4014 replies to this topic

[SecretAgentFan]

I pity anyone coming after Daniel Craig.  It will be an uphill battle not to become the next Lazenby or Dalton.  So I guess they will choose someone they think will be easily accepted by the world wide audience.

[Odd Jobbies]

There was no endorsement, but the fact that it was discussed by the movie executives gives it newsworthy merit to be brought up. 

Quite so. I wasn't disagreeing with you, just adding my opinion to the debate.

[uvhadyrsix]

I would hope that Craig will do another Bond after Spectre, then if he is ready to go and unable to carry on and even though some have said he would cost alot, i would like to see TOM HARDY as Bond No.7. He has provern himself as a spy

in the snow in INCEPTION and THIS MEANS WAR with all the action.  The only thing i can see against him is his height at 5' 9" he would be the shortest of all the Bonds, but his presence on screen he appears to be larger than others.

 

My pick for Bond No.8 would be THEO JAMES right age at the time, after Hardy does his 5 films.

 

Hoping the Rumour for Idris Elba to be Bond is just that a rumour, i mean he does a good American accent he should stick to that.

[Alexander]

Has Jack O'Connell been mentioned yet?

 

He's currently 24, which is of course too young but by the time Craig finishes should be in his early thirties.

 

He's starring in Unbroken (which I suppose may well be his big break) with Bondesque spy romp Kingsman coming later in the year.

 

I havent seen those yet, but I have seen him in Starred Up and '71, two of the better British films I've seen in the past year. He has a genuinely intense screen presence. The fact that he's been cast in Kingsman suggests he can also do humour.

 

He also, in my opinion, currently looks like a young Bond. Add ten years to him and he should be perfect.

 

Only thing, in ten years time he might already be too big a name. I really think he could be huge - one way or another.

Edited by Alexander, 30 December 2014 - 04:50 PM.

[tdalton]

I pity anyone coming after Daniel Craig.  It will be an uphill battle not to become the next Lazenby or Dalton.  So I guess they will choose someone they think will be easily accepted by the world wide audience.

 

I don't think the next guy will do that poorly.  With as much as tickets cost nowadays and all of the other revenue streams that films are able to draw from, I don't see the next guy failing to the extent that Lazenby and Dalton did.

 

Hopefully they go with Rupert Friend for the next batch of films and, if he does fail spectacularly on a Dalton-esque level, at least I'll have gotten my two films that I can put right up there on the shelf with Dalton's and enjoy just the same, regardless of what anyone else thinks of them.

[Harmsway]

The trend of the Craig era has been to move more and more toward "classic" Bond. I see the next Bond continuing that trajectory (beginning, probably, with a feature that has a GoldenEye-ish balance), and EON will probably cast someone in support of that. I imagine the next Bond will be one who has a real talent for comedy.

[thecasinoroyale]

As long as it's not Idris Elba, I'll be happy. Out of the current 6 actors, I only can't click with one (Lazenby), so have faith in EON's choices.

[Odd Jobbies]

Has Jack O'Connell been mentioned yet?

 

He's currently 24, which is of course too young but by the time Craig finishes should be in his early thirties.

In one these threads i brought up O'Connell. I was very impressed with him in Starred Up and the trailer and buzz for '71 are very promising.

 

If Craig were to do 2 0r 3 more (not impossible since they're getting the ball rolling on Blofeld and i see that carrying on for a few movies, and changing Bonds midway would be best avoided), then i see him being top of the list.

 

However, i don't see them going for him if Craig finishes up sooner as it would feel too much like another reboot, since he'd be so young. In that scenario he'd still be on the list as Bond 8.

[sunset]

Jack O'Connell is a very good actor.  His IMDB page lists him as 5'8" tall.  He may fall "short" of being Bond.

[Alexander]

Jack O'Connell is a very good actor.  His IMDB page lists him as 5'8" tall.  He may fall "short" of being Bond.

 

The magic of cinema....

[Bond Bombshell]

Celebheights gives O'Connell's height as 5ft 7.5in. He's way too short. Neither is he in Kingsman. That's Taron Egerton.

[sevenil]

Always strange people quote Dalton as a failure? Wasn't Living Daylights a big money spinner worldwide ? I'm sure it was and LTK was hindered by its 15 certificate meaning families couldn't go so revenue lost big time, that's not down to Dalton.
On topic I think Fassbender would be superb in the role as would Tom Hardy

[bond_azoozbond]

Next bond actor could sign for a trilogy something similar to the batman trilogy.. I would prefer fassbender with the same MI6 names from Craig bond ..

[Alexander]

Celebheights gives O'Connell's height as 5ft 7.5in. He's way too short. Neither is he in Kingsman. That's Taron Egerton.

 

Thats about the same height as Tom Hardy I believe. 

