Jump to content

Who should replace Daniel Craig as James Bond? Vote now


snoop1130

Recommended Posts


Apparently there's a "twist" in the latest Bond film that has a lot of people unhappy. Brit Ekland (Mary Goodnight in Man With the Golden Gun) claims the twist "ruins the fantasy".

(Bond becomes a "Family Man".)

Not sure why they put Gillian Anderson in that poll. Maybe 10+ years ago when she was younger (hotter) and still riding her X-Files fame, but now ? Not who I'd think of as a "suave, sophisticated, athletic, womanizing super spy".

Especially not in the current "you have to out-Bourne Jason Bourne" era of movies (Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible, Matt Damon in the Bourne series, Jason Statham in the Mechanic and Fast & Furious series for example). 
I can't see Anderson being able to compete against them. Not too mention, probably not many want to see a sleazy woman sleeping with every handsome stud she encounters.

Surprised Jason Statham wasn't on the list of possible Bonds. He dresses up nice and is just as athletic as Craig (maybe more so in fact). Might not have the right "demeanour" for the role though.

Henry Cavill is another decent possibility. He dresses up nice as well and was OK in the latest Man from U.N.C.L.E. movie (as well as being the bad guy in the last Mission Impossible and being the latest Superman of course).
Can't be worse than Moore was in the role at least (the "Clown" Bond). Or Lazenby (the "Forgotten" Bond). Or Dalton (the "Angry" Bond).

Idris Elba would also make a great Bond and would keep the "PC" crowd happy. (For 2 hours or however long the movie is. Then they'd go back to finding fault with everything else in the world again.)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Who should replace Daniel Craig as James Bond?

Don't care. But the next Bond Girl is gonna be a ladyboy. Opening sequence:

Ladyboy snatches a thug's gold necklace while hammering a stiletto heel in his brain. Witnessed by Bond who promptly falls in love. dowderodo, dodododowderodo...

Edited by klauskunkel
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, billd766 said:

I read the Radio Times article and the only name I recognised was Gillian Anderson from the X-files.

 

Ian Fleming must be spinning in his grave about how the latest films have little to do with the original stories.

 

For me the best James Bond actor is a toss up between Sean Connery and Roger Moore.

That because you are old

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, billd766 said:

I read the Radio Times article and the only name I recognised was Gillian Anderson from the X-files.

 

Ian Fleming must be spinning in his grave about how the latest films have little to do with the original stories.

 

For me the best James Bond actor is a toss up between Sean Connery and Roger Moore.

Surely Pierce Brosnan!  Had the highest grossing figures before the current guy. ????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two viable options;

1. Dev Patel - Dashing  good looks, very English, black belt in a martial art, fits the  lean muscular physical requirement, very good with the public and offers an entry into  gaining access to the SE Asian market.  Bond films have historically been western market  targeted.  Patel would bring in new fans.

 

2. Nicholas Hoult - Same characteristics as  Dev Patel except he would be in the tradition of  Bond white males.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, n00dle said:

That because you are old

Very true. I am old (76) and picky about what I watch and listen too. Most of the movies nowadays relt more on special effects rather than good plots and good acting.

 

3 hours ago, thequietman said:

Surely Pierce Brosnan!  Had the highest grossing figures before the current guy. ????

Highest grossing figures doesn't means all that much when you compare prices from then and now. If you compare the cost to produce the early Bond films and compare it to todys prices you can understand why they need big numbers to get ROI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Very true. I am old (76) and picky about what I watch and listen too. Most of the movies nowadays relt more on special effects rather than good plots and good acting.

 

Highest grossing figures doesn't means all that much when you compare prices from then and now. If you compare the cost to produce the early Bond films and compare it to todys prices you can understand why they need big numbers to get ROI.

U R correct. 

 

Domestic Revenue After Inflation
 

 

Thunderball ($590 million)
Goldfinger ($514.7 million)
Skyfall ($358.3 million)
You Only Live Twice ($336.4 million)
Moonraker ($262.5 million)
Die Another Day ($259.6 million)
Tomorrow Never Dies ($255.8 million)
From Russia With Love ($249.8 million)
Diamonds Are Forever ($248.8 million)
Casino Royale (2006) ($239.5 million)
The World is Not Enough ($234.1 million)
GoldenEye ($229.3 million)
Spectre ($222.4 million)
Quantum of Solace ($219.7 million)
Octopussy ($202 million)
The Spy Who Loved Me ($196.8 million)
Live and Let Die ($187.3 million)
For Your Eyes Only ($184.7 million)
Casino Royale (1967) ($177.3 million)
Dr. No ($177.1 million)
Never Say Never Again ($164.9 million)
On Her Majesty’s Secret Service ($150.3 million)
A View to a Kill ($132.8 million)
The Living Daylights ($122.7 million)
The Man with the Golden Gun ($105.1 million)
Licence to Kill ($81.8 million)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.











×
×
  • Create New...