Who should/could be a Bond actor?

14474484504524531231

Comments

  • edited October 2018 Posts: 5,767
    talos7 wrote: »
    The next actor will have to possess the same intense physicality that Craig has brought to the role .
    Why?

  • Posts: 19,339
    I hope not.
    I rather hope he will tone down to either Connery or Lazenby mode of body type.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217
    boldfinger wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    The next actor will have to possess the same intense physicality that Craig has brought to the role .
    Why?
    Because it’s a quality that is very appealing to , and expected by, modern audiences, while at the same time recalls Sean at his peak, and was one of the strengths that Lazenby brought to the table. They, with style, looked and moved like men toughened by experience and were completely convincing as capablewell trained assessins.
    For all of their wonderful qualities, Moore, Brosnan and Dalton lacked this; frequently their fights, as well as other physical acting , looked like what it was, carefully choreographed, and edited set pieces.
    But when you watch Daniel in combat , as with Sean and George, he looks and moves like a man who can truly handle himself; and he has set a new standard, one that the next actor should possess in order to convincingly portray Bond for a modern audience.

  • Posts: 15,125
    bondsum wrote: »
    So are you comparing their last performance as Bond or are you comparing their last screenplay, not necessarily their entire output as Bond @Ludovico?

    Though I'd argue Connery doesn't play it any lighter in DAF than he did in any of his previous entries. If anything, he's even gruffer in DAF than before. Sure, there's a perceived notion that DAF is more of a send-up because of Tom Mankiewicz's witty one-liners and Blofeld dressed in drag, but I think those are incorrect impressions. One can argue that the tone of the movie is perhaps lighter and jokier in certain parts, but that can't be said of the actor himself or his delivery. I also see Moore's Bond in LALD as more of a smooth playboy than Connery's brusque Bond. For me, there's a marked contrast between the two portrayals which was obvious to me back in '71 and '73 that still resonates today. Personally, I think Moore gives a better performance as a terse agent in TMWTGG that feels more akin to Connery's Bond, before that approach was sadly abandoned for raised eyebrows and schoolboy smirks in TSWLM and MR.

    I don't know. Maybe I was reading too much into your "contrast" remark. Besides, we still don't know what type of movie we'll be getting with B25 as Craig's last entry isn't even in the can yet.

    I think you are reading too much into it but I'm not very clear I guess. Basically what I'm saying is that no new Bond brings such a big departure from the previous ones as some may think. Yes CR is a world apart from DAD, but it was DAD that was the odd film in Brosnan's tenure. The early Moore movies were not that far from DAF for obvious reasons, OHMSS was fairly close in tone to the early Connery, etc. Dalton was the one and true big departure and it didn't click with the public at the time. You could say Connery returning for DAF was also a change of approach. But in any case, a change of approach does not equal recasting. MR and FYEO have the same Bond.
  • Posts: 5,767
    talos7 wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    The next actor will have to possess the same intense physicality that Craig has brought to the role .
    Why?
    Because it’s a quality that is very appealing to , and expected by, modern audiences, while at the same time recalls Sean at his peak, and was one of the strengths that Lazenby brought to the table. They, with style, looked and moved like men toughened by experience and were completely convincing as capablewell trained assessins.
    For all of their wonderful qualities, Moore, Brosnan and Dalton lacked this; frequently their fights, as well as other physical acting , looked like what it was, carefully choreographed, and edited set pieces.
    But when you watch Daniel in combat , as with Sean and George, he looks and moves like a man who can truly handle himself; and he has set a new standard, one that the next actor should possess in order to convincingly portray Bond for a modern audience.
    Ah, now I understand. Yes, I would appreciate that too.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2018 Posts: 23,883
    I think the next actor will definitely have to be physically fit, but also believe a lot of this can be handled via direction.

    As an example, the FRWL fight is still one of the most brutal in the series, and that is on account of setting, choreography and direction. Connery is secret agent level fit in it but not overly bulky. He's lean, young and defined. Similarly, Tom Cruise is certainly very fit, but he's no bruiser. That bathroom fight in the last MI film was a wonder of direction more than anything, and in my mind it's one of the most entertaining things put on film.

