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
I'd go even younger, say someone 10-15 years old. Hard to picture a 10 year old as Bond, but at the rate these films are coming out, he'll be 40 by the time B26 is cast.
Bit of a Willie Nelson fetish going on there,methinks he he.
This.
This is a business first and foremost, and MGM needs the revenue (I'm pretty sure that's why the B25 move was only to February from October/November - because the box office results will roll into the same 2020 fiscal year either way). Money always talks.
For this reason I call a much earlier changeover than has been predicted here and will stick to it. No additional four or five year wait in my opinion (that was not by choice).
That doesn't mean that they won't cast a bit younger next time to appeal to that Gen Y crowd, which is such a big component of the movie going public for action films these days. So let's keep the choices coming. I have no idea who Jeremy Irvine is but will look him up.
It terms of resume, we can look at Spielberg's War Horse, plus Mike Newell's version of Great Expectations. Of course he's also been in Fallen and Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again most recently, but I won't hold that against him. After all, the guy's gotta eat. Looking at past photographs isn't the best way to gauge or judge him either as he's quite young in the majority of them.
Realistically, Jeremy Irvine is probably the most likely candidate due to his current age, despite me liking some of our present choices on offer.
I'm almost certain that when Craig eventually stands down, the studio will want to start pre-production on his replacement almost immediately. Though it's an entirely different set of circumstances, one only has to look at the recent Star Trek movies that squandered their momentum and audience goodwill by their long hiatuses, poor story developments which resulted in falling B.O. numbers to see how things can go from success to failure in just 3 movies apart. Sure, there's plenty of reasons why Star Trek failed to capitalise on the success of its first rebooted movie, far too many to put into one paragraph here and stay on topic, but the sentiment is still the same: Deliver the goods and don't take your audience for granted.
LOL! I think around the time of SPECTRE with all the Elba internet rumors, I sarcastically posted somewhere that Kenny Rogers would make a better Bond. He looks great in formal attire, has often been behind the gambling tables, and like Elba also sports a beard and is too old to take over.
I didn't know he was still alive.
About McConaughey: He started his career doing varied stuff, and I suppose just got both more famous and more wealthy at one point with romantic comedies, so he accepted more of them within a few years, but it's not like he didn't have choice. That was his own choice, as was then to stop taking those roles. He had started with other stuff, and had kept doing other stuff, so I don't think it was particularly risky for him to start saying no to those particular roles. He had done plenty other type of work, plus had financial security by then with which to wait for roles he wanted. Some actors can get into a similar rut with, say action movies. Or comedies. Or whatever. Like you said, it is indeed a balance, but actors themselves can also tip that balance by their own choices. If one only ever gets bit parts every now and then and not much money, then there may indeed not be much to choose from role-wise. But if one gets even one big success, and then chooses similar stuff because it's "easier"/"safer"/or just better paid, then that's the choice they make not because they have to, but because they choose to.
As for "I wouldn't be surprised if few would be given a chance without advance proof that they could do it." Of course. Some proof seems reasonable like other proof of being suitable for the role. Previous work and auditions can be used for that. - But also, like was previously pointed out - it doesn't always work; bad accents still happen.
This I very much agree with. It's also possible to find photos about anyone that are unflattering or in some way make them look unsuitable for a role if one wishes to present them that way. Lighting, angle, hair, posture, expression etc. can make a huge difference. Pretty much any actor can also look like several different people anyway, depending on various stuff, so there's also that...
Oh yes. People keep discussing even actors who are already in their 40s now. Surely too old to start a tenure several years from now.
People do suggest non-Brits, but hardly ever Americans, interestingly. I suspect many would object to him because of that alone. Personally I wouldn't have objections to any actor based on nationality, but at least Bond shouldn't sound American. I have no idea if Armie can do a good British accent or could learn to. He sure has a damn fine voice, though... Age-wise (32) might be pretty ideal. Taller than most (6'5") -for whom that is essential. Fit, but not excessively built, boxes for fun and fitness. Looks good in a suit - or in pretty much anything (or nothing). Charming and funny. Versatile. A hard worker, a lovely person. A trained actor with even theatre experience - for those who think that sort of thing is important.
I can at least imagine him in the role - as long as he'd learn the accent. Though I'm not at all sure he'd even be interested in this sort of a job at this point, but then again I don't expect he'll be asked anyway. Which is just as well - I think he's happier as he is. Getting wife and kids to where he's shooting a movie for a few weeks is more simple than trying to juggle family life with some huge production that shoots in multiple places/countries over multiple months (I always wonder how anyone with family manages that tbh).
In short, I have huge respect for him, and I think he's wonderful, talented and in many ways theoretically suitable. But no, I really don't think so. I don't even want so; I rather he keep doing what he's been doing recently.
He even played Dr. Watson opposite Edward Woodward's Sherlock Holmes in a British production, that would sum up how good he was as an Englishman despite being a Texan.
Great article on how Richard Madden could be a complex james bond.
Not at all but have you seen any of the films those three were on?
This photo comes to mind!
Can you believe that he initially auditioned for the role of Thor?
That’s laughable
Of course when I read the rejected pts of Spectre of Bond in an underground fighting rink I immediately though if Hardy is the next 007 that is no better way to introduce him
Who will claim he’s too ruthless? Personally I’m hoping Hardy re-invents himself. Apart from Dunkirk, he seems to be coasting a little with really ugly-looking and mumbling performances.
I used to hold him very high in my rankings as an actor with Bronson, Warrior, Inception, TDKR.
But now I feel I have seen everything he has in his tool box. He doesn’t surprise me anymore as an actor.That alone is why I wouldn’t want to see him as Bond.