Who should/could be a Bond actor?

16256266286306311193

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    Whatever Brosnan's faults, at least he was an actual actor, unlike a certain other fella...

    Yeah but Brosnan will always be pissed he wasn't in anything remotely as good as OHMSS.

    Brosnan once said the one film he would like to remake was OHMSS, as it wasn t very good.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    Whatever Brosnan's faults, at least he was an actual actor, unlike a certain other fella...

    Yeah but Brosnan will always be pissed he wasn't in anything remotely as good as OHMSS.

    Brosnan once said the one film he would like to remake was OHMSS, as it wasn t very good.

    Sour grapes more like.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited June 2020 Posts: 8,501
    Agent_One wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @agent_one don't you think that Brosnan was more comfortably a tv actor from the 80s, but GL's clumsy swagger filled the screen better as far as presence?
    I personally think Lazenby has the least 'presence' of any of the 6 actors so far. Rigg and Savalas are the true stars of OHMSS; with a lesser story, girl or villain, dear old George would've been abysmal.

    @agent_one: this was lightning in the bottle for sure: the Fleming story, so close to the origins of the novel, Peter Hunt having an amazing grasp on the character, and the cast... but GL and OHMSS is better than anything Brosnan and his films could ever hope to achieve.

    I agree, take these ingredients away and GL may have fallen into a hole.

    But the film we have? I only watch Brosnan films when I do a full Bond festival; I watch OHMSS at least twice a year.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,869
    I could easily have watched many hours of Rigg and Savalas running lines together. Now that would have been a set to have been on :)
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited June 2020 Posts: 7,980
    Had Lazenby stayed on, and worked on his acting craft, he would have matured very nicely in the role. He possessed a relaxed , confident charisma and dominant physicality.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    peter wrote: »
    @agent_one don't you think that Brosnan was more comfortably a tv actor from the 80s, but GL's clumsy swagger filled the screen better as far as presence?

    No, not even remotely. And even if you dislike his Bond, his output outside of it is enough to dispel such notions.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,501
    talos7 wrote: »
    Had Lazenby stayed on, and worked on his acting craft, he would have matured very nicely in the role. He possessed a relaxed , confident charisma and dominant physicality.

    He was the alpha in every scene.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,501
    peter wrote: »
    @agent_one don't you think that Brosnan was more comfortably a tv actor from the 80s, but GL's clumsy swagger filled the screen better as far as presence?

    No, not even remotely. And even if you dislike his Bond, his output outside of it is enough to dispel such notions.

    @CraigMooreOHMSS I think of his other films as I do his Bond films (my opinion and I am not interested in changing opinions by stating it): he's mediocre at best, boring at his worst (or just plain over the top). My opinion.

    I do consider him a very classy gentleman, and a likeable personality, but he never scratched my surface in anything he did.

    And I think GL's natural (yet at times clumsy) presence knocks PB's thin shadow off to one side.

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @agent_one don't you think that Brosnan was more comfortably a tv actor from the 80s, but GL's clumsy swagger filled the screen better as far as presence?

    No, not even remotely. And even if you dislike his Bond, his output outside of it is enough to dispel such notions.

    @CraigMooreOHMSS I think of his other films as I do his Bond films (my opinion and I am not interested in changing opinions by stating it): he's mediocre at best, boring at his worst (or just plain over the top). My opinion.

    I do consider him a very classy gentleman, and a likeable personality, but he never scratched my surface in anything he did.

    And I think GL's natural (yet at times clumsy) presence knocks PB's thin shadow off to one side.

    You don't need to keep repeating that it's your opinion, @peter - I know right well that it is. You're entitled to it, of course. As wrong as I feel it may be. ;)
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,501
    Well @CraigMooreOHMSS , these threads have been mighty touchy where opinions are stated as facts, or opinions stated are purposely twisted by others.
    Just wanna make sure that these are understood as a personal perspective.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,526
    @peter I feel you, I feel I have to reinforce that my opinions are just that, opinion, quite frequently.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    peter wrote: »
    Well @CraigMooreOHMSS , these threads have been mighty touchy where opinions are stated as facts, or opinions stated are purposely twisted by others.
    Just wanna make sure that these are understood as a personal perspective.

    You should know me better than that by now!
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Yeah, Treadstone was a bit of a waste. Anyway, I did some fan art for Sean Teale. I'm gonna put it in spoiler tags so people who aren't interested don't have to look.
    45Pj2v6.jpg

    Young Koskov! Well done.

    In that particular picture he looks Indian to me.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    talos7 wrote: »
    Had Lazenby stayed on, and worked on his acting craft, he would have matured very nicely in the role. He possessed a relaxed , confident charisma and dominant physicality.

    I agree. My main criticism of GL is his odd accent though. If he perfected his English accent he would have been much better.....but I guess that falls under ‘acting craft’ anyhow.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @agent_one don't you think that Brosnan was more comfortably a tv actor from the 80s, but GL's clumsy swagger filled the screen better as far as presence?

    No, not even remotely. And even if you dislike his Bond, his output outside of it is enough to dispel such notions.

    @CraigMooreOHMSS I think of his other films as I do his Bond films (my opinion and I am not interested in changing opinions by stating it): he's mediocre at best, boring at his worst (or just plain over the top). My opinion.

    I do consider him a very classy gentleman, and a likeable personality, but he never scratched my surface in anything he did.

    And I think GL's natural (yet at times clumsy) presence knocks PB's thin shadow off to one side.

    I agree with all this. Brosnan seems like a really decent gentleman, but his Bond and films were all mediocre.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2014/apr/14/james-bond-pierce-brosnan-007-goldeneye
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2020 Posts: 14,957
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    He looks good in the photo. In the video he looks quite Italian or even Indian, which is a no no for Bond in my book. But I'm open to him somewhat, nonetheless.
    He has Venezuelan, Spanish and Welsh hertiage but from that interview alone offers so much Britishness and quite suavely so, that I think he could still portray the James Bond we want and expect.

    A James Bond you might want and expect. Which is fair enough.

    But for me, again, this actor is the equivalent of Colin Firth etc playing Michael Corleone (looks wise).

    Well if you really want an actor to portray the exact word of Fleming (and we know how vital it is to you to get every aspect of Army Commander Bond perfectly correct ;) ) you'll see he often describes Bond as having dark or even foreign looks.
    Now would be a very odd time to pick fights about race so maybe you should steer clear of that subject.

    Yawn....Thanks for your usual rude response. It is you who picks fights, I just make comments on a forum where everyone is free to agree or disagree as they like.

    I’ll comment as I see fit on the forum thank you, as long as it remains polite and respectful.

    There was nothing impolite about my post, please discuss the subject rather than the person- as you said, I'm free to disagree. You had to ignore my point about Fleming's description I notice. As I explained, it's not really comparable to Michael Corleone.

    🤣.

    Yes it is, Micheal Corleone is a character in a book and film just like Bond. He is an Italian American character portrayed by an Italian American actor. I was saying you wouldn’t have an actor portray him who doesn’t look Italian. Just as you wouldn’t have an Italian Bond. Dark yes, but not blatantly Italian. That’s my opinion. It’s not right or wrong.

    And do you understand how that is way more relevant to his character and what he does in the films (in that he's strongly connected to his family and family's roots back in Italy and the whole story is about the Italian mafia in America) than Bond's upbringing or family is in his?

    In what way is Bond's Scottish/Swiss ancestry relevant to him gambling Le Chiffre to death? Why do you think Fleming didn't even mention it until twelve books in? Did Corleone get identified as an Italian American a bit earlier than that?
    ;)

    Also: check out James Caan in that film playing Sonny Corleone. He's of German Jewish ancestry.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @Univex ... some people are experts on everything. Their opinions are facts. Very rarely are they humble or gracious. And they come off as arrogant, most of the time.

