If height is a issue then god help these critics if the next Bond is Black (Elba) or built like a brick shitehouse / bodybuilder (Henry)
I for one would have no problem with that except he's too old. So ageism rather than racism would be the barrier.
Also Cavill could trim the bulk if he wanted to but he'd still be made of wood.
I feel the same as you do. I just can't picture a new James Bond starting at a minimum of age 49.
Tom Cullen, star of Knightfall IMO would make the perfect bond!
Cullen is certainly at the top of my wishlist. In Knightfall he is very 'Bondian' in my view.
If they get a wiggle on he may not be too old. Sounds ridiculous given that he's only 33 but he'd be 37 at the earliest which would be fine unless they go for another hard re-boot (which I hope they avoid) Whoever it is I'd like them to be fully formed to avoid the whole 'becoming Bond' thing.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
The fact that Craig is accepted as Bond even though he isn't tall does not prove that height isn't an issue. Zephod99 writes that Craig has so many exceptional qualities that height isn't an issue. I agree - this means his height isn't an issue anymore. Back in 2006 it was an issue, and if his successor isn't tall either it will become an issue again. Height shouldn't be a make or brake issue when casting Bond (unless the actor is very short or extremely tall), but it is an issue.
Have actors or actresses been discarded from working in Craig's Bond movies because they're too tall compared to him? We don't know. Perhaps a beautiful and tallented actress has has lost a role because Craig isn't as tall as the othere Bond actors. We can't know.
We know that several times when actresses have been suggested on this forum someone has posted that it won't work because she's too tall. I think it would work for one film, but it would restrict what angles they use, who can stand next to each other in the same shot etc. Not something a director wants to deal with in many movies. But we can take it for granted this wasn't an issue with the previous Bonds.
You assume most people care about the fine detail of Bond films. That's the impression I get. You're concerned that height is an issue. Most people don't care. Had they cared about how Bond looks, Craig's CR would have flopped. No-one outside a small, hardcore group of Bond fans cared about Craig's craggy looks, smaller stature, more blunt/less charming Bond persona. The backlash was real. Craig did mention how some of the criticism got to him and he stopped looking at stuff online but when CR came out he was accepted in the role. The Daniel Craig haters are a small minority. I'm guessing it will be the same if a shorter actor is cast.
I doubt a competent, shorter actor - even one not particularly Bond handsome - will make much difference to Bond 26's potential box office. The film is bound to do well, make huge money, given decent marketing and hype around the new actor. If we get a smaller Bond actor most people won't care because the Bond franchise is bigger (pardon the pun!) than the actor playing 007.
I believe James Bond's height is one of several issues many people care about. It's not the most important issue, thank God. Things like acting ability, screen presence and general looks are among the most important. I should have written my post about Madden differently. I should have written something along the lines of "I don't see the 'it' factor in Richard Madden. Besides, his also not tall enough".
I think the audience did "forgive" Daniel Craig for not being as tall as the other Bond actors because he was a so very, very good in other ways. I don't think we should read this as proof that many don't care about the height of the actor playing Bond. Many people did and do care, they just care even more about more important factors. I don't think Madden has those other factors in spades like Craig does.
I watched the Bodyguard series and thought it was excellent and Richard Madden did an outstanding job as the PTSD suffering
PPO. Some of my dopier American compatriots apparently had a difficult time with Madden's accent but I thought it added to his performance with the accent further differentiating and isolating him from the other characters who reflected more of a cosmopolitan London accent (if that isn't accurate, please chime in, I am far from an expert). That all being said, Madden doesn't strike me as Bond material but not based upon his height. As Number 24 put it, Madden doesn't have the "it" factor for Bond but a fine actor none the less that I'd like to see more of.
On a related note Tom Cruise was more or less just fired from the Jack Reacher films because as dedicated as he was he didn't have the imposing physical stature that Reacher is written as having. Granted Reacher is an extreme case but its a recent example of someone's height deviation from the established source being an issue.
That's the tabloid spin (fueled by Lee Child's comments). The fact is the Reacher franchise sputtered on its sophomore film, so it's being rebooted for television. If it was a third MOVIE being discussed, you can bet that only one person in that scenario decides whether or not it's Tom Cruise playing the role.
