The idea of Tom Hiddleston playing James Bond is a truly awesome one. Daniel Craig has been an emotionally (and physically) tortured and bruised thug in a Savile Row suit, and it's been wonderful, but his determination not to return is clear enough that I'm willing to let him go.
Hiddleston could play charming and urbane — a la Roger Moore — but unlike Moore (except in very rare instances in the Bond series), he can also play the merciless killer. And, at age 35, he could have quite a decent run with the character (Moore was a decade older when he assumed the mantle).
My only problem with this rumor is that it would probably cause schedule conflicts for a return as Loki in the future (post- Ragnarok) film, which would be a horrifying shame.
Rumor: Tom Hiddleston James Bond Negotiations Are Real
A new report suggests that the Tom Hiddleston James Bond casting rumors are true and that the 007 producers are in advanced negotiations with the actor.
EeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!
i really think he'd make a better bond villain. if he becomes bond, it'll be ages before be plays The Doctor.
Actually, based on his turn in The Night Manager, he'd easily be a more debonair version of Daniel Craig.
Would love to see Hiddleston as Bond, and maybe scheduling conflicts would be good to keep Loki from wearing out his welcome like certain others coughwolverinecough
+Marty Shaw You can never have too much Loki.
No, seriously, if he had been popping up everywhere, I might agree. But Loki has, to date, been the best super-villain in the MCU, and has only had three parts so far (two of them, inevitably, with Thor), with only one (another with Thor) known to be coming.
After which it may be moot, of course.
I think that's the problem with Loki. In the Marvel movie universe, I think there are only two (maybe three) heroes capable of going against Loki one-on-one, with those three being Thor, Hulk, and possibly Vision, so at least one of those characters needs to be in any film featuring Loki, and Thor is the easiest (and most logical) to work in.
It's hard to come up with a worth adversary when you have the powers of a god, although I do agree with you. At this point, more Loki would definitely be a good thing. I just don't want them to go crazy with it because I once thought the same about Wolverine.
Not just picking on Logan. Mystique is also quickly reaching the saturation point.
+Marty Shaw Fair enough. Though, in fact, Loki's greatest and most effective opponent has always been (in the MCU) Loki.
LOL Very true.
Anything that stops yet another bloody Superhero* movie….
I loved him in Night Manager (mind you was also a big fan of Corky, which was a big shift from the actor previous big role in ‘Rev’). I just wonder if he projects the physical power needed for Bond (yeah I know… Moore didn’t). I don’t see Hiddleston pulling off the scene in the Swiss Clinic in Spectre, where he turns back to a guard who is trying to stand and just says ‘No’.
*Superhero is a word wholly owned jointly by Marvel and DC, and they have been known to try court action to enforce this. Used without permission.
This just in:
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Tom-Hiddleston-Blunt-Response-James-Bond-Rumors-135177.html
This could be one of those cases where success is a negative. Sean Connery, Roger Moore, and Pierce Brosnan stayed busy with television and a movie here and there but I don't think any of them had much big screen star power until Bond.
On the other hand, Hiddleston IS Loki. He'll always be Loki. There would be people saying 'Look, Loki is James Bond.' Not sure the Bond producers would want someone that's already so connected to another character.
That's been the same argument against Nathan Fillon being a Starfleet captain in the new trek series as well.
+Marty Shaw Moore has the (very successful) The Saint — which, in large part, brought him the role.
Hiddleston has been doing a lot to expand his repertoire beyond Loki. I don't think that would be a problem (a thousand new Internet memes notwithstanding).
+Laura Ess The problem is, Nathan Fillion basically plays — Nathan Fillion. Which isn't to say that Reynolds is the same as Castle, but in a lot of ways he is.
On the other hand, that worked for Shatner, too.
+Laura Ess I could see your concerns if Loki is the only thing you've ever seen him play. That was in the back of my mind when watching The Night Manager, and 30 minutes in the character of Loki was completely blown from my mind.
+Stan Pedzick Actually I've seen him in "The Hollow Crown" adaptations of Shakespeare's War of the Roses (which came out the same year as The Avengers) plays, as Henry V. He's a good actor and in those films plays a misunderstood prince who eventually becomes king. Sound familiar? And he also plays Magnus Martinsson in the Wallander TV series. Never seen "The Night Manager" and have no idea what it's about.
No, I think he's unsuitable to play Bond. It's academic now after he's officially dismissed the idea. Rather, I think Robert Patterson would be a better choice, regardless of his Twilight history. And then there's this suggestion, which would be far more appropriate for a Time Lord than Bond (though I've read a suggestion that Bond IS a Time Lord):
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/next-james-bond-cast-woman-gillian-anderson-tom-hiddleston-dangerous-corrupt-a7057761.html
+Dave Hill He probably does. But the same can probably be said for Shatner. I'm sure there's lots of Shatner in Walter H. Bascom and Denny Crane.