Who should be the next James Bond?
From reported frontrunners like Aaron Taylor-Johnson to long-rumored contenders and off-the-wall options, here are 21 actors who could take on the role of 007
Film Features James Bond
Graphic: The A.V. Club
Now that James Bond producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson have announced their intention to find a (thirty-something) long-term successor to Daniel Craig, thoughts turn once again to the question of just who should step into the tux and take the keys to the Aston Martin.
While Broccoli has been saying for months that “nobody’s in the running,” the internet hivemind and The A.V. Club’s Slack channel still have plenty of thoughts about who could play the iconic secret agent next, especially with new reports of Aaron Taylor-Johnson emerging as a frontrunner for the role after a successful meeting with Bond producers.
First, some ground rules: the next Bond will surely, and arguably must, have roots in the U.K. (How did Aussie George Lazenby sneak in?) They must look impeccably dashing while holding a martini in a tuxedo. And apparently, they must be ready to sign up for “a 10-, 12-year commitment,” per Broccoli. Here, then, is a look at actors, from long-rumored contenders to off-the-wall suggestions, who could be next to introduce themselves as “Bond, James Bond.”
364 Comments
I think they should bring back Sean Connery. Kids will want to see the original James Bond.
I keep telling you he’s 73 years old, and he’s dead.
That’s agism and deadism. He can still play the part with more emotion than half the actors in Hollywood.
Deadism, and hologram erasure.
Soooooo what you’re saying is we need Sam Raimi to direct the next batch of Bond movies?
Honey, where’s my necronomicon?
“Well, cross him off the list and move on to the next name!” — Rachel Phelps
“Thats never stopped me before”
If we’re going down this road, we should defer to Fleming’s own desciption and cast Hoagy Carmichael in the role. Sure, he’s even older the Connery, American, and has been dead far longer, but that’s the kind of outside the box (or coffin in this case) thinking that can reinvigorate this thing. And we could expand Bond’s already impressive skill set to include piano. Carmichael all the way.
I think Chiwetel Ejiofor and Tom Hardy face the same problem as Idris Elba: They’re just too old (45) to begin a 10- to 12-year run.
Hey now, Roger Moore was 58 when he finished his run as James Bond, and he didn’t look a day over 65!
Tom Hardy is also too short, alas.(But call me, Tom! I’m only 5’3″!)
Anthony Ingruber.
What the fuck is an Anthony Ingruber?
The actor who played young version of Harrison Ford’s character in The Age of Adaline. Which you could have Googled, I’d wager.
Evidently you don’t know what the fuck a google is.
The major hangup used to be an actor who can retain their dignity after saying “God save the Queen”, but now I don’t know what the rules are.
I’m rooting for John Boyega just to piss people off even more when a white woman tries to seduce him and he remarks, “Pass.”.
He’s already said that he’s too old to play Bond – and he’s not British – but man, Claes Bang would be perfect.
Watching “Bad Sisters” at the moment and he’d defiantly be one of the great Bond Villains. He’s just so evil.
*definitely
Lazenby and Brosnan we not british.
“Lashana Lynch stole the show in No Time to Die as Nomi,”What movie were you watching? Not the same one as me apparantly. Daniel Craig was solid but Ana de Armas stole the show.
Lynch was also solid, but yes the only show stealer was de Armas.
Agreed, Lynch was good but nkt as dynamic. Maybe they write her to uptight (like a Bond).
I’d kill for a Paloma film. de Armas is just so fun to watch.
I expected Lynch’s character to take a turn as a villain and Bond would have to kill her, and that would’ve been fine. But I was pissed when I was expecting Paloma to be fridged.
i had my list on some post a while back so i don’t remember the whole thing but i’ll always push for my skins boys.
Speaking of Skins, Joe Dempsie could also be an option. At 35 he’s the perfect age for the 10 year run they seem to want.
I’d go for Madden though. Bonus points for actually being Scottish.
Are you me? These are my top two as well.
Dev could do it
They’re both great choices, and since Patel is sort of obviously good to most people, I’m just going to say, Nicholas Holt has low-key been amazing for some time now. His commitment to the part in The Great is one of my favorite things on TV right now. He kind of reminds me of Phoebe Waller Bridge in that they’re both beautiful, but have this weird energy and intelligence that you don’t expect coming from someone like that, and always up for taking just a little further and a little weirder.
I don’t know who this “Rege-Jean Page” is, but he’s dreamy and he can Bond my James any time.
He seems kinda young though.They could start with a Bond prequel.
It’s a pope job. You cast young, and run them until they get sick of it or they’re too old.
He is talented, gorgeous, charming and funny. Check out his SNL hosting gig from a couple years ago. He is definitely my choice to be the new Bond.
There can b only one:
Seems more like a Bond villain.That way he can eat all the scenery.
“BOND!”*magically transforms into an Aston Martin*
Hahahaa! I agree.
He looks too much like the villain from Moonraker to be Bond. But would give serious consideration for the role of Q.
If anything, a reimagined Octopussy can be a great supporting character in the next season of the show.
Goddamn it this is the greatest answer.
Ben Whishaw
Promoting Q to 007 status? Hmmm…
Simon Pegg has already paved the career path from tech support to field agent in the Missions: Impossible, so why not?
Because Simon Pegg’s character is terribly out of his depth as a field agent.
Only if he does the role as the bear. And no-one else in the movie mentions or seems to be aware that James Bond is a bear.
He’s obviously a twink
Too derivative:
I think he’d be more interesting as a villain, maybe do a play on the multiple 007 thing with Lashana and have him ultimately turn on her in a plot for a higher position in MI6.
It should be Cavill. And it should be set in the 60s.
Yeah, I’m sad we never got that sequel to The Man From U.N.C.L.E., too.
Ha, I actually had no idea.
Oh, have you not seen that one? Yeah, if not, Cavill’s great in it. It’s kinda queasy knowing what we do about Armie Hammer now, but you know, separate the art from the artist, etc. Would still recommend.
I too thought you were intentionally making a Man from UNCLE joke
Nope, just saw him in the gallery, thought he looked great for Bond. I’ve loved the idea of retro Bond since I heard Tarantino once wanted to do it.
I mean, just make another Man from U.N.C.L.E. at that point. (And recast the cannibal.)
Hammer is actually good in that role, in his defence
No, it should be Lashana Lynch, but they hobbled her badly in No Time To Die, so it might as well be Riz Ahmed.
Lashana Lynch can be The Man from UNCLE’s new but no less skilled new partner The Girl from UNCLE.
Lashana Lynch should play James Bond? What?
“they hobbled her badly in No Time To Die”By giving her a well-liked, star-making role? By trying to tell a story than a glorified commercial for a never-ending extended universe of spin-offs?
I’m as big a Bond fan as I feel like is healthy or safe, and since I can’t seem to get myself out of the greys for a normal post I’ll leave this here:
Jack Bannon
I feel pretty certain I’m the only one pushing this but his Alfred in Pennyworth is like a perfect audition.
I don’t know about Cavill, but a ‘60s Bond? Why not? We got several “modern” Bond movies with Craig, so go for a big change!
