› ›

Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1…131713181319132013211323»

Comments

  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 679
    007HallY wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Another old tactic to make a case against an actor someone doesn’t favor; I’ve probably used it. Lol.
    Find the least flattering , or appropriate, photo that actor has ever taken.

    I think those photos are quite flattering personally! Not Bondian, but neither are Moore's photos as a sweater model early in his career. I think it's fair to say Patridge isn't exactly a rugged looking guy though, at least as of now. Again, that's fine insofar as there's any indication from his performances that he has something Bondian about him... unfortunately I just don't see that, and he's not exactly a stand out in this Guinness show from what I saw. I just don't see much hint of a commanding screen presence as of now, although he's very accomplished, talented, and has a career ahead of him hopefully. I'd be interested in seeing him in 12 years as a potential. Genuinely think he could be a good Robin now though. But as of now there's that distinct lack of gravitas.
    MSL49 wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    sandbagger1 wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    MSL49 wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I mean, he was fine I guess in the Argylle post credits... I'm not sure he really screamed Bond though.... same for Enola Holmes.

    Honestly, the boy's so young I think it's impossible to tell if there's any Bond potential there. I personally find him a bit feminine/androgynous looking (he's a good looking kid, but I think that element is something he leans into and is part of his appeal. It's no slight against how he comes off onscreen or how he could look when he's older - but again, it doesn't scream Bond to me right now, and it's all part of that sense he's simply way too young, or potentially really not right for the role anyway). He's a good actor and I'm sure he has great stuff ahead. That said I don't think he's even comparable to Henry Cavill when he was in his early 20s. And no, I certainly wouldn't say from what I've seen he's a better actor, nor does he have a more commanding screen presence than Harris Dickinson (I can understand having reservations about Dickinson as Bond or thinking he doesn't quite have the right qualities for the character, but the guy is genuinely a magnetic actor, and I'd say he made much more impact onscreen when he was Partridge's age - Beach Rats, Postcards From London etc).

    How would you describe Cavill in his early 20s?

    Much more stereotypically masculine than Partidge, regardless of what I think of him as an actor ;)
    talos7 wrote: »
    I hope Elordi and Harris both join Clive Owen on the list of “ sure thing “ potential Bonds who are never cast.

    Honestly, there's a good chance both are unlikely to get the role. It's not an issue of fate or the most discussed person destined not to get the role. It's just that there are so many possibilities.

    I remember seeing Cavill in The Count of Monte Cristo and I Capture the Castle and being surprised to hear he had been in the running for Superman (the one he didn’t get). He just seemed too boyish and wimpy. I wouldn’t have said Partridge, from what little I’ve seen of him (Enola Holmes), appears less masculine, imo.

    Really?

    RP-BRITISHVOGUE-LOUP-12324-1.jpg

    26ca5e4f3c88ab0e9854a06eb37b52fa.jpg

    He reminds me a bit of a young Jamie Campbell Bower, both looks and performance wise (Bower's another good looking guy incidentally and not a bad actor, but definitely has a 'prettiness' to him, and I'm not sure he was ever going to be in the running for Bond. Also very much in the realm of 'character actor' rather than 'star'. I'd say the same about the appearance of, say, a young Johnny Depp or Leonardo DiCaprio, although Partidge isn't anywhere near as good an actor and both those actors were big even then).

    Incidentally I don't necessarily mind if the actor isn't as rugged as someone like Connery or Craig, or even if they have that softer element to their good looks, especially at a younger age. But they really have to show in some way through their performances that they're able to convey 'Bond' (I was actually interested in Tom Hughes at one point after seeing him in a show called The Game where I thought he was very Bondian, and I'd say he also has that quality to his looks, but has something quite interesting/enigmatic about him. I have yet to be really impressed by something Patridge has been in, let alone see anything that could be 'Bond').

    I've not seen Count of Monte Cristo in a while, and I'm going to guess I did so with hindsight about Cavill. From what I remember the role required him to be quite boyish (if that's the right description, and he was very young), but he had a noticeable steeliness to him that came through.

    I can see young Bond in those pictures.

    I can see a bit of Timothy Dalton with the cleft chin and black hair, but (at least going from his performances) without as much of the broodiness or steeliness.

    It comes down to performance for me rather than entirely on looks (yes, they do matter, but an actor is always a full impression, not just a snapshot).

