366 replies to this topic

[kovit123]

Martin Mystery if you think Jackman is gay, then you meant Brosnan and Moore are gay too. It was just rumors, Jackman is not completely gay, you fool. Jackman played a gay role character in the broadway show The Boy From Oz. Also there was the Brosnan rumors that he was gay, but it wasn't true, even Moore, because Moore and Brosnan already have their own wives, and even Jackman. Jackman have an older wife. Moore, Brosnan, and Jackman already have their own wives doesn't mean Jackman was gay. Owen is not handsome enough to play Bond, Owen have to dress like Shrek rather than 007. Nobody cares if Jackman was gay, but he isn't, so I like Jackman as James Bond 007. If you like Owen as Bond, then maybe you are too gay to realize it right now and you may have sex with Owen.

[Martin Mystery]

Martin Mystery if you think Jackman is gay, then you meant Brosnan and Moore are gay too. It was just rumors, Jackman is not completely gay, you fool. Jackman played a gay role character in the broadway show The Boy From Oz. Also there was the Brosnan rumors that he was gay, but it wasn't true, even Moore, because Moore and Brosnan already have their own wives, and even Jackman. Jackman have an older wife. Moore, Brosnan, and Jackman already have their own wives doesn't mean Jackman was gay. Owen is not handsome enough to play Bond, Owen have to dress like Shrek rather than 007. Nobody cares if Jackman was gay, but he isn't, so I like Jackman as James Bond 007. If you like Owen as Bond, then maybe you are too gay to realize it right now and you may have sex with Owen.

[Loomis]

If you like Owen as Bond, then maybe you are too gay to realize it right now and you may have sex with Owen.

I guess I'm gay, then. Oh, well....

Hang on: what's wrong with being gay?

Owen, BTW, is married, with two children.

And.... SHREK?!?!?!?!

[Seannery]

Like I said before, who knows if Jackman is gay or not? And if he is that wouldn't disqualify him for Bond for myself--he definitely butches up convincingly. He pulls off macho well. My only question is if he is gay would that effect the producer's decision? And would that turn off a fairly sizeable segment of Bond fans--especially young males?

Edited by Seannery, 09 June 2004 - 06:25 PM.

[Martin Mystery]

[quote name='Seannery' date='9 June 2004 - 18:12']Like I said before, who knows if Jackman is gay or not?

Edited by Martin Mystery, 09 June 2004 - 06:47 PM.

[Seannery]

May be. I'm not sure about that and anyway someone would have to out him in that case.

Edited by Seannery, 09 June 2004 - 07:12 PM.

[Daltonfan]

I'd take "limber hamstrings" as an indication of physical fitness rather than sexual orientation.

So...
assuming that it's an advantage for an action hero to be willing and able to a lot of their own stuntwork, how do Owen, Gruffudd, Paul and Firth measure up?

[Martin Mystery]

I'd take "limber hamstrings" as an indication of physical fitness rather than sexual orientation.

So...
assuming that it's an advantage for an action hero to be willing and able to a lot of their own stuntwork, how do Owen, Gruffudd, Paul and Firth measure up?

Lots of stunts and fighting were required of Clive on the set of KING ARTHUR, so I guess he's fit.
No doubt, he's the best choice

[Jim]

Jackman is not completely gay, you fool.

Not completely gay? Just a little bit gay? How much gay? "Some" gay? Interesting concept.

Also there was the Brosnan rumors that he was gay, but it wasn't true, even Moore, because Moore and Brosnan already have their own wives, and even Jackman. Jackman have an older wife. Moore, Brosnan, and Jackman already have their own wives doesn't mean Jackman was gay.

Oscar Wilde was married and fathered children. He was "some" gay, apparently.

Owen is not handsome enough to play Bond

Is that comment "gay"? I'm not sure. It troubles me.

If you like Owen as Bond, then maybe you are too gay to realize it right now and you may have sex with Owen.

Unerringly brilliant . May I? The wife might not like it, but then I'll allow her to watch. Might mean I end up making him the target of my irrational sexual frenzy rather than Pierce Brosn... damn, what a giveaway.

[Martin Mystery]

Jackman is not completely gay, you fool.

Not completely gay? Just a little bit gay? How much gay? "Some" gay? Interesting concept.

Also there was the Brosnan rumors that he was gay, but it wasn't true, even Moore, because Moore and Brosnan already have their own wives, and even Jackman. Jackman have an older wife. Moore, Brosnan, and Jackman already have their own wives doesn't mean Jackman was gay.

Oscar Wilde was married and fathered children. He was "some" gay, apparently.

Owen is not handsome enough to play Bond

Is that comment "gay"? I'm not sure. It troubles me.

