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 only time I bought his performance as a soldier was in War Horse, but even that was more toff than tough.
My point exactly.
Forget it, @suavejmf. These guys want SAS types, square bodies and faces, muscled, arched backs with sub machine guns poised as they were in an assault. Forget about the gentleman spy era. That's gone. Thugs in suits, that's the thing now. A compromise between the two will always be a no-no now. The thing I like about Craig is his style and poise. He's not a thug, he's old school chivalry. Going beyond that, to bouncer type action heroes would be a crime, IMO. Some say Craig is already that, but I disagree. But there's a fine line... And most people here wouldn't mind crossing it, I suppose.
Thing is, there are plenty of action spies franchises out there. The gentleman spy is an empty niche, ready to be taken to the bank, ready to be explored like it was back in the 60s. Kingsman is proof of that. Come tell me that Colin Firth, Ralph Fiennes, Taron Egerton, ..., are SAS types; or come tell me they are a "sissy army squadron". Cmon, has everyone forgot about the fabulous idiosyncrasy of having gentlemen being able to fight goons? That's the whole point, isn't it? Connery had to be toned down and schooled by Terence Young because they wanted a Cary Grant type, not because they wanted an Oliver Reed type.
Not advocating for Hiddleston here, though. But someone who can inhabit both worlds with ease and panache. A compromise. Sort of like Craig. Oh boy...he's gonna be a though act to follow.
Again, I agree. I find it surprising when the press etc call Craig a thug. He actually encapsulates the sophisticated side of Bond quite well (food/ etiquette/ dress) and his English ‘voice’ is perfect for the role. Well spoken without being overly posh.
The only part of his tenure style I would criticise was the ‘set dressing’ of his flat. It wouldn’t be empty and ‘unloved’. It would be ‘upper crust’ and ‘just so’ as seen in DN, LALD and in Fleming’s novels. But that’s down to the production team rather than Craig as an actor. The same production team who invented the Step Brother crap.
Agreed, in ‘The Night Manager’ Tom Hiddleston played a brilliant and convincing ‘gentleman spy’ which positively and utterly screamed Bond to me. 👍
The series achieved new heights of success with a dapper gentleman spy.....namely Sir Roger Moore.
Not for me as Bond is a white character. So Elba was never a contender for Bond in my eyes.
But I doubt Hiddleston will get the part as you say. He’s probably too expensive and famous as well.
Richard Madden could be an option IMO. Watching GoT at present and I can see the potential in him for sure.
...and yeah I know Elba's race was the thing that made others not want him; but for me it was simply because I don't think he'd be good for the role, and I think giving someone a role who really wants it isn't always a good idea.
Exactly, but the same people who come here saying "if you accept a blonde Bond, wouldn't you accept a black Bond?" as if hair colour bared the same weight as race (I will not go down this hole again), are the one who now say that what Bond is is a brutish thuggish SAS type, and not a gentleman spy. And that rules out Sir Rog, doesn't it? Oh, they'll come around saying I'm putting words in their mouths and that that is not what they're saying. I know, I know, just making a point here. The thing is, James Bond is sort of a compromise between two worlds, a relic from a generation when one had to be. Take Don Draper. He's not exactly bulked, not a muscle guy anyway, but one look at him and you know he'd be dangerous if provoked. That's the sort of guy we want for the role. Is that too difficult? Are men like that a dying breed?
Well...probably.
+1. Well said.
Just digressing a little here.
Yes, Hiddleston is no wimp. Part of how he was so convincing in The Night Manager was that he was ripped like a solider without looking over the top like say ‘The Rock’. Yet he also had the required Bondesque charm.
Also, he’s only ‘smaller’ than Thor....which isn’t weak at all!! 🤣😂
A couple of pages ago you were saying how the actor in question should match Fleming's description entirely, his rugged, scarred blunt instrument of a man. And now you're advocating a preening pretty boy who hasn't even got the right colour hair? C'mon: consistency.
And again, you're making things up that people haven't said. If you can find anyone saying they want a thug in a suit try and quote it.
Because you are, yes. Knowing that you are isn't a defence.
Yes, I agree that Roger wasn't a great fit for the character of Bond as written: you're the one who says the actor must be a fit for Fleming's Bond not me. I'm not saying he should be believably tough because Fleming said he was, I'm saying it because James Bond 007 the cinematic character should be. He's an action hero who is supposed to be ex-special forces whether you like it or not: and Hiddleston convinces in that role not one tiny bit.
