29 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

Ok, so far we've had Connery, who defined the role. Then Lazenby put his spin on Connery's Bond, with a bit more emotional depth. Then along came Moore, who played Bond as a playboy secret agent who saved the world with a Martini in one hand and a girl in the other. Dalton brought the series down to Earth by playing a very human James Bond, with a lot of emotional depth and rage. Finally Brosnan came along, and took each actors take on the role and fashioned a Bond who is all of the above (and I dont say this in a bad way).

My question is, after Brosnan, what can the new guy do to have his take be looked at as new or different? Or should he just fall back and emulate a earlier Bond actor?

[Blue Eyes]

Okay, the Brosnan bashers are going to come out in force to get me with this one. But after Pierce, I'd like to see a Bond with youth as a quality.

Not youth in terms of teenagers, but a younger Bond. Someone closer to 30 than to 50.

I think it could give the series a good kick in the pants. If they go for another Pierce clone there isn't going to be a huge change, the audience will notice it and the films will seem more mundane.

Pierce is a great Bond, so emulate him in a 25 to 35 year old Bond and I think we'd have a winner.

[Jim]

I agree that the next Bond could be a bit younger, but 25 is too young. It's bad enough when policemen and footballers are younger than you, but James Bond...that'd be very depressing.

Bond over 50 doesn't work and I stand by that comment given the over-50 Bonds we've had to endure.

'Bout 35.

[Dalton]

Originally posted by Jim
I agree that the next Bond could be a bit younger, but 25 is too young.

Couldn't agree more Jim.

25 is way to young for Bond. He needs experience, not fresh out of college.

Bond was recruited from the Royal Navy, ad is a Commander in rank. He needs to be in his mid thirties at least.

But the general idea of a younger Bond (if still faithful to the Bond character)will give the role a new spin, one we havent seen since the Connery days.

[boeserzwilling]

I think Ian Fleming always saw James Bond in the mid-30s, but all the actors after George Lazenby have been in their 40s when they entered the role.
Perhaps EON should really approach some younger actors next time, although Moore, Dalton and Brosnan have been great choices. I just hope Brosnan doesn't end up like Connery in DAF or Moore in AVTAK.

[Blofeld's Cat]

I read somewhere that the best age for an "agent" was about 45. Old enough to have the experience to survive the trade, but young enough to still be fit and healthy.

I'd prefer Bond to be at least 40, or a little older, for these reasons. If an actor can pull off looking this age for 5 or so movies, whether he's actually younger or older, then I'd be happy.

[Blue Eyes]

Originally posted by Jim
I agree that the next Bond could be a bit younger, but 25 is too young.

Well by 25 I mean an actor who's 25 but looks the 30 age. It could give them a longer tenure as Bond.

[Bryce (003)]

Younger would work. Anywhere from 36 on to 40 would feel right. Sir Sean was only 31 when DN started shooting.

[Blanket Truth]

whatever you may say Alec Baldwin is the man for the Bond role. Pierce has done a good job and should continue to do so, but I think alec should definitely have a crack at it. He has the looks, manner and experience that would make him great for the part.

[M_Balje]

Originally posted by Blanket Truth
whatever you may say Alec Baldwin is the man for the Bond role. Pierce has done a good job and should continue to do so, but I think alec should definitely have a crack at it. He has the looks, manner and experience that would make him great for the part.

And American !!
And i will see alone Brit Actor's play the role of Bond.

[Bryce (003)]

I liked Baldwin in Red October, but then he pulled a Lazenby and walked away from a franchise which he, unlike George, was launching...

He had his shot at being the main "Spy Guy" for Paramount. Now, he's a bit too old for the part. He'd be a great foe for 007 though. He looks better with a beard.

[M_Balje]

I Wil see a Bond between 36 years and 42 years old.
He must have the action of Brosnan and the funny of Moore.

[Double-0 Six]

Originally posted by Blanket Truth
Whatever you may say Alec Baldwin is the man for the Bond role.

