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
A bit thuggish in my view, but distinctive.
--
I rewatched Thor Ragnarok (one of my faves from the past few years) last night, and I am coming around more to Hemsworth. I noticed in this last viewing that he really holds his own when sparring with theatre heavyweights like Blanchett, Hiddleston and Hopkins and his light timing is perfection (as good as Moore, Connery or Willis at their best). I don't see Bond in him, but find him very good when he's in his sweet spot (he reminds me most of a young Willis and think he'd be great in a Die Hard type film).
Agree on Jack Davenport. Quality actor, with the right type of screen presence required, IMO. He also has this "British gentleman" kind of look, if that makes sense. Ten years to late though…
Yes, way too late sadly, but he had what it took imho.
If he were to have been cast, it would have had to predate Kingsman. He was already too old imho by 2015.
Yep. Davenport would only have been a possibility about a decade ago. Strange how it seems to have been more potential candidates back then than now. Where are the Jackman's, the Davenport's etc. of 2018 hiding?
Let's look at it another way: if someone had dropped Craig's name on this forum in 2004, I wonder how many of us would have seen him as a fit for the role. Not many I'm reasonably sure, and with perfectly valid reasons too (many of which we still discuss here as we anticipate B25). So in the end there won't be another Connery - the perfect man isn't there. We will have to settle, and it's a matter of where on the spectrum the candidate lies.
I agree that there were closer fits to the iconic template last time around. EON didn't choose them.
Good points. Nothing suggested Craig was a candidate, yet he's still around playing Bond. I do wonder if EON see themselves at a different crossroad now (or not). Casting a "template looking" Bond this time around will no doubt please many of us.
They just need to use the Cubby changeover template that has proven to be the most successful in the industry.
I must say though that rumours of a definitive end to the Craig era suggest they are going to do something drastic next time around (and it could very well mean a sale or another reboot, which I think would be a big mistake). It just doesn't make any sense otherwise to try to close out this Bond's story, age recognition and all, rather than flow it into a normal changeover as they set up with the SP ending.
Edit, here it is: https://www.wmagazine.com/story/idris-elba-james-bond-poll
Yes, a new origin story now would feel wrong, IMO. A soft reboot on the other hand should be the way to go. But who knows where EON find themselves post-Bond 25. I look forward to see what they come up with, but I'm not necessarily feeling too optimistic. I'd actually be more optimistic had the Craig era ended with SP. That ending felt like a soft reboot waiting to happen.
From the start, this should not be an origin story either, Bond should be an agent in his prime.
That would definitely be preferable. Just introduce the next guy in a standalone mission (with whatever continuity as loose as possible). Simple!
In any case he's too old and too dead now.
In terms of a Moore type successor, I think Davenport would have been closest in the past, and these days it's probably Hiddleston.
I think you're right about this. For example, I think both Davenport and Hiddleston could have easily done well as The Saint - which Moore made famous before playing Bond.
In the end, Roger Moore was so incredibly special (and this is from someone who rates him third/sometimes fourth of the Bond actors), that there is no Second Coming of Moore (even more so with Connery); not even close.
So a Hiddleston, to me, is far more effective if he would be cast in something more theatrical-- for example, I could see him playing an amazing and twisted Joker.
Just keep him away from James Bond (and the Saint).
+ 1
I agree that there is no second coming of Moore, and especially not Connery. Nobody has suggested that. Those two are acknowledged greats in the Bond pantheon.
All there is are actors who can evoke certain elements of those two benchmarks. I'm of the view that Hiddleston skews towards the Moore type, and he is definitely one of the acknowledged Bond contenders for #007.
I didn't know my views on Hiddleston was well known. Yet I still will apologize. Since others see something in him that I'm too biased to enjoy-- as James Bond. And I don't take enjoyment in ever thinking an opinion would upset another (which can happen on this site). I'm obviously not right in my evaluation; I'm only right for me, and I always want to make that clear.
Saying Hiddleston skews to the Moore type, I'd agree, if we were saying a sub-level Moore type. The guy could never pull off anything Moore did in his tenure, nor come close. I think most would say he's a poor man's Moore.
I could be wrong there, too.
That's saying mo(o)re about Moore, than Hiddleston, btw.
I'm not sure if he'd be right for Bond, but as I mentioned in an earlier post, none of the contenders is perfect. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, as does the current Bond. I can certainly see him being good for a certain type or style of Bond film.
RE: your views on Hiddleston being well known; you've expressed your dislike quite a few times on this thread in no uncertain terms so I assume those who follow the thread know that you have strong negative feelings about him. You're certainly not alone in that opinion though. There are members here who don't like him.
Once again, someone being an excellent actor (outside of the giants that broke the mold (Olivier, Brando, Dean, early/young Pacino and De Niro to name a few on the Western front), I think is subjective @bondjames.
I don't think Hiddleston is Steven Segal (sp?), by any means. Nor do I find him "an excellent actor"; I just find him too stagey and one dimensional for my tastes. I honestly think he could make a very good Joker, though.
Re: my views: I don't think that what I say will be remembered thirty seconds after I post-- I'm a little humble in this matter.
I just assumed that after 4000 comments (wow, that's a lot of free time, lol), that ten or so comments on Hiddleston wouldn't actually be heard, and certainly not remembered, lol!
Of course everything is subjective when it comes to assessing art and film. That goes without saying, or at least it should. He is respected in the industry for his acting skills as far as I'm aware (based on theatrical awards and nominations) but I wouldn't begin to put him up there with the names you mentioned above.
You're an intuitive guy, @bondjames , and I've already told you that you're a very strong writer. However, any intense feelings I have about Hiddles, may've been incorrectly assessed this time. I hardly give this guy a second thought until I hear people consider him Bond material. Even then, I tend to hold back more often than not. I honestly just don't like him as an actor-- awards or not (Halle Berry won a best actress, but I don't consider her an exceptional actress by any means). He's certainly not for me, in certain roles, but I'm not intense about my dislike (as I am intense about certain other things, lol).
As I think he's a compelling actor and screen presence, I hope he does something outside of the villain space in the future which impresses you.