The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[quantex]

Pattinson is all wrong for Bond. He looks like a wanna-be-weird Goth guy working in a tattoo shop, then visits dingy clubs at night, watching hack cover bands of The Cure.

[bjmdds]

Correct, our forum's Q! He is 40 as well so Aidan Turner is only 3 years older so the notion that he is aged out by the director when a 40 year old is now in serious consideration is ludicrous. Let them make the offer to Aidan and let him turn it down, but seeing where this is going forget it.

[bjmdds]

--he is having FUN with choosing 5 clowns?

Apart from Aidan Turner and presumably Henry Cavill, who would be on your shortlist then if you were in charge? Or is it a case of cast Aidan Turner or end the franchise?

Aidan Turner did an interview several years ago in which he said he wasn't much of a Bond fan and wouldn't enjoy a part like that because he likes his privacy and doesn't want to become too famous. I'm not sure he ever wanted the role.

Theo would be better than any of the 5 clowns and he is only 1 year older than Edward Cullen!

[bjmdds]

Bottom line there a SEVERAL better choices for actors in their late 30s-early 40s to choose from other than romper room rejects.

[Kristatos]

Let them make the offer to Aidan and let him turn it down.

How do you know they haven't already?

Sent from my SM-S938B using Tapatalk

[Kristatos]

One advantage of casting Pattinson is that it would make yet another rookie Bond origin story less likely. I'm waiting to hear how they handle the reboot as much as I am the new casting. Villeneuve is said to favour a return to standalone stories, and I'm hoping this is the case. Ideally, I'd like a soft reboot that allows us to believe, if we so wish, that this is a return to the floating timeline that existed before Casino Royale, and that the Craig films exist in their own parallel timeline.

[bjmdds]

According to Deadline writer Justin Kroll, who helped break the news that Pattinson and Hoult were surprise contenders for the role of 007, Amazon MGM, which will produce the 26th official James Bond film, will announce their pick in the coming weeks. Then, the entertainment journalist stated when he expects the casting to be formally announced. “Expect a decision before Thanksgiving,” he added.........I predict a Thanksgiving TURKEY of a choice! MP, get ready for Sweeney's return shortly when the announcement is made.

[Kristatos]

While I have my reservations about Pattinson, I think he might be the best option of the five available.

Sent from my SM-S938B using Tapatalk

[bjmdds]

From bad.....to....just as bad!

[Jake]

From bad.....to....just as bad!

Ok, let's not get carried away here. No one is as bad as Craig.

Pattinson at least fits the tall, dark, and handsome image people have of Bond, which is why he seems to have immediately become a frontrunner online. Anecdotal, of course, but he's the first of the rumored contenders I've seen elicit any kind of positive response among the public.

It feels like Henry Cavill was probably the last time there was a popular contender who met the kind of classic Bond criteria most of us would prefer. I'm not really sure who I would pick, as most of the actors working today would likely just be some variation of the ones already on the shortlist.

For example, I'd be happy with Theo James but he recently ruled himself out as being "too old" and suggested Anya Taylor-Joy should be the next 007! (He's reportedly still in the mix, so hopefully he was merely joking to avoid any further questions about the subject!)

[Kristatos]

Ok, let's not get carried away here. No one is as bad as Craig.

I think Callum Turner might be. Maybe Josh O'Connor as well, but he seems to have taken himself out of contention: https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a7440 ... turn-down/

Sent from my SM-S938B using Tapatalk

[bjmdds]

From bad.....to....just as bad!

Ok, let's not get carried away here. No one is as bad as Craig.

Pattinson at least fits the tall, dark, and handsome image people have of Bond, which is why he seems to have immediately become a frontrunner online. Anecdotal, of course, but he's the first of the rumored contenders I've seen elicit any kind of positive response among the public.

It feels like Henry Cavill was probably the last time there was a popular contender who met the kind of classic Bond criteria most of us would prefer. I'm not really sure who I would pick, as most of the actors working today would likely just be some variation of the ones already on the shortlist.

For example, I'd be happy with Theo James but he recently ruled himself out as being "too old" and suggested Anya Taylor-Joy should be the next 007! (He's reportedly still in the mix, so hopefully he was merely joking to avoid any further questions about the subject!)

Please, no MUMMY-dearest as Bond either!

[bjmdds]

Big Ears, who is more Vulcan than Bond, should do commercials for Q-tips!

[bjmdds]

Idiot oozes Bond.......NOT!

[kater23]

They’d probably make RPatz sparkle. Bonddoesnotsparkle.com?

