› ›

Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1…757758760762763…1193

Comments

  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,830
    It's difficult to find unknown veteran actors for villains, but fame is relative : one can be a famous actor in a specific market (Germany, Sweden, France, etc) and be unknown outside. I'm all for Michel Côté as a Bond villain. He's a household name where I come from, but a nobody elsewhere.

    As for Turner, I might be wrong, but he comes off too youthful and too soft for my taste. Like a poor man's Brosnan.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited November 2020 Posts: 1,318
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    In the Hobbit movies he portrayed Kili, a major character. That character had a long beard, long hair and some heavy clothing at times. Like many characters in the LOTR and Hobbit films, this may have rendered him less recognizable. If one is not fond of the actor, that would be one thing, however, this provides no reason to belittle his contribution or the memorability of the character. Again -- Kili was a major character in the Hobbit films.

    Was Sean Connery memorable for any films prior to Dr. No ? Not much. Most notably, he was in The Longest Day in 1962, the same year as Dr. No. He was in a Disney film that was not a big Disney hit in 1959, and Another Time, Another Place with Lana Turner in 1958. He got plenty of notice for TV work, though. Roger Moore in films before Bond ? Moore was primarily known for his TV work in Maverick, The Saint and the brief-lived The Persuaders. I could go on, but you may recall it worked well for the producers to work with lesser-known actors: They cost less, at first, and they do not distract the audience by being strongly recognized for something else and being strongly associated with it to the point it detracts from acceptance of them as Bond. Of all the actors, Moore was most-known in advance, but he brought his same-as-ever breezy charm and that was the new route for the films for a while, and it worked out.

    Kili was most definitely NOT major character in The Hobbit. They tried to beef him up in the movies but I don't think it really worked (like many things in The Hobbit, sadly) and the character could have been played by anyone without any difference.
    And I will be indulgent as you're new here @Since62 , but you don't know me at all. I'm a big advocate of casting lesser known actors, not only for Bond, but for Bond girls, villains, the lot. My issue with Turner is not that he is less known, but that he might be a tad bland and unmemorable for Bond. I am not even against him being cast, I'm just skeptical.

    I agree with you here @Ludovico, however I do believe the Bond Villain role is an interesting platform for more well known actors to flaunt their abilities and quirks within the franchise.

    If anything, A. Turner's obscurity is something that I would put down as a reason to cast him as Bond.

    I maintain that A. Turner has a youthful-ness to his look that doesn't suit Bond, and isn't something he'll lose with age. But that's just my opinion (that other members surely will chime in and tell me is wrong).

    Commander Bond thinks otherwise, a tad weathered. Hoult on the other hand, will probably die at old age with a boyish baby face.

    TMWKHATTB4-1024x561.png
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited November 2020 Posts: 7,526
    JeremyBondon wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    In the Hobbit movies he portrayed Kili, a major character. That character had a long beard, long hair and some heavy clothing at times. Like many characters in the LOTR and Hobbit films, this may have rendered him less recognizable. If one is not fond of the actor, that would be one thing, however, this provides no reason to belittle his contribution or the memorability of the character. Again -- Kili was a major character in the Hobbit films.

    Was Sean Connery memorable for any films prior to Dr. No ? Not much. Most notably, he was in The Longest Day in 1962, the same year as Dr. No. He was in a Disney film that was not a big Disney hit in 1959, and Another Time, Another Place with Lana Turner in 1958. He got plenty of notice for TV work, though. Roger Moore in films before Bond ? Moore was primarily known for his TV work in Maverick, The Saint and the brief-lived The Persuaders. I could go on, but you may recall it worked well for the producers to work with lesser-known actors: They cost less, at first, and they do not distract the audience by being strongly recognized for something else and being strongly associated with it to the point it detracts from acceptance of them as Bond. Of all the actors, Moore was most-known in advance, but he brought his same-as-ever breezy charm and that was the new route for the films for a while, and it worked out.

    Kili was most definitely NOT major character in The Hobbit. They tried to beef him up in the movies but I don't think it really worked (like many things in The Hobbit, sadly) and the character could have been played by anyone without any difference.
    And I will be indulgent as you're new here @Since62 , but you don't know me at all. I'm a big advocate of casting lesser known actors, not only for Bond, but for Bond girls, villains, the lot. My issue with Turner is not that he is less known, but that he might be a tad bland and unmemorable for Bond. I am not even against him being cast, I'm just skeptical.

