Great choice, how tall he is...?
I don't know exactly, but when you see pictures of him standing around other guys he's always as tall or taller than the others. So I' guessing tall enough, at least 6'0.
Posted 17 January 2015 - 06:22 PM
Great choice, how tall he is...?
I don't know exactly, but when you see pictures of him standing around other guys he's always as tall or taller than the others. So I' guessing tall enough, at least 6'0.
Posted 17 January 2015 - 07:11 PM
Second to acting ability, the most important attribute for any actor playing Bond, above height and looks and build, is charisma.
Connery had so much of it he left puddles of the stuff everywhere he went. And Craig proves that charisma easily trumps what is considered to be the perfect Bond look.
As for height and build, a good personal trainer and cinematographer can take care of all that. Tom Hardy is not a big man, in fact I think he's shorter than Christian Bale, but the smoke and mirrors of the movies made him look absolutely massive in The Dark Knight Rises.
Posted 17 January 2015 - 07:58 PM
Tom Hardy is just shy of 5'9", I can't find Tom Cullen's height - It doesn't seem to be listed on any of the usual sources.
I think Craig looks closest to the build Bond would have had, in the books Bond would go out for early morning runs, he would do 20 slow, lingering push ups, do leg lifts until his stomach muscles scream, touched his toes 20 times followed by arm and chest exercises all in one go, just because he was bored. He loved swimming and scupadiving and his body was definitely his temple.
I hope whoever takes over the role from Craig would put as much work into the workout and strength side of the role, playing Bond is a huge dedication.
Posted 17 January 2015 - 10:44 PM
I hadn't thought of Tom Cullen. Actually, he's a good choice.
"Anyway, I'm always reading about actors and directors who bemoan the lack of 'fun' in recent Bond movies and would love to see a return of the classic spectacle."
From what I've read, there will be more humour introduced in the next film. As for the big set pieces and sci fi gadgetry, both Mendes and DC have stated that they will avoid anything close to parodying the genre. During publicity tours for Skyfall, Craig mentioned that he has no issue with setting one of his Bond's in a volacano or similarly outreagous setting as long as it fit as a proper story element; not outreagous for simply being outreagous.
Also, Wilson & Broccoli have both stated that the idea of trumping the previous flim, "bigger, biggest Bond ever", approach had run it's course.
Posted 17 January 2015 - 11:38 PM
Boooo!
Posted 18 January 2015 - 01:29 AM
Its "BOND" film, dont take it too serious...Rosamund Pike & Halle Berry <3
Two of the biggest miscasts ever in the Bond films. Two very bland and one-dimensional performances.
Coming from the person who went on a big rant about Daniel Craig and how "Putin" was ruining Bond, I find this to be rather funny.
Posted 18 January 2015 - 09:33 AM
For me, DAD is better than CR, QOS, or SKYFALL...
Yikes
Posted 18 January 2015 - 09:39 AM
"For me, DAD is better than CR, QOS or SKYFALL"
We've got a thread called "Unconventional Bond Opinions" on the site, and the opinion above might very well qualify. But isn't this particular thread supposed to be about who we want as Bond number seven?
Posted 18 January 2015 - 09:48 AM
"For me, DAD is better than CR, QOS or SKYFALL"
We've got a thread called "Unconventional Bond Opinions" on the site, and the opinion above might very well qualify. But isn't this particular thread supposed to be about who we want as Bond number seven?
Agreed. Getting on track again would be lovely.
QOS is the worst BOND movie ever.
YikesFor me, DAD is better than CR, QOS, or SKYFALL...
I'm not denying that, as I'm not to particularly fond of it myself, but DAD better than CR and SF?
Hmmm..
Posted 18 January 2015 - 09:53 AM
DAD is better than CR and SF? Now that really is an unconventional Bond opinion!
Still doesn't answer the question though - who should be Bond 7?
Posted 18 January 2015 - 12:57 PM
Posted 18 January 2015 - 01:51 PM
Tom Cullen from DOWNTON ABBEY may look the part, but can he act?
Who cares - If he's tall enough!
Posted 18 January 2015 - 02:23 PM
Tom Cullen from DOWNTON ABBEY may look the part, but can he act?
Who cares - If he's tall enough!
Going by that logic, I present to you Neil Fingleton...
7'7.56" (2.32m), 34 years old. He has acting experience, appearing in X Men: First Class, 47 Ronin, Game of Thrones and Jupiter Ascending as well as appearing, through motion capture, as Ultron.
Oh, and he just happens to be Britain's tallest man...
http://www.kennethea...-fingleton.html
Posted 18 January 2015 - 03:01 PM
I don't want to know about his full packageCullen is full package.Who cares - If he's tall enough!Tom Cullen from DOWNTON ABBEY may look the part, but can he act?
