Who should/could be a Bond actor?

14594604624644651228

Comments

  • Posts: 6,709
    I can't help but seeing his mother every time I look at him. Sons often look like their mothers. He certainly does. Even in his acting, which isn't necessarily a bad thing either. She's brilliant. I loved Condor, and I'ma big Three days of the Condor fan, but I don't think Max is Bond material. Brilliant family of actors, though.

    7961ff93af3ea3fae05fa61a80f88d11.jpg
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,193
    One thing is clear in this thread, it's very difficult to judge an actor based solely on photographs.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Yep. That’s why I pulled up some interviews with Max Irons.
  • Posts: 6,709
    Well, I wasn’t referring to photographs. I have seen him in many productions. Same goes for all the actors mentioned.
  • edited November 2018 Posts: 17,733
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm currently watching Condor and am enjoying the series immensely. I have mentioned him previously, but Max Irons has potential. He's not father Jeremy (not by a long shot) and certainly doesn't have the same level of suave, but he does bring a credible intensity, energy and physicality, and in time as he ages I can see him maturing into an excellent choice for the role. There's a dismissive casualness to him which reminds me of early Connery - in other words, he doesn't look like he's trying. I'd say he's my number three pick at present, behind Fassbender and Hiddleston.
    AyHDmco.jpg
    QEX8n1Z.jpg

    Need to watch him in something (preferably Condor, as I'm a fan of the film), before making an opinion about him, but we certainly have had worse suggestions.

    If only I could find a streaming service to watch Condor!
  • edited November 2018 Posts: 1,661
    NicNac wrote: »
    @Pierce2Daniel why do you say that Elba is a certain $1Billion gross? His last two films tanked so where was this desperate audience when he needed them most?

    Elba needs to appeal to alot more people than a few thousand slavering women.

    I think if Elba was cast it would prove to be huge in both the UK and in the Americas.

    There is a huge amount of excitement for him in particular playing this role. He's beloved in both these regions and would post huge returns. I can see Elba topping SF's box office in both the UK and the US (though much is also dependent on a knock-out film to serve the perfect double punch).

    However, perhaps a billion gross is a tad hyperbolic. International audiences, in particular Europe and Asia don't take to ethnic leads in blockbusters.

    But I think an Idris Elba-Bond film would make more money and have a bigger impact than a fifth Daniel Craig film. From a business perspective, he would be a gamble but he would never post middling numbers. He'd either be a unmitigated hit or a pleasing success. You win both ways.

    The truth is simple.....we have never seen so much enthusiasm around one actor for this role. If Eon were to let this energy slide, they may miss a massive moment. Elba is a once in a lifetime candidate. They could be leaving A LOT of money on the table.

    I don't agree that Elba is a "once in a lifetime candidate?" And if that were the case then the other candidates must be rather ropey!

    IMHO he's just a decent, tall, black British actor. I know some people think he's suave or rugged. It's all subjective, of course, but we have to put it all into context. I don't think Elba is some legendary, great actor just unlucky not to have found his career defining film role. I think he's just another actor that deserves success if it comes his way but hardly a "once in a lifetime candidate" for Bond. With respect, that sounds a little over-the-top. I'm sure Idris would be chuffed with your comments, though. ;)
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,193
    Univex wrote: »
    Well, I wasn’t referring to photographs. I have seen him in many productions. Same goes for all the actors mentioned.

    Oh, I wasn’t referring specifically to your post, it was just a general thought.
  • Posts: 6,709
    talos7 wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Well, I wasn’t referring to photographs. I have seen him in many productions. Same goes for all the actors mentioned.

    Oh, I wasn’t referring specifically to your post, it was just a general thought.

    And a good thought it was my friend.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T.
    Posts: 7,019
    bondsum wrote: »
    I think because of his recent connections to the role of 007, @Torgeirtrap, I believe it would be a bad and a costly mistake for Elba to appear in a future Bond production in any way, shape or form, especially after this. It would create negativity where there shouldn't be any. Example: the pro-Elba-for-Bond campaign provocateurs will be whining about how Elba was shortchanged and should've been Bond, not the villain or M. It would also be a distraction from whoever was in the role as 007. Probably not the best comparison to make, but it would be the equivalent of having Cary Grant as Dr. No against Sean Connery's 007.

