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
As for Aaron Pierre, I agree with @Kodak007 @007HallY, I see him more as action hero than gentleman spy.
Interesting. Are there any particular qualities that you feel are lacking, or that couldn't be developed?
I see what you mean, but a lot of people probably would've said similar things about Connery back in '61. That he was too much of a rugged brute. But I think it's easier to mould a tough guy into a suave sophisticate than vice versa.
I have to agree. He looks good and that's about it. And it's a shame we haven't moved on from casting white actors as Heathcliff when the character as described in the book is most likely not.
To be completely honest, I think it's because he's so damn muscular and has a very specific face (he's almost pretty, but at the same time very rugged). He's just ever so slightly different than what I tend to think of in relation to Bond.
But like I said, I'm happy to be proven wrong. It's not out of the realm of possibility he could be cast.
Where has 2027 been officially announced?
He has weird eyes.
He's a bit of a black Jason Statham. Bondian but not in the right way.
Just people getting a little over zealous, my good man. There's still nothing to suggest that whatever was holding up development between January 2022 and now has been resolved.
Secret War (May 2027)
B26 (Summer '27)
Star Wars (Dec 2027)
Squeeze my first film in right between the action.
James Bond isn't a model. He's handsome and desirable of course, but beautiful and unique, which are words I would happily describe Pierre as, isn't the character. Plus, mix that with the fact that he's quite large and muscular as well as tall (6'3"), I'd say this is what's holding me back from imagining Pierre in the role.
Care to take a bet on that? The equivalent of a hundred pounds? I’m good for it, 😂.
Yeah, well said (better than I did). I think when someone is too good looking in that way and too tall/muscular as Pierre is, it takes something away from Bond. Bond should be a bit rough around the edges in many ways - good looking and physically fit no doubt, but not necessarily a model. It’s why I said I can more easily see Pierre as a villain.
This kid has lots of talent and charisma. He also has edginess. He’s physically fit and although he has stunning eyes and is incredibly handsome, I don’t find him to be a model-type and his looks don’t overwhelm his over all performances.
I’d say his handsomeness is on the same level as an ATJ/Theo James.
And at thirty , he has great maturity and gravitas.
Rebel Ridge was a flawed film, with a great set up (seemingly inspired by First Blood), but the script got in its own way and started to go in circles. But Pierre was an anchor and made it worth watching.
FOE is another flawed film where he plays a very different character, but again, this kid filled the screen with his presence (and he did overpower Paul Mescal in it).
Really not sure about his face, but good observations. I'd rather they cast someone with these productions on his CV than, say, a Marvel movie. (And that's not a dig at ATJ).
I've been a Theo James advocate for quite some time, and I really never saw the appeal of Dirisu, but no, neither of them has the chops for it.
It's a period piece, albeit an agenda driven piece in the likes of Bridgerton, despite not having the benefit of its fictional universe, following the inclusivity thread in historically incorrect contexts, in the footsteps of the latest Persuasion adaptation. But it really shows, in comparison to something like Poldark, that Aidan Turner is the better actor, with more screen presence and charisma. Yes, shoot me if you will. But that is my opinion, and nothing beyond just that. Nothing to do with race, btw. I'm all for inclusivity. But I'm also for historical accuracy.
Anyway, Captain Ross Poldark would wipe the floor with these three fellas, I tell ya ;)
There, got it off my chest.
Cheers, hope everything's just dandy around here in the forums these days.
Oh, btw, none of them will be Bond, of course :) Ships have sailed and so forth.
Aidan Turner’s Ross Poldark was wimpy compared with Robin Ellis’s. I found the fight against the three brothers rather unconvincing in the new version as they failed to disguise that Turner isn’t that big. I was brought up on the 1970’s version though, so I’m biased.
Though perhaps not a helpful thing to say, I find it difficult to know how good an actor will be in a part until I’ve actually seen them in it (and of course by then it’s too late). There have been several actors I’ve not rated until they got a part they shone in - I used to think Mark Strong was a very dull actor before he hit a patch of roles that made him a favourite of mine; now I don’t know if he suddenly got better or whether he just needed the right roles, but something changed for me around about 2007, when he played the bad guy in Stardust, and he’s been fun in everything I’ve seen him in since.
007-wise, I’d still like to roll the die on Nicholas Hoult developing gravitas as he ages, but it could go very wrong.
Have we talked about this Jonathan Bailey fella? I think he has something. Dunno. Still young at 36. Anyway, just throwing in another name to the holey basket ;)
Maybe I haven’t seen enough of Bailey, but I’m not sure if he’s got that harder edge/gravitas needed for Bond. He can do charming, but he just lacks that extra something. I might be off the mark, but I think it’s better that a potential Bond showcase things like intensity, gravitas, a raw/distinct screen presence etc. more than necessarily the suaveness/charm in their non-Bond roles.
He’s been mentioned many times, the first being back in 2021 by @Kojak007
I don’t have strong feelings about him one way or another. I will say that I found both Regé-Jean Page and Luke Thompson on the same show had more of that Bond charisma in evidence, but that is of course subjective. The fact that the actor is openly gay might actually be a plus-point in this diversity-conscious era.
As always, I’d love to see some of these candidates tackle a Bond scene. It’s the only way you’re really going to know whether you’d like them as Bond or not.
There is a lot of competition out there.
Again, I think Bond potential from an actor will often be there in slightly different roles than suave, charming types. An actor needs something a bit more to be on EON’s radar I feel (again, it’s that gravitas. None of the Bridgeton lot have that I feel).
I've previously been on the Aidan Turner and Theo James trains, but I've been convinced that neither are really right for the role. While they both seem superficially perfect, I could imagine them giving fairly safe and rather bland portrayals. They're both fine actors, but they lack that special something.
I think there’s definitely something to that idea that it’s easier for an actor to modify themselves to those aspects of Bond. It’s why Connery could come along and be ‘taught’ about how a Saville Row suit is worn/fitted, or what dining in a nice restaurant is like. Heck, whenever anyone at EON have been interviewed about what they look for in a potential Bond they never say he needs to look good in a suit or even have that suave quality themselves. It’s all about gravitas.
That being said, we're in trouble, aren't we? These youngsters don't seem to have those kinds of chops. Actually, people have been commenting for a while on the death of real movie stars. I mean, charismatic world leaders, deep thinkers, icons,..., they're all a thing of the (close) past, aren't they? The capitalist idea that you can buy your way into everything (example: wanna be the next Einstein? Just take your fast course in physics; Wanna be the next Van Gogh, buy our paint by numbers canvas;...). Everyone can be everything. Everyone can publish a book. Everyone can be a writer (on today's standards for art, of course they can). And things like traits that were unique to a person and were once admired, are now quickly shot down. The fight for difference resulted in more uniformisation. Wanna be different, cool, you should be yourself. Wanna be special, of course you can, everyone can. Bit of a post-modern paradox there. But, in the end, and this of course is a small point of a larger conversations, we ended up with no real geniuses, charismatic leaders, iconoclasts, ... And it shows, particularly in global politics, and in the arts department ;)
Not that I want to be a negativist. I still say this will turn on itself one of these days. We need people we can look up to. We need to know our real strengths and our real weaknesses.
So, in the end, only a true outlier, a lightning in a bottle, a divergent can be the next Bond. I wish them luck. It'll be a hard task, that's for sure.
It’s why casting isn’t an easy job. Finding that potential isn’t always straightforward, even if it’s there.