SPECTRE | 11/6/15 | Final Trailer on Page 126! | Twitter reactions coming in, STID 2.0?

[Bond Bug]

Nah....Hoult is too straight to be Bond. Cavill could be interesting but even he is still a little too straight for a spy who has to operate in a deceitful world, ie. he has to be comfortable with being deceitful 

 

This is a reply to Zackzack, Crusader and Jonwo

 

When they were looking for the first Bond actor, they considered actors like James Mason and Cary Grant - actors who were very English and upper-class. When they went for Sean Connery, people said they were crazy, he was too rough and too Scottish. Even Ian Fleming was not convinced, but it was an inspirational piece of casting. Sean Connery was sex-on-legs in the 1960s. Women fell for him and men wanted to be like him. Bond became a phenomena. 

 

Since then the casting of Bond has been about playing it for safety, until Daniel Craig. People said you can't have a craggy blond Bond. There was an uproar, but again, the casting was an inspiration and moved Bond to another level. 

 

I believe the producers will not cast another bulk-standard, bland, actor to replace Craig, largely based on looks. They know that edge comes from casting an actor who not only brings something new, but who can own and redefine the role. Consider the casting of Doctor Who over the past decade--not a succession of bland actors to fit a preconceived mold, but actors who can be established in the role in their own right because of their unique qualities, more than a continuation of actors who if you blur your eyes are all much the same. I believe that is where modern sequel casting is today. Idris Elba could fit that criteria, or a younger actor who is far from bland and generic and who can bring a new dimension to the role. That is why I nominate Nicholas Hoult.  

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

SPECTRE will be released in 2015, even if the one after that is Craig's last it wouldn't be released before 2017, then they would probably take 2-3 years off before introducing the next Bond, which puts you into 2019, 2020 at the earliest, but probably they release Bond 25 in 2018, then Bond 26 in 2021 at the earliest, and Hoult's in his early 30s by then. Obviously they don't want to cast too young (why it wasn't Cavill before, also in his case I'm not sure he has the right charisma) but if you get someone who starts in the role at 40 or later, it limits their number of turns as 007. Since Craig has been a success and given the time it's taken to churn the movies out during his tenure, I've had the thought that the Bond after him would be someone born in the late 1980s or early 1990s--someone who could've been a kid in the Potter movies. Not sure if the Bond audience is ready for such a generational shift, though...

[Jonwo]

SPECTRE will be released in 2015, even if the one after that is Craig's last it wouldn't be released before 2017, then they would probably take 2-3 years off before introducing the next Bond, which puts you into 2019, 2020 at the earliest, but probably they release Bond 25 in 2018, then Bond 26 in 2021 at the earliest, and Hoult's in his early 30s by then. Obviously they don't want to cast too young (why it wasn't Cavill before, also in his case I'm not sure he has the right charisma) but if you get someone who starts in the role at 40 or later, it limits their number of turns as 007. Since Craig has been a success and given the time it's taken to churn the movies out during his tenure, I've had the thought that the Bond after him would be someone born in the late 1980s or early 1990s--someone who could've been a kid in the Potter movies. Not sure if the Bond audience is ready for such a generational shift, though...

 

I can't see the producers casting someone as young as 30 as Bond considering Bond is meant to be a seasoned agent hence why I think they are more likely to cast someone in their late 30s, Craig was 37 when he was announced as the new Bond so I think they'll go for someone who is a similar age. 

[Neo]

SPECTRE will be released in 2015, even if the one after that is Craig's last it wouldn't be released before 2017, then they would probably take 2-3 years off before introducing the next Bond, which puts you into 2019, 2020 at the earliest, but probably they release Bond 25 in 2018, then Bond 26 in 2021 at the earliest, and Hoult's in his early 30s by then. Obviously they don't want to cast too young (why it wasn't Cavill before, also in his case I'm not sure he has the right charisma) but if you get someone who starts in the role at 40 or later, it limits their number of turns as 007. Since Craig has been a success and given the time it's taken to churn the movies out during his tenure, I've had the thought that the Bond after him would be someone born in the late 1980s or early 1990s--someone who could've been a kid in the Potter movies. Not sure if the Bond audience is ready for such a generational shift, though...

