Who should/could be a Bond actor?

17607617637657661230

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,359
    talos7 wrote: »
    Unfortunately he not even 5’8”

    Also, at least to me, he looks too soft and effete, almost child like. Nothing potentially menacing.

    You haven't watched Peaky Blinders then.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    talos7 wrote: »
    Unfortunately he not even 5’8”

    Also, at least to me, he looks too soft and effete, almost child like. Nothing potentially menacing.

    I raised a point before that he looks a bit like Ben's Q as well. Even though he is a phenomenal actor.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Just remember that there have been a few actors who look like Bond but clearly their auditions revealed them to be lacking that X factor.

    Then we have Daniel Craig who was too short, too blonde, too thuggish, too wimpy, too everything. Yet CR gave us all a good idea of how his audition must have looked.

    I'm not sold on Aiden Turner (but I'm happy to be proven wrong if and when the time comes). But, now that Craig has proven that we can accept an actor who doesn't tick the boxes of the traditional 'tall, dark and handsome' Bond then maybe the next 007 will be an actor who will shock and surprise us. And for the record I'm not suggesting changing Bond's gender, colour or Nationality.

    Just give us someone with an interesting face and a bit of charisma and personality.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,204
    NicNac wrote: »
    Just remember that there have been a few actors who look like Bond but clearly their auditions revealed them to be lacking that X factor.

    Then we have Daniel Craig who was too short, too blonde, too thuggish, too wimpy, too everything. Yet CR gave us all a good idea of how his audition must have looked.

    I'm not sold on Aiden Turner (but I'm happy to be proven wrong if and when the time comes). But, now that Craig has proven that we can accept an actor who doesn't tick the boxes of the traditional 'tall, dark and handsome' Bond then maybe the next 007 will be an actor who will shock and surprise us. And for the record I'm not suggesting changing Bond's gender, colour or Nationality.

    Just give us someone with an interesting face and a bit of charisma and personality.

    But an actor who is just over .5’7”?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,359
    talos7 wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    Just remember that there have been a few actors who look like Bond but clearly their auditions revealed them to be lacking that X factor.

    Then we have Daniel Craig who was too short, too blonde, too thuggish, too wimpy, too everything. Yet CR gave us all a good idea of how his audition must have looked.

    I'm not sold on Aiden Turner (but I'm happy to be proven wrong if and when the time comes). But, now that Craig has proven that we can accept an actor who doesn't tick the boxes of the traditional 'tall, dark and handsome' Bond then maybe the next 007 will be an actor who will shock and surprise us. And for the record I'm not suggesting changing Bond's gender, colour or Nationality.

    Just give us someone with an interesting face and a bit of charisma and personality.

    But an actor who is just over .5’7”?

    He's twenty feet on a cinema screen, it doesn't matter.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,204
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    Just remember that there have been a few actors who look like Bond but clearly their auditions revealed them to be lacking that X factor.

    Then we have Daniel Craig who was too short, too blonde, too thuggish, too wimpy, too everything. Yet CR gave us all a good idea of how his audition must have looked.

    I'm not sold on Aiden Turner (but I'm happy to be proven wrong if and when the time comes). But, now that Craig has proven that we can accept an actor who doesn't tick the boxes of the traditional 'tall, dark and handsome' Bond then maybe the next 007 will be an actor who will shock and surprise us. And for the record I'm not suggesting changing Bond's gender, colour or Nationality.

    Just give us someone with an interesting face and a bit of charisma and personality.

    But an actor who is just over .5’7”?

    He's twenty feet on a cinema screen, it doesn't matter.

    So should Peter Dinklage be screentested?
    What’s your minimal height for Bond? 5’5? 4’11?
    How tall a person is on a projected image is irrelevant.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,359
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    Just remember that there have been a few actors who look like Bond but clearly their auditions revealed them to be lacking that X factor.

    Then we have Daniel Craig who was too short, too blonde, too thuggish, too wimpy, too everything. Yet CR gave us all a good idea of how his audition must have looked.

    I'm not sold on Aiden Turner (but I'm happy to be proven wrong if and when the time comes). But, now that Craig has proven that we can accept an actor who doesn't tick the boxes of the traditional 'tall, dark and handsome' Bond then maybe the next 007 will be an actor who will shock and surprise us. And for the record I'm not suggesting changing Bond's gender, colour or Nationality.