    It's no use in arguing. I just give them a simple, "sure" and move on.

    Best post on here. 👏👏👏👏👍

    I respect you enough to give you a full answer and explain my thinking to you.

    I understand all that. But there is nothing wrong with me (as a Bond fan), wanting an actor who looks typically English/British and not of Mediterranean decent.

    So it's just preference now, rather than all of the horrible patronising laughing emojis and calling me 'arrogant' etc. for me explaining my thought process. You tried to explain yours and back it up but that's turned into just personal preference that you can't explain now.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Interestingly, the studio wanted Robert Redford for the part of Micheal Corleone, which Coppola deemed ridiculous. Yes, James Caan doesn’t look Italian and admittedly, he still does a great job.

    That's my point, it doesn't always matter, and it didn't even occur to you when you were drawing your comparison.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    However, it remains my preference to have a white British actor of British decent playing the part. Again, it’s not right or wrong, it’s my opinion.

    Honestly, I really I don't know if it is really okay to just 'prefer' to see a white person in a job. Especially one where there's no really great reason to keep one there.

    I never called you arrogant, that wasn’t even my post or thread? That was a disagreement you had with another member.

    And a total coincidence that you happen to reach back a couple of pages to quote it and endorse it at that moment? C'mon, have the courage of your convictions at least.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    My preference is to stick as close to Fleming and also to have a white British actor of British decent in the role.

    I think it’s fine to want this IMO. I’m not asking for your permission or approval.

    We're discussing it, it's a discussion forum, it's a totally fine thing to talk about this. Nothing wrong with it. It's brilliant that you think it's fine, but perhaps now is the time for us to reconsider about what's actually important about these subjects.
    Myself included, as I say above I'm not even 100% sure myself if it would be the right thing to do because it's a decision which doesn't affect my own community.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    The reason is the tradition since 62 and Flemings novels.

    'Tradition' isn't a massively convincing reason though, I find. There's plenty of traditions in the Bond film series they've moved on from, from sexism to bad special effects.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Bond has always been a white Brit. It’s not a job in business, it’s playing a character and to play that character one has to look a certain way in my opinion.

    And in my opinion it's been demonstrated what is important about his looks, and that's that he's handsome, perhaps a bit cruel and tough. The precise colours of his eyes, hair and skin don't seem all that relevant.
    In many ways it's more important than a job in a business, yes, because it's way more visible. Some characters do require precise racial characteristics because of their role in the plot, yes; I just see very little in this particular one that does. If James Caan can do it in your given example (which actually required more of a particular racial look) then I'm not really finding much of a reason to think otherwise.

    Fine. Agreed. But I personally didn’t say it. That’s a fact.

    Honestly. Unbelievable 8-|

    Having recently seen Seberg, I think Jack O'Connell is undeniably the best and most exciting young actor. The only thing stopping me from throwing my weight fully behind him is that he on the short side...but I'm sure there are some smart camera tricks to make him look convincingly taller. He's only 30 now, perhaps if he fills out a little in the next year or so.

    But he'd be terrific. He's got a thuggish beauty about him. Quite reminiscent of a young Sean Connery. He has that wily reckless energy of Tom Hardy. I think he'd be very good in the fight scenes too.

    JACk-OCONNELL.WEB_.jpg

    Yeah he's the only young one I feel vaguely confident could fill the screen enough.
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Yeah, Treadstone was a bit of a waste. Anyway, I did some fan art for Sean Teale. I'm gonna put it in spoiler tags so people who aren't interested don't have to look.
    45Pj2v6.jpg

    He really reminds me of Oscar Isaac. Not a bad thing.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    He looks good in the photo. In the video he looks quite Italian or even Indian, which is a no no for Bond in my book. But I'm open to him somewhat, nonetheless.
    He has Venezuelan, Spanish and Welsh hertiage but from that interview alone offers so much Britishness and quite suavely so, that I think he could still portray the James Bond we want and expect.

    A James Bond you might want and expect. Which is fair enough.

    But for me, again, this actor is the equivalent of Colin Firth etc playing Michael Corleone (looks wise).

    Well if you really want an actor to portray the exact word of Fleming (and we know how vital it is to you to get every aspect of Army Commander Bond perfectly correct ;) ) you'll see he often describes Bond as having dark or even foreign looks.
    Now would be a very odd time to pick fights about race so maybe you should steer clear of that subject.

    Yawn....Thanks for your usual rude response. It is you who picks fights, I just make comments on a forum where everyone is free to agree or disagree as they like.

    I’ll comment as I see fit on the forum thank you, as long as it remains polite and respectful.

    There was nothing impolite about my post, please discuss the subject rather than the person- as you said, I'm free to disagree. You had to ignore my point about Fleming's description I notice. As I explained, it's not really comparable to Michael Corleone.

    🤣.

    Yes it is, Micheal Corleone is a character in a book and film just like Bond. He is an Italian American character portrayed by an Italian American actor. I was saying you wouldn’t have an actor portray him who doesn’t look Italian. Just as you wouldn’t have an Italian Bond. Dark yes, but not blatantly Italian. That’s my opinion. It’s not right or wrong.

    And do you understand how that is way more relevant to his character and what he does in the films (in that he's strongly connected to his family and family's roots back in Italy and the whole story is about the Italian mafia in America) than Bond's upbringing or family is in his?

    In what way is Bond's Scottish/Swiss ancestry relevant to him gambling Le Chiffre to death? Why do you think Fleming didn't even mention it until twelve books in? Did Corleone get identified as an Italian American a bit earlier than that?
    ;)

    Also: check out James Caan in that film playing Sonny Corleone. He's of German Jewish ancestry.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @Univex ... some people are experts on everything. Their opinions are facts. Very rarely are they humble or gracious. And they come off as arrogant, most of the time.

    It's no use in arguing. I just give them a simple, "sure" and move on.

    Best post on here. 👏👏👏👏👍

    I respect you enough to give you a full answer and explain my thinking to you.

    I understand all that. But there is nothing wrong with me (as a Bond fan), wanting an actor who looks typically English/British and not of Mediterranean decent.

    So it's just preference now, rather than all of the horrible patronising laughing emojis and calling me 'arrogant' etc. for me explaining my thought process. You tried to explain yours and back it up but that's turned into just personal preference that you can't explain now.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Interestingly, the studio wanted Robert Redford for the part of Micheal Corleone, which Coppola deemed ridiculous. Yes, James Caan doesn’t look Italian and admittedly, he still does a great job.

    That's my point, it doesn't always matter, and it didn't even occur to you when you were drawing your comparison.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    However, it remains my preference to have a white British actor of British decent playing the part. Again, it’s not right or wrong, it’s my opinion.

    Honestly, I really I don't know if it is really okay to just 'prefer' to see a white person in a job. Especially one where there's no really great reason to keep one there.

    I never called you arrogant, that wasn’t even my post or thread? That was a disagreement you had with another member.

    And a total coincidence that you happen to reach back a couple of pages to quote it and endorse it at that moment? C'mon, have the courage of your convictions at least.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    My preference is to stick as close to Fleming and also to have a white British actor of British decent in the role.

    I think it’s fine to want this IMO. I’m not asking for your permission or approval.

    We're discussing it, it's a discussion forum, it's a totally fine thing to talk about this. Nothing wrong with it. It's brilliant that you think it's fine, but perhaps now is the time for us to reconsider about what's actually important about these subjects.
    Myself included, as I say above I'm not even 100% sure myself if it would be the right thing to do because it's a decision which doesn't affect my own community.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    The reason is the tradition since 62 and Flemings novels.

    'Tradition' isn't a massively convincing reason though, I find. There's plenty of traditions in the Bond film series they've moved on from, from sexism to bad special effects.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Bond has always been a white Brit. It’s not a job in business, it’s playing a character and to play that character one has to look a certain way in my opinion.