If you like Owen as Bond, then maybe you are too gay to realize it right now and you may have sex with Owen.

Unerringly brilliant . May I? The wife might not like it, but then I'll allow her to watch. Might mean I end up making him the target of my irrational sexual frenzy rather than Pierce Brosn... damn, what a giveaway.

[Genrewriter]

Jackman is not completely gay, you fool.

Not completely gay? Just a little bit gay? How much gay? "Some" gay? Interesting concept.

It's probably like being "only partly dead".

[kovit123]

Martin Mystery I'm not changing your choice for Jackman, just giving you sense. I'm using the quote from the recently late U.S. President Ronald Reagan, "There you go again." Owen is the best choice this and Owen is best choice that, it's sound like a piece of crap. Most fans never think Owen as the best choice and frankly he wasn't the favorite ever. Owen's face looks more like Shrek to play James Bond and he's too light. Owen doesn't was never approached by the EON and he'll never will. If you don't believe that, then stop supporting Owen as Bond, and two words: FORGET IT FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

Jackman was the real favorite to play James Bond and that's what most fans wanted him to be like Brosnan was before he was 007.

Say whatever you what it'll never bother me.

[Martin Mystery]

Martin Mystery I'm not changing your choice for Jackman, just giving you sense. I'm using the quote from the recently late U.S. President Ronald Reagan, "There you go again." Owen is the best choice this and Owen is best choice that, it's sound like a piece of crap. Most fans never think Owen as the best choice and frankly he wasn't the favorite ever. Owen's face looks more like Shrek to play James Bond and he's too light. Owen doesn't was never approached by the EON and he'll never will. If you don't believe that, then stop supporting Owen as Bond, and two words: FORGET IT FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

Jackman was the real favorite to play James Bond and that's what most fans wanted him to be like Brosnan was before he was 007.

Say whatever you what it'll never bother me.

I get the feeling it's pointless to enter into a discussion here...

Edited by Martin Mystery, 10 June 2004 - 08:49 AM.

[M_Balje]

Today is a importent day for Clive Owen,Angela Jolie & Martin Campbell.
The Dutch release of

[Martin Mystery]

[quote name='M_Balje' date='10 June 2004 - 10:19']Today is a importent day for Clive Owen,Angela Jolie & Martin Campbell.
The Dutch release of

[Seannery]

I'd take "limber hamstrings" as an indication of physical fitness rather than sexual orientation.

So...
assuming that it's an advantage for an action hero to be willing and able to a lot of their own stuntwork, how do Owen, Gruffudd, Paul and Firth measure up?

Who has the best action moves among the candidates? That is an excellent question--very relevant to who could play Bond. I consider that a top criteria.

Adrian Paul and Hugh Jackman are easily the best in this category. They would provide a physical zest and presence not seen since Connery and Lazenby. Owen and Gruffudd would be solid in this area though not as impressive. Firth, I don't know, he could be shaky in the action arena. Brosnan I would put in the Owen/Gruffudd level.

Edited by Seannery, 10 June 2004 - 07:40 PM.

[Kristatos]

It is very funny, that Colin Firth is also in that Row.
he is real good Actor and i like him very much, but he is tooo soft for James Bond.

[Slaezenger]

It is very funny, that Colin Firth is also in that Row.
he is real good Actor and i like him very much, but he is tooo soft for James Bond.

...I agree about Colin Firth. He would make an excellent John Steed however -- very much in the MacNee mold.

As for all of the gay business in this thread, I do notice that both Jackman and Owne have played gays onscreen. There is no problem here, but I am beginning to wonder whether this is some sort of PC litmus test from the producers. I mean, how _does_ singing like overtly homosexual Peter Allen qualify one for Bond? What is there about that role, or Bent that would move a producer to say "hey, let's sign that guy as 007!"

Beyond this, from my vantage point, for other reasons, neither Jackman nor Owen are right for Bond. The former too young and pretty -- the latter -- not chisled enough. I think they should revisit the Bond they created in 62 (the one who keeps winning all of the film org awards) and cast accordingly. There is this story in Lana Wood's biography -- about her checking into her hotel room for the DAF shoot. And wonder of wonders -- there's Sean Connery -- reportedly sitting on the throne -- taking care of business -- and then essentially jumping her on the bed -- making passionate love etc etc. No offense to other persuasions, but that's the sort of innate reflex that made Connery's Bond so much fun. You could see that desire simmer below the surface. So much of Connery's appeal was subtext. With all due respect for PB, that's been missing for some time and imo its an essential feature of the cinematic incarnation. If they are going to find a new Bond, then let them find one like Sean...with big hairy bezants.

[Daltonfan]

I looked up all the alleged candidates to see what their action and acting credentials are like.

