Tom Hardy as James Bond?
Moore Than
EnglandPosts: 3,173MI6 Agent
Tom Hardy has stated "I would love to play Bond with Chris Nolan director or something, it would be awesome." Hardy appears as the villain Bane in the latest Batman film The Dark Knight Rises (directed by Nolan) which is due for release this summer. He has an impressive CV and has appeared (as Clarkie) with Daniel Craig in Layer Cake.
Is Tom Hardy a suitable candidate to succeed Daniel Craig?
'I'd love to play James Bond'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2117511/Tom-Hardy-wants-role-007-Christopher-Nolan-direct.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Is Tom Hardy a suitable candidate to succeed Daniel Craig?
'I'd love to play James Bond'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2117511/Tom-Hardy-wants-role-007-Christopher-Nolan-direct.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
Comments
I think he would make a great James Bond
IMDB says Tom Hardy is 5ft 10. Either way, too short for Bond, I would've thought.
I don't want to go on about Craig's height as it has been discussed to death but I was thinking that if he stands near any of the previous Bond actors at the 50th Anniversary celebrations he better get his Cubans out .....
So, to answer my own question. Is Tom Hardy a suitable candidate to succeed Daniel Craig? The answer is yes.
Although it is interesting that in his latest movie (This means war) he plays a CIA agent, along side another American CIA agent, and the fight they then have against each other as the realise they are after the same girl.
Movie 2012 made the comparison of a Bond vs Bourne (if they ever met) type scenario if they would ever fall for the same girl...
....I just don't think he has a big enough presence to take over from Craig....
I've said it once and I'll say it again. That ski sequence in Inception which itself references OHMSS is the best big Bond sequence in years. Tom Hardy almost is Bond in that sequence. I have no doubt that he could play Bond better than Daniel Craig. Not that I doubt Daniel Craig's acting skill but because Daniel Craig hasn't really played Bond yet. We'll see what happens in Skyfall.
But in answer to the question, I don't see why Hardy couldn't be a good Bond. He does suave, resourceful and action well. Why not?
Anyway all of this whining and bellyaching, about short James Bond actors is leading me to think that you guys do not see a person (either a man or a woman, but especially a man,) for who they really are, and you merely see their height. Because apparently superficial things such as how tall a person is, and how good looking they are, matter to you guys and nothing else. I mean, it doesn't matter if the person, you're talking to is a kind-hearted person with a great personality, because IF that person's a short, ugly bugger, you don't care. And all you see is the ugliness in their face and their small stature.
Why are you taking this so personally? At 5' 7.5" (or 172cm), I'm a short guy too.
But James Bond isn't. That's what we're talking about here, a fictional character created by Ian Fleming, who's tall, dark haired, and handsome with a slightly cruel look to him. Not any old Joe Bloggs can pull off that look. I certainly can't. That's why there's a limited selection of actors who can actually look the part as well as be able to play the part.
Real people come in all different shapes and sizes, that's the way it is, and I accept that. But not a fictional character, with a defined height, weight, and looks. When it comes to who gets to play Bond, I'm very insistent on the view that the person has to look somewhat like the James Bond that Fleming described, or he shouldn't be eligible. In my view, the cinematic Bond should, as closely as possible, be an exact replica of the literary Bond, in looks, in behaviour and in mannerisms.
Does it really matter if a Bond actor looks like what Ian Fleming described, or not? Because as far as I'm concerned Fleming didn't really love the James Bond character THAT MUCH in the first place anyway, since Fleming killed him off. (Ian Fleming only brought James Bond back again quite possibly due to fan response, before Fleming himself, died.)
If you let the actor's get too short, they will start to be obviously the short guy and will distract, detract from the character, and look odd around all others in the room when he is supposed to be the tall and dark Mr. Bond.
Yes, I believe it does matter. It matters a lot.
So what if Fleming tried to kill off Bond? Even if, as you allege, that Fleming didn't like the character that much, how does it give the producers a licence to alter the very essence of the character to make him something other than what Fleming created? They may as well have gone and done another set of spy movies with absolutely zero relevance to Fleming's character. But if they want to make money out of the brand and reputation that has amassed through the character that Fleming created, then I would suggest that they stick as closely as possible to the character as it was created by Fleming, flawed though he may be.
I understand that you're angry over the current direction that Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson took, but I personally believe that it's out of our hands. We, the fans, are not the ones who have control over what Barbara and Michael do with James Bond, they are. Michael and Barbara are in a position where they can do pretty much whatever they want with Bond, and the fans can't stop them because they don't have the power to stop them.
