Who should/could be a Bond actor?

13803813833853861234

Comments

  • edited June 2018 Posts: 15,204
    bondjames wrote: »
    Brozza backs Hardy. Apart from height, I'm open to him due to his immense versatility. Besides, if it's Nolan next time out, he has as much of shot as anyone I suppose. I'd sure prefer him to that Styles fellow.

    https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/movies/pierce-brosnan-tom-hardy-would-put-a-bit-of-wiggle-into-james-bond-37043234.html

    Has Brozza ever NOT backed someone mentioned in the media as potential James Bond?
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,995
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Brozza backs Hardy. Apart from height, I'm open to him due to his immense versatility. Besides, if it's Nolan next time out, he has as much of shot as anyone I suppose. I'd sure prefer him to that Styles fellow.

    https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/movies/pierce-brosnan-tom-hardy-would-put-a-bit-of-wiggle-into-james-bond-37043234.html

    Has Brozza ever NOT backed someone mentioned in the media as potential James Bond?

    And in odd ways. Put a bit of wiggle? When he suggested Colin Farrell, Brosnan said that he "Would eat the heads of the other candidates". So Brosnan's pre-requisite for Bond has gone from cannibalism to wiggling!
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Wasn’t it Colin Salmon?
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited June 2018 Posts: 13,995
    No, it was definitely Farrell:

    https://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=1809

    I may take up cannibalism to see if I get a shot at the role.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited June 2018 Posts: 15,423
    On condition Mrs Smythe (née Love-Hewitt) stars as Pussy Galore. Pardon the potential implications. :))
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited June 2018 Posts: 13,995
    "I've had lunch, but I've seemed to missed dessert."

    tenor.gif?itemid=9231579
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,356
    He probably endorses any suggestion a potential interviewer might give him just to avoid bad press.
  • Posts: 15,204
    No, it was definitely Farrell:

    https://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=1809

    I may take up cannibalism to see if I get a shot at the role.

    He was also enthusiastic about Colin Salmon. And Ewan McGregor. Name one actor Brosnan agrees he'd be a great Bond.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,584
    A new challenger appears...



    ;)
  • edited June 2018 Posts: 1,661
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    I want someone who is a little uncouth and surprising.

    That was the masterstroke in casting Daniel Craig. He was very atypical from what many anticipated we would get. His casting was bold and risky. I want them to keep that same energy and bring in someone who has a little more grit.

    Personally, I think the 'next Bond' is someone no one has mentioned yet. None of us would have anticipated that Daniel Craig would get the part in 2002. I think Barbara wants to surprise audiences with the next choice.

    Personally, I think someone like Joel Edgerton is someone who could have played the role a few years back, he's far too old now.
    joel2-1513267596.jpg?crop=1.00xw:0.414xh;0,0.110xh&resize=768:*

    Someone I've been heavily advocating for a while is Jack O'Connell, I think he's the right age, he's edgy, he's masculine, he's sexy and (speaking as a man) he has that bloke's bloke quality that Connery and Craig have.

    Jack-Oconnell-esquire.jpg?itok=PB-PSdP2

    James Bond isn't meant to be uncouth or a bloke's bloke. Why do you seek to reinvent Bond's persona to justify your personal choices for the role? That seems a selfish way to cast the role. I don't think Craig is particularly uncouth in the role. Also, the notion Connery was a bloke's bloke kind of Bond - seems absurd. Connery's Bond intro was in an expensive casino, he was playing chemin de fer, not down the local bookie playing the 1960s equivalent of a fixed-odds betting machine! With respect, do you actually understand who James Bond is? Seems doubtful.

    Seens like a massive overreaction, accusing one of the most thoughtful posters on here of knowing nothing about Bond because of his preferences. I don't know what the actual definition is but I think what @Pierce2Daniel meant by a man's man (or bloke's bloke or whatever) is the way I've always used that term: very traditionally masculine. Rugged, tough. Connery and Craig definitely fit that bill.

    Personally I agree with wanting someone a bit more 'uncouth' as well. Bond is suave and refined sure but he needs something a bit rough about him too imo, a bit of an edge (Moore didn't really have this at all to be fair but he was one of a kind and made up for it with bucket loads of charm). He can't be too posh and poncey.

