" A verbal contract isn't worth the paper its written on !" : Samuel Goldwyn )
Verbal merely means with words. It could be spoken or written. People have misused "verbal" to mean "oral" so much, that now people assume it to mean the latter when technically, they are not exclusively equivalent. There are even connotative dictionaries that suggest this.
If Bond had a beard I think James Dornan would be good choice ) ,but he is tall, Irish, has an masculine look, and a fine actor when given good material.
Hes only 33, so hes still too young for the part. This is from the set of the Film hes currently shooting.
It doesn't matter that he's still too young because Daniel Craig is Bond now. If Daniel Craig were to leave the role early, in three years he's be perfect for Bond.
Hes only 33, so hes still too young for the part. This is from the set of the Film hes currently shooting.
Too boyish looking at this time. If he ages well, in six years he might look the part. Does have a cruelty in his eyes IMO, which is good for Bond, especially for a more classically handsome type.
Hes only 33, so hes still too young for the part. This is from the set of the Film hes currently shooting.
Too boyish looking at this time. If he ages well, in six years he might look the part. Does have a cruelty in his eyes IMO, which is good for Bond, especially for a more classically handsome type.
OMG, at the risk of putting the cat amongst the pigeons (double take anyone), I have to disagree with most of this thread.
Follow the math if you will....
The perfect age for a "new" Bond actor is 35. DC was 36, although RM and TD were early 40s.
Therefore HC is already too old. Even though he is 33 now, there is no way there is going to be a new actor cast for at least 6-8 years. DC will have one or maybe even two more in him assuming SPECTRE is a huge success - he's just too popular with the producers, Mendes and also the non-fans.
This means that the "new" actor out there is still in his late 20s. He's probably unknown and won't have been in any film series. Probably doing UK TV. HC is established as Superman so I doubt he is suitable on that score alone, but we need to examine the age thing first and foremost because whoever gets the gig next needs to be 35 in 6-8 years time. This means that Kit Harrington is certainly a contender IMO, but having done Spooks this I feel will go against him - although I may be wrong because The Saint certainly didn't do RM any harm.
I think I said on another thread that Jack O'Connell is my current favourite. Perfect age and similar pedigree to DC. They will go with another rough and ready rather than smooth and suave because that has worked so well with the post 9/11 audience.
I think Jack o'Donnell has a lot going for him. After Craig he might have a too conventional look and he's even sho .... less tall than DC, but not a bad suggestion.
OMG, at the risk of putting the cat amongst the pigeons (double take anyone), I have to disagree with most of this thread.
Follow the math if you will....
The perfect age for a "new" Bond actor is 35. DC was 36, although RM and TD were early 40s.
Therefore HC is already too old. Even though he is 33 now, there is no way there is going to be a new actor cast for at least 6-8 years. DC will have one or maybe even two more in him assuming SPECTRE is a huge success - he's just too popular with the producers, Mendes and also the non-fans.
Dan was 38
"You see Mr.Bond, you can't kill my dreams...but my dreams can kill you.Time to face destiny" - "Time to face gravity"
I always though George Lazenby perfectly fitted the role of a
Young Bond, he's what I'd imagine a young naval officer to
Look like.
So getting another young actor ( who can act ) and letting him
Mature in the role of 007. I'm all for.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I always though George Lazenby perfectly fitted the role of a
Young Bond, he's what I'd imagine a young naval officer to
Look like.
So getting another young actor ( who can act ) and letting him
Mature in the role of 007. I'm all for.
I agree. But I never understood why they went with a 38-year-old for Casino Royale when they made it into an origin story. 38 sounds pretty old to me for someone just starting out as a 00-agent. A 32-year-old Sean Connery seemed appropriate for a 00-agent with a little experience. George Lazenby, however, seemed a bit young for his story, but it wasn't a problem.
There is the old story about Henry Cavill was expected to get 007, and
The script being a " Beginnings " story, he was expected to turn up on
The first day of shooting. Then to the surprise of many Daniel got the
Part.
Sure he looked a bit older ( not too much in my opinion) and CR is still
A fantastic Bond ( watched it again last night) Even my wife who's no
Bond fan hung around until the end of it, so Daniel does seem to be easy
On the eyes for the ladies? .
