Who should/could be a Bond actor? *SPOILERS*

1774775777779780851

Comments

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited February 20 Posts: 5,131
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I wonder sometimes if people would consider an actor too tall for Bond.

    Not someone who is more than 6'3, i would say. But can't say much about general audience preference.

    I’d agree.

    6ft - 6ft 3in is ‘a Bond.’

    If an actor is perfect and only 5ft 10in plus...it’s worked with Craig. But certainly no shorter IMO.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    I think Bond should appear to be somewhere between 6' to 6'2''. Below that makes Bond something of an underdog, whilst a 6'4'' - 6'5'' Bond runs the risk of making it look like he's successful because he has a big physical advantage. IMO, you want to hit that sweet-spot where Bond is neither physically disadvantaged nor overprivileged - it's not that you can't have a hero who isn't tall, or a hero who is overwhelmingly physically dominating, but I think that's deviating from Bond's base model and muddies the James Bond identity more than it already has been. I'd rather not do that.

    One of the things that's worked about Holland as Spider-Man is that part of the fun of Spider-Man is seeing a smaller hero take down bigger, more muscular villains. He's also supposed to be still a teenager, and Holland being on the small-side helps that look. He's actually shorter than Peter Parker is in the comics, though, and much shorter than I imagine Bond being. I know that with a bit of extra effort you can make a shorter actor look tall on screen, but I don't think he's so good that it's worth that extra effort.

    By the same token I think with someone like Chris Hemsworth in Thor-mode it would be difficult to find bad-guys who could tower over him, and I think Bond needs those kind of enemies to show that when he's physically outmatched he can be resourceful.

    I don't want to make it sound like I'm laying down the law about who Bond should be - I'm probably a lot less of a die-hard Bond fan than most here, and I've only read one of the original Fleming novels so I'm a little uninformed - but for me, Bond is not some sort of demi-god hero, he's who you could have been if only you'd have been a little taller, smarter, better looking, if you'd studied a little harder, worked out a little more, pushed yourself a bit further. He's someone who started out with an above average package of traits, and then dedicated himself to developing them. He's more Odysseus than Achilles, if you see what I mean.

    Great post.

    Holland does look tiny in stature on screen, I agree.
  • Posts: 13,331
    talos7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I wonder sometimes if people would consider an actor too tall for Bond.
    I actually brought this up a while back; yes I believe an actor could be too tall. Can you picture a 6’8 James Bond? It would be a distraction.
    When it comes to height, I’ve always thought the sweet spot is somewhere between 5’10 and 6’4”, possibly 6’5”

    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.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,152
    Ludovico wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I wonder sometimes if people would consider an actor too tall for Bond.
    I actually brought this up a while back; yes I believe an actor could be too tall. Can you picture a 6’8 James Bond? It would be a distraction.
    When it comes to height, I’ve always thought the sweet spot is somewhere between 5’10 and 6’4”, possibly 6’5”

    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.


  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,787
    talos7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I wonder sometimes if people would consider an actor too tall for Bond.
    I actually brought this up a while back; yes I believe an actor could be too tall. Can you picture a 6’8 James Bond? It would be a distraction.
    When it comes to height, I’ve always thought the sweet spot is somewhere between 5’10 and 6’4”, possibly 6’5”

    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.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    Aidan Turner actually played a dwarf in The Hobbit trilogy but that's me being pedantic. He was referred to 'the sexy dwarf' in the media when those films came out.

    Well, that definitely rules me out of ever being Bond (which I wanted to be years ago from about the age of 11).
    I'm 5'7 as well! 😆🙁

    I don't blame you, i am 6ft tall and yet still ruled out of playing bond 😄
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 5,014
    Aidan Turner actually played a dwarf in The Hobbit trilogy but that's me being pedantic. He was referred to 'the sexy dwarf' in the media when those films came out.

