Who should/could be a Bond actor?

19059069089109111178

Comments

  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited May 2022 Posts: 4,247
    "I know it when I see it"...according to Connery's Bond in GoldFinger. Same way we will never know which actor is suitable for Bond, until we see him as Bond.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,811
    I think as fans we’ve been spoilt. If you consider we’re up to our seventh lead actor, and thus far not one of them has been miscast (no matter who your favourite is , or your personal thoughts)
    Each actor has been James Bond and we the audience generally accepted them in the role.
    I’m hoping that this trend continues with the next actor, and have every faith that it will.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 686
    If the writing is good then almost all of the actors mentioned as possible contenders should suffice - there's not that much to the role other than looking the part. Where you need an actor with that certain something is when the writing isn't very good and you need someone with star quality to hold the whole thing up; Connery could do it with his dangerous charisma, Moore had a relaxed charm and comedic twinkle in his eye, and Craig that that intensity that helped ground the character. If the writing is tight it should work with any competent actor of the right age and attractiveness (imo).
  • Posts: 14,799
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think one thing we always picture, is the new Bond being like the previous one, which is not a bad thing though. But the direction of the new Bond isn't going to be like the previous one. I think the main reason why people didn't give Craig a chance was, they couldn't picture him in GE, TND, TWINE & DAD, because people thought Craig's era would be the same as Brosnan's. That's why when EON eventually picks the new Bond, he might not be seen immediately as Bond, because people might not be able to picture him in CR, QoS, SF, SP & NTTD.

    I would argue though that generally the new Bond channels or tries to channel the previous. Except for Craig and maybe Dalton. But even TLD had elements that felt very much like remnants from the Moore era. And for all the changes Moore brought to Bond, he's not very different from the Connery in DAF (if anything he's more serious).
  • edited May 2022 Posts: 784
    Benny wrote: »
    I think as fans we’ve been spoilt. If you consider we’re up to our seventh lead actor, and thus far not one of them has been miscast (no matter who your favourite is , or your personal thoughts)
    Each actor has been James Bond and we the audience generally accepted them in the role.
    I’m hoping that this trend continues with the next actor, and have every faith that it will.

    Lazenby was miscast. At least the new actor, whoever it may be, won't be worse than him.
    If the writing is good then almost all of the actors mentioned as possible contenders should suffice - there's not that much to the role other than looking the part. Where you need an actor with that certain something is when the writing isn't very good and you need someone with star quality to hold the whole thing up; Connery could do it with his dangerous charisma, Moore had a relaxed charm and comedic twinkle in his eye, and Craig that that intensity that helped ground the character. If the writing is tight it should work with any competent actor of the right age and attractiveness (imo).

    Agreed, good writing is key and unfortunately very rare today.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited May 2022 Posts: 3,382
    Benny wrote: »
    I think as fans we’ve been spoilt. If you consider we’re up to our seventh lead actor, and thus far not one of them has been miscast (no matter who your favourite is , or your personal thoughts)
    Each actor has been James Bond and we the audience generally accepted them in the role.
    I’m hoping that this trend continues with the next actor, and have every faith that it will.

    Lazenby was miscast. At least the new actor, whoever it may be, won't be worse than him.
    If the writing is good then almost all of the actors mentioned as possible contenders should suffice - there's not that much to the role other than looking the part. Where you need an actor with that certain something is when the writing isn't very good and you need someone with star quality to hold the whole thing up; Connery could do it with his dangerous charisma, Moore had a relaxed charm and comedic twinkle in his eye, and Craig that that intensity that helped ground the character. If the writing is tight it should work with any competent actor of the right age and attractiveness (imo).

    Agreed, good writing is key and unfortunately very rare today.

    I think Lazenby was fine, sure his acting was left to be desired but he looked the part, he had the Bondian looks, he still matches Fleming's description of the character (lean, tall, handsome and black hair), he'd lost his opportunity when didn't continued to the role. Yes, every new Bond actor will be better than him in terms of acting, but he's not miscast.

