4014 replies to this topic

[jaguar007]

I don't want to repeat the process with another short and kind of ugly actor more suited to play a Bond villain playing 007.

There is an article on your Dusin Clare in last months Men's Fitness magazine and they mention his height at 5'8.

I also know of many women who think of Daniel Craig as anything but ugly ("Sexies Man" (Durex poll 2006, 2nd place in "Sexiest Man alive" (People Magazine in 2008), "The sexiest men in film" (Cosmopolitan 2007).....)

[Matt_13]

I will never understand how anyone considers Daniel Craig to be ugly, or even short. Ah well, to each his own I suppose.

[Loomis]

I don't want to repeat the process with another short and kind of ugly actor more suited to play a Bond villain playing 007.

This again? Oh please.

[Frankie]

There is an article on your Dusin Clare in last months Men's Fitness magazine and they mention his height at 5'8.

That would immediately disqualify him in my book. He didn't look very tall in the scenes I saw him in, but 5'8"?

[Zorin Industries]

Can I also suggest that we are not in the era of Golden Age Hollywood screen idol masculinity anymore. Tastes and what is deemed good looking, brooding and sexy evolve. Valentino would never have made it onscreen in the 1950's, Bogart would never had been a leading man in the 1980's and the brute of Brando in his prime would not have found an audience today. There will never be a Sean Connery type in the role of BOND as that was fifty years ago when masculinity onscreen and beyond was defined differently. Daniel Craig only gets compared to Connery as he shares some traits, but not all of them. The drives of men in a contemporary context have changed too - so the casting of who Bond would be at that time need to respond to that. Connery was a canny working class force. That would not be canny now as those sort of class based backgrounds are less relevant when it comes to casting. But he was not the classic Fleming Bond as the Bond producers knew that would not be a box office draw, curio or successful casting in an era of British working class men storming the world's cinema screens - Stamp, Finney, Harvey, Harris, Courtenay and Caine - and defining a new sort of screen masculinity.


With Craig, there is a suggestion that the Bond actor of the day needs to be able to act now too. That was less of a concern circa 1962 when Connery (who can act, but only just - he makes up for that with presence, which money cannot buy) got the role. But Lazenby looked the part (as it was defined in the 1960's) but could not act appropriately on screen or behind it and did not come back. Audiences are a tad more sophisticated than they used to be. There will still be scope for mindless screen lovelies (step forward the TWILIGHT series whose box office pulse is solely defined on good looking young studs, regardless of the lack of creative quality of the films), but going for some dated surface thin notion of screen chiselledness is not where any potential Bonds will come from.

And Daniel Craig may not be good looking for some men today, but men no doubt couldn't see the pull of Connery fifty years ago. It is easier to cite Moore and Brosnan as handsome as they hold the looks straight men "get". But the likes of Dalton and Craig are different, so some men cannot fathom their following and naively end up slamming their casting.

[blueman]

I want somebody we haven't seen yet and don't know anything about. Yet. Too soon.

[Loomis]

But Lazenby looked the part (as it was defined in the 1960's) but could not act appropriately on screen or behind it and did not come back.

Well, I don't think there was all that much wrong with his actual performance as Bond.

[Frankie]

But Lazenby looked the part (as it was defined in the 1960's) but could not act appropriately on screen or behind it and did not come back.

Well, I don't think there was all that much wrong with his actual performance as Bond.

Correct. His problems that caused his firing were off camera.

[jaguar007]

But Lazenby looked the part (as it was defined in the 1960's) but could not act appropriately on screen or behind it and did not come back.

Well, I don't think there was all that much wrong with his actual performance as Bond.

Correct. His problems that caused his firing were off camera.

except Laz was never fired, he refused to sign a mult-picture contract. EON even sent him a retainer check for DAF that he returned.

