He looks more like Fleming to me, he would have been good in that role.
I saw one of those cobbled together trailers on the internet and it was okay but didn't show much of him actually, or let him speak much. I suppose the producers are looking to plough a new furrow and not go for someone too obvious looking, not that any such person exists currently.
Enjoyed his performance many years ago in Wings of a Dove I think, with Helena Bonham Carter, set in Venice mostly but one bravaura shot of Edwardian London.
Hiddleston is an excellent actor. He can do lighter moments and more serious stuff. I wouldn't be sad in the least if he were cast as Bond.
That said, my wife and a bunch of her Facebook friends recently had a discussion about the "Night Manager," and they were all of the opinion that, as handsome and refined as Hiddleston is, he lacks a certain animal magnetism. They just didn't find him sexy enough for Bond — even during the sex scenes. By contrast, most of them think that Aidan Turner oozes sexuality. (Idris Elba, too, but that will never happen.)
FWIW my wife's favorite Bonds — from a sexually attractive point of view — are Connery and Craig. Although she believes the younger Sir Roger was the most classically handsome.
Take the anecdote for what it's worth.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
edited June 2016
I always find myself coming back to the outrage over Craig's casting - his detractors had a long list of reasons why he could never be Bond. By comparison, Tom's hurdles seem easy enough to step over without having to even jump! More like speed bumps, really.
My girlfriend enjoyed him in The Night Manager. I think he'll do just fine as Bond :007)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Hiddleston is an excellent actor. He can do lighter moments and more serious stuff. I wouldn't be sad in the least if he were cast as Bond.
That said, my wife and a bunch of her Facebook friends recently had a discussion about the "Night Manager," and they were all of the opinion that, as handsome and refined as Hiddleston is, he lacks a certain animal magnetism. They just didn't find him sexy enough for Bond — even during the sex scenes. By contrast, most of them think that Aidan Turner oozes sexuality. (Idris Elba, too, but that will never happen.)
FWIW my wife's favorite Bonds — from a sexually attractive point of view — are Connery and Craig. Although she believes the younger Sir Roger was the most classically handsome.
Take the anecdote for what it's worth.
My wife's the same. While there are undoubtedly women who would drool over TH (Taylor Swift anyone?), there are also an awful lot who feel the way your wife and her friends feel. I feel the same way you do, Cheverian.
With regard to anyone who is cast as Bond a lot will depend upon their ability to inhabit the character. The way Craig looked when he stepped off that boat and was introduced as Bond I would have ranked him a distant third behind the current two favorites, Hiddleston and Turner. When Craig first appears as Bond in CR, he is Bond. With Hiddleston's 6'2" stature and build type (actually similar to Connery in DN) it will be very important that he is able to carry himself like Bond ie the graceful panther like movement that Connery was famous for.
In the Night Manager, a bit of awkwardness and lack of grace in some action scenes made sense since the character was not a trained professional.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
Quite agree, re: Craig stepping off the boat at the '05 announcement presser. It didn't exactly inspire confidence. It's not until he's actually Bond that an actor can be allowed fill the character's skin with himself.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
For those who think Tom Hiddleston is too skinny, Lazenby was really skinny.
Yes I know that Lazenby is not well loved as a bond on the whole, but I've never heard anyone complain about his physique.
Looking at the pictures of Hiddleston from the latest issue of W Magazine (tried posting one but postimage seems to be playing up), i'd say he is a lot better built than Craig was pre CR - and that's before the inevitable personal trainers and nutritionists he'd be supplied if he got the role. If they did pick Hiddleston, I don't think they'd go the bulk muscle route they went with Craig. Probably just drop some BF and add some lean muscle. To be honest though, he's already got the perfect Fleming Bond look. Throw him in a Navy uniform and you're ready to go. Not every Bond movie has to have shirtless scenes, right?
Looking at the pictures of Hiddleston from the latest issue of W Magazine (tried posting one but postimage seems to be playing up), i'd say he is a lot better built than Craig was pre CR - and that's before the inevitable personal trainers and nutritionists he'd be supplied if he got the role. If they did pick Hiddleston, I don't think they'd go the bulk muscle route they went with Craig. Probably just drop some BF and add some lean muscle. To be honest though, he's already got the perfect Fleming Bond look. Throw him in a Navy uniform and you're ready to go. Not every Bond movie has to have shirtless scenes, right?