    In terms of miscast, to be honest I think it's Craig (Blonde, Small, not that conventionally handsome and muscular), many people even comparing him to Red Grant, he's far from Fleming's description, he didn't looked like Bond.

    But despite of it, he did well in the role, he's a great actor and owned the part.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,254
    @ByRoyalDecree … do you write scripts? Have you optioned your own screenplays? I’d love to read your work.
  • Posts: 725
    It’s a shame Pattinson went and chose Batman. He would’ve been perfect as Bond. Just perfect.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,811
    Benny wrote: »
    I think as fans we’ve been spoilt. If you consider we’re up to our seventh lead actor, and thus far not one of them has been miscast (no matter who your favourite is , or your personal thoughts)
    Each actor has been James Bond and we the audience generally accepted them in the role.
    I’m hoping that this trend continues with the next actor, and have every faith that it will.

    Lazenby was miscast. At least the new actor, whoever it may be, won't be worse than him.

    And that's the thing, it's all subjective. However, can you really say that George Lazenby ruined OHMSS, playing James Bond? Sure he has his problems as an actor. But he possess the qualities we associate with the cinematic Bond.


    MI6HQ wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    I think as fans we’ve been spoilt. If you consider we’re up to our seventh lead actor, and thus far not one of them has been miscast (no matter who your favourite is , or your personal thoughts)
    Each actor has been James Bond and we the audience generally accepted them in the role.
    I’m hoping that this trend continues with the next actor, and have every faith that it will.

    Lazenby was miscast. At least the new actor, whoever it may be, won't be worse than him.
    If the writing is good then almost all of the actors mentioned as possible contenders should suffice - there's not that much to the role other than looking the part. Where you need an actor with that certain something is when the writing isn't very good and you need someone with star quality to hold the whole thing up; Connery could do it with his dangerous charisma, Moore had a relaxed charm and comedic twinkle in his eye, and Craig that that intensity that helped ground the character. If the writing is tight it should work with any competent actor of the right age and attractiveness (imo).

    Agreed, good writing is key and unfortunately very rare today.

    I think Lazenby was fine, sure his acting was left to be desired but he looked the part, he had the Bondian looks, he still matches Fleming's description of the character (lean, tall, handsome and black hair), he'd lost his opportunity when didn't continued to the role. Yes, every new Bond actor will be better than him in terms of acting, but he's not miscast.

    In terms of miscast, to be honest I think it's Craig (Blonde, Small, not that conventionally handsome and muscular), many people even comparing him to Red Grant, he's far from Fleming's description, he didn't looked like Bond.

    But despite of it, he did well in the role, he's a great actor and owned the part.

    And yet he was universally accepted as Bond by the cinema going public. As you say @MI6HQ he went on to own the part.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2022 Posts: 14,861
    I think OHMSS would be an awful lot better with a proper star, absolutely.

    It certainly is subjective, but the initial statement was that none of them have been miscast ‘no matter your personal thoughts’, which is as close to saying it’s an objective fact as we can get, and so folks are going to disagree. Personally I think he was miscast because he’s not really up to the job.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,811
    Yes, I did rather contradict myself there.
    Do you think OHMSS would've benefited by having Connery play Bond? @mtm
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2022 Posts: 14,861
    Thanks Benny. I actually still think that Roger would have been the man to get for OHMSS. The opening of the film in the casino is pure Saint anyway; Roger has enough grit for the more serious bits, he’d have been up to the comedy stuff with Sir Hilary, had the charisma to go toe-to-toe with Rigg and Savalas, and even in his later Bond films we can see he brought a more romantic and caring edge to his relationships with his leading ladies (see FYEO or OP) so I think the Bond & Tracy stuff would have worked better with him.
    The only downside is that he wouldn’t have been as good in the fights as Lazenby was.

