325 replies to this topic

[Jim]

The pleasure is all mine.

[freemo]

Yep. Fine. He'll do. Sign him up and let's get this thing started already.

[SPECTRE ASSASSIN]

Your kidding, right?

[Jim]

I can understand the sentiment - let's just get on and have some more Bond, whoever it is - Brosnan, Paul, Owen, whoever. James Bond is the key thing, not who plays him and if casting n rather than z will lead to more Bond quicker, then that's the way to go.

[Four Aces]

...Mr Joe Average would probably pick George Clooney or Brad Pitt if given free rein...

Yikes! That would be awful!

Lazenby was not any good IMHO, and Brosnan is marginal IMHO.

I think Adrian Paul would be a good choice. He is a good actor. I have the entire Highlander series, and enjoy the shows as well as my Bond DVDs. Since he is not as well known as the others, this makes him even a better candidate.

P.S. About the youth thing: AP works out regularly, in fact he is a very serious martial artist, and a fanatic about his health regime. The main problem with the youth issue is that these actors tend to get fat as they age because they do not keep up a healthy regime. In addition, AP is half Italian. The olive tint, as with most Mediterranean types, tends to keep them looking younger for longer since the skin doesn't become as leathery with age.

4A

Edited by Four Aces, 28 June 2004 - 11:55 AM.

[IndyB007]

I would very much like to see Adrian Paul as the next 007.....
(I think I've said this before somewhere?)

[Jim]

P.S. About the youth thing:  AP works out regularly, in fact he is a very serious martial artist, and a fanatic about his health regime.  The main problem with the youth issue is that these actors tend to get fat as they age because they do not keep up a healthy regime.  In addition, AP is half Italian.  The olive tint, as with most Mediterranean types, tends to keep them looking younger for longer since the skin doesn't become as leathery with age.

4A

I was wondering if he wasn't British.

There would be uproar in the UK, you know. I know we've had non-British Bonds before, twice, but...

You might be right about the athleticism but I genuinely believe the appearance and background will count against him. I'm not joking. For what it's worth, he reminds me of my wife's best friend's husband. They live in Naples.

[IndyB007]

Sure he's British... born in London in 1959... his mother was italian and his father british.... or was it the other way around?

There's seems to be too much emphasis on so and so is too old to play this part or that part. Bond is not in his twenties and should stay far away from the xxx kind of film..... If Harrison Ford wants to play Indiana Jones again, let him.. he's not too old.... the same goes for Mel Gibson as Mad Max.... What is this preoccupation with so and so being too old these days?

[Jim]

Sure he's British... born in London in 1959... his mother was italian and his father british.... or was it the other way around?

Fair point that. But I fear, if he is chosen, the phrase that seems to be all too prevalent about here these days (and used of me in the past) : it can be born in a stable but that doesn't make it a horse.

Seriously; if he is chosen, they're going to have to do some work to convince the more vocal elements of our press to support him.

[Glor (009)]

If they cast the Highlander as Bond can we get Xena as the Bond Girl? I guess it's not a lot different than Remington Steele except that Pierce had done TV AND Movies and Steele was on a real network, not syndication.

The Highlander was an all right show but unless Paul has picked up serious acting skills since then, we are going to be in for a major dissapointment. I haven't been holding my breath waiting for JB to behead someone or have a Samurai sword fight.

[IndyB007]

Fair point that. But I fear, if he is chosen, the phrase that seems to be all too prevalent about here these days (and used of me in the past) : it can be born in a stable but that doesn't make it a horse.

Seriously; if he is chosen, they're going to have to do some work to convince the more vocal elements of our press to support him.

I see what you're saying... but I think it would take a lot of work to convince a lot of people to support the next actor to play Bond, whoever he is.....

I like AP, but then again, he is not the greatest actor out there. I thought he did a great job in Highlander.... he started off rather slowly in the first season or so, but he made the role his as the series progressed.

