Homer Simpson is Ian Fleming's James Bont 007 in The Man With The Golden Donut.

Blech.

Holland would be an AWFUL pick.

Nolan's preoccupation with THE ODYSSEY is why he wasn't in the running.

Could have been worse...we could've had the CONCLAVE guy instead!

AndyDursin wrote: Fri Jun 27, 2025 12:24 pm Blech.

Holland would be an AWFUL pick.

[voice breaking] "I'll have a chocolate milk, shaken, not stirred!"

Itd be like Michael J. Fox in his prime as Bond

Seriously every single thing that makes him a good Peter Parker makes him hugely UNsuitable for this role.

The only thing worse would be Chalamet.

Holland is a laughable miscast. I say go Cavill.

Eric W. wrote: Mon Jul 14, 2025 8:35 am Holland is a laughable miscast. I say go Cavill.

Cavill would be great (look at his relaxed, witty turn in the underrated The Man From U.N.C.L.E., or even his charismatic bad guy performance in the sixth Mission: Impossible), but he's already forty-two, and Amazon's not gonna yoke their newly-acquired franchise to an actor who will be hitting his fifties by movie #3.

Not unless they roll them out at a faster clip. Also, people in their 50s today generally -- at least actors -- look in better shape than they did back in the 70s and 80s...so it's doable. I remember back when OCTOPUSSY & NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN came out that people were always stunned when it was revealed that Roger Moore was older than Sean Connery. Moore clearly kept himself in better shape, and it was really not until A VIEW TO A KILL that he looked "aged".

If they care about audience recognition Cavill's casting would be helpful too, but obviously, you may be right it's just an age thing (how sad also the guy was done with Superman and any Bond prospects because he's in his early 40s...what a joke).

Holland would be an utterly awful choice. Just watching him in that useless ODYSSEY trailer cry while Damon floats at sea is enough for me lol. He gets by as Peter Parker because of the character. Otherwise he'd be a great Jimmy Olsen -- not Superman or James Bond.

AndyDursin wrote: Mon Jul 14, 2025 11:56 amI remember back when OCTOPUSSY & NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN came out that people were always stunned when it was revealed that Roger Moore was older than Sean Connery. Moore clearly kept himself in better shape, and it was really not until A VIEW TO A KILL that he looked "aged".

I'd say that Moore started looking MUCH older within the two-year gap between Moonraker and For Your Eyes Only.





And by the time Octopussy dropped, he started to look positively ancient.



I read that Moore had cosmetic surgery done when he agreed to come back for FYEO, and...it wasn't very well-done. The same "rapid-aging" thing happened to Sean Connery. Can you believe only four years separate You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever?

Either way, it was never an issue for Moore until A VIEW TO A KILL as OCTOPUSSY was still a massive hit and both a critical and commercial success. When A VIEW TO A KILL came out one of the main things you heard in the reviews, over and over, was how tired he looked (didn't help the movie itself was so tired and one of the worst up to that point, despite the mammoth success of the title song).

BTW speaking of Moore, I read in that OHMSS making of book that the "Tracy graveyard scene" at the start of FOR YOUR EYES ONLY was conceived as "connective series tissue" because it looked like Moore may not be coming back after MOONRAKER due to a contractual thing (he only had a 3 movie deal and did them all on a per-film basis after that). Since they were possibly going to be installing a new 007, John Glen thought it would be a good idea to have the new actor still make a connection to something that happened earlier in the series, which was the motivation for that pre-credits sequence. When Moore did return, they decided to use it anyway. (Sadly, that loose "connection" bonding decades of Bond movies died when Daniel Craig was cast...)

Paul MacLean wrote: Fri Jul 18, 2025 8:54 pm Compare how 40-year-old Connery looks in DAF to 60-year-old Tom Cruise in Top Gun: Maverick!

But Cruise did something REALLY f*cked-up to his face over the last few years.





Either that, or someone discovered the portrait in his attic.

Monterey Jack wrote: Fri Jul 18, 2025 9:16 pm But Cruise did something REALLY f*cked-up to his face over the last few years.

In fairness, in the upper image Cruise has been primped by a top-tier makeup artist and hair stylist, and lit and photographed by an A-list cinematographer.

In the lower image he is at a public event, and shot in available (and unflattering) light.