Who should/could be a Bond actor?

112671268126912701272

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,616
    Heh! That's why that film about him on Christmas Day was so nice to watch: despite the occasional bit of wife trouble he just seemed to have a pretty perfect and happy life.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited March 31 Posts: 6,626
    I think he kept cheating on his wives...

    I mean, he was Roger Moore. Ridiculously handsome and charming.

    And that's probably his biggest contribution to the films. He really represented Bond's lifestyle.
  • Posts: 4,938
    echo wrote: »
    I think he kept cheating on his wives...

    I mean, he was Roger Moore. Ridiculously handsome and charming.

    And that's probably his biggest contribution to the films. He really represented Bond's lifestyle.

    Didn't he get abused by one of his wives? May well have cheated too (don't know regardless, and we all have our sins as they say).

    But yes, I think like all the actors there was an aspect of his self that he really honed and played up for Bond. As all the actors did I guess. A bit of themselves went into the character.
  • 007HallY wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    I think he kept cheating on his wives...

    I mean, he was Roger Moore. Ridiculously handsome and charming.

    And that's probably his biggest contribution to the films. He really represented Bond's lifestyle.

    Didn't he get abused by one of his wives? May well have cheated too (don't know regardless, and we all have our sins as they say).

    But yes, I think like all the actors there was an aspect of his self that he really honed and played up for Bond. As all the actors did I guess. A bit of themselves went into the character.

    Correct! Both Doorn Van Steyn and Dorothy Squires apparently used to beat up on Roger; he’s been attacked with a Teapot and had a guitar smashed on his head.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 31 Posts: 17,616
    echo wrote: »
    And that's probably his biggest contribution to the films. He really represented Bond's lifestyle.

    I mean I do think in part that sometimes you are kind of watching his life at times in the Bond films moreso than with any of the other actors because his Bond is so often just swanning about having an effortlessly nice time; I think on the AVTAK commentary, he mentions that he had been to that chateau before, when he went to a party there hosted by his friend the Aga Khan(!). So I kind of think, when it's all that stuff in the garden party there and everyone staying in luxurious rooms etc., we really are watching Roger Moore's life at that point! :D
    (He was probably even wearing some of his Bond costumes as I believe he often pilfered them!)
  • edited March 31 Posts: 4,938
    007HallY wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    I think he kept cheating on his wives...

    I mean, he was Roger Moore. Ridiculously handsome and charming.

    And that's probably his biggest contribution to the films. He really represented Bond's lifestyle.

    Didn't he get abused by one of his wives? May well have cheated too (don't know regardless, and we all have our sins as they say).

    But yes, I think like all the actors there was an aspect of his self that he really honed and played up for Bond. As all the actors did I guess. A bit of themselves went into the character.

    Correct! Both Doorn Van Steyn and Dorothy Squires apparently used to beat up on Roger; he’s been attacked with a Teapot and had a guitar smashed on his head.

    Ooof. Yeah, looked it up. Awful that he had to go through that. Suspect at that time especially the concept of a woman beating up a man in that way wouldn't have been as readily accepted as... well quite as abusive (or seen as domestic abuse in the way we might do today).
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    Posts: 750
    I don't know if Connery was that unconventional in terms of looks. A little more rugged than someone like Cary Grant, but I'd say he still had pretty "classical" looks. And he was named sexiest man of the century after all.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,616
    Harris Dickinson and Paul Mescal have been confirmed for Sam Mendes’ Beatles biopic films, due in 2028; I don’t know if that knocks them out of the running as he’s making four of them.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,375
    mtm wrote: »
    Harris Dickinson and Paul Mescal have been confirmed for Sam Mendes’ Beatles biopic films, due in 2028; I don’t know if that knocks them out of the running as he’s making four of them.

    Is this project an April Fool's joke I'm not getting?
  • edited April 1 Posts: 1,783
    I strongly hope Leo gets the role. He's the right age and is by far the best candidate I've seen who isn't approaching 40.

    He may fly under the radar of producers.
    mtm wrote: »
    As long as I can buy that women will be attracted to him, I don't need him to look like a comic book character.

    Yes, but it's different to play James Bond than a son-in-law.

  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    edited April 1 Posts: 314
    Connery? He was an exceptionally handsome b*stard. Of course, multiple factors must be taken into account. His classically handsome face, but with a twist, namely added character. His height and broad frame, yet moved like a panther. The voice, unmistakenly Connery, it makes him even more alpha. Men wanted to be him, women wanted to be with him.
  • edited April 1 Posts: 4,938
    Oh he was obviously a good looking guy and had all those qualities. But I think for Bond there was something a bit unconventional about him. I mean, he had a thick Scottish accent and was going bald. I wouldn't quite describe him as a Cary Grant type (not necessarily far off, but he looked a lot older than his 31 years would have suggested, even for the time. It's stuff like the thick eyebrows, the wry mouth etc). I'm not sure if prior to Bond him being a big movie star was guaranteed. There was something very unique about him though appearance wise, and of course a lot of his sex appeal comes down to his charisma.
  • Posts: 1,783
    Connery was a male model like Moore or Lazenby. He wasn't that unconventional.
  • edited April 1 Posts: 4,938
    Maybe not in himself (again, he was obviously good looking). But for Bond I'd argue he was a much more left field choice on the part of the producers than we can comprehend today.

