85 replies to this topic

[spynovelfan]

Fair enough, Marjil. As I say, I'd also like to see that kind of an actor. I'd love to have seen Clive Owen for the reasons you state. But I also have in the back of my mind the worry that if they go that route and get it wrong, that's it. Game over. Bond dead. And I would rather take a prettyboy being tough and the series continuing its success than one fantastic performance from Daniel Craig as Ian Fleming's character, and no more EON films.

Yes, I can see that Urban has quite a stare on him. But doesn't he look pixie-ish to you? Dancy has been in quite a number of costume dramas, and often plays the fop. Perhaps why he hasn't been picked. I remember watching him play Ariel in THE TEMPEST when he was 16, though - he was unbelievable. I don't know him well and have not seen him in several years. But I can promise you he would be able to do Bond standing on his head. No, he probably wouldn't get anyone, myself included, thinking he's the toughest most dangerous actor ever. A script can do a lot, though (and I think it did for Urban in SUPREMACY). If he's playing Bond on an earlier mission getting to the point he does at the end of Fleming's novel, the script will do that work. I'm amazed that Babs and co are apparently thinking as radically as they are, but I do think they should confine that to the script. Just have a read of what people on this *Bond forum* have to say about Daniel Craig's looks to get a sense of the commercial disaster that could be. Talking to non-fans, their immediate reaction to a 22-year-old or a Croatian TV actor was 'Whoa!'. My *commercial* feeling would be to get a grittier script, but not cast an actor as Bond for this one film. That's a disaster waiting to happen. Cast someone who looks the part, can act the part, and is willing to be the part for several years. Take a risk with the script of CASINO ROYALE and you can bounce back with the next film. Take a risk with the guy playing Bond, there might not be a next one.

[Spoon]

Jack Davenport is mentioned by a lot of fans online, and by his mum's mate John Cleese. But I've never once seen him mentioned in an article as a candidate.

Davenport was mentioned in the recent Hollywood Reporter article here.

I agree with your general point. I dunno why they seem to spend so much time looking at actors of unconventional age/looks/nationality for Bond. We could easily put together a list of at least 30 British or Irish actors who are in their late twenties to early forties, and who have a potential "Bond" quality to their acting and looks. It's basically impossible that somehow none of those people is able to do it. IMO, if a change is to be made to the series, you do so in the script/direction, not by casting an actor who changes the very idea of who Bond is. If people don't buy a change in the script and direction, you just change it back in the next film, and chances are that little lasting harm is done. If you try to change the basic concept of who James Bond the man is, then you risk rupturing the series altogether.

Funny how this new article casually throws some new names at us in a tone as if we had been hearing them all along. I have seen Urban mentioned a few times by fans in a "hey, what about...?" way, but never heard of him being actually considered by the powers that be till now. His acting seems ok for it, but I don't think he looks like Bond, personally.

Edited by Spoon, 10 September 2005 - 09:01 PM.

[Pal]

Now that I re-read that article, I'm reminded of Eric Bana. When the "news" first broke out that he was the top draw for James Bond, I was very much agaisnt him but when I saw Troy, his perfromance won me over. He isn't my favorite choice, but Eric Bana is a very good actor and he would probably do very very well as Bond. He isn't too pretty and he isn't too tough.

[MarJil]

Fair enough, Marjil. As I say, I'd also like to see that kind of an actor. I'd love to have seen Clive Owen for the reasons you state. But I also have in the back of my mind the worry that if they go that route and get it wrong, that's it. Game over. Bond dead. And I would rather take a prettyboy being tough and the series continuing its success than one fantastic performance from Daniel Craig as Ian Fleming's character, and no more EON films.

