Who should/could be a Bond actor?

11441451471491501231

Comments

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    For all those who suggested Charlie Hunnam on this thread, here's the new trailer for his latest film:




    This looks very very good.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,586
    suavejmf wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Pine? I think we saw what he could bring to the table in Jack Ryan. I kept thinking "Hollywood Poor Man's Craig" when watching it.

    He's good as a blue collar working class type (The Finest Hours, Unstoppable) but this is certainly no Bond imho.

    The fact that he's American immediately discounts him as a candidate.

    Yes, it does, and my apologies if my mentioning Pine was misconstrued. Even as an American, I would not want anyone but a Brit (or Aussie, maybe) playing the part. But I found Pine to look and act very Bond-like in his Armani ads.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    TripAces wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Pine? I think we saw what he could bring to the table in Jack Ryan. I kept thinking "Hollywood Poor Man's Craig" when watching it.

    He's good as a blue collar working class type (The Finest Hours, Unstoppable) but this is certainly no Bond imho.

    The fact that he's American immediately discounts him as a candidate.

    Yes, it does, and my apologies if my mentioning Pine was misconstrued. Even as an American, I would not want anyone but a Brit (or Aussie, maybe) playing the part. But I found Pine to look and act very Bond-like in his Armani ads.

    Fair comment and agreed then.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    doubleoego wrote: »
    For all those who suggested Charlie Hunnam on this thread, here's the new trailer for his latest film:




    This looks very very good.

    He's worth a screen test without a doubt.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Sean Bean should have been Bond in '95, for the present I'd like Craig to do one more, if not then Huddlestone would be my choice, yet to be convinced by Turner, but only seen him in Poldark, And Then There Were None and the Hobbit films.

    Agreed.
  • Posts: 1,661
    Tom Hiddleston says he wants rumours that he will be the next James Bond to 'stop'

    http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/tom-hiddleston-says-he-wants-rumours-that-he-will-/404007

    Idris Elba and Tom Hiddleston are James Bonds 007s in


    Self-Promotion Never Dies



    ;))
  • Mark_HazzardMark_Hazzard Classified
    edited April 2016 Posts: 127
    I'd reckon that the problem with getting a famous, A-list actor as the new Bond would be his salary. With all actors, their salary increases exponentially over time. This would have a negative impact on the series' budget. Potentially resulting in crappy writing, directing...

    Then there is also the availability of the actor in question to be considered. You don't want them to run off to 4 other projects between Bond films. We would get films on a 3-5 year cycle...
  • Posts: 2,081
    I'd reckon that the problem with getting a famous, A-list actor as the new Bond would be his salary. With all actors, their salary increases exponentially over time. This would have a negative impact on the series' budget. Potentially resulting in crappy writing, directing...

    Then there is also the availability of the actor in question to be considered. You don't want them to run off to 4 other projects between Bond films. We would get films on a 3-5 year cycle...

    If the budget is crazy big anyway (like with Spectre) then an actor's salary won't make much difference in it. Paying the lead makes more sense than throwing ridiculous amounts of money away at a car chase and a big explosion.

    As for the actor doing other projects, why not, it's probably better they do. 4 other projects is not too much at all, it just depends on the size of those projects. Playing a lead in 4 other blockbusters that take ages would obviously not be doable. 4 or indeed more smaller movies would be just fine (assuming 3 years between Bond movies). Actors playing leads in other big franchise movies (and doing all required promotional work for them) have done it, so surely a Bond actor could as well. Craig has stopped even trying to (not a single movie between Skyfall and Spectre), but it's not like he couldn't if he wanted to.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    I'd reckon that the problem with getting a famous, A-list actor as the new Bond would be his salary. With all actors, their salary increases exponentially over time. This would have a negative impact on the series' budget. Potentially resulting in crappy writing, directing...

    Then there is also the availability of the actor in question to be considered. You don't want them to run off to 4 other projects between Bond films. We would get films on a 3-5 year cycle...

    Yea but an A+ is usually cast to bring in an audience.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    edited April 2016 Posts: 1,130
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I'd reckon that the problem with getting a famous, A-list actor as the new Bond would be his salary. With all actors, their salary increases exponentially over time. This would have a negative impact on the series' budget. Potentially resulting in crappy writing, directing...

    Then there is also the availability of the actor in question to be considered. You don't want them to run off to 4 other projects between Bond films. We would get films on a 3-5 year cycle...