    I agree with you here @Ludovico, however I do believe the Bond Villain role is an interesting platform for more well known actors to flaunt their abilities and quirks within the franchise.

    If anything, A. Turner's obscurity is something that I would put down as a reason to cast him as Bond.

    I maintain that A. Turner has a youthful-ness to his look that doesn't suit Bond, and isn't something he'll lose with age. But that's just my opinion (that other members surely will chime in and tell me is wrong).

    Commander Bond thinks otherwise, a tad weathered. Hoult on the other hand, will probably die at old age with a boyish baby face.

    TMWKHATTB4-1024x561.png

    Yeah, I see where you're coming from, but it still isn't doing it for me.

    Eh, it's not bad. It wouldn't be the end of the world if they cast him. But he's still not my first choice. He still seems too boyish to me.
  • Since62Since62
    Posts: 1,571
    The following might sound very silly, but here goes. I thought Chris Hemsworth looked appropriately Bondish -- including the self-confident swagger and right suit -- in Men In Black: International. His recent photo of himself preparing to portray Hulk Hogan shows he's Verrrrrry jacked. Rather Rock-like. Arms like legs. Frankly, as a SECRET agent -- yes, sometimes he doesn't bother with keeping himself secret -- it would not work as well were Bond to look more like one of the impressive henchman whom Bond is supposed to fight and whom he faces poor prospects of defeating. In the meantime, though, to play Hogan, Thor, et al., Hemsworth looks amazing.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited November 2020 Posts: 1,318
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    JeremyBondon wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    In the Hobbit movies he portrayed Kili, a major character. That character had a long beard, long hair and some heavy clothing at times. Like many characters in the LOTR and Hobbit films, this may have rendered him less recognizable. If one is not fond of the actor, that would be one thing, however, this provides no reason to belittle his contribution or the memorability of the character. Again -- Kili was a major character in the Hobbit films.

    Was Sean Connery memorable for any films prior to Dr. No ? Not much. Most notably, he was in The Longest Day in 1962, the same year as Dr. No. He was in a Disney film that was not a big Disney hit in 1959, and Another Time, Another Place with Lana Turner in 1958. He got plenty of notice for TV work, though. Roger Moore in films before Bond ? Moore was primarily known for his TV work in Maverick, The Saint and the brief-lived The Persuaders. I could go on, but you may recall it worked well for the producers to work with lesser-known actors: They cost less, at first, and they do not distract the audience by being strongly recognized for something else and being strongly associated with it to the point it detracts from acceptance of them as Bond. Of all the actors, Moore was most-known in advance, but he brought his same-as-ever breezy charm and that was the new route for the films for a while, and it worked out.

    Kili was most definitely NOT major character in The Hobbit. They tried to beef him up in the movies but I don't think it really worked (like many things in The Hobbit, sadly) and the character could have been played by anyone without any difference.
    And I will be indulgent as you're new here @Since62 , but you don't know me at all. I'm a big advocate of casting lesser known actors, not only for Bond, but for Bond girls, villains, the lot. My issue with Turner is not that he is less known, but that he might be a tad bland and unmemorable for Bond. I am not even against him being cast, I'm just skeptical.

    I agree with you here @Ludovico, however I do believe the Bond Villain role is an interesting platform for more well known actors to flaunt their abilities and quirks within the franchise.

    If anything, A. Turner's obscurity is something that I would put down as a reason to cast him as Bond.

    I maintain that A. Turner has a youthful-ness to his look that doesn't suit Bond, and isn't something he'll lose with age. But that's just my opinion (that other members surely will chime in and tell me is wrong).

    Commander Bond thinks otherwise, a tad weathered. Hoult on the other hand, will probably die at old age with a boyish baby face.

    TMWKHATTB4-1024x561.png

    Yeah, I see where you're coming from, but it still isn't doing it for me.

    Eh, it's not bad. It wouldn't be the end of the world if they cast him. But he's still not my first choice. He still seems too boyish to me.