    You say
    "Personally I agree with wanting someone a bit more 'uncouth' as well. Bond is suave and refined sure but he needs something a bit rough about him too imo, a bit of an edge (Moore didn't really have this at all to be fair but he was one of a kind and made up for it with bucket loads of charm). He can't be too posh and poncey."

    Refined and uncouth cannot sit together in the same sentence! How can Bond be refined and suave but uncouth? It's impossible. James Bond is not some posh boy prefect type that kills people and goes home and cries himself to sleep "oh dear, I shouldn't have murdered that man!" We all know Bond is a hard, sometimes cruel man, and his occupation requires him to kill, but it's sending out confused signals if you want the next actor to be semi-uncouth/semi-rough *and* refined. I don't think that's possible. Sean Connery admitted his Bond persona was based on director Terence Young's direction. Young didn't envisage Bond as rough or uncouth. I'm sure Young's vision of Bond was based on what he knew of the character via Fleming's work.

    I think it's fair to say Craig's casting has changed Bond. He's less of a playboy, refined type, perhaps a little more "everyman' in tone but I don't think Craig set out to play Bond as some uncouth thug type. If Craig were to admit that, fair enough, but I don't think he set out to downplay Bond's sophisticated persona and make him a thug. If some fans want to take Craig's persona to the next level and actively make Bond actor #7 more uncouth/rough then it will be a full reinvention of Ian Fleming's character. Could it be a box office success? Perhaps, perhaps not. Who knows, perhaps the world needs a different type of James Bond? I'd prefer to stick with a more conventional Bond.

    You're reading way too much into things. All we're saying is that Bond should have a bit of an edge to him, a bit of roughness. No more than Connery, Dalton and Craig all had (and I thought I made that clear by mentioning them). I meant a bit more uncouth in comparison to some of the pretty boy types suggested, not in comparison to the actors we've had already or in comparison to Fleming's Bond. That's all. If I used the wrong wording then I'm sorry but seriously, calm down. I'm not advocating reinventing the character at all.

    Bond hitting a woman (although I guess that is too politically incorrect these days!) would seem the sort of thing I associate with the term 'roughness'. In theory you could hire a posh(ish) type actor like Tom Hiddleston and have his Bond strangle a villain. That could help sell Hiddleston's roughness/toughness. I wouldn't want a Jason Statham type actor as Bond because he seems good at roughness but I'd find it hard to believe he can be suave or gentlemanly, but a Statham type actor could appeal to the mainstream audience. Going from Craig to a Jason Statham type isn't a huge leap and it's possible Barbara Broccoli isn't a fan of the conventional Bond (hence why Craig was cast).

    Bond Bombshell wrote:
    Well if you're looking for the new Bond on British TV, then good luck. If you were to ask me who were the most prolific actors on British TV at the moment I'd have to say Suranne Jones, Maxine Peake, Olivia Colman, Sheridan Smith, Sarah Lancashire, Nicola Walker, Keeley Hawes, Jessica Raines, Jodie Whittaker, Anna Friel and so on. It's hard to think of male equivalents, maybe David Morrissey and James Norton. It's no surprise that when a young male actor does crop up he is immediately linked with Bond because they are in such short supply, i.e. Aidan Turner, Tom Hiddleston and James Norton.

    British TV drama is feminized and feminist. If you're looking for a tough thriller with a male lead there's Peaky Blinders and that's about it. Even Strike Back has returned with tough females in charge and the men, 5ft 7in wimps. In such a climate no wonder the search for a new Bond is so difficult. White males and particularly alpha white males are out of favour with those in charge.

    Then there's the British film industry. Want to make a commercial thriller aimed at a male audience with a white male lead? Then you're not getting any lottery money. Want to make a film about Scottish drug addicted lesbians? Here's plenty of cash to pour down the drain.

    So we're dependent on British actors gaining ground in the US for our new Bond. Here the public school brigade seems to dominate - Cumberbatch, Hiddleston, Lewis, Stevens, Redmayne, etc. It's difficult to imagine any of them acquiring the necessary physicality. Also US TV seems to be going through a diversity drive at the moment which means the new shows are not picking up as many male Brits as they used to.

    If current trends continue we'll eventually be casting another male model with no acting experience as Bond.

