72 replies to this topic

[Seannery]

Okay Cbn reports that Eon is looking at all types of actors of various ages to be the next James Bond. If you were in a position to be an advisor to them or Sony--What advice would you give them concerning the age of the next Bond?


I'll start. First of all I am not philosophically opposed to a late 20's early 30's Bond ala Sean Connery circa Dr. No with Bond early in his career BUT still cool and confident and not as a novice. BUT I find this a very risky move for one particular reason--there are very few actors especially in our immature age that have the gravitas and manliness that Sean Connery had at that early age. The vast majority of youngish actors nowadays remain boyish much longer and would NOT fit Bond. To go this young route would be very hard and Eon/Sony would be hard pressed to find anyone suitable for Bond success.


That is why I recommend easily the most sure route for Bond success in the present day by going for a Bond at least 35 years old up to some one in their 40's. Actors look younger longer nowadays and the vast majority don't shake the boyishness and get the "man" quality until well into their 30's. Bond is an experienced person even before going into Mi6 and we need an actor that has that gravity and seasoned feel as soon as he steps into Mi6. I see a number of reasonable choices for Bond aged 35 and up BUT I am hard pressed to find one in the younger category. Maybe some young unknown may have that quality that Connery gave us BUT unless they get lucky enough to find that rare youngish actor failure is likely. So if Eon draws an inside straight and gives us some young Bond with the qualities of a young Connery, then great. Otherwise this route could easily fail. Instead I say go the route of 35 and up where there a number of candidates that can do well as Bond and much more easily fit the character of Bond.

[Mr. Somerset]

Okay Cbn reports that Eon is looking at all types of actors of various ages to be the next James Bond.  If you were in a position to be an advisor to them or Sony--What advice would you give them concerning the age of the next Bond?


I'll start.  First of all I am not philosophically opposed to a late 20's early 30's Bond ala Sean Connery circa Dr. No with Bond early in his career BUT still cool and confident and not as a novice.  BUT I find this a very risky move for one particular reason--there are very few actors especially in our immature age that have the gravitas and manliness that Sean Connery had at that early age.  The vast majority of youngish actors nowadays remain boyish much longer and would NOT fit Bond.  To go this young route would be very hard and Eon/Sony would be hard pressed to find anyone suitable for Bond success.


That is why I recommend easily the most sure route for Bond success in the present day by going for a Bond at least 35 years old up to some one in their 40's.  Actors look younger longer nowadays and the vast majority don't shake the boyishness and get the "man" quality until well into their 30's.  Bond is an experienced person even before going into Mi6 and we need an actor that has that gravity and seasoned feel as soon as he steps into Mi6.  I see a number of reasonable choices for Bond aged 35 and up BUT I am hard pressed to find one in the younger category.  Maybe some young unknown may have that quality that Connery gave us BUT unless they get lucky enough to find that rare youngish actor failure is likely.  So if Eon draws an inside straight and gives us some young Bond with the qualities of a young Connery, then great.  Otherwise this route could easily fail.  Instead I say go the route of 35 and up where there a number of candidates that can do well as Bond and much more easily fit the character of Bond.

Couldn't have said it better myself, Seannery. It's funny, even actors nowadays in their early 40s (Cruise, Pitt and so forth) still seem to have the maturity of, say, a 28 year old. No, Bond, (I believe Fleming says he's 37 in Moornraker), should appear the expert. I was never bothered by Lazenby's age because he was masculine. Now, though, it's different. I think Russel Crowe was about 32, or 33 when he did LA Confidential. Though I might not neccesarily think of him as Bond, he's a good example of a leading actor who has that mature quality. Even if the producers are truely going or the young adventures of Bond, so to speak, I don't want to see an actor who is just a pretty face for OO7.

[Stephenson]

32 to 35, with 38 being the upper limit. I think we might be expecting the next Bond to just walk onto the set and be "Bond". IMO Connery, Dalton and Brosnan didn't really hit their stride until their 2nd movies (some would say third movie for Connery and Brosnan). So I would be willing to cut the new guy some slack in his first outing and go with someone a little younger, if it meant we would have someone that would grow with the role and stick around for 3 to 5 films without the "does he look too old" issue ever coming up.

[tdalton]

If it were up to me, I'd look for someone no younger than 35, but my ideal age would be someone in their 40s.