    Just give us someone with an interesting face and a bit of charisma and personality.

    But an actor who is just over .5’7”?

    He's twenty feet on a cinema screen, it doesn't matter.

    So should Peter Dinklage be screentested?

    Yes that's exactly what I'm saying.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,204
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    Just remember that there have been a few actors who look like Bond but clearly their auditions revealed them to be lacking that X factor.

    Then we have Daniel Craig who was too short, too blonde, too thuggish, too wimpy, too everything. Yet CR gave us all a good idea of how his audition must have looked.

    I'm not sold on Aiden Turner (but I'm happy to be proven wrong if and when the time comes). But, now that Craig has proven that we can accept an actor who doesn't tick the boxes of the traditional 'tall, dark and handsome' Bond then maybe the next 007 will be an actor who will shock and surprise us. And for the record I'm not suggesting changing Bond's gender, colour or Nationality.

    Just give us someone with an interesting face and a bit of charisma and personality.

    But an actor who is just over .5’7”?

    He's twenty feet on a cinema screen, it doesn't matter.

    So should Peter Dinklage be screentested?

    Yes that's exactly what I'm saying.

    Well alright then ...
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    I think it's not that easy cast new Bond.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    talos7 wrote: »
    Unfortunately he not even 5’8”

    Too short then. Bond should not be below average or unexceptional in any respect.

    A short actor can’t carry the ‘brand’ on the red carpet, even if it can be ‘disguised’ on film.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,204
    suavejmf wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Unfortunately he not even 5’8”

    Too short then. Bond should not be below average or unexceptional in any respect.

    A short actor can’t carry the ‘brand’ on the red carpet, even if it can be ‘disguised’ on film.
    +1
    To not see this is ... shortsighted, so to speak.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 2020 Posts: 16,359
    suavejmf wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Unfortunately he not even 5’8”

    Too short then. Bond should not be below average or unexceptional in any respect.

    A short actor can’t carry the ‘brand’ on the red carpet, even if it can be ‘disguised’ on film.

    I can't imagine caring about this. Can a bald actor 'carry the brand' on the red carpet?
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    Mr Connery did.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,204
    So to be clear, there should be no minimum height for Bond ? So if a 5’1” actor would be suitable?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 2020 Posts: 16,359
    cwl007 wrote: »
    Mr Connery did.

    My point exactly.
    talos7 wrote: »
    So to be clear, there should be no minimum height for Bond ?

    Yes that's exactly what I'm saying, obviously. You can see it in all of those sentences I didn't type 8-|
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,204
    mtm wrote: »
    cwl007 wrote: »
    Mr Connery did.

    My point exactly.
    talos7 wrote: »
    So to be clear, there should be no minimum height for Bond ?

    Yes that's exactly what I'm saying, obviously. You can see it in all of those sentences I didn't type 8-|

    Oh, I see what you’re typing, I just can’t believe that you’re this delusional and completely detached from reality.

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited November 2020 Posts: 5,131
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Unfortunately he not even 5’8”

    Too short then. Bond should not be below average or unexceptional in any respect.

    A short actor can’t carry the ‘brand’ on the red carpet, even if it can be ‘disguised’ on film.

    I can't imagine caring about this. Can a bald actor 'carry the brand' on the red carpet?

    I assume you are referring to Connery. He got away with it in later years, but wore a wig at first. But being bald isn’t the same as being short. Look at Jason Stratham. However, he’s hardly comparable with a Peter Dinklage.

    There is no hiding a small actor next to Bond women who tower over him. Bond is supposed to be a man that all women fancy and who all men want to be.

    “I want a short man” said no women ever. “I want to be short”, said no man ever.

    Why are models generally tall. The answer is the same for the Bond actor. It’s considered more attractive and physically superior. Like Bond.

    Cubby first of all had a thing about tall people. Bond had to be tall. Fleming also had Bond at 6ft. I do wonder why?
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited November 2020 Posts: 5,131
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    cwl007 wrote: »
    Mr Connery did.

    My point exactly.
    talos7 wrote: »
    So to be clear, there should be no minimum height for Bond ?

    Yes that's exactly what I'm saying, obviously. You can see it in all of those sentences I didn't type 8-|

    Oh, I see what you’re typing, I just can’t believe that you’re this delusional and completely detached from reality.

