Who should play Bond after Craig?

My point is Daniel Craig was nowhere near the performance that Sean Connery brought forth, he's not a "Conneryesque" Bond. We havent had anyone come close to or near what Connery first brought, and Butler imo has that ability. It wouldnt be a step back because theyve never had the right person since Connery. Trying to reinvent the formula is like fixing something that isnt broken. Connery had swag, Butler has swag, and Craig does not.

I agree with butler not being right but I still like hardy. He can play the loner bond. More quiet but deeper than Craig, if that makes sense. As for Goode. He doesn't have that killer instinct, he looks like a bit of a pencil neck. Better for him to play a villain in charge of an org. He just doesn't have the raw physicality and charisma In my opinion.

I was thinking characterisation more so than performance, which I'd argue is at least as important (if not more so). Connery's charm papered over the character's bigger flaws, while Craig's understatement only made them more apparent - what mattered is how both approaches suited the films in which they appeared. In any case, trying to straight-up repeat Connery would be the ultimate step back for the Bond franchise. Changing up Bond has kept the series alive to one extent or another for almost fifty years now - keep in mind that when the producers literally brought back Connery himself after the ostensible failure of Lazenby and OHMSS, the result was Diamonds Are Forever, which was itself terrible because of how it tried too hard to please fans (and Connery clearly didn't care anymore). Remember how people kept bitching out Force Awakens because of how much of the plot development and world-building seemed to be lifted from A New Hope (in the hopes of pleasing fans who'd been burnt by the prequels)? It'd be the same thing if they tried to bring in the most obvious Connery-like actor out there and that's why I'd argue against Butler getting the role.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

I get why people don't like my pick, but really, I'm just trying to think realistically, I mean, by the time the next Bond movie gets going Hardy will be busy with whatever other projects he's got. Outside of Nolan directing, I don't think he'll ever do it.

There are other picks out there. I really do think the next Bond will be less of a gentle brute as you put it, so how about…

Dan Stevens
Aidan Turner
Luke Evans (first openly gay Bond?)

or an older, 70s style Bond with Damian Lewis?

Hm. Well Lets not overshoot here by saying casting Butler is the same level of mistake as Episode I, thats one of the biggest Fails ever in "all that is cool".

Maybe youre right though, but they have not had a Bond with charm in years and years. I just look at it as going back to what made them over just "doing stuff", like making Bond black. Why? Why make Bond black? Im not saying thats your stance Iro, just if you dont have a mold, template, or foundation then theres no stability to the franchise.

Matthew Goode may be a fine actor, but he looks too young and frail. Same with Cumberbatch. Fassbender has the look, but would fall under the Dan Craig/Tom Hardy expressionless umbrella. Dont misunderstand, they both rock, but I dont picture those personalities as the true James Bond. Just my opinion, good talk.

Macaulay Culkin

Episode I? I was talking Episode VII - that made the mistake of being too samey instead of being too radically different like the prequels did, which may not necessarily have been as bad but did compromise the film's ability to stand on its own two legs. That's a bit less of a concern in a franchise with twenty-four installments that are all fairly dependent on repeating a certain core formula with minor variances, but the variances are what is supposed to keep the franchise going.

If you trace the evolution of Bond across the previous six actors, you can see a recognisable pattern in how each new Bond is significantly different from the one that preceded him (which can also be seen in the progression of the films themselves over the years). Lazenby is more of a romantic than Connery, Moore is goofy to compensate for the negative reception to Lazenby's seriousness in OHMSS, Dalton is more grounded and realistic than Moore, Brosnan is more "fun" than Dalton, and Craig is a gritty reboot compared to the silliness of Brosnan's later films. That's just the most simplified reading of the evolution of Bond, which doesn't even mention how the character is defined by how social norms shift around him as the films go from tolerating (or even championing) the man's more problematic behaviour to repeatedly calling him out on it in later years (though not without indulging it at the same time - Skyfall is a notable offender in this regard).

The point is that the Bond series, for all its recognisable clichés and inconsistent quality, actually thrives on change. What you call "stability", I could just as easily call "stagnation". Trying to "go back" to the definitive success of the Connery era by finding the actor who serves as the nearest possible modern equivalent to Connery himself (in this case, Butler) would be a huge mistake because it would be the most obviously regressive move for a franchise that already has a bad reputation for being regressive. With Casino Royale, they attempted to bring back the same rough-and-ready vibe of the Connery era but tempered it with modern sensibilities and a significantly different-looking Bond (remember when people got upset over Craig's casting because they thought that James Bond shouldn't be blond?) instead of just going for a hollow replication of Connery-Bond and - surprise, surprise - it provided the best Bond movie in at least a decade (then again, it was following up Die Another Day so it was essentially a jump on par with the one between Batman and Robin and Batman Begins).

