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 do think that Barbara Broccoli must have watched Tenet and absolutely kicked herself for not getting to Robert Pattinson first. He has easily demonstrated that he's one of the most versatile actors today. What with his terrific performances in Good Time, The Lighthouse and now Tenet.
In fact, in the latter he shows a whole new side of himself playing an English dandy. I even saw a few shades of Roger Moore sneaking into his performance. Whilst John David Washington is playing a more Daniel Craig-esque version of Bond.
In the third act of Tenet, Pattinson looks exactly like 007. I found the below image on Twitter. I put it in spoiler tags, but it's not really a spoiler for Tenet. But those weary of knowing anything about the film, click at your peril!
But for those who have seen it, they can confirm he oozes Bond-like charisma.
I can more than imagine him next to the others. In fact, he fits rather well.....
I actually think that if the reboot does come between 2022-24, then you're likely going to see a new type of Bond. Just in the same way that Craig changed the game. I think they're gonna go for a more edgy, younger actor. It's all about Instagram, and the Gen-Z crowd these days and the franchise needs a new generation of fans.
The franchise does this every decade or so to refresh itself. The Craig era was a response to the Tobey Maguire/Spider-Man and Bourne films. I think Bond 26 will tap into the energy that is driving The Batman. That movie in particular seems to be drawing from an A24 vibe which is appealing to young people these days.
In this respect, I don't think a trailer with Callum Turner or James Norton will set the internet aflame. Nor do I think a staid choice like Henry Cavill would have the desired effect. You need someone really really exciting.
That choice would have been Pattinson. In lieu of him, the most interesting actor working today is Timothee Chalamet. He has a terrific body of work, he has a name and a fanbase. He's American, but like Fukunaga has a European flair. The more I think about him in the role, the more sense it makes....he would
As for Chalamet, I don't think it's a wise choice. While it may set the "internet aflame", I don't think that's a solid reason to cast them. Even with his filmography, name and fanbase, he still doesn't represent give off who and what James Bond is, and I can't imagine him just suddenly becoming that in the next few years.
I also think the whole Instagram and Gen-Z thing is a bit of a stretch. I mean Pattinson, for example, isn't someone who fits into that crowd. He may appeal to them, but him and Chalamet aren't one in the same in that regard. Also, Pattinson and other (more suitable actors) don't engage as much into that world as Chalamet does, and could still have the lasting effect needed to appeal to that crowd, if that's what EON want.
As for your comment regarding Callum Turner and James Norton. I mean firstly, whose to say where there fanbase will be in a few years time, and I also think anyone who is chosen for the role of James Bond will have a big effect on the internet. I don't think you need to be particularly popular right now to have that effect, considering it's gonna be over a few years or more before any pot begins to stir. It's hard to say where anyone will be in their career.
I also think even the people who aren't that bothered about James Bond, understand that whoever is cast still needs give off that more masculine and manly characterisation, and Chalamet's look and filmography proves that that is not his area and I don't think it ever will be. He suits leads who are meant to have more of that more boyish, leading man quality...
Chalamet is a future villain in the making, not James Bond, and the only way I can see him getting near the role of 007 is when he's closer to his 40s. So maybe Bond 8 or 9, but even then I don't think it'll happen...
I also can't see this being something Barbara would go for.
All jokes aside, he sticks out like a sore thumb in that image above.
James Bond is bigger than any of the actors who have played him, and long may that continue.
And I agree with @MajorDSmythe, Chalamet doesn't fit with the other 6 at all.
+1. Lucidity
It's a star maker, not a star chaser.
He looks more Spider-Man-esque to me. He has that quirky, beanpole Peter Parker look. Good for many roles, but equally unsuitable for as many others.
It's certainly gonna be interesting to see where all our suggestions are in a few more years, seeing as we're still very far away from EON even properly beginning their search.
I used to think so, back when the suggestions were the likes of Elba, Fassbender, Hardy and Cavill. And there are still a couple of names who I just think are Clive Owen all over again (Aidan Turner). But recently there’s been a few names touted who I think might genuinely be in with a shot.
