› ›

Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1…473474476478479…1193

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    peter wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Apologies to all Hiddleston fans. He's an actor I find very hard to like, admittedly, so putting him in the same sentence with Roger Moore, hurts my eyes and my brain when I process any remote comparisons between these two actors.

    In the end, Roger Moore was so incredibly special (and this is from someone who rates him third/sometimes fourth of the Bond actors), that there is no Second Coming of Moore (even more so with Connery); not even close.

    So a Hiddleston, to me, is far more effective if he would be cast in something more theatrical-- for example, I could see him playing an amazing and twisted Joker.

    Just keep him away from James Bond (and the Saint).
    No need to apologize. We're all entitled to disliking someone and your views on Hiddleston are well known.

    I agree that there is no second coming of Moore, and especially not Connery. Nobody has suggested that. Those two are acknowledged greats in the Bond pantheon.

    All there is are actors who can evoke certain elements of those two benchmarks. I'm of the view that Hiddleston skews towards the Moore type, and he is definitely one of the acknowledged Bond contenders for #007.

    I didn't know my views on Hiddleston was well known. Yet I still will apologize. Since others see something in him that I'm too biased to enjoy-- as James Bond. And I don't take enjoyment in ever thinking an opinion would upset another (which can happen on this site). I'm obviously not right in my evaluation; I'm only right for me, and I always want to make that clear.

    Saying Hiddleston skews to the Moore type, I'd agree, if we were saying a sub-level Moore type. The guy could never pull off anything Moore did in his tenure, nor come close. I think most would say he's a poor man's Moore.

    I could be wrong there, too.

    That's saying mo(o)re about Moore, than Hiddleston, btw.
    He's an excellent actor with a lot of range that has been acknowledged. However, if he's not for you then he's not for you.

    I'm not sure if he'd be right for Bond, but as I mentioned in an earlier post, none of the contenders is perfect. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, as does the current Bond. I can certainly see him being good for a certain type or style of Bond film.

    RE: your views on Hiddleston being well known; you've expressed your dislike quite a few times on this thread in no uncertain terms so I assume those who follow the thread know that you have strong negative feelings about him. You're certainly not alone in that opinion though. There are members here who don't like him.

    Once again, someone being an excellent actor (outside of the giants that broke the mold (Olivier, Brando, Dean, early/young Pacino and De Niro to name a few on the Western front), I think is subjective @bondjames.

    I don't think Hiddleston is Steven Segal (sp?), by any means. Nor do I find him "an excellent actor"; I just find him too stagey and one dimensional for my tastes. I honestly think he could make a very good Joker, though.

    Re: my views: I don't think that what I say will be remembered thirty seconds after I post-- I'm a little humble in this matter.

    I just assumed that after 4000 comments (wow, that's a lot of free time, lol), that ten or so comments on Hiddleston wouldn't actually be heard, and certainly not remembered, lol!
    You're probably right. It's the intensity of your feelings towards him as expressed in your posts that I picked up on in this thread, but you're right that I shouldn't speak for others who may not have noticed it. I always find it interesting when I detect that someone has strong feelings about someone or something, and so it tends to stay with me. As I said, if he's not for you, then he's not for you.

    Of course everything is subjective when it comes to assessing art and film. That goes without saying, or at least it should. He is respected in the industry for his acting skills as far as I'm aware (based on theatrical awards and nominations) but I wouldn't begin to put him up there with the names you mentioned above.

    You're an intuitive guy, @bondjames , and I've already told you that you're a very strong writer. However, any intense feelings I have about Hiddles, may've been incorrectly assessed this time. I hardly give this guy a second thought until I hear people consider him Bond material. Even then, I tend to hold back more often than not. I honestly just don't like him as an actor-- awards or not (Halle Berry won a best actress, but I don't consider her an exceptional actress by any means). He's certainly not for me, in certain roles, but I'm not intense about my dislike (as I am intense about certain other things, lol).
    Glad to read that. Well, intuitiveness can lead one astray as it is instinct more than anything. Such is evidently the case here so I'm glad you clarified. Mea culpa.

    As I think he's a compelling actor and screen presence, I hope he does something outside of the villain space in the future which impresses you.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,505
    bondjames wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Apologies to all Hiddleston fans. He's an actor I find very hard to like, admittedly, so putting him in the same sentence with Roger Moore, hurts my eyes and my brain when I process any remote comparisons between these two actors.

    In the end, Roger Moore was so incredibly special (and this is from someone who rates him third/sometimes fourth of the Bond actors), that there is no Second Coming of Moore (even more so with Connery); not even close.

    So a Hiddleston, to me, is far more effective if he would be cast in something more theatrical-- for example, I could see him playing an amazing and twisted Joker.

    Just keep him away from James Bond (and the Saint).
    No need to apologize. We're all entitled to disliking someone and your views on Hiddleston are well known.

    I agree that there is no second coming of Moore, and especially not Connery. Nobody has suggested that. Those two are acknowledged greats in the Bond pantheon.

    All there is are actors who can evoke certain elements of those two benchmarks. I'm of the view that Hiddleston skews towards the Moore type, and he is definitely one of the acknowledged Bond contenders for #007.

    I didn't know my views on Hiddleston was well known. Yet I still will apologize. Since others see something in him that I'm too biased to enjoy-- as James Bond. And I don't take enjoyment in ever thinking an opinion would upset another (which can happen on this site). I'm obviously not right in my evaluation; I'm only right for me, and I always want to make that clear.

    Saying Hiddleston skews to the Moore type, I'd agree, if we were saying a sub-level Moore type. The guy could never pull off anything Moore did in his tenure, nor come close. I think most would say he's a poor man's Moore.

    I could be wrong there, too.

    That's saying mo(o)re about Moore, than Hiddleston, btw.
    He's an excellent actor with a lot of range that has been acknowledged. However, if he's not for you then he's not for you.

    I'm not sure if he'd be right for Bond, but as I mentioned in an earlier post, none of the contenders is perfect. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, as does the current Bond. I can certainly see him being good for a certain type or style of Bond film.

    RE: your views on Hiddleston being well known; you've expressed your dislike quite a few times on this thread in no uncertain terms so I assume those who follow the thread know that you have strong negative feelings about him. You're certainly not alone in that opinion though. There are members here who don't like him.

    Once again, someone being an excellent actor (outside of the giants that broke the mold (Olivier, Brando, Dean, early/young Pacino and De Niro to name a few on the Western front), I think is subjective @bondjames.

    I don't think Hiddleston is Steven Segal (sp?), by any means. Nor do I find him "an excellent actor"; I just find him too stagey and one dimensional for my tastes. I honestly think he could make a very good Joker, though.

    Re: my views: I don't think that what I say will be remembered thirty seconds after I post-- I'm a little humble in this matter.

    I just assumed that after 4000 comments (wow, that's a lot of free time, lol), that ten or so comments on Hiddleston wouldn't actually be heard, and certainly not remembered, lol!
    You're probably right. It's the intensity of your feelings towards him as expressed in your posts that I picked up on in this thread, but you're right that I shouldn't speak for others who may not have noticed it. I always find it interesting when I detect that someone has strong feelings about someone or something, and so it tends to stay with me. As I said, if he's not for you, then he's not for you.

    Of course everything is subjective when it comes to assessing art and film. That goes without saying, or at least it should. He is respected in the industry for his acting skills as far as I'm aware (based on theatrical awards and nominations) but I wouldn't begin to put him up there with the names you mentioned above.

    You're an intuitive guy, @bondjames , and I've already told you that you're a very strong writer. However, any intense feelings I have about Hiddles, may've been incorrectly assessed this time. I hardly give this guy a second thought until I hear people consider him Bond material. Even then, I tend to hold back more often than not. I honestly just don't like him as an actor-- awards or not (Halle Berry won a best actress, but I don't consider her an exceptional actress by any means). He's certainly not for me, in certain roles, but I'm not intense about my dislike (as I am intense about certain other things, lol).
    Glad to read that. Well, intuitiveness can lead one astray as it is instinct more than anything. Such is evidently the case here so I'm glad you clarified. Mea culpa.

    As I think he's a compelling actor and screen presence, I hope he does something outside of the villain space in the future which impresses you.

    I hope so too! I never liked Jake Gyllenhaal for exactly the reasons I have a dislike for Hiddleston.

    But then Prisoners came about and I became a fan.

    The same with Gosling-- until Into The Pines.

    So i'm always open to an actor wowing me and proving me wrong-- in some cases, very wrong...
  • TFC1TFC1
    Posts: 37
    I was watching the Branagh adaption of Murder on the Orient Express again over Christmas and thought that Tom Bateman might be an option on a couple of years. Certainly has the height / look I think and at 29 has a few years to grow into the part.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,980
    Possibly, but based only on photos, he’s another who’s appearance of masculinity is strongly tied to a beard.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Wouldn't be a bad choice.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    Don't know much about him?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    He didn't make any impression on me in the Christie adaptation I have to say, but then again, I only saw that once in the theatre.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,834
    TFC1 wrote: »
    I was watching the Branagh adaption of Murder on the Orient Express again over Christmas and thought that Tom Bateman might be an option on a couple of years. Certainly has the height / look I think and at 29 has a few years to grow into the part.

    He's got juuuust the right age to succeed Craig. I don't know him, but who knows.
    talos7 wrote: »
    Possibly, but based only on photos, he’s another who’s appearance of masculinity is strongly tied to a beard.

    I think he might look the part in four or five years, without the beard of course. Don't know of his acting though.

    But yes, the beard, the beard, oh why the beard?
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,293
    TFC1 wrote: »
    I was watching the Branagh adaption of Murder on the Orient Express again over Christmas and thought that Tom Bateman might be an option on a couple of years. Certainly has the height / look I think and at 29 has a few years to grow into the part.

    Never seen him in anything, but he kind of looks like Charlie Cox's cruel half brother or something. Might not be a bad thing!
  • TuuliaTuulia
    edited January 2019 Posts: 2,081
    Sorry, haven't checked this thread for a while...
    bondsum wrote: »
    Don't take offence @Tuulia. If you can't accept that men and women have an entirely different perspective on what they like to see in an male actor or movies, then you're purblind to the obvious. Surely you're aware that Brosnan appealed more to the ladies than to men (young boys notwithstanding)? Just because you don't know of such women within your own inner circle of friends or acquaintances, that doesn't make it any less so. Brosnan appealed to the ladies because he was extremely handsome, not because he was a great actor. Look, I'm not going to analyse men vs women just to make my point, but you only have to look at what kinds of musicians women prefer to those of men. Women are drawn to liking a group or singer based predominantly on their looks first and foremost, their music is secondary. Of course, there are exceptions that go against the grain, but these are in smaller numbers. Knowing absolutely nothing about you, I couldn't begin to assign you to a particular category or NRS social grade, but you most definitely fall into one. Principally, Bond movies have a male following. That's not to say there isn't a female fan-base also. I'm sure there's a small male fan-base for Bridget Jones, Mamma Mia! and Twilight movies. Maybe because you can't list your own "aesthetic preferences" it's the reason why you're having trouble coming up with a name for a future Bond successor, no?

    Again, I'm only pointing out how men and women's preferences for a Bond actor differ. This is the reason why women can skip a Bond actor's entire tenure and come back later when they find one that is more to their liking. Men, on the other hand, will stick with the series through thick and thin, so long as the casting follows a similar trait. It's this particular trait that some of us are better equipped at identifying and articulating than some of the other members are.

    I don't take offence, I just think you write quite a lot of silly stuff with very broad generalizations, some of which are laughable. Such as
    you only have to look at what kinds of musicians women prefer to those of men. Women are drawn to liking a group or singer based predominantly on their looks first and foremost, their music is secondary. Of course, there are exceptions that go against the grain, but these are in smaller numbers.
    That's so ridiculous I can only assume you're trolling. Therefore I guess commenting on everything else in your post would be waste of time. I can only hope that you don't actually think men that and women this the way you write. Giving you the benefit of doubt.

    Oh and at least my experiences of Bond audiences in theatres is that it's pretty much 50/50, not mainly male audiences at all. If you meant that people spending endless hours on Bond forums, etc., are men in vast majority, then you're right. I can't comment on Twilight and whatnot, haven't got a clue (well, I do know of one female relative who watched them on tv when she was 15 or 16 - not that I know what she thought of them, and if she even liked them).
    Maybe because you can't list your own "aesthetic preferences" it's the reason why you're having trouble coming up with a name for a future Bond successor, no?

    Eh? No. I already said this, but again: I don't think an actor is a good fit for a role just based on their looks. And I don't like actors based on their looks. (Or people in general for that matter.) But if that's your thing, okay... - Now I do really appreciate some actors' looks (duh! everyone does, right?), but that's secondary; I need to like them first (as actors, and maybe even as people). I hope the concept isn't confusing, seeing as you think women primarily care about looks.
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I just googled him and have to say that I like his look for Bond. I know nothing about his acting and screen presence though.
    We've already covered Nick Hendrix before about a dozen pages back, possibly more now. Honestly, there's nothing remotely alpha male about this guy that would suit the role of Bond. He's just another name that fits "the age appropriation and being an actor alone isn't a good enough reason to qualify one for the role of 007" category. As @Torgeirtrap stated, he's more suitable for the Tanner role.
    I must have missed the earlier conversation about him. Coincidentally, a recent episode of Midsomer Murders was on the telly yesterday so I took a quick look. I must agree with you that there's really nothing about him that screams Bond per se.
    Tuulia wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    --- Of course, I'm making these observations as a male which are different to that of a woman's. But essentially the make-up of a Bond audience has been predominately male from the beginning and it's this section of the paying public that the producers need to concentrate on the most. From my own observations, female audiences tend to only like a Bond actor based solely on whether they appeal to their own aesthetic preferences, whereas a male fan sees the actor mostly in terms of his alpha male attributes (acting talent aside). In other words, a woman will see something entirely different to that of a male fan, which is why it's interesting to see some of their own choices.

    Rrright... Well, my observations and my personal opinions don't align with your observations, and I also don't think that women and men see these things entirely differently. How people see these things generally vary more from person to person than between genders.
    Most people posting here are male (a far larger percentage than I've ever seen in theatres watching the movies), and probably the most common thing the men here discuss regarding the next Bond is "whether they appeal to their own aesthetic preferences" - from height to build to hair to facial features... (it's very similar to most common discussions here about women that guys would like to see in Bond movies). To me the whole idea that one could tell from a mere photograph (or 50 photographs) if someone might be good for a part is a bit strange, I'd need to see an actor act.
    Since movies are a visual medium, obviously looks also matter, but I can't imagine saying some actor "looks the part" - I don't even know what that means, really, and I don't think the Bond actors so far in that manner, either - I like some more than others, but it's certainly not a looks thing; I don't like those I like more because they appeal to my "aesthetic preferences." In fact, if I was asked to list my "aesthetic preferences" regarding men in general or Bond actors in particular, I couldn't make such a list. Looks of any kind without any other appeal (like personality and acting talent) are entirely meaningless to me.
    Certainly some women may find an actor appealing just based on looks (Bond actors included). I don't personally know such women, but I'm sure they exist. Just like some men find actresses appealing just based on looks. From my observations the latter actually seems more common than the former.
    I recall we had a fascinating discussion on this subject a few years back on a dedicated thread (I can't remember the name of the female member who started it, but she no longer posts here regrettably). I must confess shamefully that I fall into the category you noted above (highlighted) to an extent.

    I remember, vaguely. I'm not sure what you mean by "to an extent" there... If it's "appealing just based on looks" and you add "to an extent" to that, then it's not "just" anymore, is it? Or you meant something else - only some actresses "just"? And if/when it is "just" then I don't know if it's actually "shameful" somehow - why would it be? It's certainly something I don't fully get, but I don't see anything actually wrong with it.
    talos7 wrote: »
    One thing is clear in this thread, it's very difficult to judge an actor based solely on photographs.

    "Very difficult" might actually be an understatement.
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    Don't take offence @Tuulia. If you can't accept that men and women have an entirely different perspective on what they like to see in an male actor or movies, then you're purblind to the obvious. Surely you're aware that Brosnan appealed more to the ladies than to men (young boys notwithstanding)? Just because you don't know of such women within your own inner circle of friends or acquaintances, that doesn't make it any less so. Brosnan appealed to the ladies because he was extremely handsome, not because he was a great actor. Look, I'm not going to analyse men vs women just to make my point, but you only have to look at what kinds of musicians women prefer to those of men. Women are drawn to liking a group or singer based predominantly on their looks first and foremost, their music is secondary. Of course, there are exceptions that go against the grain, but these are in smaller numbers. Knowing absolutely nothing about you, I couldn't begin to assign you to a particular category or NRS social grade, but you most definitely fall into one. Principally, Bond movies have a male following. That's not to say there isn't a female fan-base also. I'm sure there's a small male fan-base for Bridget Jones, Mamma Mia! and Twilight movies. Maybe because you can't list your own "aesthetic preferences" it's the reason why you're having trouble coming up with a name for a future Bond successor, no?

    Again, I'm only pointing out how men and women's preferences for a Bond actor differ. This is the reason why women can skip a Bond actor's entire tenure and come back later when they find one that is more to their liking. Men, on the other hand, will stick with the series through thick and thin, so long as the casting follows a similar trait. It's this particular trait that some of us are better equipped at identifying and articulating than some of the other members are.
    I don't think 'mansplaining' is actually proving a point. In fact I'm more inlined to agree with @Tuulia. Yes, I've met women who only go for the looks, but most of the time they go for the charisma, and you just don't capture that with pictures. Men, as @Tuulia rightly points out, are far more inclined to judge on visuals alone. Now I could explain here that this has a scientific basis also, but perhaps that'd make me a it of a nerd.

    Yes, and thank you.

    And the same to your follow-up post, too. And another after that.

    The idea that women simply don't like action movies, but like romantic comedies makes me roll my eyes. That's like saying women don't like sports or rock music, but like to knit and bake cookies. Geez. What kind of antiquated ideas...
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I sometimes wonder whether I've accidentally logged onto either the Aidan Turner Forum or the Tom Cruise is Lord God and the best actor around forum when I come on here.

    I know the feeling. But hey, some people love them, so.
    peter wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Apologies to all Hiddleston fans. He's an actor I find very hard to like, admittedly, so putting him in the same sentence with Roger Moore, hurts my eyes and my brain when I process any remote comparisons between these two actors.

    In the end, Roger Moore was so incredibly special (and this is from someone who rates him third/sometimes fourth of the Bond actors), that there is no Second Coming of Moore (even more so with Connery); not even close.

    So a Hiddleston, to me, is far more effective if he would be cast in something more theatrical-- for example, I could see him playing an amazing and twisted Joker.

    Just keep him away from James Bond (and the Saint).
    No need to apologize. We're all entitled to disliking someone and your views on Hiddleston are well known.

    I agree that there is no second coming of Moore, and especially not Connery. Nobody has suggested that. Those two are acknowledged greats in the Bond pantheon.

    All there is are actors who can evoke certain elements of those two benchmarks. I'm of the view that Hiddleston skews towards the Moore type, and he is definitely one of the acknowledged Bond contenders for #007.

    I didn't know my views on Hiddleston was well known. Yet I still will apologize. Since others see something in him that I'm too biased to enjoy-- as James Bond. And I don't take enjoyment in ever thinking an opinion would upset another (which can happen on this site). I'm obviously not right in my evaluation; I'm only right for me, and I always want to make that clear.

    Saying Hiddleston skews to the Moore type, I'd agree, if we were saying a sub-level Moore type. The guy could never pull off anything Moore did in his tenure, nor come close. I think most would say he's a poor man's Moore.

    I could be wrong there, too.

    That's saying mo(o)re about Moore, than Hiddleston, btw.
    He's an excellent actor with a lot of range that has been acknowledged. However, if he's not for you then he's not for you.

    I'm not sure if he'd be right for Bond, but as I mentioned in an earlier post, none of the contenders is perfect. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, as does the current Bond. I can certainly see him being good for a certain type or style of Bond film.

    RE: your views on Hiddleston being well known; you've expressed your dislike quite a few times on this thread in no uncertain terms so I assume those who follow the thread know that you have strong negative feelings about him. You're certainly not alone in that opinion though. There are members here who don't like him.

    Once again, someone being an excellent actor (outside of the giants that broke the mold (Olivier, Brando, Dean, early/young Pacino and De Niro to name a few on the Western front), I think is subjective @bondjames.

    I don't think Hiddleston is Steven Segal (sp?), by any means. Nor do I find him "an excellent actor"; I just find him too stagey and one dimensional for my tastes. I honestly think he could make a very good Joker, though.

    Re: my views: I don't think that what I say will be remembered thirty seconds after I post-- I'm a little humble in this matter.

    I just assumed that after 4000 comments (wow, that's a lot of free time, lol), that ten or so comments on Hiddleston wouldn't actually be heard, and certainly not remembered, lol!
    You're probably right. It's the intensity of your feelings towards him as expressed in your posts that I picked up on in this thread, but you're right that I shouldn't speak for others who may not have noticed it. I always find it interesting when I detect that someone has strong feelings about someone or something, and so it tends to stay with me. As I said, if he's not for you, then he's not for you.

    Of course everything is subjective when it comes to assessing art and film. That goes without saying, or at least it should. He is respected in the industry for his acting skills as far as I'm aware (based on theatrical awards and nominations) but I wouldn't begin to put him up there with the names you mentioned above.

    You're an intuitive guy, @bondjames , and I've already told you that you're a very strong writer. However, any intense feelings I have about Hiddles, may've been incorrectly assessed this time. I hardly give this guy a second thought until I hear people consider him Bond material. Even then, I tend to hold back more often than not. I honestly just don't like him as an actor-- awards or not (Halle Berry won a best actress, but I don't consider her an exceptional actress by any means). He's certainly not for me, in certain roles, but I'm not intense about my dislike (as I am intense about certain other things, lol).
    Glad to read that. Well, intuitiveness can lead one astray as it is instinct more than anything. Such is evidently the case here so I'm glad you clarified. Mea culpa.

    As I think he's a compelling actor and screen presence, I hope he does something outside of the villain space in the future which impresses you.

    I hope so too! I never liked Jake Gyllenhaal for exactly the reasons I have a dislike for Hiddleston.

    But then Prisoners came about and I became a fan.

    The same with Gosling-- until Into The Pines.

    So i'm always open to an actor wowing me and proving me wrong-- in some cases, very wrong...

    That's a good thing, and it's wonderful when it happens. When either "oh, I don't know... meh, perhaps" or "I just don't like" make way to "oh, hello, you, another actor I now like" (and may need to check the filmography thus far or pay more attention to in the future). The more actors one learns to appreciate, the better for any film fan.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    Tuulia wrote: »
    Sorry, haven't checked this thread for a while...

    I don't take offence, I just think you write quite a lot of silly stuff with very broad generalizations, some of which are laughable. Such as
    you only have to look at what kinds of musicians women prefer to those of men. Women are drawn to liking a group or singer based predominantly on their looks first and foremost, their music is secondary. Of course, there are exceptions that go against the grain, but these are in smaller numbers.
    That's so ridiculous I can only assume you're trolling. Therefore I guess commenting on everything else in your post would be waste of time. I can only hope that you don't actually think men that and women this the way you write. Giving you the benefit of doubt.
    Cut the diatribe @Tuulia. Just name three potential Bond successors and give your reasons behind why you think they're worthy of consideration, otherwise it's you that's trolling.
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,677
    tumblr_nvc841BMDo1qc9pwoo1_500.gif

    Now, hold it, you two!

    Nah, just kidding, go ahead, do continue the debate. It has been lovely. @bondsum does have a pragmatic point to it, @Tuulia, it would be nice to ear of your selection and reasons why. It would clear up the air, and give room for further debate.
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,677
    You know what? Screw it all and get David Gandy for the role. And Tom Ford in the director's chair. And set it in the 50s, with the scar, the housemaid, the Bentley 4.5 litre Supercharged and the Moonraker chase, the damned barracuda swim, the girls, and all the shenanigans. Do the literary Bond, properly, for once. Oh, and bring back Dame Shirley for the song. Or Tom Jones.

    What?, a new years wish, if there ever was one.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,973
    Univex wrote: »
    You know what? Screw it all and get David Gandy for the role. And Tom Ford in the director's chair. And set it in the 50s, with the scar, the housemaid, the Bentley 4.5 litre Supercharged and the Moonraker chase, the damned barracuda swim, the girls, and all the shenanigans. Do the literary Bond, properly, for once. Oh, and bring back Dame Shirley for the song. Or Tom Jones.

    What?, a new years wish, if there ever was one.

    Well I don't know about Tom Ford as a director, but we've had a male model before. wasn't too bad....
  • mattjoesmattjoes Kicking: Impossible
    Posts: 6,733
    Univex wrote: »
    tumblr_nvc841BMDo1qc9pwoo1_500.gif

    I'll see your Ventura and raise you The Sicilian Clan.

    023870f168862283f4799cd0c5161548.jpg
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2019 Posts: 23,883
    Tuulia wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I just googled him and have to say that I like his look for Bond. I know nothing about his acting and screen presence though.
    We've already covered Nick Hendrix before about a dozen pages back, possibly more now. Honestly, there's nothing remotely alpha male about this guy that would suit the role of Bond. He's just another name that fits "the age appropriation and being an actor alone isn't a good enough reason to qualify one for the role of 007" category. As @Torgeirtrap stated, he's more suitable for the Tanner role.
    I must have missed the earlier conversation about him. Coincidentally, a recent episode of Midsomer Murders was on the telly yesterday so I took a quick look. I must agree with you that there's really nothing about him that screams Bond per se.
    Tuulia wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    --- Of course, I'm making these observations as a male which are different to that of a woman's. But essentially the make-up of a Bond audience has been predominately male from the beginning and it's this section of the paying public that the producers need to concentrate on the most. From my own observations, female audiences tend to only like a Bond actor based solely on whether they appeal to their own aesthetic preferences, whereas a male fan sees the actor mostly in terms of his alpha male attributes (acting talent aside). In other words, a woman will see something entirely different to that of a male fan, which is why it's interesting to see some of their own choices.

