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 been saying Hemsworth for a while.
The Ozzies have an old school masculinity and charisma few can match.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/jun/21/danny-boyle-they-should-get-robert-pattinson-to-be-the-next-james-bond
I've been saying Hemsworth for a while.
The Ozzies have an old school masculinity and charisma few can match.
When people critisize Dalton, one... thing, I often see brought up is that "you don't need the worlds best actor". Adkins might not be a respected thesp, but he can dish out an ass whopping as good as Olivier could recite Shakespeare. If he grows his hair out a little, and shaves, he could turn up on set tomorrow, and take over.
To put it bluntly, Chris Hemsworth has zero box office appeal. I looked at the box office stats for his 2015 film Blackhat. It's genuinely shocking!
Budget:$70,000,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend USA: $4,415,000, 18 January 2015, Wide Release
Gross USA: $8,005,980, 31 December 2015
Based on its budget - it must be one of the biggest flops of all time. Only made eight million US on a budget of 70 million. That is a crazy small gross for such a high budget film with, I assume, decent marketing. No-one went to see it.
I think the problem is the media can overhype an actor's appeal. Hemsworth has zero box office appeal beyond playing Thor. That was established back in 2015 and we're in 2019 and nothing has changed. This is why MIB International has opened under 30 million. He has no broad appeal. He just happens to play Thor and people want to see Thor films and want to see Avengers films. It's not Hemsworth himself that brings in the people. That's not to say he is a bad actor or bad at playing Thor but it's the appeal of Thor and the comic book world that make people want to see those films.
Eon could find a good looking unknown, his fee a tiny amount compared to Hollywood standards (for example: £50,000 for Bond 26) and he'd be as profitable or not as profitable as Hemsworth as Bond. Why hire a proven box office loss maker like Hemsworth when you can find an unknown who'll be far cheaper to hire, have no flops on his CV. I think Bond doesn't need any 'star' playing the part. The whole concept of 'stars' does tend to fall apart when you look at box office grosses. Idris Elba is another actor given the overhype effect and he's not delivered much or any box office clout.
I'd put a fiver on the next Bond actor having zero box office clout prior to getting the part. It's going to be a relatively unknown actor with no major leading man roles on his CV. Assuming Babs and MG don't retire after Craig goes, they'll cast someone relatively unknown.
But your comments about Hemsworth seem contradictory. You point out that he can't be Bond because has no BO appeal beyond Thor but then say that BO appeal is not required to be Bond. Which is it?
I agree that you don't need to be a big star to be Bond. Anyway few actors like that exist anymore. How many people go to see a film just to see the actor these days?
Connery was an unknown when hired.
Lazenby was the same.
Moore was a tv actor with some film work.
Dalton was a film and stage actor without be an A-list actor.
Brosnan was the same as Moore, a tv actor with some film work.
Craig is also of a similar vein. No box office appeal before Bond.
Bond is the appeal, if the audience like the guy playing Bond, then the box office will likely follow. It's a truly unique role and series within the world of film.
Hemsworth could easily fit the role, despite his apparent lack of box office performance.
He'd have to be on the list of possible candidates alongside, Cavill, Turner et al.
And as stated pattinson is batman..
Wont be these two...look further afield
Hemsworth is absolutely a viable candidate.
Realistically it too early to dismiss him.
These are different times.
Yes I agree. Although big name recognition is less and less important in box office success from what I understand.
I think Hemsworth must be in the mix. But perhaps EON are once bitten twice shy when it comes to Australians.
What, for Bond?
A stuntman that could fight, maybe.
He might bring in the teenage girls, but not me.
Maybe not so hard to imagine after all ;-)...
Re youe point about my contradictory comment. I see your point but what I meant is there's little incentive for EON/MGM to cast Hemsworth at a high salary (even if his salary is not as high as he would be with lots of hits on his resume) versus casting a total or near unknown at a very low salary. I reckon Hemsworth as Bond or an unknown actor as Bond will probably equal similar box office.
The new guy will be fresh, most people won't know him, he won't be associated with an existing franchise. Hemsworth is well known, is associated with an existing franchise and also known for not bringing in decent box office when not playing Thor. I suppose the producers could argue "he's famous for playing Thor so that's why we're considering him" - which is a fair point, but it's doubtful that fame will add anything to the overall box office. Clearly Hemsworth's fame as Thor didn't add any extra box office to the MIB franchise so there's no reason to think his fame will add anything to Bond 26's box office.
Daniel Craig's casting would seem to prove my point. Most people didn't know him, he wasn't associated with an existing franchise. He did appear in Tomb Raider but didn't return in the sequel. Someone like Hugh Jackman would have been the obvious 'famous' casting back in 2005. Assuming Jackman could renegotiate a deal to continue playing Wolverine or deciding Bond is a better role than Wolverine and leaving Wolverine, I reckon most film goers would say he'd be the most famous actor of the mid 2000s to take over from Brosnan. Daniel Craig would have been far down the list. Good chance history will repeat itself with the next actor.
I just think Hemsworth is probably in the mix. Who knows what salary he'd be asking for in a few years. I reckon to get Bond plenty of actors might take a pay cut. I think if he wants to be seriously considered then he will need to put in a good dramatic performance somewhere. Babs isn't going to cast another light comedian in the role.
But yes on balance a lesser known actor is probably more likely.
Doubt we will see the next Bond before 2024 either.
But according to reports, he was considered to 'fey' for Bond. I think he could've been a great Bond, but it wasn't to be.