    All great points. It's worth adding that Craig was cast by a woman. All the other Bond actors were cast by men. Barbara Broccoli has her own vision of what Bond looks like, how he acts, how much he emotion he reveals, how 'human' he is. I think your points are very interesting however I'm doubtful Broccoli would choose a George Lazenby type. I can't see Broccoli ever going that route. I've accepted that my vision of what Bond is like is not the same as Barbara Broccoli's vision and I don't expect our visions to be compatible when the next actor is cast.



  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    fanbond123 wrote: »

    Bond Bombshell wrote:
    Well if you're looking for the new Bond on British TV, then good luck. If you were to ask me who were the most prolific actors on British TV at the moment I'd have to say Suranne Jones, Maxine Peake, Olivia Colman, Sheridan Smith, Sarah Lancashire, Nicola Walker, Keeley Hawes, Jessica Raines, Jodie Whittaker, Anna Friel and so on. It's hard to think of male equivalents, maybe David Morrissey and James Norton. It's no surprise that when a young male actor does crop up he is immediately linked with Bond because they are in such short supply, i.e. Aidan Turner, Tom Hiddleston and James Norton.

    British TV drama is feminized and feminist. If you're looking for a tough thriller with a male lead there's Peaky Blinders and that's about it. Even Strike Back has returned with tough females in charge and the men, 5ft 7in wimps. In such a climate no wonder the search for a new Bond is so difficult. White males and particularly alpha white males are out of favour with those in charge.

    Then there's the British film industry. Want to make a commercial thriller aimed at a male audience with a white male lead? Then you're not getting any lottery money. Want to make a film about Scottish drug addicted lesbians? Here's plenty of cash to pour down the drain.

    So we're dependent on British actors gaining ground in the US for our new Bond. Here the public school brigade seems to dominate - Cumberbatch, Hiddleston, Lewis, Stevens, Redmayne, etc. It's difficult to imagine any of them acquiring the necessary physicality. Also US TV seems to be going through a diversity drive at the moment which means the new shows are not picking up as many male Brits as they used to.

    If current trends continue we'll eventually be casting another male model with no acting experience as Bond.

    All great points. It's worth adding that Craig was cast by a woman. All the other Bond actors were cast by men. Barbara Broccoli has her own vision of what Bond looks like, how he acts, how much he emotion he reveals, how 'human' he is. I think your points are very interesting however I'm doubtful Broccoli would choose a George Lazenby type. I can't see Broccoli ever going that route. I've accepted that my vision of what Bond is like is not the same as Barbara Broccoli's vision and I don't expect our visions to be compatible when the next actor is cast.
    That's a good point. However, we don't know for sure what motivated her to select Craig. It could be his acting skills or it could be something else (which she isn't even aware of due to it being subconscious).

    One hopes that it was his acting, which she is on record as stating was the primary driver for that decision as well as for who gets picked for Bond #007. If that's the case, then it's quite possible that I could be happy with the next choice.

    These comments about changes in the British film & tv industry are troubling if true however, particularly the 5ft 7 wimps bit. Can a contemporary Bond film be made in the future which is true to the character in such an environment? I think it still can. The expectations of who Bond is and how he is depicted will have to change with the times. If history is any guide, they will take a quite different approach with the next man in comparison to Craig, for variety's sake. Both physically and in terms of his general style.

    Interesting times ahead. The only given is that not everyone will be pleased with the choice.
    but also the opportunity to discover the work of unfamiliar names.

    With this in mind, even if you don't see him as Bond, I think anyone who hasn't should give Starred Up a watch. That clip reminded me how good he is in it and I think it's a shame it didn't get more recognition at the time.
    I recall your mentioning that film previously. I neglected to seek it out, and will try to find a copy somewhere or online soon. I must watch Money Monster again too.
  • Goldeneye0094Goldeneye0094 Conyers, GA
    Posts: 464
    Jeff Goldblum as the next james bond! No I'm not serious
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Jeff Goldblum as the next james bond! No I'm not serious
    The Same Photo of James Bond Every Day
  • Posts: 17,814
    but also the opportunity to discover the work of unfamiliar names.

    With this in mind, even if you don't see him as Bond, I think anyone who hasn't should give Starred Up a watch. That clip reminded me how good he is in it and I think it's a shame it didn't get more recognition at the time.