“No, Armie, we want you to chew the scenery…”
A ageing, balding, no-talent charisma-vacuum?No thanks.
The time has come for an American James Bond.
So Ethan Hunt, Jason Bourne, Jack Ryan and Remo Williams aren’t good enough for you?
“So Ethan Hunt, Jason Bourne, Jack Ryan and Remo Williams aren’t good enough for you?”
Which of those is James Bond?
I will not stand for this Barry Nelson erasure.
Time has come for British Dominic Toretto.
“I live my life 2/5ths of a kilometer at a time.”
If it means they replace the watery piss of Corona with a proper British ale, I’m in.
Give Felix Leiter his own movie!
Rege-Jean Page. End of list!
Why in the world would anyone want to dedicate the next ten years of their life to any role
Money, marquee status, and/or launching pad for either bigger or personal projects in the future. Chris Hemsworth went from Australian soap actor to, well, Chris Hemsworth.
Yeah, would Daniel Craig be getting big roles if he wasn’t Bond?Seriously, I don’t remember if he was a star before Bond.
Are you kidding? He had a breakthrough role on the major TV hit, NEW WORLD ZORRO!
Not to mention a brief role on Sharpe where he tries to kill Sean Bean’s character- for once, Sean Bean survives.
Well, hey, how about Sean Bean then?(no idea if he’s British, but with a name like that, he has to be close)
You forget the third best James Bond movie Golden Eye? He could come back as 006 tho
Oh shit, I did forget he was in that.So then yeah, make it a prequel to GoldenEye about him.
Did you know that in England it’s pronounced “Shawn Byawn”?
Almost 70% of the time, Sean Bean survives all of the time.https://nerdist.com/article/does-sean-bean-really-die-more-than-other-actors/John Hurt on the other hand …
He was a character actor before.
He was fairly well-established as a supporting actor before taking the lead in a well-received British crime drama (Layer Cake) so he probably would have been all right, if not the level of famous he is now.
He was getting lead roles in movies, yes. He was well-known and successful, though not to the extent he is now.
He was getting lead roles in movies, yes. He was well-known and successful, though not to the extent he is now.Yeah, even taking out the 9 figures he made for playing James Bond, he probably wouldn’t have been making 9 figures for the Knives Out franchise either. I’m sure more Layer Cake and Tomb Raider roles would have been available, though.
I remember him from Road to Perdition and Munich, but he obviously wasn’t the star of either. Looking through his filmography I honestly thought he was a bigger name by Casino Royale, but that definitely seems to have been his breakthrough. All is memorable roles came after.
Yeah, would Daniel Craig be getting big roles if he wasn’t Bond?Seriously, I don’t remember if he was a star before Bond. Layer Cake & Munich? Possibly Golden Compass, depending on when they started filming?
I don’t know if Craig was quite a full-fledged “star”, but he was certainly ascending to stardom when they announced him for Bond.
He was.
He had roles, Layer Cake was a great movie, but no way was he a star.
Still not as cool as his oyster-farming cousin. And I say that as someone allergic to oysters.
Money? Fame? Prestige? Money? And did I mention money?
holy christ imagine dedicating ten years of your life to a stable job, how unfathomable
Ask Robert Downey Jr., that is, if he can hear you inside is Scrooge Mcduck money bin that I’m sure he keeps the Iron Man dough in
Craig made five Bond movies in 15 years, and still made a bunch of other movies in that timespan. That’s not an ask that’s going to put a bunch of restrictions on one’s career.
One thing that Bond casting wish lists forget is that for every Bond, that was the biggest role of that man’s career up until that point. Connery was barely making it in Hollywood. Moore was a TV star. Lazenby was a model. Dalton was a highly respected character actor and Shakespearan mainstay. Brosnan’s biggest thing was Mrs. Doubtfire and NOT getting Bond in the 80s and Craig was like the fourth bad guy in Tomb Raider.That’s how you get someone to commit to 3-4 movies and 10-12 years. Cavill and maybe Madden (depending on how you feel about MCU/Game of Thrones relative to Bond) could be out.
Why in the world would anyone want to dedicate the next ten years of their life to any role
I can’t see that photo of Grace Jones without remembering the story of her torturing Roger Moore by hiding an enormous dildo in the sheets of the set bed they had to film in, and constantly poking him with it. Good times.
RDJ played Iron Man for 10 years.
Why in the world would you make such a daft comment?
Fame? Money? Mostly money.
I’ll do it. I’ve been in my current role for 17 years.And I have to do that for 8.5 hours a day, 5 days a week. I think playing Bond would be a figurative breeze.
Yes, why *would* an actor want a steady paycheck.
I can’t think of a single reason…
Mountains and mountains … and mountains of money.
You want a guy notable to score the role, but not so famous as to consume it (which is why I’m not for Elba or Hiddleston – I’d only see them as such instead of 007), they should be just incognito enough to see 007 first, actor second.So Rupert Friend would be perfect, actually.
I’m not familiar with Rupert Friend, but the logic is solid.
Ah Rupert Friend, the mortal enemy of Willem Da Foe
“Rupert Friend would be perfect, actually”He auditioned for “Casino Royale” but was rejected.
“You want a guy notable to score the role, but not so famous as to consume it (which is why I’m not for Elba or Hiddleston – I’d only see them as such instead of 007)“
Why is there a need to pander to the morons who can’t separate an actor from a role?
Didn’t they make it extremely clear that they wouldn’t go with anything other than a white dude?
Gabriel Macht.
Henry Golding
I’m all in for Team Golding.
I see my Dev Patel for Bond campaign is starting to gain traction. Everyone else on this list can kick rocks.
I like Dev Patel too much for him to be stuck in this role for the next decade.
I would be really disappointed if he takes the role, because it would prevent him from doing more interesting stuff in his peak-hotness years. Baffled, messy fail-knight in a plotless, lyrical nightmare is about perfect; I would hate for him to leave this sort of project behind.
This goes for most of the more interesting choices on this list (eg. Riz Ahmed, John Boyega), which is why I hope they pick someone sufficiently bland.
While clicking through this stupid slideshow, the first name that I actually thought was really interesting AND might actually work was Riz Ahmed.
Why not all of them? I read an article, on EW I think, about ten years ago and they were discussing ways to reboot the franchise (they didn’t use the word reboot but that’s what they were going for).Among the usual things, (make him gay, make him a her, add sex, etc) one the ideas they tossed around was that “James Bond” was not a real person, it was a code name assigned to whoever was 007 at the time.
This would confuse the enemy and it would explain how there were so many different “James Bonds,” (Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, etc) throughout the years who never seemed to age.So in effect you could cast several of the people from the slide show and each one of them would be “James/Jane Bond, agent 007.”
That started out as a internet fan theory I think around the time Craig was cast. I always thought it was a solid idea. But apparently the Broccoli’s are dead set against it.
I’m not into the idea. I like the idea of it just being different interpretations. It raises the stakes when the continuity isn’t linear cuz the film can go anywhere.
For example *mild spoiler* that thing that happened at the end of No Time To Die. I fully expect the status quo to just reset in the next one.
