It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Tom Cruise is even shorter but they make it work in his films so I genuinely can't see height as a massive issue.
I think Jack O' Connell would be very good. Great actor, can do vulnerable/emotional very well but also tough and masculine. I think a lot of the suggested candidates so far seem too poncey and too hipstery for me. He's the only younger one I've seen suggested who I'd be convinced by as soon as he was announced. I think he's a real possibility too because he's cut from a similar cloth to Craig. Successful with critics (surprised he didn't get any awards recognition for Starred Up) but not a Hollywood star. Very British but rougher, not really posh, and someone with a bit of an edge to him. I think he's a lot more likely than Turned and co personally, seems like someone BB would pick, and I think he could do a really good job.
But if it was up to me I'd cast an older, possibly more established actor even if it meant we only got them for one or two films. None of the rising star types suggested on here have swayed me and 30 year olds don't look like Sean Connery anymore. And I think shorter runs before switching actors could be refreshing after Craig has been doing it for so long.
Can't see Graham Norton as Bond! Isn't he too old? Ha Ha…
It's weird how that's played out because one of the things that I liked about CR/QoS was that he didn't just wear a suit everywhere. They had him in more casual clothes too which I thought seemed more modern, a bit cooler and less conservative.
SF/SP seem a lot stuffier in comparison imo with the whole deliberately retro (ignoring how skinny fitting the suits are) aesthetic they've got going on. That's one of the few things I prefer from the first half of the Craig era over the second.
He is the complete opposite of what you say in his personal life. Didnt you notice? Oh, I forgot - making up stuff is more your way. Wont bring in Turner any sooner, most likely not at all.
I don't disagree with your assessment of him vis a vis Craig. They are indeed cut from a similar (and in my view, more common) cloth. Lacks charisma to me though.
I'd be fine with this. Fassbender is available I believe.
I don't disagree with some of the things you say here, notably that some of the "suggested candidates so far seem too poncey and too hipstery". However, I don't think it's necessary that Bond continually show his vulnerable/emotional side. It worked within the context of CR as it was intrinsic to his relationship with Vesper. Less so in SF, IMHO, whereupon it felt way too contrived and riffing off the Tracy death scene in OHMSS and of course Dame Judy's popularity that brought her tenure to a close. If Bond is to show his vulnerable side, I'd rather it be shown when the stakes are high and it's only shown sparingly. The ice rink scene in OHMSS is a good example of this. One of the criticisms levelled at Craig's Bond, whether rightly or wrongly, is that he's the Emo Bond. It would be nice to get away from this and return to Fleming's (and some of the better Bond's) stiff-upper-lip approach. Even Jason Bourne, after the first Bourne Identity, managed to steer away from too much pathos and susceptibility. I guess my point is, it's a side of Bond I no longer want to see anymore. It's been done to death and it's already getting stale.
The only problem with casting an older actor is the problem of him ageing too quickly in the role. Unless something drastic happens at MGM, Bond movies are going to be made even less frequently than at any other time before. Also, Fleming didn't write the character as a middle-aged man. That's why he had the OO section face mandatory retirement at 45. The other problem is that this is a successfully run business, built heavily upon big investment. Trying to get big-time investors interested in sinking tens of millions of their own money into your product with a growing budget per movie of $259m and with a constantly changing figurehead might damage your reputation and credibility amongst the audience and other backers. And it kind of smacks a bit of Dr. Who—a TV show that relies heavily upon TV licence fee money and not actual audience viewing figures to survive. If Dr. Who were on Fox, or say any cable channel, it would've been cancelled already. Personally, I think the producers need to inject a bit of virility back into Bond, and they can start by casting an actor in his early thirties. So long as it isn't Norton, Hiddleston or O' Connell, it'll be a step in the right direction. Of course, this is only my opinion but I thought I'd share it with y'all.
I'm not necessarily saying Bond should always be emotional either. Just saying that O'Connell could bring those layers to it if needed. He also does tough and masculine very well.
I love DC as Bond, right behind SC, but, I must say, Fleming's Bond was tall as part of his psychological make-up: he mentions how he very much distrusts small men. It's a clear act of prejudice. My feeling is that Fleming made Bond taller than average to better express this prejudice (I'm assuming that this is obviously something the writer himself felt as well; plus all the tyrants of the day, especially the ass who was the catalyst for WWII was only 5'7...)
Edit: which because of this, makes DC's Bond so good to me: he didn't need the height to be able to play 007. He embodies the "blunt" instrument and the orphan through skill-- that's my opinion, one I felt from the get-go, and not one to stir the pot. I am very clear that this is not the opinion of others, and that's fine.
Edit 2: as I re-watch LTK, if looks/height were everything to Bond, then Tim Dalton would be the BEST Bond... He DID look like Hoagy, perfect height, slim build, but...
