Whoever they choose, I hope they will give us an actor that brings the sophistication, charm and intelligence back from Bond.
I love Craig, I think he is excellent, but I do think he lacks the sophistication that the previous Bonds have. he makes up in muscles and masculinity perhaps, but I don't need Bond to be a bodybuilder. I want him to 'win' based on his charm, intellect, wits more than his martial arts skills.
Time to bring back the charm in the Bond films, it is how the character differentiates itself from for example Bourne and Ethan Hunt.
How would people feel if the next Bond was a motion capture performance using CGI to recreate Fleming's physical description of Bond which was that 007 looked like the 1940s American singer and actor, Hoagy Carmichael?
Some of the hard core fans like us would like it, but only if it's done well. The rest of the world would't understand it.
How would people feel if the next Bond was a motion capture performance using CGI to recreate Fleming's physical description of Bond which was that 007 looked like the 1940s American singer and actor, Hoagy Carmichael?
interesting idea
technically we're already there ... the digital Peter Cushing in Rogue One for example. He was conspicuously fake to my eyes, but maybe only cuz I realised the actor was long dead and this must be CGI? I wonder if anyone was fooled who didn't already know he was supposed to look like an actor from 40 years ago?
I could accept a creation like Gollum talking to Frodo, but those types of movies are mostly cartoons already. But for a film that is 99.99% real? I'm sure the trickery would just be distracting.
You'd also need an Andy Serkis type actor to map the digital image onto. Since Serkis specialises in that, I presume its a skill not just any actor can do. Ideally he should also move and talk like the real Hoagy Carmichael. And act recognisably like Bond and run around and do all that action-adventure stuff. That's a whole lotta extra demands on an actor.
...maybe if the whole thing was a cartoon though? Like The Incredibles but not silly and set in Fleming's version of 1950s Britain? that could be good.
Whoever they choose, I hope they will give us an actor that brings the sophistication, charm and intelligence back from Bond.
I love Craig, I think he is excellent, but I do think he lacks the sophistication that the previous Bonds have. he makes up in muscles and masculinity perhaps, but I don't need Bond to be a bodybuilder. I want him to 'win' based on his charm, intellect, wits more than his martial arts skills.
Time to bring back the charm in the Bond films, it is how the character differentiates itself from for example Bourne and Ethan Hunt.
I agree with you, but don't think irneeds to be either or. The best have blended both elements with differing air-fuel mixtures perhaps. I would not want Bond to loose his hard edge or physicality but do miss the classyness. Craig is excellent but a bit one note for me.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I would imagine casting James Bond must be the job with the highest stakes in Hollywood considering that the entire franchise depends on one actor’s charisma.
Casting mistakes can have huge consequences. I’m eager to see the new Han Solo film, for instance, but the trailer doesn’t fill me with hope that Alden Ehrenreich is going to be able to pull off the role. There hasn’t been a young Harrison Ford since...Harrison Ford.
It makes me appreciate what Chris Pine did in the Star Trek reboots. He managed to embody the swagger and haminess of Shatner’s Kirk while putting his own stamp on the role.
Some people don't think Daniel Craig has much charisma, others do. I think his casting did split an element of the hardcore Bond fanbase but the average movie goer likes Craig so I reckon the next Bond actor can do alright even if they're not blessed with strong movie star charisma or screen presence.
As for Alden Ehrenreich (unappealing surname for a potential new movie star!) I reckon Disney are prepared for Solo to be a one-off movie, not the first adventure in a new spin-off franchise. In theory, if Solo does tank or underperform, Disney can blame Ehrenreich or the screenwriters, and the studio can move on with more Star Wars episodes. Bond is a little different as there is the expectation the next Bond actor will make several Bond films. Ehrenreich may have signed up for one Solo film and no sequels so less pressure on him, perhaps? Having said that, if Star Wars fans hate his performance he'll have to live with that reaction for the rest of his career! "You ruined Han Solo!"
I think Nathan Fillion can/could be compared to a young Harrison Ford.