Thankfully we didn't have to see Bond shirtless in Octopussy. Today they would show us Bond stripping down and dressing in a hurry to get the clown suit on!
I really hope that Hiddleston gets into good shape but doesn't bulk up. It's just not necessary for Bond to be a body builder.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
I think he'll likely thicken up a bit, but hopefully not too much - it's not as if he has anything to be embarrassed about now, after all---even pre-Bond physical training. He's got height and broad shoulders...the rest is just tweaking, IMO.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Craig was very lean and ripped pre-Bond (check out Lara Croft: Tomb Raider). For CR he really bulked up but in the subsequent films found a good middle ground. Hiddleston has a lean, well defined torso with a decent amount of muscle mass in the chest along with broad shoulders and a narrow waist and hips. IMO, his weak area are his upper arms and forearms which could use some more muscle to give him a more imposing, harder look and balance out with the rest of his body. Whichever clothing designer is chosen for Bond 25 will have a ball designing and fitting Hiddleston. Another good sign is that Hiddleston looked convincing in military khakis in Night Manager. Hairwise, I don't think they are going to do too much except crop down his pompadour a bit, get rid of the red and blond highlights and go with a more straightforward medium to dark brown (James Bond does not have highlights :007) ) -{ Regarding Aidan Turner, they can't make him taller so I'm guessing they would go the Craig route with him with lean muscle mass (but not a lot of bulk or added weight) to make him look harder and more formidable. Facially, a proper Bond haircut and a good close shave is all he needs.
He's in very distinguished, if densely-populated, company - the "Could've Been Bond" Club -{
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Have no opinion re Richard Armitage as Bond except at 45 I think his age would put him out of the running.
There have been other good potential Bonds but the timing just wasn't there.
As much as I love Fassbender for Bond, I can't see what motivation he would have to make that type of long term
commitment. Fassbender's name above the title won't carry a film but he seems to be working all the time and while he
doesn't command superstar money he apparently is very well paid. If EON could pull that one off it would be quite the shocker.
For a Tom Hiddleston Bond would be make him a huge star.
I always find myself coming back to the outrage over Craig's casting - his detractors had a long list of reasons why he could never be Bond. By comparison, Tom's hurdles seem easy enough to step over without having to even jump! More like speed bumps, really.
My girlfriend enjoyed him in The Night Manager. I think he'll do just fine as Bond :007)
Putting all our differences aside for a moment, TH would not have been as widely accepted back in ’05 as he can be now. DC changed the image of Bond even for those of us who, like myself, have never been DC’s fans. In fact, casting TH after DC is like going back to the more traditional look – not all the way, but about half-way. TH has a good chance to please both the classic Bond and Craig Bond fans. Do I want to see him as Bond? Not sure, am willing to see his first movie, but I certainly won’t be screaming aloud that he is NOT Bond (the way I did with DC)! X-(
Looks like TH might even broker a truce between us...
Putting all our differences aside for a moment, TH would not have been as widely accepted back in ’05 as he can be now. DC changed the image of Bond even for those of us who, like myself, have never been DC’s fans. In fact, casting TH after DC is like going back to the more traditional look – not all the way, but about half-way. TH has a good chance to please both the classic Bond and Craig Bond fans. Do I want to see him as Bond? Not sure, am willing to see his first movie, but I certainly won’t be screaming aloud that he is NOT Bond (the way I did with DC)! X-(
Looks like TH might even broker a truce between us...
I feel the same way. It's like Daniel Craig has lowered the bar for people like us. Though others feel he's raised the bar for Bond, and I can respect that.
Putting all our differences aside for a moment, TH would not have been as widely accepted back in ’05 as he can be now. DC changed the image of Bond even for those of us who, like myself, have never been DC’s fans. In fact, casting TH after DC is like going back to the more traditional look – not all the way, but about half-way. TH has a good chance to please both the classic Bond and Craig Bond fans. Do I want to see him as Bond? Not sure, am willing to see his first movie, but I certainly won’t be screaming aloud that he is NOT Bond (the way I did with DC)! X-(
Looks like TH might even broker a truce between us...
