Few roles in cinema come with as much history, expectation, and cultural baggage as James Bond. And as Amazon MGM Studios edges closer to choosing the next actor to play the legendary British secret agent, an interesting blink-and-you-miss-it coincidence has emerged.
James Bond fans, and everyone else for that matter, would find it interesting that the final casting process is unfolding around the sixth anniversary of Sean Connery’s death. This little yet immensely consequential detail brings the franchise’s original screen icon back into the conversation at a particularly consequential moment.
Connery died exactly six years ago on October 31, 2020. He was 90 years old. His passing was not recent, as some interpretations of the current casting discussion might suggest. However, the timing of this year’s anniversary, coming just days after reports of final Bond screen tests in London, gives his legacy an unusual resonance.
Three names have emerged prominently from the reported auditions: Jack Lowden, Callum Turner, and Josh O’Connor. Each represents a different interpretation of what 007 might become, but all face an unavoidable question: how do you inherit a character whose modern cinematic identity was established by a man who played him more than six decades ago?
Three Actors, Three Different Bonds, One Impossible Comparison
The reported screen tests took place in London during the weekend of October 23, with the audition process reportedly extending into the following week. According to Variety, Jack Lowden and Callum Turner were among the actors being considered for the iconic role.
Deadline, as reported by the BBC and other entertainment publications, also identified Josh O’Connor as a potential finalist, alongside an unnamed fourth contender. The reports described three principal testing components: stunt performance, camera presence and dialogue. Amazon MGM Studios has not officially confirmed the candidates.
Lowden’s involvement makes for particularly interesting reading.
Although born in Chelmsford, England, he was raised in Scotland and is widely identified as a Scottish actor. His connection to Connery, though, is more cultural rather than simply geographical. Connery was born in Edinburgh in 1930, and his unmistakable Scottish identity remained an important part of his public persona throughout his career.
Lowden, best known internationally for playing River Cartwright in Slow Horses, could offer the franchise an opportunity to revisit that Scottish connection without necessarily reproducing Connery’s interpretation.
There is, however, a considerable difference between inheriting a national connection and inheriting an acting legacy. Connery’s Bond was defined by a particular combination of physical authority, understated menace, dry humor, and effortless command of a room. Lowden would have to establish his own interpretation rather than spend an entire film inviting comparisons with his illustrious predecessor.
Turner presents another proposition.
Known for Masters of the Air and the Fantastic Beasts films, the English actor brings considerable leading-man appeal and an established screen presence. He has also demonstrated an ability to occupy physically demanding roles. His name has circulated in Bond speculation for months, although he has remained characteristically guarded on the matter.
Speaking to Variety while promoting Rosebush Pruning at the Berlin Film Festival, Turner responded to the casting rumors: “It’s very early for that question. I’m not going to comment on it.”
O’Connor, meanwhile, is perhaps the most intriguing possibility. His performances in The Crown, God’s Own Country, and Challengers demonstrate an actor comfortable with emotional complexity, vulnerability, and psychological tension. His casting could signal a Bond less dependent on traditional masculine bravado and more interested in the contradictions beneath the immaculate suits and controlled expressions.
That distinction matters because the franchise is not simply selecting another action star. It is deciding which version of Bond can sustain a new cinematic era.
Connery’s 1965 Remark Just Acquired an Extraordinary Irony
Perhaps the most revealing contribution to this conversation comes from Connery himself. In a November 1965 Playboy interview, conducted during the production of Thunderball, he was asked about another actor potentially playing Bond in the rival Casino Royale production.
His response was remarkably generous: “Lots of people could play him. No reason at all why they shouldn’t.”
It was an interesting take from a man who had already appeared in Dr. No, From Russia with Love, and Goldfinger, transforming an unfamiliar literary spy into an international cinematic phenomenon. The original interview also captured Connery’s discomfort with being permanently associated with the character. He explained that he had enjoyed a professional life before Bond and expected to continue having one afterwards.
History, of course, gave his words a rather complicated interpretation. Plenty of actors have played Bond, including George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, and Daniel Craig. Several have delivered outstanding performances. Yet Connery’s interpretation remains the reference point against which subsequent portrayals are frequently measured.
The next casting decision belongs to Amazon MGM, with Denis Villeneuve directing and Steven Knight writing the screenplay. Villeneuve has described himself as a devoted Bond admirer, while Amazon’s head of film, Courtenay Valenti, has stressed that the studio is approaching the decision with “care and deep respect.”
Connery’s death anniversary consequently offers more than an opportunity for nostalgia. It provides a fascinating lens through which to examine the responsibility accompanying the next casting announcement.
Whoever gets the role will not simply be following Daniel Craig. They will be entering a cinematic tradition shaped by Connery, whose interpretation established much of the visual and psychological vocabulary audiences still associate with 007.
The studio now faces a delicate balancing act: honoring the character’s history without allowing that history to dictate his future. Connery once believed that plenty of actors could play James Bond. Six decades later, the question is no longer whether another actor can wear the tuxedo. It is whether audiences will believe he belongs in it.
And somewhere in that decision, Connery’s ghost will be present, even if nobody mentions his name in the audition room.
Editorial note: The casting reports remain unconfirmed by Amazon MGM Studios.