Yeah him and Chris Pratt can easily do what Ford did so well in Indy and Star Wars. But I agree that casting Bond must be extraordinarily difficult. Besides being a cash cow I imagine that's why EON wanted Craig to return so badly so they don't have to think about recasting just yet.
I think Nathan Fillion can/could be compared to a young Harrison Ford.
Interesting comparison. It's a shame that Fillion never got the movie career he deserved.
Personally, I prefer the Chris Pratt of "Parks and Recreation" to the newer, leaner model. As a leading man in dramas, he lacks depth to me. But YMMV.
Even when Ford was playing the hero, there was always this undertone to his performance. Call it anger or assholishness or whatever. He was likable as hell, but you had the sense that his emotions ran dark and deep.
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,812MI6 Agent
A CGI Bond?! That idea can piss right off!
I agree that Mr Craig has lost the sophistication aspect, but that's the writing, not the actor.
That aspect has been a downward spiral since QoS.
We don't know who the next Bind actor will be. He has not surfaced yet.
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
A CGI Bond?! That idea can piss right off!
I agree that Mr Craig has lost the sophistication aspect, but that's the writing, not the actor.
That aspect has been a downward spiral since QoS.
We don't know who the next Bind actor will be. He has not surfaced yet.
I agree that it's absent from the writing. Craig could pull it off, so I can only assume that it's a creative choice/decision.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I think Nathan Fillion can/could be compared to a young Harrison Ford.
Interesting comparison. It's a shame that Fillion never got the movie career he deserved.
Personally, I prefer the Chris Pratt of "Parks and Recreation" to the newer, leaner model. As a leading man in dramas, he lacks depth to me. But YMMV.
Even when Ford was playing the hero, there was always this undertone to his performance. Call it anger or assholishness or whatever. He was likable as hell, but you had the sense that his emotions ran dark and deep.
After watching pilot episode of Taken, I really think BB should strongly consider Clive Standen! A friend popped in while it was on and she said why is that man(Standen) not Bond!
As for age, leaves university at 21 goes to BRNC for 12 months, promoted to Sub Lt 22, 30 months then promoted to Lt 24-25, 4-8 years at Lt, so average it out at 6 years ,30 for promotion to Lt Cdr. At least two tours at the rank of Lt Cdr including one staff posting , 6 years before promotion to Cdr earliest ,one tour at that rank before poaching by MI 6 ,age 39 at start of Int career before Double O status , maybe 40 at youngest.
Ian Fleming became a Commander a few months after joining the Royal Navy at the age of 31, and surely he intended Bond to be the same. Bond is also not a normal person, so why should he be held to the normal timeline?
A bigger issue is his emotional development. He's portrayed in the CR film like he's only 25. The film was not written for a 38-year-old.
Don't forget this was all written shortly after the war. Men were promoted a lot quicker then out of necessity ... a modern audience would expect someone a little older I think.
Just been watching Alexander Skarsgard ... he has potential but maybe a fraction too tall and obviously he's Swedish (not that you'd ever know).
Ian Fleming became a Commander a few months after joining the Royal Navy at the age of 31, and surely he intended Bond to be the same.
Yes, agreed. Fleming used parts of his own history in creating Bond, as is well-known, and as time went on was obliged to adjust the details (Bond bought a Bentley in 1933?) thus creating inconsistencies. And that is just in the timeline of his novels- when the films are added in, the inconsistencies multiply! We can either nitpick those or just sit back and enjoy the ride.
From an earlier post of mine, just before the release of SP:
Since I read the books first, my perspective is unavoidably different. I watched the 60s Bond movies as "films-of-the-books" and observed in real time how they gradually drifted away from their source material and began to form their own continuity. Being a Fleming fan, I was happier when they stuck to the original stories (updating them as necessary, and accepting that) and getting annoyed at what I saw as unnecessary deviations from them (eg, in YOLT Bond claims to have gone to Cambridge which is against what Fleming had written in that exact novel).
Fleming himself made continuity errors (the colour of Mary Goodnight's hair or the light outside M's office, the surname of Honey- though these can be rationalised quite easily) most glaringly with Bond's age- though there are clear reasons for that!
