Who should/could be a Bond actor?

18958968989009011147

Comments

  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,350
    007HallY wrote: »
    Like others have said, it's probably a case where the director and creative team will be announced first, then we'll get our Bond. I think they'll have a list of actors ready to audition, but I'm sure Broccoli is aware after SP and NTTD that the script being locked early is a must. No rewrites on set, no rushed last minute creative decisions. The script must be air tight.

    You'd have thought they learned their lesson after QoS or after SP, but they somehow never do.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 2,551
    007HallY wrote: »
    Like others have said, it's probably a case where the director and creative team will be announced first, then we'll get our Bond. I think they'll have a list of actors ready to audition, but I'm sure Broccoli is aware after SP and NTTD that the script being locked early is a must. No rewrites on set, no rushed last minute creative decisions. The script must be air tight.

    You'd have thought they learned their lesson after QoS or after SP, but they somehow never do.

    I mean, they sort of did after QOS and spent more time on SF (I know not every Bond fan likes it, but for me it's an extraordinary Bond film and among general audiences one of the most well regarded and successful). Having worked even on smaller films it's not uncommon that these sorts of things can happen - ideas get dropped, deadlines approach fast, actor's schedules start to get more and more specific... perhaps Danny Boyle is fired because your lead actor wants a dramatic death and he isn't budging on that or something and you have to completely redo the entire film. Maybe that one's oddly specific... Anyway, if anything they'll have a longer pre-production time for this one, more like how they did with SF, and will hopefully take advantage of that.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited April 2022 Posts: 2,859
    Ok, I was joshing last time, but Barbara Broccoli actually has only recently stressed that the new guy will be 'British'. That alone would rule out the likes of Fassbender and Hemsworth. Turner, too, depending on how strictly BB's interpreting it - someone from Ireland is no more 'British' than someone from Australia, after all. Although, geographically, Ireland is one of the British Isles so Turner could just about squeeze in if she's not totally hardline about it. But English, Scottish, N. Irish, Welsh - I don't see any clear frontrunners from any of them. Could be headed for another unexpected or left field choice.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,792
    007HallY wrote: »
    Like others have said, it's probably a case where the director and creative team will be announced first, then we'll get our Bond. I think they'll have a list of actors ready to audition, but I'm sure Broccoli is aware after SP and NTTD that the script being locked early is a must. No rewrites on set, no rushed last minute creative decisions. The script must be air tight.

    You'd have thought they learned their lesson after QoS or after SP, but they somehow never do.

    I just don't think it's how films work though.
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Like others have said, it's probably a case where the director and creative team will be announced first, then we'll get our Bond. I think they'll have a list of actors ready to audition, but I'm sure Broccoli is aware after SP and NTTD that the script being locked early is a must. No rewrites on set, no rushed last minute creative decisions. The script must be air tight.

    You'd have thought they learned their lesson after QoS or after SP, but they somehow never do.

    I mean, they sort of did after QOS and spent more time on SF (I know not every Bond fan likes it, but for me it's an extraordinary Bond film and among general audiences one of the most well regarded and successful). Having worked even on smaller films it's not uncommon that these sorts of things can happen - ideas get dropped, deadlines approach fast, actor's schedules start to get more and more specific... perhaps Danny Boyle is fired because your lead actor wants a dramatic death and he isn't budging on that or something and you have to completely redo the entire film.

    This is becoming a strange repeated meme that Daniel Craig insisted on killing Bond and this somehow threw off the whole production, but I'm not sure there's any proof of that happening.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 2,551
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Like others have said, it's probably a case where the director and creative team will be announced first, then we'll get our Bond. I think they'll have a list of actors ready to audition, but I'm sure Broccoli is aware after SP and NTTD that the script being locked early is a must. No rewrites on set, no rushed last minute creative decisions. The script must be air tight.

    You'd have thought they learned their lesson after QoS or after SP, but they somehow never do.

