Who should play 007 Next?
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Because its not a title, or else everyone would stop being like "Oh James and the way you act" since that would apparently be part of the job hiring process. When people don't care about changing characters race, its cause its making them not-white. I bet if more black characters were turned white though, it wouldn't go over so well. If you want equality, you got to be equal. If Bond was made as a black character, Id want him to stay black, or Asian, or whatever he was made to be. If a character can be changed on such whims, why even care about them to begin with?meowchef said:
I'd like to point out that until Skyfall, as far as the movies were concerned, it was a toss up if Bond was the same person or a title, with casual in movie conversation supporting both positions.Saelune said:
Nothing more to add, besides 'Maybe we do need a new 007, one way or another.' Skyfall really annoyed me, with them constantly talking about Bond like he was meandering through Istanbul with a walker while being played by this fucking guy
Sorry to hear that.Bobular said:
So you want a man who you want to have sex with, but who doesn't want to have sex with you. Weird, but I get it. Kind of.Bob_McMillan said:
Regardless, I've run out of British people, unless someone's willing to entertain the idea that it should be Alan Davies.
But I think that might be pushing it a bit too far.
I'd still like to see David Mitchell in some sort of spy role.
I'm not sure if I like James McAvoy. I haven't hated him in anything I've seen, but I don't think I've loved him in anything either.Lightspeaker said:
How about a woman then? Change the name to Jamie Bond, that's it. Replace the Bond girls with Bond boys, too. Easy money right there.
There is a theory that 007 is a code for different people. But there is a type of person that fits my idea of what he should be. Tom Hardy? Could be the guy. Theory: 007 just a code name. Many videos saying this is wrong. Reviewing.madwarper said:
Well, the 00 agent was an entire program.Gorfias said:
The 004 designation was reassigned from Frederick Wardner (The Facts of Death) to Scarlett Papava (Devil May Care).
And, it could be argued that the 006 designation went from unnamed Royal Marine commando (On Her Majesty's Secret Service) to Major Jack Giddings (The Moneypenny Diaries: Guardian Angel) to Alec Trevelyan (GoldenEye).
Plus, there's the fact that while Bond was "dead" in You Only Live Twice, he was transferred and given the designation 7777, until he returned as 007 in The Man with the Golden Gun.
I would say Idris Elba because that man has got the height, poise, and fierceness to play Bond plus he is also the top black man in Hollywood at the moment
If going for the typical action star Bond I would definitely say Idris Elba like many others on here, he excretes class and dominance with his mere presence. If the more unassuming and slick Bond is the one studios want where he is more subterfuge than *bang bang punch punch witty one liner* then I'd say someone like Tom Hiddleston could probably pull the role off, he's charming and looks good in a suit, plus he can go from harmless smile to slitting a man's throat in the blink of an eye.
Seems I was ninjad after all. Curses upon thy bloodline and house, sire.Glongpre said:I read a review for the new tv miniseries called the Night Manager with Tom Hiddleston, and it said that he would make a decent Bond.
And the more I think of it, the more I think it could work. He couldn't be a very physical Bond ala Daniel Craig, but he would make a very good intellectual Bond, who relies more on strategy and using the environment to his advantage. A Bond who can take care of himself in a hand to hand fight, but uses that approach as a last resort. A stealthier, more charismatic, more cerebral Bond.
I should have written that James Bond, the name itself, is a designation. I don't doubt when Bond is killed/retires, someone else will get the 007. But what some argue is that Jame Bond in the movies is not a single individual. That individual likely gets killed in untold stories and replaced by another person with a similar personality.madwarper said:
I did watch a good video claiming this is wrong and an example of why is that more than one actor playing Bond grieves for the Dianne Rigg character in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". Course, they could all have been "conditioned" to think they're all the same guy.
Idris Elba would be great - but as has been pointed out, he's a little too old to start three of four films.
Aside from him? Given screen Bond barely ever qualifies as a fixed character, and is more a rather bland icon, there's no reason why there couldn't be a female Bond (so the character could finally achieve something artful and challenging, i.e. an opportunity to explore gender roles and perceptions of masculinity, femininity, maleness and femaleness) - and Rosamund Pike would easily be my top pick. Going from Bond 'girl' to Bond would be an endearingly freaky twist on continuities and casting, and she could absolutely nail the whole 'impossibly English sociopath' aspect to the icon.
...hell, Eva Green would've been amazing, but that would be pushing things a little too far.
As for blokes to continue a boringly blokey role? Tom Hardy and Tom Hiddleston are two popular ones, and whilst I like Hardy in other roles I think he'd be a poor Bond (actually, no, he'd at least be better than Connery, Moore, Brosnan... have I mentioned I really don't like James Bond?). There's an inherent unhinged cruelty to the character/icon, and I think Hiddleston would be far better suited to play off charm/smarm with a dispassionate aptitude for violence and murder.
