Given source I suspect this is a deliberate leak to mollify certain quarters, however...
He may need to borrow DC’s QoS lifts...but his height hasn’t stopped him playing some triple
hard bastards. Let’s check out his Bond credentials...
Intelligent actor? Yes.
Looks good in a suit? Yes.
Wry, dry, humour to keep the British end up? Yes.
Convincing with a gun? Yes.
Significant risk of seducing your wife 3 minutes after meeting her in a casino..? Yes.
Convincing killer? Yes.
...and the mumbling all seems to stem from interviews and Bane.
Pretty hard to sell him as a disaster, even if I do think it’s misdirection.
Tom Hardy???? More Brit tab silliness. Tom Britney, Max Irons? Are they not the same guy? Right now they both look like a couple oversized fresh faced well scrubbed English school boys. Maybe in a few years one of them could mature a bit but they barely qualify as "young Bond".
The good news is now Hardy is 4/5 on at the bookies you’ll all be laying him to the hilt and richer than Kamal Khan quicker than it takes Bond to identify an indifferently blended fine brandy. .
I find it interesting no one says he’s too old...which, strict rules of golf, he is.
Tom Hardy???? More Brit tab silliness. Tom Britney, Max Irons? Are they not the same guy? Right now they both look like a couple oversized fresh faced well scrubbed English school boys. Maybe in a few years one of them could mature a bit but they barely qualify as "young Bond".
Exactly. B26 isn't coming until 2023 at the absolute earliest.
This is a YouTube rumour which was seized upon by a hungry Twitter. Nothing to see here.
I mean the source hasn’t posted on YouTube in 4 months, but the idea of Tom seems to be really pissing in your cornflakes...
You're right, my friend, though I do prefer muesli myself I really don't rate Hardy, though fortunately he's aged out of the role now. More importantly, though, Eon wouldn't steal Craig's thunder by announcing his replacement ahead of his swansong. That would be just insane, not to mention disrespectful. And I say that as someone who doesn't like Craig either
Besides which, I expect there will be a big gap before the next film. I can't see it being released until at least 2027 and maybe even 2030, sadly. There's the MGM thing to handle, and whether that will lead to a possible sale; whether the buyer will want to buy Eon's share too, as Bond is the last remaining IP not owned by a major corporation; if not, Greg Wilson formally succeeding his father; figuring out a new direction with Barbara, and a new script (something Craig insisted on seeing before committing to the role himself), and the not-so-small matter of making a globe-trotting film in a world where corona-virus will flourish perhaps indefinitely, while the very idea of cinema could be over.
In the same way we look back with vague bewilderment or maybe even embarrassment at the Tom Hiddleston chatter, and the rumour that Craig has signed for two films, we will also look back at this era of uncertainty and false dawns in a few years time when we're about to welcome a new actor and a new film.
A venerated user on this board who has inside knowledge of the productions, back in 2017, proffered the idea that Tom Hardy being offered the role was partly why Craig came back, and I believe this same gentleman floated the "two films back to back" idea as well.
Sometimes rumors aren't just fantasies, but ideas that didn't pan out, things mentioned in passing, internal gossip.
A venerated user on this board who has inside knowledge of the productions, back in 2017, proffered the idea that Tom Hardy being offered the role was partly why Craig came back, and I believe this same gentleman floated the "two films back to back" idea as well.
Sometimes rumors aren't just fantasies, but ideas that didn't pan out, things mentioned in passing, internal gossip.
I always had a hard time believing the two-film rumour, as Craig understandably finds making one film physically arduous. Making two back to back would be a particularly injurious task.
No disrespect to the member you mention, but I doubt someone close to the production, even a friend-of-a-friend, would do something as risky as report such information on an internet forum. Even if we'd like to believe they would.
You're right, my friend, though I do prefer muesli myself
Much healthier! )
I think you are right, sadly, on the timing abyss stretching out before...which should rule out anyone above 33-35, now, if you take likelihood of announcement plus filming and release taking 3-5 years +.