I could see Alec Baldwin in the role, he looked the part in Red October, but the fact that he's American counts against him - Bond should be British!

I'd like to see Ioan Grufford (sp?) give it a go, but he's too young at the moment. Though having said that I agree that the next Bond should be a little younger (both for the character and an ability to stick with the franchise for more films).

Either way, the producers have their work cut out for them in finding a successor to Pierce Brosnan.

[Bryce (003)]

I'm on record in several posts for going with Hugh Jackman. I caught the last half of X-Men on cable the other night and, while it's hardly Bond but is action, he delivers. He'll be pushing 40 after PB's next/last? film. Although, cleaned up, he looks the part. There's some "Connery" about him that's his own thing which is good.

Give him a test. Let Michael and Barbara figure it out.

[JimmyBond]

I think Hugh Jackman has a certain look to him, like Dalton had, where you're not quite sure what he's thinking. Thats the kind of look Bond should have. No offense to Pierce (who I love in the role, dont bash me, Xen ), but he just doesnt have that unpredictable nature to him.

[Yuri]

I agree that Hugh Jackman would make a good Bond.

[Blanket Truth]

Alec baldwin may be American but Sean Connery is Scottish. Not too far off I know but the new 'poster boy' around the forum for the next Bond (Hugh Jackman) is Australian!! An english actor would be great for the role but I can't think of any that would be suitable.

Alec is getting a little old for the part but he does have the quality that would make him great for it. I haven't seen Hugh in much but from the little that I have he hasn't seemed like Bond material.

DAD will hopefully show Bond to be a scarred individual, both physically but more importantly mentally. Someone with that responsibility and history should have more demons than anything and I think this aspect should show through more. Bond is good for the swarve, superficial playboy thing but there is a great deal more potential. 006 digs at him with the martinies drowning screams comment, lets see a darker, even depressed Bond!

[Double-0 Six]

Originally posted by Blanket Truth
I haven't seen Hugh in much but from the little that I have he hasn't seemed like Bond material ...

... Lets see a darker, even depressed Bond!

Somebody had a very good picture of Hugh Jackman in another thread that convinced me that he could make a good Bond (looks wise anyway), as for acting talent I can't comment (having only seen him in X-Men).

Don't forget Brosnan's portrayal of Bond in Tomorrow Never Dies (as he waits in his hotel room for Paris to show up) - I've never seen Bond brood as well as he does there, it would be good to see more of this in the future (without getting too psychological about it).

[Turn]

Hugh Jackman seems to be the overwhelming favorite of most posters to take over the role. While I don't disagree with the choice, my advice is don't get your hopes up too high.

If Brosnan does come back for Bond 21, it will be two or three more years until it hits screens and at least another two on top of that for the next one. The producers would be crazy to announce another actor for the role if it would detract attention from the current project. Besides, the search for a new Bond always makes for great media attention.

Jackman is already establishing himself as a strong leading man and is not short on work. His salary will skyrocket by the time Brosnan abandons the role of Bond and the producers won't want that kind of star baggage attached to it. It reminds me of the constant talk between Licence to Kill and GoldenEye that people wanted Mel Gibson as Bond. We all know how that turned out.

Beyond that, I can't say right now how the next actor to play Bond should play it. My only sure bet is that he will likely be little known. Whether that means a return to a lighter Moore type or one that follows Brosnan, whatever keeps the series interesting and fresh.

[007luvchild]

I'm going to stand in the minority and still say that Clive Owen would make a good Bond. He would definitely bring a hard edge to the role similar to Dalton, but more trendy. I find it lately, that you have all these movies featuring this hard-boiled agents and chock full of action. But I prefer the new actor (someone who I don't mind seeing in the role[it doesn't have to be Owen] who's not too high profile) to bring a very hard-edged to Bond but has a sense of elegance unlike the ethan hunts and triple XXX's of the spy genre.

