How important is the attractivness in a a Bond actor?

SzonanaSzonana Mexico
edited May 2016 in Actors Posts: 1,130
Ok guys how important you think are good looks and sex appeall when it comes to Bond ??
How much do you care if you personally find that actor atracive ?

Do you see Bond more as a ladies man ? Or action hero/Anti hero?


Id say he is first and foremost a ladies man and thats what separtes him from the other guys in the action world and for that reason its key for Bond to be atracive

Bond has to be attractive to woman so we can belive woman would throw themselves at him and if i do find them attractive then uts much easier to believe those women would go crazy over him, because as an audience i quite feel the same thing.
Sure there is more than being attractive in a Bond actors but it does happen to me that the three actors i like the most as Bond are also the ones I find the most attractive Bonds actors.



On the cavil Board on IMDb i read a coment which said something id might try to get into it if Cavil is in it, so at least a great looking Bond could pull in a lot ladies into the franchise

«1

Comments

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,004
    To me, Bond is a ladies man who can at times accell in the action department. An anti-hero in certain circumstances. The tragedy here is that he's a romantic stuck in a world that will never allow him to be truly happy. Sex appeal is all important; looks are secondary but important as well.
  • Posts: 1,613
    I think confidence, or perhaps "swagger" is a better term, is the most important part of playing Bond. I think the necessary sex appeal generally comes from that, since EON is never going to cast an actor who is completely void of physical attractiveness to play the part of Bond.
  • Posts: 7,335
    dalton wrote: »
    I think confidence, or perhaps "swagger" is a better term, is the most important part of playing Bond. I think the necessary sex appeal generally comes from that, since EON is never going to cast an actor who is completely void of physical attractiveness to play the part of Bond.

    This. Charisma is what really counts. Looks are of secondary importance.
  • I don't think you can actually lump good look and sex appeal together, as they're not actually the same thing. Should Bond have sex appeal and attractive? Of course. Does Bond need to be traditionally "good looking"? No, not necessarily.

    Pierce Brosnan was almost too good looking, for example. Bond should have some amount of "word weariness" in his looks, and not resemble a fashion model.

    He's compared to Hoagy Carmichael in the books, and has having "dark, rather cruel, good looks". Always something to consider.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    lalala2004 wrote: »
    ...and has having "dark, rather cruel, good looks".
    I like that description. From that, I personally imagine young Connery from DN/FRWL right away.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing South Florida
    Posts: 3,861
    Craig to me is the love child of Connery and Dalton.
  • edited January 2016 Posts: 1,645
    I don't know about sex appeal (I'm a straight guy!) but my idea of the film James Bond is a tall, dark, handsome man and Craig doesn't quite fit that cliché description. But Craig is good at the 'blunt, slightly cold but with a hint of vulnerability' aspects of the character . With the huge success of Craig's Bond films I don't think sex appeal and looks matter. It's not a big deal to the general public. Besides, if the guy can act confident that kinda makes him more attractive, right? I think so.
  • Posts: 6,601
    You can discuss DC's looks, but I doubt, many are questioning his sex appeal. Its not the same. I read many tweets and stuff, where people just don't know, what it is about him, mostly, when they don't like his looks too much. Its the IT factor, that you either have or not. Good looks alone will not do it. Confidence ads A LOT to the sex appeal as well. We hace duiscussed quite a few actors, who are good looking but described as bland. Look doesn't matter all THAT much, but sex appeal certainly does for Bond.
  • Posts: 22
    Both are important but different. Seeing as the actor's face is going to be on loads of posters and in all the magazines, you have to have someone who is photogenic. Craig isn't good-looking but has a distinctive and interesting face so simply having a nice face isn't enough to make an actor photogenic.

    Sex appeal is important; we need to believe that Bond can actually seduce all these women. What is sexually appealing for women may also be appealing for men but in a different way; they would be charmed by the charisma.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Given the circumstances
    Posts: 7,331
    Both are pointless. Unless you're talking about making a lot of money at the box office. Then it's kind of important. That's just one of the realities of big budget filmmaking, you need an attractive face on the poster. But in principle Bond could be as ugly as sin and still work.
  • Posts: 108
    His appeal with women is one of the trademarks of Bond, as he beds several in most of his movies. So there has to be something, call it good looks or sex appeal or whatever, to make that believable. If Steve Buscemi had every played Bond, bedding ladies all the time would have been somewhat more improbable.

