› ›

Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1…168169171173174…1192

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    dalton wrote: »
    Isaacs would have been terrific.
    60316215.jpg
    Isaacs caught my eye all those years ago on Capital City. Can you imagine if he was cast in 1995? We could have had a long run with him, because he has aged nicely.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    I like Jack Huston as an actor, but he's an American. If you open the casting door to Huston then you have to open the same door to every other American actor as well.

    There's a strong rumour that I prefer bagals to toast for my breakfast, @fanbond123, but this rumour still remains unsubstantiated.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondsum wrote: »
    I like Jack Huston as an actor, but he's an American.
    Huston is a Brit @bondsum.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    I like Jack Huston as an actor, but he's an American.
    Huston is a Brit @bondsum.
    Wow! You're right. I always thought he was American. Strike my last remark. Stick him on the list.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondsum wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    I like Jack Huston as an actor, but he's an American.
    Huston is a Brit @bondsum.
    Wow! You're right. I always thought he was American. Strike my last remark. Stick him on the list.
    That's probably because he plays Americans well. He's a good actor.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    I like Jack Huston as an actor, but he's an American.
    Huston is a Brit @bondsum.
    Wow! You're right. I always thought he was American. Strike my last remark. Stick him on the list.
    That's probably because he plays Americans well. He's a good actor.

    Sorry Hardy :( Huston is my top pick now. Unique modern look ...
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I never knew Barbara had that kind of a tragic occurrence. What happened?
  • phibes72phibes72
    Posts: 37
    Being a huge fan of Daniel Craig as Bond. Hope he stays but if not, I'd go for Dan Stevens. Superb in The Guest.
  • TuuliaTuulia
    Posts: 2,081
    Germanlady wrote: »
    IMO Fassbender is out there and won't be Bond, but he is not all that popular or on the radar much. This wouldn't speak against him. Whoreally knows, he had an Oscar nod. Not many, I am sur. He isn't one to love the limelight and melk it like crazy. In that respect, he is a lot like DC. Do the work and turn around.

    Two Oscar nods, in fact. I don't think most people (general audience) would know that type of things about him or about most other actors. Yes, he's respected and does a lot of work, but isn't "a star" and doesn't seem to go for that sort of stuff, either.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Bale would have been the best choice for me (10 years ago). Craig was a suitable 2nd option.

    A similar actor (quality wise) who I would back in a heartbeat would be, as others have said, Fassbender. There is nobody quite like him out there at the moment.

    He won't get it though, so my 2nd choice is Hiddle. The first episode of The Night Manager in particular is when he sold it convincingly to me. Those early scenes in the Cairo hotel.

    I've seen pretty much everything Craig and Bale have done, but I've seen considerably less from Fassbender - still 10 movies and 2 tv series, so I have a pretty good idea, I suppose. I also think he'd make a great Bond in theory, but won't...

    Since I like your other 3 choices so much I'll really need to watch The Night Manager... :) I've only seen him as Loki, and the movie was so boring I barely remember anything from it.
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    Fassbender would be the safe bet, he's popular, plus he's an ideal Bond candidate. He's also incredibly productive, knocks out movies like there's no tomorrow. He gets on with everyone, he's not a prima donna, and if he was a decade younger he'd be a shoo-in. That said, he's incredibly busy. It really comes down to how the studio and Eon see the future of the franchise: if they feel they want to take another gamble or if the studio is risk-averse and wants a hot property taking the lead role. In the current climate it's easy to say that the studios are now risk-averse; you only have to take a look at all the YA movies that ape those dreadful Hunger Game movies, or Marvel superheroes, to see that, and with plenty more to come. If they went with Fassbender, I'm pretty comfortable in saying that the next Bond movie would be huge in box office takings. Though, maybe the studio and Eon would want to build the next Bond actor up slowly, and not hit the ground running with a safe bet?

    I don't think Fassbender ever had a chance to play 007. There's a strong rumour/claim he beat up his ex-girlfriend. It's online if you want to know more. If that is true I can't imagine B Broccoli wanting him. B Broccoli was seriously assaulted when younger.

    A rumour, yes, but is it anything more than a rumour? (I'd actually like to know...) What does "a strong rumour" mean?
    bondsum wrote: »
    There's a strong rumour that I prefer bagals to toast for my breakfast, @fanbond123, but this rumour still remains unsubstantiated.

    Yes, always a good point.
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Huston caught my eye as well. I know not all agree and I respect the reasons why but I still like Hardy. Too short and brutish I know.

    Child 44 won me over though.

    Interesting, as Hardy has completely won me over as an actor - but I wouldn't even want him as Bond (not that it's remotely likely anyway, same as with Fassbender, for many similar reasons - as different than they are). Admittedly, I haven't seen Child 44, yet, though... ;)


  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    Fassbender would be my choice, but maybe a bit too old now? Hiddleston for me.
  • fanbond123fanbond123
    Posts: 1,661
    Don't you think a lot of the names don't really excite you? I sort of feel that way about Craig and his casting. It feels a bit like the franchise is in a bit of "meh, he'll do, I suppose" mindset. Craig is a decent Bond but I can't honestly say I've ever felt that much passion/excitement when he's playing the part and I can honestly say Tom Hiddleston and Aiden Turner are not going to make my excitement level rise.

