Lotte Lenya as Rosa Klebb. This was a remarkable piece of casting, as Klebb had only 2 previous acting roles and one of those was in 1931! It’s hard to imagine anyone else in that role. She was famous as a singer previously.
In fact the casting of the first 6 Bond movies was exceptional, only a small handful could be considered as being miscast, and those all in secondary roles, Cec Linder as Felix Leiter, in GF being one of those.
Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
I don't think many of the suggestions here are iconic.
Of course, iconography is oft decided by certain trappings and characteristics - the bull whip, the hat, the garb of Indy, for instance but it really helps to have Ford in the role.
Ditto say Christopher Reeve as Superman - yep it's the Elvis curl, the black hair and the gaudy cape but any attempt to ditch Reeve for another actor would have been awful imo and I can't imagine anyone else in it. Cavill doesn't really compete.
Basil Rathbone as Holmes is a good example because he introduced I think the deerstalker hat that wasn't in the book.
It's Bond's trappings that helped make the character transferable - the Bond, James Bond catchphrase, the Britishness, the vodka martini, the tux, the Aston and his office colleagues. So much so that some had to be ditched for Moore because Connery had made them his own.
Bruce in a vest in Die Hard? I'm being unfair - certainly I can't imagine anyone else in the role, well I can, but it's Bruce really. But Mel Gibson could have had a bash at it. Admittedly, he is MacClane and the role defies recasting - but that's to do with his personality rather than iconography.
But Willis in Die Hard is what explains Willis as a star in all his subsequent roles. If you hadn't seen him in that, you might not see why he is the big deal.
I'd almost argue Moore is just as big a deal as Bond - he has the Bond, James Bond catchphrase, the Lotus, the office colleagues and does a fair bit with it just like Connery. As a kid, he was a big deal, esp his face on the Corgi Toys and the early posters, with dark hair he never quite seemed to have bar in his first film.
I don't think many of the suggestions here are iconic.
Of course, iconography is oft decided by certain trappings and characteristics - the bull whip, the hat, the garb of Indy, for instance but it really helps to have Ford in the role.
Ditto say Christopher Reeve as Superman - yep it's the Elvis curl, the black hair and the gaudy cape but any attempt to ditch Reeve for another actor would have been awful imo and I can't imagine anyone else in it. Cavill doesn't really compete.
Basil Rathbone as Holmes is a good example because he introduced I think the deerstalker hat that wasn't in the book.
It's Bond's trappings that helped make the character transferable - the Bond, James Bond catchphrase, the Britishness, the vodka martini, the tux, the Aston and his office colleagues. So much so that some had to be ditched for Moore because Connery had made them his own.
Bruce in a vest in Die Hard? I'm being unfair - certainly I can't imagine anyone else in the role, well I can, but it's Bruce really. But Mel Gibson could have had a bash at it. Admittedly, he is MacClane and the role defies recasting - but that's to do with his personality rather than iconography.
But Willis in Die Hard is what explains Willis as a star in all his subsequent roles. If you hadn't seen him in that, you might not see why he is the big deal.
I'd almost argue Moore is just as big a deal as Bond - he has the Bond, James Bond catchphrase, the Lotus, the office colleagues and does a fair bit with it just like Connery. As a kid, he was a big deal, esp his face on the Corgi Toys and the early posters, with dark hair he never quite seemed to have bar in his first film.
Thank you Napoleon. I didn't think it was just me.
I think we're all using the word 'iconic' in slightly different ways.
The definition of iconic is: "very famous or popular, especially being considered to represent particular opinions or a particular time; or relating to or characteristic of a famous person or thing that represents something of importance (for instance, scenes of Parisians dancing in the streets remain iconic images from World War II.)"
For me, 'iconic castings' means that an actor is so well cast that they made the role their own and you can't imagine anyone else playing the role as well, and that perfect combination of actor & role becomes very famous or popular.
So Bruce Willis as John MacClane and Clint Eastwood as TMWNT meet that definition just as much as Sean Connery as Bond or Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes.
"How was your lamb?" "Skewered. One sympathises."
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Would James T. Kirk as portrayed by William Shatner be considered an iconic character? I’d say yes, just as this portrayal would be considered by a mass following as definitive. But I think some wiggle room has allowed Chris Pine to be accepted as Kirk in differing degrees among audiences, enough so to warrant at least three films. And there are similar dynamics with Han Solo, Steve McGarrett, and (gasp!) Thomas Magnum. Therefore I think the pinnacle of the Iconic mantle includes being irreplaceable, period, like Indiana Jones so far, but being definitive like Connery’s Bond is the next best thing.