Yes, I can see that Urban has quite a stare on him. But doesn't he look pixie-ish to you? Dancy has been in quite a number of costume dramas, and often plays the fop. Perhaps why he hasn't been picked. I remember watching him play Ariel in THE TEMPEST when he was 16, though - he was unbelievable. I don't know him well and have not seen him in several years. But I can promise you he would be able to do Bond standing on his head. No, he probably wouldn't get anyone, myself included, thinking he's the toughest most dangerous actor ever. A script can do a lot, though (and I think it did for Urban in SUPREMACY). If he's playing Bond on an earlier mission getting to the point he does at the end of Fleming's novel, the script will do that work. I'm amazed that Babs and co are apparently thinking as radically as they are, but I do think they should confine that to the script. Just have a read of what people on this *Bond forum* have to say about Daniel Craig's looks to get a sense of the commercial disaster that could be. Talking to non-fans, their immediate reaction to a 22-year-old or a Croatian TV actor was 'Whoa!'. My *commercial* feeling would be to get a grittier script, but not cast an actor as Bond for this one film. That's a disaster waiting to happen. Cast someone who looks the part, can act the part, and is willing to be the part for several years. Take a risk with the script of CASINO ROYALE and you can bounce back with the next film. Take a risk with the guy playing Bond, there might not be a next one.

I'm sure Dancy probably could play Bond in the Brosnan/Moore tradition, but I personally don't want that anymore because it's been done to death. Maybe it's more popular doing it that way nowadays, but how do we know for sure, since we haven't seen it done like Connery for so long. I have no idea for sure whether Urban is the guy to return it to that tone or not, but from what I've seen I believe he could play it a little lighter and still come across as the tough SOB that Connery perfected. I see what you mean about the elfish face, in pictures with long hair like the one you posted it is especially noticeable, but I do think he is growing out of it as he ages some, and in the Doom videos I've seen his face seems slimmer and he looks more like Bond all the time. Of the presumed candidates, to me he seems the one that looks the most dangerous (though I think if they want a sure thing with toughness and humor they should just cast Gerard Butler and get it over with), and yet he does have that younger look to him as well. I don't think casting him would be nearly as out there as Craig would be (although Craig would be fine too). I'm just hoping they take a chance and go with a tougher guy, rather than the dandy.

Edited by MarJil, 10 September 2005 - 11:16 PM.

[Pussfeller]

No, I don't think so. Urban has a flat, chunky-looking face. I don't think he looks nearly hard and cruel enough to be Bond. The actor who plays Bond should be lean and sort of hungry-looking, like a wolf. Otherwise he doesn't look as threatening. Even if he doesn't have a gritty, hard- persona, he should have sharp, threatening features. Just look at Moore. He generally played it light, but he had sharp, malevolent features. I thought Brosnan was lacking in this regard. His nose was blunt and he had a flatter profile than I would have liked. I'd rather see someone who's striking than someone who's "handsome". People say Pierce was handsome, but I never found him striking or memorable.

[MarJil]

No, I don't think so. Urban has a flat, chunky-looking face. I don't think he looks nearly hard and cruel enough to be Bond. The actor who plays Bond should be lean and sort of hungry-looking, like a wolf. Otherwise he doesn't look as threatening. Even if he doesn't have a gritty, hard- persona, he should have sharp, threatening features. Just look at Moore. He generally played it light, but he had sharp, malevolent features. I thought Brosnan was lacking in this regard. His nose was blunt and he had a flatter profile than I would have liked. I'd rather see someone who's striking than someone who's "handsome". People say Pierce was handsome, but I never found him striking or memorable.

He does have a round face like you said, but his eyes are extremely hard and cruel looking, way beyond any other person mentioned previously. He is the only one I've seen who has the piercing eyes like Connery, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan all had. Urban isn't classically handsome, but he is striking. His face is kind an amalgamation of a rounder baby face combined with those devil eyes. You are absolutely right about both Roger and Pierce's looks. Roger had a crueler look than he was given credit for while Pierce is just plain handsome. Another thing about Urban is that he seems the right build for Bond, and is athletic. Watching him in Bourne, especially the scenes in the beginning set in India, he moves very well, kind of in the vein of Connery, and I think fight scenes would be very believable with him as Bond.