    Strange, it seems we have totally definitions of boyish looks. Turner obviously is handsome, yet looks like a man. This guy is the definition of boyish:

    Nicholas-Hoult-2015.jpg
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited November 2020 Posts: 7,980
    Hoult has steadily grown into his looks and will continue to do so. He will be at least 35 when the next Bond is introduced . Its a safe bet that the next incarnation will be on the younger side. Right now A. Turner and N. Hoult are my top two candidates.

    wF2i6AM.jpg
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,980
    Since62 wrote: »
    The following might sound very silly, but here goes. I thought Chris Hemsworth looked appropriately Bondish -- including the self-confident swagger and right suit -- in Men In Black: International. His recent photo of himself preparing to portray Hulk Hogan shows he's Verrrrrry jacked. Rather Rock-like. Arms like legs. Frankly, as a SECRET agent -- yes, sometimes he doesn't bother with keeping himself secret -- it would not work as well were Bond to look more like one of the impressive henchman whom Bond is supposed to fight and whom he faces poor prospects of defeating. In the meantime, though, to play Hogan, Thor, et al., Hemsworth looks amazing.

    Hemsworth is naturally a very lean, athletic guy; he has to eat and train to put on "superhero" or "Hulkster" size. generally when shooting is done he sheds the weight. Right now he's training for the Hogan bio-pic then he will move on to the next Thor.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,526
    JeremyBondon wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    In the Hobbit movies he portrayed Kili, a major character. That character had a long beard, long hair and some heavy clothing at times. Like many characters in the LOTR and Hobbit films, this may have rendered him less recognizable. If one is not fond of the actor, that would be one thing, however, this provides no reason to belittle his contribution or the memorability of the character. Again -- Kili was a major character in the Hobbit films.

    Was Sean Connery memorable for any films prior to Dr. No ? Not much. Most notably, he was in The Longest Day in 1962, the same year as Dr. No. He was in a Disney film that was not a big Disney hit in 1959, and Another Time, Another Place with Lana Turner in 1958. He got plenty of notice for TV work, though. Roger Moore in films before Bond ? Moore was primarily known for his TV work in Maverick, The Saint and the brief-lived The Persuaders. I could go on, but you may recall it worked well for the producers to work with lesser-known actors: They cost less, at first, and they do not distract the audience by being strongly recognized for something else and being strongly associated with it to the point it detracts from acceptance of them as Bond. Of all the actors, Moore was most-known in advance, but he brought his same-as-ever breezy charm and that was the new route for the films for a while, and it worked out.

    Kili was most definitely NOT major character in The Hobbit. They tried to beef him up in the movies but I don't think it really worked (like many things in The Hobbit, sadly) and the character could have been played by anyone without any difference.
    And I will be indulgent as you're new here @Since62 , but you don't know me at all. I'm a big advocate of casting lesser known actors, not only for Bond, but for Bond girls, villains, the lot. My issue with Turner is not that he is less known, but that he might be a tad bland and unmemorable for Bond. I am not even against him being cast, I'm just skeptical.

    I agree with you here @Ludovico, however I do believe the Bond Villain role is an interesting platform for more well known actors to flaunt their abilities and quirks within the franchise.

    If anything, A. Turner's obscurity is something that I would put down as a reason to cast him as Bond.

    I maintain that A. Turner has a youthful-ness to his look that doesn't suit Bond, and isn't something he'll lose with age. But that's just my opinion (that other members surely will chime in and tell me is wrong).

    Comman
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    JeremyBondon wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    In the Hobbit movies he portrayed Kili, a major character. That character had a long beard, long hair and some heavy clothing at times. Like many characters in the LOTR and Hobbit films, this may have rendered him less recognizable. If one is not fond of the actor, that would be one thing, however, this provides no reason to belittle his contribution or the memorability of the character. Again -- Kili was a major character in the Hobbit films.

    Was Sean Connery memorable for any films prior to Dr. No ? Not much. Most notably, he was in The Longest Day in 1962, the same year as Dr. No. He was in a Disney film that was not a big Disney hit in 1959, and Another Time, Another Place with Lana Turner in 1958. He got plenty of notice for TV work, though. Roger Moore in films before Bond ? Moore was primarily known for his TV work in Maverick, The Saint and the brief-lived The Persuaders. I could go on, but you may recall it worked well for the producers to work with lesser-known actors: They cost less, at first, and they do not distract the audience by being strongly recognized for something else and being strongly associated with it to the point it detracts from acceptance of them as Bond. Of all the actors, Moore was most-known in advance, but he brought his same-as-ever breezy charm and that was the new route for the films for a while, and it worked out.