But then again, the role of 007 is not that demanding of a role either (prolly as demanding of a character as The Highlander); granted I don't want to see a Ben Afflek type to play 007.... that just would not be a wise move imo.

[Loomis]

[quote name='Seannery' date='28 June 2004 - 00:54'] [quote name='Loomis' date='27 June 2004 - 23:29'] [quote name='Agent76' date='27 June 2004 - 22:19'] [quote name='Loomis' date='27 June 2004 - 20:49']
[/QUOTE]
Leave it to the professionals. [/QUOTE]
which are you talking about? Eon? cough..cough... or perhaps P & W? [/QUOTE]


END OF AGENT 76, NOW TO LOOMIS:


Well, Eon. Yes. They've picked five Bonds so far, and they've always chosen well (even the much-maligned Lazenby is now getting his due recognition as a decent choice, albeit one who could never win since Connery cast such a long shadow at the time).

As for these surveys, well, they're ten a penny. In the UK, Robbie Williams ends up winning most of 'em. Or some "EastEnders" star. They're worthless. As for the idea that this may be a PR stunt to warm people up to the already-cast (in secret) Adrian Paul, I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. No way will Paul ever be Bond. [/QUOTE]


END OF LOOMIS QUOTE, BEGINNING OF RESPONSE:


Loomis I like your passion though we rarely agree . Your end statement that Paul will never be Bond may very well be famous last words . I have seen much of the major "serious" polls across the pond and Robbie Williams and other non-entities have not been winning "those" polls--usually it has been Jackman, Owen, Bloom and even Firth. Parade Magazine is a well established national publication, not one of those rinky dink limited publications that occasionally throw out a non-serious Bond poll. This polled all through the USA.

I agree Eon has generally done a good job picking Bonds though not perfect. Lazenby couldn't carry the box office and a bunch of people still say he couldn't act. Dalton was solid but not perfectly cast and his box office was inconsistent. The other three worked out fine of course. And Eon would be wise to take into account general audience support as at least one factor in their Bond decision. They did that with Pierce as he was winning many polls in 1994. So Adrian Paul winning that nation-wide poll is significant and shows a lot of people disagree with your negative view of him as I also do. They need to find who fits Bond best and also who the audience buys as Bond. And i'm sure that is what they are going to do and that bodes well for Adrian Paul. [/QUOTE]

In many ways, Paul does indeed fit the profile of a new Bond actor (well, the post-Lazenby and post-Connery-in-DAF profile, anyway): over 40, talked about as a potential 007 for years, not too famous, and not expensive).

But I think casting him would be a huge mistake.

Why? Well, frankly, he just screams "cut-price Brosnan" to me. Okay, let's assume MGM/Eon don't want to pay $20 million+ to Brosnan for BOND 21. Fair enough. But if they picked up Paul for $2-4 million, they'd look decidedly cheapskate. It would send a message of sheer desperation: "Bond on a budget". I think audiences should expect better. MGM/Eon can afford better, and ought to get better.

I know Paul's a remarkable chap: fluent in a number of languages, an expert in martial arts, and so on, but, face it, he's not exactly got a lot of kudos as an actor. Also, despite his name being banded about in the past as a possible Bond, he hasn't caused much of a stir in Bond fan circles in recent years. How many "Paul as Bond #6?" have there been on CBn over the past couple of years? And how many threads discussing Jackman and Owen? I mean, I know it's not up to us fans to decide the next guy - it's up to MGM/Eon; but giving Paul the gig would look like doing things on as much of a shoestring as possible.

I know Jackman would be very expensive (perhaps nearly as expensive as Brosnan; possible even costlier, I don't know), since he's a very hot property right now; and even Owen would probably cost quite a bit, since he's about to star in KING ARTHUR and has been getting a lot of recognition and acclaim over the past few years.

