Who should/could be a Bond actor?

14504514534554561235

Comments

  • Posts: 157
    bondsum wrote: »
    renno61 wrote: »
    deA1YT
    renno61 wrote: »
    andrew-lincoln-1.jpg
    Leaving Walking Dead possible next Bond Andrew Lincoln

    At age 45, wouldn't he be too old by now? It's the same issue with Fassbender, etc.

    Depends on which direction they want to go
    What, you mean the geriatric direction? That's the only way it can go if you cast an actor who is already going to be 48 (or whatever age he'll be when B26 starts) as his first Bond movie.

    That why I've mention Tom Mison, Dan Stevens, Nicholas Hoult, Ben Barnes to name a few. The only problem I see is thar who even plays the part has to be very famous known and in the US. That why the same names keep coming up and its more than likely the next Bond has already been chosen.
    I could mention
    Oliver Jackson-Cohen
    Tom Cullen
    Tom Ellis
    Josh Bowman
    Ricky Whittle
    Sam Claflin
  • Posts: 157
    talos7 wrote: »
    The “Hoagy Carmichael” standard is meaningless to casting Bond.

    That's why I mentioned it.
    I alway though someone who looked like James Garner would be good
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2018 Posts: 23,883
    All this talk of accents & entitled millennial Gen Y made me think of this post from the recent GQ Awards.

    Stormzy's current squeeze (and millennial) Maya Jama attempts to interview legend (and baby boomer) Jeff Goldblum. She humiliates herself at the very start by having to check her notes to remember his name (the nerve!), and things get even more awkward from then on as he fails to understand what she's saying. Enter @bondsum's fave ;) Tom Hiddleston to smooth it over. They all then start trolling each for a few minutes.

    "Google it. Yes Yes!!" Vintage Goldblum.
  • Posts: 16,221
    bondjames wrote: »
    All this talk of accents & entitled millennial Gen Y made me think of this post from the recent GQ Awards.

    Stormzy's current squeeze (and millennial) Maya Jama attempts to interview legend (and baby boomer) Jeff Goldblum. She humiliates herself at the very start by having to check her notes to remember his name (the nerve!), and things get even more awkward from then on as he fails to understand what she's saying. Enter @bondsum's fave ;) Tom Hiddleston to smooth it over. They all then start trolling each for a few minutes.

    "Google it. Yes Yes!!" Vintage Goldblum.

    Thaw was hilarious. She probably has never seen THE FLY, INDEPENDENCE DAY, or any of he other countless Goldblum films during the past 30 years. Unbelievable.

    I did like Hiddleston's dinner suit there, looking very Bondian (minus the shaggy hair and beard).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I did like Hiddleston's dinner suit there, looking very Bondian (minus the shaggy hair and beard).
    We ticked off the recent facial hair growth discussion with this video too!

    He's always worn a suit well. Needs to toughen up a bit though.
  • edited November 2018 Posts: 5,767
    renno61 wrote: »
    tom-mison_62870.html
    boldfinger wrote: »
    renno61 wrote: »
    One of my top choice would be Tom Mison, he may need to bulk up some thou.
    He just joined the new Watchmen series
    Yet another Baby face.

    Seems to me Baby face, to small, to old you can't win, remember Daniel Craig some off the comments were disgraceful but now its don't go Craig. I originally said Andrew Lincoln but was told he to old.
    Mison would be 40+ when Daniel Craig leaves.
    Wasn't Hoagy Carmicheal one of the inspirations for Bond and has any actor who player the part looked like him.
    That´s not the Point at all, and neither is the face of Craig. But James Bond should have something seasoned to him, no matter how old his incarnation. If you look at Fotos from the wild west for instance, People look 20 years older than they actually were, considered by today´s standarts. A bit of that should be visible in the face of James Bond. Even if it´s for different reasons than the People on Fotos from 150 years ago, the mere fact that James Bond is the most gifted Agent in Britain´s double-oh section proves he grew up fast.



    bondjames wrote: »
    All this talk of accents & entitled millennial Gen Y made me think of this post from the recent GQ Awards.

    Stormzy's current squeeze (and millennial) Maya Jama attempts to interview legend (and baby boomer) Jeff Goldblum. She humiliates herself at the very start by having to check her notes to remember his name (the nerve!), and things get even more awkward from then on as he fails to understand what she's saying. Enter @bondsum's fave ;) Tom Hiddleston to smooth it over. They all then start trolling each for a few minutes.

