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
But with him it'd have the effect of what I've Always thought of as Bond's background: elite but too rough for the fancy life, too hard edged and thus never really belonging anywhere.
I wonder if Fleming got the idea from the now defunct 19th century German tradition for University students (male by definition then) to duel with sabres. One would have to do it at least once with the result of a cut in the face (and thus a scar) to count as a true man. Hence many who didn't want to take the risk got drunk and used a knife to get the same result.
Anyway, as far as looks go, I think he's the only real contender for now. And seeing the YouTube videas of his interviews and Galahad or what's it called, it looks like he's got talent for sure.
You say
Refined and uncouth cannot sit together in the same sentence! How can Bond be refined and suave but uncouth? It's impossible. James Bond is not some posh boy prefect type that kills people and goes home and cries himself to sleep "oh dear, I shouldn't have murdered that man!" We all know Bond is a hard, sometimes cruel man, and his occupation requires him to kill, but it's sending out confused signals if you want the next actor to be semi-uncouth/semi-rough *and* refined. I don't think that's possible. Sean Connery admitted his Bond persona was based on director Terence Young's direction. Young didn't envisage Bond as rough or uncouth. I'm sure Young's vision of Bond was based on what he knew of the character via Fleming's work.
I think it's fair to say Craig's casting has changed Bond. He's less of a playboy, refined type, perhaps a little more "everyman' in tone but I don't think Craig set out to play Bond as some uncouth thug type. If Craig were to admit that, fair enough, but I don't think he set out to downplay Bond's sophisticated persona and make him a thug. If some fans want to take Craig's persona to the next level and actively make Bond actor #7 more uncouth/rough then it will be a full reinvention of Ian Fleming's character. Could it be a box office success? Perhaps, perhaps not. Who knows, perhaps the world needs a different type of James Bond? I'd prefer to stick with a more conventional Bond.
Since when can't refined men be killers? The fact that you know how to behave in public, know your wines, know how to adress people, doesn't mean you can't kill them if necessary. And it certianly doesn't imply one beeing emotionally involved.
Of course Terence Young based Bond on Fleming, on who else? There weren't many continuation writers just yet.
For the time, 1962, Connery was certainly very hard-edged. the films were far more violent than the public was used to. Of course we're used to far more now, but for the times Bond was increadably rough.
I agree that Bond certainly shouldn't be uncouth, and perhaps the 'bloke's bloke' is indeed not the best term to be used. But this is all too one-dimentional if you ask me. Bond should be a chamelion. He's working for MI6, he's got the blandest name Fleming could find. He doesn't want to stand out. The fun part is, a good actor has the same qualities. I think Craig has shown that like no other. Watch any interview he gives and you know the guy is definately no 'Bond' in his daily life, but he's capable of transforming into him.
You're reading way too much into things. All we're saying is that Bond should have a bit of an edge to him, a bit of roughness. No more than Connery, Dalton and Craig all had (and I thought I made that clear by mentioning them). I meant a bit more uncouth in comparison to some of the pretty boy types suggested, not in comparison to the actors we've had already or in comparison to Fleming's Bond. That's all. If I used the wrong wording then I'm sorry but seriously, calm down. I'm not advocating reinventing the character at all.
https://www.imdb.com/search/name?birth_date=1978-01-01,1990-12-31&birth_place=UK&gender=male&count=100
So why is the pool so slight this time? Well if you're looking for the new Bond on British TV, then good luck. If you were to ask me who were the most prolific actors on British TV at the moment I'd have to say Suranne Jones, Maxine Peake, Olivia Colman, Sheridan Smith, Sarah Lancashire, Nicola Walker, Keeley Hawes, Jessica Raines, Jodie Whittaker, Anna Friel and so on. It's hard to think of male equivalents, maybe David Morrissey and James Norton. It's no surprise that when a young male actor does crop up he is immediately linked with Bond because they are in such short supply, i.e. Aidan Turner, Tom Hiddleston and James Norton.
British TV drama is feminized and feminist. If you're looking for a tough thriller with a male lead there's Peaky Blinders and that's about it. Even Strike Back has returned with tough females in charge and the men, 5ft 7in wimps. In such a climate no wonder the search for a new Bond is so difficult. White males and particularly alpha white males are out of favour with those in charge.
Then there's the British film industry. Want to make a commercial thriller aimed at a male audience with a white male lead? Then you're not getting any lottery money. Want to make a film about Scottish drug addicted lesbians? Here's plenty of cash to pour down the drain.
So we're dependent on British actors gaining ground in the US for our new Bond. Here the public school brigade seems to dominate - Cumberbatch, Hiddleston, Lewis, Stevens, Redmayne, etc. It's difficult to imagine any of them acquiring the necessary physicality. Also US TV seems to be going through a diversity drive at the moment which means the new shows are not picking up as many male Brits as they used to.
If current trends continue we'll eventually be casting another male model with no acting experience as Bond.
True, and I think we could well see an Australian as Bond this time around as their actors still seem to be vaguely masculine.
Do you have anyone particular in mind?
I couldn't disagree more.
To play Bond you don't have to actually be a toff. It's a role that requires an actor to act the part.
Both Craig and Connery have a working class attitude and energy. If anything that rough swagger worked perfectly when combined with Bond's more upper-class characterisation. It created a certain friction that made their portrayals that little more spirited and alive.
If some posh boy played the role, the Bond mystic would be missed. You need someone who can not only bring the requisite suavity required, but also that unpredictable and dangerous element - Bond is a a killer after all. Arguable both Moore and Brosnan overplayed the more smooth and unctuous elements of Bond's character because they severely lacked any real threat or menace. You have to believe that Bond is the best - not just be told he is.