It's really hard to work out about the action - I was looking at the type of films and the biographical notes to see if there was anything about sporting activities.

Adrian Paul - originally a dancer and there's mention of martial arts training. I assume that Highlander involved action. Seems safe to assume he'd be good with the action.

Ioan Gruffudd - said he used to play rugby. Hornblower probably involved some action, King Arthur even moreso. No idea if he's any good at it, but he looks reasonably fit and is young enough to improve.

Clive Owen - his roles look farily active without necessarily being "action". Interesting to see what he's like in King Arthur.

Colin Firth - I can't see anything that looks remotely like action in his list of films. My impression is that he's a bit "soft" looking. Possibly a bit old to start training as an action man.

Hugh Jackman - sporty with recent action film experience.

As a byproduct, I found out that Adrian Paul is the only one without formal theatrical training. He got into acting via dance and modelling. Clive Owen and Ioan Gruffudd both trained at RADA in London, Hugh Jackman at WAAPA in Perth, Australia and Colin Firth at the Chalk Farm Drama Centre in London.

Edited by Daltonfan, 11 June 2004 - 10:41 AM.

[Slaezenger]

I looked up all the alleged candidates to see what their action and acting credentials are like. It's really hard to work out about the action - I was looking at the type of films and the biographical notes to see if there was anything about sporting activities.

Adrian Paul - originally a dancer and there's mention of martial arts training. I assume that Highlander involved action. Seems safe to assume he'd be good with the action.  <snip>. As a byproduct, I found out that Adrian Paul is the only one without formal theatrical training. He got into acting via dance and modelling. Clive Owen and Ioan Gruffudd both trained at RADA in London, Hugh Jackman at WAAPA in Perth, Australia and Colin Firth at the Chalk Farm Drama Centre in London.

...There are credentials -- and then there are qualities which make one right for a part. All of these actors have certain credentials, but that does not somehow make them right for the part of Bond. There is (or should be) more to Bond than dimples, an impassive or pissed off expression, and black moused hair. The actor who can extend his range beyond the shallow stereotype should be given the greatest consideration.

Bond is also more than an "action hero." He is (or was) also a rake and pickup artist, and a detective, receiving M's orders, following a case from scratch, uncovering the pieces. An action hero merely needs to pull a trigger, squint his eyes, grit his teeth (and in some cases swing on a vine). Whereas a detective helps uncover the plot for the audience, and this requires a modicum of acting skill. Connery's Bond could frequently be seen reflecting and weighing events in his mind, trying to put the pieces together. There are (or should be) many layers to Bond. How many of them turn up on screen depends on the skill and innate qualities of the actor.

The presence or lack of theatrical training doesn't guarantee or prohibit success. Both Paul and Connery lacked it -- yet Paul hasn't begun to achieve what Connery did. What Connery lacked in formal training he created for himself, devouring Proust & Herzog, learning movement skills from Malmgeren, etc. Yet there were other factors. In 62, he was raw, ambitious, and oozing with testosterone. These are the qualities that helped put him on the map, and they have nothing to do with the RADA.

At the end of the day, its the personal qualities that will make or break an actor in the part. If one is looking for an action hero alone, any 30 something with black hair and a smirk will do. But imo that's not enough for Bond. If, on the other hand, that is all Bond is in the producer's minds -- then Bond is finished, dead. Time to hang up the Berns Martin triple draw...

[Seannery]

Slaezinger, I like your analysis. I agree Bond is not just a mere action hero. But I do believe that action chops is one important element needed among many--much of which you listed. So I think the more an actor has this quality, the better.

I also agree Connery can't be touched and probably never will be. Essentially he was the perfect Bond. So we need a strong replacement while realizing we won't reach that perfection again. I thought both Moore and Brosnan were fine in that respect--I think there are a number of potential Bonds that can reach that level including the 5 candidates though i'm not 100% sure about Firth.

I just think that there are more than a few actors that can handle Bond substantially like you want and fully not just act Bond, but be Bond.

[Loomis]

Jackman is not completely gay, you fool.

Not completely gay? Just a little bit gay? How much gay? "Some" gay? Interesting concept.

It's probably like being "only partly dead".

Surely it's possible to be "not completely gay" - in other words, to be bisexual?

[Slaezenger]

[quote name='Seannery' date='11 June 2004 - 18:40']Slaezinger, I like your analysis.

Edited by Slaezenger, 12 June 2004 - 06:29 AM.

[Loomis]

Sorry, folks, but we may as well forget Firth, Paul and all the rest. There are only THREE viable candidates to play 007 in BOND 21.

