Do you think Roger Moore is a better actor than Cavill? You are making the acting part to much of a big thing in my opinion.
And do you think its because of Craig that Bardem, Fiennes starred in SF? Or is it maybe because Bond movies are the biggest movie franchise ever and Sam Mendes, an oscar winning director was making it that they were interested in the role?
Statham was an interesting choice when he was stillmaking quality movies like Snatch. Now naturally i dont see him fit for the role. But unlike Craig, he is a guy that all the men want to be and all the women want to be with. With Craig, I don't see it that way to be honest.
And Fassbender? He is German for crying out loud!
Just tell me: which one looks more like a future Bond?
It's interesting; does Defiant himself look a bit like Bond, or more like him than Craig, cos I can see that might be a deal breaker if so.
No, I look nothing like Bond. Even if I were an actor, there's no way in hell I'd put my hand up for the role, and if approached, I would politely decline, because I look nothing like Bond. I'm a fan of the literary Bond first, and I firmly believe that the cinematic Bond and every major character that was created by Fleming should as closely as possible mirror their literary counterparts in appearance, behaviour and mannerisms.
The look means F all to people just to serious Bond nerds who get their knickers in a twist about small things like hair colour.
This is precisely the sort of attitude that I dislike. Disagree, fine, but people who think that Daniel Craig is the greatest thing since sliced bread and who label anyone that disagrees or dares to criticise him in any way as "serious Bond nerds who get their knickers in a twist about small things like hair colour" is the epitome of arrogance. As far as I'm concerned, hair colour isn't a small thing. His looks isn't a small thing. I have explained why I believe looks are more important than acting ability.
Cavill hasn't proved himself as a actor as of yet come back after a few flms. what I've seen of him he's average at best.
Obviously, you haven't seen him play the lead role in Immortals, one of the leads in the TV Series The Tudors, and as Superman in Man of Steel. His performance in Immortals in particular is why I strongly believe that he should be the next actor to play Bond, not to mention the fact that he has the looks for the role too.
"Watch the birdie, you bastard!"
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,750Chief of Staff
I've seen Immortals...I thought he was average at best...in a poor movie.
Man of Steel is the one movie I am really looking forward to, and the trailer is a bit choking. That said, thought that about Superman Returns trailer too.
It's interesting; does Defiant himself look a bit like Bond, or more like him than Craig, cos I can see that might be a deal breaker if so.
No, I look nothing like Bond. Even if I were an actor, there's no way in hell I'd put my hand up for the role, and if approached, I would politely decline, because I look nothing like Bond. I'm a fan of the literary Bond first, and I firmly believe that the cinematic Bond and every major character that was created by Fleming should as closely as possible mirror their literary counterparts in appearance, behaviour and mannerisms.
The look means F all to people just to serious Bond nerds who get their knickers in a twist about small things like hair colour.
This is precisely the sort of attitude that I dislike. Disagree, fine, but people who think that Daniel Craig is the greatest thing since sliced bread and who label anyone that disagrees or dares to criticise him in any way as "serious Bond nerds who get their knickers in a twist about small things like hair colour" is the epitome of arrogance. As far as I'm concerned, hair colour isn't a small thing. His looks isn't a small thing. I have explained why I believe looks are more important than acting ability.
Cavill hasn't proved himself as a actor as of yet come back after a few flms. what I've seen of him he's average at best.
Obviously, you haven't seen him play the lead role in Immortals, one of the leads in the TV Series The Tudors, and as Superman in Man of Steel. His performance in Immortals in particular is why I strongly believe that he should be the next actor to play Bond, not to mention the fact that he has the looks for the role too.
I've seen Cavill in The Immortals, as well as several episodes of The Tudors, and I wasn't that impressed. He strikes me as a competent, but not particularly interesting actor. Sure, Cavill is a good looking guy who could fit the mold of Bond from a physical standpoint (although he is a bit too much of a pretty boy for my taste), but to me the acting skills are more important than the looks. Perhaps my opinion will change after I see Man of Steel, which I am looking forward to, but for now I'm not excited about the prospect of Cavill as Bond.
