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
I don’t personally think he’s perfect for it but he can do it and just seems the most likely candidate.
Even Roger Moore looked too young at one point, though admittedly his hair is quite phenomenal in pretty much every photo of him.
Which is perfect; If he starts his tenure in 5 years he will have a bit more maturity to his look, but will be in a position to stay in the role for some time.
We've grown too accustomed to Craig's face that even if an actor with a face like Lazenby or Brosnan actor shows up, we might say he doesn't look the part.....and it's funny, coz most fans didn't think Craig looked the part back in 2005. Now we want the next Bond to be as rugged as Craig, just like we would have easily accepted Sam Worthington for Casino Royale, because he looks very much like Brosnan.
Sam Worthington doesn’t look like Brosnan to me. Anyhow, he isn’t British. So I never felt him suitable. He’s a tad bland too.
Craig’s been brilliant, but I agree a return to a debonair, ‘posher’ 007 would be great.
The big problem with that is we don't know if he might mature in 5 years, it's just an assumption. He may or may not, which is why i can't say that for sure at the moment. My opinion might change in 5 yrs but i can't see him at the moment.
Well, in part it’s based on how he’s matured over the last 5 years, not to mention what a bit of added , quality, weight would do.
With that said, if they want to do an established Bond , who is still early in his career, I believe he looks suitable as is.
The biggest 'refresh' they could do is to actually start making and releasing some films. The contract should be three films in 6 years, with a planned outline of where the story could go and the overall tone (and still be relatively standalone), and with options of extending the contract after that.
A big yes to this; there needs to be a vision, a blueprint for the course of the next incarnation.
The blue print is Fleming surely. Like the Dalton era.
Two of the bottom three least successful Bond movies. Surely not.
Would those films be as unsuccessful if they were being released now, though? The straighter approach seems to have worked pretty well with Daniel Craig, despite a couple of creative hiccups.
Well of course Fleming is the blue print but plotting a cinematic course has it's own considerations.
Loved by the fans. But agreed, not generally loved by the casual viewer who doesn’t really know much about Bond.
The Living Daylights grossed the equivalent of $191.2 million worldwide though, including some ‘opening records’. So I’m not sure where your getting you’re facts from....I assume adjusted for inflation only.
He's a very talented young actor, who hasn't quite made the break through into leading man status. He's also just under the radar as a household name, though well known enough to immediately be acceptable in the role. That is of course, if he would want the role.
He's got to be a favourite.
I don’t know if there’s much reason to think they would be. The Craig films are a different mix, and if the advice is to change the course of the Bond films by doing what the Craig ones are doing then it’s not much of a change :)
That’s the only way to judge them against the other films, yes.
I don’t think anyone has to ‘know much about Bond’ to get it: this is hardly obscure stuff. It’s big mainstream audience pleasing blockbuster fare. It’s for casual viewers.
Yes I’d say you’re right: he comes the closest to ticking all of the boxes required. I would have thought he’s the favourite.
He isn’t one I have strong feelings about either way, but he’s the one that makes the most sense at the moment. As you say: ability, experience and profile are all in the right place.
Great photo...
I agree, there's no reason to think they would be unsuccessful now.
A question though; if the Craig films are a different mix (I agree, they are; the straightness I refer to above is mainly in terms of atmosphere and attitude rather than story, which people seem to appreciate) to the more directly Fleming-inspired Dalton ones, how would that not be a change? Surely it would be? Though I feel this is more to do with scripting than the actual actor's approach, so perhaps the "What comes next for Bond after Daniel Craig?" thread might be more suited to the discussion.
A film, made with similar aims to the Dalton films, starring someone like Hoult - or any of the other interesting contenders posted here - in five years would really excite me, personally. And I think films like that would be more accepted now than they were then.
Though I think they will probably go for lighter fare storywise than either of the above tenures, next time.
Agreed. It also worked with the early Connery’s. Even today, many fans both young and old, both enthusiasts and casual viewers name the early Connery’s as the highlights of the series.
Indeed, Eon have stated that they are always striving to get back to the quality of FRWL.
He’s not my favourite. But the arguments for him are certainly sensible. Looks-wise he needs to ‘age’ a bit first.