Who should/could be a Bond actor?

17837847867887891178

Comments

  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah it doesn't sound like something for a Bond film to do, really. They're not introspective pieces: he has crazy adventures.

    I was thinking about this in conjunction with Skyfall where we kind of get Old Bond and we get a strong whiff of Lost Empire and all the things these people have done in the past - albeit more through M than Bond. But that really is the extent they can do. Much more and you just completely lose what a Bond film is supposed to be. You are right. Plus, I think we should be done with "things from the past catch up with Bond" for a good little while. I hope the next Bond is allowed to look more to the future, rather than the past.

    That being said, I am a bit annoyed that the Handover of Hong Kong and it's aftermath is kind of dealt with in a throw-away line (however important it is for Silva) in SF. That could have been much more central in a film and now it is kind of burned.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 2021 Posts: 14,861
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah it doesn't sound like something for a Bond film to do, really. They're not introspective pieces: he has crazy adventures.

    I was thinking about this in conjunction with Skyfall where we kind of get Old Bond and we get a strong whiff of Lost Empire and all the things these people have done in the past - albeit more through M than Bond. But that really is the extent they can do. Much more and you just completely lose what a Bond film is supposed to be. You are right. Plus, I think we should be done with "things from the past catch up with Bond" for a good little while. I hope the next Bond is allowed to look more to the future, rather than the past.

    Yeah you're right: you can give a Bond film a flavour of something like that, but having him retire and keep bees and get close to his nurse who comes over every day or something just isn't a Bond movie.
    Also it's something that most fans seem to complain about as far I've seen here: the only reason you'd have an 'old Bond' movie is that there's something from his past/'this time its personal and dragging him back' story, and folks seem to hate those.
    That being said, I am a bit annoyed that the Handover of Hong Kong and it's aftermath is kind of dealt with in a throw-away line (however important it is for Silva) in SF. That could have been much more central in a film and now it is kind of burned.

    Well it's so incidental to SF that that they could easily use it again: but they also can't go near it for a while because there are genuine tensions between the UK and China over HK and the breaking of the handover promises at the moment.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    mtm wrote: »
    That being said, I am a bit annoyed that the Handover of Hong Kong and it's aftermath is kind of dealt with in a throw-away line (however important it is for Silva) in SF. That could have been much more central in a film and now it is kind of burned.

    Well it's so incidental to SF that that they could easily use it again: but they also can't go near it for a while because there are genuine tensions between the UK and China over HK and the breaking of the handover promises at the moment.

    Oh yeah, I don't think they are going anywhere near a HK set story the way things have been going there for the last few years and with the Chinese box office massively growing in importance.
    To completely derail this thread: I just had a quick look through BoxOfficeMojo and while CR has made around $11 million in China (on par with Sweden and about 1,7 % of the total worldwide gross), SP has made $83 million there (third only to the US and UK and about 9,5 % of the worldwide total). One would assume Eon wants that trend to continue.
  • Posts: 1,545
    RE: a T Dalton "one more time" film -- alternative idea: Don't de-age him. Having him retired and lured back for something important would (a) make more sense than him miraculously surviving missions all these years (b) MI-6 still giving him missions all these years but also (c) apparently would be rather duplicative with a plot point of NTTD. I still think the way to present it, though, is to present him at Dalton's real present age. Could do the same with Lazenby or Brosnan. Not suggesting all three, unless you want to engage in a Matured Bond series (perhaps for TV ?), rather like a Young Bond series from the recent young Bond books. And, no, I do NOT suggest having more than one in the same film -- ie, the "Code Name" theory. It's just different actors, and different stories, in different timeframes. Each of the Mature Bond stories could feature references to that particular actor's films and stories. For Lazenby, this could have special resonance. For any of them, whether the actor still is around or not, they could not reasonably have the same M involved. "Their" M likely would have passed...except not necessarily Brosnan's M. After all, his M was not really the same as Craig's M, despite the same actor playing the parts. The "Mature Bond" stories could do something more easily than the youthful Bond stories -- have Bond die. Not in each one, mind you, but it could be done. (Were it a hit, still could have the actor return, in a prequel.) Especially if there were a high-quality TV presentation (long-form), and a Young Bond series, likewise, at the same time as the youthful grown Bond films are being made, it would open the Bond-verse. That could include other characters' stories, too: Felix Leiter, Jinx, Villains, henchmen, Charles Robinson (Colin Salmon was tall enough, built and handsome enough to play Bond, but for his prominent appearance as another character...who now could get his own "in the field" adventures). You could go back to other characters whose actors might be gone, or now suited for older-person-reflecting stories [the problem of which is you know they survived, even if maimed or otherwise seriously injured or affected]: Honey Rider, Domino, Tiffany Case (perhaps Emily Beecham play her ?), etc.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    At the moment we are still at a point where none of this will happen because the Broccolis basically want to keep the interest up through scarcity and when they deliver us a product, they want it to be luxurious, aspirational, bombastic. So as things stand, I believe we will only have the film series (and maybe a game here and there) and those will continue to feature a Bond with no defined age but somewhere between 35 and 50. And as long as we only get one movie every 3-7 years, I prefer them to be that and not "waste" one on something so experimental.

