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

1775776778780781833

Comments

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited February 22 Posts: 6,476
    mtm wrote: »
    Therefore there's no reason to say we can't debate it from our own individual points of view. No-one's belittling anything, that's unnecessary.

    You absolutely were. But that's okay. I guess there isn't a reason to debate it, but I wouldn't ever describe something as being "unimportant thinking" - that is 100% belittling. Obviously you're going to defend your words, but it came across as a bit smug, unfortunately (even if it wasn't intended). That is unnecessary.
    mtm wrote: »
    Here's a quote from yourself in this thread from a few months ago which I think answers that:
    If you can't handle the heat of a gentle mocking of a suggestion, stay out of the 'Who Should/Could Be A Bond Actor' kitchen.

    This looks good out of context, but if I'm remembering that interaction correctly (I may not be, admittedly) it was far more jovial and appropriate a response (I'm not saying someone is wrong, just that they shouldn't complain when people don't like their suggestions if the reasons are presented in good spirit - it's the nature of the thread. I had suggestions shot down and didn't agree with the why of it. However, claiming someone's opinion is "unimportant" is not quite the same thing and crosses over into a different territory. That's not mannerly debating.
    mtm wrote: »
    And the claim that 'It's no more or less important than other aspects of the character' is just your own point of view; unless you're saying that's not open to debate?

    No, that's not really what I'm saying at all. Feel free to debate it with someone who feels it's important, preferably without the tone displayed previously.
    mtm wrote: »
    Personally I think lots of aspects are more or less important than others, obviously I'm incorrect for feeling that.

    No, you're not incorrect for thinking that. And I would never say you were, nor have I. Nor would I ever say anyone who finds height to be super important are incorrect, either. That would be contradictory!
    How about Aiden Turner then? Has anybody considered him for Bond?

    It has been a while since the thread had another Turner conversation, for sure.
    :))

    He's 5'10" or 5'11" depending on which Google search you believe. ;)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 22 Posts: 8,413
    mtm wrote: »
    Therefore there's no reason to say we can't debate it from our own individual points of view. No-one's belittling anything, that's unnecessary.

    You absolutely were. But that's okay. I guess there isn't a reason to debate it, but I wouldn't ever describe something as being "unimportant thinking" - that is belittling whether you agree or not. Obviously you're going to defend your words, but it came across as a bit smug, unfortunately (even if it wasn't intended). That is unnecessary.

    Nope, in the grand scheme of things if any of us think our thoughts are important we're mistaken when there are hundreds of millions of people watching these things. Our personal preferences are important to us, of course they are, but my point was that they have no impact at all on the success of these actors- that why I mentioned success in the next sentence. You might have a personal preference for the actor having a pointy chin; and that's fine, but would you really claim that to be an important preference for his success?
    You've completely misinterpreted my words.

    Your whole stance is to try and contradict me on everything, that's pretty evident, and that's why you pointed out that there are some fans on a messageboard somewhere still complaining that Downey Jr is too short. Just as you are, I'm perfectly happy for them to feel that way, but in the grand scheme of things their thoughts about that won't affect his success.
    mtm wrote: »
    Here's a quote from yourself in this thread from a few months ago which I think answers that:
    If you can't handle the heat of a gentle mocking of a suggestion, stay out of the 'Who Should/Could Be A Bond Actor' kitchen.

    This looks good out of context, but if I'm remembering that interaction correctly (I may not be, admittedly) it was far more jovial and appropriate a response (I'm not saying someone is wrong, just that they shouldn't complain when people don't like their suggestions if the reasons are presented in good spirit - it's the nature of the thread. I had suggestions shot down and didn't agree with the why of it. However, claiming someone's opinion is "unimportant" is not quite the same thing and crosses over into a different territory. That's not mannerly debating.

    Nope, it was back when Univex was being horrible to everyone; it was all rather mean-spirited, much more so than the last few posts. You mentioned flippancy, which I would say is rather jovial too.
    You've really taken the 'unimportant' thing out of context and seem to think I was describing how folks' opinions are meaningless, but it was really about what makes an actor's success. But you've already dismissed anything I say with 'obviously you're going to defend your words' rather than being open to explanation or conversation, so what's the point.
    mtm wrote: »
    And the claim that 'It's no more or less important than other aspects of the character' is just your own point of view; unless you're saying that's not open to debate?

    No, that's not really what I'm saying at all. Feel free to debate it with someone who feels it's important, preferably without the tone displayed previously.

    Well I don't know what it means then. I don't agree with it anyway.
    mtm wrote: »
    Personally I think lots of aspects are more or less important than others, obviously I'm incorrect for feeling that.

    No, you're not incorrect for thinking that. And I would never say you were, nor have I. Nor would I ever say anyone who finds height to be super important are incorrect, either. That would be contradictory!

