@@spencerkindra8822 Agreed. If Dalton had got his wish to do Goldeneye then retire I don't think Pierce would have got it if they were recasting for 1997/98.
Around 40 seems perfect for a new Bond. He needs to be old enough to both have had a military career, and some time in intelligence before he gets promoted to 00, or even some time as a 00. Anything younger than mid 30s would be completely unrealistic for that. About 40 also happens to be the average age for promotion to Commander in the Royal Navy.
I think 35 is the perfect age for the next Bond, young enough to sign on for multiple movies, but old enough to sell that he has experience as an agent
The whole age issue is representative of this hyper visual social media age we are in. Getting back to the source (Ian Fleming), literally James Bond is in his late 30s to early 40s. Bond is a man of experience, as a college graduate and Commander of the Royal Navy having worked in Naval Intelligence. By time we know of him as readers/film viewers, Bond has risen up the ranks of the Double O section of British Intelligence. Bond's competence and cool are a products of age.
@gbonkers666 😀😂😃 The mainstream folks would have to Google him. That was quite a discovery learning the literary Bond. This may have been the reason that Ian Fleming was not immediately happy with Sean Connery.
5 years apart is quite an understatement, given that there is nothing at all behind the corner. They should cast a toddler at this point, so he can do maybe 4 movies.
Henry Cavill's Napoleon Solo was essentially James Bond, but of a lighter Roger-Moore type. It's fun to think about a modern series that takes that lighter tone.
The problem is not the age of the actor its the length of time it takes to make these damn movies.If they went back to making the films every 2 yeard like they used to they wouldnt have these problems.Henry Cavill will most lkkely look the same at 55 as he does now
When someone talks about a prospective Bond's age, the main concern is if he's young enough to play the long game. A 40-ish or 50-ish actor is probably OK to play Bond for one or two movies, but the producers think about at least a decade in advance. When Connery started his tenure as Bond, he was 31.
I am also 56, and Roger was the Bond of my childhood. It was always interesting to me that Sean was 3 years younger, but Roger took over the role for 12 more years! As a 17 year old in 1985 (the teen market to sell to back then), "A View to a KIll" was not my favorite Bond movie, but I completely bought Roger Moore as James Bond! Age certainly has a factor; no one will ever look as cool in the role as Sean Connery in "Dr. No", but pure screen charisma, and a good story, runs laps around age!
Moore looked great in Live and Let Die, looked about 35, still looked good in The Man with the Golden Gun, Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker. Admittedly he was getting on a bit in FYEO, but they recognised that in the script.
Agree I think he deserves a shot at the title for sure - and you know what impresses me about Cavill, he wants the role - he would be passionate about it and not see it as a ‘poison chalice’ that some actors too big for their own egos like to pretend it is (exception of Sean Connery - who didn’t think the part was poor but simply his contribution being unfairly remunerated given the financial success of the films).
@@coreywashington5440 He was asked to audition [Most say for OHMSS, he says for Live and Let Die] but Dalton felt he was too young and didn't want the pressure of following Connery.
@@coreywashington5440 Dalton said it was he who said no and it's on his wiki page. He also turned down an approach for 'For Your eyes only' mainly as he believed [correctly] it was just a ploy to get Moore's salary down.
Bond would have to be old enough to be commander in the Royal Navy. That would place the character's age at mid-30s to early 40s. Now, of course, actors can play "younger" or "older," but the actor would have to be able to successfully play the character's age.
I've always assumed he was the equivalent of a US Navy Seal (i.e. a "frogman") and got accelerated promotion because of that, but also "hit the rank ceiling" because he wasn't a traditional ship-going sailor. So, maybe 30-33? Then he's recruited to MI6 as a "OO"...
@@benjaminodonnell258I believe in the books he’s supposed to be a WW2 vet, although I could be mistaken. That would put him in the mid 30’s age bracket in the late 50’s, assuming he was in his early 20s during the war.
Great points David. I think actors can play into their 50s much more easily nowadays than 50-60 years ago. I think with the spacing between movies, they should look for someone in their early 30s though. This is assuming they are aiming for at least 5 movies. As you mentioned, age isn’t a factor in a great story but using A View To A Kill as an example - it is story breaking to a point. Something we don’t want for the next 007.
In the Ian Fleming books, Bond is always 37 for some reason. So if I was producing the films I'd want an actor 35 to 40 years old to play Bond. It just makes sense to me.
Hi David, for me its not the age, as a number, but how many films they are likely to do. You also have appropriateness to consider. Even if Roger was fighting fit in FYEO, having Bibi Dial as a potential love interest was awkward and I am pleased the film made that point. So, your Bond has to sit right with the rest of the cast. As far as other actors of an age are concerned, esp Tom Cruise, they developed their following at a younger age. Would TC draw the crowds if he came to a new role without that legacy in the same wY a new Bond would have to? Even John Travolta came to Grease off the back of SNF, to address your other point. Oh, and its Alex Rider you were thinking of. As ever, great talking point, lots to think on.
I've always been curious what it would be like if Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson would attempt a decade of true "one-off" stories - five Bond movies with singular, isolated stories, each with a different actor portraying Bond (maybe one is quite young and another old, and the rest in-between), and different writers and directors for the individual films and maybe even play with context. ..and by "context," I mean the time-period. I think it would be fun where a couple films are modern, but maybe one takes place in the 1960s and another in the early '80s. For example, I always wanted to see a new Bond film with the visual style of Wes Anderson films - symmetry, attention to color and wardrobe, etc. ...but don't misunderstand me, I do NOT want the stilted acting and awkward, quirky dialogue - I'm only talking about visuals and cinematography. I think it would be a unique take with an aesthetic reminiscent of the Connery era. I actually wanted one movie like this from Craig - just once, completely detached from his other Bond films. ...and not because I don't like the Craig films: Daniel Craig is my favorite 007 and 'Casino Royale' and 'Skyfall' are my favorite Bond films ... and I really like 'No Time to Die.' All that to say, my first choice to play Bond next has been Michael Fassbender, and I've held that opinion for about a decade. I still want to see it. He looks the part, especially with consideration to Ian Fleming's imagination. ...and I want Fassbender's Bond smoking: Have a cigarette, 007! Also, I'd like to see more of Bond being dark and brooding but completely shift gears when he's on the job (charming, charismatic, confident) - Craig blended it, which was great, but I'd like to see a starker contrast between James Bond v. 007. One last note: I loved Judi Dench as M and I really like Ralph Fiennes too - but, I think it'd be so fun to have Timothy Dalton play M. Having him come back in a surprising way, only to scold the new Bond, c'mon. I'd also like to see Pierce Brosnan come back in some capacity, maybe like a Gareth Mallory role in Skyfall (I know he became M)
It's interesting that the novel series basically did that for a while [with Guest authors doing one shots] but Anthony Horowitz said he was asked back when they realised they were struggling to build an audience with the constant changing and wanted more consistency so that might be an issue with doing it for the film series although seeing a genuine 'one shot' Bond [like Tarantino's Casino proposal which would be nothing like any other Bond] is a very interesting 'what if']
I'd love to see a remake of 'The Man with the Golden Gun' with Brosnan as a retired Bond who gets thrown back into action when threatened by Scaramanga, played by Dalton.
Bond goes from young to old like any man, and that transition lets us see variations on the basic Bond character. I love the scene in THE UNTOUCHABLES where Sean Connery starts chasing a gangster across a field but then stops, fires a shot into the air and then says "Enough of this running shit."
My shout now would be English/Irish actor Jack O'Connell (34). Watch him in SAS Rogue Heroes playing Paddy Mayne, that is the sort of grit but then watch him in Skins as a much younger guy and he has that boyish swagger of the Bond of the novels.
O'Connell is great and a personal choice of mine too. I also believe that the quality of writing for the next Bond needs to be up there with the likes of SAS Rogue Heroes. I don't think Bond is returning to light comedy any time soon, despite what many Bond fans want. These too many interesting heroes now, like in SAS Rogue Heroes, that will influence how Bond films look in the near future.
I think age is tossed around a lot as the actor needs to look like he could perform the action believably, take someone in a fight, and last for a few movies without aging out too much and looking unbelievable at the end of their duration of films. David’s “being young at heart” and “I’m still fit and active at my age” doesn’t hold much water. Let’s be real: It’s hard to make it look like a 56 year old man could take on a henchman in his 20’s believably. I think once a younger actor is cast, it will be the end of an era for David and he will have to accept that he too is getting older like the rest of us👴🏻.
Comparison to Keanu or Tom Cruise is not spot on. They created their characters, it would be weird if somebody replaced them as John Wick or Ethan Hunt. Those characters will not be replaced with other actors..
That's true but I think David was referring to two older actors who are not miscast in their roles although they are older than actors who would usual;ly be cast in those types of roles, especially action roles. These two, and you can also add Brad Pitt and some others, simply do not move and give the typical appearance of 60-year-olds. Asl long as they fit the requirements of the part it's all good. And as David points out, Harrsion Ford is a good example of when an actor eventually ages out of a role.
@@SharkWhosFondOfBondAlan’s Reacher is much more accurate than Cruise’s portrayal. Also Reacher is similar to Bond, as they are both characters from a book. Wick and Hunt are characters created from movies that were tailor made for Keanu and Cruise
Agreed. It's different when the character was originated with that actor. Rocky is another example as they sensibly had him mentoring a new lead character for 'Creed' as doing a reboot wouldn't work when Stallone is so tied to the role [and Wick is also going the spin off route with different characters to keep going].
Honestly, I'd still pick an actor in his 30s but you made me change my mind about an even older actor. I didn't thought it was possible when I clicked on the video! Especially because you made me think about Hugh Jackman in Deadpool and Wolverine where he looked so GOOD that he even became the IT White "Boy" of the summer on socials, surprisingly enough. 2:29 Argylle, The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, (unfortunately) The Man From U.N.C.L.E: 👁👄👁 Jokes aside, you still didn't convince me about Cavill. I just found it too stiff for the role 🤷🏻♂️
Real life guys in the intelligence services are often quite old. A French friend of mine is 62, and he is still doing this kind of work. He is also an author of spy novels, btw. His main character is kind of a "French James Bond", with assignments mostly in Central Asia and Russia.
@@tcvicesquad He writes under the pseudonym Luc Fisher. He has published a whole series in France, in French, but also has some English translations on Amazon.
Dalton said this and I think it’s true. Bond should be around 35/40 years of age. Lazenby was 29 but he looked like he was 40 maybe young people aged quickly in the 60s
I think what it really comes down to is less how old the actor will be at the start of production on Bond 26 and more how old they'll be by the time they get to Bond 29 or Bond 30. Both EON and the fans want a Bond that can last for 4-5 films across a span of about 15 or so years. That's easily achievable with an actor in the mid-30s range, but way less so with one who is already in their 40s. It's about how all they'll be by the end of their run, not the start.
At this rate, the producers should sign a few 11-14 year olds to long-term contracts. Given the amount of time between Bond installments, this will ensure that having huge gaps between the films won't be bad, at least when it comes to the age of the actor playing Bond.