    I just don't think it's how films work though.
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Like others have said, it's probably a case where the director and creative team will be announced first, then we'll get our Bond. I think they'll have a list of actors ready to audition, but I'm sure Broccoli is aware after SP and NTTD that the script being locked early is a must. No rewrites on set, no rushed last minute creative decisions. The script must be air tight.

    You'd have thought they learned their lesson after QoS or after SP, but they somehow never do.

    I mean, they sort of did after QOS and spent more time on SF (I know not every Bond fan likes it, but for me it's an extraordinary Bond film and among general audiences one of the most well regarded and successful). Having worked even on smaller films it's not uncommon that these sorts of things can happen - ideas get dropped, deadlines approach fast, actor's schedules start to get more and more specific... perhaps Danny Boyle is fired because your lead actor wants a dramatic death and he isn't budging on that or something and you have to completely redo the entire film.

    This is becoming a strange repeated meme that Daniel Craig insisted on killing Bond and this somehow threw off the whole production, but I'm not sure there's any proof of that happening.

    Yes, I'm not sure if we'll ever know what happened 100%. I doubt either Boyle or Craig/the producers would give the whole story, and I suspect that if it did involve Bond's death, it would have been amongst a long line of creative differences about the story and direction of the film that both parties had different ideas about. That said should Bond's death have been discussed earlier on for this film it obviously came up and was probably in Hodge's script.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 7,960
    EoN et al didn’t like the script that was submitted. They wanted script doctors to clean it up and improve on the action.

    Boyle said no one but Hodge touches the script.

    And that’s where the relationship died. I think I’ve been saying this since 2018, but here’s a recent interview with Hodge where he admits he was about to get the boot, and Danny supposedly took a bullet with him (but there are those close to the production that said the director was uncompromising and pissed a few ppl off):

    “I think it was me they really wanted rid of, but Danny took the bullet, too,” says Hodge. Do non-disclosure agreements cover their departure? “No. Just decent British discretion!”

    It happens on big films: writers get fired.

    I heard the script they submitted was dull and “changed the culture of Bond” (and this could be a response to the rumour that Bond was imprisoned for a great portion of it).

    Either way the producers and distributors didn’t like Hodge’s script. That is clear.

    The story pretty much ends there.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited April 2022 Posts: 4,247
    What looks certain about Bond 26 is, because they're replacing Craig and would be slightly worried, they're going to put in extra effort to churn out a very stellar script as backup to support Bond 7...even if he's a good actor.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited April 2022 Posts: 2,859
    Indeed. Bond's death was in place before Boyle was hired, so it can't have been the reason he bailed. In one of the EON podcasts, Craig himself said 'we had an ending so had to hang the movie from that'. Surely, Boyle must have been aware of that before he signed up? It's difficult to imagine a director signing on for a film in which the whole premise was that Bond died, only for him to then try to get the producers/star to change their minds on that. Boyle himself gave the impression that the issue was that EON didn't like the script that he and and John Hodge were writing ('they didn't want to go down that route with us'). There was also the suggestion that EON decided that they wanted to keep Boyle but lose Hodge ('I work in partnership with writers and I am not prepared to break it up') - and that's what led to his departure. Refusing to lose Hodge, not Bond's death, seems to have been the reason Boyle left the production - which would mean that Boyle derailed the film, not Craig.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 2,551
    I know Boyle said that his idea for the film was more a modern Cold War type thing. Seems rather out of place in the Craig era with its themes of the past, revenge, Bond changing as a character etc. I also know that a story written by Purvis and Wade had been started before Boyle came on and was scrapped. Did they go back to Purvis and Wade's original ideas after Hodges/Boyle left? Again, we don't know for sure and probably never will. I don't think they'll get Boyle back to try and redo this idea for Bond 26 (I know a lot of people like him, as do I, but I've never been convinced he's the right fit for a proper Bond film). Would like to read Hodge's script though.

    Regardless, whatever the creative differences were, it did set the film back, especially if they were on a schedule. I think for this one they'll be able to avoid such a situation as instead of months to develop a script they could potentially have about a year to do so. Like I've said before, I think if NTTD and SP had had another few drafts I think much better films could have been made. It makes a difference.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 7,960
    @007HallY:
    I believe they went back to the ideas of P&W, but there were heavy re-writes of their material:

    Cary Fukunaga did a page one re-write.

