72 replies to this topic

[Seannery]

[quote name='Stephenson' date='6 June 2005 - 15:43']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

[Stephenson]

I believe it is very relevant when the topic is "How old do I think Bond should be?". My reply was around 35. Please notice I'm not trying to speak about how "right" the other actors were for the role, or how "attractive" one or another was at a particular age. My point is very simple: Moore or Brosnan may look very good for their age, but the DO look their age. There does seem to be a movement here that believes that actors between 35 and 50 looks basically the same, which is, of course complete nonsense. The age of the particular posters is, I think, an important factor in the formation of this opinion. And I by no means mean that to be insulting. But basically, if I want a 33-37 year old Bond character then I also want a 33-37 year old actor to play him. I don't want a 47 year old trying to "play" 35. Just my opinion.

[Seannery]

[quote name='Stephenson' date='6 June 2005 - 17:05']I believe it is very relevant when the topic is "How old do I think Bond should be?". My reply was around 35. Please notice I'm not trying to speak about how "right" the other actors were for the role, or how "attractive" one or another was at a particular age. My point is very simple: Moore or Brosnan may look very good for their age, but the DO look their age. There does seem to be a movement here that believes that actors between 35 and 50 looks basically the same, which is, of course complete nonsense. The age of the particular posters is, I think, an important factor in the formation of this opinion. And I by no means mean that to be insulting. But basically,

[Stephenson]

So an older actor can play a younger man (ie Brosnan can compete with Owen, et al in the age department), but a younger actor can't look older? I think this kind of sits at the core of my (very mild ) annoyance with a lot of the arguments I'm seeing posted. Those of us who want a younger Bond actor (by which I mean someone 33-37) are supposed to settle for the argument that a 42-54 actor will satisfy the audiences' needs, will be all that Bond "needs" to be and will still "look" young enough. But when a younger actor is proposed (again, I'm not talking about 22 year olds, but say someone 29-33), out come the comments about maturity, looking "too young", Cody Banks, etc, etc.

[Seannery]

So an older actor can play a younger man (ie Brosnan can compete with Owen, et al in the age department), but a younger actor can't look older? I think this kind of sits at the core of my (very mild ) annoyance with a lot of the arguments I'm seeing posted. Those of us who want a younger Bond actor (by which I mean someone 33-37) are supposed to settle for the argument that a 42-54 actor will satisfy the audiences' needs, will be all that Bond "needs" to be and will still "look" young enough. But when a younger actor is proposed (again, I'm not talking about 22 year olds, but say someone 29-33), out come the comments about maturity, looking "too young", Cody Banks, etc, etc.

Yes this is partially where we disagree--first of all not everyone wants a 35 year old Bond and as you know a very good number want the normal Bond of the 70's to today in the age of the 40's and even beyond. Even if you do want 35--Yes--it's much easier for an older actor to play younger as we debated before actors today look and stay young looking longer. And today's young actors to a very large degree are too boyish and soft to be able to be convincing as a seasoned naval vet going into Mi6 if they go the beginning route. To find a Connery, Crowe or even Lazenby--a young actor having gravitas and being a man instead of a boy is very hard and to further find one who is well cast as Bond also is doubly hard. If they do great(but would be hard to do) BUT if they don't failure looms large.

[Stephenson]

Yes, this is where we'll have to disagree ... again

I think it is just as hard to find a 45 year old actor who can look 35 than it is to find a 25 year old actor who can look 35. But, as I said, I don't want a 25 year old actor in the role. I want an actor who is in the approximate age range that the character of Bond is supposed to be in (35 to 38), and one who is going to stick around for a while (3-4 films)without age constantly being an issue. My honest opinion is that people want a 42-54 year old actor because they really want a 42-54 year old bond. And of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. But please, lets stop fooling ourselves: I'll give a couple of years on either side (say 39 or 40 playing 35 or 36, just as I'd accept 31 or 32 playing the same) but 45 is never going to look 35.