[doublenoughtspy]

I agree with Stephenson - 32-35 would be ideal.

[Seannery]

32 to 35, with 38 being the upper limit. I think we might be expecting the next Bond to just walk onto the set and be "Bond". IMO Connery, Dalton and Brosnan didn't really hit their stride until their 2nd movies (some would say third movie for Connery and Brosnan). So I would be willing to cut the new guy some slack in his first outing and go with someone a little younger, if it meant we would have someone that would grow with the role and stick around for 3 to 5 films without the "does he look too old" issue ever coming up.

I could see 32 to 35 as possible BUT still unlikely to find a candidate that has the young Connery gravitas. If they do good. BUT I find this unlikely. And there are a number of 40 somethings that look 35, 36, 37 or even younger while having more gravitas so I wouldn't limit it. And i'll have to disagree that Connery , Dalton and Brosnan needed more than one movie to be Bond.

[Stephenson]

I wasn't thinking about how young a 42 year old looks now, I was thinking 10 years into the future when the (hopefully!) same actor is (hopefully!) on his fourth film.

As for when each actor did their best work as Bond, that is obviously a matter of preference. While Connery, Dalton and Brosnan all had an immediate presence (and I wasn't trying to say they didn't), personally I feel they all did their best work in their 2nd and 3rd movies (I think Dalton woudl have found his perfect balance if he had a third shot at it).

Regarding the "gravitas" you speak of, I believe it is rare whether the man is 32 or 52. That's what makes Bond (and the actor who plays him) special. An older actor might bring more maturity; that is definitely lacking in many younger actors today (you and I are in complete agreement about the "alter to youth" that seems to have invaded Hollywood). But I think there are a couple of mature 32 to 35 year olds out there who could fit into this role very nicely at the start and keep getting better with age.

[Bryce (003)]

35-38.

In the novel Moonraker, we get our first and perhaps only factual math to work with in regards to Bond's age.

The first chapter "Secret Paper work", it's mentioned that agents are taken off active duty at the age of 45. Bond muses that he has eight more years in the Double-O section. Hence, Bond is 37 when Moonraker takes place.

Based on that, from then on whenever I read Bond, I always pictured him at being eternally that age.

Although, when License Renewed came out (and after NSNA) I couldn't get the image of Connery in NSNA as the Bond of LR in my mind's eye.

It's not so much about the age of the actor, but the presence they have on screen and give to the role.

If I'm correct, let me tally these.

Connery - 31 in Dr. No.
Lazenby - 30 in OHMSS
Moore - 43 in LALD
Dalton - 41 in LTK
Brosnan - 41 in GE

Average age (based on above numbers) - 37.2

Being 37 myself, I like the logic.

[Seannery]

35-38.

In the novel Moonraker, we get our first and perhaps only factual math to work with in regards to Bond's age.

The first chapter "Secret Paper work", it's mentioned that agents are taken off active duty at the age of 45. Bond muses that he has eight more years in the Double-O section. Hence, Bond is 37 when Moonraker takes place.

Based on that, from then on whenever I read Bond, I always pictured him at being eternally that age.

Although, when License Renewed came out (and after NSNA) I couldn't get the image of Connery in NSNA as the Bond of LR in my mind's eye.

It's not so much about the age of the actor, but the presence they have on screen and give to the role.

If I'm correct, let me tally these.

Connery - 31 in Dr. No.
Lazenby - 30 in OHMSS
Moore - 43 in LALD
Dalton - 41 in LTK
Brosnan - 41 in GE

Average age (based on above numbers) - 37.2

Being 37 myself, I like the logic.

Well you have you to up that a little--Moore was 46, Brosnan 42(or 44 if you believe some sources).

[Stephenson]

Then perhaps they were "too old" as opposed to a 34 year old being "too young"

[Loomis]

Bond's age really doesn't matter to me. I enjoy ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and A VIEW TO A KILL without giving a thought to 007's youthfulness in the former or his old age in the latter. 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s - I don't care, so long as it's an actor giving a decent performance as Bond in a good film.

[Gri007]

between 35 and 40

[K1Bond007]

Ideally anyone who looks 37, although I do believe the actor should be roughly 35. The problem I have, is not that a twenty-something year old can't pull off a mature enough appearance to play Bond or whatever, it's more so how long are they going to be around for? Ideally 5 movies at most then move on to a new actor. I don't like the idea of hiring a 25 year old and possibly having him stick around for the next 25 years.

