› ›

Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1…13121313131413151317

Comments

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,637
    Simply from the perspective of known or “ unknown “ , where does that leave Leo Suter ? He’s been in two series and a couple of small films; I think that would rank him as “ unknown”
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 638
    talos7 wrote: »
    Simply from the perspective of known or “ unknown “ , where does that leave Leo Suter ? He’s been in two series and a couple of small films; I think that would rank him as “ unknown”

    I think Suter still fits in the "unknown" list.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    Posts: 910
    One thing I like about Suter is he has charisma, all these young actors you see today are trying their hardest to be brooding, troubled artists. It's hilarious. Why can't they lighten up? I just find it very unappealing.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 19,180
    Like who? Harris Dickinson? Josh O'Connor?
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,637
    mtm wrote: »
    Like who? Harris Dickinson? Josh O'Connor?

    Neither is high on my list, and strictly going by the “ fresh face/ unknown “ criteria, both are on the upper limit.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 19,180
    I'm just curious who the young actors who can't lighten up are.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 16,126
    MSL49 wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Was Dalton "unknown" when he get the role in 1986? How you guys see it?

    Not really unknown, but not an A-Lister either. He'd done theatre mainly, but moved over into film/tv a bit more by 1978.

    Is Bond 7 on the same mould?

    I'd say relatively unknown, especially in comparison with his predecessor Roger Moore or the heir apparent Pierce Brosnan.
    007HallY wrote: »
    I’ve said Fionn Whitehead could be a random, lesser known option, although I’m not sure he’ll be the one in practice.

    Random, other lesser known actor names - I dunno, Jake Dunn, Ben Radcliffe, and Archie Renaux. Not advocating for any of them but not dismissing them either.

    You see I don't know any of them. Like, not at all.

    I had no idea who Daniel Craig was when he was cast. And I had seen him in Elizabeth and Road to Perdition.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited September 26 Posts: 8,637
    He may seem a bit too young, as Daniel was seen as bit too old, but, from what I’ve seen of him,
    Louis Partridge Is incredibly impressive, in both interviews and clips of performances.

    If this new incarnation is going to begin with Bond in his formative years, it may be worth the risk of going with such a young actor. I would love to see him mature in the role over a 15 or even 20 year run

    He has a gravitas, including a voice, few actors of his generation possess.

    Here is an interview, but it includes a clip…

    Very impressive…

  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    Posts: 346
    talos7 wrote: »
    He may seem a bit too young, as Daniel was seen as bit too old, but, from what I’ve seen of him,
    Louis Partridge Is incredibly impressive, in both interviews and clips of performances.

    If this new incarnation is going to begin with Bond in his formative years, it may be worth the risk of going with such a young actor. I would love to see him mature in the role over a 15 or even 20 year run

    He has a gravitas, including a voice, few actors of his generation possess.

    Here is an interview, but it includes a clip…

    Very impressive…


    Agree with you, both Louis and Leo (has a ring to it) are under the radar enough and fresh to be true Bond potential. They both look great, have the voices, I reckon the acting chops as well (but not 100% sure) to become Bond. They have ten years in between and while Louis is still very young he could grow into it quite well...
  • zebrafishzebrafish <°)))< in Octopussy's garden in the shade
    Posts: 4,473
    If Partridge, born in 2003, gets the job, he would be MUCH younger than Connery, who was 32 in DN. I don't know if such a young face would fit the image we have of Bond. Feels rather like Young Bond to me.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 19,180
    I'm not against him at all. He is already the young Argylle (Matthew Vaughn's superspy answer to Bond), but I guess that's unlikely to go anywhere!
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,997
    Yeah, unfortunately I agree. I’m sure he’d be a great potential later on, but mid 20s is a bit too young in most circumstances, and he’s quite youthful anyway. I don’t think Dalton, Moore, or Brosnan would have thrived in the role at that age either honestly.
  • M_BlaiseM_Blaise
    Posts: 445
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Pierce2Daniel wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    But as has been discussed, an "Unknown " will not have existed in a void; he will have a body of work. It just won't be an extremely established actor.

    David Corenswet is a perfect example; he wasn't very well known to the general public but was a working actor. To many, including me, he is Superman; I had never heard of him prior to his being cast. I think they will shoot for the same thing with Bond.

    I strongly disagree with the whole 'David Corenswet was an unknown' argument. Principally as he was one of the most fancast people for the Superman gig. I heard his name continuously with the role, even before James Gunn was appointed to direct the reboot.

    I doubt this new report is true, sounds more like Baz scrapping together some morsels of gossip and putting it in a Deadline article which gives it more potency than his Daily Mail days. Also, it contradicts Tatianna Siegel from Variety who named three of the biggest young actors as being in Amazon's crosshairs. So, the reports directly contradict one another. It'll be curious how the casting progresses. Though, an 'unknown' is a bit discouraging for me.

    If I could pitch two possible unknowns, how about Jamie Flatters (One of the CGI thingys from Avatar) or Buck Braithwaite (Netflix's Alexander: The Making of a God)?

    MV5BNDdkYzk0NGItMGM1Yi00NDJhLTg1NzItMWNhYzAxNGJlYTNkXkEyXkFqcGc@._V1_.jpg

    MV5BZjQwYzZlYzEtMTAyNi00ZWE2LTliNTAtZmJmZTk1NmE4OGY3XkEyXkFqcGc@._V1_.jpg

    Both are "unknown" and both has the look and actor doesnt have to be "oscar" level to play the part.

    Any actor can be oscar level. That's just an excuse people use when they want an actor who has the look without showing any ability.
  • dewiparrydewiparry
    Posts: 264
    It's not just the role. The world that follows is another game.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    edited September 26 Posts: 2,403
    M_Blaise wrote: »
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Pierce2Daniel wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    But as has been discussed, an "Unknown " will not have existed in a void; he will have a body of work. It just won't be an extremely established actor.

    David Corenswet is a perfect example; he wasn't very well known to the general public but was a working actor. To many, including me, he is Superman; I had never heard of him prior to his being cast. I think they will shoot for the same thing with Bond.

    I strongly disagree with the whole 'David Corenswet was an unknown' argument. Principally as he was one of the most fancast people for the Superman gig. I heard his name continuously with the role, even before James Gunn was appointed to direct the reboot.

    I doubt this new report is true, sounds more like Baz scrapping together some morsels of gossip and putting it in a Deadline article which gives it more potency than his Daily Mail days. Also, it contradicts Tatianna Siegel from Variety who named three of the biggest young actors as being in Amazon's crosshairs. So, the reports directly contradict one another. It'll be curious how the casting progresses. Though, an 'unknown' is a bit discouraging for me.

    If I could pitch two possible unknowns, how about Jamie Flatters (One of the CGI thingys from Avatar) or Buck Braithwaite (Netflix's Alexander: The Making of a God)?

    MV5BNDdkYzk0NGItMGM1Yi00NDJhLTg1NzItMWNhYzAxNGJlYTNkXkEyXkFqcGc@._V1_.jpg

    MV5BZjQwYzZlYzEtMTAyNi00ZWE2LTliNTAtZmJmZTk1NmE4OGY3XkEyXkFqcGc@._V1_.jpg

    Both are "unknown" and both has the look and actor doesnt have to be "oscar" level to play the part.

    Any actor can be oscar level. That's just an excuse people use when they want an actor who has the look without showing any ability.

    I don't think Bond needs the best actor in the world. That's why there are only two Dalton movies and seven Moore movies. But this film is also a Villeneuve film. I think they're looking for a bit of prestige.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,997
    It takes more talent and natural acting instinct than people realise. Not saying the actor has to be a future Oscar winner (although honestly, it's telling that one of these actors did win an Oscar, and at least three of the six Bonds have had very respectable/successful dramatic careers outside of Bond that stand up on their own. Even Moore and Brosnan had some great write ups for their performances, and I'd say the former was a much better actor than many people realise). You can't just put a good looking man in a tuxedo and have him be Bond. It just doesn't work like that.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,637
    zebrafish wrote: »
    If Partridge, born in 2003, gets the job, he would be MUCH younger than Connery, who was 32 in DN. I don't know if such a young face would fit the image we have of Bond. Feels rather like Young Bond to me.

    I don’t disagree with this, but this incarnation of Bond could begin set many years before he gets license to kill.

    It would actually be very bold to have the entire film focused on Bond’s Special Forces service; at the end of the movie we would see him summoned to MI-6 headquarters where he enters an office where he meets a young secretary for the first time. After some banter she notifies someone that “ he’s here”. A voice replies, “ send him in” . She motions to the imposing door.
    The movie ends with Bond entering.

    So the film ends with Bond being recruited
  • dewiparrydewiparry
    Posts: 264
    There should be tension between the controlled exterior and the animal inside. It's visual and phycological.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited September 26 Posts: 5,997
    talos7 wrote: »
    zebrafish wrote: »
    If Partridge, born in 2003, gets the job, he would be MUCH younger than Connery, who was 32 in DN. I don't know if such a young face would fit the image we have of Bond. Feels rather like Young Bond to me.

    I don’t disagree with this, but this incarnation of Bond could begin set many years before he gets license to kill.

    It would actually be very bold to have the entire film focused on Bond’s Special Forces service; at the end of the movie we would see him summoned to MI-6 headquarters where he enters an office where he meets a young secretary for the first time. After some banter she notifies someone that “ he’s here”. A voice replies, “ send him in” . She motions to the imposing door.
    The movie ends with Bond entering.

