Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1121012111213121512161228

Comments

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,150
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    What Brosnan had in the days was plebiscite. And I'm talking about 1987. Nobody has it now and I'm not sure anyone had it before, except maybe Moore. Maybe. Obviously, the sampling is extremely small, but I doubt a Bond actor will be have such consensus upon casting.

    Moore was a bit of a handpicked choice by Broccoli (I don’t think he even auditioned formally). It’s just not something I can imagine happening today. Brosnan at least auditioned (and to be fair the ‘86 casting seems pretty intensive/close to what we’d get today with certain members at EON preferring, say, Sam Neil but with Brosnan ultimately proving himself through the process, and then Dalton doing so later).

    But I dunno, I suspect specific people have their favourites. Maybe it’s someone they’ve had their eyes on for a while (ie what happened with Craig) or perhaps it’ll be someone recommending a certain actor and the producers approaching them (so a Connery situation).

    Moore was cast in very specific, even extreme, circumstances. When Connery was pretty much perceived as the one and only James Bond. I doubt anyone else would have been able to make the franchise survive.

    Agreed. Roger was the obvious choice at the time. We were lucky to have him as Bond.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    Sir Roger was the steady pair of hands the series needed after Connery
  • Posts: 15,095
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    What Brosnan had in the days was plebiscite. And I'm talking about 1987. Nobody has it now and I'm not sure anyone had it before, except maybe Moore. Maybe. Obviously, the sampling is extremely small, but I doubt a Bond actor will be have such consensus upon casting.

    Moore was a bit of a handpicked choice by Broccoli (I don’t think he even auditioned formally). It’s just not something I can imagine happening today. Brosnan at least auditioned (and to be fair the ‘86 casting seems pretty intensive/close to what we’d get today with certain members at EON preferring, say, Sam Neil but with Brosnan ultimately proving himself through the process, and then Dalton doing so later).

    But I dunno, I suspect specific people have their favourites. Maybe it’s someone they’ve had their eyes on for a while (ie what happened with Craig) or perhaps it’ll be someone recommending a certain actor and the producers approaching them (so a Connery situation).

    Moore was cast in very specific, even extreme, circumstances. When Connery was pretty much perceived as the one and only James Bond. I doubt anyone else would have been able to make the franchise survive.

    Agreed. Roger was the obvious choice at the time. We were lucky to have him as Bond.

    Without him the franchise would not have survived.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,302
    007HallY wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    What Brosnan had in the days was plebiscite. And I'm talking about 1987. Nobody has it now and I'm not sure anyone had it before, except maybe Moore. Maybe. Obviously, the sampling is extremely small, but I doubt a Bond actor will be have such consensus upon casting.

    Moore was a bit of a handpicked choice by Broccoli (I don’t think he even auditioned formally). It’s just not something I can imagine happening today. Brosnan at least auditioned (and to be fair the ‘86 casting seems pretty intensive/close to what we’d get today with certain members at EON preferring, say, Sam Neil but with Brosnan ultimately proving himself through the process, and then Dalton doing so later).

    But I dunno, I suspect specific people have their favourites. Maybe it’s someone they’ve had their eyes on for a while (ie what happened with Craig) or perhaps it’ll be someone recommending a certain actor and the producers approaching them (so a Connery situation).

    Moore was cast in very specific, even extreme, circumstances. When Connery was pretty much perceived as the one and only James Bond. I doubt anyone else would have been able to make the franchise survive.

    Agreed. Probably another reason why it wouldn't happen today (as popular as Craig was people are expecting a new Bond).