    Now, if f.e. Apple were to buy MGM and possibly even Eon, or the next generation of Eon leadership - which is bound to take over sometime in the next 15-20 years at the latest - sees this totally different, then maybe we get some kind of opening up and then a return of Dalton or Brosnan might be conceivable.
    For me, their involvement could be a stepping stone for a period piece. Sadly, Connery and Moore are no longer with us, so we can't fully go back to the 60s, I don't think. However, having a TV series that is mostly set in say the 80s with a mid-30s actor playing Bond and then have a kind of framework story in the present day with Dalton or Brosnan as aged Bond. That could be kind of cool. It would relieve the burden of them having to lead a full series and do the typical Bond tropes like loads of action set pieces and seducing younger women when in their 70s or 80s (the young incarnation would take up those parts), but could still give us a return of these great actors in the role in a limited capacity.

    Alternatively or additionally this would be the one acceptable way - I think - of showing Bond dying as @Since62 suggested. This could maybe even be done in the main series (although I have no idea why they would ever do that), with a massive flash forward a couple of decades and a couple of small scenes with one of the older actors giving us the death of Bond. We could still keep the films going in the ever-changing present day, but like we always know that at some point prior to the films Bond's parents died and he went to Fettes and then the Navy and all that, we would also know that at some point in the future, Bond dies in a certain way. I don't think it's problematic that we would know, that the intermittent adventures aren't Bond's last, because we always know that anyways. What I see as more problematic is: It only makes sense if his death is in some way connected to the specific story of the film or series to which it connects. Which then elevates that story above all else. A bit like how OHMSS elevates Blofeld to the level he is at because he kills Tracy (Yes, I know there are other reasons why Blofeld is the signature villain of the series, but to me killing Tracy is at the top of the list, really.). So if like Scaramanga's secret love child comes back 30 years after their father is killed by Bond and kills Bond in a duel, that could be a very, very cool scene but it suddenly gives that story massive importance, that might be misplaced.
  • Posts: 1,545
    Any Bond-death could be kept vague, too. He wanders off, as if to climb a mountain and meditate until passing. That way...you...never...quite...know...
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 2021 Posts: 14,861
    And as he sits with his legs crossed up the mountain, he simply vanishes, his robes fluttering to the ground.
    No hang on, that's someone else... :D
  • Posts: 14,800
    mtm wrote: »
    And as he sits with his legs crossed up the mountain, he simply vanishes, his robes fluttering to the ground.
    No hang on, that's someone else... :D

    Even Tamahori would have thought this one is taking things too far. Or maybe not. After the codename theory, the reincarnation theory.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited March 2021 Posts: 5,834
    Who would you cast if (hypothetically) nationality didn't matter? So EON decided to look at actors who weren't British.