    "Google it. Yes Yes!!" Vintage Goldblum.
    I´d love to see a Bond film tailored to Hiddleston´s strengths. He could be a Right updated Version of Moore in a way, playing it smooth, not emphasizing too much the brute.
    I´m Kind of contradicting what I wrote just above now, am I not ;-)?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2018 Posts: 23,883
    I watched The Spy Who Dumped Me last night. I wasn't aware that Outlander's Sam Heughan auditioned for Bond in 2005. If that came up previously I certainly didn't hear of it. Decent looking bloke and he's 6ft 3 or thereabouts.



    https://comicbook.com/movies/2018/11/03/outlander-sam-heughan-auditioned-james-bond-daniel-craig-henry-cavill/
    boldfinger wrote: »
    I´d love to see a Bond film tailored to Hiddleston´s strengths. He could be a Right updated Version of Moore in a way, playing it smooth, not emphasizing too much the brute.
    I´m Kind of contradicting what I wrote just above now, am I not ;-)?
    I've always thought he could be good, if he put on some muscle and cleaned up his off camera act, which can be a bit needy at times.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    bondjames wrote: »
    All this talk of accents & entitled millennial Gen Y made me think of this post from the recent GQ Awards.

    Stormzy's current squeeze (and millennial) Maya Jama attempts to interview legend (and baby boomer) Jeff Goldblum. She humiliates herself at the very start by having to check her notes to remember his name (the nerve!), and things get even more awkward from then on as he fails to understand what she's saying. Enter @bondsum's fave ;) Tom Hiddleston to smooth it over. They all then start trolling each for a few minutes.

    "Google it. Yes Yes!!" Vintage Goldblum.

    Can Jeff Goldblum please be made an honourary Brit, then be cast as the next Doctor?
  • Posts: 6,710
    Can Jeff Goldblum please be made an honourary Brit, then be cast as the next Doctor?
    That would be brilliant ;) Or at least part of the show (a new show).

  • Posts: 2,081
    bondsum wrote: »
    Sure, actors can change their accent as did Madden in Game of Thrones. It wasn't a southern English accent, mind. Turner does it for Poldark, too. I don't entirely agree with @Tuulia's assessment that it's not important to lose their regional accent as they're meant to be actors playing a role at the end of the day. Presentation is everything and if it means pipping someone else to the role, or being overlooked because your accent isn't deemed suitable, then an actor is likely to iron out his regional accent and use everything at their disposal to gain that advantage. I also don't believe in losing the accent and adopting another by sheer osmosis. There's plenty of actors who have lived abroad for decades and who haven't lost the accent that they'd perfected when they first started out. After all, Roger Moore was a Souf Londoner with a cockney accent, just like Michael Cain, before he enrolled in elocution lessons. Roger has lived all over the world, but he kept the same accent that he'd worked hard at to achieve. Helen Mirren is another example. Her father was a London cabbie. She of course worked hard at losing her cockney accent. There's 1,000s of more examples. Some say it's different nowadays in England, most of the acting jobs go to people from privileged backgrounds. The Guardian even did a story a couple of year's ago when they stated academics from the London School of Economics and Goldsmiths College, in a peer-reviewed study, found that only 27% of actors come from a working-class background and that the profession is “heavily skewed towards the privileged”.

    The bigger question is whether it matters. Well, not to me it doesn't because I'm not an actor. But if I was, the first thing I'd so is make sure I'm not only eligible for roles in Coronation Street or Eastenders.

    I didn't say people only lose their original accents "by sheer osmosis" - it's just one of the ways. Of course people can intentionally acquire a new accent, because they feel their original one has some stigma, and I understand that. But something like moving to another country/continent, especially at a young age, and kinda losing contact with the original accent, makes it natural and common for one to lose one's original accent without actually trying to, or necessarily wanting to, and they won't just magically get it back even if they want to, and they can end up with some messy, changed version (like Christian Bale).

    Intentionally changing one's accent for general purposes - other than a specific role - is a choice some people make, including actors. If an actor always uses the same accent in real life as well as in different roles, that may limit job opportunities, since the assumption may be that that's the only accent they can do. But exhibiting different accents in work shows ability with accents, and then their own, non-work life accent should then be irrelevant; it shouldn't matter for work opportunities if they've already shown they can do different accents. That obviously requires searching for and accepting roles where different accents can be used in the first place.

