72 replies to this topic

[trumanlodge89]

i really could care less at how old they actually are, but more how they look. moore picking up the role at 46 looked better than connery at 41 when he left the role.

harrison ford can still play a convincing indiana jones, IMO.


however, they cannot look too young either. this has not happened in the series yet, but very well could.

and like others have said before, its all about the performence.

[Martin Mystery]

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.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

MM

[Mr. Somerset]

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

MM

That was good. Clive will be 41 once cameras roll in January.
I'm still down for him as Bond, otherwise, someone between 34 and 42. A nice range of eight years!

[Bond_Bishop]

30 to 40's

[luciusgore]

My own take is that Bond is eternally 42. He was 42 in "Dr. No." He was 42 in "Goldeneye." Brosnan still looks 42. He looks great. Of course, Owen is that age too. Bond is NOT 22. That was some other Bond. He's especially not 22 if he's working for Judi Dench.

Although Lazenby was 29 when he played the role, the character was still early 40s. Just looked damn good for his age. Again, Brosnan looks great for his age, and is roughly the age Roger Moore was when he made "Spy Who Loved Me."

[TortillaFactory]

Maybe Bond is eternally in his late thirties, but Casino Royale is meant to take place earlier in his career. He's not mature, and he hasn't yet reached his prime, IMHO. That's one reason why I'd like to see a younger actor in the role. There may be lots of immature younger actors, but many are/were remarkably mature in their late twenties: Joaquin Phoenix, for example, or Ewan McGregor. Surely someone of their ilk can be found for Bond. Personally I think McGregor is too cute and cuddly (also too rangy - he doesn't need Bond, so why typecast himself?), and obviously Pheonix is too dark and chubby and short and American, but my point still stands.

Edited by TortillaFactory, 29 May 2005 - 08:57 PM.

[Seannery]

Maybe Bond is eternally in his late thirties, but Casino Royale is meant to take place earlier in his career.  He's not mature, and he hasn't yet reached his prime, IMHO.  That's one reason why I'd like to see a younger actor in the role.  There may be lots of immature younger actors, but many are/were remarkably mature in their late twenties: Joaquin Phoenix, for example, or Ewan McGregor.  Surely someone of their ilk can be found for Bond.  Personally I think McGregor is too cute and cuddly (also too rangy - he doesn't need Bond, so why typecast himself?), and obviously Pheonix is too dark and chubby and short and American, but my point still stands.

Casino Royale like all Bond stories are used by Eon as a jumping off point only--so there is a lot of flexibility on how they eventually adapt it and what age actor they get. Michael Wilson has already said that the novel will only be in part of the movie and that the story will be expanded upon. And not many late 20 actors are mature and have gravitas--they'd be extremely lucky to find one who at the same time is well cast as Bond. Whereas there are a bunch more in the mid to late 30's and 40's who can fit the bill.

[TortillaFactory]

It's possible they could use the novel as a jumping-off point, but I'm afraid they'll botch it. The nature of the story demands that Bond's still a little naive, and if they change it too much, the whole plot might topple. Ah well, I trust them....sort of.

[Bryce (003)]

Good points Totilla Factory (BTW - welcome to CBn).

I somewhat doubt Casino Royale will be a "Bond Begins" story though - Just a personal theory/opinion. The Judi Dench back as M factor, blows the timeline.

The right actor (much like Connery in Dr. No) could pull it off in his early 30's, but they'd really need to bring something unique to it.

[TortillaFactory]

You are right - it would be nigh-impossible to make it a Bond Begins story. On the other hand, the timeline of the Bond films is so screwy that it might just work. It's not like it would be a huge shock to have something that was out of place chronologically. "Oh my God, it's not realistic! Burn them!" Heh.

[trumanlodge89]

yeah, the continuity in this series is not exactly like the Star Wars series. the only real continuous fact in the bond universe is that he is a widow (post 1969). hey, if star wars did prequels, why cant bond?

[Herchu]

It deppends of actor's face...
I think it should start 35-40

Ciao

[tdalton]

yeah, the continuity in this series is not exactly like the Star Wars series. the only real continuous fact in the bond universe is that he is a widow (post 1969). hey, if star wars did prequels, why cant bond?

Because for Bond to do prequels, they would have to be set during the 1950s or the early 1960s for them to make even the slightest bit of sense. And it appears as though EON isn't the least bit interested in making period pieces, which means that we'll never see a Bond prequel (nor should there ever be one).

