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
Probably true :)
Let's compare Nicholas Hoult to Connery, born in Edinburgh poverty, who tried his hand at everything from milkman, club bouncer, coffin polisher to a ditch digger. Then let's look at Lazenby who'd served in the Australian Army, then afterwards worked as a car mechanic then salesman before stumbling upon modelling. Roger Moore, though not from a wealthy background himself, was a child evacuee from working-class Stockwell during the war, and later conscripted into the Royal Army Service Corps as a second lieutenant. Moore did have a little bit more good fortune going for him than his contemporaries due to a certain film director called Brian Desmond Hurst who paid Moore's fees at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art. Regardless, the world in which they were all brought up in was infinitely more tougher than it is today.
Now let's look at Nicholas Hoult: born on 7 December 1989, whose paternal great-aunt was Dame Anna Neagle and whose father was an airline pilot. This isn't a personal jibe at Hoult, as I like the guy very much and wish him all the best in his future acting endeavours. I'm simply calling to attention the huge disparity in upbringing and lifestyle as for the reason why Hoult still looks fresh-faced, whereas Connery, Lazenby and Moore had a more rugged, lived-in look. Additionally, anyone who thinks Hoult looks like someone that's been a Commander in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, really needs to get out more. Hoult looks like your typical young actor that's been to the Sylvia Young Theatre School and made it through their ranks. Good for him, but that doesn't necessarily make him Bond material.
Perfect. All we have to do is to find a British actor with dark hair, over six feet tall, with acting experience and a high profile, but who isn't famous, who looks like Bond, but not too much like Bond, who is handsome but not generic looking, who looks masculine but not rough, who is over the age of 35, but under 40, but looks older than 40, and who has done National Service, and we've got our man.
'But he's too tall'
'he's too tough looking; he's not smooth and suave- he's rough and looks like a bouncer or a road worker.'
'He can't do an English accent to save his life'
'He's losing his hair! He can't be Bond'
'He doesn't look anything like Hoagy Carmichael'
'His eyes are the wrong colour: Fleming distinctly specified his eye colour'
etc. etc.
Don't listen to fans when they tell you it has to be done only one way.
Only time will tell. As far as him looking too "boyish", I think some, but not al of that, comes from his being an actor from the time that he was a child. My 22 year old Daughter, who is a very enthusiastic Bond fan, says that now Hoult absolutely looks the part and will even more so in a few more years.
Now this is a evolving list, but if this week I had to present 3 names from which the next Bond would be selected, They would be,
A. Turner
N. Hoult
S. Claflin
We need another Sean Connery. He ticked those boxes when he signed.
Ha! Lovely.
We need another Sean Connery. He ticked those boxes when he signed.
“Perfect. All we have to do is to find a British actor with dark hair, over six feet tall, with acting experience and a high profile, but who isn't famous, who looks like Bond, but not too much like Bond, who is handsome but not generic looking, who looks masculine but not rough, but looks older than 40.“
‘Firstly’, Connery ticked all the boxes in 62 now.
Secondly, Connery is the aspiration and bar setting standard all Bond candidates should try to reach IMO.
No. Not at all. Perfect.
Connery ticked all of the boxes of what Connery should look like- he isn't Fleming's Bond as described on the page: that guy could have been played by Niven. Connery redefined it.
We can't say it should be just like Fleming with one hand and then like Connery with the other- they're not the same thing.
Personally I think we should take the Saltzman/Broccolli approach of being open to new options rather than rejecting anything even slightly away from what we've seen before- that's how they picked Connery in the first place, after all.
I know Fleming allegedly wanted Niven as Bond, but I don’t see Niven as Fleming’s Bond. He’s too soft and overtly gentlemenly.
You don't now, but I'm sure if he had played him you'd be saying how Aiden Turner looks far too brutish for it! :D
I can’t imagine Niven in a fight at all or being ruthless.
He was a fighter pilot and an Officer as well.
My point is he lacks the physicality required a for Bond, despite having all the other characteristics. He doesn’t come across on screen as being tough.
Watch Navarone. And also what Sandbagger said.
He only lacks the physicality because you’re used to the Connery version: if you actually want the Fleming version as you keep saying you do, then a Niven-type would’ve what you’d get.
Fleming was writing about the sort of men he’d worked with in the war: Bond was basically a guy from WW2 that Fleming put in the present day, and the commandos and SAS guys looked like Niven then because he was one. Connery was a bodybuilder- he wasn’t that type of guy at all. But he was such a terrific actor that he redefined Bond.
So either you want the exact word of what Fleming wrote or you are happy for it to be reinterpreted, as Connery did.
I need to watch those films as you say.
Bond was fairly physical in the novels though. But I get he certainly wasn’t a ‘man mountain’ like Connery.
I take your points.
Appearance wise (and considering the actors who’ve had the part thus far) Fleming’s Bond was basically a shorter version of Dalton. Probably with better hair.
Agreed.
As a modern day expansion of that, Tom Hiddleston, by no means my preferred potential Bond BTW, has the right type of physicality for the role.
I can easily imagine that TYPE of person in the role, if not actually him.
I'd say it depends of when the next film can start shooting.
Fassbender in Inglorious Basterds is perhaps the closest thing to a Fleming Bond on screen in terms of mixing the physical attributes with the gentlemanly, upper class manner and accent.
It is also amusing to see Connery's body building photos, because now he just looks like a fairly above average fit man. I look at photos of myself when I was younger and I look as muscular and as cut as him. My Universe has come on a bit since then!
It is also alarming how much musculature he lost by the time he got to his mid thirties, even in Thunderball he looks smaller and slight. By DAD he is totally out of shape for a 41 year old. I guess he had just grown tired of it. He looks much fitter in NSNA.
I also don't think Connery is as far removed from the Bond of the books. He plays it a bit more blue collar, but the manner and confidence in which he moves is there in the novels, I think. Obviously his accent is different. As is the repartee he gets into with Moneypenny, which obviously adds dimensions to the character not in the novels. Other than that it's about as close as could be hoped.
Anyway, what we are looking for is a man who can portray a gentlemanly spy, who is capable of great cruelty, and great heroism. Who can be light and carefree, but also dark and brooding occasionally. Clearly, some actors are going to emphasise some attributes more than others. The lightness of Roger Moore, for example, absolutely is in the Bond of the novels. It just isn't there as much as Moore emphasises. Likewise, the broodiness of Craig is present in the books, but not as much as the Craig films emphasise.
This is a good thing. As long as it doesn't deviate too much, I see no reason why one actor can't push different sides of the character. We don't have to get wrapped up in what Fleming thought, because what he wrote about the character is sometimes contradictory - which is what makes him such a great character in the first place.
Guns of Navarone is great, by the way.
Yes I think that's fair.
Yes it is a great starting age. So the next actor would be born around 1990.