After Craig anything Goes as far as Who can Play Bond.
I wouldn't say anything goes but the net will be cast much wider. Much is likely to depend on whether the producers decide to continue following the path started by Daniel Craig. If that is the case they would choose someone like Tom Hardy. If they decide on a more traditional path they would choose someone like Henry Cavill.
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
In six years Tom Hardy could look more like Bob Hoskins than Bond....just kidding ) I like Hardy as a character actor but I don't see him as Bond.
I have a gut feeling that "Superman" may not be a big hit which would mean Cavill can go back to doing whatever it is he does in film/TV for the next 6-7 years, get some maturity, character, and gravitas and be ready to put on the tux when Craig moves on.
That and the fact he looks nothing like Bond whatsoever....
I have to disagree. Cumberbatch looks more like the traditional Bond image than Craig, Tom Hardy and some other people who have been mentioned. Many people agree with me, Your opinion is no fact, but simply just an opinion.
That and the fact he looks nothing like Bond whatsoever....
I have to disagree. Cumberbatch looks more like the traditional Bond image than Craig, Tom Hardy and some other people who have been mentioned. Many people agree with me, Your opinion is no fact, but simply just an opinion.
I think the 'looking like Bond' ship has well and truly set sail....no one would be off limits in the future, bald, black, fat, anything is possible now the mould has been thrown away. Suppose it widens the net for choice. Seriously though would anything be off limits in the future?
Well, I'm kind of amazed, but there you go. You really may as well cast Kenneth Williams (Carry On stalwart) as Bond. Where does anything stop being an opinion and become fact?
Craig can look like Bond, he of the early Fleming novels ie MR Pan cover, he has the right voice, lean look (sometimes) and manner.
Cumberbatch.... well, he looks asexual, and has a peevish voice. But maybe that otherwordly look would work for Bond, seeing as the producers seem to think Bond works as an oddity, not having a wife or regular girlfriend, and possibly being damaged.
I suppose the old world cetainties are all gone now, what with the economic state of the world and shifting alliances, emergence of China in alliance with Russia.
That peevish voice will be the voice of the dragon Smaug in The Hobbit ..
Asexual? The fact that Cumberbatch plays the asexual Sherlock Holmes doesn`t make the actor asexual.
I also disagree that all bets are off concerning how Bond should look in the future. I believe and hope Bond actors will be at least six feet tall, have dark hair and have masculine good looks. I think Craig plays Bond so well he works as Bond in spite of his height and unconventional looks. I hope he did open up the role for better and edgier actors in the future.
That peevish voice will be the voice of the dragon Smaug in The Hobbit ..
Asexual? The fact that Cumberbatch plays the asexual Sherlock Holmes doesn`t make the actor asexual.
I also disagree that all bets are off concerning how Bond should look in the future. I believe and hope Bond actors will be at least six feet tall, have dark hair and have masculine good looks. I think Craig plays Bond so well he works as Bond in spite of his height and unconventional looks. I hope he did open up the role for better and edgier actors in the future.
All joking aside I agree. It's a great testament to DC that despite being so far from the classic conception he is often so good that he makes me forget, or just care less about it. The fact that you would prefer a return to a 6 ft plus dark haired Classically handsome Bond does not mean that it will happen. Perhaps the Bondiverse has shifted and Bond is now fair haired and much shorter, maybe this is the beginning of a new Iconography for the character. I think that EON (read Babs) are so arrogant that they might try and replicate the success they have had with Craig with an actor who bears similarity to him. Michael Fassbinder would be an interesting choice as he would to some degree bridge the gap.
I would like to understand why you believe that the future Bond will be a more recognisable version, and particularly what rules out all bets being off, what immutable rules are there?
Not to start a war, but just to understand what is left that rues out different and divergent choices?
