› ›

Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1…751752754756757…1235

Comments

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,252
    Ludovico wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Are early 80's born actor's too old for the role?

    No. Not at all. Perfect.

    I'd say it depends of when the next film can start shooting.
    Minimally that will probably be 5 years; 35 is a great starting age.

    Yes it is a great starting age. So the next actor would be born around 1990.

    Opps ;)
  • bondsumbondsum
    edited November 2020 Posts: 3,333
    FatherValentine wrote: »
    Perfect. All we have to do is to find a British actor with dark hair, over six feet tall, with acting experience and a high profile, but who isn't famous, who looks like Bond, but not too much like Bond, who is handsome but not generic looking, who looks masculine but not rough, who is over the age of 35, but under 40, but looks older than 40, and who has done National Service, and we've got our man.
    That's not what I said. I was giving one of the primary reasons why Hoult doesn't look as mature in his looks as both Connery, Lazenby and Moore did for their respective ages. Though looking "masculine" is a prerequisite.
    mtm wrote: »
    I'd have loved this thread to be around when they were first casting Bond in the 60s and Connery's name came up.
    Had this thread been around in the early 60s then it would've been shaped by John McLusky's six-days-a-week cartoon strip for the Daily Express newspaper. The cartoon strip was hugely popular and influential on the choice and public's perception of James Bond. For the record, McLusky based his looks on a cross between Fleming’s own sporting hero Henry Cotton and a young Robert Taylor, the Hollywood actor. Theatre lore has it that the idea was first broached when Connery was sitting in his dressing room with a fellow thespian who was reading the Daily Express. Spotting the remarkable resemblance between the cartoon character in the paper and the man sitting next to him, he said: “You should play the part of Bond.”
    suavejmf wrote: »
    ‘Firstly’, Connery ticked all the boxes in 62 now.

    Secondly, Connery is the aspiration and bar setting standard all Bond candidates should try to reach IMO.
    Spot on. Connery ticked all the right boxes in '62, which is why he became the firm favourite to be cast. Now that he's set the bar so high, it's up to every other actor that follows in his footsteps to try and reach the same high standard.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Hi @bondsum, I was only having a laugh. I liked your post. I was just having fun with all the conditions we have collectively worked through on this thread.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    FatherValentine wrote: »
    Hi @bondsum, I was only having a laugh. I liked your post. I was just having fun with all the conditions we have collectively worked through on this thread.
    Cheers @FatherValentine. Sorry for getting hold of the wrong end of the stick, old chap.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    No worries. Sarcasm and irony comes across badly on here. I don't use emojis either, which doesn't help!
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    I think we have already mentioned next Bond here.
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    edited November 2020 Posts: 554
    MSL49 wrote: »
    I think we have already mentioned next Bond here.
    Judging by the amount of candidates we've mentioned, it'd be more implausible that we didn't.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Agent_Zero_One wrote: »
    MSL49 wrote: »
    I think we have already mentioned next Bond here.
    Judging by the amount of candidates we've mentioned, it'd be more implausible that we didn't.

    Haha.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,593
    suavejmf wrote: »
    sandbagger1 wrote: »
    Niven was a Commando.

    He was a fighter pilot and an Officer as well.
    My point is he lacks the physicality required a for Bond, despite having all the other characteristics. He doesn’t come across on screen as being tough.

    I tend to think the physicality of literary Bond is a little overestimated. I never imagine Bond in the novels as being jacked in any way.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,593
    MSL49 wrote: »
    I think we have already mentioned next Bond here.

    I actually think we haven’t, but it will be interesting to see!
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,252
    Good...

    https://screenrant.com/james-bond-movie-charlie-hunnam-casting-update-response/
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,593
    talos7 wrote: »
    Good...

    https://screenrant.com/james-bond-movie-charlie-hunnam-casting-update-response/

    lol yep, just saw The Gentlemen last night, liked it overall but Hunnam's performance was underwhelming for sure.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,252
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Good...

    https://screenrant.com/james-bond-movie-charlie-hunnam-casting-update-response/

    lol yep, just saw The Gentlemen last night, liked it overall but Hunnam's performance was underwhelming for sure.
    As was his “heroic” performance in “Pacific Rim”

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,593
    I forgot he was even in that, which says something.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,602
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Good...

    https://screenrant.com/james-bond-movie-charlie-hunnam-casting-update-response/

    lol yep, just saw The Gentlemen last night, liked it overall but Hunnam's performance was underwhelming for sure.