    Yea but an A+ is usually cast to bring in an audience.


    Does it really?
    I don't think so, people now care much more for the franchise and the well known product than the actor that's why we don't have many new A listers like in the 90s or 80s At least not on the same level of Julia Roberts or George Clooney to name some.

    With every actor or actress franchise is happening the same thing as with Bond that fans only care for certain actors when they are playing X or Y character.
    Example Jennifer Lawrence even though she has her oscar the only film where she brings a lot of audiences are with The Hunger Games, Pattinson's career died at the Moment there were no more twilight films.

    Fans only love you in one Character for Bond actors are their Bond films, for the Twilight kids was Twilight, for the Hunger Games stars The Hunger Games, for Chris Hemsworth is Thor.



    Don't get me wrong its important to get the right guy for Bond and any other film but the days of certain names will putt butts in the theaters are over. There not more box office draw actors
    In the 90s everyone went to see The Mask of Zorro because a hot girl (Catherine Zeta Jones) was in it in 2008 Megan Fox didn't have that same effect.

    Sure she became famous for how hot she was in Transformers but didn't pull everyonento see that film like Catherine did with Zorro.

    Everyone says how Bond is bigger than the actor who plays him and while its true now it is for every actor's franchise.

    Anyway this thing of don't care for the actor's name has helped Bond very much while choosing the bond girls and Villains now they can pick whoever they want and they consider talented without asking if audiences will see a film for X and Y after all not being well known is what prevented Monica Bellucci to play Paris Carver in Tomorrow never dies and what helped her get the part of Lucia Sicarra.

    People not caring to see a film because X name is in it has given EOn much more freedom to do what they want with Casting Villains and Bond girls while in the 90s they felt pressure to get big names in the supporting cast to sell the tickets.



  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,985
    @Szonana, spot on. Actors themselves don't put substantial amounts of asses in seats anymore, it's a thing of the past.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @Szonana, spot on. Actors themselves don't put substantial amounts of asses in seats anymore, it's a thing of the past.

    Except maybe Liam Neeson.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,719
    None of the 6 Bond's ever light the box office on fire in non-Bond films by themselves. I believe the biggest successes by a Bond actor outside of 007 are Timothy Dalton in 'Toy Story 3' and Craig's cameo in 'The Force Awakens', yet 0% of the massive intake of both of these films can be attributed to the participation of a James Bond.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Connery was a pretty big name and drew people for a while.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,719
    Indeed @Thunderfinger, but it did take him quite a while before getting more success like he did as 007 in the 60's.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    A couple of decades. That s nothing.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @Szonana, spot on. Actors themselves don't put substantial amounts of asses in seats anymore, it's a thing of the past.

    Thanks, though its a bitt of sad thing, don't you think ?

    I liked that magic of people going to a movie because they loved to watch certain actors, but on the other has helped in quality of films since now everyone works harder to make a good film.

    Now they can't make a crappy film and still make it succesful by casting Julia Roberts to give an example.

    Has its pros and cons.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Szonana wrote: »
    I liked that magic of people going to a movie because they loved to watch certain actors, but on the other has helped in quality of films since now everyone works harder to make a good film.
    I don't know about that. I seem to find there are more rubbish films being released these days than before. I don't think that's on account of not have famous actors in it necessarily, but more on account of Hollywood running out of ideas, except for a few bursts of creativity. Now, instead of relying on actors, they rely on recycling ideas, concepts, and even franchise introductions, with reboots and what not.
    Szonana wrote: »
    Now they can't make a crappy film and still make it succesful by casting Julia Roberts to give an example.
    That's definitely true. The tolerance for error has been reduced.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    @BondJames
    You made s great point now Hollywood instead of relying on stars to sell they are all about franchises and too afraid to make risks that's why all the remakes and reboots.
    And maybe also a lack creativity as well since why holding on on franchises too much?

    Ok no more big stars but instead making many good standalone flicks.
    With all this craziness for franchises Hollywood has forgotten about making Rom Coms or just plain comedies.

    Its all about making films that they can make many sequels out of them.
    I like the idea of having movies series and franchises but not to the point of Domintating the box office.

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Yes, they do. If it's not a A+ property then yes they still try to attract a lead to draw audience into the film.

    I should have elaborated. All those examples y'all gave were either known properties or already established franchises like Bond which do not necessarily need a well known lead.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I agree @Szonana. I'm not sure if it's on account of them just running out of ideas, or if it's due to the production costs etc, but it's likely a little of both.