For me Bond is kinda like Link in the Zelda series its just sorta hazy when you try to deduce how he fit all these adventures into his lifetime. Same with Batman.
Leaves the window wide open for anyone to just come in and write any new thing they want in their Bond story.
The one thing they’re getting right at this point.
“That started out as a internet fan theory I think around the time Craig was cast.”
I’m pretty sure there was talk like this when Brosnan was Bond.
Among the usual things, (make him gay, make him a her, add sex, etc) one
the ideas they tossed around was that “James Bond” was not a real
personLike Dread Pirate Roberts.And don’t the comics have all kinds of Spidermans?
Lots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_versions_of_Spider-Man
I believe the plural is “Spiders-Man”
Apparently, a group of Spiders-Man would be called a “cluster”.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animal_namesKinda disappointing. I was expecting a “fright” or something.
Well, now we know what an orgy of Spiders-man is called.
No, this is Spiders-Man.https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Spiders-Man_(Earth-11580)
The plural of Spiderman isn’t Spidermans, it’s Spidermanses.
Literally the plot of Casino Royale, but it could work with less than 5 directors trying to put it together this time.
the FIRST Casino Royale. agreed.
Either that or if there’s Agent 007, there should be more available agents between 001 and 009. And it would open the door to an Avengers style team-up tent pole that all the big studios are looking for these days.
I think a crossover to include Agent 13 (along with 86 and 99) could work.
They’ve included other double-o’s in previous films before, so there’s precedence for that. Sean Beans character in Goldeneye was a double-o before turning evil.
As was Javier Bardem in Skyfall, so that’s certainly still how MI-6 operates.
That too!
But would 001 be more “double-0-ish” than 007? Could be a little catty, “Oh…001 gets the cooler gadgets cause M likes them better”.
Also, the idea that James Bond is not a real person completely screws up the James Bond Jr. franchise. Speaking of which, why exactly was was James Bond the UNCLE of J.B. Jr. anyway? Were American kids in the 90s not ready for a James Bond who fucks? I mean, even when I was a toddler I figured James Bond probably had a kid or ten.
He wasn’t his uncle. That’s just what they told Junior, because Bond didn’t want to raise a kid. Sad story actually. Moneypenny had to raise the kid herself and it drove a wedge between her and James. Q spoke up once and Bond slapped him in the face right in front of everybody.
The AV club had a similar slide show several years ago, speculating how each actor could emphasize a particular aspect of 007’s character.Their most intriguing idea (to me) was Mad Mikkelsen, playing a shadowy, cold-blooded version of 007 whose license to kill isn’t so much at his discretion when necessary, but under orders as blunt instrument of the British government.It will never happen, but their description of this James Bond is one I would definitely want to see.
That actually sounds awesome. To bad he’s too old now and he already played a villain.
If you can find the article in the AV Club’s archives, the hypothetical scene they illustrated sounds like it would be the greatest James Bond film that will never happen.Mads also played a similar character in the excellent WWII Danish film Flame and Citron.There’s a slight chance I’m remembering this wrong, and the article was actually on Slate, but I’m pretty sure it was the AV Club.
They’ve canonically ruled this out though, by having Moore and Dalton’s Bond explicitly reference Tracy’s death and Brosnan’s kind of obliquely doing it. (Elektra asks him if he’s lost someone and his eyes go dark and he gets quiet. Could be Tracy. Could be Sean Bean.)
This never made sense to me. How does all agents 007 being named James Bond “confuse” the enemy? It’s a red flag that the moment a James Bond walks in, there’s a decent chance he’s 007. Why does he use other aliases if James Bond is already an alias?
Fan theories these days are basically conspiracy theories. The people who come up with them ignore logic and precedence to make their theory seem legit. The fact is, it’s well established that James Bond is his real name. M referring to him as “James” instead of his so-called real name when they’re alone and characters who knew him as a child also calling him James should have put that theory to rest long ago.
The fan theory kind of fit ( “the other guy never dealt with this kind of thing “) , and it was around long before the internet, At least until Skyfall (I think) which mucked it up completely by showing his ancestors graves . Except the Craig films shared an M (and a few other things) with the Brosnan era movies , which now made no sense. So yeah blame the writers.
I still believe that had the name James Bond been a cover, Ian Flemming himself would have mentioned it in the novels. So to me, the fan theory was dead on arrival.
“M referring to him as “James” instead of his so-called real name when they’re alone and characters who knew him as a child also calling him James should have put that theory to rest long ago.”
Yes, because if you knew someone as a child, there’s no way that you could find out the name they’re currently using, and if you did you wouldn’t use it.
Right?That’s your logic?
The “It’s not a name, it’s a code word” theory has always baffled me since it doesn’t line up with what we see in the movies. Why would Connery’s Bond go on a roaring rampage of revenge against Specter in Diamonds Are Forever when it was Lazenby’s wife that was killed? Why would Moore’s Bond be visiting her grave in View to a Kill? Why would Dalton’s Bond get melancholy at catching the garter at Leighter’s wedding in License to Kill? Why would Brosnon’s Bond get quiet when past love came up in – I think it was Tomorrow Never Dies?
For that matter, between Bond visiting his childhood home in Skyfall, and the Bloefeld backstory in Spectre, it’s pretty well established that James Bond is a real person (in universe).
“Why would Brosnon’s Bond get quiet when past love came up in – I think it was Tomorrow Never Dies?”
Because, whether the other movies are canon or not, it’s likely that someone in his line of work would have lost someone.
As someone else said, this was a fan theory that was getting pretty popular like a decade ago, and the Broccolis and their creative team hated it… Skyfall basically blows it up by showing Bond is his family name and going to the Bond estate.Not that these movies are ever bound by continuity, but can’t imagine them backpedalling to revive this theory
i haven’t heard a single choice yet…….that comes close to MICHAEL FASSBENDER.
Dude has gravitas just looking in any direction!
I’m all for more diversity but CREATE A NEW CHARACTER THEN.
Don’t make Bond another race or sex.
Yeesh.
I would think 007 would be assignable to whoever is in the chair at the time, but the name is specific to the individual. I’ve seen the fan theory plenty of times and that’s fun and all, but simply making different takes on the same character over 50 years doesn’t mean there’s been some sort of handoff each time.I’d go either Elba, Cavill or Ejiofor. Elba just needs to shave the gray stubble and have the writers not make a big deal out of his age if they want to avoid Daniel Craig pt. II. Bond has always been a seasoned guy.
I feel like the continuity not exactly lining up from different Bond eras is a feature not a bug. I had a similar idea for them to just rotate new actors for each new Batman film and just stylize them totally differently. Maybe some films he dies etc. or takes new lovers. I’d love to see Michael Fassbender do a one off Batman film.
For me connecting the continuity like that ruins it. I don’t like the idea of them explaining why Bond looks different.
How about none of them?
That ridiculous theory would have to apply to Moneypenny too, since she’s been played by like 100 actresses. Not sure why MI6 would need to give the secretary a code name too, but it wouldn’t make sense otherwise.