    He hired Scott Burns to punch up the action.

    PWB was hired on for character and dialogue (and some media reports stated she also finessed the exposition dealing with the nanobots).

    I’ve heard rumours of more uncredited scriptwriters, like Burns, who were brought on for polishes, and; I heard Cary was like the on-set script doctor who worked on the story as more changes came in (this is also common on bigger films; for example: a location may not offer what the script was asking, so they re-write pages on the spot to make it flow with the film)…
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    Always feared when too many writers were touching NTTD. That's why the Matera sequence and the bunker shootout looked like scenes that could easily be in CR, QoS and SF. The tonal shifts were just too massive in NTTD.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 2,551
    peter wrote: »
    @007HallY:
    I believe they went back to the ideas of P&W, but there were heavy re-writes of their material:

    Cary Fukunaga did a page one re-write.

    He hired Scott Burns to punch up the action.

    PWB was hired on for character and dialogue (and some media reports stated she also finessed the exposition dealing with the nanobots).

    I’ve heard rumours of more uncredited scriptwriters, like Burns, who were brought on for polishes, and; I heard Cary was like the on-set script doctor who worked on the story as more changes came in (this is also common on bigger films; for example: a location may not offer what the script was asking, so they re-write pages on the spot to make it flow with the film)…

    Hmm, makes sense. Would support the idea that everything was a bit 'all hands on deck' due to a tighter than normal schedule. I've always thought the finale suffered most from this. To be honest it shows how well Fukanaga did to make the film we got under such conditions (I have many problems with NTTD, but I do think much of the film until Blofeld's interrogation is very good and it's near perfect in places). Often it can't be avoided with films, but perhaps the gap being created with casting a new Bond will mean more focus on the development of the story.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 7,960
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Always feared when too many writers were touching NTTD. That's why the Matera sequence and the bunker shootout looked like scenes that could easily be in CR, QoS and SF. The tonal shifts were just too massive in NTTD.

    Script doctoring is the most lucrative job as a writer in Hollywood. Every major film you’ve watched in the past 25-30 years likely had way more writers than were credited.

    (I’m talking blockbusters, not indies or smaller budget art house films, but even then, doctors aren’t foreign to these productions either).

    A doctor, like Burns, usually comes on board for a specific reason and only work a few days to a couple to three weeks, focused solely on their assignment.

    In NTTD the original story and draft goes to P&W, then CF and PWB did some heavy lifting (therefore they’re recognized in the credits); the doctors don’t really change the overall tone of a script because their assignments are so specific (give us more action in our set pieces starting on pages 12- 24, and I want you to find a better way of utilizing the climactic action sequence, or; so-and-so was hired because the dialogue between our protagonist and his love interest is weak….).

    A doctor writes within the tone set by the draft they are working, and is specific to his or her assignment.

    Saying that, once a script is written, making a film isn’t just point a camera and shoot what’s on the page. As soon as the director calls “Action!”, anything can change what was written on the page and what we see in the final film….

    I didn’t have an issue with tone of NTTD, but for those that did, I have to figure that it likely wasn’t too many chefs in the kitchen this time, but perhaps just the nature of wrapping a bow onto the five film arc of this era.

    (Even Spectre’s unevenness wasn’t due to the amount of writers/doctors/producers and distributors all jumping in; more that they really didn’t have a clear vision and not one of them were able to come up with a solution (personally I would have scrapped Spectre as it wasn’t working; I would have begged to delay the film and start with a page one draft developing a wholly new script).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,792
    peter wrote: »
    (Even Spectre’s unevenness wasn’t due to the amount of writers/doctors/producers and distributors all jumping in; more that they really didn’t have a clear vision and not one of them were able to come up with a solution (personally I would have scrapped Spectre as it wasn’t working; I would have begged to delay the film and start with a page one draft developing a wholly new script).