[Frankie]

Can I also suggest that we are not in the era of Golden Age Hollywood screen idol masculinity anymore. Tastes and what is deemed good looking, brooding and sexy evolve. Valentino would never have made it onscreen in the 1950's, Bogart would never had been a leading man in the 1980's and the brute of Brando in his prime would not have found an audience today. There will never be a Sean Connery type in the role of BOND as that was fifty years ago when masculinity onscreen and beyond was defined differently. Daniel Craig only gets compared to Connery as he shares some traits, but not all of them. The drives of men in a contemporary context have changed too - so the casting of who Bond would be at that time need to respond to that. With Craig, there is a suggestion that the Bond actor of the day needs to be able to act now too. That was less of a concern circa 1962 when Connery (who can act, but only just - he makes up for that with presence, which money cannot buy) got the role. But Lazenby looked the part (as it was defined in the 1960's) but could not act appropriately on screen or behind it and did not come back. Audiences are a tad more sophisticated than they used to be. There will still be scope for mindless screen lovelies (step forward the TWILIGHT series whose box office pulse is solely defined on good looking young studs, regardless of the lack of creative quality of the films), but going for some dated surface thin notion of screen chiselledness is not where any potential Bonds will come from.

And Daniel Craig may not be good looking for some men today, but men no doubt couldn't see the pull of Connery fifty years ago. It is easier to cite Moore and Brosnan as handsome as they hold the looks straight men "get". But the likes of Dalton and Craig are different, so some men cannot fathom their following and naively end up slamming their casting.

Sounds like good argument. But I respectfully disagree with almost all of it.

But Lazenby looked the part (as it was defined in the 1960's) but could not act appropriately on screen or behind it and did not come back.

Well, I don't think there was all that much wrong with his actual performance as Bond.

Correct. His problems that caused his firing were off camera.

except Laz was never fired, he refused to sign a mult-picture contract. EON even sent him a retainer check for DAF that he returned.

That was dumb on his part. Very very dumb. He could have been a very very good Bond. Possibly second best in my book. But as things are that distinction belongs to Timothy Dalton.

Edited by Frankie, 21 February 2011 - 03:19 AM.

[Binyamin]

Ah, the eternal mystery and shame that is.... The Laz.

[Binyamin]

I want somebody we haven't seen yet and don't know anything about. Yet. Too soon.

Precisely.

[Zorin Industries]

But Lazenby looked the part (as it was defined in the 1960's) but could not act appropriately on screen or behind it and did not come back.

Well, I don't think there was all that much wrong with his actual performance as Bond.

The years have been kind to Lazenby's performance. His monotone and one-act act suits the role of BOND so he got off that one but there are slightly awkward moments of barely any acting at all especially when he was onscreen with Rigg.

Correct. His problems that caused his firing were off camera.

Not wholly. His BOND contains big moments of clunking acting. How he left the part is as important as the initial concerns others had about him staying, regardless of the private politics.

Can I also suggest that we are not in the era of Golden Age Hollywood screen idol masculinity anymore. Tastes and what is deemed good looking, brooding and sexy evolve. Valentino would never have made it onscreen in the 1950's, Bogart would never had been a leading man in the 1980's and the brute of Brando in his prime would not have found an audience today. There will never be a Sean Connery type in the role of BOND as that was fifty years ago when masculinity onscreen and beyond was defined differently. Daniel Craig only gets compared to Connery as he shares some traits, but not all of them. The drives of men in a contemporary context have changed too - so the casting of who Bond would be at that time need to respond to that. Connery was a canny working class force. That would not be canny now as those sort of class based backgrounds are less relevant when it comes to casting. But he was not the classic Fleming Bond as the Bond producers knew that would not be a box office draw, curio or successful casting in an era of British working class men storming the world's cinema screens - Stamp, Finney, Harvey, Harris, Courtenay and Caine - and defining a new sort of screen masculinity.

With Craig, there is a suggestion that the Bond actor of the day needs to be able to act now too. That was less of a concern circa 1962 when Connery (who can act, but only just - he makes up for that with presence, which money cannot buy) got the role. But Lazenby looked the part (as it was defined in the 1960's) but could not act appropriately on screen or behind it and did not come back. Audiences are a tad more sophisticated than they used to be. There will still be scope for mindless screen lovelies (step forward the TWILIGHT series whose box office pulse is solely defined on good looking young studs, regardless of the lack of creative quality of the films), but going for some dated surface thin notion of screen chiselledness is not where any potential Bonds will come from.

And Daniel Craig may not be good looking for some men today, but men no doubt couldn't see the pull of Connery fifty years ago. It is easier to cite Moore and Brosnan as handsome as they hold the looks straight men "get". But the likes of Dalton and Craig are different, so some men cannot fathom their following and naively end up slamming their casting.