I feel like as much as it’s time for a Bond of color or even a woman bond, it’s going to still be a cis white dude.
And ? If you want a non white dude create your own spy franchise.
Why? Daniel Craig didn’t create James Bond but he got to be in it.
Woman Bond makes no sense, but I think Bond of Colour is probably a good bet at this stage. And then MI6 can deal with all the people who complain.
I agree a Bond of colour actually strikes me as a possibility. A female Bond or a gay Bond, I think are ideas the producers simply would not take seriously. The casting of Bond has never been groundbreaking or something that no previous major spy movie hit hadn’t already done before (yes, I know there have been hit spy movies starring women, but…) They simply would worry (and probably rightly) that it would turn off too much of the existing fanbase.
A fan base, mind you, that collectively shit its pants when Craig was cast because he has blonde hair.
And was too much of a brute. Obviously the money-paying filmgoer didn’t mind.
Female or gay Bond would raise the question of “Why are we still calling this character Bond? Can’t we just come up with a new character, as we’ve just removed his defining characteristics?” A Black Bond, for example, could be played as substantially the same character – the colour would be (or at least should be) irrelevant.
They’d still piss and moan about a Black James Bond too. “Why are they putting politics into a franchise about international intrigue? It makes no sense! Just write a story about a small case b-lack spy and I’ll definitely go see it! Totally!”
No, no, no, no, no, PF: they highest accolade any minority can aspire to is become and be treated as a straight white person, not simply have their own stories told or be treated as who they really are.It’s totally not because this is the only way straight white people are comfortable with these sort of…uh…“people” existing.
“Female or gay Bond would raise the question of “Why are we still calling this character Bond?”
Why does a gay Bond raise that question?
I think a female or gay Bond the audience wouldn’t take seriously. This is a character with 60 years worth of history; the audience isn’t going to just magically jettison that.
A key element of being Bond is sporting the tux and fitting naturally into elite environments, which unfortunately made a BOC unrealistic in the first 30+ years of the franchise. A guy who carries himself like Elba or Ejiofor in 2022, though? No problem.
True. Maybe not popular in these times, but Bond is a character, and that character is a cis male. period. I could see a spin-off with some other types of agents, (female, gay, other) thats fine.
I think the Broccolis are screwed no matter who they pick. If it’s a cis white dude, a significant portion of the Internet is going to be up in arms about it, and if it’s someone who’s not a cis white dude, a different significant portion of the Internet is going to be up in arms about it. Terrible publicity either way.
Why in the world would anyone be mad if they cast a white man for a white character?Does every country’s film industry have to deal with this weird nonsense now? “Is it time for a black chinese emperor?” “Is it time for a woman Pancho Villa?”
Fuck the internet. its fucking JAMES BOND. It should always be a cis white guy.
I don’t think it matters one iota what the internet says about the casting of a new Bond. Cis or white, people will still go to see the movie. Nobody who wants to see a new Bond movie cares enough to not see the movie.
I don’t think a gay Bond is that far-fetched. Skyfall implied that Bond isn’t afraid to get down with the D.
How is that a problem? The character is literally a British white guy. We don’t need to reinvent him. I mean, we also don’t need any more Bond films, but that is a different issue
You’re probably right. I imagine that the Bond people are going to talk to Henry Cavill and Richard Madden *a lot*, even if neither ends up getting the role.
As much as I would enjoy watching the typical parties have an absolute meltdown over both of those casting scenarios, I really don’t even think Bond needs to be recast. Just have a new agent become 007 and carry on in the same continuity. But then you’re right, it’ll probably just be another white dude anyway.I just don’t need another reboot.
It should be. Thats what James Bond is.
And no its not “time for it”, people are so stupid with that bullshit. If they want a spy whos black or a woman, they should just make a new one instead of hoping for a built in audience based on the name.
No thanks. After being excluded from major roles in Hollywood until recently, no thanks. If a white actor gets the privilege of just sliding into a majorly bankable role without having to build it from the ground up, we want to, too. And the next Bond might not be Black, but one of them will be, and you’re just gonna have to live with it.As for “That’s just what James Bond is,” you’re giving major Megan Kelley ranting about how “Santa Claus just is white” vibes.
Bond’s white male privilege is inherent to the character. Blackness (or any non-white color) is not a costume, even for a fictional character, to put on.
“I feel like as much as it’s time for a Bond of color or even a woman bond”
Why?
Honest question, why is it “time” for a gender/ethnicity swap of any character?
I predicted Regé after I saw him host SNL like 2 years ago. He checks off the most boxes.
Richard Madden would be a good choice, but I feel like him being “sort-of” closeted would be an issue.If he were publicly out I don’t think it would be an issue but if he got the job, he’d have more attention on him and his being in a gay relationship would be seen as some kind of scandal. I feel like producers wouldn’t want that.
I see your point, but I dunno… I’m still not sure a lot of Bond’s audience would accept an openly gay actor in the role. However if it was someone that much of that audience didn’t really know was gay, cynically, I think that would be less of a problem.
True. I just think it’s easy for him and Froye to fly under the radar at their level of fame, but with a role as big as Bond? No way. He may not be professionally out, but they don’t necessarily hide their relationship, so it would quickly be exposed.Sadly, I think it would be treated like some “scandal”. He really would be a great Bond, though, as would Cavill and Page.
Froye?
His boyfriend Froy Gutierrez. Sorry, I misspelled it before!
Froyo?
They should do a one-off Bond movie with Matt Berry as a Bond who mostly sits at a piano. Cleanse the palette and then they pick whichever young action is going to be stuck in the role until 2035.
I don’t want May Berry as Bond, I want Matt Berry as Steven Toast as Bond.
I would watch either.
All of these suggestions are terrible apart from Idris Elba. And his name’s been floating around since the Sony Pictures hack. Plus, he’s already stated for the record that he won’t take the role.
And he’s too old.
Just cast Idris and film a trilogy of Bond movies over the course of a year. Cruise can’t keep making MI movies, so he’s making ‘em two at a time now. And he’s older than Wilford Brimley was in Cocoon… 2!
Regé-Jean Page kind of has the same cachet that Pierce Brosnan did in the 80s when he was *almost* Bond – a hot TV-star known quite well to American audiences but no box office record. Dev Patel has a bit of the Daniel Craig in 2006 vibe – supporting roles and a few star turns but more on the cusp of a household name. Either would be a lot of fun to see in the role (as would some of the other names on the list). They both have a different energy than we’ve seen from Bond in a while. But what sort of energy does the Bond franchise need?
I think “who” plays Bond is less interesting than what the producers plan to do with the property. The Craig movies started out with a bang but dour Bond movies that were mostly *about* Bond but also didn’t really have anything to say *about* Bond lost their lustre quickly (though I’m in the minority who thinks SKYFALL was MST3000-levels of terrible beyond looking amazing.)
