93 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Most CBNers couldn't find ten SERIOUS candidates they'd want to see in the role, surely?

*Picks up gauntlet*

Christian Bale

Orlando Bloom

Marton Csokas

Jack Davenport

Hugh Grant

Ioan Gruffudd

Hugh Jackman

Clive Owen

James Purefoy

Karl Urban.

Now, not every single last one of those guys would be ideal, of course, but I guess I could accept any of them as Bond (a couple of them at a bit of a push).

[David Schofield]

Most CBNers couldn't find ten SERIOUS candidates they'd want to see in the role, surely?

*Picks up gauntlet*

Christian Bale

Orlando Bloom

Marton Csokas

Jack Davenport

Hugh Grant

Ioan Gruffudd

Hugh Jackman

Clive Owen

James Purefoy

Karl Urban.

Now, not every single last one of those guys would be ideal, of course, but I guess I could accept any of them as Bond (a couple of them at a bit of a push).

Not heard of some of those guys, Loomis, but my max list would be -

Davenport
Grant
Jackman
Owen

Plus my no 3 choice (after Owen and Jackman), Clive Robertson.

And that's your lot. Sorry, CBners, to be so unimiginative.

[Seannery]

Most CBNers couldn't find ten SERIOUS candidates they'd want to see in the role, surely?

*Picks up gauntlet*

Christian Bale

Orlando Bloom

Marton Csokas

Jack Davenport

Hugh Grant

Ioan Gruffudd

Hugh Jackman

Clive Owen

James Purefoy

Karl Urban.

Now, not every single last one of those guys would be ideal, of course, but I guess I could accept any of them as Bond (a couple of them at a bit of a push).

Not heard of some of those guys, Loomis, but my max list would be -

Davenport
Grant
Jackman
Owen

Plus my no 3 choice (after Owen and Jackman), Clive Robertson.

And that's your lot. Sorry, CBners, to be so unimiginative.

Sorry but is just your opinion. You have absolutely have no idea what Michael and Babs think on this. For example just because you praise Owen doesn't mean they are obligated too.

[David Schofield]

Seannery/Baril, I agree I have no insight into what might be in Babs and Mickey's mind other than the facts I have listed which leads me to conclude what I think they are thinking. However, if you can have Owen, (which EON can) you go get Owen. It seems logical to me and I'm sure it does to them.

I am convinced by the Owen argument. Fans who do not want Owen will, presumably, prefer not to accept it. Fair enough. All I say is wait until Owen is announced and then acknowlege the evidence was there all the time

Edited by David Schofield, 18 April 2005 - 01:40 PM.

[Seannery]

Seannery/Baril, I agree I have no insight into what might be in Babs and Mickey's mind other than the facts I have listed which leads me to conclude what I think they are thinking. However, if you can have Owen, (which EON can) you go get Owen. It seems logical to me and I'm sure it does to them.

I am convinced by the Owen argument. Fans who do not want Owen will, presumably, prefer not to accept it. Fair enough. All I say is wait until Owen is announced and then acknowlege the evidence was there all the time

Okay fair enough you like Owen and you like your Owen argument. I just think it presumes too much and has assumptions/guesses which are very debatable. I agree that in the end we shall see. My odds on Owen being Bond(and this is my objective view regardless if I want him to be Bond) is a 5% chance and i'm being generous.

[spynovelfan]

Ten people I think might well get the job:

Clive Owen
Julian McMahon
Dougray Scott
James Purefoy
Ioan Gruffudd
Jeremy Northam
Gerard Butler
Rupert Penry-Jones
Hugh Dancy
Lloyd Owen

Yeah, it wasn't that easy. I really don't think there's any chance of Colin Farrell, Hugh Jackman, Adrian Paul, etc, being asked. For various reasons of my own. I certainly don't think it's going to be Brosnan. Sure, they could always change their mind - but Brozzers looks more like an ex-Bond physically with every month that passes. I can't see him coming back now.

[Loomis]

My odds on Owen being Bond(and this is my objective view regardless if I want him to be Bond) is a 5% chance and i'm being generous.

What are your odds on Adrian Paul?

