Hardy is even less in the traditional Bond mold than Craig but he's such a good actor with that chameleon quality that he could probably pull it off. That being said, the problem is three fold: Hardy is a bit too well known and a bit too expensive for a new Bond for EON, Hardy would probably be at least 45 by the time Bond 26 rolls around, and he's committed to at least two more Venom films.
James Bond 26?! I think you jump the gun! The way the James Bond films are made all the actors mentoned here will be long dead and gone! We the fans will also be dead! Continents move faster than the James Bond film makers!
I will only beleive that the next James Bond film is being made when it actually starts!
I hope that Q can make a special walking frame for Daniel Craig with machine guns and ejecter seat because by the time the start to make that film he will need it!
James Bond 26?! I think you jump the gun! The way the James Bond films are made all the actors mentoned here will be long dead and gone! We the fans will also be dead! Continents move faster than the James Bond film makers!
I will only beleive that the next James Bond film is being made when it actually starts!
I hope that Q can make a special walking frame for Daniel Craig with machine guns and ejecter seat because by the time the start to make that film he will need it!
I agree that discussion about the next Bond is premature. It will probably be someone currently in their 20's and unlikely to be on anyone's Radar apart from possibly a few keen casting agents trawling through the upcoming crop of drama students.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
More likely someone we've seen in a supporting role or two, starring in a small film or in a TV series. We must also remember that Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan were big TV stars when they were cast.
More likely someone we've seen in a supporting role or two, starring in a small film or in a TV series. We must also remember that Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan were big TV stars when they were cast.
For sure, but an actor in a similar position now would already be too old, particularly if a back to the beginning reboot is the decided route (Hiddleston for example would probably be in this category) If they go for a Bond in mid career the field opens up considerably.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I think he's still young enough (I think the next 007 should be born in the 80's and Hueghan was born in 1980), especially since he looks young for his age.
I think he's still young enough (I think the next 007 should be born in the 80's and Hueghan was born in 1980), especially since he looks young for his age.
With a February 2020 release of Bond25, I can't see Bond26 arriving until after 2022 and Hueghan will be well into his forties.
I think we'll see another reboot with a young Bond.
He's border line too old, but he'll be younger than Moore was when he started. RM did many movies before he got too old.
I want a soft reboot. Same Scooby gang and a Bond who looks like he's in his thirties.
He's border line too old, but he'll be younger than Moore was when he started. RM did many movies before he got too old.
I want a soft reboot. Same Scooby gang and a Bond who looks like he's in his thirties.
Moore and Brosnan became Bond in their forties but they had both been approached years before when they were in their 30s. Connery was 31 when he became Bond.
I wonder if there is value in a reboot that has a young Bond and the evolution of the Scooby gang as a part of the plot, so over two or three films, M, Q, Tanner and Moneypenny attain their positions along with 007 as the govt responds to some threat?
yeh but we just saw that
we went for decades without those characters having origin stories, now that they do we don't need to see them getting all-new origin stories every other film.
I wonder if there is value in a reboot that has a young Bond and the evolution of the Scooby gang as a part of the plot, so over two or three films, M, Q, Tanner and Moneypenny attain their positions along with 007 as the govt responds to some threat?
That was unnecessary in Skyfall. It was painful enough watching Bond's evolution in Craig's first three films.
I agree with Someone (what a difference a capital letter can make ) )
We have seen the forming of the Scooby Gang in Craig's movies. Like it or not, we don't need to see a new version yet. Perhaps in fifteen or twenty years, but not now.
I like Aaron Taylor-Johnson also. He's one of those actors who is handsome but has a ruggedness that is needed for Bond and will have really matured into his looks by his early 30's. I was a bit surprised to see that he is only 5'11" as he appears taller on screen (I would have guessed just over 6'). Taylor-Johnson is also more of a character actor these days and pulled off a really nasty villain in Tom Ford's Nocturnal Animals which actually is a plus for Bond. Ironically, I think most folks over here in the USA assume he is an American and not from the UK. Case in point, when I was discussing with some friends who should be the next Bond and I brought up Taylor-Johnson the response I got was "He'd be the first American Bond, could he do a good enough Brit accent?" )
Aaron Taylor-Johnson has certainly got a lot of film experience and alongside some great other actors and his role as lead in the Kick-Ass movies shows he can carry a film. He's played the romantic lead and some rough characters, he'd have to be a strong candidate.
