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
Here's a photo of Grant and Connery that shows what might be considered subtle but meaningful differences that casting people, in particular, would be looking for, even if the men are relatively similar physical types.
Both are tall, dark-haired, handsome, and Caucasian, with no obvious physical flaws, but you can see that Connery has a pointier, slightly less refined nose and profile, bushier features, bigger ears, wider set eyes, and a larger mouth. Ironically, though he was a body builder, his jaw actually seems a little less developed in the photo than Grant's, though perhaps age has something to do with it. There's a smarmy look to Connery's eyes (which he used to great effect not just in Bond but in most roles he had during the era) that give him a cockier, more predatory quality than Grant, even when Grant played the villain and projected darkness.
Actors say a lot with their eyes, and the ability to project those inner qualities becomes the hallmark of their performances, but casting directors in the studio system, where it was expected actors would fit into certain "types." looked for both inner and outer characteristics natural to the actors. Think about how, say, Jack Nicholson, for instance, always has a kind of manic quality in his eyes that have defined him, or Robert DeNiro always looks suspicious.
Today, the popular thinking is that the actor is merely a blank canvas who then becomes a character, but one of the reasons I don't buy a lot of performances by contemporary actors is a lot of them don't escape whatever natural qualities they have to try to become what they think the character is. That's why, for instance, I'd never cast Pierce Brosnan as, say, Atticus Finch, even though Brosnan is also tall, dark-haired, etc. Gregory Peck has everything the character represents, not just in his physical features but in what he seems to project naturally -- intelligence, sensitivity, nobility, fatherhood. Brosnan doesn't. I'd say the same for Tom Cruise, who's made an entire career out of playing the same hyper, arrogant guy in every movie he's made. But at least he accepts his limitations.
Before anyone says that's a fluke because Peck was born to play that role, I'd say he was equally effective as Keith Mallory in The Guns of Navarone and as Joe Bradley in Roman Holiday. There's a kind of calm decency that resides in Peck that comes out in his performances, even if the characters are edgier. It helps that he's an almost impossibly handsome man, like a statue, but it also explains why he falters when trying to play characters with truly dark qualities and is rarely successful, the successes only happening when he's very young (Duel in the Sun) and very old (The Boys from Brazil), where the entire production is weighted toward propping up the performances. He still had to work hard against type. When he tries to play characters that are much muddier internally, especially later in his career, it just doesn't work (I Walk the Line is a good example).
These may all seem trivial, almost inconceivable distinctions, but like I said, they're what keep the wannabes from being the real thing. It's why there will only ever be one Sean Connery, Audrey Hepburn, Cary Grant, or John Wayne but plenty of imitators that fall far short. At the same time, I could exchange Matt Damon for practically any white actor of average proportions and get pretty much the same effect.
Cary Grant had a goofy face if you think about It (with that forehead and that chin) but he was pure Hollywood.
Sure, Roger Moore had a Cómic Book face like ... Rock Hudson, but, man, Connery had a leading man face too.
John Mclusky's James Bond looked like Cooper in the early comic strips.
Exactly! I had that in mind too. McLusky's James Bond indeed looks like Cooper, yet one can still see Connery in it as well.
And, to be fair, Daniel Craig too to my eye.
I think it's quite interesting to compare Connery to Cary Grant, as even though Connery is great, I don't think that, in his first Bond films especially, he was quite on the same level of charisma and presence as Grant in the 50s. He certainly got there, arguably by his mid Bonds, but especially by the 80s and 90s.
Yeah, you're right @mtm There's Craig's Bond in McLusky's comic strips too. Also, the squint of McLusky's Bond has a Brosnan look to him. You could say all the Bonds fit into McLusky's work. Just that some are more prominent than others. All six Bonds also fit into Yaroslav Horak's James Bond comics. But Horak's James Bond is where you see more of Lazenby, Moore & Dalton.
McLusky goes quite wide/oval faced (his Bond actually reminds me most of a young Charles Bronson - like he is in Great Escape) whereas Horak goes more long-faced, perhaps even a bit more like Fleming himself.