    Conversely, I wasn't all that impressed with the physicality in the Komodo fight (SF) or the clinic fight (SP), irrespective of Craig being in both films.
    barryt007 wrote: »
    I hope not.
    I rather hope he will tone down to either Connery or Lazenby mode of body type.
    In terms of physical appearance, yes I hope so too. Young Connery or Laz.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217
    Any lacking in the appearance of Craig’s capabilities is completely the fault of the director and/ or fight coordinator; if they do their jobs, he’ll do his .
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    talos7 wrote: »
    Any lacking in the appearance of Craig’s capabilities is completely the fault of the director and/ or fight coordinator; if they do their jobs, he’ll do his .
    Precisely. Which is why I feel director and fight coordinator are where it's at fundamentally. The actor has to be credibly fit, but I don't need to see CR level muscles.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I think you are reading too much into it but I'm not very clear I guess. Basically what I'm saying is that no new Bond brings such a big departure from the previous ones as some may think. Yes CR is a world apart from DAD, but it was DAD that was the odd film in Brosnan's tenure. The early Moore movies were not that far from DAF for obvious reasons, OHMSS was fairly close in tone to the early Connery, etc. Dalton was the one and true big departure and it didn't click with the public at the time. You could say Connery returning for DAF was also a change of approach. But in any case, a change of approach does not equal recasting. MR and FYEO have the same Bond.
    So are you saying that there would be no contrast between Craig and Brosnan's Bond, had TWINE been his last movie? I'm not so sure. Brosnan was still prone to lampooning himself in that particular movie (tie-straightening underwater) plus the silliness of Q and R kept one foot firmly entrenched in the camp terrain. CR played it straight, and unlike Brosnan, we felt compelled to feel Bond's pain at every turn. I don't know, I'm going to say if you take TWINE as a whole, it still comes across as feeling distinctly different, and therefore a contrast to CR: performances, script, pretty much everything-wise.

    With regards to MR and FYEO, the latter film was written with a new Bond in mind, which was why there was a different approach taken. Unfortunately, it still managed to satirize itself when Moore agreed to return, which ruined the whole back-to-basics approach that was originally intended had a new Bond taken over. To me, FYEO is rather a curious anomaly sandwiched in-between two parody Bond movies. It's neither one thing nor the other.

    I suppose we could go around in circles discussing the subtle and prominent differences between each actor and their individual performances. But one thing I will say is that I don't think we'll ever return to the juvenile-Moore-type-Bond again. Those days have been confined to the past. It's my belief that the next actor will be playing it more along the same lines as Connery, Lazenby, Dalton and Craig, with zero shift to caricature as we got with Moore and Brosnan. It's also my belief that both Turner and Stevens are more than capable of delivering that type of brusque and physical Bond that Craig thankfully brought back to us, which is why I continue to trumpet their names so loudly.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217
    bondjames wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Any lacking in the appearance of Craig’s capabilities is completely the fault of the director and/ or fight coordinator; if they do their jobs, he’ll do his .
    Precisely. Which is why I feel director and fight coordinator are where it's at fundamentally. The actor has to be credibly fit, but I don't need to see CR level muscles.

    Well this has been discussed, and I think the perception of Craig being overly muscled is false and a result of a single scene, rising out of the water, where light a framing make him look bulkier. Look at all of the Ocean Club scenes; he’s very lean

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    talos7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Any lacking in the appearance of Craig’s capabilities is completely the fault of the director and/ or fight coordinator; if they do their jobs, he’ll do his .
    Precisely. Which is why I feel director and fight coordinator are where it's at fundamentally. The actor has to be credibly fit, but I don't need to see CR level muscles.

