The next Bond thread

Number24 · October 2010

Personally I hope DC will make more Bond films. But discussing possible future Bonds is fun and interesting, so I'm starting this thread. Please don't make this a pro/con Craig thread and abstain from posting riddiculus sugestion because "if Craig can be Bond, why not him/her/it?". Simply suggest candidates you would like to see as Bond and discuss them.

Here are two candidates I like:

Michael Fassbender (33)

6' (183 cm)

An accomplished actor on the rise, showed he can be sauve in Inglorious Basterds and and he did action well in Centurion. His looks is somewhere between DC and more standard Bond looks.
IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1055413/
Picture: http://www.vman.com/wp-content/uploads/445/640x417-1.jpg

Max Brown (29)

I don't remember how tall he is, but I seem to remember he is above 6'

Known from Tudors and "Spooks/MI5"
He is a new candidate for me, but he looks like a good candidate.

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0114238/
Picture: http://gallery.photo.net/photo/9726974-lg.jpg

Thunderpussy · October 2010

I'd be happy with either of these guys as Bond as they're Both good Actors But I'd prefer to see
Max Brown,Ive been impressed with him in spooks.

thesecretagent · October 2010

Not quite the Bond of literature with his hair and all - but I liked Rupert Penry-Jones of Spooks fame, he was very good in The 39 Steps - a made for TV film/drama on tv last Christmas.

Jonathon Cake was very good in a Poirot on tv recently.

Personally I like Bond's at the beggining of their tenure and for the first few films -- say mid thirties to late forties. I don't like suggestions of under thirty and I think they should be gone before fifty. PB wasn't so bad,nor was TD but SC and RM were a joke towards the end of their runs.

LOO7K OUT · October 2010

I'm all for Daniel Craig staying on, but if he didn't then my choice would still be Hugh Jackman.

Have a look at this link to get the image of Wolverine in an Aston out of your head

http://www.hugh-jackman.com/2010/08/17/the-81st-academy-awards-oscars-promotional-photos/

DC

Number24 · October 2010

Connery was 32 when he started, Lazenby was 28. Moore was the oldest at 42. I think an actor should be aged somewhere between those when starting up. Since the earliest possible debut for the next Bond is 4-5 years, the actor should probably have been born in the eighties to be in the perfect age group. Hugh Jackman was a good candidate in 2006, but that was probably his last chance since he will be well into his fourties when Craig quits.

Rupert Penry-Jones seems a bit too foppish and is a bit old too. Johnatan Cake seems more masculine, but tha age is not ideal. But of course i'm being too unflexible when it comes to age. An atlethic and youthful-looking actor can be a convincing Bond even after passing fifity. Still, a younger actor is more ideal.

Number24 · October 2010

What do you think of:

Henry Cavill (27)

Cavill is 6`1'' (185 cm)

His test for the role in 2006 were exellent, and if he had been ten years older he may very well be Bond now. But is he too modelish and a pretty boy?

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0147147/
Picture: http://www.styletraxx.com/HC.jpg
http://www.beautyme.com/fragrance/2008/dunhill5-2008.jpg

Number24 · October 2010

Many would say the next Bond will be an unknown, and they may be right. But when you look into it, only three Bonds were new to the casting agents when then "arrived" as Bond: Connery,Lazenby and Craig. The others were seriously considered years before they got the role. More was considered for DN, Dalton was considered for OHMSS and Brosnan was allmost cast for TLD.

Ricardo C. · October 2010

Number24 wrote:

What do you think of:

Henry Cavill (27)

Cavill is 6`1'' (185 cm)

His test for the role in 2006 were exellent, and if he had been ten years older he may very well be Bond now. But is he too modelish and a pretty boy?

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0147147/
Picture: http://www.styletraxx.com/HC.jpg
http://www.beautyme.com/fragrance/2008/dunhill5-2008.jpg

Yeah he looks too soft to be James Bond. Only manly men should play Bond.

James Suzuki · October 2010

they are all pretty good ideas, what about ioan gruffond, he looked good in fantastic four and he said he always wanted to be bond.

Number24 · October 2010

Personally I feel Gruffud is to thin and effete to be Bond. I see some qualities in him and some of it can be fixed in the gym, but I'm not convinced.

qn · November 2010

Michael Fassbender no question. He has it all charm, suave, intelligent, a little moody mixed with a dangerous edge. He would be a fantastic Bond.

