Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1116711681170117211731234

Comments

  • edited March 23 Posts: 6,710
    I'm again at that sort of day and point where no one is really suitable...

    EON, do surprise me. I want to be positively shocked ;) Not shocked, per se. But positively shocked, in the sense that I too want a classic Bond, with classic looks and demeanor, but someone who I hadn't thought about, someone not spent by pages and pages of forums discussions. Someone Fleminguesque, cinematic, charismatic, a scene stealer, a heart robber, a presence. Boy, when you put it like that, it'll be hard. Those shoes are impossible to fill. But are they really? Oh well, it's one of those days...
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,243
    Ultimately, whatever their current level of fame or experience, the actor cast will “ become “ Bond
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    talos7 wrote: »
    Ultimately, whatever their current level of fame or experience, the actor cast will “ become “ Bond
    Oh for sure, I think that's another reason I was against actors like Elba and Cavill, because they wouldn't have become Bond. They would've been Elba or Cavill playing Bond.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,243
    Denbigh wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Ultimately, whatever their current level of fame or experience, the actor cast will “ become “ Bond
    Oh for sure, I think that's another reason I was against actors like Elba and Cavill, because they wouldn't have become Bond. They would've been Elba or Cavill playing Bond.

    And that is why, if he’s got what it takes, Suter is such an appealing possibility; to the general public he will be immediately associated with Bond.

    And hey, while I am a supporter, he would need to earn the role. I concede, he may do screentest and come off as flat as a pancake; but then again , the opposite could happen and he could knock it out of the park.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    talos7 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Ultimately, whatever their current level of fame or experience, the actor cast will “ become “ Bond
    Oh for sure, I think that's another reason I was against actors like Elba and Cavill, because they wouldn't have become Bond. They would've been Elba or Cavill playing Bond.

    And that is why, if he’s got what it takes, Suter is such an appealing possibility; to the general public he will be immediately associated with Bond.

    And hey, while I am a supporter, he would need to earn the role. I concede, he may do screentest and come off as flat as a pancake; but then again , the opposite could happen and he could knock it out of the park.

    That’s why I’ve been a broken record, banging on about the importance of the auditioning process and why EoN (or any other producer working in today’s world), would not just hand over the keys to any one actor to drive this series for the next ten years. This man, whoever he may be, will be made to sweat and compete for the largest role he will likely ever play in his career…. Less men have played James Bond, than men who have been to the moon. This is indeed a huge character and a massive responsibility.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    talos7 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Ultimately, whatever their current level of fame or experience, the actor cast will “ become “ Bond
    Oh for sure, I think that's another reason I was against actors like Elba and Cavill, because they wouldn't have become Bond. They would've been Elba or Cavill playing Bond.
    And hey, while I am a supporter, he would need to earn the role. I concede, he may do screentest and come off as flat as a pancake; but then again , the opposite could happen and he could knock it out of the park.
    100%, that's why I always try and keep an open mind with these things despite my personal gut feelings on these guys.
  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    Posts: 190
    peter wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Ultimately, whatever their current level of fame or experience, the actor cast will “ become “ Bond
    Oh for sure, I think that's another reason I was against actors like Elba and Cavill, because they wouldn't have become Bond. They would've been Elba or Cavill playing Bond.

    And that is why, if he’s got what it takes, Suter is such an appealing possibility; to the general public he will be immediately associated with Bond.

    And hey, while I am a supporter, he would need to earn the role. I concede, he may do screentest and come off as flat as a pancake; but then again , the opposite could happen and he could knock it out of the park.

    That’s why I’ve been a broken record, banging on about the importance of the auditioning process and why EoN (or any other producer working in today’s world), would not just hand over the keys to any one actor to drive this series for the next ten years. This man, whoever he may be, will be made to sweat and compete for the largest role he will likely ever play in his career…. Less men have played James Bond, than men who have been to the moon. This is indeed a huge character and a massive responsibility.