    Well this has been discussed, and I think the perception of Craig being overly muscled is false and a result of a single scene, rising out of the water, where light a framing make him look bulkier. Look at all of the Ocean Club scenes; he’s very lean
    It has definitely been discussed and it's a matter of perception, which of course varies by user. To me it's really a question of proportions. A shorter man probably looks bulkier with the same level of upper body muscle as a taller one, irrespective of what the actual truth of the matter is. To my eyes, Craig looks bulky in CR and SF (could be the hairdo in the later film) and leaner in QoS and SP.

    What I'd prefer to see is a leaner appearance, irrespective of actual level of fitness, and the choreography do the rest. I also hope they pick a fella who moves well onscreen. I think Lazenby really nailed it and was best in the way he strode, but Connery under Young is still the benchmark for me.

    I think all of these Bonds look best in their first couple of films when they are younger. Then they slack off as they get more comfortable in the role.
  • Posts: 15,125
    I'm not saying there's no contrast, I'm saying the difference is not as sharp as people may believe when a new Bond is cast. I know they were thinking of a recast for FYEO, but they kept Moore and for various reasons it softened the changes. It was still a far more down to earth movie. But I'd change what I said earlier: Craig did indeed bring a different approach. Maybe partially because they never quite knew where to go with Brosnan. I agree that I don't think we'll go back to the more comedic Bond movies. At least I hope not. That's also why I think the future Bond actor may not bring a lighter approach.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    It's possible to bring a lighter approach without going full on camp. It's a question of degree and how things are handled. They will have to play to Bond #007's strengths though. If he doesn't have it in him, then don't go there.

    I don't think I'm wrong in saying that there is an overall market perception that the Craig films have been more dour and serious - he has said so himself. I think they recognize that, and will vary things to differentiate the next Bond from Craig.
  • edited October 2018 Posts: 3,333
    Yes, I think it's safe to say a lighter Bond would be counterintuitive after all the good work Craig's done to erase that @Ludovico.

    Interesting to see Jamie Dornan in a future possible Oscar nominee-type movie A Private War with Rosamund Pike coming out soon. It's these types of movies that can raise an actor from bottom of the pile to potential candidate in the blink of an eye. Of course, I'm not saying Dornan gives a Bond-type performance in A Private War, but it's not about doing that. It's about raising one's profile and getting rid of the tarnished image that Fifty Shades of Grey brought with it. Sadly, he's still only 5ft 10 ½ high though.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217
    Well, through the years, body norms change, for women and men; what worked in any previous era may not today. Take two icons such as Marilyn Monroe and Jane Mansfield ; from now until the end of time they will rightfully remembered as sex symbols. In their day their voluptuous body types were the Ideal , but what would the reaction be of today’s filmgoers if an actress with the same body type was cast as Wonder Woman or squeezed into the Black Widow’s skin tight costume? Right or wrong it would not be favorable.
    As it applies to Bond , in his prime Sean looked great ; he was lean an athletic but not muscular and defined; he was also very hairy. Lol. As with the example above, if today an actor with his exact same physique were to cast, I don’t think a modern audience would see him as being in the shape that an ex-special forces soldier, and now deadly assassin would be in.
    I say this with all due respect to Sean but times change.
  • edited October 2018 Posts: 3,333
    Ok, after posting my last remark about height, I'd thought I'd give a table of some of our most recent candidates and their heights. The information does vary from source to source so take it as just an approximation. I haven't bothered including any of the IMDb list as it's totally farcical and clearly been put together by a 10-year-old.

    So, here are our main candidates for 2018...

    Aiden Turner: 5ft 10 ⅜″— although the actor says himself: "I'm about 5ft 11." Google search has him at 6ft.
    Jamie Dornan: 5ft 10 ½″— although Google search also has him at 6ft.
    Dan Stevens: 6ft— this is pretty much standard reporting across all sites.
    Richard Madden: 5ft 10″— although standing alongside taller actors this height does seem to be overly generous. Most likely below this height.
    Henry Cavill: 6ft 1″— perfect height, no question about it.
    Tom Hiddleston: 6ft 2″— the tallest by far of all our candidates (not including Idris Elba of course), but also the most effete actor out of the entire bunch.
    Michael Fassbender: 6ft — good height, but too old.
    Idris Elba: 6ft 3″— wins the height contest hands down, but being diplomatic: he's far too old.
    Tom Hardy: 5ft 9″— the shortest out of the list so far, also too old.
    Jack O'Connell: 5ft 8″— I take that back. Jack is clearly a possible candidate should Barbara ever find the need for a suitable replacement for Nick Nack in TMWTGG remake.
  • Posts: 19,339
    bondsum wrote: »
    Ok, after posting my last remark about height, I'd thought I'd give a table of some of our most recent candidates and their heights. The information does vary from source to source so take it as just an approximation. I haven't bothered including any of the IMDb list as it's totally farcical and clearly been put together by a 10-year-old.

