13 replies to this topic

[DavidJones]

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?

[AMC Hornet]

So admittedly two of the six (1/3) were already major stars known to U.S. audiences (what were their names again?).

 

The lead actor gets more dinero for each subsequent film, so why start with someone who can already command a high salary to begin with? Make an instant star out of a newcomer and he may be grateful enough to renegotiate fairly.

 

Fassbender or Elba and 007 don't need each other. I'd rather see Alex Price.

[TheREAL008]

Agreed.TBH, I'd rather have a talented unknown Scot be cast as Bond. National pride notwithstanding, but also to come full circle in a manner.  

[Dustin]

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that this 'Who is going to be the next 007?' game by now is more a vehicle for actors of a certain age bracket and type than the real thing. You only have to find a new Bond every so often - but the mere talk (in the media) is almost as much worth for an actor's profile as a casting appointment with Eon. That's why the game is played.

[AMC Hornet]

Followed years later by the "I could have been Bond - if they'd asked me, or I'd auditioned..." game.

[S K Y F A L L]

I heard Brosnan was cast as Bond as early as OHMSS, though he thought he was too young.

[DaveBond21]

I heard Brosnan was cast as Bond as early as OHMSS, though he thought he was too young.

 

That was Dalton who was considered in 1969. Brosnan was only 16 when OHMSS came out.

 

I agree with the original post, and I think it will be a relative unknown who is cast, but what year do we need him? 2018? 2021? If it's going to be 5 or 6 years time, then I think we're talking about someone who is around 30 years old right now.

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

[Guy Haines]

What all the previous Bond actors have in common is that none were major film stars when cast as Bond. Moore and Brosnan were well known TV stars, Connery, Dalton and Craig had worked on fiilm, stage and TV and were well regarded in the profession but couldn't be called "stars" before Bond. Lazenby was the real unknown - a stint in adverts before Bond.

So your theory actually holds up in the sense that no actor who is already a star of the silver screen has yet been cast as Bond. And it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the next actor as 007 isn't a film star either! ;-)

[SecretAgentFan]

With the exception of George Lazenby - who probably was hired because the producers could not find anyone of real caché who would want to take on the role after Connery - every actor that was cast as Bond brought some success with him, however, not too much of it.

 

And that´s exactly what is needed for Bond.  You cannot cast someone who already is a major film star - because audiences would always think: oh, that is so and so as James Bond.  The character needs to be the draw, and the actor has to disappear within it.  

 

So, whoever will succeed Craig will be not completely unknown but mostly one of those actors who were getting attention for their stage/film/tv work - yet more or less unknown to general audiences.

[S K Y F A L L]

 

I heard Brosnan was cast as Bond as early as OHMSS, though he thought he was too young.

 

That was Dalton who was considered in 1969. Brosnan was only 16 when OHMSS came out.

 

I agree with the original post, and I think it will be a relative unknown who is cast, but what year do we need him? 2018? 2021? If it's going to be 5 or 6 years time, then I think we're talking about someone who is around 30 years old right now.

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Oh I was just kidding. I should have said DN. LOL, not even born yet.

[David_M]

I agree with SecretAgentFan on this one: the object is to get someone who's just well-known enough to spark interest, but not so well-known they bring a lot of baggage.  If they're already widely known, even it's for being "like Bond," then a good deal of the curiosity factor is gone.  And we start losing the carefully-crafted meta narrative (post-Connery anyway) that the character is more important than the actor.

 

Back when they were casting the first Superman movie (well, the '78 one), there was pressure on to hire Robert Redford or Burt Reynolds, but they producers realized while that would fill seats, all anyone would be thinking was, "Hey, look at Robert Redford in that Superman suit!"  So they instead put the big names (Brando, Hackman) in supporting roles and secured their funding that way, which left them free to cast a relative unknown in the lead.

 

From a more practical standpoint, if a new Bond actor already has box office "clout" coming in, then they'll start throwing their weight around on Day One, instead of waiting 'til two or three movies in. Cubby's preferred approach seemed to be to find promising actors on the cusp of success and offer them a deal that would seduce any starving actor, knowing that inevitably, their appetites would increase to the point where he'd have to remind them there were plenty of other hungry actors out there waiting to replace them.  I would imagine that in that repetitive cycle, the fun part was always the beginning, when the producers and the actors were mutually excited about collaborating, and not the later part, when they were down to bickering over contracts.  So why skip Stage One and go straight into the ugly stuff from the beginning with an actor who already "knows what he's worth"?

 

As noted, the times when this pattern was (sort of) broken were with Moore and Brosnan; Moore because Eon needed a known quantity after the perceived failure of their last (complete) unknown and Brosnan for similar reasons; with the franchise on very shaky ground at the time, it was important to pick an actor people could easily imagine in the role.  Even then, they were still relatively in the "sweet spot," as both had an international fanbase but neither had managed to break through to major movie successes.  And in their 40s, they probably both heard the career clock ticking away.  And arguably, they were both realistic enough to know that their career trajectory had two possible courses: (1) accept the biggest "handsome hero" role in the business or (2) spend the rest of their working lives playing watered-down, and far less lucrative, imitations of same.

[AMC Hornet]

Noel Coward's advice to the young Roger:

"My dear boy, with your amazing good looks and appalling lack of talent, I can only advise you to take any work you're offered. And in the unlikely event you're offered two roles at the same time, take whichever pays more."

[David_M]

Noel Coward's advice to the young Roger:

"My dear boy, with your amazing good looks and appalling lack of talent, I can only advise you to take any work you're offered. And in the unlikely event you're offered two roles at the same time, take whichever pays more."

 

Noel Coward as cheerfully repeated by Sir Roger himself, no doubt. :-)

 

Roger certainly benefitted from a surplus of good luck in his career, which he's never been shy about admitting.  But I'd argue he's not as untalented as he lets on.  I'm reminded of Errol Flynn, who chafed at being stuck wearing tights in (to him) an endless parade of swashbucklers, and was indeed written off as a lightweight for it, despite some peers assuring him that what he did took a special kind of talent, and that other, often more celebrated actors couldn't match him at it.  Bond, likewise, is an assignment that presents a whole different set of challenges from what's often considered "serious" acting, and takes a special skill set.  We've been lucky that all 6 of the men who've taken on the job have had those skills, to one degree or other, and less-than-stellar attempts by more celebrated actors to take on very similar (one might even say copycat) roles proves that there's more to it than just looking pretty and wearing a tux well.

 

So getting back to the original topic, I think part of the secret to casting Bond is to find an actor with that "certain something" to make it all work.  There has never been a shortage of actors handsome enough, or agile enough, or competent enough to have their own cadre of boosters when it comes time to casting a new Bond.  The trick is to look beyond the head shots and imagine what a fellow can bring to the role to move it forward.  Whatever my gripes about this or that occupant of the role, I have to say that on balance Eon's track record in this regard has been uncannily good.

Edited by David_M, 15 February 2016 - 08:58 PM.

[Guy Haines]

With the exception of George Lazenby - who probably was hired because the producers could not find anyone of real caché who would want to take on the role after Connery - every actor that was cast as Bond brought some success with him, however, not too much of it.
 
And that´s exactly what is needed for Bond.  You cannot cast someone who already is a major film star - because audiences would always think: oh, that is so and so as James Bond.  The character needs to be the draw, and the actor has to disappear within it.  
 
So, whoever will succeed Craig will be not completely unknown but mostly one of those actors who were getting attention for their stage/film/tv work - yet more or less unknown to general audiences.

The point about the Bond films - the "star" is and always has been James Bond - not the actor who plays him.