Are the producers telling us that you don't need to look like Bond....

James Suzuki

I know I am making quite a lot of threads at the moment, but I'm getting really excitied about Skyfall and I'm thinking about Bond quite a lot recently.With Craig getting placed into the role in 2006, are the producers showing us that you don't need to look the part like Brosnan, Connery and Dalton to get the role. Is it the acting ability which shows the audience that this is James Bond, not the swished black hair, 6.1 ft and being quite lean without being ripped with muscles which makes them Bond.
I'm talking about Craig, who looks like a normal action hero like Bourne and Hunt but he shows that he is sophistcated and suave by his great acting. Would you be happy if, in the future, they cast the main lead by his acting abilties not his looks.

DTReinsma

He should look the part of Bond. Brosnan, Dalton, Connery, and Lazenby had a similar look. That was the Look of Bond. When they cast Craig, I didn't know it was a re-boot so it was puzzling to me. To me, Bond is groomed black hair, lean and suave. Now that they are re-booting with Craig, the next actor (s) to play Bond should look similar to him if we are to believe it is supposed to in fact be the same guy.

chrisisall

Tom Cruise should get the role next- he'll look the age by then.

Agent82

chrisisall wrote:

Tom Cruise should get the role next- he'll look the age by then.

A charmed life will do that for you.

chrisisall

Agent82 wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

Tom Cruise should get the role next- he'll look the age by then.

A charmed life will do that for you.

Are you saying he made a deal with someone...?

DEFIANT 74205

xboy614 wrote:

Would you be happy if, in the future, they cast the main lead by his acting abilties not his looks.

No, I would not.

The actor who plays Bond has to not only act like the literary Bond, but also look somewhat like the character that Fleming described.

Agent007jamest

chrisisall wrote:

Agent82 wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

Tom Cruise should get the role next- he'll look the age by then.

A charmed life will do that for you.

Are you saying he made a deal with someone...?

yeah and it wasn't L. Ron Hubbard!

JohnMasterson

DEFIANT 74205 wrote:

xboy614 wrote:

Would you be happy if, in the future, they cast the main lead by his acting abilties not his looks.

No, I would not.

The actor who plays Bond has to not only act like the literary Bond, but also look somewhat like the character that Fleming described.

Tell that to the producers.

Le Samourai

Sean Connery is physically not much like how I imagine Fleming's Bond. Neither is Daniel Craig, though I find Craig does a fine job of capturing the essence of the literary character.

DEFIANT 74205

Le Samourai wrote:

though I find Craig does a fine job of capturing the essence of the literary character.

True, but I think Dalton does just as good a job (if not better) at bringing the literary Bond on screen, and looks the part to boot.

Napoleon Plural

It's kind of a puzzle who they'd go for next isn't it, should they follow the Craig template or the Bond of yore template. Still, that's a long while off. I think Craig's fanciability factor paid off for Babs, it's a girl thing.

Lexi

Napoleon Plural wrote:

I think Craig's fanciability factor paid off for Babs, it's a girl thing.

Yep

However, I do think Craig's ability to be moulded into Bond is a factor. I can understand why people got upset when they cast him, I mean Fleimings descrition was quite definite... and all previous Bonds have, to some extent, followed that formula, however I do think Craig has gone some way to prove his ability.

Now Tom Cruise on the other hand... he's managed to get away with playing Reacher (Who is supposed to be 6'5.... ) and I have to say NO true fans of Lee Childs are happy... X-( But there you go...

Napoleon Plural

"Now then now then goodness gracious fair lady miss esteemed Lexi would you not sit you down on the casting couch and consider my eligibility to fill the most coveted role of Sir Jim gentleman spy" (extends white cadavorous hand to Lexi's tressled locks), Yorkshire yodel "Euregh euggugh eughugh!"

Blackleiter

I would. And to me Craig proves that the acting ability matters more than the looks.

DEFIANT 74205 wrote:

xboy614 wrote:

Would you be happy if, in the future, they cast the main lead by his acting abilties not his looks.

No, I would not.

The actor who plays Bond has to not only act like the literary Bond, but also look somewhat like the character that Fleming described.

Le Samourai

DEFIANT 74205 wrote:

Le Samourai wrote:

though I find Craig does a fine job of capturing the essence of the literary character.

True, but I think Dalton does just as good a job (if not better) at bringing the literary Bond on screen, and looks the part to boot.

I can't disagree.

Halcon

me and some girlfriends were discussing this very subject...
...they ALL agreed that Craig was handsome, and thus was able to play the part...they concurred that he wasn't attractive in the same way as Brosnan...
I'm guessing his fitness and somewhat vulnerability plays into it with women...

superado

I think as stale as the series was going up to DAD, it needed a very strong palette cleanser, much like the pickled ginger that's served with sushi and sashimi assortments, and Craig was indeed that...well, actually more like an electro-magnetic pulse that was so radical that only doing what they did in casting someone like DC made a reboot possible; or, the flipside of the truth is that the casting of DC necessitated a reboot. I got a feeling we'll see the "classic" Bond return since DC's stint is a trump card that is only effective when used sparingly.