    But exactly how that should emanate is another matter. The few reactions on this thread also suggest it's highly personal.
  • I hate to be superficial but they are very important. I mean let's be honest here...
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e il momento che verrà
    Posts: 5,712
    I'd say Bond should be an elegant person. Good-looking is fairly subjective, so I don't know about that.

    Elegance however, can make even an average looking person attractive. It all comes down to his attire and the level of sophistication he can offer.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    It's obviously very important. The runs of the various cinematic Bonds have nailed this in as one of the key aspects of the character.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,172
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I'd say Bond should be an elegant person. Good-looking is fairly subjective, so I don't know about that.

    Elegance however, can make even an average looking person attractive. It all comes down to his attire and the level of sophistication he can offer.

    exactly, Elegance and sophistication are a major factor, but also the level of confidence he can portray. Daniel Craig was mainly cast because of that.

    I remember reading an interview with Micheal G. Wilson where he said that the main reason they even noticed him was a movie (wasn't mentioned unfortunately) where they simply saw him walk down a hallway, and thought that his guy expressed so much confidence in his walk alone.

    All these qualities can boost the sex appeal of the actor. The look is secondary as Craig showed that you don't need to look like a Model to have sex appeal, even though i don't mind if we go back to a good looking actor for the next Bond.

    I do think it is important to some degree that the actor is kind of a ladies man in real life, simply because it helps to sell that aspect of Bond more believably and doesn't come across as stiff. Dalton was not your typical ladies man, and it shows in his portrayal, but thats just a minor nitpick, he had other qualities.

  • edited May 2016 Posts: 11,175
    Bond is described as "devilishly handsome" in the novels, so I think good looks should be a bit of a factor.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    edited May 2016 Posts: 1,130
    I feel like I should change the thread on how important is the overall attractivness of the Bond actors?
    Or how important is for you to find the Bond actors attractive?
  • edited May 2016 Posts: 2,081
    00Agent wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I'd say Bond should be an elegant person. Good-looking is fairly subjective, so I don't know about that.

    Elegance however, can make even an average looking person attractive. It all comes down to his attire and the level of sophistication he can offer.

    exactly, Elegance and sophistication are a major factor, but also the level of confidence he can portray. Daniel Craig was mainly cast because of that.

    I remember reading an interview with Micheal G. Wilson where he said that the main reason they even noticed him was a movie (wasn't mentioned unfortunately) where they simply saw him walk down a hallway, and thought that his guy expressed so much confidence in his walk alone.

    All these qualities can boost the sex appeal of the actor. The look is secondary as Craig showed that you don't need to look like a Model to have sex appeal, even though i don't mind if we go back to a good looking actor for the next Bond.

    I do think it is important to some degree that the actor is kind of a ladies man in real life, simply because it helps to sell that aspect of Bond more believably and doesn't come across as stiff. Dalton was not your typical ladies man, and it shows in his portrayal, but thats just a minor nitpick, he had other qualities.

    I think the walk bit was in Elizabeth. (I saw that walk in my head when I was reading your comment, so I think I've read something about it before in this context...)

    I don't agree that actors should be like the characters they play in real life. An actor is supposed to be able to act to portray the behavior and characteristics needed for the character. If the actor comes across as stiff as a ladies man, then it's because they fail to act that aspect believably, not because they aren't that in real life. Just like if they don't appear believably cold and ruthless when needed, then that's a problem with their acting, and it's not that they should actually be cold and ruthless in real life for the acting to work.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Yes, I agree with you @Tuulia. It's all about the acting. Of course, if an actor is naturally smooth with the opposite sex, then perhaps he will be able to translate that aspect or attribute more easily on screen, but a good actor should be able to transcend his personal limitations.