    I think it's quite interesting that when Mission Impossible Fallout had to shut down because of Cruise breaking his ankle it gave McQuarrie time to improve the script and make the film better, whereas where Craig broke his leg in Spectre he kept going to keep the film on schedule. If they had shut down like MI might it have improved the film?
    I guess it's hard to know and the situations may not have been comparable.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 7,960
    @mtm : good question.
    I think the only way of answering that is to see Spectre’s shooting schedule; how much had they filmed by the time Craig blew out his knee? And then, depending on how much they had in the can, was it worth changing anything at that point?

    I also get the sense that Mendes as a director likes preparation and I’m not sure how comfortable he is working on the fly. Would he want radical changes to a script he’s already shot a substantial amount of? I think he’d be very much out of his comfort zone. Spectre feels like a film where all resigned to a “do the best with what we have” mentality (pure guessing on my part).

    McQuarrie I believe started as a playwright, then was a script writer and then director. He obviously had a clear vision of what he wanted to improve upon and it worked for his film (and those films are reportedly written around the set-pieces, so story beats may not be so rigid; a different beast to Bond, for sure).
  • Posts: 2,551
    @mtm Debatable, but I'm not sure if it necessarily would have helped SP if it'd been delayed/rewritten at that point. It needed rewrites, but ones which targeted the fundamental problems of the story (the fact that nothing new or interesting is done with how Blofeld and SPECTRE are depicted, the weird foster brothers subplot, the fact that SPECTRE's scheme doesn't come across as all that high-stakes etc). Perhaps they could have improved on things like Madeline and Bond's relationship, strengthened the dynamics between Bond and Blofeld and ironed out little moments here and there etc. but the main problems fans seem to have would likely still be there. I don't know what the case was with MI:F though.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    peter wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Always feared when too many writers were touching NTTD. That's why the Matera sequence and the bunker shootout looked like scenes that could easily be in CR, QoS and SF. The tonal shifts were just too massive in NTTD.

    Script doctoring is the most lucrative job as a writer in Hollywood. Every major film you’ve watched in the past 25-30 years likely had way more writers than were credited.

    (I’m talking blockbusters, not indies or smaller budget art house films, but even then, doctors aren’t foreign to these productions either).

    A doctor, like Burns, usually comes on board for a specific reason and only work a few days to a couple to three weeks, focused solely on their assignment.

    In NTTD the original story and draft goes to P&W, then CF and PWB did some heavy lifting (therefore they’re recognized in the credits); the doctors don’t really change the overall tone of a script because their assignments are so specific (give us more action in our set pieces starting on pages 12- 24, and I want you to find a better way of utilizing the climactic action sequence, or; so-and-so was hired because the dialogue between our protagonist and his love interest is weak….).

    A doctor writes within the tone set by the draft they are working, and is specific to his or her assignment.

    Saying that, once a script is written, making a film isn’t just point a camera and shoot what’s on the page. As soon as the director calls “Action!”, anything can change what was written on the page and what we see in the final film….

    I didn’t have an issue with tone of NTTD, but for those that did, I have to figure that it likely wasn’t too many chefs in the kitchen this time, but perhaps just the nature of wrapping a bow onto the five film arc of this era.

    (Even Spectre’s unevenness wasn’t due to the amount of writers/doctors/producers and distributors all jumping in; more that they really didn’t have a clear vision and not one of them were able to come up with a solution (personally I would have scrapped Spectre as it wasn’t working; I would have begged to delay the film and start with a page one draft developing a wholly new script).

    Very insightful @peter but I just wished the film maintained the Matera atmosphere and feel though. Matera felt like a proper Bond thriller. The bunker shootout was also Craig in serious mode.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 7,960
    @GadgetMan , I would need hours to do a script breakdown and the reason why there were some swings in tone.

