Why Not Stay True
I've been a fan of James Bond since I was very young. I've seen all the films. Enjoyed every actor's take on the role. My favorite actor is probably Roger Moore, which leads to my opinion on the next installment. If Roger Moore was up in age during his time as Bond, and his performances were spot-on, then why make a fuss over age. They already did a kind of beginning with a younger looking Daniel Craig. I say defy the trends, especially since the female Bond idea didn't take well, and stay with an older age male actor. I'd even suggest someone like Toby Stephens as Bond. It'd be interesting to see a former character/villain take on the role. And he definitely has the looks for it. Otherwise, Henry Cavill is still a good choice as well. Idris has the look too. All I'm saying is don't fuss over age... Also, I did get quite anxious for a Gillian Anderson "Bond" but I think if they do a female version it needs to be a spinoff. Don't mess with the classic concept. And don't worry about appeasing trends 🤪
Comments
That's a good point about the physical demands of the role, Gymkata. Get the physical part of the casting wrong and we'll be back to AVTAK style action with obvious stunt doubles, and a "woooahhh" voice clip of the star.
While I'm in the minority for supporting a female take on Bond, I do agree with you on an older Bond.
The ending of NTTD aside, I always thought that it would be ridiculously cool if they would go in the opposite direction for the next Bond by leaning away from the younger, stunt heavy Craig-era Bond, and into more of an older, thinking man's Bond. Perhaps a bit too retro a risk for today's audience expectations, but a man can dream.
A pipe dream for so many reasons, sure, but it would definitely be a different take on Bond.
That's basically what Skyfall was.
Yes, that's the problem with older actors: not trends, but the third movie being about getting old.
Good first post @dannyboy and welcome! (Roger is my favourite Bond too, btw🍸️).
If they did go with an older actor, just give it to Idris. He's still a hugely popular choice among the general public, media and a fair few fans, and looks way younger than his years in the same way Roger did. I personally would prefer somebody else and younger (32+) but Idris has the chops to be a very good (and put bums on seats and reach an even wider audience) Bond.
However, as the next film is still at least two years away from rolling and they would probably want an actor to sign a three picture deal and they release films every 3-4 years at best, it probably rules him out. But, if he just did 'one and done', I'm sure people would talk about his portrayal for years to comes as being a rival to Connery as greatest Bond.
Why would someone support the idea of a female Bond?
With so many female-lead action movies that came out in the last 10 years, why would you support the fundamental change of a clearly defined character instead of just creating something new and own?
IG: @thebondarchives
Check it out, you won’t be disappointed
I do tend to agree he's a bit of natural for it.
I must be the only person in the whole wide world that just doesn’t see Idris Elba as Bond 🤣
Like Sir Miles, I've never been able to see Idris Elba as Bond, and like Gymkata I've never fancied Tom Hardy for the part either. In general I don't spend much time thinking about who could play Bond in future, but looking back a few years Michael Fassbender is the actor that I would have liked to see in the role if Craig had ended his run sooner.
I'll join you too, and add Tom Hiddleston to that list.
I would love to see Elba as Bond, but he could only do one film at the rate that EON make them, so that's not going to happen. I wouldn't mind Hardy, but that's a continuation of the DC blunt-instrument-Bond and I don't see that happening.
One other thing to bear in mind is that whoever is chosen must love the idea of being Bond. Obviously they can negotiate their fee etc, but they mustn't be talked into being Bond. Moore and Brosnan loved the idea of being Bond while DC ummed and arred and we ended up with a Bond who wasn't content with just being an actor but with someone who had to be a producer and a writer and ultimately killed-off the character. I want someone who loves the idea of being Bond more than they love the money, the "power" and the fame.
Welcome, Dannyboy!
I like the idea of a female action hero, but James Bond is a man. In other words I agree with you there.
DC seemed to see the role of Bond as a catalyst to help him as a producer, do theatre and other love-projects…
IG: @thebondarchives
Check it out, you won’t be disappointed
I belive DC cared deeply about James Bond. It's debatable if he was given too much power or had the right ideas, but he cared.
Hardy I think is reasonably easy to imagine as Bond; he's (too) similar to Craig for one thing, and not far off in his role in Inception either.