    I have no idea how it works so I'm sure that people more well informed than I am will tell me I'm talking bollocks and probably provide a bunch of examples proving me wrong, but from my casual film fan perspective, I think it's a shame that the BAFTA's don't do more to honour films like that (small but great British films) instead of just being a sort of proto Oscars and giving all the big prizes to those you'd expect. Jack O'Connell was as good in Starred Up as any best actor nominee, and Johnny Harris in Jawbone is another more recent example. Tyranasour a few years back too. Like I said, there could be lots of examples I've forgotten proving me wrong. But from my perspective, every now and again there's a great British indie film that comes out and leaves me thinking that was really brilliant, and BAFTA (the British academy) seem to take no notice every time. It might get some sort of best debut, best British or rising star award but the nominations for the big prizes often seem to be saved for the big Oscar baity ones you expect to see.

    Haven't heard about Starred Up before. Should probably check it out.

    Regarding BAFTA's and Oscars; I have issues with these sorts of awards. I can actually count on one hand the number of films I've watched after first learning about them after winning these awards (I'm of course not counting films I've watched and enjoyed before receiving a nomination). The films I enjoy seem to be the opposite of what you'd call "Oscar material".
    ___________
    Haha, Jeff Goldblum always delivers on talk shows! I usually don't watch them, but I never switch channels when he's on. Nice attention to detail with the pose!
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited June 2018 Posts: 11,139
    Edit
  • edited June 2018 Posts: 1,661
    Playing devil's advocate here.. you could argue acting (for men) is a slightly effeminate profession and even the tough guy actors - Eastwood, Connery, Charles Bronson and the rest - were just pretending to be tough. Well, clearly they were. In this respect you could argue they're no different to current metrosexual actors.

    It's interesting to note some people say "no male models" and yet some/many Bond fans consider George Lazenby, a male model, to be the toughest Bond in terms of ability to convey a convincing fight on screen.

    I guess people are hardwired to assume "pretty men" are less macho than "less pretty men" but even Clint Eastwood (arguably the definitive tough man actor of American pop culture circa 1960s - 1980s) was a rather handsome, pretty man in his youth. Personally I think Eastwood's Dirty Harry is more macho than Craig's Bond so I disagree with Pierce Brosnan's recent comments that Craig looks like he can kill a man (thereby implying he's ideal or good casting). I'm sure most men can look like they can kill a man if they get angry enough! Anyway, it's all subjective!

  • Posts: 15,204
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    Playing devil's advocate here.. you could argue acting (for men) is a slightly effeminate profession and even the tough guy actors - Eastwood, Connery, Charles Bronson and the rest - were just pretending to be tough. Well, clearly they were. In this respect you could argue they're no different to current metrosexual actors.

    It's interesting to note some people say "no male models" and yet some/many Bond fans consider George Lazenby, a male model, to be the toughest Bond in terms of ability to convey a convincing fight on screen.

    I guess people are hardwired to assume "pretty men" are less macho than "less pretty men" but even Clint Eastwood (arguably the definitive tough man actor of American pop culture circa 1960s - 1980s) was a rather handsome, pretty man in his youth. Personally I think Eastwood's Dirty Harry is more macho than Craig's Bond so I disagree with Pierce Brosnan's recent comments that Craig looks like he can kill a man (thereby implying he's ideal or good casting). I'm sure most men can look like they can kill a man if they get angry enough! Anyway, it's all subjective!

    Interesting. This might be for the controversial thread but I always found Lazenby as the less manly of the Bond actors, his fighting skills notwithstanding. Maybe because of his youth.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    How was O'Connell in 71? Was there any
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    Playing devil's advocate here.. you could argue acting (for men) is a slightly effeminate profession and even the tough guy actors - Eastwood, Connery, Charles Bronson and the rest - were just pretending to be tough. Well, clearly they were. In this respect you could argue they're no different to current metrosexual actors.

    It's interesting to note some people say "no male models" and yet some/many Bond fans consider George Lazenby, a male model, to be the toughest Bond in terms of ability to convey a convincing fight on screen.