    This next paragraph is not directed at you @Torgeirtrap. This is solely aimed at those who use polls, awards, Rotten Tomatoes to push their own agendas or beliefs on to the rest of us. (Deep breath) I'm not interested in surveys to prove a point. Those can be faked or skewed. Without knowing anything about the demographic of the 2,086 U.S. adults that were involved, I'll take nothing from this survey that proves one thing or another. Even by their own admission, the people polled said: "they’d at least watched some of the series." That's very accurate then. When has "some" become a statistic? We're not talking an exact scientific number here to get the results. Fair-weather fans or not, who were these people? They could've all just stepped out of a K-Mart store for all we know.

    The only thing of interest that came out of this survey, that I notice was glossed over by our previous poster (not you @Torgeirtrap), was that out of the 2,086 U.S. adults polled they all preferred Sean Connery out of all the other Bond actors and showed a preference for the "old school" Bond movies over the post-millennial ones, with GF, FRWL, LALD and DAF being their own top 4 Bond movies. Even TMWTGG scores extremely high, above all Brosnan's efforts and every Craig Bond movie except CR, which only narrowly beat it. So what does that prove? Because every time I read these forums, DAF is always at the bottom of the ranking and GF is often derided as being over-rated!! So does that mean that you're all wrong on these forums and that DAF is actually one of the best Bond movies in the series? Certainly looks that way.

    Or does that suggest we choose what we want to see and believe?

    I agree with all this.
  • edited November 2018 Posts: 17,733
    bondsum wrote: »
    Definitely see your point, @bondsum. However, by the time Elba would be a candidate for any role in a Bond film (if not in Bond 25, where castings aren't known to us yet), he would be way past the age of possibly star as Bond anyway. As a villain (or M), he would still be within the right age group – as both M and several villains have been older than Bond. The question is; would Elba's presence overshadow whoever plays Bond opposite him? I don't think so. One could argue Ralph Fiennes is to high-profile to play Bond (as with Judi Dench), yet still he does.

    I think he could be a great villain, and a commanding M.
    To be honest, I don't see it ever going away. Elba could be 60 and the same deranged social media provocateurs would still insist that the producers only cast Elba because they realised their mistake in not replacing Craig with Elba when they had the momentum. Good actor or not, it would taint any future Bond movie by having Elba in a role that wasn't the leading one. Better to avoid the glass-half-full kind of situation totally and exclude the 46-year-old actor from any further association. After all, it's not paramount that Elba play either M or a villain. Personally, I think he could make a rather interesting M, but because of my previous concerns, I wouldn't go there.

    I don't think the social media provocateurs will be that crazy, demanding Elba at age 60-ish as Bond. It will go away eventually, surely. In any case, I wouldn't put money on him appearing in a Bond film though.
    bondsum wrote: »
    Interesting point re. preference in Bond films. I think the reason that many here have DAF low in their rankings (not me!), and finding GF overrated – in contrast to the "general audience", is the way we pick these movies apart, discuss their strengths and weaknesses. etc. The regular moviegoer doesn't do that.
    I agree. My guess is that some of the members here over-think it and over-indulge in watching too many Bond movies to the point where they can no longer enjoy a movie and take it for what it is. Which is why our own polls here don't prove anything, they're just a bit of harmless nonsense. Either way, the 2,086 U.S. adults polled in the aforementioned article still isn't a large enough figure to draw any satisfying conclusion from. By their reckoning, DAF is considered one of the best Bond movies of the entire series. Now I don't know what the actual figure is for people having seen a James Bond film but it's been estimated that half the world's population has at least seen a Bond movie at some point in their lifetime. Doesn't matter whether this is true or not. Even if it's lower or higher, that still means that 2,086 U.S. adults polled is a paltry amount to base any overall opinion on. In other words, I'm sure had more than 2,086 people been polled, the results would be entirely different.