What does Bond have to offer modern audiences in the mid-21st Century? An extended expanded universe? (anyone really excited for MONEYPENNY: THE SERIES?) Exotic locales and fantastic stunts? (can they compete with the living CGI character that is Tom Cruise?) More tut-tutting Bond’s misogyny while continuing to have him sleepily abuse and discard women? (Craig 2.0?) A Bond with a social conscience? A Bond that takes its action cues from movies like John Wick? A return to goofy gadgets and puns? An old grizzled Bond wrestling with the ghosts of his past? A young, idealistic Bond who has just begun to gather ghosts of his own?
I’m curious, but not optimistic. But the next Bond actor will surely be chosen by how suited they are to the next Bond approach.
A return to goofy gadgets and puns?I think it would behoove Broccoli and co. to get them an actor who can do both the grittiest Bond and the goofiest Bond. Part of what’s made the franchise last as long as it has is its willingness to adapt and change. That meant wild tonal changes throughout the seventies and early eighties, and while Roger Moore is mostly remembered for his silliest movies, he was perfectly capable at taking the material seriously.
I hear you, but I also feel like geopolitically speaking Eon have been given 10 yrs of material in Russia or China related themes. It’s almost a return to Connery era shenanigans.
Regé-Jean Page comes with one drawback: he has no charisma and can barely act. Does he look beautiful? No doubt, but I’d prefer my Bond to be able to act, thanks
“I’m in the minority who thinks SKYFALL was MST3000-levels of terrible”God, the commentators on this site are fucking brain-dead.
I think who plays Bond is less interesting than who plays… Felix Leiter. In a weird way, I think the actors who played Felix always paired pretty well with their Bonds. It’s a lowkey important role, as that character seems to put Bond in check more than any of the MI6 characters.
Hey, if the British keep taking our superhero jobs, I say it’s time for an American to take the role of James Bond!
With the exceptions of Hardy and Elba (and Cavill who I think might actually have the sadism for OG Bond) none of these options seem genuinely menacing and tough. Jack O’Connell for me.
O’Connell is a brilliant shout, because he’s a much better actor than most people mentioned here
Two simple rules for James Bond:1) Not a chick.2) Bangs chicks not dudes.That’s about it. Not that hard.
Lol or what? You’re gonna give the Broccolis a swirlie? Grow up.
Or what what?
What does having to grow up have to do with wanting a role to stay the same?
People who read the books, is it stated somewhere that James Bond is canonically a white British dude, before the usual train with crying people arrive?
Chris Pratt
It’s a-me! James-a Bond!
Worst suggestion ever.
Should there be a new Bond?
Cavill or Madden.
Only one trans any zero disabled bodies of color? Be better.
Out of that lot, I’ll vote for Riz.Where do we vote?
If you’re not going to take this seriously, don’t do it at all!
the incels (sorry, “Bond stans” or my personal favorite, “Fleming purists”) basically wet their pants when a “blonde” Bond was announced, and now you want to throw out a *gay* Bond? Do you want them to self-immolate? LOL
1) The media wet their pants when a blonde (and craggly-looing) Bond was announced. It was a very unpopular decision, until people saw the movie, and then everyone shut up.2) So, “incels” has completely lost its original portmanteau meaning, right? We’re just using it to describe whatever group of people complains online? Just want to make sure I use it right in the future.
Just so we’re clear, you’re now defending and standing up for incels now?
How in the world did you read that comment and come away with that impression? That sort of reaching takes practice!
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being involuntarily celibate. I think at one point or another, we’ve all been celibate involuntarily, if only for a short period of time. I’m sure JFK sometimes wished he could be having sex instead of sitting through a cabinet meeting, for example.The self-identified incel community that blamed women as the reason they were celibate? No, fuck them. But just so we’re clear, what do they have to do with the people mad that Daniel Craig was going to play James Bond?
Are you really that much out of the loop about what “incel” means these days and how they’ve been particularly awful and different about the next Bond than your typical Bond fan? Or is this your incel coming out party?
Are you really that much out of the loop about what “incel” means these days Apparently! The Twitter user who posted that deepfake of the new Ariel as a white woman decried “wokecels,” evoking the words “woke” and “incel” in a completely nonsensical way that renders both words meaningless. And how Bond fans reacted to a casting announcement in 2006 has anything to do with incels is beyond me. Hence the question I originally asked: has ‘incels’ completely lost its original portmanteau meaning? Or is this your incel coming out party?
Are you eye-rolling at the fact that you’re so obtuse to realize that incels also existed back in 2006 too and also hated Daniel Craig for the reasons that they’re hating black Ariel now? That only an dark haired, white “alpha male” should play Bond? Or are you that offended people are insulting your fellow incels?I’m gonna say yes to all.
I’m eye-rolling at the fact that you’re so committed to calling me an incel despite the fact that I already explicitly said fuck the incel community. And frankly, no, the reason people hated Daniel Craig is not for the reasons they hate Halle Bailey. The Right can hide behind ridiculous rationales for hating black Ariel all they want, but they’re still fundamentally racist reasons. My entire point was that everyone was hating on Daniel Craig. Of course there were some level-headed people that said, “Chill, let’s wait and see his performance,” but for the most part, his casting was received with the same level of disdain as Michael Keaton as Batman and Heath Ledger as the Joker. Were all of the people mad at those casting announcements incels too?Despite the term being coined by a woman, who created a space for people of all genders, incels are an inherently misogynist group that became more and more extremist during the 2010s. Fortunately, incels self-identified as incels, so that word was a pretty handy red flag. I don’t know what calling me an incel accomplishes for you. If you want to call people racists, call them racists. If you want to call them misogynist fucks, call them misogynist fucks. Call racist misogynist fucks racist misogynist fucks. Calling people you don’t know “incels” strikes me as a politically correct way to call people virgin losers.
“Calling people you don’t know “incels” strikes me as a politically correct way to call people virgin losers.”This is where I start eye-rolling you. And laughing.
Whatever, incel.
Calling someone a virgin loser is like, way harsh, Killa!Can they at least drive?
“And frankly, no, the reason people hated Daniel Craig is not for the reasons they hate Halle Bailey.”
Gatekeeping is gatekeeping, stupid. You can, for whatever reason you choose, pretend that the up-in-arms reaction to Craig as Bond was different than the up-in-arms reaction to Bailey as Ariel, but what exactly does it accomplish?
What is the benefit of separating two groups of people that, in a venn diagram, would basically be one circle?
Where on earth are you getting the notion that “incel” is being so stupidly misused?
The concept of self-identifying as an “incel” literally didn’t exist when Craig was cast, haha.
Whoo boy, what an embarrassing exchange this was for you. Completely destroyed.
Like “Incels” weren’t even a thing when Craig took over as Bond, haha – Reddit was only a couple of months old when the casting was announced!
The idea of “involuntary celibacy” itself of problematic. It gives the idea that you are somehow owed sex. You can’t be involuntarily celibate. Celibacy is a choice to abstain from sex. If you just aren’t having sex because no one will have sex with you, you’re just not having sex because no one will have sex with you. Calling it involuntary celibacy removes your obligation to look at why no one will have sex with you and to change your personality and your approach toward the gender you want to have sex with. When you call it “involuntary celibacy” you put the blame on the people not having sex with you, making you a victim, and then eventually you grow to resent that population of people to an often dangerous degree.
