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
How about Turner then?
C. Turner, No...
Agreed.
I'd watch Bond even if Ron Jeremy starred in it. You'd really avoid watching it? Hell, I'd even watch it if Cavill played Bond.
Same.
Talking of Disney, if they got hold of Bond, it’s over. Far more damaging than any miscasting of the lead actor.
All that said, if they do something stupid like go the codename route, I'm out. Once you say James Bond is just a codename and the new guy really is a new guy, then any loyalty I had towards the character is gone and I'm just looking at the guy who replaced my hero. Why would I turn up to see that?
Not that I think they're stupid enough to go for the codename route, but in these crazy days of Brexit and global pandemic I feel a bit like I'm trapped in a horror film where people make bizarre decisions just to move the stupid plot along.
And also just very limited. Compare Man From UNCLE's 60s Berlin (some very dark back streets) to Funeral in Berlin's 60's Berlin- a bustling, wonderfully varied metropolis. Half of the travelogue aspect of Bond would go out of the window straight away.
Maybe with 5 years off his age. He'd have been ideal if Craig hadn't returned after Step Brothers, sorry, SPECTRE. He's like the one that got away.
London had quite a grubby look back in the Sixties, with buildings still covered in black soot from all the coal fires, German bombings, London smog and industrial smokestacks. Shooting a period movie here today, everything would look pristine and clean, especially as so many historic and commercial buildings have been thoroughly dredged and renovated throughout the Eighties to present-day. And that's just London. Many places around the world have evolved rapidly since the Sixties. Trying to retro-fit Bond into the Sixties, or Fifties, would hamper any future Bond production severely. I can understand why fans of the books would like to see a so-called faithful adaption made of their favourite Bond novel, but it would end up looking more like a cheap parody than an accurate portrayal.
I like Aidan. I thought he was impressive in AND THEN THERE WERE NONE.
I can understand someone declining to watch a new Bond movie if the actor deviated hugely from the standard accepted profile - such as Elba or Chalamet (not saying that I would boycott, but that I can understand that drive). But I seriously don't understand why you would boycott an actor who is handsome, 6'3, not too famous, a good actor, dark haired, athletic, and who looks good in a DJ.
Hoult has a lot more Bond about him than Craig did at comparable points in their careers.
He prefers his Bond's superficial and smug.
@Shardlake, don't speak for me or assume what I prefer. You don't know me or what I like. After 14 long years of an unconventional brooding Bond who has no enjoyment of life, I'd like to see a return to a more classic lighter Bond. Someone who has more emotion and has an enjoyment for the finer things. I guess wanting some more fun injected into the Bond franchise after so long is soooo bad.
He still looks far too young though.
In 5 years I imagine he’ll still look too young. He still looks like a boy.
Yes, Connery was 33 when he started, but he looked 43. The same with Lazenby at 29, he looked late 30’s etc.
Where an actor may play the same character over a 15 plus year span, In this case Bond, a youthful look is an asset .
We live in a different era than that of Connery and Lazenby; in general, today, people look relatively younger, at comparable ages, than did those in the past.
5 years ago I would have scoffed at the thought of Nicholas Hoult as James Bond; but between then and now he has grown into his looks and will continue to do so. Another 5 years down the line he will be in a perfect position to begin a long run as 007.
People look younger these days, though. I have said this before, but it seems everyone on here is obsessed with how young people look, but as soon as an actor gets to 38 we start to say he's starting to get too old for the part. After 40, forget it.
It appears that we have to add to the essential criteria that the actor must be in the 35-39 year old sweet spot AND to look older than his years.
But Tom Cruise didn’t look like ‘a boy‘ in MI1.
Young, yes. But not school boy/ student age like Hoult.
He may look fine for in 5 years. who knows.
Yes people do look younger nowadays. My point is Bond shouldn’t look like boy/ man child as Hoult does.
Craig was 37 when he was cast, giving longevity. But he looked 45. Manly. Not Boyish. Bond is not boyish.
He was for Bond IMO. But the point is he didn’t look much younger than he is. He couldn’t have played a 23 year old like Hoult can at the moment.