91 replies to this topic

[Tybre]

Quality > Money. 007 needs to be 007, not some ATM on wheels. And Radcliffe just doesn't have the chops to portray Bond, unless his skills vastly improve in the next, what, decade? How old is he anymore anyway?

[DamnCoffee]

I think he's the same age as me, 18. Not too sure though. He could be 19.

Grint however, I can actually see in the role, in around 20 years or so...

[Mercator]

You ken not have redhead as Bond!!

Radkliffe has 20 years. But he is good actor and for on stage. In years, he could be a Bond, no? When has grown up. He will also out of Harry Potter typekasting want.

Edited by Mercator, 21 July 2009 - 01:48 PM.

[DamnCoffee]

Hardly, I think he'll never escape Harry Potter, I do want to see him in other roles though, but not Bond.

[Mercator]

Naturally, no for Bond now. But in some years. I have feeling Dancial Craig will do many Bonds, 6 or 7 (think but not for hope, I don't like his 007)

[Bond Bombshell]

We cannot tell what Daniel Radcliffe's going to look like in the future, or what kind of actor he's going to be. What we do know however, is that he's somewhere in the region of 5ft 5in to 5ft 6in tall and at twenty years old has finished growing. While height is not the be all and end all of Bond, I cannot imagine them casting someone this short. He could be up to 5 inches shorter than Craig and look at the flak he got over his height. Radcliffe would not look big enough to knock anyone down unless he was fighting evil smurfs.

[Zorin Industries]

Daniel Radcliffe will never be James Bond.

Why?

Because Eon Productions like to cast actors who can act and Mr Radcliffe has yet to do anything of filmic significance outside of Harry Potter.

And being supposedly ideal for a part when you are eleven years old is all well and good but I haven't seen him crack many adult parts. Type casting doesn't even come into it. And topless photo shoots smoking cigarettes just looks desperate to me.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

And topless photo shoots smoking cigarettes just looks desperate to me.

You should have seen some awesomely silly photos of him printed in my local paper recently, where he had something that looked a bit like a beard and a very "artsy", moody look that screamed "I am not Harry Potter, you know, so please give me some other roles!". I'm looking forward to see what "daring" and controversial choices he makes in a desperate attempt to shed the Potter-image.

He'd be a terrible Bond, and I don't get how anybody can suggest him for the part personally. Too short, voice is too light, he's too wooden, and there is no way whatsoever I would be able to buy him as 007.

[Zorin Industries]

I have such a good Radcliffe anecdote but lawyers and my lack of them disallows me to...(!!).

[Zorin Industries]

I think he's the same age as me, 18. Not too sure though. He could be 19.

Grint however, I can actually see in the role, in around 20 years or so...

Grint is in his early twenties.

[DamnCoffee]

He's 20, isn't he. Give it another 20 years and he would be in his early 40's. If he keeps his looks, he would be ideal.

[Zorin Industries]

He's 20, isn't he. Give it another 20 years and he would be in his early 40's. If he keeps his looks, he would be ideal.

For what ...? Radio? If he has any looks (bless him), then he really needs to start taking them out with him.

[havok_007]

He's 20, isn't he. Give it another 20 years and he would be in his early 40's. If he keeps his looks, he would be ideal.

For what ...? Radio? If he has any looks (bless him), then he really needs to start taking them out with him.

Yeah what looks, hes ugly, and ginger.

I saw earlier in the post people against Henry Cavill and how they wanted to stay away from that pretty faced bond and keep the Daniel Craig 007.
Why have a bond whos not good looking? I think DC is fairly borderline, although he has some sex appeal with the ladies and his body is good shape.
Do most of the people on here want bond to be borderline looking so that they feel more like bond themselves?

Bring back the good looking young 007, like Brosnan, just give him the same tone of movies like the last two, not the rubbish like DAD.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

Sorry, but Rupert Grint for Bond is the worst suggestion since, um, Daniel Radcliffe for Bond.