    If they hadn't gone with an actor as unique as Connery - both in terms of appearance and charisma - I don't think Bond would have made the impact it did and it may not have lasted.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,408
    007HallY wrote: »
    Oh he was obviously a good looking guy and had all those qualities. But I think for Bond there was something a bit unconventional about him. I mean, he had a thick Scottish accent and was going bald. I wouldn't quite describe him as a Cary Grant type (not necessarily far off, but he looked a lot older than his 31 years would have suggested, even for the time. It's stuff like the thick eyebrows, the wry mouth etc). I'm not sure if prior to Bond him being a big movie star was guaranteed. There was something very unique about him though appearance wise, and of course a lot of his sex appeal comes down to his charisma.

    Yes. I agree @007HallY It also explains why Fleming didn't understand why he was chosen, but later saw it...because he didn't look like Gregory Peck, Stewart Granger, David Niven, Robert Taylor, etc. In other words, Connery was handsome, but not in the traditional leading man way.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,616
    I think if folks have an extremely specific look in mind then they're likely to be disappointed.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    Posts: 750
    007HallY wrote: »
    Oh he was obviously a good looking guy and had all those qualities. But I think for Bond there was something a bit unconventional about him. I mean, he had a thick Scottish accent and was going bald. I wouldn't quite describe him as a Cary Grant type (not necessarily far off, but he looked a lot older than his 31 years would have suggested, even for the time. It's stuff like the thick eyebrows, the wry mouth etc). I'm not sure if prior to Bond him being a big movie star was guaranteed. There was something very unique about him though appearance wise, and of course a lot of his sex appeal comes down to his charisma.

    I see what you mean. Although he wore a wig as Bond, so thinning hair isn't really a part of his Bond image. So, rather than embrace this individual quality, they chose to conceal it to make him fit into a certain mould.
  • edited April 1 Posts: 4,938
    007HallY wrote: »
    Oh he was obviously a good looking guy and had all those qualities. But I think for Bond there was something a bit unconventional about him. I mean, he had a thick Scottish accent and was going bald. I wouldn't quite describe him as a Cary Grant type (not necessarily far off, but he looked a lot older than his 31 years would have suggested, even for the time. It's stuff like the thick eyebrows, the wry mouth etc). I'm not sure if prior to Bond him being a big movie star was guaranteed. There was something very unique about him though appearance wise, and of course a lot of his sex appeal comes down to his charisma.

    I see what you mean. Although he wore a wig as Bond, so thinning hair isn't really a part of his Bond image. So, rather than embrace this individual quality, they chose to conceal it to make him fit into a certain mould.

    True. I always imagine what Broccoli and Saltzman's impression would have been of him based on first seeing him (it would have been harder to see his potential as apparently he was wearing scruffy clothes too). But they seemed drawn to his confidence and the walk.
    mtm wrote: »
    I think if folks have an extremely specific look in mind then they're likely to be disappointed.

    I think so too. It negates the fact that you can't just generate an Action Man type actor (I suppose the closest they could do is get Henry Cavill, but I think there are legitimate downsides to him as an actor which would mean he's not the best fit potentially). They have to pick from options available.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,454
    Connery was a good looking guy with a natural screen presence, but when cast as Bond he was a diamond in the rough. From grooming, how he dressed, to how he carried himself he needed refinement. I would say the same was true for Daniel.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 1 Posts: 17,616
    Connery didn't really look like the idealised version of Bond up to that point: they compromised on his looks (and accent) because they saw something really special about him as an actor. And that's how they should always pick him: get someone brilliant whose looks fit enough- not pick someone who is like an identikit model of the idealised Bond and hope he can act enough.
    I mean that's really how you cast most roles. Does Downey Jr look like the big buff Tony Stark in the comics? I would say he does enough. Was he great?

    That Connery was so good -and the original screen version- he sort of redefined the looks of Bond the character to some extent, which is fine but as we've seen with Roger or Daniel, he doesn't need to be in that exact mould to be successful. Being caught up in looks primarily just seems like a route to disappointment.
  • edited April 1 Posts: 1,783
    007HallY wrote: »
    Oh he was obviously a good looking guy and had all those qualities. But I think for Bond there was something a bit unconventional about him. I mean, he had a thick Scottish accent and was going bald. I wouldn't quite describe him as a Cary Grant type (not necessarily far off, but he looked a lot older than his 31 years would have suggested, even for the time. It's stuff like the thick eyebrows, the wry mouth etc). I'm not sure if prior to Bond him being a big movie star was guaranteed. There was something very unique about him though appearance wise, and of course a lot of his sex appeal comes down to his charisma.