15 years from 37-52 seems like the ideal window. DC was in his absolute pomp for CR & QoS, not that he's diminished much at all, SF being deliberate, and NTTD clips seem like a level above last time.
15 years from 37-52 seems like the ideal window. DC was in his absolute pomp for CR & QoS, not that he's diminished much at all, SF being deliberate, and NTTD clips seem like a level above last time.
It seems to me that once an actor has a role, it's theirs for a good while, even if they age a bit too much during their tenure (though Pierce would disagree!).
Lois Maxwell, for example, wouldn't have been cast as Moneypenny in the early '80s, and yet there she was in OP and AVTAK. Similarly, Roger wouldn't have been cast at that time either had he not been given the role already, or Sean in Diamonds are Forever, or Pierce in Die Another Day and maybe even The World Is Not Enough.
The same is true for other film series - Carrie Fisher in the recent Star Wars sequels, for example - and I think the same also applies to Craig now, and has since Skyfall.
Part of this is how an actor's looks fade with age, but it's also due to their star status dwindling slightly too.
I'm fine with a good decade for an actor though, mirrors the Fleming literary blueprint.
I think DC is going to go out with a banger in NTTD. Seems pretty clever pitching it as 5 years into retirement post the SF/SP "I'm old" repetitive gag. Is he still in better shape than many a decade younger? yes - but he very believable wears the visage of someone who has retired from 'a young man's game' a good few years ago.
Ah, poor Lois, I assume now at peace they killed off Dame Judi.
15 years from 37-52 seems like the ideal window. DC was in his absolute pomp for CR & QoS, not that he's diminished much at all, SF being deliberate, and NTTD clips seem like a level above last time.
It seems to me that once an actor has a role, it's theirs for a good while, even if they age a bit too much during their tenure (though Pierce would disagree!).
Lois Maxwell, for example, wouldn't have been cast as Moneypenny in the early '80s, and yet there she was in OP and AVTAK. Similarly, Roger wouldn't have been cast at that time either had he not been given the role already,
Moneypenny was a relatively minor supporting role and a late middle aged secretary is believable.
Yeah, 35-ish is the right age to cast a Bond actor, though Roger Moore was already in his early 40s when cast, mind you he looked youngish until Octopussy and then everything caught up to him (also look at RJD in the Marvel films) and nowadays a 57 year old action star can look 44-46 years old.
And Brosnan could've gotten away with one or two more Bond films by 2005-ish.
'Alright guard, begin the unnecessarily slow moving dipping mechanism...'
If that Hardy rumor is true then I would bet that Nolan would direct. I'm sure they talked about Bond on Inception during that snow sequence which was a basically a big homage scene. If it would happen now or the coming years might be the only time since Nolan would only want to reboot. He could make his two or three movies then they could start over again afterwards. And Hardy's age wouldn't be a problem either for a trilogy.
But seeing how controlling the producers are I bet this is just a best wishes rumor that won't happen.
...Mind you he looked youngish until Octopussy and then everything caught up to him...
I thought Roger looked really good in OP. It was AVTAK where it went wrong, and that was mainly because of his facelift/weight loss/whatever.
He just about got away with it in Octopussy and did well for guy cast as Bond at the age of 46, but he definitely hit the wall with AVTAK, where he looked distractingly haggard, jowly, and clunky (with the stunt/body doubles looking more obvious). But it was a bygone era of less subtle cosmetic surgeries, less aversion to drink/smoking, and no established industry of personal trainers, etc.
Plus you have Halle Berry and Michelle Yeoh carrying themselves pretty well in physically demanding roles on John Wick 3 and ST: Discovery respectively in their 50s.
'Alright guard, begin the unnecessarily slow moving dipping mechanism...'
I've been watching Jamie Dornan in The Fall. He's someone who comes across as a potential Bond - he has the looks, and can convey a certain amount of menace. He's 38 now so about the right age. So I'm gonna throw his hat into the ring...
I've been watching Jamie Dornan in The Fall. He's someone who comes across as a potential Bond - he has the looks, and can convey a certain amount of menace. He's 38 now so about the right age. So I'm gonna throw his hat into the ring...