    Well, that definitely rules me out of ever being Bond (which I wanted to be years ago from about the age of 11).
    I'm 5'7 as well! 😆🙁

    Of course you’re right, I stand corrected!
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 1,033
    I'm not sure height matters to be honest, I think it did but since Daniel's tenure it's opened my eyes a bit.
    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
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,152
    So a 5’5 “ or a 6’9 actor would be viable?
    Like it or not, height matters.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 1,033
    talos7 wrote: »
    So a 5’5 “ or a 6’9 actor would be viable?
    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.
  • Posts: 5,918
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    So a 5’5 “ or a 6’9 actor would be viable?
    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.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,152
    Well right, within a certain height range the stronger contender should prevail. I don’t think that’s in question.

    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
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 22 Posts: 8,787
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I'm not sure height matters to be honest, I think it did but since Daniel's tenure it's opened my eyes a bit.
    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

    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.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,587
    talos7 wrote: »
    Well right, within a certain height range the stronger contender should prevail. I don’t think that’s in question.

    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

    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?
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited February 22 Posts: 6,152
    Actors are notorious for exaggerating height. As far as Daniel, he’s listed at 5’10 but I’m not so sure; there are several moments throughout his tenure where you can really see that he’s not tall. Thee is a behind the scenes photo taken with Cary and Lashana where it’s very obvious.

    v9JMKVK.jpg
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 22 Posts: 8,787
    Does it matter? Even if he was somehow pretending, he's not really a superspy either. Connery wore wigs.

    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

    Richard-Kiel-2.jpg?width=982&height=726&auto=webp&quality=75
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,152
    To a degree, yes it matters...
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 22 Posts: 8,787
    No, it doesn't really. Did it matter that Connery was bald?
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited February 22 Posts: 6,152
    mtm wrote: »
    No, it doesn't really. Did it matter that Connery was bald?

    This is a completely invalid comparison,; a toupee is cosmetic, stature is not, as was using Jaws in relation to Bond.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 22 Posts: 8,787
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    No, it doesn't really. Did it matter that Connery was bald?

    This is a completely invalid comparison, 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.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,152
    Sorry , you’ve completely lost credibility with the Jaws comparison... moving on.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,587
    mtm wrote: »
    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.

    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.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 22 Posts: 8,787
    mtm wrote: »
    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.

    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" :)
    talos7 wrote: »
    Sorry , you’ve completely lost credibility with the Jaws comparison... moving on.

    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.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited February 22 Posts: 6,587
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    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.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited February 22 Posts: 4,324
    talos7 wrote: »
    Actors are notorious for exaggerating height. As far as Daniel, he’s listed at 5’10 but I’m not so sure; there are several moments throughout his tenure where you can really see that he’s not tall. Thee is a behind the scenes photo taken with Cary and Lashana where it’s very obvious.

    v9JMKVK.jpg

    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:

    gjga5fooskwcrkw9_1594206728.jpeg?tr=w-758,h-433

    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".
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 22 Posts: 8,787
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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:
    If you can't handle the heat of a gentle mocking of a suggestion, stay out of the 'Who Should/Could Be A Bond Actor' kitchen.

    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.

    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.

    Fine.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 714
    This is the best thread in this forum. 8-}

    How about Aiden Turner then? Has anybody considered him for Bond?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,787
    How about Aiden Turner then? Has anybody considered him for Bond?

    :))
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 714
    mtm wrote: »
    How about Aiden Turner then? Has anybody considered him for Bond?

    :))

    How tall is he anyway?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited February 22 Posts: 6,587
    mtm wrote: »
    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.

    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.
    mtm wrote: »
    Here's a quote from yourself in this thread from a few months ago which I think answers that:
    If you can't handle the heat of a gentle mocking of a suggestion, stay out of the 'Who Should/Could Be A Bond Actor' kitchen.

    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.
    mtm wrote: »
    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?

    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.
    mtm wrote: »
    Personally I think lots of aspects are more or less important than others, obviously I'm incorrect for feeling that.

    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!
    How about Aiden Turner then? Has anybody considered him for Bond?

    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. ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.