Henry Cavill is Too Famous to Play 007, Says James Bond Expert

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I know Richard Madden is on the list. But Bond might be a bit similar to that show he was in - The Bodyguard. Sam Heughan is another favourite as well.

Richard Madden is Robb Stark from Game of Thrones, right? And he's in a Marvel movie coming next year.

[caj]

If not Cavill, I wouldn't mind seeing Henry Golding (Crazy Rich Asians) or another British Asian actor take on the role.

[Rev9]

Matthew Goode is cool, he's 42 but guy just doesn't seem to age he could pass for 30 and he absolutely looks the part.

Alternatively Dan Stevens he's a great actor

[Starter Set]

Well, if they just want people who happen to be completely non famous i could make the effort to free my schedule for a couple of months.

If they ask nicely.

[ChrisIII]

Read an article once that stated that the Brosnan delay was good because after Remington he did roles with a bit more of a darker edge than what we saw with Remington Steele (with some exceptions, such as Mrs. Doubtifre, although he was sort of the villain in that).

If he got TLD he probably would've come off as a bit too similar to Moore, although Brosnan's post-Goldeneye films are often compared to Moore's regardless.

[Mark Trail]

Roger Moore had a TV show that was somewhat well known...
Pierce Brosnan again Remington Steele but unknown outside England.

Moore was was practically a household name to U.S. audiences for "Maverick" and "the Saint" and, in the 70s, was the highest paid TV actor in the world for the international hit "the Persuaders."

[Derek Metaltron]

Dan Stevens isn't a terrible choice actually - he's known but not as super famous as some, hasn't probably had a big ticket role outside maybe as Legion on FX (his role in Downton was a while ago now) and he's the right age. Plus he actually narrated Casino Royale, so we have technically heard his Bond voice before.

[DrNewGod]

Most Bond actors at the time they were cast were generally obscure and little known performers known for a film here and there.

Sean Connery was certainly not well known when he appeared in Dr. No.
George Lazenby had his first film I think.
Roger Moore had a TV show that was somewhat well known.
Timothy Dalton somewhat similar.
Pierce Brosnan again Remington Steele but unknown outside England.
Daniel Craig was known for character turns in Spielberg's Munich, Road to Perdition and other obscure stuff but hadn't taken off at all.

So yeah, while I think the idea of an expert or a scholarly journal dedicated to James Bond is silly...I sort of see the point.

Henry Cavill is Superman and Geralt. He's world famous and internet famous. You want to cast an actor who can make the audience see James Bond not "Superman and Geralt is now James Bond".

I can't agree with you across the board on that. I agree with you on Conner, Lazenby, Dalton and Craig. Others have addressed Moore, so I'll leave it to them.

I think you underestimate how visible Remington Steele made Brosnan. The show lost it's thunder to Moonlighting, but was widely watched in it's early run. On top of that, he had a very prominent role in Mrs. Doubtfire, and was lead in Nobel House and Around The World In 80 Days back when Big Three Network TV movies were still a big deal.

My nits having been picked, I agree with you and others that it would probably be best to entrust the role to a lessor known who can fit into it, rather than having to overcome a prominent extant image to make it work.

[Scott Taylor]

My nits having been picked, I agree with you and others that it would probably be best to entrust the role to a lessor known who can fit into it, rather than having to overcome a prominent extant image to make it work.

Brosnan didn't really work for me because my expectations of him were too high, for reasons you mention. I wonder if people who know Moore as Simon Templar had the same issue when he became Bond.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Brosnan didn't really work for me because my expectations of him were too high, for reasons you mention. I wonder if people who know Moore as Simon Templar had the same issue when he became Bond.

I can't agree with you across the board on that. I agree with you on Conner, Lazenby, Dalton and Craig. Others have addressed Moore, so I'll leave it to them.

I think you underestimate how visible Remington Steele made Brosnan. The show lost it's thunder to Moonlighting, but was widely watched in it's early run. On top of that, he had a very prominent role in Mrs. Doubtfire, and was lead in Nobel House and Around The World In 80 Days back when Big Three Network TV movies were still a big deal.

I think people overestimate or don't really get the difference between TV-famous and movie-famous which was a real thing until the Streaming Era and Prestige TV (these days it's not really a thing anymore by and large). It's the difference between being as famous as Bruce Willis or Arnold (during the heydey of Remington Steele), Steve McQueen or Clint Eastwood (around the time The Saint was on air) and being known for a TV show.

Movie famous is on a whole another level. So yeah, I feel comfortable saying that Roger Moore and Brosnan weren't too well-known before they played Bond.

Bond actors were generally young types who had made a slight name for themselves but not yet fully launched. EON likes to cast actors in that particular niche -- just about ready to launch and waiting for the right push, because that means they can get them cheap and they can get them loyal.

Remember of the Bond actors, only three - Connery, Brosnan, Craig -- have had notable movie careers (Brosnan less so than the other two but moreso than Dalton, Moore, Lazenby). Connery was the biggest star of the lot.

So EON would feel comfortable with their batting average in terms of picking talent because that way they gain prestige as a stable that launches actors to decent careers while also not making them dependent on courting the really top stars.

[Mark Trail]

I think people overestimate or don't really get the difference between TV-famous and movie-famous which was a real thing until the Streaming Era and Prestige TV...Movie famous is on a whole another level. So yeah, I feel comfortable saying that Roger Moore and Brosnan weren't too well-known before they played Bond..

Respectfully, I think you're confusing "fame" with "prestige." A TV actor could have been more famous that a film star (Lucille Ball, for example, was arguably the most well known actress in the world during the 50s, due to her TV show) but wasn't viewed as having the same level of prestige.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Respectfully, I think you're confusing "fame" with "prestige." A TV actor could have been more famous that a film star (Lucille Ball, for example, was arguably the most well known actress in the world during the 50s, due to her TV show) but wasn't viewed as having the same level of prestige.

Marilyn Monroe was far more famous in the 50s than Lucille Ball, back then and even today. Likewise -- Grace Kelly, Elizabeth Taylor.

[Immortal Weapon]

It seems the article is saying that Bond isn't a role for actors who already have name. Bond is something of a star making role so I can see that point.

[Somecrazyaussie]

Read an article once that stated that the Brosnan delay was good because after Remington he did roles with a bit more of a darker edge than what we saw with Remington Steele (with some exceptions, such as Mrs. Doubtifre, although he was sort of the villain in that).

If he got TLD he probably would've come off as a bit too similar to Moore, although Brosnan's post-Goldeneye films are often compared to Moore's regardless.

Brosnan delay was down to the network that made Remington Steele. That show was done. But, once news broke that they wanted Brosnan for the next Bond, they picked it up for a shortened fourth series. The accounts differ - some say they did it to be spiteful to Broccoli. Others to cash in on the hype to boost ratings/interest in the show (which is the logical reason). Broccoli went with Dalton and the rest is history until financial troubles hit and not seeing another Bond film 6 years after Licence with Goldeneye in 95.

Brosnan lucked out the second time because Dalton was prepared to do Goldeneye. But, because of the delay, he only wanted to do that one. The Broccoli's didn't want a "done-in-one" and wanted a actor sticking for the long-haul. So Dalton bowed out and Brosnan was brought onboard.

[Somecrazyaussie]

It seems the article is saying that Bond isn't a role for actors who already have name. Bond is something of a star making role so I can see that point.

They want a actor who isnt well known for two reasons - 1. They aren't tied up in any other acting work (franchises/tv etc) and 2. So they can pay them a pittance (until they get big and start demanding increases. But by that point they've signed for God knows how many films).