Dalton is an outlier as he only had two films. Brosnan's run is probably the prototype because he did four films released over eight years from 1995 to 2003. I don't think Bond films will ever return to that frequency of production but let's say they do. Pierce was 42 when GoldenEye was released and turned 50 in 2003 but still in good shape. That might be the argument for a Bond in his 40s. Brosnan's physique was also much trimmer. He wasn't a bulky brawler like Craig and so therefore he could still have been convincing. Look at Viggo Mortensen in Eastern Promises. He was 49 in that film but looked great and had to in that bathhouse fight. So it's certainly possible to have a Bond even in his early 50s.
Connery, my personal favourite, was 41 when he returned in diamonds. He did look 60. However, Roger was 45 when he did Live and let die. Craig was 38 when he did Casino. It’s not the age but how an actor takes care of himself.
Yeah part of the problem with Connery and Moore's generation was that beyond the enjoyments of booze and tobacco etc, working out regularly to them was something you did "in the service." It was almost like an act of defiance and adulthood for that midcentury generation that experienced compulsory service. It's like my father who refused to really eat vegetable matter, especially kale, because it reminded him of growing up in Italy during the war and they are kale and beans and cabbage every day. He was an adult, he was paying for it, and he was going to eat whatever he wanted.
This topic really needs a proper conversation over a couple of drinks David (maybe one day 😉). But for the time being… there has to be an age limit whether too young or too old. He needs to look like he has enough experience but also you have to believe that he can not only handle himself but also the situation he finds himself in and be attractive to the many women he meets. And with that last one, what we don’t want is for it to be creepy. So IMO ultimately it’s about believability.
I think it would be helpful to ask this question: IF Barbara and Michael DIDN'T go for Daniel Craig's arc, where he ages and matures (they've questioned it already in his 3rd movie), but instead just made Bond movies with him as James Bond.. - would have we questioned his age by the time of NTTD?! I think we would've also said he was too old. So, my point is: it depends on the context of movies Barbara and Michael decide to go for..
People were doing that for the recent Mission Impossible when Cruise's age wasn't acknowledged in the storyline so it'll come up regardless of what sort of films they do.
007 MUST be Bond's second career. It's central to the character. A 26 year-old bond should still be in the SAS , Navy or whatever. You don't just hand in your CV at MI6 at 23 with no prior career and become THAT kind of SIS officer (what would be his official job title, just a field agent with license to kill? SIS recruiters would put him under "security" I think?). The thing about Bond is he has already plateaued. He doesn't have too much of a character arc because he got his life experience in early. In Casino Royal we see the tail end of his formation and so the series begins. In No Time To Die he resumes his formation, and so the series ends. He has to be plateuing. Also his bachelor status has to say something about him -- the fact that he hasn't had much time to commit etc etc etc. It all paint a picture. Whereas 26 year-old bachelor is too completely the norm a to be insignificant.
The actors age doesn’t matter as long as he fits the age of the character. As others have said here, to make the story believable, the characters age matters as related to the experience that they have doing the work.
Depends how young you appear. For example- Brosnan they had to age somewhat for GoldenEye. But the studio will want at least 3 films out of an actor so he must be no older than 40 really depending how quick they can get three films out. If an actor is 40 right now, their first Bond film won't be out until they're 42, second film 45, third 48 and then they're done really. Cavill is mid 41 and his first film wouldn't be out for at least two years. 32-35 is the prime age, again, depending on how they look.
I don't really have an issue with an actors age per se, but I believe that it should be believable that the actor playing can portray a man who has already had a naval career before becoming an agent. The age doesn't matter as long as the rest of the cast don't take anything away. This is why I think people notice Roger Moore much more in A View to a Kill, because the supporting cast looked so much younger, whereas is Octopussy the supporting cast were older and you don't notice it as much. I would be more than happy with Henry Cavill, but I think the issues for him is his fame more than his age. I think EON like to make people famous as James Bond, more than hiring someone famous.
Indeed - the last movie(s) with Roger Moore contributed to the general idea that a Bond actor can be too old. But when the Bond actor was a little on the older side (including Connery in 1983), the movies hardly didn't do anything with that. Some remarks, or Bond in a health spa, but when it came to story and action, the age was not made an issue. The age difference to the female leads became excessive, and Moore asked for a stuntman for activities such as mildly runnning...
What is just as important is the correct Bond Girl. Moore and Stacey Sutton came off as creepy because their relationship had ''father and daughter'' energy. You could not have had a worse casting choice as it did nothing more than just highlight Moore's increased age. The Craig films to their credit clearly worked hard to try and avert this.
@@clearspira Craig was shit. Worst Bond ever because he committed the cardinal sin of being a Bond you didn't want to be and made him unlikable as a character. Bond is supposed to be a serial shagger. Craig looks like a Slavic, jug eared potato.
@@clearspira I also recently read that Alison Doody was only 18 in a view to a kill and between the ages of 18 and 23 she ostensibly played love interests to 3 different bond actors! Pretty interesting tidbit of bond esque info.
And the relationship between Bond and Havelock (Carole Bouquet) in For Your Eyes Only, creeped me out. Even when I was about 10 or 11. At the time she was 24, and looks younger. And Bond was 54. Aside from them both having zerooo chemistry. Just. The age gap. I'm 33 now, and if I looked at a 24 year old, i'd feel like a pervert.
@@rorrt The irony of that film is that Lynn Holly Johnson who played Bibi was actually 21. It just amuses me that they have this big skit of Bond being creeped out by her when in reality she was basically the same age as the ''grown up'' Bond Girl. They look it too imo. I wouldn't have guessed that Bibi was meant to be a kid if the film did not actually tell me.
@@HOTD108_ yeah, except, Craig's Bond was actually shown getting old and weary since Skyfall, and his final movie acknowladged that it's time for him to go. Moore's Bond was still treated as a young man in his final movie.
Ages the previous Bond actors were at the beginning and the end of their reigns: Sean Connery -- 32-41 (and 53 in the unofficial "Never Say Never Again") George Lazenby -- 30 Roger Moore -- 45-57 Timothy Dalton -- 41-43 Pierce Brosnan -- 42-49 Daniel Craig -- 38-53 The biggest X factor seems to me to be the ever-increasing gap between each new movie. I feel it *has* to get back to every 2-3 years. Either way, I believe the idea age range for an actor signing on for the role for the long haul would be mid-30's to very early 40's. And, of course, they have to also have the rugged good looks and rugged voice, as well as the required gravitas for the role.
Given Daniel Craig's recent comments on how hellish the production of QOS was, I think 2 years is asking too much now. 3 should be doable although scripting takes longer now there's no books or 'Bond formula' to get a jump on production [Sam Mendes said he didn't think Spectre had enough development time and away from Bond 'The Batman' sequel is now coming out 4 1/2 years after the first as scripting has taken so long].
@@jamesatkinsonja Granted, the production of "Quantum of Solace" was kind of rushed in the first place so as to not be affected by the WGA strike going on at the time. Not sure why these movies apparently take so long now to make. Even all the Brosnan movies came out in just 2-year increments (well, 3 for "Die Another Day"), and those also came after all the novels had run out. 🤷♂ I can't help but feel as though, as with recording artists in the music industry, filmmakers have now been so pampered to the point that they've almost unconsciously become lazier as a result. I feel sometimes having pressure applied by an outside source can _help_ the creative process. 🤔
The only problem with Cavill playing Bond is that audiences are used to him portraying American characters, and doing a good job of it. I thought he was great in Argylle, and unfortunately between that and The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare is probably the closest we'll ever get to see him play 007. He's too famous.
For me it's not the concern with age isn't how he looks, it's the physicality of the role. Especially if they go the Craig route with things. Seeing as they still haven't decided, it won't be some time before the next movie begins filming. Then the next 15 years for the following films. Only a handful of actors have had that physical longevity into their mid to late 50's.
It depends on how committed Eon is to the idea the next Bond actor has to be in his early to mid-30s. Sometime in the last 6-9 months, Henry Cavill said on a TV interview he may have aged out. (He's 41 now.) But Cavill also plays younger than his chronological age.
Hi from a recently turned 59 year old Gen X (: I think there is a sweet spot for Bond age wise, in the books he is 36 from what i remember. The actor who plays Bond must look like he could carry out the action that is required in a Bond movie so one can suspend ones disbelief, i love Sir Roger but clearly he was to old for A View to a kill in fact uncomfortably so when see next to his leading ladies. He was bless him not able to carry out the cinematographic deceit and allowing us to believe in the character .
It's interesting to note that as well as Craig stopping at 51 [when NTTD was filmed], both Dalton and Brosnan have said they would have only done one more Bond if they had stayed on as they were around that age so early 50's seems to be the limit [especially given they seem to have learned the mistakes of the later Moore films and acknowledged his age]. I do think Bond is a character with an upper age limit [partly as he's been recast frequently unlike say Indiana Jones+ Rocky who've only had one lead film actor], especially if he's a frontline agent with MI6 [It certainly felt like it was pushing it to have Ethan Hunt still be an agent in the most recent MI film when Cruise is in his 60's and the next film is likely to be his final outing].
Great video. It's such an intriguing subject. I think a lot of it stems from the fact that everyone thinks automatically it will be a young actor because of the time period required to be Bond. Using Henry Cavill, I don't think that man will look much different than he does now, 40/50 year olds, look alot different and are physically better than the 40/50 year old of Moore or Connery era. No one complained about Craig's age, and he has been, in my opinion, the most physical Bond of them all, and he was 52/53 at the time of No Time To Die..
They’ve always focused on age. I think age is relevant, doubly at the rate Eon seem to want to put the movies out. Look how Daniel aged over such a few movies. Also, let us not forget Connery was only in his 30s when he played the character. So we need to go back to that. Give an actor a long time and hopefully many movies in their era as Bond. We live in age focused times for sure and yeah Henry is too old and so are many others. The character has to appeal to a new audience, not just the old fans.
I would be really disappointed if the producers went with Cavill. It would just feel like they’ve gone with popular opinion rather than finding the right actor. I know people will say well why isn’t Henry Cavill the right actor? But for me, there’s a number of reasons he’s not the right choice - he’s TOO famous. He’s already been in far too many spy films, he would feel like a step backwards - he’s like a younger Brosnan. The next Bond needs to be something fresh. Plus I do think he’s too old, he’s actually 41 and they are nowhere near even close to shooting a new film so he’d most likely be 45 before his first film hit the screens - the reality is by time his second film came out they would already be aware they’d need to start looking for his replacement. Given that they’ve known since 2017 they needed to replace Daniel Craig it’s not an easy task. Although I’d like to think they could do the films a bit quicker than they did from CR to NTTD.
Agreed, I do think people need to move on from 'Cavill for Bond' in general, especially as he's clearly aging out of the role and when he's played a 'Bond-esq' character in Aryglle and 'Uncle' they didn't do well at the Box office. I agree that someone fresh would be far more interesting than Cavill doing yet another spy movie.
Tom Cruise is 62 years old and not only does he look great but he still does all of his own stunts. Roger Moore was 57 in A View to a Kill and yet he looked and acted like a man 15 years his senior. I actually felt kind of sorry for the man at times tbh. There is nothing wrong with an older Bond if he is played by the correct actor.
@@clearspira Unfair comparison really I think. Different times, different priorities. Moore was a classy gentleman, Cruise is a weird narcissist, control freak and general tosser.