Good questions. It seems like Babs favours fair haired muscular men (Sean Bean, Daniel Crag ......Tom Hardy?). Since the experiment with Craig worked so well her choise will carry a lot of weight next time. But I don`t think she will be the only choise the next time they choose an actor. Most dissision-makers will favour a tall, dark haired actor. I still think the expectation is along tose lines. If an actor like Hardy is Bond 7 Craig will not be a anomaly any more and a lot of peope will be used to a five feet something blond Bond. What I`m saying is that what I wrote is more a hope based on some facts and assumptions.
Looking quickly back at these recent posts I think cumbersome arch (damned autocorrect) and tom hardy are definitely out.
Think about it, bond is supposed to be a trained assassin, physically very fit and agile, a hardened killer. Cummberbatch just seems too weedy and hardy not quite fitting the mould.
Who knows who the next one will be, but it sure as **** ain't gonna be either if them.
I like DC and long may his run continue, I'll concentrate on who's next when the story of DC leaving breaks.
Oh and I can't wait for TDKR to come out, a bit like I can't wait to be shot in the stomach.
It will return until John Masterton is out... He wanted Bale, now he's asking for bail....
As for all bets are off, I simply have to agree that much of the time Craig doesn't really look like Bond, yet he is. And on reflection, Moore didn't look anything like Fleming's Bond as seen on the old Pan books, especially as his tenure wore on. That's why Cumberbatch might be in the running, but I'm not really in favour personally. To me, it's like casting the likes of Nic Cage as Superman, he's supposed to look a certain way. That said, if Cavill sinks then that theory might be knocked into a cocked hat.
As for rules, well usually you'd cast an actor in shouting distance of Fleming's description. Same as with Sherlock Holmes, some folk are gonna be good casting, others aren't. In a way, now Bond doesn't have much in the way of humour or one-liners, it's his essential moodiness that seems to prevail, so you'll get that kind of actor perhaps. I don't have any prediction as to what sort the producers will go for.
Looking quickly back at these recent posts I think cumbersome arch (damned autocorrect) and tom hardy are definitely out.
Think about it, bond is supposed to be a trained assassin, physically very fit and agile, a hardened killer. Cummberbatch just seems too weedy and hardy not quite fitting the mould.
Who knows who the next one will be, but it sure as **** ain't gonna be either if them.
I like DC and long may his run continue, I'll concentrate on who's next when the story of DC leaving breaks.
Oh and I can't wait for TDKR to come out, a bit like I can't wait to be shot in the stomach.
No one is forcing you to view or contribute. If you are not interested it should not bother you. If we veto speculation we would have little to talk about. This discussion has morphed into discussing if there is a mould at all any longer. From your response I cannot see what rules out Hardy.
Hardy would be better than cummberbatch, but I wouldn't say he fitted the role perfectly.
Sure, different actors have played the role in slightly different ways, but I think cummberbatch would be too far away from the norm. Not saying he's a crap actor or anything, just that IMO he doesn't suit it 100%.
Hardy would be better than cummberbatch, but I wouldn't say he fitted the role perfectly.
Sure, different actors have played the role in slightly different ways, but I think cummberbatch would be too far away from the norm. Not saying he's a crap actor or anything, just that IMO he doesn't suit it 100%.
In what way(s) is Hardy closer to the Bond norm than Cumberbatch? Seriously, I woud like to know.
I've got to admit, reading through the suggestions of Bennedict Cumberbatch as Bond initially had me screaming NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
But then I Google Imaged him. He may look completely asexual in Sherlock but there a lot of other pictures in which he doesn't look at all like that. He is still not as conventionally good looking as someone like Brosnan or Connery but he does have an edge to him which could translate well and lead to an interesting take on Bond.
He perhaps wouldn't be my first choice, but I'm not as against the idea as I initially thought.
1- On Her Majesty's Secret Service 2- Casino Royale 3- Licence To Kill 4- Goldeneye 5- From Russia With Love
It's all very well, but you may as well have plumped for long-faced, lanky Donald Sutherland as Bond for LALD over Roger Moore. I suppose some would say, yeah why not? We live in changing times, it seems.
It's all very well, but you may as well have plumped for long-faced, lanky Donald Sutherland as Bond for LALD over Roger Moore. I suppose some would say, yeah why not? We live in changing times, it seems.