[H.M.Servant]

I thought Brosnan was lacking in this regard. His nose was blunt and he had a flatter profile than I would have liked. I'd rather see someone who's striking than someone who's "handsome". People say Pierce was handsome, but I never found him striking or memorable.

I did. Matter of opinion of course, but I think he looked good (in TND especially) But I think it's not just the face that makes or brakes an actor IMO. It's the whole performance/pakkage. face, voice, posture. That's why I find it diffucult to choose or dismiss someone from a picture.

[Seannery]

I don't see Urban at all as a Craig or Owen type, and agree with the article that he's too elfin. Very petite features. Sure, he shaved his head, scowled and was reasonably convincing as a Russian assassin in THE BOURNE SUPREMACY, but he didn't need to do a lot. I think this is more like he'd look as Bond, albeit with slightly longer hair:



Not sold on him - he looks like he's in a-Ha (and I actually think Market looks tougher than that).

David Morrissey is a brilliant actor, but he's not Bond. He's stocky and Liverpudlian; not really a leading man, but a senstive bruiser type. Be a hell of a job to make him into someone as suave and cool and fit as Bond. The best I could find of him was this:



I'm amazed he's second billing in RISK ADDICTION (BI2).  A certain Mr Dancy is also in that film - wonder if Miss Stone approved him, too? I'm sure I've gone mad, but 'pretty-boy' Hugh Dancy still looks to me a better candidate than anyone else going. He's better-looking than Craig, Owen, Morrissey, McMahon, O'Lachlan, Visjnic and most of the others being considered; he's young enough at 30 to do the job without having to put in a huge effort to convince audiences and the media (Cavill); his profile is not so large that he won't take the job (Jackman, McGregor, Owen, Butler), but he's got enough experience that he won't be a risk, and will garner some recognition as the chap from the BBC's DANIEL DERONDA, Galahad in KING ARTHUR and all those ads for Burberry with Kate Moss; he's British. He'd probably want the job. The only criterion on which he possibly falls down is toughness of the look. But this shot from DANIEL DERONDA is from three years ago:



Does he really look so effete? I think if you compare him to Cavill, Urban, Jackman, Purefoy, Gruffudd and others, this guy, now three years older than that and with the right haircut, looks every inch like he could be Ian Fleming's James Bond in what it sounds like CASINO ROYALE is shaping up to be. I know - another rant aobut Dancy, and everyone has a candidate they're blind about, perhaps. But I've never seen anyone mention Dancy in this kind of article and I do wonder why - he seems like a very obvious choice to me. I can't see where the risk would be - he'd clearly be commercially successful. Visjnic, Cavill, Morrissey, Craig - these are risky choices in comparison, I'd have thought.

Sorry but Dancy would not "clearly" be commercially successful. He may be known a LITTLE in the UK but no where else. Clearly not in the USA at all--here he is basically unknown. Plus he doesn't seem very Bondian to me--fancy Dancy is not the alpha male we need. Forget the boy. If they go young(still debatable) at least get someone who is not so obviously boyish.

Urban is even worse--he is goofy looking and too round faced. He looks less like Bond than even Dancy. These two make Craig look more Bondian even if he doesn't conventionally so.

[marktmurphy]

The above-mentioned Rupert Penry-Jones is now the lead role in SPOOKS, and has just the right profile and look for it:

Penry-Jones.. yes, I could see that. Great looks, build and good star quality.

[spynovelfan]

Seannery, just because you haven't heard of Dancy doesn't mean he is unknown in the US. Admittedly, he's not very well known, but I think he has a higher profile than most other British actors *aged 30 or under*, which is what I think we're looking at. If we go higher, well, sure, Clive Owen, Jude Law, etc. The guy who plays Bond can't have a very high profile anyway, or he won't want the job. Compare and contrast Dancy with other rumoured Brit actors of the same age.

