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
It's hard to describe, but there's this childlike innocence in Hiddleston's eyes. He always looks like he's either about to burst into a smile or burst into tears. He lacks an intensity that the other Bonds had.
I think he's a fine actor, just not for Bond. Maybe in 10 years he'd be better for the part, but not now IMO.
If he gets Bond, you will see what he can do, and it will be clear in the pretitles. Just like it was with Craig.
Yes, exactly, which is why I think it's impossible to tell what kind of Bond he'd be based on the Night Manager, despite what others have said.
(I guess it also doesn't help that I'm not attracted to him at all. I suppose that makes me somewhat biased.)
The same thing goes for Rupert Friend. He can look strange too, to some.
Ultimately, I'd prefer Fassbender, but either of these two are ok alternatives for me.
This is an important question. in relation to the potential new James Bond. We're in a time where brigades of twitter/tumblr social justice warriors have turned the very idea of masculinity into a toxic idea. If someone acts traditionally "macho" it gets criticized as offensive, so I don't envy EON in trying to bring Bond through these waters.
I mean, we are seeing completely straight-faced articles saying Gillian Anderson should be Bond. There are very few traditionally manly actors out there in the same mold as the 60s when we saw Connery, Caine, Newman, McQueen, Clint, etc. These guys all had actual life experience outside of acting, many of them did some military service. You don't see that stuff anymore. Piddles went to boarding school, university, and then acted. It's a different era, that's for sure.
Sure, why not. If they cast Tiddles it's over for me anyway, so just burn the whole thing down in spectacular fashion :)
Fassbender is the only preferable contender that hadn't been rumored to have met with EoN.
...and it's not so much the muscle bound trait for NA but the machismo of the appearance.
Hiddleston doesn't look intimidating... menacing, yes ...dark multilayered, yes.
Hiddleston may in fact do very well but he would be a hard sell here IMO.
Fassbender tends to please both sides and has an interest in the role but again I haven't heard of EoN even taking notice.
How Bell got noticed who knows??
I make no apologies for my lack of confidence in EoN.
I do think the muscle bound thing is somewhat of a fixation though. Nearly all the heroes are built in NA, while in Europe one can have a more refined (for lack of a better word) appearance and still be popular.
I tend to prioritize a look/build that looks better in suits though, rather than someone who looks like he has a second home in the gym. A bit of muscle is good too - just not too much. Lean and fit is my preference for Bond.
That's why I've always said height is as important as muscle. That way one looks good in the suits and also without them. Young Connery nailed that perfectly.
Here if muscles is what everyone wants this actor should be bond
Well I can see and agree with that.
I really don't know right now. Even with Fassbender I'm not completely sold. That's just too obvious.
You'd better get used to him. :))
be disappointed by the next :)
That being said I would happily take their job if I could!
I don't see any of that with Mr Hiddleston as a potential Bond. Nor Jamie Bell. Sorry to be so blunt but this is James Bond version 7 not some BBC 1 spy drama tv show. Eon and the studio need to keep looking.
Jamie Bell is not going to be James Bond.
Precisely. I'd even include Affleck as Batman. He got some next level hate and now he's WB/DC's great hope.
Ben Affleck always looked the part of Bruce Wayne, but he was highly controversial because of his acting past (mainly Daredevil I believe). Furthermore BvS being such crap helped Affleck a lot in becoming the only positive thing in it.
One thing is for sure who ever will be chosen will not win the hearts of everyone. But I believe there can be choices that would generally get accepted with positivity.
Tom Hiddleston certainly belongs into that category. Fassbender or Aidan Turner certainly too.
Turner is not going to be Bond.
Bell is not going to be Bond.
At this point, DC has the best chance of returning as Bond, if he wants it.
And even then, even if he does want it back, the role still may be taken away from him...
Am I that arrogant to be making these above, sweeping predictions?
I only say this because, until a distributor is attached, no one is 100% guaranteed to be wearing the tux.
It's the distributor who has to agree to the cast (after all they're going to be selling the film in the markets around the world).
That's why I say Craig has the best, although, not guaranteed, chance of being 007 (providing he wants to). He's been big bank for the franchise, so, if Sony comes back again, they may want to stick with the goose who lays the golden eggs.
If it's a new partnership, with another company, they may think the same: we can lessen risk, make guaranteed bank with this guy over two films (providing he wants to. And if he does, lock him up for two more films. If he's not going to commit to two more, then, 'bye-'bye). After this two pic deal, they send him off, make some great capital, then move into the more grinding process of re-casting. Or;
They might also say: Craig's done, we're the new Sheriff in town, we want a re-boot. We wanna start fresh. We'll take however long it takes to get the casting right, then we'll move into the next film.
But the casting decision WILL NOT BE MADE without the distribs consent.
So the media can report all it wants about Hiddles, Turner, et al... But, realistically, and no matter how much it pains to say: this is going to take a while.
Even if DC said tomorrow, I'm out, good luck to the next gent, the reality is, the casting will take a backseat to the deal with a distrib. The interested company, with Eon, will hafta hash out an agreeable Plan A, B and C (do we want Craig; does he want us? How many films?; if we re-boot, what's the dream casting list look like; who can we get? How many movies? Soft or hard re-boot?). All this hasta be agreed upon, with all parties agreeing to terms. Then, and only then, will the search for a new 007 start in earnest.
So, since DC hasn't said a word, one way, or the other, he truly is Bond until he makes his retirement known, or a distrib resigns his licence to kill.
It's all in the hands of EoN's big deal with the distributing company. That's when the fireworks will begin.
None of this gets done until there is a distribution deal. Until then, it's all media reports and agents trying to get their clients' name out into the press.