Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1130813091310131113121314»

Comments

  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 568
    007HallY wrote: »
    My guess is there’ll be a lesser known actor in there, possibly more TV oriented, a more established character actor with a film/tv career behind them -albeit not a star yet/connected to another franchise - who’ll eventually get the role and was probably always the favourite. Maybe another vaguely recognisable name as a second choice).

    I don't think there's an unknown favorite. Who could it be? Callum Turner? He's already worked with the producer and knows him personally.

    Jack O'Connell?

    Tom Bateman?

    I still think Elordi and Dicikinson are the front runners, even if they don't end up getting the role.

    Havent think of Bateman but i think he should be consider.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 12 Posts: 19,048
    I think it could be interesting to have a revolving star policy, sort of like a movie version of Have I Got News For You, but then equally I think how Craig or Brosnan were such bit hits in the role and there was a genuine desire to see more films from them. Although there certainly is lots of interest garnered from having a new lead actor, I don't know if you can keep doing it.
    007HallY wrote: »
    It does seem to have been dominated by posh people in recent years.

    I always find it interesting how Bond seems to be played by actors who have completely different backgrounds to the character. We never get the likes of Tom Hiddleston or Benedict Cumberbatch doing it, which would make sense in many ways (ex boarding school, upper middle class types). The majority are from working class backgrounds, although by the time they become Bond they have a not insignificant level of success (especially financially) in their careers.

    Might be coincidence to some extent (I don't think they'd start rejecting actors based on their background) but I think there's something to it on some level. That sense of irony some actors might naturally have towards the character where others wouldn't. I think having a Tom Hiddleston play Bond would come off quite odd.

    That's a really interesting thought, it's true that pretty much all of the Bonds have come from working or middle class backgrounds, it's quite striking when you think about it really. Dalton's probably the poshest in terms of his background(?), and not really very posh at that.
    That someone like Roger has an onscreen persona which is kind of a caricature of a posh, well-bred guy probably is to his strength, it's true. He's able to be on the outside looking in and making a comment on that, to some extent.
  • edited September 12 Posts: 5,922
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    It does seem to have been dominated by posh people in recent years.

    I always find it interesting how Bond seems to be played by actors who have completely different backgrounds to the character. We never get the likes of Tom Hiddleston or Benedict Cumberbatch doing it, which would make sense in many ways (ex boarding school, upper middle class types). The majority are from working class backgrounds, although by the time they become Bond they have a not insignificant level of success (especially financially) in their careers.

    Might be coincidence to some extent (I don't think they'd start rejecting actors based on their background) but I think there's something to it on some level. That sense of irony some actors might naturally have towards the character where others wouldn't. I think having a Tom Hiddleston play Bond would come off quite odd.

    That's a really interesting thought, it's true that pretty much all of the Bonds have come from working or middle class backgrounds, it's quite striking when you think about it really. Dalton's probably the poshest in terms of his background(?), and not really very posh at that.
    That someone like Roger has an onscreen persona which is kind of a caricature of a posh, well-bred guy probably is to his strength, it's true. He's able to be on the outside looking in and making a comment on that, to some extent.

    I think Sean Connery summed it up when he said the audience have to believe that Bond can throw a punch and seduce women, but there's very much that 'wink wink' element to everything. Not making fun of it necessarily, but playing it with that element of wryness, like the actor's in on the fantasy to some extent. It makes sense. Trying to lean too much into that refined side of Bond without, say, Moore's eyebrow raises or Connery's wry smile would be odd, and it just makes sense someone with distance might be able to get it a bit more (Bond is, after all, a character who kills for a living and has a ruthless streak to him. He'd either come off as a psychopath if the actor tried to authentically replicate that ex-boarding school, upper middle class image, or it'd be unconvincing).

    Again, it's my major issue with the idea of Leo Suter as Bond. I don't know his background, but he has that 'nice Oxford boy' feel to him, at least to me. It's probably great for Lynley incidentally.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,617
    A "Nice Oxford boy' who can "throw a punch"...

  • Posts: 5,922
    Yeah, they all have beards and put on deep voices in that show and fight each other. He has good physicality. That's not the issue.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 568
    What you guys think of Lambert Wilson? He was tested in 86.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited September 12 Posts: 3,352
    Isn't acting in the UK a posh thing?
    Far more so than it used to be, according to Eccleston.

    https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/apr/01/christopher-eccleston-impossible-for-me-to-become-an-actor-today
  • Posts: 16,094
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think a big part of Bond is the fact that the actor is in the role long term, and they have the responsibility of the character in a sense. You don't really want a series of one offs that dilute the franchise (I think Amazon especially will be hesitant to do that as it'd rock the boat too much for now).
    It does seem to have been dominated by posh people in recent years.