    Yeah the bit that stuck out for me was when he goes to that tower block to retrieve someone's daughter, and he's supposed to be intimidating and tough towards this load of young druggies, but there's just nothing there - he can't do it.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited November 2020 Posts: 7,593
    mtm wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Good...

    https://screenrant.com/james-bond-movie-charlie-hunnam-casting-update-response/

    lol yep, just saw The Gentlemen last night, liked it overall but Hunnam's performance was underwhelming for sure.

    Yeah the bit that stuck out for me was when he goes to that tower block to retrieve someone's daughter, and he's supposed to be intimidating and tough towards this load of young druggies, but there's just nothing there - he can't do it.

    I dunno, I thought he played it reasonably well. It wasn't meant to be 100% toughness, the character also clearly had OCD and was extremely uncomfortable being in there. But if people didn't pick up on that either, then that too is an indictment on his acting.
    I actually liked that scene a lot. A lot of the early scenes with him and Grant is where he suffered the most I thought.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Hunnam reportedly talked his way into the starring role in King Arthur, convincing Guy Ritchie that he could carry the ball. He could not carry the ball, as we now know. The film lost the studio £153m.

    Good for him for making a fortune from a profession he lacks talent within. However, personally I wouldn’t want him ‘trying’ to be James Bond.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,252
    suavejmf wrote: »

    Good for him for making a fortune from a profession he lacks talent within.

    :D

  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    Are mid 80's born actor's perfect for the role?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    I think Hunnam would be fine as a henchman, but not a lead. He's a lot like Jai Courtney, to me. The only film I liked Courtney in was Jack Reacher, where all he needed to do was be an asshole who was inevitably going to be offed in a nasty fashion.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    I think Hunnam would be fine as a henchman, but not a lead. He's a lot like Jai Courtney, to me. The only film I liked Courtney in was Jack Reacher, where all he needed to do was be an asshole who was inevitably going to be offed in a nasty fashion.

    I think i prefer Hunnam over Courtney.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    MSL49 wrote: »
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    I think Hunnam would be fine as a henchman, but not a lead. He's a lot like Jai Courtney, to me. The only film I liked Courtney in was Jack Reacher, where all he needed to do was be an asshole who was inevitably going to be offed in a nasty fashion.

    I think i prefer Hunnam over Courtney.

    I do too. He doesn't annoy me as much as Courtney does, but I think there's overlaps if we are talking about acting ability.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 2020 Posts: 16,602
    Gosh, Jai Courtney. He was much like Sam Worthington: for some reason someone had decided he was going to be a star so they put him in everything at the same time but without apparently checking to see if he had anything interesting about him at all.
    Maybe it takes these guys such a long time to travel from Australia that they book ahead in lots of films.
  • DoctorClatterhandDoctorClatterhand
    Posts: 162
    The way you guys are talking about Hunnam and Courtney echoes the way I feel about Cavill. He's cut from the same cloth. He too has made a fortune from something he's weak at. It amazes me that any serious Bond fan would want him in the role. There's a pool of actors out there that can actually act. It's like having some form of Bond blinkers on.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 2020 Posts: 16,602
    I agree that Cavill is a blank, I might be tempted to give him just a little more credit than those guys though. I would say he does a decent enough job in Fallout. I don't want him as Bond though- you need to be really rather good to make Bond work and we've had that proven with the ones who weren't.
  • DoctorClatterhandDoctorClatterhand
    Posts: 162
    It's not always about a great actor either. Roger was hardly the world's greatest thespian, but he had charisma in spades. Cavill doesn't even have that. I trust EoN to choose well.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    Sir Roger had superb comic timing, something thats easy to take for granted but when you see an actor exposed in this area , it's painful. Cavill is short in this area (and all others) IMHO
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 2020 Posts: 16,602
    DoctorClatterhand wrote: »
    It's not always about a great actor either. Roger was hardly the world's greatest thespian, but he had charisma in spades.

    Indeed, and Dalton is a very good actor but he couldn't be a successful star of the Bond movies.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 951
    Dalton never felt relaxed in the role, but for his second film I thought it worked because 007 is just so driven in that story. Roger always looked relaxed and made being Bond look fun, even when perhaps he shouldn't! But as a kid I think that's what I wanted - you knew Roger's Bond was never in any real danger. I think Dalton's Bond rarely looked like he was having any fun, and he felt more vulnerable, and at the time that was a very big adjustment to make.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    There is a big difference with AVTAK and TLD.
Sign In or Register to comment.