But Hiddleston, yes: he'd be terrible. Because he mostly is terrible 😁
I think that's a very strange reading of his relationship with it: he did it for 15 years and each film took a huge slice out of his life. If he didn't like Bond then why on earth would he become a producer and give himself even more work on them? He was clearly very passionate about the movies indeed.
Hiddleston is very good in The Night Manager and when he sings in Loki his Norwegian is really good. 😁
But I don't think he would've been a good Bond.
He's decent in Night Manager yes, although you can see him thinking 'this is my Bond audition' and he actually affects a silly Connery-style 'panther' walk. A bit embarrassing 😁
Yes I watched that too to check out Heughan - as you say, he's dreadful 🤣
I'm not saying he didn't work hard because he clearly did, but he has said that he initially wasn't sure that he wanted the Bond role (unlike Moore and Brosnan...or Cavill). Once he had accepted it however, whilst there definitely was passion on his behalf, I think the passion was directed more towards himself and his career as an actor and producer than it ever was about Bond. Anthony Horowitz is very passionate about Bond and when asked if he would kill-off Bond in one of his continuation novels, he said he felt it was very impertinent to kill off a character he hadn't created. To me, that shows someone who puts the character ahead of themselves.
I think there's a bit of projection going on there, though. It seems perfectly reasonable for someone to weigh up whether a career-defining role like Bond is definitely what you want to do when you've already got a good career going. Indeed it's more than career-defining, it's life-defining. Anyone in the position he was in 2004 who doesn't take time to consider that would be an idiot, frankly. And considering that the most recent film Eon had made was Die Another Day... well I'd want to see a script too!
Deciding that his passion was more directed to himself... well I don't know where that idea comes from; it's certainly not from anything he's said over the years where he's said the opposite. Or indeed from anyone who's worked with him. All he's ever said is that he wants the films to be as good as they possibly can be; if you've decided that he was only doing that for himself then there's not much which can convince you otherwise, because it comes from nowhere, really. Yes, it seems like it was his idea to kill him off, but that's because he, and the rest of the team, thought it was a damned good ending- there's no reason to think otherwise. It wasn't to put him on the map in some fashion, because he's already the longest-serving Bond and top of many peoples' lists of the best. I get a bit tired of these cod-psychology readings of the film producers, claiming to know what their innermost motivations were. If we look at Fleming himself it seems clear from his actions and what he allowed that he was very keen on selling the film rights and making as money for himself as possible, and didn't really seem to mind what anyone did with the character. Is that more laudable?
And where did Horowitz say he thought it was 'very impertinent'? All I've seen him say on the matter was that he thinks "that Bond belongs to everybody". I like Horowitz, but just because he has a different thought on the matter it doesn't make him right and Eon wrong. I also wonder if you've made it to the end of his latest book... ? 😉
Ssh, emtiem, that way lie spoilers.
I agree with a few of the comments....I just don't see Tom Hardy as Bond 😂. He's more blunt, less chiseled or refined. In other words his pouty lips and aggressiveness would just be too in-your-face😂. Very talented tho. His mouth just enters the room before he does lol. Anyone see him in RockNRolla?? Lol And someone hinted at what I was trying to say with age. I think it's a perfect time to go older. Today's culture wants to go younger, but I don't think younger really has the swag to pull off the role. I think it'd be more amusing than intriguing. It'd really be a breath of fresh air to go more mature, hell even possibly take the storylines back a few decades. I think it'll get harder to do espionage movies with current technology/media affecting realism, and also added expectations from viewers to be original.
Starr did actually test for Bond back in 2005, as did his now co-star Karl Urban.
I wonder if it was his turn in The Bourne Supremacy that got him the screen test. I like him in that role, but agree, I couldn't see him as Bond.
I've always hated how Brosnan left the franchise. He's likely too old now, but I think he could have pulled off returning to the role for an older take on Bond.
Watched „The November Man“ yesterday…better than I rembered it…Pierce Brosnan could have EASILY played Bond until 2015
IG: @thebondarchives
Check it out, you won’t be disappointed
Agree. Loved that one.
Fingers crossed that Netflix gets Brosnan for their adaptation of Millar's KING OF SPIES comic. Tailor-made for him.