4014 replies to this topic

[Righty007]

I've heard this guy, Matthew Goode, mentioned on a few websites. Maybe by the time 2015 comes around?


http://www.matthewgo...work/4533122738


Otherwise Cavill is the option at the moment. Of course, 6 years is a long way away and we've got 2 more Craig outings before then.

I made that suggestion on CBn 6 years ago...

http://debrief.comma...showtopic=12976

[Loomis]

Exactly! Don't expect a return to the Moore era. The world as it is is a much darker place

Surely the amount of darkness in the world has remained more or less constant across the centuries?

[Tybre]

Exactly! Don't expect a return to the Moore era. The world as it is is a much darker place

Surely the amount of darkness in the world has remained more or less constant across the centuries?

Matter of perspective, really. For example, Chinggis Khaan is largely looked upon favorably in Mongolia and in China. In the Middle-East, particularly Iraq and Iran, he is looked upon as a genocidal maniac.

[dinovelvet]

To be fair, DOCTOR WHO the character has always been eccentric and contained the ability to be comedic. And Eccleston was no different.

The Bond films do change, they do evolve. You are right. But they reflect the cinematic zeitgeist of the times. And I cannot see that allowing a Moore approach back to Bond.

Well I don't see why not. It will only take one breakout action movie that takes a more comedic approach to completely change things. Like The Matrix in 1999, within two or three years every action movie had bullet time and speed ramping in it, Bond included, with DAD.
The action thriller genre right now is very, very serious, unfunny, and po-faced, with an emphasis on realism and grittiness; CR/QOS, Taken, Batman, Bourne, etc having nary a quip or a wisecrack between them. Maybe something more lightweight comes along in the next 18 months, cleans up with $200 mil at the box office, and suddenly that's the direction action thrillers go in, and Bond will follow suit.

[JimmyBond]

I'll readily admit I love the direction the Bond series is going right now, I think Craig's two films are a great return to form after the uneven Brosnan era.

However...I would also totally embrace a return to the Moore style hijinks of the 70s. I'm not saying they should ape the Moore films, but their is a lot of room to add more comedy into the series...that yes, may not be "Fleming" but it would still be Bond. Let's not forget that the literary Bond and the cinematic Bond have never been that similar.

[DaveBond21]

I've heard this guy, Matthew Goode, mentioned on a few websites. Maybe by the time 2015 comes around?


http://www.matthewgo...work/4533122738


Otherwise Cavill is the option at the moment. Of course, 6 years is a long way away and we've got 2 more Craig outings before then.

I made that suggestion on CBn 6 years ago...

http://debrief.comma...showtopic=12976

Hey, nice work, Righty.....

[double o ego]

I'll readily admit I love the direction the Bond series is going right now, I think Craig's two films are a great return to form after the uneven Brosnan era.

However...I would also totally embrace a return to the Moore style hijinks of the 70s. I'm not saying they should ape the Moore films, but their is a lot of room to add more comedy into the series...that yes, may not be "Fleming" but it would still be Bond. Let's not forget that the literary Bond and the cinematic Bond have never been that similar.

True but Bond in alomst every department has been parodied to death and back. Hi-jinks of any sort, especially the likes of 70s Bond would ultimately kill the series off. The key word here is, moderation. Injecting just the right amount humour and playfulness is all the Bond movies these days need. CR had just the right amount considering it's story and the turn it took, when things started getting emotionally serious. However, the amount of humour on the scale of what we got in the first 4 connery films is the way to go.

[JimmyBond]

I see what you're saying, but you're talking about now. I believe Craig will be Bond for a while (I don't necessarily believe he'll only do four, but I also wouldnt bet on him doing more). So who's to say in six, or even ten years time there won't be room for a humerous Bond film? And I don't necessarily agree with the parody angle. Just because something's been made fun of doesnt mean it can't show that (yeah, I'm going to say it...): Nobody Does it Better than 007.

[The Shark]

I see what you're saying, but you're talking about now. I believe Craig will be Bond for a while (I don't necessarily believe he'll only do four, but I also wouldnt bet on him doing more). So who's to say in six, or even ten years time there won't be room for a humerous Bond film? And I don't necessarily agree with the parody angle. Just because something's been made fun of doesnt mean it can't show that (yeah, I'm going to say it...): Nobody Does it Better than 007.

Who says the next one won't be humourous (not a flippant Moore romp, but with relatively more humour than CR and QOS combined)?

Edited by The Shark, 22 September 2009 - 09:45 PM.