I'd say Owen has a 30% chance.

[Baril]

However, if you can have Owen, (which EON can) you go get Owen.

That's exactly where I disagree . That's just your personal opinion. Mine is "if you can have Jackman (which EON can, or could at some point), you go get Jackman", but apparently that's not what they think. What seems obvious to you or me doesn't necessarily seem obvious to them.
Maybe you're right and Owen will get the part, but I don't think the evidence was there all the time.

[Seannery]

My odds on Owen being Bond(and this is my objective view regardless if I want him to be Bond) is a 5% chance and i'm being generous.

What are your odds on Adrian Paul?

I'd say Owen has a 30% chance.

Actually Loomis I think any one person AT THIS POINT has low odds. I don't see anyone who has a big percentage. Purely as a guess I would say the favorite to get Bond because how his profile fits Eon's pattern would unfortunately be Julian McMahon with say 15%. If I had money on it that is where it would be.

[SeanValen00V]

Christian Bale, fantastic Bond that was Batman, when you watch Batman Begins in the summer, you'll be thinking he could of been a great Bond, I still think they should get him, and be Bond and Batman, despite the problems in doing that.

[Aussie21]

Christian Bale, fantastic Bond that was Batman, when you watch Batman Begins in the summer, you'll be thinking he could of been a great Bond, I still think they should get him, and be Bond and Batman, despite the problems in doing that.

Hmm, I liked Christian Bale in American Psycho, but I don't know if he could pull off Bond. To be honest, I don't know if he can pull of Batman. I'll have to wait until the movie comes out to judge.

Edited by Aussie21, 18 April 2005 - 05:50 PM.

[Forever007]

Owen this Owen that. It seems one of the more obvious facts stated clearly by Martin Campbell is being overlooked. He said that CR will be Bond's very first mission that morphs him into the super spy will all know and love today. Does that sound like a 42 year old (Owen in 2006)? Or any other actor for that matter in or close to his 40s.

Funny we have numerous reports and responses from every actor under the sun, except one, Ioan Gruffudd (31). Timothy Dalton thinks Gruffudd is the best choice for someone who would grow into the role. AND Dalton is still close to EON's producers. Just food for thought.

Edited by Forever007, 18 April 2005 - 06:08 PM.

[Forever007]

Regardless, my main point is that we all sem to be focusing for a new Bond in the wrong age category.

[Pussfeller]

Forever007, most of us have come to the conclusion by now that Campbell's "prequel" comment was a red herring. They've asked Judi Dench back, which strongly suggests that they've given up on the reboot idea.

[zencat]

Forever007, most of us have come to the conclusion by now that Campbell's "prequel" comment was a red herring. They've asked Judi Dench back, which strongly suggests that they've given up on the reboot idea.

Oh, I wouldn't to quick to jump to that conclusion. Yes, the Dench thing makes it weird, but from what I understnd the reboot is still the plan. The selection of the new Bond will really tell the tale. If he's a young Bond, then the reboot is still in play. Forty-something Bond, they've junked the idea.

[MrDraco]

this is actually one of the most interesting bond waits ever, i mean the age of technology has created a tool that can be a burden and still good for something, this is Bond History my friends we are witnessing and sharing information VIA the internet about the Next Bond, its still insane though that brosnan is offically out, i always thought they were pulling everyones leg and he would return, but i guess thats gonna leave us with owen? i like owen and i think he'd make a good bond, i was a bit skeptical of him when his name first came up, i had only seen him in the Bourne Idenity so i was like what was the big deal until i saw some of the work he did on the BMW stuff, nice nice he could truely pull it off, lets hope that EON doesnt pick a teeny bopper who does a flop and we end up having to pick up all the pieces for Bond22...

P.S my computers been down for a while so i got a laptop, this thing is sweet....Bonding out the anywhere i go....haha the age of technology

[Lord Kemsley]

[quote]

[Bondian]

A very warm welcome to CBn Lord Kemsley, and what a cracking first post that is.

I agree with most of your post, but being older than God, I cannot remember what I wanted to add to it.

"I can see you're going to fit in here quite nicely!".