    But I feel the biggest reason is the film is a surreal study of watching the end to one man’s life; it’s shot very dream-like…, and; since this was his final chapter, they needed to balance the cruelty of death (it robs us all), and celebrate how the man lived (so we got a reminder of his short wick for betrayal, the recluse alcoholic, the friend, the lust for adventure and his professionalism when called to duty; we saw the lover, the father, the protector)….
    To me it was a deconstruction of Bond’s psyche, a “flashing of his life” before his (our) eyes encapsulated in this dream called No Time To Die….
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    peter wrote: »
    @GadgetMan , I would need hours to do a script breakdown and the reason why there were some swings in tone.

    But I feel the biggest reason is the film is a surreal study of watching the end to one man’s life; it’s shot very dream-like…, and; since this was his final chapter, they needed to balance the cruelty of death (it robs us all), and celebrate how the man lived (so we got a reminder of his short wick for betrayal, the recluse alcoholic, the friend, the lust for adventure and his professionalism when called to duty; we saw the lover, the father, the protector)….
    To me it was a deconstruction of Bond’s psyche, a “flashing of his life” before his (our) eyes encapsulated in this dream called No Time To Die….

    Hmmmmm. Nice way of putting it though.
  • CharmianBondCharmianBond Pett Bottom, Kent
    Posts: 533
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @GadgetMan , I would need hours to do a script breakdown and the reason why there were some swings in tone.

    But I feel the biggest reason is the film is a surreal study of watching the end to one man’s life; it’s shot very dream-like…, and; since this was his final chapter, they needed to balance the cruelty of death (it robs us all), and celebrate how the man lived (so we got a reminder of his short wick for betrayal, the recluse alcoholic, the friend, the lust for adventure and his professionalism when called to duty; we saw the lover, the father, the protector)….
    To me it was a deconstruction of Bond’s psyche, a “flashing of his life” before his (our) eyes encapsulated in this dream called No Time To Die….

    Hmmmmm. Nice way of putting it though.

    I agree as well. And I'd not consciously noted the dream-like cinematography but that's a perfect way of describing it.
  • Posts: 328
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I watched Casino again recently and the one thing that stood out to me on this viewing, was Craig's swagger, he's not the best looking Bond, not the tallest, but he's the alpha male in every scene. The only Bond that comes near it is Connery in Goldfinger

    That is something a lot of these actors I see suggested here don't look like they possess. They're good actors or look suitable but not many look like they have that assured swagger that this part needs, especially after following on from Craig

    Craig was definitely on top form in CR. Connery, however, had the swagger on full blast from Dr.No through to TB and imho absolutely no one has come remotely close to matching it.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,792
    peter wrote: »
    @mtm : good question.
    I think the only way of answering that is to see Spectre’s shooting schedule; how much had they filmed by the time Craig blew out his knee? And then, depending on how much they had in the can, was it worth changing anything at that point?

    I also get the sense that Mendes as a director likes preparation and I’m not sure how comfortable he is working on the fly. Would he want radical changes to a script he’s already shot a substantial amount of? I think he’d be very much out of his comfort zone. Spectre feels like a film where all resigned to a “do the best with what we have” mentality (pure guessing on my part).

    There was an interview with Mendes on Roger Deakins' podcast where he mentioned how Spectre's third act fell apart on him- it sounds like they were up for restructuring it but just couldn't find a way to make it work better.
    peter wrote: »
    McQuarrie I believe started as a playwright, then was a script writer and then director. He obviously had a clear vision of what he wanted to improve upon and it worked for his film (and those films are reportedly written around the set-pieces, so story beats may not be so rigid; a different beast to Bond, for sure).

    It's very interesting to hear him speak about being brought on to doctor projects like MI: Ghost Protocol where he speaks about finding out what has been shot, what sets are standing, what's still to be built etc. for the first couple of days and then works out what can be done to steer a film in the way he thinks it needs. It certainly sounds like Spectre could have done with someone like him.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,350
    So not Hemsworth then?
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,713
    I would not rule out them casting someone which his level of fame. He’s well known but not a superstar.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited April 2022 Posts: 3,371
    007HallY wrote: »
    @mtm Debatable, but I'm not sure if it necessarily would have helped SP if it'd been delayed/rewritten at that point. It needed rewrites, but ones which targeted the fundamental problems of the story (the fact that nothing new or interesting is done with how Blofeld and SPECTRE are depicted, the weird foster brothers subplot, the fact that SPECTRE's scheme doesn't come across as all that high-stakes etc). Perhaps they could have improved on things like Madeline and Bond's relationship, strengthened the dynamics between Bond and Blofeld and ironed out little moments here and there etc. but the main problems fans seem to have would likely still be there. I don't know what the case was with MI:F though.