To your question, as I kid I did in fact pretend to be Bond from time to time. And I pretended to be Superman and Daredevil (my favorite comic book character back then) as well. But I also pretended I was Luke Cage and occasionally Shaft (although by the time Shaft came out in 1971, I was a bit old to be pretending I was anybody!) The fact is, I related to Luke Cage and Shaft more because they were Black like me, but as a young boy just letting my imagination run wild, the race of the characters didn't matter so much as their adventures, and their super powers, and just their general coolness. Unfortunately things get more complicated as we grow up. I can understand why for some Bond just wouldn't be Bond if he was portrayed by a Black actor. I have more difficulty understanding those who have such a hard time accepting a British actor who perhaps doesn't have dark hair or who isn't over six feet as Bond. Using Craig as an example, I think he makes a fine Bond and once I got over the initial adjustment of seeing a Bond who looked somewhat different from the general look I had gotten used to, all I saw was the continuing adventures of 007.
I taped last Monday's episode of Katie because she had on the cast of Mad Men, and I have just become a fan, a big fan, just in the last month. I related the lead character of Don Draper a lot to the literary Bond, mainly because they are both handsome and neurotic in differing degrees. On Katie, it was interesting how both the actors who played Don Draper and Pete Campbell, reacted to Katie's statement how despicable Pete Cambell was; the guys said that in fact, both characters are despicable, but the guy playing Pete Campbell said that viewers identify better with Don Draper and overlook his bad traits because he is handsome while his character was smarmy. That sounds like a simple enough thing, but I think it's loaded with so much psychological implications with social perception and whether we like it or not, Fleming was very intentional in how he made Bond handsome, how that plays out with his interaction with other characters and I suspect, how the readers (and therefore, society) were expected to react to that fact.
The reason why DC not being classically handsome became such a huge qualm for me, is because the producers from the begining preserved that one essence of the literary character, arguably more than any of the other traits because IMO they understood the dynamics that Fleming set in place, and had cemented that standard for every Bond actor since, up until the reboot. Furthermore, because Fleming made Bond handsome and the producers in turn also made him handsome, that expectation had been reinforced with the public since then, IMO, and in a sense that conditioning made me a bit like Pavlov's dog waiting for the proper cue. However, the opportunity (if you can call it that) to break this long-standing standard came when public tastes changed so radically against the former standard because it had ceased to be largely relevant, more even when the counter-culture entered the mainstream during the sixties, when Bondmania was born and interestingly, the same setting for the "beautiful" and glamorous world of "Mad Men." It's just too bad that because I'm from an older generation, I still remember that standard all too much though I try to survive in today's world by enjoying the "new" things, albeit from a distance.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
To your question, as I kid I did in fact pretend to be Bond from time to time. And I pretended to be Superman and Daredevil (my favorite comic book character back then) as well. But I also pretended I was Luke Cage and occasionally Shaft (although by the time Shaft came out in 1971, I was a bit old to be pretending I was anybody!) The fact is, I related to Luke Cage and Shaft more because they were Black like me, but as a young boy just letting my imagination run wild, the race of the characters didn't matter so much as their adventures, and their super powers, and just their general coolness. Unfortunately things get more complicated as we grow up. I can understand why for some Bond just wouldn't be Bond if he was portrayed by a Black actor. I have more difficulty understanding those who have such a hard time accepting a British actor who perhaps doesn't have dark hair or who isn't over six feet as Bond. Using Craig as an example, I think he makes a fine Bond and once I got over the initial adjustment of seeing a Bond who looked somewhat different from the general look I had gotten used to, all I saw was the continuing adventures of 007.