    So a Bond as tall as Nick Nick is acceptable using this rule. Mental. Positively Mental.

    At 5ft 10in, Craig is on the very border of acceptability.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 2020 Posts: 16,359
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    cwl007 wrote: »
    Mr Connery did.

    My point exactly.
    talos7 wrote: »
    So to be clear, there should be no minimum height for Bond ?

    Yes that's exactly what I'm saying, obviously. You can see it in all of those sentences I didn't type 8-|

    Oh, I see what you’re typing, I just can’t believe that you’re this delusional and completely detached from reality.

    Great, thanks.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Unfortunately he not even 5’8”

    Too short then. Bond should not be below average or unexceptional in any respect.

    A short actor can’t carry the ‘brand’ on the red carpet, even if it can be ‘disguised’ on film.

    I can't imagine caring about this. Can a bald actor 'carry the brand' on the red carpet?

    I assume you are referring to Connery. He got away with it in later years, but wore a wig at first. But being bald isn’t the same as being short. Look at Jason Stratham. However, he’s hardly comparable with a Peter Dinklage.

    I didn't say he was: you did. Just then.
    But it's good to know that you don't have to look exactly like James Bond in real life to play him on the screen, thanks for confirming that. Yes, we agree.

    I'm sure Statham has lost exactly as many roles because he's too short that Connery lost because he was too bald.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    cwl007 wrote: »
    Mr Connery did.

    My point exactly.
    talos7 wrote: »
    So to be clear, there should be no minimum height for Bond ?

    Yes that's exactly what I'm saying, obviously. You can see it in all of those sentences I didn't type 8-|

    Oh, I see what you’re typing, I just can’t believe that you’re this delusional and completely detached from reality.

    So a Bond as tall as Nick Nick is acceptable using this rule. Mental. Positively Mental.

    It's very odd to see you two getting excited by an argument that you've invented yourselves. The 'rule' being that there's no minimum height for Bond, presumably.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,204
    Just mirroring your eye rolling sarcasm.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    Height will always be a big factor.
  • edited November 2020 Posts: 6,844
    The boat has sailed on Cillian Murphy age-wise. Like Sam Neill, he would have made an interesting Bond. He's a damned fine actor. He's charismatic and has an edge and the capacity to command attention in a scene. I've enjoyed him best in his villainous roles in Batman Begins and Red Eye (and he's been impressive in Peaky Blinders, 28 Days Later, and Breakfast on Pluto, too), but that may be just the thing: he's more interesting as the charming psychopath than he is as the protagonist. But of course that could potentially be channeled into a darker, more dangerous type of 007. He is awfully slight of frame, though he was screen-tested for Batman and as we all know many actors from Ed Norton to Christian Bale to Jake Gyllenhaal have transformed themselves through strict dieting and workout routines. But as mentioned, the age boat has sailed. Murphy would make a tremendous Bond villain one day.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    cwl007 wrote: »
    Mr Connery did.

    My point exactly.
    talos7 wrote: »
    So to be clear, there should be no minimum height for Bond ?

    Yes that's exactly what I'm saying, obviously. You can see it in all of those sentences I didn't type 8-|

    Oh, I see what you’re typing, I just can’t believe that you’re this delusional and completely detached from reality.

    Great, thanks.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Unfortunately he not even 5’8”

    Too short then. Bond should not be below average or unexceptional in any respect.

    A short actor can’t carry the ‘brand’ on the red carpet, even if it can be ‘disguised’ on film.

    I can't imagine caring about this. Can a bald actor 'carry the brand' on the red carpet?

    I assume you are referring to Connery. He got away with it in later years, but wore a wig at first. But being bald isn’t the same as being short. Look at Jason Stratham. However, he’s hardly comparable with a Peter Dinklage.

    I didn't say he was: you did. Just then.
    But it's good to know that you don't have to look exactly like James Bond in real life to play him on the screen, thanks for confirming that. Yes, we agree.

    I'm sure Statham has lost exactly as many roles because he's too short that Connery lost because he was too bald.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    cwl007 wrote: »
    Mr Connery did.

    My point exactly.
    talos7 wrote: »
    So to be clear, there should be no minimum height for Bond ?

    Yes that's exactly what I'm saying, obviously. You can see it in all of those sentences I didn't type 8-|

    Oh, I see what you’re typing, I just can’t believe that you’re this delusional and completely detached from reality.