In both alphabetical order and approximate order of likelihood, those candidates are:

1. PIERCE BROSNAN

2. HUGH JACKMAN

3. CLIVE OWEN

That's it.

[Qwerty]

Sorry, folks, but we may as well forget Firth, Paul and all the rest. There are only THREE viable candidates to play 007 in BOND 21.

In both alphabetical order and approximate order of likelihood, those candidates are:

1. PIERCE BROSNAN

2. HUGH JACKMAN

3. CLIVE OWEN

That's it.

That'd be my list of preference also, in that order.

[Seannery]

Loomis I disagree. There are definitely more than just three actors who can play Bond! I also highly rank Jackman and Brosnan, but of the candidates I would put Adrian Paul and Ioan Gruffudd at least as high if not higher--also I would rate them higher than Owen. Owen would be solid but is too one dimensionally dark ala Dalton. There are other candidates who are not finalists who could also play Bond if given a chance Loomis. I respectfully suggest to open your mind and imagination to see Bond can be portrayed from various angles effectively.

[Loomis]

There are other candidates who are not finalists who could also play Bond if given a chance Loomis.

I agree with that, but, still, I don't see that there are more than three "bankable" candidates: Brosnan, Jackman and Owen. Would MGM entrust, say, Adrian Paul to carry a $200 million blockbuster? I really don't think so. In fact, I have strong doubts as to whether Owen would be seen as sufficiently bankable for Bond, so there may in fact be only two bankable candidates: Brosnan and Jackman.

Could Paul play Bond? Almost certainly. Could Orlando Bloom? Yeah, I'm sure he could take a good stab it. Plenty of actors could make a decent fist of it, but I really do feel that The Powers That Be are no longer into taking risks. Neither Lazenby nor Dalton would get a chance today. And perhaps even Brosnan, if he were just starting out, would be seen as too much of a gamble (look at his profile and box office track record prior to GOLDENEYE).

[Seannery]

I just don't buy the "bankable theory" that Moomoo most forcibly proposes. History shows that the producers have never once chosen a bankable star actor for Bond. In fact they have through time from Cubby to today have stated that Bond is the star not the actor and that has worked wonderfully in box office terms for them--what other series has flourished for so long?

They have always looked for the best fit for Bond and when it clicked--Connery, Moore, Brosnan--the series brought in the bucks. That is what they are doing now, looking for the best fit in order to continue the success and a box office star has never been necessary. And to argue the times have changed, I don't buy. Bond once it fully gained steam has always been big budget movie making--inflation adjusted those budgets were big. The budgets adjusted for inflation may be slightly larger today, but not that much so that they now all of the sudden need a bankable star. Bond will do fine to say the least if they hire the right fitted actor. Pierce proved this again in the modern era--there is no appreciable difference between 1995 and today. And Goldeneye was hugh worldwide with an unproven yet well fitted new Bond.

[Seannery]

Slaezenger while we disagree on the amount of actors who can play Bond on all levels, I do agree with your deeper point. The writing has been faulty and has missed giving the actors the full range of the Bond character. Especially the humor and irony that you mentioned that the movies created that improved and added another level to the original Ian Fleming creation. Since Dalton there has been too much Fleming "novel purity" perhaps in too wild of a swing from some of the excesses of the Roger Moore period.

[Slaezenger]

Slaezenger while we disagree on the amount of actors who can play Bond on all levels, I do agree with your deeper point. The writing has been faulty and has missed giving the actors the full range of the Bond character. Especially the humor and irony that you mentioned that the movies created that improved and added another level to the original Ian Fleming creation. Since Dalton there has been too much Fleming "novel purity" perhaps in too wild of a swing from some of the excesses of the Roger Moore period.

...Seannery, I agree with your astute observations about the series, and with your fair observations about the prospects for actors who can play the part.

As for the focus of this thread, and Loomis's point, about the short list, its a given that Brosnan heads the list. However, it's probably a mistake to assume that all of the buzz we have heard about Jackman and Owen come from exclusively from Eon, and not agents or PR Flack for the actors being rumored. Everytime a new Bond comes around, the media carries stories about this actor or that actress who think they'll be the new bond, new villain, new leading lady, etc etc. I recall watching this sort of blurb about Adrian Paul back in the mid-80s -- and I seriously doubt it was being floated out loud by Eon as a trial balloon. Eon usually plays its cards quite close the vest -- we'll find out after the MGM deal is nailed down and the power brokers make their decision.

As for the bakability argument, that would best apply to a proven actor like Brosnan -- who has a track record. This is the same Eon that cast Wayne Newton, Priscilla Barnes, et al in LTK -- hardly "bankable" names in the A list sense. And Tim Daltonw as hardly a huge draw when he was hired.


Slaezenger