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've just read Being Bond and it mentions the final four screentested and if I'm honest, it's underwhelming. Daniel, Henry Cavil, Sam Worthington and Goran Visnjic. It could have only been Daniel.
I wonder if they'll do that again, were they almost set up their choice as the best man for the job for the studio's benefit
I feel Sope would be an excellent '006' or perhaps the lead henchman. Bond? Nope for Sope.
I think what it comes down to with any actor's appearance isn't so much whether they fit a list of superficial qualities but what their appearance, in tandem with their performance, conveys about their take on Bond. And indeed whether that take on the role is the right one.
Craig doesn’t really look anything like Hoagy Charmichael though, as @jetsetwilly had pointed out.
It's probably simply because he's older in that photo. Maybe just the angle which makes the nose look similar. The literary Bond is said to look like a young Carmichael anyway.
But like I said, it's completely irrelevant in the context of casting Bond. Even when taking the novels into account the Carmichael similarity is only mentioned twice and it's a highly superficial detail, the opinion of other characters. Most people reading the books today have absolutely no idea who Carmichael is anyway.
What's important about Bond is that he's a good looking man who has dark aspects of his appearance which stand out - the cold grey blue eyes, a cruel mouth, a scar on his cheek. There's just 'something about him' that's different. In MR it's stated that he looks somewhat out of place in a private member's club to the point where he's even 'alien and un-English'. It's these intangible aspects of the character - that sense of danger, darkness, intrigue - that an actor needs to embody, not looking like Hoagey Carmichael.
Watch Love Is The Devil: Study For A Portrait of Francis Bacon, and see Craig's look in there.
Oh yes he's got black hair and eyebrows in that.
Very glad they never decided to dye it for his Bond portrayal though! It's fine for that film, but Craig's shorter dark blond hair is a bit more natural and in-keeping with his Bond.
100%
It would’ve been a huge mistake too the series as a whole.
The nose, the mouth, etc.
It's been noted over time.
2005
https://commanderbond.net/2925/is-craig-close-to-becoming-007.html
Likewise, the very reliable Stax over at IGN FilmForce reports, “IGN FilmForce has also heard from reliable sources that Craig is the man for the job but have not been able to confirm.” In their report, IGN offers up a picture of Hoagy Carmichael — whom Fleming said was his ideal model of what 007 should look like — noting the similarity in appearance to Daniel Craig.
https://www.radiotimes.com/movies/james-bond-casino-royale-director-daniel-craig-reservations-newsupdate/
He added: "You know, there was a stereotype, if you see what I mean, with those three characters. And Daniel, of course, is much more like Ian Fleming’s conception of that part. I think it was Hoagy Carmichael, he said would be the perfect Bond. He was a Bond for the time, basically whenever we started. I think in 2006 we made Casino [Royale], and he was just perfect for the complete reboot, to be honest, which was much more reality based."
https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/james-bond-007-history
Campbell: The appeal for me was that you reboot and go back to the tone of the books and get to work with someone like Daniel, who is a superb actor and probably fits Fleming's description of Bond better than anyone. Fleming always thought Bond should look like Hoagy Carmichael.
I admit Craig’s appearance in Love Is The Devil makes him look an awful lot like Carmichael, and yes the mouths and noses are quite similar, but that’s also largely down to having the man’s hair and eyebrows dyed black, and as many have pointed, that look probably wouldn’t have worked for his Bond. But I still fail to see any sort of semblance between Craig during his tenure as Bond/how he naturally looks and Hoagy Carmichael. Nor do I see much of a resemblance to Fleming’s description as well. He does have the “cruel mouth” that Fleming describes, and those Blue eyes as well, but aside from those examples, nothing really stands out to me. He doesn’t have the scar on the right cheek, they don’t give him the slicked back hair with the coma above the eyebrow, and I certainly don’t think that Fleming’s Bond is as built physically as Craig’s either. I’ve been looking at images of the Craig and Carmichael/Fleming’s illustration on and off for most of the day, and I still just don’t see anything it unless it’s from the aforementioned film above. Perhaps that’s just a fault with my eyes. Maybe if his haircuts weren’t so short I could see it better? Besides, even if there was some slight resemblance between Craig/Carmichael, I don’t think it was the major deciding factor in his casting. Plus if rumors are suggested, Campbell was pushing heavy for a young Henry Cavil to get the part, and he looks nothing like Fleming’s Bond, or Carmichael.
