› ›

Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1…12991300130113021304

Comments

  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 7,020
    Right? Number one candidate, as far as I’m concerned. For a young Bond scenario, that is. But he beats the older candidates as well. Imagine that guy groomed into the role 10 to 15 years in.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,583
    Yes, imagine him at 30, 35, 40…
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 7,020
    Well, they’re saying the new Potter series will run for 10 years, up to 2037, so if Amazon is thinking long term, they could very well do it differently from Eon, and pick “the” guy for the next two decades or so, and build upon whatever Villeneuve and Knight build. Maybe that’s the big idea. To build a long term universe from which they can expand, not through spinoffs, but from the one first inaugural film onwards.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,805
    Partridge has an interesting face. I’m not sure I can say much more about him though (the guy’s 22 - even if he had Bond potential I don’t think we’d fully see it yet. I think he can wait 12 or more years).
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 2,074
    American Glen Powell has ruled himself out to play JB: http://bit.ly/4mQps92
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,505
    LucknFate wrote: »
    American Glen Powell has ruled himself out to play JB: http://bit.ly/4mQps92

    Well thank god for that.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 484
    I think we need someone older for next Bond but after that he is perfect choice.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,583
    MSL49 wrote: »
    I think we need someone older for next Bond but after that he is perfect choice.

    I agree, they may go younger, but not that young.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 484
    One thing is for sure next Bond actor is much younger than Craig is today 57 years old.
  • dewiparrydewiparry
    Posts: 238
    List? Ages? No Bond. I'm slightly amused.
  • HarmonyRocketsHarmonyRockets
    edited August 22 Posts: 192
    talos7 wrote: »
    Louis Partridge Is an intriguing prospect; even at a young age his look has a gravitas not apparent in many actors 10 or even 15 years his senior.

    Damn, he has a voice that should leave ATJ curled up in a fetal position…


    The fact that so many people on this board would now be ok (or even want) an actor to play James Bond that literally looks like they could be 16 or 17 years old is utterly baffling. What has happened?
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,583
    HarmonyRockets wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Louis Partridge Is an intriguing prospect; even at a young age his look has a gravitas not apparent in many actors 10 or even 15 years his senior.

    Damn, he has a voice that should leave ATJ curled up in a fetal position…


    The fact that so many people on this board would now be ok (or even want) an actor to play James Bond that literally looks like they could be 16 or 17 years old is utterly baffling. What has happened?

    It’s not that we, I, want him to be cast, personally, I think mid 30’s is the ideal age, it’s just casting a broad net of potential actors.

    It’s assumed that Amazon wants to focus on a younger Bond; that may or may not be accurate. Even if true, Partridge is too young but does have tremendous potential down the line.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 484
    talos7 wrote: »
    HarmonyRockets wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Louis Partridge Is an intriguing prospect; even at a young age his look has a gravitas not apparent in many actors 10 or even 15 years his senior.

    Damn, he has a voice that should leave ATJ curled up in a fetal position…


    The fact that so many people on this board would now be ok (or even want) an actor to play James Bond that literally looks like they could be 16 or 17 years old is utterly baffling. What has happened?

    It’s not that we, I, want him to be cast, personally, I think mid 30’s is the ideal age, it’s just casting a broad net of potential actors.

    It’s assumed that Amazon wants to focus on a younger Bond; that may or may not be accurate. Even if true, Partridge is too young but does have tremendous potential down the line.
    Yes agreed he has potential to be Bond 8.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,505
    Who knows what Amazon will do with Bond. First we get rumours of Elordi, Holland and Dickinson in the mix for potential Bonds. Then some story about 37 year old Scott Rose Marsh. None of them confirmed of course, but if any of it has a shred of truth, then it’s not clear that Amazon are seeking an actor in there 20’s or a younger Bond for Bond. 26.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited August 22 Posts: 5,805
    I just don't think it's feasible limiting the casting to actors in their 20s. That's even if they're going consciously 'younger', sure (ie. a Bond in his second or at least early years as 007, or a Bond who's simply in his prime years. Either route, short of some left field 'old man Bond' thing, is where they'll be going). But a Bond in his prime or early years can still mean an actor in their early or even mid 30s is cast. Even Holland and Dickinson will be in their 30s by the time the film is being made should either hypothetically get the role.