    I always find it interesting how Bond seems to be played by actors who have completely different backgrounds to the character. We never get the likes of Tom Hiddleston or Benedict Cumberbatch doing it, which would make sense in many ways (ex boarding school, upper middle class types). The majority are from working class backgrounds, although by the time they become Bond they have a not insignificant level of success (especially financially) in their careers.

    Might be coincidence to some extent (I don't think they'd start rejecting actors based on their background) but I think there's something to it on some level. That sense of irony some actors might naturally have towards the character where others wouldn't. I think having a Tom Hiddleston play Bond would come off quite odd.

    The opposite can be true as well: Humphrey Bogart was a posh boy from an upper class background, a doctor's son if I'm not mistaken, yet he played tough guys, cops, private eyes and gangsters, very much working class.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    edited September 13 Posts: 884
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    It does seem to have been dominated by posh people in recent years.

    I always find it interesting how Bond seems to be played by actors who have completely different backgrounds to the character. We never get the likes of Tom Hiddleston or Benedict Cumberbatch doing it, which would make sense in many ways (ex boarding school, upper middle class types). The majority are from working class backgrounds, although by the time they become Bond they have a not insignificant level of success (especially financially) in their careers.

    Might be coincidence to some extent (I don't think they'd start rejecting actors based on their background) but I think there's something to it on some level. That sense of irony some actors might naturally have towards the character where others wouldn't. I think having a Tom Hiddleston play Bond would come off quite odd.

    That's a really interesting thought, it's true that pretty much all of the Bonds have come from working or middle class backgrounds, it's quite striking when you think about it really. Dalton's probably the poshest in terms of his background(?), and not really very posh at that.
    That someone like Roger has an onscreen persona which is kind of a caricature of a posh, well-bred guy probably is to his strength, it's true. He's able to be on the outside looking in and making a comment on that, to some extent.

    I think Sean Connery summed it up when he said the audience have to believe that Bond can throw a punch and seduce women, but there's very much that 'wink wink' element to everything. Not making fun of it necessarily, but playing it with that element of wryness, like the actor's in on the fantasy to some extent. It makes sense. Trying to lean too much into that refined side of Bond without, say, Moore's eyebrow raises or Connery's wry smile would be odd, and it just makes sense someone with distance might be able to get it a bit more (Bond is, after all, a character who kills for a living and has a ruthless streak to him. He'd either come off as a psychopath if the actor tried to authentically replicate that ex-boarding school, upper middle class image, or it'd be unconvincing).

    Again, it's my major issue with the idea of Leo Suter as Bond. I don't know his background, but he has that 'nice Oxford boy' feel to him, at least to me. It's probably great for Lynley incidentally.

    Have you seen a Roger Moore Bond film? Yes he was the son of a policeman, but didn't come off that way at all. You think he must've went to Eton and Oxford. Same thing with Pierce Brosnan, you feel he must come from an upper class background because he comes off as high class and high taste even in interviews despite his humble beginnings.

    mtm wrote: »
    I think it could be interesting to have a revolving star policy, sort of like a movie version of Have I Got News For You, but then equally I think how Craig or Brosnan were such bit hits in the role and there was a genuine desire to see more films from them. Although there certainly is lots of interest garnered from having a new lead actor, I don't know if you can keep doing it.
    007HallY wrote: »
    It does seem to have been dominated by posh people in recent years.

    I always find it interesting how Bond seems to be played by actors who have completely different backgrounds to the character. We never get the likes of Tom Hiddleston or Benedict Cumberbatch doing it, which would make sense in many ways (ex boarding school, upper middle class types). The majority are from working class backgrounds, although by the time they become Bond they have a not insignificant level of success (especially financially) in their careers.

    Might be coincidence to some extent (I don't think they'd start rejecting actors based on their background) but I think there's something to it on some level. That sense of irony some actors might naturally have towards the character where others wouldn't. I think having a Tom Hiddleston play Bond would come off quite odd.

    That's a really interesting thought, it's true that pretty much all of the Bonds have come from working or middle class backgrounds, it's quite striking when you think about it really. Dalton's probably the poshest in terms of his background(?), and not really very posh at that.
    That someone like Roger has an onscreen persona which is kind of a caricature of a posh, well-bred guy probably is to his strength, it's true. He's able to be on the outside looking in and making a comment on that, to some extent.