    It's a great point. He had possibly the trickiest job as the guy to basically save the series and didn't sweat it.
  • Posts: 1,490
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Sir Roger was the steady pair of hands the series needed after Connery

    Yes, and he was confident in his own skin and wisely didn't try to impersonate Connery and he pushed back when they tried to give him than rougher edge in those scenes in TMWTGG. I only wish Roger has bowed out after OP (for which I think he gives a fine performance), AVTAK wasn't the send off he deserved.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,980
    Yes. I agree. Moore was seamless. I think he knew early, that trying to follow Connery's style would be a problem. I don't know how true it is that Moore was up for Bond before Connery was picked. But I can imagine if Terence Young launched the franchise with Moore, he (Moore) would have played it stoic like Connery, since it's a style Young wanted.
  • edited August 10 Posts: 4,076
    I'm personally of the opinion that no one's born to play Bond. It's more that they pick the best from a pool of candidates rather than some 'chosen one'. There'll always be options in that sense. But I think it says a lot that pretty much every Bond actor has really owned the role, and that's how the general public have seen it. I guess you could say they've always picked the right man for the right time. Obviously Moore had the most difficult situation (if he'd failed it's very likely the series wouldn't have survived, I agree).

    I suppose for the next actor it'll be similar. They'll know they can't just copy Craig - or indeed any other Bond actor's portrayal - and I'm sure no matter who it is that'll be the case. Hopefully they'll be able to get that certain actor who just makes the part their own (while of course playing the Bond that we know) and resonates with audiences. Odds are that'll be the case.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited August 10 Posts: 5,970
    But to be honest, without taking anything away from the talents of our Bond actors, with time it becomes a lot harder to capture the man that Fleming created because we're moving further and further away from the world and the things that birthed the men of that time. Our earlier actors, like Connery, Lazenby and Moore, benefited from living in that time and that world to degree.

    Maybe that's the key to why some here struggle to pinpoint who should play Bond going forward? Because the modern man is so far removed now from those qualities that made Bond what they were. It's not impossible, but it'll get harder and harder to recapture, which is why reinvention or re-contextualising is so important. The actor may not capture that era of actor, and in a lot of ways, that's probably for the best, but either way whats important is that the actor chosen is able to capture at least the essence of the character of Bond in the world of today.

    Sometimes I think some slack should be given in this sense. Again, we're at a time where the most realistic options were born in the 90s, half a century away from the world that birthed the character of James Bond.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,980
    007HallY wrote: »
    I'm personally of the opinion that no one's born to play Bond. It's more that they pick the best from a pool of candidates rather than some 'chosen one'. There'll always be options in that sense. But I think it says a lot that pretty much every Bond actor has really owned the role, and that's how the general public have seen it. I guess you could say they've always picked the right man for the right time. Obviously Moore had the most difficult situation (if he'd failed it's very likely the series wouldn't have survived, I agree).

    I suppose for the next actor it'll be similar. They'll know they can't just copy Craig - or indeed any other Bond actor's portrayal - and I'm sure no matter who it is that'll be the case. Hopefully they'll be able to get that certain actor who just makes the part their own (while of course playing the Bond that we know) and resonates with audiences. Odds are that'll be the case.

    Yes. After Craig's stellar performance as Bond, one can't blame Barbara for being careful with Bond 7's picking. She's obviously aiming to top Craig's Bond era, with the Villeneuve rumours we're hearing. She's now looking beyond the facade of each Bond candidate. Like some members here have said in the past, that Cubby would have cast Aidan Turner as Bond 7, when NTTD was doing its press conferences.
  • edited August 10 Posts: 4,076
    007HallY wrote: »
    I'm personally of the opinion that no one's born to play Bond. It's more that they pick the best from a pool of candidates rather than some 'chosen one'. There'll always be options in that sense. But I think it says a lot that pretty much every Bond actor has really owned the role, and that's how the general public have seen it. I guess you could say they've always picked the right man for the right time. Obviously Moore had the most difficult situation (if he'd failed it's very likely the series wouldn't have survived, I agree).

    I suppose for the next actor it'll be similar. They'll know they can't just copy Craig - or indeed any other Bond actor's portrayal - and I'm sure no matter who it is that'll be the case. Hopefully they'll be able to get that certain actor who just makes the part their own (while of course playing the Bond that we know) and resonates with audiences. Odds are that'll be the case.