When Connery and Craig were in a fight I believe it. When they are smooth and charming, I equally believe it (though more so than Connery).
I'll admit I haven't seen Jack O'Connell play a smooth operator yet, but he has a certain untapped quality that I find very provocative and interesting. Not too dissimilar to Craig - who only played villains before getting the chance to show his charisma in Layer Cake (which was really the role that put him on Eon's radar).
O'Connell is a compelling performer who brings a committed intensity to any role he's in. He seems like the sort of actor with a streak of recklessness in him, that feral quality that makes his performances come alive. He reminds me of Tom Hardy, Gary Oldman, Michael Fassbender, Daniel Day-Lewis - that pantheon of actors who are committed almost to a fault in their craft.
I truly believe he's one of the most exciting British actors working today.
I think he has that 'man's man' quality - I don't mean he's some kind of Alpha-Phil-Mitchell-archetype; but he's the sort of actor I can imagine woman loving as equally as their husbands or boyfriends will. In many respects, the same way guys love watching Tom Hardy and woman love fawning over him. I'm pretty certain no man rushes out to see the new Tom Hiddleston film.
If you haven't seen Starred Up or '71, do so. They're great films and O'Connell shows serious promise.
For a flavour of O'Connell's intensity just see this clip:
As for those concerned about his height - Hollywood has been making short men movies stars for a long time.
No, but off the top of my head maybe someone like Sean Bean lookalike Luke Bracey.
As far as that video of Jack O'Connell, I don't see James Bond as anything remotely similar to the character in that video. The guy in the blue tie looked much more like Bond to me.
Also agreed about Bracey being a Sean Bean lookalike. Sort of. I wouldn't be against his casting. Liked him in both The November Man and Hacksaw Ridge.
I've only seen him in November Man and I'm afraid that he made next to no impression on me there. I felt that Brosnan completely overshadowed him.
Having said that, he's certainly physically more appropriate to me than this O'Connell chap. Everything that has been posted here recently does more to convince me that he's not right for it. In fact, if by some odd chance he is cast as Bond, I think I'll be out until his run is done.
I saw a few of those videos online too and agree. There is potential and he is physically very good, but I can't see him being seriously considered by Babs without some meaty and critically acclaimed roles under his belt first.
So I have a suggestion: lets see what Craig and Boyle bring to 25, enjoy it (or not), and then see who EoN chooses as B007.
Does that make sense, or am I crazy?
I'm happy for the names to keep coming (including those who have been mentioned previously). I look forward to justification for any choices as well, because there might be something I can learn from members as to why they favour certain candidates. There's always something positive about everyone put forward anyway, and I'm certainly not all that familiar with every name.
There is always Fassbender
https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/movies/pierce-brosnan-tom-hardy-would-put-a-bit-of-wiggle-into-james-bond-37043234.html
Completely agree. If anything, the discussion not only provides a (sometimes) interesting discussion, but also the opportunity to discover the work of unfamiliar names.
In the end, the metro-sexualization of the modern young actor is a bloody travesty and has watered down what it means to be a man. And therefore has watered down the choices of potential Bond candidates.
Recently watched The Good Guys and I so miss the likes of Crowe, who I have admired ever since he did a frightening turn as the lead skinhead, Hando, in Romper Stomper.
With this in mind, even if you don't see him as Bond, I think anyone who hasn't should give Starred Up a watch. That clip reminded me how good he is in it and I think it's a shame it didn't get more recognition at the time.
I have no idea how it works so I'm sure that people more well informed than I am will tell me I'm talking bollocks and probably provide a bunch of examples proving me wrong, but from my casual film fan perspective, I think it's a shame that the BAFTA's don't do more to honour films like that (small but great British films) instead of just being a sort of proto Oscars and giving all the big prizes to those you'd expect. Jack O'Connell was as good in Starred Up as any best actor nominee, and Johnny Harris in Jawbone is another more recent example. Tyranasour a few years back too. Like I said, there could be lots of examples I've forgotten proving me wrong. But from my perspective, every now and again there's a great British indie film that comes out and leaves me thinking that was really brilliant, and BAFTA (the British academy) seem to take no notice every time. It might get some sort of best debut, best British or rising star award but the nominations for the big prizes often seem to be saved for the big Oscar baity ones you expect to see.
Wow-- i missed this post originally.
@Bond_Bombshell nails it.
Agreed-- and hopefully, after Craig, no male models will be in sight... It's not like I want Craig 2.0 (because like Connery, Moore and the others), there is only one Craig.
But we, generally, thrive off of the more masculine 007. And there's not one of these in eyes-view. That's why I always say: good luck casting after Craig-- he certainly seems to be a part of dying breed of masculinity.
Hiddleston?... Seriously? The worst of the bunch and I am happy that, if rumours I hear are true, he was loosely considered and fell on the sock-boner that was his underwear shoot.
We don't need another Moore-Bond. He was one of a kind in a very different era. And Hiddles would pale in every way.
I suppose if they were to go with a known (and I'm not convinced they will), Hemsworth would be the most inoffensive candidate at the moment. He is charming and hunky. I just hope he could pull off the killer that Craig/Connery, and, to a degree, Lazenby has/had in spades.
Henry Cavill is a friend of a friend. He's known to be a very good guy. He has a body to die for. He is physical. I'm afraid his acting ability, even as assessed by those in the industry, suggest: he needs work. He may come off well in a fight scene, but, how does he pull off a scene with Tatiana in FRWL. I'm guessing (like Dryden's contact): "not well"...