Who should/could be a Bond actor?

17617627647667671230

Comments

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,205
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Gentlemen, please. Nobody is delusional or detached from reality in matters such as these. Shall we return to fan talk and fan speculation without the notion that there is somehow an objective truth in all of this? Thank you.
    You’ve got to be kidding;; you call me out rather than the person who instigated with a sarcastic, eye rolling post?

    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

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    Fair enough! I've all but given up contributing here; made my suggestions awhile ago anyways.

    Yeah, same here. I'm mainly an observer. :))
  • Posts: 1,630
    Yak yak yak Blah blah blah--- WHO IS THE STRIKING BLONDE LADY IN THE BLACK AND RED STRIPED OUTFIT, pleeeeease ???
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    I'm really interested to see Aaron Taylor-Johnson in David Leitch's next film Bullet Train, which is about five assassins aboard a fast-moving bullet train and also stars Brad Pitt. I really think this could be his chance to show the potential I think he has. It could be what Layer Cake was for Daniel Craig.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 2020 Posts: 16,363
    I was just watching Brief Encounter, and its star Celia Johnson was married to Ian Fleming's brother Peter- it's certainly hard not to think he was a pretty good match for Ian's description of Bond! :)

    Robert-Peter-Fleming.jpg
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    cwl007 wrote: »
    Mr Connery did.

    My point exactly.
    talos7 wrote: »
    So to be clear, there should be no minimum height for Bond ?

    Yes that's exactly what I'm saying, obviously. You can see it in all of those sentences I didn't type 8-|

    Oh, I see what you’re typing, I just can’t believe that you’re this delusional and completely detached from reality.

    Great, thanks.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Unfortunately he not even 5’8”

    Too short then. Bond should not be below average or unexceptional in any respect.

    A short actor can’t carry the ‘brand’ on the red carpet, even if it can be ‘disguised’ on film.

    I can't imagine caring about this. Can a bald actor 'carry the brand' on the red carpet?

    I assume you are referring to Connery. He got away with it in later years, but wore a wig at first. But being bald isn’t the same as being short. Look at Jason Stratham. However, he’s hardly comparable with a Peter Dinklage.

    I didn't say he was: you did. Just then.
    But it's good to know that you don't have to look exactly like James Bond in real life to play him on the screen, thanks for confirming that. Yes, we agree.

    I'm sure Statham has lost exactly as many roles because he's too short that Connery lost because he was too bald.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    cwl007 wrote: »
    Mr Connery did.

    My point exactly.
    talos7 wrote: »
    So to be clear, there should be no minimum height for Bond ?

    Yes that's exactly what I'm saying, obviously. You can see it in all of those sentences I didn't type 8-|

    Oh, I see what you’re typing, I just can’t believe that you’re this delusional and completely detached from reality.

    So a Bond as tall as Nick Nick is acceptable using this rule. Mental. Positively Mental.

    It's very odd to see you two getting excited by an argument that you've invented yourselves. The 'rule' being that there's no minimum height for Bond, presumably.

    You suggested that being bald was comparable to being being short? But they aren’t. Being bald is purely ‘looks’. Being short is both negative in terms of looks and physicality (and presence).

    They're both looks-based. It's what you are judging someone on right now: their looks. If you're telling me Statham has no physicality or presence... I don't know what to say.
    He's not the world's greatest actor but he gets by on his physicality and presence.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    And having no minimum size for Bond means a midget could be cast.

    Yes I expect so. Again you're arguing with yourself there though, because nobody has said that no minimum size should happen, apart from yourself and the other one.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    It’s laughable really, but thank you for the entertainment.

    Yeah, you resort to this one a lot; it's a bit tired. I don't think I'll bother reading any more.

    I think the idea that Bond is somehow different to all other fictional characters in that no aspect of his appearance can change is the puzzling one. How is it other characters manage to survive the process of being cast? Is it that we think no script is written with a physical type imagined by the scriptwriter, which then gets altered slightly by the casting agent? Are all of Statham's roles (as we're using him as an example) written with "must be balding and 5'8" " written in the character description? Of course not. Batman, Iron Man, Sherlock Holmes, Robin Hood etc. can all survive having actors who aren't exact doubles of the original physical description of the character (and some of them even played by actors under 5'9"! Shock horror!) but Bond can't?
    Bond is the one special character out of all of the many millions, and out of the dozens of really iconic ones? I don't think so. And yet somehow he survived being first played in movies by a guy who couldn't do the accent and didn't have enough hair, and most certainly didn't look like Hoagy Carmichael.

