› ›

Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1…123712381239124012411243»

Comments

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited January 16 Posts: 8,283
    So much is subjective; based on numerous performances Theo James is more than qualified to play Bond.

    James is not even my top choice at the moment but I could not agree more with this evaluation

  • ArapahoeBondFanArapahoeBondFan Colorado
    Posts: 80
    talos7 wrote: »
    So much is subjective; based on numerous performances Theo James is more than qualified to play Bond.

    James is not even my top choice at the moment but I could not agree more with this evaluation


    TL;DR
  • DewiWynBondDewiWynBond
    Posts: 1,027
    I dismiss everyone, yes. Clear the field - It's business not personal.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,222
    DewiWynBond wrote: »
    I dismiss everyone, yes. Clear the field - It's business not personal.

    You don’t think anyone suggested on these pages is suitable to take on the role?

    Not Nicholas Hoult, Theo James or Aidan Turner to name a few?



  • DewiWynBondDewiWynBond
    edited January 17 Posts: 1,027
    Benny wrote: »
    DewiWynBond wrote: »
    I dismiss everyone, yes. Clear the field - It's business not personal.

    You don’t think anyone suggested on these pages is suitable to take on the role?

    Not Nicholas Hoult, Theo James or Aidan Turner to name a few?



    I've mentioned a few guys that could be suitable, but then I realize I'm the best. You can disregard my opinions tho, you know I'm on a specific mission.

    Apologies if I'm messing with the status quo here. Never thought I'd care this much.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,311
    Let's face it, if there was an obvious choice, we wouldn't have this thread. Finding the right actor for the right role is what auditions are for.
  • meshypushymeshypushy Ireland
    Posts: 148
    I like James but he feels to me like an almost too-safe choice and my fear would be a Bond-by-numbers future. Some of the names discussed here (Suter, Dickinson etc) would make me more excited for the next Bond movie. There are actors who would be fine in the role but I would hope for more than that after Craig’s tenure.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited January 17 Posts: 8,283
    Sean was a gamble, George a gamble, Rog, safe, Tim , I’m not quite sure but leaning towards safe, Pierce, very safe, Dan , a gamble
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited January 17 Posts: 4,437
    I must admit I'm not entirely sure what 'safe' means here beyond the actor being maybe a bit more 'traditionally' handsome (and even that's subjective to a point and doesn't account for their acting ability or screen presence). Any actor will be a risk. Even the so called 'safe' choices with previous Bond actors like Brosnan had their downsides (ie. MGM were concerned during GE that he was more a supporting actor going by his appearances in bigger films, which at the time was probably understandable. And that's about an actor who had previously signed for the role). Hypothetically I'd argue casting Henry Cavill as Bond would be an incredible risk to the point it's not worth taking, but I'm sure many would see him as a safe choice.

    I think with Theo James there's going to be an implicit bias because his role in The Gentleman is actually relatively Bondian. So it's easier for most people to imagine him in the role. The way I would put it is he's qualified to play the role in that way, but so was someone like Clive Owen technically in 2005, and we know he wouldn't necessarily have made the best choice. But again, it's tricky to tell at this point.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,483
    I come here every so often to look and read comments and I think: anybody? anybody at all I can get enthusiastic about as Bond? Again, today is not that day, alas.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,311
    talos7 wrote: »
    Sean was a gamble, George a gamble, Rog, safe, Tim , I’m not quite sure but leaning towards safe, Pierce, very safe, Dan , a gamble

    I'd argue that Roger was not so safe, more like the safest gamble at the time, given the circumstances. Same with Brosnan, who might actually have been a safer choice in 1994 than in 1986.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,322
    Ludovico wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Sean was a gamble, George a gamble, Rog, safe, Tim , I’m not quite sure but leaning towards safe, Pierce, very safe, Dan , a gamble

    I'd argue that Roger was not so safe, more like the safest gamble at the time, given the circumstances. Same with Brosnan, who might actually have been a safer choice in 1994 than in 1986.