    You didn't want to debate it two sentences ago! :))

    I'm done on this incidentally, argue away if you want.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited February 22 Posts: 6,476
    mtm wrote: »
    Nope, in the grand scheme of things if any of us think our thoughts are important we're mistaken when there are hundreds of millions of people watching these things. Our personal preferences are important to us, of course they are, but my point was that they have no impact at all on the success of these actors- that why I mentioned success in the same sentence. You might have a personal preference for the actor having a pointy chin; and that's fine, but would you really claim that to be an important preference for his success?

    Your whole stance is to try and contradict me on everything, that's pretty evident, and that's why you pointed out that there are some fans on a messageboard somewhere still complaining that Downey Jr is too short. Just as you are, I'm perfectly happy for them to feel that way, but in the grand scheme of things their thoughts about that won't affect his success.

    Which is all great, but you can point it out without being needlessly rude about it. Personal preferences might not have an impact on an actor's success, but the thread here is fundamentally built on people expressing their personal preferences. So I'm not sure why that's a point that even needs to be made. And as I said previously, there doesn't need to be a "matter of fact" approach to what people want from a new Bond. Feeling is enough when it comes to what an individual would like to see. My stance is not to contradict you on everything, no. If that were the case I'd be talking about how important height is, which I've already said it isn't, and you replied "Fine". Remember? My original point was describing fans opinions as "unimportant" on a fan discussion forum isn't really going to lead to any interesting discussion. That you've taken it onboard as me seeking to contradict you on "everything" ironically proves the rhetoric is a bit silly and never leads anywhere good.
    mtm wrote: »
    You've really taken the 'unimportant' thing out of context and seem to think I was describing how folks' opinions are meaningless, but it was really about what makes an actor's success.

    Hardly, the context was pretty clear from your original post and the fact that you were responding to someone's own personal preferences. Unless you maybe just chose your words poorly, in which case, fair enough! :)
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Personally I think lots of aspects are more or less important than others, obviously I'm incorrect for feeling that.

    No, you're not incorrect for thinking that. And I would never say you were, nor have I. Nor would I ever say anyone who finds height to be super important are incorrect, either. That would be contradictory!

    You didn't want to debate it two sentences ago! :))

    Huh? This is phrased as if it's a mic-drop moment, but I'm not sure what it is you're saying here. What about that implies I want to debate it now as opposed to two sentences ago? I didn't feel height was important then and I still didn't when I wrote that. The point of the previous comment was that I don't look down on others for their opinions. I'm not looking down on yours, either, just with how you're expressing it. As I said, it's fine that height isn't important to you.
    mtm wrote: »
    I'm done on this incidentally.

    And so the usual process comes full circle.
  • QsCatQsCat London
    edited February 23 Posts: 158
    mtm wrote: »
    No, it doesn't really. Did it matter that Connery was bald?

    Not at all but that is easy to hide. Bond needs an actor around six foot. It can't be difficult to find an actor in the UK around 6 feet :)) I'm an actor myself and 6,1- a common find.
  • QsCatQsCat London
    Posts: 158
    I wonder if it's more difficult or easier now to find a Bond, compared to post-Brosnan? How does it feel on this forum?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,476
    QsCat wrote: »
    I wonder if it's more difficult or easier now to find a Bond, compared to post-Brosnan? How does it feel on this forum?

    I would often wonder this myself - has the process by which they find and then deliberate names changed at all over the years? Obviously, now more than ever, we get new names being put into the hat every month - if not every week.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 247
    QsCat wrote: »
    I wonder if it's more difficult or easier now to find a Bond, compared to post-Brosnan? How does it feel on this forum?

    I think it's more difficult now that Craig's casting has loosened the boundaries on what we consider Bond qualities. The more blurry the identity gets, the more difficult it is to know what qualities are essential. Plus, now any actor without serious acting cred like Daniel Craig had when he signed up will seem like a downgrade. But part of the reason that Craig had that cred was that his less clean-cut looks meant he was often put in character parts rather than being the romantic lead. Many of the younger candidates simply haven't had many 'serious' roles, or at least it looks that way to me.
  • Posts: 12,609
    QsCat wrote: »
    I wonder if it's more difficult or easier now to find a Bond, compared to post-Brosnan? How does it feel on this forum?

