I absolutely agree on Jacob Elordi. He's a great actor and would be perfect for a young Bond story. I wouldn't even be against his Euphoria director, Sam Levinson being involved creatively - whether it's writing the script or directing.
In the 80's the Box office of Bond movies was declining and many had reason to to belive the franchise was over. The future of the Bond series depened on GE being a comercial success, so casting Brosnan was most likely necessary.
Now the Bond movies have been successes since 1995 and the series is in a very diffent place than it was in back then. One can argue the finale of NTTD has put the series in a very difficult place because many in the audience belive the series has ended, so the next actor has to be someone famous. I don't agree, As soon (I'm using the term "soon" very losely) as the posters and trailers for Bond26 is out it will be obvious to everyone that the series is not over. This won't be any clearer if the actor is Superman instead of a theater actor. Bond will be back regardless.
Sir Roger was Simon Templar and James Bond. Pierce was Remington Steele and James Bond. All Bond actors apart from maybe Lazenby played some other role before the Bond gig.
I’m not too keen on any of the options I’m hearing on this thread recently to be fair. Cavill seems to want the job which is rather refreshing after the last few years.
This discussion is so silly. There are no plans of Henry Cavill reprising that role any time soon (it‘s dead).
Other than that, I don‘t see why he couldn’t be both….after all, this is what the profession of being an actor means…playing different roles, sometimes even simultaneously.
Cubby didn't want Brosnan to be Remington Steele and James Bond at the same time.
Yes, actor's play many roles in their professional lives. But both Bond and Superman are among the most iconic movie roles out there. I don't want this to be a normal conversation in a few years: "Who's the new James Bond?". "It's Cavill. You know, Superman."
I'm not completely against Henry Cavill as Bond, but his level of fame isn't ideal. In my opinion the role as Bond should make an actor a star.
Cavill is not a major star. Outside of Superman I can’t recall a film with him in the lead being big box office. Known by those who know he seems perfect for the new Bond to me.
I think his enthusiasm for the role would be a major plus point after the last few years and he looks the part, no doubt about that and has plenty of experience with fight scenes etc etc.
I don't think Craig before 2006 was nearly at the level of fame Cavill is now. Craig was a character actor with a couple of supporting roles in major movies (Tomb Raider, Road to Peredition). Was he even a guest in any major chat shows pre 2006? Cavill is a movie star who's been on lots of chat shows and he's been a lead in big movies. The Superman movies are the most successful, but there is Immortals and The Man from UNCLE, Not as successful as many hoped, but Craig was never the lead in movies of that sort of budget before 2006.
I agree, but I think Craig was such a sucess I think EON is willing to take a chance again. There are fewer rules to who can be Bond than ever before, but there are still rules. BB said Bond will remain a British man, so that's two of the rules.
They're so busy giving the fans the actors they want with these things (hence bringing back Keaton and Affleck as Bats, the recent Spider Man movie etc.) that I think it's inevitable they'll do the same and do another Superman with Cavill eventually.
It's a difficult one to call this time round, there s no real stand out candidate, and even if there was, with the way things are in casting in these modern times, that person certainly wouldn't be a shoe-in.
Cavill is probably the most obvious choice, in the way Pierce was, but the days of obvious choices are over. I think the producers will want to push the envelope again and go for someone that doesn't necessarily tick the James Bond stereotype. Having said that, if he was (almost) right for the part in 2006, why shouldn't he be now? Too young then? Too old and too much of a stereotype now? I like the 'tradition' of Bond actors being seriously considered and/or missing out, getting their chance later on. It ties things in nicely.
I'm not sure Cavill will make another Superman, and I could see the producers not wanting him to do both. But high profile actors have played dual high profile roles before without any problem; Harrison Ford as Han Solo and Indiana Jones is an obvious one. Whenever I watch him in an Indy movie, he IS Indiana Jones and definitely not Han Solo. Whenever I watch him in a Star Wars movie he IS Han Solo and definitely not Indiana Jones. Likewise Sylvester Stallone IS Rocky Balboa and IS John Rambo, Tom Cruise IS Ethan Hunt and IS Pete Maverick.