    Yes. After Craig's stellar performance as Bond, one can't blame Barbara for being careful with Bond 7's picking. She's obviously aiming to top Craig's Bond era, with the Villeneuve rumours we're hearing. She's now looking beyond the facade of each Bond candidate. Like some members here have said in the past, that Cubby would have cast Aidan Turner as Bond 7, when NTTD was doing its press conferences.

    Well, to be fair Cubby went through the audition process in the 80s to get Dalton. And to be honest Turner doesn't have the star power/charisma Moore had. He doesn't even have those qualities compared to Dalton. Perhaps he would have been more willing to approach Turner, but even then I don't think an automatic casting would have come. But it's all hypothetical.

    I don't know how careful they're being picking the next Bond. We have to understand this process comes a bit later. I suspect they have names in mind, and perhaps have even approached certain actors to gauge interest. I think every actor naturally plays the role differently to some extent, and it's just about picking who they think best from that pool of potentials. But I genuinely think they've got more options today than ever before, and I can imagine at least a handful of actors confidently taking the role and filling those shoes left by Craig. It's dependent on who they'll actually be able to convince to audition though.

    Denbigh wrote: »
    But to be honest, without taking anything away from the talents of our Bond actors, with time it becomes a lot harder to capture the man that Fleming created because we're moving further and further away from the world and the things that birthed the men of that time. Our earlier actors, like Connery, Lazenby and Moore, benefited from living in that time and that world to degree.

    Maybe that's the key to why some here struggle to pinpoint who should play Bond going forward? Because the modern man is so far removed now from those qualities that made Bond what they were. It's not impossible, but it'll get harder and harder to recapture, which is why reinvention or re-contextualising is so important. The actor may not capture that era of actor, and in a lot of ways, that's probably for the best, but either way whats important is that the actor chosen is able to capture at least the essence of the character of Bond in the world of today.

    Sometimes I think some slack should be given in this sense. Again, we're at a time where the most realistic options were born in the 90s, half a century away from the world that birthed the character of James Bond.


    I think the encouraging thing is on a character/script level, there's more Fleming in the cinematic Bond nowadays than when Connery portrayed Bond in DN. It's a cool performance, but not a portrayal of the character that ever aimed to faithfully capture aspects of Fleming's Bond (keep in mind the literary Bond in DN was a man only recently recovered from a serious injury and dealing with a shaken ego).

    But I agree, there's that certain intangible 'Bond' quality that an actor has to have. The essence of the character as you said. I think all the Bonds have had it.
  • edited August 10 Posts: 1,306
    Yes. I agree. Moore was seamless. I think he knew early, that trying to follow Connery's style would be a problem. I don't know how true it is that Moore was up for Bond before Connery was picked. But I can imagine if Terence Young launched the franchise with Moore, he (Moore) would have played it stoic like Connery, since it's a style Young wanted.

    Connery was more like Clark Gable and Moore was like Cary Grant.
  • Posts: 1,490
    Denbigh wrote: »
    But to be honest, without taking anything away from the talents of our Bond actors, with time it becomes a lot harder to capture the man that Fleming created because we're moving further and further away from the world and the things that birthed the men of that time. Our earlier actors, like Connery, Lazenby and Moore, benefited from living in that time and that world to degree.

    Maybe that's the key to why some here struggle to pinpoint who should play Bond going forward? Because the modern man is so far removed now from those qualities that made Bond what they were. It's not impossible, but it'll get harder and harder to recapture, which is why reinvention or re-contextualising is so important. The actor may not capture that era of actor, and in a lot of ways, that's probably for the best, but either way whats important is that the actor chosen is able to capture at least the essence of the character of Bond in the world of today.

    Sometimes I think some slack should be given in this sense. Again, we're at a time where the most realistic options were born in the 90s, half a century away from the world that birthed the character of James Bond.

    You are making very valid points. I do fear, like you, that finding a place for Fleming's Bond in our (confused and increasingly woke) world is harder and harder. Personally, I'd suggest either bowing out with NTTD (which they obviously won't), or going back to a setting in the late 50's and early 60's where Bond makes sense. Look at how a super stylish show, Mad Men, worked so well exploring the past and yet still smartly relating it to our present. That's the way I'd go now.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited August 10 Posts: 5,970
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    But to be honest, without taking anything away from the talents of our Bond actors, with time it becomes a lot harder to capture the man that Fleming created because we're moving further and further away from the world and the things that birthed the men of that time. Our earlier actors, like Connery, Lazenby and Moore, benefited from living in that time and that world to degree.

