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
Yes @mtm Keaton before Pattinson had the same disapproval from fans as well. Also, right about Jackman's Wolverine too @007HallY But Dougray Scott was the first choice, he would have also been great, I think.
@patb I think Bond 7 should be given the Bond and Severine Macau casino scene too to perform in his screen test. That's one of my favourite scenes in the series.
I miss the days when Cubby could choose between Brosnan and Dalton.
Dangerous face
Sharp jawline
Alluring stare
Precise eyebrows
Defined nose
Effortless haircut
Piercing eyes
Commanding chest
Composed physique
Expressive hands
Solid legs
Insane presence
Magnetic energy
Unshakable composure
Secret smirk
Weighted voice
Swag walk
Aesthetic silhouette
I think even with all these, things like Dalton’s badger haircut in LTK and Connery’s bushy brows in DAF jar with the precise eyebrows and effortless haircut. Brosnan didn’t exactly have a commanding chest or composed physique in GE (or in general really). Same for Dalton... I’m sure there are many other examples.
Technically, he did choose. Brosnan could have played both Remington Steele and Bond.
Technically I guess. The point is I don’t think that casting choice came down to two wonderful candidates with the switch being easy. It’s never straightforward.
That's a great idea, yes there's lot of layers to be played in there, along with trad Bond cool. He gets to show a hint of his dangerous side a bit more there than in other pieces they've used for auditions.
I'm very much enjoying the idea of an 'effortless haircut' though. I guess you could say that's what Sean Connery had quite naturally.
I think the physicality is the thing that can be worked on the most, look at Craig, provided they hire someone who's willing to throw themselves into the role like Craig we'll be fine
They're getting hair transplants now. I mean, Theo James has more hair now than he did a few years ago!
I'm sure Cavill needs some help too.
This guy basically:
Don't be so daft, Are you suggesting that Lazenby and Moore are not handsome? Callum Turner does not meet the measure of handsome that most of the Bonds do.
I don't know if you noticed but most of the Bonds are very handsome. Ideally you want someone who's both handsome and a good actor with charisma and a sense of humour. We don't have to cast the widest possible net. That's not how Cubby did it. If looks don't matter, then let's cast Andy Serkis in the role. He's a great actor.
Let's hear one of your variations on tall, dark and handsome. Yes, please explain.
If you guys don't know what James Bond looks like, then I don't know why we aren't debating whether James should bicycle around instead of using a car.
Not sure what you're on about, no one suggested looks don't matter. What I said is 'they should fit the bill physically' but getting hung up on whether someone has the right nose or not isn't what it's all about, and what I asked was whether looks are the main priority or not as it seems to be the main thing being judged in this thread, and I don't think they should be- quite a few of us made that point and agreed and no one had be called daft or shouted down. If the guy can act cool and sophisticated and in control and convince me he's James Bond then that's what I want. Whether he's the dead spit of Timothy Dalton or not I'm less interested in.
That we have a group of what I assume are mostly fully grown men debating whether another man is handsome enough or not seems faintly silly :)
Rather silly for you to suggest you haven't been the one banging the drum for how looks don't matter. What I've said is in conjunction with looks, we should also look for somebody who's a good actor and we shouldn't look at a candidate who has one but not the other. That's how you narrow down the pool. I don't care what pecking order you put looks and acting ability, he should have both.
That was Connery, and that was Craig.
I said in the post you’re quoting Moore looks different to Connery etc. Each Bond gives a different impression and looks distinctive even under the ‘tall dark and handsome’ description. :)
What would you say James Bond looks like and links all the actors out of interest? Like, very specifically. Because when we get into specifics of appearance I’m seeing differences between these actors even if they all are (and Bond has to be ultimately) good looking.
My suspicion is we as fans overcomplicate the casting process with our obsession about jawlines and lists of contradictory criterias, or simply the fact we - most of us men I presume - don’t think certain actors are attractive (which means very little, especially when a broader audience do think many of these people are). It’s quite interesting you brought up Cubby not casting a wide net when casting (worth saying he considered some very odd candidates anyway, including Americans). That misses the point of him taking a risk on a balding Scottish actor with charisma, or an unknown Australian who could throw a good punch. He used his instincts as a producer to look at the actors available to him and saw in them that sense of sex appeal, gravitas, charisma, physicality etc. BB did the same with Craig. That’s what it comes down to - do they have Bond potential and give off those qualities? In that sense no, Andy Serkis can’t play Bond just because he’s a great actor, and that too misses the point. Ultimately picking the actor can be a wide net in practice (insofar as it’s not a science).
Turner, I think is actually pretty conventional looking, Bond-wise; tall, lean, dark-haired, narrow face, etc. Mescal's rounder face and stockier build is a little more unconventional, but no more so than someone like Oliver Reed, who I think would've made a fantastic Bond back in the day.
The point is, plenty of women find them attractive, which is what matters. When we start getting into jawline shapes, nose width, etc., this starts to look like a looksmaxing forum.
Yeah. I've seen Gladiator 2 and true, Mescal didn't deliver. He wasn't even half as good as Crowe in the first one. Denzel Washington was the one running the show. Scott should have gotten someone like Barry Keoghan instead of Mescal...since he wanted a young actor.
Lots of speculation around that David Heyman becoming one of the new producers could mean his two-time collaborator Alfonso Cuaron may direct, but he also recently produced a hit movie starring Timothée Chalamet… 😜
Lol. I get the cheeky message. Yeah, the latest news of those two producers, means Amazon aren't as stupid as we think, Lol.
Yeah. Me too.
Agreed. I think Pascal, because she was there for CR, will want to find a good actor to play Bond--the next Craig, if you will. And she clearly understands that the success of CR started with the script, and Fleming.
I'm cautiously optimistic for the first time in a while.
It’s just my opinion of him as a person and an actor. I’m not sold. It’s nothing personal.
If he were cast I would feel disappointed.
I’d still watch his films and may even enjoy them. Who knows.
But he’s not an actor I see as a potential Bond.