    I remember reading in Some Kind of Hero that UA wasn’t exactly behind the casting of Moore due to the failure of “Crossplot” back in 1969. Needless to say that didn’t really matter in the long run.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    edited January 17 Posts: 1,530
    All actors but Craig were "safe choices" at their time.

    I mean, George was "another Connery" in their minds.

    Moore was a british TV star.

    Dalton and Brosnan looked like brothers and Cubby treated them as if they were interchangeable.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 4,437
    I can imagine at the time Connery coming across as a much weirder choice than we think today. Mainly because we’re so used to him as Bond. I mean, the guy had a thick Scottish accent and was balding after all.

    But yeah, to some extent every actor is a risk I’d argue.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,345
    4EverBonded wrote: »
    I come here every so often to look and read comments and I think: anybody? anybody at all I can get enthusiastic about as Bond? Again, today is not that day, alas.

    @4EverBonded
    My feelings are not dissimilar from yours. So far, not that many suggestions I can side with.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,778
    007HallY wrote: »
    I can imagine at the time Connery coming across as a much weirder choice than we think today. Mainly because we’re so used to him as Bond. I mean, the guy had a thick Scottish accent and was balding after all.

    And he wasn't really exactly the Bond type, if you look at the book. Someone like Niven probably was closer as he's not dissimilar to Fleming, and Bond basically was a slightly better looking Fleming after all. Connery's much burlier and rougher. And when they were casting Bond to start with they were considering at all sorts: MacGoohan, Niven, Grant, Michael Craig etc. - they didn't have such a fixed idea of how Bond looked.

    But Bond kind became fixed as that type thereafter, so we get Lazenby, Dalton and Brosnan, who are all kind of the same guy looks-wise in slightly different shapes. Or even more variations of that particular look if you look at all the Italian spy ripoff films, Milk Tray Man etc. But do those all stem from Fleming's Bond or were they sort of created by Connery's casting in the first place?

    Fleming thought Bond looked like golfer Henry Cotton:

    skysports-henry-cotton-golf_4341583.jpg?20180621105740

    And had Edward Underdown in mind to play him:

    18755_v9_ba.jpg

    So I think when we criticise any potential choices for not looking like 'Fleming's Bond' etc. maybe consider what Fleming's Bond was supposed to look like, because it wasn't really Connery to my eye.

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited 1:33am Posts: 6,420
    I'd take Cavill over Turner.

    Handsome and untalented > Fugly and untalented

    But I don't think it will be either. Eon will go younger because they want a minimum of four films.

    Unless of course they want to bring back Dalton and d'Abo for a one-film mashup of Quantum of Solace the short story and The Authorised Biography of 007.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 4,437
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I can imagine at the time Connery coming across as a much weirder choice than we think today. Mainly because we’re so used to him as Bond. I mean, the guy had a thick Scottish accent and was balding after all.

    And he wasn't really exactly the Bond type, if you look at the book. Someone like Niven probably was closer as he's not dissimilar to Fleming, and Bond basically was a slightly better looking Fleming after all. Connery's much burlier and rougher. And when they were casting Bond to start with they were considering at all sorts: MacGoohan, Niven, Grant, Michael Craig etc. - they didn't have such a fixed idea of how Bond looked.

    But Bond kind became fixed as that type thereafter, so we get Lazenby, Dalton and Brosnan, who are all kind of the same guy looks-wise in slightly different shapes. Or even more variations of that particular look if you look at all the Italian spy ripoff films, Milk Tray Man etc. But do those all stem from Fleming's Bond or were they sort of created by Connery's casting in the first place?

    Fleming thought Bond looked like golfer Henry Cotton:

    skysports-henry-cotton-golf_4341583.jpg?20180621105740

    And had Edward Underdown in mind to play him:

    18755_v9_ba.jpg

    So I think when we criticise any potential choices for not looking like 'Fleming's Bond' etc. maybe consider what Fleming's Bond was supposed to look like, because it wasn't really Connery to my eye.

