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
Very broadly, he’s got a good voice and he’s a good looking guy. He’s young but comes under the right age in terms of staying in the role for a while and being able fulfil all the physical requirements. I think he’s a very good actor too so could bring something substantial to the role.
Specifically though, from what I’ve seen of him in interviews and certain film roles he has a confidence to him. I can see him skirting that line between charismatic and arrogant that Bond has to without going into being unlikeable.
He's stunning! The kind of guy every girl wants and all men want to be. His performance in The Narrow Road to the Deep North is being praised across the board. The trailer looks beautiful. Also, both Olivia DeJonge and Odessa Young would make great Bond girls
No, I don't want to be him and I absolutely don't want him to be Bond.
https://m.imdb.com/name/nm3472898/
Better make two. I didn't think I could see a more unsuitable choice than Timothee Ski Chalet. Never mine beta, I don't even think they'd qualify as zeta male.
I agree in the sense that some have a school of thought that a traditionally handsome actor is automatically a lessor one and that only one who is offbeat or non-traditional, can have the gravitas for the role.
Anyway, there's an element of subjectivity in this too - some of us simply won't see certain actors as handsome, even if they may well be considered so to a broader audience. At that point who's 'traditional' and 'non-traditional' in Bond terms is muddied anyway. That's not even getting into things like noses, ears, and jawlines!
I sympathise with this, to a point. When it comes to casting Bond, I'm often in two minds. One part of me wants to look beyond the obvious. Look at actors who might not fit my idea of who James Bond is; studying their performances, analysing everything from their speaking cadence, to their facial expressions, their physical movements, looking for even a hint of something Bondian.
But then another part of me wants to ignore all that and just admit that someone like Aidan Turner or Theo James is the obvious choice; Jack O' Connell? The bloke's a shrimp with rotten teeth. Callum Turner? He's got an awesome name, but his nose and ears are too big and his accent's too strong. Just find a good-looking guy whose charming, masculine, and humorous, and we're good to go. Casting James Bond shouldn't be that complicated!
But ultimately, looks are only one part of it, and arguably not a very important part. Sure, you need an actor who looks handsome enough to believably seduce a woman like Monica Bellucci, and tough enough that he could hold his own in a fight with David Bautista, but you also need someone who can convey charisma, gravitas, wit, and all those Bondian characteristics that come from within. And it's possible that the actor who conveys those qualities the best, doesn't conform to our idea of what James Bond looks like.
I think it depends on the specific actor at the end of the day. Ultimately their appearance and outward traits are a part of them, and will inevitably be so if they play Bond. It's in the same way that, for example, Connery's thick Scottish accent, bushy eyebrows, extraordinarily hairy chest/arms, and duck-like mouth didn't automatically disappear when he put on that tuxedo. But those things didn't take away from his charm, screen presence, charisma, or even good looks. In fact it was probably that ruggedness and wryness that made him a unique choice for the role, however apparent it was prior to his casting!
So yeah, it really depends. Personally though, if we're getting into the realm of pointing out very specific 'flaws' in appearance, I think it might be time to take a step back and maybe look at these actors a bit more broadly (I genuinely don't believe an actor like Callum Turner would be barred from auditioning for Bond simply because he has a big nose and ears, for example).
I would generally prefer Bond stay tall, dark and handsome. I loved Craig, and I understand the reaction to his initial casting, but he cleaned up quite well for the part. However, Daniel blew Barbara away with his gravitas. I don't see any of these ugly blokes being mentioned rising to that level. I think Craig was a special case and we shouldn't stray from our understanding of the character just because a few feel we have to cast a non-conventionally attractive actor after Craig.
Also, I don’t really see where this whole “an ugly actor […] somehow going to get more interesting films” thing has come from? I haven’t seen that. Again if you don’t find the suggestions attractive, then that’s fine. It’s subjective. I don’t understand the logic that Callum, for example, is ugly, but each to their own, and I definitely don’t think there’s some kind of “the uglier, the more interesting” agenda, we just have different tastes?
Sometimes an ugly actor is just an ugly actor.
The dullest handsome guy is still a handsome guy.
Is that a yes?
For me it’s whether they can do the job of starring in a lead role of a movie. They should fit the bill physically of course, but I think just looking at photos of people and saying their nose is the wrong shape isn’t a judge of whether they’ll be an effective movie star. Someone's looks aren't a sign of 'gravitas' either way.
So?
I don't think they're demigods. Even the most talented actor can be a miscast.
Yep, good post.
The thing about Bond as well is there's this sort of 'Bond type' which has been defined, a particular sort of slightly grizzled, chiselled, dark-haired man, somewhere between Lazenby and Dalton, and that's really only come about because of the films and the various Milk Tray man-style 007 spoofs etc. over the years- he doesn't have to look like that, and even Ian Fleming was suggesting guys who didn't stick exactly to that look. I think focussing on looks above all else is a mistake.
Or indeed Keaton before him.
Also worth saying that when it comes to casting, it’s unlikely an actor will appear from nowhere who not only looks exactly like a flawless replica of Fleming’s Bond come to life (whatever that looks like in practice), with nothing to pick apart about their appearance, but also blows all his fellow competitors out of the water with his gravitas, movie Bond charisma, and has no downsides/is perfect for this role to the point we can all see it immediately. It’s a consideration from a limited pool of choices and is about finding the best fit ultimately, and of course a good deal of it will come down to intangible things like ‘aura’ and ‘gravitas’. Maybe an actor is going bald and needs a toupee or has a thick accent. Perhaps they have a mole on their face, or the wrong hair colour, or has a stupid onscreen run. It’s a gamble when all’s said and done (and ultimately good looks/sex appeal of some sort is required for this part), and I’ll take some superficial ‘issues’ if they even are.