    Yet again, a 💯% on point. Which hopefully implies good riddance to ATJ.
  • Posts: 4,273
    peter wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Ultimately, whatever their current level of fame or experience, the actor cast will “ become “ Bond
    Oh for sure, I think that's another reason I was against actors like Elba and Cavill, because they wouldn't have become Bond. They would've been Elba or Cavill playing Bond.

    And that is why, if he’s got what it takes, Suter is such an appealing possibility; to the general public he will be immediately associated with Bond.

    And hey, while I am a supporter, he would need to earn the role. I concede, he may do screentest and come off as flat as a pancake; but then again , the opposite could happen and he could knock it out of the park.

    That’s why I’ve been a broken record, banging on about the importance of the auditioning process and why EoN (or any other producer working in today’s world), would not just hand over the keys to any one actor to drive this series for the next ten years. This man, whoever he may be, will be made to sweat and compete for the largest role he will likely ever play in his career…. Less men have played James Bond, than men who have been to the moon. This is indeed a huge character and a massive responsibility.

    Yet again, a 💯% on point. Which hopefully implies good riddance to ATJ.

    Or maybe it means he'll excel during auditions and prove himself to rightfully be the best man for Bond...

    ... maybe...
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    bondywondy wrote: »
    I suppose the counter argument is Amazon are so wealthy they can pay a big fee to whoever and it won't matter. If Amazon want, say, Jacob Elordi, and his agent said "my client is so popular on social media right now so he wants 10 million to do Bond 26" - I guess Amazon could put pressure on Eon to cast Elordi. He seems to have the boyish, 'handsome but non-threatening' look Babs might like.

    There's the problem I have with choices like him and Chalamet. They look more suited to playing the local vet, in a sleepy English village than Bond. There's a complete lack of an air of danger to them.
  • edited March 23 Posts: 355
    Denbigh wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    What some see as generic, others see as classic and traditional ; I make no bones about it, I want traditional and classical.
    I also think a more traditional and classical looking Bond would be interesting but
    I'm not sure if Suter's the guy for that.

    I personally I think he's more in line with more modern action heroes. If we were to compare to the Bond actors, I feel like he's probably more in line with Craig than he is with someone like Dalton or Connery? but again I think due to his career so far and his physique, I still see him more in those F&F kinda roles. Though I'm open to having my mind changed on all these things.

    Speaking of The Gentlemen, he kinda reminds me of Susie Glass' brother.

    You're talking about genetics and looks distribution! Basically looks can be quantified on a bell curve graph.

    normal-distribution-1.svg

    Most people are average looking and in the middle of the bell curve, the far left the most unattractive (facial disfigurement, extreme asymmetrical features) and the far right the most attractive people (larger faces, high symmetrical features, strong jawline etc).

    Classic Bond looking men are genetic outliers. They are a tiny percent of the male population so it's not realistic to assume the acting community has many or any such men. How many actors in this history of film (let's say the year 1900 onwards) look like prime era Connery or Moore or Dalton? It's probably 1 percent. You can say you want a classic looking Bond actor but if he's not out there he's not out there. I know people say Henry Cavill fits that description but I think Pierce Brosnan was better looking and a better actor. Cavill is undeniably handsome though so it's understandable he gets a lot of "he should be the next Bond" comments. But if Cavill isn't Bond and there's no Brosnan or Dalton types... Eon can't create one from thin air.

    Aaron Taylor-Johnson is handsome enough. I guess most people will think he's good looking enough to play the role. You don't have to be the next Connery or whoever to be cast. Daniel Craig wasn't and he did pretty well. The anti-Craig Bond fans: "Craig was too ugly" are in the minority.

    Outlier Sean Connery!

    TELEMMGLPICT000310758412_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqDijfCOMDtuyWS63sbX0ZBLNODPr0f6jh8av5GjGs9rQ.jpeg


  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited March 23 Posts: 9,511
    While the world waits for ATJ to have signed a non existent contract, to a film with no script, director, and winning the role without having to do one audition, I really do wonder who is on the potential list over at EoN.

