Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think Clive Owen would make an interesting Bond. Definitely different from what we are used to.

I think Statham would make an awful bond. He would be AMAZING in a Kingsmen movie though. So I hope he does get in to some secret agent shenanigans soon.

Tom Hiddlestone might be looknig for role if Loki is dead

 Mr Morden wrote:
Tom Hiddlestone might be looknig for role if Loki is dead

while he certainly brings the "sexy" into the role. . .does he bring the "action star" that the role seems to require these days?? IMHO, even his role as Loki didn't involve as much action as the Brosnan (much less Craig) Bond, so I'm not entirely sure he'd be fit for that role.

I'm still in the Idris Elba camp for Bond, he has good range and would do quite a bit to freshen up the franchise by injecting a bit of dry humour and charm. The fact that we know Craig absolutely hates the role is offputting not to mention that Spectre was the most forgettable Bond movie I have seen.

Urban would be a good contender as well, I thought he was great in Dredd and he is a pretty underused actor.

I also have to agree with the comments saying that the Bond movies seem a bit lost in the modern day. I would love to see them go back to the Cold War era when Britain was still a significant player on the world stage. I loved all the old cars, chunky technology and wacky plotlines. The character just seems to fit much better in a colonial environment, where he could be more arrogant and aloof.

Spinning off the Superman - how about Henry Cavile - great in Man from Uncle and will draw the ladies....

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I think Clive Owen would make an interesting Bond. Definitely different from what we are used to.

I think Statham would make an awful bond. He would be AMAZING in a Kingsmen movie though. So I hope he does get in to some secret agent shenanigans soon.

He played a spy in a Melissa McCarthy vehicle called Spy and he sank his teeth into the role. Possibly the best part of the movie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Commander Cain wrote:
I'm still in the Idris Elba camp for Bond,

Another good choice.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Start again and either go for something different like a black guy or a woman (Atomic Blonde was also better) or go retro and try to match the recent Man from Uncle - not sure they will.

Ugh no. Why everything needs to be changed to female/black/whatever? The character was originally designed as certain kind. Keep it. If you are just more black/women roles make up new stories with new characters than redoing old ones with new type.

Sheesh. If Bond requires such a recasting to work just let the series go out in style and come up with new stories and characters. You aren't even talking about Bond in anything but name.

tneva82 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Start again and either go for something different like a black guy or a woman (Atomic Blonde was also better) or go retro and try to match the recent Man from Uncle - not sure they will.

Ugh no. Why everything needs to be changed to female/black/whatever? The character was originally designed as certain kind. Keep it. If you are just more black/women roles make up new stories with new characters than redoing old ones with new type.

Sheesh. If Bond requires such a recasting to work just let the series go out in style and come up with new stories and characters. You aren't even talking about Bond in anything but name.

All the Bond actors have been very different, I think they need to have a hard refresh - that was only one option I put out there.

Actually rather than black I would have thought Asian would work well given importance of the Indian community in the UK, but it may have already been done on Bollywood.

tneva82 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Start again and either go for something different like a black guy or a woman (Atomic Blonde was also better) or go retro and try to match the recent Man from Uncle - not sure they will.

Ugh no. Why everything needs to be changed to female/black/whatever? The character was originally designed as certain kind. Keep it. If you are just more black/women roles make up new stories with new characters than redoing old ones with new type.

Sheesh. If Bond requires such a recasting to work just let the series go out in style and come up with new stories and characters. You aren't even talking about Bond in anything but name.

I have to agree, I never really like it when producers decide that the best way to give a new group a "leading role model character" is to take an existing one and just change them. A "black bond" or a "female bond" or such, to me, actually insults rather than anything else. I'd rather see a totally new character with their own quirks, charms and style that is fully free to be their own thing; rather than a character that is hobbled to tropes and styles of another and is basically just trying to be a cosmetic change.

Because either they will change everything and the name and style just seem odd or they change hardly anything and that character never achieves what the change should have brought.

 Overread wrote:
I have to agree, I never really like it when producers decide that the best way to give a new group a "leading role model character" is to take an existing one and just change them. A "black bond" or a "female bond" or such, to me, actually insults rather than anything else. I'd rather see a totally new character with their own quirks, charms and style that is fully free to be their own thing; rather than a character that is hobbled to tropes and styles of another and is basically just trying to be a cosmetic change.

Because either they will change everything and the name and style just seem odd or they change hardly anything and that character never achieves what the change should have brought.

It would be just trying to play it safe for money. Rather than take a risk with new story and characters try to make easy money by utilizing name of old character/franchise even if nothing in it actually is of the existing. It would be just making money with name "Bond" attached to...well anything really.

tneva82 wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I have to agree, I never really like it when producers decide that the best way to give a new group a "leading role model character" is to take an existing one and just change them. A "black bond" or a "female bond" or such, to me, actually insults rather than anything else. I'd rather see a totally new character with their own quirks, charms and style that is fully free to be their own thing; rather than a character that is hobbled to tropes and styles of another and is basically just trying to be a cosmetic change.