    I suppose in an ideal world some actor would make you go "heck, yep, he's the guy. I am seriously excited by his casting."

    If I were under oath in a court I doubt I could say that about any of the names that keep getting trotted out on forums or news websites. But I suppose you gotta keep the faith and stay positive (as cliché as that sounds)!
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    Don't you think a lot of the names don't really excite you? I sort of feel that way about Craig and his casting. It feels a bit like the franchise is in a bit of "meh, he'll do, I suppose" mindset. Craig is a decent Bond but I can't honestly say I've ever felt that much passion/excitement when he's playing the part and I can honestly say Tom Hiddleston and Aiden Turner are not going to make my excitement level rise.

    I suppose in an ideal world some actor would make you go "heck, yep, he's the guy. I am seriously excited by his casting."

    If I were under oath in a court I doubt I could say that about any of the names that keep getting trotted out on forums or news websites. But I suppose you gotta keep the faith and stay positive (as cliché as that sounds)!
    I couldn't agree more.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    Don't you think a lot of the names don't really excite you? I sort of feel that way about Craig and his casting. It feels a bit like the franchise is in a bit of "meh, he'll do, I suppose" mindset. Craig is a decent Bond but I can't honestly say I've ever felt that much passion/excitement when he's playing the part and I can honestly say Tom Hiddleston and Aiden Turner are not going to make my excitement level rise.

    I suppose in an ideal world some actor would make you go "heck, yep, he's the guy. I am seriously excited by his casting."

    If I were under oath in a court I doubt I could say that about any of the names that keep getting trotted out on forums or news websites. But I suppose you gotta keep the faith and stay positive (as cliché as that sounds)!
    I couldn't agree more.

    I'm kinda there too. If and when we get actually news then I bet we get excited again. :)
  • jackdaggerjackdagger
    Posts: 498
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    I suppose in an ideal world some actor would make you go "heck, yep, he's the guy. I am seriously excited by his casting."

    In my perfect world, the reaction wouldn't be "he's perfect" but more "who the hell is that?" because I'd rather have a relative unknown prove himself than a famous actor do it. ;)
  • TuuliaTuulia
    Posts: 2,081
    jackdagger wrote: »
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    I suppose in an ideal world some actor would make you go "heck, yep, he's the guy. I am seriously excited by his casting."

    In my perfect world, the reaction wouldn't be "he's perfect" but more "who the hell is that?" because I'd rather have a relative unknown prove himself than a famous actor do it. ;)

    I'd also love that.

  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,500
    Why does it matter if the actor is famous or unknown? Why should I care? What matters is what can he do with the character.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 2016 Posts: 8,086
    I can't wait for Poldark series 2 later this year, Aidan Turner really made an impression with that show in 2015. Hopefully I can get some more Bond vibes from that. Plus it's filmed in Cornwall, so I'm sure the scenery is stunning!!
  • bondsumbondsum
    edited May 2016 Posts: 3,333
    jobo wrote: »
    Why does it matter if the actor is famous or unknown? Why should I care? What matters is what can he do with the character.
    Well, there's probably an obvious answer to that. If the actor is an "unknown" Eon will have the upper hand in negotiating his contract and all his successive movies. Basically, it will drive the budget costs down. Also, there's a good chance an "unknown" will not be tied to other movie contracts where he's required to keep an open slate for their productions instead of Bond's. Indeed, it doesn't matter to the popcorn-munching ordinary Joe audience member, but it matters to the producers and studios that fund these big budget movies and where profit margins are key. There's good reason why in the past Eon have only sought out Bond actor's that were mostly famed for their TV work and were considered up-and-coming movie stars - cost and availability.
  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,500
    bondsum wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Why does it matter if the actor is famous or unknown? Why should I care? What matters is what can he do with the character.
    Well, there's probably an obvious answer to that. If the actor is an "unknown" Eon will have the upper hand in negotiating his contract and all his successive movies. Basically, it will drive the budget costs down. Also, there's a good chance an "unknown" will not be tied to other movie contracts where he's required to keep an open slate for their productions instead of Bond's. Indeed, it doesn't matter to the popcorn-munching ordinary Joe audience member, but it matters to the producers and studios that fund these big budget movies and where profit margins are key. There's good reason why in the past Eon have only sought out Bond actor's that were mostly famed for their TV work and were considered up-and-coming movie stars - cost and availability.

    I can see that. However it illustrates a fairly unambitious mindset. EON should look for the best possible option each time, that is also the way to make Bond prestigious. If we keep treating it as a second rate role and franchise, that´s how it will remain.

    That being said, there is of course no guarantee that a well known actor is more suited to the part than a "rookie". The priority should always be to get the best alternative, no matter what.