    And in my opinion it's been demonstrated what is important about his looks, and that's that he's handsome, perhaps a bit cruel and tough. The precise colours of his eyes, hair and skin don't seem all that relevant.
    In many ways it's more important than a job in a business, yes, because it's way more visible. Some characters do require precise racial characteristics because of their role in the plot, yes; I just see very little in this particular one that does. If James Caan can do it in your given example (which actually required more of a particular racial look) then I'm not really finding much of a reason to think otherwise.

    Fine. Agreed. But I personally didn’t say it. That’s a fact.

    Honestly. Unbelievable 8-|

    Having recently seen Seberg, I think Jack O'Connell is undeniably the best and most exciting young actor. The only thing stopping me from throwing my weight fully behind him is that he on the short side...but I'm sure there are some smart camera tricks to make him look convincingly taller. He's only 30 now, perhaps if he fills out a little in the next year or so.

    But he'd be terrific. He's got a thuggish beauty about him. Quite reminiscent of a young Sean Connery. He has that wily reckless energy of Tom Hardy. I think he'd be very good in the fight scenes too.

    JACk-OCONNELL.WEB_.jpg

    Yeah he's the only young one I feel vaguely confident could fill the screen enough.

    If it s a small screen.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,957
    peter wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Had Lazenby stayed on, and worked on his acting craft, he would have matured very nicely in the role. He possessed a relaxed , confident charisma and dominant physicality.

    He was the alpha in every scene.

    Sure.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,957
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    He looks good in the photo. In the video he looks quite Italian or even Indian, which is a no no for Bond in my book. But I'm open to him somewhat, nonetheless.
    He has Venezuelan, Spanish and Welsh hertiage but from that interview alone offers so much Britishness and quite suavely so, that I think he could still portray the James Bond we want and expect.

    A James Bond you might want and expect. Which is fair enough.

    But for me, again, this actor is the equivalent of Colin Firth etc playing Michael Corleone (looks wise).

    Well if you really want an actor to portray the exact word of Fleming (and we know how vital it is to you to get every aspect of Army Commander Bond perfectly correct ;) ) you'll see he often describes Bond as having dark or even foreign looks.
    Now would be a very odd time to pick fights about race so maybe you should steer clear of that subject.

    Yawn....Thanks for your usual rude response. It is you who picks fights, I just make comments on a forum where everyone is free to agree or disagree as they like.

    I’ll comment as I see fit on the forum thank you, as long as it remains polite and respectful.

    There was nothing impolite about my post, please discuss the subject rather than the person- as you said, I'm free to disagree. You had to ignore my point about Fleming's description I notice. As I explained, it's not really comparable to Michael Corleone.

    🤣.

    Yes it is, Micheal Corleone is a character in a book and film just like Bond. He is an Italian American character portrayed by an Italian American actor. I was saying you wouldn’t have an actor portray him who doesn’t look Italian. Just as you wouldn’t have an Italian Bond. Dark yes, but not blatantly Italian. That’s my opinion. It’s not right or wrong.

    And do you understand how that is way more relevant to his character and what he does in the films (in that he's strongly connected to his family and family's roots back in Italy and the whole story is about the Italian mafia in America) than Bond's upbringing or family is in his?

    In what way is Bond's Scottish/Swiss ancestry relevant to him gambling Le Chiffre to death? Why do you think Fleming didn't even mention it until twelve books in? Did Corleone get identified as an Italian American a bit earlier than that?
    ;)

    Also: check out James Caan in that film playing Sonny Corleone. He's of German Jewish ancestry.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @Univex ... some people are experts on everything. Their opinions are facts. Very rarely are they humble or gracious. And they come off as arrogant, most of the time.

    It's no use in arguing. I just give them a simple, "sure" and move on.

    Best post on here. 👏👏👏👏👍

    I respect you enough to give you a full answer and explain my thinking to you.

    I understand all that. But there is nothing wrong with me (as a Bond fan), wanting an actor who looks typically English/British and not of Mediterranean decent.

    So it's just preference now, rather than all of the horrible patronising laughing emojis and calling me 'arrogant' etc. for me explaining my thought process. You tried to explain yours and back it up but that's turned into just personal preference that you can't explain now.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Interestingly, the studio wanted Robert Redford for the part of Micheal Corleone, which Coppola deemed ridiculous. Yes, James Caan doesn’t look Italian and admittedly, he still does a great job.

    That's my point, it doesn't always matter, and it didn't even occur to you when you were drawing your comparison.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    However, it remains my preference to have a white British actor of British decent playing the part. Again, it’s not right or wrong, it’s my opinion.

    Honestly, I really I don't know if it is really okay to just 'prefer' to see a white person in a job. Especially one where there's no really great reason to keep one there.

    I never called you arrogant, that wasn’t even my post or thread? That was a disagreement you had with another member.

    And a total coincidence that you happen to reach back a couple of pages to quote it and endorse it at that moment? C'mon, have the courage of your convictions at least.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    My preference is to stick as close to Fleming and also to have a white British actor of British decent in the role.

    I think it’s fine to want this IMO. I’m not asking for your permission or approval.

    We're discussing it, it's a discussion forum, it's a totally fine thing to talk about this. Nothing wrong with it. It's brilliant that you think it's fine, but perhaps now is the time for us to reconsider about what's actually important about these subjects.
    Myself included, as I say above I'm not even 100% sure myself if it would be the right thing to do because it's a decision which doesn't affect my own community.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    The reason is the tradition since 62 and Flemings novels.

    'Tradition' isn't a massively convincing reason though, I find. There's plenty of traditions in the Bond film series they've moved on from, from sexism to bad special effects.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Bond has always been a white Brit. It’s not a job in business, it’s playing a character and to play that character one has to look a certain way in my opinion.

    And in my opinion it's been demonstrated what is important about his looks, and that's that he's handsome, perhaps a bit cruel and tough. The precise colours of his eyes, hair and skin don't seem all that relevant.
    In many ways it's more important than a job in a business, yes, because it's way more visible. Some characters do require precise racial characteristics because of their role in the plot, yes; I just see very little in this particular one that does. If James Caan can do it in your given example (which actually required more of a particular racial look) then I'm not really finding much of a reason to think otherwise.

    Fine. Agreed. But I personally didn’t say it. That’s a fact.

    Honestly. Unbelievable 8-|

    Having recently seen Seberg, I think Jack O'Connell is undeniably the best and most exciting young actor. The only thing stopping me from throwing my weight fully behind him is that he on the short side...but I'm sure there are some smart camera tricks to make him look convincingly taller. He's only 30 now, perhaps if he fills out a little in the next year or so.

    But he'd be terrific. He's got a thuggish beauty about him. Quite reminiscent of a young Sean Connery. He has that wily reckless energy of Tom Hardy. I think he'd be very good in the fight scenes too.

    JACk-OCONNELL.WEB_.jpg

    Yeah he's the only young one I feel vaguely confident could fill the screen enough.

    If it s a small screen.

    Nah I watched '71 the other day and he was great in it.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    He looks good in the photo. In the video he looks quite Italian or even Indian, which is a no no for Bond in my book. But I'm open to him somewhat, nonetheless.
    He has Venezuelan, Spanish and Welsh hertiage but from that interview alone offers so much Britishness and quite suavely so, that I think he could still portray the James Bond we want and expect.

    A James Bond you might want and expect. Which is fair enough.

    But for me, again, this actor is the equivalent of Colin Firth etc playing Michael Corleone (looks wise).

    Well if you really want an actor to portray the exact word of Fleming (and we know how vital it is to you to get every aspect of Army Commander Bond perfectly correct ;) ) you'll see he often describes Bond as having dark or even foreign looks.
    Now would be a very odd time to pick fights about race so maybe you should steer clear of that subject.