All the best,

Cheers,


Ian

[tdalton]

First of all, welcome to CBn, Lord Kemsley.

I do have to agree with you about the fact that EON is dragging their feet somewhat on getting Casino Royale into production, but perhaps this could be a good thing. After the monstrocity that was Die Another Day, maybe EON is taking this time to rethink where they want to go with the franchise, and I would say that any direction that takes us away from the style of DAD is a good direction to take. I do hope, however, that they do not go through with this reboot idea. It's just a bad idea and I don't know how it has lasted as a sanctioned idea within the EON offices this long.

Hopefully they get things going pretty soon, but I'm starting to think that the film may be slipping into trouble. Who knows how long it's going to take Martin Campbell to get to work on the film and then who knows how much longer we're going to have to wait to find out who Bond is. Then, after that, we've got to wait on the rest of the casting of the film as well as changes to the script to accomodate for whoever becomes the new Bond. I'm starting to think that this thing is going to get pushed back into 2007 (possibly even to that rumored release date of 7/7/2007) because of the apparent lack of organization and the apparent lack of a clear and decisive direction that Brocolli and Wilson want to take the franchise in.

I think that all the delay in getting this film ready to go is reason enough why Pierce shouldn't be back. If we went through all this delay and then the two year search for a new 007, only to end up right back where we started, then it would be at least 2 years wasted. On top of that, we would be faced with yet ANOTHER search coming up after the release of Casino Royale, which by judging from how this search has gone, would not be a good thing at all for the franchise.

EON however, had better get their act together soon, though. I know that the amount of time that they're taking is a good thing, but sometimes it does seem like wasted time. Maybe a director should have been hired who could have come in earlier to work on preproduction so that they could be filming already. I don't know what directors' schedules are, but maybe going back to Michael Apted for another film or even going back to John Glen wouldn't be a bad idea, as they surely would have been able to get into the studio to start working on this film much earlier than Campbell has proved to be able to thus far.

Hopefully, though, we'll get some word from EON soon.

[Bondian]

Yeah, that was it.

Good post tdalton.

First of all, welcome to CBn, Lord Kemsley.

I do have to agree with you about the fact that EON is dragging their feet somewhat on getting Casino Royale into production, but perhaps this could be a good thing.  After the monstrocity that was Die Another Day, maybe EON is taking this time to rethink where they want to go with the franchise, and I would say that any direction that takes us away from the style of DAD is a good direction to take.  I do hope, however, that they do not go through with this reboot idea.  It's just a bad idea and I don't know how it has lasted as a sanctioned idea within the EON offices this long.

Hopefully they get things going pretty soon, but I'm starting to think that the film may be slipping into trouble.  Who knows how long it's going to take Martin Campbell to get to work on the film and then who knows how much longer we're going to have to wait to find out who Bond is.  Then, after that, we've got to wait on the rest of the casting of the film as well as changes to the script to accomodate for whoever becomes the new Bond.  I'm starting to think that this thing is going to get pushed back into 2007 (possibly even to that rumored release date of 7/7/2007) because of the apparent lack of organization and the apparent lack of a clear and decisive direction that Brocolli and Wilson want to take the franchise in.

I think that all the delay in getting this film ready to go is reason enough why Pierce shouldn't be back.  If we went through all this delay and then the two year search for a new 007, only to end up right back where we started, then it would be at least 2 years wasted.  On top of that, we would be faced with yet ANOTHER search coming up after the release of Casino Royale, which by judging from how this search has gone, would not be a good thing at all for the franchise.

EON however, had better get their act together soon, though.  I know that the amount of time that they're taking is a good thing, but sometimes it does seem like wasted time.  Maybe a director should have been hired who could have come in earlier to work on preproduction so that they could be filming already.  I don't know what directors' schedules are, but maybe going back to Michael Apted for another film or even going back to John Glen wouldn't be a bad idea, as they surely would have been able to get into the studio to start working on this film much earlier than Campbell has proved to be able to thus far.

Hopefully, though, we'll get some word from EON soon.

