219 replies to this topic

[British Chap]

I'm not too big on Henry Cavill.

Neither am I. Mainly because I'm saving him for Superman.

[Robert Watts]

Worthington's a rising mame at the moment, so he'll probably be too big by the time Craig hangs up his hat.

I agree with the poster about Cavill being nothing to write home about in Whatever Works. Whether that's a circumstancial thing or not is up for debate, but I'm guessing he isn't bad for Bond if the only thing that held him back in the role was his age and Bab's hard on for Craig. He does have some screen presence in those Dunhill ads, so who knows, four plus years is a long time.

Honestly, after reading a serious suggestion of John Barrowman I'd accept just about anyone.

[Ambler]

Honestly, after reading a serious suggestion of John Barrowman I'd accept just about anyone.

Homophobe!

Wot about Matthew Macfadyen?

[Robert Watts]

I have no clue who that is. Facetious or serious?

Edited by Robert Watts, 19 December 2009 - 02:31 PM.

[Ambler]

I have no clue who that is. Facetious or serious?

Check out Macfadyen in In My Father's Den. Set in NZ, so it's as good as Aussie.

[Zorin Industries]

Honestly, after reading a serious suggestion of John Barrowman I'd accept just about anyone.

Homophobe!

Wot about Matthew Macfadyen?

Far too old. And he doesn't need Bond.

[Ambler]

Wot about Matthew Macfadyen?

Far too old. And he doesn't need Bond.

Mid-30s I think.

[mummyboy11]

Sam Worthington!!!!!!!!!!!! Really C'mon...do you really see that hooligan like face in a suit? He looks like a Johnny DoRight who doesn't have a personality.
And Matthew Macfadyen!!! Please....he's skinnier than a broom.

I wish DC will stay up for a couple more and then, we'll see who's in shape and "style"...STYLE guys...it doesn't take just muscles and a face, it's more than that.
Maybe that kid Cavill...in a few years. He's got charm, that's for sure.

PS: Remember this is talking about replacing the most controverse yet brilliant deliver of change in the Bond legacy. I think it's gonna be tuffer for who comes next to substitute Craig than it was for Craig to fill in Brosnan's place.

Edited by mummyboy11, 19 December 2009 - 03:10 PM.

[Trident]

PS: Remember this is talking about replacing the most controverse yet brilliant deliver of change in the Bond legacy. I think it's gonna be tuffer for who comes next to substitute Craig than it was for Craig to fill in Brosnan's place.

True, only too true. Craig's shoes will be several sizes bigger than many may reasonably expect. This will be tough...

[The Shark]

Wot about Matthew Macfadyen?

Far too old. And he doesn't need Bond.

Mid-30s I think.

Quite right. Though he still is a bit too well known in the public eye as a spy already in Spooks, though it's still an interesting proposition.

I'd quite like Craig to do a few more Bond films, if they can give us the sophisticated, smoking, high living, deadly, intelligent, misogynist government agent Fleming created. Craig's a good enough actor, can be charming and witty, the only problem is with the writers and Babs.

[Ambler]

And Matthew Macfadyen!!! Please....he's skinnier than a broom.

The idea that Bond is built like a tank is a recent one. If we had a time machine, I'd cast Jeremy Brett and he was hardly a body builder.

Check him out. He had the look.

EDIT: url added

Edited by Ambler, 19 December 2009 - 04:33 PM.

[The Shark]

Brett was a terrific actor, and the only one that really got the Byronic hero that is Sherlock Holmes. However, he was always a bit too camp, mannered, and at times queeny. Bond needs to be a strongly heterosexual figure, while also being sophisticated and upper-crust.

My dad (a stage actor) was once hit on by a drunk Brett in a pub in the north, but Maggie Smith put some sense into him.

[Ambler]

Brett was queer all right, but then so was Peter Hunt. I don't think his sexuality would have stopped him giving a great performance.

Edited by Ambler, 19 December 2009 - 04:41 PM.

[The Shark]

No, but masterminding a Bond film behind the camera, or pain painstakingly editing film is different to playing James Bond on camera, and convincingly shagging the female proportion of Piz Gloria (minus Bunt).

Edited by The Shark, 19 December 2009 - 04:44 PM.

[Trident]

And Matthew Macfadyen!!! Please....he's skinnier than a broom.

The idea that Bond is built like a tank is a recent one. If we had a time machine, I'd cast Jeremy Brett and he was hardly a body builder.

Check him out. He had the look.

EDIT: url added

Right, that idea indeed is a relatively recent one. But it's also an up to date one mirroring changes in our present time from the 50's/60's. In FRWL the athletic build of Red Grant was a feature immediately making Bond suspicious, so much so that he even made a remark about it.

Today, such stature isn't beyond us mortals any more and you don't need a set of superhuman genes to look this way, provided you are prepared to invest some time, sweat and discipline. So in my book an athletic build, fitting to someone with an active lifestyle (as Bond doubtlessly qualifies pursuing himself) only helps giving a convincing impression for the part.

[Ambler]

That's true enough, but for me Bond should be set in period.

It will happen one day, though probably not in my lifetime.

