Who should/could be a Bond actor?

113341335133613371339

Comments

  • edited November 30 Posts: 6,458
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    [
    I have a hard time seeing Amazon go for a 50s Bond film for this one, and I'm dubious about how it's cropped up. I think it's an idea that might appeal to a minority of fans to the point it's actually a rather cliched idea at this point, and a dull one at that (very much a 'oh, you have a hot take on what the new Bond film should be? Let me guess, you want it to be set in the 50s? Never heard that one before etc').

    I saw this vid entitled ‘Here are my ideas for the next James Bond’ pop up on YouTube and funnily enough exactly the same thought went through my head. I actually played it thinking ‘I wonder if his amazing fresh idea is by any chance to set it in the 50s?’ Spoiler: yes, of course it is. I stopped watching at that point!


    😂 No way. I actually really like one or two of this guy’s videos (he did a great one about a low budget feature film he made and all his challenges/mistakes). Not a regular viewer of his though and didn’t even know he was a Bond fan. Not sure why he’s so concerned about the copyright to Fleming expiring just going from the start of the video though. They’re already in the public domain in two countries. But yes, not exactly original ideas, and certainly not my favourite video I’ve seen of his.
  • edited November 30 Posts: 900
    007HallY wrote: »
    I know it came out recently that Steven Soderbergh pitched a Bond film set in the 1960s shot in black and white when EON were still officially in charge.

    I've never understood why anyone would want a black and white Bond film (a whole film that is; I like CR's PTS very much). If the purpose is to harken back to the 50s and 60s, then it completely misses part of what made the films exciting at that time. When British cinema was awash with kitchen sink dramas, and air travel was out of reach to all but a privileged few, the Bond films were lush, escapist fantasies, set in the most beautiful places on Earth, and in glorious COLOUR.

    Would the rich sandy beaches and shimmering blue waters of Jamaica, or Ursula Andress's tanned golden skin, have had nearly the same impact in black and white? I don't think so.
  • edited November 30 Posts: 6,458
    007HallY wrote: »
    I know it came out recently that Steven Soderbergh pitched a Bond film set in the 1960s shot in black and white when EON were still officially in charge.

    I've never understood why anyone would want a black and white Bond film (a whole film that is; I like CR's PTS very much). If the purpose is to harken back to the 50s and 60s, then it completely misses part of what made the films exciting at that time. When British cinema was awash with kitchen sink dramas, and air travel was out of reach to all but a privileged few, the Bond films were lush, escapist fantasies, set in the most beautiful places on Earth, and in glorious COLOUR.

    Would the rich sandy beaches and shimmering blue waters of Jamaica, or Ursula Andress's tanned golden skin, have had nearly the same impact in black and white? I don't think so.

    I completely agree. I’m not sure a whole Bond film in black and white would feel right. The early films and Fleming books were both contemporary for their time. Quite modern in many ways. Each new Bond film has in some way reflected the time period it’s made in. To make Bond some sort of historical character misses something fundamental to these adventures and their appeal. Even just superficially Bond’s a character always driving the latest car or wearing the classiest modern clothes or watches in these films.

    I’ve joked in the past that it must have been very tiring for EON! Imagine having to constantly hear pitches from famous directors and actors which always amounted to the same two ideas - a Bond film set in the 50s/60s, or a Bond origin story about his naval days. The latter I believe is something Tom Holland tried to pitch.
  • Posts: 3,351
    Benny wrote: »
    If there’s no script and Denis is still working on Dune 3, I’d say there’s zero chance of getting the next Bond until the middle of next year at the earliest.
    Just because a bookmaker has been taking bets on Callum Turner means diddly squat about his chances of actually landing the role of James Bond.
    It’s basically click bait.

    Yes I agree. Another BS rumour. However, If Callum was chosen as the next 007, I'd be very happy with that choice. I think he would be great in the role. He also fits the Fleming description perfectly, which is an absolute must in my book, first and foremost.
  • Posts: 16,290
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I know it came out recently that Steven Soderbergh pitched a Bond film set in the 1960s shot in black and white when EON were still officially in charge.

    I've never understood why anyone would want a black and white Bond film (a whole film that is; I like CR's PTS very much). If the purpose is to harken back to the 50s and 60s, then it completely misses part of what made the films exciting at that time. When British cinema was awash with kitchen sink dramas, and air travel was out of reach to all but a privileged few, the Bond films were lush, escapist fantasies, set in the most beautiful places on Earth, and in glorious COLOUR.