    Yawn....Thanks for your usual rude response. It is you who picks fights, I just make comments on a forum where everyone is free to agree or disagree as they like.

    I’ll comment as I see fit on the forum thank you, as long as it remains polite and respectful.

    There was nothing impolite about my post, please discuss the subject rather than the person- as you said, I'm free to disagree. You had to ignore my point about Fleming's description I notice. As I explained, it's not really comparable to Michael Corleone.

    🤣.

    Yes it is, Micheal Corleone is a character in a book and film just like Bond. He is an Italian American character portrayed by an Italian American actor. I was saying you wouldn’t have an actor portray him who doesn’t look Italian. Just as you wouldn’t have an Italian Bond. Dark yes, but not blatantly Italian. That’s my opinion. It’s not right or wrong.

    And do you understand how that is way more relevant to his character and what he does in the films (in that he's strongly connected to his family and family's roots back in Italy and the whole story is about the Italian mafia in America) than Bond's upbringing or family is in his?

    In what way is Bond's Scottish/Swiss ancestry relevant to him gambling Le Chiffre to death? Why do you think Fleming didn't even mention it until twelve books in? Did Corleone get identified as an Italian American a bit earlier than that?
    ;)

    Also: check out James Caan in that film playing Sonny Corleone. He's of German Jewish ancestry.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @Univex ... some people are experts on everything. Their opinions are facts. Very rarely are they humble or gracious. And they come off as arrogant, most of the time.

    It's no use in arguing. I just give them a simple, "sure" and move on.

    Best post on here. 👏👏👏👏👍

    I respect you enough to give you a full answer and explain my thinking to you.

    I understand all that. But there is nothing wrong with me (as a Bond fan), wanting an actor who looks typically English/British and not of Mediterranean decent.

    So it's just preference now, rather than all of the horrible patronising laughing emojis and calling me 'arrogant' etc. for me explaining my thought process. You tried to explain yours and back it up but that's turned into just personal preference that you can't explain now.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Interestingly, the studio wanted Robert Redford for the part of Micheal Corleone, which Coppola deemed ridiculous. Yes, James Caan doesn’t look Italian and admittedly, he still does a great job.

    That's my point, it doesn't always matter, and it didn't even occur to you when you were drawing your comparison.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    However, it remains my preference to have a white British actor of British decent playing the part. Again, it’s not right or wrong, it’s my opinion.

    Honestly, I really I don't know if it is really okay to just 'prefer' to see a white person in a job. Especially one where there's no really great reason to keep one there.

    I never called you arrogant, that wasn’t even my post or thread? That was a disagreement you had with another member.

    And a total coincidence that you happen to reach back a couple of pages to quote it and endorse it at that moment? C'mon, have the courage of your convictions at least.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    My preference is to stick as close to Fleming and also to have a white British actor of British decent in the role.

    I think it’s fine to want this IMO. I’m not asking for your permission or approval.

    We're discussing it, it's a discussion forum, it's a totally fine thing to talk about this. Nothing wrong with it. It's brilliant that you think it's fine, but perhaps now is the time for us to reconsider about what's actually important about these subjects.
    Myself included, as I say above I'm not even 100% sure myself if it would be the right thing to do because it's a decision which doesn't affect my own community.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    The reason is the tradition since 62 and Flemings novels.

    'Tradition' isn't a massively convincing reason though, I find. There's plenty of traditions in the Bond film series they've moved on from, from sexism to bad special effects.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Bond has always been a white Brit. It’s not a job in business, it’s playing a character and to play that character one has to look a certain way in my opinion.

    And in my opinion it's been demonstrated what is important about his looks, and that's that he's handsome, perhaps a bit cruel and tough. The precise colours of his eyes, hair and skin don't seem all that relevant.
    In many ways it's more important than a job in a business, yes, because it's way more visible. Some characters do require precise racial characteristics because of their role in the plot, yes; I just see very little in this particular one that does. If James Caan can do it in your given example (which actually required more of a particular racial look) then I'm not really finding much of a reason to think otherwise.

    Fine. Agreed. But I personally didn’t say it. That’s a fact.

    Honestly. Unbelievable 8-|

    Having recently seen Seberg, I think Jack O'Connell is undeniably the best and most exciting young actor. The only thing stopping me from throwing my weight fully behind him is that he on the short side...but I'm sure there are some smart camera tricks to make him look convincingly taller. He's only 30 now, perhaps if he fills out a little in the next year or so.

    But he'd be terrific. He's got a thuggish beauty about him. Quite reminiscent of a young Sean Connery. He has that wily reckless energy of Tom Hardy. I think he'd be very good in the fight scenes too.

    JACk-OCONNELL.WEB_.jpg

    Yeah he's the only young one I feel vaguely confident could fill the screen enough.

    If it s a small screen.

    🤣 I hear O’Connell is being considered for the lead in a sequel to ‘Willow’ 😉
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    With him as Bond, Nick Nack would look like Jaws.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    With him as Bond, Nick Nack would look like Jaws.

    Brilliant!!! 🤣 True though.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,957
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    He looks good in the photo. In the video he looks quite Italian or even Indian, which is a no no for Bond in my book. But I'm open to him somewhat, nonetheless.
    He has Venezuelan, Spanish and Welsh hertiage but from that interview alone offers so much Britishness and quite suavely so, that I think he could still portray the James Bond we want and expect.

    A James Bond you might want and expect. Which is fair enough.

    But for me, again, this actor is the equivalent of Colin Firth etc playing Michael Corleone (looks wise).

    Well if you really want an actor to portray the exact word of Fleming (and we know how vital it is to you to get every aspect of Army Commander Bond perfectly correct ;) ) you'll see he often describes Bond as having dark or even foreign looks.
    Now would be a very odd time to pick fights about race so maybe you should steer clear of that subject.

    Yawn....Thanks for your usual rude response. It is you who picks fights, I just make comments on a forum where everyone is free to agree or disagree as they like.

    I’ll comment as I see fit on the forum thank you, as long as it remains polite and respectful.

    There was nothing impolite about my post, please discuss the subject rather than the person- as you said, I'm free to disagree. You had to ignore my point about Fleming's description I notice. As I explained, it's not really comparable to Michael Corleone.

    🤣.

    Yes it is, Micheal Corleone is a character in a book and film just like Bond. He is an Italian American character portrayed by an Italian American actor. I was saying you wouldn’t have an actor portray him who doesn’t look Italian. Just as you wouldn’t have an Italian Bond. Dark yes, but not blatantly Italian. That’s my opinion. It’s not right or wrong.

    And do you understand how that is way more relevant to his character and what he does in the films (in that he's strongly connected to his family and family's roots back in Italy and the whole story is about the Italian mafia in America) than Bond's upbringing or family is in his?

    In what way is Bond's Scottish/Swiss ancestry relevant to him gambling Le Chiffre to death? Why do you think Fleming didn't even mention it until twelve books in? Did Corleone get identified as an Italian American a bit earlier than that?
    ;)

    Also: check out James Caan in that film playing Sonny Corleone. He's of German Jewish ancestry.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @Univex ... some people are experts on everything. Their opinions are facts. Very rarely are they humble or gracious. And they come off as arrogant, most of the time.

    It's no use in arguing. I just give them a simple, "sure" and move on.

    Best post on here. 👏👏👏👏👍

    I respect you enough to give you a full answer and explain my thinking to you.

    I understand all that. But there is nothing wrong with me (as a Bond fan), wanting an actor who looks typically English/British and not of Mediterranean decent.