The idea of “involuntary celibacy” itself of problematic.Absolutely. Even before the term was co-opted by an explicitly misogynist community, people who described themselves as “involuntarily celibate” were probably suffering from severely low self-esteem and depression. In my other reply to you I jokingly said that I was “technically an incel” but truthfully, that part of my life came before I first heard of the term or the community. I never blamed anyone else for me not having sex, and I don’t recall ever believing that I was “owed” sex, but man, my self-esteem, confidence, general confidence, all of that was in the pits. I’ve talked about it before, and I’ve wondered if I would have gravitated toward communities like incels or the MRA community that sort of preceded it. I think being young and in that headspace is what makes a lot of young men vulnerable.Not sure what they had to do with the reaction to the announcement that Daniel Craig was playing James Bond though.
Oh I didn’t realize that was a joke. Having low self-esteem is not good, and certainly male low self-esteem, a lot of it is due to the expectations we place upon boys regarding sex and dealings with women.
Another way toxic masculinity hurts men in addition to women.
Yeah, so let’s take phrases like “involuntary celibacy” out of our vocabulary because it just hurts everybody.
Let’s not call a group of random toxic people online “incels” because there are plenty of misogynist men in sexual relationships.
I didn’t, and neither did anyone else call a group of random people online incels.
The OP did. You replied to them. he incels (sorry, “Bond stans” or my personal favorite, “Fleming purists”) basically wet their pants when a “blonde” Bond was announcedRobot_Jox also repeatedly called me an incel.
I also replied to you; that doesn’t mean everything you said should be ascribed to me. lol In any case, the OP wasn’t referring to a random group. They were referring to a specific group.
I said you replied to them to show that you saw someone call a group of random people online “incels.” And it’s a specific group of random people insofar as the only thing grouping them together is that they went online to voice their anger about Daniel Craig being cast as James Bond, which directly led to my question whether any group of angry people are now considered “incels.” Until the concept creep set in, there was precisely one group of incels: incels. So just calling any angry or misogynist person an “incel” doesn’t help anyone, much less people who track hate groups and extremist movements online.
Nah, I disagree. “Bond stans” and “Fleming purists” are pretty specific labels, and not “any group of angry people.” A group of people who are angry about a celebrity wearing fur would not be considered incels. A group of people angry about there never having been a Disney movie starring a Black person who wasn’t an animal or a ghost the whole time would not be considered incels. And I feel you are being purposefully obtuse to suggest it.As for calling just anyone an incel, you referred to yourself as “technically an incel” because there were times you weren’t having sex when you wanted to be having sex. Worry about your own “concept creep” before everyone else’s. Unless you’re trying to tell me that you are a part of that “precisely one group of incels: incels.”
I don’t know if you were around online or what you were doing in 2005 when Craig’s casting was announced, but a lot of people were upset about it. Not only did some people create websites to petition his recasting, there were people in the press mocking him. Again, I’m sure some of the people doing all of that were incels, but it wasn’t just “Bond stans” and “Fleming purists,” nor have I seen anything to suggest that Bond stans and Fleming purists are exclusively incels. There are toxic, misogynist assholes who stan James Bond and are capable of finding someone to have sexual intercourse with them. Pretending like it’s only the people who feel that they are owed sex but can’t find anyone to have sex with them who are responsible for every misogynist discourse online lets the rest of the garbage people off the hook. In other words, it doesn’t help anyone. A group of people who are angry about a celebrity wearing fur would not be considered incels. A group of people angry about there never having been a Disney movie starring a Black person who wasn’t an animal or a ghost the whole time would not be considered incels. And I feel you are being purposefully obtuse to suggest it. I’m not being purposefully obtuse; the logic seems thin to me. I feel like saying that Bond stans and Fleming purists who were mad that a blond man was cast instead of a dark-haired man are incels because the role is a womanizer is a stretch. The situation feels a lot closer to a group of people being upset that a Black person is starring in a Disney movie; it’s a group of angry people upset at an actor’s appearance. As for calling just anyone an incel, you referred to yourself as “technically an incel” because there were times you weren’t having sex when you wanted to be having sex. Worry about your own “concept creep” before everyone else’s.And you replied by saying that there was no such thing as involuntary celibacy. I was poking fun at that concept creep (which has already happened) by calling myself “technically” an incel – the same way in a reply to Robot_Jox I said John F. Kennedy was “technically” an incel during cabinet meetings. We agree that there’s no such thing as involuntary celibacy. I’m not sure why we don’t agree that using incel as a pejorative is unnecessary when fuckwad, toxic asshole, miserable shithead, and purposefully obtuse are all perfectly valid insults everyone can agree on.
“Again, I’m sure some of the people doing all of that were incels, but it wasn’t just “Bond stans” and “Fleming purists,”That might be true, but the OP was specifically referring to the Bond stans and Fleming purists, not just anyone who didn’t like the casting.And I wasn’t around online much during 25. I had just graduated law school and had a lot of excitement about having an adult job so I was dedicated to working. Now… not so much obviously.“I’m not sure why we don’t agree that using incel as a pejorative is unnecessary when fuckwad, toxic asshole, miserable shithead, and purposefully obtuse are all perfectly valid insults everyone can agree on.”Maybe, but I also don’t think everyone has to agree on the same insult, so it’s moot. And…you know, it is moot actually. I don’t want to give this discussion anymore energy. Not saying you personally aren’t worth talking to, just that I’ve given this particular topic all I care to give it. I trust we will come together in conversation again some day, and I look forward to it, as I’m sure you’re a reasonably nice person and I truly hope you have a nice day.
You always engage with me in good faith, and I appreciate that.
I’ll have to stop that. It’ll ruin my reputation.
If you read that comment again, the group of people they are really defending are people who complain about casting announcements that go against their own preferences – specifically, casting announcements that pertain to one white hetero cis male being cast in a role instead of a different white hetero cis male. Given that an incel’s defining trait is misogyny, I don’t think it really pertains to this situation.
Pretty sure he is defending language.
Nah, I feel like dudes who idolize white, cis het macho womanizing James Bond are absolutely likely to fit the original meaning of “incels.”
I- I… guess? I mean, I idolized him when he was a kid because he did cool shit and pulled lots of women, and I wasn’t having sex so I was technically an incel. Then I got older and realized that he’s a complete figure of fantasy, and fantasy figures generally shouldn’t be idolized. On the other hand, he’s a worldwide icon that has endured for decades. But I’m sure there are self-proclaimed incels who idolize James Bond. Not questioning that.
“and I wasn’t having sex so I was technically an incel”That’s not “technically an incel.” As I said, celibacy is a choice. You can’t be an involuntary incel unless you consider the choice something that was forced on you, and celibacy can’t be forced on you unless you believe you had a right to sex in the first place.
I mean yeah I think that would be best for everyone
Yes. Yes, we do.
I like Rahul Kohli for the role
I like Tom Holland but he’d be a very poor casting choice as James Bond IMO.
Same – he’s a charming actor with an action-star build, but he still looks like a kid. This was the issue with the Uncharted movie as well. I just don’t buy him as anything older than college-aged.
