If Every Bond Film was the first Bond film

M 'n' M

Not sure if this theme will work but thought i'd try it anyway . . .

I was wondering whether the current Bond actors would have been cast if the producers had to pick the best person at the time for each film - ie and not rely on continuity etc

So - Sean would be a big "yes" for Dr No and i think would have been the best person around for FRWL and Goldfinger. By the time of thunderball, though, I'm not so sure. His hair was starting to look weird, he was carrying more weight and his face was ageing. Certainly YOLT and DAF i think relied on previous successes

Obviously George doesn't count - but if he'd stuck around i think he might have got DAF, LALD and MWTGG

Roger - LALD is a yes of course. And i think MWTGG and TSWLM. By Moonraker, though, he was starting to look much less the part. Ironically, i think he was cast just right for Octopussy, which allowed him to play an older role

Tim was good for both his films - but not sure he'd have still shaped up by 1995

Pierce is the one whose looks - i think - fared best. Even by DAD he was looking ok and if they'd done another Octopussy type film he could have pulled it off

Finally, Dan. Being honest, i think he's aged badly. He's not blessed with the best looks so even by Skyfall i would have said he's getting the part on the basis of previous successes - ie i don't think they'd cast him now if he'd not done it before

Any other thoughts

Absolutely_Cart

Wait I have no idea what you are talking about. Are we talking about which of the films would have held up if it were the very first one. Are we comparing the films or actors? And is age/looks purely the factor here (Connery in DAF was better looking than Moore in AVTAK ; but wasn't necessarily a better actor).

Matt S

I agree with most of this, except I think Connery still looked the part in Thunderball. He could have used a better toupée, but that may have had to do with wearing a toupée that could work for underwater scenes.

Moore looked great through Octopussy, but I agree that if he couldn't have started the role at 51 in Moonraker.

Pierce could certainly have pulled off another film. If they made Casino Royale a direct adaptation of Fleming's story he would have been perfect.

Daniel Craig really only looked good in his first two Bond films. in Skyfall he looks about the same as Moore did in For Your Eyes Only, despite being 9 years younger. For Spectre he'll look about the equivalent of Moore in Octopussy.

M 'n' M

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Wait I have no idea what you are talking about. Are we talking about which of the films would have held up if it were the very first one. Are we comparing the films or actors? And is age/looks purely the factor here (Connery in DAF was better looking than Moore in AVTAK ; but wasn't necessarily a better actor).

Hi, Cart

Sorry if it was a bit unclear. What I'm trying to say is - imagine each film is the first one and on that basis would they still have cast the same person. So I'm saying that if thunderball was the first they wouldn't have cast Connery. If moon ranker was the first they wouldn't have cast Moore. It's not just age - it's the general presence the actor has

Absolutely_Cart

Right. Past Goldfinger, Connery wouldn't even be a candidate. At the same time, it was the role of Bond that made him jaded and cranky.

Actually, age is the only factor we can go by because you can't judge the on-set presence of a Bond actor if they hadn't gotten the role yet.

With Moore, his age would've been a problem past Moonraker (assuming he hadn't done a Bond film yet, and didn't gain the respect of audiences yet).

Brosnan aged quickly too. He never stopped being ridiculously handsome, but he became a different kind of handsome. After TND, he stopped looking like the Remington Steele young gentleman and more like a healthy dad.

And I think Craig wouldn't have been accepted as a lust bomb if Skyfall were his first film.