    For me, I'd choose American actor, Christopher Abbott.

    Possessor2.jpg
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,890
    A one off? I would love to see Hugh Jackman play Bond , even just once. He could effortlessly combine the charm of Moore with the raw brutality of Craig. Not many actors can do that.
  • Posts: 14,800
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Who would you cast if (hypothetically) nationality didn't matter? So EON decided to look at actors who weren't British.

    For me, I'd choose American actor, Christopher Abbott.

    Possessor2.jpg

    The thing is, nationality does matter. Even if he was British, I'm not sure about that guy.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,890
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Who would you cast if (hypothetically) nationality didn't matter? So EON decided to look at actors who weren't British.

    For me, I'd choose American actor, Christopher Abbott.

    Possessor2.jpg

    The thing is, nationality does matter. Even if he was British, I'm not sure about that guy.
    I don’t see anything Bond like in him.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,834
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Who would you cast if (hypothetically) nationality didn't matter? So EON decided to look at actors who weren't British.

    For me, I'd choose American actor, Christopher Abbott.

    Possessor2.jpg

    The thing is, nationality does matter.
    Just a hypothetical.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    talos7 wrote: »
    A one off? I would love to see Hugh Jackman play Bond , even just once. He could effortlessly combine the charm of Moore with the raw brutality of Craig. Not many actors can do that.

    Yes, he would have made a pretty great job of it.
  • Posts: 14,800
    talos7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Who would you cast if (hypothetically) nationality didn't matter? So EON decided to look at actors who weren't British.

    For me, I'd choose American actor, Christopher Abbott.

    Possessor2.jpg

    The thing is, nationality does matter. Even if he was British, I'm not sure about that guy.
    I don’t see anything Bond like in him.

    He's holding a gun, I guess.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    I would say he's definitely holding a gun :)
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,834
    I mean for one he's a really good actor, someone who could believably pull off both the charm and the action. The only thing is that he's American, but again this is just a hypothetical what if they did choose an actor who wasn't British.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I mean for one he's a really good actor, someone who could believably pull off both the charm and the action. The only thing is that he's American, but again this is just a hypothetical what if they did choose an actor who wasn't British.

    Maybe this is super basic, in that he might not make a good Bond and I just want to see an actor I love in my favourite series, but Oscar Isaac.

    Might be a bit on the short side and I know for a couple of you, his Guatemalan complexion disqualifies him regardless of nationality (he is not exactly Hoagy Carmichael, let's put it like that). But I think he can do serious, he can do more campy, he can do the action, he can do the cruel smile and he is a very good looking man.

    Most of the US options are too square for my taste.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I mean for one he's a really good actor, someone who could believably pull off both the charm and the action. The only thing is that he's American, but again this is just a hypothetical what if they did choose an actor who wasn't British.

    Maybe this is super basic, in that he might not make a good Bond and I just want to see an actor I love in my favourite series, but Oscar Isaac.

    Might be a bit on the short side and I know for a couple of you, his Guatemalan complexion disqualifies him regardless of nationality (he is not exactly Hoagy Carmichael, let's put it like that). But I think he can do serious, he can do more campy, he can do the action, he can do the cruel smile and he is a very good looking man.

    Most of the US options are too square for my taste.

    Isaac would be pretty terrific and could play the role in any way, really (he can do likeable charm and jokes, he can do very dramatic). He's just the sort of actor I hope they get for it, and If Americans were being considered he'd be a great pick, yes indeed.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I mean for one he's a really good actor, someone who could believably pull off both the charm and the action. The only thing is that he's American, but again this is just a hypothetical what if they did choose an actor who wasn't British.

    Maybe this is super basic, in that he might not make a good Bond and I just want to see an actor I love in my favourite series, but Oscar Isaac.

