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
People look younger these days. 40 year olds don't look as old as they used to. I don't think we should rule people out just because of the numbers on someone's birth certificate.
Of course, if they are in their late 40s then it might be more difficult for them to make 4 or 5 films, but I don't think 40 or early forties is too old to get a run in the role.
Yeah. With Moore, Dalton & Brosnan. EON of old didn't bother about them being in their 40s. So EON can still bring back that style of casting. Personally, I think they should, because Craig should have made more than 5 Bond films, considering he joins Connery & Lazenby as the youngest Bonds.
Yes I agree with this. Obviously the optimum is to get an actor who is 35. But 35 year old good looking actors are likely to look mid/late twenties these days.
Exactly.
One of the reasons I believe factored in Pierce Brosnan not returning for a fifth film, was the injury his sustained to his knee whilst film DAD. It's never been confirmed obviously, but at the time it put the film schedule into disarray. Just a theory I have with bringing in the younger Daniel Craig, and rebooting the series with CR.
I think this might be a consideration. But it still leaves us with the same problem. That actors who are between 30-35 look very young these days, are still going to look younger than previous actors in the role until they get to 40, and then they are considered too old.
I agree 100% ; as a man who has always been heavily involved in health and fitness, and has a very physically taxing occupation as a firefighter, I can confidently say that physical durability for an actor in his 40’s , into his 50’s is a non-issue for an actor who maintains their body.
Didn’t he get a couple of his teeth knocked out in a fight rehearsal in CR?
Right out of the hop, Craig’s body got mangled in one way or the other— was SF his only injury-free film?
I don't know; I feel like that may have been in that round of 'Craig can't drive a manual car' silly season rumours from people who didn't like a blond guy playing 007. I'm not sure if it was true or not.
One of my top 3 choices. He’s got more than a hint of Connery’’s mischievous confidence
Yeah. Lowden works for me as well. His performance in Dunkirk was good.
It's not so much about looking old or mature enough as it is about lasting in the position for a good time. Now that the delays are quite long between Bond films, an actor will age considerably more between them. And even a youthful looking man I'm his 40s, like Moore and Brosnan were, will sooner or later look old, and often sooner than later. Ideally, I'd say a new Bond actor should be in his early 30s to late 30s when cast. I'd take a younger actor, providing he can act the part and is sufficiently masculine, to mature in the role, over one that may look mature but can quickly look like someone's dirty minded uncle.
I've said for a couple of years that I feel it's going to be him. Like some sort of sixth sense thing. He ticks all the boxes. I was a little concerned his profile might go up too much. He feels so right.
How about Tintin? Fits the bill just right.
Lol!!! He does. Nothing wrong with taking both roles on.
Definitely. Launching a new Bond is always squeaky bum time, but this feels especially monumental. Craig is the best since Connery, Amazon acquisition, and post-Covid.
Honestly. The upcoming Bond screen test feels so huge. Apart from the usual FRWL scene, maybe scenes from some of Craig's Bond films might also be used to test the candidates, because Craig has been great. Maybe Bond and Dryden's exchange from CR or Bond & Severine's exchange from SF might be used to test the candidates.
In which case people have to stop moaning about actors looking baby faced. Let's stick to the point. I am not saying the actor has to be in his forties. I am saying that on these boards people have a tendency to complain that actors look too young, but as soon as they hit 40 they say they are too old.
We all want a mature looking 33-36 year old to take the role. The problem is that there's never one of those around when you want one.
I agree. Best idea for moving forward. However, I have a feeling they'll continue to release the films at their own leisure pace without a blueprint for the era planned. They'll take things as they come. Enough time will pass between films that there will be no point in planning ahead. Plot and character ideas created years previously may be deemed irrelevant by the time they get around to producing another film.
Yes, they have never had a coherent blueprint for any of the actors, so there's no reason to think they will start now. I agree with @talos7 that it would make sense, though.
There are a few things that will remain timely for a while I think: cybersecurity issues, biological warfare, terrorism. So plot wise I think we might be covered, to a degree at least.
https://www.gamesradar.com/no-time-to-die-daniel-craig-interview-james-bond-25/
Ah, to be a fly on the wall…