I taped last Monday's episode of Katie because she had on the cast of Mad Men, and I have just become a fan, a big fan, just in the last month. I related the lead character of Don Draper a lot to the literary Bond, mainly because they are both handsome and neurotic in differing degrees. On Katie, it was interesting how both the actors who played Don Draper and Pete Campbell, reacted to Katie's statement how despicable Pete Cambell was; the guys said that in fact, both characters are despicable, but the guy playing Pete Campbell said that viewers identify better with Don Draper and overlook his bad traits because he is handsome while his character was smarmy. That sounds like a simple enough thing, but I think it's loaded with so much psychological implications with social perception and whether we like it or not, Fleming was very intentional in how he made Bond handsome, how that plays out with his interaction with other characters and I suspect, how the readers (and therefore, society) were expected to react to that fact.
The reason why DC not being classically handsome became such a huge qualm for me, is because the producers from the begining preserved that one essence of the literary character, arguably more than any of the other traits because IMO they understood the dynamics that Fleming set in place, and had cemented that standard for every Bond actor since, up until the reboot. Furthermore, because Fleming made Bond handsome and the producers in turn also made him handsome, that expectation had been reinforced with the public since then, IMO, and in a sense that conditioning made me a bit like Pavlov's dog waiting for the proper cue. However, the opportunity (if you can call it that) to break this long-standing standard came when public tastes changed so radically against the former standard because it had ceased to be largely relevant, more even when the counter-culture entered the mainstream during the sixties, when Bondmania was born and interestingly, the same setting for the "beautiful" and glamorous world of "Mad Men." It's just too bad that because I'm from an older generation, I still remember that standard all too much though I try to survive in today's world by enjoying the "new" things, albeit from a distance.
Interesting and very compelling, as usual. I don't know how old you are, superado, but I suspect I'm older (58), so I can certainly relate to the notion of being from an older generation and perhaps not being able to appreciate some of the "new" things as much as we might like. One thing I will mention, though, is that just like most things, the perceptions of beauty and handsomeness have changed over time as well. A surprising number of women that I know (surprising to me, at least), find Craig to be quite handsome. In fact, many of them prefer his looks over those of Moore, Dalton and even Brosnan. Plus, I think Craig often projects a presence and intensity that makes you believe he's "all that", even if he's not. At least that's how it has been explained to me by some of the women who go "ga ga" over him (the well-toned body emerging from the surf in CR didn't hurt either! )) Anyway, your thoughful analysis is always appreciated. -{
"Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
To your question, as I kid I did in fact pretend to be Bond from time to time. And I pretended to be Superman and Daredevil (my favorite comic book character back then) as well. But I also pretended I was Luke Cage and occasionally Shaft (although by the time Shaft came out in 1971, I was a bit old to be pretending I was anybody!) The fact is, I related to Luke Cage and Shaft more because they were Black like me, but as a young boy just letting my imagination run wild, the race of the characters didn't matter so much as their adventures, and their super powers, and just their general coolness. Unfortunately things get more complicated as we grow up. I can understand why for some Bond just wouldn't be Bond if he was portrayed by a Black actor. I have more difficulty understanding those who have such a hard time accepting a British actor who perhaps doesn't have dark hair or who isn't over six feet as Bond. Using Craig as an example, I think he makes a fine Bond and once I got over the initial adjustment of seeing a Bond who looked somewhat different from the general look I had gotten used to, all I saw was the continuing adventures of 007.
I taped last Monday's episode of Katie because she had on the cast of Mad Men, and I have just become a fan, a big fan, just in the last month. I related the lead character of Don Draper a lot to the literary Bond, mainly because they are both handsome and neurotic in differing degrees. On Katie, it was interesting how both the actors who played Don Draper and Pete Campbell, reacted to Katie's statement how despicable Pete Cambell was; the guys said that in fact, both characters are despicable, but the guy playing Pete Campbell said that viewers identify better with Don Draper and overlook his bad traits because he is handsome while his character was smarmy. That sounds like a simple enough thing, but I think it's loaded with so much psychological implications with social perception and whether we like it or not, Fleming was very intentional in how he made Bond handsome, how that plays out with his interaction with other characters and I suspect, how the readers (and therefore, society) were expected to react to that fact.