    Yes. I agree @007HallY It also explains why Fleming didn't understand why he was chosen, but later saw it...because he didn't look like Gregory Peck, Stewart Granger, David Niven, Robert Taylor, etc. In other words, Connery was handsome, but not in the traditional leading man way.

    Nah, he was like a new Clark Gable. That's what they saw and that's why they hired him.

    ;)

    He wasn't very British and that was a good thing.
  • edited April 1 Posts: 4,938
    mtm wrote: »
    Connery didn't really look like the idealised version of Bond up to that point: they compromised on his looks (and accent) because they saw something really special about him as an actor. And that's how they should always pick him: get someone brilliant whose looks fit enough- not pick someone who is like an identikit model of the idealised Bond and hope he can act enough.
    I mean that's really how you cast most roles. Does Downey Jr look like the big buff Tony Stark in the comics? I would say he does enough. Was he great?

    That Connery was so good -and the original screen version- he sort of redefined the looks of Bond the character to some extent, which is fine but as we've seen with Roger or Daniel, he doesn't need to be in that exact mould to be successful. Being caught up in looks primarily just seems like a route to disappointment.

    There's that famous story of The Daily Express launching a 'find the first Bond' contest in '61. They ended up with a male model who looked like a young Gregory Peck. The producers actually ended up screen-testing him, but found he had absolutely no acting talent or screen presence so dropped him from consideration.

    It's the nature of casting I guess. You can't guarantee a good candidate will fit a very specific look 100%, and you can't discount an actor who might not be that full image, but embodies the role much better.
  • Posts: 113
    When I think about what works for me looks wise for Bond, I've recently began to apply what I call the Q test. Regarding previous Bonds they all would have been horribly miscast as Q, even with a pair of glasses and a white coat. I can't say that about some of the current candidates especially some of the younger ones. I'm not going to name names because I don't want to appear rude, especially as these are good looking guys, but some of them do have an element of geek which personally I don't think works for Bond.

    One of the reasons Craig works as Bond is because he looks like what he is - a killer. One of the reasons for Brosnan's success was that he looked like people's idea of a traditionally handsome leading man. I feel all the Bonds have at least one of these traits and some have elements of both. When I look at potential Bonds I look for candidates within this spectrum. There may be potential to go a bit further left field but I think there are limits.
  • Posts: 15,480
    007HallY wrote: »
    Maybe not in himself (again, he was obviously good looking). But for Bond I'd argue he was a much more left field choice on the part of the producers than we can comprehend today.

    If they hadn't gone with an actor as unique as Connery - both in terms of appearance and charisma - I don't think Bond would have made the impact it did and it may not have lasted.

    Ian Fleming wanted David Niven, I believe. On paper it's an obvious choice: established British actors, already famous, etc. He would have turned Dr No into a somewhat more serious Pink Panther and a minor movie in his filmography.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 1,021
    I love Niven, but I’m not sure I could have dealt with a James Bond with a moustache.

    I do wonder if they ever contemplated giving Connery the thin scar on his face, and the one of his hand. I’d argue that these would have helped to cement a visual identity for Bond.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,616
    They managed to take a pre-existing mens suit and make it indelibly attached to their character: the dinner suit/tuxedo. I'm not sure he needs much more of a visual identity.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    edited April 1 Posts: 1,021
    It has become his ‘costume’ to a certain extent, but he can’t wear it all the time. Part of the reason we get the DB5 back so often is because it says James Bond visually in a way that not much else does (the Walther PPK being the other visual accessory that works).
  • K2WIK2WI Europe
    Posts: 30
    mtm wrote: »
    Harris Dickinson and Paul Mescal have been confirmed for Sam Mendes’ Beatles biopic films, due in 2028; I don’t know if that knocks them out of the running as he’s making four of them.

    Is this project an April Fool's joke I'm not getting?

    No, they’re real. Mended and Sony announced they were doing them last February.https://deadline.com/2024/02/beatles-movies-sam-mendes-paul-mccartney-john-lennon-george-harrison-ringo-starr-1235831317/
  • Posts: 66
    I want to show Bond before he hits the screen. Build that audience connection right away.
  • edited April 1 Posts: 4,938
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Maybe not in himself (again, he was obviously good looking). But for Bond I'd argue he was a much more left field choice on the part of the producers than we can comprehend today.

    If they hadn't gone with an actor as unique as Connery - both in terms of appearance and charisma - I don't think Bond would have made the impact it did and it may not have lasted.

    Ian Fleming wanted David Niven, I believe. On paper it's an obvious choice: established British actors, already famous, etc. He would have turned Dr No into a somewhat more serious Pink Panther and a minor movie in his filmography.

    I know Fleming at one point wanted James Stewart for the role, which is a weird choice. Makes sense financially though, at least in theory. Richard Burton was another one and would have been more plausible. Ultimately I don't think anyone would argue Connery wasn't the best choice.
Sign In or Register to comment.