    Since I'm not a casting director, nor otherwise work in the industry, this is just speculation on my part, but I would certainly hope that an actor's own accent doesn't limit work opportunities as long as they can show they can do other accents too. But many actors also seem to manage quite well, and do different types of roles without showing much variety with accents (Colin Farrell for instance).

    The British situation with class/background making a big difference is an interesting (and sad) case, and I assume with that one's own accent might indeed play a big part in getting work, though also just changing the accent may not be enough then.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2018 Posts: 23,883
    This is an interesting discussion about accents. I can imagine that industry people, like the rest of us, form impressions of actors based on what they see of them in other roles or in interviews etc. That's perhaps why so many get typecast.

    If so then presumably a distinctive accent, as opposed to one which is more typical, may preemptively eliminate them from consideration for certain roles. After all, how many of these directors are going to go out of their way to determine if an actor can change up his/her accent? I wonder.
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 871
    bondjames wrote: »
    After all, how many of these directors are going to go out of their way to determine if an actor can change up his/her accent? I wonder.

    I think that's fairly easy to find out. I'm guessing every actor's resume contains the information about accents.

    acting-resume-1-638.jpg?cb=1507240069
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    After all, how many of these directors are going to go out of their way to determine if an actor can change up his/her accent? I wonder.

    I think that's fairly easy to find out. I'm guessing every actor's resume contains the information about accents.

    acting-resume-1-638.jpg?cb=1507240069
    Ah, I see. Thanks. However, would a director actually go to the effort of checking up on this for an actor who has a distinctive accent that is required to speak with a more common one, or would they more readily just cast an actor who more readily fits their (and audience) expectations to begin with? I don't know the answer to this question, but am curious if it's in fact an impediment or not to have (or be known for) a region specific accent or dialect.
  • edited November 2018 Posts: 1,661
    bondsum wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Not to be a “heightist”, I’m not tall , but I believe Daniel is just at the minimum desired height for Bond.
    Yeah, just about, I suppose. It's kind of a bit more obvious when you look at his torso length in ratio to the rest of him; it's more truncated than elongated, which a taller person would possess.

    Here's some stats for you to ponder over:
    Literary Bond: 6' 167 lb
    Connery in Dr No: 6' 2½"
    Lazenby in OHMSS: 6' 2"
    Moore in LALD: 6' 1"
    Dalton in TLDL: 6' 2"
    Brosnan in GE: 6' 1½"
    Craig in CR: 5' 10"

    Though I'm sure there's slight differences in recorded height over each of the actor's tenures as one does shrink as one gets older.

    Here's another cool graphic with slightly varying measurements.

    image.jpg

    Just throwing this out as an idea... you could make a case why the next Bond actor should be a bit shorter. Why? Well if Craig was a more blunt, everyman type of Bond, a bit of a radical or unusual choice, then it makes sense (if you wanna use that word!) to continue that approach. Going with a taller than average actor has been done five times before. A smaller Bond actor would be different and he would not stand out in a crowd which is what spies are meant to do. I think there's a film precedent for what I mean. This guy:

    latest?cb=20080204183132

    Michael Keaton was too short to play Batman. He played the part and I think he's still regarded as a decent Batman. Keaton is listed as 5' 9" but he may be a tad shorter.

    There are some interesting aspects casting a shorter man as Bond. He may look less threatening when fighting taller enemies which could create more tension? How will Bond defeat the tall henchman. This was used with the taller Bonds. Moore's Bond vs Kiel's Jaws - classic example. Craig's Bond vs Bautista's Hinx a modern example.

    I'd prefer a taller than average actor, but a smaller guy would be Eon casting in a different way. Let's face it - the franchise is over 50 years old, had six actors in the role, Doctor Who has a female Doctor (!), Jeremy Corbyn could win power in the future and make radical changes to the UK, Donald Trump is the US president.. things change. There is no reason why a shorter actor can't be James Bond (accepting the fact Craig looks around 5'9" - 5'10" so he's not Bond height).