The important point is that when Fleming started writing the novels, or ten years later when Broccoli & co started making the films, no-one had the slightest idea that James Bond would still be thriving deep into the 21st century, with new films and novels arriving on a regular basis. The continuity had to fall apart, since no one man could have lived through all the adventures and experiences 007 is supposed to have had. At a certain point, the "original" Bond simply becomes too old to continue his adventures- whether that Bond is Fleming's (who was involved in WW2 and earlier before IF started writing about him in the 50s) or Broccoli's (who had been working for the Secret Service for ten years before DN).
As I've said before, the film makers decided to ignore Bond's age around the point that Dalton replaced Moore and treat 007 as ageless. In the literary world, John Gardner (in conjunction with Glidrose, later IFP) froze Bond in his 40s slightly earlier. These were active decisions, not lazily ignoring the facts, and make demands of the audience to either accept the conceit or give up following 007's adventures.
As we all know, this changed in the filmic world with CR06- in the literary world, things ran a little differently (Charlie Higson's "Young Bond" series for example, or William Boyd's "Solo")- which leads us to the situation as currently presented: James Bond is a mythical character as opposed to a fictional one. His stories can take place in the 30s (Steve Cole's "Shoot To Kill", published in 2014), the 2010s (SPECTRE, released any day now), or the 60s ("Solo", set in the 60s, published 2013)- a myth transcends all considerations of time.
So, to summarise: James Bond (007) is a mythical character as opposed to a fictional one. His adventures, be they literary or filmic, can occur any time between the 1930s (when he was a boy) and now (whenever now is- it's been the 1960s and the 2010s). He does not exist, he's a mythical hero in the same line as many before and no doubt after. You can sit back and enjoy the ride, or nitpick all you want- it won't change anything, he'll still be pulling his Walther PPK from his shoulder holster after we're all gone.[
Whoever they choose, I hope they will give us an actor that brings the sophistication, charm and intelligence back from Bond.
I love Craig, I think he is excellent, but I do think he lacks the sophistication that the previous Bonds have. he makes up in muscles and masculinity perhaps, but I don't need Bond to be a bodybuilder. I want him to 'win' based on his charm, intellect, wits more than his martial arts skills.
Time to bring back the charm in the Bond films, it is how the character differentiates itself from for example Bourne and Ethan Hunt.
I agree.
Craig was a great choice and made the role his own. Pulling off something similiar once again could be tricky. Now would probably be a good time to bring back the suaveness that always defined Bond.
I don't like any of the actors who made the betting list so far.
Looking for a ROYALE Filmwear Talamone Shawl Collar Cardigan, size medium. Preferably in Europe, but the US would work as well. Feel free to send a PM!
While there are individual variations, where would be a natural limit to when the next Bond actor should be born?
It's likely that Bond26 will be filmed in 2022-23. An actor born in 1980 will be 42-43 by then. While Moore was slightly older when he made LALD, I'd say that would be pushing it. Someone born between 1985 and 1990-92 would be ideal, starting up at around 30-37 years of age. Someone born 1983-94 could work.
Both Cavill and Hemsworth are both 34. Hypothetically, they would be 38 for Bond 26 which could work. The other thing that has to be taken into consideration is how an actor ages. Both Hemsworth and Cavill look like they will age well / slowly but you never know.
Cavill has the prototypical Bond "look" but just may be a bit stiff and lacking in charisma without his Superman costume on. Hemsworth has good screen presence and could definitely pull off more of a "charming rogue" variation of Bond. That being said, I'm not totally sold on either but would have an open mind.
Both Cavill and Hemsworth are both 34. Hypothetically, they would be 38 for Bond 26 which could work. The other thing that has to be taken into consideration is how an actor ages. Both Hemsworth and Cavill look like they will age well / slowly but you never know.
Cavill has the prototypical Bond "look" but just may be a bit stiff and lacking in charisma without his Superman costume on. Hemsworth has good screen presence and could definitely pull off more of a "charming rogue" variation of Bond. That being said, I'm not totally sold on either but would have an open mind.