They could play into that though. If Craig was the “I’m too old for this shit” Bond, Holland could be “young, dumb, and full of cum” Bond.
Bond can be any box you want to check. But Bond HAS to be fucking fun again. Enough apologizing for Connery in the 1960s and Queen Victoria in the 1890s. Make Bond fun and Britain bad-ass.
I did not like No time to die, even if it had a couple of good scenes in it. One of the things I especially disliked was how they gave the 007 to a woman, who looked cool and badass, but then put her in more of a jobbe role. And in the end she willingly gave the tittle back to Bond. The actress as well cast but they basically squandered her just to make Craig’s Bond look. Good.
You mean a Bond film had Bond looking good? And she’s presented as a hero in the final act too.You don’t have to trash beloved characters to make others look good.
Cavill: go with what makes the most sense—a White man to put the customers in the theater seats.
Frank Stallone
This made me laugh out loud, thank you.
Idris maybe to old to do Bond for 10 years but maybe not. I would have loved if it was him.Emily Blunt is my pick! The way she carried Baby Tom Cruise around in Edge of Tomorrow was great!
Y’know Blunt didn’t originally grab me for Bond but I totally forgot how great she was in Edge of Live Die Tomorrow
Yeah, I’m joking a bit but she was so cool in Edge of Tomorrow that she should be a total spy kick ass leader in some movie. I loved her so much in that movie, what a badass.
Sicario is another one that shows her potential to carry a badass spy role. Bond is unlikely but someone should put her in the lead of an international thriller ASAP.
Abbie Cornish is another actress I think people are sleeping on that could do a badass spy role. She played a Secret Service agent in the otherwise forgettable Geostorm and an assassin in The Virtuoso (which nobody saw). She’s stone cold in both of them, without seeming like a piece of wood on screen. Hire her more, Hollywood.
What a strange career, she’s in two Anthony Hopkins movies that don’t exist
She was good in Sicario but lets be real Del Toro killed, pun intended, in that movie.
Two “Tom H.”’s on your list, and neither of them is Hiddleston.Tell me you’ve never watched The Night Manager, without telling me you’ve never watched The Night Manager.
After Loki, Hiddleston is a hard pass for me. He proved he is physically incapable of carrying an action scene.
Hiddleston and Laurie should both be Bond villains
Stephen Fry should be the next Q.
He was decidedly lightweight in The Night Manager
I think the following, in order, would be my choices:1. George Ahrendt
2. Michael Doherty
3. Stephen Covington
4. Bruce Michaelson
5. Riz Ahmed
Dev Patel lol. Nothing like James Bond getting bullied by the local high schoolers.
Larry David.
Since everybody asked,1. Dev. He’s great, and deserves it, and for some stupid reason studios aren’t giving him big enough roles. Killing it as a 00 for a few years will bull those gates down, and he can have any job he wants forever afterwards. And/or during. Plus let me reiterate — DEV IS AMAZING. Green Knight was robbed.2. Richard Madden. You can go watch a preview of this in the awfully-titled show “Bodyguard.” Bonus, he doesn’t seem busy. I dunno if he can pull off 100% of the roles in the world, but he can definitely pull off 100% of 007. 3. Tom Hiddleston. He might be the best of these three, frankly, and go watch Night Manager if you disagree, but it doesn’t seem like he’s in the right place in his career to step in without (a) being a distraction from the role, or (b) being too distracted FROM the role for the studio’s likings. I’d still cast a vote for Tom in spite of that, because he’s perfect. Unlike….The people who I’d love, but I’d rather they didn’t get it:1. Idris. If only they’d listened to me earlier. He was my top choice since Luther season 1. Alas, that ship has sailed. They could certainly find a role for him in the Bond universe (M?) and I’d hurl money at the screen.2. Tom Hardy. I have no doubt he’d slay the role, but it’s a waste. Tom’s an absolute chameleon, capable of doing anything — a Bond contract seems like asking him to do one thing for a decade or more. Unless they fundamentally change how Bonds operate to make use of his versatility, it doesn’t feel like a match.3. Henry Cavill. I selfishly want to see him in other things instead of Bond. MI:Fallout has certainly sold me on Cavill the Spy Guy, but at the same time…. does he seem like he could blend into any crowd anywhere? Specimen. Anyway. The people who I just don’t get:1. Chiwetel Ejiofor. I have only watched blockbusters with him in them. This is unfair. But uh…. I don’t see it, I don’t get it, I only ever see Chiwetel and no the character he’s playing. I should go watch the role he was nominated for, but I honestly haven’t yet, so what can I say.2. Tom Holland. He’s got spots.3. Matt Smith. House of the Dragon is doing him a lot of favors in my book, but it just ain’t working in my head. And lastly,1. Lady Bonds — I don’t think should be a thing. Lynch is 007 as we speak, and I’m happy to keep her there because she did great in the role. If we wanna keep continuity, Lynch shepherding the new agent “Bond” into 00 status could be a great run of fresh stuff. If we’re burning the continuity (and I think we probably are), Amazon has rights, and could make affiliated movies or shows about the rest of MI:6, which frankly would be more interesting than Another Bond Does Another Bond Thing anyway. They could just, y’know, go ahead and throw money at that kind of project instead, I’m 10000% game.
They should have every one of thees rumored folks take a turn at 007 in the beginning of the movie. Then the villain picks them off one by one until the new 10-yr Bond gets his turn and lives. So basically a 2 hr movie with like 10-20 007’s getting killed one by one for the first hour or so. Then the final runtime will be establishing the new permanent one.
Or crossover with Squid Game. The sole survivor gets to be Bond.
That’s pretty much the opening scene of The Living Daylights, Dalton’s first Bond movie.
Just basically a Red Sparrow James Bond.
Lean into the original and go with Johnny Depp – what better replacement for the drunk, violent, mush-mouthed “actor” who originated the role on film?
Amber?
interesting to not put Luke Evans in your list… he’s one of the favorites to inherit the role but René-Jean Page is probably the front runner…
Should be someone over 40. Don’t care who I just don’t want a young Bond.
Why do you hate Sean Connery? (He was 37 when You Only Live Twice came out.)
Hate 90% of that list ahah Not good fits at all.
Can’t we make more movies movies about Shaka Zulu impaling redcoats instead of having the gunmen for a colonizing imperial monarchy be more diverse
Allison Janney, aka The Jackal.
16 suggestions and none of them are Kingsley Ben-Adir. Tragic.
Oooh, yeah, he’d be very good. Has charm and gravitas
Tom Hardy, Tom Holland, Tom Hiddleston…Tom…Hanks… WTF Hollywood!
Since fan baiting is all the rage, I’m gonna say they cast black trans women with one leg and a lisp.
Here’s a few other ideas for potential Bondery:1. Matthew Goode – he was tremendous as Robert
Evans in “The Offer” so he’s got the acting chops – he has the swagger, charm
and physicality to pull off bond, and he’s the right age range (44).2. Dan Stevens – Another “Downton Abbey” alum with
the same pedigree as Goode above.3. Jamie Dornan – He’s certainly game for the
seduction element, after his “Fifty Shades” roles: plus youth and physicality.
