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
Great post.
Holland does look tiny in stature on screen, I agree.
I think up to a certain height an actor does not come off as imposing anymore but as weird if not scary, more suitable for a villain.
I agree, both Clint Eastwood and Liam Neeson are listed as 6'4"; They both look great on screen and appear to be the ceiling.
Yeah they're both slightly beanpole-ish although it works for them.
I did watch a movie Neeson made in around '91 recently and thought he'd have been a decent Bond candidate though.
I don't blame you, i am 6ft tall and yet still ruled out of playing bond 😄
Of course you’re right, I stand corrected!
Provided the actor isn't too small, under 5'9 let's say, and so long as they have Daniel's level of presence they'll be fine. Daniel has that Connery level swagger that all the other actors before him couldn't master. Take for instance his entrance in the casino in Casino Royale, then compare that to Brosnan's almost identical entrance in Goldeneye, Craig owns the room, while Brosnan has a sort of catwalk style walk (not that that's a bad thing but it lacks presence)
That would be the one thing I would take from Daniel's Bond, if I were up for the role of replacing him, is that alpha male aspect to the character, it translates very well to cinematic Bond.
I never think about Daniel's height if I'm honest, because he plays the character with such assurance. That's what the next actor needs to do
Like it or not, height matters.
Well not 5'5 haha, I'd say they can't go shorter than say 5'9
I don't think if they were sceen-testing actors, someone having more height should be a factor in playing the role. For instance, I think Richard Madden would make a better Bond than Henry Cavill, although Cavill is significantly taller.
I agree with this, absolutely. Good point.
My point is that in the overall looking at candidates there has to be a minimum and a maximum. 5’9 seems to be the minimum; an actor of this height can easily reach 5’11” with shoes and lifts. It’s worked for Daniel. On the other end of the spectrum, 6’4” feels like the limit
Exactly, yes; great post. Dalton was the 'perfect' height but never managed that alpha male assurance, and Bond as a character is way more about that to me than he is about his inside leg measurement.
Seems reasonable enough to me. 5'10" (which is what Daniel Craig is I believe), even without shoes and lifts, is fine with me. It's still above the national average anyway, isn't it?
And that photo he looks perfectly normal height. He's slouching down with a leg bent and Fukunaga is standing up straight (but not in boots). When I look at that photo my take away is not 'OMG Craig is short!' because he's not, and he doesn't look it there. Fukunaga probably does have an inch or two on him because he looks like a bit of a lanky guy, but again: does it matter?
If height=sexiness/star power then Roger would have been losing out big time
This is a completely invalid comparison,; a toupee is cosmetic, stature is not, as was using Jaws in relation to Bond.
Not really, you're saying he's really pretending and is actually shorter than he looks in the movie (and a BTS pic of him looking completely normal is supposedly proof of this); and Connery was balder than he looks in the movie. But movies aren't real: what matters is how they look in the movie.
And the Jaws thing is perfectly valid too: the supposition seems to be is that height is the most important thing and looking short is emasculating.
I honestly do not get the fascination with height. Keaton as Batman, Downey as Iron Man, characters who look about six foot five and covered in muscles in their comics, but neither were in any way let down by their actors being a bit shorter if you ask me. And no, before some japester says it, that does not automatically follow that I want Peter Dinkledge to play 007.
To be fair, if you went on to respective boards dedicated to those characters, I'm sure you'd find plenty of people who do have problems with it - such is the nature of fan communities.
I expect so, but that just shows how unimportant these bits of fan thinking are really. That both -Downey especially- were huge hits in those roles isn't really debatable.
I liked it in Deadpool 2 where Deadpool was describing Josh Brolin's Cable to someone and said "not as tall as in the comicbooks" :)
No, I haven't. You'd have to actually say why to establish that. What isn't credible is posting a photo of Daniel Craig looking like a totally normal-sized man, just as he always does, and saying he looks short.
You're right, it's not really debatable that they were successful. But I don't think that's an excuse to belittle or be so flippant about what may be important to other people when they think of a character. I don't see anyone speaking for anyone other than themselves. It's no more or less important than other aspects of the character.
