It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I'd say, for example, Craig wouldn't be the same actor if he didn't have his striking blue eyes and distinctive, weathered features. Along with his physicality and performance choices you get that overall image of his Bond. You can apply that to the other actors too. Honestly, I would say for Bond it's actually a benefit that the actor have something striking about their face. They have to be good looking, although not necessarily in a generic male model type way.
I wouldn't dismiss O'Connor based on his looks though. I actually don't think he's extraordinarily left field for a Bond potential (he's got quite sleek features - the sharp cheekbones and jaw etc. It helps give him that enigmatic vibe in La Chimera. He's got bigger ears, but honestly just straighten his curly hair and give him a shave and I don't think he'd be far off a traditional looking Bond. I doubt it'll be him, and I think other potentials are better at conveying that sense of sex appeal and natural charisma, but I don't think he'd be an out of the box choice).
Yes. I agree @LucknFate It's what I've been saying. It all depends on the direction and new vision. After Brosnan's Bond was super-suave, people found it hard to envisage Craig's face in it. But immediately CR's first teaser came out, the new direction was clear...no gadgets and all that. It's the same thing now. Because people are now used to Craig's Bond, they find it difficult to see any other actor in it, until he establishes his own style and we're are blown away, yet again and he instantly becomes the new favorite Bond of a lot of people....Lol.
Unless James Bond is Fleming's long-lost brother, I don't know what script can help him.
Anyway the next Bond movie is going to be different enough with Amazon and Villeneuve. Do we need a different actor too?
The same could be said for the flavors of the month we talked about.
They should focus on choosing the best Bond possible. You can't go wrong if you want a good Bond.
But yeah, that's what casting's all about. Finding the best actor possible. It won't only be about the auditions, but how committed/on page they are with the new creative direction, how well they'll represent the franchise publicly etc.
Yes I know "traditionally handsome" handsome is subjective.
Honestly though, there'll be people who'll complain about the next actor initially no matter what.
I'm not sure he is. If he's not playing Spider Man then every film he makes tanks.
Well, tell that to Nolan who hired him.
Not quite the same thing, he's not the lead in that.
He also hired Matt Damon for the lead, which is questionable.
It's worse, that means Nolan thinks he's a good actor. If he's good enough for Nolan, he could be good enough for Villeneuve.
The thing is, it might not seem like a silly idea to them.
I think Damon is one of the best actors working.
I didn’t criticize his acting abilities; but he’s horribly miscast in this film. This would have been a great, post Bond film for Daniel.
From an American, Damon is too quintessentially American for the role. Just my take