    There’s actually a Saint movie which came out the same year, and one sequence in that is that Simon has to escape from a villain’s mountaintop castle, make his way down the mountain and escape into the village, evading capture by the goons. It’s all rather tense and Moore plays it dead straight, and it’s hard not to think of OHMSS.
  • edited May 2022 Posts: 2,750
    The problem I've always had with OHMSS is that it depicts a younger, fresh Bond in a story that was designed for an older, more jaded Bond. Stuff like the resignation scene in that movie just doesn't quite have the same bite with Lazenby and feels like it comes out of nowhere (his Bond is many things, but I never got the sense he was tired of his job prior to this scene). I don't think Connery could have played the part at this time (his acting in the Bond series at that point could be excruciatingly uninspired) but had they specifically written Bond as more cynical I think the film and new actor would have benefitted more. Lazenby is a bit hit or miss for me... someone like Timothy Dalton was too young but I can certainly imagine his general approach to the Bond role working better in this film... not an easy task though finding a replacement to Connery at that time, neither was it the easiest Bond story to introduce the new Bond actor with. No idea who would have been a solid alternative to Lazenby under those circumstances (I've heard people suggest the likes of Oliver Reed or Christopher Plummer, which are interesting what ifs, and aren't unlike how I imagine Bond when reading the novels, but I don't know...) Ah well, I love OHMSS all the same.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited May 2022 Posts: 3,382
    007HallY wrote: »
    The problem I've always had with OHMSS is that it depicts a younger, fresh Bond in a story that was designed for an older, more jaded Bond. Stuff like the resignation scene in that movie just doesn't quite have the same bite with Lazenby and feels like it comes out of nowhere (his Bond is many things, but I never got the sense he was tired of his job prior to this). I don't think Connery could have played the part at this time (his acting in the Bond series at that point could be excruciatingly uninspired) but had they specifically written Bond as more cynical I think the film and new actor would have benefitted more. Lazenby is a bit hit or miss for me... someone like Timothy Dalton was too young but I can certainly imagine the approach to Bond working better in this film... not an easy task though finding a replacement to Connery at that time. They got it right with Moore... ah well, I love OHMSS all the same.

    Lazenby would have worked in Casino Royale, as it depicts a fresh, young, and beginner bond if that's the case.
  • Posts: 2,750
    @MI6HQ It depends. The thing about Bond in that novel is he's rather arrogant even compared to later Fleming novels, and by the end becomes much more cynical about the nature of the 'spy game' (he talks a lot about 'chasing the red Indian' with Mathis a lot, and it even pops up again as a phrase throughout the novels). Of course after Vesper's death he goes back. I'm not sure if the Producers would have been willing to adapt these ideas at this time (certainly not at the height of the Cold War), nor how convincingly Lazenby would have been able to convey these qualities.

    I feel I'm being overly harsh on poor Lazenby. I do think he had some great moments in OHMSS. Like I said, it's not the easiest story to introduce a new Bond with, so under the circumstances he did well. But he wasn't an actor, at least not one who had honed his craft in the same way the other Bond actors did prior to playing the role. And it shows.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    007HallY wrote: »
    The problem I've always had with OHMSS is that it depicts a younger, fresh Bond in a story that was designed for an older, more jaded Bond. Stuff like the resignation scene in that movie just doesn't quite have the same bite with Lazenby and feels like it comes out of nowhere (his Bond is many things, but I never got the sense he was tired of his job prior to this scene). I don't think Connery could have played the part at this time (his acting in the Bond series at that point could be excruciatingly uninspired) but had they specifically written Bond as more cynical I think the film and new actor would have benefitted more. Lazenby is a bit hit or miss for me... someone like Timothy Dalton was too young but I can certainly imagine his general approach to the Bond role working better in this film... not an easy task though finding a replacement to Connery at that time, neither was it the easiest Bond story to introduce the new Bond actor with. No idea who would have been a solid alternative to Lazenby under those circumstances (I've heard people suggest the likes of Oliver Reed or Christopher Plummer, which are interesting what ifs, and aren't unlike how I imagine Bond when reading the novels, but I don't know...) Ah well, I love OHMSS all the same.