    But this will fall on deaf ears. It'll just be 'he can't do the accent' and 'he's not tall enough' until the end of time.

    I am saying Stratham is bald but has height and presence and he’s a guy women fancy.

    If he was short, he wouldn’t be the star he is. He’s average height, it’s not an issue.

    Shortness is a weakness Bond should not have.

    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.
  • Posts: 1,630
    "...don't agree that one inch is so important." Really ? Anyone here really willing to sacrifice just...one...inch ?
  • Posts: 16,153
    I don't really see the fuss over a 5'8" actor playing Bond. Give or take an inch. Certainly Cubby wanted Bond tall, but who is to say that if he were producing today he wouldn't be flexible for the right guy in the part?
    I never hear anyone whine about the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE series because Tom Cruise is only 5'7" or whatever.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    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.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 2020 Posts: 16,363
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    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.
  • Posts: 16,153
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    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.

    Jack Reacher is another good example. I thought Tom Cruise was great in those films.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited November 2020 Posts: 8,216
    mtm wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    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.

    Not ugly, but certainly rough. Massive hands (often described as shovels) and a height of 6' 4" and weight of 230lbs.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    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.

    Jack Reacher is another good example. I thought Tom Cruise was great in those films.

    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.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    mtm wrote: »
    I was just watching Brief Encounter, and its star Celia Johnson was married to Ian Fleming's brother Peter- it's certainly hard not to think he was a pretty good match for Ian's description of Bond! :)

    Robert-Peter-Fleming.jpg
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    cwl007 wrote: »
    Mr Connery did.

    My point exactly.
    talos7 wrote: »
    So to be clear, there should be no minimum height for Bond ?

    Yes that's exactly what I'm saying, obviously. You can see it in all of those sentences I didn't type 8-|

    Oh, I see what you’re typing, I just can’t believe that you’re this delusional and completely detached from reality.

    Great, thanks.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Unfortunately he not even 5’8”

    Too short then. Bond should not be below average or unexceptional in any respect.

    A short actor can’t carry the ‘brand’ on the red carpet, even if it can be ‘disguised’ on film.

    I can't imagine caring about this. Can a bald actor 'carry the brand' on the red carpet?

    I assume you are referring to Connery. He got away with it in later years, but wore a wig at first. But being bald isn’t the same as being short. Look at Jason Stratham. However, he’s hardly comparable with a Peter Dinklage.

    I didn't say he was: you did. Just then.
    But it's good to know that you don't have to look exactly like James Bond in real life to play him on the screen, thanks for confirming that. Yes, we agree.

    I'm sure Statham has lost exactly as many roles because he's too short that Connery lost because he was too bald.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    cwl007 wrote: »
    Mr Connery did.

    My point exactly.
    talos7 wrote: »
    So to be clear, there should be no minimum height for Bond ?

    Yes that's exactly what I'm saying, obviously. You can see it in all of those sentences I didn't type 8-|

    Oh, I see what you’re typing, I just can’t believe that you’re this delusional and completely detached from reality.

    So a Bond as tall as Nick Nick is acceptable using this rule. Mental. Positively Mental.

    It's very odd to see you two getting excited by an argument that you've invented yourselves. The 'rule' being that there's no minimum height for Bond, presumably.

    You suggested that being bald was comparable to being being short? But they aren’t. Being bald is purely ‘looks’. Being short is both negative in terms of looks and physicality (and presence).

    They're both looks-based. It's what you are judging someone on right now: their looks. If you're telling me Statham has no physicality or presence... I don't know what to say.
    He's not the world's greatest actor but he gets by on his physicality and presence.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    And having no minimum size for Bond means a midget could be cast.

    Yes I expect so. Again you're arguing with yourself there though, because nobody has said that no minimum size should happen, apart from yourself and the other one.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    It’s laughable really, but thank you for the entertainment.

    Yeah, you resort to this one a lot; it's a bit tired. I don't think I'll bother reading any more.