    I'm almost finished The Gentlemen, and, although I really like James in it, my gut's u-turned away from his chances. It doesn't feel like a show that would get him attention from EoN as a potential Bond. I actually think it's the opposite. I feel this shows, and I'm going to agree with @Denbigh here, why he may not be the man we need. Why? Theo James is bloody handsome, great voice, presence, but this series shows he is restricted by his limitations as an actor. In almost eight episodes, I don't see a developing and varied character. As the episodes get deeper into the story, he seems more shallow.

    I still have to see Suter in something, and will make more of an effort to seek out his work.

    But, if a gun was held to my head, I couldn't even make an educated guess on who the next James Bond will be...
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    I do think the longer the wait for Bond 26, the better Leo Suter's chances will be. He just needs a mainstream film or BBC drama to gain more notoriety

    Theo James would my pick if we had a 2025 release date but since that seems unlikely, I'll stick with Suter.
  • bondywondy wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    What some see as generic, others see as classic and traditional ; I make no bones about it, I want traditional and classical.
    I also think a more traditional and classical looking Bond would be interesting but
    I'm not sure if Suter's the guy for that.

    I personally I think he's more in line with more modern action heroes. If we were to compare to the Bond actors, I feel like he's probably more in line with Craig than he is with someone like Dalton or Connery? but again I think due to his career so far and his physique, I still see him more in those F&F kinda roles. Though I'm open to having my mind changed on all these things.

    Speaking of The Gentlemen, he kinda reminds me of Susie Glass' brother.

    You're talking about genetics and looks distribution! Basically looks can be quantified on a bell curve graph.

    normal-distribution-1.svg

    Most people are average looking and in the middle of the bell curve, the far left the most unattractive (facial disfigurement, extreme asymmetrical features) and the far right the most attractive people (larger faces, high symmetrical features, strong jawline etc).

    I've got an issue with this bit. It's very hard to assert if attractiveness is normally distributed or not. In reality, it isn't that attractive people have features that are larger or something like that; it's that their faces are closer to the average face than others. For example, Jessica Alba is the face that is closest to the average of female profiles. So most of this doesn't really make much sense. Nevermind things like fitness and hair playing a part in this kind of thing.
    Bond doesn't have to be stunningly attractive, and the commissioned sketch isn't much of a genetic outlier.
  • edited March 23 Posts: 4,273
    I mean, if anyone wants a counterpoint to the genetic outlier thing (whatever that is)/the 1 percent or whatever who look like prime era Sean Connery, I'll say this: even if someone happens to fall into that 'strikingly good looking' category, it doesn't have anything to do with their Bond potential. Someone like Thomas Doherty looks like uncannily like Sean Connery, and yet I'd say he's almost completely unsuited to playing Bond/lacks that similar sense of gravitas and raw masculinity to a Connery, Moore or Craig etc.

    I mean, the next actor has to have good looks certainly, but more importantly it's about charisma, sex appeal, something distinctive about the actor's looks/screen presence etc. Not where they sit on some sort of scale, if one like this even exists.
  • Posts: 355
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    What some see as generic, others see as classic and traditional ; I make no bones about it, I want traditional and classical.
    I also think a more traditional and classical looking Bond would be interesting but
    I'm not sure if Suter's the guy for that.

    I personally I think he's more in line with more modern action heroes. If we were to compare to the Bond actors, I feel like he's probably more in line with Craig than he is with someone like Dalton or Connery? but again I think due to his career so far and his physique, I still see him more in those F&F kinda roles. Though I'm open to having my mind changed on all these things.

    Speaking of The Gentlemen, he kinda reminds me of Susie Glass' brother.

    You're talking about genetics and looks distribution! Basically looks can be quantified on a bell curve graph.

    normal-distribution-1.svg

    Most people are average looking and in the middle of the bell curve, the far left the most unattractive (facial disfigurement, extreme asymmetrical features) and the far right the most attractive people (larger faces, high symmetrical features, strong jawline etc).