[The Shark]

Sorry, but Rupert Grint for Bond is the worst suggestion since, um, Daniel Radcliffe for Bond.

It's a better suggestion in my opinion.

He's good looking and a better actor, the fact that he's got red hair doesn't matter.

[Tybre]

My opinion on Cavill has done an utter reversal, actually. Whereas before I was very opposed to the notion, he now springs to mind first to take over James Bond. I don't care if it's as the successor to Craig or if it's as a later Bond, I just want him to do it. Grint on the other hand...just no. I can get over the ginger, much as I don't like it, but, I just can't see Grint working as Bond, and his voice irks me to no end (although I admit it's not as bad as the other two of the Potter trio).

[Ducki]

Look back at Flemings source material, Bond is supposedly a weathered, experienced battle hardened veteran in his late 30's. You just wouldnt get that with someone young. So yes Connery was in his early 30's but he looked the part and looked older, if thier going to be young they need to look like I said ^ otherwise for me just no.

[double o ego]

What is it with this global dislike of those with ginger hair? I've never understood it.

[coco1997]

What is it with this global dislike of those with ginger hair? I've never understood it.

[JLaidlaw]

What is it with this global dislike of those with ginger hair? I've never understood it.

Me neither- Damian Lewis could have made a good Bond. He may still be a good 00 agent/Villain/M at some point in the future.

Frankly I'm slightly curious that people want there to be continuity between the Bonds this time around. The stories just work better if you imagine them as a set of independent interpretations of Bond, rather than one seamless continuity in which Bond, born around 1930 went on all of those missions right up to 2002 which would take far too much suspension of disbelief on the audience's part. Taking out the references to Tracy and the continuity of actors in MI6/KGB, there have been no attempts to connect any of the actors to the last one since Lazenby's reminiscences in OHMSS. Brosnan's Bond is not Dalton's Bond who is not Moore's Bond who is not Connery's Bond. Whilst they are in essence the same character, their appearence, characteristics and most importantly memories are different. Similarly the new bond should be a new interpretation of the character; audiences can make up their own minds whether they want to treat him as the same man or not. But just because he's new doesn't mean you have to have a new origin story etc. Just make sure the Quantum arc is done before Craig leaves.

Make the new Bond as young as you like, give him a new or the same Leiter/M, I don't mind as long as they don't try and make him Daniel Craig.

Edited by JLaidlaw, 21 September 2009 - 03:31 PM.

[DAN LIGHTER]

I think he's the same age as me, 18. Not too sure though. He could be 19.

Grint however, I can actually see in the role, in around 20 years or so...

I cant see a redheaded Bond in my lifetime. Or at least I wouldnt want to see one. But I am more than happy for a redheaded Bond Girl.

Daniel Radcliffe will never be James Bond.

Why?

Because Eon Productions like to cast actors who can act and Mr Radcliffe has yet to do anything of filmic significance outside of Harry Potter.

And being supposedly ideal for a part when you are eleven years old is all well and good but I haven't seen him crack many adult parts. Type casting doesn't even come into it. And topless photo shoots smoking cigarettes just looks desperate to me.

EON like to cast actors who can act? I think that has been proven wrong over the years by certain cast members eh Zorin?

[Zorin Industries]

Maybe, but never in the case of the lead actor playing James Bond. Daniel Radcliffe is an awful actor who is unable to hold and carry the POTTER films so let's not be silly here and even entertain suggestions that he would be a good James Bond 007.

[DAN LIGHTER]

True.

[Aris007]

The girl in the background could be in a Bond film. Him...uhm! Not sure! Not keen!

Maybe, but never in the case of the lead actor playing James Bond. Daniel Radcliffe is an awful actor who is unable to hold and carry the POTTER films so let's not be silly here and even entertain suggestions that he would be a good James Bond 007.

