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
EON, do surprise me. I want to be positively shocked ;) Not shocked, per se. But positively shocked, in the sense that I too want a classic Bond, with classic looks and demeanor, but someone who I hadn't thought about, someone not spent by pages and pages of forums discussions. Someone Fleminguesque, cinematic, charismatic, a scene stealer, a heart robber, a presence. Boy, when you put it like that, it'll be hard. Those shoes are impossible to fill. But are they really? Oh well, it's one of those days...
And that is why, if he’s got what it takes, Suter is such an appealing possibility; to the general public he will be immediately associated with Bond.
And hey, while I am a supporter, he would need to earn the role. I concede, he may do screentest and come off as flat as a pancake; but then again , the opposite could happen and he could knock it out of the park.
That’s why I’ve been a broken record, banging on about the importance of the auditioning process and why EoN (or any other producer working in today’s world), would not just hand over the keys to any one actor to drive this series for the next ten years. This man, whoever he may be, will be made to sweat and compete for the largest role he will likely ever play in his career…. Less men have played James Bond, than men who have been to the moon. This is indeed a huge character and a massive responsibility.
Yet again, a 💯% on point. Which hopefully implies good riddance to ATJ.
Or maybe it means he'll excel during auditions and prove himself to rightfully be the best man for Bond...
... maybe...
There's the problem I have with choices like him and Chalamet. They look more suited to playing the local vet, in a sleepy English village than Bond. There's a complete lack of an air of danger to them.
You're talking about genetics and looks distribution! Basically looks can be quantified on a bell curve graph.
Most people are average looking and in the middle of the bell curve, the far left the most unattractive (facial disfigurement, extreme asymmetrical features) and the far right the most attractive people (larger faces, high symmetrical features, strong jawline etc).
Classic Bond looking men are genetic outliers. They are a tiny percent of the male population so it's not realistic to assume the acting community has many or any such men. How many actors in this history of film (let's say the year 1900 onwards) look like prime era Connery or Moore or Dalton? It's probably 1 percent. You can say you want a classic looking Bond actor but if he's not out there he's not out there. I know people say Henry Cavill fits that description but I think Pierce Brosnan was better looking and a better actor. Cavill is undeniably handsome though so it's understandable he gets a lot of "he should be the next Bond" comments. But if Cavill isn't Bond and there's no Brosnan or Dalton types... Eon can't create one from thin air.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson is handsome enough. I guess most people will think he's good looking enough to play the role. You don't have to be the next Connery or whoever to be cast. Daniel Craig wasn't and he did pretty well. The anti-Craig Bond fans: "Craig was too ugly" are in the minority.
Outlier Sean Connery!
I'm almost finished The Gentlemen, and, although I really like James in it, my gut's u-turned away from his chances. It doesn't feel like a show that would get him attention from EoN as a potential Bond. I actually think it's the opposite. I feel this shows, and I'm going to agree with @Denbigh here, why he may not be the man we need. Why? Theo James is bloody handsome, great voice, presence, but this series shows he is restricted by his limitations as an actor. In almost eight episodes, I don't see a developing and varied character. As the episodes get deeper into the story, he seems more shallow.
I still have to see Suter in something, and will make more of an effort to seek out his work.
But, if a gun was held to my head, I couldn't even make an educated guess on who the next James Bond will be...
Theo James would my pick if we had a 2025 release date but since that seems unlikely, I'll stick with Suter.
I've got an issue with this bit. It's very hard to assert if attractiveness is normally distributed or not. In reality, it isn't that attractive people have features that are larger or something like that; it's that their faces are closer to the average face than others. For example, Jessica Alba is the face that is closest to the average of female profiles. So most of this doesn't really make much sense. Nevermind things like fitness and hair playing a part in this kind of thing.
Bond doesn't have to be stunningly attractive, and the commissioned sketch isn't much of a genetic outlier.
I mean, the next actor has to have good looks certainly, but more importantly it's about charisma, sex appeal, something distinctive about the actor's looks/screen presence etc. Not where they sit on some sort of scale, if one like this even exists.
This debate was had in 2005 when Craig was cast so it tends be "Bond is very good looking vs the look isn't important."
I think it's all been discussed before so not much else to add to it. My guess is most people will accept Aaron Taylor-Johnson look so it's not going to be an issue. That's assuming he gets the role. 😉
💯… it’s a list of intangibles. We won’t be able to point to one thing and say, that’s Bond. It’s not because Connery was a male rocket that made him Bond (that just added), it was so many more things (from the way he moved, how he wore the suits, his own history and what he, as a man, at that time, had experienced, and how he flourished…).
Casting the next Bond will be difficult, not because of who came before him, but because , it’s damn hard to find that diamond in the rough! I suppose the only obvious casting was Brosnan, but, outside of him, all the other actors were not necessarily the automatic men that one would think of as James Bond… Cary Grant— yeah, I could see that, but instead, it was a Scottish up and comer with thinning hair…. An Australian model… A charming tv actor who stepped into a role that was thus far played by two bruisers in Lazenby and Connery; a Welsh theatre actor, and an indie film leading actor… Outside of Brosnan, these other guys are the diamonds in the rough… And I don’t know who that is today….)……
Just came in to say that I particularly liked this post. Well said, @peter. I too don’t know who that is today. May we be pleasantly surprised, my friend.
I think we will, @Univex . That’s why I’m not too concerned and am happy to let this search unravel. The guys at head office seem to have a history of choosing very well and very wisely. When the day comes, and the announcement is made, I’m sure most of us will consider it another great choice (and I’m sure a few of us may slap our foreheads and think: why didn’t I think of him!).
Paul Mescal or Josh O'Connor. Eon goes for the prestige actor these days, someone who has or is up for Oscars or Emmys, and can handle dramatic scenes.
But I think that’s the kinda actor they may lean into…
O'Connor, on the other hand, might be just right, classically good-looking. More of a Dalton.
In the end it will be interesting to see who is chosen. whoever it is will not be a complete unknown; most of us here will have some awareness of who they are. . James Bond is not going to be found in a small repertory theatre. But then ag, if someone with that background would come in and dominate the field, who knows…