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
So you agree Tom Hardy is the perfect choice fantastic glad we all agree on this.
Doing stories with a younger Bond, however, would actually allow EON to do fresh things with Bond and not retread on well-worn ground. It's more the route Fleming purists would desire and not cinematic Bond fans, so maybe that's the issue for some.
At this point I'd rather see a miniseries that adapted each Fleming book in the right order with 4-6 episodes a run (depending on the book length and how much could be gotten out of them), that carried a heavy continuity with how Bond develops in them over time, from his run-ins with SMERSH, Drax and No to his time with Tracy and how he battles Blofeld and grows more bitter and cynical. A chance to see a proper Fleming adaptation that really told the stories the way they should be told, all set in the 50s to 60s. If the writers and co. did that and did it well, while the films carried on with continuity stripped mission films, I'd turn down the movie ticket and instead just stream the show, because it's potential is infinitely more exciting to me than the same old, same old.
Mmmm I don't like Hardy.
Yes he has the muscle snd is a great actor bit i just can't believe him as cool and charming. When i saw him in Wuthering Heights I thought he did a great job in second part of the film when Cathy Dies and turns all evil but i had such a hard time believing him in the first part.
Bond in some way is like heathcliff who has two sides and would happen to me with Hardy's Bond what happened to me with his heathcliff.
I would believe him as an assasian and someone you don't want as you're enemy but would fail in the ladies man department.
And my most shallow reason against hardy I don't find him attractive at all, he justvdoes nothing for me.
I agree with this.
Bond needs to do something fresh, desparately. Luckly, I think BB understands this. And also luckily, this board isn't deciding the next step for Bond to take. I don't want another Sean-Dan, I want a new interpretation.
True, at some point the new actor will want to do something else than Bond. But making him younger(ish) would give him more chance for a longer run than an older actor. It would also allow to a more Flemingian report with the villains, who can finally be sensibly older than Bond and potentially more intimidating. In the source material as well as the early movies, the villains are older and wiser than Bond, they have the upper hand. It is something easier to convey with a seasoned actor as the villain versus a younger one as Bond.
1977 Michael Fassbender - 13
1982 Jack Huston - 1
1981 Rupert Friend - 2
1989 Sonny Robertson - 1
1972 Idris Elba - 2
1980 Charlie Hunnam - 1
1990 Jack O'Connell - 1
1983 Aidan Turner - 15
1981 Tom Hiddleston - 16
1986 Tom Hughes - 1
Thank you @Master_Dahark for that wonderful collection of pictures.
Above, the current standings in the POLL[/quote]
Nice to see some think I wasn't off the mark with Hughes, he's quite an actor and about the same level if not lower of fame than Craig was before CR, Fassbender would be great and I know he's said he'd be up for it but he doesn't need it or neither does Hardy, someone of Hughes level of status is ideal.
Hughes despite some here judging a book by it's cover is not a pretty boy model and that is, no more clothes horses thanks, Hughes has the dramatic chops as well.
I'll echo the same feeling on where do they go, we've had more straight down the line mission films in the series than not and yes they pushed the personal angle far too much by SPECTRE but there needs to be a balance between presenting Bond as a credible human being as well as a suave spy.
I just don't think showing Bond as teflon quip machine is going to work anymore. The personal angle is in the mix it just needs to be dialed back, SP could of easily done this while still using elements of SF and Dench's M's ghost over the proceedings.
At 5'8" tall.......no.
I don't think that's too big a deal nowadays to be fair. I mean watching his films you'd never think Tom Cruise was as short as he was in real life. Sylvester Stallone is 5ft 9 and convincingly portrayed a heavyweight boxer. Movie magic. And it's not like 5 foot 9 is really short. I think if filmed right it wouldn't even be noticeably short. True Bond is always portrayed as about 6ft but that's not really an integral part of the character in the way it is say Jack Reacher. So 5ft 9 seems alright to me but that's probably about the limit before we get into too short territory.
Is a younger Bond Flemingesque? There's never any indication that he's inexperienced in CR. In fact didn't Fleming descibe him as mid 30s? I want to see Bond in his prime now. Craig gave us both young and old Bond.
It's true there are a lot of continuity free straightforward Bond films but we haven't had one for over a decade to be fair. I loved what the Craig era did in terms of character development and continuity (even the Spectre retcon), but I think for the next actor they should go with a more straight forward approach to freshen things up and leave DC's era as it's own standalone thing, ala the Dark Knight trilogy.