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Just have this feeling that Spectre will be DC last film, think he will want to go out on a high and correct me if I'm wrong( sure someone will ) but there is no confirmation that he is signed to do another, just that the role is his as long as he wants it. Think 2017 there will be the hunt for a new 007 and Clive Standen gets my vote!
Just have this feeling that Spectre will be DC last film, think he will want to go out on a high and correct me if I'm wrong( sure someone will ) but there is no confirmation that he is signed to do another, just that the role is his as long as he wants it. Think 2017 there will be the hunt for a new 007 and Clive Standen gets my vote!
My feeling is a bit different. Craig will do at least one more after SPECTRE (I think the SPECTRE story arc spans at least two films) and it would not surprise me if they squeeze 26 out of him also; I don't think EON is in any hurry to move on from Craig. I really have no opinion at this point re Craig's replacement. I'm sure there are plenty of good UK actors out there who could fit the bill when the time comes.
Re Henry Cavill v DC for CR (sounds like an equasion) agewise; as you may recall the new backstory/Bond Bio on the official CR website indicated that Bond did not go directly from the Navy to being a "00"; he spent some years as a Station Agent for MI6 in the Middle East, etc. When you figuire in that Bond probably finished his schooling at 22, spent at least 4 years in the Navy (SBS, not as a sailor) he then could have spent another 4-6 years as a regular MI6 Operative before becoming a "00". He was at least 32 at the time of CR. Now as we recall Cavill's very freshfaced, youthfull looks at the time of CR, the gulf in DC and Cavill's acting abilities, and the intangables that EON was seeking (screen presence, gravitas, a move away from the traditional) you can see why they went with Craig. It certainly has worked out well for all. Cavill certainly appears to be doing well enough with The Man of Steel, ironically The Man From Uncle has been given a luke warm reception both critically and at the Box Office.
Re Henry Cavill v DC for CR (sounds like an equasion) agewise; as you may recall the new backstory/Bond Bio on the official CR website indicated that Bond did not go directly from the Navy to being a "00"; he spent some years as a Station Agent for MI6 in the Middle East, etc. When you figuire in that Bond probably finished his schooling at 22, spent at least 4 years in the Navy (SBS, not as a sailor) he then could have spent another 4-6 years as a regular MI6 Operative before becoming a "00". He was at least 32 at the time of CR. Now as we recall Cavill's very freshfaced, youthfull looks at the time of CR, the gulf in DC and Cavill's acting abilities, and the intangables that EON was seeking (screen presence, gravitas, a move away from the traditional) you can see why they went with Craig. It certainly has worked out well for all. Cavill certainly appears to be doing well enough with The Man of Steel, ironically The Man From Uncle has been given a luke warm reception both critically and at the Box Office.
The backstory is irrelevant to the choice of Craig since it was changed to fit Daniel Craig's age and modern times, and it was a bit different from the literary character's backstory. We know he was 37 in Moonraker, and if he ages normally he was 35 in Casino Royale. But since Bond is not a new 00-agent in the the Casino Royale novel, we don't know how old he would have been when he became a 00. I think that Bond acted far too immaturely in the CR film for a 38-year-old. I do happen to personally know a very immature 55-year-old, but for someone in Bond's position it just doesn't make sense. I think someone younger would have been better for that origin story, though not Henry Cavill. 23 would be too young. Late 20s would have made the most sense.
I think the best "age apropriate" actor for Bond at the time of CR was Michael Fassbender. I think Craig is great Bond, but I Will always Wonder what Fassbender's CR would have been like.
Comments
Between verbal or Oral, I know which one I'd prefer to get.
He is 35 years old, Scottish, tall, a trained and experienced actor, not really famous and he has a striking look:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1537825/
http://33.media.tumblr.com/ee2cd59d66c268b8fef3cf908b2ef646/tumblr_ndyhwnAKlC1u0kmbzo1_400.gif
I think he's really a ginger, but he looks good with dark hair too.
He is 6'21/2'' (189 cm) tall and has a typical Scottish accent.
P*ss one off.
