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
I'd agree @talos7 -- it's more believable to our era (in the end these agents are assassins when need-be, and; I don't buy DC looking like a steroid-wired door-man. As you and I both know, DC, and his James Bond, is a guy in top physical conditioning (although, unlike some of his contemporaries, Bond still likes his grain (found in his vodka))
I rather hope he will tone down to either Connery or Lazenby mode of body type.
For all of their wonderful qualities, Moore, Brosnan and Dalton lacked this; frequently their fights, as well as other physical acting , looked like what it was, carefully choreographed, and edited set pieces.
But when you watch Daniel in combat , as with Sean and George, he looks and moves like a man who can truly handle himself; and he has set a new standard, one that the next actor should possess in order to convincingly portray Bond for a modern audience.
I think you are reading too much into it but I'm not very clear I guess. Basically what I'm saying is that no new Bond brings such a big departure from the previous ones as some may think. Yes CR is a world apart from DAD, but it was DAD that was the odd film in Brosnan's tenure. The early Moore movies were not that far from DAF for obvious reasons, OHMSS was fairly close in tone to the early Connery, etc. Dalton was the one and true big departure and it didn't click with the public at the time. You could say Connery returning for DAF was also a change of approach. But in any case, a change of approach does not equal recasting. MR and FYEO have the same Bond.
As an example, the FRWL fight is still one of the most brutal in the series, and that is on account of setting, choreography and direction. Connery is secret agent level fit in it but not overly bulky. He's lean, young and defined. Similarly, Tom Cruise is certainly very fit, but he's no bruiser. That bathroom fight in the last MI film was a wonder of direction more than anything, and in my mind it's one of the most entertaining things put on film.
Conversely, I wasn't all that impressed with the physicality in the Komodo fight (SF) or the clinic fight (SP), irrespective of Craig being in both films.
In terms of physical appearance, yes I hope so too. Young Connery or Laz.
With regards to MR and FYEO, the latter film was written with a new Bond in mind, which was why there was a different approach taken. Unfortunately, it still managed to satirize itself when Moore agreed to return, which ruined the whole back-to-basics approach that was originally intended had a new Bond taken over. To me, FYEO is rather a curious anomaly sandwiched in-between two parody Bond movies. It's neither one thing nor the other.
I suppose we could go around in circles discussing the subtle and prominent differences between each actor and their individual performances. But one thing I will say is that I don't think we'll ever return to the juvenile-Moore-type-Bond again. Those days have been confined to the past. It's my belief that the next actor will be playing it more along the same lines as Connery, Lazenby, Dalton and Craig, with zero shift to caricature as we got with Moore and Brosnan. It's also my belief that both Turner and Stevens are more than capable of delivering that type of brusque and physical Bond that Craig thankfully brought back to us, which is why I continue to trumpet their names so loudly.
Well this has been discussed, and I think the perception of Craig being overly muscled is false and a result of a single scene, rising out of the water, where light a framing make him look bulkier. Look at all of the Ocean Club scenes; he’s very lean
What I'd prefer to see is a leaner appearance, irrespective of actual level of fitness, and the choreography do the rest. I also hope they pick a fella who moves well onscreen. I think Lazenby really nailed it and was best in the way he strode, but Connery under Young is still the benchmark for me.
I think all of these Bonds look best in their first couple of films when they are younger. Then they slack off as they get more comfortable in the role.
I don't think I'm wrong in saying that there is an overall market perception that the Craig films have been more dour and serious - he has said so himself. I think they recognize that, and will vary things to differentiate the next Bond from Craig.
Interesting to see Jamie Dornan in a future possible Oscar nominee-type movie A Private War with Rosamund Pike coming out soon. It's these types of movies that can raise an actor from bottom of the pile to potential candidate in the blink of an eye. Of course, I'm not saying Dornan gives a Bond-type performance in A Private War, but it's not about doing that. It's about raising one's profile and getting rid of the tarnished image that Fifty Shades of Grey brought with it. Sadly, he's still only 5ft 10 ½ high though.
As it applies to Bond , in his prime Sean looked great ; he was lean an athletic but not muscular and defined; he was also very hairy. Lol. As with the example above, if today an actor with his exact same physique were to cast, I don’t think a modern audience would see him as being in the shape that an ex-special forces soldier, and now deadly assassin would be in.
I say this with all due respect to Sean but times change.
So, here are our main candidates for 2018...
Aiden Turner: 5ft 10 ⅜″— although the actor says himself: "I'm about 5ft 11." Google search has him at 6ft.
Jamie Dornan: 5ft 10 ½″— although Google search also has him at 6ft.
Dan Stevens: 6ft— this is pretty much standard reporting across all sites.
Richard Madden: 5ft 10″— although standing alongside taller actors this height does seem to be overly generous. Most likely below this height.
Henry Cavill: 6ft 1″— perfect height, no question about it.
Tom Hiddleston: 6ft 2″— the tallest by far of all our candidates (not including Idris Elba of course), but also the most effete actor out of the entire bunch.
Michael Fassbender: 6ft — good height, but too old.
Idris Elba: 6ft 3″— wins the height contest hands down, but being diplomatic: he's far too old.
Tom Hardy: 5ft 9″— the shortest out of the list so far, also too old.
Jack O'Connell: 5ft 8″— I take that back. Jack is clearly a possible candidate should Barbara ever find the need for a suitable replacement for Nick Nack in TMWTGG remake.
Hahaha !!!
Mind you,i don't know why im laughing,im 5'8 myself .
I'm certain Dornan hits 6 ft.
My Dinner and lots of booze with Baz.
Well, one shouldn't tower over everybody. I'd say 6ft 3 or thereabout is the upper limit.
Don't take offence, guys. This is in no way a dig at 007 fans that don't reach the Bond requirement levels. It's strictly aimed at the actors that will be up for a future screen test. For the record, I'm now too old to play Bond, so it's really no different for me either.