I swear I'm convinced I'm living in a simulation some days🎉❤😂.. I was literally just sitting here yesterday thinking to myself "why don't they let George lazenby come back and be another James Bond again❤😂 ... Now you post a video today: "how old is too old" 😂😂 not that lazenby was automatically too old but obviously this is all just a really funny coincidence.. Anyway happy to see I got a good video to look at today❤🎉
The next Bond will have to be fairly young for no other reason that at the rate it seems to take them to make the movies now they need to be able to get the minimum three films from them before they age out.
I know I'm a little late to this conversation but I personally don't believe that there's such a thing as "too old" for Bond. My top pick for the next Bond (for over a decade now) is still Michael Fassbender and he's 47 and would probably be 49/50 by the time a movie potentially comes out. But in my humble opinion, he'd be absolutely brilliant in the role regardless of his age.
I do feel that the next Bond should be in there 30's when there first film comes out, particularly given how much longer it takes to make them [and there is no sign that is likely to change, nor is 'back to back' filming going to happen given how it didn't work for Mission Impossible]. 'The Batman part II' is taking a long time to come out but Robert Pattinson is only going to be 40 when it finally comes out in 2026 so still young enough to do any further sequels. I remember the casting director saying they felt 20's was too young [especially given the pressure that comes with the part] so getting someone in there 30's seems the best option.
My opinion is not a popular one but I think Will Poulter would be amazing. He is passionate about the franchise, but he may be what some people would argue - a little young. But I actually think having a slightly younger bond BUT with a more traditional old school film tone would be a really interesting take
A few generations ago, actors played older than they were. Sean Connery was 31 when he was cast as Bond. Robert Vaughn turned 31 when he filmed the pilot for The Man From UNCLE (his 31st birthday coincided with the assassination of John F. Kennedy). On the other hand, Roger Moore looked younger than he was.
It should be a mix between age (maturity), looks and physical capabilities. Because age doesn´t equal to looks. Couple of examples from the past: 1. Sean Connery was 31 when he began to shoot Dr.No, but looked couple of years older IMO. He was 41 when shooting DAF but looked more like a 50 years old guy. He was 52-53 during NSNA, but was in better shape then in DAF. 2. George Lazenby was 29 which was shocking for me when I heard it for the first time, because he looked like 40 to me (face). 3. Roger Moore was 45 but looked younger the Connery with 41, looked fine to TSWLM and from Moonraker onwards he started to show his age and in AVTAK it was clear, that he stayed a movie too long, but physical performance was always his weak point. 4. Timothy Dalton was 40 and 42 and had the right balance between age and physical performance. 5. Pierce Brosnan the same like Tim, 42 when started and 49 when finished, but looked still good and physical performance was also good. 6. Daniel Craig was 38, physically top fit, for me even too muscular. Finished with 51-52 and still physically fit, but aged visibly. Based on all these points I would prefer someone who is in his early 40´s and physically good in shape (for example Cavill, but he should reduce his muscles a bit to not be like Superman).
Sean Connery was 32 in 1962 for Dr No and 41 in 1971 for Diamonds are Forever George Lazenby was 30 in 1969 for On her majesty’s secret service Roger Moore was 45 in 1973 for Live and let die and 58 in 1985 for A view to a kill Timothy Dalton was 41 in 1987 for the Living Daylights and 43 in 1989 for License to Kill Pierce Brosnan was 42 in 1995 for Goldeneye and 49 in 2002 for Die another day Daniel Craig was 38 in 2006 for Casino Royale and 51 at time of filming No Time to Die in 2019 The frequency at which Bond films get made is becoming less. Henry Cavill wouldn’t be the oldest at time of casting but I want an actor to stick around for more than 3 films. Also as can be seen above only 2 actors in the official franchise played James Bond when they were in their 50s, while 3 actors were cast when they were in their 30s. To my mind an actor can play James Bond until their mid 50s but should be cast in their 30s.
It isn't a matter of age so much as it is simple math. It takes longer to make big budget films like Bond films. Perhaps the budgets have been too high but none they won't be cheap. So they'll take two years on average to release. Which means that unless they're only going for trilogies, the next Bond actor will go for perhaps 4-5 films and it might take 12-14 years depending on how the timing falls. Which isn't just for Bond films, it's for any actor who signs up for a big franchise. Cavill has a lot of other deals in the works, stuff he's producing. He's also starting a family. I'm not saying any of those things would prevent Henry from being Bond. It's just as fantasy studio bosses we have to consider all the options.
Hello David love your work! 😊I think Bond should be 35-50. Im 42 myself. But what if the Bond producers only planning on 2-3 new movies (because Broccoli and Wilson will retire in a few years)? If so Henry Cavill would do good. Agree that as Tom Cruise at 62 still sells out action MI movies, a younger looking 50 year old Bond is okey.
Let's hear it for us old folks! 👏👏👏 Basically I totally agree with everything you say! (I'm 58 and still act like I'm 28/18). I would LOVE Cavill to be Bond! Cavill like Brosnan was born to play Bond and he would make an amazing James Bond! The only caveat may have nothing to do with the actor per-se but his leading lady. The main reason that Roger Moore gave up the role wasn't about his abilities or looks, it was the fact that he was the same age as some of female costar's grandmothers. Creepy? So you're right, it doesn't matter how he looks, Cavil will look fantastic into his 70s, but how does he look with the twenty-something woman next to him? And it will always be a twenty-something woman because that's the reality of Hollywood films. Just something to think about... Thanks for the accidental shout out! 😊
You put your finger on it when you talked about earning every wrinkle. Daniel Craig had a bit of an arc going from the new inexperienced 00 agent to the seasoned pro who had earned every wrinkle. That doesn't work if you start out with the wrinkles in place.
@@Starch-Wreck You don't but if your going to do a few films with the next Bond, it makes it easier to write [and gives the actor more to work with] if he has room to develop and grow as a character ['The Batman' opens with him having been operating for 2 years off screen but still with room to grow so it's a different origin story to 'Batman Begins'].
@@jamesatkinsonja No, it really doesn't. Casino Royale was the first bond movie to do that. only 1 out of 25. We don't need a fresh rebooted rookie bond every 5 movies like a superhero movie. Thats not really the formula. I think that actually hinders the character and gives them less to work with because they waste an entire movie telling another back story.
@@Starch-WreckBut as 'The Batman' showed, you could start Bond 26 with Bond as an established agent on a mission but with room to grow as a character so it's different from Casino. Casino is coming up to 20 years old [so enough time has passed to do a re-fresh] and the film environment has changed a lot since the older films-You can't keep Bond as a static character now as the actor will want something to work with.
Part of this comes from the general public having such a small idea of Bond without having further knowledge of the character, especially the literary Bond. John Gardner’s entire tenure is an aged Bond. Fleming himself built in a weathering and aging of the character over time. Bond should always be at the very least in his early to mid 30s and played by someone with extensive experience. The role is the most difficult and carries the most baggage for any actor. The tendency of EON nowadays is to focus on youth and trying to lock someone into a multi picture deal for an extended period of time. In contrast, the great missed opportunity and the only person who I can see in the role is Jason Isaacs who is tailor made for it. He has the experience in a wide range of roles and can handle all aspects of the character. For those who would say that anyone over 40 is too old for an action role of such demanding physical stamina…James Bond is not an out and out action role. Furthermore, how many great Shakespearean performances are there where a legendary actor gets to do their own take on Hamlet, even though they’re older than Hamlet’s intended age. It’s a new world…with new social mores…but you can still depend on one man…he just might be a bit older sometimes.
In fairness they've always tried to get the actors on long term deals [infamously Lazenby turned down a 7 picture deal and Dalton was offered a multi-picture deal in the 90's but he only wanted to do one more so quit] so it's not really changed [Lois Maxwell was Moneypenny for 23 years too].
If they want at least 5 movies from the next actor, the new Bond should be no older than 32. Considering the gap between Bond films these days, they’d probably be in their 50s before they bow out
@@rocky1942racoon I’m sorry but Moore’s later films aren’t good. A View to a Kill & Octopussy are terrible. Also Sean Connery did a film every year and Moore every 2 years. Bond films now come out every 5 years.
@@horatiohuskisson5471 “For your eyes only” was solid and he was 54. Both Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan they would have used sooner but of course Sean Connery was playing Bond at the time in Roger’s case and Pierce was busy on another project. I agree having a younger Bond is smarter if possible but honestly I just want a good Bond. What ever age he is I couldn’t care less.
@@horatiohuskisson5471 Octopussy is a great film, and most Bond officianados rate it highly. It also has one of the best John Barry scores of the entire series.
For me, the talk of age was a result of Craig and Brocoli saying things about Craig's age and looking for a younger Bond for the next ones. So my mind said, ok, that just means numerically younger than Craig then. Personally I don't think Craig's "too old", I think he just wanted out. None of the actors suggested look too old to me, but numerically speaking, they weren't fitting what was stated as who they desired age wise for the next ones.
In fairness, Dalton wanted to finish with Goldeneye rather than do a multi film commitment [which is why he ended up leaving in the end] as he was approaching his 50's and felt he was getting too old while Brosnan would have only done 1 more Bond after DAD for the same reason so early 50's does seem to be the limit. Craig also got injured pretty much every film and recovery is harder as you get older.
I think having an actor in the role for a decent amount of time gives it a bit more credibility. Otherwise it dilutes the franchise and they may as well swap the actor every film or so depending on who’s the current popular leading man.
I think someone in his late thirties or early forties is the perfect age for a new Bond. My reason is that he needs to be someone with experience. Someone under 35 is typically still too boyish in this day and age.
@@secretsymphony this is a very valid observation. A man at 32 today doesn’t carry the life lessons and weight that Sean Connery carried in dr no at that age. So perhaps there is a 10 year shift and an actor of 38-42 is about the right age group for a cold and dispassionate government agent, hardened by the job with a propensity to drink away the battle scars 👌
I've never been terribly concerned about age. I don't exactly have the power to pick the next actor, and if EON chooses someone older or younger, I'm still going to see the movie ✌
The age thing matters, but not in the way people think. It's not about 'is this actor too old?' it's about 'is this person believable in the action?' 'does the relationship with the bond girl look appropriate or kind of letchy?' 'will our target audience, the ones with the disposable income to buy the products that have paid a lot of money to be placed in our movie, see themselves in the character?'. EON will have to walk a fine line as if you cast 'young' you can get an actor for a long time BUT it might be that that actor's theatre going peers might not be able to, or interested in, buying the Omega, the Billy Reid, and the Tom Ford. Selecting an actor in their early 40s, who looks good, and casting a bond girl that looks appropriate, is the safest choice and has the potential to appeal to the younger audiences whilst still allowing the product marking to not alienate the target sales demographic. Men in their 40s and 50s are buying more luxury watches than men in their 20s. Personally I am scared of the day when 007 is my age or younger, it will potentially feel less aspirational that day.