Jack Davenport: known in the US for a very minor role in THE TALENTED MR RIPLEY and the villain in PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN. Stock will rise with the two new Pirates films.

Henry Cavill: known in the US for a very minor role in the flop THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO. An episode of THE INSPECTOR LYNLEY MYSTERIES with him in may have made it to BBC America. That's it. Was screentested for Bond.

Hugh Dancy: on billboards and in style magazines in the US in ads for Burberry as we speak. Main role in TV series DANIEL DERONDA, which showed in the US, smallish role in KING ARTHUR. Is about to appear in SHOOTING DOGS, starring role opposite John Hurt; BASIC INSTINCT 2; and ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE.

I think the guys 3 to 5 years older than him, like Gruffudd and Butler, do not need Bond. I think they have to get someone at roughly Dancy's level of fame, if they want to go for an earlier mission film. Orlando Bloom won't do it - doesn't need it.

I could be wrong - but I think I'm just being realistic.

[Seannery]

Seannery, just because you haven't heard of Dancy doesn't mean he is unknown in the US. Admittedly, he's not very well known, but I think he has a higher profile than most other British actors *aged 30 or under*, which is what I think we're looking at. If we go higher, well, sure, Clive Owen, Jude Law, etc. The guy who plays Bond can't have a very high profile anyway, or he won't want the job. Compare and contrast Dancy with other rumoured Brit actors of the same age.

Jack Davenport: known in the US for a very minor role in THE TALENTED MR RIPLEY and the villain in PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN. Stock will rise with the two new Pirates films. 

Henry Cavill: known in the US for a very minor role in the flop THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO. An episode of THE INSPECTOR LYNLEY MYSTERIES with him in may have made it to BBC America. That's it. Was screentested for Bond.

Hugh Dancy: on billboards and in style magazines in the US in ads for Burberry as we speak. Main role in TV series DANIEL DERONDA, which showed in the US, smallish role in KING ARTHUR. Is about to appear in SHOOTING DOGS, starring role opposite John Hurt; BASIC INSTINCT 2; and ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE.

I think the guys 3 to 5 years older than him, like Gruffudd and Butler, do not need Bond. I think they have to get someone at roughly Dancy's level of fame, if they want to go for an earlier mission film. Orlando Bloom won't do it - doesn't need it.

I could be wrong - but I think I'm just being realistic.

With all the humility I can push aside spynovelfan --i'm a movie nut and if I barely heard of him then almost no one in the USA has. We can quibble over the percentage but it is surely beyond debate that Dancy would not be "clearly" commercially successful. He'd be as much of a risk as many of largely unknown young actors(if they go in that direction).

[Bon-san]

[quote name='Seannery' date='11 September 2005 - 10:14'][quote name='spynovelfan' date='11 September 2005 - 16:08']Seannery, just because you haven't heard of Dancy doesn't mean he is unknown in the US. Admittedly, he's not very well known, but I think he has a higher profile than most other British actors *aged 30 or under*, which is what I think we're looking at. If we go higher, well, sure, Clive Owen, Jude Law, etc. The guy who plays Bond can't have a very high profile anyway, or he won't want the job. Compare and contrast Dancy with other rumoured Brit actors of the same age.

Jack Davenport: known in the US for a very minor role in THE TALENTED MR RIPLEY and the villain in PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN. Stock will rise with the two new Pirates films.