    That’s a great point about him being an older, more jaded version. Dalton’s “if he fires me I’ll thank him for it” take would have worked, although I think he’d still have struggled charisma-wise. Plummer or Reed though, yes, lovely stuff. I can certainly imagine a Reed Bond more with his heart on his sleeve.
  • Posts: 2,750
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    The problem I've always had with OHMSS is that it depicts a younger, fresh Bond in a story that was designed for an older, more jaded Bond. Stuff like the resignation scene in that movie just doesn't quite have the same bite with Lazenby and feels like it comes out of nowhere (his Bond is many things, but I never got the sense he was tired of his job prior to this scene). I don't think Connery could have played the part at this time (his acting in the Bond series at that point could be excruciatingly uninspired) but had they specifically written Bond as more cynical I think the film and new actor would have benefitted more. Lazenby is a bit hit or miss for me... someone like Timothy Dalton was too young but I can certainly imagine his general approach to the Bond role working better in this film... not an easy task though finding a replacement to Connery at that time, neither was it the easiest Bond story to introduce the new Bond actor with. No idea who would have been a solid alternative to Lazenby under those circumstances (I've heard people suggest the likes of Oliver Reed or Christopher Plummer, which are interesting what ifs, and aren't unlike how I imagine Bond when reading the novels, but I don't know...) Ah well, I love OHMSS all the same.

    That’s a great point about him being an older, more jaded version. Dalton’s “if he fires me I’ll thank him for it” take would have worked, although I think he’d still have struggled charisma-wise. Plummer or Reed though, yes, lovely stuff. I can certainly imagine a Reed Bond more with his heart on his sleeve.

    I feel Oliver Reed could have either played Bond or a villain... probably even within the same space of time. Very unique cinematic actor, lots of intensity and screen presence. That said I suspect Broccoli and Saltzman dodged a bullet by not having him. The guy would have been an absolute nightmare to work with. Would have made Connery look like a Saint.

    Plummer in his prime looked like a convincing likeness of Fleming's Bond. Great actor too. But I doubt he would have been very committed due to his stardom.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,811
    It’s an odd time (the casting of OHMSS and the Bond series)
    Connery is a great actor who could’ve brought more to the role. But feels he’s being cheated by Broccoli and Saltzman. However he’s shown his acting ability in previous Bond films and The Hill.
    And would go on to wow audiences with his talent.
    Timothy Dalton was a young up and coming actor who, would play Bond, and do a tremendous job when the time was right. But in ‘68-‘69 had he honed his craft fully.
    I do like @mtm suggestion of Roger Moore in Majestey’s. I’ve never pictured him. But it’s actually a good call in hindsight.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited May 2022 Posts: 3,382
    007HallY wrote: »
    @MI6HQ It depends. The thing about Bond in that novel is he's rather arrogant even compared to later Fleming novels, and by the end becomes much more cynical about the nature of the 'spy game' (he talks a lot about 'chasing the red Indian' with Mathis a lot, and it even pops up again as a phrase throughout the novels). Of course after Vesper's death he goes back. I'm not sure if the Producers would have been willing to adapt these ideas at this time (certainly not at the height of the Cold War), nor how convincingly Lazenby would have been able to convey these qualities.

    I feel I'm being overly harsh on poor Lazenby. I do think he had some great moments in OHMSS. Like I said, it's not the easiest story to introduce a new Bond with, so under the circumstances he did well. But he wasn't an actor, at least not one who had honed his craft in the same way the other Bond actors did prior to playing the role. And it shows.

