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
It's quite simple to change an accent, I mean it's their job ;)
Not so simple, or else why would American actors play such unconvincing Brits with such phony, unnatural accents? Keep Bond British, played by a British actor, and leave Felix Leiter to Americans.
Otherwise, actor for actor, even though he does not have the perfect face for Bond, I would rather have Richard Madden as Bond than Turner, Cavill or pretty much most of the people mentioned here, judging by his work and in comparison with theirs. He is most likely just a flavour of the month, but at least I like that flavour at the moment. Although I am curious about Harry Lloyd, who sometimes look Bondian on pictures (and then some other times, not at all).
I used to think like that. My opinion was turned on its head by Casino Royale, and the way Craig totally reinvented and refreshed the character of Bond.
I agree keeping one foot in Fleming is extremely important in order to keep the series grounded with a fundamental focal point (Fleming's books). However, the overall importance of Fleming to the series has greatly diminished. Sticking to his vision will not sell tickets at the box office.
The film series stands as a separate entity with its own ground rules. Fleming's gentleman spy with all his foibles isn't the same man we have now, not because Craig doesn't look like him, but because this is the 21st Century and the series adapts to modern audiences. It's still Bond, but he alters to suit the mood of the audience of the day.
It would have been interesting to see what Fleming would have done had he lived to 80 and taken Bond on into his 60s. Would we have seen Bond aging in real time? Or would we have got what we have with the films? A Bond stuck at 40 years old, but living in an ever changing world?
For all we know global sensibilities and preferences will play a stronger part in who the next fellow is, given the market for Bond films is expanding every time there's a release. Having a female fanbase may also play into it.
If anything, an archetypal or stereotypical definition of 'British' (if there is such a thing), may be what they go for next time out. Or alternatively, it could be another Hardy type.
1). Richard Madden- He'd be a great 007 whether the next continuity is set in the present or in the past. I also feel like he has a pretty good shot as he's not that big or famous of an actor.
2). Idris Elba- I'd love to see Idris as 007 (even though he said he's not interested-I'm sure he can be persuaded with the right amount of money) but only if it's set in contemporary times.
3). Tom Hiddleston- This might be a long shot as Tom Hiddleston is pretty well known for Loki, King Kong, etc, and I highly doubt that they would ever cast an already established major actor in the role-but bear in mind, without getting into spoilers, I think Hiddleston's schedule has freed up so he may be able to take on the role. However, I'd only be interested if he plays a 007 set in the Fifties or Sixties.
4). Gillian Anderson- Sure why not. I'd love to see a female James Bond (Jane Bond?) but I think that this option is the least likely to transpire. As much as I'd love to see it happen I think myself and a lot of viewers would rather see a traditional male James Bond with strong individual female characters that can stand alongside him.
Not Gonna Happen Ever-
-Tom Hardy- He'd be a fine James Bond but he's just too well known and they're never gonna cast Bane or Venom as James Bond.
-Henry Cavill- For the same reason as above, Henry Cavill is never gonna be James Bond because it wouldn't make sense for Superman to be James Bond. Besides, the Witcher series is gonna eat up a lot of his time and on top of that he's already played a number of Bond-ish characters (Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, The Man from UNCLE, etc)
-Clive Owen- Pretty sure no one is still talking about this but...just in case.
Funny, as it is CR that brings Bond back into the direction of the fallable human beeing instead of the cardboard hero he'd become in the hands of Brosnan. Not to talk Brosnan down, it was part of the 90ies, but at the same time it shows people do like main characters who are multidementional instead. So this aspect was, for the time beeing, more important then his looks. Doesn't mean they're not important at all..
;)
RE: Gillian: I think a Jane Bond is quite irrelevant these days, now that we have Isla Faust. Those fans clamouring for a female MI6 operative should just petition Paramount to give her a standalone. They'll probably get the film out sooner too. I'll certainly be there on day one if they do it.
Hiddleson,Hardy or Cavill are fine with me,the others.....meh.
At the end of the day Bond is the hero here, and he should always be the centre of attraction in a Bond film. The other characters come and go but they should never steal the spotlight from Bond imho, unless they are the villain and a one-off.
With the right actor, Bond can certainly operate in this fashion too, and as long as the film makers don't water him down as a result I'll reluctantly accept it. The Bond films did this before MI after all, with the likes of Anya, Holly etc. TSWLM is a top five Bond film of mine, so I can certainly go for this in one Bond film, but not in every film. After all, Bond isn't MI, 24 or any of these other 'team' things, no matter how unrealistic that may be.
As you probably can guess based on my prior comments about a future Bond actor, I think this approach will work best with an actor who can be more charming and who has a naturally suave and lighter touch. In such a scenario, the film makers can inject a bit more equality while still allowing Bond to retain his knowing arrogance without crossing that fine line. It's a matter of delicate finesse imho.
He proved that against Alec Trevelyn .
And that's also true for all the other loosers who get themselves killed all the time.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/tv-radio/outlander-star-sam-heughan-backed-13267119
Looks quite good here:
2022? That feels yonks away.
Not for me.
Features are all wrong.
Or a little boy playing with a rubber gun...*squeak squeak*.
Well what about Daniel Craig just before he got the role? What would your honest opinion be of his looks in 2004?
I prefer this one:
See, some of you might have said "don't want ginger haired Bond!" - "Don't see any Bond in him!"
We have to cut some of the potential actors some slack because you could argue Craig didn't look much like Bond before he got the part. I'm sure many MI6 users would have dismissed Craig's chances based on some of his photos? Admit it, some of us would!