    Might be a bit on the short side and I know for a couple of you, his Guatemalan complexion disqualifies him regardless of nationality (he is not exactly Hoagy Carmichael, let's put it like that). But I think he can do serious, he can do more campy, he can do the action, he can do the cruel smile and he is a very good looking man.

    Most of the US options are too square for my taste.

    Isaac would be pretty terrific and could play the role in any way, really (he can do likeable charm and jokes, he can do very dramatic). He's just the sort of actor I hope they get for it, and If Americans were being considered he'd be a great pick, yes indeed.

    He's not blond enough.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,728
    Ludovico wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Who would you cast if (hypothetically) nationality didn't matter? So EON decided to look at actors who weren't British.

    For me, I'd choose American actor, Christopher Abbott.

    Possessor2.jpg

    The thing is, nationality does matter. Even if he was British, I'm not sure about that guy.
    I don’t see anything Bond like in him.

    He's holding a gun, I guess.

    I suppose we have to start somewhere. ;)
  • QsCatQsCat London
    Posts: 251
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I mean for one he's a really good actor, someone who could believably pull off both the charm and the action. The only thing is that he's American, but again this is just a hypothetical what if they did choose an actor who wasn't British.

    Maybe this is super basic, in that he might not make a good Bond and I just want to see an actor I love in my favourite series, but Oscar Isaac.

    Might be a bit on the short side and I know for a couple of you, his Guatemalan complexion disqualifies him regardless of nationality (he is not exactly Hoagy Carmichael, let's put it like that). But I think he can do serious, he can do more campy, he can do the action, he can do the cruel smile and he is a very good looking man.

    Most of the US options are too square for my taste.

    Isaac would be pretty terrific and could play the role in any way, really (he can do likeable charm and jokes, he can do very dramatic). He's just the sort of actor I hope they get for it, and If Americans were being considered he'd be a great pick, yes indeed.

    He's a brilliant actor but I don't think he'd be suitable for Bond.. You can be capable of portraying many of Bond's traits and still not be suitable.
    Anyone seen The two faces of January? He probaby appears most Bond-like in that. As does Viggo Mortensen. Even moreso, Viggo could have been a good Bond. But some actors are better off not playing Bond. In those 15 years or so they could get all sorts of interesting work; in their prime years. Fassbender for example, we don't know quite how he feels but from what I've seen, I get the feeling he wouldn't be interested, although the thought that many people would like to see him as Bond is no doubt good for his ego..
    As much as I love Craig as Bond (although my love has decreased dramatically...), his best work was before Bond. Fifteen years ago, when I was asked who my favourite actors were, Craig would have been mentioned. Not so now...
    I suppose what I'm saying is that sometimes it's better for actors you love to not be restricted by a part like Bond.
    tumblr_nb58tx71n91rertyro1_250.gif
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    QsCat wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I mean for one he's a really good actor, someone who could believably pull off both the charm and the action. The only thing is that he's American, but again this is just a hypothetical what if they did choose an actor who wasn't British.

    Maybe this is super basic, in that he might not make a good Bond and I just want to see an actor I love in my favourite series, but Oscar Isaac.

    Might be a bit on the short side and I know for a couple of you, his Guatemalan complexion disqualifies him regardless of nationality (he is not exactly Hoagy Carmichael, let's put it like that). But I think he can do serious, he can do more campy, he can do the action, he can do the cruel smile and he is a very good looking man.

    Most of the US options are too square for my taste.

    Isaac would be pretty terrific and could play the role in any way, really (he can do likeable charm and jokes, he can do very dramatic). He's just the sort of actor I hope they get for it, and If Americans were being considered he'd be a great pick, yes indeed.