[Bryce (003)]

Well you have you to up that a little--Moore was 46, Brosnan 42(or 44 if you believe some sources).

Fair enough Seannery.

Moore was 45-46 and born in 1927 (it was bugging me after I posted so I went to IMDB)

I'm pretty solid on Brosnan being 41 when GE was lensing though.

Factoring that in: 37.6 average actor's age who have played Bond in their initial film.

[Bryce (003)]

...I don't care, so long as it's an actor giving a decent performance as Bond in a good film.

Bloody well said Loomis.

[Seannery]

I wasn't thinking about how young a 42 year old looks now, I was thinking 10 years into the future when the (hopefully!) same actor is (hopefully!) on his fourth film.

As for when each actor did their best work as Bond, that is obviously a matter of preference. While Connery, Dalton and Brosnan all had an immediate presence (and I wasn't trying to say they didn't), personally I feel they all did their best work in their 2nd and 3rd movies (I think Dalton woudl have found his perfect balance if he had a third shot at it).

Regarding the "gravitas" you speak of, I believe it is rare whether the man is 32 or 52. That's what makes Bond (and the actor who plays him) special. An older actor might bring more maturity; that is definitely lacking in many younger actors today (you and I are in complete agreement about the "alter to youth" that seems to have invaded Hollywood). But I think there are a couple of mature 32 to 35 year olds out there who could fit into this role very nicely at the start and keep getting better with age.

Well in some ways we aren't too far off--you just edge a little younger for Bond while I go for a little more mature 007. BUT I submit gravitas AND manliness isn't rare--only among youngish actors. And like I say if they find one who has it fine though they may not. And a 40 something that looks somewhere in the mid to even late 30's can easily do 4 Bonds or possibly more while keeping the dash and good looks. Moore was fine IMO in Octopussy at 56 and Pierce today at 52 or 54 can easily do Bond. And yes it's judgement as to when a Bond did his best work BUT as you say Roger, Timothy and Pierce had an immediate presence and did not need two films to convince.


Anyway our bet is still on and this debate seems to be running along the same lines. What was it?--32 to 35 you win--35 to 37 a tie--38 and above I win.

[Martin Mystery]

Bond should be 41-42 years old - or more precisely: the exact same age as Clive Owen!

MM

[Seannery]

Bond's age really doesn't matter to me. I enjoy ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and A VIEW TO A KILL without giving a thought to 007's youthfulness in the former or his old age in the latter. 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s - I don't care, so long as it's an actor giving a decent performance as Bond in a good film.

Actually I kind of agree with Loomis here. A wide range of ages can work here 20's thru 50's IF the actor is right for Bond. I just find it much more rare for a young actor to have the full Bondian qualities--though yes it is possible. An example of an older actor who still has Bondian dash is someone who could have been Bond in the 70's and 80's--Eric Braeden of Victor from the Young and the Restless fame. I think he's 64 BUT he still has "IT". Subtract 10 years back to 1994 and he could have done Bond with ease. Others may know him from Colussus:The Forbin Project and Escape from the Planet of the Apes. A bit off the wall BUT this guy had the suave, cool and looks while remarkably retaining much of it still. Just one example of the wide range of age possibilities. As long as the actor has IT, i'll be satisfied.

[Stephenson]

Seannery, I actually thought the purpose of this post was to start making odds!

Again, regarding "gravitas" or "presence", this is what I find so difficult about trying to define that intangible quality (or mix of qualities) that makes the movie Bond "Bond". Confidence, charm, ruthlessness, emotional detachment, lust, worldliness, expertise: these are what I was refering to as "presence", and you possible referred to as "gravitas". In any event, I stick by my claim: these are rare qualities in any man, no matter what the age. My preference for a younger actor has to do with my wanting to have an actor who is going to stick around for a while, without appearing "too old" IMO. But he still has to be the right actor!

[Seannery]

Seannery, I actually thought the purpose of this post was to start making odds!

Again, regarding "gravitas" or "presence", this is what I find so difficult about trying to define that intangible quality (or mix of qualities) that makes the movie Bond "Bond". Confidence, charm, ruthlessness, emotional detachment, lust, worldliness, expertise: these are what I was refering to as "presence", and you possible referred to as "gravitas". In any event, I stick by my claim: these are rare qualities in any man, no matter what the age. My preference for a younger actor has to do with my wanting to have an actor who is going to stick around for a while, without appearing "too old" IMO. But he still has to be the right actor!