But Jackman and Owen would both, in their very different ways, be worth the extra cash. I can picture both of them putting a unique spin on the Bond role that would generate a lot of interest in BOND 21. All I see in Paul is a poor man's Pierce, and I'm sure he'd be widely derided as such. I'm not a huge Brosnan fan, but I'd never deny that he was a very popular Bond and will be a hard act to follow. A Jackman or Owen is needed at this point - an established screen actor with a lot of presence and a fair-sized following, to hold his own against the long shadow cast by Brosnan. No matter how well he did (and I'm sure he's capable of going through the motions and giving a reasonably okay performance as 007 - but is that enough?), Paul would be viewed as the Lazenby to Brosnan's Connery.

freemo's view is: "Yep. Fine. He'll do." Possibly. But do we really seek nothing more than someone who'll "do"? Personally, I want another distinctive Bond actor who'll take the role by the scruff of the neck and write himself into the film history books the way Connery, Moore, Brosnan and even the shortlived Dalton did. I want another powerful personality, not just a common-or-garden TV star who'll show up and give us join-the-dots-James-Bond.

[zencat]

Another "story" about who will be the next Bond with Adrian Paul promoted heavily. This is getting interesting. Seems like someone is trying to get us accustomed to the idea of Paul as Bond (although I suspect it's Paul's PR company and not MGM).

http://www.ruggedele...m/a/002906.html

[Loomis]

Might just be Paul's agent drumming up a bit of publicity for his client. I seriously doubt that he's really the new James Bond. I still have enough faith in MGM/Eon - just - to feel that they'll go for someone better (and even someone like Orlando Bloom would, IMO, be better).

If they don't.... well, I think the series may come seriously unstuck. Despite what Hollywood may think, audiences aren't stupid - they know when they're being, as us Brits say, fobbed off. Yes, Paul would be cheap, and I'm sure he'd jump at the chance to play Bond....

....but what about us?

[Seannery]

Might just be Paul's agent drumming up a bit of publicity for his client. I seriously doubt that he's really the new James Bond. I still have enough faith in MGM/Eon - just - to feel that they'll go for someone better (and even someone like Orlando Bloom would, IMO, be better).

If they don't.... well, I think the series may come seriously unstuck. Despite what Hollywood may think, audiences aren't stupid - they know when they're being, as us Brits say, fobbed off. Yes, Paul would be cheap, and I'm sure he'd jump at the chance to play Bond....

....but what about us?

Loomis I believe you are becoming a tad little hysterical--just a tad! First the Parade poll was a nation-wide poll by a reputable magazine--not a PR stunt at all. Bond has always been the star never the actors--not one Bond was big before Bond. Adrian Paul had a very successful 6 year syndicated run with Highlander, its DVDS just came out giving more exposure and Highlander as I have mentioned elsewhere is now being shown in the USA 3 times a week on SPIKE TV which interestingly also the new home of Bond in the USA! Hmmmm......Coincidence or destiny

Anyway his fame is equivalent to the other Bond actors pre-Bond. Roger and Pierce were the most famous of the lot and their tv hits were modest just like Highlander. A bunch of people ala the nation-wide poll see him as the top choice and the best fit--that is what they see not a cheap bargain. Acting-wise I see him as very underrated--he was fine in Highlander rising above sometimes spotty writing and support. In that way he reminds me of Pierce in Remington much.

[Loomis]

As I've admitted: "In many ways, Paul does indeed fit the profile of a new Bond actor (well, the post-Lazenby and post-Connery-in-DAF profile, anyway): over 40, talked about as a potential 007 for years, not too famous, and not expensive)." In fact, he fits the profile a lot more than Owen, and a heck of a lot more than Jackman (if Jackman were to land the Bond role, he'd be easily the most famous and wealthy actor ever to do so).

