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'm going to put Condor on the list of must-see. If he's half the actor his dad is, and with the presence he gives off in interviews, I wouldn't be sad to see this guy as a future James Bond.
Need to watch him in something (preferably Condor, as I'm a fan of the film), before making an opinion about him, but we certainly have had worse suggestions.
If only I could find a streaming service to watch Condor!
I don't agree that Elba is a "once in a lifetime candidate?" And if that were the case then the other candidates must be rather ropey!
IMHO he's just a decent, tall, black British actor. I know some people think he's suave or rugged. It's all subjective, of course, but we have to put it all into context. I don't think Elba is some legendary, great actor just unlucky not to have found his career defining film role. I think he's just another actor that deserves success if it comes his way but hardly a "once in a lifetime candidate" for Bond. With respect, that sounds a little over-the-top. I'm sure Idris would be chuffed with your comments, though. ;)
Oh, I wasn’t referring specifically to your post, it was just a general thought.
And a good thought it was my friend.
I agree with all this.
I don't think the social media provocateurs will be that crazy, demanding Elba at age 60-ish as Bond. It will go away eventually, surely. In any case, I wouldn't put money on him appearing in a Bond film though.
2,086 people certainly isn't much to go by. It's an odd number too; why not 3000? 4000? 5000? I do think we over-analyze the films sometimes; it can be really fun, of course – but there's always the chance of focusing too much on the negatives. For my own part, I try to rank the films by entertainment factor more than anything. It's why DAF will never be a bottom film for me; it's too fun and entertaining not to be. It's also why I have my issues with the Craig era, as the films (particularly the last two) didn't entertain me. They're to dreary to interest me.
Also, I know where you're coming from @Torgeirtrap with regards to the last 2 Bond movies. I too thought they were pretty dreary. I'd much rather watch DAF over SF and SP any day.
We'll know in some years what the media provocateurs think, I guess!
Wouldn't surprise me if many regular movie goers feel the same. My friends - who are regular movie goers, dislike the Craig era, finding the later films "boring" or "too dark".
Regarding Irons, he hasn't (so far at least) appeared in a suit or dinner jacket, and his attire is generally that of a regular bloke. While he may not give off obvious Bond vibes as a result, the guy is comfortable in his skin, and has a certain confidence combined with height and a good build (he looks fit, but doesn't appear too sinewy as though he's a gym nut like certain people). I think he's got something, but he does appear youngish. In time and with a few lines on his face, I can see him as Bond.
Indeed. I'm curious about Max Irons, but I find him foppish on the pictures here.
Do I think any of these guys have a chance at Bond? Not at all.
Oh, I'll definitely leave my expectations low. Films or TV shows based on on popular titles rarely works out well (or as one hopes to), but it's easy to be curious given that it's Three Days of the Condor. One of the exceptions IMO is Endeavour, the brilliant ITV series about a young Inspector Morse (the name of the character and popular detective TV series).
I've only seen the trailer of Condor, and Irons certainly looks youngish there. But – as you write - a few lines in the face can do much difference. At the same time I can definitely see @bondsum's point about actors from privilege. The working-class actors/actresses definitely have something about them that many, more privileged ones lack.
James Bond has benefited from actors who have had “working class backgrounds” since it built their character and gave them personality; perhaps it even gave them a survivor’s instinct that suits James Bond.
On top of that, I’m more drawn to a very masculine and physical actor as James Bond. Sean Connery and Daniel Craig best exemplifies these traits for me (GL as well, but his one film, with all of his natural strengths, also revealed some natural weaknesses as an actor; doesn’t allow me to put him on my best list).
Good points, @peter. I mentioned this earlier, but how is the industry these days? It seems every time I look up an actor or actress on Wikipedia, they seem to come from privileged backgrounds, or at least middle-class-y backgrounds.
Coincidence, or is at a case that (trained) actors are more likely to be able to attend acting schools – and from there make a career in film and TV?
There are cheaper ways of acting training, at colleges and acting studios around the world.
So, I'm not sure of the answer other than to make a wildly speculative guess: film is a visual medium, and in some cases a very superficial one.
I sat in on some professional casting sessions a few years ago. We were working with one of the industry's best female casting director.
She presented the director with a list of headshots of actresses for the leading role. And she described each in very terse descriptives, as if they were well tended hunks of meat (she also had a remarkable memory of the credits each had).
So, to get back to your question: privileged people tend to play in their own sandbox (generalizing). They also don't usually marry someone who may not be a similar mirror image to themselves. Their off-spring will likely have wonderful genes.
And, since the film industry is, at times, very superficial, these beautiful people are sought after en masse. That's why we always have flavours of the month...
Yep, my opinion, exactly. Probably a better actor than Radcliff, though.
Good points, @peter – these might certainly be the reasons that the names I've looked up on Wikipedia happen to come from these backgrounds. It's very noticeable I think, once you spot them. In interviews, in films; they can't shake the "social standing" off them, even in acting parts. We certainly can't have a Bond that feels "privileged". He needs to have that certain edginess. Not "street" of course, but you know what I mean.
He is not one of them, at all.
He's a blunt instrument with a hedonistic streak. Or as Mathis says to him in CR:
“Surround yourself with human beings, my dear James. They are easier to fight for than principles.'
He laughed. 'But don't let me down and become human yourself. We would lose such a wonderful machine.”
Haha, that's a good way to put it, @peter! You and @ColonelSun are spot on there. Makes me think of Solange, Dimitrios's wife in CR. Craig was great there; and you need an actor that can sell that mischievousness or whatever one might call it. No wonder they use the FRWL seduction scene for the screen tests.