Historically did bookmakers choose the right Bond each time?
Not that I really believe in this kind of predicting, but simply out of curiosity. How did bookies do historically in their bets to choose the next James Bond, let's say after Sean Connery? Were they on target? From what I have read the bets are currently on Aaron Taylor Johnson. He's only 32. If they want him for 6-7 films they will have to produce them no less than every 2-3 years maximum. The age requirement certainly establishes pressure since BB and MW want the same actor for at least a decade. Anyway, I'd be interested in reading how bookmakers did historically.
Comments
Although a bet might be on Henry Cavill, based on the likelihood of two or three more years, he will be at least 41, which is fine, but if he'll do films every three years, by the time he's Daniel Craig's current age he'll only be doing 3 or 4 films, whereas Taylor Johnson is 8 years younger.
I presume when BB talks about no young actors she means younger than the early 30s. But for a commitment of 6 or 7 films, the actor can't be older than around 35 when he starts, but every three years would make him well over 50 like Roger Moore was. Or even older if disputes or other problems keep films from being made.Maybe the producers will lower those expectations in general.
The main thing should hopefully be focusing on very good films without overdoing the video game violence and sexual encounters to distract from the main storyline. As I've said, a Bond who like Moore is upbeat, humorous, experienced and knowledgeable without too much vulnerability and insecurities. I think Craig's Bond went too far into the direction of insecurity and gloominess.....
If the bookmakers ever got it right I think it must've been RM or PB because they were sort of obvious at the time. That's just an assumption from me. I wonder if anyone can back up/ disprove it with actual facts ....
2005...
oops missed the top spot! This was jan 2005
In Dec 2004 Graun also had Salmon top of the bookies odds
Not until late Feb 2005 Sun puts DC and Clive Owen in a head to head race according to bookies.
Then Mi-6 starts reporting from late Feb/march it is likely DC...Announced in April
https://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=2169
I'd be very surprised if any bookmaker on earth had Craig among their top ten, at least up to the final weeks before he was announced as the new James Bond.
More interesting perhaps is that the only people who knew 'fat' Cavill was so close were probably the producers. Next to zero public discussion until Mi-6 discuss who the final 4/2 etc were and why Owen was lost after April.
So with that kind of record we should assume that none of the main names mentioned in the media and by bookmakers will be the likely selection.....
Craig was a surprise to pretty much everyone, so was Lazenby one assumes. Connery was the first, so I doubt if the bookmakers cared much before DN. Moore, Dalton and Brosnan are more interesting.
The one item of note is that even though no one saw Craig coming in the long term, he did pop onto the radar a couple of months prior to announcement.
In other words, at some point we’ll likely be discussing the right person—we just don’t know when that will be! A completely left field pick, especially in this era, seems impossible.
Every couple of weeks there’s a new favourite with the bookies…best ignored 🍸
Yes, the thing with bookies is that they can often turn out to be a good place to look because the actor in question tells his family and friends, some of then go and place a flurry of bets (usually in their home town!), which drives the odds down etc. But yeah, that's usually not long before the announcement is made.
It was Craig where a journo called his mum and congratulated her, wasn't it? The news wasn't out but they tricked her into confirming it!
I hadn’t heard that story. Shameful stuff, if true! Reinforces the point though: we’ll probably know before we know. Doesn’t feel like we’re there yet, despite all the smoke with Taylor Johnson.
Ah I kind of respect that journo for doing that, it’s a little underhand but it’s only a film and it’s kind of funny they got it that way! 😄
I would personally adopt the playground dozens rule of "no mothers" when doing journalism, but hey 🤷♀️