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 think Gillian Anderson would be hell of a Moneypenny if they were to replace Naomie Harris. I'd love to see Gillian in the role.
Assuming he has proper height (ballpark 6'2) Sean and Rog were easy 6'2.
Assuming he can act at least as well as Laz (that:s all I ask) I think he's a slam dunk!
The others are all too old. Turner is already 33.
Hiddleston is Loki. He's too skinny and he's got a face like a rat. He makes a good Loki though, slimey weasly foil for Thor.
Fassbender can audition for M, if Fiennes quits.
#makeBondyoungAgain
#mandatory00retirementage
If he is slight of build, doesn't move well, and can't bring the requisite alpha, then forget about him.
I would start auditioning age 26-29with right look.
Limited experience is fine. Director can whip into shape as long as their name isn't Forster,Mendes or Haggis.
At the snails pace that they make these movies now, we'll be lucky to get 3 movies before the 40-45 final swan song years hit.
Prime Bond age is 30-39. These are a man's mature prime years when he is most effective as OO vintage blunt instrument.
Fleming wrote Bond in his 30's with 45 as mandatory retirement age.
Connery played Bond in his prime years. Laz would have too if he'd stayed.
The others all started too old IMO.
Anyway for me Bond is perennially 30-36, fit and in fighting trim, but still young enough that he can indulge his indulgences, without big blowback, and he can smoothy move on the young women without any age issues.
Ideal soldiers are in their 20's . But OO agents require some maturity and worldliness, so 30's is trade-off. 40 plus make good training officers and they can double-date with MP and her friends, while the brash young 00's catch the eye of the skinny models, and other assorted fast women
Young actors lack experience and that may be an issue, but we are talking about actors. Professional actors who learned their trade and can invest in a role and know how to inhabit a character. Of course, there is a lot of pressure playing such iconic role as Bond, but is there any less playing say a Shakespeare character?
The young guys though are making their initial impact. They can also booze and womanize and do all sorts of shit without thinking about it too much.
I played in organized hockey into my mid-thirties. I quit at 36 not because I couldn't still play. I could move around the ice just fine, shoot the puck, chase it down, all the stuff you need to do but I didn't have the same energy the same passion, the same will to compete that the younger guys had, so I packed it in, and dropped down to pick-up ie play in an informal way, not as part of a team, that's competing to win.
Take for example Craig's plane antics in SP. Craig even though he was 46-47 when he made the film, is doing what a brash young agent would do.
But he's acting. In real life I don't think a guy nearing 50, tears off in a plane like that. He'd take a less reckless approach. More to the point he's not likely to even be in such a situation. Out in the field risking life and limb.
But a prime age 00, sure why not- brashness of youth- that feeling of indestructibility. But Craig's playing the character James Bond, danger man, man of action, but I think 007 is far more believable as a 30ish, than a middle aged op.
I do think the 00 game is a young mans game, and that's how Fleming wrote it. And he had experience with such matters. By all accounts he was a brash young adventurous guy himself, who'd passed out of that phase and into a full blown middle-aged phase.
He was about right, I think, with 45 being a mandatory retirement age, based on his own understanding of the temperament required for such a job.
A guy like Bond would be formidable and dangerous his whole life, but his prime years are still his 30's.
Connery purposely played a slower Bond in NSNA. He insisted on playing a Bond pulled out of retirement. This Bond was still formidable but he wasn't energized to the same degree.
He could do the job but did he really want to be doing it?
If I was a 00 agent ( and that of course is a pipe dream) I think I might be ready to step aside at 45 after 25 or so years of action man. It might feel like time, especially when there are younger versions of yourself who might benefit from your training and experience.
Anyway if I'm a special ops chief, I don't think I'd want a bunch of 40 year olds in my crew.
I'd want guys in their prime blunt instrument years and experienced 40 somethings to train them,lead them and keep them sharp.
I think a lot of younger actors today, apart from looking like kids, just don't quite bring the maturity that is required for the role. I see a parallel in Tom Cruise. When I watch the first MI film now, Cruise seems too young for Hunt almost. Sure, he's energetic and full of gusto, but I much prefer the seasoned vet he played in MI4 & especially 5. There is a weariness there which translates nicely onto film. Now even here there are exceptions of course. Christian Bale was perfect for Wayne (and even Bond imho) at 31 in 2005.
So I'd prefer mid 30's to early 40's as a start, but they'd better start churning them out quicker for the fella to have a nice run. Overrule that MGM clown I say, and let's get more Bond films, even if it means (controversially perhaps) a Vader like Disney takeover to get it going.
if they are going with this much more physical imposing Bond Elba is very much a good pick. Like Craig is masculine attractive with a great Body and tall.
i prefer the classic formula but if the producers don't then Elba is the one who makes the most sense. Hardy he can pull of mean and a killer but not so well a seducer.
like ive been saying so If we get...