    I think the idea that Bond is somehow different to all other fictional characters in that no aspect of his appearance can change is the puzzling one. How is it other characters manage to survive the process of being cast? Is it that we think no script is written with a physical type imagined by the scriptwriter, which then gets altered slightly by the casting agent? Are all of Statham's roles (as we're using him as an example) written with "must be balding and 5'8" " written in the character description? Of course not. Batman, Iron Man, Sherlock Holmes, Robin Hood etc. can all survive having actors who aren't exact doubles of the original physical description of the character (and some of them even played by actors under 5'9"! Shock horror!) but Bond can't?
    Bond is the one special character out of all of the many millions, and out of the dozens of really iconic ones? I don't think so. And yet somehow he survived being first played in movies by a guy who couldn't do the accent and didn't have enough hair, and most certainly didn't look like Hoagy Carmichael.

    But this will fall on deaf ears. It'll just be 'he can't do the accent' and 'he's not tall enough' until the end of time.

    I am saying Stratham is bald but has height and presence and he’s a guy women fancy.

    If he was short, he wouldn’t be the star he is. He’s average height, it’s not an issue.

    Shortness is a weakness Bond should not have.

    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.

    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.

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited November 2020 Posts: 5,131
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I don't really see the fuss over a 5'8" actor playing Bond. Give or take an inch. Certainly Cubby wanted Bond tall, but who is to say that if he were producing today he wouldn't be flexible for the right guy in the part?
    I never hear anyone whine about the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE series because Tom Cruise is only 5'7" or whatever.

    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*******.
  • Posts: 16,153
    suavejmf wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I don't really see the fuss over a 5'8" actor playing Bond. Give or take an inch. Certainly Cubby wanted Bond tall, but who is to say that if he were producing today he wouldn't be flexible for the right guy in the part?
    I never hear anyone whine about the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE series because Tom Cruise is only 5'7" or whatever.

    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.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I don't really see the fuss over a 5'8" actor playing Bond. Give or take an inch. Certainly Cubby wanted Bond tall, but who is to say that if he were producing today he wouldn't be flexible for the right guy in the part?
    I never hear anyone whine about the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE series because Tom Cruise is only 5'7" or whatever.

    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.
  • Posts: 16,153
    suavejmf wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I don't really see the fuss over a 5'8" actor playing Bond. Give or take an inch. Certainly Cubby wanted Bond tall, but who is to say that if he were producing today he wouldn't be flexible for the right guy in the part?
    I never hear anyone whine about the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE series because Tom Cruise is only 5'7" or whatever.

    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.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,172
    talos7 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Gentlemen, please. Nobody is delusional or detached from reality in matters such as these. Shall we return to fan talk and fan speculation without the notion that there is somehow an objective truth in all of this? Thank you.
    You’ve got to be kidding;; you call me out rather than the person who instigated with a sarcastic, eye rolling post?

    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

    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.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 2020 Posts: 16,363
    mtm wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    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.

    Not ugly, but certainly rough. Massive hands (often described as shovels) and a height of 6' 4" and weight of 230lbs.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    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.

    Jack Reacher is another good example. I thought Tom Cruise was great in those films.

    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.

    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.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I was just watching Brief Encounter, and its star Celia Johnson was married to Ian Fleming's brother Peter- it's certainly hard not to think he was a pretty good match for Ian's description of Bond! :)

    Robert-Peter-Fleming.jpg
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    cwl007 wrote: »
    Mr Connery did.

    My point exactly.
    talos7 wrote: »
    So to be clear, there should be no minimum height for Bond ?

    Yes that's exactly what I'm saying, obviously. You can see it in all of those sentences I didn't type 8-|

    Oh, I see what you’re typing, I just can’t believe that you’re this delusional and completely detached from reality.

    Great, thanks.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Unfortunately he not even 5’8”

    Too short then. Bond should not be below average or unexceptional in any respect.

    A short actor can’t carry the ‘brand’ on the red carpet, even if it can be ‘disguised’ on film.

    I can't imagine caring about this. Can a bald actor 'carry the brand' on the red carpet?

    I assume you are referring to Connery. He got away with it in later years, but wore a wig at first. But being bald isn’t the same as being short. Look at Jason Stratham. However, he’s hardly comparable with a Peter Dinklage.