.... and his rope, handcuffs and whip :v
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I've been keeping my powder dry on this Tom Hardy stuff...
I was an early supporter of Craig on this site, and believe that my faith in him has been rewarded by four fantastic performances (whatever you make of the films or the scripts themselves) - but I also think that Craig is as short as Bond should ever be. I know it's not a big deal for some people, and that's fine, but I think Bond should be on the positive side of 6'0", while anything over 6'4" is arguably too tall.
I will be disappointed if Tom Hardy gets the gig, but I'll give him a chance, of course. He's a fine actor, but at 43(?), he's older than I think a modern Bond should be coming out of the gate. I'm in favor of skewing more traditional for #7, and would have loved a Cavill tenure. But alas, if he's actually signed a 3-picture Superman deal, that is probably that.
If we must have a Tom, I much prefer Hiddleston. He can bridge the gap between traditional and something fresh {[]
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
...Mind you he looked youngish until Octopussy and then everything caught up to him...
I thought Roger looked really good in OP. It was AVTAK where it went wrong, and that was mainly because of his facelift/weight loss/whatever.
He just about got away with it in Octopussy and did well for guy cast as Bond at the age of 46, but he definitely hit the wall with AVTAK, where he looked distractingly haggard, jowly, and clunky (with the stunt/body doubles looking more obvious). But it was a bygone era of less subtle cosmetic surgeries, less aversion to drink/smoking, and no established industry of personal trainers, etc.
I agree. I could never figure out what was wrong with him in AVTAK, but his stare on its own is scary. We know he had his mole removed, which would indicate a facelift (or it would've gone up!), while he may have had an eye-lift too, as they're so wide. Plus, I think he had coloured contact lenses which made them bluer, while his hair, of course, had highlights and was made fuller (I remember reading) before each take.
I've always been morbidly curious about this sort of thing 8-) Something about cosmetic surgery is slightly ghoulish in a gothic horror kind of way
Now they can digitally "de-age" actors. It was used to take years off DeNiro and Pacino in The Irishman and to a much lesser, but in some ways more effectively, for Brad Pitt in Allied. The rub is, the technology is very, very expensive. Based upon the Bond track record, EON will probably go for a lesser known but well regarded actor in their early to mid 30's and it won't be a model type or boy band member who spends a lot of time in the gym. )
The guy who plays Superman, in the “Supergirl” TV show (Tyler Hoechlin) has exactly the right look for Bond. He’s American though, and I can’t speak to his acting ability...
Now they can digitally "de-age" actors. It was used to take years off DeNiro and Pacino in The Irishman and to a much lesser, but in some ways more effectively, for Brad Pitt in Allied. The rub is, the technology is very, very expensive. Based upon the Bond track record, EON will probably go for a lesser known but well regarded actor in their early to mid 30's and it won't be a model type or boy band member who spends a lot of time in the gym. )
Very true. You could not have gotten better de-ageing tech if you left Deniro and Pesci's wax dummies in a boiler room for six hours. Also the Irishman made the interesting choice of having young Deniro and young Pesci shuffle around like old men and talk with old men's voices, creating a fascinating dissonance that was never annoying.
Now they can digitally "de-age" actors. It was used to take years off DeNiro and Pacino in The Irishman and to a much lesser, but in some ways more effectively, for Brad Pitt in Allied. The rub is, the technology is very, very expensive. Based upon the Bond track record, EON will probably go for a lesser known but well regarded actor in their early to mid 30's and it won't be a model type or boy band member who spends a lot of time in the gym. )
Very true. You could not have gotten better de-ageing tech if you left Deniro and Pesci's wax dummies in a boiler room for six hours. Also the Irishman made the interesting choice of having young Deniro and young Pesci shuffle around like old men and talk with old men's voices, creating a fascinating dissonance that was never annoying.