It comes down to many things. But age is important. How many movies can they squeeze out of the actor? Now some actors, such as Cavill, do not look their age. Henry is 41, but I think he could pass for a couple of years younger, and he has the physicality needed to play Bond. Remember how he looked in 'Man from UNCLE'? That was basically him playing Bond, lol. On the other hand Roger Moore was seriously looking old when he did his last movie 'View to a Kill' and could no longer fool us into thinking he could do the action or pull a girl young enough to be his grand-daughter!! Another aspect to keep in mind is that these days they take a lot longer to make Bond movies than they used to. As an example lets look at, IMO, the best Bond and that would be Sean Connery. He was 32 when cast as Bond in 'Dr. No' in 1962 and when he bowed out 'officially' (we won't count Never say Never) he had done six Bond movies in 9 years. Roger Moore was older when cast, he was already 45 in 'Live and Let Die', but he played Bond for 12 years and did 7 movies. Pierce Brosnan (my second favourite Bond) did 4 movies in 7 years and finally Daniel Craig who was 38 in 'Casino Royale' and looked every inch James Bond. However the 5 Bond movies he did took 15 years to produce. As you can see its a progression. Over the years there have been longer and longer gaps between movies which means that the actor is getting older, maybe to old to play Bond by the 2nd or third movie unless they hire a young guy, like they did with Connery. There are extenuating circumstance for some of those gaps, Covid, etc, but most of it is down to studio politics.
Cavill isn't too old, and he's in very good shape, so if they plan to start making the new movies in the next 12 months or so, he's fine. I don't know if it's still done, but historically actors in a franchise, Bond included, would sign up for a 3 film commitment (3 picture deal). Further movies would then be separate negotiation. So an actor on the right side of 40, should still be in the running definitely in my opinion. Even though Moore was looking quite past it for his last two movies, he was still looking acceptable up to and including Moonraker. Personally I like the 40+ Bonds, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan. A lot of people are surprised that Harrison Ford was pushing 39 when he was making Raiders of The Lost Ark. They probably think he's only 40 in the third IJ movie, unless you told them otherwise.
I think the age issue has come about because Michael G,. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli mentioned they wanted a younger actor in his early 30s to carry the role for 15 years, or so. Personally I would like to see Henry Cavill take the part, for the same reasons as David as pointed out, but I reckon the producers will think he is too old by the time they cast the role again,
I think it's also fans being realistic in the films taking longer to make so if you get someone in there mid-30's they've got time on there side to get a few films under there belt before they start to age out of it [which seems to be early 50's based on Craig].
The character was in his late 30s in the books, staring down the retirement age of 45. I don’t have a problem with an actor in his 40s, even late 40s, considering people can age more gracefully now than they did in the 1950s.
A new shout I'm giving, Mark Jackson, would look the part despite recently turning 42. I don't know why age has to be a thing. Unless they look too old, or have been wrongly matched romantically with a very young looking Bond girl etc. Jackson has never been named maybe as he is not well known, or seen too much out of his Isaak robot outfit on The Orville. Age wouldn't effect my own pick whether it's Cavill or anyone in that range.
Hi David, nice video. I agree it depends more on how the actor looks in his age. Look at Roger on set of SWLM 1977. He looks great at 49\50? But last couple of films maybe not so much. I think any younger than mid-late 30's is too young. He has to have some experience (mental scar tissue) in his face. All the actors who played him portrayed him as a man who'd seen action, been through the wars...lived the life. Personality & Charisma are the most important thing. 40 is not too old. I can't see anyone being Bond for as long as Craig again. 10 year stint at most. For the studio changing the actor creates a lot of buzz and potential new audience, so I can't see them leaving it as long again. Myself I say 40 is just about right. Cheers for that info David. I have have no idea who Aaron Taylor Johnson is, my BAD I guess 🤔. Idress Elba would have been interesting. I think he has the charisma.
@@jamesatkinsonja thanks for that heads up. Missed him in Tenet I guess, as never managed to get passed 30 min mark. Bullet Train I've not seen. I'm sure they'll pick the right a actor for the time. They ain't been wrong so far.
@@movietramp5900 I just saw Bullet Train-he's very funny in that film as he's part of an assassin double act. He was also in Matthew Vaughn's 'Kick Ass' movies and 'The Fall Guy' earlier this year.
I think one must keep in mind that three to five years can pass between Bond films. If you cast a 45 year old, they could be 60 by the time they finish. I honestly think the ideal age for a Bond actor to start is between 35 and 40. I know Connery was 32 when he started, but most modern actors look too baby-faced in their early 30s.
None of the Bonds, not even Moore, were too old at any point to play 007 - but how they handle the age makes a huge difference. Roger Moore being as sexually rampant as he was in A View to a Kill is one such example. The action scenes to a lesser degree. Adjust the film to fit the actor's age, which they did to an extent in No Time to Die.
Roger Moore was 57 or 58 with AVTAK and I liked an older Bond. The unfortunate part was they didn’t embrace his age in AVTAK but they did in Octopussy with Maud Adams. Moore got better to me in his older year Bonds. Connery did much better in NSNA at 53 than he did in DAF at 41. I believe Pierce Brosnan is 70 or close to it and I’d love to see him come back for Bond at that age. Indiana Jones pulled it off at 80 last year in Dial of Destiny in my opinion. Let’s see an older Bond at least once.
@andyheller2691 Good point. Another example would be FYEO were they apparently suggested Moore's Bond is older- he huffs and puffs during action scenes and rejects the advances of a promiscuous young lady. Moore's Bond in AVTAK would have bedded her in seconds.
As an admirer of lots of stories depicting "heroes at the sunset of their lifetime" (The Dark Knight Returns, a story with that very premise, is one of the best Batman graphic novels) I'd say 59 or 60 is the maximum age an actor should play Bond. However it depends on the actor. For instance I think a 70-year old Michael Keaton pulled off a 60-year old Bruce Wayne really well.
I do think that works if it's an actor that is established and aged with the character [hence Keaton coming back as Batman]. Having Ben Affleck as an older Batman at the start of the DCU was probably done to differ it from the 'Dark Knight' trilogy but still was an odd move.
Age is very important, for one single reason: I don't want a new Bond for every Film. I want a decent amount of Films. 4 to 6. But they don't make a new Film every two years. Brosnan had 4 Films in 7 Years. Craig 5 in 15. Connery was 32. That's a good start. Okay people are younger now you can ad a couple of years.
I have a sort of vain reason for wanting a Cavill aged Bond for #26. I turn 40 in about a month and want one more Bond who's older than me! Ultimately I dont care, I just want the best actor in the best story possible.
Dalton and Brosnan were in their early 40s when they took on the Bond role. Craig was 38. Lazenby was the youngest Bond, being 29-30 for "OHMSS". Connery was 31-32 for Dr. No. Roger Moore was 3 years older than Connery, played the role longer than anyone, and was already 46 when he did "Live and Let Die". Cavill is certainly NOT too old to be Bond.
The reason many people say he's 'too old' is more that the films aren't coming out every two years anymore. Craig being cast at 38 meant they still managed to get 5 films out of him before he hit his early 50's and Cavill is 3 years older than that. If you go for someone in there mid-30's now they have time on there side if the films take longer to come out [like Robert Pattinson will be only 40 when 'Batman Part 2 comes out despite having a 4 year gap between films].
The production of the next generation of Bond movies should do back-to-back films like Connery movies in the 60's I don't understand why the producing team doesn't have everything in place for the next 4 movies.
Comparing film making in the 60's to now is like 'apples and oranges'. Mission Impossible did 'Back to back' filming for the most recent entry and it didn't work out [and part 2 had to be re-worked after 1 under performed] so there is no way Bond will do that, especially for a new Bond. Craig vetoed a plan to do Bond 24+25 back to back and the MI issues show he was right to do so. Still, there is nothing to stop them planning an story arc over say a trilogy [with room to adapt the plans based on reception] so they can get a jump on the writing and speed up production.
Age is only a problem if it dosen't tie into the 'stage/time frame' of the character in the story. ie. if its a Bond 'origin' story vs. if its just another 007 adventure,,,,
A real life James Bond would be an older gentleman just because it would take years to acquire all that experience. I would also say that all that training would put a lot of wear and tear on your body.
Age only seemed to be an issue when it was reported that the next Bond needed to be younger, 33. Now every time an actor is linked people ask themselves does he meet the criteria? Could that actor be a realistic contender. Personally I don’t think age is such an issue with Bond fans.
Pierce was 41 in Goldeneye and Connery was 41 in Diamonds. Age is not the problem, it's all about how well someone is aging
The films were made much more closer together then so it's hard to compare.
@@jamesatkinsonja true, but Cavill is also aging better than Connery
Pierce got cast just before it was too late for him.
@@spencerkindra8822 Agreed. If Dalton had got his wish to do Goldeneye then retire I don't think Pierce would have got it if they were recasting for 1997/98.
Around 40 seems perfect for a new Bond. He needs to be old enough to both have had a military career, and some time in intelligence before he gets promoted to 00, or even some time as a 00. Anything younger than mid 30s would be completely unrealistic for that. About 40 also happens to be the average age for promotion to Commander in the Royal Navy.
I think 35 is the perfect age for the next Bond, young enough to sign on for multiple movies, but old enough to sell that he has experience as an agent
Agreed. That’s my logic.
The whole age issue is representative of this hyper visual social media age we are in. Getting back to the source (Ian Fleming), literally James Bond is in his late 30s to early 40s. Bond is a man of experience, as a college graduate and Commander of the Royal Navy having worked in Naval Intelligence. By time we know of him as readers/film viewers, Bond has risen up the ranks of the Double O section of British Intelligence. Bond's competence and cool are a products of age.
Also, in the later books, Bond's health and physical fitness (as well as drinking/smoking) are brought up as a concern.
It is worth noting that Connery and Lazenby were in there early 30's when they were cast.
@@jamesatkinsonjaConnery looked quite a bit older than his age though. Bond just should have a boyish looking face regardless of age.
just as long as they look like Hogey Carmichael.
@gbonkers666 😀😂😃 The mainstream folks would have to Google him. That was quite a discovery learning the literary Bond. This may have been the reason that Ian Fleming was not immediately happy with Sean Connery.
Age is a much bigger factor when the films are 5 years apart than when they were 2 years apart.
5 years apart is quite an understatement, given that there is nothing at all behind the corner. They should cast a toddler at this point, so he can do maybe 4 movies.
Henry Cavill's Napoleon Solo was essentially James Bond, but of a lighter Roger-Moore type. It's fun to think about a modern series that takes that lighter tone.
The problem is not the age of the actor its the length of time it takes to make these damn movies.If they went back to making the films every 2 yeard like they used to they wouldnt have these problems.Henry Cavill will most lkkely look the same at 55 as he does now
We did get 'Kingsman' which was light and self aware but that series seems to have run out of juice at this point
When someone talks about a prospective Bond's age, the main concern is if he's young enough to play the long game. A 40-ish or 50-ish actor is probably OK to play Bond for one or two movies, but the producers think about at least a decade in advance. When Connery started his tenure as Bond, he was 31.
This!!
I am also 56, and Roger was the Bond of my childhood. It was always interesting to me that Sean was 3 years younger, but Roger took over the role for 12 more years! As a 17 year old in 1985 (the teen market to sell to back then), "A View to a KIll" was not my favorite Bond movie, but I completely bought Roger Moore as James Bond! Age certainly has a factor; no one will ever look as cool in the role as Sean Connery in "Dr. No", but pure screen charisma, and a good story, runs laps around age!
Roger Moore was 47 when he became Bond.... Henry Cavell we be younger than that... but he is also fitter than Moore was...I want Henry Cavell for Bond
Moore looked great in Live and Let Die, looked about 35, still looked good in The Man with the Golden Gun, Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker.
