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
If you are not really a fan of Ian Fleming's work, then this shouldn't be a problem for you.
Exactly! And this is one of the reasons he will be an excellent Bond. Bond is smug.
I do think there's something about him which plays to what's needed in a cinematic Bond. Call it gravitas, raw charisma, masculinity etc. but it's there. And I think these are the priorities for casting a Bond actor.
That said, I think there may be a tendency to gravitate towards Dirisu because most people here have seen him in roles which play to those 'Bondian' elements more overtly than most candidates. We've seen him in a suit fighting goons in Gangs of London. We've seen him hold a gun and move about in that Greg Williams video. We may have seen him being charming in the trailer for Mr. Malcolm's list.
We could get a Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan situation in which Dirisu is cast on the strengths of his previous, even slightly Bondian roles and essentially brings these qualities to the character. But the majority of the time it's much trickier finding those intangible qualities in an actor at this stage. The casting director and producers might not be looking for an actor playing the sorts of roles that Dirisu has, but instead someone who's caught their eye with, say, a walk in a certain film (as was the case with Connery and Craig) or someone who shows that certain 'something' in a role that most of us on this forum wouldn't necessarily consider.
One can apply this to Aidan Turner too. Or someone like Henry Cavill. Often Bond doesn't necessarily go to the most obvious actors. Often when a new Bond is cast there's an element of fans squinting and going 'really? This guy?' I certainly did when I first learned Craig was cast.
ATJ sounds like Mr. JWW, the famous car youtuber. On a good day.
And I dislike him with short pointy hair. If they cut his hair like Pierce in TND, or something like that, then he looks fine.
Like I said, Moore and Brosnan were picked in part because of The Saint and Remmington Steele respectively, so were in a sense a more 'safe' pair of hands. But I think people nowadays don't necessarily realise how 'outside of the box' choices like Connery, Craig and Dalton were (one can apply that to Lazenby too, although he's not a favourite Bond of mine, I agree). I think we take for granted that Connery was a character actor, one who usually played minor supporting roles no less, often as thugs or gangsters. He had a Scottish accent, which isn't something one would have linked to the literary character. But still, he was cast over more conventional choices.
Craig had a longer career as a character actor, but it seems public knowledge now that it wasn't his roles in Layer Cake or Tomb Raider that got him noticed by EON, but his walk in Elizabeth. As has been said by others on this thread some people didn't even see his potential as Bond until they saw CR. I'm sure compared to bigger stars Dalton's casting would have seemed like a strange choice to many at the time. Hell, I know from reading reviews from LALD from the time that even Moore as a Bond didn't seem quite as obvious a choice given his differences to Connery.
The point is none of us know what any of these candidates will do with the role. I do think Broccoli and Wilson could potentially go with another out of the box choice, especially given the former's tendency to gravitate towards them (she famously preferred Sean Bean in the role for GE). So who knows. I don't think the next actor will immediately be warmly 'welcomed' by fans though before their film.
He had an advert on a perfume (forgot the brand name), he had a style in there.
I think, it depends upon what style he's in.
It's not that I'm defending ATJ (me too have complaints regarding him; his voice, his way of talking, his body structure, and his acting style), but with proper handle regarding his style, he's actually okay, but with those qualities that I've mentioned that actually I'm having a problem of, I couldn't see him as Bond, but his style has nothing to do with it.
Personally, all the actors have their distinctive style, as in all of them, although if I'd pick the least in terms of distinction, it might be Brosnan, because for me (personally), he looked a bit generic action hero, he'd never brought anything new to the table, but again, even with that, compared to the modern actors of today, he ticked all the boxes of a Bondian quality.
Edit: It's Gentleman Givenchy, try looking that out!
Wasn't Lazenby cast because he played a Bond-like character in a chocolate bar advert and then walked into the production office wearing Connery's cast off suit?
Cubby saw him in a parlor dressed like Bond (wearing a Rolex, the suit like that of Connery's and getting a haircut), then Cubby invited him to audition, but it's not until he'd knocked out a stuntman's nose which earned him the role.
Who knows given how much the producers and Lazenby have retold the events of the story. I'm don't think one can say he'd have been an obvious choice at the time, but it also shows (dependent on whether one likes Lazenby as Bond) that it takes more than just wearing a suit and appearing in something vaguely 'Bondian'.
Exactly. I don't think it can be said he was a left field choice when he was cast specifically because he resembled the popular image of the character at the time.
I think the fact that he wasn't an actor made him something of a left field choice. But there's definitely something twofold about his casting. On the one hand he was the Cadbury Milk man. On the other, one could say if he hadn't had the physicality that he had/supposedly knocked out that stunt man or had the raw confidence to make his way into the casting office, then his chocolate advert would have meant little. And even if I don't like him as Bond, those latter qualities were very much the ones I said they'd look for/prioritise.