I've seen some videos about the making of The Irishman and what also made the de-aging that much more difficult was that they de-aged them to look more like the actual people they were playing as opposed to just making them look like younger versions of themselves. Also, with regards to "shuffling around", DeNiro who is not "short" at around 5'11" (given his age probably more like 5'10" or less these days) was playing a guy who in real life was a very big guy (Frank Sheeran was 6'4" and over 220 lbs). So in addition to the de-aging, they had him in big clunky elevator boots (think Boris Karloff in Frankenstein) and padded up to look bulkier. IMO, the movie overcame some of this just because the actors were so good in their roles. DeNiro was excellent as was Joe Pesci and Pacino was terrific as he went back to actually acting and not doing another bloviated "Scent of a Woman" "hoo rah" performance.
Comments
He can't act, anyway. He's just a thug who plays thugs. Almost every role he takes is a gangster.
Given source I suspect this is a deliberate leak to mollify certain quarters, however...
He may need to borrow DC’s QoS lifts...but his height hasn’t stopped him playing some triple
hard bastards. Let’s check out his Bond credentials...
Intelligent actor? Yes.
Looks good in a suit? Yes.
Wry, dry, humour to keep the British end up? Yes.
Convincing with a gun? Yes.
Significant risk of seducing your wife 3 minutes after meeting her in a casino..? Yes.
Convincing killer? Yes.
...and the mumbling all seems to stem from interviews and Bane.
Pretty hard to sell him as a disaster, even if I do think it’s misdirection.
I mean the source hasn’t posted on YouTube in 4 months, but the idea of Tom seems to be really pissing in your cornflakes, so let’s leave it there.
I still think it will be the last number 2, just as Pierce got his turn...
I find it interesting no one says he’s too old...which, strict rules of golf, he is.
Exactly. B26 isn't coming until 2023 at the absolute earliest.
You're right, my friend, though I do prefer muesli myself
Besides which, I expect there will be a big gap before the next film. I can't see it being released until at least 2027 and maybe even 2030, sadly. There's the MGM thing to handle, and whether that will lead to a possible sale; whether the buyer will want to buy Eon's share too, as Bond is the last remaining IP not owned by a major corporation; if not, Greg Wilson formally succeeding his father; figuring out a new direction with Barbara, and a new script (something Craig insisted on seeing before committing to the role himself), and the not-so-small matter of making a globe-trotting film in a world where corona-virus will flourish perhaps indefinitely, while the very idea of cinema could be over.
In the same way we look back with vague bewilderment or maybe even embarrassment at the Tom Hiddleston chatter, and the rumour that Craig has signed for two films, we will also look back at this era of uncertainty and false dawns in a few years time when we're about to welcome a new actor and a new film.
Sometimes rumors aren't just fantasies, but ideas that didn't pan out, things mentioned in passing, internal gossip.
I always had a hard time believing the two-film rumour, as Craig understandably finds making one film physically arduous. Making two back to back would be a particularly injurious task.
No disrespect to the member you mention, but I doubt someone close to the production, even a friend-of-a-friend, would do something as risky as report such information on an internet forum. Even if we'd like to believe they would.
But who really knows?
Much healthier!
I think you are right, sadly, on the timing abyss stretching out before...which should rule out anyone above 33-35, now, if you take likelihood of announcement plus filming and release taking 3-5 years +.
15 years from 37-52 seems like the ideal window. DC was in his absolute pomp for CR & QoS, not that he's diminished much at all, SF being deliberate, and NTTD clips seem like a level above last time.
It seems to me that once an actor has a role, it's theirs for a good while, even if they age a bit too much during their tenure (though Pierce would disagree!).
Lois Maxwell, for example, wouldn't have been cast as Moneypenny in the early '80s, and yet there she was in OP and AVTAK. Similarly, Roger wouldn't have been cast at that time either had he not been given the role already, or Sean in Diamonds are Forever, or Pierce in Die Another Day and maybe even The World Is Not Enough.
The same is true for other film series - Carrie Fisher in the recent Star Wars sequels, for example - and I think the same also applies to Craig now, and has since Skyfall.
Part of this is how an actor's looks fade with age, but it's also due to their star status dwindling slightly too.