    So it's just preference now, rather than all of the horrible patronising laughing emojis and calling me 'arrogant' etc. for me explaining my thought process. You tried to explain yours and back it up but that's turned into just personal preference that you can't explain now.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Interestingly, the studio wanted Robert Redford for the part of Micheal Corleone, which Coppola deemed ridiculous. Yes, James Caan doesn’t look Italian and admittedly, he still does a great job.

    That's my point, it doesn't always matter, and it didn't even occur to you when you were drawing your comparison.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    However, it remains my preference to have a white British actor of British decent playing the part. Again, it’s not right or wrong, it’s my opinion.

    Honestly, I really I don't know if it is really okay to just 'prefer' to see a white person in a job. Especially one where there's no really great reason to keep one there.

    I never called you arrogant, that wasn’t even my post or thread? That was a disagreement you had with another member.

    And a total coincidence that you happen to reach back a couple of pages to quote it and endorse it at that moment? C'mon, have the courage of your convictions at least.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    My preference is to stick as close to Fleming and also to have a white British actor of British decent in the role.

    I think it’s fine to want this IMO. I’m not asking for your permission or approval.

    We're discussing it, it's a discussion forum, it's a totally fine thing to talk about this. Nothing wrong with it. It's brilliant that you think it's fine, but perhaps now is the time for us to reconsider about what's actually important about these subjects.
    Myself included, as I say above I'm not even 100% sure myself if it would be the right thing to do because it's a decision which doesn't affect my own community.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    The reason is the tradition since 62 and Flemings novels.

    'Tradition' isn't a massively convincing reason though, I find. There's plenty of traditions in the Bond film series they've moved on from, from sexism to bad special effects.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Bond has always been a white Brit. It’s not a job in business, it’s playing a character and to play that character one has to look a certain way in my opinion.

    And in my opinion it's been demonstrated what is important about his looks, and that's that he's handsome, perhaps a bit cruel and tough. The precise colours of his eyes, hair and skin don't seem all that relevant.
    In many ways it's more important than a job in a business, yes, because it's way more visible. Some characters do require precise racial characteristics because of their role in the plot, yes; I just see very little in this particular one that does. If James Caan can do it in your given example (which actually required more of a particular racial look) then I'm not really finding much of a reason to think otherwise.

    Fine. Agreed. But I personally didn’t say it. That’s a fact.

    Honestly. Unbelievable 8-|

    Having recently seen Seberg, I think Jack O'Connell is undeniably the best and most exciting young actor. The only thing stopping me from throwing my weight fully behind him is that he on the short side...but I'm sure there are some smart camera tricks to make him look convincingly taller. He's only 30 now, perhaps if he fills out a little in the next year or so.

    But he'd be terrific. He's got a thuggish beauty about him. Quite reminiscent of a young Sean Connery. He has that wily reckless energy of Tom Hardy. I think he'd be very good in the fight scenes too.

    JACk-OCONNELL.WEB_.jpg

    Yeah he's the only young one I feel vaguely confident could fill the screen enough.

    If it s a small screen.

    🤣 I hear O’Connell is being considered for the lead in a sequel to ‘Willow’ 😉

    Don't forget your own rules:
    suavejmf wrote: »

    I’ll comment as I see fit on the forum thank you, as long as it remains polite and respectful.

    Laughing at someone's height and trying to ridicule others' opinions doesn't seem hugely polite and respectful to me. But y'know, some people are experts on everything. Their opinions are facts. Very rarely are they humble or gracious.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited June 2020 Posts: 5,131
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    He looks good in the photo. In the video he looks quite Italian or even Indian, which is a no no for Bond in my book. But I'm open to him somewhat, nonetheless.
    He has Venezuelan, Spanish and Welsh hertiage but from that interview alone offers so much Britishness and quite suavely so, that I think he could still portray the James Bond we want and expect.

    A James Bond you might want and expect. Which is fair enough.

    But for me, again, this actor is the equivalent of Colin Firth etc playing Michael Corleone (looks wise).

    Well if you really want an actor to portray the exact word of Fleming (and we know how vital it is to you to get every aspect of Army Commander Bond perfectly correct ;) ) you'll see he often describes Bond as having dark or even foreign looks.
    Now would be a very odd time to pick fights about race so maybe you should steer clear of that subject.

    Yawn....Thanks for your usual rude response. It is you who picks fights, I just make comments on a forum where everyone is free to agree or disagree as they like.

    I’ll comment as I see fit on the forum thank you, as long as it remains polite and respectful.

    There was nothing impolite about my post, please discuss the subject rather than the person- as you said, I'm free to disagree. You had to ignore my point about Fleming's description I notice. As I explained, it's not really comparable to Michael Corleone.

    🤣.

    Yes it is, Micheal Corleone is a character in a book and film just like Bond. He is an Italian American character portrayed by an Italian American actor. I was saying you wouldn’t have an actor portray him who doesn’t look Italian. Just as you wouldn’t have an Italian Bond. Dark yes, but not blatantly Italian. That’s my opinion. It’s not right or wrong.

    And do you understand how that is way more relevant to his character and what he does in the films (in that he's strongly connected to his family and family's roots back in Italy and the whole story is about the Italian mafia in America) than Bond's upbringing or family is in his?

    In what way is Bond's Scottish/Swiss ancestry relevant to him gambling Le Chiffre to death? Why do you think Fleming didn't even mention it until twelve books in? Did Corleone get identified as an Italian American a bit earlier than that?
    ;)

    Also: check out James Caan in that film playing Sonny Corleone. He's of German Jewish ancestry.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @Univex ... some people are experts on everything. Their opinions are facts. Very rarely are they humble or gracious. And they come off as arrogant, most of the time.

    It's no use in arguing. I just give them a simple, "sure" and move on.

    Best post on here. 👏👏👏👏👍

    I respect you enough to give you a full answer and explain my thinking to you.

    I understand all that. But there is nothing wrong with me (as a Bond fan), wanting an actor who looks typically English/British and not of Mediterranean decent.

    So it's just preference now, rather than all of the horrible patronising laughing emojis and calling me 'arrogant' etc. for me explaining my thought process. You tried to explain yours and back it up but that's turned into just personal preference that you can't explain now.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Interestingly, the studio wanted Robert Redford for the part of Micheal Corleone, which Coppola deemed ridiculous. Yes, James Caan doesn’t look Italian and admittedly, he still does a great job.

    That's my point, it doesn't always matter, and it didn't even occur to you when you were drawing your comparison.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    However, it remains my preference to have a white British actor of British decent playing the part. Again, it’s not right or wrong, it’s my opinion.

    Honestly, I really I don't know if it is really okay to just 'prefer' to see a white person in a job. Especially one where there's no really great reason to keep one there.

    I never called you arrogant, that wasn’t even my post or thread? That was a disagreement you had with another member.

    And a total coincidence that you happen to reach back a couple of pages to quote it and endorse it at that moment? C'mon, have the courage of your convictions at least.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    My preference is to stick as close to Fleming and also to have a white British actor of British decent in the role.

    I think it’s fine to want this IMO. I’m not asking for your permission or approval.

    We're discussing it, it's a discussion forum, it's a totally fine thing to talk about this. Nothing wrong with it. It's brilliant that you think it's fine, but perhaps now is the time for us to reconsider about what's actually important about these subjects.
    Myself included, as I say above I'm not even 100% sure myself if it would be the right thing to do because it's a decision which doesn't affect my own community.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    The reason is the tradition since 62 and Flemings novels.

    'Tradition' isn't a massively convincing reason though, I find. There's plenty of traditions in the Bond film series they've moved on from, from sexism to bad special effects.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Bond has always been a white Brit. It’s not a job in business, it’s playing a character and to play that character one has to look a certain way in my opinion.

