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
Most famous you mean.
Tom hardy is like Daniel Craig, only improved.
It's true, if you think about it. Apart from the obvious (white, around the same height, English born), they both have strong acting chops, able to display emotional subtlety and imposing physicality in the roles they play.
But then I noticed, as I watched the film (great double performance BTW as both Kray twins) I realised that in all the ways that Craig is criticised, Hardy makes up for.
1. The looks. Not to get cruel, but Tom Hardy is a step up from Craig in the looks department. At least in the way society sees it, the "traditionally handsome". Not saying that Hardy is a stunner, but you get what I mean...
2. The humour. So I'm sitting there watching Legend, and it suddenly out of nowhere dawns on me how good Tom Hardy is at comedic delivery of lines. He is given some crazy things to say, and you never once think he is struggling to pull it off. As we all know, this is an area where Craig has problems.
3. And this is the big one. Tom Hardy is effortlessly intimidating when he wants to be. My biggest problem with the Craig Bond is that for all the muscles, and human wrecking ball qualities, he never comes off that threatening. I know Bond is supposed to be charming, but I feel Connery and even Moore could lace their words with an undercurrent of menace, which I see startlingly few examples of in the Craig films. He is always saying "thank you", and I think in an attempt to show in greater detail Bond's emotional side, and sacrificed some of his edge. There should be a background element of the character that should, on occasion, unnerve even the audience. Tom Hardy would be perfect to reintroduce that back into the fold.
I just feel like if they wanted not a dramatic reinvention, but a smooth transition into the next tenure, then Hardy is the way to go. He basically does everything Craig does, and a few things he does better, which the character has missed for a long time. It would be refreshing with being a completely different take.
Hardy would be a superb addition to the Bond series: I can imagine him as a great double O agent or as a smooth "bond like" enemy (as with Robert Shaw). Imagine him verbally sparring with Bond, trying to catch each other out with the undercurrent of threat and physicality that Hardy brings to the screen. We are way, way over due for a henchman who is more than just muscle.
That's good too, but I think he would be the main Villain rather than the Henchman.
[img]
The shoe fits, as it does with Fassbender. Perhaps that's part of the problem though. It's a bit predictable. No doubt either of these two will reignite interest.
Be hired by eon. I have spent many a sleepless night worrying about eon reading my posts. :-D
I find it telling that the articles we read even today are about the 'next' Bond. It suggests there is enthusiasm for it.
Urban myth that it did terrible business at the box office.
I think Moore and Brosnan were more "general public" casts than fan casts. And now unlike then there is no presumptive heir or indeed anyone that makes unanimity.
Personally I've never found an actor's own sexuality or nationality be a distraction. I have no issues whatsoever with straight actors playing gay characters, or gay actors playing straight characters. The same with nationality, doesn't matter at all. When it comes to personality or anything else that can be acted actors don't need to be like their characters at all (as opposed to stuff that cannot be acted, such as race). Obviously they need to be able to act in a way that make them believable in all ways - personality, sexuality, nationality, etc. What is distracting is bad acting, but if the actor sounds right (accent), and acts right (so that they seem believable in the role)... well that's what acting is and it's what is needed. Authenticity in a role is reached by acting anyway, not by an actor actually being like the character.
If Bond can be played by a non-Brit anyway, I don't see why not an American as well - as long as they get the accent, one hopes... I assume a gay actor wouldn't even be considered for something like Bond, though. But just saying that an actor's own sexuality or nationality - for Bond or other roles - makes no difference to me at all.
A natural British actor.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5355489/Chris-Hemsworth-confirms-hed-James-Bond-role.html
I’ve been touting him for a while now around here. 12 Strong shows how he would pull off the action. He’s grown as an actor, has the look and charm in the classic Bond tradition and is worth a screen test.