    I've got an issue with this bit. It's very hard to assert if attractiveness is normally distributed or not. In reality, it isn't that attractive people have features that are larger or something like that; it's that their faces are closer to the average face than others. For example, Jessica Alba is the face that is closest to the average of female profiles. So most of this doesn't really make much sense. Nevermind things like fitness and hair playing a part in this kind of thing.
    Bond doesn't have to be stunningly attractive, and the commissioned sketch isn't much of a genetic outlier.

    This debate was had in 2005 when Craig was cast so it tends be "Bond is very good looking vs the look isn't important."

    I think it's all been discussed before so not much else to add to it. My guess is most people will accept Aaron Taylor-Johnson look so it's not going to be an issue. That's assuming he gets the role. 😉

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    007HallY wrote: »
    I mean, if anyone wants a counterpoint to the genetic outlier thing (whatever that is)/the 1 percent or whatever who look like prime era Sean Connery, I'll say this: even if someone happens to fall into that 'strikingly good looking' category, it doesn't have anything to do with their Bond potential. Someone like Thomas Doherty looks like uncannily like Sean Connery, and yet I'd say he's almost completely unsuited to playing Bond/lacks that similar sense of gravitas and raw masculinity to a Connery, Moore or Craig etc.

    I mean, the next actor has to have good looks certainly, but more importantly it's about charisma, sex appeal, something distinctive about the actor's looks/screen presence etc. Not where they sit on some sort of scale, if one like this even exists.

    💯… it’s a list of intangibles. We won’t be able to point to one thing and say, that’s Bond. It’s not because Connery was a male rocket that made him Bond (that just added), it was so many more things (from the way he moved, how he wore the suits, his own history and what he, as a man, at that time, had experienced, and how he flourished…).

    Casting the next Bond will be difficult, not because of who came before him, but because , it’s damn hard to find that diamond in the rough! I suppose the only obvious casting was Brosnan, but, outside of him, all the other actors were not necessarily the automatic men that one would think of as James Bond… Cary Grant— yeah, I could see that, but instead, it was a Scottish up and comer with thinning hair…. An Australian model… A charming tv actor who stepped into a role that was thus far played by two bruisers in Lazenby and Connery; a Welsh theatre actor, and an indie film leading actor… Outside of Brosnan, these other guys are the diamonds in the rough… And I don’t know who that is today….)……
  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    edited March 23 Posts: 190
    No one could ever beat this. Sean was Bond.

    ElsjTHLVgAA5LH-.jpg
    IMG-20240323-174512.jpg
  • Posts: 976
    All this recent malarkey has pissed me off.
  • edited March 23 Posts: 6,710
    peter wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I mean, if anyone wants a counterpoint to the genetic outlier thing (whatever that is)/the 1 percent or whatever who look like prime era Sean Connery, I'll say this: even if someone happens to fall into that 'strikingly good looking' category, it doesn't have anything to do with their Bond potential. Someone like Thomas Doherty looks like uncannily like Sean Connery, and yet I'd say he's almost completely unsuited to playing Bond/lacks that similar sense of gravitas and raw masculinity to a Connery, Moore or Craig etc.

    I mean, the next actor has to have good looks certainly, but more importantly it's about charisma, sex appeal, something distinctive about the actor's looks/screen presence etc. Not where they sit on some sort of scale, if one like this even exists.

    💯… it’s a list of intangibles. We won’t be able to point to one thing and say, that’s Bond. It’s not because Connery was a male rocket that made him Bond (that just added), it was so many more things (from the way he moved, how he wore the suits, his own history and what he, as a man, at that time, had experienced, and how he flourished…).

