Henry Cavill all day long
Bit old surely? I think until there’s a long term fix for the MGM problem, younger actors would be better.
Armitage just turned 47, meaning he’ll be around 50 by the time he’s needed. Definitely too old to start.
This does lead me onto a question though, what is the ideal age for a Bond actor and what’s the maximum and minimum ages you think they should consider?
I’ve tend to think of Bond as a man perpetually in his late 30’s to early 40’s (despite the age of some of the actors). In the past that’s the age I think they should go for with casting but with the slowed production cycle maybe they should skew a little younger. As such the age range at the time of casting should be 34-40, with 2 years leeway for exceptional candidates.
And that’s age at the time of casting, and it looks likely that casting call won’t go out until 2020 at the earliest so add 2 years to any candidate.
Rupert Friend or Henry Cavill.
Q: It always makes me feel a bit melancholy. Grand old war ship. …
James Bond: A bloody big ship. Excuse me.
Q: Age is no guarantee of efficiency.
James Bond: And youth is no guarantee of innovation.
I do agree, it’s more that as long as MGM keep taking four years to resecure funding every other film, the actor needs to start young to get a few films out of him.
If BOND 25 falls apart now and Craig drops out I sincerely hope that EON and MGM will not take another long hiatus to look for a new actor. Timewise they could just immediately start testing actors, make a decision this fall and then get the new film rolling in 2019.
Of course, the question is whether the distribution deals for BOND 25 depend on Craig being Bond and whether without him the whole mess would have to be sorted out again.
This is the question - the timing of the Craig will return announcement would suggest it was part of it, in which case we would have another 4 year wait on our hands, but I’d hope Universal is interested James Bond, not just Daniel Craig as James Bond.
I would hope it’s not dependant on Craig, surely by now everyone realises that switching the lead actor is a part of the franchise. I remember the days when people seemed to think that Brosnan was irreplaceable only for Craig to come along and take the series to new heights. I’d hope the lesson learned from that was ‘it’s OK to switch actors’ and not ‘Craig is irreplaceable’.
And if the events of recent weeks have taught us anything it’s that the idea of a new Bond generated insane amounts of hype and media attention. We actually had a situation where the filmmakers meeting with actors to play the main villain and girl in Bond 25 were overshadowed by rumours about who was going to play Bond in Bond 26.
Next Bond speculation happens all the time - and you can see why on a slow news day, allows you to stick an attention pulling series into a headline but without actually having to provide any news. EON, I think wisely, take the approach that every Bond is irreplaceable until the exact second they replace him.
like australian prime ministers
I have trouble imagining Universal coming on board BOND 25 without having at least some idea about how to follow up, including who is going to replace Craig. BOND 25 is supposed to be the courting of a bigger deal, networking into Eon house, making friends and establishing a creative relationship - all of which will come in very handy when they get down to serious business about Bond 7.
And it would surely not be a drawback to have a lead you have championed for the way Broccoli was standing by her decision to give the role to Craig. Craig coming back for BOND 25 is at least partially due to Broccoli giving his career a huge push against the odds and against critics on the studio side. The welcome Craig received from the tabloids was also a signal many in the industry didn’t expect nor want CASINO ROYALE to succeed.
Before these long gaps between films with Daniel Craig, I thought the actor playing James Bond 007 should start at a minimum of 30 years old and at most 45 years old–so basically from George Lazenby in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service to almost Roger Moore in Live And Let Die (though Moore did look younger in that film). And they should finish their tenure by the time they hit 55 years old (depending on how well they look up to then–i.e. Moore looked okay for Octopussy at 55+ but too old in A View To A Kill at 57+).
If we are to continue having longer gaps between films then I’d drop the older starting age to 40-42 years old.
As for my Bond #7 candidates, I’m afraid time has likely passed by Richard Armitage, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Michael Fassbender. That leaves my top 5 candidate preferences as:
#5 - Aidan Turner
#4 - Ben Barnes
#3 - Dan Stevens
#2 - Tom Hiddleston
#1 - Henry Cavill
Those same would be in my top 5, but in a different order:
#5 - Tom Hiddleston
#4 - Ben Barnes
#3 - Dan Stevens
#2 - Aidan Turner
#1 - Henry Cavill
My #1 for a long time had been Richard Armitage, but I have to agree that his time has passed. If they could have kept to a 2-year cycle of films for Craig’s era, then maybe. I think Armitage could have been a perfect blend of the grittier Craig films with a strong nod back to the classic dark and suave Bond. After MI:6, I now think Cavill brings those same qualities to the forefront.