I have not read any of the Reacher novels, but from what I've gathered from those who have, being 6'5" was a big part of the Reacher intimidating physicality. I agree that the only person who decides that Cruise is no longer Reacher....is Cruise. For the most part, Cruise's performance as Reacher was basically a wandering loner version of Ethan Hunt with less crazy stunts.
I believe James Bond's height is one of several issues many people care about. It's not the most important issue, thank God. Things like acting ability, screen presence and general looks are among the most important. I should have written my post about Madden differently. I should have written something along the lines of "I don't see the 'it' factor in Richard Madden. Besides, his also not tall enough".
I think the audience did "forgive" Daniel Craig for not being as tall as the other Bond actors because he was a so very, very good in other ways. I don't think we should read this as proof that many don't care about the height of the actor playing Bond. Many people did and do care, they just care even more about more important factors. I don't think Madden has those other factors in spades like Craig does.
I'm more concerned about the lack of on screen chemistry with women and some of the decidedly dodgy sexual dynamics in recent films. Granted Connery was similar (see Goldfinger and Thunderball ) but it was questionable in the 60's and we should have moved on by now. The lack of charisma and the determination to (over) compensate by labouring the Alpha male shtick has been a negative in recent times. There are contra examples of course (shower scene in CR for example) but the overall tone leaves a bad smell in my view.
Connery had so much charisma he may have 'got away with it'. Daniel for all his excellent qualities has not exhibited it yet. I say 'yet as I'm convinced he is a very good actor with more to give. I hope he gets the chance in 25. For the record I don't see myself as a 'hater'or a lover, just someone who sees both positive and negative in the films and the portrayal.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Craig has been very popular with the female audience, or at least that'smy impression. But I agree Craig's Bond hasn't focused on the ladies'man side of 007. I think he only time Craig's Bond has been accused of "dodgy sexual dynamics was after the shover scene in SF. Is there anyone else who would like to offer their opionion of this?
Craig has been very popular with the female audience, or at least that'smy impression. But I agree Craig's Bond hasn't focused on the ladies'man side of 007. I think he only time Craig's Bond has been accused of "dodgy sexual dynamics was after the shover scene in SF. Is there anyone else who would like to offer their opionion of this?
I also feel that Spectre was if anything worse. I agree DC is popular with female audiences. I was talking about onscreen chemistry. It may only bother me and some of my non AJB pals (plus Mrs.Zaphod) so not exactly science.
I'll get my Coat.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I think the shower scene in SPECTRE is the only example of what you call dodgy sexual dynamics in Craig's Bond movies. Saying SPECTRE is worse implies the other movies (or even the rest of that movie) are bad in that sense, and I don't agree on that . The chemistry with actresses is good, I think. I would' ve liked to see more of Bond's playboy persona, that's all.
I thought Lea Seydoux was ok with Craig in SPECTRE but a bit on the young side. I think Craig works better with a more mature female lead or a least one with a bit more gravitas. The playboy persona was hinted at in CR but we've really not seen Craig engaging in any "recreational" sexual relationships as we did with Connery and Moore. You didn't see much of that with Brosnan either, at least on screen, but it certainly was alluded to and Brosnan did a good job of at least projecting that image even though it wasn't shown.
I think the shower scene in SPECTRE is the only example of what you call dodgy sexual dynamics in Craig's Bond movies. Saying SPECTRE is worse implies the other movies (or even the rest of that movie) are bad in that sense, and I don't agree on that . The chemistry with actresses is good, I think. I would' ve liked to see more of Bond's playboy persona, that's all.
Am I getting confused? Was the shower scene not in Skyfall? The scene in Spectre I'm referring to was with Belluci's character after the Funeral. I'd also like more of what you term 'playboy personal although I'd probably characterise it differently. I'd like the sense that Bond likes and appreciates Women rather than playboy, but I think we are broadly on the same page in this regard.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
There is a shower scene in SF with Bond and Vesper that was handled very well. But there was also a shower scene in SPECTRE where Bond steps into Severine's shower after he returns from the casino fight. This happened after we learn Severine was a victim of sex trafficing when she was underage. The fact that Severine didn't invite Bond't into the shower looks pretty bad to many people because of her background.