I would say the Bond for #26 if new Bond takes over would be 30-33 years old right now if Bond 26 is for 2021.

[zackzack]

This is a reply to Zackzack, Crusader and Jonwo

 

When they were looking for the first Bond actor, they considered actors like James Mason and Cary Grant - actors who were very English and upper-class. When they went for Sean Connery, people said they were crazy, he was too rough and too Scottish. Even Ian Fleming was not convinced, but it was an inspirational piece of casting. Sean Connery was sex-on-legs in the 1960s. Women fell for him and men wanted to be like him. Bond became a phenomena. 

 

Since then the casting of Bond has been about playing it for safety, until Daniel Craig. People said you can't have a craggy blond Bond. There was an uproar, but again, the casting was an inspiration and moved Bond to another level. 

 

I believe the producers will not cast another bulk-standard, bland, actor to replace Craig, largely based on looks. They know that edge comes from casting an actor who not only brings something new, but who can own and redefine the role. Consider the casting of Doctor Who over the past decade--not a succession of bland actors to fit a preconceived mold, but actors who can be established in the role in their own right because of their unique qualities, more than a continuation of actors who if you blur your eyes are all much the same. I believe that is where modern sequel casting is today. Idris Elba could fit that criteria, or a younger actor who is far from bland and generic and who can bring a new dimension to the role. That is why I nominate Nicholas Hoult.  

 

I seriously think that the 2 most successful Bond castings, and you agree with me on this, Connery & Craig, are the most physical and sexualized of the actors. Hoult is a promising young actor, I like him as beast in XMEN movies. But he is lacking these attributes.

 

OK, people like oldish, grandfatherly Roger Moore but that doesn't mean hardcore fans and more discerning moviegoers like him. He embodies the least likable kind of British "stiff upper lip"-ness

 

Michael Fassbender is my choice. Have you seen him in Inglorious Basterds , already playing a character who spies for the Allies?

Edited December 26, 2014 by zackzack

[Bond Bug]

I can't see the producers casting someone as young as 30 as Bond considering Bond is meant to be a seasoned agent hence why I think they are more likely to cast someone in their late 30s, Craig was 37 when he was announced as the new Bond so I think they'll go for someone who is a similar age. 

 

Pierce Brosnan was 33 when they wanted him for The Living Daylights, Connery 31 in Dr No. Lazenby 28. Also, note the trend of younger leads in reboots, generally. I think Hoult would be in that age range by the time Craig retires,   

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

I seriously think that the 2 most successful Bond castings, and you agree with me on this, Connery & Craig, are the most physical and sexualized of the actors. Hoult is a promising young actor, I like him as beast in XMEN movies. But he is lacking these attributes.

 

OK, people like oldish, grandfatherly Roger Moore but that doesn't mean hardcore fans and more discerning moviegoers like him. He embodies the least likable kind of British "stiff upper lip"-ness

 

Michael Fassbender is my choice. Have you seen him in Inglorious Basterds , already playing a character who spies for the Allies?

 

I would say Connery and Craig are my favorite Bonds as well, but there was a long gap between the two... Maybe audiences wouldn't have gone for someone who brought out Bond's rugged/dangerous edge with the memory of Connery so fresh, and you needed a Moore, who played up different qualities of the character, for the general public to move on and accept a new guy. OTOH, they really wanted Brosnan after Moore at first and their takes on Bond aren't poles apart, but Brosnan (at the time) was just a younger, more attractive version. So they could just get some taller blond guy to replace Craig...paging Tom Felton (joking).

 

Pierce Brosnan was 33 when they wanted him for The Living Daylights, Connery 31 in Dr No. Lazenby 28. Also, note the trend of younger leads in reboots, generally. I think Hoult would be in that age range by the time Craig retires,   

 

Yep. I don't think it will be Hoult per se, but I'm not ruling out someone else in that age range. If they hit the jackpot with a 31 year old, they will get that many more movies out of him.

