No offence to the guy, but i wouldn’t call Callum Turner good looking. Weedy and anaemic, sure - could even see him doing the catwalk, since they go for that look. But Bond? Not in a million years!
And he’s looking way too young. Maybe about ten, 15 years, but then he will be too old to play the part for more than two, or three movies. No Bond material at all.
I find Callum Turner handsome, but he’s also rather gawky. It’s an odd combination, and it really depends on the camera angle. If he aged ten years and gained thirty pounds of muscle, I could see him as Bond. But I say that based purely on his looks. I have no idea about his chops or personal presence.
I see that - again I think he’s a better candidate with time, and we definitely have that haha
A young Brit (31 atm) who I think could be very interesting is Tom Bateman. Known for his role of Bouc in Kenneth Branagh’s ‘Murder on the Orient Express’ and it’s upcoming sequel ‘Death on the Nile’, the contract killer Wilkes on the Hulu show ‘Into the Dark’ (in the episode ’The Body’) and playing the villain opposite Liam Neeson in ‘Cold Pursuit’. 6’2 and he has a cold dark edge.
Has anyone suggested Ben Aldridge? He’s in Our Girl, Pennyworth and he was also in Fleabag.
He’s currently 34. 6’ 1".
We seem to be heading back to the Byronic look. It’s ok with me, so long as they prioritise the chops and machismo over the looks. Then looks are a bonus (like Connery)
Plus, there’s an argument that the better looking the Bond, the better an actor he needs to be (and the grittier the scripts) so he doesn’t come off as clothes horse for saville row suits; simply selling the Bond brand, but suspending no disbelief whatsoever. We’ve been there, done that when Brossa’s scripts hit the pits!
Brossa is a decent actor (The Matador / Seraphim Falls), but without gritty material he can sometimes come across this way (not his fault and to his credit he’s often avoided this).
Craig doesn’t necessarily need gritty dialogue to evoke deeper stirrings - it’s all over his lived in face. Put into the tried and tested cheesy Bond scenario and it’s suddenly interesting instead of hackneyed.
Try that with some of these Byronic types above and unless they’ve got Tom Hardy’s chops they’ll not evoke much besides an impressive profile and cheekbones to die for. How’s that for a Bond title if they go for a pretty boy: Cheekbones To Die For.… ?
Well luckily Bateman is doing some stellar work in respectable fare like ‘Murder on the Orient Express’ and ‘Vanity Fair’, plus he seems to have a huge range from being bumbly and charismatic in ‘Murder’ to cold blooded in ‘Into the Dark’.
Hmm, then Sir Roger should not have been cast?
Indeed not, but it’s a different proposition in different times.
Also, Roger was a unique one off. I can’t imagine anyone else ever filling his shoes in terms of charm and charisma. We’ll have to make do with acting chops
Well, that‘s what they said after Connery…
True, but i still think that following Craig Bond’s drama, grit and realism is a different affair to following Connery’s charming, sardonic adonis.
Though Connery is of course an incredibly gifted actor, the scripts were for the most part (with the exception of FRWL) fun fantasy adventures. Following that with Lazenby and Moore’s light charms was perfectly fine; different Bond, same films.
But the films have now changed, making a decisive shift into a more prestige dramtic-thriller arena, with Oscar bait in every department, here, there and everywhere. After Craig’s innings Eon must fear getting a bashing if they go the light-comedy route again. That’s not to say the films can’t be fun and adventurous, but there’s now an expectation of a higher dramatic quality to the writing and directing. Its wit, rather than broad strokes. Craig and Wishaw make the wonderful dialogue sing in their first meeting (in the National Gallery). Lessor chops might make such subtle and nuanced writing sound like fingersnails on the blackboard, leaving the audience bemused, rather than impressed.
If they maintain that high bench mark in dialogue and the character arc that’s difficult to convey in the confines of the Bond format, they’ll need an actor with chops to match. The right look and a little easy charm and comic timing will sell it short.
I disagree. Oscar bait? No one took it, and no one really takes that seriously apart from a few click baiting sites.
And Bond films have always reacted to the times. After the doom and gloom era they could easily move back to light and ironic, and audiences would thank them for it.
Besides, the quality of the Craig era is not better than the quality of the Moore era. Just different.
I think there is a middle ground. There’s nothing to say that a lighter caper can’t still have a smart script, sharp dialogue and well rounded characters. There’s a reason that Goldfinger still stands up as one of the absolute best of the series.
Agreed. And there have always been character actors who are truly excellent, even if they never set foot in the National Theatre. There are actors today whose talent is defined solely by their attachment to prestige projects. Ben Whishaw, for example, doesn’t seem to me like a particularly strong actor. His lighter moments in SF and SP seem forced, in my view, but then they’re only there because the Q character has been used for comic relief since his third appearance (in Thunderball).
Another actor who leaves me bemused is Tom Hardy. He’s been a thug in real life (joy-riding on drugs with a gun in the glove-compartment), and that’s almost all he’s ever played (Dark Knight Rises, Peaky Blinders, Taboo, The Take, The Drop, Cape Wrath, Venom, Capone, Legend, Warrior and Bronson).
The great prestige dramas of Paddington, Mary Poppins 2 and a range of Birdseye ads?
If we’re being 100% honest, the thing that’s most likely going to get you roles as an actor, is people just liking you as a person. No matter their rep, NO-ONE wants to be spending months in a confined space with anyone they didn’t like, which is what you are signing up to do whether it be an ITV period drama or a Vin Diesel action movie.
Just look at Simon Pegg - a man whose entire career can be summed up by producers and directors going “I’ve got a mate who is seriously chilled about everything”
EON will not be looking for a model, or the flavour of the month, they are wanting to spend years, possibly decades, attached to this person - they’re looking for someone they won’t be sick of.
In fairness, those Birdseye ads were twenty years ago, when he was a callow nineteen year old. I was referring more to Brideshead Revisited, The Tempest, Suffragette, The Danish Girl, Cloud Atlas, and The Personal History of David Copperfield. And if Paddington and Mary Poppins Returns are the tawdriest films in which he has appeared, that’s very good going. Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins, Emily Blunt, Julie Walters, Colin Firth, Nicole Kidman and Meryl Streep are good company to keep.
Callum Turner is a good actor - just saying
How much Whishaw’s work tends to lean more on the ensemble than any one man shows, I’d say it’s more people like working with him more than it is his acting abilities. Cillian Murphy looks to be much the same, even when he’s in the staring role, such as Peaky Blinders of The Wind the shakes the barley, it’s still very much about the ensemble.
Colin Firth would be another example of that - his most noted work being supporting roles rather than star vehicles (Though, now I think about it, outside of maybe Tom Cruise and The Rock, I cant think of any of those sort of films that are successful these days)
You’re all gonna hate me again, but I found this deleted scene from Fantastic Beasts 2, whiqh shows Callum playing a bit more of the gentleman that I know others are looking for, although I should the video focuses more on Zoe Kravitz…
…and before you say I know he looks young - but keep in mind again probable timing of Bond 26. I’m not saying cast this guy tomorrow, but in a few years - yes please
Although to add, Kravitz would be a great Bond girl.