End of speculation? Aaron Taylor-Johnson as the new James Bond? That’s a VERY interesting choice!

I’m glad that finally a specific name has appeared on the list of people vying for the role of the new James Bond. I’m especially glad because we’re just a step away from ending this carousel of speculation that has been going on since Daniel Craig bid farewell to the role. So, it’s not Idris Elba, not Tom Hiddleston, not Henry Cavill, not Tom Hardy. As the media reports, a few days ago Aaron Taylor-Johnson could have received an official offer to play Her Majesty’s spy. Will he decide to accept it? We don’t know. However, it’s worth considering whether it would be a good choice.

I have no doubt that Aaron Taylor-Johnson is someone who would bring freshness to the series. Barbara Broccoli, the producer of the Bond films, said a few years ago, just after the premiere of “No Time to Die,” that they would now be keen on decisively rejuvenating this character. Apparently, something like a rebirth of the hero is to take place, and for it to be credible, the actor must be appropriately young. I feel a little strange writing about this because I realize that there is an offer on the table for Bond, who for the first time in my life will be played by an actor younger than me. This assumption aligns with what happened to this character in the finale of the last film. Well, life goes on.

To all the detractors pointing out that Aaron Taylor-Johnson, with his thirty-three springs, is too young for this role, I would gently remind you that George Lazenby was twenty-nine when he played in “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.” Don’t like that movie? Let’s go back to the roots then. Sean Connery was thirty-one when he played in “Dr. No.” And it must be admitted that both that film and its sequel, “Goldfinger,” are still among the top Bond installments to this day.

If Aaron Taylor-Johnson were to accept Barbara Broccoli’s offer, he would most likely play Bond only after some time, probably when he’s around thirty-five, which would further authenticate him in the role of Bond, a character, let’s remember, who in Ian Fleming’s original novels was roughly that age. Moreover, whether it’s worth refreshing iconic characters in this way has already been demonstrated by Robert Pattinson and Matt Reeves in “Batman.” However, it’s worth asking whether the fact that Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s personal ID suggests a mature yet relatively young age is really evidence that he himself is mature and suitable for this role.

The fact is that the actor is still strongly associated with his earlier films, and only recently, for a few years now, has he been taking on challenges that unequivocally highlight his toughness (although he has always been a typically physical actor). In a movie like “Kick-Ass,” he still had milk on his lips, his later adventure with Marvel, where he played Quicksilver, also did not yet build the foundations for what we expect from him today. It was only when he, pardon my language, punched Brad Pitt in “Bullet Train” that he again made himself known, showing himself in a stronger light. We will soon have the opportunity to verify this because this stage of building his new, film identity will be accentuated by the movie “Kraven the Hunter.”

I root for this actor; he has something intriguing about him, especially in his gaze. There’s a bit of sadness, a bit of anger in him, but, somewhat paradoxically, his looks rather suggest a well-behaved boy. It seems that this could be an interesting mix, especially when considering what Aaron Taylor-Johnson is like in his private life. Let’s remember – we’re dealing with a humble feminist here, who seems to clearly respect female independence, thanks to his relationship with a woman significantly older than himself (his wife, Sam Taylor-Johnson, is fifty-seven). I’m convinced that Broccoli must have found this fact intriguing as well, indicating clearly that she cares about Bond being not only a trend follower but a trendsetter.

Maybe I’m not a fan of this direction, but honestly, I prefer a feminist Bond to a female Bond.

All this meticulously woven plan will go down the drain if Aaron Taylor-Johnson decides to reject the role. So far, in one of the interviews, he addressed the potential succession of Daniel Craig rather dismissively, which may have been the effect of the journalist’s sarcasm, but it still looked weak. The actor raised the argument that if anyone wants to plan his future for him, then he wants to surprise them – this isn’t an exact quote, but it captures the essence. Is his ego taking over already? Because it seems obvious that at this stage of Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s career, he should accept the role of Bond without talking, still kissing Broccoli’s hand. Unless he has a completely different idea for his career – after all, playing Bond would be a lasting “mark” on his body.

A completely different issue, however, is the lingering question of who would be in charge of directing Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s screen endeavors. It will largely depend on the director whether the new Bond will indeed be a new, fresh start allowing the actor to shine. Now that Christopher Nolan has already secured an Oscar on his shelf, the sought-after creator may finally fulfill his dream and take the helm of Agent 007’s adventures. Surprisingly, this option is now more likely than it was a few years ago.

Returning to Aaron Taylor-Johnson – if he’s not too young, he’s too unremarkable, too inexperienced. Besides, he has the wrong hair for this role altogether. After the carousel of speculation about who would play Bond, we’re now slowly starting the carousel of criticism about how wrong this type is. Let me just remind you that before “Casino Royale,” the exact same thing was happening, and what Daniel Craig ultimately did with that role, we know well.