Loeffelholz · November 2010

Ricardo C. wrote:

Number24 wrote:

What do you think of:

Henry Cavill (27)

Cavill is 6`1'' (185 cm)

His test for the role in 2006 were exellent, and if he had been ten years older he may very well be Bond now. But is he too modelish and a pretty boy?

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0147147/
Picture: http://www.styletraxx.com/HC.jpg
http://www.beautyme.com/fragrance/2008/dunhill5-2008.jpg

Yeah he looks too soft to be James Bond. Only manly men should play Bond.

I predict Cavill will be James Bond. He's a good actor, which ought to be the key factor. He was nearly Superman, nearly Batman, and nearly Bond. It's a lot of 'nearlys,' and one of these days something's going to gel.

All Bond actors have had their detractors: Connery too much of an unpolished laborer (even Fleming initally disapproved)...Moore too foppish/too comedic...Lazenby too unknown/inexperienced...Dalton too serious...Brosnan too thin/too pretty, Craig too blond/too ugly/too muscular. And on and on it shall go, as long as Bond films are being made.

I was rooting for Cavill before Craig was announced, and he was far too young at the time. By the time Craig hangs it up (after #23 or whenever), Cavill will be a perfect age. My money's on him.

Ricardo C. · November 2010

Loeffelholz wrote:

Ricardo C. wrote:

Number24 wrote:

What do you think of:

Henry Cavill (27)

Cavill is 6`1'' (185 cm)

His test for the role in 2006 were exellent, and if he had been ten years older he may very well be Bond now. But is he too modelish and a pretty boy?

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0147147/
Picture: http://www.styletraxx.com/HC.jpg
http://www.beautyme.com/fragrance/2008/dunhill5-2008.jpg

Yeah he looks too soft to be James Bond. Only manly men should play Bond.

I predict Cavill will be James Bond. He's a good actor, which ought to be the key factor. He was nearly Superman, nearly Batman, and nearly Bond. It's a lot of 'nearlys,' and one of these days something's going to gel.

All Bond actors have had their detractors: Connery too much of an unpolished laborer (even Fleming initally disapproved)...Moore too foppish/too comedic...Lazenby too unknown/inexperienced...Dalton too serious...Brosnan too thin/too pretty, Craig too blond/too ugly/too muscular. And on and on it shall go, as long as Bond films are being made.

I was rooting for Cavill before Craig was announced, and he was far too young at the time. By the time Craig hangs it up (after #23 or whenever), Cavill will be a perfect age. My money's on him.

We really can't tell who is going to be the next Bond. We can only speculate which is why I find threads like this tiresome.

zaphod · November 2010

Ricardo C. wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

Ricardo C. wrote:

Yeah he looks too soft to be James Bond. Only manly men should play Bond.

I predict Cavill will be James Bond. He's a good actor, which ought to be the key factor. He was nearly Superman, nearly Batman, and nearly Bond. It's a lot of 'nearlys,' and one of these days something's going to gel.

All Bond actors have had their detractors: Connery too much of an unpolished laborer (even Fleming initally disapproved)...Moore too foppish/too comedic...Lazenby too unknown/inexperienced...Dalton too serious...Brosnan too thin/too pretty, Craig too blond/too ugly/too muscular. And on and on it shall go, as long as Bond films are being made.

I was rooting for Cavill before Craig was announced, and he was far too young at the time. By the time Craig hangs it up (after #23 or whenever), Cavill will be a perfect age. My money's on him.

We really can't tell who is going to be the next Bond. We can only speculate which is why I find threads like this tiresome.

Yeah, but in the abscence of anything else they can be a welcome distraction in these dark days

Number24 · November 2010

Ricardo C. wrote:

We really can't tell who is going to be the next Bond. We can only speculate which is why I find threads like this tiresome.

Of course we can specaulate, people have done so since Connery's days! In Henry Cavill's case it's particularely relevant. Moore, Dalton and Brosnan were all "crown princes" years before they got the role. Besides, speculateing is fun. It's why we do it.

Rainier Wolfcastle · November 2010

While watching R.E.D. I was impressed by Karl Urban. I only knew him as Eomer from Lord of the Rings (I hadn't noticed him in Bourne Supremacy and didn't recognize him in the new Star Trek) but his looks and the way he moved in R.E.D. makes me wish he would be Bond in #23 instead of that other guy.

Loeffelholz · November 2010

Ricardo C. wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

Ricardo C. wrote:

Yeah he looks too soft to be James Bond. Only manly men should play Bond.