I think DC is going to go out with a banger in NTTD. Seems pretty clever pitching it as 5 years into retirement post the SF/SP "I'm old" repetitive gag. Is he still in better shape than many a decade younger? yes - but he very believable wears the visage of someone who has retired from 'a young man's game' a good few years ago.
Ah, poor Lois, I assume now at peace they killed off Dame Judi.
Moneypenny was a relatively minor supporting role and a late middle aged secretary is believable.
Yeah, 35-ish is the right age to cast a Bond actor, though Roger Moore was already in his early 40s when cast, mind you he looked youngish until Octopussy and then everything caught up to him (also look at RJD in the Marvel films) and nowadays a 57 year old action star can look 44-46 years old.
And Brosnan could've gotten away with one or two more Bond films by 2005-ish.
I thought Roger looked really good in OP. It was AVTAK where it went wrong, and that was mainly because of his facelift/weight loss/whatever.
But seeing how controlling the producers are I bet this is just a best wishes rumor that won't happen.
He just about got away with it in Octopussy and did well for guy cast as Bond at the age of 46, but he definitely hit the wall with AVTAK, where he looked distractingly haggard, jowly, and clunky (with the stunt/body doubles looking more obvious). But it was a bygone era of less subtle cosmetic surgeries, less aversion to drink/smoking, and no established industry of personal trainers, etc.
Daniel Craig never looked very boyish and youthful, but he would likely look more credible in a action role at 57. Tom Cruise is doing stunts at an astonishing 58.
Plus you have Halle Berry and Michelle Yeoh carrying themselves pretty well in physically demanding roles on John Wick 3 and ST: Discovery respectively in their 50s.
.... and his rope, handcuffs and whip :v
I was an early supporter of Craig on this site, and believe that my faith in him has been rewarded by four fantastic performances (whatever you make of the films or the scripts themselves) - but I also think that Craig is as short as Bond should ever be. I know it's not a big deal for some people, and that's fine, but I think Bond should be on the positive side of 6'0", while anything over 6'4" is arguably too tall.
I will be disappointed if Tom Hardy gets the gig, but I'll give him a chance, of course. He's a fine actor, but at 43(?), he's older than I think a modern Bond should be coming out of the gate. I'm in favor of skewing more traditional for #7, and would have loved a Cavill tenure. But alas, if he's actually signed a 3-picture Superman deal, that is probably that.
If we must have a Tom, I much prefer Hiddleston. He can bridge the gap between traditional and something fresh {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I agree. I could never figure out what was wrong with him in AVTAK, but his stare on its own is scary. We know he had his mole removed, which would indicate a facelift (or it would've gone up!), while he may have had an eye-lift too, as they're so wide. Plus, I think he had coloured contact lenses which made them bluer, while his hair, of course, had highlights and was made fuller (I remember reading) before each take.
I've always been morbidly curious about this sort of thing 8-) Something about cosmetic surgery is slightly ghoulish in a gothic horror kind of way
Very true. You could not have gotten better de-ageing tech if you left Deniro and Pesci's wax dummies in a boiler room for six hours. Also the Irishman made the interesting choice of having young Deniro and young Pesci shuffle around like old men and talk with old men's voices, creating a fascinating dissonance that was never annoying.
I've seen some videos about the making of The Irishman and what also made the de-aging that much more difficult was that they de-aged them to look more like the actual people they were playing as opposed to just making them look like younger versions of themselves. Also, with regards to "shuffling around", DeNiro who is not "short" at around 5'11" (given his age probably more like 5'10" or less these days) was playing a guy who in real life was a very big guy (Frank Sheeran was 6'4" and over 220 lbs). So in addition to the de-aging, they had him in big clunky elevator boots (think Boris Karloff in Frankenstein) and padded up to look bulkier. IMO, the movie overcame some of this just because the actors were so good in their roles. DeNiro was excellent as was Joe Pesci and Pacino was terrific as he went back to actually acting and not doing another bloviated "Scent of a Woman" "hoo rah" performance.