The reason why DC not being classically handsome became such a huge qualm for me, is because the producers from the begining preserved that one essence of the literary character, arguably more than any of the other traits because IMO they understood the dynamics that Fleming set in place, and had cemented that standard for every Bond actor since, up until the reboot. Furthermore, because Fleming made Bond handsome and the producers in turn also made him handsome, that expectation had been reinforced with the public since then, IMO, and in a sense that conditioning made me a bit like Pavlov's dog waiting for the proper cue. However, the opportunity (if you can call it that) to break this long-standing standard came when public tastes changed so radically against the former standard because it had ceased to be largely relevant, more even when the counter-culture entered the mainstream during the sixties, when Bondmania was born and interestingly, the same setting for the "beautiful" and glamorous world of "Mad Men." It's just too bad that because I'm from an older generation, I still remember that standard all too much though I try to survive in today's world by enjoying the "new" things, albeit from a distance.
Interesting and very compelling, as usual. I don't know how old you are, superado, but I suspect I'm older (58), so I can certainly relate to the notion of being from an older generation and perhaps not being able to appreciate some of the "new" things as much as we might like. One thing I will mention, though, is that just like most things, the perceptions of beauty and handsomeness have changed over time as well. A surprising number of women that I know (surprising to me, at least), find Craig to be quite handsome. In fact, many of them prefer his looks over those of Moore, Dalton and even Brosnan. Plus, I think Craig often projects a presence and intensity that makes you believe he's "all that", even if he's not. At least that's how it has been explained to me by some of the women who go "ga ga" over him (the well-toned body emerging from the surf in CR didn't hurt either! )) Anyway, your thoughful analysis is always appreciated. -{
Man, you're old!!!! That'll teach me to indulge in self-pity over my age! ...just kidding my friend, I make a salute to you for your experience. I'm 46, but feel in today's culture that's the new 65.
Anyway, yes, I agree with you about DC and see how women today, even those from our generation but who have changed with the culture, would appreciate the different kind of handsomeness of a DC. It's kind of sad too how easily people would make assumptions about sexual orientation ("not that there's anything wrong with that," to quote Seinfeld, lol) when someone is really good looking, which I think is due in part to changing perceptions about acceptable appearance and we as a society are not there yet or will ever be IMO. It's interesting to read articles or quantitative polls about how certain subcultures will achieve better successes in the marketplace based on looks and of course, race, gender, height and even whether one is overweight or not. However, I think perceptions and preferences in the personal arena (what one finds attractive to them) are at least moving away from the superficial, which is a good thing because people are reflecting more about character than ever before.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
See - I told you! Now maybe our fellow AJBers will be more understanding of some of my seemingly off-the-wall opinions about Bond - Alzheimer's is to blame! (It may also explain my somewhat distainful attitude towards Roger Moore's Bond - perhaps it's a case of geezer self-hatred! ))
See - I told you! Now maybe our fellow AJBers will be more understanding of some of my seemingly off-the-wall opinions about Bond - Alzheimer's is to blame! (It may also explain my somewhat distainful attitude towards Roger Moore's Bond - perhaps it's a case of geezer self-hatred! ))
Don't worry - I'm about 20 years younger but very often agree with you, old man
Do you think Roger Moore is a better actor than Cavill? You are making the acting part to much of a big thing in my opinion.
And do you think its because of Craig that Bardem, Fiennes starred in SF? Or is it maybe because Bond movies are the biggest movie franchise ever and Sam Mendes, an oscar winning director was making it that they were interested in the role?
Statham was an interesting choice when he was stillmaking quality movies like Snatch. Now naturally i dont see him fit for the role. But unlike Craig, he is a guy that all the men want to be and all the women want to be with. With Craig, I don't see it that way to be honest.
And Fassbender? He is German for crying out loud!
Just tell me: which one looks more like a future Bond?
