It seems to be, in my view, that only relative unknowns get cast as Bond.
You know when the public get talking about who should play him? And whoever happens to be fashionable at that particular time gets mentioned constantly? Like, in the early '90s, people were saying that Bond should be played by Mel Gibson, Kevin Costner or, latterly, Hugh Grant. Now people are asking for Idris Elba, James Norton, Benedict Cumberbatch (shudder) or Michael Fassbender.
But when you look at the history, it tends to be relative unknowns who are cast.
I generally say, "If you can known an actor's name - then you know he won't be cast as Bond."
Way back at the beginning, it was Sean, who was very much an unknown (though David Niven and Cary Grant were also considered, it has to be said)
Then Lazenby, who was a car's salesman who had never acted before in his life.
Obviously, Roger was a major, global star, but Broccoli and Saltzman were bound to go for a dead cert after getting burned by Lazenby (and introducing a complete unknown while everyone knew Sean would have been a mistake).
Then, Dalton was cast - and he was known more for stage work, particularly of the Shakespearean kind.
Pierce was cast and that's where my theory has a bit of a hole in it: he was big in the States because of Remington Steele and was offered the part in 1986 of the back of it. But as Pierce was known to Broccoli since 1981, three years before Steele started, he may have been cast regardless of his American stardom.
With Craig, he was known for Layer Cake but he wasn't a star. He had played the lead in a film which hadn't been a hit.
What does everyone else think? Am I right in saying that only relative unknowns are cast as Bond and therefore Fassbender, Elba et al don't have a chance?