Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1122212231224122512261228»

Comments

  • Posts: 4,067
    True. I would honestly say this is the worst example as well.

    Roger_Moore_650_841_64_c1.jpg

    Not quite as jarring as the others, but something about Roger Moore's early career as a sweater model just doesn't scream Bond.
  • Posts: 932
    I like that mustard colour. Not too sure what colour hair he had then haha
  • Posts: 4,067
    I like that mustard colour. Not too sure what colour hair he had then haha

    It's a very strange picture for me. Is he a red head or is he brunette? Is he 25 or 35? Is he smiling or has he just opened his mouth in the middle of speaking?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    It's a black and white photo that's been colorized. That's why it looks off.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited October 30 Posts: 384
    As others have said, there have been two types of Bond, those who were well known for having played a similar style of character before becoming Bond i.e. Moore and Brosnan, and those who were relatively unknown, i.e. everyone else.

    Moore and Brosnan "auditioned" for the role by playing "International Men of Mystery" on TV. The public had given them their seal of approval by watching those shows, so the Bond producers felt they were safe bets. I think that percieved "goodwill" was a factor in the producers picking them, despite both being in their 40s

    I don't think there is an equivalent situation out there at the moment, so the producers will have to "play a hunch", "take a punt", as they did with the other actors who have been chosen for the role.

    I think anyone who has passed the age of 40 is unlikely to be selected, which rules out perenial candidates like Idris Elba, Tom Hardy, Henry Cavill and Tom Hiddleston, as well as outsiders like Ben Barnes and Jamie Dornan.

    That leaves the likes of Sam Clafin, Kit Harington, Regie-Jean Page and Nicholas Hoult

    We are currently living in a "bearded age" and many of the actors under consideration only really look the part when they have a bit of growth going, is the World ready for a bearded Bond?
  • TheSkyfallen06TheSkyfallen06 Buenos Aires, Argentina.
    edited October 31 Posts: 1,089
    Seve wrote: »
    As others have said, there have been two types of Bond, those who were well known for having played a similar style of character before becoming Bond i.e. Moore and Brosnan, and those who were relatively unknown, i.e. everyone else.

    Moore and Brosnan "auditioned" for the role by playing "International Men of Mystery" on TV. The public had given them their seal of approval by watching those shows, so the Bond producers felt they were safe bets. I think that percieved "goodwill" was a factor in the producers picking them, despite both being in their 40s

    I don't think there is an equivalent situation out there at the moment, so the producers will have to "play a hunch", "take a punt", as they did with the other actors who have been chosen for the role.

    I think anyone who has passed the age of 40 is unlikely to be selected, which rules out perenial candidates like Idris Elba, Tom Hardy, Henry Cavill and Tom Hiddleston, as well as outsiders like Ben Barnes and Jamie Dornan.

    That leaves the likes of Sam Clafin, Kit Harington, Regie-Jean Page and Nicholas Hoult

    We are currently living in a "bearded age" and many of the actors under consideration only really look the part when they have a bit of growth going, is the World ready for a bearded Bond?

    I think that depends on whether they choose the right actor for it. Maybe a Bond with a light stubble beard?
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    edited October 31 Posts: 13,749
    Seve wrote: »
    As others have said, there have been two types of Bond, those who were well known for having played a similar style of character before becoming Bond i.e. Moore and Brosnan, and those who were relatively unknown, i.e. everyone else.

    Moore and Brosnan "auditioned" for the role by playing "International Men of Mystery" on TV. The public had given them their seal of approval by watching those shows, so the Bond producers felt they were safe bets. I think that percieved "goodwill" was a factor in the producers picking them, despite both being in their 40s

    I don't think there is an equivalent situation out there at the moment, so the producers will have to "play a hunch", "take a punt", as they did with the other actors who have been chosen for the role.

    I think anyone who has passed the age of 40 is unlikely to be selected, which rules out perenial candidates like Idris Elba, Tom Hardy, Henry Cavill and Tom Hiddleston, as well as outsiders like Ben Barnes and Jamie Dornan.