Based on acting... I have no idea... not sure if I've seen Cavill in anything, and Fassbender I saw in Prometheus (and his character was not bond-like at all)
Those old-style actors had a whiff of narcissism about them, which is appealing to men, less so to women, it's a bit of self-regards. Craig really has none of that at all (with good reason some might say ha ha) so that is more appealing to women who may figure he won't be looking to dump them the first time a better model comes along.
Those old-style actors had a whiff of narcissism about them, which is appealing to men, less so to women, it's a bit of self-regards. Craig really has none of that at all (with good reason some might say ha ha) so that is more appealing to women who may figure he won't be looking to dump them the first time a better model comes along.
You really talk a lot of crap. Craig bought back Bond from the edge of the Clinche. Gave this tiring Franchise a kick in the backside it needed. Bond is now Cool again like it was in the early 60's with Connery. Thank god.
Always go agaisn't what the Bond Fan wants cause you always Find the perfect Bond. 80% rather live in the past then look to the future. The look means nothing now.
Craig is a great guy, seems very genuine and very humble in my opinion. Plus he bagged Rachel Weisz for a wife (holy mother of god! that woman is gorgeous!!)
no, he is not an ugly sob, and with a little help he's a handsome fellah...but he's playing a Bond that's unlike anything like the Classic Bond. I think its difficult to measure his acting prowess for Bond when he is not acting like Bond to begin with. Perhaps in the next film maybe.
Those old-style actors had a whiff of narcissism about them, which is appealing to men, less so to women, it's a bit of self-regards. Craig really has none of that at all (with good reason some might say ha ha) so that is more appealing to women who may figure he won't be looking to dump them the first time a better model comes along.
You really talk a lot of crap. Craig bought back Bond from the edge of the Clinche. Gave this tiring Franchise a kick in the backside it needed. Bond is now Cool again like it was in the early 60's with Connery. Thank god.
Always go agaisn't what the Bond Fan wants cause you always Find the perfect Bond. 80% rather live in the past then look to the future. The look means nothing now.
Aren't you the charmer. What is 'the Clinche'? Anyway, I can't see what you find in the above to disagree with, as I'm implying that the narcissistic style of Connery and Moore et al is very much in the past.
See - I told you! Now maybe our fellow AJBers will be more understanding of some of my seemingly off-the-wall opinions about Bond - Alzheimer's is to blame! (It may also explain my somewhat distainful attitude towards Roger Moore's Bond - perhaps it's a case of geezer self-hatred! ))
Don't worry - I'm about 20 years younger but very often agree with you, old man
I've seen Henry Cavill in "THE TUDORS" and "MAN OF STEEL". He could probably put his own stamp on the James Bond character. He managed to achieve this with Clark Kent/Superman.
Cavill would make a great Bond. I think maybe a dark horse could be Ben Barnes.
Except Barnes is about 32 yet he still looks 22. Maybe in ten years? Even if he got the role after Craig, I get the feeling he would look like the same age as Q.
Realistically, I can't see EON pursuing Cavill post Craig. Given the success of the series with Craig, I firmly believe they will go with a lesser know actor as they did with Craig. He may or may not be someone we know, but either way, he's going to have to measure up to Craig's legacy.
As far as the looks argument, I've already given my opinion on the matter in other posts. As much as Craig has convinced me he is Bond enough that I can look past his appearance up to a certain degree, I still feel that iconic roles - be it Superman, Sherlock Holmes, etc. - need to be shown as how they were originally depicted. Craig does not come across to me as visually too short to be Bond, only his - at times - almost invisible eyebrows and blonde hair distract for me. Bond is a character and actors should change their looks to fit the character - there's no excuse for him not to have at least darkened his hair for the role.
Cavill would make a great Bond. I think maybe a dark horse could be Ben Barnes.
Except Barnes is about 32 yet he still looks 22. Maybe in ten years? Even if he got the role after Craig, I get the feeling he would look like the same age as Q.