I predict Cavill will be James Bond. He's a good actor, which ought to be the key factor. He was nearly Superman, nearly Batman, and nearly Bond. It's a lot of 'nearlys,' and one of these days something's going to gel.

All Bond actors have had their detractors: Connery too much of an unpolished laborer (even Fleming initally disapproved)...Moore too foppish/too comedic...Lazenby too unknown/inexperienced...Dalton too serious...Brosnan too thin/too pretty, Craig too blond/too ugly/too muscular. And on and on it shall go, as long as Bond films are being made.

I was rooting for Cavill before Craig was announced, and he was far too young at the time. By the time Craig hangs it up (after #23 or whenever), Cavill will be a perfect age. My money's on him.

We really can't tell who is going to be the next Bond. We can only speculate which is why I find threads like this tiresome.

That's right...it's just speculation---kind of a 'fan forum' thing. The good news is that participation isn't compulsory!

little nelly · November 2010

Please don't shoot me for suggesting this, but I think Christian Bale would be an excellent Bond. Failing that, Karl Urban.

Peppermill · November 2010

I have no idea who should be the next actor to portray Bond. I do, however, think that he should be British, about 6'2" and brown/black haired. Am I the only one who thinks that Daniel Craig should have dyed his hair dark brown before he started CR?

Thunderpussy · November 2010

I agree with you Peppermill,When some actors go on about "the part" and how much research they do to find "the character" and such other bollocks.If a red head actress was playing M Munroe I would asume she would Dye her Hair Blonde. Not to do so IMHO Shows a lot of Arrogance.After all he puts on make up,changes his accent,works out to get a better Body for the screen.Even Connery sometimes wears a wig or not depending on the character he's playing. I think D C regards himself as a far better actor than he really is,and get the feeling he's slumming it as Bond,Doing EON a favor. Untill some heavyweight Role comes along when he can bask in all the praise from the other " Darlings ".

qn · November 2010

Physically I never care for Craig as Bond. He doesn't look the part. They managed to put more brute but none of the charm in his Bond movies. They tried to copycat the Bourne series but 2 years too late. The chase scenes in the Bourne series was getting tiresome, then Bond comes along to try to do the same thing. Keep the Bond format and try to be original with in it, get an actor that actually look the part will be a good start, add more charm, and keep the action somewhat realistic and occasionally brutal.

Lexi · November 2010

thesecretagent wrote:

Not quite the Bond of literature with his hair and all - but I liked Rupert Penry-Jones of Spooks fame, he was very good in The 39 Steps - a made for TV film/drama on tv last Christmas.

Jonathon Cake was very good in a Poirot on tv recently.

Personally I like Bond's at the beggining of their tenure and for the first few films -- say mid thirties to late forties. I don't like suggestions of under thirty and I think they should be gone before fifty. PB wasn't so bad,nor was TD but SC and RM were a joke towards the end of their runs.

I don't think Penry Jones is tough enough, however he does have that certain 'debonair' about him.
That said.... Jonathan Cake :x Now he's lovely - I have his 'Empire' DVD - the US version of Rome - which I still haven't watched yet ;% - but I've seen him in other things, and he certainly has the acting range, and good looks.

Great suggestion.

By the way, I take back my suggestion of Richard Armitage I posted in another thread.... I have to say his performance in Spooks this series has been really dissapointing - very flat and not convincing. Shame, cause he's lovely on the eye

Napoleon Plural · November 2010

Cavill's nose looked odd to me back in I Capture the Castle. Has he had it fixed? They say Kate Middleton has.

I think Craig would have looked odd with dark hair as Bond, certainly no better. I'd like to see him again as Bond as familiarity breeds content.

thesecretagent · November 2010

Lexi wrote:

thesecretagent wrote:

Not quite the Bond of literature with his hair and all - but I liked Rupert Penry-Jones of Spooks fame, he was very good in The 39 Steps - a made for TV film/drama on tv last Christmas.

Jonathon Cake was very good in a Poirot on tv recently.

Personally I like Bond's at the beggining of their tenure and for the first few films -- say mid thirties to late forties. I don't like suggestions of under thirty and I think they should be gone before fifty. PB wasn't so bad,nor was TD but SC and RM were a joke towards the end of their runs.

I don't think Penry Jones is tough enough, however he does have that certain 'debonair' about him.
That said.... Jonathan Cake :x Now he's lovely - I have his 'Empire' DVD - the US version of Rome - which I still haven't watched yet ;% - but I've seen him in other things, and he certainly has the acting range, and good looks.