    Kili was most definitely NOT major character in The Hobbit. They tried to beef him up in the movies but I don't think it really worked (like many things in The Hobbit, sadly) and the character could have been played by anyone without any difference.
    And I will be indulgent as you're new here @Since62 , but you don't know me at all. I'm a big advocate of casting lesser known actors, not only for Bond, but for Bond girls, villains, the lot. My issue with Turner is not that he is less known, but that he might be a tad bland and unmemorable for Bond. I am not even against him being cast, I'm just skeptical.

    I agree with you here @Ludovico, however I do believe the Bond Villain role is an interesting platform for more well known actors to flaunt their abilities and quirks within the franchise.

    If anything, A. Turner's obscurity is something that I would put down as a reason to cast him as Bond.

    I maintain that A. Turner has a youthful-ness to his look that doesn't suit Bond, and isn't something he'll lose with age. But that's just my opinion (that other members surely will chime in and tell me is wrong).

    Commander Bond thinks otherwise, a tad weathered. Hoult on the other hand, will probably die at old age with a boyish baby face.

    TMWKHATTB4-1024x561.png

    Yeah, I see where you're coming from, but it still isn't doing it for me.

    Eh, it's not bad. It wouldn't be the end of the world if they cast him. But he's still not my first choice. He still seems too boyish to me.

    Strange, it seems we have totally definitions of boyish looks. Turner obviously is handsome, yet looks like a man. This guy is the definition of boyish:

    Nicholas-Hoult-2015.jpg

    I agree with you about Hoult.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited November 2020 Posts: 5,131
    Since62 wrote: »
    The following might sound very silly, but here goes. I thought Chris Hemsworth looked appropriately Bondish -- including the self-confident swagger and right suit -- in Men In Black: International. His recent photo of himself preparing to portray Hulk Hogan shows he's Verrrrrry jacked. Rather Rock-like. Arms like legs. Frankly, as a SECRET agent -- yes, sometimes he doesn't bother with keeping himself secret -- it would not work as well were Bond to look more like one of the impressive henchman whom Bond is supposed to fight and whom he faces poor prospects of defeating. In the meantime, though, to play Hogan, Thor, et al., Hemsworth looks amazing.

    No more Australians please!

    Hemsworth can’t master a English/ British accent. Case in point...Men in Black International, Thor, Rush etc.

    Hemsworth as Bond is like casting Hugh Grant as Crocodile Dundee; “G’day mate.”
  • Since62Since62
    Posts: 1,571
    Well Hugh IS a good actor. Hmm...at any rate, I am watching Crimson Peak and forgot it featured both Tom Hiddleston and Charlie Hunnam. Some folks have proposed CH for Bond. There is a scene in this film where they confront each other face to face. Not even close. Hiddleston so much more physically right. Of course, that is not everything, but you need that much.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited November 2020 Posts: 5,869
    Like I've said before, my problem with Hemsworth is that he wouldn't be James Bond, he'd just be himself doing James Bond-type things with an accent.
  • Since62Since62
    Posts: 1,571
    The promotional copy practically writes itself !

    Chris Hemsworth IS Chris Hemsworth as James Bond in
    The Next One
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,526
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Like I've said before, my problem with Hemsworth is that he wouldn't be James Bond, he'd just be himself doing James Bond-type things with an accent.

    I think this is true of any famous actor taking on the role, for example Hemsworth as you mentioned, or Cavill, Hiddleston, Jackman, etc.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    Let the screentest's decide.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited November 2020 Posts: 5,131
    Since62 wrote: »
    Well Hugh IS a good actor. Hmm...at any rate, I am watching Crimson Peak and forgot it featured both Tom Hiddleston and Charlie Hunnam. Some folks have proposed CH for Bond. There is a scene in this film where they confront each other face to face. Not even close. Hiddleston so much more physically right. Of course, that is not everything, but you need that much.