[The Shark]

The idea of Bond being an ex-bodybuilding strongman is hardly a new one, with Connery being an ex-Mr. Universe competitor in 1950 (he came third) hence contributing to his heavy build. Craig also has to train more to gain a similar weight, due him being shorter, and therefore looking stockier.

[Trident]

That's true enough, but for me Bond should be set in period.

It will happen one day, though probably not in my lifetime.

I'd love a period setting for a Bond one day. But I'm afraid this is absolutely not the way film Bond in our time is heading.

The idea of Bond being an ex-bodybuilding strongman is hardly a new one, with Connery being an ex-Mr. Universe competitor in 1950 (he came third) hence contributing to his heavy build. Craig also has to train more to gain a similar weight, due him being shorter, and therefore looking stockier.

But actually Connery wasn't Fleming's (or anybody's) first choice for Bond and met with some reservation initially. I daresay Brett (or Moore back in that day) were closer to what looks one connected to Bond. And while Connery was still physically impressive in DN, FRWL and GF he was not nearly as well-defined and trained as in this shot and camera didn't particularly dwell on his physics.

[Ambler]

That's correct, Trident. The only actor I can think of who had both qualities - that is, debonair and well-built - was Cary Grant.

[The Shark]

Well surely he can become debonair and sophisticated? If he's in this "development" stage that Micolli keep railing on about then surely he can transform into something closer to Fleming's Bond? He's a good actor after all, on not pathologically un-charming/charismatic.

Edited by The Shark, 19 December 2009 - 05:18 PM.

[jaguar007]

That's correct, Trident. The only actor I can think of who had both qualities - that is, debonair and well-built - was Cary Grant.

Except Cary Grant did not have a dangerous edge that is vital to Bond (and I say that as a huge Cary Grant fan).

[Trident]

I really think debonair, sophisticated and so on, that's all already there with Craig. It's not at the surface, not defining the whole role as was the case with earlier films. But I feel it's there, underneath the actions, sometimes visible with in a detail or two. I don't actually feel there's something missing with Craig right at the moment.

[The Shark]

Quite, the problem isn't with Craig himself, but the writers - mainly P&W. Hopefully Peter Morgan takes as much control as possible while we hope for the best.

[Trident]

That's correct, Trident. The only actor I can think of who had both qualities - that is, debonair and well-built - was Cary Grant.

Except Cary Grant did not have a dangerous edge that is vital to Bond (and I say that as a huge Cary Grant fan).

That was the time when actors of a certain standing didn't dare to take on a role that could possibly damage their public perception. Fred MacMurray once did and allegedly regretted it ever since. Grant doing Bond would have been a similar risk. Alan Ladd might have been up to it, has had a few killer/hard-boiled roles under his belt then.

[jaguar007]

That's correct, Trident. The only actor I can think of who had both qualities - that is, debonair and well-built - was Cary Grant.

Except Cary Grant did not have a dangerous edge that is vital to Bond (and I say that as a huge Cary Grant fan).

That was the time when actors of a certain standing didn't dare to take on a role that could possibly damage their public perception. Fred MacMurray once did and allegedly regretted it ever since. Grant doing Bond would have been a similar risk. Alan Ladd might have been up to it, has had a few killer/hard-boiled roles under his belt then.

Well rumor has it Grant had agreed to do Dr. No but would not do any other Bond films. It is well known that Grant and Cubby were good friends (Grant was the best man at Cubby's wedding to Dana).

[Bondesque]

Actually, Cary Grant did have a dark edge. Look at his film Crisis and to some extent Notorious. He could have been a great Bond. Of course Sean was perfect in his first 4 films.

[jaguar007]

Actually, Cary Grant did have a dark edge. Look at his film Crisis and to some extent Notorious. He could have been a great Bond. Of course Sean was perfect in his first 4 films.

It has been years since I have seen Crisis, but Notorious is one of my all time favorites. Yes, Grant did have a dark edge, but not physically dangerous. I can't see him pulling off a brutal fight with Red Grant on the Orient Express.

[Trident]

Well, there was of course this fine fight atop the roofs of Paris in Charade. I have to say that one was quite gripping and not a little brutal for the times. The whole film has several Bond moments without ever actually apsiring to be a Bond film: the beginning at the skiing resort, the scenes on the Seine tourist boat at night, the various scenes searching hotel rooms and so on. I think this comes closest to what a Grant Bond film might have looked. Grant perhaps would have brought a tiny bit of that later Moore-lightness into the game, although all that would have turned out quite different with him of course.

[Aris007]

Actually, Cary Grant did have a dark edge. Look at his film Crisis and to some extent Notorious. He could have been a great Bond. Of course Sean was perfect in his first 4 films.

It has been years since I have seen Crisis, but Notorious is one of my all time favorites. Yes, Grant did have a dark edge, but not physically dangerous. I can't see him pulling off a brutal fight with Red Grant on the Orient Express.

I'll agree with that! I can't see Gary Grant taking the role! He looks so much suave and not brutal at all. If he had taken the role, the fighting scenes would be preety fake cause he doesn't have the stomache for a real one like Connery! I'm sure that Connery was by far the best option for the role at that time!

[Bondesque]

Remember that brutal fights were not the norm in Hollywood during Grants time. He was actually quite fit (a former acrobat). Look at Gunga Din to see him fight.

Grant would have suprised you with his intensity.