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
He’s a strong actor.
I'd love him as a villain. Brilliant actor, with an undeniable presence and charisma.
Gary Oldman as M would also be incredible casting (specially because of Slow Horses).
1) Leo Suter
2) Theo James
3) Callum Turner
4) Aiden Turner
5) Sam Claflin
While I’m not as familiar with Leo Suter's career as actor, his strikingly classic good looks kinda border on an almost too-polished aesthetic for Bond, for me. He looks almost too much like a "classical leading man"... I know some will take issue with this, but again I'd still be interested if he was cast.
My personal preferences lean more toward Sam Claflin, Callum Turner, and Theo James. I once questioned Theo’s range, but after The Monkey, it’s clear there’s more depth to his talent than I initially assumed, making me curious about what he could bring to the role, even if I do still worry his James Bond would basically be his character from The Gentleman.
Aidan Turner, on the other hand, feels like a name that has been circulating for too long; at this point, the idea lacks excitement for me. His performance in And Then There Were None already gave us a version of Bond that, while competent, didn’t leave me clamoring for more.
While I prefer some more than others, I would not be unhappy if any one of these five were cast.
With that said screen tests could eliminate all of them.
They don't look identical of course, but they're all of a type. Generally I think a lot of male Bond fans want him to look roughly like the comic-book depiction of Bruce Wayne:
It's an idealised version of a hero, and lots of us were brought up on that sort of image. You may not want that yourself, but I don't think you should have any trouble understanding what some of the guys here are talking about.
I don’t really care if the next actor fits into that broad ‘type’ or is more of a Craig or Connery ‘left field’ pick personally. It’s more about what the actor will bring to the role. It also negates that every actor is different and brings something different to the table naturally. I don’t really see the point in wishing for a hypothetical actor who fits this very vague mould.
So true. Oddly true.
Agreed, but Connery was certainly not ugly. He was still very handsome just not in the classical style.
Yes exactly. If you look at a lot of movie stars they are actually quite distinctive-looking and I think Connery fits into that; your TV action series stars are often quite blandly good-looking and more forgettable as such. To be honest, Roger probably fits into that to some extent.
Yes. I think James Bond shouldn't look like the usual man. He should have this very distinctive face that stands out in the crowd. Not necessarily a very handsome face, but an interesting face. Like the face of a Greek/Roman Mythology hero.
Exactly. It also explains why Marvel wanted Craig for Thor.
Moore's a bit of an odd one. I think you've said it before but he was this quintessentially 'handsome' man with that square jaw and chest heavy build (and short legs - I remember you writing that, haha). There's something quite gentlemanly about his appearance (and I'm not sure if I can put my finger on why, and it may have to do with how he presented himself and the RADA inflected accent). He had a mole I guess but nothing inherently unusual about his features. In terms of Bond he had lighter hair and I don't think quite fit that 'tall, dark, and handsome' mould (maybe 'light haired, tall, and handsome', but I suppose was close enough). Nice blue and very Fleming Bond colour of eyes.
I think what made Moore the actor he was was his style and manner. He was debonaire but in an ironic way with his eyebrow raises and tongue in cheek delivery. It weirdly complimented his ability to do more dramatic/dark scenes too. To me he was almost a pastiche of an English gentlemanly type - a David Niven but much more ironic and forceful (and even human) a screen presence. He was kinda the perfect follow on from Connery (who was himself a very wry and often ironic Bond, more so than I think many people here realise, especially in the context of adapting Fleming's Bond). Charismatic as all hell. Not sure if I can fully describe it, but Moore was a very distinct actor in these ways, and I think it was that 'something' about him which made him an extraordinary film star, and not just any other run of the mill television actor.
Yeah that's a great way of putting it, I completely agree. I guess I just mean in term of looks, I think if you were flicking through the channels on US telly in the 50s and came across The Alaskans or Maverick or one of those pretty formulaic shows he was doing you'd probably have forgotten his face by the time you got to the next channel: he was your typical square-jawed handsome guy. But yes, once he got to really star in his own show, become The Saint, his distinctiveness and charisma really shone through. I think it's been said a lot before, but in a way his ridiculously handsome looks kind of stopped him from being the comedic character actor he perhaps might have preferred to be at times. Mind you, I doubt he'd have said that; I get the feeling he had an absolutely lovely time!
I know, must have been a hard life for him being handsome, charismatic, talented, and distinctive! But joking aside I get what you mean.