Tom Hardy is the next James Bond

[non-scoring strikers 113]

Not officially confirmed at time of writing but being reported by numerous respected outlets so only a matter of time it seems. 

Bit of a waste as he can do so much better than slum it on a long studio contract playing a dullard. 

We can only hope he mixes it up and brings his signature weird to the character. 

[The Real Buh 3,423]

If Tom hardy become bond, Chris Nolan will direct

if Chris Nolan directs a bond movie you can forget any other bond movie. It’ll be the best bond movie ever

[Van wink 2,994]

6 minutes ago, The Real Buh said:

If Tom hardy become bond, Chris Nolan will direct

if Chris Nolan directs a bond movie you can forget any other bond movie. It’ll be the best bond movie ever

Indeed but you may need to watch it at least twice to understand what the hell is going on, it will need subtitles 😀

[Herman 9,713]

Oliver Hardy would be more appropriate to portray our security services.😉

[A Load of Squit 5,128]

3 minutes ago, Herman said:

Oliver Hardy would be more appropriate to portray our security services.😉

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54216511

Dominic Raab's bodyguard 'left gun on plane' 😀

[sonyc 5,491]

2 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54216511

Dominic Raab's bodyguard 'left gun on plane' 😀

Your mission... if you chose to accept it....is to protect our Foreign Minister....

Oops.... sorry, wrong spy programme.

[Aggy 752]

I like Tom Hardy in a lot of stuff, but not James Bond for me.
 

I’d quite like them to go back a little bit towards the Connery type. I rate the Daniel Craig films to be fair, but it’s a bit samey samey action film-y. 

[Midlands Yellow 3,934]

Boris would be an interesting Bond choice. 

[The Real Buh 3,423]

4 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Boris would be an interesting Bond choice. 

Boris who?

[Midlands Yellow 3,934]

6 minutes ago, The Real Buh said:

Boris who?

The Prime minister of course. 

[The Real Buh 3,423]

Just now, Midlands Yellow said:

The Prime minister of course. 

Oh

i thought you just had a mate called Boris or something.

[Midlands Yellow 3,934]

Does his own stunts too. 

 

[The Real Buh 3,423]

9 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Does his own stunts too. 

 

>Managing to politicise even a thread about who is potentially going to be the new James Bond

 

[KiwiScot 1,436]

7 hours ago, non-scoring strikers said:

Bit of a waste as he can do so much better than slum it on a long studio contract playing a dullard.

Agree, but could make him a bigger box office star.

[Indy_Bones 441]

Certainly not who I'd choose to replace Daniel Craig, but then again, I actually feel that Timothy Dalton is the best Bond in terms of being closest to the original books, yet almost everyone else thought he was rubbish, so I'm not sure how valued my opinion on the subject would be to the masses!

[non-scoring strikers 113]

17 hours ago, KiwiScot said:

Agree, but could make him a bigger box office star.

Naturally, Bond will always have a large box office take but he's already A list; Dark Knight Rises grossed over $1bil and Venom took over $850mil (with a sequel in production)! 

I hope he continues to make decent projects on the side, should his contract allow. He's our best weirdo although Robert Pattinson is mounting a strong challenge for that honour! 

[non-scoring strikers 113]

On 19/09/2020 at 07:46, Van wink said:

Indeed but you may need to watch it at least twice to understand what the hell is going on, it will need subtitles 😀

Also depends how much Nolan the studio let him getaway with! They turned the screw on Mendes so much that his last one stunk and Boyle left before even making one because of their interference. 

[Herman 9,713]

20 hours ago, Aggy said:

I like Tom Hardy in a lot of stuff, but not James Bond for me.
 

I’d quite like them to go back a little bit towards the Connery type. I rate the Daniel Craig films to be fair, but it’s a bit samey samey action film-y. 

I think the Bourne franchise gave them all a kick up the backside, which was great for a while, but as you say, got a bit samey after a while. Bond also needs a bit of the humour that Connery added as well.

[Indy_Bones 441]

6 hours ago, Herman said:

Bond also needs a bit of the humour that Connery added as well.

But that's not what Bond was supposed to be like as a character, if comic relief is really needed, then let someone else in the movies provide it, Bond is meant to be cold, focused, detached and generally quite dark, certainly not a wisecracking womaniser who relies on cheesy lines to complete his missions!

[Herman 9,713]

Most of us know Bond from the Connery/Moore films. They were the first ones a lot of us saw and now feel they should have that bit of humour. I, and I think the vast majority, have never read the originals so don't know how Fleming portrayed him originally. Not saying either is right or wrong but just personal preference. Although saying that, I did think Skyfall was the best one in years and that is quite dark.

[Aggy 752]

I’m not necessarily too worried about the jokes and the quips etc. And I certainly prefer the action hero style of Craig to the “ageing gentleman” of Moore towards the end of his run in particular.

I think especially in the last few there has been a sort of focus on Bond being close to retirement, being an ageing spy, the world changing around him, not needing “traditional” spies when you’ve got tech etc. And I sort of expect that will continue with Hardy if he gets it  - he’s 43 already, so likely to be c.46 when his first film would come out. I think the books he’s more sort of mid 30s to early 40s and Connery was 32 when he started. I’d quite like someone a bit younger and modernise the character to shake it up a bit - Richard Madden, James Norton mentioned previously in their mid thirties.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

40 minutes ago, Herman said:

Most of us know Bond from the Connery/Moore films. They were the first ones a lot of us saw and now feel they should have that bit of humour. I, and I think the vast majority, have never read the originals so don't know how Fleming portrayed him originally. Not saying either is right or wrong but just personal preference. Although saying that, I did think Skyfall was the best one in years and that is quite dark.