    One area where I have noticed a lack in Craig (and only in comparison to Connery/Moore who were masters at it imho) is in the lady killer attribute. I think he does very well when it's written properly, and also in the non-verbal cues (like that confident walk in Layer Cake when he first sees Sienna Miller's character and goes up to her in the club, or the look when he's trying to seduce Solange in CR post-Aston win), but if the writing is poor, I don't find him convincing here at all. I am referring specifically to the Lucia seduction in SP, which I've heard some mention as 'creepy' and to some extent I agree. Moore or Connery in particular would have nailed that scene, whether that's because they are naturally better at this sort of thing or not I don't know.

    The same goes for his 'humour'. I have said elsewhere that I think Craig is best with free flowing sarcasm, that was on offer throughout SF. I don't find him all that impressive with canned 'one liners', no matter how well or poorly they're are written. He comes across, to me, like he's embarrassed to be delivering them. The same goes for Brosnan. Dalton even seemed uncomfortable with them. Only Connery and Moore were able to nail this aspect perfectly, again imho.

    Both the smoothness with women and ability to convincingly deliver one liners are attributes that I associate with movie Bond, and so I expect the next actor to be good at these two elements (at least from my viewpoint). How he looks physically is somewhat secondary to me.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited May 2016 Posts: 5,172
    Tuulia wrote: »
    I think the walk bit was in Elizabeth.

    I don't agree that actors should be like the characters they play in real life. An actor is supposed to be able to act to portray the behavior and characteristics needed for the character. If the actor comes across as stiff as a ladies man, then it's because they fail to act that aspect believably, not because they aren't that in real life. Just like if they don't appear believably cold and ruthless when needed, then that's a problem with their acting, and it's not that they should actually be cold and ruthless in real life for the acting to work.

    I agree, but only to a certain extend. Sure an actor should be able to pull off the character he was hired for, but not every actor can pull off every type of character.
    I would not cast jesse eisenberg to pull of a cool, sophisticated macho type character... but it might be easier to cast Daniel Craig to play a quirky nerd who talks too much...
    It depends on the Role and the Actor.
    Worst case scenario is that you 'see' the acting and it doesn't feel a hundred percent natural, and to not run into that situation it would be simply easier to cast someone who has real life expirience he can draw from... which actors have to do anyway to prepare for roles
  • Posts: 2,081
    Szonana wrote: »
    I feel like I should change the thread on how important is the overall attractivness of the Bond actors?
    Or how important is for you to find the Bond actors attractive?

    Overall attractiveness describes better what is needed, I think, as I always say that good looks in themselves are kinda meaningless. In other words I think being good looking and being attractive are entirely different things. But opinions vary...

    Now, how important is it to find the Bond actors attractive? That's an interesting question. Depends to what extent one thinks of attractiveness here. Basically, if one means it in the sense of "would I personally be interested in getting my paws on that guy" then no, it isn't important, I can enjoy the movies without that. But if it's meant in the more general way, a person being attractive in the sense of being intriguing and interesting in some way, then it's very important, since it's difficult to enjoy a movie where the lead is just meh.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    Tuulia wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I'd say Bond should be an elegant person. Good-looking is fairly subjective, so I don't know about that.

    Elegance however, can make even an average looking person attractive. It all comes down to his attire and the level of sophistication he can offer.

    exactly, Elegance and sophistication are a major factor, but also the level of confidence he can portray. Daniel Craig was mainly cast because of that.

    I remember reading an interview with Micheal G. Wilson where he said that the main reason they even noticed him was a movie (wasn't mentioned unfortunately) where they simply saw him walk down a hallway, and thought that his guy expressed so much confidence in his walk alone.

    All these qualities can boost the sex appeal of the actor. The look is secondary as Craig showed that you don't need to look like a Model to have sex appeal, even though i don't mind if we go back to a good looking actor for the next Bond.

    I do think it is important to some degree that the actor is kind of a ladies man in real life, simply because it helps to sell that aspect of Bond more believably and doesn't come across as stiff. Dalton was not your typical ladies man, and it shows in his portrayal, but thats just a minor nitpick, he had other qualities.