I found myself agreeing to most of what Jamesbondjr just wrote. Cumberbatch does not look quite as standard Bondian as say ... Dalton or Brosnan, but I do see Bond in him. He certainly looks more like Bond than Craig. He isn`t my first choise, but he is an interesting candidate. I would have understood NP no problem if he wanted Fassbender or Cavill, but Tom Hardy? Hardy has the muscles and the acting talent, but I find it very odd that VP seems to see him as a man with standard Bondian good looks. Hardy is at least as short as Craig, blonde and very fish-lipped. I am actually not completely against him as Bond, but to me he is a very unconventional choise.
I just can`t see the asexual side of Cumberbatch. I still suspect NP of being tricked by Cumberbatch`s good acting as the asexual Sherlock.
Hardy would be better than cummberbatch, but I wouldn't say he fitted the role perfectly.
Sure, different actors have played the role in slightly different ways, but I think cummberbatch would be too far away from the norm. Not saying he's a crap actor or anything, just that IMO he doesn't suit it 100%.
Hardy is conventionally handsome, looks like he's had sex with a girl in his life, that sort of thing.
+1
I can see the headlines now;
"Cumberbatch IS bond!"
It's like saying "Jimmy Carr IS Bourne!"
I'm sorry, nothing against the guy but what's BC done that's close to bond? I just can't see him cast as that type of character. He's a good actor sure, but put any trim guy in a sharp suit and he's 'got a bit of bond' about him.
Tom Hardy on the other hand has done layer cake, Tinker tailor soldier spy, bronsan, all roles that have that grittiness about them that could be similar to bond. Alas, he's not right anyway IMO, not tall enough and just couldn't see him pull it off.
Hardy would be better than cummberbatch, but I wouldn't say he fitted the role perfectly.
Sure, different actors have played the role in slightly different ways, but I think cummberbatch would be too far away from the norm. Not saying he's a crap actor or anything, just that IMO he doesn't suit it 100%.
Hardy is conventionally handsome, looks like he's had sex with a girl in his life, that sort of thing.
+1
I can see the headlines now;
"Cumberbatch IS bond!"
It's like saying "Jimmy Carr IS Bourne!"
I'm sorry, nothing against the guy but what's BC done that's close to bond? I just can't see him cast as that type of character. He's a good actor sure, but put any trim guy in a sharp suit and he's 'got a bit of bond' about him.
Tom Hardy on the other hand has done layer cake, Tinker tailor soldier spy, bronsan, all roles that have that grittiness about them that could be similar to bond. Alas, he's not right anyway IMO, not tall enough and just couldn't see him pull it off.
Both Hardy and Cumberbatch were in Tinker, Taylor. Some scenes in Sherlock are just as close to Bond as much of what Hardy has done. Note the scene when he fights the CIA agents in Scandal in Bavaria, easily as Bondian as anything Hardy has been in. And Cumberbatch is is significantly taller than than Hardy who is just 5`7``.
Well, the difference is that Hardy bangs some hot chick in Tinker and looks dapper in cool clobber, while Cumberbatch is cast not unsympathetically as a cerebral ginger gay guy.
Tom Hardy, just like Benedict Cumberbatch has done nothing close to Bond, but why should that matter? Connery also had done nothing remotely like Bond, neither had Timothy Dalton. The role of an actor is to be versatile and to adapt to the role he is playing, that is what is important. Past roles should have nothing whatsoever to do with it.
It is on a par with saying that Christian Bale shouldn't play Batman as he had no prior experience as a super-hero.
1- On Her Majesty's Secret Service 2- Casino Royale 3- Licence To Kill 4- Goldeneye 5- From Russia With Love
Well he looks more like Bond than Daniel Craig. In fact, he probably looks more like Fleming's description than anyone who has played Bond. Manner is completely down to acting; watch Pacino in Dog day Afternoon and then in Scarface as a good example.