Very true. I'm also seeing the Charles Bronson thing now too. Bronson with his antihero face and handsome in an unconventional way.
I think Elordi would make a very credible Bond, he has the looks and charisma (ironically, to me he looks a bit like fellow Australian George Lazenby.)
My only concern is maybe he's a little bit too famous? Or is that really a problem in this day and age?
That said I think Elordi’s all wrong for the part and I doubt he’d do it. Dickinson I think could potentially be a really interesting Bond (slightly different to Craig anyway) and I’ve been impressed with a lot of his work.
I agree 100% about Elordi; I don’t see it at all.
As far as Harris, I would have to see more.
I almost want Paul Mescal to be up for the role so my partner will have a reason to see the next era of Bond films in theaters with me. She's not caught one of them in full before (despite my best efforts) but that'd certainly do it.
Mescal will be too busy being Paul McCartney for the next two years.
Indeed, but that presumes they're nearly ready to begin the next era of Bond, which I don't believe is true or even close still. I'd like to be wrong though.
Is that a Seamaster I see on is wrist?
Getting good reviews on Nosferatu. And that clip of Craven on the Russian prison was not bad.
Still think he could be good on the role, if he dials down his camp attitude a bit, at least whilst playing the part.
As I said, I think he is a really good actor and I don't have a problem with his voice, but his best performances apart from Nowhere Boy years ago, came in the form of supporting roles like Nocturnal Animals, Bullet Train and Outlaw King. When he was the lead in a major blockbuster (Godzilla), most people found his performance wooden, lacking and unconvincing.
Also, he comes off as unnaturally smug and unnatural like he is trying too hard in every interview. Not saying they are perfect candidates but Josh O'Connor in Chimera or Challengers and Harris Dickinson come away much more natural and suave, without trying.
I like the idea of Harris Dickinson getting the role. He's been great in everything I've seen him in (A Murder at the End of The World is much recommended) and I think he's got a lot of natural Bond qualities and a good level of fame to build off of with a major role like that. He'd be in his 30s presuming Bond 26 will be a late 2027 release. I can imagine him doing something slightly different with the role that would set him apart from Craig and the others (while still fundamentally playing Bond). He's also worked with Nicole Kidman as Daniel Craig did just prior to CR, and I believe he's set to star in Sam Mendes' Beatles films, which again would be a nice little parallel with Bond. No guarantees obviously, but I'd be excited if he was announced.
I got more bored of it when it moved into the action and tried to be exciting. And I'm afraid I found the big reveal shot of his face, where he's squinting and pouting and trying to look as cool as he possibly can, rather laughable. Don't want him as Bond please.
Kraven the Hunter is predicted to open to approximately $15 million in US/Canada:
Variety:
If that prediction is accurate the film is set to tank and won't help Taylor-Johnson secure a large fee for Bond 26 (assuming he is offered the role). The same scenario was applicable to Henry Cavill after his three spy films bombed at the box office: Man From Uncle, Argylle and The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare. If you don't have any bankable status there's no reason why Eon would pay big bucks to hire you for Bond 26. I'm assuming Cavill or Johnson would expect to be paid more than Craig got for his first Bond film (accepting salary demands are higher in 2024 than in 2005).
The counterview is over the last decade or more we have had a 'post film star' film industry. No more film stars guaranteed to bring in the punters. Does it matter if Aaron Taylor-Johnson isn't a box office star? Probably not but if he isn't a bankable actor then he has no casting advantage over some unknown guy currently working in theatre or at an acting school. This is why my prediction is Aaron Taylor-Johnson won't be the next James Bond. I'm going for a relatively unknown actor appearing on a low profile streaming tv show or low profile film.
Now ATJ is an actor without franchise and every actor needs a franchise.
;)
Well, even in the good old days of Hollywood big stars had flops. So I don't think it's fully to do with our current relationship with actors. I'd also say an actor having a string of less financially successful films isn't a dealbreaker when it comes to a role like Bond. If EON want them and believe they're worth taking a risk on, they'll go for them. Remember, Craig was in a string of very financially unsuccessful films from 2003 to 2006 and had been in many others prior to that.