    I think the walk bit was in Elizabeth. (I saw that walk in my head when I was reading your comment, so I think I've read something about it before in this context...)

    I don't agree that actors should be like the characters they play in real life. An actor is supposed to be able to act to portray the behavior and characteristics needed for the character. If the actor comes across as stiff as a ladies man, then it's because they fail to act that aspect believably, not because they aren't that in real life. Just like if they don't appear believably cold and ruthless when needed, then that's a problem with their acting, and it's not that they should actually be cold and ruthless in real life for the acting to work.

    Well maybe not being exactly like the character but maybe feeling a bit related to the character in some way helps.
    For example Roger Moore didn't feel good with the dark side of character so he just left that part out in most of his films.

    Pierce is obviously not a womanizer but he does like woman and said in an interview that he does like loce scenes. so a small port of being quite similar to the character helps.

  • DragonpolDragonpol Writer @ http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited May 2016 Posts: 15,071
    Well it wouldn't count as much if they ever hired me to play Bond for instance! ;)
  • Posts: 2,081
    Good points, @bondjames. I wouldn't really fault an actor for not being great at badly written scenes or lines, but I pretty much agree with what you were saying.
    00Agent wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    I think the walk bit was in Elizabeth.

    I don't agree that actors should be like the characters they play in real life. An actor is supposed to be able to act to portray the behavior and characteristics needed for the character. If the actor comes across as stiff as a ladies man, then it's because they fail to act that aspect believably, not because they aren't that in real life. Just like if they don't appear believably cold and ruthless when needed, then that's a problem with their acting, and it's not that they should actually be cold and ruthless in real life for the acting to work.

    I agree, but only to a certain extend. Sure an actor should be able to pull off the character he was hired for, but not every actor can pull off every type of character.
    I would not cast jesse eisenberg to pull of a cool, sophisticated macho type character... but it might be easier to cast Daniel Craig to play a quirky nerd who talks too much...
    It depends on the Role and the Actor.
    Worst case scenario is that you 'see' the acting and it doesn't feel a hundred percent natural, and to not run into that situation it would be simply easier to cast someone who has real life expirience he can draw from... which actors have to do anyway to prepare for roles

    Obviously no actor can play any role under the sun, and I wasn't suggesting they should. That's why casting right people for parts matters.

    I still disagree about the real life experience to draw from. Actors don't need to have matching real life experiences for their roles. To play an assassin they don't need to prepare by killing people (thank goodness) or even talk to actual killers. Acting requires abilities such as imagination. Preparing for roles may mean research of many kinds depending on the role, but it's not needed that the actor has similar characteristics or experiences in real life that the character they need to portray does.

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Craig to me is the love child of Connery and Dalton.

    Talk about strange bedfellows...
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    Tuulia wrote: »
    Good points, @bondjames. I wouldn't really fault an actor for not being great at badly written scenes or lines, but I pretty much agree with what you were saying.
    00Agent wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    I think the walk bit was in Elizabeth.

    I don't agree that actors should be like the characters they play in real life. An actor is supposed to be able to act to portray the behavior and characteristics needed for the character. If the actor comes across as stiff as a ladies man, then it's because they fail to act that aspect believably, not because they aren't that in real life. Just like if they don't appear believably cold and ruthless when needed, then that's a problem with their acting, and it's not that they should actually be cold and ruthless in real life for the acting to work.

    I agree, but only to a certain extend. Sure an actor should be able to pull off the character he was hired for, but not every actor can pull off every type of character.
    I would not cast jesse eisenberg to pull of a cool, sophisticated macho type character... but it might be easier to cast Daniel Craig to play a quirky nerd who talks too much...
    It depends on the Role and the Actor.
    Worst case scenario is that you 'see' the acting and it doesn't feel a hundred percent natural, and to not run into that situation it would be simply easier to cast someone who has real life expirience he can draw from... which actors have to do anyway to prepare for roles

    Obviously no actor can play any role under the sun, and I wasn't suggesting they should. That's why casting right people for parts matters.