    He's a brilliant actor but I don't think he'd be suitable for Bond.. You can be capable of portraying many of Bond's traits and still not be suitable.
    Anyone seen The two faces of January? He probaby appears most Bond-like in that. As does Viggo Mortensen. Even moreso, Viggo could have been a good Bond. But some actors are better off not playing Bond. In those 15 years or so they could get all sorts of interesting work; in their prime years. Fassbender for example, we don't know quite how he feels but from what I've seen, I get the feeling he wouldn't be interested, although the thought that many people would like to see him as Bond is no doubt good for his ego..
    As much as I love Craig as Bond (although my love has decreased dramatically...), his best work was before Bond. Fifteen years ago, when I was asked who my favourite actors were, Craig would have been mentioned. Not so now...
    I suppose what I'm saying is that sometimes it's better for actors you love to not be restricted by a part like Bond.
    tumblr_nb58tx71n91rertyro1_250.gif

    You are absolutely right there. But most of these guys have deals for like 5 films and 2 seasons of a TV series with Disney anyway. Isaac is actually a prime example. Just like Fassbender, you just have to wonder what kind of interesting stuff he could have done had he not been in three Star Wars films, an X-Men and a Bourne film and what his future could be if he weren't signed on for Dune (although I am looking forward to that), a Metal Gear Solid film and a Marvel/Disney+ streaming show.
    Sure, Bond falls into that category in a way, but I just very selfishly would have to say (obviously) Bond is much more interesting to me than X-Men or Moon Knight...
  • Posts: 14,800
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Who would you cast if (hypothetically) nationality didn't matter? So EON decided to look at actors who weren't British.

    For me, I'd choose American actor, Christopher Abbott.

    Possessor2.jpg

    The thing is, nationality does matter. Even if he was British, I'm not sure about that guy.
    I don’t see anything Bond like in him.

    He's holding a gun, I guess.

    I suppose we have to start somewhere. ;)

    Well yes, like a bald actor for Blofeld.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,728
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Who would you cast if (hypothetically) nationality didn't matter? So EON decided to look at actors who weren't British.

    For me, I'd choose American actor, Christopher Abbott.

    Possessor2.jpg

    The thing is, nationality does matter. Even if he was British, I'm not sure about that guy.
    I don’t see anything Bond like in him.

    He's holding a gun, I guess.

    I suppose we have to start somewhere. ;)

    Well yes, like a bald actor for Blofeld.

    In some ways rather regrettably, yes, though as we know from the original Bond novels Blofeld had hair all the way through though there were of course changes of appearance for this Most Wanted man. I suppose the closest he came to baldness was the crew cut he sported in Thunderball. Of course the Pleasence bald Blofeld (supplemented by the bald Savalas Blofeld) is the iconic Blofeld in the wider public consciousness that exists outside of the die-hard Bond fandom exhibited here. However, under the literary Bond guide only Charles Gray's and Christoph Waltz's Blofelds were closer to the Blofeld of the novels on the hair front at least.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,890
    One thing that I realized some time ago, and it is stating the obvious, is that an actor cannot be judged based on photographs alone. Some look great in photos but have little to average screen presence, while others take an average photo but have loads of screen presence.

    I have always thought that Hugh Jackman would have made an outstanding Bond, combining the strengths of Moore and Craig; on screen he looks great and has tremendous acting skills, but I often see photos of him and he doesn't look a thing like he does on screen. Now I'm not saying that he's Quasimodo; he's obviously a good looking guy. but as much as his screen appearances have convinced me that he would have been a great Bond, I don't know if I would feel the same based on many photographs that I've seen of him . This is why screentest are so vital
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 686
    talos7 wrote: »
    One thing that I realized some time ago, and it is stating the obvious, is that an actor cannot be judged based on photographs alone. Some look great in photos but have little to average screen presence, while others take an average photo but have loads of screen presence.