I too was surprised he wasn't taller, he has the posture of a tall person. He also doesn't look too young. Max Irons is the same age and has some good qualities, but he often looks like he's in his early twenties.
Max Irons still has a bit too much of a baby face for Bond IMO. Taylor-Johnson also continues to add to his on screen "bad ass" resume with his role in The Outlaw King. Here's a quote from the Philadelphia Daily News review of the film: "All is sorted out at the Battle of Loudoun Hill, where the Scots defeat their enemies by luring the English into a bog that hobbles their cavalry. Graphic slaughter ensues. The centerpiece of this sequence is Scots warrior James Douglas (Aaron Taylor Johnson), author of many fatal swipes of the sword. Screaming maniacally and covered in blood, he gives the movie its defining image."
Think Irons could make a potential Bond! Currently watching him in spy drama Condor also think what a missed opportunity with Richard Armitage , very good in spy drama Berlin Station!!
Think Irons could make a potential Bond! Currently watching him in spy drama Condor also think what a missed opportunity with Richard Armitage , very good in spy drama Berlin Station!!
Armitage would have been good. It's an interesting thought experiment to consider good candidates when an existing actor is in tenure.
We have seen how timing is an important factor. For example Dalton and Brosnan were orbiting Bond for a while. Personally I think it was better that Pierce did not start earlier, and a shame that Dalton didn't. At any given point there are likely to ba a number of plausible candidates. I for one am eternally grateful that Lewis Collins never got the gig. Liam Neeson might have been good for example.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I always try to keep in mind when watching potential Bond actors that we are casting Bond, not just any old British spy or throw away archetypal character. The actor needs that something special...a certain charisma and animal like magnetism. Many may look the part in a still photo.....but all is lost once they begin to move or open their mouths.
I always try to keep in mind when watching potential Bond actors that we are casting Bond, not just any old British spy or throw away archetypal character. The actor needs that something special...a certain charisma and animal like magnetism. Many may look the part in a still photo.....but all is lost once they begin to move or open their mouths.
This is correct and is also why I think Turner is the answer.
I always try to keep in mind when watching potential Bond actors that we are casting Bond, not just any old British spy or throw away archetypal character. The actor needs that something special...a certain charisma and animal like magnetism. Many may look the part in a still photo.....but all is lost once they begin to move or open their mouths.
This is correct and is also why I think Turner is the answer.
No question Turner has the charisma, presence, physicality and voice to be Bond. Turner is like a shorter, more imposing, looser Dalton.
I always try to keep in mind when watching potential Bond actors that we are casting Bond, not just any old British spy or throw away archetypal character. The actor needs that something special...a certain charisma and animal like magnetism. Many may look the part in a still photo.....but all is lost once they begin to move or open their mouths.
This is correct and is also why I think Turner is the answer.
“I think that, as with anybody, I would be most excited to be there [making a Bond film] for a transition. There are key moments within the series where you see either a change in era, a change in Bond, or a change in tone. I would like to be there for something like that. I think Daniel Craig is a fantastic Bond but I’d love to see a Bond who enjoys being Bond. I miss that.”
“My first Bond was Connery, he was the gold standard. I’m actually a fan of Pierce Brosnan’s Bond. He had these little moments, these little grace notes where he was really having fun with the character, that were quite surprising, I really enjoyed that. But I like them all.”
Bond, like Tom Cruise’s Ethan Hunt, has endured on screen, with both spies enjoying multiple sequels, and McQuarrie thinks the appeal of Bond lies in his timelessness.
“It’s that Bond lives out of time. Each one of those movies self-contain. There’s very little reference from one movie to another. It doesn’t matter who the enemy is, if it’s a Cold War… He’s so adaptable, he changes with the times. And when it’s time for a new Bond, you just get a new one. You don’t acknowledge the history, I think that’s great. Bond is an attitude, and it’s been great to see that attitude live on.”