Admittedly he was getting on a bit in FYEO, but they recognised that in the script.
Cavell is boring on screen. You have to be more than a pretty boy to be Bond.
Roger Moore was 45 at time of casting not 47
Agree I think he deserves a shot at the title for sure - and you know what impresses me about Cavill, he wants the role - he would be passionate about it and not see it as a ‘poison chalice’ that some actors too big for their own egos like to pretend it is (exception of Sean Connery - who didn’t think the part was poor but simply his contribution being unfairly remunerated given the financial success of the films).
@@garyniven946 When has he said he wants the role?
I remember Timothy Dalton turning it down when he was in his 20s as too young.
Turning it down?
@@coreywashington5440 He was asked to audition [Most say for OHMSS, he says for Live and Let Die] but Dalton felt he was too young and didn't want the pressure of following Connery.
@@jamesatkinsonja No they felt he was too young not him
@@coreywashington5440 Dalton said it was he who said no and it's on his wiki page. He also turned down an approach for 'For Your eyes only' mainly as he believed [correctly] it was just a ploy to get Moore's salary down.
@@jamesatkinsonja No the producers felt he was too young it's in the documentary
Bond would have to be old enough to be commander in the Royal Navy. That would place the character's age at mid-30s to early 40s. Now, of course, actors can play "younger" or "older," but the actor would have to be able to successfully play the character's age.
I've always assumed he was the equivalent of a US Navy Seal (i.e. a "frogman") and got accelerated promotion because of that, but also "hit the rank ceiling" because he wasn't a traditional ship-going sailor. So, maybe 30-33? Then he's recruited to MI6 as a "OO"...
@@benjaminodonnell258I believe in the books he’s supposed to be a WW2 vet, although I could be mistaken. That would put him in the mid 30’s age bracket in the late 50’s, assuming he was in his early 20s during the war.
@@JRRob3wn Yes he is a WWII vet. While it's inconsistent, Bond's was eventually established as being born in 1920 so early 30's in Casino.
@@JRRob3wn Promotions generally came much faster during WW2 then they would have in peace time
Great points David. I think actors can play into their 50s much more easily nowadays than 50-60 years ago. I think with the spacing between movies, they should look for someone in their early 30s though. This is assuming they are aiming for at least 5 movies.
As you mentioned, age isn’t a factor in a great story but using A View To A Kill as an example - it is story breaking to a point. Something we don’t want for the next 007.
In the Ian Fleming books, Bond is always 37 for some reason. So if I was producing the films I'd want an actor 35 to 40 years old to play Bond. It just makes sense to me.
Hi David, for me its not the age, as a number, but how many films they are likely to do. You also have appropriateness to consider. Even if Roger was fighting fit in FYEO, having Bibi Dial as a potential love interest was awkward and I am pleased the film made that point. So, your Bond has to sit right with the rest of the cast. As far as other actors of an age are concerned, esp Tom Cruise, they developed their following at a younger age. Would TC draw the crowds if he came to a new role without that legacy in the same wY a new Bond would have to? Even John Travolta came to Grease off the back of SNF, to address your other point. Oh, and its Alex Rider you were thinking of. As ever, great talking point, lots to think on.
I've always been curious what it would be like if Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson would attempt a decade of true "one-off" stories - five Bond movies with singular, isolated stories, each with a different actor portraying Bond (maybe one is quite young and another old, and the rest in-between), and different writers and directors for the individual films and maybe even play with context. ..and by "context," I mean the time-period. I think it would be fun where a couple films are modern, but maybe one takes place in the 1960s and another in the early '80s.
For example, I always wanted to see a new Bond film with the visual style of Wes Anderson films - symmetry, attention to color and wardrobe, etc. ...but don't misunderstand me, I do NOT want the stilted acting and awkward, quirky dialogue - I'm only talking about visuals and cinematography. I think it would be a unique take with an aesthetic reminiscent of the Connery era. I actually wanted one movie like this from Craig - just once, completely detached from his other Bond films. ...and not because I don't like the Craig films: Daniel Craig is my favorite 007 and 'Casino Royale' and 'Skyfall' are my favorite Bond films ... and I really like 'No Time to Die.'
All that to say, my first choice to play Bond next has been Michael Fassbender, and I've held that opinion for about a decade. I still want to see it. He looks the part, especially with consideration to Ian Fleming's imagination. ...and I want Fassbender's Bond smoking: Have a cigarette, 007! Also, I'd like to see more of Bond being dark and brooding but completely shift gears when he's on the job (charming, charismatic, confident) - Craig blended it, which was great, but I'd like to see a starker contrast between James Bond v. 007.
One last note: I loved Judi Dench as M and I really like Ralph Fiennes too - but, I think it'd be so fun to have Timothy Dalton play M. Having him come back in a surprising way, only to scold the new Bond, c'mon. I'd also like to see Pierce Brosnan come back in some capacity, maybe like a Gareth Mallory role in Skyfall (I know he became M)
I think this is the longest RUclips comment I've ever made.
It's interesting that the novel series basically did that for a while [with Guest authors doing one shots] but Anthony Horowitz said he was asked back when they realised they were struggling to build an audience with the constant changing and wanted more consistency so that might be an issue with doing it for the film series although seeing a genuine 'one shot' Bond [like Tarantino's Casino proposal which would be nothing like any other Bond] is a very interesting 'what if']
I'd love to see a remake of 'The Man with the Golden Gun' with Brosnan as a retired Bond who gets thrown back into action when threatened by Scaramanga, played by Dalton.
@@TimothyMatkinA battle of the Senior citizens given both are in there 70's!
Bond goes from young to old like any man, and that transition lets us see variations on the basic Bond character. I love the scene in THE UNTOUCHABLES where Sean Connery starts chasing a gangster across a field but then stops, fires a shot into the air and then says "Enough of this running shit."
My shout now would be English/Irish actor Jack O'Connell (34). Watch him in SAS Rogue Heroes playing Paddy Mayne, that is the sort of grit but then watch him in Skins as a much younger guy and he has that boyish swagger of the Bond of the novels.
Great choice imo, but there's one minus that's too big to overlook... he's way way too short!
@@tcvicesquad lol cheers, I'm 5'7" maybe I'm projecting!! :) mind you Tom Cruise is tiny.
O'Connell is great and a personal choice of mine too. I also believe that the quality of writing for the next Bond needs to be up there with the likes of SAS Rogue Heroes. I don't think Bond is returning to light comedy any time soon, despite what many Bond fans want. These too many interesting heroes now, like in SAS Rogue Heroes, that will influence how Bond films look in the near future.
Jack O’Connell and Aaron Taylor Johnson just finished filming 28 years later. O’Connell would definitely bring a ruthless edge to Bond.
@@Atticus75 oh I didn't know that. In fact, I had to look up who Johnson was after seeing the comments.
I think age is tossed around a lot as the actor needs to look like he could perform the action believably, take someone in a fight, and last for a few movies without aging out too much and looking unbelievable at the end of their duration of films. David’s “being young at heart” and “I’m still fit and active at my age” doesn’t hold much water. Let’s be real: It’s hard to make it look like a 56 year old man could take on a henchman in his 20’s believably. I think once a younger actor is cast, it will be the end of an era for David and he will have to accept that he too is getting older like the rest of us👴🏻.
Comparison to Keanu or Tom Cruise is not spot on. They created their characters, it would be weird if somebody replaced them as John Wick or Ethan Hunt. Those characters will not be replaced with other actors..
That's true but I think David was referring to two older actors who are not miscast in their roles although they are older than actors who would usual;ly be cast in those types of roles, especially action roles. These two, and you can also add Brad Pitt and some others, simply do not move and give the typical appearance of 60-year-olds. Asl long as they fit the requirements of the part it's all good. And as David points out, Harrsion Ford is a good example of when an actor eventually ages out of a role.
Jack Reacher was able to be replaced
@@kimi88cz Cruise was miscast as Reacher.
@@SharkWhosFondOfBondAlan’s Reacher is much more accurate than Cruise’s portrayal. Also Reacher is similar to Bond, as they are both characters from a book. Wick and Hunt are characters created from movies that were tailor made for Keanu and Cruise
Agreed. It's different when the character was originated with that actor. Rocky is another example as they sensibly had him mentoring a new lead character for 'Creed' as doing a reboot wouldn't work when Stallone is so tied to the role [and Wick is also going the spin off route with different characters to keep going].
I am the next Bond. I am your classic, charismatic, gritty Bond!
Honestly, I'd still pick an actor in his 30s but you made me change my mind about an even older actor. I didn't thought it was possible when I clicked on the video!
Especially because you made me think about Hugh Jackman in Deadpool and Wolverine where he looked so GOOD that he even became the IT White "Boy" of the summer on socials, surprisingly enough.
2:29 Argylle, The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, (unfortunately) The Man From U.N.C.L.E: 👁👄👁
Jokes aside, you still didn't convince me about Cavill. I just found it too stiff for the role 🤷🏻♂️
Real life guys in the intelligence services are often quite old. A French friend of mine is 62, and he is still doing this kind of work. He is also an author of spy novels, btw. His main character is kind of a "French James Bond", with assignments mostly in Central Asia and Russia.
Who is he? Would love to check those out.
@@tcvicesquad He writes under the pseudonym Luc Fisher. He has published a whole series in France, in French, but also has some English translations on Amazon.
The movies were made every year/2 years when Sean Connery was Bond. Now every 5 years... good look at starting at 40 plus.
Dalton said this and I think it’s true. Bond should be around 35/40 years of age. Lazenby was 29 but he looked like he was 40 maybe young people aged quickly in the 60s
They looked much older. Look at a high school yearbook from the 1950s. The graduating class looked like they were in their mid 20s.
I think what it really comes down to is less how old the actor will be at the start of production on Bond 26 and more how old they'll be by the time they get to Bond 29 or Bond 30. Both EON and the fans want a Bond that can last for 4-5 films across a span of about 15 or so years. That's easily achievable with an actor in the mid-30s range, but way less so with one who is already in their 40s. It's about how all they'll be by the end of their run, not the start.
At this rate, the producers should sign a few 11-14 year olds to long-term contracts. Given the amount of time between Bond installments, this will ensure that having huge gaps between the films won't be bad, at least when it comes to the age of the actor playing Bond.
People forget Roger, Tim and Pierce were in their 40s when they started.
Dalton is an outlier as he only had two films. Brosnan's run is probably the prototype because he did four films released over eight years from 1995 to 2003. I don't think Bond films will ever return to that frequency of production but let's say they do. Pierce was 42 when GoldenEye was released and turned 50 in 2003 but still in good shape. That might be the argument for a Bond in his 40s. Brosnan's physique was also much trimmer. He wasn't a bulky brawler like Craig and so therefore he could still have been convincing. Look at Viggo Mortensen in Eastern Promises. He was 49 in that film but looked great and had to in that bathhouse fight. So it's certainly possible to have a Bond even in his early 50s.
Connery, my personal favourite, was 41 when he returned in diamonds. He did look 60. However, Roger was 45 when he did Live and let die. Craig was 38 when he did Casino. It’s not the age but how an actor takes care of himself.
