A new rumor claims Tom Holland is at the top of Amazon MGM Studios’ list to play James Bond in director Denis Villeneuve’s upcoming film.This Substack is reader-supported.
Holland? Please, no. Weak Spider-Man will be just as weak Bond. Besides, his GF is just about as ubiquitous as Pedro Pascal, and he'd try to lever her into his movies. Just no.
Roger Moore was 45 when he took over the role and lasted for seven films. Henry Cavill at 42 is the right choice, but they don't want him because he's too based.
I think Tom could be okay. In the novels Bond is supposed to be relatively young--a man who is living for today because he knows he doesn't have the kind of job where you make it to retirement age. I still think something like thirty might be better. Young men in their 20s still feel invulnerable.
I'm sorry, but where do you get this notion that Fleming's Bond is "relatively young"? That's utterly inaccurate. What's more, Fleming actually pointed at Hoagie Carmichael as having the face of his Bond [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hoagy_Carmichael_-_1947.jpg]. Bond never felt invulnerable, in fact, several of the original books beat him up pretty badly. Bond was a soldier of decent rank, who served, and accepts the risks because the job needs to be done.
I get it from Casino Royale (the first Bond novel). He is of young middle age, and he knows he won't make it to retirement at ~40 because of the danger of his job. The last several bonds have been too old.
I know he isn't invulnerable--that's why I'm saying Tom Holland would be TOO young. Bond should be past the full flush of youth where he still has hope that he can live this life forever, but not yet old enough to show that he HAS survived it forever.
EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, perhaps most of his reflections on his own mortality are from the Moonraker novel. They kind of blur together.
More nonsense from people who can't tell a good story and have no respect for the authors who created the characters they want to usurp. I'd rather never see a new Bond film again than have these no-talent-hacks ruin what little decent content is left. Blofeld is Bond's half-brother? Only a moron would come up with that or think it's a good idea. How about this for a novel idea: read what Ian Fleming wrote and do that! There is a reason Fleming's Bond still sells internationally.
Holland? Please, no. Weak Spider-Man will be just as weak Bond. Besides, his GF is just about as ubiquitous as Pedro Pascal, and he'd try to lever her into his movies. Just no.
Roger Moore was 45 when he took over the role and lasted for seven films. Henry Cavill at 42 is the right choice, but they don't want him because he's too based.
I think Tom could be okay. In the novels Bond is supposed to be relatively young--a man who is living for today because he knows he doesn't have the kind of job where you make it to retirement age. I still think something like thirty might be better. Young men in their 20s still feel invulnerable.
I'm sorry, but where do you get this notion that Fleming's Bond is "relatively young"? That's utterly inaccurate. What's more, Fleming actually pointed at Hoagie Carmichael as having the face of his Bond [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hoagy_Carmichael_-_1947.jpg]. Bond never felt invulnerable, in fact, several of the original books beat him up pretty badly. Bond was a soldier of decent rank, who served, and accepts the risks because the job needs to be done.
I get it from Casino Royale (the first Bond novel). He is of young middle age, and he knows he won't make it to retirement at ~40 because of the danger of his job. The last several bonds have been too old.
I know he isn't invulnerable--that's why I'm saying Tom Holland would be TOO young. Bond should be past the full flush of youth where he still has hope that he can live this life forever, but not yet old enough to show that he HAS survived it forever.
EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, perhaps most of his reflections on his own mortality are from the Moonraker novel. They kind of blur together.
Tom would be shit.
If we are going with little Jimmy Bond, Woody Allen did it better.
Of course they want this fag to be bond
Wouldn't surprise me.
Wimpy looking guy is way wrong choice.
Too short.
Tom Holland doesn't have the gravitas for Bond. I'm not opposed to a younger Bond but he still has to be a mans man. Holland is too much of a soy boy.
Surely you jest - was there no Tranny available in Britain?
More nonsense from people who can't tell a good story and have no respect for the authors who created the characters they want to usurp. I'd rather never see a new Bond film again than have these no-talent-hacks ruin what little decent content is left. Blofeld is Bond's half-brother? Only a moron would come up with that or think it's a good idea. How about this for a novel idea: read what Ian Fleming wrote and do that! There is a reason Fleming's Bond still sells internationally.
He's too weak-looking. And American.
No this would be horrible casting.
I thought Bond was SBS. Might be wrong on that. But young Bond as SBS in GWoT could be a good game or movie.
I bet he'll have a stupid blue comb-over and a nose ring.
Zero interest.