You need to watch THE MAN FROM UNCLE to see what Cavill can do when he's allowed to be suave and charming.
He can do suave and charming, but I have yet to see him do menacing. So far for me at least he lacks intensity and charisma.Seems like an awfuly nice chap though.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Both Cavill and Hemsworth are both 34. Hypothetically, they would be 38 for Bond 26 which could work. The other thing that has to be taken into consideration is how an actor ages. Both Hemsworth and Cavill look like they will age well / slowly but you never know.
Cavill has the prototypical Bond "look" but just may be a bit stiff and lacking in charisma without his Superman costume on. Hemsworth has good screen presence and could definitely pull off more of a "charming rogue" variation of Bond. That being said, I'm not totally sold on either but would have an open mind.
You need to watch THE MAN FROM UNCLE to see what Cavill can do when he's allowed to be suave and charming.
He can do suave and charming, but I have yet to see him do menacing. So far for me at least he lacks intensity and charisma.Seems like an awfuly nice chap though.
I agree. And while his stiff acting doesn't bother me so much when he plays Superman, it's unbearable in The Man from U.N.C.L.E.. He reminds me of Hymie the Robot in Get Smart. Great looks, and he's programmed to be suave, but he's still just a machine.
Both Cavill and Hemsworth are both 34. Hypothetically, they would be 38 for Bond 26 which could work. The other thing that has to be taken into consideration is how an actor ages. Both Hemsworth and Cavill look like they will age well / slowly but you never know.
Cavill has the prototypical Bond "look" but just may be a bit stiff and lacking in charisma without his Superman costume on. Hemsworth has good screen presence and could definitely pull off more of a "charming rogue" variation of Bond. That being said, I'm not totally sold on either but would have an open mind.
Aiden Turner is also 34 and think he'd make a great 007
I've seen The Man From Uncle and it's a big reason I'm not sold on Cavill as Bond. I really dislike the film and found Cavill lacking...there's just something "cardboard" about Cavill. He's more convincing in one of his magazine adverts in tux than on screen.
When he moves on screen he just (to me anyway) lacks physical grace and magnetism.The funny thing is, I like him as Superman. That all being said, I wouldn't be terribly upset if he was cast as Bond. I wouldn't be surprised if he comes off much better using his own British accent. His American accent is perfect TV news anchor midwestern neutral, which works fine for Superman but I think it may stilt his performances. Maybe as Bond, using his real accent he could relax more and inhabit the character.
Aiden Turner is also 34 and think he'd make a great 007
Would need to keep the straighteners on hand, I’m not too sure about a curly haired Bond
After seeing And Then There Were None I'm convinced he could pull off "Fleming's Bond." If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend it! Turner does, suave, intense and dangerous very well as Philip Lombard and I think those qualities would be part of his interpretation of 007.
Aiden Turner is also 34 and think he'd make a great 007
Would need to keep the straighteners on hand, I’m not too sure about a curly haired Bond
After seeing And Then There Were None I'm convinced he could pull off "Fleming's Bond." If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend it! Turner does, suave, intense and dangerous very well as Philip Lombard and I think those qualities would be part of his interpretation of 007.
It convinced me too. But I wouldn't be so bothered if they left his hair wavy. I doubt they would straighten it for Bond, considering the lack of effort they put into Craig's hair to make him look more Bond-like.
Comments
I love Craig, I think he is excellent, but I do think he lacks the sophistication that the previous Bonds have. he makes up in muscles and masculinity perhaps, but I don't need Bond to be a bodybuilder. I want him to 'win' based on his charm, intellect, wits more than his martial arts skills.
Time to bring back the charm in the Bond films, it is how the character differentiates itself from for example Bourne and Ethan Hunt.
1. Connery 2. Craig 3. Brosnan 4. Dalton 5. Lazenby 6. Moore
Some of the hard core fans like us would like it, but only if it's done well. The rest of the world would't understand it.
technically we're already there ... the digital Peter Cushing in Rogue One for example. He was conspicuously fake to my eyes, but maybe only cuz I realised the actor was long dead and this must be CGI? I wonder if anyone was fooled who didn't already know he was supposed to look like an actor from 40 years ago?