    I guess people are hardwired to assume "pretty men" are less macho than "less pretty men" but even Clint Eastwood (arguably the definitive tough man actor of American pop culture circa 1960s - 1980s) was a rather handsome, pretty man in his youth. Personally I think Eastwood's Dirty Harry is more macho than Craig's Bond so I disagree with Pierce Brosnan's recent comments that Craig looks like he can kill a man (thereby implying he's ideal or good casting). I'm sure most men can look like they can kill a man if they get angry enough! Anyway, it's all subjective!
    You're quite right about it being subjective and I believe you are also correct about when he needs to look like he can kill.

    Fundamentally I think it comes down to how one projects on screen at certain moments. That can be done via acting, or it can be done through physicality. Or it can be done through both.

    The actor must be credible as someone who could kill when the moment calls for it. I think it would help if he is distinct looking (I don't think the scar is necessary though), with a certain cruelty to the features. Again, this will be in the eye of the beholder.

    Laz was indeed a male model, and he wasn't the most built or beefiest looking guy. He had a very lean and athletic physique, and looked darn good in those suits. I thought he was near perfect physically.

    pHTE8Ig.jpg
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Roger Moore also did model work in his youth.
  • edited June 2018 Posts: 12,837
    @bondjames He's good in 71, carries the film well, but it's more of a vulnerable everyman type performance. Nothing that really shows he'd make a good James Bond. It was Starred Up that convinced me. The character he plays is nothing like Bond at all but he just owns the screen in the same way a Bond actor should imo, just really magnetic in the same way Connery was. He's great in Skins as well if you think you can suffer through an often cringey teen drama (the last two episodes of the final season are a standalone crime drama story about him as an adult, I'd say just watch them if you want to see more of him as an actor, don't bother with the rest of the show) he was a lot younger back then but that was his big break and even in that show when he was a teenager you can see that he's got something about him.

    The only thing I'm unsure about with him as Bond is the suave classy RP accented side, because I've never seen him play a character like that. But I think he'd nail the charismatic, dangerous side of Bond.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Thanks @thelivingroyale . I'll definitely check out Starred Up and 71. For all we know Yann Demange may yet helm a Bond film down the road, given he apparently was under consideration this time out, so it can't hurt to see some of his output. I'm not sure if I'll be able to see the Skins episodes because that's not easy to find online.

    RE: suave, classy and sophisticated- that's something I truly have missed greatly over the last little while and so my bias is for someone who can naturally deliver that onscreen too. It seems to increasingly be a lost art. Screen magnetism though is essential for a Bond actor.
  • edited June 2018 Posts: 17,814
    bondjames wrote: »
    Thanks @thelivingroyale . I'll definitely check out Starred Up and 71. For all we know Yann Demange may yet helm a Bond film down the road, given he apparently was under consideration this time out, so it can't hurt to see some of his output. I'm not sure if I'll be able to see the Skins episodes because that's not easy to find online.

    RE: suave, classy and sophisticated- that's something I truly have missed greatly over the last little while and so my bias is for someone who can naturally deliver that onscreen too. It seems to increasingly be a lost art. Screen magnetism though is essential for a Bond actor.

    Only wish there was a suitable actor with a Cary Grant level of charisma around.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    Thanks @thelivingroyale . I'll definitely check out Starred Up and 71. For all we know Yann Demange may yet helm a Bond film down the road, given he apparently was under consideration this time out, so it can't hurt to see some of his output. I'm not sure if I'll be able to see the Skins episodes because that's not easy to find online.

    RE: suave, classy and sophisticated- that's something I truly have missed greatly over the last little while and so my bias is for someone who can naturally deliver that onscreen too. It seems to increasingly be a lost art. Screen magnetism though is essential for a Bond actor.

    Only wish there was a suitable actor with a Cary Grant level of charisma around.
    Easily one of the most suave actors of all time, and one of my faves. A real class act. They don't make them like him anymore, that's for sure.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    re: acting being effeminate

    Acting isn’t exactly effeminate if you’re going for a tough or down to earth role. It’s effeminate if you slip into a cheesy tight costume and act a part from a Shakespearean play in a stagy format. Though, I wouldn’t exactly call that “effeminate” myself.