Aside from him? Given screen Bond barely ever qualifies as a fixed character, and is more a rather bland icon, there's no reason why there couldn't be a female Bond (so the character could finally achieve something artful and challenging, i.e. an opportunity to explore gender roles and perceptions of masculinity, femininity, maleness and femaleness) - and Rosamund Pike would easily be my top pick. Going from Bond 'girl' to Bond would be an endearingly freaky twist on continuities and casting, and she could absolutely nail the whole 'impossibly English sociopath' aspect to the icon.
...hell, Eva Green would've been amazing, but that would be pushing things a little too far.
As for blokes to continue a boringly blokey role? Tom Hardy and Tom Hiddleston are two popular ones, and whilst I like Hardy in other roles I think he'd be a poor Bond (actually, no, he'd at least be better than Connery, Moore, Brosnan... have I mentioned I really don't like James Bond?). There's an inherent unhinged cruelty to the character/icon, and I think Hiddleston would be far better suited to play off charm/smarm with a dispassionate aptitude for violence and murder.
I would be concerned with them changing the character background to make it more diverse and then put a spotlight to it. Probably because the examples when studios has pulled it off has been comedies, so trying to be serious about it would be cringe inducing:
At that point, he is not James Bond, he is someone else. So, instead of creating a new character they are forcing the change in an established character. Like it or not, Bond is a white, slightly misogynistic, representative of the British imperialism. You can either work it ironically (comedies) or make it so that he, for the most part, is ok with that (Craig)... And remember, Austin Powers was the movie that forced Casino Royale. After that movie, the executives couldn't justify making a traditional Bond movie without people laughing out at the cheesiness factor, and they grew scared of such cheesiness.
At that point, he is not James Bond, he is someone else. So, instead of creating a new character they are forcing the change in an established character. Like it or not, Bond is a white, slightly misogynistic, representative of the British imperialism. You can either work it ironically (comedies) or make it so that he, for the most part, is ok with that (Craig)... And remember, Austin Powers was the movie that forced Casino Royale. After that movie, the executives couldn't justify making a traditional Bond movie without people laughing out at the cheesiness factor, and they grew scared of such cheesiness.
I do.Lightspeaker said:
OT: Out of all people proposed here, Hiddleston would probably be the most viable pick, if the aim is less rogue-ish Bond.
These are my choices http://www.entertainmentfuse.com/top-15-actors-who-could-be-the-next-james-bond/
I saw an article recently saying that Tom Hiddleston was in line to be the next Bond. After seeing him in The Night Manager, he gets my vote.
Tom Hardy is an awesome pick. He has done a ton of different characters and half the time I see the character, not Tom Hardy. Idris Elba is also a great pick. I would be happy with both of those characters.
One thing that needs a drastic recast is the writers. So much of the "classic Bond" stuff is either cut out or excruciatingly awkward. Like I get what Bond used to do is wrong, and not accepted, but what they did in Skyfall and Spectre is NOT the answer. Timothy Dalton's Bond at least got to know them and was sort of nice and respectful (expect a couple moments in Licence to Kill) for a Bond. More of that. Show us WHY ladies love him, give him traits that are like... attractive and stuff. Everyone says we can't have Bonds that take place in different times because each Bond show be for the generation of it's time. If that is truly the case, we need more evolution then just the setting and gadgets.
One thing that needs a drastic recast is the writers. So much of the "classic Bond" stuff is either cut out or excruciatingly awkward. Like I get what Bond used to do is wrong, and not accepted, but what they did in Skyfall and Spectre is NOT the answer. Timothy Dalton's Bond at least got to know them and was sort of nice and respectful (expect a couple moments in Licence to Kill) for a Bond. More of that. Show us WHY ladies love him, give him traits that are like... attractive and stuff. Everyone says we can't have Bonds that take place in different times because each Bond show be for the generation of it's time. If that is truly the case, we need more evolution then just the setting and gadgets.
Why not make a completely new spinoff franchise then?Wintermute said:How about a woman then? Change the name to Jamie Bond, that's it. Replace the Bond girls with Bond boys, too. Easy money right there.
009 Jane Blake, up and coming officer in the MI6, and her latest assignment would be, say, salvaging the op in which 007 got killed (or rather, "killed")?
The producers nearly did with Jinx back at around 2003. Halle Berry and Michael Madsen were set to respite their roles and Stephen Frears was going to direct, but the producers had the good sense to cancel the film and reboot the franchise.
I am going with a radical pick. NOBODY! Put this tired franchise out of it's misery! It was cute and relevant for about 25 years. The past 25 years of James Bond have been really bad. It has been a shell of it's former hollow origins. Make Elsa the new James Bond and "Let It Go!"