[Loomis]

[quote name='Lord Kemsley' date='28 April 2005 - 05:05'][quote]

[David Schofield]

[quote name='Loomis' date='28 April 2005 - 11:18'][quote name='Lord Kemsley' date='28 April 2005 - 05:05'][quote]

[Loomis]

1. Let's assume everyone approached by Sony/Eon that they would accept in the role HAVE turned the part down. Sony/EON could scrap the project but to what end? Sony lose a cash-cow and one the momentum of regular Bond's is lost, could EON ever restart the series? IMO, you go back and say OK, how do we get Clive Owen to sign?

The success of GOLDENEYE after a six-and-a-half-year break proves that Eon can indeed revive the series once the momentum of regular Bonds is lost. Scrapping CASINO ROYALE would not mean scrapping James Bond. I believe the third Dalton film that was supposed to hit screens in 1991 went into pre-production and was (very quietly and away from the public/internet gaze) cancelled - there was even an ad for it at Cannes. Assuming there's simply no agreement on a suitable Bond actor at this time, putting CR (BOND 21) on the backburner for two, three or even four or more years might seem an attractive option, giving all concerned plenty of time to find a really suitable 007 and work on relaunching the series with a real bang, a la GOLDENEYE. After all, whatever happens, audiences won't forget about James Bond - they'll always be there to welcome him back whenever he happens to turn up again.

2. You have Brozza up your sleeve and he is prepared to return. You may make a lot of cash or end up with the kind of criticism you have for ATAK. AND you are delaying the inevtable recasting only by a couple of years. Do you do this because you hope Brozza MIGHT just get away with it this time and that a new actor who WOULD do the role MIGHT emerge in the next few years? You have made successful Bond films for more than 43 years: what do you do? You say OK, how do we get Clive Owen to sign?

Seems to add weight to the argument for scrapping/postponing the film, that.

[David Schofield]

Chimera, even though I don't believe Owen's schedule would rule him out for 2006, what you do is you ENSURE you work round it.

Loomis, true between LTK and GE there was a lot of goodwill bringing Bond back. However, if Bond is sufficiently less relevant in 2005 (to make no star want the part that is acceptable to Sony/EON and that Sony/EON should need to, as you suggest, scrap the project at this time) what makes anyone think Bond would have the appeal to both star and consumer in, say, 2008?

On your second point about scrapping the series if all you've got is Brozza, I think that's to take the negative option. As I've said, EON have been making very successful movies for 42+ years, why chuck the towel in now just because its not quite so easy to sign the actor you want. I'm sure EON have been through worse. You get Owen round the table and say look, "what's it take to do this deal, Clive, or do you REALLY fancy becoming the new Jude Law". And Clive thinks, "Mm, fair point. I could do this Bond gig for a couple of movies (might do more, might not), get my name REALLY up in lights, make some artistic films in the meantime... Where do I sign?"

[David Schofield]

Well in my book Brosnan was one of Daddy Broccoli's choices and his choices have been golden so far.

Now that responsibility rests upon the shoulders of B & M, and I am not sure if they have the good taste their dad had. Picking a new Bond might just be too hard on them.

Sort of running the family business into the ground, eh?

Oh ye of little faith!

[Pussfeller]

Well, I can't imagine them cancelling or postponing CR, even if there are major problems with casting. Back in 1991, that sort of thing was a simpler--and much more private--matter. Now, with the ubiquity of Internet sites like this one, not to mention the hype surrounding this particular film, I doubt it would go over as smoothly or quietly. I don't see any advantage in postponing it.

They DEFINITELY made the right decision to drop Pierce. He's overpaid, overrated, and he was past his prime by TWINE. I can't see why he (allegedly) has such a loyal following. The fact is that he isn't a draw anymore. He can't open a movie to save his life--just look at After the Sunset and Laws of Attraction. So why pull an AVTAK when you have the perfect opportunity to introduce a new actor?

[tdalton]

Well, I can't imagine them cancelling or postponing CR, even if there are major problems with casting. Back in 1991, that sort of thing was a simpler--and much more private--matter. Now, with the ubiquity of Internet sites like this one, not to mention the hype surrounding this particular film, I doubt it would go over as smoothly or quietly. I don't see any advantage in postponing it.

