› ›

Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1…128912901291129212931295»

Comments

  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 2,251
    007HallY wrote: »
    Well, if he’s not getting final cut why would he have final say over Bond? That’s not to say he won’t be important in the process, but it’s a decision that’ll probably outlive his involvement with the franchise. The final choice will likely come down to the producers and approved by higher ups at Amazon.

    He might not make the film, citing creative differences.

    I don't think there are that many young actors suitable for the role anyway. I don't think the list is very long.
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,952
    We don’t know the half of it. Can any of us say with confidence that, say, two years ago we could’ve predicted all that has happened since? We are not in the know. We are but spectators, and the curtain isn’t even up yet.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 2,251
    I don't think there are that many 30-year-old actors with experience, charisma, and enough talent to make a Villeneuve film.

    They're not going to hire another Lazenby, so I think the pool is quite small.
  • UnivexUnivex
    edited July 23 Posts: 6,952
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    I don't think there are that many 30-year-old actors with experience, charisma, and enough talent to make a Villeneuve film.

    They're not going to hire another Lazenby, so I think the pool is quite small.

    I think we don’t know the pool, so we shouldn’t dive too much into it ;)

    Just kidding. I do know what you mean. Let’s keep our hopes up. A bit of positivism.

    So far so good.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,638
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Well, if he’s not getting final cut why would he have final say over Bond? That’s not to say he won’t be important in the process, but it’s a decision that’ll probably outlive his involvement with the franchise. The final choice will likely come down to the producers and approved by higher ups at Amazon.

    He might not make the film, citing creative differences.

    I don't think there are that many young actors suitable for the role anyway. I don't think the list is very long.

    None of us know one way or the other. And as I always say it’s probably for the best none of us have any say over which actors should be Bond.
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,952
    Metro, Daily Mail, The Sun, Daily Express, The News International, and several other outlets are running with this headline: "Callum Turner 'tipped' to take the role".

    Probably the same bu** as ever. Although I'd be happy with the choice of the 35 year old :)
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,638
    He'll probably have shot the gun barrel by the end of the week. That's before he's even been signed.

    Anyway, I think he could be good. And he's not an unrealistic option. The rumour mill churns out so many different people as Bond I don't think this will impact his chances one way or the other.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 15,272
    Give it to Callum and let's get going. His Bond would fit into a more grounded spy thriller caper, and that's an exciting prospect.
  • M_BlaiseM_Blaise
    Posts: 419
    Univex wrote: »
    Metro, Daily Mail, The Sun, Daily Express, The News International, and several other outlets are running with this headline: "Callum Turner 'tipped' to take the role".

    Probably the same bu** as ever. Although I'd be happy with the choice of the 35 year old :)

    This only time I've wished one of these stories was true.
  • weboffearweboffear Scotland
    Posts: 69
    Daniel Craig at the BFI Bond talk starts at 24 minutes in
  • battleshipgreygtbattleshipgreygt
    Posts: 1,234
    Venutius wrote: »
    Said it before, but I still don't get why a one-and-done director would have any say in casting an actor to play Bond for the next decade. It makes no sense to me for someone in, say, 2036, to be making a Bond film bound by a casting choice taken by a director who hadn't been involved with the series for the best part of a decade by that point. Then again, I don't know how these things work, so excuse the ignorance!

    Even if he is one and done as a director, I think part of the appeal and rationale of bringing on a filmmaker of his stature is that you have confidence in him making decisions that will successfully set the direction and carry over into future films, even if he's not directing them. He might not have final say, but with Barbara and Michael gone there's a pretty big creative vacuum to be filled and it makes sense that Heyman and Pascal would view Villeneuve as a co-steward. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he kept a producer credit even if he wasn't directing Bond 27 or 28.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,873
    battleshipgreygt wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Said it before, but I still don't get why a one-and-done director would have any say in casting an actor to play Bond for the next decade. It makes no sense to me for someone in, say, 2036, to be making a Bond film bound by a casting choice taken by a director who hadn't been involved with the series for the best part of a decade by that point. Then again, I don't know how these things work, so excuse the ignorance!

    Even if he is one and done as a director, I think part of the appeal and rationale of bringing on a filmmaker of his stature is that you have confidence in him making decisions that will successfully set the direction and carry over into future films, even if he's not directing them. He might not have final say, but with Barbara and Michael gone there's a pretty big creative vacuum to be filled and it makes sense that Heyman and Pascal would view Villeneuve as a co-steward. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he kept a producer credit even if he wasn't directing Bond 27 or 28.

    Is Villeneuve the successor to Ken Adam we don't (yet) know we need?
Sign In or Register to comment.