[Stephenson]

They would only have to be set in the 1950's or 1960's if the mass of the movie going audience was familiar with older movies (and cared that there was some "timeline" that was being violated, which I don't think they do). One of the most prominent arguments given for keeping Brosnan is how familiar and adored he is by the majority of movie goers. For the modern audience Bond stops and starts with Brosnan, the argument seems to state. If that's the case then a prequel would only have to be set in the early 1990's, which are enough like today to be barely noticeable.

I like the idea of a new Bond movie set in the 1960's for stylistic reasons (it would be very cool IMO), but if Eon does decides to go the prequel route (and it is by no means clear what they are planning), I don't think they'll be offering up any justification for it. They're just trying to make an entertaining movie that will bring in the $$$.

[MarJil]

For this answer we should just go to the master, Sir Connery. He said when AVTAK came out that he and Roger were both too old (Sean was 54 at the time and Roger a few years older) and that Bond should be played by someone about 32 to 35 years old. Obviously you have to cut some slack or you'd have to change actors ever other film, but this is as good a starting point as any.

Personally I feel the minimum age to start is about 28, and there should be a mandatory retirement age of 50, no matter how young they supposedly look (and let's face it, there has only been one really good Bond movie made with an actor who has already appeared in 4 films (FYEO) so we could also impose a 4 film limit to keep things fresh. For the first casting of the new actor I think 40 is about right for the oldest actors they should consider, which would mean that the oldest acceptable candidates to me at this time are Purefoy and Owen. I'm not sure who the youngest acceptable candidates are, but there must be some guys around 32 who could make it work, say Karl Urban or maybe Noah Huntley (who I just saw in 28 Days Later in a very small part, but he just struck me as a guy who looked and acted like Bond. I haven't seen him in anything else though, so I could be totally wrong on him). If you consider all the elements, youth but still capturing the correct gravitas, I think the 35 year old Butler is the best bet.

[Bon-san]

[quote name='Martin Mystery' date='27 May 2005 - 16:16'][quote name='zencat' date='27 May 2005 - 17:37']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

[pieffra]

i think he must be 30 to 35.........

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]I think I

[tdalton]

[quote name='Bon-san' date='31 May 2005 - 09:32'][quote name='Martin Mystery' date='27 May 2005 - 16:16'][quote name='zencat' date='27 May 2005 - 17:37']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

[Mr. Somerset]

[quote name='Bon-san' date='31 May 2005 - 05:32'][quote name='Martin Mystery' date='27 May 2005 - 16:16'][quote name='zencat' date='27 May 2005 - 17:37']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

[Seannery]

Okay since both you guys will fourth that--so will I! Let's all fourth it. It definitely is a strong enough point to fourth or seventh or whatever.

[Martin Mystery]

Let's send it to Eon and Sony!

MM

[rogermoore007]

I think he should be 52...

[Qwerty]

Let's send it to Eon and Sony!

MM

Do you think they'll listen?

[Martin Mystery]

Maybe if we got two million people to sign it.

MM

[SeanValen00V]

He must start off, looking like 33-40ish.

Moore was 45 in LALD, his first Bond, but he looked in his mid 30s at least.

[Qwerty]

Maybe if we got two million people to sign it. 

MM

LOL. Big 'If'.

[Taitinger blanc de blancs]

lets look at this age thing according to the original casino story by ian fleming. In the book jb was supposed to have been involved in a casino job before the war (ww II) if he was about 20 at that time by the time casino royal was written in 1953 he would be about 35 or 36. so, most of you are right on the nose about the age thing. Roger moore was older but he looked the age. As stated earlier by zencat he has to project a certain toughness or edge to him and maturity helps any actor do that, but at the same time it might not be a bad idea, in this case, to fill the part with a somewhat younger actor. lets say around 30 or so. Im sure there are some younger actors who could fit. After all this story is the first one of jb series. It might not hurt to have a younger actor of 30 play the part. It seems to me that with a new actor coming in its a chance to infuse some energy into the mix and bring in the younger crowd.

Edited by Taitinger blanc de blancs, 04 June 2005 - 05:30 AM.

[Sam Fisher]

Mid to late thirties. I swear to almighty god that if the next Bond is a Timberlake 20 something I'm done. Walking thru the doors and signing up with Third Echleon. LOL.

[Stephenson]

At times, I have to wonder how old some of the people who post on here really are. As a 35 year old, who has many friends in their late twenties to early to mid thirties, I can tell you with a fair amount of confidence that Moore looked 37-40 in LALD. Brosnan pulled off 37 or 38 in GE but after that it was obvious he was in his forties. Dalton always looked to be in his early 40's. And Connery aged before his time, looking like he was in his late forties in DAF. How attractive they were at these various ages is, of course, a matter of opinion. But all the makeup in the world is not going to make a 45 to 55 year old male look like he is in his early to mid 30's (if that's what you want )