    I have always thought that Hugh Jackman would have made an outstanding Bond, combining the strengths of Moore and Craig; on screen he looks great and has tremendous acting skills, but I often see photos of him and he doesn't look a thing like he does on screen. Now I'm not saying that he's Quasimodo; he's obviously a good looking guy. but as much as his screen appearances have convinced me that he would have been a great Bond, I don't know if I would feel the same based on many photographs that I've seen of him . This is why screentest are so vital
    I very much agree. There have been a few famous actresses who I've seen headshots of and wondered what all the fuss was about... until I saw them act, where they seemed to become increasingly beautiful and charismatic the longer they were onscreen; and the reverse has also been true, where I've seen a picture of an incredibly beautiful actress and decided she was destined for stardom... until I saw her act and found her to have no presence.

    You'd never have picked Humphrey Bogart as a great leading man from his headshots, and I'd have said Matt Damon was fairly ordinary-looking from a headshot, but I find him effortlessly watchable on film; and of course there are a whole slew of B-movie actors who are handsome but dull onscreen. You don't really know until you see them act.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    talos7 wrote: »
    One thing that I realized some time ago, and it is stating the obvious, is that an actor cannot be judged based on photographs alone. Some look great in photos but have little to average screen presence, while others take an average photo but have loads of screen presence.

    I have always thought that Hugh Jackman would have made an outstanding Bond, combining the strengths of Moore and Craig; on screen he looks great and has tremendous acting skills, but I often see photos of him and he doesn't look a thing like he does on screen. Now I'm not saying that he's Quasimodo; he's obviously a good looking guy. but as much as his screen appearances have convinced me that he would have been a great Bond, I don't know if I would feel the same based on many photographs that I've seen of him . This is why screentest are so vital
    I very much agree. There have been a few famous actresses who I've seen headshots of and wondered what all the fuss was about... until I saw them act, where they seemed to become increasingly beautiful and charismatic the longer they were onscreen; and the reverse has also been true, where I've seen a picture of an incredibly beautiful actress and decided she was destined for stardom... until I saw her act and found her to have no presence.

    You'd never have picked Humphrey Bogart as a great leading man from his headshots, and I'd have said Matt Damon was fairly ordinary-looking from a headshot, but I find him effortlessly watchable on film; and of course there are a whole slew of B-movie actors who are handsome but dull onscreen. You don't really know until you see them act.

    Cate Blanchett is another one.
  • Posts: 14,800
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Who would you cast if (hypothetically) nationality didn't matter? So EON decided to look at actors who weren't British.

    For me, I'd choose American actor, Christopher Abbott.

    Possessor2.jpg

    The thing is, nationality does matter. Even if he was British, I'm not sure about that guy.
    I don’t see anything Bond like in him.

    He's holding a gun, I guess.

    I suppose we have to start somewhere. ;)

    Well yes, like a bald actor for Blofeld.

    In some ways rather regrettably, yes, though as we know from the original Bond novels Blofeld had hair all the way through though there were of course changes of appearance for this Most Wanted man. I suppose the closest he came to baldness was the crew cut he sported in Thunderball. Of course the Pleasence bald Blofeld (supplemented by the bald Savalas Blofeld) is the iconic Blofeld in the wider public consciousness that exists outside of the die-hard Bond fandom exhibited here. However, under the literary Bond guide only Charles Gray's and Christoph Waltz's Blofelds were closer to the Blofeld of the novels on the hair front at least.

    Kind of ironic, given how controversial they were as Blofeld (albeit for Waltz it has more to do with background choices, nothing to do with his casting).

    I just find it silly when an actor is suggested as Bond because he's been seen in a tux and an actor is suggested as Blofeld because he's bald. Bruce Willis as Blofeld! Ving Rhames as Blofeld! Vincent d'Onofrio as Blofeld! Bryan Cranston as Blofeld! Okay, so the last one is not bald, but he played a bald man for years, so he's used to play bald characters, so he'll be perfect.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    A bit like when they cast Patrick Stewart as Professor X: good casting certainly, but would they have considered him if he wasn't bald?
Sign In or Register to comment.