[spynovelfan]

Well, I disagree. I think he'd be far less risky than, for example, Cavill or O'Lachlan or Visjnic. I can't *prove* it, obviously, but here's my reasoning. All of those three have obvious problems with them: one is very young, one doesn't speak English as his first language and one isn't British. Of the three, obviously O'Lachlan is the least problematic from that point of view. But I think Dancy would be far less risky, simply because he is British and upper-class. Sure, lots of people in the States wouldn't have heard of him. But what's risky about a young, British actor like Dancy? Where's the weak point where someone says 'I won't go to see Casino Royale because he's in it'? He's too pretty? I don't think so - I think casting Daniel Craig would be riskier. We can't have it all ways. Dancy would be too young, too pretty, not known. So a risk. But Daniel Craig would be too old, too ugly, and not known. Etc. The audience suddenly changes their mind depending on which actor we favour. I think *in the real world*, the safest bet is someone who is

1. Indisputably good-looking
2. Between 27 and 35
3. British
4. Upper-middle-class
5. Has some kind of a profile in the US, even if quite small and Seannery never saw KING ARTHUR, but is not an A-list star or looking like they are about to be A-list (and so don't need Bond).

Those would be my ideal criteria. Atterton, Davenport and Penry-Jones all fit - so do several others. I happen to like Dancy for it. 1 rules out Craig, McMahon, Morrissey, Stewart, many others. 2 rules out Cavill, Adrian Paul, Jason Isaacs, Jeremy Northam, several others. 3 rules out Visjnic, O'Lachlan, Ledger, Brad Pitt, several others. 4 rules out Clive Owen, Craig once more, several others. 5 rules out O'Lachlan, Jude Law, Ewan McGregor, Jackman, Owen and probably Butler. Etc.

That's my reasoning. Whether or not you happen to have heard of Hugh Dancy doesn't change the fact that he's currently in every issue of GQ and ESQUIRE in the US in ads with Kate Moss and *about* to be in BASIC INSTINCT 2, does it?

[Loomis]

Daniel Craig would be too old, too ugly, and not known.

Not known? He's Tom Cruise compared to the likes of Cavill, Dancy and O'Lachlan! And I'll venture that he'll become more famous than Visnjic when MUNICH is released at the end of this year.

Really, Craig seems the only "celebrity" candidate in the running at the moment. Unless Dougray Scott is also a contender. But if there's one thing Sony and Eon wouldn't have to worry about with Craig, it's his level of recognition. He's only just not Owen. Plenty of areas of concern about him, though, of course.

[ACE]

I think *in the real world*, the safest bet is someone who is

1. Indisputably good-looking
2. Between 27 and 35
3. British
4. Upper-middle-class
5. Has some kind of a profile in the US, even if quite small and Seannery never saw KING ARTHUR, but is not an A-list star or looking like they are about to be A-list (and so don't need Bond).

Excellent analysis of the criteria, SNF.

Some more:

1) Over 6ft
2) Want the part and will sign to series
3) Comfortable and good with promotion - must want to be a star.

Hugh Dancy is 5' 11'

A massive factor in my rationale for a new Bond had been the requirement for some sort of profile in America.

However, Lachlan and Cavill have NOTHING. They don't even have profile in the UK.

So, if Eon are not so worried about having somebody vaguely known but not a star in the States, they could actually go for my personal favourite who really would be excellent in the role:

Jack Davenport http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0202603/

What do you think, SNF?

Perhaps you're saving him for some other, important role?

ACE

[rdh007]

Davenport is a great idea financially and he has the looks and the chops. Erase Coupling from his CV/Resume and replace it with something like "Spooks" and you'd have a favorite.

Davenport is undeniably British, the right age, and has the look.

[MarJil]

I think *in the real world*, the safest bet is someone who is

1. Indisputably good-looking
2. Between 27 and 35
3. British
4. Upper-middle-class
5. Has some kind of a profile in the US, even if quite small and Seannery never saw KING ARTHUR, but is not an A-list star or looking like they are about to be A-list (and so don't need Bond).

Excellent analysis of the criteria, SNF.

Some more:

1) Over 6ft
2) Want the part and will sign to series
3) Comfortable and good with promotion - must want to be a star.

Hugh Dancy is 5' 11'

A massive factor in my rationale for a new Bond had been the requirement for some sort of profile in America.