    Hugh is a great actor, but my point was that you wouldn’t cast him as an Authentic Aussie Outback Crocodile Wrestler.

    I like Hiddleston, he’s got a quintessentially English quality about him.

    Hunnam IMO is not a very good actor at all. He should not even be mentioned for consideration, I agree.
  • Since62Since62
    Posts: 1,571
    As for Hugh Grant performing with an Australian accent, when I wrote "Well High S a good actor. Hmm..."
    I was joking. Even if he could produce a terrific Australian accent, I was just kidding. Everyone KNOWS he could nail that. Crikey !
    Hiddleston was quite good in The Night Manager. I'm not much for the Marvel movies since the first Iron Man, other than the Doctor Strange movie. That big ensemble stuff can be amusing, but does not draw me in much. But I understand Tom H handles his part well, as does the apparently very Australian Mr. Hemsworth the hammer wielder. I say "apparently" because, well, my ears do not pick it up -- other than strongly noticeable examples (see "Crikey !", above, from the late, great, loveable animal lover).
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    The two previous pictures of Hoult show you can prove any POV in an argument with the right photo.
    In the first one, yes totally agree he looks too 'boyish' and not a convincing Bond. However it's an older photo when he WAS younger.
    Photo two could easily be used in a " Hoult is right for Bond" discussion. He looks more mature, in a dinner jacket. He even has the right hair.
    I'm not canvassing for Hoult at all but as MSL49 correctly says- Let the screen test decide.
  • Since62Since62
    Posts: 1,571
    Since it is a significant Bond fanatics topic to speculate on who would play the next Bond -- the discussion for which commences well before the current Bond is done -- I will go ahead and throw it out there: The next-next-Bond. After the Bond after Craig, who should play that next Bond ? That is to say, counting Craig as Bond #7, who would be the candidates for Bond #9 ? Since Bond #8 would be expected to appear in, say, 3-4 films over a 10-12 year period, the actors presently too young to be Bond #7 might be the right candidates for this next-next-Bond discussion !
    And, yes, I am kidding...but not much, am I ? Especially since some of the names tossed about in here are for very young-looking lads who then get tossed out of the Bond #8 candidate ring for being too young-looking !
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited November 2020 Posts: 8,087
    Turner is currently 37. By the time Bond 26 is cast he'll probably be right around 40, and most big screen appearances of his are at least a year or two old. He won't look "too young" for Bond come 2024.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    cwl007 wrote: »
    The two previous pictures of Hoult show you can prove any POV in an argument with the right photo.
    In the first one, yes totally agree he looks too 'boyish' and not a convincing Bond. However it's an older photo when he WAS younger.
    Photo two could easily be used in a " Hoult is right for Bond" discussion. He looks more mature, in a dinner jacket. He even has the right hair.
    I'm not canvassing for Hoult at all but as MSL49 correctly says- Let the screen test decide.

    You'll get used to that debating technique around here.
  • Since62Since62
    Posts: 1,571
    Hmmm....I think we're at an odd spot. Those fellows who presently look too young ? Considering the time this will take to switch over, and then to get that Bond-after-NTTD film written and prepared for shooting, well, let's see...Add the right column, carry the 3, divide by 1.67, times 3, well, yes. I'm quite certain. (Sigh)...my calculations conclusively show that it turns out they'll all be too OLD by then. Who'dathunkit ?
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    FatherValentine wrote: »
    cwl007 wrote: »
    The two previous pictures of Hoult show you can prove any POV in an argument with the right photo.
    In the first one, yes totally agree he looks too 'boyish' and not a convincing Bond. However it's an older photo when he WAS younger.
    Photo two could easily be used in a " Hoult is right for Bond" discussion. He looks more mature, in a dinner jacket. He even has the right hair.
    I'm not canvassing for Hoult at all but as MSL49 correctly says- Let the screen test decide.

    You'll get used to that debating technique around here.

