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
Holt and Jack Lowden are my top choices, but yeah, it would be weird to be finally older than James Bond.
MGM's constant financial issues were the major impediment to more films being produced during DC's time. I don't think Amazon will "push" anything; instead, I think their financial stability and backing will allow EON to make films every three years, which is optimal.
YES!
Still the most convincing photo of a potential Bond candidate I've seen.
Not sure if Turner's time has past, but he definitely has that intense Dalton look
I'm a huge fan of the Craig movies and I think he's the best actor to have taken the role. He's second only to Connery when it comes to magnetism and brute force, however I think what he brings to the whole is now becoming dated and he's made the correct decision to move on.
The producers will also have to navigate a post-covid world where cinema will not exist in the same way it has before and budgets may well be slashed. They'll therefore have to focus more on great story-telling and less on expensive set-pieces etc.
If my hunch proves correct, I'd love them to cast one of the following, in order of preference:
1) Joe Alwyn
2) Tom Hughes
3) Nicholas Holt
Worst case scenario is they bypass acting ability altogether and go back to the dark days of Brosnan by casting a gormless wardrobe like Henry Cavill or Sam Heughan.
If their debut film is as good as CR was, and the actor smashes out of the ballpark, Craig's tenure will be forgotten just as quickly as Brozza's was. It's human nature. Onwards and upwards.
But that debut film has a hell of a lot to live up to, that's for sure.
Evans would be another excellent choice. As an openly gay actor it would be interesting to see how he was dealt with by the tabloids.
Without trying to sound too narrow minded or homophobic, I don't really think a gay actor is suitable for the role of Bond. Not saying Evans (or anyone else) doesn't have the acting chops to pull this off, its just that Bond is a unique, legacy role which goes beyond what the actor does on screen.
The most successful actors playing Bond carry the macho, sexy, suave, inherent charisma in real life too, not just on screen. Its one of the few roles left in Hollywood where the actor in real life needs to embody the main characteristics of the character too.
It's what Cubby and Harry saw in Connery, and something they have looked for ever since when casting every actor that followed, and Barbara carried on this trend when casting Craig.
Casting an actor to play Bond goes beyond RADA acting chops and good looks, and I doubt that will ever change, as long as the franchise keeps going.
Seems a bit odd to think that a gay man can't be macho, sexy and suave.
These guys don't play Bond off screen, only on screen. That sort of thinking leads to this kind of rubbish:
A gay man can be macho, sexy and suave. But the inherent sexuality of the character is hetrosexual, and needs to have that sexual animal magnetism towards the opposite sex, and vice versa.
In any other film or character, I don't think this would be an issue for a gay person to play a straight role, or vice versa. But with a huge legacy like Bond, the actor needs to tick every box under the sun to be universally acclaimed by fans and critics alike, otherwise he will be eaten alive by the media. That's the stark reality, which may sound hard to take in the modern PC correct world we now live in.
Perhaps it's counterintuitive, but I feel like if anything it works in his favor. There will likely be some pressure from the studio or otherwise to make a push for some sort of diversity casting. I can envision a lot of groaning from the general public if we wind up with another white male, but a white gay male may play to that segment of the public. We're no longer in the days of Harry and Cubby and I believe that if Barbara felt that the right man for the job happened to be gay in real life, she'd still pull the trigger without hesitation.
Maybe, then again maybe not. With billions of dollars of franchise cash at stake, I doubt Hollywood execs would be so bold to take gambles like that if they can help it.
If there are literally no white straight actors out there who can play Bond, then you may be onto something. As for the general public moaning that another white straight guy has been given the role, you can't even begin to imagine the backlash from the very same general public if a gay actor lands the role.
Barbara chose Craig for the exact same reasons why Cubby and Harry chose Connery all those years ago. Instant sex appeal to the opposite sex. I really don't know if a gay guy carries off that same subconscious animal magnetism and universal appeal to the opposite sex because -
a) I'm not gay
b) I'm not a woman
They're pretending though. Daniel Craig doesn't actually have sex with any of those women, and they most probably don't want to shag him as much as they seem to in the movies. Some of them probably aren't attracted to him at all, and vice versa. That's just how it works.
So pretending to have magnetism would be no more of a problem for one guy than it is another. It's all pretend.
Well let's not blame the 'PC correct world' when it's not something which has actually happened, and in fact the 'PC correct world' would actually be all for it, not against it, if you're following that logic.
What we actually see is prats like Piers Morgan calling Craig 'emasculated' for carrying his child around. These people are to be ignored.
I honestly can't imagine there being a backlash. You'd get some alt-right weirdos on Twitter, and perhaps some dumb right wing idiots like Morgan trying to attract some attention, but otherwise everyone will be for it.
Everyone will have an opinion on the next Bond, no matter who it is. He'll be too short/young/posh/tall/old/skinny no matter what. There will be tiresome noise, but I genuinely don't imagine there being much issue about sexuality because I think most people know it's not real.
If you don't know, there's no reason not to think he's suitable then.
What the hell do I know about what women find sexy and attractive in men anyway? Connery is a prime case in point. A balding man with a tache in his 60's gets voted the sexiest man alive, and women go on the record to confirm as such.
I'm not gay and not a woman so I don't know what that appeal is. But I'm guessing that X factor, that hidden unknown appeal is what producers are looking for when choosing the part of Bond.
And again, I really don't know if a gay guy carries that same appeal to women. If he does, and there are actors out there that prove this is the case, then so be it. Bring on the gay guy as the next Bond.
He's a great actor from what I've seen of him in Kingsman. The only thing he lacks is the harder edge to him, required to play Bond, perhaps that will come with age though
I watched the critically panned Robin Hood last night that he starred in and there was some edge to him. I believe Connery never starred in any edgy films prior to Bond. That sort of thing can be learned and coached prior. He's gone on record saying that if offered, he would accept in a heartbeat
It won't be him. Kingsman is too close the franchise.
The next actor will be a relatively unknown name - and white, and male, and not gay - despite certain parts of the fanbase or public clamouring for such an actor. Sorry to break the bad news early.
If I'm wrong, I'll eat my hat.