    I didn't say he was: you did. Just then.
    But it's good to know that you don't have to look exactly like James Bond in real life to play him on the screen, thanks for confirming that. Yes, we agree.

    I'm sure Statham has lost exactly as many roles because he's too short that Connery lost because he was too bald.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    cwl007 wrote: »
    Mr Connery did.

    My point exactly.
    talos7 wrote: »
    So to be clear, there should be no minimum height for Bond ?

    Yes that's exactly what I'm saying, obviously. You can see it in all of those sentences I didn't type 8-|

    Oh, I see what you’re typing, I just can’t believe that you’re this delusional and completely detached from reality.

    So a Bond as tall as Nick Nick is acceptable using this rule. Mental. Positively Mental.

    It's very odd to see you two getting excited by an argument that you've invented yourselves. The 'rule' being that there's no minimum height for Bond, presumably.

    You suggested that being bald was comparable to being being short? But they aren’t. Being bald is purely ‘looks’. Being short is both negative in terms of looks and physicality (and presence).

    They're both looks-based. It's what you are judging someone on right now: their looks. If you're telling me Statham has no physicality or presence... I don't know what to say.
    He's not the world's greatest actor but he gets by on his physicality and presence.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    And having no minimum size for Bond means a midget could be cast.

    Yes I expect so. Again you're arguing with yourself there though, because nobody has said that no minimum size should happen, apart from yourself and the other one.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    It’s laughable really, but thank you for the entertainment.

    Yeah, you resort to this one a lot; it's a bit tired. I don't think I'll bother reading any more.

    I think the idea that Bond is somehow different to all other fictional characters in that no aspect of his appearance can change is the puzzling one. How is it other characters manage to survive the process of being cast? Is it that we think no script is written with a physical type imagined by the scriptwriter, which then gets altered slightly by the casting agent? Are all of Statham's roles (as we're using him as an example) written with "must be balding and 5'8" " written in the character description? Of course not. Batman, Iron Man, Sherlock Holmes, Robin Hood etc. can all survive having actors who aren't exact doubles of the original physical description of the character (and some of them even played by actors under 5'9"! Shock horror!) but Bond can't?
    Bond is the one special character out of all of the many millions, and out of the dozens of really iconic ones? I don't think so. And yet somehow he survived being first played in movies by a guy who couldn't do the accent and didn't have enough hair, and most certainly didn't look like Hoagy Carmichael.

    But this will fall on deaf ears. It'll just be 'he can't do the accent' and 'he's not tall enough' until the end of time.

    I am saying Stratham is bald but has height and presence and he’s a guy women fancy.

    If he was short, he wouldn’t be the star he is. He’s average height, it’s not an issue.

    Shortness is a weakness Bond should not have.

    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.

    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.

    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.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    I think next Bond is little bit of surprise to us.
  • edited June 2022 Posts: 936
    .
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    It's going to be a tall order.

    Brilliant. Ha ha ha!
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited November 2020 Posts: 1,318
    It's going to be a tall order.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    It's going to be a tall order.

    Brilliant. Ha ha ha!
    Better make that two. Cheerio.

    bond_martini.jpg

  • edited November 2020 Posts: 4,613
    Apologies if posted before but I watched "Last Christmas" yesterday and noticed this at 35 seconds. "Shtay back" Serendipity?



  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    patb wrote: »
    Apologies if posted before but I watched "Last Christmas" yesterday and noticed this at 35 seconds. "Shtay back" Serendipity?



    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!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,363
    Yeah I've heard it's shocking, is it as bad as they say?
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    suavejmf wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Apologies if posted before but I watched "Last Christmas" yesterday and noticed this at 35 seconds. "Shtay back" Serendipity?



    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 ;)
  • Posts: 4,613
    It was research re the next James Bond actor (PS I actually likle it)
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited November 2020 Posts: 4,515
    Nice to see some other footage from this movie, that my sugestion suport even more. A good exampe for his English voice and the humor. Very good humor and his interaction with her is very good. But of course she was highlight of Terminator 5.

    Part of footage give me this time also a Brosnan vibe.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited November 2020 Posts: 5,131
    Henry Golding is Malaysian, so he’s totally unsuitable for Bond (looks wise) in my opinion.

    I think Sam Claflin is worth a screen test.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    Has anyone mentioned Aidan Turner yet?
Sign In or Register to comment.