Comments
"Do you expect me to talk? "No Mister Bond I expect you to die"
I will only beleive that the next James Bond film is being made when it actually starts!
I hope that Q can make a special walking frame for Daniel Craig with machine guns and ejecter seat because by the time the start to make that film he will need it!
I agree that discussion about the next Bond is premature. It will probably be someone currently in their 20's and unlikely to be on anyone's Radar apart from possibly a few keen casting agents trawling through the upcoming crop of drama students.
For sure, but an actor in a similar position now would already be too old, particularly if a back to the beginning reboot is the decided route (Hiddleston for example would probably be in this category) If they go for a Bond in mid career the field opens up considerably.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=sam+heughan+auditioned+for+the+role+of+james+bond+kelly+ryan&&view=detail&mid=95AED80E9AE32D0658CE95AED80E9AE32D0658CE&&FORM=VRDGAR
I think he's still young enough (I think the next 007 should be born in the 80's and Hueghan was born in 1980), especially since he looks young for his age.
With a February 2020 release of Bond25, I can't see Bond26 arriving until after 2022 and Hueghan will be well into his forties.
I think we'll see another reboot with a young Bond.
I want a soft reboot. Same Scooby gang and a Bond who looks like he's in his thirties.
Moore and Brosnan became Bond in their forties but they had both been approached years before when they were in their 30s. Connery was 31 when he became Bond.
I wonder if there is value in a reboot that has a young Bond and the evolution of the Scooby gang as a part of the plot, so over two or three films, M, Q, Tanner and Moneypenny attain their positions along with 007 as the govt responds to some threat?
we went for decades without those characters having origin stories, now that they do we don't need to see them getting all-new origin stories every other film.
That was unnecessary in Skyfall. It was painful enough watching Bond's evolution in Craig's first three films.
We have seen the forming of the Scooby Gang in Craig's movies. Like it or not, we don't need to see a new version yet. Perhaps in fifteen or twenty years, but not now.
"All is sorted out at the Battle of Loudoun Hill, where the Scots defeat their enemies by luring the English into a bog that hobbles their cavalry. Graphic slaughter ensues. The centerpiece of this sequence is Scots warrior James Douglas (Aaron Taylor Johnson), author of many fatal swipes of the sword. Screaming maniacally and covered in blood, he gives the movie its defining image."
Armitage would have been good. It's an interesting thought experiment to consider good candidates when an existing actor is in tenure.
We have seen how timing is an important factor. For example Dalton and Brosnan were orbiting Bond for a while. Personally I think it was better that Pierce did not start earlier, and a shame that Dalton didn't. At any given point there are likely to ba a number of plausible candidates. I for one am eternally grateful that Lewis Collins never got the gig. Liam Neeson might have been good for example.
This is correct and is also why I think Turner is the answer.
No question Turner has the charisma, presence, physicality and voice to be Bond. Turner is like a shorter, more imposing, looser Dalton.
I could not agree more!
“I think that, as with anybody, I would be most excited to be there [making a Bond film] for a transition. There are key moments within the series where you see either a change in era, a change in Bond, or a change in tone. I would like to be there for something like that. I think Daniel Craig is a fantastic Bond but I’d love to see a Bond who enjoys being Bond. I miss that.”
“My first Bond was Connery, he was the gold standard. I’m actually a fan of Pierce Brosnan’s Bond. He had these little moments, these little grace notes where he was really having fun with the character, that were quite surprising, I really enjoyed that. But I like them all.”
Bond, like Tom Cruise’s Ethan Hunt, has endured on screen, with both spies enjoying multiple sequels, and McQuarrie thinks the appeal of Bond lies in his timelessness.
“It’s that Bond lives out of time. Each one of those movies self-contain. There’s very little reference from one movie to another. It doesn’t matter who the enemy is, if it’s a Cold War… He’s so adaptable, he changes with the times. And when it’s time for a new Bond, you just get a new one. You don’t acknowledge the history, I think that’s great. Bond is an attitude, and it’s been great to see that attitude live on.”
Yes. MI has endured in the cinemas since 1996, Bond has endured since 1962. It's very much compareable
I mean... 6 movies over 22 years with no end in sight... I don’t think it’s THAT out of line.