Who should/could be a Bond actor? *SPOILERS*

1181182184186187855

Comments

  • Posts: 498
    I watched the entirety of The Night Manager and I feel like I watched a completely different series than everyone else.
    It's hard to describe, but there's this childlike innocence in Hiddleston's eyes. He always looks like he's either about to burst into a smile or burst into tears. He lacks an intensity that the other Bonds had.
    I think he's a fine actor, just not for Bond. Maybe in 10 years he'd be better for the part, but not now IMO.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    @jackdagger, he was meant to be in a little over his head. He was not playing James Bond in The Night Manager. He was playing Jonathan Pine, undercover. Richard Roper, played by Hugh Laurie, was meant to be the intimidating one. .

    If he gets Bond, you will see what he can do, and it will be clear in the pretitles. Just like it was with Craig.
  • Posts: 498
    bondjames wrote: »
    @jackdagger, he was meant to be in a little over his head. He was not playing James Bond in The Night Manager. He was playing Jonathan Pine, undercover. Richard Roper, played by Hugh Laurie, was meant to be the intimidating one.

    Yes, exactly, which is why I think it's impossible to tell what kind of Bond he'd be based on the Night Manager, despite what others have said.

    (I guess it also doesn't help that I'm not attracted to him at all. I suppose that makes me somewhat biased.)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    jackdagger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @jackdagger, he was meant to be in a little over his head. He was not playing James Bond in The Night Manager. He was playing Jonathan Pine, undercover. Richard Roper, played by Hugh Laurie, was meant to be the intimidating one.

    Yes, exactly, which is why I think it's impossible to tell what kind of Bond he'd be based on the Night Manager, despite what others have said.

    (I guess it also doesn't help that I'm not attracted to him at all. I suppose that makes me somewhat biased.)
    I can appreciate that. He has an unconventional look. Almost confused looking at times. Consistently puzzled. I find it rather interesting, but I can see how others can be put off by it.

    The same thing goes for Rupert Friend. He can look strange too, to some.

    Ultimately, I'd prefer Fassbender, but either of these two are ok alternatives for me.
  • Posts: 709
    DCisared wrote: »
    Jesus christ. If Dan doesn't return then I hope hiddlestone gets it. He's the only one mentioned who has the presence and he has something behind the eyes unlike most championed around here.
    What does being "macho' even mean in 2016?

    This is an important question. in relation to the potential new James Bond. We're in a time where brigades of twitter/tumblr social justice warriors have turned the very idea of masculinity into a toxic idea. If someone acts traditionally "macho" it gets criticized as offensive, so I don't envy EON in trying to bring Bond through these waters.
    I mean, we are seeing completely straight-faced articles saying Gillian Anderson should be Bond. There are very few traditionally manly actors out there in the same mold as the 60s when we saw Connery, Caine, Newman, McQueen, Clint, etc. These guys all had actual life experience outside of acting, many of them did some military service. You don't see that stuff anymore. Piddles went to boarding school, university, and then acted. It's a different era, that's for sure.

    I really want Dan to do atleast another but I would absolutely love it if they hire tom to shut up all you whinge bags going on about machoism. I can imagine these boards when in B25 we see bonds first ever bisexual encounter. Cue anarchy and the Turner worshippers are left to cry into their boyfriends man-buns.

    Sure, why not. If they cast Tiddles it's over for me anyway, so just burn the whole thing down in spectacular fashion :)
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded Riding a white swan to Matera
    Posts: 12,377
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I'm finding myself wanting Fassbender to do it...
    Just from those who have been mentioned, yes. For sure. I keep hoping the next Bond is someone not yet mentioned, though. And more than that, I hope Dan does one more.

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    jackdagger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @jackdagger, he was meant to be in a little over his head. He was not playing James Bond in The Night Manager. He was playing Jonathan Pine, undercover. Richard Roper, played by Hugh Laurie, was meant to be the intimidating one.

    Yes, exactly, which is why I think it's impossible to tell what kind of Bond he'd be based on the Night Manager, despite what others have said.

    (I guess it also doesn't help that I'm not attracted to him at all. I suppose that makes me somewhat biased.)
    I can appreciate that. He has an unconventional look. Almost confused looking at times. Consistently puzzled. I find it rather interesting, but I can see how others can be put off by it.

    The same thing goes for Rupert Friend. He can look strange too, to some.

    Ultimately, I'd prefer Fassbender, but either of these two are ok alternatives for me.

    Fassbender is the only preferable contender that hadn't been rumored to have met with EoN.

    ...and it's not so much the muscle bound trait for NA but the machismo of the appearance.

    Hiddleston doesn't look intimidating... menacing, yes ...dark multilayered, yes.

    Hiddleston may in fact do very well but he would be a hard sell here IMO.

    Fassbender tends to please both sides and has an interest in the role but again I haven't heard of EoN even taking notice.

    How Bell got noticed who knows??