    I see little bit of Henry Cavill, agreed performance is important too.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 679
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    If it were a James Gunn movie, an unknown and inexperienced guy might work, but this is a Villeneuve movie looking for some prestige. They'll sign the best young actor they can find.

    Best part in that is out there is lot of young actors.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited 12:37pm Posts: 19,244
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    It's sort of the Fast and Furious-ification of Bond, to think of him as someone no one could physically outmatch.

    To me the appealing factor about Bond isn't his raw strength, Roger Moore was outmatched for power in most of his films. It's his British sophistication and how he uses his resourcefulness to outsmart the henchman that makes him special.

    I personally think Bond should be a capable fighter, but not a fighting/killing machine like, say, Grant, Oddjob, Hinx, Jaws, or whatever goon they throw at him. He can take most people, but not all people. Like he should be smart, but the main villain should be fighter. Ironically, although he wasn't the most credible or menacing fighter, I always thought they generally depicted Moore Bond as at least competent. It's Dalton who for some reason frustratingly came off as somewhat inept, even though he looked more dangerous than his predecessor. Maybe it's just me, but looking at Moore I always thought he may seem like a bit of a dandy, but he's skilled. And when Moore wears an army or Navy uniform, whether in a Bond movie or not, it suits him, if that makes sense. It's not merely elegance: he knows the world of violence that comes with wearing the uniform.

    Yeah I'd agree there, Dalton looked good but seemed a bit awkward in the fights, I didn't really buy him. Brosnan was a bit better at it, and Roger wasn't amazing, but not bad really- he sold it enough.
    Connery's good, but the winners of the fighting fight would be Lazenby and Craig for me, they properly go for it.
    007HallY wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    It's sort of the Fast and Furious-ification of Bond, to think of him as someone no one could physically outmatch.

    To me the appealing factor about Bond isn't his raw strength, Roger Moore was outmatched for power in most of his films. It's his British sophistication and how he uses his resourcefulness to outsmart the henchman that makes him special.

    I personally think Bond should be a capable fighter, but not a fighting/killing machine like, say, Grant, Oddjob, Hinx, Jaws, or whatever goon they throw at him. He can take most people, but not all people. Like he should be smart, but the main villain should be fighter. Ironically, although he wasn't the most credible or menacing fighter, I always thought they generally depicted Moore Bond as at least competent. It's Dalton who for some reason frustratingly came off as somewhat inept, even though he looked more dangerous than his predecessor. Maybe it's just me, but looking at Moore I always thought he may seem like a bit of a dandy, but he's skilled. And when Moore wears an army or Navy uniform, whether in a Bond movie or not, it suits him, if that makes sense. It's not merely elegance: he knows the world of violence that comes with wearing the uniform.

    I actually agree and would say Moore in his earlier years as Bond wasn't an unconvincing onscreen fighter (sure, he didn't have Connery's physicality - I think he just simply wasn't as athletic - but he'd clearly done a fair few onscreen fights in his tv work, so there's this sense he's at least confident. I actually really like the dressing room brawl in TMWTGG).

    I always think it's funny that although he perhaps wasn't the most convincing fighter of the Bonds, he probably had at least double the amount of screen fights the other Bonds did put together!

    I think the fight in Octopussy's boudoir is a highlight too, he does pretty well in that.
    talos7 wrote: »
    I'm a huge Dalton fan , but he was surprisingly thin, as was Brosnan in Goldeneye.

    Yeah, I often think Lazenby was surprisingly gangly too, his physique in OHMSS is almost teenagery.
    Craig is not a million miles off that in Layer Cake: he's very fit but in quite a slim way. Then for Bond he really put the mass on, it's quite a change.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    edited 1:32pm Posts: 2,686
    For me it’s less about the size of the actor and more about the fight choreography. In Boxing (unless you’re aiming for heavyweight level) you don’t necessarily want to add too much mass as that can affect the speed and effectiveness of the punches you throw - you can have a slight frame yet still deliver powerful jabs, crosses, hooks, and uppercuts because of your footwork, and stance. It’s like that with other Martial Arts as well - that’s why there is that old saying “Size doesn’t matter in fights as much as skill.”