    Maybe that's the key to why some here struggle to pinpoint who should play Bond going forward? Because the modern man is so far removed now from those qualities that made Bond what they were. It's not impossible, but it'll get harder and harder to recapture, which is why reinvention or re-contextualising is so important. The actor may not capture that era of actor, and in a lot of ways, that's probably for the best, but either way whats important is that the actor chosen is able to capture at least the essence of the character of Bond in the world of today.

    Sometimes I think some slack should be given in this sense. Again, we're at a time where the most realistic options were born in the 90s, half a century away from the world that birthed the character of James Bond.
    "I do fear, like you, that finding a place for Fleming's Bond in our (confused and increasingly woke) world is harder and harder."
    I appreciate your thoughts, but the "woke" thing is not really my particular angle. I just mean that the character being portrayed by our earlier Bond actors was a lot easier, because the world reflected that. I don't believe Moore had to do much acting to become the man we saw on that screen, so in a more positive spin, we should step back and understand that things are going to be different, and trying to find a young man born in the 90s and make him try to recapture a time where upper-class gentlemanly warfare was palpable? To me that would feel disingenuous?

    I'm not saying that a modern actor can't capture the character of James Bond, but the effort has to be made to modernise and re-contextualise that man for it to work, like they did with Craig - but they're in a tougher position now, because Craig could still work with ties to old regime and the Cold War, can a James Bond born in the 90s say the same?
  • edited August 10 Posts: 4,076
    Denbigh wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    But to be honest, without taking anything away from the talents of our Bond actors, with time it becomes a lot harder to capture the man that Fleming created because we're moving further and further away from the world and the things that birthed the men of that time. Our earlier actors, like Connery, Lazenby and Moore, benefited from living in that time and that world to degree.

    Maybe that's the key to why some here struggle to pinpoint who should play Bond going forward? Because the modern man is so far removed now from those qualities that made Bond what they were. It's not impossible, but it'll get harder and harder to recapture, which is why reinvention or re-contextualising is so important. The actor may not capture that era of actor, and in a lot of ways, that's probably for the best, but either way whats important is that the actor chosen is able to capture at least the essence of the character of Bond in the world of today.

    Sometimes I think some slack should be given in this sense. Again, we're at a time where the most realistic options were born in the 90s, half a century away from the world that birthed the character of James Bond.
    "I do fear, like you, that finding a place for Fleming's Bond in our (confused and increasingly woke) world is harder and harder."
    I appreciate your thoughts, but the "woke" thing is not really my particular angle. I just mean that the character being portrayed by our earlier Bond actors was a lot easier, because the world reflected that. I don't believe Moore had to do much acting to become the man we saw on that screen, so in a more positive spin, we should step back and understand that things are going to be different, and trying to find a young man born in the 90s and make him try to recapture a time where upper-class gentlemanly warfare was palpable? To me that would feel disingenuous?

    I'm not saying that a modern actor can't capture the character of James Bond, but the effort has to be made to modernise and re-contextualise that man for it to work, like they did with Craig - but they're in a tougher position now, because Craig could still work with ties to old regime and the Cold War, can a James Bond born in the 90s say the same?

    I suppose it's worth noting that Moore, like all the Bonds, put on that 'gentlemanly warfare' act to some extent. He was a working class South Londoner who had attended RADA after all. I get the sense what he did with The Saint and Bond was less something completely natural to him as a person (although his sense of humour and natural charisma were very much integral) but in essence was almost a pastiche of that 'English gentleman' archetype. A sort of wry, less uptight, and more seductive David Niven almost. It sounds weird but it's really not a million miles away from what Connery did by portraying Bond with that more tongue in cheek element (both certainly had their convincing harder edge as well). It's there with every Bond to some degree. They're all actors of their time portraying a man with some ideals out of that time.