Because either they will change everything and the name and style just seem odd or they change hardly anything and that character never achieves what the change should have brought.

It would be just trying to play it safe for money. Rather than take a risk with new story and characters try to make easy money by utilizing name of old character/franchise even if nothing in it actually is of the existing. It would be just making money with name "Bond" attached to...well anything really.

As a question, would you be OK with a [insert non-white male, potentially female person] playing the role of 007, provided they do not take the Bond name?

I've always liked going for, "did <Newspaper Columnist> complain when Bond was made blonde?"

As my watermark for 'assume noble intent.'

 Easy E wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I think Clive Owen would make an interesting Bond. Definitely different from what we are used to.

I think Statham would make an awful bond. He would be AMAZING in a Kingsmen movie though. So I hope he does get in to some secret agent shenanigans soon.

He played a spy in a Melissa McCarthy vehicle called Spy and he sank his teeth into the role. Possibly the best part of the movie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Commander Cain wrote:
I'm still in the Idris Elba camp for Bond,

Another good choice.

Being A spy is different from being THE spy.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I think Clive Owen would make an interesting Bond. Definitely different from what we are used to.

I think Statham would make an awful bond. He would be AMAZING in a Kingsmen movie though. So I hope he does get in to some secret agent shenanigans soon.

He played a spy in a Melissa McCarthy vehicle called Spy and he sank his teeth into the role. Possibly the best part of the movie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Commander Cain wrote:
I'm still in the Idris Elba camp for Bond,

Another good choice.

Being A spy is different from being THE spy.

According to Iron Man that's Nick Fury

I think Bond is still a good name but I think its lost the edge in being The Spy.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I have to agree, I never really like it when producers decide that the best way to give a new group a "leading role model character" is to take an existing one and just change them. A "black bond" or a "female bond" or such, to me, actually insults rather than anything else. I'd rather see a totally new character with their own quirks, charms and style that is fully free to be their own thing; rather than a character that is hobbled to tropes and styles of another and is basically just trying to be a cosmetic change.

Because either they will change everything and the name and style just seem odd or they change hardly anything and that character never achieves what the change should have brought.

It would be just trying to play it safe for money. Rather than take a risk with new story and characters try to make easy money by utilizing name of old character/franchise even if nothing in it actually is of the existing. It would be just making money with name "Bond" attached to...well anything really.

As a question, would you be OK with a [insert non-white male, potentially female person] playing the role of 007, provided they do not take the Bond name?

So basically another 007 in a movie not called Bond? Guess that would be bit easier to swallow depending on how much of trying to pigback on the Bond's shoulder it would be. 007 is already a bit but if that's literally only reference to Bond it would at least be bit more trying to ride on it's own feet than on Bond.

The world has changed. There's no reason for Bond not to change too.

I would be happy with a black female Bond if they get the overall direction right. If you want to preserve the sexual predation of the original, she could be a cougar ripping her way through the metrosexual hipster office boys or something.

If you like the original (I do) his films won't vanish because a female actor takes over, any more than they vanished because a blond actor took over.

All the above being said, two of the reasons for the success of Mad Men were the depiction of the unreconstructed male dominated business culture of the time, and its contrast with modern sensibilities. I think there could be similar mileage in a "new" Bond set in the 1960s.

And why you can't have this women/black/whatever be new character with her/his/whatever stories?

Oh wait sorry. Forgot. It makes higher risk as you can't just do copy&paste another Bond but with new actor/actress and instead have to create movie that stands on it's own rather than name Bond.

You could and there are different stories being made with women/black etc.

I don't see it as being lazy and standing on the Bond name, I see it as building on the Bond name to renew the series.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The world has changed. There's no reason for Bond not to change too.

I would be happy with a black female Bond if they get the overall direction right. If you want to preserve the sexual predation of the original, she could be a cougar ripping her way through the metrosexual hipster office boys or something.

Hell, how cool would it be if the next movie is basically Bond handing the reins over to Moneypenny and she becomes the next "00" agent in the series?? I've enjoyed Naomi Harris' character in the films she's in. . . she was willing to take the shot (albeit screwing up and getting James), she's snarky, smart, sexy, and generally seems like someone who'd be good in changing her roles up a bit with the organization

On Idris and that, I’ve always been under the impression that James Bond comes with the 007. Like Felix.

So we’ve actually, genuinely had different Bonds, rather than multiple actors playing the same bloke.

This also fits with M and Q. Clearly not their real names, just titles.

That all the Bond’s have been Orphans? Just a preferred recruitment method. No familial ties for the foe to exploit. Completely malleable young minds, ready to be made in sociopaths utterly loyal to Crown and Country.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On Idris and that, I’ve always been under the impression that James Bond comes with the 007. Like Felix.

So we’ve actually, genuinely had different Bonds, rather than multiple actors playing the same bloke.

This also fits with M and Q. Clearly not their real names, just titles.

That all the Bond’s have been Orphans? Just a preferred recruitment method. No familial ties for the foe to exploit. Completely malleable young minds, ready to be made in sociopaths utterly loyal to Crown and Country.

Maybe. . . however the Craig movies have "reset" the timeline as it were and so they "replace" what, Dr. No??