    Which actor will appeal to a wide crowd, including younger viewers, isn't contingent on them being a specific age necessarily. And let's be honest, this next Bond will be noticeably young anyway compared to Craig in his last film as long as they're in the 28-38 range. Personally, I think it's a big ask in practice finding potential actors below the age of 30 for this role.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,505
    At this stage, I think the casting could go anywhere.
    We’re not sure where Bond is destined to go in Bond 26. Young, seasoned agent…who knows.
    I’d say Steven Knight carries a lot of the weight as to where Bond goes.
    The casting of Daniel Craig caused many to believe he was wrongly cast. But the script for CR proved them wrong. Could Knights script for Bond 26 do the same for Bond number 7
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,884
    007HallY wrote: »
    I just don't think it's feasible limiting the casting to actors in their 20s. That's even if they're going consciously 'younger', sure (ie. a Bond in his second or at least early years as 007, or a Bond who's simply in his prime years. Either route, short of some left field 'old man Bond' thing, is where they'll be going). But a Bond in his prime or early years can still mean an actor in their early or even mid 30s is cast. Even Holland and Dickinson will be in their 30s by the time the film is being made should either hypothetically get the role.

    Which actor will appeal to a wide crowd, including younger viewers, isn't contingent on them being a specific age necessarily. And let's be honest, this next Bond will be noticeably young anyway compared to Craig in his last film as long as they're in the 28-38 range. Personally, I think it's a big ask in practice finding potential actors below the age of 30 for this role.

    Yeah they'll be looking at everyone even if the intention is to go for a younger Bond. Craig was in his late thirties and yet arguably the character in CR was supposed to be much younger than that; really if you find the perfect actor but his age is a little off what you're aiming for then you compromise for someone who's amazing onscreen.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited August 22 Posts: 3,335
    mtm wrote: »
    if you find the perfect actor but his age is a little off what you're aiming for then you compromise for someone who's amazing onscreen.
    Yes, it'd be completely counter-productive to pass up the ideal candidate and go with a weaker one just because of an age-gap of five years or so. Far better to modify both the script and the longer-term plan to suit the older but more suitable actor, no? Or vice versa if the actor's great for the role but a little younger than envisaged. Don't set things in stone then try to shoehorn someone in - get the right guy, then plan around him.
  • Since62Since62
    Posts: 1,769
    Are we at the point where "look good onscreen" is more relevant for large, home televisions than theater screens ?
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 484
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I just don't think it's feasible limiting the casting to actors in their 20s. That's even if they're going consciously 'younger', sure (ie. a Bond in his second or at least early years as 007, or a Bond who's simply in his prime years. Either route, short of some left field 'old man Bond' thing, is where they'll be going). But a Bond in his prime or early years can still mean an actor in their early or even mid 30s is cast. Even Holland and Dickinson will be in their 30s by the time the film is being made should either hypothetically get the role.

    Which actor will appeal to a wide crowd, including younger viewers, isn't contingent on them being a specific age necessarily. And let's be honest, this next Bond will be noticeably young anyway compared to Craig in his last film as long as they're in the 28-38 range. Personally, I think it's a big ask in practice finding potential actors below the age of 30 for this role.

    Yeah they'll be looking at everyone even if the intention is to go for a younger Bond. Craig was in his late thirties and yet arguably the character in CR was supposed to be much younger than that; really if you find the perfect actor but his age is a little off what you're aiming for then you compromise for someone who's amazing onscreen.
    I think this is the best answer at this point: "Theyll be looking at everyone".
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    edited August 22 Posts: 15,505
    I think it’s pretty clear and logical that the producers will cast their net far and wide.
    Doesn’t take a genius to see that.
  • dewiparrydewiparry
    Posts: 238
    Seems like the wide net's been cast a while ago. Looks like it's tangled in a knot.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 15,327
    Yes, you could say the worldwide net is knotted enough.
  • dewiparrydewiparry
    Posts: 238
    Yeah throw the net away. Bond doesn't swim in that pool.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 484
    They looked over 200 actors last time around. I think it could be pretty much the same what we will got next time around. More is better when you cast a role like Bond.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,855
    Partridge might be good choice for Bond #8 but not now, he's too young.

    I know Daniel's run will cast a large shadow, but casting in a completely different direction in terms of age isn't the answer
  • dewiparrydewiparry
    Posts: 238
    Keep testing, for peace of mind. The results are the same.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 1,103
    dewiparry wrote: »
    Yeah throw the net away. Bond doesn't swim in that pool.

    If you want to catch a big fish you don’t use a net.
    4uYYXl2.jpeg
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 484
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Partridge might be good choice for Bond #8 but not now, he's too young.

    I know Daniel's run will cast a large shadow, but casting in a completely different direction in terms of age isn't the answer
    Why you think Craigs run will cast large a shadow?
  • TroyTroy
    edited 12:51pm Posts: 367
    Bond cannot be in early/mid 20s.
    He is supposed to have mature judgement, ‘able to judge whether to squeeze the trigger’ or not. He is supposed to be a military special forces veteran with experience of the reality of extreme violence and suffering. He needs to have elite levels of police undercover fieldwork - of being able to act a part and ingratiate himself into the inner circles of extreme bad guys. He is meant to have polish and class, able to mix in the circles of billionaires, and not look out of place. He needs to be mature and not behave immaturely.
    You cannot gain all those skills in your early/mid 20s.
Sign In or Register to comment.