Cavill isn't "too well known" and "not an A-list star" but is "commercially viable"?
Putting aside all the other hand-waving in the name of wishful thinking, Moore and Brosnan were TV stars before they were Bond, not movie stars (and even THAT means something totally different in today's age of Peak TV and the blurred lines between theatrical and streaming and IP hopping mediums). Cavill's career up to now cannot in good faith be compared to Craig's; it's been almost all tentpole studio gigs. Craig did Tomb Raider?
But whatever your reasons for rooting or advocating for Cavill, the big hurdle is convincing Eon he's not "stepped on." Consider:
He's Superman.
He's The Witcher.
He's the Man from U.N.C.L.E. (that last one isn't a problem public-wise, but possibly Eon-wise).
He even appeared in their biggest competitor, the Mission: Impossible series.
That is a LOT of other franchises for a role whose producers believe is best served without a ton of existing baggage. Whatever you think of his bona fides or how famous he is or isn't, lots of other IPs have licked this particular cookie, and that alone might be enough to keep Eon at bay.
So, Ladies and Gentlemen, just out of interest and a bit of fun, if you had to put your mortgage or children's inheritance on who you think actually will be the next James Bond... (this is not necessarily your preference or first choice).
Those are good points. IMO, audiences today are much more predisposed to or accepting of "re-boots", "re-makes", "re-imaginations" and things of that nature. That being said, the recasting of Bond is certainly essential to the continued success and future of the series. Who, what, and when are the big questions.
Yes, the recasting of Bond is obviously essential to the future of the series. But I don' think the actor needs to be a sure box-office sucess TODAY. None of the Bond actors were movie stars before they were Bond . Connery, Moore, Brosnan and Craig became movie stars after they became James Bond.
Yes; or rather I think being unknown to most of the audience is probably fine because the star name is Bond, but the actor needs to have experience at leading a film before stepping into this gig.
I don't think Amazon goes " Investing all that money on an unknown actor? We can't do that when there's no Flemming material left!". We vare about Flemming content, but the investors don't.
What seems strange to me is wishcasting actors when we have no definite idea what Eon plans to do with the character in light of the finality of NTTD? Young Bond? Midcareer Bond (as if the Craig run was all a dream)? Multicultural Bond? Placeholder Bond, while Eon gets ready to sell? The direction of the franchise will dictate the actor.
I think Amazon will have a say but it will be from BB's own shortlist.
Would be nice to get an announcement in October in line with the celebrations, but that sounds too quick for EON and I think they would rather just reflect and celebrate the 60 years. So more likely an announcement early 2023, commencing filming later in the year, for a release Nov 2024? Would coincide nicely with the 60 years anniversary of Goldfinger, which is probably the film they regard as their most iconic.
A release in 2024 wouldn't be too bad, all things considered.
Comments
You cannot be Superman and James Bond.
I absolutely agree on Jacob Elordi. He's a great actor and would be perfect for a young Bond story. I wouldn't even be against his Euphoria director, Sam Levinson being involved creatively - whether it's writing the script or directing.
Not casting Cavill as the next Bond would be an even dumber choice than not giving Brosnan his fifth movie.
IG: @thebondarchives
Check it out, you won’t be disappointed
In the 80's the Box office of Bond movies was declining and many had reason to to belive the franchise was over. The future of the Bond series depened on GE being a comercial success, so casting Brosnan was most likely necessary.
Now the Bond movies have been successes since 1995 and the series is in a very diffent place than it was in back then. One can argue the finale of NTTD has put the series in a very difficult place because many in the audience belive the series has ended, so the next actor has to be someone famous. I don't agree, As soon (I'm using the term "soon" very losely) as the posters and trailers for Bond26 is out it will be obvious to everyone that the series is not over. This won't be any clearer if the actor is Superman instead of a theater actor. Bond will be back regardless.
