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
Did you even know who Craig was before CR? and when pictures like...
...were being circulated did you genuinely believe this was Bond material or at the very least see why people thought such a person who weren't all that familiar with him believed him to be absolutely wrong for the role?
Anyway, was good fun.
I disagree. The days of a non-tough Bond are over for a stretch., Most people now associate Bond with being tough again, thank god, it took twenty years to get the suave but soft, campy and comedic Moore out of the way, in my opinion.
Tough doesn't = ripped. You can be suave, yet deadly, without looking like you've been hanging out with your 'bros' down the gym.
There's nothing to agree or disagree with. I wasn't stating my opinion on whether I want tough Bond or comical Bond. The point is Hollywood goes through trends. You, me, or anyone may not like it but it won't change the fact that in X amount of years the general audience will want something else. 'Something else' doesn't mean DAD 2 or MR 2 but it is foolish to think that the masses will demand CR's and SF's until the end of time. It's all a matter of trends in Holywood.
No doubt there would be tons of negative stuff in both press and especially internet about Bond being non-British. But whoever is cast there will be people complaining about something. And remember the last time? It was pretty brutal, but most people came around. Ultimately how a Bond actor is seen depends on how whoever the actor is delivers in the role.
Oh and regardless of the media insisting on repeating their error, Christian Bale isn't a Welshman, but an Englishman. Which of course doesn't change the point you're making, which I partly agree with, but I still think many other things matter far more than where a Bond actor is from, and I don't see why Bond should necessarily be British by birth or nationality.
Yes. Tough is a completely different thing than being ripped. Not only can one be tough without being ripped, but one can also be be ripped and fail to be tough.
Looking fit and being in shape is essential, but that doesn't require being ripped. Too ripped is not even a good thing as far as I'm concerned, quite the contrary, in fact.
And Hiddleston seems fit. Got moves, too. :))
For f***'s sake. People want THIS as Ian Fleming's James Bond? Along with that ridiculous Comic-con video posted on here a while ago, this stuff is utterly undignified and embarrassing, IMHO. He simply doesn't come across as Masculine, and I don't mean in a putting on muscle kind of way, I mean that animalstic, innate machismo that you either have or you don't. Connery would snap this guy in half like a twig. Good actor? Good for him. Go do some Shakespeare and win an Oscar. Doesn't mean you're James Bond.
Does everyone know that Hiddleston auditioned for Thor? The actual role of Thor? And didn't get it, of course, but they offered him the role of Thor's weaselly, mincing, scheming brother. What does that tell you? Not. Bond. He'd be great for a Johnny Weir biopic or The Seth Meyers Story though.
Don't tell me, your other half came home with a Hiddleston calendar?
@Tuulia Are you sure about that? I'm not a native English speaker, but I have a good ear, and I think while Connery does sound Scottish in Bond films, he did try to soften his accent a bit. His Scottish accent is more obvious in his interviews. For example, here:
Mendes made 2 very astute comments about Bond. He noted that virtually everyone has seen a Bond film and all of them have an opinion, unlike any other franchise. The second comment relates to this thread. When talking about Craig who was not present, Mendes said there were very few genuinely masculine actors. The implication was that the good actors can "act" masculine, act swagger etc, but they are just acting. He's right. The dangers occur when the actor has to do 3,000 interviews and that's when the problems start, along with the endless reverb online. I'm not talking about Connery stupidly discussing slapping women around, or Craig's less damaging, but also still stupid wrist slashing remarks. Press and TV Interviews are dangerous. I have watched countless actors just crash and burn when left to their own mostly unscripted wits, or at least greatly disappoint.
Masculine is a tough word to really define, particular in a person skilled at acting that quality.. But in terms of seeing it in a potential Bond actor's persona, I think I can detect when it is innate. There is a certain intimidation factor that actor will have, not thuggishness, just a don't mess with me quality, a certain I don't give a s*%* if you like me or not quality. Most actors, like puppies, want you to love them.
Hiddleston is a talented actor. He will likely never say something really dumb like Connery and Craig have, as he has flawless manners, and he really, really wants you to like him.. He can win every online vote there is. teen age girls love non threatening guys like him. I hate to dump on him, because he is a very good actor who I'm sure is wonderful to his mum, but he is now actively going after Bond. He is asking for the scrutiny, so he's getting it.
I know there's LOTS of females who are crazy about him, but it seems that they're the (much) younger generation- preteens and teenagers who love him as Loki. And that's definitely not the target audience for Bond. Sure, it might be smart for a marketing POV to get a bunch of teeny-boppers into the franchise, but that should NOT be the priority.
Maybe we can find someone in the middle.
So then why could Roger and Pierce not project tough? Suave, no problem. I dunno about tough.
I don't agree about Hardy being brutish at all. I'm really confused by some people saying that.
I'd agree. Suave yes, tough, not really.
darkhorizons.com/news/41505/clive-standen-to-lead-nbc-s-taken
It will be interesting to see how Standen fares in a spy role as opposed to the historical swordy stuff he's best known for. However, at 34, if this is a success and runs for a number of years I guess that rules him out. Likewise if it flops which IMO is likely.
She likes men, so, no.
No, I don't hate Hiddleston. I pity the fool, and I will destroy any man who tries to take what Bond's got. (Or something).
Good stuff, smitty. Let's not forget, Bond is not just any other blockbuster role, especially in Britain; whoever plays Bond is going to represent British masculinity for the next decade. Craig turned out to be a brilliant choice because he brought a certain rough and tumble working class aspect to Bond while still projecting a sophisticated veneer. He made Bond more relatable to a wider audience. That's why none of the high-cheekboned effeminate public schoolboy toff types like Hiddleston, Cumberbatch, Redmayne (don't know if anyone has actually suggested him, wouldn't be surprised) are going to work for the audience that Daniel Craig has built up. There's no hint of danger or brutality lurking underneath.
Anyway, I don't think he's actively going after Bond. Anyone with half a clue who wants to be Bond is not going to go around doing interviews in which they say how much they'd like to be Bond. His people are just using Bond to drum up interest in his spy show.
Yeah I think I was the first to mention him! Looks like someone has picked up on his action/spy potential. I'll watch it. I assume when it airs we'll get some Daily Mirror "Standen as Bond?" articles!
The major problem with this is that Daniel Craig's candidacy as Bond would have been laughed at and attacked with the same arguments you say about Hiddleston or whoever
back in 2000/2001 (since we are still years away from casting Bond 7 if Craig does Bond 25). You have to realize all these arguments about masculinity and 'looking like Bond' would have been made against Craig by the very same fans who want more Craig in 2016.
The truth is, if this thread existed 15 years ago, no-one would take Craig's candidacy even remotely seriously. So, who know how Hiddleston or Stevens will look like circa 2021?
My thoughts are if in the next reboot they take Bond back to the 50's/60's when Spy's were of more relevance then for me Aiden Turner.
If they want to keep going forward Hiddleston.
Seeing a near naked picture of Hiddleston in the bath (or whatever that thing is!) isn't gonna convince me he's Bond material. I think the likes of Hiddleston only get media traction because of the lack of a stand-out candidate. I know some Bond fans think Brosnan was a lightweight milk tray kinda James Bond but he did stand out as the candidate back in the day.
Just my humble opinion - my guess is had the internet been around circa 1994 most forum users would suggest Brosnan as the overwhelming favourite candidate. People saw Brosnan and thought "hey, this guy really could be Bond!"
Hiddleston sitting in a bath? Nah! Pull the plug on his candidature!
:D