Narrowing the age range for a new Bond
As I have mentioned before, I personally believe a new Bond should be about 40 and presented as a seasoned professional, experienced and charming intelligence operative rather then a guy out of college whose main trait is viewed as "youthful and sexy" amidst more of the increasingly boring extensive chases, constant sexual encounters and video-game violence, ostensibly focusing on a particular young audience. But if the producers don't want to commit to a film every two or three years then they are cornering themselves to choose someone who is in his early thirties who would commit not only to a longer lag between films but also to a minimum of films, i.e. four or five
The problem is that the producers can't have it both ways. They can't have a lag time of 5 years between films AND at the same time have an actor who is a Bond who is a mature and professionally experienced an operative. If they give up on that quality because they don't want to commit to films every two or three years, the "youthful and sexy" character is likely to be less credible even if he is part of a string of 4 or 5 films with a period of 4 or 5 years between each film.
It's a huge decision for the producers. The only alternative would be the older actor who might only do THREE films maximum if they are going to do films only once in five or more years, and figure out some way of explaining why films always now need so many years of preparation with the same actor starring as a younger Bond around 30 years old who doesn't present as a seasoned professional, experienced and yet charming intelligence operative
Comments
When I had the qualities of a 40 year old Bond in mind I think I had Sean Connery in mind. However, I just checked his birthdate, and it turns out he was only 32 years old in Dr. No! He presented older, more mature and as a seasoned MI6 operative. So I guess the reality of Connery as Bond is a major problem for my opening position here. Perhaps the question is whether in today's society someone could get away as appearing older while still at a young age. By contrast, Roger Moore was 45 years old when he started as Bond! George Lazenby was in his early 30s, and Timothy Dalton, Pearce Brosnan and Daniel Craig were both about 40 (although Brosnan seemed younger). But in today's world a 32 year old would seem alot less "mature" or seasoned than he did in 1962. Maybe it's my own misinterpretation........
I suspect alcohol, tobacco, often starting working at fifteen years of age and military service made many young men look older back then.
Well, as the years go by there is invariably going to be alot of sexual activity and some drug use along the way. Yet many of the potential Bonds still don't look as mature as Connery at only age 32. But if Broccoli and Wilson find a great actor who is that age and can present as mature, experienced, and charming as an MI6 operative without looking like a kid engrossed in all the video-game violence and endless sexual encounters then it will be a good outcome.
I guess the age range by the time they start working on the new Bond film has my first vote for Aaron Taylor Johnson...... He'll be around 35. I prefer around 40. But if he can project a seasoned, mature, experienced operative and not merely a youthful sexy icon masquerading as an intelligence operative.
I see the name of an an actor I'm not familiar with named Louis Laviscount as a new possible Bond in two years. But he's too young in my humble opinion. He's only 30 now. Aaron Taylor Johnson is only two years older and is borderline in my opinion. I think I'm still holding with someone who will be close to 40 in two years. So I guess I'll change my vote to Henry Cavill. If they can do films every 2-3 years he could finish up five films at age 55 not unlike Craig and Moore if they start in 2025 and don't drag things out between films and insist on a ten year commitment, or get entanglement in legal problems.. Otherwise he could do four. Brosnan did four and it wasn't the end of the world. Actors probably donr like such a long-term commitment anyway. Why should they be locked in like that??
It's probably the producers' thinking that, optics-wise, the franchise needs to be on firm ground and having a reliable lead in place works toward that. They don't want a revolving door/ '90s Batman situation, as the gents who did occupy the role for short periods are still viewed by the larger public as misfires.
It would take a different approach in thinking to convince Eon that some of us wouldn't mind seeing a few short tours of duty, but I think they enjoy the "more men have walked on the moon" brag of the role and want to keep it somewhat elite by having a four-film minimum out of the next guy.
I think the days of a film every 2-3 years are behind us until the next generation of producers take over.
I don't think we can expect a move every two years, but I think every 3-4 years is reasonable.
How could anyone today expect an actor to commit to so many years? Besides, if the films are made every 3-4 years, the first film would show a Bond who is just too young, and the last film a Bond who is too old.
The Marvel actors have committed to their roles for many years now, and the standard Bond actor contract has always been three movies plus one optional.
Money.
I've always been of the view that age itself is less of a factor and should be focused on whether the actor credibly looks the part. Yes, age does play into that to some extent, but not fully. This is why I am not averse to an actor in his mid-forties starring in his first ever Bond film as 007,
Many have written off Cillian Murphy as being "too old" for the role (46 years of age, at the time of writing). While 46 isn't young, does it necessarily mean a person of this age looks any less dangerous? In my view, no.
The above shot of Murphy is from his upcoming role in Oppenheimer. Clearly, the man is post-35. But, what you get from a man of this appearance is a sense of experience, a little weathered, but still up for the fight. He looks great in a suit, handsome, and world weary. To me, that's James Bond which answers better to the role than some of the other candidates in their mid-thirties that the press have been discussing as hopefuls.