    I'm sure the cost aspects are influencing their decisions to a large degree, but market demand is influencing them as well no doubt. There is a steady market for 'explosions', 'slapstick humour', 'cheap thrills' and 'CGI', and it's a global one.

    With the 'English speaking' and 'Western' market declining as a proportion of total box office volume, Hollywood perhaps feels compelled to cater to historic known franchises such as comic book, Star Wars etc. which already have a baked in global audience. The more successful these films are, the more they will want to replicate their success. No incentive to change. Jurassic World is a perfect example of something that was far more successful than perhaps it should have been, given its low quality compared to the early films. This has replaced the 'actor' reliance that was so apparent during earlier decades up to and including the mid 90's or so.

    Interestingly, the tv market seems to have 'absorbed' a lot of these actors, and now 'name' actors are big draws for new tv shows and serials. Fortunately, the quality of a lot of the tv shows are top notch these days, particularly those from the cable outfits.
  • edited April 2016 Posts: 1,661
    I just realized who Tom Hiddleston reminds me of...

    Tony Blair!



    Something about him reminds me of a younger Tony Blair. ;))

    Admit it, Tom, you're obsessed with the role. He needs help. He's got the medical condition 'Idris-itis'! It's a delusional belief you are the next James Bond. Almost incurable! 8-}
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    bondjames wrote: »
    I agree @Szonana. I'm not sure if it's on account of them just running out of ideas, or if it's due to the production costs etc, but it's likely a little of both.

    I'm sure the cost aspects are influencing their decisions to a large degree, but market demand is influencing them as well no doubt. There is a steady market for 'explosions', 'slapstick humour', 'cheap thrills' and 'CGI', and it's a global one.

    With the 'English speaking' and 'Western' market declining as a proportion of total box office volume, Hollywood perhaps feels compelled to cater to historic known franchises such as comic book, Star Wars etc. which already have a baked in global audience. The more successful these films are, the more they will want to replicate their success. No incentive to change. Jurassic World is a perfect example of something that was far more successful than perhaps it should have been, given its low quality compared to the early films. This has replaced the 'actor' reliance that was so apparent during earlier decades up to and including the mid 90's or so.

    Interestingly, the tv market seems to have 'absorbed' a lot of these actors, and now 'name' actors are big draws for new tv shows and serials. Fortunately, the quality of a lot of the tv shows are top notch these days, particularly those from the cable outfits.

    i agree very much with you especially on Franchises which have been with from a long time ago but they also look for Book series they can adapt into many films as Possible and sadly Harry Potter gave them an ideal on how to milk the Cow.

    Harry Potter had its fair reason on why should they makenthe last two book in two parts but not the hunger games and definitely not twilight.
    That was just Plain greed but going back to out theme. They have found in book series a new wave of franchises which sell pretty well, not all but the ones which do so are gold mines.

    Stars maybe were more helpful than i thought. They inspired the studios to make risks and if not inspire them at least not terrify them.
    They came up with more ideas because they new X name could sell that film they were doing.

    I think the stars system died in the mid 00s. Innthe late 90s we still hd stars and names selling films.

    These franchises do a lotvof good and bad to actors at the same time
    Good because they become famous with just one film but bad because after the franchise is over seems like they are as well.

    But like you said TV has now been doing what films did in early decades.




  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    I just realized who Tom Hiddleston reminds me of...

    Tony Blair!



    Something about him reminds me of a younger Tony Blair. ;))

    Admit it, Tom, you're obsessed with the role. He needs help. He's got the medical condition 'Idris-itis'! It's a delusional belief you are the next James Bond. Almost incurable! 8-}

    Then he should play a young Adam Lang( Tony Blair) in the ghost writers prequel instead of Bond.
    The film being called the first Ghost Writer. Didn't the film talk about previous guys getting the job of the ghost then follow from that point. We only need to know if Plonasky could do it.

    This time the ghost would be portrayed by Sam Worthington, Adams's wife Rooney Mara and his Publicist( the character played Kim Catral) played by Rosamund Pike.



  • Posts: 15,161
    So back on topic: an A-list star as Bond is a bad idea. When a new Bond is about to be cast casual moviegoers think automatically of big stars because they don't know the more obscure actors. So they think bond should be played by Jude Law, Colin Farrell, George Clooney or Robbie Williams (because yes, this guy would be so perfect, he wore a tuxedo and he did a James Bond looking clip and stuff). That is the reason why the Idris Elba's rumor got so much pull, that and the stupid prima donna attitude he had about it. Big names are for the uninformed general public.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @Szonana, spot on. Actors themselves don't put substantial amounts of asses in seats anymore, it's a thing of the past.