    So a Bond as tall as Nick Nick is acceptable using this rule. Mental. Positively Mental.

    It's very odd to see you two getting excited by an argument that you've invented yourselves. The 'rule' being that there's no minimum height for Bond, presumably.

    You suggested that being bald was comparable to being being short? But they aren’t. Being bald is purely ‘looks’. Being short is both negative in terms of looks and physicality (and presence). And having no minimum size for Bond means a midget could be cast. It’s laughable really, but thank you for the entertainment.

    Ideally Bond should be tall, handsome and have good hair. That’s the point of the character.....he’s better than most.

    “I want a short man” said no women ever. “I want to be short”, said no man ever.

    Why are models generally tall. The answer is the same for the Bond actor. It’s considered more attractive and physically superior. Like Bond.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,359
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    cwl007 wrote: »
    Mr Connery did.

    My point exactly.
    talos7 wrote: »
    So to be clear, there should be no minimum height for Bond ?

    Yes that's exactly what I'm saying, obviously. You can see it in all of those sentences I didn't type 8-|

    Oh, I see what you’re typing, I just can’t believe that you’re this delusional and completely detached from reality.

    Great, thanks.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Unfortunately he not even 5’8”

    Too short then. Bond should not be below average or unexceptional in any respect.

    A short actor can’t carry the ‘brand’ on the red carpet, even if it can be ‘disguised’ on film.

    I can't imagine caring about this. Can a bald actor 'carry the brand' on the red carpet?

    I assume you are referring to Connery. He got away with it in later years, but wore a wig at first. But being bald isn’t the same as being short. Look at Jason Stratham. However, he’s hardly comparable with a Peter Dinklage.

    I didn't say he was: you did. Just then.
    But it's good to know that you don't have to look exactly like James Bond in real life to play him on the screen, thanks for confirming that. Yes, we agree.

    I'm sure Statham has lost exactly as many roles because he's too short that Connery lost because he was too bald.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    cwl007 wrote: »
    Mr Connery did.

    My point exactly.
    talos7 wrote: »
    So to be clear, there should be no minimum height for Bond ?

    Yes that's exactly what I'm saying, obviously. You can see it in all of those sentences I didn't type 8-|

    Oh, I see what you’re typing, I just can’t believe that you’re this delusional and completely detached from reality.

    So a Bond as tall as Nick Nick is acceptable using this rule. Mental. Positively Mental.

    It's very odd to see you two getting excited by an argument that you've invented yourselves. The 'rule' being that there's no minimum height for Bond, presumably.

    You suggested that being bald was comparable to being being short? But they aren’t. Being bald is purely ‘looks’. Being short is both negative in terms of looks and physicality (and presence).

    They're both looks-based. It's what you are judging someone on right now: their looks. If you're telling me Statham has no physicality or presence... I don't know what to say.
    He's not the world's greatest actor but he gets by on his physicality and presence.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    And having no minimum size for Bond means a midget could be cast.

    Yes I expect so. Again you're arguing with yourself there though, because nobody has said that no minimum size should happen, apart from yourself and the other one.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    It’s laughable really, but thank you for the entertainment.

    Yeah, you resort to this one a lot; it's a bit tired. I don't think I'll bother reading any more.

    I think the idea that Bond is somehow different to all other fictional characters in that no aspect of his appearance can change is the puzzling one. How is it other characters manage to survive the process of being cast? Is it that we think no script is written with a physical type imagined by the scriptwriter, which then gets altered slightly by the casting agent? Are all of Statham's roles (as we're using him as an example) written with "must be balding and 5'8" " written in the character description? Of course not. Batman, Iron Man, Sherlock Holmes, Robin Hood etc. can all survive having actors who aren't exact doubles of the original physical description of the character (and some of them even played by actors under 5'9"! Shock horror!) but Bond can't?
    Bond is the one special character out of all of the many millions, and out of the dozens of really iconic ones? I don't think so. And yet somehow he survived being first played in movies by a guy who couldn't do the accent and didn't have enough hair, and most certainly didn't look like Hoagy Carmichael.

    But this will fall on deaf ears. It'll just be 'he can't do the accent' and 'he's not tall enough' until the end of time.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited November 2020 Posts: 5,131
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    cwl007 wrote: »
    Mr Connery did.