    I make no apologies for my lack of confidence in EoN.



  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    @mcdonbb, I agree with you on Hiddle possibly being a hard sell as Bond in NA. I can see that, but then again, he may just fit the expectation of a classy Brit.

    I do think the muscle bound thing is somewhat of a fixation though. Nearly all the heroes are built in NA, while in Europe one can have a more refined (for lack of a better word) appearance and still be popular.

    I tend to prioritize a look/build that looks better in suits though, rather than someone who looks like he has a second home in the gym. A bit of muscle is good too - just not too much. Lean and fit is my preference for Bond.

    That's why I've always said height is as important as muscle. That way one looks good in the suits and also without them. Young Connery nailed that perfectly.
  • Posts: 2,081
    Gawd, he looked awful. A terrible look for anybody.
  • Posts: 8,808
    Who Arnold lol yeah I know but I don't mind a leaner bond like hiddleston
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,099
    Anybody but this guy, who just reeks of un-tough Moore.


  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    @mcdonbb, I agree with you on Hiddle possibly being a hard sell as Bond in NA. I can see that, but then again, he may just fit the expectation of a classy Brit.

    I do think the muscle bound thing is somewhat of a fixation though. Nearly all the heroes are built in NA, while in Europe one can have a more refined (for lack of a better word) appearance and still be popular.

    I tend to prioritize a look/build that looks better in suits though, rather than someone who looks like he has a second home in the gym. A bit of muscle is good too - just not too much. Lean and fit is my preference for Bond.

    That's why I've always said height is as important as muscle. That way one looks good in the suits and also without them. Young Connery nailed that perfectly.

    Well I can see and agree with that.

    I really don't know right now. Even with Fassbender I'm not completely sold. That's just too obvious.



  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I honestly think the anti-Hiddleston people are in for a big disappointment, I think
    You'd better get used to him. :))
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded Riding a white swan to Matera
    Posts: 12,377
    If so, it's a shame; but I won't lose sleep over it or write a nasty letter to EON.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I've been happy with all the actors who've played Bond and Don't expect to
    be disappointed by the next :)
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe Still waiting for the Jena Malone Batwoman movie that's never going to be made.Moderator
    Posts: 12,099
    Being build like a brick outhouse is the wrong look for Bond. But even with that in mind, I don't think Hiddleston is right for Bond, I just don't see that extra something Bond needs. Whatever happens, someone will be disappointed.
  • Posts: 7,225
    The downside to being a Bond producer is that no matter what you do, you can't please everbody. The only thing you can be certain of is that someone will complain about your decisions.

    That being said I would happily take their job if I could!
  • edited May 2016 Posts: 1,644
    Hiddleston is all wrong for Bond. Zero edge. Bond should be a guy you don't wanna mess with, but also someone with an heroic face. Someone you go "wow, cool dude!" Someone that inspires you, makes you want to be like him.

    I don't see any of that with Mr Hiddleston as a potential Bond. Nor Jamie Bell. Sorry to be so blunt but this is James Bond version 7 not some BBC 1 spy drama tv show. Eon and the studio need to keep looking.
  • edited May 2016 Posts: 12,511
    Craig as Bond, Heath Ledger as The Joker, etc. It's amazing how people never learn. IF he does get the role, then even if you don't like Hiddleston, I think we should all at least trust EON's judgement and give him a fair chance. Judging him before we've even seen him in action is dumb imo. We'd be no better than the DCINB lot were.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    What should I watch to see Jamie Bell in an action oriented capacity? I know he was in Tintin, which I enjoyed, but that was motion capture.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    What should I watch to see Jamie Bell in an action oriented capacity? I know he was in Tintin, which I enjoyed, but that was motion capture.

    Jamie Bell is not going to be James Bond.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    What should I watch to see Jamie Bell in an action oriented capacity? I know he was in Tintin, which I enjoyed, but that was motion capture.

    Jamie Bell is not going to be James Bond.
    From your lips to God's ears, or at least Bab's, hopefully.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    Craig as Bond, Heath Ledger as The Joker, etc. It's amazing how people never learn. IF he does get the role, then even if you don't like Hiddleston, I think we should all at least trust EON's judgement and give him a fair chance. Judging him before we've even seen him in action is dumb imo. We'd be no better than the DCINB lot were.

    Precisely. I'd even include Affleck as Batman. He got some next level hate and now he's WB/DC's great hope.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    Not to like Hiddleston is perfectly ok. But nobody can deny that he would look the part.

    Ben Affleck always looked the part of Bruce Wayne, but he was highly controversial because of his acting past (mainly Daredevil I believe). Furthermore BvS being such crap helped Affleck a lot in becoming the only positive thing in it.

    One thing is for sure who ever will be chosen will not win the hearts of everyone. But I believe there can be choices that would generally get accepted with positivity.

