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
Like, I'd say if the next Bond were Solly McLeod, I would say that's an established, but lesser known actor (lesser known than Craig was prior to Bond I suppose, but established with a notable filmography behind and with some pretty big names in there). Is he an unknown by Amazon's standards? Probably. Go a bit further and I guess you could imagine if someone like, say, Jack O'Connell were the next Bond. That's a slightly older and very much established actor too, very comparable to Craig pre-Bond. Certainly not unknown and with one foot in the door with Hollywood, but not exactly Tom Cruise level of fame either. Is he an unknown by Amazon's standards? Perhaps. Both I think would be realistic possibilities, and both could be seen as 'lesser known' but still established actors.
I don't think we're getting a Lazenby this time round, although even he put in the hours for the role. They need an actor with experience, commitment, and perhaps with enough maturity to handle this role (whatever age that is in practice). It's a big job. But at the same time it can't be an A-Lister or someone obvious without purpose.
I would have taked Jackman and Farrell in a heartbeat in 05.
https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2025/11/28/telegraph-callum-turner-strongly-rumored-to-play-james-bond
That's interesting, isn't it. I think a similar thing happened with Craig didn't it? I remember it happened with Matt Smith when he became Dr Who: essentially because he told his mates and they all put bets on.
Now, I think Turner's now big enough not to act unprofessionally like that so it could be something internal from a casting process, or it could just be that there's some Instagram post we haven't seen which has posted a clip of him saying 'James Bond' which has taken off (I think something like that is pretty likely to be honest).
I'm with Talos7 though: not a favourite, but I'm not against him at all. And he's one of these who'd I'd say is at exactly the right level of fame: he's sort of doing okay and his profile is rising but hasn't quite found that way up to the next level just yet and is doing decent, but not amazing films. He was in that Variety issue too the other day, so is being looked at. Folks like Dickinson and O'Connor I would say are finding better projects and kind of have more to lose by doing Bond right now. He feels very possible to me.
I suppose it’s all speculation though (not sure I like the sound of a Bond film being set in the 1950s though, and I think while Bond’s naval career can give us some good story choices, I think he’s far more interesting as 007. We’ll see what we get I suppose).
Stranger things have happened I suppose. It seems to be all speculation at this point though.
Same here. But I'm very skeptical about the news.
I don't like the idea of a period piece Bond film, each Bond short exist in modern day.
But why is that a question when there's no reason to believe they're doing that?
True. ;) I'm quite sceptical about the article/rumours in general, and even if Turner is being considered there's still a whole audition process to go.
Anyway, for what it's worth I'd say out of all the rumoured actors that have been floated publicly since Amazon took over Bond, Turner makes the most sense to me. Tom Holland would feel like stunt casting, Harris Dickinson, while an extraordinary actor, I think would be a touch too broody and lack some of the edge that Bond needs. Honestly, I'd say the same about Jacob Elordi. There's Scott Rose Marsh I suppose, but having seen him act I'm not sure I'd hold my breath!
I like Turner as an actor. I think he's a good age for Bond too, and as he's gotten older I feel he's gained more gravitas as an actor. He comes off as athletic and has good physicality, which is a plus. I think most women would find him good looking. I'd also say he comes off very well during interviews and genuinely seems pleasant and interesting (so essentially someone Amazon may well want as the face of their franchise). He's been around a while but isn't an A-lister. If he were cast it wouldn't necessarily be a surprise for us here, but it might well be for the average viewer who wouldn't automatically know who he is. I think there'd more benefits to him than downsides, but we'll see. I'd be happy if he were cast and would be interested to see what he does with the role.
The period piece stuff, having read through some of World of Reel’s recent Bond-related articles, feels to melike little more than speculation on Ruimy’s part based on the “Steven Knight is drawing on the early novels” reporting, which he seems to be taking to mean “might be a period piece” (then again, knowing the source it could just as likely be a cynical addition for clickbait purposes).
I’m not taking it too seriously for now.
As much as I think exploring Bond's early days could be potentially interesting, I don't buy any of these supposed leaks at all.
Yup, the 'early novels' stuff feels entirely speculative to me too, big pinch of salt right here.
Just because a bookmaker has been taking bets on Callum Turner means diddly squat about his chances of actually landing the role of James Bond.
It’s basically click bait.
I wonder what a bookmaker knows about casting in general and Bond casting in particular to give such probability. And from what I remember, they've been way off the mark in the past.
I think the naval stuff was speculated in a recent Variety article too, although it included all the typical 'insiders speculate' and 'nothing is confirmed' type language. But yes, this one seems to have gone a step further by including the idea that the film will be set in the 50s/60s. And honestly, I suspect it's one of those rumours that's cropped up before (I know it sort of did when Christopher Nolan was being tipped to direct. I know it came out recently that Steven Soderbergh pitched a Bond film set in the 1960s shot in black and white when EON were still officially in charge. Sounds rubbish in my opinion).
I think when you have a script so early into its first draft any 'leaks' about it - even if they're somewhat accurate - aren't always going to be fully reflective of what we get when it's complete. The movie could change fundamentally after a point, and some quite off the wall ideas can be bounced around before anything's written down. It's like if we were in the 70s an 'insider scoop' came out that DAF would involve Goldfinger's twin brother. That's of course being charitable and assuming there's any validity to what 'insiders' say.
I have a hard time seeing Amazon go for a 50s Bond film for this one, and I'm dubious about how it's cropped up. I think it's an idea that might appeal to a minority of fans to the point it's actually a rather cliched idea at this point, and a dull one at that (very much a 'oh, you have a hot take on what the new Bond film should be? Let me guess, you want it to be set in the 50s? Never heard that one before etc'). In practice I think it would be seen as very strange for a new era of Bond. But never say never I guess. The naval days rumour I can imagine having some sort of truth, or at least being a way into the story that was discussed early on. That doesn't mean that's what we'll get in practice. Hell, it might be a story about something from Bond's navy days coming back, or perhaps the PTS involves Bond as a Commander facing the villain with the rest of the film being about him as 007, in which case it's a rumour that's been distorted. Or maybe it's complete speculation and might well be rubbish.