    And in my opinion it's been demonstrated what is important about his looks, and that's that he's handsome, perhaps a bit cruel and tough. The precise colours of his eyes, hair and skin don't seem all that relevant.
    In many ways it's more important than a job in a business, yes, because it's way more visible. Some characters do require precise racial characteristics because of their role in the plot, yes; I just see very little in this particular one that does. If James Caan can do it in your given example (which actually required more of a particular racial look) then I'm not really finding much of a reason to think otherwise.

    Fine. Agreed. But I personally didn’t say it. That’s a fact.

    Honestly. Unbelievable 8-|

    Having recently seen Seberg, I think Jack O'Connell is undeniably the best and most exciting young actor. The only thing stopping me from throwing my weight fully behind him is that he on the short side...but I'm sure there are some smart camera tricks to make him look convincingly taller. He's only 30 now, perhaps if he fills out a little in the next year or so.

    But he'd be terrific. He's got a thuggish beauty about him. Quite reminiscent of a young Sean Connery. He has that wily reckless energy of Tom Hardy. I think he'd be very good in the fight scenes too.

    JACk-OCONNELL.WEB_.jpg

    Yeah he's the only young one I feel vaguely confident could fill the screen enough.

    If it s a small screen.

    🤣 I hear O’Connell is being considered for the lead in a sequel to ‘Willow’ 😉

    Don't forget your own rules:
    suavejmf wrote: »

    I’ll comment as I see fit on the forum thank you, as long as it remains polite and respectful.

    Laughing at someone's height and trying to ridicule others' opinions doesn't seem hugely polite and respectful to me. But y'know, some people are experts on everything. Their opinions are facts. Very rarely are they humble or gracious.

    You just take everything so seriously.

    🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    peter wrote: »
    I wouldn't ever compare Moore's magic to Brosnan. Moore was effortless.

    Exactly.
  • Posts: 14,831
    Denbigh wrote: »
    You're all gonna hate me again, but I found this deleted scene from Fantastic Beasts 2, whiqh shows Callum playing a bit more of the gentleman that I know others are looking for, although I should the video focuses more on Zoe Kravitz...

    ...and before you say I know he looks young - but keep in mind again probable timing of Bond 26. I'm not saying cast this guy tomorrow, but in a few years - yes please :)

    Although to add, Kravitz would be a great Bond girl.


    Really struck by how pedestrian David Yates' direction is.....very much in the Brosnan-era director league.

    Callum Turner is sadly all wrong. He has that swarmy Etonian Tory vibe. The sort embodies by Toby Stephens, Sam Claflin, Max Irons, etc. Tyrner is cless handsome and more snively than all of them.

    You need someone a bit more rugged and capable in the action. The worst 007's have always looked proxy in the fights. Both Connery and Craig work because you believe they as men of action.

    I can see Jamie Dornan kicking ass. He looks like he's had a sweaty fight here:

    27016986-8206053-image-m-50_1586462567357.jpg

    b7ec1fe6002b0bb5b7484e5b16988f3e.gif

    Plus, he has a certain Bruce Wayne/Batman vibe about him....if R-Patz didn;t get that role, he'd have been perfect.

    anigif_sub-buzz-12044-1518742344-1.gif

    Completely off topic, but I just had this vision of a story where Christian Grey is suspected and mistaken for Batman because of his secret room.

    That said, I think Jamie Dornan is wrong for both Batman and Bond.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,869
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    He looks good in the photo. In the video he looks quite Italian or even Indian, which is a no no for Bond in my book. But I'm open to him somewhat, nonetheless.
    He has Venezuelan, Spanish and Welsh hertiage but from that interview alone offers so much Britishness and quite suavely so, that I think he could still portray the James Bond we want and expect.

    A James Bond you might want and expect. Which is fair enough.

    But for me, again, this actor is the equivalent of Colin Firth etc playing Michael Corleone (looks wise).

    Well if you really want an actor to portray the exact word of Fleming (and we know how vital it is to you to get every aspect of Army Commander Bond perfectly correct ;) ) you'll see he often describes Bond as having dark or even foreign looks.
    Now would be a very odd time to pick fights about race so maybe you should steer clear of that subject.

    Yawn....Thanks for your usual rude response. It is you who picks fights, I just make comments on a forum where everyone is free to agree or disagree as they like.

    I’ll comment as I see fit on the forum thank you, as long as it remains polite and respectful.

    There was nothing impolite about my post, please discuss the subject rather than the person- as you said, I'm free to disagree. You had to ignore my point about Fleming's description I notice. As I explained, it's not really comparable to Michael Corleone.

    🤣.

    Yes it is, Micheal Corleone is a character in a book and film just like Bond. He is an Italian American character portrayed by an Italian American actor. I was saying you wouldn’t have an actor portray him who doesn’t look Italian. Just as you wouldn’t have an Italian Bond. Dark yes, but not blatantly Italian. That’s my opinion. It’s not right or wrong.

    And do you understand how that is way more relevant to his character and what he does in the films (in that he's strongly connected to his family and family's roots back in Italy and the whole story is about the Italian mafia in America) than Bond's upbringing or family is in his?

    In what way is Bond's Scottish/Swiss ancestry relevant to him gambling Le Chiffre to death? Why do you think Fleming didn't even mention it until twelve books in? Did Corleone get identified as an Italian American a bit earlier than that?
    ;)

    Also: check out James Caan in that film playing Sonny Corleone. He's of German Jewish ancestry.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @Univex ... some people are experts on everything. Their opinions are facts. Very rarely are they humble or gracious. And they come off as arrogant, most of the time.

    It's no use in arguing. I just give them a simple, "sure" and move on.

    Best post on here. 👏👏👏👏👍

    I respect you enough to give you a full answer and explain my thinking to you.

    I understand all that. But there is nothing wrong with me (as a Bond fan), wanting an actor who looks typically English/British and not of Mediterranean decent.

    So it's just preference now, rather than all of the horrible patronising laughing emojis and calling me 'arrogant' etc. for me explaining my thought process. You tried to explain yours and back it up but that's turned into just personal preference that you can't explain now.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Interestingly, the studio wanted Robert Redford for the part of Micheal Corleone, which Coppola deemed ridiculous. Yes, James Caan doesn’t look Italian and admittedly, he still does a great job.

    That's my point, it doesn't always matter, and it didn't even occur to you when you were drawing your comparison.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    However, it remains my preference to have a white British actor of British decent playing the part. Again, it’s not right or wrong, it’s my opinion.

    Honestly, I really I don't know if it is really okay to just 'prefer' to see a white person in a job. Especially one where there's no really great reason to keep one there.

    I never called you arrogant, that wasn’t even my post or thread? That was a disagreement you had with another member.

    And a total coincidence that you happen to reach back a couple of pages to quote it and endorse it at that moment? C'mon, have the courage of your convictions at least.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    My preference is to stick as close to Fleming and also to have a white British actor of British decent in the role.

    I think it’s fine to want this IMO. I’m not asking for your permission or approval.

    We're discussing it, it's a discussion forum, it's a totally fine thing to talk about this. Nothing wrong with it. It's brilliant that you think it's fine, but perhaps now is the time for us to reconsider about what's actually important about these subjects.
    Myself included, as I say above I'm not even 100% sure myself if it would be the right thing to do because it's a decision which doesn't affect my own community.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    The reason is the tradition since 62 and Flemings novels.

    'Tradition' isn't a massively convincing reason though, I find. There's plenty of traditions in the Bond film series they've moved on from, from sexism to bad special effects.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Bond has always been a white Brit. It’s not a job in business, it’s playing a character and to play that character one has to look a certain way in my opinion.

    And in my opinion it's been demonstrated what is important about his looks, and that's that he's handsome, perhaps a bit cruel and tough. The precise colours of his eyes, hair and skin don't seem all that relevant.
    In many ways it's more important than a job in a business, yes, because it's way more visible. Some characters do require precise racial characteristics because of their role in the plot, yes; I just see very little in this particular one that does. If James Caan can do it in your given example (which actually required more of a particular racial look) then I'm not really finding much of a reason to think otherwise.

