Speculation in the UK’s media over who will play the new Bond has continued apace over the last few weeks. Fan favourite Henry Cavill appears to have now ruled himself out due to his age (he is 42), which is ironic given that Roger Moore was 44 when he became James Bond. It is also disappointing because, out of all the names that have been thrown about, Cavill is probably the actor who was ‘born to be Bond’, as the two-times Bond director Martin Campbell has noted (and he came tantalisingly close to being selected back in 2005).
While the new Amazon production team are predictably keeping tight-lipped about the hunt for the next actor, some sources are now claiming that an actor has already been chosen. This is incorrect. The media and the internet are throwing names around like confetti to generate clickbait headlines, with very little of it rooted in actual fact.
What all this indicates is the need for patience. It all very much reminds the JBIFC of the period in 2004-2005 when, after Pierce Brosnan had been dropped by EON, there was similar feverish speculation about who the next Bond actor would be.
The JBIFC takes the opportunity to look back on this ‘gap’ between actors and movies. In many ways, the early months of 2005 have striking similarities to what we are witnessing today. But, as they say in London, one should always ‘mind the gap’: it’s fun to speculate, but perhaps less fun for some of the actors who were swept up in the media frenzy at the time over the plans for what was then going to be Bond film no.21.
Live and Let Sigh
In early 2005, a number of British newspapers filled yet more space over what was, at the time, the seemingly endless rumours over Bond 21. The only firm piece of news at the time had been an official announcement from EON in February, 2005, that Martin Campbell would be the director of Bond 21. Apart from this, the media had very little to work with and, inevitably, began to fill ‘the gap’ in Bond news with made-up claims and speculative non-stories.
Following on from a speculative story in the London Evening Standard newspaper, for example, where British actor Dominic West was identified as a possible candidate for the Bond role, the city-based newspaper returned to the topic of Bond just a week later with a short piece entitled ‘The Mask of Bond’ (17th February). After covering recent (incorrect) speculation that Pierce Brosnan had probably priced himself out of the role of Bond by asking for £23 million, the Standard then noted that the official line from EON was that there would now be no news for three months.
Bond’s production company was quoted by the newspaper’s ‘Londoner’s Diary’ page as stating: ‘The Director Martin Campbell will be in London once he has finished filming The Mask of Zorro 2 and no casting can be done without him’.
However, the anonymous author of Londoner’s Diary then claimed: ‘Intriguing, then, to hear from a source the decision has been made. ‘I know who Bond is’, I’m told. ‘I’m not going to say but it’s not Clive Owen…’. Owen’s agent declines to comment”. Unfortunately, the Standard did not go into further detail over what, in hindsight, were baseless rumours.
Meanwhile, other newspapers and media outlets in the UK also seemed convinced that Clive Owen was the one, despite evidence to the contrary. The Sunday Express, for example, ran an item on the actor’s purchase of an expensive new house and hinted that this was down to Owen’s confidence that he had the 007 role in the bag. The organisers of the BAFTA Awards ceremony also appeared to be stoking the speculation on 12th February, 2005, when they seated Owen just a few seats behind former Bond Pierce Brosnan during the ceremony. When Bond composer John Barry received his special BAFTA Academy Fellowship towards the close of the evening’s ceremony in London’s Leicester Square, the BBC cameras suddenly panned round to catch the reactions of both Brosnan and Owen.
But Owen refused to play the speculation game afterwards, and appeared increasingly bemused at the continuing rumours. According to the The Observer newspaper (13th February), the then 40-year old actor said after the main ceremony that he was now flooded with job offers after his role in Closer – although the role of James Bond was not among them: ‘Owen said he had never been approached to play 007, despite being one of the bookmakers’ favourites to take over the role from Pierce Brosnan’ (and has since confirmed this in recent interviews he gave in 2025!).
Licence to Fill
Another actor who found himself the subject of media speculation and an obsessive desire to fill newspaper headlines by hungry journalists was Hugh Jackman. Supporters of Hugh Jackman for the role of 007 seemed to be fighting a rearguard action for their man against the supporters of Owen and others. Having been in the gossip colums for a number of years concerning Bond, a sprinkling of internet sites had floated Jackman’s candidature again in early 2005. A number of other websites also returned to trying to fathom out whether Jackman, if chosen, could fit the role in with his other movie commitments.
Interestingly, Jackman had also seen some film-world ‘big guns’ firing in his favour in recent months. The late British film critic Barry Norman, for example, penned an article in the BBC’s Radio Times magazine in January, 2005, in which he explored the Australian actor’s career. Norman wrote that Jackman was very good at what he did, including the X-Men films: ‘But unless he is to wander continually in comic-book limbo, it’s high time he made his mark in something more substantial, which is probably why he seems keen on the James Bond idea’. Norman added: ‘Whether he would be the best choice remains to be seen but he has the looks and the physical stature and is about the right age’. Jackman, in recent interviews in 2025-26, has looked back on all this with bemusement.