    Would the rich sandy beaches and shimmering blue waters of Jamaica, or Ursula Andress's tanned golden skin, have had nearly the same impact in black and white? I don't think so.

    I completely agree. I’m not sure a whole Bond film in black and white would feel right. The early films and Fleming books were both contemporary for their time. Quite modern in many ways. Each new Bond film has in some way reflected the time period it’s made in. To make Bond some sort of historical character misses something fundamental to these adventures and their appeal. Even just superficially Bond’s a character always driving the latest car or wearing the classiest modern clothes or watches in these films.

    I’ve joked in the past that it must have been very tiring for EON! Imagine having to constantly hear pitches from famous directors and actors which always amounted to the same two ideas - a Bond film set in the 50s/60s, or a Bond origin story about his naval days. The latter I believe is something Tom Holland tried to pitch.

    Turning a Bond movie into a period piece also brings the issue of authenticity. It's not only that people had values and ideas different than ours, but they a way to move, to inhabit their environment different that is of their time. Anthony Minghella mentioned it about casting Dickie Greenleaf in The Talented Mr Ripley: he didn't want a modern American, but someone who could come off as an upper-class American young man in the 50s. You look at Connery and Moore and
    meshypushy wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I wonder what a bookmaker knows about casting in general and Bond casting in particular to give such probability. And from what I remember, they've been way off the mark in the past.
    Bookmakers run ‘novelty markets’ (their term) for the likes of Next Bond etc. They take no money on them in comparison to their core bread and butter (sports), so they usually keep them open as a PR exercise. When you see a bookie running to a tabloid to tell them what people are betting on, it’s a PR stunt, with nothing driving it other than a chance to get free PR. ‘Stopping taking bets’ / ‘Paying out early’ are other stunts that bookies use to generate very low cost PR. It’s horseshit - plain and simple.

    That's what I guessed. It would be like me making football predictions while I know nothing of the sport.
  • Posts: 2,604
    A period film is harder to sell to a younger audience, and what Bond needs now is to rejuvenate its fanbase.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 840
    007HallY wrote: »
    Nothing wrong with either. But I think Craig was the better option.

    How he was better option?
  • edited November 30 Posts: 6,458
    MSL49 wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Nothing wrong with either. But I think Craig was the better option.

    How he was better option?

    Not attached to a big franchise character like Wolverine but still experienced as an actor. Didn’t have Farrell’s substance issues either. I think he was a damn good Bond too and arguably even a better actor than either were at the time (although all have done some brilliant work).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 19,711
    I’m glad we got Craig as he made it more unique, but I’ve got no doubt that Jackman would have been an excellent Bond: he’s just got it all. But yeah, being attached to X Men just made him a non-starter.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,747
    mtm wrote: »
    I’m glad we got Craig as he made it more unique, but I’ve got no doubt that Jackman would have been an excellent Bond: he’s just got it all. But yeah, being attached to X Men just made him a non-starter.

    I actually think that, potentially, Jackman could have been even better than Craig; X Men and Wolverine aside he obviously could have brought the physicality and intensity but I think he would have been more deft with the lighter material and would have had a more innate charm.
  • Posts: 6,458
    It’s tricky for me to imagine Jackman in the role one way or the other. I think if he’d been in CR it would have been very different to Craig’s performance, which means it wouldn’t have been the same film. I’m inclined to say Jackman wouldn’t have given us something as special as Craig’s performance in CR, but it’s pure speculation.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,747
    We’ll never know…
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 19,711
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I’m glad we got Craig as he made it more unique, but I’ve got no doubt that Jackman would have been an excellent Bond: he’s just got it all. But yeah, being attached to X Men just made him a non-starter.

    I actually think that, potentially, Jackman could have been even better than Craig; X Men and Wolverine aside he obviously could have brought the physicality and intensity but I think he would have been more deft with the lighter material and would have had a more innate charm.