    So the size and the physicality of the actors aren’t as important to me as other factors. I actually thought Brosnan in Goldeneye is a perfect example. Yeah he’s not some physical beast like Connery, Lazenby, or Craig - but the way in which those fight scenes are choreographed and edited made him look every bit as dangerous.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan
    edited 1:02pm Posts: 832
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah, I often think Lazenby was surprisingly gangly too, his physique in OHMSS is almost teenagery.
    Craig is not a million miles off that in Layer Cake: he's very fit but in quite a slim way. Then for Bond he really put the mass on, it's quite a change.

    I'd say that applies to Connery in DN too (although Connery had a much bigger frame). I think that's the sort of physique Bond should have.
  • dewiparrydewiparry
    Posts: 271
    Long brawls can weaken him. Other than subduing enemies quickly, a 50/50 close-quartered tussle can give some tense dramatic fighting.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    edited 1:51pm Posts: 2,424
    The next Bond will go to the gym, whoever it is.
    We're in the 21st century; we have to believe he's an elite agent, not a suit salesman.
  • dewiparrydewiparry
    Posts: 271
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    The next Bond will go to the gym, whoever it is.
    We're in the 21st century; we have to believe he's an elite agent, not a suit salesman.

    Definitely. Get them traps and shoulders imposing, just like Craig. You know these days actors even lift dumbbells between takes.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 9,227
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    The next Bond will go to the gym, whoever it is.
    We're in the 21st century; we have to believe he's an elite agent, not a suit salesman.

    It's sort of the point of Bond that he isn't in elite physical shape. That's more Stallone/Arnold territory, or more recently Vin/Dwayne. If that's what you're after, there's plenty of it, fill your boots.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 19,244
    I dunno, is that the point? I think it's fine if he's fit, I don't think he's ever going to be The Rock and that's fine.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 16,144
    007HallY wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    It's sort of the Fast and Furious-ification of Bond, to think of him as someone no one could physically outmatch.

    To me the appealing factor about Bond isn't his raw strength, Roger Moore was outmatched for power in most of his films. It's his British sophistication and how he uses his resourcefulness to outsmart the henchman that makes him special.

    I personally think Bond should be a capable fighter, but not a fighting/killing machine like, say, Grant, Oddjob, Hinx, Jaws, or whatever goon they throw at him. He can take most people, but not all people. Like he should be smart, but the main villain should be fighter. Ironically, although he wasn't the most credible or menacing fighter, I always thought they generally depicted Moore Bond as at least competent. It's Dalton who for some reason frustratingly came off as somewhat inept, even though he looked more dangerous than his predecessor. Maybe it's just me, but looking at Moore I always thought he may seem like a bit of a dandy, but he's skilled. And when Moore wears an army or Navy uniform, whether in a Bond movie or not, it suits him, if that makes sense. It's not merely elegance: he knows the world of violence that comes with wearing the uniform.

    I actually agree and would say Moore in his earlier years as Bond wasn't an unconvincing onscreen fighter (sure, he didn't have Connery's physicality - I think he just simply wasn't as athletic - but he'd clearly done a fair few onscreen fights in his tv work, so there's this sense he's at least confident. I actually really like the dressing room brawl in TMWTGG). I think in hindsight yes, Dalton's strengths as Bond wasn't necessarily his physicality

    I'd personally like for Bond to look like he can throw a punch. He doesn't have to be a hulk of a man (usually the henchmen are, and it's actually more gripping if Bond is the underdog in a fight) and I think a lot of it will come from the actor's ability to convey that harder edge in their own way. But they'll obviously prepare to look lean and fit, and they'll have to work with choreographers to put in a convincing fight scene.

    Yes, in his earlier years Moore came off as capable and confident. Even in later films, he may never have looked really menacing, but I never doubted his Bond's competence.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 2,424
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    The next Bond will go to the gym, whoever it is.
    We're in the 21st century; we have to believe he's an elite agent, not a suit salesman.

    It's sort of the point of Bond that he isn't in elite physical shape. That's more Stallone/Arnold territory, or more recently Vin/Dwayne. If that's what you're after, there's plenty of it, fill your boots.

    That's not exactly true; Connery was a bodybuilder. In any case, no one asks for the Rock's physique. I'm talking about looking like a man of action.

    All actors go to the gym, even when they play accountants. It's not too much to ask for Bond to look like he can do what he does.
Sign In or Register to comment.