Regardless, the whole discussion isn’t exactly the point I was trying to drive at earlier, and I think I should make myself a bit clearer. When you take a look at all six actors, they all bear little/no resemblance to Fleming’s Bond/Carmichael at all. Connery, Lazenby, Dalton, and Brosnan all fit Fleming’s loose stereotype for the character (tall, and dark haired), while both Moore and Craig are a bit further away from the “typical” look of the character, but that ISN’T and SHOULDN’T be viewed as detrimental to their portrayals. I don’t view each Bond actor as needing to be completely faithful to the works of Fleming, but they need be a compelling in their own way. Bond should stand out in a crowd, project himself with confidence, be suave and humorous, but have an air of danger as well. A wolf in sheep’s clothing. Now some of the Bond actors portray these aspects better than others, and at the end of the day Connery’s Bond will always be viewed in such high regard, but EON have always nailed it with the casting of Bond in the respect (yes; even Lazenby!)
To Quote Michael Reed;
“If they can find an actor with the ruthlessness of Jack Palance, and the charm of Cary Grant, they would have a good James Bond.”
As for the next Bond, I’m trusting the Broccoli’s with who they pick. So I’ve got no dogs in this race.
In that moment Daniel always reminds me of Fleming's description of Bond
He admits, "I was asked to dye my hair brown to play this role but it was out of the question. I suggested instead that I could cut my hair really short to create a more brutal appearance."
Daniel talking about his haircut in Casino
Right on time, nice to hear Calvin's thoughts on some of them. I do disagree on Theo James and Tom Hughes, but I agree on pretty much all the others
I have always been an advocate for casting a person of colour as James Bond. However, if such a decision were made, it would likely be driven by financial considerations rather than political or moral ones. While films have occasionally cast minor or supporting roles with actors of different ethnicities than previously depicted, there are few examples of this happening with the lead role, one being The Little Mermaid. Unfortunately, despite its impressive domestic numbers, the film encountered significant international underperformance and became a subject of political debate. Since the Bond franchise heavily relies on international ticket sales, it's understandable why EON would be hesitant to take such a risk if the audience isn't showing enthusiasm overseas. Furthermore, the success of the Spider-Verse movies suggests that audiences are open to seeing diverse characters in established properties when they are introduced to new characters instead of seeing classic characters change significantly.
EON is likely to prioritise caution over potential controversy, given that the franchise is primarily a financial endeavour for them. This cautious approach is not surprising, considering the significant stakes involved. Personally, I would like to see another "origin" film that explores Bond's earlier years before he joined the secret service. Casino Royale introduced a mid-30s Bond on his first 00 mission, but it would be truly unique to witness the events that led to his recruitment and caught the attention of the service and M.
Speaking of casting choices, Jacob Elordi, a talented actor who recently made an impression at the Tribeca Film Festival, is still one of my leading contenders. With his undeniable charm and striking looks, Elordi could bring a fresh perspective to portraying a young Bond during his formative years. Personally, I am fully supportive of a film that focuses on Bond's audition for 00 status. There is still much to explore regarding his career before becoming 007, including the formative events that shaped his persona.
Barry Keoghan captures my attention as a potential Bond candidate due to his intriguing and distinctive energy. There's a certain "weird" quality about him that feels refreshingly new. On the other hand, Paul Mescal stands out as another top contender in my opinion. He possesses an undeniable resemblance to the magnetic presence of Marlon Brando—a blend of masculinity, vulnerability, and a delicate yet bruised demeanour. Mescal not only embodies these qualities but also aligns with the type of actor that EON now seeks. Notably, his recent appearance in the film Carmen showcased a Bond-like aura.
Also, keep in mind he is still in his 20s.
None of the guys in these 1082 pages have enough charisma for the role, IMO.
And that is symptomatic of the evergrowing loss of star quality in cinema. There are simply no more movie stars. And people with gravitas are hard to find in every corner of the greater art.
Are you against casting anyone who resembles what Ian Fleming described Bond as in the books?
And do you think that such an actor which fitted that description doesn't exist at the moment?
What if someone “looked” like James Bond, but they’re a weak actor?; I’d rather have someone who could bring to life the behaviours and characteristics of the man.
Same here.
Of course, that goes without saying. They have to have all characteristics, not just the looks. I'm with you there too, obviously.
And again, do we think there isn't an actor right now on planet earth that fits the description of Fleming's Bond, AND is a strong actor too?