I thought Lea Seydoux was ok with Craig in SPECTRE but a bit on the young side. I think Craig works better with a more mature female lead or a least one with a bit more gravitas. The playboy persona was hinted at in CR but we've really not seen Craig engaging in any "recreational" sexual relationships as we did with Connery and Moore. You didn't see much of that with Brosnan either, at least on screen, but it certainly was alluded to and Brosnan did a good job of at least projecting that image even though it wasn't shown.
There is a shower scene in SF with Bond and Vesper that was handled very well. But there was also a shower scene in SPECTRE where Bond steps into Severine's shower after he returns from the casino fight. This happened after we learn Severine was a victim of sex trafficing when she was underage. The fact that Severine didn't invite Bond't into the shower looks pretty bad to many people because of her background.
Severine is in Skyfall, not Spectre. Bond may be an uninvited guest in the shower, but he is warmly welcomed. The shower scene is Vesper is Casino Royale.
I think some of the problem with the sexual aspects of the Craig films can be attributed to the times we live in. I don't think that EON want Bond to even remotely appear to be some kind of sexual predator, so things have been pretty restrained or just avoided. When you watch the Connery films today, some of the scenes where Connery seduces women are at best downright uncomfortable or at worst, assault by today's standards. Bond's seduction of Pussy Galore in GF and Molly Peters in TB might have been considered acceptable in the 60's but in today's world that would be considered monstrous behavior and completely unacceptable for a contemporary Bond.
I think some of the problem with the sexual aspects of the Craig films can be attributed to the times we live in. I don't think that EON want Bond to even remotely appear to be some kind of sexual predator, so things have been pretty restrained or just avoided. When you watch the Connery films today, some of the scenes where Connery seduces women are at best downright uncomfortable or at worst, assault by today's standards. Bond's seduction of Pussy Galore in GF and Molly Peters in TB might have been considered acceptable in the 60's but in today's world that would be considered monstrous behavior and completely unacceptable for a contemporary Bond.
I agree with you 100 percent regarding the Connery era, but I don’t think it has any impact on why Craig’s romance scenes are somewhat lacking. Brosnan was basically operating under the same cultural norms and he pulled it off much better. I think it’s just down to Craig. He’s always been better at the action and the brooding.
I think some of the problem with the sexual aspects of the Craig films can be attributed to the times we live in. I don't think that EON want Bond to even remotely appear to be some kind of sexual predator, so things have been pretty restrained or just avoided. When you watch the Connery films today, some of the scenes where Connery seduces women are at best downright uncomfortable or at worst, assault by today's standards. Bond's seduction of Pussy Galore in GF and Molly Peters in TB might have been considered acceptable in the 60's but in today's world that would be considered monstrous behavior and completely unacceptable for a contemporary Bond.
Very true.which makes some of the scenes I find 'dodgy ' even more jarring.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I think some of the problem with the sexual aspects of the Craig films can be attributed to the times we live in. I don't think that EON want Bond to even remotely appear to be some kind of sexual predator, so things have been pretty restrained or just avoided. When you watch the Connery films today, some of the scenes where Connery seduces women are at best downright uncomfortable or at worst, assault by today's standards. Bond's seduction of Pussy Galore in GF and Molly Peters in TB might have been considered acceptable in the 60's but in today's world that would be considered monstrous behavior and completely unacceptable for a contemporary Bond.
I agree with you 100 percent regarding the Connery era, but I don’t think it has any impact on why Craig’s romance scenes are somewhat lacking. Brosnan was basically operating under the same cultural norms and he pulled it off much better. I think it’s just down to Craig. He’s always been better at the action and the brooding.
Wot he said.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Yeah - I didnt really count her as it felt more a mutual thing despite her brief - in fact he seems to pursue her more then the other way around
I think your right, but funny you see it that way, I don't see bond chasing Vesper "don't worry, youre not my type" she seems to fall for him once he's had his balls bashed in.
Comments
I feel the same as you do. I just can't picture a new James Bond starting at a minimum of age 49.