    What we mean by “male models” is a reference to an actual effeminate metrosexual appearance that takes the alpha male element away from the masculine character, and that’s what we don’t want in a Bond. Connery, Lazenby and Craig I’m sure are quite tough men who can hold their own in real life without any effort.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I feel that all of the six to date have been credible as killers. They were believable in the roles for me. Some have certainly benefited from better scripts and direction. Some have been better actors than others too, but ultimately the producers and directors have done a reasonable job over the past 50+ years of making every actor (and model) who has carried that PPK credible as OO7 in each respective film in the series.

    Given that, I'm not really all that concerned about the masculinity element. It will be taken care of inherently via the script and direction and they will vary the emphasis as required based on the prevailing sensibilities of the specific time and the actor's strengths as needed.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    Credible actors as HM's "assassin": (in no particular order)

    Connery ("but of course"; "she should have kept her mouth shut")
    Laz (was desperate in his fight scenes to survive, so he beat you harder than you could beat him)
    Dalton (not as a fighter, but as an assassin-- firing on Kara, meeting Pushkin, "killing" Pushkin, trying to assassinate Sanchez ("watch the birdie, you bastard"... )
    Craig ("made you feel, did he?"; taking out the "bomb maker"; stairwell fight; taking out Mr. White; assassinating Mitchell and Slate....
  • Posts: 6,601
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Thanks @thelivingroyale . I'll definitely check out Starred Up and 71. For all we know Yann Demange may yet helm a Bond film down the road, given he apparently was under consideration this time out, so it can't hurt to see some of his output. I'm not sure if I'll be able to see the Skins episodes because that's not easy to find online.

    RE: suave, classy and sophisticated- that's something I truly have missed greatly over the last little while and so my bias is for someone who can naturally deliver that onscreen too. It seems to increasingly be a lost art. Screen magnetism though is essential for a Bond actor.

    Only wish there was a suitable actor with a Cary Grant level of charisma around.
    Easily one of the most suave actors of all time, and one of my faves. A real class act. They don't make them like him anymore, that's for sure.

    Charisma, suave - yes. Manly in a alright for the ball room manner - yes. Manly in a way Bond should be - no.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,293
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    Playing devil's advocate here.. you could argue acting (for men) is a slightly effeminate profession and even the tough guy actors - Eastwood, Connery, Charles Bronson and the rest - were just pretending to be tough. Well, clearly they were. In this respect you could argue they're no different to current metrosexual actors.

    It's interesting to note some people say "no male models" and yet some/many Bond fans consider George Lazenby, a male model, to be the toughest Bond in terms of ability to convey a convincing fight on screen.

    I guess people are hardwired to assume "pretty men" are less macho than "less pretty men" but even Clint Eastwood (arguably the definitive tough man actor of American pop culture circa 1960s - 1980s) was a rather handsome, pretty man in his youth. Personally I think Eastwood's Dirty Harry is more macho than Craig's Bond so I disagree with Pierce Brosnan's recent comments that Craig looks like he can kill a man (thereby implying he's ideal or good casting). I'm sure most men can look like they can kill a man if they get angry enough! Anyway, it's all subjective!

    Fair try, but there's a difference in background. Lazenby was a (used)car salesman ending up a model purely by accident. His fighting skills were real, as it had been one of the ways to get through life for him. The same goes for Connery and Moore. Their respective backgrounds were of hardship, and they used their real life survival methods in their respective Bond-incarnations.
    Modern-day models (and actors) however seldom have such a tough background. They don't have the life experience to draw from, which makes it harder for us to believe them.
    I forgot the name of the film, but not too long ago there was a film made about a SEALs-raid. It came over increadeable real, mostly because it was a re-enactment by the Original SEALs team.

  • edited June 2018 Posts: 3,333
    I totally endorse what @CommanderRoss states. He's saved me the trouble of repeating it. Plus, Lazenby's physique actually fits the literary Bond's description as being "slim build" as do all the Bonds leading up to Craig.

    Eastwood and Connery were hard men off-screen, that's the difference. They weren't pretending!
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited June 2018 Posts: 5,185
    +2
    The trick is to find a natural like this again. Not just a decent, prettyboy actor, who is bland as a Person. Thats why I usually rather watch Interviews of new suggestions before i go and watch Movie scenes. It will be someone that is charismatic, confident and cool OFF camera as well as ON.

    There are still some guys like that around thankfully, you just have to look for them.
Sign In or Register to comment.