    Richard Madden - clearly a shorter guy - is the type of short Bond that would be a departure from what's been before. He looks shorter than Craig. I think it's worth considering. Genuinely considering casting a shorter actor as Bond. Small, compact but dangerous! :)






  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Not to be a “heightist”, I’m not tall , but I believe Daniel is just at the minimum desired height for Bond.
    Yeah, just about, I suppose. It's kind of a bit more obvious when you look at his torso length in ratio to the rest of him; it's more truncated than elongated, which a taller person would possess.

    Here's some stats for you to ponder over:
    Literary Bond: 6' 167 lb
    Connery in Dr No: 6' 2½"
    Lazenby in OHMSS: 6' 2"
    Moore in LALD: 6' 1"
    Dalton in TLDL: 6' 2"
    Brosnan in GE: 6' 1½"
    Craig in CR: 5' 10"

    Though I'm sure there's slight differences in recorded height over each of the actor's tenures as one does shrink as one gets older.

    Here's another cool graphic with slightly varying measurements.

    image.jpg

    Just throwing this out as an idea... you could make a case why the next Bond actor should be a bit shorter. Why? Well if Craig was a more blunt, everyman type of Bond, a bit of a radical or unusual choice, then it makes sense (if you wanna use that word!) to continue that approach. Going with a taller than average actor has been done five times before. A smaller Bond actor would be different and he would not stand out in a crowd which is what spies are meant to do. I think there's a film precedent for what I mean. This guy:

    latest?cb=20080204183132

    Michael Keaton was too short to play Batman. He played the part and I think he's still regarded as a decent Batman. Keaton is listed as 5' 9" but he may be a tad shorter.

    There are some interesting aspects casting a shorter man as Bond. He may look less threatening when fighting taller enemies which could create more tension?. How will Bond defeat the tall henchman. This was used with the taller Bonds. Moore's Bond vs Kiel's Jaws - classic example. Craig's Bond vs Bautista's Hinx a modern exampls

    I'd prefer a taller than average actor, but a smaller guy would be Eon casting in a different way. Let's face it - the franchise is over 50 years old, had six actors in the role, Doctor Who has a female Doctor (!), Jeremy Corbyn could win power in the future and make radical changes to the UK, Donald Trump is the US president.. things change. There is no reason why a shorter actor can't be James Bond (accepting the fact Craig looks around 5'9" - 5' 10" so he's not Bond height).

    James Madden - clearly a shorter guy - is the type of short Bond that would be a departure from what's been before. He looks shorter than Craig. I think it's worth considering. Genuinely considering casting a shorter actor as Bond. Small, compact but dangerous! :)





    Keaton is not 5'9. He is safely a scratch above 5'8.
  • Posts: 17,814
    Actors and actresses and their accents is an interesting topic. I think it's natural for anyone with a broader accent to adopt a more "correct" one for work possibilities, if needed. The strange thing is, more than a few times I've seen roles on TV/film portraying regional characters with specific accents go to actors/actresses that don't talk these accents themselves – nor who are able to speak them properly.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2018 Posts: 23,883
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Not to be a “heightist”, I’m not tall , but I believe Daniel is just at the minimum desired height for Bond.
    Yeah, just about, I suppose. It's kind of a bit more obvious when you look at his torso length in ratio to the rest of him; it's more truncated than elongated, which a taller person would possess.

    Here's some stats for you to ponder over:
    Literary Bond: 6' 167 lb
    Connery in Dr No: 6' 2½"
    Lazenby in OHMSS: 6' 2"
    Moore in LALD: 6' 1"
    Dalton in TLDL: 6' 2"
    Brosnan in GE: 6' 1½"
    Craig in CR: 5' 10"

    Though I'm sure there's slight differences in recorded height over each of the actor's tenures as one does shrink as one gets older.

    Here's another cool graphic with slightly varying measurements.

    image.jpg

    Just throwing this out as an idea... you could make a case why the next Bond actor should be a bit shorter. Why? Well if Craig was a more blunt, everyman type of Bond, a bit of a radical or unusual choice, then it makes sense (if you wanna use that word!) to continue that approach. Going with a taller than average actor has been done five times before. A smaller Bond actor would be different and he would not stand out in a crowd which is what spies are meant to do. I think there's a film precedent for what I mean. This guy:

    latest?cb=20080204183132

    Michael Keaton was too short to play Batman. He played the part and I think he's still regarded as a decent Batman. Keaton is listed as 5' 9" but he may be a tad shorter.