"...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.....
I sort of see what we're all saying and where we're coming from but I do think one has to differentiate between a movie star who is iconic already, being great, and therefore is unlikely to make a part their own aside from being that movie star.
James Stewart - he's a legend and you might not be able to imagine another actor in his roles, but he doesn't really make them iconic because he's just doing the thing he does - being James Stewart. Ditto a whole range of other actors such as M Monroe, Clark Gable Cary Grant and so on.
Would Connery have been such a big star without Bond? Reeve without Superman? Willis without McClane? Eastwood without The Man With No Name and Dirty Harry (okay, he gets two).
Rathbone is a great supporting actor without Holmes, others would he be a star? A lead character of stature?
Probably not, so to this does sort of suggest a curious balance between the grading of the star or actor and the role they're about to take on. Okay, Brando is an exception, but usually with established A-list stars the whole point is the audience is paying to see that particular actor doing the role they normally do or if not the schtick they usually do, so to have it subsumed by the fictional character they're playing might be seen as not giving them what they're paying for.
The studio balked at the initial prospect of Brando playing an old Sicilian mafia don!
"...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.....
Comments
In fact the casting of the first 6 Bond movies was exceptional, only a small handful could be considered as being miscast, and those all in secondary roles, Cec Linder as Felix Leiter, in GF being one of those.
OK. So what's he being iconic of ?
Of course, iconography is oft decided by certain trappings and characteristics - the bull whip, the hat, the garb of Indy, for instance but it really helps to have Ford in the role.
Ditto say Christopher Reeve as Superman - yep it's the Elvis curl, the black hair and the gaudy cape but any attempt to ditch Reeve for another actor would have been awful imo and I can't imagine anyone else in it. Cavill doesn't really compete.
Basil Rathbone as Holmes is a good example because he introduced I think the deerstalker hat that wasn't in the book.
It's Bond's trappings that helped make the character transferable - the Bond, James Bond catchphrase, the Britishness, the vodka martini, the tux, the Aston and his office colleagues. So much so that some had to be ditched for Moore because Connery had made them his own.
Bruce in a vest in Die Hard? I'm being unfair - certainly I can't imagine anyone else in the role, well I can, but it's Bruce really. But Mel Gibson could have had a bash at it. Admittedly, he is MacClane and the role defies recasting - but that's to do with his personality rather than iconography.
But Willis in Die Hard is what explains Willis as a star in all his subsequent roles. If you hadn't seen him in that, you might not see why he is the big deal.
I'd almost argue Moore is just as big a deal as Bond - he has the Bond, James Bond catchphrase, the Lotus, the office colleagues and does a fair bit with it just like Connery. As a kid, he was a big deal, esp his face on the Corgi Toys and the early posters, with dark hair he never quite seemed to have bar in his first film.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Thank you Napoleon. I didn't think it was just me.
The definition of iconic is: "very famous or popular, especially being considered to represent particular opinions or a particular time; or relating to or characteristic of a famous person or thing that represents something of importance (for instance, scenes of Parisians dancing in the streets remain iconic images from World War II.)"
For me, 'iconic castings' means that an actor is so well cast that they made the role their own and you can't imagine anyone else playing the role as well, and that perfect combination of actor & role becomes very famous or popular.
So Bruce Willis as John MacClane and Clint Eastwood as TMWNT meet that definition just as much as Sean Connery as Bond or Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes.
James Stewart - he's a legend and you might not be able to imagine another actor in his roles, but he doesn't really make them iconic because he's just doing the thing he does - being James Stewart. Ditto a whole range of other actors such as M Monroe, Clark Gable Cary Grant and so on.
Would Connery have been such a big star without Bond? Reeve without Superman? Willis without McClane? Eastwood without The Man With No Name and Dirty Harry (okay, he gets two).
Rathbone is a great supporting actor without Holmes, others would he be a star? A lead character of stature?
Probably not, so to this does sort of suggest a curious balance between the grading of the star or actor and the role they're about to take on. Okay, Brando is an exception, but usually with established A-list stars the whole point is the audience is paying to see that particular actor doing the role they normally do or if not the schtick they usually do, so to have it subsumed by the fictional character they're playing might be seen as not giving them what they're paying for.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I think the question is also would Bond have been so big without Connery? I think it's extremely debatable.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
The studio balked at the initial prospect of Brando playing an old Sicilian mafia don!