Great suggestion.

By the way, I take back my suggestion of Richard Armitage I posted in another thread.... I have to say his performance in Spooks this series has been really dissapointing - very flat and not convincing. Shame, cause he's lovely on the eye

I've sky-plused (think that's a word) the whole series of spooks, but have yet to watch any. The series has progressively deteriorated over the years though...

Blackleiter · November 2010

I agree 100%. I have heard his name suggested before, but in my opinion he would be a very disappointing Bond for the reasons you stated.

Number24 wrote:

Personally I feel Gruffud is to thin and effete to be Bond. I see some qualities in him and some of it can be fixed in the gym, but I'm not convinced.

Lexi · November 2010

thesecretagent wrote:

I've sky-plused (think that's a word) the whole series of spooks, but have yet to watch any. The series has progressively deteriorated over the years though...

I agree - the original with Matthew Macfadyn was by far the best..... it's a shame, as it was really good - and this series, alas is definitely the worst. Sorry to be a bearer of bad news.... but at least you won't be so disappointed....

....and the introduction of the new character - a good looking, mid 30's semi known actor, and you just know that the main 'lead' is going to be killed off/have a break down/be a long lost traitor.... so you see where the underlying plot is going to go

qn · November 2010

Ioan Gruffard looks too much like a schoolteacher. Would not be convincing. Plus the Hornblower series got him type cast a little in my eyes.

Number24 · November 2010

qn wrote:

Ioan Gruffard looks too much like a schoolteacher. Would not be convincing. Plus the Hornblower series got him type cast a little in my eyes.

Agreed. He just looks too small and thin.

Alessandra · November 2010

Ricardo C. wrote:

Number24 wrote:

What do you think of:

Henry Cavill (27)

Cavill is 6`1'' (185 cm)

His test for the role in 2006 were exellent, and if he had been ten years older he may very well be Bond now. But is he too modelish and a pretty boy?

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0147147/
Picture: http://www.styletraxx.com/HC.jpg
http://www.beautyme.com/fragrance/2008/dunhill5-2008.jpg

Yeah he looks too soft to be James Bond. Only manly men should play Bond.

I couldn't disagree more. As a woman, for me the thing with Cavill is he doesn't look soft at all. It's exactly why I find him irresistible. While being absolutely gorgeous, he's extremely masculine and he can pull off the devious extremely well. He's also a very good actor. Watch the Tudors with him playing Charles Brandon. He basically plays James Bond at the age of Henry VIII. Both the Bond role AND the Superman role came very close for him (and he said so in an interview that I saw). There is no way people who cast for both those roles would both have gotten this close to picking him if he just looked "soft". Henry Cavill is by all means a man, and an extremely fine one at that.

) If he hadn't been so young when they cast Craig, he would have been Bond. He's the perfect age anyway now, and I really, really hope he will be the next one, because I don't think any of the other candidates cover all the requirements to be Bond as well as he does.

I predict Cavill will be James Bond. He's a good actor, which ought to be the key factor. He was nearly Superman, nearly Batman, and nearly Bond. It's a lot of 'nearlys,' and one of these days something's going to gel.

All Bond actors have had their detractors: Connery too much of an unpolished laborer (even Fleming initally disapproved)...Moore too foppish/too comedic...Lazenby too unknown/inexperienced...Dalton too serious...Brosnan too thin/too pretty, Craig too blond/too ugly/too muscular. And on and on it shall go, as long as Bond films are being made.

I was rooting for Cavill before Craig was announced, and he was far too young at the time. By the time Craig hangs it up (after #23 or whenever), Cavill will be a perfect age. My money's on him.

This too as Loeffs eloquently put it. Those really are a lot of "nearlys" and they sure can't be coincidental. I agree that unless someone spectacular comes along meantime (I have a hard time imagining that, but you never know) Cavill will be Bond. At that point, count me among those who will camp outside the cinema hours before in order to be first to see him. No way I'd miss one second of this guy as Bond, and I'd want the best seat to enjoy it

)

Oh and to Loeffs's credit I remember he was rooting for Cavill as Bond back then... and I barely knew who he was then. I agree he was probably too young then (though in my opinion Casino Royale would've made sense with a far younger Bond than Craig), but anyway from now on, and certainly by the time Craig is done, he'll be the perfect age.

The next Bond thread

Comments