[Cyclone49]

I think Harry Lloyd (from the Doctor Who episode Human Nature and the BBC's Robin Hood series) has potential as a future Bond in about 6-10 years.

http://www.bbcameric...harry_lloyd.jpg
http://vardenfell.fi...harry-lloyd.jpg
http://www.danielkan.../harrylloyd.jpg
http://i15.tinypic.com/4kmjzua.jpg
(Bear in most of these images are from almost three years ago)

He has the look, he's a huge contrast to Craig appearence-wise, and I can see him giving the role a very cruel, cocky edge (in a completely different way to Craig), which could be an interesting take on the character. Obviously far too young and skinny at the moment, but give him 7 years or so to mature as both a person and an actor and some time in the gym and I reckon he could be a very strong Bond. He'll be appearing in the television adaption of A Song of Ice and Fire soon as nutjob wannabe-king Viserys Targaryen, which should give him a chance to show off his acting chops.

[Zorin Industries]

I think Harry Lloyd (from the Doctor Who episode Human Nature and the BBC's Robin Hood series) has potential as a future Bond in about 6-10 years.

http://www.bbcameric...harry_lloyd.jpg
http://vardenfell.fi...harry-lloyd.jpg
http://www.danielkan.../harrylloyd.jpg
http://i15.tinypic.com/4kmjzua.jpg
(Bear in most of these images are from almost three years ago)

He has the look, he's a huge contrast to Craig appearence-wise, and I can see him giving the role a very cruel, cocky edge (in a completely different way to Craig), which could be an interesting take on the character. Obviously far too young and skinny at the moment, but give him 7 years or so to mature as both a person and an actor and some time in the gym and I reckon he could be a very strong Bond. He'll be appearing in the television adaption of A Song of Ice and Fire soon as nutjob wannabe-king Viserys Targaryen, which should give him a chance to show off his acting chops.

No. No.

Too fey and from another era of acting. He is all very 1930's repetory theatre. He is a good, solid actor granted, but he's not a contemporary James Bond 007.

[Cyclone49]

But who's to say what people will be looking for in a contemporary James Bond in, say, 2016 or whenever Craig happens to leave the series? Times change, and just because audience love the gritty, realistic take on Bond at the moment doesn't mean they won't be sick of it by the time Bond #7 puts on the tux.

For me his feyness as you put it is what him an interesting choice as Bond - he has the air of a smug aristocrat stuck in another time period. He's a world away from Craig of course, but I think that's a good thing - as much as I love Daniel Craig's portrayal of Bond, I think whoever is cast as Bond 7 needs to be completely different.

Edited by Cyclone49, 24 September 2009 - 09:21 AM.

[Zorin Industries]

For me his feyness as you put it is what him an interesting choice as Bond - he has the air of a smug aristocrat stuck in another time period. He's a world away from Craig of course, but I think that's a good thing - as much as I love Daniel Craig's portrayal of Bond, I think whoever is cast as Bond 7 needs to be completely different.

And whoever is cast - if we get a new Bond - will be completely different.

But James Bond 007 is not fey nor an aristocrat stuck in a different era and never would be so this suggestion seems very off-track.

And some people are suggesting names based only on "they will be the right age" etc. But who knows when Daniel Craig will leave the role and "being the right age" is not really enough, is it?

[The Shark]

Here's a hint, just ignore ol' Zorin. If we followed his advice every bloody thread would be closed.

Edited by The Shark, 24 September 2009 - 09:18 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

Here's a hint, just ignore ol' Zorin. If we followed his advice every bloody thread would be closed.

Too true.

And we would lose such discussion threads as "when does Bond eat?", "what colour should the henchmen's boiler suits be?" and "LICENCE TO KILL and SOLACE are rubbish because the Writers Strike says so".

[Trident]

Here's a hint, just ignore ol' Zorin. If we followed his advice every bloody thread would be closed.

Too true.

And we would lose such discussion threads as "when does Bond eat?", "what colour should the henchmen's boiler suits be?" and "LICENCE TO KILL and SOLACE are rubbish because the Writers Strike says so".

Actually, the last two really aren't that fascinating...

[O.H.M.S.S.]

I think Jack Davenport would be a great Bond.

[Cyclone49]

But James Bond 007 is not fey nor an aristocrat stuck in a different era and never would be so this suggestion seems very off-track.

I'm not saying an ideal Bond should embody these traits, rather that it would be interesting approach to, I guess, invoke that feel in a future Bond. Something beneath the surface, hidden in subtext if that makes sense. Certainly fey is not a word I'd ever associate with Bond, however... I hardly think Lloyd is completely lacking in masculinity either, and I think his age (and the fact that he has tendancy to play prissy, pampered members of the upperclass) probably has a bit to do with him giving off that vibe.