    I still disagree about the real life experience to draw from. Actors don't need to have matching real life experiences for their roles. To play an assassin they don't need to prepare by killing people (thank goodness) or even talk to actual killers. Acting requires abilities such as imagination. Preparing for roles may mean research of many kinds depending on the role, but it's not needed that the actor has similar characteristics or experiences in real life that the character they need to portray does.


    I agree how important it is to cast the right actors for specific parts and yes not everyone is suitted to every role not even the best actors around.
    However we have had some un typical choices which have worked the main example is Daniel Craig.

    How many of us jumped on Craig is not bond at the beginning and then changed our minds ?
    That's because he didn't seem suited for the role seing him in the whole film changed everything and some even changed their minds since the first trailer.

    another un typical choices which worked were Glenn Close in Dangerous Liaisons and Heath Ledger in the dark knight.
    I bet non of us would have cast those actors in their respective roles but they surprised us bing time.

    Now about looking to be like the character is slightly the technique of method acting which has done wonders with many of the greatest.
    Sure they won't become killers or kil anyone to prepare but trying to resmble someone 's like to portray it right is something many actors have done.
    Daniel Day Lewis spent all time in his wheelchair to portray Chrosty Brown and he won and oscar, he also spent a day in jail to prepare for his role in the film In the namr of the father.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Those are good points @Szonana. Interestingly, in all the cases you mention above, the actors portrayed their parts atypically, at least in terms of what our expectations may have been (Close and Ledger) or in terms of how they embodied the character (Craig).

    I think this is the key when one may not be typical for a role - namely to bring your own interpretation that is genuine and unique to you.

    That's my point about Craig in SP. This was the first time I felt he was trying to be a composite of the other actors, rather than just being genuine, which I think he did marvelously particularly in CR/QoS.
  • Posts: 2,081
    An actor being cast for a role for simply being "typical for a role" is often kinda terrible both for audience and (presumably for at least many of) the actors. Getting typecast should also be something any actor with talent and ambition should try to fight against. Difficult, I'm sure, when they are unknown and need pay checks to get by, but when established actors just don't care it kinda pisses me off - like McConaughey with those idiotic "romantic comedies" (neither romantic nor funny) he did for years, and Cruise as the glorified stuntman in action movies. (I re-watched Magnolia just last night, and it made me wish he was still more interested in, well, acting - you know, doing something challenging acting-wise.)

    I guess not many directors are often in a situation where they can cast who they want. The financiers have their say and they are less likely to have enough creative imagination and a proper idea of who would be right for a role, instead of being more famous or better looking or whatever else that the non-creative people in the process deem more important. So getting through the ranks is often hard. Actors need people (those who have a say in casting, not the audience, of course) to believe that they can do the kinds of roles they haven't done before, or aren't "typical" for. Once they've gotten chances to prove they can, then it's up to them.

    @bondjames, I don't know if Craig tried to be "a composite" Bond in SP, but he kinda was, and I suppose that's why I wasn't anywhere near as impressed as I had been before. I guess it didn't feel genuine to me, either.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    @Tuulia, good points. I think we'll see Cruise going to serious fare once he hangs up his action persona. He can't hang from buildings and from outside planes for too much longer. I look forward to seeing him do something meatier down the road. Alec Baldwin transitioned nicely.

    I agree with you on the financiers (and sometimes the directors) wanting to typecast. Actors should definitely try to resist this. In my view Waltz is a perfect example of this in SP. We had high expectations (due to Landa) but perhaps it would have been better had the role gone to a relative unknown who could bring their own interpretation untarnished by 'baggage' of previous iconic villain roles.

    Some actors are quite chameleon like, and can play anything. Jessica Chastain comes to mind but there are others like Cate Blanchett. Even Leo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Tom Hardy or Matt Damon. Sometimes it also helps to not be too distinctive looking (and I'm not saying they aren't).
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,534
    @bondjames I want Cruise to continue expending his resume of working with A-list directors (is he the only one to have worked with Scorsese, Spielberg and Kubrick?). As we talked about in another thread, Cruise in a Villeneuve, Nolan, Fincher film would be cinematic gold.
Sign In or Register to comment.