    Yep!

    Just look at the marketing for The Jungle Book film. The trailer even went as far to include the iconic logo of pirates of the Caribbean and put the big IRON MAN logo in the in there. I was half expecting to see Stark's arc reactor in the trailer with the sound effects of his repulsors.

    There's now a growing and more conscious perception that a franchise is now being governed by a more competent, capable steward that knows how to get them critical acclaim and box office success.

    It's no wonder that Nolan's name was paraded in the MoS trailers. There's a reason why Bay's name is all over the TMNT trailers. It's a very conscious decision as to why Marvel opts to use "from the studio that brought you..." for their trailers. It simply comes down to more big mega-bucks box office dollar-dollar bills. Audiences know what's being sold to them and that's what they base their decisions on.


  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @Szonana, spot on. Actors themselves don't put substantial amounts of asses in seats anymore, it's a thing of the past.

    Yep!

    Just look at the marketing for The Jungle Book film. The trailer even went as far to include the iconic logo of pirates of the Caribbean and put the big IRON MAN logo in the in there. I was half expecting to see Stark's arc reactor in the trailer with the sound effects of his repulsors.

    There's now a growing and more conscious perception that a franchise is now being governed by a more competent, capable steward that knows how to get them critical acclaim and box office success.

    It's no wonder that Nolan's name was paraded in the MoS trailers. There's a reason why Bay's name is all over the TMNT trailers. It's a very conscious decision as to why Marvel opts to use "from the studio that brought you..." for their trailers. It simply comes down to more big mega-bucks box office dollar-dollar bills. Audiences know what's being sold to them and that's what they base their decisions on.


    See what they sell is the studio, Director and from the people who brought you.....
    They don't sell the actors anymore. Its all about thr franchise and product.

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Precisely; therr you go. For many consumers, movies are just like any other ordinary product, they go for the brands they prefer and that appeals to them and they stick with them. However, brands in movies can either take the former of directors, DOPs, the studios, franchises, or actors. Hence, putting out a film with the right branding ("Nolan", or "Iron Man") will without question definitely augment a movie's box office prospects.
  • edited April 2016 Posts: 2,081
    If "brands" is used that widely (writers, producers and genres should probably be added to the list) then surely most people most of the time pick movies they watch based on some such criteria (or "brand" if you like), since it's just logical to use some criteria to choose which movies to see instead of just randomly picking any movie. (I'm not sure if "brand" is a fitting term here, but anyway...)

    Almost all people make their choices based on some ingredients etc. that make them think they might like the product whether they're buying a movie ticket, a concert ticket, a book, a cd, a meal, etc. and completely random choices are - understandably - rare. So in that sense sure, movies are like other products. There is little else to go by to make a choice regarding movies than the things listed. Critical acclaim/awards/friends' recommendations maybe that might make one think they might like a movie or at least make them interested in seeing it? Subject matter sometimes maybe?

    I imagine mostly people indeed "stick with" what they think they might like, which makes a hell of a lot of sense when they spend money and time on something - and such "sticking" to what one likes/is interested in can still provide a huge variety of choices. Depending on the variety of one's tastes and points of interest, of course. (It does to me... with movies, music, books, meals, etc.)
  • Posts: 108
    Coming back to the topic at hand, I think Sam Claflin might be a good option as the next 007. He has the looks, the right age, has shown the necessary gravitas in previous roles, but I'm not sure on the tongue in cheek-aspect. And on the plus side, he isn't an A-listed actor yet - I doubt any A-listed actor would want to "burn" himself on a very defining role like James Bond. So far, only Sean Connery has been able to shake of 007 and develop memorable post-007 screen characters, and even that took some time after his last outing as 007. And none of the Bond-actors to date had A-list movie careers prior to being asked for the part.

    For that reason, I think Henry Cavill is definitely out. As a Bond-producer, I wouldn't consider an actor who had already played Superman in several movies - it can only harm the Bond-persona.

    By the way, I think Daniel Day-Lewis would have made a very good 007 in the eighties and nineties (especially after seeing him in "The Age of Innocence", more suave, and "Last of the Mohicans", more physical). But he probably never would have considered it.
Sign In or Register to comment.