    I'd say an actor born in the 90s won't matter. GE showed you could have a post Cold War Bond movie, and I'd argue the Craig Bond films have more a 'post 9/11' tinge to them than necessarily a post Cold War vibe (both are referenced, but it's M who has much more of that connection to the Cold War with a little reference in CR). Just stick to Bond as that lone wolf/blunt instrument whose dedication to his duty and country leads him to do the right thing. Keep his vices (the gambling, womanising, drinking, fast cars etc), the wry humour, and the harder edge of the character and half the battle is won I think.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited August 10 Posts: 5,970
    007HallY wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    But to be honest, without taking anything away from the talents of our Bond actors, with time it becomes a lot harder to capture the man that Fleming created because we're moving further and further away from the world and the things that birthed the men of that time. Our earlier actors, like Connery, Lazenby and Moore, benefited from living in that time and that world to degree.

    Maybe that's the key to why some here struggle to pinpoint who should play Bond going forward? Because the modern man is so far removed now from those qualities that made Bond what they were. It's not impossible, but it'll get harder and harder to recapture, which is why reinvention or re-contextualising is so important. The actor may not capture that era of actor, and in a lot of ways, that's probably for the best, but either way whats important is that the actor chosen is able to capture at least the essence of the character of Bond in the world of today.

    Sometimes I think some slack should be given in this sense. Again, we're at a time where the most realistic options were born in the 90s, half a century away from the world that birthed the character of James Bond.
    "I do fear, like you, that finding a place for Fleming's Bond in our (confused and increasingly woke) world is harder and harder."
    I appreciate your thoughts, but the "woke" thing is not really my particular angle. I just mean that the character being portrayed by our earlier Bond actors was a lot easier, because the world reflected that. I don't believe Moore had to do much acting to become the man we saw on that screen, so in a more positive spin, we should step back and understand that things are going to be different, and trying to find a young man born in the 90s and make him try to recapture a time where upper-class gentlemanly warfare was palpable? To me that would feel disingenuous?

    I'm not saying that a modern actor can't capture the character of James Bond, but the effort has to be made to modernise and re-contextualise that man for it to work, like they did with Craig - but they're in a tougher position now, because Craig could still work with ties to old regime and the Cold War, can a James Bond born in the 90s say the same?
    I get the sense what he did with The Saint and Bond was less something completely natural to him as a person (although his sense of humour and natural charisma were very much integral) but in essence was almost a pastiche of that 'English gentleman' archetype. A sort of wry, less uptight, and more seductive David Niven almost. It sounds weird but it's really not a million miles away from what Connery did by portraying Bond with that more tongue in cheek element (both certainly had their convincing harder edge as well). It's there with every Bond to some degree. They're all actors of their time portraying a man with some ideals out of that time.
    Oh 100%, but the pastiche had more weight because that man still existed, coming naturally to even those from lower class backgrounds and even then that type of person still existed within the working class, even down to that classic affected posh accent, which almost worked as if everyone was doing the pastiche, but it was just that time where the stiff upper lip was more prevelant and again easier to fall back on, whereas today, we have a much more eclectic variety of people throughout the class system, even if a lot of the "old system" still holds.
    007HallY wrote: »
    I'd say an actor born in the 90s won't matter. GE showed you could have a post Cold War Bond movie, and I'd argue the Craig Bond films have more a 'post 9/11' tinge to them than necessarily a post Cold War vibe (both are referenced, but it's M who has much more of that connection to the Cold War with a little reference in CR). Just stick to Bond as that lone wolf/blunt instrument whose dedication to his duty and country leads him to do the right thing. Keep his vices (the gambling, womanising, drinking, fast cars etc), the wry humour, and the harder edge of the character and half the battle is won I think.
    It won't matter at all. I trust EON through and through at this point. It's more a point I wanted to make to really hammer home how they need to be looking forward and that while EON can obviously capture some of the magic, some particular elements will need to modernise naturally due to where we are within the context of an actor who comes from a different world to every single actor whose come before, more so than ever before. As for Craig, you're completely right, but I feel with Craig's age, especially by Skyfall, you were still able to understand that Craig's Bond came from a different world. He began to find himself in a world that our new Bond will come from, which I think perfectly encapsulates my point further.