All the fans can possibly do, at this point, is band together and boycott anything with Daniel Craig in it. Although it really doesn't matter because not everybody on this planet is of the same mind and of the same opinions, the fact that Casino Royale did well, despite the fan boycott proves that.
It does matter that an actor resembles Bond to a certain extent, because he is a fictional, iconic character like Sherlock Holmes, Superman, Tarzan, etc. The description is cast by the author (in this case, Fleming who was at times either describing a idealized version of his self or his brother Peter). You can't have an actor who is another race or overweight or too tall or too short playing him anymore than you could playing any of the other iconic characters I mentioned.
I was one of those put off by Craig when I first knew he was to be Bond - not because of his height - because an inch or two off six foot on the screen is not
really noticeable - but because he was so blonde. Well, when CR came out, his hair suddenly became less of an issue to me because he seemed to be just a light shaded brunette as opposed to the David McCallum look he had before the film, and his fierce, serious, brutal, realistic performance just pushed that aside for me. I hope the next actor will have darker hair, but will be as convincing as Craig is. Personally, I don't know why Craig just didn't darken his hair for the role. It is a character he is playing and he's darkened his hair for other roles.
I think that they are similar in many ways. Both fine character Actors but not 'leading men' in a traditional way. The height thing is not about dissing shorter men at all, or is it saying that masculinity, or hardness are in anyway compromised due to height. As a 6 ft 5 guy myself I know that the lean, quick, shorter man is a force to be reckoned with, and wary of. It's not even saying that it's a barrier to being a leading man. The history of Cinema is full of examples.
Height is a defining characteristic of James Bond though, it's central to who he is. For me I do notice as another poster mentioned that DC seems to be the shortest guy in the room. Gravitas is central to Bond and height is a part (but only a part) of that.
I have said before that it is to Daniel's great credit that he overcomes not being 'Tall dark' and classically handsome. But this thread is not about DC, It's about Tom Hardy who I believe is shorter than Daniel (irrespective of what IMDB says) and would not be able to pull of the same sleight of hand.
Of course the actor does not have to be a carbon copy of Flemings description, but he cannot disregard it either.
Neither do I. He is paid to play that character after all, and dying his hair a very dark brown / black isn't that difficult.
I agree with the rest of your post, CmdrAtticus.
That's up to EON, I assume.
To me Mr Hardy could be a fantastic Bond - after Mr Craig has had enough. But not before. To be fair though, I think it would be great if the man got his own franchise to play the lead character in. Mr C is Bond, Christian Bale has been a great Batman, and I am looking forward to see what Henry Cavill delivers as Superman.
As always, Hollywood is not static. Time will tell.
Fine actor, so why not?
Though like others on this thread, I wish EON had paid more attention to the Fleming physical description. But Craig has swayed me with his performance. No reason why Hardy shouldn't do the same.
Would Hardy play a good Bond? I'm not sure. He might. But that doesn't change the fact that his appearance isn't much like the Bond that Fleming described.
As a Fleming purist, I wish EON had been able to stick with the Fleming description.
Indeed of the six Bonds, if Fleming had to pick 'em out in a bar, he'd never tag Craig or Roger physically as his creation. And the most authentic - dark but not too big - Brosnan gets much derision from modern movie audiences for wimpishness.
And yet strangely, Fleming himself is reported as having advocated David Niven for the role of Bond. And there is NOTHING of the Fleming literary description physically in Niven...
Fleming advocated Niven because they were personal friends (Niven was
an officer in the army and first met Fleming at their gentlemen's club) and
because he had already seen his films. I worked at a NATO base back in the '70s and knew a Royal Army colonel in our division who had know Niven, because he himself had worked in theatrical shows they put on for soldiers in the field during the war. He became the theatrical director for the plays they put on at the NATO base theater while I was there as well. He did not know Fleming, but Niven had talked about Fleming and what he thought when Fleming asked him if he though he could play Bond. Niven loved his novels, but told him Bond was just too out of his range for him, and didn't think audiences would accept him in such a role. He told him he wouldn't mind playing Tanner or Q, since there could be some humor involved, and it would also keep his shooting schedule short if he could play those roles. He suggested having Robert Morley play M, though he did not say what Fleming thought of that. He did suggest having Stewart Granger play Bond and Fleming apparently thought that was a great idea, but Granger was a little too old by then. Anyway, Fleming's idea of Niven playing Bond came more from his admiration of Niven as a friend and actor than as ideal casting. Ironically, Niven took Bond's role in the '67 CR version out of his reverence for his old friend Fleming and because the script was to be just a comic farce - which Niven enjoyed doing.