Sounds like good argument. But I respectfully disagree with almost all of it.

I somehow thought you would.

[David Schofield]

But Lazenby looked the part (as it was defined in the 1960's) but could not act appropriately on screen or behind it and did not come back.

Well, I don't think there was all that much wrong with his actual performance as Bond.

The years have been kind to Lazenby's performance. His monotone and one-act act suits the role of BOND so he got off that one but there are slightly awkward moments of barely any acting at all especially when he was onscreen with Rigg.

Correct. His problems that caused his firing were off camera.

Not wholly. His BOND contains big moments of clunking acting. How he left the part is as important as the initial concerns others had about him staying, regardless of the private politics.

But these "initial concerns" about Lazenby, (presumably from those who were working on the film?) only seemed to appear AFTER Lazenby quit...

Now it may have been that these folks had these opinions while the film was being made but decided to keep them to themselves, but I find it amusing that the anti-Laz EON machine only kicked in AFTER he quit. Could be me being cynical, though.

However, I do think whatever personal dislike within the crew there might have been, these were not sufficiently shared by Harry and Cubby, who sent him a EIGHT picture contract, for heaven's sake!

Lazenby's quoted press reviews were 50/50. I recall Rog's being not dissimilar. And I suspect not all Sir Sean's reviews in '62 were positive. Each new Bond has divided opinion, which really is only natural.

DAF appears to have been initially conceived as straight revenge sequel to OHMSS with Lazenby. EON were clearly happy enough with him, personal warts-and-all. Only when the silly bastard chucked it in, did the EON machine decide to all over him.

Successfully clouding opinions for over 40 years.

[Zorin Industries]

Don't get me wrong. I like Lazenby in the role. But I am not sure if the series would have survived had he stayed on. And fifty years on I personally feel that still having a series of films is more important than what might have been with George Lazenby donen such and such a film. He may have jumped ship, but he was hardly made to feel that staying on-board was a welcome idea. He made enemies with a lot of people - some of which have a say on who is cast on Bond and how the series progressed. All the contracts in the world (and how they are discussed in the media, which is often different from the contract bound small print) don't mean much if you make waves on a film set and grate with the management. That can be said for any film set at any time (coughs Mel Gibson).

Also, Lazenby's BOND was an echo of an earlier time. I think people in the decisions chair knew that the whole thing needed updating and moving in a different direction. Connery may have anchored the ship in more familiar waters with DIAMONDS - as an emergency measure, but a new course was needed that Lazenby, contracts or not, was not equipped to navigate.

But I would like to say I have no problem with Lazenby and have a certain high regard for OHMSS and his work in it.

[David Schofield]

Also, Lazenby's BOND was an echo of an earlier time. I think people in the decisions chair knew that the whole thing needed updating and moving in a different direction. Connery may have anchored the ship in more familiar waters with DIAMONDS - as an emergency measure, but a new course was needed that Lazenby, contracts or not, was not equipped to navigate.

Now I would have been able to believe some of that argument had EON gone with Burt Reynolds. Or made Clint and offer he couldn't refuse. Or one or two others.

But Roger Moore as the new James Bond!!!! Not an "echo of an earlier time"????? Roger IS the Saint, the ultimate '60s conservative suited-and-booted hero, and Roger's Saint is James Bond. Roger was an old at 45 in 1973, the typical pompous Brit abroad. Essentially, then, the very SAFE option as James Bond. A few additional schoolboy puns delivered in an upper class RADA-manufactured accent do not "update" James Bond, surely?

[Zorin Industries]

The cameras, the audience and the Bond management liked Moore. The Fleming-bound fans may say otherwise but the decision to let Roger Moore steer Bond through the 1970's and 1980's worked. It is that simple. The mechanics of the films and the role may have shifted and evolved away from what Connery did but updating the role of Bond was never going to mean going with a Connery clone who was a bit younger. Updating doesn't have to imply cutting edge hard assassin.

I don't see the Moore films failing at the box office and failing to find an enthusiasm for Bond within generations of audience members.

Anyhoo... I'm not getting into a p***ing contest over the best Bonds.