    I'm afraid to share my real thoughts here, but to be honest, Craig wasn't convincing playing a fresh, beginner, and young Bond either, and as you said here, arrogant, something that he didn't conveyed.
    And being cynical thing, I didn't saw that in Craig's portrayal either.
    Like what has been said on so many discussions, he comes off as Bourne more than Bond.
    No against Daniel, I really liked him as an actor and I really think he's sexy, but I didn't felt that he really matched what the script and the novel's story had demanded him to do.
    He's much more convincing as a weary and tired Bond, that's why I think he's portrayal in his later movies was (as for me) better, because he really fits.

    That's why I think Lazenby could have carried it off, Lazenby was arrogant in real life, he can release his own persona in this story, Young and arrogant.
    He may not be an actor, but I think his own personality really fits the story.
  • Posts: 2,750
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    @MI6HQ It depends. The thing about Bond in that novel is he's rather arrogant even compared to later Fleming novels, and by the end becomes much more cynical about the nature of the 'spy game' (he talks a lot about 'chasing the red Indian' with Mathis a lot, and it even pops up again as a phrase throughout the novels). Of course after Vesper's death he goes back. I'm not sure if the Producers would have been willing to adapt these ideas at this time (certainly not at the height of the Cold War), nor how convincingly Lazenby would have been able to convey these qualities.

    I feel I'm being overly harsh on poor Lazenby. I do think he had some great moments in OHMSS. Like I said, it's not the easiest story to introduce a new Bond with, so under the circumstances he did well. But he wasn't an actor, at least not one who had honed his craft in the same way the other Bond actors did prior to playing the role. And it shows.

    Because to be honest, Craig wasn't convincing playing a fresh, beginner, and young Bond either, and as you said here, arrogant, something that he didn't conveyed.
    Like what has been said on so many discussions, he comes off as Bourne more than Bond.
    No against Daniel, I really liked him as an actor and I really think he's sexy, but I didn't felt that he really matched what the script had demanded him to do.
    He's much more convincing as a weary and tired Bond.
    That's why I think Lazenby would have carried it off, Lazenby was arrogant in real life, he can release his own persona in this story, Young and arrogant.
    He may not be an actor, but I think his own personality really fits the story.

    To be fair, I think the writing did make Craig's Bond more arrogant and Craig himself portrays it well. Especially his interactions with Vesper when they get to Montenegro. Bond even becomes a bit more jaded/cynical after Vesper's death so it's there. Even at the beginning with him breaking into M's flat there's a plausible level of impulsiveness that suits a Bond earlier in his career. It's not a creative decision I'm always fond of (I think Bond works better as a blunt instrument and not as a rogue doing things for the 'greater good' along the lines of Bourne or Jack Bauer) but that's just me.

    I'd also say that I never got the sense Bond in CR was meant to be overly young. Just at an early point in his 00 career (it's a pretty elite title, so you'd have to be plausibly in your 30s to get it... anyway, I think the concept of an overly young Bond was watered down as the drafts of the script went on and kinda went away when Henry 'Action Man' Cavill was rejected). I do agree though, Craig's Bond was more interesting when he was jaded and older as in SF, but I generally think that film is better written in terms of Bond's character than CR anyway.

    As for Lazenby, again, it depends on how well he could have portrayed these qualities. I do think his acting improved slightly even after he left the Bond role.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Yes there is an argument that Craig technically was miscast for CR, as the script seemed to feature a younger Bond, and they had to lean less on that once he was cast. But as James Bond, he was perfect.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,889
    I wouldn’t trade the Moore era, and yes Lazenby was rough around the edges but I would have liked to have seen how he would have grown into the role. His films would have had a more serious tome than Roger’s. George had tremendous physicality and an innate charm that, with the right material and guidance, could have lead to a very interesting portrayal of James Bond.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited May 2022 Posts: 3,382
    talos7 wrote: »
    I wouldn’t trade the Moore era, and yes Lazenby was rough around the edges but I would have liked to have seen how he would have grown into the role. His films would have had a more serious tome than Roger’s. George had tremendous physicality and an innate charm that, with the right material and guidance, could have lead to a very interesting portrayal of James Bond.