To be perfectly honest, IMO all of the Bonds bar Craig (including the literary Bond) have felt like people from another era to some degree. It's even been commented on on-screen once or twice. And while Bond is most definitely not an aristocrat, several incarnations have certainly displayed a level of snobbery (is that a word?) and elitism.

Every Bond has deviated from the established idea of the character to a degree - Connery and Craig were more rough and masculine, Brosnan more sensitive and angsty, Moore much more lightweight and light-hearted, even the utter sexlessness of Dalton's Bond. I mean, Craig has been accused of taking the role into a much rawer, more "working-class" direction - what's wrong with going in the other direction?

Anyway, it's probably a bit of a moot point - we're arguing about how an actor may decide to portray a role eight or so years from now, which is possibly a bit pointless. In any case, I'm just suggesting that he may be a good choice for the role around the time Craig quits, depending on how he himself grows as a person and where his career goes. Certainly if he was cast tomorrow he'd be an awful choice.

And some people are suggesting names based only on "they will be the right age" etc. But who knows when Daniel Craig will leave the role and "being the right age" is not really enough, is it?

Oh, I agree, and that's definitely not my main reason for suggesting Lloyd.

Edited by Cyclone49, 30 September 2009 - 03:02 PM.

[jaguar007]

To be perfectly honest, IMO all of the Bonds bar Craig (including the literary Bond) have felt like people from another era to some degree. It's even been commented on on-screen once or twice.

Not really. Remember, the original Bond novels were written in the 1950s, so when you read them now of course they seem like they are from another era. In the 60s Connery's Bond was very contemporary, in fact Connery Bond was a 1960s trendsetter. Moore (to a certain degree) and especially Brosnan were playing it a bit from another era, trying to recapture the glory days from the 1960s.

[Zorin Industries]

But James Bond 007 is not fey nor an aristocrat stuck in a different era and never would be so this suggestion seems very off-track.

I'm not saying an ideal Bond should embody these traits, rather that it would be interesting approach to, I guess, invoke that feel in a future Bond. Something beneath the surface, hidden in subtext if that makes sense. Certainly fey is not a word I'd ever associate with Bond, however... I hardly think Lloyd is completely lacking in masculinity either, and I think his age (and the fact that he has tendancy to play prissy, pampered members of the upperclass) probably has a bit to do with him giving off that vibe.

To be perfectly honest, IMO all of the Bonds bar Craig (including the literary Bond) have felt like people from another era to some degree. It's even been commented on on-screen once or twice. And while Bond is most definitely not an aristocrat, several incarnations have certainly displayed a level of snobbery (is that a word?) and elitism.

Every Bond has deviated from the established idea of the character to a degree - Connery and Craig were more rough and masculine, Brosnan more sensitive and angsty, Moore much more lightweight and light-heard, even the utter sexlessness of Dalton's Bond. I mean, Craig has been accused of taking the role into a much rawer, more "working-class" direction - what's wrong with going in the other direction?

Anyway, it's probably a bit of a moot point - we're arguing about how an actor may decide to portray a role eight or so years from now, which is possibly a bit pointless. In any case, I'm just suggesting that he may be a good choice for the role around the time Craig quits, depending on how he himself grows as a person and where his career goes. Certainly if he was cast tomorrow he'd be an awful choice.

And some people are suggesting names based only on "they will be the right age" etc. But who knows when Daniel Craig will leave the role and "being the right age" is not really enough, is it?

Oh, I agree, and that's definitely not my main reason for suggesting Lloyd.

In no particular order....

The actor you have suggested is not remotely suitable for Bond. That is not opinion that is blatant fact.

Timothy Dalton did not play a sexless Bond. At all. Ever. Just because straight boy fans cannot see it doesn't mean it ain't there.

Daniel Craig's Bond is NOT a working class one (??!).

[Cyclone49]

Daniel Craig's Bond is NOT a working class one (??!).

Other peoples' words, not mine. It's not an assertion I particularly agree with, but I've certainly seen the claim bandied around the web a lot (and even in a few published reviews).

Timothy Dalton did not play a sexless Bond. At all. Ever. Just because straight boy fans cannot see it doesn't mean it ain't there.

Okay, I probably went too far with the hyperbole there, but he was hardly the womaniser other incarnations have been (I'm not saying that's a bad thing by the way - Dalton happens to be my favourite Bond). I was more referring to his more romantic, monogamous approach to women - which, of course, isn't what you'd generally call sexless, but I'm talking in comparison with the other Bonds here.

The actor you have suggested is not remotely suitable for Bond. That is not opinion that is blatant fact.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, I guess.

Edited by Cyclone49, 30 September 2009 - 03:05 PM.

[Trident]

The actor you have suggested is not remotely suitable for Bond. That is not opinion that is blatant fact.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, I guess.