    So, here are our main candidates for 2018...

    Aiden Turner: 5ft 10 ⅜″— although the actor says himself: "I'm about 5ft 11." Google search has him at 6ft.
    Jamie Dornan: 5ft 10 ½″— although Google search also has him at 6ft.
    Dan Stevens: 6ft— this is pretty much standard reporting across all sites.
    Richard Madden: 5ft 10″— although standing alongside taller actors this height does seem to be overly generous. Most likely below this height.
    Henry Cavill: 6ft 1″— perfect height, no question about it.
    Tom Hiddleston: 6ft 2″— the tallest by far of all our candidates (not including Idris Elba of course), but also the most effete actor out of the entire bunch.
    Michael Fassbender: 6ft — good height, but too old.
    Idris Elba: 6ft 3″— wins the height contest hands down, but being diplomatic: he's far too old.
    Tom Hardy: 5ft 9″— the shortest out of the list so far, also too old.
    Jack O'Connell: 5ft 8″— I take that back. Jack is clearly a possible candidate should Barbara ever find the need for a suitable replacement for Nick Nack in TMWTGG remake.

    Hahaha !!!

    Mind you,i don't know why im laughing,im 5'8 myself .

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Guess I'm eligible to play Nick Nack myself, as well, then. :))
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217
    Guess I'm eligible to play Nick Nack myself, as well, then. :))
    Hey, there’s a casting call, where do I sign up? :D

  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    bondsum wrote: »
    Ok, after posting my last remark about height, I'd thought I'd give a table of some of our most recent candidates and their heights. The information does vary from source to source so take it as just an approximation. I haven't bothered including any of the IMDb list as it's totally farcical and clearly been put together by a 10-year-old.

    So, here are our main candidates for 2018...

    Aiden Turner: 5ft 10 ⅜″— although the actor says himself: "I'm about 5ft 11." Google search has him at 6ft.
    Jamie Dornan: 5ft 10 ½″— although Google search also has him at 6ft.
    Dan Stevens: 6ft— this is pretty much standard reporting across all sites.
    Richard Madden: 5ft 10″— although standing alongside taller actors this height does seem to be overly generous. Most likely below this height.
    Henry Cavill: 6ft 1″— perfect height, no question about it.
    Tom Hiddleston: 6ft 2″— the tallest by far of all our candidates (not including Idris Elba of course), but also the most effete actor out of the entire bunch.
    Michael Fassbender: 6ft — good height, but too old.
    Idris Elba: 6ft 3″— wins the height contest hands down, but being diplomatic: he's far too old.
    Tom Hardy: 5ft 9″— the shortest out of the list so far, also too old.
    Jack O'Connell: 5ft 8″— I take that back. Jack is clearly a possible candidate should Barbara ever find the need for a suitable replacement for Nick Nack in TMWTGG remake.