Is there really anyone in this thread who believes that Radcliffe can play a decent Bond? I don't even think that he'll get a big role once Potter is over. The guy got lucky! Potter was a masive success he was linked to the character. He doesn't have that huge acting talent.

[Emma]

I can't see Craig going anywhere just yet. He's up for 3 more in his contract and if the prods will have him will probs stay for more.

I do hope they show Sam Worthington some love when Craig does retire.

I feel sorry for the guy whomever it will be.

Big shoes to fill.

Maybe Sam Worthington?

Sorry….Not to derail the thread. But when I saw the name of Sam Worthington mentioned I had to jump in.

If I had known that the choice for Bond #6 was really between Daniel Craig and Sam Worthington back in 2005/2006. I would have ceased and desisted with my objections regarding Daniel Craig and jumped on the ‘DanielCraigIsBond.com’ band wagon.

There are many things that Craig did in CR that were completely d***ish. And the only reason I found myself rooting for him was because he was so inherently likeable. If any other actor done what he had done in that film I would have walked out of the theatre.

Sam Worthington has none of Daniel Craig’s affability. None whatsoever. Sam Worthington is rude, ignorant, noxious and unlikable. He’s even more churlish and sourly than Russell Crowe (if that is possible). If he had been chosen as Bond, Casino Royale would have been a flop.

EON and Co. would do themselves (and us) a great favour and sidestep Worthington as a choice for Bond when Daniel Craig leaves the role.

That is my two cents.

[Zorin Industries]

I can't see Craig going anywhere just yet. He's up for 3 more in his contract and if the prods will have him will probs stay for more.

I do hope they show Sam Worthington some love when Craig does retire.

I feel sorry for the guy whomever it will be.

Big shoes to fill.

Maybe Sam Worthington?

Sorry….Not to derail the thread. But when I saw the name of Sam Worthington mentioned I had to jump in.

If I had known that the choice for Bond #6 was really between Daniel Craig and Sam Worthington back in 2005/2006. I would have ceased and desisted with my objections regarding Daniel Craig and jumped on the ‘DanielCraigIsBond.com’ band wagon.

There are many things that Craig did in CR that were completely d***ish. And the only reason I found myself rooting for him was because he was so inherently likeable. If any other actor done what he had done in that film I would have walked out of the theatre.

Sam Worthington has none of Daniel Craig’s affability. None whatsoever. Sam Worthington is rude, ignorant, noxious and unlikable. He’s even more churlish and sourly than Russell Crowe (if that is possible). If he had been chosen as Bond, Casino Royale would have been a flop.

EON and Co. would do themselves (and us) a great favour and sidestep Worthington as a choice for Bond when Daniel Craig leaves the role.

That is my two cents.

Who said Sam Worthington was that highly considered? Just curious... because it was not quite the case.

[SecretAgentFan]

Sam Worthington is rude, ignorant, noxious and unlikable. He’s even more churlish and sourly than Russell Crowe (if that is possible).

Oh? Did you have personal encounters with him?

[Emma]

Sam Worthington is rude, ignorant, noxious and unlikable. He’s even more churlish and sourly than Russell Crowe (if that is possible).

Oh? Did you have personal encounters with him?

Not. It was from piece done in the US edition of Esquire September 2009. Here's a link for you:

http://www.esquire.c...ton-quotes-0909

Not what I call a pleasant fellow.

Who said Sam Worthington was that highly considered? Just curious... because it was not quite the case.

It was an article I read on Craig in a magazine. Forget which one (sorry). But it just mentioned that the role was a toss up between Craig and Worthington for the role.

[Dr.Fell]

I think 35 is the magic number.

[pieffra]

I always knew that literary Bond, was in his middle 30's...
So I appreciate, if the producers are thinking to turn their ways to this target.
With Craig, after Brosnan, it gave the impression they would bring the charachter to this age...
It would be good if next Bond, the 7th, will be in his early, middle 30's