    Casting the next Bond will be difficult, not because of who came before him, but because , it’s damn hard to find that diamond in the rough! I suppose the only obvious casting was Brosnan, but, outside of him, all the other actors were not necessarily the automatic men that one would think of as James Bond… Cary Grant— yeah, I could see that, but instead, it was a Scottish up and comer with thinning hair…. An Australian model… A charming tv actor who stepped into a role that was thus far played by two bruisers in Lazenby and Connery; a Welsh theatre actor, and an indie film leading actor… Outside of Brosnan, these other guys are the diamonds in the rough… And I don’t know who that is today….)……

    Just came in to say that I particularly liked this post. Well said, @peter. I too don’t know who that is today. May we be pleasantly surprised, my friend.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    Univex wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I mean, if anyone wants a counterpoint to the genetic outlier thing (whatever that is)/the 1 percent or whatever who look like prime era Sean Connery, I'll say this: even if someone happens to fall into that 'strikingly good looking' category, it doesn't have anything to do with their Bond potential. Someone like Thomas Doherty looks like uncannily like Sean Connery, and yet I'd say he's almost completely unsuited to playing Bond/lacks that similar sense of gravitas and raw masculinity to a Connery, Moore or Craig etc.

    I mean, the next actor has to have good looks certainly, but more importantly it's about charisma, sex appeal, something distinctive about the actor's looks/screen presence etc. Not where they sit on some sort of scale, if one like this even exists.

    💯… it’s a list of intangibles. We won’t be able to point to one thing and say, that’s Bond. It’s not because Connery was a male rocket that made him Bond (that just added), it was so many more things (from the way he moved, how he wore the suits, his own history and what he, as a man, at that time, had experienced, and how he flourished…).

    Casting the next Bond will be difficult, not because of who came before him, but because , it’s damn hard to find that diamond in the rough! I suppose the only obvious casting was Brosnan, but, outside of him, all the other actors were not necessarily the automatic men that one would think of as James Bond… Cary Grant— yeah, I could see that, but instead, it was a Scottish up and comer with thinning hair…. An Australian model… A charming tv actor who stepped into a role that was thus far played by two bruisers in Lazenby and Connery; a Welsh theatre actor, and an indie film leading actor… Outside of Brosnan, these other guys are the diamonds in the rough… And I don’t know who that is today….)……

    Just came in to say that I particularly liked this post. Well said, @peter. I too don’t know who that is today. May we be pleasantly surprised, my friend.

    I think we will, @Univex . That’s why I’m not too concerned and am happy to let this search unravel. The guys at head office seem to have a history of choosing very well and very wisely. When the day comes, and the announcement is made, I’m sure most of us will consider it another great choice (and I’m sure a few of us may slap our foreheads and think: why didn’t I think of him!).
  • Posts: 9
    No one could ever beat this. Sean was Bond.

    ElsjTHLVgAA5LH-.jpg
    IMG-20240323-174512.jpg
    Agree, and so would Sandeep Jacobin here agree as well. Connery was the originator and the epitome of what Bond should be.

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited March 23 Posts: 6,356
    peter wrote: »
    While the world waits for ATJ to have signed a non existent contract, to a film with no script, director, and winning the role without having to do one audition, I really do wonder who is on the potential list over at EoN.

    I'm almost finished The Gentlemen, and, although I really like James in it, my gut's u-turned away from his chances. It doesn't feel like a show that would get him attention from EoN as a potential Bond. I actually think it's the opposite. I feel this shows, and I'm going to agree with @Denbigh here, why he may not be the man we need. Why? Theo James is bloody handsome, great voice, presence, but this series shows he is restricted by his limitations as an actor. In almost eight episodes, I don't see a developing and varied character. As the episodes get deeper into the story, he seems more shallow.

    I still have to see Suter in something, and will make more of an effort to seek out his work.

    But, if a gun was held to my head, I couldn't even make an educated guess on who the next James Bond will be...

    Paul Mescal or Josh O'Connor. Eon goes for the prestige actor these days, someone who has or is up for Oscars or Emmys, and can handle dramatic scenes.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    @echo i thought of Mescal before and I wouldn’t be surprised (but something about his youth and relative inexperience made me doubt that he could, or possibly may not want, the responsibility of carrying on all that is James Bond (I’m thinking the services outside the film. He is certainly the pedigree I think they may be looking for, but does he want all the baggage outside of the films themselves? I don’t know, but something in interviews felt like he wouldn’t like all the press)).