    At the end of the day, it's James Bond will be getting, but I don't envy EON for having to consider what he looks like today.
  • edited August 10 Posts: 4,076
    Denbigh wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    But to be honest, without taking anything away from the talents of our Bond actors, with time it becomes a lot harder to capture the man that Fleming created because we're moving further and further away from the world and the things that birthed the men of that time. Our earlier actors, like Connery, Lazenby and Moore, benefited from living in that time and that world to degree.

    Maybe that's the key to why some here struggle to pinpoint who should play Bond going forward? Because the modern man is so far removed now from those qualities that made Bond what they were. It's not impossible, but it'll get harder and harder to recapture, which is why reinvention or re-contextualising is so important. The actor may not capture that era of actor, and in a lot of ways, that's probably for the best, but either way whats important is that the actor chosen is able to capture at least the essence of the character of Bond in the world of today.

    Sometimes I think some slack should be given in this sense. Again, we're at a time where the most realistic options were born in the 90s, half a century away from the world that birthed the character of James Bond.
    "I do fear, like you, that finding a place for Fleming's Bond in our (confused and increasingly woke) world is harder and harder."
    I appreciate your thoughts, but the "woke" thing is not really my particular angle. I just mean that the character being portrayed by our earlier Bond actors was a lot easier, because the world reflected that. I don't believe Moore had to do much acting to become the man we saw on that screen, so in a more positive spin, we should step back and understand that things are going to be different, and trying to find a young man born in the 90s and make him try to recapture a time where upper-class gentlemanly warfare was palpable? To me that would feel disingenuous?

    I'm not saying that a modern actor can't capture the character of James Bond, but the effort has to be made to modernise and re-contextualise that man for it to work, like they did with Craig - but they're in a tougher position now, because Craig could still work with ties to old regime and the Cold War, can a James Bond born in the 90s say the same?
    I get the sense what he did with The Saint and Bond was less something completely natural to him as a person (although his sense of humour and natural charisma were very much integral) but in essence was almost a pastiche of that 'English gentleman' archetype. A sort of wry, less uptight, and more seductive David Niven almost. It sounds weird but it's really not a million miles away from what Connery did by portraying Bond with that more tongue in cheek element (both certainly had their convincing harder edge as well). It's there with every Bond to some degree. They're all actors of their time portraying a man with some ideals out of that time.
    Oh 100%, but the pastiche had more weight because that man still existed, coming naturally to even those from lower class backgrounds and even then that type of person still existed within the working class, even down to that classic affected posh accent, which almost worked as if everyone was doing the pastiche, but it was just that time where the stiff upper lip was more prevelant and again easier to fall back on, whereas today, we have a much more eclectic variety of people throughout the class system, even if a lot of the "old system" still holds.

    There's probably something to that, at least in terms of Moore's persona/style. But I'd also say that it's still an archetype he was playing with. There's always an element that it has at least a tinge of fiction to it. That and I think it's debatable just how much of that 'English gentleman' image was ever at the core of Bond. Even in Fleming there's a sense that he's not entirely that - he has a dull name rather than something like Peregrine Carruthers (as Fleming famously said). He's in essence an ordinary man - a lone wolf certainly - who has an extraordinary job and gets into extraordinary situations. He's not a backslapping upper class type (in fact he looks out of place in a private gentleman's club). He seems more at home in continental Europe rather than the English countryside. He's certainly not always virtuous and can be a rather cruel and ruthless character sometimes.