To cut a long story short, change is good.

Craig was a safe Bond, but I would even put Roger Moore ahead of him for the classy swag factor. Hell, Moore had the most personality of all the Bonds since Connery, at least he could sell dry humor better than most. You had described the paragraph above what I quoted as like a evolutionary tree of Bond, but the truth is they make that "evolution tree" up as they go along in the business, the reality is who can draw them money now - period. There is no formula to their selection process, but who they can afford and who can draw money.

To grab ahold of a talent like Butler for this role is not stagnation, and Ill tell you why. Butler truly has the it factor like Connery. Craigs a better actor but couldnt have pulled off Leonitis in 300 like Butler, or done the comedy as well in Rock N Rolla, or seduce women onscreen with more authenticity than Butler. Is Goode gonna draw them money? No. Would Fassbender, Cumberbatch? Probably not. Tom Hardy or Daniel Craig are wasted playing James Bond, and I think Butler could be born for this part. To me that isnt stagnation, but revitalizing the franchise with what made it - James Bond was cool. None of those other actors are, but Butler is.

After scrolling through all of these, I have to say that I agree on the following as choices: Michael Fassbender, Idris Elba, Tom Hardy, and Karl Urban.

Why? Because I like them, and they can act. I would probably agree on Henry Cavill as well, but I've only seen him as Superman, so my judgment on him is complete (which, by the way, I think he's doing a good job given what he has to work with).

__________________
Coming in 2017: two short films and (maybe) another feature-length film. More details another time.

What kind of reality is that? Bond movies have never truly depended on star power to make money - the brand is what makes the money, not the actor. You look at any Bond actor's pre-Bond history and none of them were hugely bankable stars prior to taking on the role. Hell, given that Butler already starred in one of this year's biggest flops does not speak so well to his box-office draw. Besides, the evolution tree isn't some totally made-up thing - if anything, it does a better job of reflecting the thought process that goes into creating each new iteration of Bond than just arbitrarily deciding which actor should get the role next. Even just observing the magnitude of difference between one actor's last film and another actor's first film bears this pattern out - I already noted Die Another Day and Casino Royale, but you also have View to a Kill and The Living Daylights or OHMSS and either Diamonds are Forever or Live and Let Die. The pattern exists for a reason and to disregard it is to deny what keeps Bond going.

That being said, by that logic Butler may very well be a fit for the role if the pattern dictates that the series need to change up again after the dourness of Craig's run, but I still feel like he might be a step too far in the wrong direction. The similarity in their ages (Butler is 46 going on 47 compared to Craig's 48) is also a strike against Butler - he could very well end up being the next Roger Moore and not in a good way. That's without getting into citing 300 of all movies as an argument in Butler's favour, plus I already mentioned how the overt similarities to Connery are liable to make his casting look desperate and unoriginal more so than cool. Also, there's the question of whether or not you can even make Bond cool again, especially when it's a complicated cinematic landscape these days and people have been seeing through his coolness for ages now.

Connery was somewhat known before Bond, as is Butler. Yes they havent depended on star power but are wanting talent to play James that they think can draw. I had to rep you on this post though because the ages are a factor, and I didnt know they were the same age.

Damn. Well if he were 10-15 years younger he'd be perfect. They need to go from Craigs stoicness to a more charming/roguish yet still manly Bond. Lets work from what you said, Bond evolution - Whose 30-35, big, and has raw charisma to go with solid acting?

I have no idea.

I would never have considered Karl Urban but he does seem like he's got the range to pull it off. I'm not sure that Bond really needs to be "big", though - I didn't consider Hardy because he seems like a bit too much of a beefcake.

I think I'm starting to lean towards Cavill. He can pull it off with his accent, height, frame and looks. McAvoy is too short. I'm afraid Fassbender and Hiddleston will end up almost like Dalton.

__________________
"I may be rancid butter, but I'm on your side of the bread."
E. K. Hornbeck

I think Cobpyth and someone else liked Cavill too, but for me he is so damn boring. Christopher Reeve looks like the swaggiest of swagsters compared to dull assed Cavills Superman. He has the look, no question, and he can act. Hes just so damn boring, I think Daniel Craig has more zip. ok im done

Counterpoint - The Man From U.N.C.L.E.

Put Bautista in a suit...

What, like this?

I feel like until Shaq has officially turned this down, it's naive to throw any other names around.

Now, now, you know that Americans are disqualified from playing Bond.