Nobody expected Craig because he was the first major deviation from the traditional archetype, in terms of looks and the sort of actors they cast. Now that he’s broke the mould though, I think it’s a bit easier to pick out more realistic names. O’Connell, Norton, Callum Turner, Cole, and to a lesser extent Madden (might be too famous, I imagine he’ll be in more Hollywood stuff soon) all seem believeable to me.
If anything, Craig’s casting should make it easier to predict the next Bond imo. We just need to be looking in the right places. Having said that though it’s difficult right now, because the next Bond is probably a long way away. Who knows which other actors will emerge as contenders before then.
I can certainly see P2D's point about someone like Cavill being unveiled as the next Bond and folks not being massively interested though. I don't think his (for example) being cast would create much of a stir because he just looks like a Bond type and he's already well-known, plus he's not all that fascinating an actor. I don't think you'd get folks hugely excited to see the new Bond in action because they already pretty much know what he'd be like. I'm not saying it would be a flop as a result, but there wouldn't be much intrigue there.
Casting someone of slightly more interesting type (as Craig was) would spark interest, as would casting someone not as well-known. To say that folks will be interested in a new JAMES BOND film and not the new James Bond himself is kind of patently untrue: we're all so interested in the next Bond we're filling up a thread about it. There are newspaper articles and surveys galore on who the next Bond will be. Casino Royale made way more money than Die Another Day, GoldenEye did the same: there's always a stir about a new Bond, even more if it's someone making it a bit fresh. A new James Bond is a massive publicity angle.
Plus you've got to follow up on Craig, which is a tough task. You need someone of equal skill or who brings something totally different to it, and Cavill is just never going to be that guy.
That may well be true, but I can deny that I would be very happy if Cavill was cast.
Good job that's not what was said then! Of course people will be interested in who the next Bond will be. The point was that people will still be excited for Bond regardless of who it does end up being, because the character has always been bigger than the actor playing him. So casting someone based on how hip or Instagrammable they are is not the right way to go about finding a new actor.
You're missing the point of what I'm saying though: some are automatically going to be more intriguing and exciting than others. You said "people don't need to be excited by" the actor because they'll be excited by Bond alone, which is true to some extent but kind of ignores how a new Bond is a massive event and it'd be a shame to throw that away on one which doesn't deliver some kind of unknown quantity that gets an audience intrigued.
Imagine if Cavill was cast tomorrow: would we all be having debates about how he's going to play it? Not really, because he'd likely play just how we all think he would. You'd probably get a load of people looking at posters for the film and thinking he'd already been playing Bond for a few movies.
Idris Elba (for argument's sake, I know he won't) would at least give the whole thing an extra frisson, just as Craig did, folks would want to see how it would work and how he'd do it. You'd get an extra buzz on top of the usual Bond buzz.
Yes, Cavill would be safer choice ( I think it's just never gonna happen cause of Superman and The Witcher), but to cast someone specifically for that online reaction isn't a good enough reason, and not something I imagine EON doing.
Just because Cavill is a safer choice, it doesn't mean they're gonna need someone like Chalamet to completely catch people of the guard and cause a stir, cause again the idea is that no matter who is James Bond, audiences will watch and give their thoughts. Their opinions may differ and alter based on who it is initially, but either way, the conversation starts.
For example, I'm sure Craig wasn't cast because EON knew he'd get a huge response in the press and online, positive or negative. They cast him cause they thought he was good for the role, and that proved to be correct for a lot of people. So the point remains that casting for shock value or to start conversation isn't that necessary, because the conversation will happen regardless of its contents.
I'm not talking about online reaction specifically because that reduces it to fan chat, and that's not what I'm talking about. Audiences do get excited by the new, and Cavill (and this is hypothetical) isn't that, really. I think you do want to get someone who will freshen it up and get a big stir around it: not just because of the publicity or the intrigue but because that'll actually improve the movie too.
I'm not saying that person is Chalamet, not at all, just that freshness is what it needs every time, they can't coast along on Bond himself being enough.