    There are some interesting aspects casting a shorter man as Bond. He may look less threatening when fighting taller enemies which could create more tension? How will Bond defeat the tall henchman. This was used with the taller Bonds. Moore's Bond vs Kiel's Jaws - classic example. Craig's Bond vs Bautista's Hinx a modern example.

    I'd prefer a taller than average actor, but a smaller guy would be Eon casting in a different way. Let's face it - the franchise is over 50 years old, had six actors in the role, Doctor Who has a female Doctor (!), Jeremy Corbyn could win power in the future and make radical changes to the UK, Donald Trump is the US president.. things change. There is no reason why a shorter actor can't be James Bond (accepting the fact Craig looks around 5'9" - 5'10" so he's not Bond height).

    Richard Madden - clearly a shorter guy - is the type of short Bond that would be a departure from what's been before. He looks shorter than Craig. I think it's worth considering. Genuinely considering casting a shorter actor as Bond. Small, compact but dangerous! :)
    Surely it's preferable that Bond should be an above average specimen and not a below average one. I'd argue that this should be the case in height as well as in other areas.

    It's certainly true that Keaton was an excellent Batman/Wayne and it's also true that he was shorter than other Batman actors. The same goes for Craig in relation to previous Bond actors.

    Despite this, I can't understand the logic in explicitly seeking out another shorter Bond, particularly when average heights are increasing with improved nutrition. After all, the Batman actor to follow Keaton (Kilmer) wasn't short, and neither were the other ones since.

    So frankly I'd prefer if these two remain exceptions rather than a new rule. 'Small, compact but dangerous' is a theme best left for another series.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    But no one is “explicitly seeking out another shorter Bond” @bondjames
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I am merely debating the points put forth in favour of a shorter Bond #007 in fanbond's post. It's a theoretical or hypothetical discussion of course, as are most things on here. Just having a bit of fun.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    I understand that this is hypothetical; but no one here, or elsewhere, is hypothetically suggesting we “seek out another short Bond”, as you, in your own words suggest we are suggesting, lol!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Actually, that is precisely what fanbond suggested, in jest of course. I'm pretty sure his post was intended for discussion, and I've put forth my views on it. What's yours?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    Come again??
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Fanbond's post puts forth a well supported rationale for a shorter Bond, even though he, like I, would prefer a taller one. I recognize that he's personally not calling for it.

    The arguments he put forth are a hypothetical - to be used by a proponent to explicitly support such a choice if it were to be made. Small, compact, dangerous, easier to slip under the radar etc. Aren't we discussing theoretically here, as we do most things?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited November 2018 Posts: 9,511
    But no one is “explicitly asking for a shorter Bond”, @bondjames .. Those are your words.

    EDIT: love to chat more, must go to bed for an early morning boxing session; look forward to your reply @bondjames. ‘Night.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2018 Posts: 23,883
    I think we're talking at cross purposes.

    The explicit call I am referring to is a hypothetical one, because as you note, nobody is actually calling for it. The entire premise of fanbond's post is a hypothetical. A postulate. My comment and response is also a hypothetical.

    If it's called for, then it will be explicit in reality, because then someone would have to make the arguments that he outlined, along with other ones that may exist for why this is the right direction to take.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    Ok, as I said, going to bed now. However, I suggest you read your own posts again. ‘Night
  • edited November 2018 Posts: 2,081
    bondjames wrote: »
    This is an interesting discussion about accents. I can imagine that industry people, like the rest of us, form impressions of actors based on what they see of them in other roles or in interviews etc. That's perhaps why so many get typecast.

    If so then presumably a distinctive accent, as opposed to one which is more typical, may preemptively eliminate them from consideration for certain roles. After all, how many of these directors are going to go out of their way to determine if an actor can change up his/her accent? I wonder.

    I think pretty much any actor is in danger of being typecast, and they have a lot of responsibility in that themselves as well, in what kinds of roles they seek/take. Most actors probably genuinely care about acting (beyond just paychecks for anything) and have ambition and interest to play different types of roles. Picking similar stuff probably brings further offers of similar stuff. Obviously it isn't simple to just choose different stuff - there may not be much to choose from at all, and actors gotta pay their bills, too. So it can be tricky.

