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
Hate to say it, but I told you/everybody so. Oh well.
The most predictable boring Bond ever. No thanks. No more Witcher or supes, it is what it is, but Bond is on another level.
He may not be EXACTLY like the Fleming description, but he's not that far off. He resembles an image that embodies and typifies what Bond should look like, based on the past 60 years. Tall, white, dark haired, handsome, looks good in a suit, etc.
As long as he can act, appear tough, and ooze charisma as a leading man too, then this pretty much ticks all the boxes required, IMO.
I appreciate there are others out there who want something different, maybe a black actor instead to shake things up, or an actor that doesn't resemble anything like the previous Bond actors to reinvent the character, but I'm pleased and proud to say I'm not one of them.
I want Bond in the mould of what has been emblazoned on our minds and culture since 1962, and if it managed to go even deeper, unearthing Fleming's literary roots too in the process, even better.
In short, The Cadbury's Milk Tray man.
There are many actors who are tall, white, good looking and have dark hair but who probably wouldn’t make very effective Bonds. That’s because there’s much more to the character that they need to convey onscreen.
Fleming’s Bond wasn’t just any good looking guy in a suit either, nor was he the Cadbury Milk Tray man. He’s a professional, a man whose job often boils down to kill or be killed. He’s not some male model in elaborate commercials, but the real thing. Fleming himself even said he really had no concrete idea of what his character looked like beyond the very vague descriptions he’d set up - the hair, the eyes, the scar etc. Even the Hoagey Carmichael reference goes out the window by the later novels and we instead get detailed asides about this man looking ‘cruel’, ‘cold’ - good looking certainly, but someone who looks out of place in settings like a private member’s club for these intangible reasons.
I think the problem some people have with Johnson is that they feel despite broadly fulfilling the superficial qualities of the character, he doesn’t quite have that same edge to him, those same intangible qualities that are not only vital to Fleming’s Bond but Connery’s, Craig’s, Dalton’s and I’d argue even Moore’s Bond. I don’t know how fair that is given none of us have seen him audition, but I can understand this concern having seen some of his other performances. While good looking, I don’t look at his face or into his eyes and immediately have that same sense of enigma, darkness and intrigue I do with Craig, Dalton and Connery especially. I can’t see Johnson turning heads with interest when he walks into a casino, for instance, or a woman eying him up in that cautious but fascinated way, at least not in a way that’s believable.
None of the actors look like Hoagey Carmichael. At all. None have scars on their cheeks, and a couple don’t even have black hair. More than two have had funny hairstyles even in the contexts of their own Bond films. I suspect if Fleming had been able to come up with an image of his hero they wouldn’t have looked like any of the actors. And that’s fine. It just means that the cinematic Bond is more malleable, and beyond the core traits of his character (his Britishness, masculinity, vices, sense of patriotism, bravery, his attitude of a man living as someone who may not return from an assignment etc) he can be shaped based on the film, the context and even the actor’s interpretation, but he’ll always be recognisable as James Bond. I’d argue a reason for this is because the producers will prioritise that intangible edge, that sense of darkness, that special ‘something’ we talk about here so much. The actor doesn’t necessarily have to have blue grey eyes, but their stare needs to give off that same cold but watchful look that’s described in Fleming. It’s better that they do go this route and not just go with an actor who ‘ticks boxes’, otherwise we’d constantly get George Lazenbys or Henry Cavills.
Absolutely right, spot on as always 007HallY
Best post in 1010 pages, @jetsetwilly! Thank you for that. I really needed a post like yours. One that echoes my feelings. Thank you!
Of to drink my Cadbury now :)
Good man, fully aboard with this.
No I think they want someone good.
For what it’s worth I don’t think our hero’s appearance is as fixed as others are making out. For a lot of people when they think of Bond they think of a dark haired man in a white tuxedo jacket speaking with a heavy Scottish accent. Others think of a dapper Englishman who raises a single eyebrow every so often. Many younger people nowadays think of a man with dark blonde hair and icy blue eyes in a suit. It really depends. Like I said this aspect of Bond - his general appearance - is surprisingly malleable, and the actor has a significant part in shaping a new iteration. It can’t just be any Cadbury Milk Tray man type (which is in a sense, more a caricature of a James Bond type character).
It's because you went far deeper than "the look", which is so superficial at this point and, as you stated, if that's all the producers were looking for, we'd have George Lazenby over and over again (actually we wouldn't, as I'm sure the series wouldn't have lasted too much longer if Lazenby continued on with the series-- and I say this as a tremendous fan of OHMSS. James Bond is actually deeper than a hair or eye colour...).
But the sheer will to be surprised by someone who doesn't fit the apparent bill, is, IMO, just an attempt to rehash 2006. And two lightnings don't hit in the same place, let alone the same bottle.
Cheers, and I certainly agree about Lazenby. Bond’s a surprisingly difficult role to cast, and it’s difficult finding an actor with that authentic sense of darkness fundamental to the character. Again, you don’t want any old Cadbury Milk man or generic Action Man type and risk drifting into something that ticks boxes but isn’t true to the character in essence.
I agree, and while I wouldn’t want to give up the Moore era, I do think Lazenby continuing in the role would have been interesting. There is no doubt that he would have grown into the role and I think the series would have had an edge that it lacked, for the most part, with Roger.