    But I think that’s the kinda actor they may lean into…
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited March 23 Posts: 5,970
    echo wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    While the world waits for ATJ to have signed a non existent contract, to a film with no script, director, and winning the role without having to do one audition, I really do wonder who is on the potential list over at EoN.

    I'm almost finished The Gentlemen, and, although I really like James in it, my gut's u-turned away from his chances. It doesn't feel like a show that would get him attention from EoN as a potential Bond. I actually think it's the opposite. I feel this shows, and I'm going to agree with @Denbigh here, why he may not be the man we need. Why? Theo James is bloody handsome, great voice, presence, but this series shows he is restricted by his limitations as an actor. In almost eight episodes, I don't see a developing and varied character. As the episodes get deeper into the story, he seems more shallow.

    I still have to see Suter in something, and will make more of an effort to seek out his work.

    But, if a gun was held to my head, I couldn't even make an educated guess on who the next James Bond will be...
    Josh O'Connor.
    I don't think EON will be swayed by awards success when it comes to Bond. As for the names you've mentioned, I actually started thinking about O'Connor a bit differently after seeing this picture from La Chimera. I love him as an actor anyway, but I'm not 100% sold on him as Bond because I think he doesn't seem to really have other qualities you'd be looking for but, if not, I'd love to see him as a villain in something.

    Josh-OConnor-in-La-Chimera.jpg
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited March 23 Posts: 6,356
    Mescal is an interesting case, the right age but almost too famous now. His acting style resembles Craig's: intense.

    O'Connor, on the other hand, might be just right, classically good-looking. More of a Dalton.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,574
    Mescal feels a good fit to me, but I wonder if he'd feel he'd need it- feels like he's just about to become very big on his own.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited March 23 Posts: 3,154
    They look more suited to playing the local vet, in a sleepy English village than Bond. There's a complete lack of an air of danger to them.
    Yeah, there's definitely something in that, I'd say. Just as an example, Suter came over really well in Vikings, but without the beard and hair, he strikes me as more along the lines of the sort of inoffensive boys that mums like and approve of! I don't get any of that indefinable sense that he might be the most dangerous man in the room - just as I don't with some other suggestions, eg. Elordi. IMO, obvs. CraigBond definitely carried that and it's not a quality I'd want to lose in the next guy. Of course, there's always the caveat that an actor may very well be able to convey that impression if they're actually playing the most dangerous man in the room - Craig himself apparently being far from that, according to Rachel Weisz, etc.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,243
    I still think that they will steer clear of someone who is similar to Craig.

    In the end it will be interesting to see who is chosen. whoever it is will not be a complete unknown; most of us here will have some awareness of who they are. . James Bond is not going to be found in a small repertory theatre. But then ag, if someone with that background would come in and dominate the field, who knows…
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,178
    I think since we don't know the direction EON wants to take, we'll always dismiss actors quickly. Fans dismissed Craig, because they thought he would want to be very suave like Brosnan, so they didn't see it. Until they saw that Craig was chosen to play the rogue side of Bond...hence, his more rugged looks. Maybe Bond 7 might be a posh and snobbish Bond...hence, his more gentlemanly but slightly rugged looks, so fans would also not see how he fits in, until he plays it.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,338
    I think since we don't know the direction EON wants to take, we'll always dismiss actors quickly. Fans dismissed Craig, because they thought he would want to be very suave like Brosnan, so they didn't see it. Until they saw that Craig was chosen to play the rogue side of Bond...hence, his more rugged looks. Maybe Bond 7 might be a posh and snobbish Bond...hence, his more gentlemanly but slightly rugged looks, so fans would also not see how he fits in, until he plays it.

    Exactly and succinctly put, @SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷.
Sign In or Register to comment.