The New James Bond

Tools    





If I was a casting director fo MGM, I would lobby for Christian Bale. Few actors can rival his intensity and when he wants to, he can charm any one. I can see him being much better than Daniel Craig and clean shaven,
that's a 007 profile.
Sorry, but this is a terrible idea. There has to come a limit to how many top dollar franchises the man can have his hands in. I think we may be reaching Bale over saturation soon.
__________________



I suppose if there was to be a female Bond, Saoirse Ronan would be a good one. She's allready proven her mettle in Hanna.



Sorry, but this is a terrible idea. There has to come a limit to how many top dollar franchises the man can have his hands in. I think we may be reaching Bale over saturation soon.
Well, casting is what casting directors do, so shall we give Collin Ferell a go, since Clive Owen and Sean Bean are too old.



since Clive Owen and Sean Bean are too old.
He isn't much older than Daniel Craig, and Daniel Craig is doing perfectly fine. In a world where Bruce Willis can come back for Die Hard 4.0, and Harrison Ford for Crystal Skull. I'm sure a 47 year old Clive Owen could do Bond.

The original Bond in the books is a character who is apparently in his late 30s.



He isn't much older than Daniel Craig, and Daniel Craig is doing perfectly fine. In a world where Bruce Willis can come back for Die Hard 4.0, and Harrison Ford for Crystal Skull. I'm sure a 47 year old Clive Owen could do Bond.

The original Bond in the books is a character who is apparently in his late 30s.
Clive Owen looks like he is in his late 40's. Why would they want him to play a character that's supposed to like he is in his late 30's and what does Bruce Willis got to do with it? Harrison Ford looks like he is 60 and George Forman won the world boxing heavyweight championship in his late 40's, So what?
Ok, I'll still use your logic and cast Liam Nisen, probably better than all your choices and it's not about if they can do the job but if they can fit the mold.
Daniel Craig is just wrong for the part and he is way too short. Elevator shoes just don't cut it.



Elevator shoes may not cut it, but apparently camera angles do, because he doesn't look at all short in the new Bond films (and he's only 2-3 inches shorter than the previous Bonds, anyway). And you may say he's "wrong for the part," but almost everyone else seems to agree he's doing a stellar job, myself included.

Really, anything about Bond being too short, or blonde, or being late 40s instead of late 30s (I don't think Clive Owen looks like he's in his late 40s at all, but whatever), really has nothing to do with this. The character has a core, but is malleable around the edges. Any character that both Pierce Brosnan and Timothy Dalton can play clearly has some wiggle room, so acting like these little details are automatic disqualifiers is a mite silly.



Ok, I'll still use your logic and cast Liam Nisen, probably better than all your choices and it's not about if they can do the job but if they can fit the mold.
^ This coming from someone who puts forwards the likes of Colin Farrell and Jason Statham, and says Daniel Craig is wrong for the part...



I call troll. Who the hell would say "my friends said Craig is out" and then say cast the joke that is Liam Neeson? I don't know a soul on the planet who has criticized Craig for his height amongst everything else he is criticized for.



Elevator shoes may not cut it, but apparently camera angles do, because he doesn't look at all short in the new Bond films (and he's only 2-3 inches shorter than the previous Bonds, anyway). And you may say he's "wrong for the part," but almost everyone else seems to agree he's doing a stellar job, myself included. ]

The guy is listed at 5'10'' but he's more like 5'8'' and it's precisely the camera angles I'm talking about, those that try to make him appear taller than he really is and surround him with short people.
Personaly, I have a pet peave with some actors and boxers that phony up their height.
I'm no movie star, but I am 6'3" so when I hear how tall someone is and then they happen to be in the same proximity, it's just laughable to me.

Really, anything about Bond being too short, or blonde, or being late 40s instead of late 30s (I don't think Clive Owen looks like he's in his late 40s at all, but whatever), really has nothing to do with this. The character has a core, but is malleable around the edges. Any character that both Pierce Brosnan and Timothy Dalton can play clearly has some wiggle room, so acting like these little details are automatic disqualifiers is a mite silly.
And my thing about Craig is not just about height ( even though he is considerably shorter than all the other Bonds ) and I didn't like Pierce Brosnan or Timothy Dalton either and I was being sarcastic with some replacement mentions, trying to get a stir out of this homey group of opinionatos but I was serious about bringing up Liam Neeson and all I got to say about that is anyone that has seen Taken and still doesn't think he was belevable in that role, should just stay away from movies and try not to talk to me about them.
As far as 007 is concerned, no one can really replace Sean Connery but that's just my humble opinion and I know that on this forum is not worth a dime.



but I was serious about bringing up Liam Neeson and all I got to say about that is anyone that has seen Taken and still doesn't think he was belevable in that role, should just stay away from movies and try not to talk to me about them.
Oh come on he was the same character in that role as he was in literally any of his other movies. Taken is probably the laziest name drop I've ever heard for someone who demands cinematic integrity from others.



Well I think it's fair to say that sarcasm went over everyone's heads, unfortunately.

I wouldn't call a few inches of height a considerable difference, but regardless, when you can turn humans into hobbits shooting the guy in such a way as to make him seem slightly taller is no big deal. Especially when there's nothing about that character that ties them to their height. It's not as if Bond's character is particularly known for being tall, or that his tallness influences any other part of the Bond movies. If the character were 5'10" instead of 6'2", you wouldn't have to change a single thing about any of the others, so I'd say it's a non-problem.

I like Neeson but I can't reconcile that suggestion with your issues about age, seeing as how he's 59 and looks significantly older than Clive Own (though still pretty incredible for his age, no doubt).

Re: Connery being the only Bond. Actually, I think you'd probably get a lot of agreement on that point.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Too bad Billy Barty's dead, but we do have Peter Dinklage, and he's 42.


"Shaken... not stirred."
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



i'm SUPER GOOD at Jewel karaoke
all I got to say about that is anyone that has seen Taken and still doesn't think he was belevable in that role, should just stay away from movies and try not to talk to me about them.
oh, god, get over yourself already.
__________________
letterboxd



Mainly, though, it's just beside the point. Nobody said Neeson wasn't believable in that role, but that's rather a different question than his suitability for playing Bond.