Well, while I'm fairly open-minded about suggestions regarding Bond I have to confess that I have extreme difficulties seeing Bond in Lloyd at the moment. Perhaps in a very long time, say, 25 to 30 years from now, if he ages in the right direction (i.e. giving him some tough and rugged looks). But for the moment I don't see it.

[double o ego]

I realy want Michael Fassbender after Craig. However, after really looking at Simon Cowell who just turned 50 and looks pretty damn good for his age, I could actually see Craig credibly in the role until he too is 50.

[The Shark]

Daniel Craig's Bond is NOT a working class one (??!).

Other peoples' words, not mine. It's not an assertion I particularly agree with, but I've certainly seen the claim bandied around the web a lot (and even in a few published reviews).

Critics are probably the worst people on earth to align your views with, even the most notable ones, they have little experience with the parameters and varieties of life and its fundamentals. They are what saccharides are to to a fly, as is to a printer. Nothing.

Craig's Bond as Vesper stated on the train to Montenegro, just like Fleming's literary Bond, is of a wealthy upper crust family, orphaned when 11, educated in Eton and Oxford, hiked in the Swiss Alps when he was a teen, and enlisted in the Navy. Judging someone's class by their physical appearance is quite frankly the mindset of 1920s Social Darwinists and Eugenicists intent on classifying groups of humans into different subsets in order to maintain the "prosperity" of the species.

Edited by The Shark, 05 October 2009 - 11:54 PM.

[DR76]

Otherwise Cavill is the option at the moment. Of course, 6 years is a long way away and we've got 2 more Craig outings before then.

I have finally come around to watching Season 1 of the "THE TUDORS". After seeing Henry Cavill . . . I can see the appeal. He has the looks and presence to make a first-rate Bond. But, as you had stated, six years is a long time away. It is possible that by the time Craig has finished, Cavill may not be interested. He's probably not interested anyway. Shame.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

Otherwise Cavill is the option at the moment. Of course, 6 years is a long way away and we've got 2 more Craig outings before then.

I have finally come around to watching Season 1 of the "THE TUDORS". After seeing Henry Cavill . . . I can see the appeal. He has the looks and presence to make a first-rate Bond. But, as you had stated, six years is a long time away. It is possible that by the time Craig has finished, Cavill may not be interested. He's probably not interested anyway. Shame.

Why wouldn't he? I haven't seen him in any notable films, so it's not like his career has gone through the roof as of yet.

[Tybre]

Otherwise Cavill is the option at the moment. Of course, 6 years is a long way away and we've got 2 more Craig outings before then.

I have finally come around to watching Season 1 of the "THE TUDORS". After seeing Henry Cavill . . . I can see the appeal. He has the looks and presence to make a first-rate Bond. But, as you had stated, six years is a long time away. It is possible that by the time Craig has finished, Cavill may not be interested. He's probably not interested anyway. Shame.

I fail to see why he wouldn't be interested. He was reportedly being screen tested for CR, so clearly he has shown some interest in the role in the past. On top of that, Cavill hasn't really done anything big. He's probably best known for his role on The Tudors, and that's about it. He does have a few films under his belt, most of which I admit I haven't seen, but the ones I have seen...he was good in Whatever Works, but he certainly doesn't steal the film. He was also good as Albert Mondego in the meh adaptation of The Count of Monte Cristo from 2002, and I still haven't got round to seeing Tristan & Isolde to know how big a role he has (wiki says "main role") and how good he was in it. In fact probably the biggest thing, looking at his filmography, is an upcoming film called "War of the Gods" and even that I somehow don't see as launching him to stardom.

Cavill is still quite my top pick at the moment, but we'll see who crops up in the meanwhile, and we'll see if/when they announce candidates or candidates get leaked who I'll be rooting for then.

[The Shark]

I really don't see why Cavill's an option. In my opinion he's a terrible actor (obviously from the Orlando Bloom school of acting), with pretty boy looks and little screen presence.

Hopefully EON are wiser than average Bond fanboy and prevail to think outside of the box.

Edited by The Shark, 24 October 2009 - 04:56 PM.

[dinovelvet]

Well I guess Tom Hardy is probably out of the running (if he was ever in), now that he's the new Mad Max. (Did Henry Cavill audition for that one too? )

http://www.heatvisio...-tom-hardy.html

[Zorin Industries]

I really don't see why Cavill's an option. In my opinion he's a terrible actor (obviously from the Orlando Bloom school of acting), with pretty boy looks and little screen presence.

Hopefully EON are wiser than average Bond fanboy and prevail to think outside of the box.

Wisdom is no stranger to Eon Productions. And neither is Henry Cavill. Watch this space..