[JimmyBond]

Turn has a point. Jackman could get big with the X-Men films (well, he is now...sorta) and he is becoming a likeable leading man.

However, lets not forget the one key element here. Jackman wants to do it, and when someone wants something so badly they might do what they have to to work it out. So that means Jackman may take a salary cut if he really wants to play Bond (that does sound a bit far fetched, but hey, you never know).

[Desslar]

I agree that a younger Bond would be a good idea. Using people like Moore and Brosnan is OK for a couple of films, but very soon the intimate and action scenes start to become ridiculously unrealistic. I think 30 is plenty old enough. After all Connery started at 31. Think about it, if an actor started at 30 he might be around for as many as 10 films, which would help to maintain continuity.

I definitely don't want to see any more 50+ Bonds, and I'm sure today's youth-oriented audiences don't either.

[Tanger]

From a newspaper I was reading at work the other day (think it was the Daily Star):
Roger Moore's son Geoffrey is considering auditioning as the new Bond - and has slagged off his dad's eyebrow-twitching style.
Although he is the owner of trendy London restaurant Hush, Geoff says he wouldn't hesitate to put himself forward for the all-action role.
He said: "Just because I am Roger's son doesn't entitle me to the job.
"But sure, I'd go for it as I have nothing to lose if I just do a test.
"I'm a natural born actor. To be honest, I'd probably be a better actor than my father."
Can't argue with that.

[JimmyBond]

There would definately be a media frenzy if Roger's son got the part. Many people might come to the first movie of his just to see how much like his father he actually is.

[Tanger]

If I was him, I'd go for it. Nothing to lose, although the public might just think that he got the part because he's Roger's son.
Also if he did get the part, he should then use Roger Moore as a stage name (for some reason that's what I would do(???)).That would cause so much confusion, and could you imagine the advertising?

Roger Moore as James Bond 007

The public: Not him again!

LOL!!

[JimmyBond]

That would cause mass hysteria among fans! The world would be off balance, hundreds of savage anti-Roger fans would be going nuts! Can you imagine:

"Who's your favorite Bond?" "I like Roger Moore." "Get him!"


P.S: The aformentioned post was not a flame against Roger Moore or his fans, just a good natured joke

[R]

I've always thought that the next Bond actor would be an ideal opportunity to "restart" the story, so to speak (I have a theory that EON are keeping Casino Royale as a title back so they can use it for the new guy's first outing). You could follow Bond from his very early days in ther service, and build up some quite significant story arc over three or four films.

I've had in my mind a pre-credits sequence involving 007 being picked up from a covert mission to by a submarine. 007 has "obtained" the only surviving vial of weapons-grade smallpox in the world. A number of terrorist groups would have loved to get their hands on that. However, as two officers from the sub near the pick up point, they see 007 being chased along the shoreline. A shot rings out, and 007 falls to the ground. One of the pursuers frisk's the prone figure, finds and retrieves the vial, then makes off. The officers rush to 007, the junior, a Lieutentant, check's 007's pulse, and radios in "Captain, the vial has been stolen...and 007 is dead, sir". The Lt. looks up to see that his superior, Lieutentant Commander James Bond, RNVR, is already after the thief....

[Carver]

I totally agree with a younger Bond, Lazenby was 29, and Connery was 31 when they started filming, so why not? The character of Bond, I think (and this is a long shot) is meant to be 33-35. I heard something about Pierces son, Sean. He doesn't want to play Bond, but would love to play a baddie opposite his father. Now that would be great! Brosnan Vs Bronsnan!

[Blue Eyes]

It would be interesting, but Sean is around 19 I believe. Seriously, how young are the villains going to get?

[JimmyBond]

I could just imagine Sean as a villian.

"Ok Mr. Bond, before I leave you in this death chamber, I need to ask you this question" "What is it Small-Finger?" "If a train is leaving New York at Noon and going 150 MPH.......