Sure.
I'll quote myself, then:
"Not advocating for Hiddleston here,..."
And I talked about a compromise, as that is what James Bond is all about, a bridge between the two. Mind you, I believe we can't fully get a mirror image of that kind of man, because I think they are rare these days. That's my entire point. Concluding that they should get someone as close as they can to the source material, and not an entire opposite. That is consistency on my part, throughout all of my arguments.
A "rugged, scarred blunt instrument of a man" isn't a full SAS type, muscled, bouncer type of guy. Fleming sure didn't envision him like that. A "rugged, scarred blunt instrument of a man" can very well be portrayed by someone like John Hamm (sadly not British). And he is not what people here are advocating. Nor is he the Hiddleston type.
My dear @mtm, I believe you thrive on finding inconsistency in other's posts, and then deconstructing said inconsistencies to no end, one for one, even if they're not really there. Search, search, and you will find. But in reality, there isn't inconsistency on my part.
I've been advocating for a close to the source material casting, and describing Bond as the "rugged, scarred blunt instrument of a man", adding the Gentleman spy part which is lacking in most depictions here. I'm not advocating for the wimp nor for the bruit. I'm searching for the rare breed of man that encapsulates the old school, old gen look and proxemics.
Have I not been consistent in my ramblings? :) Do I have to say it all again and again? I think not ;)
Now chill.
Just watch Licence to Kill: it's the same plot but shorter! :D
True, very true.
Hiddleston is the opposite to me. I don't know what you mean by opposite.
One minute you're dismissing actors because they're not the spit of Fleming's Bond, now you're saying he's a compromise. I can't keep up.
Who said he was? Again, you're kind of inventing these arguments in your head. Please just try to reply only to what people have written.
Sure, Hamm seems like he has a bit of testosterone flowing through his veins, and he can do tough and scary as well as smooth. He would have been very much the right type for the part.
To me it's whether I can believe this guy is tough, an incredible fighter, a super-smooth alpha male that women find instantly attractive and who has experience of everything and who knows he's the best guy at everything in the room. What colour his hair is or whether he's over six foot make no difference whatsoever to me, I think it's a weird thing to obsess over.
Oh look!! We agree on something. I'm so glad.
I'll quote myself again for ya:
"My dear @mtm, I believe you thrive on finding inconsistency in other's posts, and then deconstructing said inconsistencies to no end, one for one, even if they're not really there. Search, search, and you will find. But in reality, there isn't inconsistency on my part."
And as sure as the wind blows, you did it again. Do carry on compulsory saying that I'm not consistent and that I contradict myself. I'll be sure to answer "sure".
Cheers, mate.
We've been obsessing about haircuts for years. And many things like that. What do you think fandom is? What do you think forums are? A place for pragmatism? You'll be disappointed, I tell ya.
One thing is for sure, I do appreciate your investment and going through all that trouble to answer.
Again, cheers, mate.
It's no use in arguing. I just give them a simple, "sure" and move on.
Very true, @peter, my friend. I've often stolen your "sure" and I'll be sure to use it more often ;)
Miss seeing you around and reading your lucid posts.
In reality there is. End of story.
I could say you thrive on inventing others' arguments and putting words in their mouths so you can try and make them look stupid, ignoring that they never said those things. Where does that get us?
I'm sorry that I've noticed your inconsistent point of view, but I'm not sure how you're trying to make a failing of mine.
I'm not talking in general about all matters related to fandom, I'm talking specifically about casting this role. As you said yourself, it's a compromise. What I find important about an actor being able to convey a role is not precise aesthetics. He's got to be attractive, healthy-looking and have some toughness to him to make us believe he is who he says he is, but beyond that I don't care.
@peter
Hope you and your family are well. As a mental health care man, the work here has been non stop. Frankly, coming to the forums has been a way to go on about other less serious matters, as it should be. Hope to read more from you soon.
I can see how this time in history must be busy. All my best to you-- and thanks for laying down services for those in need!
He should always remain a gentleman Commander in the Navy. Much more ‘upper crust’.
If John Hamm wasn’t extremely American. He would have been a brilliant physical match for Fleming’s Bond.
I saw a post about Leiter above. For me, Robert Redford would have been an excellent Felix Leiter.
Viggo Mortensen was another that I thought would have served the part well if they had used him in the Brosnan era. Him and Craig are pals, too.