I liked him in that and it was the first time I have thought 'maybe '
Cullen is certainly at the top of my wishlist. In Knightfall he is very 'Bondian' in my view.
If they get a wiggle on he may not be too old. Sounds ridiculous given that he's only 33 but he'd be 37 at the earliest which would be fine unless they go for another hard re-boot (which I hope they avoid) Whoever it is I'd like them to be fully formed to avoid the whole 'becoming Bond' thing.
You assume most people care about the fine detail of Bond films. That's the impression I get. You're concerned that height is an issue. Most people don't care. Had they cared about how Bond looks, Craig's CR would have flopped. No-one outside a small, hardcore group of Bond fans cared about Craig's craggy looks, smaller stature, more blunt/less charming Bond persona. The backlash was real. Craig did mention how some of the criticism got to him and he stopped looking at stuff online but when CR came out he was accepted in the role. The Daniel Craig haters are a small minority. I'm guessing it will be the same if a shorter actor is cast.
I doubt a competent, shorter actor - even one not particularly Bond handsome - will make much difference to Bond 26's potential box office. The film is bound to do well, make huge money, given decent marketing and hype around the new actor. If we get a smaller Bond actor most people won't care because the Bond franchise is bigger (pardon the pun!) than the actor playing 007.
I think the audience did "forgive" Daniel Craig for not being as tall as the other Bond actors because he was a so very, very good in other ways. I don't think we should read this as proof that many don't care about the height of the actor playing Bond. Many people did and do care, they just care even more about more important factors. I don't think Madden has those other factors in spades like Craig does.
PPO. Some of my dopier American compatriots apparently had a difficult time with Madden's accent but I thought it added to his performance with the accent further differentiating and isolating him from the other characters who reflected more of a cosmopolitan London accent (if that isn't accurate, please chime in, I am far from an expert). That all being said, Madden doesn't strike me as Bond material but not based upon his height. As Number 24 put it, Madden doesn't have the "it" factor for Bond but a fine actor none the less that I'd like to see more of.
That's the tabloid spin (fueled by Lee Child's comments). The fact is the Reacher franchise sputtered on its sophomore film, so it's being rebooted for television. If it was a third MOVIE being discussed, you can bet that only one person in that scenario decides whether or not it's Tom Cruise playing the role.
I'm more concerned about the lack of on screen chemistry with women and some of the decidedly dodgy sexual dynamics in recent films. Granted Connery was similar (see Goldfinger and Thunderball ) but it was questionable in the 60's and we should have moved on by now. The lack of charisma and the determination to (over) compensate by labouring the Alpha male shtick has been a negative in recent times. There are contra examples of course (shower scene in CR for example) but the overall tone leaves a bad smell in my view.
Connery had so much charisma he may have 'got away with it'. Daniel for all his excellent qualities has not exhibited it yet. I say 'yet as I'm convinced he is a very good actor with more to give. I hope he gets the chance in 25. For the record I don't see myself as a 'hater'or a lover, just someone who sees both positive and negative in the films and the portrayal.
I also feel that Spectre was if anything worse. I agree DC is popular with female audiences. I was talking about onscreen chemistry. It may only bother me and some of my non AJB pals (plus Mrs.Zaphod) so not exactly science.
I'll get my Coat.
Am I getting confused? Was the shower scene not in Skyfall? The scene in Spectre I'm referring to was with Belluci's character after the Funeral. I'd also like more of what you term 'playboy personal although I'd probably characterise it differently. I'd like the sense that Bond likes and appreciates Women rather than playboy, but I think we are broadly on the same page in this regard.
Severine is in Skyfall, not Spectre. Bond may be an uninvited guest in the shower, but he is warmly welcomed. The shower scene is Vesper is Casino Royale.
The line does not come naturally to Craig in QOS. He's very wooden with the romance.
I agree with you 100 percent regarding the Connery era, but I don’t think it has any impact on why Craig’s romance scenes are somewhat lacking. Brosnan was basically operating under the same cultural norms and he pulled it off much better. I think it’s just down to Craig. He’s always been better at the action and the brooding.
Very true.which makes some of the scenes I find 'dodgy ' even more jarring.
Wot he said.
I dont think he has on either accounts really, not like the old days??