I asked it before and I'll ask it: is this thread about how old the character should be? Or how old the actor should be? I'm assuming the character, and I think it has been established that he is between 36 and 39 in most of his literary missions. If we are talking about the movie Bond OR how the actor needs to be to play him then it is all personal opinion. Which is why these arguments never seem to end

Edited by Stephenson, 06 June 2005 - 05:28 PM.

[Seannery]

Yes, this is where we'll have to disagree ... again )

I think it is just as hard to find a 45 year old actor who can look 35 than it is to find a 25 year old actor who can look 35. But, as I said, I don't want a 25 year old actor in the role. I want an actor who is in the approximate age range that the character of Bond is supposed to be in (35 to 38), and one who is going to stick around for a while (3-4 films)without age constantly being an issue. My honest opinion is that people want a 42-54 year old actor because they really want a 42-54 year old bond. And of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. But please, lets stop fooling ourselves: I'll give a couple of years on either side (say 39 or 40 playing 35 or 36, just as I'd accept 31 or 32 playing the same) but 45 is never going to look 35.

I asked it before and I'll ask it: is this thread about how old the character should be? Or how old the actor should be? I'm assuming the character, and I think it has been established that he is between 36 and 39 in most of his missions.

Yes we have to disagree here--it's just obvious to me that some people just naturally look younger and often many years younger than their age and can carry that off with ease. The last 3 Bonds did that. Cinematic Bond since 1971 has Bond in his 40's and 50's. The vast majority of Bond movie fans of all ages like this and expect this--most of them don't read Fleming and they picture Bond of the movies not of literature. And on top of this--the younger looking than their age Bonds(Roger, Pierce, Timothy) looked ,in their first movies, the age Fleming describes in his books anyway. And its how old Bond should look on screen NOT the biographical age of a particular actor since the look and age may not coincide depending on the actor--some people look older and some younger than their years sometimes strikingly.

[00-FAN008]

James Bond should be 35 - 45 years of age. Preferably 40. He is not a young man, you know.

[Blofeld's Cat]

So true Stephenson. One can be a young 45 year old like Moore, or an old (a bit unfair so say mature) 35 like Connery.

[Forever007]

If Sony has their way we will see a much younger Bond than we have all benn accustomed to in the past. They want that younger audience, the Spiderman 2 audience and to get that they need a younger Bond. Will it work? Possibly, but my fear of a Playstation Bond scares me frankly. We traditonal Bond fans my have to sacrifice on what age Bond should be for Casino Royale to bring in a whole new generation of fans. Seems like a very tall order:

Younger Bond
Non-Traditional Approach
Character Driven Plot (with mediocre writers)

I hope Martin Campbell is up to the challenge!

[Stephenson]

If Sony has their way we will see a much younger Bond than we have all benn accustomed to in the past.  They want that younger audience, the Spiderman 2 audience and to get that they need a younger Bond.  Will it work? Possibly, but my fear of a Playstation Bond scares me frankly.  We traditonal Bond fans my have to sacrifice on what age Bond should be for Casino Royale to bring in a whole new generation of fans.  Seems like a very tall order:

Younger Bond
Non-Traditional Approach
Character Driven Plot (with mediocre writers)

I hope Martin Campbell is up to the challenge!

I've tried to speak from the perspective of personal preference: I would like to see a younger actor for Bond (33-37). However I don't think it is necessary: neither Eon nor EA has had much trouble successfully marketing movies and games featuring a 40 to 50 year old actor to the mass of youngsters out there. If they wanted to continue with an older (40 to 45) actor I don't see how it would cause much of a problem, as long as he had that "elusive" youthful appearance and could pass for his late 30's.

[Seannery]

[quote name='Stephenson' date='7 June 2005 - 21:00'][quote name='Forever007' date='7 June 2005 - 11:15']If Sony has their way we will see a much younger Bond than we have all benn accustomed to in the past.

[MarJil]

I think he should be 52...

Liam Neeson was still 52 at the time of this post. Would people object to casting a 52 year old for his first Bond film? Is it miscasting to cast someone with decent credentials for the role even if he is a good ten years older than the presumed age of the character, when he hasn't played the role before? I believe Neeson recently claimed that he had been offered the role prior to Goldeneye but turned it down, so apparently he has been considered seriously in the past.