I feel the same way. It's like Daniel Craig has lowered the bar for people like us. Though others feel he's raised the bar for Bond, and I can respect that.
I have to respectfully disagree with the both of you. For me, in many ways Craig raised the bar. But that's what makes these discussions interesting. I do agree with the premise that Hiddleston potentially could bridge the gap between Craig's Bond and the other more "traditional" approaches to the role. As much as I like Craig as Bond I think it would be a mistake (and very difficult) for EON to recast with a Craig-alike. The best approach always seems to be to go back to Fleming's literary Bond as a template and update from there.
My question is whether the general moviegoing public wants the literary bond.
Obviously many of us on this forum do. Tim Dalton is often cited as the actor who came closest to Fleming's character, and he remains a favorite of mine. But his movies performed terribly at the box office, as noted here:
I don't have an answer to my own question except to note that both "Skyfall" and "Spectre" were box office triumphs, which suggests they satisfied millions of moviegoers.
And one last point: I think it's pretty clear that, if Craig leaves, Barbara Broccoli is going to go with her gut in choosing his replacement. Sam Mendes said as much in a recent interview. After all, BB did choose Craig — despite the howls of protest — and it lead to box office and critical success not seen since the early '60s.
My question is whether the general moviegoing public wants the literary bond.
Obviously many of us on this forum do. Tim Dalton is often cited as the actor who came closest to Fleming's character, and he remains a favorite of mine. But his movies performed terribly at the box office, as noted here:
I don't have an answer to my own question except to note that both "Skyfall" and "Spectre" were box office triumphs, which suggests they satisfied millions of moviegoers.
And one last point: I think it's pretty clear that, if Craig leaves, Barbara Broccoli is going to go with her gut in choosing his replacement. Sam Mendes said as much in a recent interview. After all, BB did choose Craig — despite the howls of protest — and it lead to box office and critical success not seen since the early '60s.
Considering the success of Skyfall and Spectre, apparently the literary Bond is not what sells. But people loved CR, and that had a lot of the literary Bond in it just with action shoehorned in to please the modern audience. The poor results of Dalton's films had a lot to do with the attitudes at the time towards Bond and people wanting something other than Bond. When Brosnan brought back Moore's personality with the action that the public wanted, there was a lot more success. Today, people I think will still respond to the CR approach, with the heart of it taken from the literary Bond but with action.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
edited June 2016
Audiences will respond to a good James Bond film, which IMO has the fundamental literary roots of the character; all of the ones I enjoy the most do, anyway. By this I mean character traits that echo those of the literary character...so 'casual' fans who enjoy a good Bond film are getting more Fleming than they realize.
Dalton wasn't the problem with his films, nor was it the added Flemingesque elements---IMO, the times had changed/were changing, and they attempted to be more gritty and realistic whilst unfortunately retaining some of the Moore silliness (admittedly not Dalton's forte), so they were out of step and out of balance...that, and they were poorly directed with (at best) mid-grade writing...and so their appeal is largely limited to die-hard fans.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Audiences will respond to a good James Bond film, which IMO has the fundamental literary roots of the character; all of the ones I enjoy the most do, anyway. By this I mean character traits that echo those of the literary character...so 'casual' fans who enjoy a good Bond film are getting more Fleming than they realize.
Dalton wasn't the problem with his films, nor was it the added Flemingesque elements---IMO, the times had changed/were changing, and they attempted to be more gritty and realistic whilst unfortunately retaining some of the Moore silliness, so they were out of step and out of balance...that, and they were poorly directed with (at best) mid-grade writing...and so their appeal is limited to die-hard fans.
I don't disagree with you or Matt. Dalton had bad luck. I would have loved to see his version of "Goldeneye."
Despite its financial success, "Die Another Day" struck me as another movie where the writing and direction failed the actor. Ironically, Brosnan paid the price for other people's bad decisions.
One of the most fascinating aspects of Bond is how he keeps falling in and out of fashion.
Craig has spoken of how Mike Myers blew up the Bond franchise in the 1990s with Austin Powers and Dr. Evil.