    My personal opinion is that the Craig era has opened the door for more potential candidates to be taken seriously if one doesn't mind thinking outside of the box.
    For instance, Jason Alexander from SEINFELD is in his 60s now, and he could be a possibility.
    Honestly, most of the names tossed about in the media, at least to me, aren't even remotely suitable for Bond. I really can't picture Tom Hardy as Bond, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't do a decent job if cast.
    I think we're looking at an astonishingly long wait for the next film after NTTD.
    I loathe that opinion and desperately want that opinion to change, but damn it's my gut instinct.
  • There are many experts here on the next James Bond actor.
    Adrian Turner would be good. Very good looks and a good actor
    Ideris Elba would be good but he is now too old.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited February 23 Posts: 5,131
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I'm not sure height matters to be honest, I think it did but since Daniel's tenure it's opened my eyes a bit.
    Provided the actor isn't too small, under 5'9 let's say, and so long as they have Daniel's level of presence they'll be fine. Daniel has that Connery level swagger that all the other actors before him couldn't master. Take for instance his entrance in the casino in Casino Royale, then compare that to Brosnan's almost identical entrance in Goldeneye, Craig owns the room, while Brosnan has a sort of catwalk style walk (not that that's a bad thing but it lacks presence)
    That would be the one thing I would take from Daniel's Bond, if I were up for the role of replacing him, is that alpha male aspect to the character, it translates very well to cinematic Bond.
    I never think about Daniel's height if I'm honest, because he plays the character with such assurance. That's what the next actor needs to do

    Good point. But Craig is 5ft 10in...so just above average.

    Bond isn’t physically below average in any way, so I’d say 5ft 10in is the minimum.

    Richard Madden is too short.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,448
    QsCat wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    No, it doesn't really. Did it matter that Connery was bald?

    Not at all but that is easy to hide. Bond needs an actor around six foot. It can't be difficult to find an actor in the UK around 6 feet :)) I'm an actor myself and 6,1- a common find.

    Maybe Daniel Craig has proved that Bond doesn't need an actor who is around 6 feet, at all?

    It's more important to cast someone who can carry the film without them disappearing into the wallpaper.
  • NicNac wrote: »
    QsCat wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    No, it doesn't really. Did it matter that Connery was bald?

    Not at all but that is easy to hide. Bond needs an actor around six foot. It can't be difficult to find an actor in the UK around 6 feet :)) I'm an actor myself and 6,1- a common find.

    Maybe Daniel Craig has proved that Bond doesn't need an actor who is around 6 feet, at all?

    It's more important to cast someone who can carry the film without them disappearing into the wallpaper.

    This is a very good point you make sir. You wouldn't be making Danny DeVito James Bond as the choice would be wrong. Many fans had given up on Daniel Craig before he had even made Casino Royal. And now we await his five film. They will have to find a good actor to replace him or it will look bad for the James Bond series.
  • Posts: 13,262
    This is the best thread in this forum. 8-}

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

    I think his name might have been mentioned...
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 956
    I can't wait for the release of NTTD, but secretly I'm dreading not only the inevitable hiatus after it, but the casting of the next Bond because I don't think there's anybody that will please a lot of the fans.
    I think it'll have to be like Casino again, whereby it's a knockout film with a standout performance from the leading man to win everyone over of their casting. I trust EON will make the right choice
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I can't wait for the release of NTTD, but secretly I'm dreading not only the inevitable hiatus after it, but the casting of the next Bond because I don't think there's anybody that will please a lot of the fans.
    I think it'll have to be like Casino again, whereby it's a knockout film with a standout performance from the leading man to win everyone over of their casting. I trust EON will make the right choice

    I’d agree with all of this.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Enemy of the state
    Posts: 41,641
    NicNac wrote: »
    QsCat wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    No, it doesn't really. Did it matter that Connery was bald?

    Not at all but that is easy to hide. Bond needs an actor around six foot. It can't be difficult to find an actor in the UK around 6 feet :)) I'm an actor myself and 6,1- a common find.

    Maybe Daniel Craig has proved that Bond doesn't need an actor who is around 6 feet, at all?

    It's more important to cast someone who can carry the film without them disappearing into the wallpaper.

    Craig is the only one shorter than Fleming s Bond. The others are all taller. The variation isn t that huge, though. Unless you count Niven who was very short.
  • mattjoesmattjoes ...and actor Cesare Danova in the role of "Actor"
    Posts: 4,475
    This is the best thread in this forum. 8-}

    How about Aiden Turner then? Has anybody considered him for Bond?
    We need photos of him.

    Again.
  • DragonpolDragonpol The Crazy World of David Dragonpol
    edited February 25 Posts: 14,759
    Ludovico wrote: »
    This is the best thread in this forum. 8-}

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

    I think his name might have been mentioned...

    To, shall we say, a tiresome degree. All the more so considering Daniel Craig is still in the Bond role and NTTD is still awaiting release.
  • This is a good post sir. Mr.Daniel Craig is James Bond in the new No Time To Die. He has not been replace yet. Adrian Turner is a good actor for the next James Bond. I hope we have him or maybe an actor who is a surprise like Mr. Daniel Craig was in Casino Royal.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited February 24 Posts: 5,131
    NicNac wrote: »
    QsCat wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    No, it doesn't really. Did it matter that Connery was bald?

