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
The saint was a TV show. Moore wasn't a movie star.
Fair enough points but the difference is none of the characters you've mentioned are as big or as culturally iconic as James Bond or Superman. These 2 characters are the pinnacle of iconography with such a rich and established history. It's also worth noting that 6 cinematic actors have played Bond and come next summer 3 cinematic actors would have played Superman. Both characters are the also the most iconic characters of their respective genres and both characters have the longest cinematic history if their respective genres. I just don't see a single actor playing both roles.
Also, I don't agree with your dismissal of Roger Moore as The Saint. Television in the 60's attracted far bigger audiences than cinema did and everyone knew Roger Moore as Simon Templar. Whether he was a movie star or not is insignificant, the point is he was universally known as The Saint before he became James Bond. If you weren't around at that time then you won't understand the significance, but to me Roger Moore was Simon Templar and he really had to win me and a lot of other people over as the new Bond back in 73. If anything, it proves it can be done.
Anyway, I think Superman is the tougher acting job as there's only ever been one actor that has defined the role, and even he outstayed his welcome with Superman IV.
With respect to your first point, Sherlock Holmes is probably more iconic than Bond and Superman combined (he's also been
played by dozens of actors, is certainly the most iconic character in his genre and his cinematic history goes back to 1900!)
more iconic in what way? as cinematic experiences,literature experiences or cultural experiences? because Sherlock holmes as cinematic experiences is not as big as James Bond or Superman, very little people wants to be Sherlock Holmes, in the other hand many were much inspired to become James Bond or Superman.
There's always a first i agree, Let see how EON would make the decisions when casting the next Bond, but based on their historical decisions they never cast an actor that already big in Cinema (not TV) if i'm not mistakenly remember Cubby or Harry want an actor who is not already bigger than the character (James Bond)
I think Cavill has a good look for Bond - chiselled features, dark hair, blue eyes. Tom Hardy, while a good actor is too much on the pretty side like Brosnan was in GE. Infact, at the moment, more so than Brosnan at this stage. Maybe Hardy will lose this with age but then he might be too old by this time anyway. He has femine lips like Brosnan too. Anyway, seeing they cast Brosnan as Bond it might mean that they would still be keen on casting Hardy.
I'd have no problem seeing Cavill transfer from Superman to Bond. I think those who said people in general don't have a problem seeing an actor leave one franchise for another are right. I can still see some of the general cinema going audience having a problem with it though. In terms of Eon, I'm not sure but I wouldn't be surprised it they were still put off by the fact that Cavill played the man of steel but I don't know. It might depend on how many films he has done too. The fact that Moore played The Saint is worth considering but it isn't as big a role as Superman.
I'd still like to see Christian Bale as Bond.
Daniel Craig is about 44 years old now, unless I'm too tired and I misread something
No, the pronoun refers to Cavill. Maybe I should have been more specific.