Well, it's different back then, it's also the same for hiring or casting Bond Girls at the time, as long as they're beautiful, a model (or a beauty queen), looked convincing for the part, and more affordable (means more of a cheaper choice), they're easily hired for the role, no matter of their acting skills.
The most obvious example of this was when Barbara Bach got the role when there's Catherine Deneuve begging to get the part but the Producers declined her and hired Barbara Bach (a model with no acting experience) instead, just because she's a lot more of a cheaper choice than Deneuve whom they've thought was still expensive (even though she's willing to reduce her salary).
Well, Lazenby was paid lesser than Diana Rigg at the time, so more also of an affordable choice then.
To be fair Bach did actually have quite a bit of acting experience prior to TSWLM, including starring in a couple of Italian Giallo horror films which I'm a fan of. But yes, the casting process is different today. I mean, Moore never had to audition as far as I'm aware.
Actually even today, some actors didn't need to audition too, the examples of this was Christopher Nolan picking Cillian Murphy to play in some of his films, the cast of Oppenheimer talked about this in an interview about when Nolan asked them for those roles, and they've said (specifically Murphy and Pugh) that it's hard to reject Nolan, they just couldn't say no to the man.
Some directors this time are picking those actors/actresses, without the need for an audition.
What I mean of being different back then was the criteria, of course, acting skills and credentials are really important today (and the main criteria), not just looks, today, directors and Producers are not going to hire someone whom they've just seen in a magazine, an advertisement, a picture, a model, or a beauty queen.
As for Bach, still compared to Deneuve who's really an achieved actress, she's not quite so much (and her performance/acting in the TSWLM speaks to that), and there are also others like Daniela Bianchi, Claudine Auger, or Carole Bouquet (whom I'd also say their debut acting were in Bond films), but they were models and beauty queens before.
He was a left field choice in that sense, but what you're referring to is image. Lazenby as the 'Big Fry' man clearly had a very Bond-like image and it seems to have been entirely on that basis (as well as his physical abilities) that he was hired. Peter Hunt even said they were just looking for another Sean Connery.
My point is, I don't think it would've been any stretch at all for audiences to imagine him as Bond, even though he wasn't an actor.
Yes, that's true. For Bond though the precedent has become screen-testing a number of candidates.
Not necessarily. As you said some actors in certain films are chosen because of their fame or relationship with the director, working or personal. I get what you mean though, and there's an element of that with the casting with some of the Bond girls (but not necessarily all - Diana Rigg being an example of an actress who was considered talented in her time).
True, but you can also make a case that hiring Bach over Deneuve did have a logic to it, whether or not the latter would have been stronger in an audition process.
Also all those actresses you listed had prior acting experience as well. So it wasn't their debut acting roles, and none were only models or beauty queens.
Exactly what I'm also talking about, that's why I'm also comparing Lazenby's case to the Bond Girls at the time, it wouldn't been any stretch for the audiences to imagine them as Bond Girls even though some of them aren't established actresses.
Like they've got what it takes: They have the looks, they looked convincing enough for the role, but in Lazenby's case he also had the physicality and that Bondian quality to him.
Really? The Producers (or maybe along with Terrence Young) hired Auger and Bianchi when they've both won in beauty pageants (especially Auger who's a Miss Universe) and that's also obviously they're dubbed, this only stopped for a while when they've hired Honor Blackman and Diana Rigg (both are established actresses), it's obvious that the main reason why they've hired those two was because of their beauty queen titles, they're beautiful, not for their acting ability, the same with Bouquet (who's also dubbed, ironically).
I'll admit, that's how the Bond Girls casting at the time, they're hired for their looks than their acting, it's not only until maybe in the mid-80's (the Dalton era where they've started to look for the acting too).
The thing was Deneuve was still a stronger actress than Bach (it would've still worked, performance wise), I mean, she's more established as an actress with many films already under her belt compared to Bach, there's already (stated) that in Mankiewicz biography, Bach was hired because she's more of a cheaper choice.
I suspect it's going to happen no matter who is cast, because it's been a very long tenure, for one, and because they will need someone relatively younger, given the gap between movies.
I'm guessing the obvious criteria of an actor being able to run, fight, look good with a gun, act tough, etc. is on the superficial level. Sope fulfils this because of his previous roles, as does most of the actors currently rumoured.
But I'm guessing the producers are looking for more than this when casting. The fact that the main audition scene for Bond has always been the bedroom scene from FRWL shows they are focusing on other qualities when looking for their man.
Shame he doesn’t match the Fleming description 😜
Interestingly, if they'd cast Brosnan back in '86, that gap would've been even bigger.
And what is it with this alpha male obsession thing? It’s not about being alpha. We all know Bond films are all about Omega!
;)
Nah, everyone knows Bond is a Sigma.
If he does get the Bond gig, he'll probably be the most physically imposing of them all on screen, with shoulders like that.
Having said that, his height is down as 5ft 11, and Aidan Turner is even shorter.
I'd much rather a taller actor played Bond this time round. Sope beats ATJ on that score, who is 6ft 1.