    Fine. Agreed. But I personally didn’t say it. That’s a fact.

    Honestly. Unbelievable 8-|

    Having recently seen Seberg, I think Jack O'Connell is undeniably the best and most exciting young actor. The only thing stopping me from throwing my weight fully behind him is that he on the short side...but I'm sure there are some smart camera tricks to make him look convincingly taller. He's only 30 now, perhaps if he fills out a little in the next year or so.

    But he'd be terrific. He's got a thuggish beauty about him. Quite reminiscent of a young Sean Connery. He has that wily reckless energy of Tom Hardy. I think he'd be very good in the fight scenes too.

    JACk-OCONNELL.WEB_.jpg

    Yeah he's the only young one I feel vaguely confident could fill the screen enough.

    If it s a small screen.

    🤣 I hear O’Connell is being considered for the lead in a sequel to ‘Willow’ 😉

    Don't forget your own rules:
    suavejmf wrote: »

    I’ll comment as I see fit on the forum thank you, as long as it remains polite and respectful.

    Laughing at someone's height and trying to ridicule others' opinions doesn't seem hugely polite and respectful to me. But y'know, some people are experts on everything. Their opinions are facts. Very rarely are they humble or gracious.

    You just take everything so seriously.
    🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
    I understand what you’re saying but resorting to insults and cheap jabs rather than just giving a real reason all the time just because you personally don’t like them can be a little frustrating when someone just wants to have a real conversation about the actor? And a lot of the jokes aren’t that good anyway. We don’t always to be serious, but that doesn’t everyone can take just take the piss when someone wants to have a real discussion.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited June 2020 Posts: 5,131
    Denbigh wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    He looks good in the photo. In the video he looks quite Italian or even Indian, which is a no no for Bond in my book. But I'm open to him somewhat, nonetheless.
    He has Venezuelan, Spanish and Welsh hertiage but from that interview alone offers so much Britishness and quite suavely so, that I think he could still portray the James Bond we want and expect.

    A James Bond you might want and expect. Which is fair enough.

    But for me, again, this actor is the equivalent of Colin Firth etc playing Michael Corleone (looks wise).

    Well if you really want an actor to portray the exact word of Fleming (and we know how vital it is to you to get every aspect of Army Commander Bond perfectly correct ;) ) you'll see he often describes Bond as having dark or even foreign looks.
    Now would be a very odd time to pick fights about race so maybe you should steer clear of that subject.

    Yawn....Thanks for your usual rude response. It is you who picks fights, I just make comments on a forum where everyone is free to agree or disagree as they like.

    I’ll comment as I see fit on the forum thank you, as long as it remains polite and respectful.

    There was nothing impolite about my post, please discuss the subject rather than the person- as you said, I'm free to disagree. You had to ignore my point about Fleming's description I notice. As I explained, it's not really comparable to Michael Corleone.

    🤣.

    Yes it is, Micheal Corleone is a character in a book and film just like Bond. He is an Italian American character portrayed by an Italian American actor. I was saying you wouldn’t have an actor portray him who doesn’t look Italian. Just as you wouldn’t have an Italian Bond. Dark yes, but not blatantly Italian. That’s my opinion. It’s not right or wrong.

    And do you understand how that is way more relevant to his character and what he does in the films (in that he's strongly connected to his family and family's roots back in Italy and the whole story is about the Italian mafia in America) than Bond's upbringing or family is in his?

    In what way is Bond's Scottish/Swiss ancestry relevant to him gambling Le Chiffre to death? Why do you think Fleming didn't even mention it until twelve books in? Did Corleone get identified as an Italian American a bit earlier than that?
    ;)

    Also: check out James Caan in that film playing Sonny Corleone. He's of German Jewish ancestry.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @Univex ... some people are experts on everything. Their opinions are facts. Very rarely are they humble or gracious. And they come off as arrogant, most of the time.

    It's no use in arguing. I just give them a simple, "sure" and move on.

    Best post on here. 👏👏👏👏👍

    I respect you enough to give you a full answer and explain my thinking to you.

    I understand all that. But there is nothing wrong with me (as a Bond fan), wanting an actor who looks typically English/British and not of Mediterranean decent.

    So it's just preference now, rather than all of the horrible patronising laughing emojis and calling me 'arrogant' etc. for me explaining my thought process. You tried to explain yours and back it up but that's turned into just personal preference that you can't explain now.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Interestingly, the studio wanted Robert Redford for the part of Micheal Corleone, which Coppola deemed ridiculous. Yes, James Caan doesn’t look Italian and admittedly, he still does a great job.

    That's my point, it doesn't always matter, and it didn't even occur to you when you were drawing your comparison.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    However, it remains my preference to have a white British actor of British decent playing the part. Again, it’s not right or wrong, it’s my opinion.

    Honestly, I really I don't know if it is really okay to just 'prefer' to see a white person in a job. Especially one where there's no really great reason to keep one there.

    I never called you arrogant, that wasn’t even my post or thread? That was a disagreement you had with another member.

    And a total coincidence that you happen to reach back a couple of pages to quote it and endorse it at that moment? C'mon, have the courage of your convictions at least.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    My preference is to stick as close to Fleming and also to have a white British actor of British decent in the role.

    I think it’s fine to want this IMO. I’m not asking for your permission or approval.

    We're discussing it, it's a discussion forum, it's a totally fine thing to talk about this. Nothing wrong with it. It's brilliant that you think it's fine, but perhaps now is the time for us to reconsider about what's actually important about these subjects.
    Myself included, as I say above I'm not even 100% sure myself if it would be the right thing to do because it's a decision which doesn't affect my own community.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    The reason is the tradition since 62 and Flemings novels.

    'Tradition' isn't a massively convincing reason though, I find. There's plenty of traditions in the Bond film series they've moved on from, from sexism to bad special effects.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Bond has always been a white Brit. It’s not a job in business, it’s playing a character and to play that character one has to look a certain way in my opinion.

    And in my opinion it's been demonstrated what is important about his looks, and that's that he's handsome, perhaps a bit cruel and tough. The precise colours of his eyes, hair and skin don't seem all that relevant.
    In many ways it's more important than a job in a business, yes, because it's way more visible. Some characters do require precise racial characteristics because of their role in the plot, yes; I just see very little in this particular one that does. If James Caan can do it in your given example (which actually required more of a particular racial look) then I'm not really finding much of a reason to think otherwise.

    Fine. Agreed. But I personally didn’t say it. That’s a fact.

    Honestly. Unbelievable 8-|

    Having recently seen Seberg, I think Jack O'Connell is undeniably the best and most exciting young actor. The only thing stopping me from throwing my weight fully behind him is that he on the short side...but I'm sure there are some smart camera tricks to make him look convincingly taller. He's only 30 now, perhaps if he fills out a little in the next year or so.

    But he'd be terrific. He's got a thuggish beauty about him. Quite reminiscent of a young Sean Connery. He has that wily reckless energy of Tom Hardy. I think he'd be very good in the fight scenes too.

    JACk-OCONNELL.WEB_.jpg

    Yeah he's the only young one I feel vaguely confident could fill the screen enough.

    If it s a small screen.

    🤣 I hear O’Connell is being considered for the lead in a sequel to ‘Willow’ 😉

    Don't forget your own rules:
    suavejmf wrote: »

    I’ll comment as I see fit on the forum thank you, as long as it remains polite and respectful.

    Laughing at someone's height and trying to ridicule others' opinions doesn't seem hugely polite and respectful to me. But y'know, some people are experts on everything. Their opinions are facts. Very rarely are they humble or gracious.