I could accept a creation like Gollum talking to Frodo, but those types of movies are mostly cartoons already. But for a film that is 99.99% real? I'm sure the trickery would just be distracting.
You'd also need an Andy Serkis type actor to map the digital image onto. Since Serkis specialises in that, I presume its a skill not just any actor can do. Ideally he should also move and talk like the real Hoagy Carmichael. And act recognisably like Bond and run around and do all that action-adventure stuff. That's a whole lotta extra demands on an actor.
...maybe if the whole thing was a cartoon though? Like The Incredibles but not silly and set in Fleming's version of 1950s Britain? that could be good.
I agree with you, but don't think irneeds to be either or. The best have blended both elements with differing air-fuel mixtures perhaps. I would not want Bond to loose his hard edge or physicality but do miss the classyness. Craig is excellent but a bit one note for me.
Some people don't think Daniel Craig has much charisma, others do. I think his casting did split an element of the hardcore Bond fanbase but the average movie goer likes Craig so I reckon the next Bond actor can do alright even if they're not blessed with strong movie star charisma or screen presence.
As for Alden Ehrenreich (unappealing surname for a potential new movie star!) I reckon Disney are prepared for Solo to be a one-off movie, not the first adventure in a new spin-off franchise. In theory, if Solo does tank or underperform, Disney can blame Ehrenreich or the screenwriters, and the studio can move on with more Star Wars episodes. Bond is a little different as there is the expectation the next Bond actor will make several Bond films. Ehrenreich may have signed up for one Solo film and no sequels so less pressure on him, perhaps? Having said that, if Star Wars fans hate his performance he'll have to live with that reaction for the rest of his career! "You ruined Han Solo!"
Interesting comparison. It's a shame that Fillion never got the movie career he deserved.
Personally, I prefer the Chris Pratt of "Parks and Recreation" to the newer, leaner model. As a leading man in dramas, he lacks depth to me. But YMMV.
Even when Ford was playing the hero, there was always this undertone to his performance. Call it anger or assholishness or whatever. He was likable as hell, but you had the sense that his emotions ran dark and deep.
I agree that Mr Craig has lost the sophistication aspect, but that's the writing, not the actor.
That aspect has been a downward spiral since QoS.
We don't know who the next Bind actor will be. He has not surfaced yet.
is Harry the Lizard from Death in Paradise.
You mean he's not real! Next you'll be telling us that the tooth fairy is a fiction.
I agree that it's absent from the writing. Craig could pull it off, so I can only assume that it's a creative choice/decision.
In Fairies -{ .... I couldn't have their deaths
On my hands.
Don't forget this was all written shortly after the war. Men were promoted a lot quicker then out of necessity ... a modern audience would expect someone a little older I think.
Just been watching Alexander Skarsgard ... he has potential but maybe a fraction too tall and obviously he's Swedish (not that you'd ever know).
I'm still routing for Aiden Turner.
Yes, agreed. Fleming used parts of his own history in creating Bond, as is well-known, and as time went on was obliged to adjust the details (Bond bought a Bentley in 1933?) thus creating inconsistencies. And that is just in the timeline of his novels- when the films are added in, the inconsistencies multiply! We can either nitpick those or just sit back and enjoy the ride.
From an earlier post of mine, just before the release of SP:
Since I read the books first, my perspective is unavoidably different. I watched the 60s Bond movies as "films-of-the-books" and observed in real time how they gradually drifted away from their source material and began to form their own continuity. Being a Fleming fan, I was happier when they stuck to the original stories (updating them as necessary, and accepting that) and getting annoyed at what I saw as unnecessary deviations from them (eg, in YOLT Bond claims to have gone to Cambridge which is against what Fleming had written in that exact novel).
Fleming himself made continuity errors (the colour of Mary Goodnight's hair or the light outside M's office, the surname of Honey- though these can be rationalised quite easily) most glaringly with Bond's age- though there are clear reasons for that!
