It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
For me the two least two credible Bonds were well known established stars before taking over as Bond. (I recognize their box-office successes.) For me the better Bonds were the lesser known.
When Craig was cast in CR it came from left field, with countless actors touted as being in the running, yet clearly they didn’t land the role.
Will the next Bond be an unknown, or come from out of the blue like Craig?
Or will EON choose an actor in the Moore / Bresnan mould?
Cavill isn’t similar to Moore or Brosnan I’d argue. Moore was The Saint and Brosnan Remington Steele, but from what I can tell both were TV shows with mostly British and American audiences respectively, and their viewership was limited in that sense. Both were tv actors, but neither were movie stars at the time whose names outweighed their potential for slipping into the role of Bond.
Cavill on the other hand is Henry Cavill to most audiences. Say what you want about his box office successes (he’s not a heavy hitter, although his films as Superman did fine financially) but I don’t think that’s the issue. The problem is exemplified in his brief cameo as Wolverine (or Cavilrine) in the new Deadpool film. The joke wasn’t that he was an alternative version of Wolverine, but that Henry Cavill was this alternate version of Wolverine. It’s complete nonsense and meant to be ‘fan appeasing’ (personally I think he’d make a rubbish Wolverine). The issue with Cavill as Bond is he’d be Henry Cavill as Bond, not the new actor the majority of audiences will be curious to see take on the role.
That and I simply don’t think he’d be very good! I think the next actor will be a working character actor in film/high end tv who hasn’t been associated with a major film franchise role. I think they’ll need some experience as an actor to take on the role, so likely no complete unknowns or first time film actors (unless that actor is extraordinary, but I personally think it’s foolish for EON waiting or searching for such a candidate when a pool of actual working British actors is avaliable to them).
I don't think they'll cast an actor in the Moore/Brosnan mould for one reason: they're not that many that fit the bill nowadays. I'm fact I'm not even sure the mould is still available. With the multiplication of streaming services, the increasing importance of franchises, actors are less and less famous. I know who Brosnan was in the late 80s/early 90s, while not a big star he seemed everywhere on tv: Remington Steele, Around the World in 80 Days, Noble House, etc. I knew his name and his face. Brosnan had his fanbase. I don't think there's any actor who has that kind of profile anymore, they are more anonymous.
He looks like a used-car salesman.
Well he is leaning on a car.
With that said, career wise, Suter is positioning himself nicely to be considered for Bond; Vikings Valhalla spotlighted his physicality while the new series will let him display a more refined side. He is also in the perfect age range.
The more I see of Sutter, the more I like him.
I don't know about Remington Steel, but The Saint eventually aired in over 60 countries. Here in Norway it had a prime time Friday night slot during what they called Detektimen (The Detective Hour), which also included shows like Perry Mason, John Drake/Danger Man, Man in a Suitcase and Mannix. It's safe to say that Roger Moore was a familiar name to most audiences in that era.
Fair. I suppose my logic was being known as Moore/Brosnan were at that stage isn’t quite the same as being famous, especially when taking into account the differences between tv and film. I’m guessing Moore wasn’t as famous or instantly recognisable as an actor/personality as, say, Cary Grant (or even Sean Connery by the late 60s).
Oh, that goes without saying, of course. But I think it's fair to assume that, at least in Europe, Roger Moore was already a household name in the '60s. For my mother, for example, who grew up in the '60s and '70s, Roger Moore will always be Simon Templar first and James Bond second. Interestingly — and a complete side note — for those from a very working-class background like my mother, cinema visits were a rare occasion back then. Because of that, there’s a greater chance my mother could name Roger Moore over big stars like Cary Grant or even Sean Connery!
By comparison, casting a TV actor today with the same level of recognition Moore had back then would be like choosing a British TV star who, while maybe not instantly nameable, is at least a familiar face to most viewers. Of course, back then, there was far less TV content available – not to mention no streaming – so a fairer comparison might be an actor who’s had some success both on television and in supporting roles in film. Someone like Tom Hiddleston, for instance, after the success of The Night Manager, maybe (whom I think would have made great Simon Templar, come to think of it).
Yeah I can understand that. I'd say Henry Cavill probably even surpasses Hiddleston in terms of recognisability.
As I said, I think it's to do with how easily the actor can slip into the role of Bond and be known as that character. As popular as Brosnan and Moore were for their television roles, it wasn't a case where they were forever associated with them.
I think for Cavill it's that he's played some major characters in big films/shows (even to the point Deadpool can joke about him as an actor playing Wolverine). I don't think that's what they'd want for Bond.
Yes, I agree with that. While I think Hiddleston has had the better roles (and career), Cavill has portrayed one of the most iconic characters in popular culture, and failed to live up to that afterwards.
Not in any way advocating for Hiddleston now or as a would-be on the back of The Night Manager, but he serves as an example of an actor who, even though he's starred in some high profile productions, could still be able to slip into the role of Bond, without having prior roles forever associated with them.
I am against him since I saw him in The Gray Man. Utterly unconvincing or threatening as a villain.
Dude looks like he's scared of his own shadow
More than that, he is a light weight. He is perfect for simple rom-coms, but, even in something as mindless as The Gray Man, he stood out for how terribly weak he is as an actor in a "serious" role.
He's a lot of fun in the (brilliant) Dungeons and Dragons film.
I don't think anyone has the same level of "fame" at the moment.
If they'd had to recast Bond circa 2018/2019, I think Madden might have had a chance for an audition. Maybe. He certainly would have had his share of fans among the general public. Now he's mostly forgotten. Even The Bodyguard didn't last: it was very successful when initially aired, there was talk about a sequel, then... nothing. It pretty much lost momentum.
Agreed, Talos. It’s gonna be an intense experience, especially as it gets down to the final few men.
I’d so love to be there and just watch everything unfold.