Sir Roger was Simon Templar and James Bond. Pierce was Remington Steele and James Bond. All Bond actors apart from maybe Lazenby played some other role before the Bond gig.
I’m not too keen on any of the options I’m hearing on this thread recently to be fair. Cavill seems to want the job which is rather refreshing after the last few years.
Superman is an iconic role played in several big-budget movies. One can hardly compare Superman and Remington Steele.
This discussion is so silly. There are no plans of Henry Cavill reprising that role any time soon (it‘s dead).
Other than that, I don‘t see why he couldn’t be both….after all, this is what the profession of being an actor means…playing different roles, sometimes even simultaneously.
IG: @thebondarchives
Check it out, you won’t be disappointed
Cubby didn't want Brosnan to be Remington Steele and James Bond at the same time.
Yes, actor's play many roles in their professional lives. But both Bond and Superman are among the most iconic movie roles out there. I don't want this to be a normal conversation in a few years: "Who's the new James Bond?". "It's Cavill. You know, Superman."
I'm not completely against Henry Cavill as Bond, but his level of fame isn't ideal. In my opinion the role as Bond should make an actor a star.
Cavill is not a major star. Outside of Superman I can’t recall a film with him in the lead being big box office. Known by those who know he seems perfect for the new Bond to me.
I think his enthusiasm for the role would be a major plus point after the last few years and he looks the part, no doubt about that and has plenty of experience with fight scenes etc etc.
I don't think Craig before 2006 was nearly at the level of fame Cavill is now. Craig was a character actor with a couple of supporting roles in major movies (Tomb Raider, Road to Peredition). Was he even a guest in any major chat shows pre 2006? Cavill is a movie star who's been on lots of chat shows and he's been a lead in big movies. The Superman movies are the most successful, but there is Immortals and The Man from UNCLE, Not as successful as many hoped, but Craig was never the lead in movies of that sort of budget before 2006.
As we know from NTTD there are no rules anymore, all bets are off etc etc. They will pick the chap who they think will bring in the most money.
Are there no rules or are they picking the most comercially viable actor? Because that would be a rule.
I agree, but I think Craig was such a sucess I think EON is willing to take a chance again. There are fewer rules to who can be Bond than ever before, but there are still rules. BB said Bond will remain a British man, so that's two of the rules.
They're so busy giving the fans the actors they want with these things (hence bringing back Keaton and Affleck as Bats, the recent Spider Man movie etc.) that I think it's inevitable they'll do the same and do another Superman with Cavill eventually.
I'm still not sure about Elordi, think he might be just too 'pretty'. But he'd probably be in my top 5 current choices as he ticks most of the boxes.
I think he has one of those faces where he'll get better with age, which is certainly no bad thing! I still think at 6'4", he's too tall though.
Tough one to call this time round. There isn't one stand out candidate.
It's a difficult one to call this time round, there s no real stand out candidate, and even if there was, with the way things are in casting in these modern times, that person certainly wouldn't be a shoe-in.
Cavill is probably the most obvious choice, in the way Pierce was, but the days of obvious choices are over. I think the producers will want to push the envelope again and go for someone that doesn't necessarily tick the James Bond stereotype. Having said that, if he was (almost) right for the part in 2006, why shouldn't he be now? Too young then? Too old and too much of a stereotype now? I like the 'tradition' of Bond actors being seriously considered and/or missing out, getting their chance later on. It ties things in nicely.
I'm not sure Cavill will make another Superman, and I could see the producers not wanting him to do both. But high profile actors have played dual high profile roles before without any problem; Harrison Ford as Han Solo and Indiana Jones is an obvious one. Whenever I watch him in an Indy movie, he IS Indiana Jones and definitely not Han Solo. Whenever I watch him in a Star Wars movie he IS Han Solo and definitely not Indiana Jones. Likewise Sylvester Stallone IS Rocky Balboa and IS John Rambo, Tom Cruise IS Ethan Hunt and IS Pete Maverick.