    2,086 people certainly isn't much to go by. It's an odd number too; why not 3000? 4000? 5000? I do think we over-analyze the films sometimes; it can be really fun, of course – but there's always the chance of focusing too much on the negatives. For my own part, I try to rank the films by entertainment factor more than anything. It's why DAF will never be a bottom film for me; it's too fun and entertaining not to be. It's also why I have my issues with the Craig era, as the films (particularly the last two) didn't entertain me. They're to dreary to interest me.
  • edited November 2018 Posts: 3,333
    Being a huge, huge fan of Three Days of the Condor (1975) I watched the first episode of Condor and it didn't instantly grab me. Didn't feel invested enough to go any further as it didn't feel remotely anything like the movie. From little I saw of it, I assumed Leem Lubany has taken the part played by Max von Sydow as the deadly assassin, which is another gender reassignment role. I can't speak for Max Irons as he didn't really standout to me. Now that I know he's the son of Jeremy, I just see another overprivileged son of a wealthy man. No different to Hiddleston or Cavill. Personally, I want someone with true grit that doesn't look like they've had a spoiled-rotten upbringing. I've covered this before when I mentioned actors from a working-class background vs privileged silver-spooners. Connery, Moore, Lazenby, Dalton, Brosnan, Craig were all from working class stock, which is why they're not too effete and overrefined. Call me old fashioned, but I want the next actor to be a real bloke.
  • edited November 2018 Posts: 3,333
    I don't think the social media provocateurs will be that crazy, demanding Elba at age 60-ish as Bond. It will go away eventually, surely. In any case, I wouldn't put money on him appearing in a Bond film though.
    I taken nothing for granted where these nut jobs are concerned, but at 60, Elba might not be in the rudest of health. We don't honestly know. I just think by then, they'll be plenty more candidates for the role of villain or M.

    Also, I know where you're coming from @Torgeirtrap with regards to the last 2 Bond movies. I too thought they were pretty dreary. I'd much rather watch DAF over SF and SP any day.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,193
    Lol, I think there are some misconceptions about what it means to be 60 in this day and age. Elba is obviously fit and would make a great Bond Ally, villain or M
  • Posts: 17,733
    bondsum wrote: »
    I don't think the social media provocateurs will be that crazy, demanding Elba at age 60-ish as Bond. It will go away eventually, surely. In any case, I wouldn't put money on him appearing in a Bond film though.
    I taken nothing for granted where these nut jobs are concerned, but at 60, Elba might not be in the rudest of health. We don't honestly know. I just think by then, they'll be plenty more candidates for the role of villain or M.

    We'll know in some years what the media provocateurs think, I guess!
    bondsum wrote: »
    Also, I know where you're coming from @Torgeirtrap with regards to the last 2 Bond movies. I too thought they were pretty dreary. I'd much rather watch DAF over SF and SP any day.

    Wouldn't surprise me if many regular movie goers feel the same. My friends - who are regular movie goers, dislike the Craig era, finding the later films "boring" or "too dark".
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2018 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm currently watching Condor and am enjoying the series immensely. I have mentioned him previously, but Max Irons has potential. He's not father Jeremy (not by a long shot) and certainly doesn't have the same level of suave, but he does bring a credible intensity, energy and physicality, and in time as he ages I can see him maturing into an excellent choice for the role. There's a dismissive casualness to him which reminds me of early Connery - in other words, he doesn't look like he's trying. I'd say he's my number three pick at present, behind Fassbender and Hiddleston.
    AyHDmco.jpg
    QEX8n1Z.jpg

    Need to watch him in something (preferably Condor, as I'm a fan of the film), before making an opinion about him, but we certainly have had worse suggestions.

    If only I could find a streaming service to watch Condor!
    If you do manage to find a way to view it, please check all expectations at the door, particularly if you're a fan of the original film like I am. This is quite different, and of course changes have been made to extend a film out to a series season. It does suffer from the usual (these days) gender and race balancing, but I don't find it particularly offensive. I'm actually finding it quite entertaining at the moment.

    Regarding Irons, he hasn't (so far at least) appeared in a suit or dinner jacket, and his attire is generally that of a regular bloke. While he may not give off obvious Bond vibes as a result, the guy is comfortable in his skin, and has a certain confidence combined with height and a good build (he looks fit, but doesn't appear too sinewy as though he's a gym nut like certain people). I think he's got something, but he does appear youngish. In time and with a few lines on his face, I can see him as Bond.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,193
    I've gone to YouTube. and watched several trailer and interviews with Irons; admittedly, that is not a full performance, but I don't see any that even whispers Bond. He's tall and has a good voice but, to me, looks more like Daniel Radcliffe's older, taller brother than James Bond.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2018 Posts: 23,883
    talos7 wrote: »
    I've gone to YouTube. and watched several trailer and interviews with Irons; admittedly, that is not a full performance, but I don't see any that even whispers Bond. He's tall and has a good voice but, to me, looks more like Daniel Radcliffe's older, taller brother than James Bond.
    That was my impression of him after seeing him in the Christie Crooked House adaptation last year. I basically wrote him off. However, after seeing him in Condor, just after watching the much touted Madden in Bodyguard, I'd far prefer Irons personally. As I said there is potential, but he has the grow into it.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,193
    I would absolutely love to be a fly on the wall of the EON offices to observe the entire process of selecting a new 007.
  • Posts: 15,086
    talos7 wrote: »
    One thing is clear in this thread, it's very difficult to judge an actor based solely on photographs.

    Indeed. I'm curious about Max Irons, but I find him foppish on the pictures here.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I personally like Madden a lot. And Dan Stevens. Watching Irons in a few interviews I found him instantly likeable, intelligent, articulate and handsome. I’d need to see him act in something, but he’s got quite a strong personality.

    Do I think any of these guys have a chance at Bond? Not at all.
  • edited November 2018 Posts: 17,733
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm currently watching Condor and am enjoying the series immensely. I have mentioned him previously, but Max Irons has potential. He's not father Jeremy (not by a long shot) and certainly doesn't have the same level of suave, but he does bring a credible intensity, energy and physicality, and in time as he ages I can see him maturing into an excellent choice for the role. There's a dismissive casualness to him which reminds me of early Connery - in other words, he doesn't look like he's trying. I'd say he's my number three pick at present, behind Fassbender and Hiddleston.
    AyHDmco.jpg
    QEX8n1Z.jpg

    Need to watch him in something (preferably Condor, as I'm a fan of the film), before making an opinion about him, but we certainly have had worse suggestions.

    If only I could find a streaming service to watch Condor!
    If you do manage to find a way to view it, please check all expectations at the door, particularly if you're a fan of the original film like I am. This is quite different, and of course changes have been made to extend a film out to a series season. It does suffer from the usual (these days) gender and race balancing, but I don't find it particularly offensive. I'm actually finding it quite entertaining at the moment.

    Regarding Irons, he hasn't (so far at least) appeared in a suit or dinner jacket, and his attire is generally that of a regular bloke. While he may not give off obvious Bond vibes as a result, the guy is comfortable in his skin, and has a certain confidence combined with height and a good build (he looks fit, but doesn't appear too sinewy as though he's a gym nut like certain people). I think he's got something, but he does appear youngish. In time and with a few lines on his face, I can see him as Bond.

    Oh, I'll definitely leave my expectations low. Films or TV shows based on on popular titles rarely works out well (or as one hopes to), but it's easy to be curious given that it's Three Days of the Condor. One of the exceptions IMO is Endeavour, the brilliant ITV series about a young Inspector Morse (the name of the character and popular detective TV series).

    I've only seen the trailer of Condor, and Irons certainly looks youngish there. But – as you write - a few lines in the face can do much difference. At the same time I can definitely see @bondsum's point about actors from privilege. The working-class actors/actresses definitely have something about them that many, more privileged ones lack.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm currently watching Condor and am enjoying the series immensely. I have mentioned him previously, but Max Irons has potential. He's not father Jeremy (not by a long shot) and certainly doesn't have the same level of suave, but he does bring a credible intensity, energy and physicality, and in time as he ages I can see him maturing into an excellent choice for the role. There's a dismissive casualness to him which reminds me of early Connery - in other words, he doesn't look like he's trying. I'd say he's my number three pick at present, behind Fassbender and Hiddleston.
    AyHDmco.jpg
    QEX8n1Z.jpg

    Need to watch him in something (preferably Condor, as I'm a fan of the film), before making an opinion about him, but we certainly have had worse suggestions.

    If only I could find a streaming service to watch Condor!
    If you do manage to find a way to view it, please check all expectations at the door, particularly if you're a fan of the original film like I am. This is quite different, and of course changes have been made to extend a film out to a series season. It does suffer from the usual (these days) gender and race balancing, but I don't find it particularly offensive. I'm actually finding it quite entertaining at the moment.

    Regarding Irons, he hasn't (so far at least) appeared in a suit or dinner jacket, and his attire is generally that of a regular bloke. While he may not give off obvious Bond vibes as a result, the guy is comfortable in his skin, and has a certain confidence combined with height and a good build (he looks fit, but doesn't appear too sinewy as though he's a gym nut like certain people). I think he's got something, but he does appear youngish. In time and with a few lines on his face, I can see him as Bond.

    Oh, I'll definitely leave my expectations low. Films or TV shows based on on popular titles rarely works out well (or as one hopes to), but it's easy to be curious given that it's Three Days of the Condor. One of the exceptions IMO is Endeavour, the brilliant ITV series about a young Inspector Morse (the name of the character and popular detective TV series).

    I've only seen the trailer of Condor, and he certainly looks youngish there. But – as you write - a few lines in the face can do much difference. At the same time I can definitely see @bondsum's point about actors from privilege. The working-class actors/actresses definitely have something about them that many, more privileged ones lack.

    James Bond has benefited from actors who have had “working class backgrounds” since it built their character and gave them personality; perhaps it even gave them a survivor’s instinct that suits James Bond.

    On top of that, I’m more drawn to a very masculine and physical actor as James Bond. Sean Connery and Daniel Craig best exemplifies these traits for me (GL as well, but his one film, with all of his natural strengths, also revealed some natural weaknesses as an actor; doesn’t allow me to put him on my best list).
  • edited November 2018 Posts: 17,733
    peter wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm currently watching Condor and am enjoying the series immensely. I have mentioned him previously, but Max Irons has potential. He's not father Jeremy (not by a long shot) and certainly doesn't have the same level of suave, but he does bring a credible intensity, energy and physicality, and in time as he ages I can see him maturing into an excellent choice for the role. There's a dismissive casualness to him which reminds me of early Connery - in other words, he doesn't look like he's trying. I'd say he's my number three pick at present, behind Fassbender and Hiddleston.
    AyHDmco.jpg
    QEX8n1Z.jpg

    Need to watch him in something (preferably Condor, as I'm a fan of the film), before making an opinion about him, but we certainly have had worse suggestions.

    If only I could find a streaming service to watch Condor!
    If you do manage to find a way to view it, please check all expectations at the door, particularly if you're a fan of the original film like I am. This is quite different, and of course changes have been made to extend a film out to a series season. It does suffer from the usual (these days) gender and race balancing, but I don't find it particularly offensive. I'm actually finding it quite entertaining at the moment.

    Regarding Irons, he hasn't (so far at least) appeared in a suit or dinner jacket, and his attire is generally that of a regular bloke. While he may not give off obvious Bond vibes as a result, the guy is comfortable in his skin, and has a certain confidence combined with height and a good build (he looks fit, but doesn't appear too sinewy as though he's a gym nut like certain people). I think he's got something, but he does appear youngish. In time and with a few lines on his face, I can see him as Bond.

    Oh, I'll definitely leave my expectations low. Films or TV shows based on on popular titles rarely works out well (or as one hopes to), but it's easy to be curious given that it's Three Days of the Condor. One of the exceptions IMO is Endeavour, the brilliant ITV series about a young Inspector Morse (the name of the character and popular detective TV series).

    I've only seen the trailer of Condor, and he certainly looks youngish there. But – as you write - a few lines in the face can do much difference. At the same time I can definitely see @bondsum's point about actors from privilege. The working-class actors/actresses definitely have something about them that many, more privileged ones lack.

    James Bond has benefited from actors who have had “working class backgrounds” since it built their character and gave them personality; perhaps it even gave them a survivor’s instinct that suits James Bond.

    On top of that, I’m more drawn to a very masculine and physical actor as James Bond. Sean Connery and Daniel Craig best exemplifies these traits for me (GL as well, but his one film, with all of his natural strengths, also revealed some natural weaknesses as an actor; doesn’t allow me to put him on my best list).