    Tom Hiddleston certainly belongs into that category. Fassbender or Aidan Turner certainly too.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 5,925
    Hiddles is not going to be Bond.
    Turner is not going to be Bond.
    Bell is not going to be Bond.

    At this point, DC has the best chance of returning as Bond, if he wants it.

    And even then, even if he does want it back, the role still may be taken away from him...

    Am I that arrogant to be making these above, sweeping predictions?

    No.

    I only say this because, until a distributor is attached, no one is 100% guaranteed to be wearing the tux.

    It's the distributor who has to agree to the cast (after all they're going to be selling the film in the markets around the world).

    That's why I say Craig has the best, although, not guaranteed, chance of being 007 (providing he wants to). He's been big bank for the franchise, so, if Sony comes back again, they may want to stick with the goose who lays the golden eggs.

    If it's a new partnership, with another company, they may think the same: we can lessen risk, make guaranteed bank with this guy over two films (providing he wants to. And if he does, lock him up for two more films. If he's not going to commit to two more, then, 'bye-'bye). After this two pic deal, they send him off, make some great capital, then move into the more grinding process of re-casting. Or;

    They might also say: Craig's done, we're the new Sheriff in town, we want a re-boot. We wanna start fresh. We'll take however long it takes to get the casting right, then we'll move into the next film.

    But the casting decision WILL NOT BE MADE without the distribs consent.

    So the media can report all it wants about Hiddles, Turner, et al... But, realistically, and no matter how much it pains to say: this is going to take a while.

    Even if DC said tomorrow, I'm out, good luck to the next gent, the reality is, the casting will take a backseat to the deal with a distrib. The interested company, with Eon, will hafta hash out an agreeable Plan A, B and C (do we want Craig; does he want us? How many films?; if we re-boot, what's the dream casting list look like; who can we get? How many movies? Soft or hard re-boot?). All this hasta be agreed upon, with all parties agreeing to terms. Then, and only then, will the search for a new 007 start in earnest.

    So, since DC hasn't said a word, one way, or the other, he truly is Bond until he makes his retirement known, or a distrib resigns his licence to kill.

    It's all in the hands of EoN's big deal with the distributing company. That's when the fireworks will begin.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe "I need a year off" Craig
    Posts: 7,316
    peter wrote: »
    Hiddles is not going to be Bond.
    Turner is not going to be Bond.
    Bell is not going to be Bond.

    At this point, DC has the best chance of returning as Bond, if he wants it.

    And even then, even if he does want it back, the role still may be taken away from him...

    Am I that arrogant to be making these above, sweeping predictions?

    No.

    I only say this because, until a distributor is attached, no one is 100% guaranteed to be wearing the tux.

    It's the distributor who has to agree to the cast (after all they're going to be selling the film in the markets around the world).

    That's why I say Craig has the best, although, not guaranteed, chance of being 007 (providing he wants to). He's been big bank for the franchise, so, if Sony comes back again, they may want to stick with the goose who lays the golden eggs.

    If it's a new partnership, with another company, they may think the same: we can lessen risk, make guaranteed bank with this guy over two films (providing he wants to. And if he does, lock him up for two more films. If he's not going to commit to two more, then, 'bye-'bye). After this two pic deal, they send him off, make some great capital, then move into the more grinding process of re-casting. Or;

    They might also say: Craig's done, we're the new Sheriff in town, we want a re-boot. We wanna start fresh. We'll take however long it takes to get the casting right, then we'll move into the next film.

    But the casting decision WILL NOT BE MADE without the distribs consent.

    So the media can report all it wants about Hiddles, Turner, et al... But, realistically, and no matter how much it pains to say: this is going to take a while.

    Even if DC said tomorrow, I'm out, good luck to the next gent, the reality is, the casting will take a backseat to the deal with a distrib. The interested company, with Eon, will hafta hash out an agreeable Plan A, B and C (do we want Craig; does he want us? How many films?; if we re-boot, what's the dream casting list look like; who can we get? How many movies? Soft or hard re-boot?). All this hasta be agreed upon, with all parties agreeing to terms. Then, and only then, will the search for a new 007 start in earnest.

    So, since DC hasn't said a word, one way, or the other, he truly is Bond until he makes his retirement known, or a distrib resigns his licence to kill.

    It's all in the hands of EoN's big deal with the distributing company. That's when the fireworks will begin.

    Woah!
  • Posts: 1,583
    Very much agreed, @peter .

    None of this gets done until there is a distribution deal. Until then, it's all media reports and agents trying to get their clients' name out into the press.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe "I need a year off" Craig
    Posts: 7,316
    Forgive me if I am mistaken, but wasn't it said that a deal would be struck in the first half of 2016?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Forgive me if I am mistaken, but wasn't it said that a deal would be struck in the first half of 2016?
    Yes, originally by EON I think, but more recent statements at the annual meeting by the MGM CEO seem to suggest this is going to be a prolonged process and there is no rush.
Sign In or Register to comment.