I really don't think EON will pursue Cavill unless... Cavill doesn't make any more Superman films and instead heads back to small-screen period dramas and the stage, plus, DC does another three Bond films and the next Bond isn't cast until approximately 2021 when Cavill would be the same age that DC was when CR came out. While the latter is possible - albeit unlikely - I can't see Cavill's light dimming to lower-profile and lower-budget productions and therefore I do agree with many on here that EON will pursue someone lesser-known.
Comments
And do you think its because of Craig that Bardem, Fiennes starred in SF? Or is it maybe because Bond movies are the biggest movie franchise ever and Sam Mendes, an oscar winning director was making it that they were interested in the role?
Statham was an interesting choice when he was stillmaking quality movies like Snatch. Now naturally i dont see him fit for the role. But unlike Craig, he is a guy that all the men want to be and all the women want to be with. With Craig, I don't see it that way to be honest.
And Fassbender? He is German for crying out loud!
Just tell me: which one looks more like a future Bond?
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm4087528192/nm1055413
Or
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2798625536/nm0147147
1. Connery 2. Craig 3. Brosnan 4. Dalton 5. Lazenby 6. Moore
No, I look nothing like Bond. Even if I were an actor, there's no way in hell I'd put my hand up for the role, and if approached, I would politely decline, because I look nothing like Bond. I'm a fan of the literary Bond first, and I firmly believe that the cinematic Bond and every major character that was created by Fleming should as closely as possible mirror their literary counterparts in appearance, behaviour and mannerisms.
This is precisely the sort of attitude that I dislike. Disagree, fine, but people who think that Daniel Craig is the greatest thing since sliced bread and who label anyone that disagrees or dares to criticise him in any way as "serious Bond nerds who get their knickers in a twist about small things like hair colour" is the epitome of arrogance. As far as I'm concerned, hair colour isn't a small thing. His looks isn't a small thing. I have explained why I believe looks are more important than acting ability.
Obviously, you haven't seen him play the lead role in Immortals, one of the leads in the TV Series The Tudors, and as Superman in Man of Steel. His performance in Immortals in particular is why I strongly believe that he should be the next actor to play Bond, not to mention the fact that he has the looks for the role too.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I've seen Cavill in The Immortals, as well as several episodes of The Tudors, and I wasn't that impressed. He strikes me as a competent, but not particularly interesting actor. Sure, Cavill is a good looking guy who could fit the mold of Bond from a physical standpoint (although he is a bit too much of a pretty boy for my taste), but to me the acting skills are more important than the looks. Perhaps my opinion will change after I see Man of Steel, which I am looking forward to, but for now I'm not excited about the prospect of Cavill as Bond.
My only Problem with H Cavill is he looks far too much like me.
you as well ? It's shocking when I see him, it's like looking into a mirror
I taped last Monday's episode of Katie because she had on the cast of Mad Men, and I have just become a fan, a big fan, just in the last month. I related the lead character of Don Draper a lot to the literary Bond, mainly because they are both handsome and neurotic in differing degrees. On Katie, it was interesting how both the actors who played Don Draper and Pete Campbell, reacted to Katie's statement how despicable Pete Cambell was; the guys said that in fact, both characters are despicable, but the guy playing Pete Campbell said that viewers identify better with Don Draper and overlook his bad traits because he is handsome while his character was smarmy. That sounds like a simple enough thing, but I think it's loaded with so much psychological implications with social perception and whether we like it or not, Fleming was very intentional in how he made Bond handsome, how that plays out with his interaction with other characters and I suspect, how the readers (and therefore, society) were expected to react to that fact.
The reason why DC not being classically handsome became such a huge qualm for me, is because the producers from the begining preserved that one essence of the literary character, arguably more than any of the other traits because IMO they understood the dynamics that Fleming set in place, and had cemented that standard for every Bond actor since, up until the reboot. Furthermore, because Fleming made Bond handsome and the producers in turn also made him handsome, that expectation had been reinforced with the public since then, IMO, and in a sense that conditioning made me a bit like Pavlov's dog waiting for the proper cue. However, the opportunity (if you can call it that) to break this long-standing standard came when public tastes changed so radically against the former standard because it had ceased to be largely relevant, more even when the counter-culture entered the mainstream during the sixties, when Bondmania was born and interestingly, the same setting for the "beautiful" and glamorous world of "Mad Men." It's just too bad that because I'm from an older generation, I still remember that standard all too much though I try to survive in today's world by enjoying the "new" things, albeit from a distance.