    I think it's one of the reasons why Bond as a character has been so malleable throughout the different interpretations but still fundamentally works. I think if an actor like Benedict Cumberbatch or Tom Hiddleston played Bond (who do, for all intents and purposes, share at least a bit of Bond's background) it'd ring false. They don't quite have that harder edge, that individuality to them. For whatever reason a balding Scotsman with a noticeable accent is more convincing in the part.
    Denbigh wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I'd say an actor born in the 90s won't matter. GE showed you could have a post Cold War Bond movie, and I'd argue the Craig Bond films have more a 'post 9/11' tinge to them than necessarily a post Cold War vibe (both are referenced, but it's M who has much more of that connection to the Cold War with a little reference in CR). Just stick to Bond as that lone wolf/blunt instrument whose dedication to his duty and country leads him to do the right thing. Keep his vices (the gambling, womanising, drinking, fast cars etc), the wry humour, and the harder edge of the character and half the battle is won I think.
    It won't matter at all. I trust EON through and through at this point. It's more a point I wanted to make to really hammer home how they need to be looking forward and that while EON can obviously capture some of the magic, some particular elements will need to modernise naturally due to where we are within the context of an actor who comes from a different world to every single actor whose come before, more so than ever before. As for Craig, you're completely right, but I feel with Craig's age, especially by Skyfall, you were still able to understand that Craig's Bond came from a different world. He began to find himself in a world that our new Bond will come from, which I think perfectly encapsulates my point further.

    At the end of the day, it's James Bond will be getting, but I don't envy EON for having to consider what he looks like today.

    Yeah, I get you. Like I said, I think as long as they stick to the fundamentals of the character that's a big part of it won.

    It's interesting to think about though - what does a relatively young Bond in this day look like? Again, you've got Bond's sense of duty, his habits, his individuality and humour sorted, but anything else in there is up in the air. Is he a cynical, already world weary agent worn down by his job? Or is he MI6's best agent, a man at the peak of his career who lives a life of gambling, womanising, drinking, and of course going on missions (who of course will go on an assignment that'll ultimately test him in some way over the course of the film). Or is he a Bond at the beginning of his career as a 00, still learning the ropes and more prone to mistakes? So many routes they could go down.
  • edited August 10 Posts: 15,095
    Yes. I agree. Moore was seamless. I think he knew early, that trying to follow Connery's style would be a problem. I don't know how true it is that Moore was up for Bond before Connery was picked. But I can imagine if Terence Young launched the franchise with Moore, he (Moore) would have played it stoic like Connery, since it's a style Young wanted.

    It's funny because I always thought that in the first two Moore movies, he was channeling a good deal of Connery, consciously or not. Not the Connery of DAF, but the one of the early movies. He's a bit more violent, cruel, less gentlemanly than in later instalments. It might just be the writing, I don't know. In any case, I think we might get something similar for the next Bond: people expect him to be noticeably different than Craig. I'm not so sure.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited August 10 Posts: 1,980
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Yes. I agree. Moore was seamless. I think he knew early, that trying to follow Connery's style would be a problem. I don't know how true it is that Moore was up for Bond before Connery was picked. But I can imagine if Terence Young launched the franchise with Moore, he (Moore) would have played it stoic like Connery, since it's a style Young wanted.

    It's funny because I always thought that in the first two Moore movies, he was channeling a good deal of Connery, consciously or not. Not the Connery of DAF, but the one of the early movies. He's a bit more violent, cruel, less gentlemanly than in later instalments. It might just be the writing, I don't know. In any case, I think we might get something similar for the next Bond: people expect him to be noticeably different than Craig. I'm not so sure.

    Oh, yeah, that's true. Although, he gave us glimpses of MooreBond. But yeah, it was TSWLM that started showcasing Moore's Bond as we would come to know him. Then from MR-AVTAK, it's either a fan likes his Bond or doesn't. But I think he was great at what he did...even if a lot of them weren't Flemingesque. His decision not to blatantly follow Connery's style helped distinguish him. He's a very popular Bond.
  • Posts: 1,306
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Yes. I agree. Moore was seamless. I think he knew early, that trying to follow Connery's style would be a problem. I don't know how true it is that Moore was up for Bond before Connery was picked. But I can imagine if Terence Young launched the franchise with Moore, he (Moore) would have played it stoic like Connery, since it's a style Young wanted.