    That leaves the likes of Sam Clafin, Kit Harington, Regie-Jean Page and Nicholas Hoult

    We are currently living in a "bearded age" and many of the actors under consideration only really look the part when they have a bit of growth going, is the World ready for a bearded Bond?

    I think that depends on whether they choose the right actor for it. Maybe a Bond with a light stubble beard?
    Early 40s Bond easily expected and received. (Today, 40 is the new 30?) The thinking is men look younger in modern times. And following Moore (older than Connery who just finished the role 1971), Dalton, and Brosnan a seasoned look is ideal and essential.

    Stubble beard, no. Or have it as a cover and shave it off early on after a mission like SF is fine.

  • Posts: 15,086
    I think we got actors cast in their 40s to play Bond for circumstances that no longer exist: you could make a Bond movie every year or two. This is no longer the case. Both Moore and Brosnan looked younger than their age, which helped
    Also, Moore was meant to be a transition Bond, if I'm not mistaken, for a shorter tenure. In any case, he was cast in a time of crisis for the franchise when they needed a more famous actor to get out of the large shadow of Connery.

    Talking of transition Bond, isn't the casting process now a bit like a conclave? The cardinal walking in as presumptive pope walks out still a cardinal. Might be the same for Bond: those the general public consider the best candidates will not get the role.
  • Posts: 1,301
    Brosnan and Moore were famous too.

    Becoming a star after the age of forty is quite unlikely.
  • edited October 31 Posts: 4,067
    I think an element of Moore's casting was that he was the right actor even despite his age. The guy was older than Connery at the time (although he definitely came off as younger) and I suspect the goal was to keep an actor in the role for as long as possible even with the two year output.

    Moore's casting was a risk in that sense. But it paid off getting an actor confident and seasoned. If this time round they wanted to lean into a slightly younger Bond I can see them going more early 30s than late 30s/early 40s. Just depends on what they want. But it's very possible an actor now could start at 42 and do ten years as Bond (so three films effectively) and still look good in their early 50s, which was effectively the case with Brosnan.
  • Posts: 1,301
    Well, TMWTGG was released just a year later. It's possible that they still thought about making movies every year.
  • Posts: 4,067
    Well, TMWTGG was released just a year later. It's possible that they still thought about making movies every year.

    No idea. Perhaps with how stripped back LALD and TMWTGG were they might have presumed a yearly cycle was possible in the short term (although by the time we get to YOLT it's two year gaps I suspect due to the scale of the films).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 31 Posts: 16,291
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think an element of Moore's casting was that he was the right actor even despite his age. The guy was older than Connery at the time

    Indeed, he was older than Connery for his whole life! :P
    007HallY wrote: »
    Well, TMWTGG was released just a year later. It's possible that they still thought about making movies every year.

    No idea. Perhaps with how stripped back LALD and TMWTGG were they might have presumed a yearly cycle was possible in the short term (although by the time we get to YOLT it's two year gaps I suspect due to the scale of the films).

    Broccoli and Saltzman were also basically taking it turns to be lead producer on the films at that point too I think, so along with being slightly smaller productions I guess that made it possible. Personally I prefer the approach from Spy onwards: Spy is almost a reboot of the series.
  • Posts: 4,067
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think an element of Moore's casting was that he was the right actor even despite his age. The guy was older than Connery at the time

    Indeed, he was older than Connery for his whole life! :P

    😂
  • edited October 31 Posts: 2,156
    007HallY wrote: »
    Well, TMWTGG was released just a year later. It's possible that they still thought about making movies every year.

    No idea. Perhaps with how stripped back LALD and TMWTGG were they might have presumed a yearly cycle was possible in the short term (although by the time we get to YOLT it's two year gaps I suspect due to the scale of the films).

    Not to put on my pedantic glasses, but LALD released June 73 (USA) and TMWTGG released December 1974, so there was actually 18 months between films.

    Thunderball (Dec 1965) to YOLT (June 1967) was similarly 18 months.
Sign In or Register to comment.