    I think he would have been slightly more towards the Brosnan end of things: a very good all-rounder. Craig made it his own and if I had the choice, I’d still go Craig.
  • edited December 1 Posts: 900
    A lot of the candidates rumoured around that time seemed to be very much in the Brosnan mould. Julian McMahon was another one, though I think Jackman would've been better. But neither could hold a candle to Craig, of course.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Turning a Bond movie into a period piece also brings the issue of authenticity. It's not only that people had values and ideas different than ours, but they a way to move, to inhabit their environment different that is of their time. Anthony Minghella mentioned it about casting Dickie Greenleaf in The Talented Mr Ripley: he didn't want a modern American, but someone who could come off as an upper-class American young man in the 50s. You look at Connery and Moore and

    And?
  • Posts: 2,604
    Jackman was my favorite back then, but I think he would have ended up being a tougher Brosnan. Craig, for better or for worse, went further.

    We had better candidates 20 years ago than we do now, anyway.
  • edited December 1 Posts: 6,458
    From what I understand Jackman outright said no at an early stage anyway, which means he was never a candidate in the strictest sense. Having seen some of those who actually auditioned in 2005 I don’t think the candidates will be any worse this time round (I don’t think it gets much worse than Sam Worthington’s audition, and keep in mind only Craig was formally offered the role). We won’t even know the full scale of choices until long after anyway.
  • Posts: 2,604
    007HallY wrote: »
    From what I understand Jackman outright said no at an early stage anyway, which means he was never a candidate in the strictest sense. Having seen some of those who actually auditioned in 2005 I don’t think the candidates will be any worse this time round (I don’t think it gets much worse than Sam Worthington’s audition, and keep in mind only Craig was formally offered the role). We won’t even know the full scale of choices until long after anyway.

    It's worse, the non-candidates were better than the non-candidates of today.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,636
    Much to my surprise, I’m slowly warming to a Callum Turner Bond.
    Whilst he’s not my top choice, he does have something Bondian about him. At this point in time we have no idea what Amazon will do with the Bond series.
    Of the recent list of actors apparently being considered, or in the spotlight for the role, I think Turner would be a strong candidate. I wouldn’t be surprised if Jacob Elordi isn’t in the race as well. Despite some fans concerns about his height, he’s making a name for himself in various projects. I don’t think he should be eliminated from being a potential Bond just yet.
    Time will tell, when Amazon start testing for the role.
    I recently watched Bullet Train with Brad Pitt and ATJ, just to get an idea of what he could bring to the part. Whilst I don’t think I’d be appalled if Johnson were cast, I have a strange feeling as if he could be the Clive Owen of this era. A lot of talk and hype about him, but at the end of the day, just a lot of hot air.
  • Posts: 2,604
    Callum Turner is already too old to play a young Bond. There are younger and more prestigious actors available.

    And it's not like he's Henry Cavill, so it's not an obvious choice either.

    He only has one thing in his favor, and that is that he has already worked with the producer.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,636
    Callum Turner is already too old to play a young Bond. There are younger and more prestigious actors available.

    And it's not like he's Henry Cavill, so it's not an obvious choice either.

    He only has one thing in his favor, and that is that he has already worked with the producer.

    Can you explain the Henry Cavill reference?

    Both Turner and Johnson are 35. Depending on how young Amazon want too go, I don’t think this is too old for a Bond early in his career at MI6.

    We know very little about anything yet.
  • Posts: 2,604
    Cavill would be a safe choice. People would accept him without hesitation.

    Or if you prefer, he's not another Brosnan.
  • edited December 1 Posts: 6,458
    007HallY wrote: »
    From what I understand Jackman outright said no at an early stage anyway, which means he was never a candidate in the strictest sense. Having seen some of those who actually auditioned in 2005 I don’t think the candidates will be any worse this time round (I don’t think it gets much worse than Sam Worthington’s audition, and keep in mind only Craig was formally offered the role). We won’t even know the full scale of choices until long after anyway.

    It's worse, the non-candidates were better than the non-candidates of today.

    The ‘potentials’ I guess…

    I don’t know, I don’t think the candidates are that great in 2005 apart from Craig. You’ve got Henry Cavill who’s a kid and doesn’t seem to have a particular take on Bond. Sam Worthington and Goran Visjnic can’t do the right accent. There’s Dougray Scott apparently, who’s fine as an actor I guess (although has he gone on to do anything overly memorable? All I remember him in is MI 2 and Hitman).

