Ever since we learned that Daniel Craig would be retiring from his role as James Bond, the debate has begun as to his eventual replacement. While plenty of names have been thrown out there, I would like to talk about a couple in particular. First there is a recent report from The Independent that the producers of the Bond films may be leaning towards Idris Elba as 007. Another interesting name is Henry Cavill, who told Yahoo Movies while doing press for Mission: Impossible - Fallout that he believes he has what it takes to be Bond. Well, what if we could have the best of both worlds?
In my opinion, the debate here really isn't one, as far as who should play the iconic role of James Bond. Elba has a smooth, suave quality that certainly fits the role better. He also just happens to be from London, which lends even more credibility. It's also worth noting that Elba would be the first African American to play James Bond. If you are going to make a fresh start with a new Bond, why not shake the franchise up a bit by choosing Elba? He has star power from his roles in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Star Trek Beyond and more big budget projects. The argument could be made that Elba has not been the leading man in any of those movies, but he has more than made his presence felt in each and manages to be a fan favorite in many of his ensemble projects.
Then you have someone who has been a leading man, as a matter of fact, the Man of Steel himself. On the flip side, Cavill has been a leading man but has been criticized for his portrayal of such title characters. While I have enjoyed his role as Superman, I enjoy it for what it is and not so much as a true adaptation of the character. It wasn't until recently with Cavill's success in Mission: Impossible that his name has started to come up again. While he played an important role, it wasn't the title role and the pressure was definitely off. You could argue that playing James Bond comes with just as much of a spotlight as playing Superman. I don't think that Cavill isn't a good enough actor, he certainly is. He just doesn't have that debonair demeanor that you need to play 007. Critics of his Superman always said that he was too serious, dry and unable to portray the hopeful nature of the character. That doesn't exactly describe the perfect James Bond actor, but that doesn't mean he should be out of the franchise entirely.
There is a way for us to get the best of both worlds here. You could not only make history, but make headlines if you cast Elba as James Bond. He has the right qualities, and would be a nice change of pace for a movie franchise that is looking to turn the corner from the Daniel Craig era. As far as Henry Cavill goes, why not make him the villain in the next Bond? Seeing Elba and Cavill square off could be quite good, and would give you two names that fans will instantly recognize. Cavill seems to fit the villain role better in the 007 world and would certainly create a legitimate foe for the start of the Elba era. Create a new villain, let Cavill do what he does best and let Elba bring home the performance that we know he can deliver.
The bottom line is, it's time to do something different, so why not do that when you're about to hit the reset button anyway? We don't want Loki Bond. We don't want 50 Shades of Bond. Daniel Craig brought respect back to this franchise with Casino Royale, and making the right choice to continue that momentum is critical. I'm confident that the producers will do that.
Who would you like to see James Bond? Let us know!