Lazenby was 29 but looked like he was 45
Yeah part of the problem with Connery and Moore's generation was that beyond the enjoyments of booze and tobacco etc, working out regularly to them was something you did "in the service." It was almost like an act of defiance and adulthood for that midcentury generation that experienced compulsory service. It's like my father who refused to really eat vegetable matter, especially kale, because it reminded him of growing up in Italy during the war and they are kale and beans and cabbage every day. He was an adult, he was paying for it, and he was going to eat whatever he wanted.
@@KevinnGomez Everyone looked older in the 60's
Connery was thinner in never say never, so because he had more muscle his face looked better even though he was 10 years older.
@@mamovaka in diamonds he looked like he was looking for a buffet
Next year, David will be the age Moore was when he filmed A View To A Kill.
This topic really needs a proper conversation over a couple of drinks David (maybe one day 😉). But for the time being… there has to be an age limit whether too young or too old. He needs to look like he has enough experience but also you have to believe that he can not only handle himself but also the situation he finds himself in and be attractive to the many women he meets. And with that last one, what we don’t want is for it to be creepy. So IMO ultimately it’s about believability.
I think it would be helpful to ask this question: IF Barbara and Michael DIDN'T go for Daniel Craig's arc, where he ages and matures (they've questioned it already in his 3rd movie), but instead just made Bond movies with him as James Bond.. - would have we questioned his age by the time of NTTD?! I think we would've also said he was too old. So, my point is: it depends on the context of movies Barbara and Michael decide to go for..
Daniel is not a classically good looking dude, so personally I think he looks better in NTTD than CR - wearing those extra years suit him.
People were doing that for the recent Mission Impossible when Cruise's age wasn't acknowledged in the storyline so it'll come up regardless of what sort of films they do.
007 MUST be Bond's second career. It's central to the character. A 26 year-old bond should still be in the SAS , Navy or whatever. You don't just hand in your CV at MI6 at 23 with no prior career and become THAT kind of SIS officer (what would be his official job title, just a field agent with license to kill? SIS recruiters would put him under "security" I think?). The thing about Bond is he has already plateaued. He doesn't have too much of a character arc because he got his life experience in early. In Casino Royal we see the tail end of his formation and so the series begins. In No Time To Die he resumes his formation, and so the series ends. He has to be plateuing. Also his bachelor status has to say something about him -- the fact that he hasn't had much time to commit etc etc etc. It all paint a picture. Whereas 26 year-old bachelor is too completely the norm a to be insignificant.
The actors age doesn’t matter as long as he fits the age of the character. As others have said here, to make the story believable, the characters age matters as related to the experience that they have doing the work.
Depends how young you appear. For example- Brosnan they had to age somewhat for GoldenEye.
But the studio will want at least 3 films out of an actor so he must be no older than 40 really depending how quick they can get three films out.
If an actor is 40 right now, their first Bond film won't be out until they're 42, second film 45, third 48 and then they're done really.
Cavill is mid 41 and his first film wouldn't be out for at least two years.
32-35 is the prime age, again, depending on how they look.
I don't really have an issue with an actors age per se, but I believe that it should be believable that the actor playing can portray a man who has already had a naval career before becoming an agent. The age doesn't matter as long as the rest of the cast don't take anything away. This is why I think people notice Roger Moore much more in A View to a Kill, because the supporting cast looked so much younger, whereas is Octopussy the supporting cast were older and you don't notice it as much.
I would be more than happy with Henry Cavill, but I think the issues for him is his fame more than his age. I think EON like to make people famous as James Bond, more than hiring someone famous.
Indeed - the last movie(s) with Roger Moore contributed to the general idea that a Bond actor can be too old. But when the Bond actor was a little on the older side (including Connery in 1983), the movies hardly didn't do anything with that. Some remarks, or Bond in a health spa, but when it came to story and action, the age was not made an issue. The age difference to the female leads became excessive, and Moore asked for a stuntman for activities such as mildly runnning...
Depends if he's just going to do one film like Lazenby or stick around. If he's doing a few films then around 35 is probably ideal
What is just as important is the correct Bond Girl. Moore and Stacey Sutton came off as creepy because their relationship had ''father and daughter'' energy. You could not have had a worse casting choice as it did nothing more than just highlight Moore's increased age. The Craig films to their credit clearly worked hard to try and avert this.
@@clearspira Craig was shit. Worst Bond ever because he committed the cardinal sin of being a Bond you didn't want to be and made him unlikable as a character.
Bond is supposed to be a serial shagger. Craig looks like a Slavic, jug eared potato.
@@clearspira more important is Bond actually being a serial shagger. It's pivotal to Bond.
@@clearspira I also recently read that Alison Doody was only 18 in a view to a kill and between the ages of 18 and 23 she ostensibly played love interests to 3 different bond actors! Pretty interesting tidbit of bond esque info.
And the relationship between Bond and Havelock (Carole Bouquet) in For Your Eyes Only, creeped me out. Even when I was about 10 or 11.
At the time she was 24, and looks younger. And Bond was 54.
Aside from them both having zerooo chemistry. Just. The age gap. I'm 33 now, and if I looked at a 24 year old, i'd feel like a pervert.
@@rorrt The irony of that film is that Lynn Holly Johnson who played Bibi was actually 21. It just amuses me that they have this big skit of Bond being creeped out by her when in reality she was basically the same age as the ''grown up'' Bond Girl. They look it too imo. I wouldn't have guessed that Bibi was meant to be a kid if the film did not actually tell me.
Roger was no spring chicken when he took over playing James Bond
Wasn't Roger the same age as Daniel Craig by A View to a Kill??
Yeah but that's when they'd make a Bond every year lol.
Moore's tenure was only 12 years. That's about 3 movies' worth of time in today's schedule.
@@HOTD108_ yeah, except, Craig's Bond was actually shown getting old and weary since Skyfall, and his final movie acknowladged that it's time for him to go. Moore's Bond was still treated as a young man in his final movie.
@@HOTD108_ Craig was 51 when he filmed NTTD in 2019 while Moore was 58 in View.
Ages the previous Bond actors were at the beginning and the end of their reigns:
Sean Connery -- 32-41 (and 53 in the unofficial "Never Say Never Again")
George Lazenby -- 30
Roger Moore -- 45-57
Timothy Dalton -- 41-43
Pierce Brosnan -- 42-49
Daniel Craig -- 38-53
The biggest X factor seems to me to be the ever-increasing gap between each new movie. I feel it *has* to get back to every 2-3 years. Either way, I believe the idea age range for an actor signing on for the role for the long haul would be mid-30's to very early 40's. And, of course, they have to also have the rugged good looks and rugged voice, as well as the required gravitas for the role.
Given Daniel Craig's recent comments on how hellish the production of QOS was, I think 2 years is asking too much now. 3 should be doable although scripting takes longer now there's no books or 'Bond formula' to get a jump on production [Sam Mendes said he didn't think Spectre had enough development time and away from Bond 'The Batman' sequel is now coming out 4 1/2 years after the first as scripting has taken so long].
@@jamesatkinsonja Granted, the production of "Quantum of Solace" was kind of rushed in the first place so as to not be affected by the WGA strike going on at the time. Not sure why these movies apparently take so long now to make. Even all the Brosnan movies came out in just 2-year increments (well, 3 for "Die Another Day"), and those also came after all the novels had run out. 🤷♂ I can't help but feel as though, as with recording artists in the music industry, filmmakers have now been so pampered to the point that they've almost unconsciously become lazier as a result. I feel sometimes having pressure applied by an outside source can _help_ the creative process. 🤔
The only problem with Cavill playing Bond is that audiences are used to him portraying American characters, and doing a good job of it. I thought he was great in Argylle, and unfortunately between that and The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare is probably the closest we'll ever get to see him play 007. He's too famous.
For me it's not the concern with age isn't how he looks, it's the physicality of the role. Especially if they go the Craig route with things. Seeing as they still haven't decided, it won't be some time before the next movie begins filming. Then the next 15 years for the following films. Only a handful of actors have had that physical longevity into their mid to late 50's.
James Bond is a Field Operative. Could an actor in his fifties represent this? I see Commander Bond at this age behind a desk and be called „M“
It depends on how committed Eon is to the idea the next Bond actor has to be in his early to mid-30s. Sometime in the last 6-9 months, Henry Cavill said on a TV interview he may have aged out. (He's 41 now.) But Cavill also plays younger than his chronological age.
Hi from a recently turned 59 year old Gen X (:
I think there is a sweet spot for Bond age wise, in the books he is 36 from what i remember.
The actor who plays Bond must look like he could carry out the action that is required in a Bond movie so one can suspend ones disbelief, i love Sir Roger but clearly he was to old for A View to a kill in fact uncomfortably so when see next to his leading ladies. He was bless him not able to carry out the cinematographic deceit and allowing us to believe in the character .
I like Cavill but yeah given how long it’s taking them to get going on the next Bond he’s probably considered too old now.
It's interesting to note that as well as Craig stopping at 51 [when NTTD was filmed], both Dalton and Brosnan have said they would have only done one more Bond if they had stayed on as they were around that age so early 50's seems to be the limit [especially given they seem to have learned the mistakes of the later Moore films and acknowledged his age]. I do think Bond is a character with an upper age limit [partly as he's been recast frequently unlike say Indiana Jones+ Rocky who've only had one lead film actor], especially if he's a frontline agent with MI6 [It certainly felt like it was pushing it to have Ethan Hunt still be an agent in the most recent MI film when Cruise is in his 60's and the next film is likely to be his final outing].
Great video. It's such an intriguing subject. I think a lot of it stems from the fact that everyone thinks automatically it will be a young actor because of the time period required to be Bond. Using Henry Cavill, I don't think that man will look much different than he does now, 40/50 year olds, look alot different and are physically better than the 40/50 year old of Moore or Connery era. No one complained about Craig's age, and he has been, in my opinion, the most physical Bond of them all, and he was 52/53 at the time of No Time To Die..
They’ve always focused on age. I think age is relevant, doubly at the rate Eon seem to want to put the movies out. Look how Daniel aged over such a few movies. Also, let us not forget Connery was only in his 30s when he played the character. So we need to go back to that. Give an actor a long time and hopefully many movies in their era as Bond. We live in age focused times for sure and yeah Henry is too old and so are many others. The character has to appeal to a new audience, not just the old fans.
I would be really disappointed if the producers went with Cavill. It would just feel like they’ve gone with popular opinion rather than finding the right actor. I know people will say well why isn’t Henry Cavill the right actor? But for me, there’s a number of reasons he’s not the right choice - he’s TOO famous. He’s already been in far too many spy films, he would feel like a step backwards - he’s like a younger Brosnan. The next Bond needs to be something fresh. Plus I do think he’s too old, he’s actually 41 and they are nowhere near even close to shooting a new film so he’d most likely be 45 before his first film hit the screens - the reality is by time his second film came out they would already be aware they’d need to start looking for his replacement. Given that they’ve known since 2017 they needed to replace Daniel Craig it’s not an easy task. Although I’d like to think they could do the films a bit quicker than they did from CR to NTTD.
Agreed, I do think people need to move on from 'Cavill for Bond' in general, especially as he's clearly aging out of the role and when he's played a 'Bond-esq' character in Aryglle and 'Uncle' they didn't do well at the Box office. I agree that someone fresh would be far more interesting than Cavill doing yet another spy movie.