    Oh I know. I've been on here since 2012, Don't post much but love reading the debates. This thread in particular.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Since62 wrote: »
    As for Hugh Grant performing with an Australian accent, when I wrote "Well High S a good actor. Hmm..."
    I was joking. Even if he could produce a terrific Australian accent, I was just kidding. Everyone KNOWS he could nail that. Crikey !
    Hiddleston was quite good in The Night Manager. I'm not much for the Marvel movies since the first Iron Man, other than the Doctor Strange movie. That big ensemble stuff can be amusing, but does not draw me in much. But I understand Tom H handles his part well, as does the apparently very Australian Mr. Hemsworth the hammer wielder. I say "apparently" because, well, my ears do not pick it up -- other than strongly noticeable examples (see "Crikey !", above, from the late, great, loveable animal lover).

    As an Englishman I can confirm that Hemsworth’s faux British/ English accent is pure unadulterated pantomime acting.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited November 2020 Posts: 5,131
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Turner is currently 37. By the time Bond 26 is cast he'll probably be right around 40, and most big screen appearances of his are at least a year or two old. He won't look "too young" for Bond come 2024.

    He looks fine for Bond now IMO.

    Hoult may age, I have no idea, but at present he’s a boy.....’About a Boy.’
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Turner is currently 37. By the time Bond 26 is cast he'll probably be right around 40, and most big screen appearances of his are at least a year or two old. He won't look "too young" for Bond come 2024.

    He looks fine for Bond now IMO.

    Hoult may age, I have no idea, but at present he’s a boy.....’About a Boy.’

    That is my issue with hoult, we don't know if he might age the way people think. He could still looks boyish even after 5 years or not, my top contender is still Turner after that Theo james .
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,956
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Turner is currently 37. By the time Bond 26 is cast he'll probably be right around 40, and most big screen appearances of his are at least a year or two old. He won't look "too young" for Bond come 2024.

    He looks fine for Bond now IMO.

    Hoult may age, I have no idea, but at present he’s a boy.....’About a Boy.’

    'About A Boy' was nearly twenty years ago.
  • Since62Since62
    Posts: 1,571
    It's a bit funny that various actors' voices are being discussed here, considering the producers used voice-over for a significant number of parts in the first few films ! Not for Bond, but others including lead roles ! One would not hear as much voice-over until Operation: Kid Brother, an Italian 1967 (same year as the first film Casino Royale, and YOLT) production at the height of Bond mania with a very Sean-looking Neil Connery, as well as onscreen Bond alums -- I (ahem) Kid you not: Daniela Bianchi, Adolfo Celi, Bernard Lee, Anthony Dawson, Lois Maxwell. For those who care, it has a terrific artwork poster !
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Since62 wrote: »
    It's a bit funny that various actors' voices are being discussed here, considering the producers used voice-over for a significant number of parts in the first few films ! Not for Bond, but others including lead roles ! One would not hear as much voice-over until Operation: Kid Brother, an Italian 1967 (same year as the first film Casino Royale, and YOLT) production at the height of Bond mania with a very Sean-looking Neil Connery, as well as onscreen Bond alums -- I (ahem) Kid you not: Daniela Bianchi, Adolfo Celi, Bernard Lee, Anthony Dawson, Lois Maxwell. For those who care, it has a terrific artwork poster !

    Very true. But voice dubbing isn’t done in modern cinema.
  • Since62Since62
    Posts: 1,571
    Not suggesting that they would dub the Bond actor's voice. Just observing that the discussion over someone's voice sounding right or not is amusing when considering the producers had no qualms doing it in the films which established the popularity of this franchise. (You might have read they thought Ursula Andress sounded like "a Dutch comic.") By the way -- for markets in other languages, films these days certainly do get voice-over done. People do not always rely on subtitles.

    People really could use some lightening up around here. These films are escapist fantasies, even the "serious" ones !
  • MongooseFightMongooseFight
    Posts: 25
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Turner is currently 37. By the time Bond 26 is cast he'll probably be right around 40, and most big screen appearances of his are at least a year or two old. He won't look "too young" for Bond come 2024.

    He looks fine for Bond now IMO.

    Hoult may age, I have no idea, but at present he’s a boy.....’About a Boy.’

    Jack O'Connell, who was one of Hoult's castmates from Skins, has always intrigued me. He has a more rugged quality. He seems more contemporary and I also think he has quite handsome. He looks like a cross between Sean Connery and Tom Hardy.

    He also has a similar toughness and believability that reminds me of Daniel Craig. He's also a very good actor.

    0b3967e6af00c0278d3aad71abc60399.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.