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
An actor can be too short to play Bond isn’t an opinion, it is a fact . As talented as he may be, Peter Dinklage, or ANY actor his his height, or an actor under 5’’8” , will , or should ever be considered for Bond.
It’s been fun but my time here is done
Yeah, same here. I'm mainly an observer. :))
Statham is 5'8", UK average height is 5'9". He's less than average height, I don't think anyone minds. I'm not having a go at you, I'm not calling you any names or laughing at you, I just don't agree that one inch is so important.
I never hear anyone whine about the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE series because Tom Cruise is only 5'7" or whatever.
It's funny you should mention a Tom Cruise part, as Jack Reacher was the first thing to pop into my mind when I was reading your comment.
The first one is an absolutely cracking film.
I never read any of the books but I understand him being massive and a bit ugly or even slightly monstrous (is that right?) is a big thing in them.
Jack Reacher is another good example. I thought Tom Cruise was great in those films.
Not ugly, but certainly rough. Massive hands (often described as shovels) and a height of 6' 4" and weight of 230lbs.
He was. He captured the personality of the character pretty well even though physically he was miles away from him. I would, ideally, like someone who could do that while actually fitting the original description. Admittedly, that's a much tougher part to cast in comparison with Bond as finding someone who fits that physical criteria but can still act is a bit more difficult.
No problem, I take no offence at all, this is just a discussion after all.
Statham is 5ft 10in according to google etc. Just average.
One inch doesn’t matter is just what short men say surely. ;)
All my my point is that Bond is supposed to to be ‘better than most men’ and having a short actor doesn’t live up to that image.
I take your point.
But Jack Reacher is an American character I’d never heard of until the films came out.
Personally I’m passionate about the Bond character as a Brit. But the Hollywood can do what it wants to the US characters, I don’t care who plays them.
Fake or not, Fleming created the character of Bond to represent the best of British. So the actor playing him has to physically superior to most. Even if in reality the myth is b*******.
I also tend to care far more about Bond than many popular U.S. characters.
Honestly I have a pessimistic believe that if Michael and Barbara were to ever sell Bond -any other Hollywood producer might screw it up by casting a flavor of the month as Bond (regardless of their suitability for the role).
Barbara and Michael certainly took a risk that paid off by casting Craig, but I wouldn't deviate too much further from either Fleming or a traditional Bond image next time round.
Agreed. From memory I recall Cubby apparently said to Barbara when he retired; “Don’t let them mess it up.” In reference to the studio.
Exactly. IMO, someone coming in and casting, say Tom Cruise or Robert Downey Jr as Bond simply because they're popular wouldn't help the Bond franchise. I do think they would make a profit, but it just wouldn't be Bond. Wouldn't be right.
So much for simply trying to calm things down...
"You are chosing sides!" "I am out!"
One big objective truth: you have to be mature to join this forum. You have to be able to accept other opinions. And if you can't, a forum might not be your thing yet. I won't beg someone to stay if this tantrum is the response I get.
Yes they’ve got a new guy for the TV show who’s a bit closer, haven’t they?
I can see how him being a sort of hulking guy would affect the impression the character gives.
It seems to change where you look: some places do have him as 5’10”, some 5’8”. If that potential one inch below average doesn’t matter to you and you consider him to have presence then you presumably agree with what ‘short men say’. I’m just under 5’11” before you try to have another ad hominem pop.
My point is that automatically rejecting anyone on physical criteria alone is silly (within reason of course) and that acting ability and other qualities can more than make up for perceived deficiencies. It depends on the actor involved and will come down to a screen test.
Brilliant. Ha ha ha!
I assume you were forced to watch this film by your wife/ Girlfriend etc mate?
My wife hadn’t noticed it on Sky as yet, so I’ve dodged it so far!
In a relationship you are not forced, you do it out of love ;)
Part of footage give me this time also a Brosnan vibe.
I think Sam Claflin is worth a screen test.