    It's funny because I always thought that in the first two Moore movies, he was channeling a good deal of Connery, consciously or not. Not the Connery of DAF, but the one of the early movies. He's a bit more violent, cruel, less gentlemanly than in later instalments. It might just be the writing, I don't know. In any case, I think we might get something similar for the next Bond: people expect him to be noticeably different than Craig. I'm not so sure.

    Like Moore, the next Bond will be different if he looks different.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    I thought it was discussed some time ago that doing a period period, set in the 60's was just too expensive to do for Bond; to do it right. Is that not the case?
  • Posts: 15,095
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Yes. I agree. Moore was seamless. I think he knew early, that trying to follow Connery's style would be a problem. I don't know how true it is that Moore was up for Bond before Connery was picked. But I can imagine if Terence Young launched the franchise with Moore, he (Moore) would have played it stoic like Connery, since it's a style Young wanted.

    It's funny because I always thought that in the first two Moore movies, he was channeling a good deal of Connery, consciously or not. Not the Connery of DAF, but the one of the early movies. He's a bit more violent, cruel, less gentlemanly than in later instalments. It might just be the writing, I don't know. In any case, I think we might get something similar for the next Bond: people expect him to be noticeably different than Craig. I'm not so sure.

    Like Moore, the next Bond will be different if he looks different.

    He will be different no matter how he looks, however I suspect he might not come off as completely different at first.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    edited August 10 Posts: 555
    I think Henry Cavill could do something between the lanes of Dalton and Brosan really well. But on one hand, I don't think they would have to worry too much about trying to update Bond for the "Modern World" too much, if they bring in more of the Moore style of Humour and escapism. I feel like you can naval-gaze on this too much, Moore and Dalton were both radically different Bonds in a span of a few short years.
  • edited August 10 Posts: 1,306
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Yes. I agree. Moore was seamless. I think he knew early, that trying to follow Connery's style would be a problem. I don't know how true it is that Moore was up for Bond before Connery was picked. But I can imagine if Terence Young launched the franchise with Moore, he (Moore) would have played it stoic like Connery, since it's a style Young wanted.

    It's funny because I always thought that in the first two Moore movies, he was channeling a good deal of Connery, consciously or not. Not the Connery of DAF, but the one of the early movies. He's a bit more violent, cruel, less gentlemanly than in later instalments. It might just be the writing, I don't know. In any case, I think we might get something similar for the next Bond: people expect him to be noticeably different than Craig. I'm not so sure.

    Like Moore, the next Bond will be different if he looks different.

    He will be different no matter how he looks, however I suspect he might not come off as completely different at first.

    Well if they hire another Lazenby...

    I think Henry Cavill could do something between the lanes of Dalton and Brosan really well. But on one hand, I don't think they would have to worry too much about trying to update Bond for the "Modern World" too much, if they bring in more of the Moore style of Humour and escapism. I feel like you can naval-gaze on this too much, Moore and Dalton were both radically different Bonds in a span of a few short years.

    Self parody can be useful. You don't need to worry about reality.
  • Posts: 6,709
    So, which actors will be thirty-ish by 2026/2027? ;)
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,193
    Well, since you asked…

    PsDWs2t.jpg
  • Posts: 6,709
    talos7 wrote: »
    Well, since you asked…

    PsDWs2t.jpg

    Yes, a very fine candidate, with a proper voice and demeanour. 33 by then, right?
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,193
    Yes. Now I am realistic about his potential, and realize that there is little on which to truly judge his true potential; he could do a screentest and bomb. But I think he has what it takes and he would primarily be identified as Bond by the general public.
  • ArapahoeBondFanArapahoeBondFan Colorado
    edited August 10 Posts: 57
    1534183_v9_bb.jpg
    Sam Corlett? He's also in Vikings.
  • Posts: 15,095
    I need to watch Vikings, then I only have to worry about the potential Bond actors not in Vikings.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,980
    Univex wrote: »
    So, which actors will be thirty-ish by 2026/2027? ;)

    I think Thomas Doherty would be more mature then.
Sign In or Register to comment.