Remember that none of those characters were iconic before those actors made them iconic. It's different stepping into parts that are already iconic.
Nice nod to the DB5 here from Mr Cavill.
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CfBPAFvMMGO/?igshid=MDJmNzVkMjY=
Cavill isn't "too well known" and "not an A-list star" but is "commercially viable"?
Putting aside all the other hand-waving in the name of wishful thinking, Moore and Brosnan were TV stars before they were Bond, not movie stars (and even THAT means something totally different in today's age of Peak TV and the blurred lines between theatrical and streaming and IP hopping mediums). Cavill's career up to now cannot in good faith be compared to Craig's; it's been almost all tentpole studio gigs. Craig did Tomb Raider?
But whatever your reasons for rooting or advocating for Cavill, the big hurdle is convincing Eon he's not "stepped on." Consider:
He's Superman.
He's The Witcher.
He's the Man from U.N.C.L.E. (that last one isn't a problem public-wise, but possibly Eon-wise).
He even appeared in their biggest competitor, the Mission: Impossible series.
That is a LOT of other franchises for a role whose producers believe is best served without a ton of existing baggage. Whatever you think of his bona fides or how famous he is or isn't, lots of other IPs have licked this particular cookie, and that alone might be enough to keep Eon at bay.
He's also the star of this new Matthew Vaughn spy thing, which looks like it might even be a direct Bond competitor (albeit with spiky hair).
So, Ladies and Gentlemen, just out of interest and a bit of fun, if you had to put your mortgage or children's inheritance on who you think actually will be the next James Bond... (this is not necessarily your preference or first choice).
Here goes;
Actor: Rege-Jean Page
My First Choice: No
In my Top 3: No
In my Top 5: Yes
Those are good points. IMO, audiences today are much more predisposed to or accepting of "re-boots", "re-makes", "re-imaginations" and things of that nature. That being said, the recasting of Bond is certainly essential to the continued success and future of the series. Who, what, and when are the big questions.
Yes, the recasting of Bond is obviously essential to the future of the series. But I don' think the actor needs to be a sure box-office sucess TODAY. None of the Bond actors were movie stars before they were Bond . Connery, Moore, Brosnan and Craig became movie stars after they became James Bond.
It would be a massive gamble to cast a relative unknown in a £💯M+ movie with no Fleming novel to use.
Yes; or rather I think being unknown to most of the audience is probably fine because the star name is Bond, but the actor needs to have experience at leading a film before stepping into this gig.
I don't think Amazon goes " Investing all that money on an unknown actor? We can't do that when there's no Flemming material left!". We vare about Flemming content, but the investors don't.
I don’t think Amazon will have a real say in this, in the end it‘ll boil down to one single woman…
On a different note: When do you people think we‘re gonna get an announcement the earlierst?
IG: @thebondarchives
Check it out, you won’t be disappointed
I think in the past EON picked candidates and the financers had a veto.
What seems strange to me is wishcasting actors when we have no definite idea what Eon plans to do with the character in light of the finality of NTTD? Young Bond? Midcareer Bond (as if the Craig run was all a dream)? Multicultural Bond? Placeholder Bond, while Eon gets ready to sell? The direction of the franchise will dictate the actor.
Would've been strange not to do it since this is a James Bond fansite, don't you think? 😃
I think Amazon will have a say but it will be from BB's own shortlist.
Would be nice to get an announcement in October in line with the celebrations, but that sounds too quick for EON and I think they would rather just reflect and celebrate the 60 years. So more likely an announcement early 2023, commencing filming later in the year, for a release Nov 2024? Would coincide nicely with the 60 years anniversary of Goldfinger, which is probably the film they regard as their most iconic.
A release in 2024 wouldn't be too bad, all things considered.