    To be fair to Fleming he also said at one point he didn’t have much idea of what Bond looked like specifically. But I agree with you - for many readers pre ‘62 the image of James Bond may well have been that much more hawkish, English gentleman type rather than the more rugged Connery. Something we’d see more akin to an old style Sherlock Holmes than a cinematic Bond. Obviously this shift was happening prior with the more rugged John McLusky illustrations too.
  • Since62Since62
    Posts: 1,652
    Fleming referred to Hoagy Carmichael more than once as far as Bond's physical appearance. Not saying they were twins, but I see the Hoagy C in Edward Underdown's appearance.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,778
    I think Cotton and Carmichael are very similar.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    edited 9:17am Posts: 1,530
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I can imagine at the time Connery coming across as a much weirder choice than we think today. Mainly because we’re so used to him as Bond. I mean, the guy had a thick Scottish accent and was balding after all.

    And he wasn't really exactly the Bond type, if you look at the book. Someone like Niven probably was closer as he's not dissimilar to Fleming, and Bond basically was a slightly better looking Fleming after all. Connery's much burlier and rougher. And when they were casting Bond to start with they were considering at all sorts: MacGoohan, Niven, Grant, Michael Craig etc. - they didn't have such a fixed idea of how Bond looked.

    But Bond kind became fixed as that type thereafter, so we get Lazenby, Dalton and Brosnan, who are all kind of the same guy looks-wise in slightly different shapes. Or even more variations of that particular look if you look at all the Italian spy ripoff films, Milk Tray Man etc. But do those all stem from Fleming's Bond or were they sort of created by Connery's casting in the first place?

    Fleming thought Bond looked like golfer Henry Cotton:

    skysports-henry-cotton-golf_4341583.jpg?20180621105740

    And had Edward Underdown in mind to play him:

    18755_v9_ba.jpg

    So I think when we criticise any potential choices for not looking like 'Fleming's Bond' etc. maybe consider what Fleming's Bond was supposed to look like, because it wasn't really Connery to my eye.

    Well, Conney was stronger but he wasn't too different from Richard Burton. And Burton was on the table at the time.

    I think it was more of a social class issue.


    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I can imagine at the time Connery coming across as a much weirder choice than we think today. Mainly because we’re so used to him as Bond. I mean, the guy had a thick Scottish accent and was balding after all.

    And he wasn't really exactly the Bond type, if you look at the book. Someone like Niven probably was closer as he's not dissimilar to Fleming, and Bond basically was a slightly better looking Fleming after all. Connery's much burlier and rougher. And when they were casting Bond to start with they were considering at all sorts: MacGoohan, Niven, Grant, Michael Craig etc. - they didn't have such a fixed idea of how Bond looked.

    But Bond kind became fixed as that type thereafter, so we get Lazenby, Dalton and Brosnan, who are all kind of the same guy looks-wise in slightly different shapes. Or even more variations of that particular look if you look at all the Italian spy ripoff films, Milk Tray Man etc. But do those all stem from Fleming's Bond or were they sort of created by Connery's casting in the first place?

    Fleming thought Bond looked like golfer Henry Cotton:

    skysports-henry-cotton-golf_4341583.jpg?20180621105740

    And had Edward Underdown in mind to play him:

    18755_v9_ba.jpg

    So I think when we criticise any potential choices for not looking like 'Fleming's Bond' etc. maybe consider what Fleming's Bond was supposed to look like, because it wasn't really Connery to my eye.

    To be fair to Fleming he also said at one point he didn’t have much idea of what Bond looked like specifically. But I agree with you - for many readers pre ‘62 the image of James Bond may well have been that much more hawkish, English gentleman type rather than the more rugged Connery. Something we’d see more akin to an old style Sherlock Holmes than a cinematic Bond. Obviously this shift was happening prior with the more rugged John McLusky illustrations too.

    Bond was closer to Philip Marlowe than to Holmes, IMO. They even share a certain sentimentality.

  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,311
    007HallY wrote: »
    I can imagine at the time Connery coming across as a much weirder choice than we think today. Mainly because we’re so used to him as Bond. I mean, the guy had a thick Scottish accent and was balding after all.

    But yeah, to some extent every actor is a risk I’d argue.

    Not to mention thar Fleming wasn't happy with his casting initially.
Sign In or Register to comment.