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
Someone posted his picture as a snarky response to my Harry Styles post,; I only pointed out that he, and many others, show that person from a musical background can become a successful actor. I never suggested Justin Timberlake as James Bond.
:))
Back on my word, do tell? I suggested Styles as a dark horse pick; I stand by that. I never recommend Timberlake.
Ahh this is funny :))
I feel grossly underpaid, in that case.
moving on...
Let's keep this idiot out of the conversation, yes?
That's all fine and dandy and I'm sure mr. Adrian Turner would be delighted to have his name into the mix, but a certain mr. Aidan Turner would perhaps feel left out?
Yes that was my thought too: Remington Steel-era Brosnan wasn't exactly a macho figure. And Styles isn't a million miles off the sort of look of Pattinson.
But he does need to become a really good leading man first, we'll see if he gets there. Seems promising so far.
I guess
Above, the very Bond best we've had. Below, good actor but essentially not Bond. He could have been a brutally good KGB adversary of Bond.
We all have opinions on who could and shouldn't play James Bond. However you appear unwilling to allow any other suggestion apart from your own to be put forward.
We encourage healthy debate, but there is a line which you are very close to crossing.
Please be less aggressive in your posts and you will find other members are much more hospitable toward you.
Carry on.
@talos7 is as much a Bond fan as any of us; to call him anything but is somewhat childish. He also prefaced Styles as a dark-horse candidate. I agree with his idea that Styles could be leading man material in the upcoming years, and EoN won't be anointing anyone as the new 007; they will throw a big net when casting starts. And it's not a crazy idea to think that someone like Styles could be a name amongst the first batch of names.
This thread isn't an echo chamber; people have opinions. Stay humble, listen, debate, but dismissing someone like @talos7 (and your follow ups), have been curt and rude.
It isn't a good look, friend.
From SPECTRE, when he calls out Bond at the organization's meeting, there is a two word Blofeld quote that comes to mind.
English may not be your first language, but that doesn't appear to be the problem.
Definitely moving on...
(I'm sorry, this is just too good.)
The only reason, for me, that is valid for ruling him out is his lack of experience. And that is likely to change. I don't know if he wishes to continue acting or not, but he wasn't bad in Dunkirk at all considering he had thrown himself in at the deep end. If he develops leading man capabilities, why not? The photo posted above proves he looks good in a nice suit.
It's not like we've never had a super-masculine version of Bond embrace effeminacy before!
It was for International Women's Day, @General_Graves
The reason I don't want him to be James Bond is about star power and fame. James Bond should be played by someone who can fully become the character and be that character for a whole generation, so having an actor that is hugely famous for something else; like Henry Cavill being Superman, and in this case, Harry Styles being a hugely famous musician. I understand Pierce Brosnan and Roger Moore were known enough before their time as 007, but we're in a different time now. Fame is bigger than it ever was, so to hire someone extremely famous just wouldn't work in my eyes.
I get that. It's a good point! I'd be inclined to agree, now that you've said it.
Excellent point...
It is interesting how much handwringing there is about the new Bond and how long they can stay in the role and how the franchise will be set-up for the future and so on.
Isn't James Bond the character where casting continuity is the most muddled and all over the place anyway? Sure, people try to put a unifying theory onto the whole thing and I think all Bond fans have spent at least some time thinking about their stance on stuff like continuity and codename theory and all of that, but where other franchises have to invent parellel universes or keep the old actor in the franchise while the new actor just takes up their mantle or whatever, Bond just is. Whoever it says at the beginning of the credits "as Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 in" is James Bond. All of them are Bond. They are seperate and connected at the same time.
So why not do just one movie with Tom Hardy? Why not have Nic Hoult do a couple, go away to do something else while Robert Pattinson does one if he has a shooting window available and then have Hoult come back? Hell, have Craig come back in 10 if he feels like it. Connery played Bond in three decades, Craig could get to four. He'll always look like he's 39 anyway.
Trust me, it's not too complicated for the audience: It's a Bond film. The handsome man in the film is James Bond and this is one of his stories.
(Maybe I should put this in the controversial opinions thread...)
Edit: And this is not even mainly directed at fans. Eon: Just get to producing movies. I assume you get about 12 spec scripts and 15 product placement deal offers per week. There is bound to be enough material to get a film through the door every 30 months.