By gravitas I mean seriousness, depth and weight--not the same as a striking presence which you can have at any age. And I linked gravitas closely to manliness because for males this is linked I believe.

[Stephenson]

And you believe manliness is directly related to age?

[zencat]

I would tell Eon/Sony...

I think Bonds need to be at least 35 (and can go as old as they like). James Bond's "power" comes from his worldly experience -- a friend and woman in every country. The whole point of Bond is he's the ultimate professional, a man of the world. Bond is projection fantasy figure for all ages, and youth has never really been a part of the Bond world (except with the women, and even there a certain older maturity of style is necessary). Like all things in the Bond world, tradition and age makes them vintage and cool on a level far beyond the xXx's. It's the difference between a Ferrari and an Aston Martin. Twentysomsthings drive Ferries because they want to be seen as "cool." But when you get a little experience under your belt, drives a few dozen Ferraris, you understand why an Aston Martin is the real deal and getting to that place makes you cool in whole new way -- a "James Bond" way. That also goes for the wine you drink and the women you bed. Bond is beyond the twentysomething xXx club cool (which is created by advertising and dates in an eye blink anyway). Therefore, making 007 a twentysomething is incredibly wrong headed. You're taking away James Bond's Bondness. The film will be seen as trying to look cool instead of being cool. And while audiences may be curious and have a look, I don't think they'll come back for movie 2 (is anyone clamming for another Ben Affeck Jack Ryan movie?). James Bond didn't become James Bond until he hit his 30s, IMO, therefor the actor should be that age, or, like Laz, look that age. It's critical.

[Stephenson]

Well I guess I should be asking the question: are we talking about how old Bond shoudl be or how old the actor playing him should be? As Bryce clearly pointed out they are different things (esp. if Fleming expected Bond to retire by age 45!).

[Seannery]

And you believe manliness is directly related to age?

I believe especially in our Peter Pan culture males grow from boys into men much later than they used to--and actors tend to be more soft and boyish than the general population. There are a few actors like Russell Crowe that have that manliness and gravitas at a younger age BUT not many--that is partly why he became in such demand. Look at the actors from the 50's, 60's and even the 70's somewhat and see how much more older and mature they seem to their age counterparts of the more present period. The difference is striking.

[Bondesque]

Bond should be 37 years old but with timeless maturity. Cary Grant (one of Flemmings original choices)always had an ageless maturity about him regardless of his age. Connery also has it, Michael Cain and others.

[Seannery]

Bond should be 37 years old but with timeless maturity.  Cary Grant (one of Flemmings original choices)always had an ageless maturity about him regardless of his age.  Connery also has it, Michael Cain and others.

Excellent point! Cary Grant at 60 in Father Goose(as a movie nut i've seen this very good comedy) could have played Bond with ease in all respects and been extremely popular at any time period. He just had "IT" and retained dashing looks till that late date.

[Stephenson]

If the character of Bond is supposed to be 37, then I really do think a younger actor would work, say 33. Although they are admittedly rare, mature actors of this age do exist (to use Seannery's own example of Crow), and could convincingly play someone older. So the actor would be 33 for

[Stephenson]

Sorry for the double post. Seannery,here are the rules we agreed on for the bet:

sorry if I double posted! Okay Seannery, how about this: just for and giggles, if Eon chooses an actor 33 years old or less on the day he is announced, I win (what I win, I have no idea); if Eon chooses an actor 38 years old or older on the day he is announced you win (bragging rights or we can come up with something else); if Eon chooses an actor that is between 34 and 37 on the day that he is announced we call it a draw. As you can see from my pp I actually like Butler for the next Bond, as your choice is Paul: so as a little bonus, if either of our personal picks are announced we add a little somethin' somethin' to sweeten the pot. Let me know what you think

[Seannery]

[quote name='Stephenson' date='27 May 2005 - 19:11']If the character of Bond is supposed to be 37, then I really do think a younger actor would work, say 33. Although they are admittedly rare, mature actors of this age do exist (to use Seannery's own example of Crow), and could convincingly play someone older. So the actor would be 33 for

[Qwerty]

First coming to the role, 32-42