And then along came the Jason Bourne movies with their gritty camera work and top-notch action scenes. It helped that Matt Damon was believable in the role, too.
I happened to catch one of the Mission Impossible movies the other day and realized that they too raised the bar for Bond. Cruise is a maniac when it comes to doing his own stunts. That said, the character he plays, Ethan Hunt, isn't even two-dimensional.
"Casino Royale" with action — as Matt said — was a winning formula: it made Bond plausible again to a new generation of moviegoers.
Is it just me, or have the only people who've been talking about possible new Bonds for over a week now been. . .
us?
True. But then some of us know who has the part, and can only spin our wheels until an announcement X-(
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
I belong to a number of Bond fan groups on Facebook; after weeks and weeks of refusing to consider the possibility that Craig is departing the role, there is grudging acceptance that he may be finished...but ZERO acceptance that Tom could be his replacement ) Instead, they pounce upon every gaseous emission from the internet rumour machine.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
My question is whether the general moviegoing public wants the literary bond.
Obviously many of us on this forum do. Tim Dalton is often cited as the actor who came closest to Fleming's character, and he remains a favorite of mine. But his movies performed terribly at the box office, as noted here:
I don't have an answer to my own question except to note that both "Skyfall" and "Spectre" were box office triumphs, which suggests they satisfied millions of moviegoers.
And one last point: I think it's pretty clear that, if Craig leaves, Barbara Broccoli is going to go with her gut in choosing his replacement. Sam Mendes said as much in a recent interview. After all, BB did choose Craig — despite the howls of protest — and it lead to box office and critical success not seen since the early '60s.
Considering the success of Skyfall and Spectre, apparently the literary Bond is not what sells. But people loved CR, and that had a lot of the literary Bond in it just with action shoehorned in to please the modern audience. The poor results of Dalton's films had a lot to do with the attitudes at the time towards Bond and people wanting something other than Bond. When Brosnan brought back Moore's personality with the action that the public wanted, there was a lot more success. Today, people I think will still respond to the CR approach, with the heart of it taken from the literary Bond but with action.
Skyfall had pretty strong literary elements, specifically nods to YOLT and TMWTGG and, for the most part it worked pretty well.
I think Spectre was supposed to have themes similar to OHMSS (only the daughter of a criminal could understand Bond) and the torture scene was shoe-horned in from Colonel Sun, but the execution was generally lacking.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
Dalton wasn't the problem with his films, nor was it the added Flemingesque elements---IMO, the times had changed/were changing, and they attempted to be more gritty and realistic whilst unfortunately retaining some of the Moore silliness (admittedly not Dalton's forte), so they were out of step and out of balance...that, and they were poorly directed with (at best) mid-grade writing...and so their appeal is largely limited to die-hard fans.
True. Not to knock what you said, but all of that became perfectly clear in hindsight, which includes all that came to pass up to the DC era, but at the time I think they took their best shot and maneuvered around obstacles (e.g., where the series was within its product lifecycle, the general industry, etc.), like the seasoned entrepreneurs the EON team have become.
Audiences will respond to a good James Bond film, which IMO has the fundamental literary roots of the character; all of the ones I enjoy the most do, anyway. By this I mean character traits that echo those of the literary character...so 'casual' fans who enjoy a good Bond film are getting more Fleming than they realize.
That’s an interesting observation. Making a movie closer to the Fleming roots doesn’t automatically make it a good Bond movie, let alone what general audiences would pay money to see. Exactly what made Fleming so readable in its time and what elements were transplanted to film that made the series so watchable? Would those same root elements still have allure with modern audiences? In other words, what elements of the recent movies captured any of the Fleming elements if there are any substantial ones to be identified, which at the same time appealed to viewers and drew them in? My theory is, should the filmmakers think that the success of Bond is what has been evolved based on viewers’ tastes, they wouldn’t hesitate to ignore the Fleming elements if they determine that those no longer contribute to the audience appeal.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
When Dalton debuted as Bond in the 1980s, mass audiences and even many fans did not want a literary Bond. He is for the most part a quite different character than the fellow on the screen and probably always will (and should) be. As Loeff suggests, there are traits that transfer, and these need to be present, but not much more.
By that point, the Moore films had convinced mass audiences that movie Bond was a comic character with some adventurous qualities -- a far cry from the smooth but dangerous fellow that debuted in 1962. What people I knew wanted was something closer to Connery: a masculine charmer with enough every man qualities to be more of a role model and less of a caricature. We wanted the films to take themselves more seriously again, but not in the sense of being deadly serious.
Throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, Bond films had become campy, bloated, and second-rate rituals, successful mostly on the momentum of what had come before. Bond was a brand, however. What got lost was their being A-level entertainments, with an effective mixture of sex, humor, and violence that seemed cutting edge and exciting. Those traits began to show up instead in the Die Hards, Beverly Hills Cops, and Lethal Weapons.
Mass audiences in the 1980s, though, still expected Moore's films, just with a younger lead. That's why people got so excited when Pierce Brosnan was announced as a contender to replace Moore. He seemed exactly the sort to be able to do the comedy while also projecting a younger, blow-dried, disco-fabulous image perfect for an 80s Bond movie. When that didn't happen, and Dalton was selected instead, a collective "Who?" went out, at least in the U.S., and audiences by and large were unimpressed. Many had never read a Fleming novel, and it meant little that Dalton, whose saturnine face and uneven delivery, had.
Craig came around at the right time. First, the Batman and Star Wars films had created a huge demand for prequels. In addition, now there was a vast generation of young movie-goers who weren't even alive yet when Fleming's novels were still widely read and the Bond films reigned supreme as grand entertainments. What they understood of Bond was largely the result of seeing him lampooned in the Austin Power films. Paradoxically, they also embraced the music and fashion of the middle 1960s. Craig had the right combination of Connery's mojo -- which seemed retro and fresh at the same time -- and the stilted emotional range that is part of the Millennial stereotype. (I teach mostly Millennials today, and too often, they seem to have only two or three facial expressions, regardless of the situation. It's like they're staring at a computer screen when they talk to you.)
More importantly, the producers saw this as an opportunity to make a break with the immediate past and try to resuscitate more of the elements that made the 1960s films successful. Of course, this was tempered with contemporary sensibilities: The films would cost a lot of money, of course, but they would not have the sweep or grandeur of the Connery era; they could have humor, but the humor had to be drier and less conspicuous; if Connery's Bond generally seemed to be having a good time, Craig's Bond would have to be wounded and brooding. Whoever succeeds him likely will have to do similarly, even if some of the lighter qualities can return.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
Dalton wasn't the problem with his films, nor was it the added Flemingesque elements---IMO, the times had changed/were changing, and they attempted to be more gritty and realistic whilst unfortunately retaining some of the Moore silliness (admittedly not Dalton's forte), so they were out of step and out of balance...that, and they were poorly directed with (at best) mid-grade writing...and so their appeal is largely limited to die-hard fans.
True. Not to knock what you said, but all of that became perfectly clear in hindsight, which includes all that came to pass up to the DC era, but at the time I think they took their best shot and maneuvered around obstacles (e.g., where the series was within its product lifecycle, the general industry, etc.), like the seasoned entrepreneurs the EON team have become.
Audiences will respond to a good James Bond film, which IMO has the fundamental literary roots of the character; all of the ones I enjoy the most do, anyway. By this I mean character traits that echo those of the literary character...so 'casual' fans who enjoy a good Bond film are getting more Fleming than they realize.
That’s an interesting observation. Making a movie closer to the Fleming roots doesn’t automatically make it a good Bond movie, let alone what general audiences would pay money to see. Exactly what made Fleming so readable in its time and what elements were transplanted to film that made the series so watchable? Would those same root elements still have allure with modern audiences? In other words, what elements of the recent movies captured any of the Fleming elements if there are any substantial ones to be identified, which at the same time appealed to viewers and drew them in? My theory is, should the filmmakers think that the success of Bond is what has been evolved based on viewers’ tastes, they wouldn’t hesitate to ignore the Fleming elements if they determine that those no longer contribute to the audience appeal.
Right; I'm really speaking to my own tastes there, obviously. My thoughts are that the origins of Cinematic Bond owe much to the source material, and that was successful. Perhaps serendipity. But not a bad thought, even as tastes change and Eon aspires to follow evolving audience expectations. Thru CR's reboot, it seems a valid touchstone.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
Mass audiences in the 1980s, though, still expected Moore's films, just with a younger lead. That's why people got so excited when Pierce Brosnan was announced as a contender to replace Moore. He seemed exactly the sort to be able to do the comedy while also projecting a younger, blow-dried, disco-fabulous image perfect for an 80s Bond movie.
When that didn't happen, and Dalton was selected instead, a collective "Who?" went out, at least in the U.S., and audiences by and large were unimpressed. Many had never read a Fleming novel, and it meant little that Dalton, whose saturnine face and uneven delivery, had.
An unfortunate fact. However in my own little world, in-between the time when PB was announced and when TD eventually took his place, I began reading the novels and felt very alone in cheering the return to Fleming’s Bond.
Craig had the right combination of Connery's mojo -- which seemed retro and fresh at the same time -- and the stilted emotional range that is part of the Millennial stereotype. (I teach mostly Millennials today, and too often, they seem to have only two or three facial expressions, regardless of the situation. It's like they're staring at a computer screen when they talk to you.)
…if Connery's Bond generally seemed to be having a good time, Craig's Bond would have to be wounded and brooding. Whoever succeeds him likely will have to do similarly, even if some of the lighter qualities can return.
An interesting and sober commentary on contemporary culture and a scary harbinger for our future, especially for older people. But the paradox is that Millennials can be credited for the success of the DC era, the largest groundswell in Bondmania since TB. It's the Zoolander generation )
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Comments
I saw one of those cobbled together trailers on the internet and it was okay but didn't show much of him actually, or let him speak much. I suppose the producers are looking to plough a new furrow and not go for someone too obvious looking, not that any such person exists currently.
Enjoyed his performance many years ago in Wings of a Dove I think, with Helena Bonham Carter, set in Venice mostly but one bravaura shot of Edwardian London.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
That said, my wife and a bunch of her Facebook friends recently had a discussion about the "Night Manager," and they were all of the opinion that, as handsome and refined as Hiddleston is, he lacks a certain animal magnetism. They just didn't find him sexy enough for Bond — even during the sex scenes. By contrast, most of them think that Aidan Turner oozes sexuality. (Idris Elba, too, but that will never happen.)
FWIW my wife's favorite Bonds — from a sexually attractive point of view — are Connery and Craig. Although she believes the younger Sir Roger was the most classically handsome.
Take the anecdote for what it's worth.
My girlfriend enjoyed him in The Night Manager. I think he'll do just fine as Bond :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
My wife's the same. While there are undoubtedly women who would drool over TH (Taylor Swift anyone?), there are also an awful lot who feel the way your wife and her friends feel. I feel the same way you do, Cheverian.
In the Night Manager, a bit of awkwardness and lack of grace in some action scenes made sense since the character was not a trained professional.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Looking at the pictures of Hiddleston from the latest issue of W Magazine (tried posting one but postimage seems to be playing up), i'd say he is a lot better built than Craig was pre CR - and that's before the inevitable personal trainers and nutritionists he'd be supplied if he got the role. If they did pick Hiddleston, I don't think they'd go the bulk muscle route they went with Craig. Probably just drop some BF and add some lean muscle. To be honest though, he's already got the perfect Fleming Bond look. Throw him in a Navy uniform and you're ready to go. Not every Bond movie has to have shirtless scenes, right?
Thankfully we didn't have to see Bond shirtless in Octopussy. Today they would show us Bond stripping down and dressing in a hurry to get the clown suit on!
I really hope that Hiddleston gets into good shape but doesn't bulk up. It's just not necessary for Bond to be a body builder.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Just get Fassbender
He's in very distinguished, if densely-populated, company - the "Could've Been Bond" Club -{
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Have no opinion re Richard Armitage as Bond except at 45 I think his age would put him out of the running.
There have been other good potential Bonds but the timing just wasn't there.
As much as I love Fassbender for Bond, I can't see what motivation he would have to make that type of long term
commitment. Fassbender's name above the title won't carry a film but he seems to be working all the time and while he
doesn't command superstar money he apparently is very well paid. If EON could pull that one off it would be quite the shocker.
For a Tom Hiddleston Bond would be make him a huge star.
Putting all our differences aside for a moment, TH would not have been as widely accepted back in ’05 as he can be now. DC changed the image of Bond even for those of us who, like myself, have never been DC’s fans. In fact, casting TH after DC is like going back to the more traditional look – not all the way, but about half-way. TH has a good chance to please both the classic Bond and Craig Bond fans. Do I want to see him as Bond? Not sure, am willing to see his first movie, but I certainly won’t be screaming aloud that he is NOT Bond (the way I did with DC)! X-(
Looks like TH might even broker a truce between us...
I feel the same way. It's like Daniel Craig has lowered the bar for people like us. Though others feel he's raised the bar for Bond, and I can respect that.
I have to respectfully disagree with the both of you. For me, in many ways Craig raised the bar. But that's what makes these discussions interesting. I do agree with the premise that Hiddleston potentially could bridge the gap between Craig's Bond and the other more "traditional" approaches to the role. As much as I like Craig as Bond I think it would be a mistake (and very difficult) for EON to recast with a Craig-alike. The best approach always seems to be to go back to Fleming's literary Bond as a template and update from there.
Obviously many of us on this forum do. Tim Dalton is often cited as the actor who came closest to Fleming's character, and he remains a favorite of mine. But his movies performed terribly at the box office, as noted here:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=jamesbond.htm
I don't have an answer to my own question except to note that both "Skyfall" and "Spectre" were box office triumphs, which suggests they satisfied millions of moviegoers.
And one last point: I think it's pretty clear that, if Craig leaves, Barbara Broccoli is going to go with her gut in choosing his replacement. Sam Mendes said as much in a recent interview. After all, BB did choose Craig — despite the howls of protest — and it lead to box office and critical success not seen since the early '60s.
Considering the success of Skyfall and Spectre, apparently the literary Bond is not what sells. But people loved CR, and that had a lot of the literary Bond in it just with action shoehorned in to please the modern audience. The poor results of Dalton's films had a lot to do with the attitudes at the time towards Bond and people wanting something other than Bond. When Brosnan brought back Moore's personality with the action that the public wanted, there was a lot more success. Today, people I think will still respond to the CR approach, with the heart of it taken from the literary Bond but with action.
Dalton wasn't the problem with his films, nor was it the added Flemingesque elements---IMO, the times had changed/were changing, and they attempted to be more gritty and realistic whilst unfortunately retaining some of the Moore silliness (admittedly not Dalton's forte), so they were out of step and out of balance...that, and they were poorly directed with (at best) mid-grade writing...and so their appeal is largely limited to die-hard fans.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I don't disagree with you or Matt. Dalton had bad luck. I would have loved to see his version of "Goldeneye."
Despite its financial success, "Die Another Day" struck me as another movie where the writing and direction failed the actor. Ironically, Brosnan paid the price for other people's bad decisions.
One of the most fascinating aspects of Bond is how he keeps falling in and out of fashion.
Craig has spoken of how Mike Myers blew up the Bond franchise in the 1990s with Austin Powers and Dr. Evil.
And then along came the Jason Bourne movies with their gritty camera work and top-notch action scenes. It helped that Matt Damon was believable in the role, too.
I happened to catch one of the Mission Impossible movies the other day and realized that they too raised the bar for Bond. Cruise is a maniac when it comes to doing his own stunts. That said, the character he plays, Ethan Hunt, isn't even two-dimensional.
"Casino Royale" with action — as Matt said — was a winning formula: it made Bond plausible again to a new generation of moviegoers.
It's a constant process of reinvention.
us?
True. But then some of us know who has the part, and can only spin our wheels until an announcement X-(
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
There is constantly 'news' about new Bonds in the tabloids. It's not just here.
Skyfall had pretty strong literary elements, specifically nods to YOLT and TMWTGG and, for the most part it worked pretty well.
I think Spectre was supposed to have themes similar to OHMSS (only the daughter of a criminal could understand Bond) and the torture scene was shoe-horned in from Colonel Sun, but the execution was generally lacking.
True. Not to knock what you said, but all of that became perfectly clear in hindsight, which includes all that came to pass up to the DC era, but at the time I think they took their best shot and maneuvered around obstacles (e.g., where the series was within its product lifecycle, the general industry, etc.), like the seasoned entrepreneurs the EON team have become.
That’s an interesting observation. Making a movie closer to the Fleming roots doesn’t automatically make it a good Bond movie, let alone what general audiences would pay money to see. Exactly what made Fleming so readable in its time and what elements were transplanted to film that made the series so watchable? Would those same root elements still have allure with modern audiences? In other words, what elements of the recent movies captured any of the Fleming elements if there are any substantial ones to be identified, which at the same time appealed to viewers and drew them in? My theory is, should the filmmakers think that the success of Bond is what has been evolved based on viewers’ tastes, they wouldn’t hesitate to ignore the Fleming elements if they determine that those no longer contribute to the audience appeal.
By that point, the Moore films had convinced mass audiences that movie Bond was a comic character with some adventurous qualities -- a far cry from the smooth but dangerous fellow that debuted in 1962. What people I knew wanted was something closer to Connery: a masculine charmer with enough every man qualities to be more of a role model and less of a caricature. We wanted the films to take themselves more seriously again, but not in the sense of being deadly serious.
Throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, Bond films had become campy, bloated, and second-rate rituals, successful mostly on the momentum of what had come before. Bond was a brand, however. What got lost was their being A-level entertainments, with an effective mixture of sex, humor, and violence that seemed cutting edge and exciting. Those traits began to show up instead in the Die Hards, Beverly Hills Cops, and Lethal Weapons.
Mass audiences in the 1980s, though, still expected Moore's films, just with a younger lead. That's why people got so excited when Pierce Brosnan was announced as a contender to replace Moore. He seemed exactly the sort to be able to do the comedy while also projecting a younger, blow-dried, disco-fabulous image perfect for an 80s Bond movie. When that didn't happen, and Dalton was selected instead, a collective "Who?" went out, at least in the U.S., and audiences by and large were unimpressed. Many had never read a Fleming novel, and it meant little that Dalton, whose saturnine face and uneven delivery, had.
Craig came around at the right time. First, the Batman and Star Wars films had created a huge demand for prequels. In addition, now there was a vast generation of young movie-goers who weren't even alive yet when Fleming's novels were still widely read and the Bond films reigned supreme as grand entertainments. What they understood of Bond was largely the result of seeing him lampooned in the Austin Power films. Paradoxically, they also embraced the music and fashion of the middle 1960s. Craig had the right combination of Connery's mojo -- which seemed retro and fresh at the same time -- and the stilted emotional range that is part of the Millennial stereotype. (I teach mostly Millennials today, and too often, they seem to have only two or three facial expressions, regardless of the situation. It's like they're staring at a computer screen when they talk to you.)
More importantly, the producers saw this as an opportunity to make a break with the immediate past and try to resuscitate more of the elements that made the 1960s films successful. Of course, this was tempered with contemporary sensibilities: The films would cost a lot of money, of course, but they would not have the sweep or grandeur of the Connery era; they could have humor, but the humor had to be drier and less conspicuous; if Connery's Bond generally seemed to be having a good time, Craig's Bond would have to be wounded and brooding. Whoever succeeds him likely will have to do similarly, even if some of the lighter qualities can return.
Right; I'm really speaking to my own tastes there, obviously. My thoughts are that the origins of Cinematic Bond owe much to the source material, and that was successful. Perhaps serendipity. But not a bad thought, even as tastes change and Eon aspires to follow evolving audience expectations. Thru CR's reboot, it seems a valid touchstone.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Guilty as charged
An unfortunate fact. However in my own little world, in-between the time when PB was announced and when TD eventually took his place, I began reading the novels and felt very alone in cheering the return to Fleming’s Bond.
An interesting and sober commentary on contemporary culture and a scary harbinger for our future, especially for older people. But the paradox is that Millennials can be credited for the success of the DC era, the largest groundswell in Bondmania since TB. It's the Zoolander generation