 

As for him not actually being in Kingsman, I was sure I read last year that he was involved! Anyway, I only semi watched the extended trailer last week when ITV showed in in the middle of Skyfall. I saw enough to convince me that its going to be S***.

[JCRendle]

 

Celebheights gives O'Connell's height as 5ft 7.5in. He's way too short. Neither is he in Kingsman. That's Taron Egerton.

 

Thats about the same height as Tom Hardy I believe. 

 

As for him not actually being in Kingsman, I was sure I read last year that he was involved! Anyway, I only semi watched the extended trailer last week when ITV showed in in the middle of Skyfall. I saw enough to convince me that its going to be S***.

 

 

 

Celebheights gives O'Connell's height as 5ft 7.5in. He's way too short. Neither is he in Kingsman. That's Taron Egerton.

 

Thats about the same height as Tom Hardy I believe. 

 

As for him not actually being in Kingsman, I was sure I read last year that he was involved! Anyway, I only semi watched the extended trailer last week when ITV showed in in the middle of Skyfall. I saw enough to convince me that its going to be S***.

 

 

I'll be watching, I love films that give a twist to the spy genre - and Kingsman does seem very tongue in cheek

[genuinefelixleiter]

After D.C. I'd choose Chris Hemsworth. Hemsworth has good presence and handles acton well. He'd be the right age, have some more acting gigs, better dramatic chops by then.

[JCRendle]

After D.C. I'd choose Chris Hemsworth. Hemsworth has good presence and handles acton well. He'd be the right age, have some more acting gigs, better dramatic chops by then.

 

With Thor, and the Marvel films, he's got a lot on his plate into the future - and I doubt he'd  want to be tied into another long term contract with another big name character.

[tdalton]

 

After D.C. I'd choose Chris Hemsworth. Hemsworth has good presence and handles acton well. He'd be the right age, have some more acting gigs, better dramatic chops by then.

 

With Thor, and the Marvel films, he's got a lot on his plate into the future - and I doubt he'd  want to be tied into another long term contract with another big name character.

 

 

Plus he'd just be terrible as Bond. 

[sharpshooter]

I pity anyone coming after Daniel Craig.  It will be an uphill battle not to become the next Lazenby or Dalton.  So I guess they will choose someone they think will be easily accepted by the world wide audience.

It really will be a test for the next guy. Craig personifies the times, and the times haven't really changed that drastically since his 2006 debut. Though I can't see them hiring someone to try and out-grit Craig. Another approach will be taken I think.

[Fairbanks]

Perhaps they'll go with someone who embodies more the spirit of fun and breezy adventure. When's the last time that Bond exhibited joie de vivre? You have to go back to Moore, or maybe even Lazenby. Moore was ironic and amused more than fun, Brosnan tried to be fun in GE but quickly settled into the "clenched suavity" thing, and Dalton never aspired to have fun at all. If Bond 7 can retain some of Craig's brutality and add a dose of fun-spirited, un-tormented brio, it will be something we haven't seen in a long time. It would actually make him seem more brutal if he is so unfazed by the nature of his work that he can do it with a light heart and a smile. I wonder if the producers know that, and are afraid that an un-suffering Bond would just come across as some kind of psychopath? 

[tdalton]

I think that Dalton had a few of those moments that you say he "never aspired to".  The Living Daylights is a prime example of that, with Dalton's Bond spending a few lighthearted and "fun" scenes with Kara while they're on the move around Europe.  The amuesment park scene in Vienna comes to mind, with Bond riding the roller coaster with Kara as well as the bumper cars and he then wins her a stuffed animal in a shooting contest and is pretty much all smiles the entire time.  Then there's their romantic ride aboard the ferris wheel.

 

Dalton gets the reputation for being the guy who was serious all the time and never had any fun in the role, but I don't think that reputation is entirely justified.  The man smiles quite a bit in his Bond films, although moreso in The Living Daylights than in Licence to Kill.  The scene mentioned above shows that Dalton's Bond is capable of having fun, as he does with Kara in The Living Daylights.

[Odd Jobbies]

He was the right man at the wrong time.

 

I'm guessing that as much as Eon promised him a grittier Bond, it was too much to ask of a crew and director who'd been making Carry On Bond action-comedies for almost 2 decades.

 

No insult intended - they had to play to the strengths of Moore and like Brosnan he has great comic timing and delivery rather than gritty acting chops (Connery has both, but Craig and Dalton can only boast of excellent acting chops).

 

ETA: If Dalton had taken the role when first offered, post Connery i believe, before the slap stick approach had been adopted and so indelibly engrained, then he would've have been the right man at the right time.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 02 January 2015 - 12:21 PM.

