lau_timmy
Brosnan was like 41 when he took the role. Dalton was also 41. Connery always appeared older than he really was. Roger Moore always appeared younger than he really was. Who knows about Lazenby. But my point is, we don't need a hip, 20-something Bond. We need an older Bond. Bond is a man about that age, he's not young. In the books, you never think of James Bond as fresh out of college, he's written like a man in his early 40's. We don't need somebody who is going to be carded when he orders his vodka martini, shaken, not stirred. We need somebody who looks like he belongs in those casinos. We need a Bond who is an equal to his foes, not some kid nipping at the heals of his enemies. The only actor that I know of as of now that I would be happy with is Clive Owen. He's cool, plus, he's British. Now I know Lazenby and Brosnan aren't British, but I just like the idea of a British playing a British. I wish the Broccoli producers that they had better not screw this up.
I'm also fine with an actor doing only 4 films. Personally, I think it gets boring watching the same actor over and over again. The only reason Connery did such a spectacular job is because he started the role. So if you can find someone who can do something like reinvent the Bond series, you might have someone worth making more than 4. But for me, I think 4 is enough, or maybe 5. I fully enjoyed Brosnan, but he is getting old and I wish he could do at least one more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On why Pierce Brosnan thinks he would have regretted winning the James Bond role in 1986: "It's a role better suited to someone who is in his 40s, old enough to have the confidence and the sophistication and strength to be able to stand there and just let the moment sit. Bond is a man with the greatest of confidence. And playing that takes practice. In 1986, I think I was 33 or something like that, and I still looked like a baby. Finally, I'm growing into this face of mine. That takes time."
I'm also fine with an actor doing only 4 films. Personally, I think it gets boring watching the same actor over and over again. The only reason Connery did such a spectacular job is because he started the role. So if you can find someone who can do something like reinvent the Bond series, you might have someone worth making more than 4. But for me, I think 4 is enough, or maybe 5. I fully enjoyed Brosnan, but he is getting old and I wish he could do at least one more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On why Pierce Brosnan thinks he would have regretted winning the James Bond role in 1986: "It's a role better suited to someone who is in his 40s, old enough to have the confidence and the sophistication and strength to be able to stand there and just let the moment sit. Bond is a man with the greatest of confidence. And playing that takes practice. In 1986, I think I was 33 or something like that, and I still looked like a baby. Finally, I'm growing into this face of mine. That takes time."