However, Lachlan and Cavill have NOTHING. They don't even have profile in the UK.

So, if Eon are not so worried about having somebody vaguely known but not a star in the States, they could actually go for my personal favourite who really would be excellent in the role:

Jack Davenport http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0202603/

What do you think, SNF?

Perhaps you're saving him for some other, important role?

ACE

I do appreciate the logic you use when you come to your conclusions, spynovelfan. Most people (including myself) just form opinions based on feelings, but you always do have an analytical reason for your opinions. I would agree with most of your criteria, especially when augmented by the 3 that Ace added to them. I personally feel that you left out the most important ingredient, however, and that is that Bond has to have charisma above all else. Granted, that doesn't have anything to do with being a safe bet, but it has everything to do with being a great Bond rather than one who just fills the chair (Brosnan being the perfect example of that, because he fit all of your criteria and was therefore very safe, but I didn't think he was able to rise above just being "safe"). Dancy would be safe. Jack Davenport would be safe (though I would be waiting for him to launch into some monologue about how men were put on the earth solely to "enjoy erotica"). I don't want Bond to be "safe" anymore. I'd rather see Bond be the killer that has been cultivated into a gentleman rather than the Moore-like gentleman who sometimes has to kill. That's why I'd like to see someone who has a villainous edge to them, someone like Urban or Butler or even Craig.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Is Karl Urban the assassin that Bourne almost kills during the climactic car chase? If he is, well - he could fit into the Bond role quite well.

That's right (and funnily enough, Owen plays a very similar role in the first Bourne). BTW, Csokas is the Treadstone agent Bourne drops in on in Germany in SUPREMACY.

If The Powers That Be were looking at people like Craig, Owen and Dougray Scott (and it seems that they were - I think CBn's "sources" confirmed Scott as a candidate a while back), then I'd be amazed if they didn't also consider Csokas and Urban.

As for Craig, I remain of the view that I'll be absolutely staggered if he ends up as Bond.

I love Karl Urban as the next THOR, but not James Bond. He looks...well...too..not exactly British...let's just say I bought him as a Russian assassin...he looks eastern european/German...he's cool but I see him as an ideal Bond adversary/henchman...not 007.Love those Treadstone guys though...

[spynovelfan]

I think *in the real world*, the safest bet is someone who is

1. Indisputably good-looking
2. Between 27 and 35
3. British
4. Upper-middle-class
5. Has some kind of a profile in the US, even if quite small and Seannery never saw KING ARTHUR, but is not an A-list star or looking like they are about to be A-list (and so don't need Bond).

Excellent analysis of the criteria, SNF.

Some more:

1) Over 6ft
2) Want the part and will sign to series
3) Comfortable and good with promotion - must want to be a star.

Hugh Dancy is 5' 11'

A massive factor in my rationale for a new Bond had been the requirement for some sort of profile in America.

However, Lachlan and Cavill have NOTHING. They don't even have profile in the UK.

So, if Eon are not so worried about having somebody vaguely known but not a star in the States, they could actually go for my personal favourite who really would be excellent in the role:

Jack Davenport http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0202603/

What do you think, SNF?

Perhaps you're saving him for some other, important role?

ACE

Yes, I think Jack Davenport would be a very safe pair of hands as Bond commercially. He has less of a profile in the US than Dancy, I think, but two Pirates of the Caribbean films are coming soon and I think he'd be a no-brainer. For my liking he seems a bit too much of a public-school prat, but there really would be no problem casting him. Zencat said what I was trying to say in another post - when you change Bonds, it's not usually a good idea to change direction as well. As they seem to be doing that, I think to minimise the risk they should go with a very easily sellable actor as Bond. It's silly to talk about the likes of Ewan mcgregor or Colin Farrell or whoever - they won't do it. So you need an upcoming actor who even people who have never heard of him will accept in the part. It's easy to say that Davenport or Dancy or others don't look tough enough, but that is, in my view, a hell of a lot safer than casting someone like Craig - there's a serious danger there that the series ends as a result. I agree that it would be great to have someone who's a bit of a bruiser, but they also need to be able to project that suave element, and that has to be more dominant.