    Rrright... Well, my observations and my personal opinions don't align with your observations, and I also don't think that women and men see these things entirely differently. How people see these things generally vary more from person to person than between genders.
    Most people posting here are male (a far larger percentage than I've ever seen in theatres watching the movies), and probably the most common thing the men here discuss regarding the next Bond is "whether they appeal to their own aesthetic preferences" - from height to build to hair to facial features... (it's very similar to most common discussions here about women that guys would like to see in Bond movies). To me the whole idea that one could tell from a mere photograph (or 50 photographs) if someone might be good for a part is a bit strange, I'd need to see an actor act.
    Since movies are a visual medium, obviously looks also matter, but I can't imagine saying some actor "looks the part" - I don't even know what that means, really, and I don't think the Bond actors so far in that manner, either - I like some more than others, but it's certainly not a looks thing; I don't like those I like more because they appeal to my "aesthetic preferences." In fact, if I was asked to list my "aesthetic preferences" regarding men in general or Bond actors in particular, I couldn't make such a list. Looks of any kind without any other appeal (like personality and acting talent) are entirely meaningless to me.
    Certainly some women may find an actor appealing just based on looks (Bond actors included). I don't personally know such women, but I'm sure they exist. Just like some men find actresses appealing just based on looks. From my observations the latter actually seems more common than the former.
    I recall we had a fascinating discussion on this subject a few years back on a dedicated thread (I can't remember the name of the female member who started it, but she no longer posts here regrettably). I must confess shamefully that I fall into the category you noted above (highlighted) to an extent.

    I remember, vaguely. I'm not sure what you mean by "to an extent" there... If it's "appealing just based on looks" and you add "to an extent" to that, then it's not "just" anymore, is it? Or you meant something else - only some actresses "just"? And if/when it is "just" then I don't know if it's actually "shameful" somehow - why would it be? It's certainly something I don't fully get, but I don't see anything actually wrong with it.
    No, it's certainly not "just". I may be shallow, but I'm not 100% shallow (or at least I won't publicly admit to it). So if an actress is really good but I find her looks unappealing then I'll still give her the benefit of the doubt and try to appreciate her performance. Helena Bonham Carter falls into this category for me, so perhaps you can appreciate my apprehension when rumours swirled of her possible involvement in Boyle's stillborn Bond entry a few months back.

    Such an actress has a far steeper hill to climb with me than one who I find physically appealing though, such as Cate Blanchett for instance (Cate can give a piss poor performance and I'd probably still rate it decent).

    I rate Bond "girls" highly to a degree depending on how their looks appeal to me, but then again these aren't roles that scream for quality acting. One could argue that a Bond girl's looks are rather important.

    Regarding the "shame" part, it's perhaps because I endeavour to be better than this, but succumb to primitive tendencies. Why should Bonham Carter have a steeper hill to climb than Blanchett for me? It's certainly not fair to her, but it is what is.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,293
    Univex wrote: »
    You know what? Screw it all and get David Gandy for the role.

    He certainly looks the part!

    10-102755-david_gandy_my_style.jpg
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    edited January 2019 Posts: 1,318
    Univex wrote: »
    You know what? Screw it all and get David Gandy for the role. And Tom Ford in the director's chair. And set it in the 50s, with the scar, the housemaid, the Bentley 4.5 litre Supercharged and the Moonraker chase, the damned barracuda swim, the girls, and all the shenanigans. Do the literary Bond, properly, for once. Oh, and bring back Dame Shirley for the song. Or Tom Jones.

    What?, a new years wish, if there ever was one.