That's an improvement on "patently untrue", at least. I know exactly what you're saying, but I'm not really sure whether it goes against the notion that the character is bigger than the actor. As for the Cavill hypothetical - yeah, I guess his take would be locked in, but I'm not much of a supporter of him for the part so...
A new Bond is a big event. But so will the next one, and the next one, even if they are contrasts to the previous one.
Going back to the original sentiment of P2Bs comment - which was casting Chamalet because he's the current champion of the Instagram generation; with respect to everyone's taste, I would stand by the response that even having that factor in to the conversation is a weak support of his candidacy and goes against the idea of the above when ultimately, he is simply all kinds of wrong for it as an actor.
Well, do we in all reality think that everyone involved (including the studio) really wanted Dalton back after 6 years for Bond 17? Or did they want a new actor to relaunch Bond in the 90s, to reinvigorate the audience, to freshen up the series?
People are interested because it's Bond, sure; so you could say that the character is the big thing there. But the actor is of pretty massive interest and gets folks excited about Bond again...
The 'patently untrue' bit is saying that people don't need to be excited by the actor. The two are pretty hugely linked.
Well that's what I was talking about: some are more interesting than others. Cavill is kind of your 1994 Dalton and he hasn't even played it yet.
Being one of those who have lost interest, I'd rather have a "safer" candidate than an "edgy" one.
No idea, but I would confidently bet they would have happily done a third film if they could. Roger didn't really take off with audiences until his third either, after all. But even at that, it kind of proves my point about the character being the draw ultimately, surely? They moved on and here we are nearly thirty years later, talking about who is next!
You could, and you'd be right! ;)
And yet they didn't...
Dalton's second one was the least successful Bond film of all (although not a flop, no); GoldenEye was a massive hit. That had nothing to do with the lead actor? I don't think so. I also don't think it would have been a big a hit with Dalton in the lead.
People need to be excited by the actor to be excited by the character- the two aren't separate.
Don't do that please, at least read to the end of my paragraphs.
Because they couldn't. It's fairly well known why they couldn't, too!
Totally fine to think that way, but it's not the only way of thinking. If Rog had only done two, I'm sure there would be people saying the same thing! But that's all a big "what if".
I did read it, as I'm sure you read the bits that you left out when responding! But the bit I did quote is the most important sentence, imo.
To bring this to the conclusion that it needs before we go around in circles and rely on hypotheticals even more - I'll repeat a line that was also not quoted in your last response (that is annoying, isn't it!)...
A new Bond is a big event. But so will the next one, and the next one, even if they are contrasts to the previous one.
The actor is important, but they'll never be more important than the character they are playing. There's always going to be another actor. It was Cubby himself that said that. It's why the Chalamet reasoning doesn't resonate with me, because it's placing his popularity above his suitability as an actor for the part.
But, the debate it has created is pretty good - so at least there's that.
I struggled to adjust to the Craig era until SF came round, so I can relate, but I think anyone hoping for a safe return to tradition is going to be disappointed. The new films have seen enormous critical and financial success, and the producers seem much more passionate about Craig than they were about the Brosnan era. Even Spectre, seen as pretty disappointing, made over 800 million. So, I don’t think they need to worry about getting the few who are dissatisfied back onboard.
Craig has changed Bond I reckon. Even if the films differ in tone, the next one will be similar to him.
Posts here advocating him to replace Craig remind me of my own sarcastic posts where I suggested: Jason Alexander, Willie Nelson, Kermit the Frog, Tom Hanks, the late great Kenny Rogers, and Matthew McConaughey as ideal Craig replacements.
That said, if he were cast, the teaser trailer were color timed, edited and scored like THE BATMAN or any other popular franchise trailer, the general public might be gullible enough to believe he's indeed what Fleming envisioned all along. Insert some brooding shots of him munching on scrambled eggs while looking somber and I think a few MI6 forum members may be sold as well.
He'd need that comma above the eyebrow, though.
I think we'll likely get an era similar to Craig's the next time around, too. With the kinks worked out a bit more and a little bit more variety on the thematic side. Wouldn't be a bad thing. As much as I am not a fan of where things have gone with the Craig era, I can see why they tried it. On paper, it is an interesting approach.