I don't agree that Dancy is not a viable commercial candidate because he's an inch short of six foot.

I watched KING ARTHUR last night, and was struck that the actor who seemed most Bond of the lot was not Owen, or Gruffudd, or even Dancy, but Ray Stevenson in the role of Dagonet. He was tough, brooding, but conventionally handsome. He's from Newcastle, but sounded like Bond. He's six four, aged 41. He has recently been getting rave reviews for his part in HBO's series ROME:

http://www.theglobea...PEntertainment/

Yes, I'm arguing for pink-shirt guy as Bond. It's come to that.



There are lots of candidates who'd minimise the risks involved with replacing Brosnan (the first actor in the role who the public has not yet tired of?) and darkening the tone of the films at the same time. So it just seems very strange they'd bother even looking at people who are Croatian and so on.

[hrabb04]

Holy cow! And I thought the pic of Pierce in the cheerleader pic was traumatizing!

[spynovelfan]

Fussy lot, aren't you?

[marktmurphy]

Davenport is a great idea financially and he has the looks and the chops.  Erase Coupling from his CV/Resume and replace it with something like "Spooks" and you'd have a favorite. 

Well, he did used to do the 'MI5, not 9 to 5' trailer voice overs! Does that count?

[spynovelfan]

Did he - didn't know that! He'd be good in that show. He obviously has an in with John Cleese - perhaps he is a candidate after all?



Could anyone really deny that if this guy was cast he'd be a safer choice than Goran Visjnic, Daniel Craig, Henry Cavill or Alex O'Lachlan?

[hrabb04]

He looks like Pavel Chekov's brother.

[spynovelfan]

hrabb, why bother? Tell you what - you post an image of who you'd like to be Bond (not Brosnan), and I'll post a sarcy remark about his dick size in return.

Alternatively - why bother?

[hrabb04]

spynovelfan, there's some things I just will not do...and posting pics for you to remark about his dick size...no can do!

[Alessandra]

Did he - didn't know that! He'd be good in that show. He obviously has an in with John Cleese - perhaps he is a candidate after all?



Could anyone really deny that if this guy was cast he'd be a safer choice than Goran Visjnic, Daniel Craig, Henry Cavill or Alex O'Lachlan?

oh DEAR.. we've gotten to this point.
I swear I WAS thinking about how come nobody had mentioned this guy, since I was watching him in "the wedding date" (a finely amusing movie btw), the other day.
So ok, yes he's better than visnjic for sure.. but... HE DOESN'T HAVE THE GUTS!!!
Still, if those are the candidates, I agre.. he'd be better than the others.

[spynovelfan]

spynovelfan, there's some things I just will not do...and posting pics for you to remark about his dick size...no can do!

You sound like Hale and Pace, only not as funny.

See how easy that is?

[Alessandra]

And please.. NO, DON'T EVEN MENTION COLIN FIRTH AS BOND!!
I find it outrageous enough that they chose HIM to portray the HUNKIEST man in NOVEL HISTORY, MARK DARCY... and besides one of my two favourite novels of all times.. that was outrageous.. LET ALONE him playing BOND!!
NO NO and NO!

[spynovelfan]

And please.. NO, DON'T EVEN MENTION COLIN FIRTH AS BOND!!
I find it outrageous enough that they chose HIM to portray the HUNKIEST man in NOVEL HISTORY, MARK DARCY... and besides one of my two favourite novels of all times.. that was outrageous.. LET ALONE him playing BOND!!
NO NO and NO!

I wouldn't dream of doing that, Alessandra - he's all wrong for the part.

His brother, Jonathan, however, would be a much safer choice than most people currently being mentioned: