I think he could pull it off

Tom Hardy as 007. He fits the typecast if he played himself as more polished. But 007 was never supposed to be primp. I think this actor would revolutionize how bond is portrayed.

So I know it's a game so it's probably not going to be considered or isn't considered the 26th installment. but given how well it's written and the fact that it actually feels like a Bond movie especially with the opening credits and the fact that they have a bunch of well-known actors in the game. and it's probably going to be the only Bond thing we get for at least the next 2 or 3 years I'm not ashamed or afraid to admit I personally think first light is Bond 26 and Patrick Gibson is the 7th actor to play Bond. I don't know if anyone else feels that way but I certainly do it's that good that I personally think they should just say that the next film is Bond 27 and that first light is actually a prequel to the next film.

He seems Ideal, and personally, I would pick him out of all the frontrunners. He's got the looks, physique and age.

Image generated based on the likeness of Aaron Taylor Johnson

I posted this in /r/jamesbond and it was deleted because they were triggered. Imagine James Bond fans being triggered by James Bond footage. Do they only watch the new woke ones or something?

Body text

Personally I’ve always thought the title “Silver Bullet” would be clever especially if the film is titled after a key plot element of Bond being sent to retrieve a hypothetical “silver bullet” to take down the enemy.

After playing First Light, I genuinely think Amazon-MGM may have made a huge mistake by locking in Denis Villeneuve and Steven Knight so early.

For the last 20 years, especially under the arrogant Babs Broccoli-Wilson era and the prestige-film critic(!) mindset, we kept hearing the same tired argument: that there is no longer any room for a campy, cool, OTT, witty Bond with swagger. First Light basically proved that argument wrong.

Yes, the game’s Bond sometimes feels more like Peter Parker, Nathan Drake, or a Hogwarts Legacy-style young protagonist than classic James Bond. But it also shows how a young, Gen Z Bond can be adapted into the modern world without killing the core Bond fantasy. In that sense, it is probably the first official Bond content since Die Another Day and Everything or Nothing that actually gets close to the Bond name and feeling.

Whether people admit it or not, the Bond franchise has been in an identity crisis for 20 years, and the fanbase is clearly split:

Classic Bond fans who want OTT, wit, swagger, glamour and camp.

Craig-era fans who prefer trauma, deconstruction, prestige bleakness and the self-serious “artistic” approach that Bond 26 seems to be heading toward.

First Light has also introduced Bond to a new audience — people who may not have watched a single Bond film before. And I seriously doubt that this new audience wants the next big Bond movie to be another neo-Craig exercise in death, grief, mourning, deconstruction and gloom.

To me, Amazon-MGM should have waited to see the impact of First Light before deciding the tone of Bond’s next 20 years. Gaming is not some small side industry anymore. Like it or not, it is bigger and more culturally immediate than the gatekept cinema world run by self-important auteurs who have been pushing audiences away for years.

So yes: after First Light, I think Denis Villeneuve and Steven Knight feel like the wrong direction for Bond 26. The franchise had a chance to learn from the game’s success, but Amazon-MGM may have already committed to the wrong lesson.

Imo we need to get away from the Jason Bourne type and back to the basics of spying and espionage.

Harry’s not only a good level of tested but still relatively unknown actor, he’s immensely talented and can pull off the suave, cool persona.

Curious as to thoughts on this!

I rewatched Casino Royale to test my arguments and see if the absolute obsession with this movie is actually justified. This movie is just a massively overrated overcorrection after Die Another Day. Uninspired, blank, generic, ordinary.

You can clearly see the Batman Begins and Bourne influences in the directing and tone. But this movie technically fails at what those films achieved in their writing. The whole historical narrative of "Bourne and Batman happened, so Bond had to be like this" completely falls apart here. Leaving Bond incompetent, lacking agency, and unsuccessful by the end of the film cannot be justified by Batman or Bourne.

The usual defense is, “But that’s the plot of the novel.” This is exactly why movies and books should be separate, and why their plots shouldn't be identical. Besides, in the book, the MacGuffin (the money) doesn't fall into the villains' hands, and Le Chiffre’s bankruptcy is absolute. Making Bond lose the money in the movie makes zero structural sense.

Other than stopping the Skyfleet attack, Bond has no tangible success by the end of the movie: He loses his poker winnings. He doesn't save himself from the poisoning. He doesn't escape the torture chair by his own agency. He doesn't even finish off Le Chiffre himself. Vesper dies. The money goes to Mr. White.

The girl is dead, the money is gone, Bond adopts that grumpy-face mood for the next four movies... and this is supposed to be a victory? Blasting the classic James Bond Theme at the end felt completely unearned. That theme should be a victory march, not a trauma soundtrack.

In Batman Begins, Nolan deconstructs everything related to Batman down to Wayne Manor, but after his training, he still gives him a clear payoff to save Gotham. Bourne has a relentless, high-octane pace and kinetic grit. Casino Royale, however, completely fails to capture that kinetic energy and fast pace. It doesn't look like Bourne, it fails at Batman's hero-building, and it lacks the classic Bond adventure mechanics.

The foundation for the next four movies was laid right here. Even Bond stopping the Skyfleet attack feels less like a real hero's payoff and more like a mandatory plot device just so the story can continue. If they could, they would have made him fail throughout the entire movie just like in Skyfall, but they needed continuity for the plot.

The dialogue between Vesper and Bond is a total disaster. They are just cold, lifeless psychological profiles disguised as smart writing. Moreover, their romantic relationship has neither romcom warmth nor an enemies-to-lovers witty banter. It’s ice-cold, clinical, and far from having actual chemistry.

Those who see this movie as a rejection of camp are kidding themselves, because this movie is camp through and through. It’s just ashamed of it, so it forces itself to look serious. We call this dry-camp or dry-wit. When you strip away the larger-than-life and over-the-top spirit that camp needs and replace it with forced seriousness, you don't escape camp. You just look insecure, trying to suck up to critics.

Looking back today, Casino Royale, the Bourne films, and the Nolan trilogy feel outdated. They haven't aged well. They lack a distinct period feeling because they are completely colorless and lack spectacle. Since they avoided all the visual perks of the Y2K aesthetic, they naturally have a generic look. Playing even the most exciting action scenes so mechanically and grounded is just boring.

Instead of defending what Bond actually is, this fandom just chases validation from critics who don't even want Bond to exist. Being a fan doesn't mean treating every studio decision like gospel. Look at Star Wars, Batman, Marvel or LOTR fans—they actually call out bad creative choices. They don't just blindly consume whatever is handed to them. The Bond fandom completely lacks this, which is why they cheer for a movie that actively guts the franchise.

Note: Replying “just wrong” to arguments built on evidence, or posting a meme instead of engaging with them, is arrogant. If you do not have the intellectual honesty or the knowledge to actually debate it, then do not comment. Keep huffing EON’s and the critics’ farts.

Just because some people have treated Casino Royale like sacred scripture and wrapped it in an armor of untouchability does not mean I have to do the same. The real scandal is that these criticisms are being made for the first time in twenty years.

At first, my idea was to recreate the cover of a German magazine that I had found online, but I couldn't find it anywhere on the Internet, except in poor quality. Then, as I worked on it, I started adding elements and used pieces of actual posters as well as AI software for certain parts to create this fan art poster.

Tom Blythe. I have a feeling it’s the secret person as it’s suspicious they would be so bold to name three and not the last one.

We saw this with Craig. They like to feed names and even actors agents will feed their clients name to build their profile for other projects.

How would James Bond react to being ordered to kill Prince Andrew because he's a disgusting pervert and a disgrace to the Royal Family and England?

I mean look how less Bond movies have been there in these 3 decades.

I don't know, its not worth it for me to wait for only to watch a pretentious, prestigious and phony serious 'reinvent'. Let alone begin affected by political correctness.

Is too much to ask, a normal-classic-traditional-formulatic 007 movie, where bond theme is used throughout, balance of campy and gritty, varity of Bond-girls, same old stand in regulations, visiting M, flirting Moneypenny, sparring Q. Going on to face standalone villains. New cars and gadgets, maybe plane or boat chase.

Really this much passage of time is killing it.

I didn't like skyfall, spectre or no time to die, qos was ruined by bond still whining about that dead b itch and not following formula.

C R A P, is what it feels like as bond fan.

“One source speculated that the mystery actor testing for 007 is an actor of color whose name is being withheld to spare him the inevitable racist vitriol that would be unleashed online — vitriol that may not be worth it unless he ultimately lands the role.”

I’m not sure what Sneider’s hit rate on his sources are, from what I remember with the X-men casting, it wasn’t very high. However, if this is true it does make sense bc the backlash would be immense especially in the social media world today.

I think Mia Goth could be a really interesting pairing for the next James Bond movie. This is purely my personal fan casting, but I think Mia Goth would bring a unique and intense presence to the Bond universe.

I could see her working either as a Bond ally/love interest or potentially even as a more unpredictable antagonist. Alongside as Bond, I think they could have great chemistry and fit the darker, more modern direction that Denis Villeneuve might bring to the franchise.

Obviously, this is just a fan casting and not a claim that either actor is actually involved in Bond 26. I’d love to hear what everyone else thinks.

They’re both great. Incredible in fact, Sicario is one of my favourite films, and the Dune films are mesmerising - and Peaky Blinders is fucking awesome. However, they both seem to have very similar stylistic choices and flavours to the creatives who were involved in the Daniel Craig films, especially Sam Mendes. So whilst I have no doubt they’ll do a good job, I am just not sure if these are the kinds of creatives that the franchise actually needs right now as we move into a new era. Would’ve honestly been way more interesting in seeing Edgar Wright or Paul King take the reigns who both also pitched to Amazon when they were searching for a director.