[sharpshooter]

I like Dalton and he left a legacy. However I think Craig pushed that style of performance even further and made it more mainstream.

[tdalton]

I'd have to disagree that Dalton was the "right man at the wrong time".  Even though he only did two films and, in terms of box office failed spectacularly, he was the right man at the right time.  Had they gone with Pierce Brosnan at the time, there's a pretty good chance that the films would have more closely resembled what they had been doing with the Moore films at the time and the franchise would have become more known for being on the lighter side than for being, at the very least, a mixture of differing styles of films, some darker and some lighter in tone.  It was necessary to drag the franchise in the complete opposite direction of the Moore films in order to ensure, at the very least, it's creative survival, as it would have been very difficult for Craig to be doing what he's doing with the franchise now had the last "gritty" entry in the franchise had been On Her Majesty's Secret Service all the way back in 1969.

[Odd Jobbies]

To my mind Dalton's were not 'gritty'. My point was, as Dalton himself once said [though please don't ask me for a source:)] that the crew were so used to making the Moore product that they couldn't change their approach enough to make the Bond movies Dalton wanted; no doubt the reason he threw in the towel after reading Goldeneye - a return to 'fun' after the 'disaster' of LTK and saw no chance for him to ever get the 'gritty' approach he wanted.

 

Sure LTK was rated 15, but that was for violence, Dalton's 2 failed utterly (as in made no genuine attempt) to get under Bond's skin (i'll stress that this was the failier of Eon, Glenn and crew. Not Dalton). This is where the reboot succeeded. Had Eon fully attempted to paint a truer Bond that questions his deeds (which is what i mean by 'gritty', rather than 15 rated violence - any anyone with a movie-camera can do that), then i'm sure Dalton could've knocked it out the park.

 

He was the right man to give us Fleming's Bond, but it was the wrong time because Eon and crew were not committed, or able to giving us Fleming's Bond.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 02 January 2015 - 07:56 PM.

[genuinefelixleiter]

A few comments.

 

Dalton's performance was recently acknowledged by the Barbara Broccoli as being ahead of it's time.

 

I emphatically agree with all of you that casting Bond post Craig's turn will be a tough act to follow.

 

I don't think that Henry Cavil will be on that list. He might be considered too old at that point. Also, contractual obligations with Warners and the possibility that the Man From UNCLE will spawn a franchise would prevent his being cast as Bond.

 

Chris Hemsworth's contract with Marvel should end around 2017-18. So being contractd to playing Thor after that would probably wouldn't be an issue. Plus, it's already fairly common knowledge (fansites, etc.) that he's wanting to move on to with his career. So, unlike Cavil (4-5 more movies as Supes), his being tied up with another major movie franchise probably won't bear merit in this regard.

I'm not sure what the rationale for his "not being right for Bond" is? Too tall, too blond, too good looking, too serious, not serious enough, etc., etc. We've heard this all before with the annoucement of every new actor cast as Bond.

 

Regardless, with Daniel Craig's casting as Bond, hopefully we've all learned to see beyond the obvious, the stereotypical, whatever have you. A really good actor, perferably a Brit (yeah I know, Hemsworth is an Aussie) who can pull off some of the physical stuff would be the best choice for me.

 

Wishing all of you a Happy New Year!!!!!!!

[x007AceOfSpades]

I think the actor playing Bond should be at least six feet tall and over. I don't mind Craig being the shortest of them all, because he has a great persona and a presence for the character.

[JCRendle]

A new Bond actor should have the acting skills to carry the major character, he should be believable as James Bond and should have respect for the source material - but he should also be, initially, somewhat unknown or low profile.

Before Casino Royale, Craig had done some big name films, Munich, Tomb Raider etc but in supporting roles, he mainly acted in smaller independent and art house style films.

Brosnan was known for Remington Steele, and had a high profile role in Mrs. Doubtfire but he wasn't a big name.

Same with Dalton, previously known for Shakespearean and classical roles.

What I'm trying to say is, the next James Bond should not have done a high profile role in a previous film series (Marvel, DC) or other high profile film roles.

[tdalton]

 

I'm not sure what the rationale for his "not being right for Bond" is? Too tall, too blond, too good looking, too serious, not serious enough, etc., etc.

We've heard this all before with the annoucement of every new actor cast as Bond.

 

It has nothing to do with any of that.  For me, I just don't think he's a very good actor. 

Edited by tdalton, 03 January 2015 - 02:41 PM.

[coco1997]

 

 

I'm not sure what the rationale for his "not being right for Bond" is? Too tall, too blond, too good looking, too serious, not serious enough, etc., etc.

We've heard this all before with the annoucement of every new actor cast as Bond.

 

It has nothing to do with any of that, although being blonder than Craig doesn't really help.  For me, I just don't think he's a very good actor.