The important point is that when Fleming started writing the novels, or ten years later when Broccoli & co started making the films, no-one had the slightest idea that James Bond would still be thriving deep into the 21st century, with new films and novels arriving on a regular basis. The continuity had to fall apart, since no one man could have lived through all the adventures and experiences 007 is supposed to have had. At a certain point, the "original" Bond simply becomes too old to continue his adventures- whether that Bond is Fleming's (who was involved in WW2 and earlier before IF started writing about him in the 50s) or Broccoli's (who had been working for the Secret Service for ten years before DN).
As I've said before, the film makers decided to ignore Bond's age around the point that Dalton replaced Moore and treat 007 as ageless. In the literary world, John Gardner (in conjunction with Glidrose, later IFP) froze Bond in his 40s slightly earlier. These were active decisions, not lazily ignoring the facts, and make demands of the audience to either accept the conceit or give up following 007's adventures.
As we all know, this changed in the filmic world with CR06- in the literary world, things ran a little differently (Charlie Higson's "Young Bond" series for example, or William Boyd's "Solo")- which leads us to the situation as currently presented: James Bond is a mythical character as opposed to a fictional one. His stories can take place in the 30s (Steve Cole's "Shoot To Kill", published in 2014), the 2010s (SPECTRE, released any day now), or the 60s ("Solo", set in the 60s, published 2013)- a myth transcends all considerations of time.
So, to summarise: James Bond (007) is a mythical character as opposed to a fictional one. His adventures, be they literary or filmic, can occur any time between the 1930s (when he was a boy) and now (whenever now is- it's been the 1960s and the 2010s). He does not exist, he's a mythical hero in the same line as many before and no doubt after. You can sit back and enjoy the ride, or nitpick all you want- it won't change anything, he'll still be pulling his Walther PPK from his shoulder holster after we're all gone.[
Craig was a great choice and made the role his own. Pulling off something similiar once again could be tricky. Now would probably be a good time to bring back the suaveness that always defined Bond.
I don't like any of the actors who made the betting list so far.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/1703522/next-james-bond-daniel-craig-chris-hemsworth-tom-hiddleston-james-norton-tom-hardy/
It's likely that Bond26 will be filmed in 2022-23. An actor born in 1980 will be 42-43 by then. While Moore was slightly older when he made LALD, I'd say that would be pushing it. Someone born between 1985 and 1990-92 would be ideal, starting up at around 30-37 years of age. Someone born 1983-94 could work.
Cavill has the prototypical Bond "look" but just may be a bit stiff and lacking in charisma without his Superman costume on. Hemsworth has good screen presence and could definitely pull off more of a "charming rogue" variation of Bond. That being said, I'm not totally sold on either but would have an open mind.
He can do suave and charming, but I have yet to see him do menacing. So far for me at least he lacks intensity and charisma.Seems like an awfuly nice chap though.
I agree. And while his stiff acting doesn't bother me so much when he plays Superman, it's unbearable in The Man from U.N.C.L.E.. He reminds me of Hymie the Robot in Get Smart. Great looks, and he's programmed to be suave, but he's still just a machine.
Aiden Turner is also 34 and think he'd make a great 007
Would need to keep the straighteners on hand, I’m not too sure about a curly haired Bond
When he moves on screen he just (to me anyway) lacks physical grace and magnetism.The funny thing is, I like him as Superman. That all being said, I wouldn't be terribly upset if he was cast as Bond. I wouldn't be surprised if he comes off much better using his own British accent. His American accent is perfect TV news anchor midwestern neutral, which works fine for Superman but I think it may stilt his performances. Maybe as Bond, using his real accent he could relax more and inhabit the character.
After seeing And Then There Were None I'm convinced he could pull off "Fleming's Bond." If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend it! Turner does, suave, intense and dangerous very well as Philip Lombard and I think those qualities would be part of his interpretation of 007.
It convinced me too. But I wouldn't be so bothered if they left his hair wavy. I doubt they would straighten it for Bond, considering the lack of effort they put into Craig's hair to make him look more Bond-like.
And Then There Were None is absolutely worth watching for his performance. It's an excellent cast all the way around.