It doesn't matter that he's still too young because Daniel Craig is Bond now. If Daniel Craig were to leave the role early, in three years he's be perfect for Bond.
Too boyish looking at this time. If he ages well, in six years he might look the part. Does have a cruelty in his eyes IMO, which is good for Bond, especially for a more classically handsome type.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Follow the math if you will....
The perfect age for a "new" Bond actor is 35. DC was 36, although RM and TD were early 40s.
Therefore HC is already too old. Even though he is 33 now, there is no way there is going to be a new actor cast for at least 6-8 years. DC will have one or maybe even two more in him assuming SPECTRE is a huge success - he's just too popular with the producers, Mendes and also the non-fans.
This means that the "new" actor out there is still in his late 20s. He's probably unknown and won't have been in any film series. Probably doing UK TV. HC is established as Superman so I doubt he is suitable on that score alone, but we need to examine the age thing first and foremost because whoever gets the gig next needs to be 35 in 6-8 years time. This means that Kit Harrington is certainly a contender IMO, but having done Spooks this I feel will go against him - although I may be wrong because The Saint certainly didn't do RM any harm.
I think I said on another thread that Jack O'Connell is my current favourite. Perfect age and similar pedigree to DC. They will go with another rough and ready rather than smooth and suave because that has worked so well with the post 9/11 audience.
Just my opinion...don't kill me! Thoughts?
Dan was 38
You are right! It was me that was 36 at the time of CR!
Young Bond, he's what I'd imagine a young naval officer to
Look like.
So getting another young actor ( who can act ) and letting him
Mature in the role of 007. I'm all for.
I agree. But I never understood why they went with a 38-year-old for Casino Royale when they made it into an origin story. 38 sounds pretty old to me for someone just starting out as a 00-agent. A 32-year-old Sean Connery seemed appropriate for a 00-agent with a little experience. George Lazenby, however, seemed a bit young for his story, but it wasn't a problem.
The script being a " Beginnings " story, he was expected to turn up on
The first day of shooting. Then to the surprise of many Daniel got the
Part.
Sure he looked a bit older ( not too much in my opinion) and CR is still
A fantastic Bond ( watched it again last night) Even my wife who's no
Bond fan hung around until the end of it, so Daniel does seem to be easy
On the eyes for the ladies?
My feeling is a bit different. Craig will do at least one more after SPECTRE (I think the SPECTRE story arc spans at least two films) and it would not surprise me if they squeeze 26 out of him also; I don't think EON is in any hurry to move on from Craig. I really have no opinion at this point re Craig's replacement. I'm sure there are plenty of good UK actors out there who could fit the bill when the time comes.
Re Henry Cavill v DC for CR (sounds like an equasion) agewise; as you may recall the new backstory/Bond Bio on the official CR website indicated that Bond did not go directly from the Navy to being a "00"; he spent some years as a Station Agent for MI6 in the Middle East, etc. When you figuire in that Bond probably finished his schooling at 22, spent at least 4 years in the Navy (SBS, not as a sailor) he then could have spent another 4-6 years as a regular MI6 Operative before becoming a "00". He was at least 32 at the time of CR. Now as we recall Cavill's very freshfaced, youthfull looks at the time of CR, the gulf in DC and Cavill's acting abilities, and the intangables that EON was seeking (screen presence, gravitas, a move away from the traditional) you can see why they went with Craig. It certainly has worked out well for all. Cavill certainly appears to be doing well enough with The Man of Steel, ironically The Man From Uncle has been given a luke warm reception both critically and at the Box Office.
The backstory is irrelevant to the choice of Craig since it was changed to fit Daniel Craig's age and modern times, and it was a bit different from the literary character's backstory. We know he was 37 in Moonraker, and if he ages normally he was 35 in Casino Royale. But since Bond is not a new 00-agent in the the Casino Royale novel, we don't know how old he would have been when he became a 00. I think that Bond acted far too immaturely in the CR film for a 38-year-old. I do happen to personally know a very immature 55-year-old, but for someone in Bond's position it just doesn't make sense. I think someone younger would have been better for that origin story, though not Henry Cavill. 23 would be too young. Late 20s would have made the most sense.