Tom Cruise is 62 years old and not only does he look great but he still does all of his own stunts. Roger Moore was 57 in A View to a Kill and yet he looked and acted like a man 15 years his senior. I actually felt kind of sorry for the man at times tbh. There is nothing wrong with an older Bond if he is played by the correct actor.
@@clearspira Unfair comparison really I think. Different times, different priorities.
Moore was a classy gentleman, Cruise is a weird narcissist, control freak and general tosser.
@@clearspira Tom Cruise is a seriously unpleasant narcissist.
Moore was a gentleman.
And in fairness Roger was very much in agreement that he outstayed his welcome as Bond [joking he was about '400 years too old' for the part!]
I swear I'm convinced I'm living in a simulation some days🎉❤😂.. I was literally just sitting here yesterday thinking to myself "why don't they let George lazenby come back and be another James Bond again❤😂 ... Now you post a video today: "how old is too old" 😂😂 not that lazenby was automatically too old but obviously this is all just a really funny coincidence..
Anyway happy to see I got a good video to look at today❤🎉
Given Lazenby has 'retired' recently [and sadly seems to be in ill health] having him even in a cameo has passed.
The next Bond will have to be fairly young for no other reason that at the rate it seems to take them to make the movies now they need to be able to get the minimum three films from them before they age out.
I know I'm a little late to this conversation but I personally don't believe that there's such a thing as "too old" for Bond. My top pick for the next Bond (for over a decade now) is still Michael Fassbender and he's 47 and would probably be 49/50 by the time a movie potentially comes out. But in my humble opinion, he'd be absolutely brilliant in the role regardless of his age.
Great vid. You look younger, my friend. Stay active.
In Flemings books he was 35. That’s about right.
I do feel that the next Bond should be in there 30's when there first film comes out, particularly given how much longer it takes to make them [and there is no sign that is likely to change, nor is 'back to back' filming going to happen given how it didn't work for Mission Impossible]. 'The Batman part II' is taking a long time to come out but Robert Pattinson is only going to be 40 when it finally comes out in 2026 so still young enough to do any further sequels. I remember the casting director saying they felt 20's was too young [especially given the pressure that comes with the part] so getting someone in there 30's seems the best option.
My opinion is not a popular one but I think Will Poulter would be amazing. He is passionate about the franchise, but he may be what some people would argue - a little young. But I actually think having a slightly younger bond BUT with a more traditional old school film tone would be a really interesting take
In fairness he's 31 now but would be 34/35 by the time it actually comes out.
A few generations ago, actors played older than they were. Sean Connery was 31 when he was cast as Bond. Robert Vaughn turned 31 when he filmed the pilot for The Man From UNCLE (his 31st birthday coincided with the assassination of John F. Kennedy). On the other hand, Roger Moore looked younger than he was.
The age of a new Bond actor is going to be based on their ability to carry at least three films before they just aren't up to it anymore.
It should be a mix between age (maturity), looks and physical capabilities. Because age doesn´t equal to looks. Couple of examples from the past:
1. Sean Connery was 31 when he began to shoot Dr.No, but looked couple of years older IMO. He was 41 when shooting DAF but looked more like a 50 years old guy. He was 52-53 during NSNA, but was in better shape then in DAF.
2. George Lazenby was 29 which was shocking for me when I heard it for the first time, because he looked like 40 to me (face).
3. Roger Moore was 45 but looked younger the Connery with 41, looked fine to TSWLM and from Moonraker onwards he started to show his age and in AVTAK it was clear, that he stayed a movie too long, but physical performance was always his weak point.
4. Timothy Dalton was 40 and 42 and had the right balance between age and physical performance.
5. Pierce Brosnan the same like Tim, 42 when started and 49 when finished, but looked still good and physical performance was also good.
6. Daniel Craig was 38, physically top fit, for me even too muscular. Finished with 51-52 and still physically fit, but aged visibly.
Based on all these points I would prefer someone who is in his early 40´s and physically good in shape (for example Cavill, but he should reduce his muscles a bit to not be like Superman).
Sean Connery was 32 in 1962 for Dr No and 41 in 1971 for Diamonds are Forever
George Lazenby was 30 in 1969 for On her majesty’s secret service
Roger Moore was 45 in 1973 for Live and let die and 58 in 1985 for A view to a kill
Timothy Dalton was 41 in 1987 for the Living Daylights and 43 in 1989 for License to Kill
Pierce Brosnan was 42 in 1995 for Goldeneye and 49 in 2002 for Die another day
Daniel Craig was 38 in 2006 for Casino Royale and 51 at time of filming No Time to Die in 2019
The frequency at which Bond films get made is becoming less. Henry Cavill wouldn’t be the oldest at time of casting but I want an actor to stick around for more than 3 films. Also as can be seen above only 2 actors in the official franchise played James Bond when they were in their 50s, while 3 actors were cast when they were in their 30s. To my mind an actor can play James Bond until their mid 50s but should be cast in their 30s.
It isn't a matter of age so much as it is simple math. It takes longer to make big budget films like Bond films. Perhaps the budgets have been too high but none they won't be cheap. So they'll take two years on average to release. Which means that unless they're only going for trilogies, the next Bond actor will go for perhaps 4-5 films and it might take 12-14 years depending on how the timing falls. Which isn't just for Bond films, it's for any actor who signs up for a big franchise. Cavill has a lot of other deals in the works, stuff he's producing. He's also starting a family. I'm not saying any of those things would prevent Henry from being Bond. It's just as fantasy studio bosses we have to consider all the options.
Hello David love your work! 😊I think Bond should be 35-50. Im 42 myself. But what if the Bond producers only planning on 2-3 new movies (because Broccoli and Wilson will retire in a few years)? If so Henry Cavill would do good. Agree that as Tom Cruise at 62 still sells out action MI movies, a younger looking 50 year old Bond is okey.
Let's hear it for us old folks! 👏👏👏 Basically I totally agree with everything you say! (I'm 58 and still act like I'm 28/18). I would LOVE Cavill to be Bond! Cavill like Brosnan was born to play Bond and he would make an amazing James Bond! The only caveat may have nothing to do with the actor per-se but his leading lady. The main reason that Roger Moore gave up the role wasn't about his abilities or looks, it was the fact that he was the same age as some of female costar's grandmothers. Creepy? So you're right, it doesn't matter how he looks, Cavil will look fantastic into his 70s, but how does he look with the twenty-something woman next to him? And it will always be a twenty-something woman because that's the reality of Hollywood films. Just something to think about... Thanks for the accidental shout out! 😊
Here’s a question… how old makes sense to be a Commander in the Royal Navy?
You put your finger on it when you talked about earning every wrinkle. Daniel Craig had a bit of an arc going from the new inexperienced 00 agent to the seasoned pro who had earned every wrinkle. That doesn't work if you start out with the wrinkles in place.
Who says we have to keep rebooting Bond to a fresh rookie?
@@Starch-Wreck You don't but if your going to do a few films with the next Bond, it makes it easier to write [and gives the actor more to work with] if he has room to develop and grow as a character ['The Batman' opens with him having been operating for 2 years off screen but still with room to grow so it's a different origin story to 'Batman Begins'].
@@jamesatkinsonja No, it really doesn't. Casino Royale was the first bond movie to do that. only 1 out of 25. We don't need a fresh rebooted rookie bond every 5 movies like a superhero movie. Thats not really the formula. I think that actually hinders the character and gives them less to work with because they waste an entire movie telling another back story.
@@Starch-WreckBut as 'The Batman' showed, you could start Bond 26 with Bond as an established agent on a mission but with room to grow as a character so it's different from Casino. Casino is coming up to 20 years old [so enough time has passed to do a re-fresh] and the film environment has changed a lot since the older films-You can't keep Bond as a static character now as the actor will want something to work with.
@@jamesatkinsonja no more origin stories. It’s as boring as multiverse. May as well multiverse bond.
Part of this comes from the general public having such a small idea of Bond without having further knowledge of the character, especially the literary Bond. John Gardner’s entire tenure is an aged Bond. Fleming himself built in a weathering and aging of the character over time.
Bond should always be at the very least in his early to mid 30s and played by someone with extensive experience. The role is the most difficult and carries the most baggage for any actor.
The tendency of EON nowadays is to focus on youth and trying to lock someone into a multi picture deal for an extended period of time.
In contrast, the great missed opportunity and the only person who I can see in the role is Jason Isaacs who is tailor made for it. He has the experience in a wide range of roles and can handle all aspects of the character. For those who would say that anyone over 40 is too old for an action role of such demanding physical stamina…James Bond is not an out and out action role. Furthermore, how many great Shakespearean performances are there where a legendary actor gets to do their own take on Hamlet, even though they’re older than Hamlet’s intended age.
It’s a new world…with new social mores…but you can still depend on one man…he just might be a bit older sometimes.
In fairness they've always tried to get the actors on long term deals [infamously Lazenby turned down a 7 picture deal and Dalton was offered a multi-picture deal in the 90's but he only wanted to do one more so quit] so it's not really changed [Lois Maxwell was Moneypenny for 23 years too].
If they want at least 5 movies from the next actor, the new Bond should be no older than 32. Considering the gap between Bond films these days, they’d probably be in their 50s before they bow out
@@horatiohuskisson5471 Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan were well over that age and they are both in my top 3 favorite Bonds. Sean Connery being #1.
@@rocky1942racoon I’m sorry but Moore’s later films aren’t good. A View to a Kill & Octopussy are terrible. Also Sean Connery did a film every year and Moore every 2 years. Bond films now come out every 5 years.
@@horatiohuskisson5471Probably will not come out anymore
@@horatiohuskisson5471 “For your eyes only” was solid and he was 54. Both Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan they would have used sooner but of course Sean Connery was playing Bond at the time in Roger’s case and Pierce was busy on another project. I agree having a younger Bond is smarter if possible but honestly I just want a good Bond. What ever age he is I couldn’t care less.
@@horatiohuskisson5471 Octopussy is a great film, and most Bond officianados rate it highly.
It also has one of the best John Barry scores of the entire series.
Connery was 52 or 3 in ‘Never Say Never Again’ so I guess a 40 year old could do it, but what if he doesn’t age well - best to get a 35 year old.
For me, the talk of age was a result of Craig and Brocoli saying things about Craig's age and looking for a younger Bond for the next ones. So my mind said, ok, that just means numerically younger than Craig then. Personally I don't think Craig's "too old", I think he just wanted out. None of the actors suggested look too old to me, but numerically speaking, they weren't fitting what was stated as who they desired age wise for the next ones.
In fairness, Dalton wanted to finish with Goldeneye rather than do a multi film commitment [which is why he ended up leaving in the end] as he was approaching his 50's and felt he was getting too old while Brosnan would have only done 1 more Bond after DAD for the same reason so early 50's does seem to be the limit. Craig also got injured pretty much every film and recovery is harder as you get older.
@@jamesatkinsonja True
Great discussion. Also, do they have to be Bond for 15 years?
I think having an actor in the role for a decent amount of time gives it a bit more credibility. Otherwise it dilutes the franchise and they may as well swap the actor every film or so depending on who’s the current popular leading man.
I saw Charlie Hunnam in "The Gentleman" a few years ago, and at 44 think he would make a great Bond.