Fleming wrote his fair share of stand alone stories. Sure there was the odd mention, and there was the Blofeld trilogy and before that SMERSH kinda carried over but they were never that linked until TB. Even FRWL, which ends on a cliffhanger, barely factors into DN. The main source of continuity was how Bond developed over the series and you could still do that while having him on straight forward, not personal, perhaps even OTT (giant squid anyone?) missions, just like Fleming did for the most part.
Personally whether it's continuity based or a back to basics stand alone adventure I can't ever see myself skipping the next Bond film.
1. Michael Fassbender: the more I watch the three fan trailers with him as 007 (with three different titles Risico James Bond 007 and Moonraker) I just feel comfortable and happy maybe because I feel he would be a continuation of Craig's bond from his first two films maybe because silly gags that plagued Spectre wouldn't work with Fassbender I don't know. I know I like him as bond number 7 and he has remained my top choice
2. Tom Hardy: at 38 he brings the same kind of world weariness Fassbender brought. Sure he would be a bit rough around he edges and yes he would be brutual and harsh but I get such a Connery vibe from his Inception character that I just would love him as bond. His style would be similar to early Connery and I am honestly ok with that serious but with a touch more camp and after Spectre while camp isn't something I love maybe I won't mind it as much with Hardy as bond.
3. Tom Hiddleston: I am sorry but I love the guy he is charming brutual and a great actor. Would be a step in the Roger Moore/pierce Brosnan camp sure but hey even their films weren't completely self parody (ok maybe a view to a kill is guilty of that but come on the others aren't) and again I sense a growing complain among bond fans the the film's aren't "fun anymore" (to quote Max Denbeigh "whatever the hell that means") I don't mind Hiddleston as bond is he my number one choice no of course not but number 3 isn't horrible
4. Cillian Murphy: this idea has grown on me in years like Hardy he is brutual but perhaps he is a bit too creepy.. I have only seen him in villain roles to be honest but I loved him as scare crow and he seemed at home in the suave charming moments in Red eye. There is a danger about him that I like but I am not sure works he best for bond however I wouldn't be upset if he was cast
5. Christian Bale: according to Wikipedia he is 42 which is why he is lower on this list of course if eon and MGM got off their buts they could have 4-5 films before he starts to look to old. Again he is around the same age I believe Brosnan started as bond (or maybe Moore I know someone started at 42) at worst even if he did only 3 films still that would give other actors (Liam Hemsworth for example) the ability to flex their acting muscles and develop their skills before taking on 007. I am not going to go too far into why he would be a great 007 because just watch batman begins - the dark knight rises.
(The next five are in no specific order)
6. Bradley Cooper: before you send out Spectre to kill me hear me out yes I know he is amaerican yes I know it is the biggest sin to have an American play 007 but let's ignore all of that for a second just hear me out he suave charming and can be brutal his roles in limitless, the Ateam and the place beyond the pines proved all of that. Women love him men want to be him now about that American thing in the A-team he was able to do a covincing South African accent I say get the bloody yank ove to some accent classes and boom we might just have our next 007
7. Liam Neeson: I don't care he is 61, I don't care that he would only do one film (bond coming out of retirement for one last fight) I don't care about any of that I would see the one film and be happy I witnessed it if you need to know why Neeson should be bond here are a list of films you need to see
Taken
Taken 2
Unknown
Taken 3
Non-stop
The A-team
Run all night
After that come to me and say the man can't be bond
8. Luke Evans: I don't care that he is gay in real life the man has the look and sound of 007 like Neeson and Cooper my bottom 5 are they would be perfect but the media will rip them to shreds based on one key thing that is largely out of their control. I loved him in the Raven and I think he would be able to play a convincing straight 007
9. Neil Jackson: before you say who he was in quantum of solace as mr slate... He was also brilliant as the main villian of Blade the series and honestly would be a really good 007 of course no one knows who the hell he is so yeah
10. Christopher Hemsworth: apart from marvel movies the uU has not had a hit but maybe because he keeps picking bad projects I plan on seeing Black hat to make up my mind and that film could be in top 5 but would a studio want to bank on him as 007?
Anyways my list is my list will most people hate the whole list yeah probably but it is what it is.
Would he make your shortlist or not?
Nice.
I know his career was not going anywhere. Like I said Remington Steele was a relatively modest success. In fact, without Brosnan being associated with Bond, I think Remington Steele would have been mostly forgotten.