Tom Hidleston or Aidan Turner would be like getting Timothy Dalton
Michael Fassbender would be like Sean Connery
Idris Elba would be like Daniel Craig
Henry Cavil would be like Pierce Brosnan
1977 Michael Fassbender - 13
1982 Jack Huston - 1
1981 Rupert Friend - 2
1989 Sonny Robertson - 1
1972 Idris Elba - 2
1980 Charlie Hunnam - 1
1990 Jack O'Connell - 1
1983 Aidan Turner - 15
1981 Tom Hiddleston - 16
1986 Tom Hughes - 1
Thank you @Master_Dahark for that wonderful collection of pictures.
Above, the current standings in the POLL
Interesting point. I never thought Roger Moore looked that old in AVTAK but that tends to be a minority view. If an actor ticked all the boxes but was in mid 40s it's possible EON would consider him. I suppose the studio would prefer a younger guy - perhaps easier to market to younger people? - but Sam Mendes said B Broccoli makes the final decision.
Former Sony Pictures boss, Amy Pascal, wanted Idris Elba to take over after Craig. Elba is 43.
http://gawker.com/leaked-amy-pascal-email-idris-elba-should-be-the-next-1673843286
Pascal was the go-to agenda pusher at Sony, it seems.
"Let's have a black Bond."
Why?
"Because."
"Let's have an all-female Ghostbusters."
Why?
"Also because."
"Let's have a black, gay, female Spider-Man."
Why?
"Oh come on, do I really need to spell it out for you?"
I made up that last one (I think), but you get the gist.
Nowadays, given the three years gap between movies, I would say ideally in his early 30s when cast. 40 is now a bit old.
People should keep in mind that there is a difference between young and youthful. Nobody wants a youthful looking Bond (or not many people do anyway). But a young Bond would be fine, if he has the right presence and a certain maturity. Hugh Jackman was what, 32 when cast as Wolverine? That was fairly young, especially for the character (even taking into account that Logan is ageless), but he did not look youthful. Granted, that was more than 15 years ago, but there should be at least some young British actors who don't look youthful.
An actor plays Bond for 10-13 years, and that's it. At that point, either he wants to move on, or they want to replace him.
I do like the way he conducts himself in the below interview.
He is also a correct height 6'1. It does appear he has acting chops. I could see him being whipped into Bond shape by a good director. He's pretty close as it is.
I could see him finding a nasty Bond edge but tempered by Connery/Moore-esqe relaxed cool.
He speaks well. There is also no doubting his English gentleman bonafides either.
I could see Eon launching a brand new marketing campaign around this guy as the exciting new Bond.
If he can act and it does appear he can, he could play a young but mature Bond and he'll be 33-35 before you know it.
And he drinks with Benedict Cumberbatch. They have the same local pub. :D
He's got some spy-tv cred too
Good pic here
He's a tad slight but get him in the gym. No problem. He's got a good frame and he does seem to move well.
http://m.imdb.com/name/nm3433735/mediaviewer/rm3618147328
How cool would it be to get a film where we see a young Bond serving in the SOE or a more modern version of a military secret operations force, getting his first kills that will award him his 00 status? The thrill that could be derived from adapting to the screen his killing of the Japanese spy on the thirty-sixth floor of the RCA Building at Rockefeller Center in New York City or his termination of the Norwegian double agent who betrayed two of his colleagues? A clever writer could use the storytelling of the film to impact why Bond chooses those targets. Say for instance that in the latter case, the two betrayed agents were good friends of Bonds from war, who were taken from him in cold blood. Bond would then use all his resources to track down who was responsible and wipe their record, as it were.
Hughes has really impressed me, from what I've seen of him. He's got cruel features, a favorite adjective to describe Bond, and in his performances he is able to easily transmit a sense of darkness and hellfire determination behind the eyes. He also has great command of himself, and walks with a refined air without coming off as ostentatiously prince-like or stuffed-up. Just a man who has his own style in check, and who can keep an unflappable and sophisticated way about himself. He's also in the right age range for what I've pitched, and, even as he ages, he could play a character much younger than his years, as Bond would be in this case. Give him a decent hair cut, let a fleck of hair fall down across his eyebrow, give him that scar on the side of his face and I'd say we've got a winner. For the first time in a Bond film, they could do Bond's scar and actually explain how it got there, showing him injured in action.
Hughes is also one of the only plausible or possible choices out of the many names we've heard thrown around for future Bond castings in the coming years. Most "candidates" to use an empty bookie word, will be too old by the time any screen testing would be done, while Hughes will be in prime position, and to my eyes he represents a far more interesting image of Bond more in line with Fleming's character than any others proposed. The cruelness of his looks, his slender frame, the way he carries himself all comes together to form a Bond that could be not unlike Fleming's original. I could definitely see it. But, like I said, a haircut would be in order.
If he turns out to be Craig's successor somewhere down the line, you won't hear me complaining, especially if EON go in the direction I'm hoping.