    Good points, @peter. I mentioned this earlier, but how is the industry these days? It seems every time I look up an actor or actress on Wikipedia, they seem to come from privileged backgrounds, or at least middle-class-y backgrounds.

    Coincidence, or is at a case that (trained) actors are more likely to be able to attend acting schools – and from there make a career in film and TV?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Good question @Torgeirtrap ... Elite schools of training have always been expensive to get in to (so, I'm not sure if Roger Moore got a scholarship of some kind to attend RADA?), and they've always been around.

    There are cheaper ways of acting training, at colleges and acting studios around the world.

    So, I'm not sure of the answer other than to make a wildly speculative guess: film is a visual medium, and in some cases a very superficial one.

    I sat in on some professional casting sessions a few years ago. We were working with one of the industry's best female casting director.

    She presented the director with a list of headshots of actresses for the leading role. And she described each in very terse descriptives, as if they were well tended hunks of meat (she also had a remarkable memory of the credits each had).

    So, to get back to your question: privileged people tend to play in their own sandbox (generalizing). They also don't usually marry someone who may not be a similar mirror image to themselves. Their off-spring will likely have wonderful genes.

    And, since the film industry is, at times, very superficial, these beautiful people are sought after en masse. That's why we always have flavours of the month...

  • Posts: 6,709
    talos7 wrote: »
    I've gone to YouTube. and watched several trailer and interviews with Irons; admittedly, that is not a full performance, but I don't see any that even whispers Bond. He's tall and has a good voice but, to me, looks more like Daniel Radcliffe's older, taller brother than James Bond.

    Yep, my opinion, exactly. Probably a better actor than Radcliff, though.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,193
    Indeed, he does appear to be a solid actor.
  • Posts: 17,733
    peter wrote: »
    Good question @Torgeirtrap ... Elite schools of training have always been expensive to get in to (so, I'm not sure if Roger Moore got a scholarship of some kind to attend RADA?), and they've always been around.

    There are cheaper ways of acting training, at colleges and acting studios around the world.

    So, I'm not sure of the answer other than to make a wildly speculative guess: film is a visual medium, and in some cases a very superficial one.

    I sat in on some professional casting sessions a few years ago. We were working with one of the industry's best female casting director.

    She presented the director with a list of headshots of actresses for the leading role. And she described each in very terse descriptives, as if they were well tended hunks of meat (she also had a remarkable memory of the credits each had).

    So, to get back to your question: privileged people tend to play in their own sandbox (generalizing). They also don't usually marry someone who may not be a similar mirror image to themselves. Their off-spring will likely have wonderful genes.

    And, since the film industry is, at times, very superficial, these beautiful people are sought after en masse. That's why we always have flavours of the month...

    Good points, @peter – these might certainly be the reasons that the names I've looked up on Wikipedia happen to come from these backgrounds. It's very noticeable I think, once you spot them. In interviews, in films; they can't shake the "social standing" off them, even in acting parts. We certainly can't have a Bond that feels "privileged". He needs to have that certain edginess. Not "street" of course, but you know what I mean.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    yes @Torgeirtrap , @ColonelSun and I had a conversation one day where we identified Bond, not as a snob, but an outsider who steals into these peoples lives to take their money and their married woman.

    He is not one of them, at all.

    He's a blunt instrument with a hedonistic streak. Or as Mathis says to him in CR:

    “Surround yourself with human beings, my dear James. They are easier to fight for than principles.'

    He laughed. 'But don't let me down and become human yourself. We would lose such a wonderful machine.”
  • edited November 2018 Posts: 17,733
    peter wrote: »
    yes @Torgeirtrap , @ColonelSun and I had a conversation one day where we identified Bond, not as a snob, but an outsider who steals into these peoples lives to take their money and their married woman.

    Haha, that's a good way to put it, @peter! You and @ColonelSun are spot on there. Makes me think of Solange, Dimitrios's wife in CR. Craig was great there; and you need an actor that can sell that mischievousness or whatever one might call it. No wonder they use the FRWL seduction scene for the screen tests.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Absolutely @Torgeirtrap , that wonderful scene that they use with Tatiana is the true test. Someone may look the part, but can they deliver? I can't imagine many can sell that scene-- it's everything that Bond is.
Sign In or Register to comment.