    Not at all but that is easy to hide. Bond needs an actor around six foot. It can't be difficult to find an actor in the UK around 6 feet :)) I'm an actor myself and 6,1- a common find.

    Maybe Daniel Craig has proved that Bond doesn't need an actor who is around 6 feet, at all?

    It's more important to cast someone who can carry the film without them disappearing into the wallpaper.

    Craig is the only one shorter than Fleming s Bond. The others are all taller. The variation isn t that huge, though. Unless you count Niven who was very short.

    Niven was 5ft 11in and taller than Craig?? He wasn’t very short at all? Craig is 5ft 10in. Fleming’s Bond was 6ft.
  • edited February 24 Posts: 154
    007-agent-barry-nelson-daniel-craig-george-lazenby-james-bond-favim-com-871201.jpg
    The only way is up
  • Has any of the James Bonds been the same height as Ian Fleming James Bond?
    All of the James Bond have not been bad for height of character in films. Only very short or very tall would be bad. People have been said that Mr. Daniel Craig be too short. This is not the truth. I feel.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Has any of the James Bonds been the same height as Ian Fleming James Bond?
    All of the James Bond have not been bad for height of character in films. Only very short or very tall would be bad. People have been said that Mr. Daniel Craig be too short. This is not the truth. I feel.

    He’s on the very limit of acceptable, height wise.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,070
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Has any of the James Bonds been the same height as Ian Fleming James Bond?
    All of the James Bond have not been bad for height of character in films. Only very short or very tall would be bad. People have been said that Mr. Daniel Craig be too short. This is not the truth. I feel.

    He’s on the very limit of acceptable, height wise.

    He is, and that’s not Craig bashing, it’s simply being pragmatic

  • Has any of the James Bonds been the same height as Ian Fleming James Bond?
    All of the James Bond have not been bad for height of character in films. Only very short or very tall would be bad. People have been said that Mr. Daniel Craig be too short. This is not the truth. I feel.

    Like myself, the literary Bond is bang-on 6ft. I think Craig looks fine because of his frame, he was quite slim before. Maybe an inch or two doesn't make a difference on film.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited February 24 Posts: 5,131
    talos7 wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Has any of the James Bonds been the same height as Ian Fleming James Bond?
    All of the James Bond have not been bad for height of character in films. Only very short or very tall would be bad. People have been said that Mr. Daniel Craig be too short. This is not the truth. I feel.

    He’s on the very limit of acceptable, height wise.

    He is, and that’s not Craig bashing, it’s simply being pragmatic

    Exactly, he’s been great.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Enemy of the state
    Posts: 41,641
    suavejmf wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    QsCat wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    No, it doesn't really. Did it matter that Connery was bald?

    Not at all but that is easy to hide. Bond needs an actor around six foot. It can't be difficult to find an actor in the UK around 6 feet :)) I'm an actor myself and 6,1- a common find.

    Maybe Daniel Craig has proved that Bond doesn't need an actor who is around 6 feet, at all?

    It's more important to cast someone who can carry the film without them disappearing into the wallpaper.

    Craig is the only one shorter than Fleming s Bond. The others are all taller. The variation isn t that huge, though. Unless you count Niven who was very short.

    Niven was 5ft 11in and taller than Craig?? He wasn’t very short at all? Craig is 5ft 10in. Fleming’s Bond was 6ft.

    Was he? He struck me as on the short side. OK, perhaps the perspective was confusing.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    suavejmf wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    QsCat wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    No, it doesn't really. Did it matter that Connery was bald?

    Not at all but that is easy to hide. Bond needs an actor around six foot. It can't be difficult to find an actor in the UK around 6 feet :)) I'm an actor myself and 6,1- a common find.

    Maybe Daniel Craig has proved that Bond doesn't need an actor who is around 6 feet, at all?

    It's more important to cast someone who can carry the film without them disappearing into the wallpaper.

    Craig is the only one shorter than Fleming s Bond. The others are all taller. The variation isn t that huge, though. Unless you count Niven who was very short.

    Niven was 5ft 11in and taller than Craig?? He wasn’t very short at all? Craig is 5ft 10in. Fleming’s Bond was 6ft.

    Was he? He struck me as on the short side. OK, perhaps the perspective was confusing.

    Definitely mate. He was just slim.
  • Posts: 13,262
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    This is the best thread in this forum. 8-}

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

    I think his name might have been mentioned...

    To, shall we say, a tireless degree. All the more so considering Daniel Craig is still in the Bond role and NTTD is still awaiting release.

    And given how long it will be until release, and until the next Bond movie after, the next Bond actor might not even be on anyone's radar at the moment.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,413
    I'm sure I've seen Sam Heughan mentioned as a potential in this thread, looks like he's made a (slightly bargain basement looking) SAS film which will pop up on Sky next month, so does some Bondy things in it:

Sign In or Register to comment.