Also, good looking and attractive are not mutually exclusive. Liam Neeson and Daniel Craig are good examples of this, they are not conventionally handsome but they ooze sex appeal; again, this is something that an actor can bring to a role.
1- On Her Majesty's Secret Service 2- Casino Royale 3- Licence To Kill 4- Goldeneye 5- From Russia With Love
Agreed. That last part is much better than what I could have written.
NP is right about the field being much more open after Craig. I doubt many would have considered someone like Hardy if it wasn`t for Craig. The two are simmular in many ways.
Comments
I wouldn't say anything goes but the net will be cast much wider. Much is likely to depend on whether the producers decide to continue following the path started by Daniel Craig. If that is the case they would choose someone like Tom Hardy. If they decide on a more traditional path they would choose someone like Henry Cavill.
I have a gut feeling that "Superman" may not be a big hit which would mean Cavill can go back to doing whatever it is he does in film/TV for the next 6-7 years, get some maturity, character, and gravitas and be ready to put on the tux when Craig moves on.
I have to disagree. Cumberbatch looks more like the traditional Bond image than Craig, Tom Hardy and some other people who have been mentioned. Many people agree with me, Your opinion is no fact, but simply just an opinion.
I think the 'looking like Bond' ship has well and truly set sail....no one would be off limits in the future, bald, black, fat, anything is possible now the mould has been thrown away. Suppose it widens the net for choice. Seriously though would anything be off limits in the future?
Craig can look like Bond, he of the early Fleming novels ie MR Pan cover, he has the right voice, lean look (sometimes) and manner.
Cumberbatch.... well, he looks asexual, and has a peevish voice. But maybe that otherwordly look would work for Bond, seeing as the producers seem to think Bond works as an oddity, not having a wife or regular girlfriend, and possibly being damaged.
I suppose the old world cetainties are all gone now, what with the economic state of the world and shifting alliances, emergence of China in alliance with Russia.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Asexual? The fact that Cumberbatch plays the asexual Sherlock Holmes doesn`t make the actor asexual.
I also disagree that all bets are off concerning how Bond should look in the future. I believe and hope Bond actors will be at least six feet tall, have dark hair and have masculine good looks. I think Craig plays Bond so well he works as Bond in spite of his height and unconventional looks. I hope he did open up the role for better and edgier actors in the future.
All joking aside I agree. It's a great testament to DC that despite being so far from the classic conception he is often so good that he makes me forget, or just care less about it. The fact that you would prefer a return to a 6 ft plus dark haired Classically handsome Bond does not mean that it will happen. Perhaps the Bondiverse has shifted and Bond is now fair haired and much shorter, maybe this is the beginning of a new Iconography for the character. I think that EON (read Babs) are so arrogant that they might try and replicate the success they have had with Craig with an actor who bears similarity to him. Michael Fassbinder would be an interesting choice as he would to some degree bridge the gap.
I would like to understand why you believe that the future Bond will be a more recognisable version, and particularly what rules out all bets being off, what immutable rules are there?
Not to start a war, but just to understand what is left that rues out different and divergent choices?
Looking quickly back at these recent posts I think cumbersome arch (damned autocorrect) and tom hardy are definitely out.
Think about it, bond is supposed to be a trained assassin, physically very fit and agile, a hardened killer. Cummberbatch just seems too weedy and hardy not quite fitting the mould.
Who knows who the next one will be, but it sure as **** ain't gonna be either if them.
I like DC and long may his run continue, I'll concentrate on who's next when the story of DC leaving breaks.
Oh and I can't wait for TDKR to come out, a bit like I can't wait to be shot in the stomach.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
It will return until John Masterton is out...
As for all bets are off, I simply have to agree that much of the time Craig doesn't really look like Bond, yet he is. And on reflection, Moore didn't look anything like Fleming's Bond as seen on the old Pan books, especially as his tenure wore on. That's why Cumberbatch might be in the running, but I'm not really in favour personally. To me, it's like casting the likes of Nic Cage as Superman, he's supposed to look a certain way. That said, if Cavill sinks then that theory might be knocked into a cocked hat.