    True, I'm still not sure if rewrites could help,
    The problem was the subject of "Bond being relevant in today's world", was he relevant? Is MI6 still relevant? That's the plot of Spectre was all about, the relevance of Bond and espionage. Another one was the "villains coming back from the past to haunt them", they insisted on this, Skyfall has Silva coming back from M's past, Blofeld has him coming back from Bond's past, Safin was from Madeleine's past, they all coming back to haunt these characters, that's why we have this brother angle in SP.
    Also the plots involving technology, it worked in Skyfall, but no longer in both SP and NTTD, I think they rely too much on this, that they've found it threatening but really not, they tried to make these villains menacing in terms of being too much high tech but none of them worked except Silva.
    Another problem of SP was the retconning, they tried to connect all of this villains in thinking that it would have made Blofeld a lot more menacing, but it didn't, the "author of all your pain", the pictures of the villains in the old MI6 headquarters that Craig's bond confronted in the past, all of those things has tainted the Craig era.
    About the Madeleine and Bond relationship, it's not just the writing here, Seydoux and Craig just really lacked chemistry, they didn't have the spark.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 7,960
    It's very interesting to hear him speak about being brought on to doctor projects like MI: Ghost Protocol where he speaks about finding out what has been shot, what sets are standing, what's still to be built etc. for the first couple of days and then works out what can be done to steer a film in the way he thinks it needs. It certainly sounds like Spectre could have done with someone like him.

    That’s a great snippet of what it’s like to be a doctor. And yes— they needed aggressive thinking to steer Spectre in the right direction; a nimble creative like McQuarrie would have been just what the “doctor” ordered.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited April 2022 Posts: 2,859
    Yes, SP's third act had so many rewrites I do sometimes think they ended up a blind alley and were just creatively exhausted. Hinx not returning in the ruins of the MI6 building is the classic missed opportunity, but it's made even worse when you see the earlier drafts that leaked because they had Irma Bunt reappearing at that point, only to be killed by Madeleine. So they'd planned to have some sort of final fight in the ruins, but instead of switching Irma for Hinx, they just dropped the idea altogether as if they were running on fumes and didn't have enough energy left to do it justice. And I say this as someone who prefers SP to NTTD!
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited April 2022 Posts: 3,371
    Venutius wrote: »
    Yes, SP's third act had so many rewrites I do sometimes think they ended up a blind alley and were just creatively exhausted. Hinx not returning in the ruins of the MI6 building is the classic missed opportunity, but it's made even worse when you see the earlier drafts that leaked because they had Irma Bunt reappearing at that point, only to be killed by Madeleine. So they'd planned to have some sort of final fight in the ruins, but instead of switching Irma for Hinx, they just dropped the idea altogether as if they were running on fumes and didn't have enough energy left to do it justice. And I say this as someone who prefers SP to NTTD!

    Irma Bunt reappearing only to be killed by Madeleine? That would have been worse. Thankfully they've dropped that idea.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited April 2022 Posts: 2,859
    Point is, though, that they had the idea to have a final fight in the ruins of MI6, but dropped it altogether rather than switch Irma for Hinx. As if they were all tired of it by that point in the process and it was easier not to bother. Which speaks to the idea that they'd run out of creative steam and just wanted it over the line and done with.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 784
    I haven’t really been impressed by any of his performances yet (including the one of Lombard in ATTWN) but these wimbledon pictures of Aidan Turner make me wet.

    16010166-7244711-image-m-68_1563051787087.jpg
    Wimbledon2019_cl_6.jpg

    His chin and jawline are rather weak without the beard/long hair though.
Sign In or Register to comment.