    My point exactly.
    talos7 wrote: »
    So to be clear, there should be no minimum height for Bond ?

    Yes that's exactly what I'm saying, obviously. You can see it in all of those sentences I didn't type 8-|

    Oh, I see what you’re typing, I just can’t believe that you’re this delusional and completely detached from reality.

    Great, thanks.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Unfortunately he not even 5’8”

    Too short then. Bond should not be below average or unexceptional in any respect.

    A short actor can’t carry the ‘brand’ on the red carpet, even if it can be ‘disguised’ on film.

    I can't imagine caring about this. Can a bald actor 'carry the brand' on the red carpet?

    I assume you are referring to Connery. He got away with it in later years, but wore a wig at first. But being bald isn’t the same as being short. Look at Jason Stratham. However, he’s hardly comparable with a Peter Dinklage.

    I didn't say he was: you did. Just then.
    But it's good to know that you don't have to look exactly like James Bond in real life to play him on the screen, thanks for confirming that. Yes, we agree.

    I'm sure Statham has lost exactly as many roles because he's too short that Connery lost because he was too bald.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    cwl007 wrote: »
    Mr Connery did.

    My point exactly.
    talos7 wrote: »
    So to be clear, there should be no minimum height for Bond ?

    Yes that's exactly what I'm saying, obviously. You can see it in all of those sentences I didn't type 8-|

    Oh, I see what you’re typing, I just can’t believe that you’re this delusional and completely detached from reality.

    So a Bond as tall as Nick Nick is acceptable using this rule. Mental. Positively Mental.

    It's very odd to see you two getting excited by an argument that you've invented yourselves. The 'rule' being that there's no minimum height for Bond, presumably.

    You suggested that being bald was comparable to being being short? But they aren’t. Being bald is purely ‘looks’. Being short is both negative in terms of looks and physicality (and presence).

    They're both looks-based. It's what you are judging someone on right now: their looks. If you're telling me Statham has no physicality or presence... I don't know what to say.
    He's not the world's greatest actor but he gets by on his physicality and presence.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    And having no minimum size for Bond means a midget could be cast.

    Yes I expect so. Again you're arguing with yourself there though, because nobody has said that no minimum size should happen, apart from yourself and the other one.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    It’s laughable really, but thank you for the entertainment.

    Yeah, you resort to this one a lot; it's a bit tired. I don't think I'll bother reading any more.

    I think the idea that Bond is somehow different to all other fictional characters in that no aspect of his appearance can change is the puzzling one. How is it other characters manage to survive the process of being cast? Is it that we think no script is written with a physical type imagined by the scriptwriter, which then gets altered slightly by the casting agent? Are all of Statham's roles (as we're using him as an example) written with "must be balding and 5'8" " written in the character description? Of course not. Batman, Iron Man, Sherlock Holmes, Robin Hood etc. can all survive having actors who aren't exact doubles of the original physical description of the character (and some of them even played by actors under 5'9"! Shock horror!) but Bond can't?
    Bond is the one special character out of all of the many millions, and out of the dozens of really iconic ones? I don't think so. And yet somehow he survived being first played in movies by a guy who couldn't do the accent and didn't have enough hair, and most certainly didn't look like Hoagy Carmichael.

    But this will fall on deaf ears. It'll just be 'he can't do the accent' and 'he's not tall enough' until the end of time.

    I am saying Stratham is bald but has height and presence and he’s a guy women fancy.

    If he was short, he wouldn’t be the star he is. He’s average height, it’s not an issue.

    Shortness is a weakness Bond should not have.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    talos7 wrote: »
    Just mirroring your eye rolling sarcasm.

    Ha ha ha.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,169
    Gentlemen, please. Nobody is delusional or detached from reality in matters such as these. Shall we return to fan talk and fan speculation without the notion that there is somehow an objective truth in all of this? Thank you.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited November 2020 Posts: 7,546
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Gentlemen, please. Nobody is delusional or detached from reality in matters such as these. Shall we return to fan talk and fan speculation without the notion that there is somehow an objective truth in all of this? Thank you.

    It constantly happens and discussions always boil down to the exact same ad hominem, antagonistic nonsense, perpetrated usually by the same few gatekeeper members. This thread needs to be put out of it's misery.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    I love this thread.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,546
    Fair enough! I've all but given up contributing here; made my suggestions awhile ago anyways.
Sign In or Register to comment.