Interesting and very compelling, as usual. I don't know how old you are, superado, but I suspect I'm older (58), so I can certainly relate to the notion of being from an older generation and perhaps not being able to appreciate some of the "new" things as much as we might like. One thing I will mention, though, is that just like most things, the perceptions of beauty and handsomeness have changed over time as well. A surprising number of women that I know (surprising to me, at least), find Craig to be quite handsome. In fact, many of them prefer his looks over those of Moore, Dalton and even Brosnan. Plus, I think Craig often projects a presence and intensity that makes you believe he's "all that", even if he's not. At least that's how it has been explained to me by some of the women who go "ga ga" over him (the well-toned body emerging from the surf in CR didn't hurt either!
Man, you're old!!!! That'll teach me to indulge in self-pity over my age! ...just kidding my friend, I make a salute to you for your experience. I'm 46, but feel in today's culture that's the new 65.
Anyway, yes, I agree with you about DC and see how women today, even those from our generation but who have changed with the culture, would appreciate the different kind of handsomeness of a DC. It's kind of sad too how easily people would make assumptions about sexual orientation ("not that there's anything wrong with that," to quote Seinfeld, lol) when someone is really good looking, which I think is due in part to changing perceptions about acceptable appearance and we as a society are not there yet or will ever be IMO. It's interesting to read articles or quantitative polls about how certain subcultures will achieve better successes in the marketplace based on looks and of course, race, gender, height and even whether one is overweight or not. However, I think perceptions and preferences in the personal arena (what one finds attractive to them) are at least moving away from the superficial, which is a good thing because people are reflecting more about character than ever before.
Don't worry - I'm about 20 years younger but very often agree with you, old man
things were better in the Old days when Connery was Bond.
Based on look alone I'd vote for Cavill.
Based on acting... I have no idea... not sure if I've seen Cavill in anything, and Fassbender I saw in Prometheus (and his character was not bond-like at all)
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Roger Moore 1927-2017
You really talk a lot of crap. Craig bought back Bond from the edge of the Clinche. Gave this tiring Franchise a kick in the backside it needed. Bond is now Cool again like it was in the early 60's with Connery. Thank god.
Always go agaisn't what the Bond Fan wants cause you always Find the perfect Bond. 80% rather live in the past then look to the future. The look means nothing now.
no, he is not an ugly sob, and with a little help he's a handsome fellah...but he's playing a Bond that's unlike anything like the Classic Bond. I think its difficult to measure his acting prowess for Bond when he is not acting like Bond to begin with. Perhaps in the next film maybe.
Aren't you the charmer. What is 'the Clinche'? Anyway, I can't see what you find in the above to disagree with, as I'm implying that the narcissistic style of Connery and Moore et al is very much in the past.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Good to know I have some support out there!
Well that goes without saying, doesn't it?
1. Connery 2. Craig 3. Brosnan 4. Dalton 5. Lazenby 6. Moore
Except Barnes is about 32 yet he still looks 22. Maybe in ten years? Even if he got the role after Craig, I get the feeling he would look like the same age as Q.
As far as the looks argument, I've already given my opinion on the matter in other posts. As much as Craig has convinced me he is Bond enough that I can look past his appearance up to a certain degree, I still feel that iconic roles - be it Superman, Sherlock Holmes, etc. - need to be shown as how they were originally depicted. Craig does not come across to me as visually too short to be Bond, only his - at times - almost invisible eyebrows and blonde hair distract for me. Bond is a character and actors should change their looks to fit the character - there's no excuse for him not to have at least darkened his hair for the role.
I'm with you. No "boyish" James Bond, please.
Now, Idris Elba on the other hand...
You read my mind!