This is just my opinion, but I think Lazenby is a good cautionary tale when it comes to casting Bond. I think OHMSS is a well made film that adapts one of Fleming's best works. It has problems but it's one of the better Bond films for me. My issue with Lazenby was that they cast him with the idea that he was a 'blank slate', a man who ticked certain boxes and could be moulded into James Bond. I don't think this can ever be the case. No actor is a blank slate, and they will bring their strengths, as well as any unique qualities they have, to the role. They will also consequently bring their flaws.
Lazenby's problem was twofold. Firstly he could barely act. I know people praise his performance at certain points in this film - him looking terrified as the guy in the Polar Bear costume jumps him during his escape and his reaction to Tracy's death being the main two, but these are singular emotions. Even non-actors can be made to act scared or cry on cue with enough rehearsal. Lazenby's performance falls apart in that film when he's required to do anything more subtle. Take when he's posing as Sir Hillary Bray and begins to look uneasy in the helicopter with Bunt. If any of the other Bond actors had played such a scene they'd have given a little look, change their expression momentarily just to convey that Bond is playing a part. Lazenby doesn't do this, and it comes off as strange because it looks like Bond is actually getting air sickness. It's a problem with most of that section of the film. It's almost as if he's trying to play Sir Hillary, not Bond pretending to be Sir Hillary. It's one of my biggest problems with OHMSS - Lazenby's Bond isn't truly present for vital moments - his first meeting with Blofeld, discovering the Angels of Death etc. It may sound like I'm nitpicking but it's these sorts of things that make up the bulk of playing Bond rather than those 'big emotions'. At times his performance is downright wooden. Nothing in his later filmography suggests to me this would have changed.
His other problem is that he didn't have the screen presence that any of the other Bonds have had, nor did he have any sort of idiosyncrasy to his performance that truly makes a cinematic version of Bond work - Moore with his eyebrow raises and humour, Craig and Connery with their panther-like walks and movements etc. I know some members here critique Dalton for lacking that star quality, but even his Bond has his fans in retrospect among the general public, more so than Lazenby. I do genuinely think had they kept going with Lazenby the series would have had major problems, and getting Moore was a significant reason why the series was able to survive.
To improve as Bond they'd have needed top notch scripts on par with OHMSS and a director who had as much passion as Hunt to get it right over and over-- and that's still no guarantee that the man would have improved.
Plus, after OHMSS, I don't think Cubby had it in him as a producer to go where the series needed to go to make sure Lazenby a commercial hit ... I have a feeling his casting would have been diminishing returns with each film.
Really have you seen his portrayal in The Man From Hong Kong as the villain, or in Who Saw Her Die? He's great in it imo.
Again, I wish he had done more, maybe Diamonds Are Forever and The Man With The Golden Gun (those films that I'd liked to see with him).
Not to knock on Roger Moore, but he's already old for me when he's cast in the role, he's not believable in the fight scenes, romantic scenes with his leading ladies (it's very uncomfortable to watch), and his acting is not that different from his past portrayals, I still see Simon Templar, I still see Lord Brett Sinclair, or even his Sherlock Holmes portrayal, he'd never gave James Bond such an own identity.
Lazenby could be molded into James Bond, and make the character his own, or have the character took Lazenby, and give the character such originality and own identity.
Whatever about Lazenby's performance depends on the director, and if my memory serves, Peter Hunt never guided Lazenby in terms of acting, he's even not talking to him, he just showed up near the end of filming/shooting, so what would someone expect? It's Hunt's obligation to build Lazenby up, to guide him, but he never did.
Imagine if Terrence Young or Guy Hamilton directed Lazenby, do you guys think it would be the same?, I doubt it's not, because they would guide him, and maybe Lazenby and Guy Hamilton would possibly build a good relationship and might become friends.
So, we should all be worrying about the new script, penned by P&W, no less.
100% agreed.
100% Agreed too, and I would also add, the director.
A performance of an actor, as for me, depends on the director, and yes, to the lesser extent, the script, but it's the director who takes care of the execution and acting/performances from the cast.
He just wasn't an actor.
I love OHMSS, and I love some scenes where he nailed something quite genuine. But I just can't see the series surviving on his shoulders (and I still despise his wind up punches, although have come to accept the, 😂.).
I think there would still be an acceptance coming from the audiences, I'm not saying he should stick around for long like Moore did, but to have only one film just wasn't enough, he needs to do at least maybe 2 or 3 films at least.
Have him at least do Diamonds Are Forever, that's all.
To be honest, maybe an unpopular opinion, but the same could be said for Dalton, I don't think the franchise would either survive with him, especially after what happened with the box office of LTK (and yes that led to the franchise being in hiatus for 5 years), and yes, that the people at the time couldn't accept his portrayal of Bond (because of remnants of Moore).
I think the Producers moving on with Brosnan in the 90's is also a great idea.
And although Brosnan is my least favourite 007, he was the right man, by far, to re-energize the James Bond films. The producers made a great call in getting him.
Actually I'd say Brosnan looked very relaxed and confident as Bond during the Cuba scenes of DAD and a few notable other points. I'd go as far as to say some of those scenes are amongst his highlights as Bond, and are better than his efforts in TWINE. While I'm not a big fan of Connery in DAF I'd actually say that he comes off better, less bored and more confident than in TB and YOLT too.
Then again there's also a case to be made that even if those films aren't great in general there are sections of their scripts which are actually quite good (DAF has some of the wittiest dialogue of the series for instance, and arguably the first third of DAD is is actually pretty solid too...) But I don't think it's even as straightforward as just having a good script really, although it is an important factor, especially if the material doesn't gel with the actor (ie. Moore having to do things like trick Solitare with the fake deck of cards in LALD, which seemed more a Connery-esque thing to do).