• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Who should be the next James Bond? (Round 2)

Who should be the next James Bond (and why it's Cavill)?

  • Idris Elba

    Votes: 9 6.1%
  • Henry Cavill

    Votes: 65 44.2%
  • Daniel Kaluuya

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Michael B. Jordan

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • John Boyega

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Cillian Murphy

    Votes: 2 1.4%
  • Tom Holland

    Votes: 4 2.7%
  • Chris Hemsworth

    Votes: 2 1.4%
  • Tom Hardy

    Votes: 16 10.9%
  • John Boyega

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Joe Cole

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Theo James

    Votes: 6 4.1%
  • Aaron Taylor-Johnson

    Votes: 8 5.4%
  • Tom Hiddleston

    Votes: 5 3.4%
  • Richard Madden

    Votes: 3 2.0%
  • Another actor

    Votes: 9 6.1%
  • A total unknow

    Votes: 17 11.6%

  • Total voters
    147

NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt

Biggest Trails Stan
Who the hell said Tom Holland?

zz0dmEd.gif

I hope it's Zendaya

Let Tom Holland play the Bond Girl šŸ‘€
 
Last edited:

Ballthyrm

Member
Richard Madden for me. He has the looks, he is young enough but not too young, he is a better actor than 80% of the choices, he isn't American, we've seen him in similar roles and he crushed it.

I wish we had Idris Elba 10 year ago, that would have been perfect, Daniel Craig held it too long and we would have avoided the last bond movie which was sub par
 

KTT

Member
I know people would complain about it being ā€œpoliticalā€ or something, but I genuinely think Idris Elba would be an awesome pick. Honestly, not a lot of actors that come to mind that are ā€œsmoothā€ in the way I associate with James Bond.
The last one, No Time to Die, was horrible in my honest opinion. That was not the James Bond I know from other movies.
 

Rockondevil

Member
I want a campy James Bond back but if it was Henry Cavill Iā€™d take anything.

I wouldnā€™t have to see Tom Hiddleston either, though it doesnā€™t seem popular.

Idris? Definitely not. Iā€™d love Idris an another main character alongside Bond though as heā€™s an awesome actor.
 

LordPezix

Member
Looks are important, but you need to have something else. It's why Jessica Biel stops me from choosing any movies she's in despite being absolutely gorgeous. Megan Fox isn't either a great actress, but she at least exuded sensuality in Transformers 1. Biel and Taylor-Johnson both have negative levels of charisma.

If Aaron was capable of a greater facial acting range than this I'd be more okay.
I see what you're saying but this is a "best of" category no?

I feel this is like choosing between Jack Daniels or Jameson only because the bartender doesn't have Macallan 12.

Who would you have pegged for a good shoe in for the 007 role?
 

Trilobit

Absolutely Cozy
I see what you're saying but this is a "best of" category no?

I feel this is like choosing between Jack Daniels or Jameson only because the bartender doesn't have Macallan 12.

Who would you have pegged for a good shoe in for the 007 role?

I actually enjoy a bottle of Daniels when gaming. Aaron is like half a glass of Daniels with the other half being water. I don't really know that many British actors around 37ish years of age so I can't give any better alternative.

I can enjoy a bunch of "Jameson" actors, I'm not a snob. I thought Charlie Hunnam was great in Pacific Rim and Chia-seed LaBeouf was very enjoyable in Transformers 1. They both actually seem to experience and display emotions. With Taylor-Johnson I get nothing, almost every time. He's not crappy, I just feel very little for his characters. But I might be unique in this regard since people like him and he gets big roles.
 
Last edited:

Chuck Berry

Gold Member
We should just shelf Bond for the next 30 years. I don't think there's any present actor capable or worthy. Hollywood will never learn that it's ok to put some things away for awhile.
 

jason10mm

Gold Member
Zendaya as Bond, Tom Holland as Moneypenny....calling it now!

Cavill will get one scene as Q putting together a PC.

Idris Elba as M.

This way theu give NO ONE what we want while saying they are giving the fans everything they've ever asked for.
 

DKehoe

Member
Zendaya as Bond, Tom Holland as Moneypenny....calling it now!

Cavill will get one scene as Q putting together a PC.

Idris Elba as M.

This way theu give NO ONE what we want while saying they are giving the fans everything they've ever asked for.
No one gets what they want? I feel like that one would be a huge win for the ā€œda movies are out to get me!ā€ crowd.
 

jason10mm

Gold Member
No one gets what they want? I feel like that one would be a huge win for the ā€œda movies are out to get me!ā€ crowd.
Folks want Cavill as Bond, not Q. Folks want Idris as Bond, not as M. And Zendaya as Bond being what ANYONE wants? Get outta here!

Tom Holland as a lickspittle Moneypenny, yah maybe that one is a go if they are gonna dump the flirty banter regardless.
 

jason10mm

Gold Member
He's cool but he's too thin. I'd believe he was a military commander before I'd believe he was Bond.
If we look at the boks, Bond is described as :

slim build; a 3 in (76 mm) long, thin vertical scar on his right cheek; blue-grey eyes; a "cruel" mouth; short, black hair, a comma of which rests on his forehead. Physically he is described as 1.83 m (6 ft 0 in) in height and 76 kg (168 lb) in weight.