Actually saw Charlie at a meeting in Claridges back in 2018, with a Bond producer. But I doubt his screen tests went well.
I think someone in his late thirties or early forties is the perfect age for a new Bond. My reason is that he needs to be someone with experience. Someone under 35 is typically still too boyish in this day and age.
@@secretsymphony this is a very valid observation. A man at 32 today doesn’t carry the life lessons and weight that Sean Connery carried in dr no at that age. So perhaps there is a 10 year shift and an actor of 38-42 is about the right age group for a cold and dispassionate government agent, hardened by the job with a propensity to drink away the battle scars 👌
@@garyniven946 thanks!
I've never been terribly concerned about age. I don't exactly have the power to pick the next actor, and if EON chooses someone older or younger, I'm still going to see the movie ✌
3:00 I thought you sounded more like Dana Carvey when he was impersonating Bush 41.
The age thing matters, but not in the way people think. It's not about 'is this actor too old?' it's about 'is this person believable in the action?' 'does the relationship with the bond girl look appropriate or kind of letchy?' 'will our target audience, the ones with the disposable income to buy the products that have paid a lot of money to be placed in our movie, see themselves in the character?'.
EON will have to walk a fine line as if you cast 'young' you can get an actor for a long time BUT it might be that that actor's theatre going peers might not be able to, or interested in, buying the Omega, the Billy Reid, and the Tom Ford. Selecting an actor in their early 40s, who looks good, and casting a bond girl that looks appropriate, is the safest choice and has the potential to appeal to the younger audiences whilst still allowing the product marking to not alienate the target sales demographic. Men in their 40s and 50s are buying more luxury watches than men in their 20s.
Personally I am scared of the day when 007 is my age or younger, it will potentially feel less aspirational that day.
Love you David!! You and Calvin are my favorite Bond RUclipsrs!!!
Tom Cruise is 5'7". Is there a Bond candidate who is too short?
YES TOM IS A SHORT MAN WITH A VERY BIG EGO . AND ALSO WAY TOO OLD 😮😮😮😮😮😮
@@JT-rx1eo Hardy is short. Craig was short.
@@sandersson2813Well Craig is listed at what, 5'10"? Shorter than Sean Connery but not exactly short.
@@JT-rx1eo Craig doesn't really fit in with any Bond characteristics.
I really don't mind how they approach the new Bond and the series overall as long as it's awesome.
It comes down to many things. But age is important. How many movies can they squeeze out of the actor? Now some actors, such as Cavill, do not look their age. Henry is 41, but I think he could pass for a couple of years younger, and he has the physicality needed to play Bond. Remember how he looked in 'Man from UNCLE'? That was basically him playing Bond, lol. On the other hand Roger Moore was seriously looking old when he did his last movie 'View to a Kill' and could no longer fool us into thinking he could do the action or pull a girl young enough to be his grand-daughter!!
Another aspect to keep in mind is that these days they take a lot longer to make Bond movies than they used to. As an example lets look at, IMO, the best Bond and that would be Sean Connery. He was 32 when cast as Bond in 'Dr. No' in 1962 and when he bowed out 'officially' (we won't count Never say Never) he had done six Bond movies in 9 years. Roger Moore was older when cast, he was already 45 in 'Live and Let Die', but he played Bond for 12 years and did 7 movies. Pierce Brosnan (my second favourite Bond) did 4 movies in 7 years and finally Daniel Craig who was 38 in 'Casino Royale' and looked every inch James Bond. However the 5 Bond movies he did took 15 years to produce.
As you can see its a progression. Over the years there have been longer and longer gaps between movies which means that the actor is getting older, maybe to old to play Bond by the 2nd or third movie unless they hire a young guy, like they did with Connery. There are extenuating circumstance for some of those gaps, Covid, etc, but most of it is down to studio politics.
Show's how time marches on as 'Uncle' will be a decade old next year.
Cavill isn't too old, and he's in very good shape, so if they plan to start making the new movies in the next 12 months or so, he's fine. I don't know if it's still done, but historically actors in a franchise, Bond included, would sign up for a 3 film commitment (3 picture deal). Further movies would then be separate negotiation. So an actor on the right side of 40, should still be in the running definitely in my opinion. Even though Moore was looking quite past it for his last two movies, he was still looking acceptable up to and including Moonraker. Personally I like the 40+ Bonds, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan. A lot of people are surprised that Harrison Ford was pushing 39 when he was making Raiders of The Lost Ark. They probably think he's only 40 in the third IJ movie, unless you told them otherwise.
I think the age issue has come about because Michael G,. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli mentioned they wanted a younger actor in his early 30s to carry the role for 15 years, or so. Personally I would like to see Henry Cavill take the part, for the same reasons as David as pointed out, but I reckon the producers will think he is too old by the time they cast the role again,
I think it's also fans being realistic in the films taking longer to make so if you get someone in there mid-30's they've got time on there side to get a few films under there belt before they start to age out of it [which seems to be early 50's based on Craig].
The character was in his late 30s in the books, staring down the retirement age of 45.
I don’t have a problem with an actor in his 40s, even late 40s, considering people can age more gracefully now than they did in the 1950s.
A new shout I'm giving, Mark Jackson, would look the part despite recently turning 42. I don't know why age has to be a thing. Unless they look too old, or have been wrongly matched romantically with a very young looking Bond girl etc. Jackson has never been named maybe as he is not well known, or seen too much out of his Isaak robot outfit on The Orville. Age wouldn't effect my own pick whether it's Cavill or anyone in that range.
Hi David, nice video. I agree it depends more on how the actor looks in his age. Look at Roger on set of SWLM 1977.
He looks great at 49\50? But last couple of films maybe not so much. I think any younger than mid-late 30's is too
young. He has to have some experience (mental scar tissue) in his face. All the actors who played him portrayed
him as a man who'd seen action, been through the wars...lived the life. Personality & Charisma are the most important
thing. 40 is not too old. I can't see anyone being Bond for as long as Craig again. 10 year stint at most.
For the studio changing the actor creates a lot of buzz and potential new audience, so I can't see them leaving
it as long again. Myself I say 40 is just about right. Cheers for that info David. I have have no idea who
Aaron Taylor Johnson is, my BAD I guess 🤔. Idress Elba would have been interesting. I think he has the charisma.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson was in Tenet towards the end as a solider and a lot of people said he stole the show in 'Bullet Train'.
@@jamesatkinsonja thanks for that heads up. Missed him in Tenet I guess, as never managed to get passed 30 min mark.
Bullet Train I've not seen. I'm sure they'll
pick the right a actor for the time.
They ain't been wrong so far.
@@movietramp5900 I just saw Bullet Train-he's very funny in that film as he's part of an assassin double act. He was also in Matthew Vaughn's 'Kick Ass' movies and 'The Fall Guy' earlier this year.
I think one must keep in mind that three to five years can pass between Bond films. If you cast a 45 year old, they could be 60 by the time they finish. I honestly think the ideal age for a Bond actor to start is between 35 and 40. I know Connery was 32 when he started, but most modern actors look too baby-faced in their early 30s.
None of the Bonds, not even Moore, were too old at any point to play 007 - but how they handle the age makes a huge difference. Roger Moore being as sexually rampant as he was in A View to a Kill is one such example. The action scenes to a lesser degree. Adjust the film to fit the actor's age, which they did to an extent in No Time to Die.
I don’t think age should be a barrier it really boils down to the plot and script.If it’s well done your attention doesn’t drift to these issues
Roger Moore was 57 or 58 with AVTAK and I liked an older Bond. The unfortunate part was they didn’t embrace his age in AVTAK but they did in Octopussy with Maud Adams. Moore got better to me in his older year Bonds. Connery did much better in NSNA at 53 than he did in DAF at 41. I believe Pierce Brosnan is 70 or close to it and I’d love to see him come back for Bond at that age. Indiana Jones pulled it off at 80 last year in Dial of Destiny in my opinion. Let’s see an older Bond at least once.
@andyheller2691 Good point. Another example would be FYEO were they apparently suggested Moore's Bond is older- he huffs and puffs during action scenes and rejects the advances of a promiscuous young lady. Moore's Bond in AVTAK would have bedded her in seconds.
As an admirer of lots of stories depicting "heroes at the sunset of their lifetime" (The Dark Knight Returns, a story with that very premise, is one of the best Batman graphic novels) I'd say 59 or 60 is the maximum age an actor should play Bond.
However it depends on the actor.
For instance I think a 70-year old Michael Keaton pulled off a 60-year old Bruce Wayne really well.
I do think that works if it's an actor that is established and aged with the character [hence Keaton coming back as Batman]. Having Ben Affleck as an older Batman at the start of the DCU was probably done to differ it from the 'Dark Knight' trilogy but still was an odd move.
Age is very important, for one single reason: I don't want a new Bond for every Film. I want a decent amount of Films. 4 to 6. But they don't make a new Film every two years. Brosnan had 4 Films in 7 Years. Craig 5 in 15. Connery was 32. That's a good start. Okay people are younger now you can ad a couple of years.
Depends for how many movies they want him . We certainly don't want another Roger Moore type situation where he's pushing 60 in his last movie .
I have a sort of vain reason for wanting a Cavill aged Bond for #26. I turn 40 in about a month and want one more Bond who's older than me! Ultimately I dont care, I just want the best actor in the best story possible.
Dalton and Brosnan were in their early 40s when they took on the Bond role. Craig was 38. Lazenby was the youngest Bond, being 29-30 for "OHMSS". Connery was 31-32 for Dr. No. Roger Moore was 3 years older than Connery, played the role longer than anyone, and was already 46 when he did "Live and Let Die".
Cavill is certainly NOT too old to be Bond.
The reason many people say he's 'too old' is more that the films aren't coming out every two years anymore. Craig being cast at 38 meant they still managed to get 5 films out of him before he hit his early 50's and Cavill is 3 years older than that. If you go for someone in there mid-30's now they have time on there side if the films take longer to come out [like Robert Pattinson will be only 40 when 'Batman Part 2 comes out despite having a 4 year gap between films].
The production of the next generation of Bond movies should do back-to-back films like Connery movies in the 60's I don't understand why the producing team doesn't have everything in place for the next 4 movies.
Comparing film making in the 60's to now is like 'apples and oranges'. Mission Impossible did 'Back to back' filming for the most recent entry and it didn't work out [and part 2 had to be re-worked after 1 under performed] so there is no way Bond will do that, especially for a new Bond. Craig vetoed a plan to do Bond 24+25 back to back and the MI issues show he was right to do so. Still, there is nothing to stop them planning an story arc over say a trilogy [with room to adapt the plans based on reception] so they can get a jump on the writing and speed up production.
Ever since you’ve said it, I can’t get Theo James out of my head as the next Bond. It needs to happen.
Age is only a problem if it dosen't tie into the 'stage/time frame' of the character in the story. ie. if its a Bond 'origin' story vs. if its just another 007 adventure,,,,
A real life James Bond would be an older gentleman just because it would take years to acquire all that experience. I would also say that all that training would put a lot of wear and tear on your body.
Age only seemed to be an issue when it was reported that the next Bond needed to be younger, 33. Now every time an actor is linked people ask themselves does he meet the criteria? Could that actor be a realistic contender. Personally I don’t think age is such an issue with Bond fans.
Paul Mescal for 007