[Frankie]

DAF appears to have been initially conceived as straight revenge sequel to OHMSS with Lazenby. EON were clearly happy enough with him, personal warts-and-all. Only when the silly bastard chucked it in, did the EON machine decide to all over him.

DAF was by far Connery's worst Bond flick. I think he was disrespected to be put in all that over the top comical stunt garbage that later marked most of Moore's Bond movies. the treatment you are talking about would have been great. Too bad they changed it.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

DAF was by far Connery's worst Bond flick. I think he was disrespected to be put in all that over the top comical stunt garbage that later marked most of Moore's Bond movies. the treatment you are talking about would have been great. Too bad they changed it.

I don't consider Connery was disrespected at all for Diamonds to be honest. Surely the over the top stunt garbage you refer to is nothing more than the Bond films changing and adapting for the upcoming decade instead of looking back to the Bond zeitgeist of the 1960's and never moving on from there. Connery also said that he liked the script for Diamonds and was up for doing it (provided it didn't go over it's shooting schedule).
It could also be argued the film was beneficial for Connery's career as his films post YOLT had hitherto failed to capture the mass public imagination.

[Frankie]

I thought I found the right "next Bond" (not perfect - I still prefer Bond dark-haired). But, DAMMIT he turns out to be Danish!!!!



Can't wait to watch "Game of Thrones" to evaluate his acting ability and accent further.

[blueman]

I want somebody we haven't seen yet and don't know anything about. Yet. Too soon.

Precisely.

Ahem.

Just watched "Black Death," a grim story about, er, the black death. Sean Bean as the leader of a bunch of hardened soldiers sent to find a witch shares screen time with this mousy fella playing a young monk in love, actor's name is Eddie Redmayne. The monk's role is pretty non-Bond but he takes a dark twist right towards the end... give this Redmayne another 5-6 years, he'll be in the running for the next Bond. Link to young-Brosnan looking image (waaay too large to post) here. 2 cents.

[Frankie]

I just believe I suggest the best suggestions for the next James Bond. Don't believe me? go back and chec all my posts in this thread.

Here's another one:

Clive Standen (6'2", Born 1981 County Down, Northern Ireland, UK)

[mttvolcano]

I just believe I suggest the best suggestions for the next James Bond. Don't believe me? go back and chec all my posts in this thread.

Here's another one:

Clive Standen (6'2", Born 1981 County Down, Northern Ireland, UK)

Looks awesome to be another Bond!

[blueman]

Or another BMW ad model? Time will tell.

[0077]

There must be another Scot to be Bond before another Irishman gets the role. Just my perference.

[Pierce - Daniel]

http://twitter.com/StaxIGN
Henry Cavill has spoken he's still game for Bond

[SecretAgentFan]

First and foremost a terrific actor. The looks are totally secondary.

Having said that, it wouldn´t hurt if the next one looked a bit like Jon Hamm.

[Lt. Garfield]

Ioan Gruffudd for me I guess

[TCK]

Clive Owen was the perfect actor for Casino Royale. I still wonder in which criterions Barbara Broccoli has prefered to choose Daniel Craig, because I don't know what's on your mind, but if in 2005, you would have said me Daniel Craig will be acting James Bond next year, I would have not believed it.



As I said on another topic, I would have enjoyed Ralph Fiennes as Bond. He looked awesome. The same idea for Hugh Jackman or Clive Owen so. But now they are all too old. Henry Cavill, even if he's wonderful in The Tudors, acts Superman now, and it will be complicated seeing him as Bond. Just my opinion. By the way, if we look at Ian Fleming's James Bond's drawing, don't you think Jason Isaacs is the twin brother of the James Bond drawn ? I find this disconcerting.

Lastly, to play James Bond after Craig, Fassbender has my vote. He matches enough Ian Fleming's description I think (especially the cruel mouth, even when he smiles, like Dalton) and he looks like the famous drawing (especially his mouth, his eyes, his chin and also his face form), doesn't he ? A little photomontage.

[Frankie]

I thought I found the right "next Bond" (not perfect - I still prefer Bond dark-haired). But, DAMMIT he turns out to be Danish!!!!



Can't wait to watch "Game of Thrones" to evaluate his acting ability and accent further.

I did see him on GOT, and wasn't that impressed. He's now off of my list.