    I’d say Harris Dickinson, Jacob Elordi, and Callum Turner would easily beat all of them as candidates if they got to that point. As potentials are they as strong as Jackman? Some more than others I’d say (although I’d say all make more sense to me than Colin Farrell, Clive Owen, or Jude Law as Bond). I don’t think there’s a lack of good potentials. A lot I’m sure we won’t even know about until later.
  • Posts: 2,604
    We also had Eric Bana, who was a bit more Bond-like than Elordi.
  • edited December 1 Posts: 6,458
    He's a good actor, although I'm not too familiar with anything he's done recently. More a character actor than a big distinctive movie star. I personally have an easier time seeing Elordi as Bond (he comes off as more enigmatic and has a stronger screen presence).

    Honestly, I'm struggling to think of anyone that great in the 2005 lot. There's Alex O'Loughlin who I guess became more a TV actor from the Hawaii Five-0 reboot (can't say I watched it). Julian McMahon had something interesting about him as an actor, although I'm not quite sure if it'd have translated to Bond. As much as I'm not a fan of ATJ, is he any worse an actor or potential for Bond than Clive Owen? I'd say they're at least equal. Sam Heughan perhaps could have been good? I know Michael Fassbender apparently auditioned too, although I have reservations about him as Bond, and it's worth saying neither seem to have progressed beyond a certain stage anyway, so there must have been a reason.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 1 Posts: 19,711
    Yeah the list of people they were supposedly in the running (apart from Craig of course) is:
    Gerard Butler
    Henry Cavill
    Rupert Friend
    Daniel Goddard
    Martin Henderson
    Julian McMahon
    David Morrisey
    Alex O'Lachlan
    Ingo Rademacher
    Dougray Scott
    Christian Solimeno
    Anthony Starr
    Karl Urban
    Goran Visnjic
    Dominic West
    Sam Worthington
    And apparently MGM may have been interested in Orlando Bloom.
  • Posts: 2,604
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah the list of people they were supposedly in the running (apart from Craig of course) is:
    Gerard Butler
    Henry Cavill
    Rupert Friend
    Daniel Goddard
    Martin Henderson
    Julian McMahon
    David Morrisey
    Alex O'Lachlan
    Ingo Rademacher
    Dougray Scott
    Christian Solimeno
    Anthony Starr
    Karl Urban
    Goran Visnjic
    Dominic West
    Sam Worthington
    And apparently MGM may have been interested in Orlando Bloom.


    In this list there are at least 5 guys who could have done an acceptable job.
  • Posts: 465
    Luckily we got a guy who did an amazing job instead.
  • Posts: 2,604
    M_Blaise wrote: »
    Luckily we got a guy who did an amazing job instead.

    Yes, but they killed him in the last movie. We can't count on him.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 19,711
    M_Blaise wrote: »
    Luckily we got a guy who did an amazing job instead.

    Yes, but they killed him in the last movie. We can't count on him.

    You don't have to now, he's not doing anymore. Luckily he was great while he was in them.
  • edited December 1 Posts: 6,458
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah the list of people they were supposedly in the running (apart from Craig of course) is:
    Gerard Butler
    Henry Cavill
    Rupert Friend
    Daniel Goddard
    Martin Henderson
    Julian McMahon
    David Morrisey
    Alex O'Lachlan
    Ingo Rademacher
    Dougray Scott
    Christian Solimeno
    Anthony Starr
    Karl Urban
    Goran Visnjic
    Dominic West
    Sam Worthington
    And apparently MGM may have been interested in Orlando Bloom.

    I suppose it's worth keeping in mind that actors like Starr, Friend, and Worthington only did that GE line reading. They were first round candidates who were rejected at a relatively early stage. From our perspective some of these actors could be good potentials, but may have had subpar auditions in practice (Worthington's a major example. I've seen people here claim he'd have been potentially quite good in the role before that footage was released. It's a disastrous audition, and I can't imagine any scenario where he would have excelled in the role at that point in his career. It could be the same for some of these actors, even if they later went on to do great work). I don't know about the specifics of every actor here, but there's also a chance some of these didn't even audition due to unavailability, or simply said no at a certain stage of the process, in which case they were never going to get the role anyway (which was the case with Dominic West, who I think could have been interesting).

    Anyway, it's a decent list based on who was around. Honestly, I'm not sure if many of these actors would have been on many people's lists of Bond potentials in 2005 though. I don't think it'll be any worse this time round in terms of candidates.
Sign In or Register to comment.