As for rules, well usually you'd cast an actor in shouting distance of Fleming's description. Same as with Sherlock Holmes, some folk are gonna be good casting, others aren't. In a way, now Bond doesn't have much in the way of humour or one-liners, it's his essential moodiness that seems to prevail, so you'll get that kind of actor perhaps. I don't have any prediction as to what sort the producers will go for.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
No one is forcing you to view or contribute. If you are not interested it should not bother you. If we veto speculation we would have little to talk about. This discussion has morphed into discussing if there is a mould at all any longer. From your response I cannot see what rules out Hardy.
Sure, different actors have played the role in slightly different ways, but I think cummberbatch would be too far away from the norm. Not saying he's a crap actor or anything, just that IMO he doesn't suit it 100%.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
In what way(s) is Hardy closer to the Bond norm than Cumberbatch? Seriously, I woud like to know.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I believe that he is even shorter than DC and claims 5ft 9. surely that would rule him out.
Yes, I've heard that one. Though oddly he seemed taller than DC when they were in LAYER CAKE together....
But then I Google Imaged him. He may look completely asexual in Sherlock but there a lot of other pictures in which he doesn't look at all like that. He is still not as conventionally good looking as someone like Brosnan or Connery but he does have an edge to him which could translate well and lead to an interesting take on Bond.
He perhaps wouldn't be my first choice, but I'm not as against the idea as I initially thought.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I found myself agreeing to most of what Jamesbondjr just wrote. Cumberbatch does not look quite as standard Bondian as say ... Dalton or Brosnan, but I do see Bond in him. He certainly looks more like Bond than Craig. He isn`t my first choise, but he is an interesting candidate. I would have understood NP no problem if he wanted Fassbender or Cavill, but Tom Hardy? Hardy has the muscles and the acting talent, but I find it very odd that VP seems to see him as a man with standard Bondian good looks. Hardy is at least as short as Craig, blonde and very fish-lipped. I am actually not completely against him as Bond, but to me he is a very unconventional choise.
I just can`t see the asexual side of Cumberbatch. I still suspect NP of being tricked by Cumberbatch`s good acting as the asexual Sherlock.
+1
I can see the headlines now;
"Cumberbatch IS bond!"
It's like saying "Jimmy Carr IS Bourne!"
I'm sorry, nothing against the guy but what's BC done that's close to bond? I just can't see him cast as that type of character. He's a good actor sure, but put any trim guy in a sharp suit and he's 'got a bit of bond' about him.
Tom Hardy on the other hand has done layer cake, Tinker tailor soldier spy, bronsan, all roles that have that grittiness about them that could be similar to bond. Alas, he's not right anyway IMO, not tall enough and just couldn't see him pull it off.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Both Hardy and Cumberbatch were in Tinker, Taylor. Some scenes in Sherlock are just as close to Bond as much of what Hardy has done. Note the scene when he fights the CIA agents in Scandal in Bavaria, easily as Bondian as anything Hardy has been in. And Cumberbatch is is significantly taller than than Hardy who is just 5`7``.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Oh, hang on, sorry:
Roger Moore 1927-2017
It is on a par with saying that Christian Bale shouldn't play Batman as he had no prior experience as a super-hero.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Also, good looking and attractive are not mutually exclusive. Liam Neeson and Daniel Craig are good examples of this, they are not conventionally handsome but they ooze sex appeal; again, this is something that an actor can bring to a role.
"would that be shaken or stirred?"
DC: "does it look like I give damn?"
TH: "I'LL SHAKE YOU FAKA!!!"
BC: "oh I don't really know really, erm does it make much difference?"
Sorry Number24 and followers, but cummberbatch ain't there for me. Like I've said again and again, tom hardy is closer, but no cigar.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Each to their own, but to me that should not matter.
Connery, Lazenby, Dalton and Craig had also never played anything even remotely like Bond before and they all did alright.
NP is right about the field being much more open after Craig. I doubt many would have considered someone like Hardy if it wasn`t for Craig. The two are simmular in many ways.