Stevens would be my pick. He was awesome in The Guest.
Swap Rhys for Goode.THE AMERICANS FTW
My immediate reaction was that he would be mostly a Timothy Dalton-type Bond. Which… I actually don’t hate.
Riz and Richard are the only good choices on this list.
JACK BANNON
Why does that picture of Henry Cavill look like someone put “60% Henry Cavill, 30% Elijah Wood, 10% Bill Hader” into an AI art generator?
Tig Notaro
Brett Goldstein
“, and arguably must, have roots in the U.K.”I mean , by that logic Pierce Brosnan would have been disqualified?(Ireland , is 100% NOT in the UK ).Also as is tradition,here’s my nomination for Aiden Turner to be Bond
Paul Mescal for Bond!We all want to see a Bond wearing GAA shorts
By the way , I know Austin Powers basically killed off the “silly/lighthearted Bond Movies” but Jesus , I’m kind of emotionally worn out by the vibe of the super serious , intense Craig movies , the vibe of which could be summed up as “weary sigh”.*Something a bit more fun would be great .(I’m not saying they’re bad , the opposite , but the whole “I gave my soul and life defending my country , and now I’m an empty shell , dead inside , I stand with a drink in my hand and a beautiful woman on my arm and yet I feel ..nothing” thing needs a break for a bit)
Craig was worn out by it too, clearly
I think Bond movies started confusing “fun” with “goofy”. There is plenty of room to scale back on the dour Craig movies while avoiding invisible cars and Bond dressing as a clown.
I just hope they bring back Jay-Dubya Pepper.Preferably played by Timothy Spall.
Way too many people on this list suffer from the “can’t believably kick ass” problem. (Everyone I’m referring to is a man, to be clear.)
Why consider any human. Let’s have a gaseous cloud play James Bond and then use your imagination as to what James Bond looks like.
That’s a hard no on Matt Smith and Tom Holland. They’re both too baby faced and they both lack the necessary gravitas for a role like James Bond. Smith’s role as The Doctor showed he can have swagger, but it’s a jovial swagger, which again, not fitting for Bond.
They need someone with an athletic build, so why not an athlete? These guys are dressed for the occasion. The second guy from the left is the obvious UK-born choice, but the guy on the right suddenly has a lot of free time.
Fed could pull it off.
Madden or Cavill. None of the rest.
James Bond died in No Time To Die and he should stay dead. The end….Fin…Final curtain. The idea that there is no one capable of writing an original film in the spy/hitman genera that will capture the public’s attention is a perfect example of how lazy and crass filmmakers have become. And NOTHING is lazier than changing characters race, sex or sexual orientation and patting yourself on the back for being creative genius instead of brain-dead hucksters trying to use PC for a quick buck.
Riz Ahmed would be fantastic.
The answer is so simple and is staring them right in the face: Let them all be Bond. Instead of tying yourself to one actor for such a long time when you have multiple intriguing candidates, treat it more as a serial and make one film at a time, each with a different Bond. You could actually make more films that way (making more $, which what they ultimately care about), and if someone doesn’t really work, you’re not stuck with them. Or if they’re great, you give them a sequel.
Personally, I am in favor of Dev Patel with Rege-Jean Page second. Also, nothing against Lashana Lynch, but – *spoiler for No Time to Die* – given the way NTtD ended, I imagine that the whole series needs to be rebooted anyway. The idea of doing 007 movies in a universe where the first Bond (?) dies and leaves behind a lover and their child, while also killing Felix and Blofeld just seems weird and not good for the escapism that all the bonds prior to QoS offered. So the idea that she *is* 007 is true, but I imagine that the slate is going to be wiped clean.
A woman Bond makes no sense. That’s a different character. But beyond that, anything goes, I think.
Kevin Hart.Do it, cowards.
The female options are entirely moot. Broccoli has literally said Bond won’t be a woman. And she’s the last word on the Bond films. That’s not a value judgement on the idea, just a statement of fact.
Fuck it, just let Pedro Pascal do it.
Think it’s better to let James Bond rest for a bit.Make a spinoff, focusing on a new female agent instead. But can’t use the Bond name for her, has to be a new character. Bond is supposed to be a chauvinistic man. Make a trilogy with her and then the last movie can have the new Bond join in.
Oh fuck all that bullshit. If youre gonna have a black woman play james bond, how is that even james bond anymore? Just have her be a new spy if you want Lynch to be a spy.
The next movie should be about looking for James Bond, and he’s only found in the last minute, revealing he’s________________.
RePublished An hour agoFTFY
Yep.
Nobody — let something end for once.
Your mom.
Idris.
I always thought that Colin Salmon would have made a good Bond, but he’s probably too old now. I believe they have said they want a younger Bond.In that case I’d go for George MacKay
All good choices apart from Toms Hardy and Holland. Great actors but I don’t see them playing Bond.I’ll vote for Rege-Jean or Dan Stevens. When do we get to vote?
For your consideration.(Seriously, does anyone one honestly give a shit? Just go down to the pound and pick a handsome British dude. Any one will do.)
Helen Mirren? Tom Holland? Matt Smith? Emily Blunt? Who is making these suggestions. I mean Helen Mirren is just comical. Tom Holland??? Can we be sure that the next bond is not a teenage Olympic Gymnast? I know D. Craig wasn’t a big guy, but the next bond is not Tom Holland. Bond should at least be an adult.Look the next bond should be Richard Madden. He’s already the right age, he’s a relatively unknown…at least in the US and he’s Scottish. He’s the easy and right choice.
Tom Holland??? Can we be sure that the next bond is not a teenage Olympic Gymnast? I know D. Craig wasn’t a big guy, but the next bond is not Tom Holland. Bond should at least be an adult.Tom Holland is 26 years old.
James Bond should be true to the book in appearance, origin and character. It is so easy as there are so many candidates that fit that.
Fassbender, maybe Hardy. Requirements: tough, British, white, male, no baby-face.
OK. Just throwing this out there…..“The Multiverse of Bondness! No Way Home.” All the Bonds. All the Villain’s. All the madness. /s…wink wink.
As long as James Bond is a man. There, I said it. That’s the whole point of the character, and not a knock at women actors. — A female lead in a spin-off would be awesome, btw. I know its not so PC these days, but this is a fictional character and the whole basis of that character is male-ness.
George Lazenby
If age wasn’t such a big issue, I would say Richard Armitage. He’d be perfect for it. Maybe Matthew Goode or Matthew Lewis as options?
I love Helen Mirren, but seriously?! She’s more of an M type to me. Not trying to be ageist, but that choice seems ridiculous.
Nobody. Jame Bond was a character specifically tied to an era that is long since past and any new interpretations “for modern audiences” fail to capture the spirit of the character.
Not sure who the next James Bonds will be, but the next James Bond villain should be Tom Hiddleston or Cillian Murphy.We really missed out on having Alan Rickman as a Bond villain.
I literally do not care who plays James Bond as long as the producers give me some good movies. I just want good/fun James Bond movies regardless of who plays 007.