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
All previous Bonds (including the incumbent) have something about them that I would aspire to be/possess (whether it be looks, charisma, attitude, etc )....but never in a billion freakin' years would I look up to or aspire to be Jack O'Connell 🙄🙄
Surely you would have to be a gnome to look up to O'Connell? ;)
But even if he were 6'2", he's too brutish for Bond.
Agreed. Not to mention Jack O'Connell's look and persona screams 'Council Estate Chav'. He's also a similar height to Hervé Villechaize. He's more 'Nick Nack' than Bond.
This is nothing more than classism but I'm going to bite the bait and ask how he looks at all chavy? How can anyone even look like a chav aside from dressing a certain way, which he doesn't? What do you mean his "persona" (seems like a nice and intelligent guy in interviews I've seen/read) and how would any of this whatsoever affect his performance on screen when he's proven himself to be a very versatile (northern mod/skinhead type, dangerous cockney young offender, vulnerable fresh faced squaddie, troubled American cowboy trying to reform, American olympic athlete and POW, etc etc) and charismatic actor?
You should watch him in Starred Up, Godless and 71, which I'm assuming you haven't, seems instead that you've written him off based some photos of when he was in Skins or Harry Brown (only way I can imagine you getting the impression you've gotten). And give this a read while you're at it
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Chavs-Demonization-Working-Owen-Jones/dp/1784783773/ref=asc_df_1784783773/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=310805555931&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=10510976036128670219&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1006947&hvtargid=pla-472077245943&psc=1&th=1&psc=1
Height is one thing. Don't agree but I can see why it's an issue for some people. But writing him off because he's from a working class background and has played working class roles in the past is just laughable.
Like it or not height is important for a leading man and for Bond. Just as models are paid to look good in a suit/ on screen, So is Bond, or the actor who plays him. If one is a border line midget, then playing 007 is not a role suitable for that individual.
IMO you can tell when certain individuals are from a certain background and O’Connell looks ‘chavvy’. You don’t agree, I respect that. Even in a suit he looks ‘messy’. An example of this type of look is say Jeremy Corbyn......even in a Savill Row suit he still looks like a tramp....he looks chavvy/ scruffy.
Moore and Connery are from working class backgrounds, but they can ‘look’ and ‘play’ the part convincingly.
But yeah, Bond should be at least 5'9''. Isn't Craig 5'8'' though?
According to IMDB, he's 5'10"
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0185819/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm
I don't agree because it's bollocks mate. Sorry for being so direct but it is. The height thing is an agree to disagree issue. The "chav" thing isn't. You absoloutely 100% can not tell someone's background just from looking at them. You can make assumptions based on clothing sure, but that's a mute point because on screen he'd be dressed exactly the same as any other Bond actor. The only way to look scruffy in a suit would be to get an ill fitting one or wear it scruffily (top shirt button undone, messy hair, unshaven, that sort of thing), which obviously wouldn't happen because they'd be dressing and styling him like Bond.
Too short, too brutish looking. These are subjective but valid criticisms. Too chavvy looking isn't because there's no such thing as someone naturally looking like any social class.
Ok. I’ll re-phrase. O’Connell has a rough face reminiscent of the British underclass IMO. It’s not a fact it’s an opinion. He would be perfect for ‘This is England’. And some people absolutely can still look scruffy in a suit.... for example Jeremy Corbyn. The O’Connell argument really is mute based on the fact that he is the height of an average 12 year boy anyhow.
This time however I don't see it being that straight forward, we have a lot of actors I could see in the part, but at the same time I doubt they have the ability to portray the character. Some of the names suggested I feel are too famous and it wouldn't be Bond on screen it would be the actor.
Then you have the fools who want to make the character unrecognisable just to please idiots on the internet.
Either way I don't envy the people having to make the decision, I don't think there is a right choice that at least everyone will understand. If I was pushed to make the decision, it would be between Turner and Madden. That's my judgement of having seen them both in just one series on the BBC. Even then I think both are step down from Craig
Exactly....."You have the fools who want to make the character unrecognisable just to please PC warriors on the internet". If I was pushed to make the decision, it would be between Turner and Hiddleston. That's my judgement of having seen them both in series on the BBC. I think both are step down from Craig too.
I'm torn. Would like Craig to do another because there's no one out there that I can see being better than him. At the same time it feels about time for a change.
I suppose most of us feel the same way ;)
I'd love for Craig to do another one. Up until his 60s he could be Bond. I wouldn't mind. Hey, I'm the guy who wants Dalton back, so...