But just because Paul fits the profile a lot more comfortably than Jackman, Owen and others, it doesn't mean that he's the best choice, and certainly not the best choice to follow Brosnan at a time when the series is enjoying a tremendous flush of success (as compared to the dark days of Dalton - dark days at the box office, I mean). Paul's at a similar level of fame and fortune to Brosnan's when he was signed for GOLDENEYE, but after a six-year break and the unpopular Dalton era audiences were ready for just about anyone as Bond. Today, however, I believe MGM/Eon are in a position where they must spend money on a reasonably popular and well-respected actor in order to fill the void created by the departure of Brosnan, their "Billion Dollar Bond" and a 007 to rival Connery and Moore in popularity. Paul's got too much of the stench of the bargain bin about him. Fine, he may have "Highlander" fans on his side, and he may have won some rinky-dink poll (the voting slips for which were doubtless mostly filled in mindlessly by retired people with time on their hands), but, seriously, just stop and think for a second: if you were the head of MGM, would you approve the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars in a series of blockbusters starring Adrian Paul?

[IndyB007]

Orlando Bloom?
You must be joking!

[Qwerty]

Might just be Paul's agent drumming up a bit of publicity for his client. I seriously doubt that he's really the new James Bond. I still have enough faith in MGM/Eon - just - to feel that they'll go for someone better (and even someone like Orlando Bloom would, IMO, be better).

There does seem to be alot of talking about him lately. However, h'd still be better than Bloom, IMO.

[Loomis]

Orlando Bloom?
You must be joking!

No. I think he'd be better than Paul. I'd rather see "20-something Young James Bond" than a cheapskate Brosnan copy.

[Seannery]

Well Loomis it looks like we will have to disagree strongly in two concurrent threads. I respect your opinion, but don't see it your way at all. Part of the crux is I don't buy all of a suddenly we need a star for Bond to succeed. Everyone was saying Bond was dead before Goldeneye--it was definitely not a sure thing. It succeeded because they cast someone who fit Bond--that's the key. And I think Paul fits in the same way and for that matter so does Jackman. The real crux is we disagree on if he fits or not. Fair enough. But if he is big enough star, to me that is really irrelevant. The poll shows a lot of support of Paul's fitness for Bond and I don't see an easy dismissal of a nation-wide poll or the denigration of those who voted as valid.

[IndyB007]

No. I think he'd be better than Paul. I'd rather see "20-something Young James Bond" than a cheapskate Brosnan copy.

To each his own; but IMO, casting Orlando Bloom as the "let's cash in on the twenty something, teen market, and XXX market" 007 would be like casting Frankie Muniz as Bond. A total disaster that would have the potential of ending the 007 series as we like it.

[Qwerty]

No. I think he'd be better than Paul. I'd rather see "20-something Young James Bond" than a cheapskate Brosnan copy.

To each his own; but IMO, casting Orlando Bloom as the "let's cash in on the twenty something, teen market, and XXX market" 007 would be like casting Frankie Muniz as Bond. A total disaster that would have the potential of ending the 007 series as we like it.

Agreed. Making a move like that, in my opinion, would only crash the Bond films into the ground even further. The public has the xXx and Frankie Muniz ripoffs, no need for that sort to be coming into the Bond films.

[Loomis]

Just a little "one-stop" opinion poll here.

I say:

No.

[Tanger]

No.

[Qwerty]

There you are Loomis.

I vote No.

[Jim]

Yes

[Bryce (003)]

If not Pierce, I'd prefer Jackman.

But....

Adrian would be OK by me. Just my humble opinion.

What's his opinion?

[IndyB007]

What's his opinion?

Good question..... I wonder what Adrian Paul thinks of all this????

But, anyway.... I vote Yes.

[Loomis]

Just to add: this is not a referendum on whether you want Brosnan to stay or go, or whether you think Jackman/Owen/someone else would be better than Paul. The question is really: do you think he'd be a decent Bond? Forget (if possible) everyone else.

Pretend it's a few days from now and it's been officially announced that Paul is the new Bond. Would you accept him?

[Martin Mystery]

No No No...NO!