    So the film ends with Bond being recruited

    God, I hope we don't get that. It'd be like a Batman film where he's Bruce Wayne for the entire thing and only dons the cowl in the last shot.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,637
    007HallY wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    zebrafish wrote: »
    If Partridge, born in 2003, gets the job, he would be MUCH younger than Connery, who was 32 in DN. I don't know if such a young face would fit the image we have of Bond. Feels rather like Young Bond to me.

    I don’t disagree with this, but this incarnation of Bond could begin set many years before he gets license to kill.

    It would actually be very bold to have the entire film focused on Bond’s Special Forces service; at the end of the movie we would see him summoned to MI-6 headquarters where he enters an office where he meets a young secretary for the first time. After some banter she notifies someone that “ he’s here”. A voice replies, “ send him in” . She motions to the imposing door.
    The movie ends with Bond entering.

    So the film ends with Bond being recruited

    God, I hope we don't get that. It'd be like a Batman film where he's Bruce Wayne for the entire thing and only dons the cowl in the last shot.

    Whatever they do will be similar to something that has already been done previously, in some form or another; it all boils down to execution.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,997
    talos7 wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    zebrafish wrote: »
    If Partridge, born in 2003, gets the job, he would be MUCH younger than Connery, who was 32 in DN. I don't know if such a young face would fit the image we have of Bond. Feels rather like Young Bond to me.

    I don’t disagree with this, but this incarnation of Bond could begin set many years before he gets license to kill.

    It would actually be very bold to have the entire film focused on Bond’s Special Forces service; at the end of the movie we would see him summoned to MI-6 headquarters where he enters an office where he meets a young secretary for the first time. After some banter she notifies someone that “ he’s here”. A voice replies, “ send him in” . She motions to the imposing door.
    The movie ends with Bond entering.

    So the film ends with Bond being recruited

    God, I hope we don't get that. It'd be like a Batman film where he's Bruce Wayne for the entire thing and only dons the cowl in the last shot.

    Whatever they do will be similar to something that has already been done previously, in some form or another; it all boils down to execution.

    I agree. I think that'll mean they'll fall back on the more typical Bond tropes/fundamentals though, even if the movie is at a specific point in Bond's life (or I'd hope they would anyway).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 19,180
    007HallY wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    zebrafish wrote: »
    If Partridge, born in 2003, gets the job, he would be MUCH younger than Connery, who was 32 in DN. I don't know if such a young face would fit the image we have of Bond. Feels rather like Young Bond to me.

    I don’t disagree with this, but this incarnation of Bond could begin set many years before he gets license to kill.

    It would actually be very bold to have the entire film focused on Bond’s Special Forces service; at the end of the movie we would see him summoned to MI-6 headquarters where he enters an office where he meets a young secretary for the first time. After some banter she notifies someone that “ he’s here”. A voice replies, “ send him in” . She motions to the imposing door.
    The movie ends with Bond entering.

    So the film ends with Bond being recruited

    God, I hope we don't get that. It'd be like a Batman film where he's Bruce Wayne for the entire thing and only dons the cowl in the last shot.

    Yeah I'm not against it being a start to the story in some fashion, but I think you have to give the people what they want, and that means 007.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 2,403
    If there are cars, casinos and girls, I don't think there will be any problem.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    edited September 26 Posts: 638
    I don't think Bond needs the best actor in the world. That's why there are only two Dalton movies and seven Moore movies. But this film is also a Villeneuve film. I think they're looking for a bit of prestige.[/quote]

    This is what i was meaning yesterday.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 19,180
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    If there are cars, casinos and girls, I don't think there will be any problem.

    Yeah even CR, reboot as it was, gave us all of those.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 638
    007HallY wrote: »
    It takes more talent and natural acting instinct than people realise. Not saying the actor has to be a future Oscar winner (although honestly, it's telling that one of these actors did win an Oscar, and at least three of the six Bonds have had very respectable/successful dramatic careers outside of Bond that stand up on their own. Even Moore and Brosnan had some great write ups for their performances, and I'd say the former was a much better actor than many people realise). You can't just put a good looking man in a tuxedo and have him be Bond. It just doesn't work like that.

    Agreed every Bond actor has had talent even Lazenby. Next one has too whoever they chose.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 638
    I have to say little over 20 is too young like little over 40 is too old.
  • dewiparrydewiparry
    Posts: 264
    Usually a character on-screen calls him too old. Then for the rest of the film he proves them wrong.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,879
    One of my favourite aspects of Bond in the novels and the films is his world weariness and flippancy. If you cast the next actor too young, I think this aspect of the character will either disappear or lack believability.

    It's one trait that has bled through the novels to the films and across each actor. I think it's a fundamental part of what makes James Bond who he is
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 638
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    One of my favourite aspects of Bond in the novels and the films is his world weariness and flippancy. If you cast the next actor too young, I think this aspect of the character will either disappear or lack believability.

    It's one trait that has bled through the novels to the films and across each actor. I think it's a fundamental part of what makes James Bond who he is

    Mirror image to that is when actor is too old like Roger in AVTAK.
Sign In or Register to comment.