Still say Turner would be a good choice, though. He'd surprise the hell out of many people. I've seen him in The man who killed Hitler, Poldark and in And then there were none. He was phenomenal in all of these, and has a brilliant screen presence and a strong command of character. I don't think he'd be a step down, if you consider all the six previous Bonds.
Have you seen the last series of Poldark? The scenes with the guy who asks him to spy are so like M/Bond scenes.
Yes, they really are. And they work, don't they.
Corbyn looks scruffy in a suit because he doesn't care about fashion so he wears fairly cheap looking and ill fitting ones. If he had a shave and got a bespoke saville row suit he wouldn't look scruffy at all.
Should have just said that he looks too rough, as that seems to be what you've been trying to say. But for what it's worth I disagree on that as well. He doesn't look any rougher than Connery or Craig at all, and I don't think Bond should be a proper pretty boy anyway, he should look a bit rugged.
Corbyn looks scruffy in a suit because he has a 'messy face' like the Dad in Step Toe and Son'. If he had a shave and got a bespoke saville row suit he would still look like a tramp, you can't change his face. Bond is a public school boy and a snob, O' Connell won't be able to sell this' or grow 6 inches taller.
Whether ordering a Martini or skiing off a cliff, Bond never loses the insouciant self-confidence of ‘school’, as OEs refer to their alma mater. It’s almost impossible to fake. He knows how to deploy good manners as a weapon. And he is a snob — a ‘tremendous snob’, in fact, to quote Sean Connery’s description of Ian Fleming, who was initially horrified that his hero was being played by a former Edinburgh milkman. Ian Fleming, himself an OE, tells us that Bond was at Eton for only a year before he was expelled for ‘trouble with a housemaid’ and transferred to Fettes.
If anybody thinks Jack O'Connell is Bond material, and should be handed the most prestigious male role in moviedom, they have an absolute right to hold that view. I would defend their right to hold that view to the hilt.
It doesn't mean that they're sensible to hold that view, though, or that it's ever going to happen. Because you might as well put a blindfold on, walk into the nearest Wetherspoons on a Thursday afternoon, randomly tap the first bloke you bump into on the shoulder and anoint him as the new Bond - the chances are that choosing Craig's successor that way will result in someone more Bond-like than O'Connell getting the gig.
I mean, really? Is this what it's come to, Jack O'Connell? Whatever your opinions may be on his acting chops, he is a rough-looking short-arse (no offence intended). Oh, and there's a world of difference between 'rugged' and 'rough' - the two are not interchangeable; Tim Dalton is rugged, Viggo Mortensen is rugged - neither man is identifiable as 'rough'.
Guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree then because I just don't see facial features as a sign of class at all. I grew up on a council estate and knew people there who didn't look in the least bit rough/rugged. Likewise I'm sure there are former posh public school boys out there with hardened looking faces. Corbyn, who you say looks like a tramp, is privately educated for example. I just don't think you can make assumptions based on things people can't change about their appearance.
I agree with your description of Bond. That's bang on, not going to argue with that. But I think Bond shouldn't come across as too much of a ponce. There should be an element of danger, a slight roughness to him.
I guess what it comes down to is which of those sides we think can be played and which of them can't. Personally I think that O'Connell or another actor like him would easily be able to carry off the posh snobby stuff as long as they're a good enough actor, and I'd point to Connery as evidence of this, but the more dangerous side is something you either have or you don't. You seem to think the opposite, that the posh public school boy side is something that you either have or you don't, something that can't be played/performed. So fair enough, I see what you mean now. But I'll just have to agree to disagree with you on that one.
His face is too unconventional looking. With the way things are going, Jodie Whittaker will be out of a job soon, he could always be the next Doctor. I am being serious, by the way. He looks more suited to being the Doctor, than James Bond.
I could actually see Alexander Skarsgård as a villain. He's tall too, so he would be a physical presence as well.
Sounds weird on paper but I can actually really see that working. I think he could play a cocky and charismatic yet dangerous and unpredictable doctor really well. Something along the lines of his character from Skins, but obviously more clever and alien. And the show is desperately in need of someone to give it a bit of an edge again after how bland safe and tensionless the last series was.
Sadly though I think his TV days are behind him. He's done a couple of big movies now and has apparently come very close to bagging himself a franchise twice (apparently he was being considered for Kingsman and lately for the new Batman). Don't think he'd fancy moving to Cardiff for a couple of years to earn a BBC salary.
The other thing about that is I'm pretty sure that the next doctor will be another woman. I think they'll want to show that it wasn't just an experiment or a one off. Then after that I think it'll be a man again to show that he can still be a man if they want him to, then after that they're free to pick whatever gender they want. That's the way I see it anyway.
Good post. +1.