    Agreed @talos7
    It's very interesting really and he could play it closer to Fleming/books.
    He has the potential.
  • Posts: 615
    Venutius wrote: »
    I keep falling back on the three criteria posted on here by General Gogol:
    1. Could the new guy hold his own in a dramatic scene with Mads Mikkelson?
    2. Could he seduce Monicca Belucci?
    3. Could he put up a convincing screenfight against Dave Bautista?
    Aidan Turner could maybe manage 1. and 2. (although I'm not 100% sure on 1.)
    Turner has a few fights & brawls (even a sword duel) in POLDARK, and he handles himself just fine.

  • edited May 2022 Posts: 725
    By that criteria Sean wouldn’t qualify.

    1. No because Mads wasn’t even acting when Connery was Bond. .
    2. No because he is too old for her.
    3. No because Sean doesn’t spar with a child.
  • Posts: 14,799
    mtm wrote: »
    Thanks Benny. I actually still think that Roger would have been the man to get for OHMSS. The opening of the film in the casino is pure Saint anyway; Roger has enough grit for the more serious bits, he’d have been up to the comedy stuff with Sir Hilary, had the charisma to go toe-to-toe with Rigg and Savalas, and even in his later Bond films we can see he brought a more romantic and caring edge to his relationships with his leading ladies (see FYEO or OP) so I think the Bond & Tracy stuff would have worked better with him.
    The only downside is that he wouldn’t have been as good in the fights as Lazenby was.

    There’s actually a Saint movie which came out the same year, and one sequence in that is that Simon has to escape from a villain’s mountaintop castle, make his way down the mountain and escape into the village, evading capture by the goons. It’s all rather tense and Moore plays it dead straight, and it’s hard not to think of OHMSS.

    I did a thread about it years ago: what an OHMSS with Moore as Bond would have been. I think he would have pulled it beautifully, I also think it would probably have made his tenure far more serious overall. I will always argue that Moore was the most convincing widower of all the Bonds.
  • edited May 2022 Posts: 2,750
    mtm wrote: »
    Yes there is an argument that Craig technically was miscast for CR, as the script seemed to feature a younger Bond, and they had to lean less on that once he was cast. But as James Bond, he was perfect.

    It is interesting reading about what was changed as the drafts went on. I've heard about versions where Bond had never worn a tuxedo before, ones where he's an ex-SAS soldier etc. I suspect these elements were being toned down long before Craig came into the mix though. I'd argue there's nothing in the script we got that suggests Bond is meant to be in his 20s. In fact I get the sense he's actually very accomplished with some years of service behind him. I mean, is there any reason he'd be below 30 at this point in his career? The 00 number is implied to be very hard to attain and is rather prestigious within the service. You have to have experience and a proven record that suggests you can do the job. It's just not the sort of thing you'd normally entrust to a 23 year old (roughly Henry Cavill's age at the time) even with the physical requirements.
  • Posts: 725
    Yeah. It was more James Bond begins before Craig was cast.
  • Posts: 2,750
    Yeah, it's a good thing the whole Bond begins concept got watered down in my opinion. At least with Batman Begins they had the well worn origin story to fall back on and adapt. Bond doesn't really have that sort of dramatic backstory/specific incident that motivates him in the same way Wayne does. To compensate, writers would just fill a Bond origin story with cute little in-jokes such as the whole 'I've never worn a tuxedo' idea. Heck, I'd argue the 'does it look like I give a damn' line falls into that territory, but it's not as bad as it could have been. Anyway, I hope they never try to give us an overly young, inexperienced Bond in the films. A younger Bond, sure, but as long as he's 007 he's an experienced agent. He's not a rookie at that point no matter how old he is.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,382
    Those 'I never worn a tuxedo' thing and the ex-SAS thing was not Fleming.
    And that drafts made me afraid that Bond was departing from how his author created him, but I'm glad that it didn't happen.
Sign In or Register to comment.