I read the Fleming books as a young teenager and interpreted Bond as a cold fish who used people, especially women, as a means to an end.

Although Connery set the standard, Moore altered it, Dalton altered it back and Brosnan altered it back again.

Personally, I think Craig has done a good job but his movies won't be as well remembered because he is a cold hearted killer who backs authority rather than established anti authority Connery and Moore.

[Indy_Bones 441]

It's always been a bone of contention for me when characters are altered in a significant way from their original portrayal in written source material.

Game of Thrones was a great example of this, in that it started out being extremely close to the books for the first 2 seasons, but it began to diverge more and more in terms of story and characters all the way to that weak final season and truly awful last episode. I appreciate in this case, that the final book(s) weren't written yet by GRRM, but there's no excuse for the changes before this.

My interpretation of Bond is somewhat similar to KG's, he's absolutely focused on results and willing to do what is necessary to acheive them, whilst being quite detached and cold in the process. He's certainly not seen as putting out witty quips every 2 minutes or spending his time shamelessly romancing every woman that moves purely for his own enjoyment and to hell with getting the mission done.

I get that Connery/Moore will be seen as the main Bond's for anyone with a bit of age and that their approach to the character is likely to be what they are used to, but if we simply followed that logic then we'd never have seen Chris Nolan's Batman movies and would instead be looking for Adam West style replacements in a schlocky, cartoonish superhero role rather than the much darker (and again, closer to the original design of Batman) Bale version.

Give me Dalton's and Craig's versions rather than Connery's or Moore's, or god forbid a Johnny English type approach!

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Indeed Indy. You could argue that Dalton's Bond in Licence to Kill showed the darker side with his lust for revenge.

[Indy_Bones 441]

7 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Indeed Indy. You could argue that Dalton's Bond in Licence to Kill showed the darker side with his lust for revenge.

That's actually my favourite Bond movie, followed by the more recent Casino Royale.

I really wish Dalton had been given a few more movies to work with rather than replacing him with Brosnan, but I guess too many fans were used to Connery/Moore and a commercial decision rather than accuracy to the source material will almost always win out in those situations.

[Aggy 752]

2 hours ago, Indy_Bones said:

he's absolutely focused on results and willing to do what is necessary to acheive them, whilst being quite detached and cold in the process. He's certainly not seen as putting out witty quips every 2 minutes or spending his time shamelessly romancing every woman that moves purely for his own enjoyment and to hell with getting the mission done.

Give me Dalton's and Craig's versions rather than Connery's or Moore's, or god forbid a Johnny English type approach!

See, I’d say Craig’s Bond is quite a long way from being ‘detached and cold’. It’s almost as if the Craig movies have tried to change that perception, or start a move away from it. We’ve had his almost mother/son thing with Judi Dench and death of Vesper for instance. 

As an aside, are the books any good?

 

Edited September 20, 2020 by Aggy

[Indy_Bones 441]

Just now, Aggy said:

See, I’d say Craig’s Bond is quite a long way from being ‘detached and cold’. It’s almost as if the Craig movies have tried to change that perception, or start a move away from it. We’ve had his almost mother/son thing with Judi Dench and death of Vesper for instance. 

As an aside, are the books any good?

The books are a bit hit and miss tbh, some are excellent, others don't really seem to hang together properly. Casino Royale will always be my favourite, along with Moonraker, whereas The Spy Who Loved Me and You Only Live Twice left me as cold as Bond himself.

One thing to remember though is that Casino Royale was the first book, and although Bond was already quite cold and ruthless from the start, he was willing to give it all up for Vesper who he then found out had betrayed him and this drove him even darker which is somewhat reflected past this point.

I'd say that if you fancy reading any of them, obviously start with Casino Royale, but then do Moonraker and From Russia With Love. The reason I wouldn't go in chronological order is that you get this weird sort of alternation between good and weak entries for the most part which is a strange coincidence and always made me wonder about Fleming's approach to writing, and if you'd only read the likes of Live and Let Die and Diamonds are Forever, you'd be forgiven for thinking all the books were a bit rubbish.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

10 hours ago, Indy_Bones said:

But that's not what Bond was supposed to be like as a character, if comic relief is really needed, then let someone else in the movies provide it, Bond is meant to be cold, focused, detached and generally quite dark, certainly not a wisecracking womaniser who relies on cheesy lines to complete his missions!

You are quite right, based certainly on the first book, Casino Royale, and the second, From Russia, With Love. That Bond is not just all you have said, but also fallible. In both he is outwitted and humiliated.

But I suspect (I don't know) that Fleming's portrayal in the books changed towards a more idealised Bond and in any event books and films are different animals. In the John Buchan books the hero Richard Hannay is actually a hard-working mining engineer  but in the film and TV adaptations he is invaribaly portrayed as a bit of a toff.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Reading a novel and then seeing the movie are quite different of course. I imagine we all have parts we enjoyed reading that are edited or never filmed.

Irving's World according to Garp was a wonderful read but so much was left out in the movie.

And Alex Cross was not Morgan Freeman when I first read the Patterson novels.

 

[Herman 9,713]

Fair point. I can pretty much guarantee that every Jack Reacher fan had a problem with Tom Cruise playing him. And the first Rebus didn't go down that well.