They DEFINITELY made the right decision to drop Pierce. He's overpaid, overrated, and he was past his prime by TWINE. I can't see why he (allegedly) has such a loyal following. The fact is that he isn't a draw anymore. He can't open a movie to save his life--just look at After the Sunset and Laws of Attraction. So why pull an AVTAK when you have the perfect opportunity to introduce a new actor?

As much as I don't like to imagine the prospect of the further postponement or all out cancellation of Casino Royale, I feel that the project may be headed in that direction. Brocolli and Wilson clearly do not know how to handle the Bond franchise in the same way that Cubby did, as evidenced by the fact that we now have a minimun of 3 year waits in between films and that CR will be hitting theaters almost a half decade after the release of DAD.

I will say, however, that if the cancellation of Casino Royale is the only way to ensure that the legacy of Fleming's best novel is not tarnished, then go ahead. I don't want to see another film of the quality of the TV version or of the 1967 spoof. With Purvis and Wade still on board for whatever reason, there's more than a 50-50 chance that the project will be just as bad, if not worse, than the two failed attempts at adapting the novel for the screen.

If EON cannot find a suitable replacement for Brosnan, then CR should be scrapped in favor of an original storyline. CR should only be made when it can be done right, and I don't think that it can be done that way given the current climate at the EON offices. Just because they can make an adaptation of the film doesn't mean that they should rush into it without the proper actors and crew just because they have finally secured the rights. CR should be treated with a great deal of respect, but it hasn't been thus far since the announcement that it would be Bond 21, and that's just a sad, sad thing.

[Stephenson]

I really don't understand where all this criticism for Eon comes from. What exactly have they done wrong? Made successful (albeit uneven) movies for the last 40+ years that have entertained millions? Even if you want to focus your energy on Wilson and Barbara, or P and W, they've still managed to create movies that are superior to 90% of the other crap that has come out in the spy-movie genre in the last ten years. Cubby wasn't always the master decision maker either, as can be seen in DAF, MR or AVTAK.

And what makes you think they are in such trouble? Because they haven't told us what they're planning? Oh NO! the ship must be sinking! Let's see, the two times they've rushed to change Bond, it ended relatively poorly in the short term (Lazenby and Dalton). The last time they waited six years so that the franchise could come back "fresh". Teh result was Goldeneye, which I beleive is one of the more popular films in the series. Which way would you like them to go now? Eon has just gone through a major corporate upheaval, all parties involved are probably still trying to figure out the best direction for Bond to go in so that the franchise can survive another 40+ years, and they HAVE been releasing information to us, just not as much as we would like. Now tabloids have been spreading gossip and rumours all over town (which is absolutely in no way Eon's fault) and we want to strike them down because they won't rush things along? Well if they want to take their time and get things right, more power to Eon, I say.

As for, "the film will have to be postponed", why exactly? Pre-production will probably start in early August, which gives all parties involved four or five months to find the right actor and prepare the script, before they even start shooting (and that's if the Jan/Feb filming date is accurate). I am in no way involved in the movie industry, but that sounds like a hell of a lot of time to to me to get things ready, especially if you 43+ years of experience and 20 films undre your belt and are working with a director you've worked with before.

Quite worrying so much! To quote one of my least favorite villains, "It's not a secret; it's a surprise!"

Edited by canoe2, 28 April 2005 - 05:20 PM.

[Seannery]

Very good canoe2 --all this angst over the direction the series has gone is extremely overwrought.

[Stephenson]

I guess I'm just wondering why people who obviously have no faith in the makers of the series even bother showing up any more if they truly believe it's going to be a failure:

"Barbara and Wilson are idiots"
"Purvis and Wade are talentless hacks"
"It will bomb unless this actor or that actor is used"

I've liked, to varying degrees, almost everything they have done so far. The only two things I can't ever be bothered to watch are the end of Moonraker and AVTAK. I'm staying optimistic, so if they go with Brosnan, Owen or some complete unknown I'll trust them until I see the movie for myself.

Edited by canoe2, 28 April 2005 - 05:42 PM.