[Bond Bug]

I seriously think that the 2 most successful Bond castings, and you agree with me on this, Connery & Craig, are the most physical and sexualized of the actors. Hoult is a promising young actor, I like him as beast in XMEN movies. But he is lacking these attributes.

 

OK, people like oldish, grandfatherly Roger Moore but that doesn't mean hardcore fans and more discerning moviegoers like him. He embodies the least likable kind of British "stiff upper lip"-ness

 

Michael Fassbender is my choice. Have you seen him in Inglorious Basterds , already playing a character who spies for the Allies?

 

I think Fassbender is a very good actor and I can see him as Bond. But I think the mindset of the Bond producers has changed. They want to create meaningful and artistic movies, as well as entertainment that makes big money. When they think about movies after Craig, they will think less about an actor to take over the character, as defined by Craig, and more about what they are going to do with Bond next.  

 

Craig is making Bond his own, receiving top marks from critics and audiences. When Craig is replaced, they will ask: What does this new actor bring to the role? What does he do that is better than Craig? What does he do that is different? A reboot that puts Bond at a younger age will give a fresh look to the series, attract younger audiences and, importantly, limit direct comparisons to Craig. 

[zackzack]

 

End of argument

[Leyla]

and, importantly, limit direct comparisons to Craig

this

 

Not meaning he will be younger but he will def be very different from Dan

 

I like the Idris Elba idea very very much 

Hoult IS a great choice too!

I need to see "the Guest" it seems

Loved Stevens in Abbey 

 

But please NOPE Cavill 

It will be such a  Brosnan redux 

Imo Babs & Michael have a taste of win right now & wont let Bond be bland & lacking in the acting department.

Edited December 27, 2014 by Lady of Lorien

[RaidensSword]

Even if they chose a younger bond, it doesnt mean they'd get more movies out of him, there's too many different factors which could affect that. They should choose someone who can add something to the history and legacy of bond, even if it was only for 2 or 3 movies

[Neo]

Even if they chose a younger bond, it doesnt mean they'd get more movies out of him, there's too many different factors which could affect that. They should choose someone who can add something to the history and legacy of bond, even if it was only for 2 or 3 movies

It sure does help though. Looking at someone who is 32/33 years old today to take over the franchise. Not looking at someone that age come 2018/2019.

[Hatebox]

I like Fassbenderbut he might be a little too famous now. The producers have been pretty consistent in casting people who weren't that well known prior to the role, and for good reason.

[Leyla]

how could i foreget to congartulate this thread is beyond me 

 

With Too famous of an actor I wouldnt go either

though Who knows maybe even Dan Stevens will be too famous by the time of casting a new Bond 

 

hmm what about the guy from Unbroken?

Edited December 27, 2014 by Lady of Lorien

[4815162342]

Jack O'Connell is 24 right now. Assuming that SPECTRE is Craig's last, he'll be 28-29 when they make the next Bond film. On the young side by some years and it would force them to essentially soft reboot Bond's career to be a newbie agent.

[Hatebox]

Wasn't Craig ontracted for another 2 after Skyfall? Or are they just doing it on a film by film basis? Wouldn't be surprisedif he has another one in him after SPECTRE.

[Bond Bug]

Wasn't Craig ontracted for another 2 after Skyfall? Or are they just doing it on a film by film basis? Wouldn't be surprisedif he has another one in him after SPECTRE.

I have read that as well. I think as long as women still think he's hot and the movies are making a billion dollars(ish) per movie, they would be foolish not to keep paying him a bucket load and asking him back for more, although there may be a time when he might not want to of course. 

[Jonwo]

I think one more film after Spectre then Craig will step down. He's 46 now and I doubt he'll want to do another Bond film once he turns 50, 

[Bond Bug]

I think one more film after Spectre then Craig will step down. He's 46 now and I doubt he'll want to do another Bond film once he turns 50, 

 

Why? What happens to a man when he turns the magic number of 50? 

[RaidensSword]

Why? What happens to a man when he turns the magic number of 50?

Nothing in hollywood. Craig could play bond until hes 60 and they would still cast him with 25 year old beauties who cant resist his charms.