    Typecasting can happen to anyone starting out, as well as to anyone known for a certain thing or who has been particularly successful at something if they let it happen.
    See for instance Matthew McConaughey and romantic comedies; apparently successful (god knows why, absolutely terrible movies), so the offers kept coming and he accepted, and made money - pretty easy, but ultimately boring and unsatisfying I suppose. When he then started saying no to those movies, it took a while for him to start getting much other, completely different and more demanding stuff offered again. Since he already had the money, he could afford to wait. Not everyone ever has that luxury, but actors also have a responsibility themselves as well in what they do in the first place. (McConaughey chose to get into that rut himself.)
    They tried to (somewhat) typecast Christian Bale once upon a time - thank goodness for Mary Harron; problem sorted. But the actor needed to really want it, too - first to get to do it (not a simple process, even after convincing the director), and then to deliver. But typecasting is a bitch, who'd wanna be a slave to it if they can avoid it, so fighting to be free from it is worth it.

    For some reason (I hate to say laziness and lack of imagination, but what else?) many directors (the same with everyone else) often see actors in roles that at least somewhat resemble something they've done before. - Regardless of accent. - So getting to do something entirely different may require a director with more imagination or insight. It's hard to prove you can do something very different from what you've done before if nobody believes you can and actually lets you do it.

    Now, about accents... I find it hard to believe that directors - and casting directors - would mostly just assume that an actor likely can't do another accent unless they have proof. Accents are often a part of an actors job after all, and the information is surely provided anyway, and most (I think most) directors do auditions anyway. I don't think they'd need to "go out of their way" to find out about an actor's ability with accents anymore than to find out about their ability to otherwise fit the potential role.

    And actors don't just magically acquire accents anyway, they learn them when they need to, and that's why dialect coaches exist. Some actors just either aren't very good at that stuff, or don't bother, but the assumption surely should rather be that actors learn accents, like they learn the other stuff they need for a role, rather than "oh, they speak like that there, I suppose that's the only accent they can do." Productions hire dialect coaches, just like they hire people to teach actors choreography whether dancing or fighting, to teach them to handle horses, guns, whatever.
    Actors and actresses and their accents is an interesting topic. I think it's natural for anyone with a broader accent to adopt a more "correct" one for work possibilities, if needed. The strange thing is, more than a few times I've seen roles on TV/film portraying regional characters with specific accents go to actors/actresses that don't talk these accents themselves – nor who are able to speak them properly.

    Ah, well...
  • edited November 2018 Posts: 5,767
    bondjames wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    I´d love to see a Bond film tailored to Hiddleston´s strengths. He could be a Right updated Version of Moore in a way, playing it smooth, not emphasizing too much the brute.
    I´m Kind of contradicting what I wrote just above now, am I not ;-)?
    I've always thought he could be good, if he put on some muscle and cleaned up his off camera act, which can be a bit needy at times.
    Hiddleston shouldn´t be too muscular. He was in Kong Skull Island, and it made him look artificial. He´s a smooth guy, that´s what they should build around. And then have him work hard with a really good fight choreographer to make the physical Scenes look visceral.

  • edited November 2018 Posts: 17,814
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    I´d love to see a Bond film tailored to Hiddleston´s strengths. He could be a Right updated Version of Moore in a way, playing it smooth, not emphasizing too much the brute.
    I´m Kind of contradicting what I wrote just above now, am I not ;-)?
    I've always thought he could be good, if he put on some muscle and cleaned up his off camera act, which can be a bit needy at times.
    Hiddleston shouldn´t be too muscular. He was in Kong Skull Island, and it made him look artificial. He´s a smooth guy, that´s what they should build around. And then have him work hard with a really good fight choreographer to make the physical Scenes look visceral.

    Agree. If he for some reason ends up being cast (I'm not totally against it, but there are other actors I rather see in the role), then a lean physique – like he has in The Night Manager, but with well choreographed fighting might be the way to go.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Tuulia wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    This is an interesting discussion about accents. I can imagine that industry people, like the rest of us, form impressions of actors based on what they see of them in other roles or in interviews etc. That's perhaps why so many get typecast.

    If so then presumably a distinctive accent, as opposed to one which is more typical, may preemptively eliminate them from consideration for certain roles. After all, how many of these directors are going to go out of their way to determine if an actor can change up his/her accent? I wonder.

