery won an Oscar, Craig's been nominated and won various awards; they're pretty good.

    Oh yeah it certainly helps, but then would you be able to say that Lazenby is one of the best? I mean he was also nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Newcomer back in 1970. Brosnan hasn’t won any awards and yet I think he’s one of the best men to play the part. Same with Moore and Dalton

    I think that's just semantics. It's not a massively unusual point of view to regard Sean Connery as a pretty good screen actor. You mentioned Day-Lewis and he's won tons of Oscars, so it's not an unreasonable point.
Sign In or Register to comment.