Posted 18 January 2015 - 03:07 PM
[edit]
Posted 18 January 2015 - 03:45 PM
Tom Cullen certainly looks the part. He's ruggedly handsome, dark, and tall. He's 29 now, so he'll be in his early thirties when Craig leaves the role. (He already looks mature enough to be Bond.) And he has a solid acting background with about a decade of credits in film, stage, and TV. If Cullen isn't on EON's list, he should be.
Posted 18 January 2015 - 03:47 PM
EON looks at a massive number of people when they search for a new Bond, if the last time around is anything to go by. While there may only a handful that actually screentest for the part, I'd be willing to bet that Cullen's name at least makes the list of people discussed.
Posted 18 January 2015 - 04:10 PM
And the point of my post was missed completely.
Posted 18 January 2015 - 04:18 PM
"Short, blond and ugly" has somehow or other managed to rake in billions of dollars, pounds, euros and whatever other currencies are out there between 2006 and now, and may well do so later on this year. Daniel Craig must be doing something right or he wouldn't have lasted this long in the role and played Bond in the most successful film, financially and critically, of the lot - SF.
I don't mind arguments. I'm not fond of conclusions - "JAMES BOND is NOT blond, short and ugly" - without a premise and argument in support.
Posted 18 January 2015 - 04:24 PM
I don't mind arguments. I'm not fond of conclusions - "JAMES BOND is NOT blond, short and ugly" - without a premise and argument in support.
I agree, especially when the conclusions are false. The only one of those three that happens to apply to Craig is that he's blond. He's not short and he's not ugly. I wouldn't call 5'10" short, it's just shorter than the others who have played the part. And, seriously, ask any woman out there and you're not going to find many, if any, saying that Craig is ugly.
Posted 18 January 2015 - 04:29 PM
JAMES BOND is NOT blond, short & ugly.
JAMES BOND IS dark haired, tall & handsome.
DANIEL CRAIG is NOT short & ugly - he is 5'11, which isn't short - and I believe that there are many women out there who disagree with you about his looks.
He's been ranked in Glamour Magazine's Sexiest Men list, Empire Magazine's Sexiest Actors list, allwomenstalk.com's list of Sexiest British Actors, People Magazine's Sexiest Men Alive etc etc
Your opinion is your own, many disagree with you.
Posted 18 January 2015 - 04:34 PM
tdalton, I have yet to meet a woman who thinks the current Bond is ugly. In fact I've yet to meet anyone who thinks his Bond isn't valid. And I have a good friend and fellow Bond fan - of the books only, I've mentioned him on the site before - who nevertheless enjoyed the last Bond film and Craig's portrayal of Bond in it.
Posted 18 January 2015 - 04:37 PM
Yeah, I don't know of any women who find Craig ugly. I even know of some who usually despise Bond but have given the rebooted franchise a chance solely because of Craig.
Posted 18 January 2015 - 04:56 PM
I haven't seen this Cullen fella act yet, but going by his photos I think he looks a bit too bland, a bit too catalogue model, a bit too Brosnan for the Bond role.
Posted 18 January 2015 - 06:11 PM
Cullen does have a slight resemblance to Brosnan, but don't hold it against the guy. He also has a slight resemblance to Connery. We shouldn't lapse into the reverse superficiality of dismissing any handsome actor as unserious. A guy can be classically good-looking and still be a compelling actor. Like Dalton.
Posted 18 January 2015 - 06:12 PM
James Bond weighs about 160 pounds, has blue eyes, and has a three-inch vertical scar down his right cheek. If we go only by looks, nobody to play the role in the films is James Bond. Who captures the spirit of the character? And who have audiences, voting with their pocket books, thoroughly accepted? Yep, Daniel Craig. And didn't this argument about his hair color wear out its welcome almost a decade ago?
Finding an actor to replace him when the time comes is going to be quite a chore, as difficult as replacing Connery (who, for the record, didn't have black hair, blue eyes, or the scar, and whose weight was over the limit; I guess he wasn't Bond either).
Posted 18 January 2015 - 06:44 PM
I never said an actor has to look like the classic description of James Bond. I merely said Cullen looks quite bland in a 'magazine advert' kind of way. It's not the be all and end all, but it's not a great start.
None of the actors who played Bond - with the possible exception of Brosnan - had bland looks, and I like my Bond actors to look pretty awesome in some way or another:
From what I've seen, I suspect Cullen has the same thing going on as Brosnan, but I will reserve proper judgement until I see him in action.
Posted 18 January 2015 - 06:51 PM
Connery wore a toupee during most of his tenure. Lazenby and Brosnan aren't even British. Shock. Horror!
Posted 18 January 2015 - 06:53 PM
I never said an actor has to look like the classic description of James Bond.
Posted 18 January 2015 - 06:54 PM
Connery wore a toupee during most of his tenure. Lazenby and Brosnan aren't even British. Shock. Horror!
Filthy foreign swines! That's it, I'm writing a letter the the Queen!