Yeah, sadly the Craig movies dispensed with the 007/James Bond as a job title theory. I thought the James Bond is just a codename for different operatives was clever, but Skyfall makes it pretty clear thats not the way it works in the Craigiverse.

I’ve never thought it important. Actors age, but Bond is timeless.

And I would definitely watch Idris in the role. The man can act and has the charisma and charm to play the part. Give me good stories, well directed and entertaining action - the rest can sort itself out.

I am not a slave to someone's concept of blah blah blah -verse canon poo and I don't think Cubby Broccoli is either.

I think Idris Elba would be a good choice for Bond because he's a good actor. The fact that he's black is irrelevant, really.

As long as a Bond movie feels like a Bond movie, it doesn't really matter if it connects to the others in terms of plot and the like, really.

Last night I sat down and re-watched Spectre. It was better the second time I watched it and without the hype.

That being said, it makes 0 sense for Daniel Craig to return in the next Bond film. Casino to Spectre were a nice four arc storyline of Bond growing and developing as a character and has a great "Hero's Journey" built into it. The end of Spectre is the end of this journey.

I would not want ot be the writer that has to continue from where Spectre left off thematically for the Character. I suppose they could show another descent into Hell type moment but that was done in Skyfall and his return is his redemption as a hero figure after falling off the wagon in Quantum of Solace?

We know the Craig Bond's backstory so there is no place to go there, so it has to go forward into his future..... which does not bode well for the future of Madeline Swan.

Alternatively, Bond could just be just the official identity of 007 even though the actual agents change. Now that we know Bond's back story, it almost makes sense to get a whole new Bond with a new backstory to explore.

 Easy E wrote:

Alternatively, Bond could just be just the official identity of 007 even though the actual agents change. Now that we know Bond's back story, it almost makes sense to get a whole new Bond with a new backstory to explore.

This is kinda where I've been. . . We know that 007 is a file/badge/code or whatever kind of number. IIRC, in the book, or maybe one of the first movies it's briefly mentioned about the previous 007. So this bond movie could easily be Intro Credits, Bond meeting new git, M says, "007, meet 007, you'll be training [him/her] so try to behave", 10 minutes in to "training" Bond gets whacked by plot twist and baby-007 is left to try and learn the tricks of the trade without Bond, but with the help of Q and moneypenny and crew.

I do not submit to the idea that changing the gender or ethnicity of character makes it more 'interesting' or 'modern'. I think it is weak writing and only artistically bankrupt hacks resort to that.

I mean, say you want a new type of vampire killing superhero character. The options are:
-take estabilished, old character and change gender & ethnicity. Keep name and everything else.
-or make a whole new character vaguely based on same concept.

First option gives us white, female Blade.

Second option gives us Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Do I even need to elaborate my point further?

Anyways, I do agree that idea of Craig making another Bond is hardly exciting. SPECTRE concluded the story - albeit in crappy, lazily written way, but did anyway. What is likely to come out is something akin to Die Another Day, going-through-motions afterthought for Craigs career as a Bond.

It means you're not restricting your casting choices to a subset of actors.

For example, Idris Elba is frequently held up as an example of someone who'd make a good Bond, but he's black. Why should that matter if he'd be well-suited to the character?

Being English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, tall, short, dark-haired, blond hasn't mattered to the character or the casting agents, so why does the melanin count in Bond's epidermis matter?

As for Daniel Craig after Spectre? That film ended on a high, so the next film could work as the coda to that. Handing over the codename could work as Ensis Ferrae suggests, or you could have Bond's last mission end in a promotion (not to M; that'd be a bit corny. Moscow section chief maybe?), retirement or death. get Craig offscreen, then end with M talking to a new agent; mid-briefing, and end with "so, any questions, Bond?" If you want to play with the idea that all Bonds aren't the same person, then have Bond die with no body recovered, and show that briefing from behind the agent's chair (a tall armchair so you can't see him), and lift the camera so you can see the top of the new agent's head, but only from behind; cut to "Bond will return in ..." Or just be open about it and show the new actor.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
It means you're not restricting your casting choices to a subset of actors.

For example, Idris Elba is frequently held up as an example of someone who'd make a good Bond, but he's black. Why should that matter if he'd be well-suited to the character?

Being English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, tall, short, dark-haired, blond hasn't mattered to the character or the casting agents, so why does the melanin count in Bond's epidermis matter?

Bond is a spy, who needs to be able to infiltrate various organizations in Europe or Russia, most of whom have very few or no non-European members. If he was a non-Caucasian, he would be very distinct in those environments and those tasks would be next to impossible. Black or Asian person would hard to write to many typical Bond stories.
When you have a character who is very much tied to certain background, people usually expect that the actor in question also has appearence matching expectations for that background. Not too many people are interested about seeing black Wallander, white Shaft, or non-Asian Zatoichi either. Or say, Morgan Freeman playing Vito Corleone.


Just look at how much complaints Hollywood gets about 'whitewashing'. It's a two-way street.

Fun Fact: The second scene of Casino Royale was set in Uganda