Meanwhile, some other British sources in early 2005 mischievously linked in speculation about a new actor for the role with claims that Pierce Brosnan was somehow out for ‘revenge’ for the way he had been treated by EON/MGM, despite Pierce’s strong denials and his assertions that he would never adopt such behaviour. The ever-unreliable Mail on Sunday newspaper (13th February) claimed that Brosnan would get ‘his own back for being unceremoniously dumped as James Bond by playing the antithesis of 007 in The Matador, one of the surprise hits of last month’s Sundance Film Festival’.
The Mail also noted that the sequel to Brosnan’s hit movie The Thomas Crown Affair, which was to be based upon the 1964 jewel heist comedy Topkapi, had been penned by writer-director Richard Shepard. The Mail added: ‘Brosnan will be reprising his role as Thomas Crown at about the same time either Dougray Scott or Clive Owen will be trying on Bond’s tuxedo’. As we now know, Brosnan’s plans fopr a sequel to his hit film (sadly) never happened, while Dougray Scott and Clive Owen came no where near the Bond role.
Did DAD Die?
Another dimension to the loss of Brosnan as Bond was developed (rather cheekily) by British Science Fiction magazine Starburst. In its February, 2005, edition it carried a big splash entitled ‘Pierce Brosnan on where Bond went wrong’. This so-called ‘Exclusive’ was presented as an interview with the former Bond actor in the light of his double-0 licence being revoked. But it appeared to be merely a rehash of old quotes in which, at one point, Brosnan defended Die Another Day and speculated on the possibility of doing Casino Royale (a good clue to the age of the quotes). Brosnan said the very first 007 novel it was ‘the template for Bond, the way Ian Fleming created him. Just the name on the marquee would say it all: Casino Royale‘. It was clearly evident that, at one stage, Brosnan would have loved his fifth Bond movie to have been a version of Casino Royale, with a more back-to-basics approach. Again, as we now know, this was not to be.
In the following issue of Starburst (March, 2005), the seeming interview brought forth an angry letter from one reader who complained, in particular, that Brosnan’s defence of Die Another Day beggared belief and ‘forfeits a lot of sympathy’ built up after his sacking by EON/MGM: the rather angry letter claimed: ‘The film is total pants’. The letter also (rather unfairly) attacked Brosnan for wanting to do Casino Royale.
One could not help but feel a bit sorry for Pierce at the time. He had arguably revitalised the franchise with Goldeneye. He had sought to give new life to Bond, and succeeded spectacularly, but (towards the end) was often boxed in by the limitations of the scripts and the emphasis upon special effects.
It must also be remembered that he was not entirely happy with the direction DAD had taken. He also originally wanted a return to stronger characterisation and plot-line in the films. In addition, he was understandably keen to do a film version of Casino Royale and perhaps work with Martin Campbell once again.
It seemed pretty ironic that all those things appeared to be happening behind the scenes during the course of 2005, but without Brosnan having a last stab at 007. Daniel Craig was officially announced as the sixth actor to portray James Bond on 14th October, 2005, during a press conference at HMS President in central London. He took over from Pierce Brosnan and made his debut in Casino Royale (2006). But even in the run-up to this, the feverish speculation over who would be the next 007 had continued relentlessly over ths Summer months of 2005, with some (frankly quite bizarre) names thrown in to the mix by the media (often flavour-of-the-month names favouted by the Bookies). The cliche ‘unnamed sources’ supposedly close to ‘the Bond bosses’ was often employed to help generate credibility to the news-stories. It was all nonsense, of course.
When Craig was officially announced, certain newspapers (perhaps in the pursuit of yet more controversial headlines) quickly decided to stir things up and claim that he would ‘not last’ as Bond. Little did they know…
Bond is Forever
What does all this say about where we are at the moment today? Speculation about the next Bond actor is one of the most headline-grabbing occupations in the media world, and many of us probably secretly enjoy dipping into all the rumours and false stories. In a sense, nothing changes on this score. The one big similarity between ‘the news gap’ in 2005 and the only news we have today is that, as with Martin Campbell back then, the only firm news we have is about the Bond 26 director (Denis Villeneuve) and the script-writer (Steven Knight). We also, of course, also have some confirmation abou the new Bond co-producers. However, everything else you hear and read about the next Bond actor in the UK’s press should (as they say) be taken with a very strong dose of salt.
Official news: Bond movie no. 26 director Denis Villeneuve