    I get the sense that Roger's Dad was well-bred and well-adjusted despite his occupation. Just because you're a policeman doesn't mean you can't be a gentleman.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,541
    “mtm” wrote:
    I think they're right that casting 007 is key: I think you need that someone who'll catch the imagination of the young crowd, the next hottest young thing.


    In that case I’d say Jacob Elordi would be a very good chance of being cast.
    Although he’s rather tall, he could still play Bond. He’s had a relatively quick rise to stardom and is really making a name for himself.
  • edited September 13 Posts: 5,922
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think a big part of Bond is the fact that the actor is in the role long term, and they have the responsibility of the character in a sense. You don't really want a series of one offs that dilute the franchise (I think Amazon especially will be hesitant to do that as it'd rock the boat too much for now).
    It does seem to have been dominated by posh people in recent years.

    I always find it interesting how Bond seems to be played by actors who have completely different backgrounds to the character. We never get the likes of Tom Hiddleston or Benedict Cumberbatch doing it, which would make sense in many ways (ex boarding school, upper middle class types). The majority are from working class backgrounds, although by the time they become Bond they have a not insignificant level of success (especially financially) in their careers.

    Might be coincidence to some extent (I don't think they'd start rejecting actors based on their background) but I think there's something to it on some level. That sense of irony some actors might naturally have towards the character where others wouldn't. I think having a Tom Hiddleston play Bond would come off quite odd.

    The opposite can be true as well: Humphrey Bogart was a posh boy from an upper class background, a doctor's son if I'm not mistaken, yet he played tough guys, cops, private eyes and gangsters, very much working class.

    Didn't know that! I know Daniel Day Lewis (whose Dad was the Poet Laureate at one point, seemingly grew up in a privileged household, and who started his career playing working class characters) claimed he moved to London in his teens and learnt to speak with a particular accent in order to fit in. It's interesting.
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    It does seem to have been dominated by posh people in recent years.

    I always find it interesting how Bond seems to be played by actors who have completely different backgrounds to the character. We never get the likes of Tom Hiddleston or Benedict Cumberbatch doing it, which would make sense in many ways (ex boarding school, upper middle class types). The majority are from working class backgrounds, although by the time they become Bond they have a not insignificant level of success (especially financially) in their careers.

    Might be coincidence to some extent (I don't think they'd start rejecting actors based on their background) but I think there's something to it on some level. That sense of irony some actors might naturally have towards the character where others wouldn't. I think having a Tom Hiddleston play Bond would come off quite odd.

    That's a really interesting thought, it's true that pretty much all of the Bonds have come from working or middle class backgrounds, it's quite striking when you think about it really. Dalton's probably the poshest in terms of his background(?), and not really very posh at that.
    That someone like Roger has an onscreen persona which is kind of a caricature of a posh, well-bred guy probably is to his strength, it's true. He's able to be on the outside looking in and making a comment on that, to some extent.

    I think Sean Connery summed it up when he said the audience have to believe that Bond can throw a punch and seduce women, but there's very much that 'wink wink' element to everything. Not making fun of it necessarily, but playing it with that element of wryness, like the actor's in on the fantasy to some extent. It makes sense. Trying to lean too much into that refined side of Bond without, say, Moore's eyebrow raises or Connery's wry smile would be odd, and it just makes sense someone with distance might be able to get it a bit more (Bond is, after all, a character who kills for a living and has a ruthless streak to him. He'd either come off as a psychopath if the actor tried to authentically replicate that ex-boarding school, upper middle class image, or it'd be unconvincing).

    Again, it's my major issue with the idea of Leo Suter as Bond. I don't know his background, but he has that 'nice Oxford boy' feel to him, at least to me. It's probably great for Lynley incidentally.

    Have you seen a Roger Moore Bond film? Yes he was the son of a policeman, but didn't come off that way at all. You think he must've went to Eton and Oxford. Same thing with Pierce Brosnan, you feel he must come from an upper class background because he comes off as high class and high taste even in interviews despite his humble beginnings.

    Yes I've obviously seen a Roger Moore Bond film ;) As we said Moore has this odd irony to him that almost seems like he's doing a pastiche of that 'gentlemanly' idea (the eyebrow raises, the smirks etc. Again, it helps that Bond can be harder edged and sometimes not very gentlemanly).. It's not something you quite get if you watch an actor like, say David Niven, playing a gentlemanly character. It's... different. Brosnan never stuck me as being from an upper class background. He has this strange Transatlantic accent with a bit of Irish in there. It makes him quite enigmatic if anything. You get the sense he's sophisticated but not really part of any specific social group. Same for Moore to some extent.