But what? He was every bit as good in the part as Craig--and perhaps less heavy-handed at playing the personal stuff. Neither is gifted at throwaway lines, but nowadays that seems like a less crippling flaw. Dalton's main fault was playing Bond at the wrong time. A pity he wasn't born three decades later.
Saying that, I admire much of what he did to correct where Moore went off the rails...
By modern day standards (especially Craig's), Dalton's physique isn't great, but it was no worse than Moore's. And it's nothing time at the gym couldn't solve. I suppose Dalton was lighter on hedonism, but Craig wasn't much better, and after Roger overdid the foppery, lessened hedonism was a relief. I will grant none of Dalton's fistfights was impressive, but blame lies just as heavily on the director and stunt coordinators, and he didn't get many to fistfights to begin with. Plus in his other action scenes he moves well enough. As for staginess, I've never understood this complaint--Dalton seemed to me more natural and less stylized than his predecessors; when given the opportunity to show emotion he genuinely smouldered, as shown in his reactions to the deaths of Sanders and Della. And he also captured the melancholy, Byronic quality (as Kingsley Amis put it) of Bond better than any actor who has played the role.
I should stop there, since I'm engaging in an old debate that will be never be concluded, but I will say that if Dalton was around 35 today, he would certainly be my pick for the next Bond. And if there are any actors around today who have his classic matinee idol looks and Byronic temperament, they would be ideal for the role. But I don't know of any who do.
Re: physique I would say he and Roger were on par, sadly, since Dalton is probably the best looking Bond so far-- and resembled Fleming's Hoagy the closest...
Re: hedonism: I don't mean Rog's comic bedding of babes... I mean a man who takes women, drink and food with great pleasure... I didn't see Dalton take pleasure in these things...
Saying all of this, if this man made one more 007 picture, I'm sure he would have taken third spot from RM, cleanly-- there's much to admire in his two performances....
I agree with you-- if Dalton was 35 now, he'd be a clear winner to take over from Craig (especially when compared to the Hiddlestons and Turners and so on-- apologies to those that like these actors, but, I think they had their shot during this hiatus and were seen as not up to snuff (part of the reason why DC was brought back into the fold (no clear successor, even after meeting with these types of actors))).....
The only real reason Fleming first described Bond as baring a similarity to Hoagy Carmichael was because Fleming looked a bit like the American composer himself. Call it writer's vanity. Let's be honest here, none of the actors have born any similarity to Hoagy Carmichael. I believe it was the incredibly popular Daily Express cartoon by John McLusky that first gave Bond the look that everybody now associates with 007. It was also an important factor in Connery's casting and subsequently Lazenby's. Either way, Fleming does describe Bond as 6-feet tall. It just so happens the majority of the actors that have played him, all bar one, have all been over 6-feet tall. You honestly can't tell me that when watching those old Bond movies when Bond is going toe-to-toe against a henchmen or villain, that he doesn't look good sneering down at his foe. If I'm going to point out any weakness in Craig's Bond performance then this is it.
I'd also say, ask anybody to describe Bond, and they would say: "Tall, dark and handsome."
It is a weakness, and I'm tired of the camera tricks and short actors they have to cast in order to not make it so obvious.
That's how I would describe him. With a hint of cruelty.
Absolutely, which I think Craig at least does bring to the table in his performance, so the fact that he's vertically challenged is forgiven in this one instance.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2229255/Daniel-Craig-admits-desperate-leave-James-Bond-franchise-ahead-Skyfall.html
What I don't understand is that he could have sold the role physically. Far better than Moore or Brosnan. But they are both depicted as more capable fighters. I need to rewatch The Rocketeer, but Dalton seemed good enough going mano a mano then so that's no fault of his own.
A classic example of how tabloids get rid of the context to make their own story. The Original source:
https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/cover-story-excerpt-daniel-craig-the-man-behind-james-bond-20121109
It's what one would call 'a figure of speech'. He says 'they won't let me'. How on earth would they stop him? Have mads stand ready with a rope (or even more classic: carpet beater) to stop him from going?
Anyway, I'd vote for James D 'Arcy. I don't know anything about his acting but he played Ian Fleming himself before. Is the right age and looks the part imo.
I think it's also a certain approach to the role which was a mistake: make Bond a vulnerable everyman. As a fighter I don't think he should be depicted as average. But even Connery in DAF seemed particularly inept at times.
I know Dalton was fighting the ghost of Brosnan, but being depicted as a mediocre fighter at best didn't help his popularity.
Oh yeah, the daily knows it all. Come on. Even for you its low standard. But he was always indifferent about the next to come - because who knows, what lays ahead. Theres a difference. Its his way of thinkng.
BTW - whenever you lash out maybe think again, because in the slight chance, that Turner gets the gig, you will be in my shoes. Much luck with that. Because the backlash is inevitable to come.