It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Truthfully, me either; I keep trying to be open minded but he just doesn’t connect…
Yeah, me too, my friend.
Personally, I’d say Turner is one of the few options who could be really good in the part and has what’s naturally needed - charisma, talent, good looking, and has that natural gravitas/presence. Doesn’t mean he’s the only option, but he’s a pretty great one.
If it ends up being him, I hope I'm wrong about him, but right now he seems like a mediocre option.
@DEKE_RIVERS take a nap
To be clear I think there are really good younger potentials, but they’re rare and untested. They could well get lucky and find one who shines through.
Yeah, I've said it before, but I'd be really surprised if they didn't go for someone who has starred in at least a couple of films already, and that does tend to push the age up a little. There are exceptions, like as you mention, Elordi and Dickinson, but that almost seems to come with the situation that their careers are really hotting up right now and Bond might get in the way. But then again, you could probably have said the same of Andrew Garfield at the same age (he's always done really interesting stuff and is an amazing actor) but he still took Spider Man. It's all up for grabs really.
Yeah. I think it’s also a massive ask trusting a relatively inexperienced actor in their 20s (or indeed early 30s in many cases) with a role like Bond. The pressure is enormous all round, and if you get someone immature or not in the right headspace you get a Lazenby. Not to say an actor automatically gains that wisdom or temperament needed at 35, and there are experienced young actors, but age and a good deal of experience is beneficial with something like this.
Interestingly Garfield was on the older side for Spiderman (28/29 I believe). So age/experience probably benefited him.
That’s just not how it works. They need to prove themselves from that first audition. Otherwise they can just try again in 10+ years.
What I mean is that an actor can be a diamond in the rough. A good producer can see that. You don't need to wait 10 years for someone else to do the job you didn't want to do.
It depends on the options. I don’t think they’ll pick a promising candidate who isn’t as good with the vague promise they can ‘grow into the role’ over a slightly older one who proves they can do it well. They need a good Bond at the end of the day. But it completely depends on the actors.
Yes, but if you want to make a reboot with a young Bond, then maybe you need a young actor. Plus, you can make more movies with him.
If age doesn't matter, they should get Theo James. He has more experience, more fans, and is a safer bet.
Who you put in that unusual list?
What you think are young candidates this day too unexperienced?
I never got the hype for Theo James as Bond honestly. He was fine in The Gentlemen and I think he’s done some good stuff, but I’ve never really gotten ‘Bond’ from him. That and I think he’s more or less said he probably wouldn't do it.
I think the problem is that in practice we don’t know what they’re doing. The ‘insider’ stuff about Bond in the navy is so second hand and comes at such an early stage for this film that even if that were true it could conceivably change or not quite be the full story (I mean, if we believe this Turner rumour, that already shows at least one significant member of the creative team is willing to go for an actor in their mid 30s if they see something in them). Also presumably they’ll be contracted for a certain number of movies, so it doesn’t necessarily mean a younger actor will make more films at all.
Most young actors always will be for Bond. I think it comes back to what EON’s casting director said. Younger actors often lack gravitas, and for a character like Bond who is quite worldly it’s very difficult believing someone too young could be this extraordinary, energetic character. There are exceptions, and age is no guarantee in itself. But generally speaking experience and time benefit anyone.
That Cubby and the team suggested back in the day? You've got a range of American actors like James Brolin, John Gavin, Burt Reynolds etc. There's left field ones like Randolph Fiennes, Michael Gambon, Roger Green, and I know even Tom Jones was considered for DAF at one point! I think people take for granted just how offbeat casting Connery was too. I think it shows just how extensively they looked for new Bonds, but of course how few were chosen or even got to a certain stage.
Supposedly, according to Google and assuming it’s accurate:
Josh Hutcherson
Logan Lerman
Aaron Taylor-Johnson
Alden Ehrenreich
Anton Yelchin
Jamie Bell
Yes, I suspect he was very much the best option. Not a huge fan of those films but I like Garfield in the role, and I think he’s a cut above those actors in terms of talent, charisma, and likability (although there are some good contenders there).
That said I probably would have thought him a likely option for Spiderman that soon after Kick Ass.
Who you put in this good contenders list?