    Personally, I can't imagine either slapping backs at any 'old boy' meetings or whatever. Having met a few people who have attended Oxford and boarding schools (who, yes, are quite posh) they really don't remind me of those sorts. I can acknowledge there's an element of fantasy there that kind of works when the film states that these specific Bonds went to Oxford at one point or are hyper educated or whatever (and because they come off as so knowledgable, confident, and smooth you just kind of go with the silliness - yes, of course Bond did a course and can speak Japanese, or tell you about very specific plants etc. Yes, of course Bond is doing something at a university and is sleeping with the female professor. That sort of thing. The actors themselves don't fit into a 'type' and are quite individualistic though if that makes sense. Perhaps these are subtleties not immediately apparent to American audiences either, so it can get a bit lost with certain people... anyway, my point is these actors clearly never attended Oxford, and there's a heavy dose of irony).
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 568
    I think Ian Ogilvy was consired at one point.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,953
    I really don't think Amazon is going to take a chance on an unknown. No Lazenby scenario is coming this time. I'll be someone with a higher profile. Maybe a TV actor but one who is popular internationally and not just in the UK, which knocks out the Suters, Turners, etc.

    Amazon is all about the algorithm.

    And they'll want to go for the younger audience (this is the youngest Bond #7 is going to be) so it's going to really matter how many Instagram or TikTok followers the actor has. This tilts more toward Elordi than the holy trio of Mescal, Dickinson, and O'Connor (all sort of Craig-like but Eon isn't involved anymore).

    Just my two cents.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    Posts: 884
    echo wrote: »
    I really don't think Amazon is going to take a chance on an unknown. No Lazenby scenario is coming this time. I'll be someone with a higher profile. Maybe a TV actor but one who is popular internationally and not just in the UK, which knocks out the Suters, Turners, etc.

    Amazon is all about the algorithm.

    And they'll want to go for the younger audience (this is the youngest Bond #7 is going to be) so it's going to really matter how many Instagram or TikTok followers the actor has. This tilts more toward Elordi than the holy trio of Mescal, Dickinson, and O'Connor (all sort of Craig-like but Eon isn't involved anymore).

    Just my two cents.

    I there's any creedence to the Marsh fellow, that would suggest otherwise.
  • Also, is anyone really unknown nowadays in comparison to the old days when we have so much access to information?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,953
    echo wrote: »
    I really don't think Amazon is going to take a chance on an unknown. No Lazenby scenario is coming this time. I'll be someone with a higher profile. Maybe a TV actor but one who is popular internationally and not just in the UK, which knocks out the Suters, Turners, etc.

    Amazon is all about the algorithm.

    And they'll want to go for the younger audience (this is the youngest Bond #7 is going to be) so it's going to really matter how many Instagram or TikTok followers the actor has. This tilts more toward Elordi than the holy trio of Mescal, Dickinson, and O'Connor (all sort of Craig-like but Eon isn't involved anymore).

    Just my two cents.

    I there's any creedence to the Marsh fellow, that would suggest otherwise.

    I highly doubt Marsh will get it.

    If anything, I expect Amazon to lean into the more famous options, as they did with director and writer. That could give us a Cavill or Elordi. Just depends how much name recognition they want.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    edited September 13 Posts: 884
    echo wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    I really don't think Amazon is going to take a chance on an unknown. No Lazenby scenario is coming this time. I'll be someone with a higher profile. Maybe a TV actor but one who is popular internationally and not just in the UK, which knocks out the Suters, Turners, etc.

    Amazon is all about the algorithm.

    And they'll want to go for the younger audience (this is the youngest Bond #7 is going to be) so it's going to really matter how many Instagram or TikTok followers the actor has. This tilts more toward Elordi than the holy trio of Mescal, Dickinson, and O'Connor (all sort of Craig-like but Eon isn't involved anymore).

    Just my two cents.

    I there's any creedence to the Marsh fellow, that would suggest otherwise.

    I highly doubt Marsh will get it.

    If anything, I expect Amazon to lean into the more famous options, as they did with director and writer. That could give us a Cavill or Elordi. Just depends how much name recognition they want.

    I doubt Marsh will get it either, I just feel if they're testing no names like him, they might be willing to cast someone of a similar ilk.