    I'm certain Dornan hits 6 ft.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217
    So, what is too tall?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    talos7 wrote: »
    Guess I'm eligible to play Nick Nack myself, as well, then. :))
    Hey, there’s a casting call, where do I sign up? :D
    Babs' backyard. I'll meet you and the others there. :))
  • Posts: 19,339
    Maybe I could make a film with Jamie Dornan :

    My Dinner and lots of booze with Baz.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2018 Posts: 23,883
    talos7 wrote: »
    Well, through the years, body norms change, for women and men; what worked in any previous era may not today. Take two icons such as Marilyn Monroe and Jane Mansfield ; from now until the end of time they will rightfully remembered as sex symbols. In their day their voluptuous body types were the Ideal , but what would the reaction be of today’s filmgoers if an actress with the same body type was cast as Wonder Woman or squeezed into the Black Widow’s skin tight costume? Right or wrong it would not be favorable.
    As it applies to Bond , in his prime Sean looked great ; he was lean an athletic but not muscular and defined; he was also very hairy. Lol. As with the example above, if today an actor with his exact same physique were to cast, I don’t think a modern audience would see him as being in the shape that an ex-special forces soldier, and now deadly assassin would be in.
    I say this with all due respect to Sean but times change.
    I agree on the hair thing. It's a bit passe, despite alleged Japanese preferences (does that still apply today?). This applies for women too of course, at least imho ;). However, I beg to differ on big Sean. I think his overall physique (in DN/FRWL) would be perfect for Bond even today. Same for Lazzer. Overall I agree with you that what are considered acceptable body type norms do change with time.
    talos7 wrote: »
    So, what is too tall?
    Well, one shouldn't tower over everybody. I'd say 6ft 3 or thereabout is the upper limit.
  • Posts: 5,767
    talos7 wrote: »
    Well, through the years, body norms change, for women and men; what worked in any previous era may not today. Take two icons such as Marilyn Monroe and Jane Mansfield ; from now until the end of time they will rightfully remembered as sex symbols. In their day their voluptuous body types were the Ideal , but what would the reaction be of today’s filmgoers if an actress with the same body type was cast as Wonder Woman or squeezed into the Black Widow’s skin tight costume? Right or wrong it would not be favorable.
    As it applies to Bond , in his prime Sean looked great ; he was lean an athletic but not muscular and defined; he was also very hairy. Lol. As with the example above, if today an actor with his exact same physique were to cast, I don’t think a modern audience would see him as being in the shape that an ex-special forces soldier, and now deadly assassin would be in.
    I say this with all due respect to Sean but times change.
    I disagree, because you can´t define that Kind of credibility by just the physical form. If a guy is less muscular but energetic and aggressive in a suitable way, he might come across as a much more deadly Assassin as Craig ever did. And a huge factor of what the General public believes is due to media. Have one good article from a popular outlet state that Nicolas Hoult is the deadliest Bond ever, and half the public will believe that.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Coming back to the topic of 'hair', while it's quite true that hairy chests are out the door these days, I wonder if changing 'norm's will one day give us a Bond actor with permanent stubble. After all, I hardly see any younger actor without some facial growth these days. Craig sported a bit of it during SF and perhaps this has opened the door to more of that in the future. I personally hope not, being a fan of a daily shave myself, but if it's considered cool by a certain generation of viewers then it may come to pass eventually.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    No stubble or any facial hair for Bond.
  • Posts: 3,333
    NicNac wrote: »
    I'm certain Dornan hits 6 ft.
    Yes, he probably is 6ft. With the exception of Hardy, O'Connell and Madden, I think all the above candidates are about the right height to play Bond. There are different heights recorded for those names I've mentioned, but the ones I've highlighted do appear to be pretty close to the truth.
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Hahaha !!! Mind you,i don't know why im laughing,im 5'8 myself .
    Guess I'm eligible to play Nick Nack myself, as well, then. :))
    Don't take offence, guys. This is in no way a dig at 007 fans that don't reach the Bond requirement levels. It's strictly aimed at the actors that will be up for a future screen test. For the record, I'm now too old to play Bond, so it's really no different for me either.
  • Posts: 6,709
    Hear hear, no stubble. Like you, @bondjames, I'm a fan of the daily shaving ritual, which is being lost because these generations just don't bother. They just don't have the discipline, the mettlesomeness, the pride or the dignity to do so. Let's not have Bond as a slouch and a laxity Y gen idiot, please.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    None taken, old chap. ;)

    As the man himself once said: "Well, you can't win them all."
Sign In or Register to comment.