MovieChat Forums > Dr. No (1962) Discussion > Actors considered to play Bond in this m...

Actors considered to play Bond in this movie

posted a year ago by seanwhelan2310 (563)
8 replies | jump to latest

-Cary Grant - Was the first choice by the producers but turned down the movie was he felt that he was too old at 58 and did not want to commit to a franchise.
-Richard Burton - Was considered for the role but turned it down as he felt that the role was a new untested concept, wouldn't have minded him playing the role.
-Stanley Baker - Did not want to commit to a three-picture deal
-James Mason - Offered three movie deal but wanted to do two
-Patrick McGoohan - Was offered the role but turned it down on moral grounds, the success of Bond was what led to Danger Man being revived.
-Roger Moore - Was considered, but was busy with The Saint and later played Bond from 1973 to 1985
-Rex Harrison and David Niven - Were considered but Sean Connery was chosen instead
-Richard Johnson - Was director Terence Young's first choice, but he had already had a contract with MGM and did not want another.
-Richard Todd - Was said to have been Ian Fleming's main choice, but was unavailable.
-Peter Lawford - Felt he was not offered enough money and was reluctant to agree to a five-movie deal
-George Baker - Was one of Fleming's choices but the actor was unavailable. He later appeared in Bond movies as Hilary Bray in OHMSS and Captain Benson in The Spy Who Loved Me

[–] Thaistickers (1129) a year ago

Of all those I can only see McGoohan as fit for the role. What the hell were the "moral grounds?" Is "Danger Man" the Bri'ish (see what I did there? 😁) name for "Secret Agent Man?"

[–] Ace_Spade (9397) a year ago

McGoohan was an ardent Catholic and would likely have objected to Bond's casual approach to sexual liaisons - if not non-marital sex at all. He also wasn't big on excessive violence, if I recall correctly, and might have also been against Bond's brutal and almost lassez-faire use of lethal force ("You've had your six," e.g.)

I think Cary Grant could have been Bond, although he would have been a radically different version of the character. But Grant had the charm, the presence, and even (on occasion) the forcefulness necessary for the character. I think he'd have been a more gentlemanly Bond, however.

Obviously, Roger Moore could handle it, too...

[–] [deleted] a year ago

James Mason would have been funny. He was so chill.

[–] duckofprey (1540) a year ago

Don’t sleep on Peter Lawford, he would have been damn fine as 007.

[–] MCguy (949) a year ago

Lawford wasn't good in anything else. How would the Bond franchise have been different? He only worked at all because he was a hanger-on.

[–] Otter (24464) a year ago

The whole Bond franchise would never have existed, if they'd used any of those other actors. With any of them, "DN" would have been just another spy film.

But Connery's testosterone-fueled charisma put the whole thing over the top, made it into a wish-fulfillment fantasy, of what a man could do if he could get away with *anything*! That was appealing enough to make a neverending franchise.

[–] MCguy (949) a year ago

You are incredibly correct.

[–] liscarkat (16715) a year ago

If they had started making Bond movies ten to fifteen years earlier, Grant would have been perfect. Burton, Mason, Todd, and Lawford also could have been good, at the right time in their careers.