    I think pretty much any actor is in danger of being typecast, and they have a lot of responsibility in that themselves as well, in what kinds of roles they seek/take. Most actors probably genuinely care about acting (beyond just paychecks for anything) and have ambition and interest to play different types of roles. Picking similar stuff probably brings further offers of similar stuff. Obviously it isn't simple to just choose different stuff - there may not be much to choose from at all, and actors gotta pay their bills, too. So it can be tricky.

    Typecasting can happen to anyone starting out, as well as to anyone known for a certain thing or who has been particularly successful at something if they let it happen.
    See for instance Matthew McConaughey and romantic comedies; apparently successful (god knows why, absolutely terrible movies), so the offers kept coming and he accepted, and made money - pretty easy, but ultimately boring and unsatisfying I suppose. When he then started saying no to those movies, it took a while for him to start getting much other, completely different and more demanding stuff offered again. Since he already had the money, he could afford to wait. Not everyone ever has that luxury, but actors also have a responsibility themselves as well in what they do in the first place. (McConaughey chose to get into that rut himself.)
    They tried to (somewhat) typecast Christian Bale once upon a time - thank goodness for Mary Harron; problem sorted. But the actor needed to really want it, too - first to get to do it (not a simple process, even after convincing the director), and then to deliver. But typecasting is a bitch, who'd wanna be a slave to it if they can avoid it, so fighting to be free from it is worth it.

    For some reason (I hate to say laziness and lack of imagination, but what else?) many directors (the same with everyone else) often see actors in roles that at least somewhat resemble something they've done before. - Regardless of accent. - So getting to do something entirely different may require a director with more imagination or insight. It's hard to prove you can do something very different from what you've done before if nobody believes you can and actually lets you do it.

    Now, about accents... I find it hard to believe that directors - and casting directors - would mostly just assume that an actor likely can't do another accent unless they have proof. Accents are often a part of an actors job after all, and the information is surely provided anyway, and most (I think most) directors do auditions anyway. I don't think they'd need to "go out of their way" to find out about an actor's ability with accents anymore than to find out about their ability to otherwise fit the potential role.

    And actors don't just magically acquire accents anyway, they learn them when they need to, and that's why dialect coaches exist. Some actors just either aren't very good at that stuff, or don't bother, but the assumption surely should rather be that actors learn accents, like they learn the other stuff they need for a role, rather than "oh, they speak like that there, I suppose that's the only accent they can do." Productions hire dialect coaches, just like they hire people to teach actors choreography whether dancing or fighting, to teach them to handle horses, guns, whatever.
    I agree with your points. I think it probably is incumbent upon the actor to seek out diverse roles, although agree also that it may be difficult practically, as they live paycheck to paycheck and may have to take what they get at the start in order to make ends meet, even if that means being typecast. I suppose it's a balance.

    Your point about McConaughey is well taken. I noticed that he went quiet for a while earlier in his career, and presumably that was so he could reposition himself for more critically preferable roles. It worked out for him - fortunately - but was risky.

    Regarding accents, not being in the industry I don't know either way. I hope the casting and film directors spread their wings and seek out talent that the general public may not expect. That's when we get pleasantly surprised by the eventual result and where it is unpredictable, which is always a good thing in my book. Having said that, as you note, accents aren't always easy to learn. It takes time and coaching, and some may just not be able to pull it off convincingly despite that. So I wouldn't be surprised if few would be given a chance without advance proof that they could do it.
    ---
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    I´d love to see a Bond film tailored to Hiddleston´s strengths. He could be a Right updated Version of Moore in a way, playing it smooth, not emphasizing too much the brute.
    I´m Kind of contradicting what I wrote just above now, am I not ;-)?
    I've always thought he could be good, if he put on some muscle and cleaned up his off camera act, which can be a bit needy at times.
    Hiddleston shouldn´t be too muscular. He was in Kong Skull Island, and it made him look artificial. He´s a smooth guy, that´s what they should build around. And then have him work hard with a really good fight choreographer to make the physical Scenes look visceral.

    Agree. If he for some reason ends up being cast (I'm not totally against it, but there are other actors I rather see in the role), then a lean physique – like he has in The Night Manager, but with well choreographed fighting might be the way to go.
    I generally agree. I'm a fan of a lean look in general. I was more thinking in terms of public expectations these days. I also am a big proponent of fight choreography and think it can make a world of difference. As an example, Fassbender wasn't particularly built when he went at it with Gina Carano in Haywire, and it's one heck of a fight despite this.
Sign In or Register to comment.