[James]

Article by the 'insider' Matt Belloni of Puck News.

https://puck.news/hollywood/2026/11/the ... james-bond

One James Bond Choice Makes Perfect Sense

He’s already a star. He’s already played Batman. He’s going to cost a fortune. Despite breaking a host of the franchise’s long-held rules, there’s an argument that Bond 26 should cast—and maybe needs to cast—Robert Pattinson.



You’ve gotta be as sick as I am of the James Bond casting circus. At this point, would you be surprised if Amazon requires finalists Nicholas Hoult, Jack Lowden, Josh O’Connor, Robert Pattinson, and Callum Turner to face off in a televised Olympiad of strength, marksmanship, martini-shaking, and bowtie tying? I’m guessing the show would far out-rate whatever Beast Games does.

No, it’s not a shock that the first Bond search of the social media era would quickly devolve into a swamp of clickbait speculation, hilariously long Daily Mail headlines, and constantly updated Kalshi odds. But yeah, I think we’re all ready for this to be over. And now that the process has indeed neared its end—barring hiccups, we’ll get an announcement before Christmas, presumably via white smoke from the Laurel Grill outside the Amazon MGM lot—it’s worth looking at the why behind the casting, not just who might get the job. Because a strong case can be made that one choice makes the most sense for Amazon MGM and director Denis Villeneuve.

Yeah, that’s Pattinson. Disagree? Let’s start with one overlooked element here: the test deals. The potential 007s all signed contracts granting Amazon MGM their services on this film (Bond 26, in the parlance of the franchise), plus options on subsequent movies. That’s standard for franchise films of any decent size. Daniel Craig, when he tested for Bond, signed on for one film and three optional follow-ups (that contract was later renegotiated).

But the test deals here were not all the same, per three sources familiar with the dealmaking. O’Connor and Lowden, for instance, were required to sign up for four Bonds, if chosen. Pattinson, on the other hand, was able to lower that commitment to three (plus a whole lot more money than the others), given his stardom. So whoever is chosen will confer upon Amazon MGM different rights to their services. That’s only a problem in success, of course, and I doubt, given the stakes here, that the filmmakers would choose their Bond based on who’s cheaper. But unlike with previous installments, it suggests the studio is willing or even eager to sacrifice a bit to get a “name” star to front its most important franchise.

And why would that be? There’s a theory going around that Villeneuve and producers David Heyman and Amy Pascal wouldn’t have gone through the trouble of bringing in established stars like Pattinson and Hoult if they were happy with the less well-known guys. Rob and Nic definitely tested after the others, though Pattinson was always a name Villeneuve wanted to see. And Pattinson’s test deal was so difficult to close, per two sources familiar with the process, that some involved were left wondering why the filmmakers would bother if they didn’t really want him.

After all, of the six men who have played Bond in the 64-year history of the franchise, only Pierce Brosnan (and maybe Roger Moore in the U.K.) was a known entity—Brosnan having played a suave, frequently bowtied detective on TV in Remington Steele before starring in four Bond movies from 1995 through 2002. Craig was a British character actor whose work in Layer Cake caught the attention of Eon’s Barbara Broccoli.

Of the many “rules” for the franchise through 25 films—the hokey opening credits sequence, the calls from M, the drinking, the gambling, etcetera—perhaps the most significant was always that Bond himself has been the star attraction, not the actor playing him. In fact, Broccoli made it known to those in her orbit that she liked Pattinson for Bond around the time that No Time to Die, the final Craig pic, was gearing up to shoot. Then he was announced as Batman, and she quickly lost interest.

But, honestly, the times are just different now—for several reasons. First, and still most amazingly: The Broccolis are gone, having been bought out by Amazon in February 2025 amid an increasingly contentious relationship. So any of the “rules” we thought governed the franchise have disappeared with Barbara and her half brother, Michael G. Wilson. Their exit means Amazon MGM and the filmmakers need only answer to their creative instincts, and the famously opinionated fans—especially in the U.K. They’ve been quieted so far by the hiring of a stylish blockbuster auteur in Villeneuve—himself a departure from the journeyman directors that the Broccolis tended to hire to execute their formula. (Though Barbara actually courted Denis for No Time to Die when the financing on Dune was still in question, ultimately choosing Cary Fukunaga once Dune got the greenlight.)

As I wrote back when Denis was hired by Amazon, if you can’t get Chris Nolan, who could’ve handed the role of Bond to Cillian Murphy or Tom Hardy or Tom Holland without anyone daring to challenge his judgment, Villeneuve is the next best thing, and whoever he picks as Bond will at least get the benefit of the doubt from the fans.