A lot of what people feel, or want, isn't based in evidence or facts or what is "not debatable". If it were, these conversations, this thread, would be a lot shorter and far less interesting.
Height isn't important to you. That's cool. It's not all that important to me either, within reason. Anything in the range of what we have gotten so far is fine by me.
And yes, that Cable joke in Deadpool 2 was pretty funny.
In the case of the picture you provided, Daniel is standing on a platform that is lower than the one Cary and Lashana are standing on; his left foot is propped up a little. Perspective is everything:
Cary is indeed taller than DC--even though the picture I posted here would not suggest that at all. I would say 5'10" is about right for DC. Remember, we all shrink as we age. I am DC's age. I was 6'0" in college. I am now (like DC) 5'10".
Therefore there's no reason to say we can't debate it from our own individual points of view. No-one's belittling anything, that's unnecessary. Being flippant about a movie star's height... well it's hardly a serious issue of world-shaking importance. Here's a quote from yourself in this thread from a few months ago which I think answers that:
I think we all want a successful Bond, don't we? And as success in an established role doesn't seem predicated on an actor's height, I think it's a reasonable question to ask why it matters, don't you?
And the claim that 'It's no more or less important than other aspects of the character' is just your own point of view; unless you're saying that's not open to debate? In which case this thread would indeed be a lot shorter. Trying to shut down conversation based on that assertion is contradictory.
Personally I think lots of aspects are more or less important than others, obviously I'm incorrect for feeling that.
Fine.
How about Aiden Turner then? Has anybody considered him for Bond?
:))
How tall is he anyway?
You absolutely were. But that's okay. I guess there isn't a reason to debate it, but I wouldn't ever describe something as being "unimportant thinking" - that is 100% belittling. Obviously you're going to defend your words, but it came across as a bit smug, unfortunately (even if it wasn't intended). That is unnecessary.
This looks good out of context, but if I'm remembering that interaction correctly (I may not be, admittedly) it was far more jovial and appropriate a response (I'm not saying someone is wrong, just that they shouldn't complain when people don't like their suggestions if the reasons are presented in good spirit - it's the nature of the thread. I had suggestions shot down and didn't agree with the why of it. However, claiming someone's opinion is "unimportant" is not quite the same thing and crosses over into a different territory. That's not mannerly debating.
No, that's not really what I'm saying at all. Feel free to debate it with someone who feels it's important, preferably without the tone displayed previously.
No, you're not incorrect for thinking that. And I would never say you were, nor have I. Nor would I ever say anyone who finds height to be super important are incorrect, either. That would be contradictory!
It has been a while since the thread had another Turner conversation, for sure.
:))
He's 5'10" or 5'11" depending on which Google search you believe. ;)
Nope, in the grand scheme of things if any of us think our thoughts are important we're mistaken when there are hundreds of millions of people watching these things. Our personal preferences are important to us, of course they are, but my point was that they have no impact at all on the success of these actors- that why I mentioned success in the next sentence. You might have a personal preference for the actor having a pointy chin; and that's fine, but would you really claim that to be an important preference for his success?
You've completely misinterpreted my words.
Your whole stance is to try and contradict me on everything, that's pretty evident, and that's why you pointed out that there are some fans on a messageboard somewhere still complaining that Downey Jr is too short. Just as you are, I'm perfectly happy for them to feel that way, but in the grand scheme of things their thoughts about that won't affect his success.
Nope, it was back when Univex was being horrible to everyone; it was all rather mean-spirited, much more so than the last few posts. You mentioned flippancy, which I would say is rather jovial too.
You've really taken the 'unimportant' thing out of context and seem to think I was describing how folks' opinions are meaningless, but it was really about what makes an actor's success. But you've already dismissed anything I say with 'obviously you're going to defend your words' rather than being open to explanation or conversation, so what's the point.
Well I don't know what it means then. I don't agree with it anyway.
You didn't want to debate it two sentences ago! :))
I'm done on this incidentally, argue away if you want.