With all the U.K. hype around the new BBC thriller The Bodyguard (it is actually pretty good), it’s innevitable that Richard Madden will now be touted as Craig’s replacement.
I’ve not been a fan of his; he seems a bit of a preened mummy’s boy miscast as an action hunk by his fans and Twitter following producers.
However, despite still possessing that pouty y-fronts model pre-adolescent face he’s turning in a very good performance in the BBC show. He’s accenting his vulnerable qualities to give his character a third dimension - more so than Nortan or Hiddleston managed in McMafia and Night Porter respectively.
All that said it’s simply an improvement of his acting chops, but bringing him no closer imo to being an authentic Bond candidate. His bond would still seem too predictable and too dependant upon lighting and camera angle to convince us he’s a hard as nails 00; a bar raised very high by Craig which needs to be met by his successor, unless they revert to light comedy as they did with Connery-to-Moore.
One Bond candidate I’ve seen this quality in is Dan Stevens in The Guest. However I’d not have thought him up to it if not for that role.
To a lessor extent Aiden Turner showed hints of this essential post Craig mature blunt object grittiness and ‘force of nature’ autonomy (often referred to somewhat vaguely as ‘swagger’) in the BBC Agatha Christie mini series And Then There Were None.
Back to The Bodyguard - I recommend the show as decent, throw away, yet gripping Sunday night telly.
…On a side note, it seems that each year the Beeb are determined to make a show that puts their star in the tabloid running for Bond: Night Porter, McMafia and now The Bodyguard. But it’s all very much poor mans bond and these superficial audition reels only complicate matters by, imo, giving the public a false impression of bond criteria. Post Craig Bond is a much meatier role with far more complexity than these tv roles offer. Yet at face value they seem similar and a brief zeitgeist pressure always builds that these actors should be Bond. But I’m sure B.B. is no sucker for it.
Btw, RE Nortan… while I think his role in McMafia was a red herring in terms of bond candidacy, simply showing that Nortan can carry a dramatic narrative and we’ll root for him - Bond is so much more than that - it’s his role as the villain in the very good BBC crime drama Happy Valley in which he’s impressed me enough to suggest he could make Bond his own. This is the type of role (like Stevens in The Guest) in which a Bond candidate can show if they have the chops and grit to be a challenging, unpredicatable bond with swagger, rather than one that simply makes girls swoon in his tux and says the one liners with the correct comic timing.
Very good analysis.
Personally, I would vote for a Bond 7 who is very different from Craig. Frankly, every actor who is similar to Craig will lose because people will say: well, he is not Craig, he tries to be. But Craig was tougher, more sinister, more manly etc.
The best thing would be to go with someone who looks very differently and whose acting qualities stress other aspects of the Bond persona.
Granted, since we already had the sardonic macho (Connery), the arrogant playboy (Lazenby), the humorous gentleman (Moore), the sour melancholic (Dalton) and the suave dressman (Brosnan) it will not be easy to find someone who is different from all those aspects.
I would welcome a funnier and lighter Bond. And maybe, yes, a much younger one, in his early 30´s. Maybe that’s the way to differentiate. Someone who can grow into the role and stick with it for some time, making lots of films in a short time.
I’m still sticking with my pick for the last several years, Henry Cavill. He’s the right age early-mid 30s, doesn’t look like Craig (I’m looking at you Tom Hardy), has a more classic Brosnan/Dalton look, and has the physique to be a blunt instrument. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t want to see Idris Elba or Michael Fassbender (my 2 dream picks). But I think for 2021/2022, Henry Cavill is perfectly positioned to take up the Bond mantle for a decade or longer. Who wouldn’t want 2 movies from Cavill as Bond over the next 20 years?
I must say my mind is slightly turning toward Nicholas Hoult, I believe he could do something very different with the role and he appears to growing into his face ( as we Irish tend to say )
I also think Cavill would be totally open to doing a movie every couple of years.