    And starring in a BBC or ITV series has been a launchpad for actors like Paul Mescal. Give Suter a year or two and he might be at just the right point to be Bond.
  • edited 1:12am Posts: 5,922
    I could be wrong, but I get the sense Amazon are, to some extent, trying to frame themselves as ‘continuity’ custodians of this franchise, at least in the short term. That’s to say their choice in director and writer wouldn’t be surprising if EON were still in creative control. So far we’ve had no indication Amazon are doing something off piste like making a period piece Bond or not releasing it theatrically (both things MGW and Broccoli hinted or said publicly the franchise shouldn’t do).

    My prediction is they’ll take to heart what EON said publicly about casting Bond - that they ideally should go for a 30 something year old, that they should prioritise gravitas and not their fame etc. In fact I get the sense the deal with Amazon is a major reason why EON were saying those things publicly - to assert some sense of their creative approach. I think Amazon will want to prove to fans and general audiences they can pick the right actor. They’ll want Bond 7 to be a really good one.

    In that sense I don’t think we’re getting Henry Cavill or Tom Holland. Both would reek of stunt casting. Appeal will come into it in conversations, but they’ll go through the process of auditions and try to get the right actor/the one who’s committed. And ultimately it’s about who they can actually get. Elordi is an option, but he’s unlikely in my opinion (again, I can imagine he’d turn it down). To some extent it’s the same with Dickinson. Honestly, I think PR will be used to build up the next actor no matter who it is, and there are many ways they can go. If it’s Leo Suter, they’ll frame him as a unique talent who just channeled Bond (regardless of how true it is). If it’s Callum Turner we might get tales of EON seriously considering him when they were in control/he was less famous (so similar tales Moore and Dalton were granted by Cubby, this idea that they were predestined for the part… again, regardless of how true).
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 568
    I think its not "who they can actually get" many actors wants a role like that, they have options.
  • Posts: 5,922
    I dunno, I think a few actors would turn down the opportunity. It’s a massive commitment. Life changing, even if you’re already famous. There are some roles you’d likely have to turn down because you’re doing Bond.

    I guess what I mean by who they can get is they have to go from who’s the best option from a certain number of candidates. I’m sure they’ll consider popularity and how audiences will respond to the actor, but I don’t think we’re getting an ‘algorithm Bond’.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,953
    It's literally Amazon's business model to use an algorithm. Like it or not (I don't), we are in a social media/AI world and that has to be part of their consideration now.

    The artisan, quirky quality of Broccoli and Wilson--which I think will be missed in retrospect--is gone.
  • edited 7:05pm Posts: 5,922
    echo wrote: »
    It's literally Amazon's business model to use an algorithm. Like it or not (I don't), we are in a social media/AI world and that has to be part of their consideration now.

    The artisan, quirky quality of Broccoli and Wilson--which I think will be missed in retrospect--is gone.

    I mean, Amazon in this case are made up of the people chosen to make these films and their executives. It seems to me a case where they’ve thrown money at prestige talent in an attempt to replicate the heights of EON and prove to audiences they can helm the franchise. Not saying it’s all sunshine and roses, but to some degree they’ll have to let the talent they’ve hired find the next Bond and make this film, even with specific considerations in mind. And ultimately it really has to be a case of ‘who’ in regards to the next actor, not a vague ‘type’ we or even Amazon think will work.
  • Posts: 2,370
    echo wrote: »
    It's literally Amazon's business model to use an algorithm. Like it or not (I don't), we are in a social media/AI world and that has to be part of their consideration now.

    The artisan, quirky quality of Broccoli and Wilson--which I think will be missed in retrospect--is gone.

    To be fair, hiring a well-known name isn't new in Hollywood. If they have money, it's almost the norm.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,617
    I don’t think they will go with a very established actor because, to the public, he will be “ that actor “ ; they will cast some with a lower profile and the public will identify him as “ Bond” .
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,541
    Considering Mr. Bezos has suggested his wife be the next Bond girl, (most likely tongue in cheek) I wonder if he’ll have any input in the overall actor chosen to play Bond?
  • Posts: 5,922
    We of course could have this all the other way around - it's not that they'll vet actors based on how established or unknown they are, but a case where they'll find various actors, test them, find the one they like the most, and then later, from a PR perspective, think about how to 'sell' them as Bond to the public. That's how I'd hope this will go anyway.

    I personally think they'll go for a more established actor just naturally (not an A-lister, but an actor with some notable credentials behind them). But we'll see.
Sign In or Register to comment.