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
Usually that whoever has written the article thinks it should happen, or that someone else said it on da internet.
Hiddleston definitely has the acting chops for it, and he is smooth as silk on screen. Vocally he's perfect for the role.
Would need to add some muscle as I doubt EoN will go back to a Brosnan-style 'lightweight 007', as DC has upped the bar in terms of the physicality Bond needs to bring.
If you're referring to acting lightweights, then yes, they made an error before, but Hiddleston has the chops as you say.
I agree with all of this.
Colin Firth as Axel Foley.
Not as an actual real criminal, I might add.
;))
Besides, Hiddleston looks a bit too well... wimpy, I guess, for Bond. You need someone with some physical presence, surely? Not sure 'acting' alone will convey that.
I've never understood the idea that being working class automatically pitches you as being more 'authentic' or deserving.
Judi Dench said the same thing:
http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2014/sep/13/judi-dench-actors-held-back-by-wealth-divide-drama-school
Actors like Boyega and Elba prove less financially advantaged people can make it but it would appear the odds are stacked against poorer people making it as an actor.
Did you know Daniel 'Harry Potter' Radcliffe's mother is a casting film agent. And wow - Daniel Radcliffe became Harry Potter. Amazing! I'm sure her mother's position in the film business had zero bearing on his chances getting the role.
:P
I'd rather some young, struggling actor became the next James Bond than some guy with parents backrolling him or being born into money and money giving you contacts within the film biz. Perhaps a struggling actor might be more hungry for the part. Hiddleston doesn't need the money from Bond, I'm sure of that!
What does any of that have to do with Hiddleston's very obvious screen presence and talent? Last time I looked they weren't available off the peg. Do you think Elba will have his kid grow up on a volatile council estate in East London with no financial support? What you're talking about is opportunity, which is a very different thing. One can postulate about the likes of Hiddleston and Cumberbatch all they want, but it doesn't change the fact they are simply taking full advantage of their situations and, let's be fair, making a damn good job of it.
Sure, Connery naturally brought a certain blue collar working class persona to Bond which perhaps eluded Moore, but I don't think it should necessarily be a requirement. May the best man win, regardless of silver spoon.
ok now I really want to see Hiddleston in at least a fan poster for 007.
Firth is too old. C'mon be realistic lol. :P
He's got the right physique for me. I don't understand this need some have to see 007 absolutely ripped. Bond is not a man who does six hours of weights a day. He keeps his physique in check through activities such as swimming, climbing, running and shagging. I love DC, but next time around I want someone who reflects the above. You don't have to be packing a Hunnam physique to put up a fight.
Bond isn't an action hero. He's an alcoholic, womaniser (nb. should be smoking) whose health and abilities defy his lifestyle. It's only because he's active in the field and a voracious lover that he stays trim. DC works in CR, they took a different approach and made him a wrecking ball, before attempting to smooth the edges. Next time around they should cast closer to the Fleming Bond. I don't agree the audience nowadays don't want someone akin to Hiddlestone.
That's irrelevant. There's an authenticity in the DNA of the Fleming character and stories that has always been a huge part of the most revered films in the series. Whether people recognise it as such is immaterial.
I refer you to the term 'Hiddlestoner' - http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hiddlestoner
"A devotee of the cult of Hiddles - someone who worships the glory that is Tom Hiddleston."
To suggest he is somehow bereft of appeal is pretty misguided.
In the case of DC, I think it was imperative that he was ripped. DC wouldn't have been credible as Bond upon introduction in his pre-CR physique (for example how he was when he was introduced as Bond in 2005 on the boat). Having said that, even he is far less built now than he was in CR.
I think Hiddleston will be able to'project Bond' better without the physique imho. He just needs to bulk up a little bit. That's all.
This is how I picture Bond's physique to roughly be in the novels. Obviously this being the 21st century and a degree of realism being a requirement and for physical admiration and sex appeal, the above physique is fine and even then for the sake of competing with the stars quo of how men should look in Hollywood, he'd only need a matter of a few weeks in tge gym for a bit more superficial definition, although it's not even needed. The above pic is perfectly acceptable for Bond's physique post Craig and just in general.
Brosnan on the other hand was too scrawny in GE and it didn't help that he had no real physical presence to intimidate. His latter films showed that there was nothing interesting or appealing about his body; no definition, no tone, no nothing except being a hairy dude with a bit if a gut by the time DAD rolled around.