He has miles and miles of charisma, so that already would make him a great candidate now.
As for his age, I would expect the next Bond to be cast much younger than before. Makes no sense to start with a 40 year old if his third film already has him celebrate his 50th.
The rate theyâre going, a 40 year old starting out would be celebrating somewhere between his 55th and 60th birthday by the time he got to the premiere of his third film.
The next guy, I feel almost certain, is going to be in his late twenties. The snailâs pace that EON seems to like to work at these days almost demands that.
Who are they waiting to get old enough?
No idea.
But I donât think that it works like that, setting sights on a guy and waiting for him to be Bond-age appropriate.
That sounds wrong anyway.
They will go through the ideas of their casting trustee, consider people they see on film and on stage.
I just donât think they will seriously zero in on a guy who is approaching or already over 40 now.
Giant freakinâ robot is famously a click bait site that just makes things up. Bond 7 might be a person of colour (as it wouldâve been spelt by the English casting director Debbie McWilliams - IMDb) but if he is, that site just got lucky
Somehow I donât trust a website which is called giantfreakingrobot and pretends it has trusted and proven sources.
Iâm old school, I know.
Heâs been my pick since I saw Corialanous
More hopefully tabloid garbage. Tom Holland is too overexposed to play James Bond, seriously. Maybe a bit young yet as well.
Thereâs no reason to believe that The Daily Star is on to anything with that article, but just generally, I donât think that an actor who is 26 like Holland (and who will be probably be at least 28 or 29 before the next film hits theaters) is too young for the part. I would imagine that this is the age range that they are looking in.
His actual age isnât really the problem, itâs the fact he looks much younger - something that played in his favour for the role of Spider-Man, but with Bond itâll seem massively out of place.
I think it really depends on their plan. A definite number of films already in mind and comfortable that the new studio status quo is going to hold long term they could be looking Brosnan or Moore starting age.
If, however, theyâre gun shy from all the MGM burnings they had forâŚall of their relationship, theyâre looking at mid 20âs to mid 30âs.
I actually think RegĂŠ-Jean Page would be a perfect fit. But he might already be overexposed at the time it could be happening.
I agree heâd be brilliant, there are bits of Bridgerton that seem like his pitch for the role, but his household name is at Moore and Brosnan levels when they were cast - known for their work, but Bond was still a step up from what theyâd been given in movies.
I do not know the history or follow the casting of Bond the way many of you do, but what strikes me is the seeming consensus that the role of Bond should/must be a step up for the actor who lands it.
Why?
Corollary: in the saturated market that is now taking shape, could an established actor be a good choice in that he already has eyeballs attached to him? If a step-up choice stumbles, will he be kept on? (It took Sir Roger three films to find his Bond).
It´s always the question of popularity outside of Bond.
Connery was an unknown, so he could become Bond and define the role without baggage.
Lazenby - unknown, but impressive with his arrogance and virility, so he fit the already established profile.
Moore - known, however, only from TV which back then was not taken as seriously as the big screen, and therefore had the potential to break out while bringing in a certain familiarity which was needed to encourage the audience âhey, you know and like him, you can give him a chanceâ.
Dalton - rather unknown, but a theatre actor and reliable, had the potential to become a movie star through Bond.
Brosnan - see Moore.
Craig - rather unknown, but one of these guys the industry was buzzing about, not necessarily regarding lead actor but a talent for edgy tough guy roles.
The next guy - has to be very different from Craig in order to avoid the âoh, heâs just a Craig wannabeâ- criticism. Could be that the pendulum swings back to the âMoore/Brosnanâ-familiarity, but at this point it could also be a total surprise.
Let´s face it: the Bond films are at a crossroads again, with no certain timetable, and after the Craig tenure on wobbly ground. After Craig being ridiculed before CR the PR machine cemented him as THE only Bond for the next generation, so far that many consider him the greatest and irreplaceable. Silly idea, of course. But thatâs where weâre at now.
Therefore, more time passing will be a good thing for the next guy. The hunger for more Bond films must be worked up first. And the next generation must get the feeling that Craig was âyour fatherâs favoriteâ.
As for an established actor taking on Bond - he would bring a lot of preconceptions to the role.
The idea during the late 80´s to get (an already famous) Mel Gibson was problematic because as with every movie star the film would hardly be able to recover from the impression of âOh, this is the one where Gibson / X plays Bondâ.
Also, are there real movie stars now which are not older than 35?
I am thinking that an actor having some pubic familiarity might appeal to those who are making the decision on the next Bond. I wonder if a complete unknown would have a chance for a second film, if their first one underperformed/did poorly. In this environment, is there room for someone to grow into the role of Bond?
But hell on this community LOL.
Maybe part of that process is casting X who generates a tsunami of âI cannot wait to see X as Bond.â
But is a movie star needed or a media star/presence instead. Even if they tried, I think it would be hard to pick someone who has not been in a streaming show or two. Also, I would not be surprised to learn that the deciders looked at number of Twitter/Instagram/etc. followers a prospect has as they were making their choice.
After Brosnan not returning fans were in a similar place, many entirely not able to look beyond Eric Bana, Gerard Butler, Colin Farrell, Clive Owen et al* to replace him.
On the one hand thatâs understandable, following the pattern - up to a point - of Moore and Brosnan himself. From the producersâ point of view itâs a bit different. They want stable business for the next 12 to 15 years, four or five films at most. But the entry level for that has to be moderate since the starâs paycheque will get bigger with popularity.
Having somebody already firmly established, by film or streaming, comes with a different price tag than someone just on that doorstep to being household name. Thatâs saved money they can put into the production again - or into its promo campaign.
Ewan McGregor, Hugh Jackman, Hugh Grant so on so forth. Most of course mere fandom dreams who probably were never considered.
Will a âjust-on-the-doorstepâ talent bring the eyeballs Eon and Amazon want/need? They might need to spend on both talent and production.
A âjust-on-the-doorstepâ Black actor may excite some interest, but an under-known white actor might be seen as the same-old same-old, i.e., an actor does not have to prove himself, he just needs to be white.