  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    I honestly don't think you can seriously call a highly profitable and successful 53-year-old movie legacy "fairly unambitious" because they don't happen to choose an A-list actor to appear in the lead role, @jobo. I'd say it's the complete reverse, in that they're showing more ambition by selecting a lesser-known name that'll suit their needs going forwards rather than thinking about the here-and-now profits and going for the lazy option of getting an A-lister to carry their franchise and dictate to them the conditions of a contract. When all is said and done, the lesser name actor makes more financial and creative sense than going with the current flavour at the box office.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    This next actor casting is going to be very interesting. When Craig was cast, reboots were all the rage. That sort of helped EON to cast a 'relative' unknown in Craig, because it played into that approach. Moreover, it made sense given the objective with Craig was to 'define Bond' from inception. The next actor will be a 'continuation' actor most likely

    Reboots have notably fizzled as of late, which suggests to me that they may go for a more 'known' actor next time out. Plus, as I noted before, they tend to alternate, apart from Laz who was a one off:

    Connery (unknown)
    Laz (complete unknown)
    Moore (known)
    Dalton (relative unknown)
    Brosnan (known)
    Craig (relative unknown)
    Bond "00" 7 (known?)
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    With the exception of Roger Moore, they were all unknown internationally and none of them were proven box office actors before Bond. Roger Moore, much like Brosnan, was stuck in TV roles, never once having a movie hit before Bond. Though I except Brosnan did have minor success with Mrs. Doubtfire, he wasn't the lead in the movie nor was he central to its success. Why break a winning formula to accommodate a new face?
  • cooperman2cooperman2 Uk
    Posts: 372
    Don't get it at all. You can't just show a still picture of someone(Aiden Turner) in a tux and say what I great Bond he would be. Yes he may look OK in a picture but the guys got to have charm, charisma and be believable as a lover and a killer. I still say Turners got the charisma of a plank of wood
  • daltondalton
    Posts: 1,631
    cooperman2 wrote: »
    Don't get it at all. You can't just show a still picture of someone(Aiden Turner) in a tux and say what I great Bond he would be. Yes he may look OK in a picture but the guys got to have charm, charisma and be believable as a lover and a killer. I still say Turners got the charisma of a plank of wood


    =D>
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    edited May 2016 Posts: 1,756
    My vote still goes to Fassbender, he's got that Connery vibe and he looks machiavellian enough, yet could still beat you to a pulp if you pissed him off. There are so many actors above the level of Turner and Hiddleston Bond wise IMO (good vs GREAT), and Fassbender is one of them.
  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,500
    bondsum wrote: »
    I honestly don't think you can seriously call a highly profitable and successful 53-year-old movie legacy "fairly unambitious" because they don't happen to choose an A-list actor to appear in the lead role, @jobo. I'd say it's the complete reverse, in that they're showing more ambition by selecting a lesser-known name that'll suit their needs going forwards rather than thinking about the here-and-now profits and going for the lazy option of getting an A-lister to carry their franchise and dictate to them the conditions of a contract. When all is said and done, the lesser name actor makes more financial and creative sense than going with the current flavour at the box office.


    You're building a strawman here @bondsum. Jesus Christ! I never said they "have to chose an A-list star". And I never claimed they have been unambitious in the past. My point, which is quite clear, is that the producers should chose whoever is best fit for the part, regardless of the actors fame or public profile. The fact that you happen to have had a fruitfull career should not be a hindrence, and should not exclude you from contention.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    cooperman2 wrote: »
    Don't get it at all. You can't just show a still picture of someone(Aiden Turner) in a tux and say what I great Bond he would be. Yes he may look OK in a picture but the guys got to have charm, charisma and be believable as a lover and a killer. I still say Turners got the charisma of a plank of wood
    Who's basing their judgement on a photograph? Some of us have actually taken the time to watch Turner in And Then There Was None - have you?

    Ok, @jobo, we'll let the matter rest as the topic is going nowhere fast, apart from around in circles.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,468
    Why is this a thing?

    http://www.comicbookmovie.com/action/bond-jane-bond-x-files-star-gillian-anderson-responds-to-being-fan-cast-as-a141945
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,690
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Why is this a thing?

    http://www.comicbookmovie.com/action/bond-jane-bond-x-files-star-gillian-anderson-responds-to-being-fan-cast-as-a141945

    By far the most useless news article I have ever seen.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited May 2016 Posts: 15,423
    OK. What are they really trying to pull off? A female 007? Well, those dimwits have to understand one thing. The Bond films aren't "The OO7 series". They are "James Bond Thrillers". Bond isn't a trademark title to colourise one's identity in a point-a-finger way to antagonists. Bond isn't Captain America, Captain Marvel, or Batman. Sure, the 00-number can be passed on to any agent, whether male or female, but that'll defeat the purpose of the series. It's The James Bond Series. And the 00-prefix is a subsidiary of a sub-identity. If they can't insert this in their thick skulls, then I'll know there are no functioning brain cells in their heads.
Sign In or Register to comment.