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
I agree!
Agreed, very true.
Can't agree with that. Time catches up with everyone. Roger Moore was youthful looking at the start but soon his looks caught up with his age.
It's not realistic to have a 50 year old as a double 00. Why would they have some one who's physically over the hill?
This one always makes me both laugh and frustrated. We live in a completely different time when it comes to physical fitness and vitality. An actor who takes care of himself could play the role until 60.
Now how that actor looks from the neck up is a different story; we all age differently.
Daniel obviously knows how to stay in shape, but, has always looked older than his years. If people are willing to see a more mature Bond I don't see any problem with him playing the role well into his 50's.
I watched NSNA last night and Connery looked great in it even at 53 (at the time) - in fact, I wondered while watching it what it would have been like if he had continued to make Bond films into the 90's (he looked better with the newer toupee designs they came up with from The Rock onwards and no one can question the man's screen authority and charisma).
Some people have youthful looks and can keep them for longer on account of a healthy lifestyle, fitness regimen and genetics.
I don't necessarily need to see Bond running around and jumping over rooftops. Connery hardly did that and I still prefer his and Moore's films to many of the newer outings. That's just my view.
Of course the new 'gaming' crowd and 'foreign' viewers brought up on FF and the like may take exception to this.
there are actors of every age that have had injuries during filming. His age was not the cause of his injury.
Why does it frustrate you? We do live in a different time agreed, and people are fitter in general agreed, but in the 60s Connery had to run across a rooftop, or wrestle with Pussy Galore in a barn. Craig has to do so much more demanding physical work, and the shoot lasts months longer than they did, and no doubt there are more night shoots, and longer hours in general. So, we are 50 years on, but the demands of the part on an actor approaching his 50s is considerably more than it was. Look at what Craig did in CR - in just the pre title scenes. He wouldn't be able to do that now I would wager.
Craig is a perfect example actually. He started as 'rookie' Bond at 38. Hardly a spring chicken. His tenure has been hampered by these studio delays, but if that hadn't happened, he would surely have had 5 under his belt by now, 10 yrs later.
Connery was 32 in DN but had a maturity that suggested he was in his early 40's. Moore was 45 when he started and acted as such (with that level of maturity), even though he looked closer to 35.
So the key is to get an actor who has the screen maturity, but who can also age nicely into the role for 10 yrs while still being able to keep up with the physical demands. At the moment, Fassbender seems to be right in the sweet spot imho.
We always think of Sean in DAF and Roger in OP and AVTAK as featuring a Bond who is either out of shape or clearly a little long in the tooth. There were even rumblings about Dan in SP.
But, the casting of these actors in every case was down to box office clout. Eon knew where they were and what they would get with these Bond vets, so they were more keen to be sure of a BO hit than to try and blood a new actor.
Historically we criticise some of these decisions, but each Bond film is of it's time and film making is a serious money making business.
Well 60s that is elderly.
As I am 53, I find this, yes, antiquated, thinking. I don't want to see a truly elderly Bond but we live in different times.
Having said that, I'm not advocating for a 60 yr old Bond actor.
PS: Jason Statham is 49 yrs old, and like Cruise, he certainly looks like he has at least 10 more years of hard charging action in him, so age is less of a factor than general fitness, health and genetics - again imho.
Of course I would prefer a late 30's/early 40's actor like Craig, Brosnan or Dalton, but I don't want a youthful looking Bond. A world weary, mature, hardened actor is what I expect from James Bond.
Would "not quite as youthful" be PC enough then? Look I meant no offence. But in your 50s you are middle aged. And when one turns 60 you can start calling such age elderly. Younger side of elderly but still.