    You just take everything so seriously.
    🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
    I understand what you’re saying but resorting to insults and cheap jabs rather than just giving a real reason all the time just because you personally don’t like them can be a little frustrating when someone just wants to have a real conversation about the actor? And a lot of the jokes aren’t that good anyway. We don’t always to be serious, but that doesn’t everyone can take just take the piss when someone wants to have a real discussion.

    Fair enough. In the spirit of a fair discussion, O’Connell in my view, is so short it makes the part of Bond an unviable prospect for him as an actor. He’s a decent actor, but the bond role comes with physical characteristics that need to be met. UK Average height has to be a bare minimum IMO.

    Daniel Craig is only borderline acceptable (height wise), but IMO they shouldn’t set the bar lower still further.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,869
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    He looks good in the photo. In the video he looks quite Italian or even Indian, which is a no no for Bond in my book. But I'm open to him somewhat, nonetheless.
    He has Venezuelan, Spanish and Welsh hertiage but from that interview alone offers so much Britishness and quite suavely so, that I think he could still portray the James Bond we want and expect.

    A James Bond you might want and expect. Which is fair enough.

    But for me, again, this actor is the equivalent of Colin Firth etc playing Michael Corleone (looks wise).

    Well if you really want an actor to portray the exact word of Fleming (and we know how vital it is to you to get every aspect of Army Commander Bond perfectly correct ;) ) you'll see he often describes Bond as having dark or even foreign looks.
    Now would be a very odd time to pick fights about race so maybe you should steer clear of that subject.

    Yawn....Thanks for your usual rude response. It is you who picks fights, I just make comments on a forum where everyone is free to agree or disagree as they like.

    I’ll comment as I see fit on the forum thank you, as long as it remains polite and respectful.

    There was nothing impolite about my post, please discuss the subject rather than the person- as you said, I'm free to disagree. You had to ignore my point about Fleming's description I notice. As I explained, it's not really comparable to Michael Corleone.

    🤣.

    Yes it is, Micheal Corleone is a character in a book and film just like Bond. He is an Italian American character portrayed by an Italian American actor. I was saying you wouldn’t have an actor portray him who doesn’t look Italian. Just as you wouldn’t have an Italian Bond. Dark yes, but not blatantly Italian. That’s my opinion. It’s not right or wrong.

    And do you understand how that is way more relevant to his character and what he does in the films (in that he's strongly connected to his family and family's roots back in Italy and the whole story is about the Italian mafia in America) than Bond's upbringing or family is in his?

    In what way is Bond's Scottish/Swiss ancestry relevant to him gambling Le Chiffre to death? Why do you think Fleming didn't even mention it until twelve books in? Did Corleone get identified as an Italian American a bit earlier than that?
    ;)

    Also: check out James Caan in that film playing Sonny Corleone. He's of German Jewish ancestry.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @Univex ... some people are experts on everything. Their opinions are facts. Very rarely are they humble or gracious. And they come off as arrogant, most of the time.

    It's no use in arguing. I just give them a simple, "sure" and move on.

    Best post on here. 👏👏👏👏👍

    I respect you enough to give you a full answer and explain my thinking to you.

    I understand all that. But there is nothing wrong with me (as a Bond fan), wanting an actor who looks typically English/British and not of Mediterranean decent.

    So it's just preference now, rather than all of the horrible patronising laughing emojis and calling me 'arrogant' etc. for me explaining my thought process. You tried to explain yours and back it up but that's turned into just personal preference that you can't explain now.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Interestingly, the studio wanted Robert Redford for the part of Micheal Corleone, which Coppola deemed ridiculous. Yes, James Caan doesn’t look Italian and admittedly, he still does a great job.

    That's my point, it doesn't always matter, and it didn't even occur to you when you were drawing your comparison.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    However, it remains my preference to have a white British actor of British decent playing the part. Again, it’s not right or wrong, it’s my opinion.

    Honestly, I really I don't know if it is really okay to just 'prefer' to see a white person in a job. Especially one where there's no really great reason to keep one there.

    I never called you arrogant, that wasn’t even my post or thread? That was a disagreement you had with another member.

    And a total coincidence that you happen to reach back a couple of pages to quote it and endorse it at that moment? C'mon, have the courage of your convictions at least.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    My preference is to stick as close to Fleming and also to have a white British actor of British decent in the role.

    I think it’s fine to want this IMO. I’m not asking for your permission or approval.

    We're discussing it, it's a discussion forum, it's a totally fine thing to talk about this. Nothing wrong with it. It's brilliant that you think it's fine, but perhaps now is the time for us to reconsider about what's actually important about these subjects.
    Myself included, as I say above I'm not even 100% sure myself if it would be the right thing to do because it's a decision which doesn't affect my own community.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    The reason is the tradition since 62 and Flemings novels.

    'Tradition' isn't a massively convincing reason though, I find. There's plenty of traditions in the Bond film series they've moved on from, from sexism to bad special effects.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Bond has always been a white Brit. It’s not a job in business, it’s playing a character and to play that character one has to look a certain way in my opinion.

    And in my opinion it's been demonstrated what is important about his looks, and that's that he's handsome, perhaps a bit cruel and tough. The precise colours of his eyes, hair and skin don't seem all that relevant.
    In many ways it's more important than a job in a business, yes, because it's way more visible. Some characters do require precise racial characteristics because of their role in the plot, yes; I just see very little in this particular one that does. If James Caan can do it in your given example (which actually required more of a particular racial look) then I'm not really finding much of a reason to think otherwise.

    Fine. Agreed. But I personally didn’t say it. That’s a fact.

    Honestly. Unbelievable 8-|

    Having recently seen Seberg, I think Jack O'Connell is undeniably the best and most exciting young actor. The only thing stopping me from throwing my weight fully behind him is that he on the short side...but I'm sure there are some smart camera tricks to make him look convincingly taller. He's only 30 now, perhaps if he fills out a little in the next year or so.

    But he'd be terrific. He's got a thuggish beauty about him. Quite reminiscent of a young Sean Connery. He has that wily reckless energy of Tom Hardy. I think he'd be very good in the fight scenes too.

    JACk-OCONNELL.WEB_.jpg

    Yeah he's the only young one I feel vaguely confident could fill the screen enough.

    If it s a small screen.

    🤣 I hear O’Connell is being considered for the lead in a sequel to ‘Willow’ 😉

    Don't forget your own rules:
    suavejmf wrote: »

    I’ll comment as I see fit on the forum thank you, as long as it remains polite and respectful.

    Laughing at someone's height and trying to ridicule others' opinions doesn't seem hugely polite and respectful to me. But y'know, some people are experts on everything. Their opinions are facts. Very rarely are they humble or gracious.

    You just take everything so seriously.
    🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
    I understand what you’re saying but resorting to insults and cheap jabs rather than just giving a real reason all the time just because you personally don’t like them can be a little frustrating when someone just wants to have a real conversation about the actor? And a lot of the jokes aren’t that good anyway. We don’t always to be serious, but that doesn’t everyone can take just take the piss when someone wants to have a real discussion.

    Fair enough. In the spirit of a fair discussion, O’Connell in my view, is so short it makes the part of Bond an unviable prospect for him as an actor. He’s a decent actor, but the bond role comes with physical characteristics that need to be met.
    Unfortunately I do think he height will let him down, but let’s be honest the guy could still get an audition and a chance to prove himself. I mean Cruise built a whole franchise as a believable action hero and he’s shorter than O’ Connell. But again I do think it could hold him back, but important to stress that it’s the only thing holding him back cause apart from that he has everything we should want from a possible Bond candidate.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    Yes, O'Connell is a good actor. And the height is the only thing that could be held against him, I think. He has everything else. Whether that's enough to rule him out or not is down to personal opinion, I suppose.
Sign In or Register to comment.