By 2020s standards that a damn thin 6 footer, but by 1950s standards that's fairly normal dude.

Fleming had him drawn as
IxWZxXL.jpeg


with this guy apparently his vision when writing Bond
7ecFCBY.jpeg


so Bond is not a pretty boy, but rather a striking figure when need be. This article gives a good run down of the development of a film Bond https://midcenturybond.wordpress.co...ption-of-how-bond-should-be-played-on-screen/

but the takeaway is that Fleming wanted Richard Burton who was 5'9", 72 kg
Z4rKqZr.jpeg


and even looking at Connery at 6'3" he had a fairly light build by modern standards
wLW0c0z.jpeg


though he was a Mr. Universe competitor in his youth at 200 pounds
ODcWGG7.jpeg


So I think you can make a case for a more strapping, physical Bond having more presence on screen though for my money Tim Dalton best captured the hawk-like look of book Bond.

Tom Hiddleston at 6'2" could easily do the hollywood muscle program and bulk up a bit if necessary.

He is pretty lean so wouldn't need to do much aside from the usual

N6CrZFM.jpeg


sorry, I got distracted....:p
ZUK7GGO.jpeg


anyhoo, I think he would be a great Bond, though at 44 I question how 'ruggedly handsome' he will age versus "oh, look, it's grandpa with a twinkle in his eye"
 

DKehoe

Member
Folks want Cavill as Bond, not Q. Folks want Idris as Bond, not as M. And Zendaya as Bond being what ANYONE wants? Get outta here!

Tom Holland as a lickspittle Moneypenny, yah maybe that one is a go if they are gonna dump the flirty banter regardless.
Thereā€™s a section of people who want to complain and those choices would give them that opportunity. Itā€™s not about watching the movie, since they donā€™t really watch movies now but will flock to ā€œcontentā€ around a film like flies to shit if they can get annoyed at it. So why not cash in on it? There could be untapped potential. Just simple supply and demand of giving some people what they want.

They wouldnā€™t even need to make an actual movie since that audience wonā€™t be watching it. Shoot footage for a few trailers do promotional interviews and get the stars posting things on social media to boil some piss. Everything produced stays under a couple minutes since the audienceā€™s attention span is fried from social media. Itā€™s a much smaller time and money investment required than making an actual movie.

You could do stuff like charge people to dislike the trailer on YouTube. Have a leaderboard so that those who pay the most can show off that they dislike it the most. Dangle a carrot by letting it be known that one of the stars will upload a sad video to social media if it gets enough dislikes. Maybe they even mention specific accounts that paid to dislike or leave a comment on social media. So itā€™s like a prize draw where people can have the chance to be the hero of the piece.

Around the same time you could shoot an actual movie for the audience that go to see those.
 

jason10mm

Gold Member
They wouldnā€™t even need to make an actual movie since that audience wonā€™t be watching it. Shoot footage for a few trailers do promotional interviews and get the stars posting things on social media to boil some piss. Everything produced stays under a couple minutes since the audienceā€™s attention span is fried from social media. Itā€™s a much smaller time and money investment required than making an actual movie.

You could do stuff like charge people to dislike the trailer on YouTube. Have a leaderboard so that those who pay the most can show off that they dislike it the most. Dangle a carrot by letting it be known that one of the stars will upload a sad video to social media if it gets enough dislikes. Maybe they even mention specific accounts that paid to dislike or leave a comment on social media. So itā€™s like a prize draw where people can have the chance to be the hero of the piece.

Around the same time you could shoot an actual movie for the audience that go to see those.
I kinda think thats how 'they' (studio execs) greenlight shit today anyway. It's all focus grouped to death and not made to appeal to anyone, but rather NOT OFFEND anyone. Thus it's bland crap. I bet 95% of these "What do you think about XXX playing YYY" social media posts are just marketing teams spitballing ideas to see if they can get any traction to then sell it to a studio.

Manufactured social media 'content' is pretty obvious. No different, really, than staged dates between stars of a rom-com for the tabloids or "we gots a beef!" drama between actors, musicians, or sportsball players. ANY news is good news for these folks.
 

DKehoe

Member
I kinda think thats how 'they' (studio execs) greenlight shit today anyway. It's all focus grouped to death and not made to appeal to anyone, but rather NOT OFFEND anyone. Thus it's bland crap. I bet 95% of these "What do you think about XXX playing YYY" social media posts are just marketing teams spitballing ideas to see if they can get any traction to then sell it to a studio.

Manufactured social media 'content' is pretty obvious. No different, really, than staged dates between stars of a rom-com for the tabloids or "we gots a beef!" drama between actors, musicians, or sportsball players. ANY news is good news for these folks.
That would be the thing about it, if you have people who want to get annoyed then start churning out content for them to get annoyed at. None of itā€™s real, just something to distract them for a couple minutes at most. So if you have an audience who donā€™t want to watch movies but do want to hit the dislike button while taking a shit in the bathroom then why not do something with that.
 
Top Bottom