    Gandy can't act though. Skippity skip. Also, Bond isn't the quintessential male model, looks wise.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    That's a coincidence,i thought about him the other day :

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQsIU0YW0y62yZnaGTdxUy4vnSLCfD5gxFVA86YRS8sC_NKq3L9zg

    d810e57dd8f806f9fff4d55b60a352d3.jpg

    2608c2a5884f60fb1253d16afe5bc7e0--classy-men-david-james-gandy.jpg
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,980
    JeremyBondon wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    You know what? Screw it all and get David Gandy for the role. And Tom Ford in the director's chair. And set it in the 50s, with the scar, the housemaid, the Bentley 4.5 litre Supercharged and the Moonraker chase, the damned barracuda swim, the girls, and all the shenanigans. Do the literary Bond, properly, for once. Oh, and bring back Dame Shirley for the song. Or Tom Jones.

    What?, a new years wish, if there ever was one.

    Gandy can't act though. Skippity skip. Also, Bond isn't the quintessential male model, looks wise.

    Has he appeared in anything? I don’t think he has a typical model look.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    JeremyBondon wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    You know what? Screw it all and get David Gandy for the role. And Tom Ford in the director's chair. And set it in the 50s, with the scar, the housemaid, the Bentley 4.5 litre Supercharged and the Moonraker chase, the damned barracuda swim, the girls, and all the shenanigans. Do the literary Bond, properly, for once. Oh, and bring back Dame Shirley for the song. Or Tom Jones.

    What?, a new years wish, if there ever was one.

    Gandy can't act though. Skippity skip. Also, Bond isn't the quintessential male model, looks wise.
    Pierce may disagree. ;)

    This guy could audition for the new Most Interesting Man in the World if Dos Equis needs someone. He's got a distinctive look.
  • barryt007barryt007
    edited January 2019 Posts: 19,339
    talos7 wrote: »
    JeremyBondon wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    You know what? Screw it all and get David Gandy for the role. And Tom Ford in the director's chair. And set it in the 50s, with the scar, the housemaid, the Bentley 4.5 litre Supercharged and the Moonraker chase, the damned barracuda swim, the girls, and all the shenanigans. Do the literary Bond, properly, for once. Oh, and bring back Dame Shirley for the song. Or Tom Jones.

    What?, a new years wish, if there ever was one.

    Gandy can't act though. Skippity skip. Also, Bond isn't the quintessential male model, looks wise.

    Has he appeared in anything? I don’t think he has a typical model look.

    He has appeared in commercials,been on a few chat shows and comedies,but mainly is massive in the world of fashion and magazine shoots.

    Similar to Lazenby in many ways,but British,and a lot less 'wooden',more chilled,loves cars and has been in car races.

    A bit of an adventurer.
  • JeremyBondonJeremyBondon Seeking out odd jobs with Oddjob @Tangier
    Posts: 1,318
    talos7 wrote: »
    JeremyBondon wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    You know what? Screw it all and get David Gandy for the role. And Tom Ford in the director's chair. And set it in the 50s, with the scar, the housemaid, the Bentley 4.5 litre Supercharged and the Moonraker chase, the damned barracuda swim, the girls, and all the shenanigans. Do the literary Bond, properly, for once. Oh, and bring back Dame Shirley for the song. Or Tom Jones.

    What?, a new years wish, if there ever was one.

    Gandy can't act though. Skippity skip. Also, Bond isn't the quintessential male model, looks wise.

    Has he appeared in anything? I don’t think he has a typical model look.

    Yeah well Gandy is the quintessential 'manly' looking male model, no androgynous bits. I still don't think he looks like Bond, apart from being handsome.
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,677
    And he has a good voice.

    I bet he'd be better at it than Lazenby.
    He'd probably want to drive the Jag instead of the Aston, though.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited January 2019 Posts: 15,423
    I've no problem with Gandy. He does look good and wouldn't be a bad choice for Bond at all. But, he did mention once he was no actor and didn't have any interest as far as I can recall. He's good friends with Naomie Harris, however, if that helps.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Univex wrote: »
    And he has a good voice.

    I bet he'd be better at it than Lazenby.
    He'd probably want to drive the Jag instead of the Aston, though.

    Agree re Lazenby,and he does have a very good voice.
    Actually Bond driving a Jag would be a nice change !
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    Wasn't Roger Moore a model before his acting career took off? He did alright! Lol!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Wasn't Roger Moore a model before his acting career took off? He did alright! Lol!

    Yes, he worked as a knitwear model.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Wasn't Roger Moore a model before his acting career took off? He did alright! Lol!

    Yes, he worked as a knitwear model.

    Thought so!
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Moore did establish himself as an actor long before he was even cast as The Saint, though. Or as one of the Mavericks.
Sign In or Register to comment.