Denis has a relationship with Pattinson, of course, having directed him in the third Dune movie. But there’s a decent, if somewhat contrarian, argument that Bond 26 kinda needs a star of his caliber. Not needs, necessarily, but would benefit greatly from a star. I know… that’s why you hire Denis, to avoid that pressure. And… it’s Bond! The character is arguably way better without some star’s career baggage.

But think about it. No franchise is bulletproof anymore—everything is vulnerable and most can be helped by a value-add element, like an established star. It’s why Universal plopped Scarlett Johansson into its biggest franchise, Jurassic World, and why the town’s biggest franchise filmmaker, Nolan, stacked The Odyssey with A-listers. Bond has always been enough to sell itself. Now? Maybe it needs to be so-and-so as Bond.

If you’re Prime Video head Mike Hopkins, you sold the Amazon board on paying $8.5 billion to acquire MGM with the Bond franchise as the crown jewel… then acknowledged that you didn’t actually get Bond because you didn’t control the creative output and your top executive at the time, Jen Salke, blew up the relationship with the family who did, and so you had to pay another untold ransom to make the Broccolis go away.

You and film chief Courtenay Valenti now have full control, but the eyes of the world are focused on this casting process—with Jeff Bezos, of all people, tweeting “Who’d you pick as the next Bond?” So this movie has to work. No excuses. Why would you not push your filmmaking team for a star who brings an audience and a curiosity factor to the whole endeavor?

Plus, the Bond fan base is aging, and Pattinson’s audience skews younger. Forget his all-quadrant stardom from The Batman to The Odyssey or Dune: Part Three—at 40, he’s the oldest of the five finalists, but he uniquely represents both Millennial nostalgia from the Twilight movies, and a relevant, “established” star to younger audiences. He just pushed the R-rated dramedies Primetime and The Drama (with Zendaya) to $62 million and $135 million worldwide, respectively. He’s on the A24 Mount Rushmore. And, yes, while it would be weird and potentially cannibalistic for Batman and James Bond to be the same guy, the currently shooting The Batman: Part II may be Pattinson’s last turn in the cape and cowl.

Even before director Matt Reeves was temporarily replaced by Steven Soderbergh due to a personal issue, Reeves had fallen far behind on the project, which eventually pushed the release date to February 2028. It’s hard to believe that Skydance, and its new DC president, Jeremy Latcham, will go down that path again. Indulging a lengthy timeline on the company’s number one franchise is probably not an option for the debt-laden Skydance. And without Reeves, Pattinson is unlikely to continue in the role, I’d guess.

Further, there’s something to be said for a star who is tested and vetted against media scrutiny. The British tabloids already seem to be publishing multiple stories a day on every incremental comment or meeting or non-denial denial by the finalists. (At various times, The Daily Mail has basically anointed Jack O’Connell and Jacob Elordi and Aaron Taylor-Johnson, none of whom was ever seriously considered.)

The U.S. media has similarly embarrassed itself with the volume of coverage. Villeneuve has been in L.A. this week for a LACMA tribute and the Governors Awards, and even his various no-comments get their own breakout stories. It’s a far cry from back in 1994, when the Broccolis simply summoned the international press to the Regent hotel in London to unveil Brosnan as their guy.

My point is this is only the beginning. Remember, fans hated Craig when he was announced in 2005 via press conference after being whisked down the River Thames aboard a military speed boat. He was the “blond Bond,” his eyes were too blue, and an online boycott petition drew 100,000 signatures. Imagine if those haters had TikTok and X accounts. It’s arguably too much to place on the shoulders of a relatively unknown actor.

Pattinson, by contrast, is used to it. He’s been a star since 2007. He survived the initial backlash to his Twilight casting and the infamous Entertainment Weekly cover. He’s been Batman and established indie cred via auteur filmmakers like Robert Eggers and David Cronenberg and Claire Denis. He’s more than equipped for the scrutiny. (He also isn’t on social media, which I’m increasingly convinced is the key to maintaining movie stardom and sanity.) Honestly, my biggest surprise when I heard he had tested for Bond casting director Nina Gold was that he’d agreed to test at all. Pattinson already has a pretty well-known body of work, he’s familiar to Villeneuve, and he basically played a version of Bond in Nolan’s Tenet. He seems well above having to test.

But Pattinson did test… suggesting he really wants it, too. Obviously, this will be Villeneuve’s choice, first and foremost. But assuming Denis likes all the finalists, Pattinson seems to me like the lowest-risk choice in an age of risk minimization. Maybe he’s boring. Maybe Hollywood would be passing up a chance to anoint a badly needed new star. But with so much at stake for everyone involved, that all makes him the obvious pick.