100 replies to this topic

[Seannery]

The way things seem to be going the next Bond actor will likely disappoint almost everyone. Some will say this is a little pessimistic perhaps BUT consider how the recent signs point to a likely rather unknown and youngish Bond. Consider both the hardcore fans such as those on this site and the general movie goer.

Hardcore fans have their favorite choices for Bond and have debated them passionately--the top 3 choices Brosnan, Jackman, Owen seem to be eliminated and if Eon goes the youngish unknown route which most signs point to then secondary candidates with strong pockets of support such as Julian McMahon, Adrian Paul, Gerald Butler, Daniel Craig, James Purefoy and others will most likely be gone too. Even younger famous names don't seem of much interest to Eon such as Orlando Bloom, Ioann Gruffudd, Jude Law. General fans(when thinking of it) more or less when considering Bondian actors generally reflect what the hardcores see.

So we will end up having all the obvious candidates with Bondian qualities and/or popularity rejected or not considered. Leaving us with what? An untested probably youngish actor who will be compared to a lot of either popular and/or obviously Bondian actors that had varying degrees of support saying yeah he should be Bond. And that doesn't even include being compared to a very Bondish and popular Brosnan. The way things seem to be going the youngish actor chosen as Bond will have had hardly anyone or no one saying beforehand yeah he should be Bond.

Which means unless Eon picks an excellent choice that screams out Bond we will end up with a new Bond that disappoints almost everyone since he will have the weight of a lot of people comparing him unfavorably to their favorites and the obvious candidates against him.

Can Eon find an excellent Bond in the group of youngish unknowns in order to overcome this crush of disappointment when the obvious Bond choices are not chosen? Is there a young actor out there so Bondian that he will shake off all this and make everyone forget all the others and just grab hold of 007?

I don't see this as likely though I guess it's not impossible. And also I guess it's still possible Eon comes to its senses and pick one of the obvious Bond candidates that have been bandied about. BUT if they don't I see a lot of disappointment coming towards the next Bond actor. Unlike Batman Begins which had a young popular choice who was obvious and buzzed about for the role--Bond has no such luck at all. It seems so desparate they are even considering a very non-british seeming Croation TV star. And as someone else has mentioned Batman has always had a natural connection to his beginnings(an essential part of the Batman Story) while Bond most definitely has not.

Anyway with no obvious young Bondian actor set to take off and explode as a natural Bond, Eon is set up to deliver a Bond that pales in comparison to all the potential Bondian actors rejected. And I don't buy Eon always does well with choosing Bond--it's really Cubby has always done rather well with choosing Bond. With the weight of disappointed expectations set against them Eon ,unless they somehow pull out a great young Bond(very unlikely), will disapoint a lot of people. Maybe they will come to their senses yet and pick one of the established people tested Bondian candidates instead. Otherwise i'm pessimistic.

[DLibrasnow]

Both Dalton and Brosnan said when they assumed the role of 007 that with half the world loving Sean Connery and half the world loving Roger Moore, they could end up with everyone hating them.

[Bon-san]

Maybe they will come to their senses yet and pick one of the established people tested Bondian candidates instead.  Otherwise i'm pessimistic.

Interesting from the usually optimistic Seannery!

Despite all the media buzz, and rampant speculation on boards like this, I've seen no indication that Eon is not going to pick an "established, people-tested Bondian candidate." As such, I'm not sure they need to "come to their senses", so to speak. I think it's highly likely, they've had their senses about them all along, but have played it close to the vest (as per usual), and have rightfully asked a number of people in to test (for perhaps a variety of parts).

That's what I'm hoping, anyway. And my Spidey sense says that's the real deal.

[Seannery]

Both Dalton and Brosnan  said when they assumed the role of 007 that with half the world loving Sean Connery and half the world loving Roger Moore, they could end up with everyone hating them.

Yes BUT both Pierce and Timothy to a lesser extent were obviously Bondian and weren't saddled with doing a break with tradition as a young beginning Bond. ALSO they BOTH especially Pierce had support for them as Bond before they were chosen as 007. We don't seem to be going for any of the candidates who have any level of support for Bond this time--a very risky proposition.

[Seannery]

[quote name='Bon-san' date='30 June 2005 - 17:29'][quote name='Seannery' date='30 June 2005 - 11:20']Maybe they will come to their senses yet and pick one of the established people tested Bondian candidates instead.

[tdalton]

I agree that whoever is selected will more than likely disappoint the vast majority of the Bond fan community. It's clear now that Owen, Jackman, and Brosnan are out, and they're the ones that had, by far, the largest fan base of all of the "contenders". Now, you've got guys like Gerard Butler (who, IMO, would be very good), Ioan Gruffudd, Daniel Craig, etc., all of whom the general public will look at if selected and give, at best, a lukewarm reception to. Especially, if Daniel Craig is selected, I'm pretty sure that I'm just about the only person on the face of the earth, outside of Craig's family and friends, that would be excited about his being cast in the role, so therefore he would disappoint the masses.

Whoever it is will disappoint quite a few people, I think. Hopefully, they pick the right guy.

[Seannery]

I agree that whoever is selected will more than likely disappoint the vast majority of the Bond fan community.  It's clear now that Owen, Jackman, and Brosnan are out, and they're the ones that had, by far, the largest fan base of all of the "contenders".  Now, you've got guys like Gerard Butler (who, IMO, would be very good), Ioan Gruffudd, Daniel Craig, etc., all of whom the general public will look at if selected and give, at best, a lukewarm reception to.  Especially, if Daniel Craig is selected, I'm pretty sure that I'm just about the only person on the face of the earth, outside of Craig's family and friends, that would be excited about his being cast in the role, so therefore he would disappoint the masses.

Whoever it is will disappoint quite a few people, I think.  Hopefully, they pick the right guy.

I'm saying it looks like even the second level guys with pockets of support and obvious Bondian qualities who could be successful popular Bonds seem to be out also. And we may very well stuck with younger and even more unknown actors who no one is supporting and they will be overshadowed by BOTH the major and secondary candidates with obvious Bondian qualities. Leaving a lot of Bond and general fans saying they picked him over (pick your favorite here).

[tdalton]

I'm saying it looks like even the second level guys with pockets of support and obvious Bondian qualities who could be successful popular Bonds seem to be out also.  And we may very well stuck with younger and even more unknown actors who no one is supporting and they will be overshadowed by BOTH the major and secondary candidates with obvious Bondian qualities.  Leaving a lot of Bond and general fans saying they picked him over (pick your favorite here).

That's the most likely scenario, but I also believe that most of those second level guys would also disappoint a great deal of people. There really isn't a whole lot of people out there who would make a good 007, that we know of, anyway. Owen, Craig, Butler, and Gruffud are the only ones that I would be pleased with. Outside of them, I will be extremely disappointed, and might even consider not seeing the film until it hits DVD if they pick Purefoy.

[Spoon]

I understand what you're saying, but on the other hand, I think that once a Bond is chosen, there will be a "rally around the flag" effect. Since most people do ultimately want the Bond series to continue to succeed, I feel that most fans will be willing to give whoever is chosen a chance... and probably even get actively excited about him once the film is about to come out. Of course there will be some people who will feel that since their favorite actor wasn't chosen, they're writing off the film. I don't think there are all that many people like that though. I guarantee you this, there are a lot more people who will threaten to do that than who will actually follow through on it.

I don't see why you rule out Gruffudd in the original post BTW; I'm not a supporter of his or anything, but, I definitely don't think he is too big an actor for the part. (Fantastic Four commitments may be an issue depending on the success of that film.) I also don't feel that the 35-year-olds (e.g. Butler, McMahon) are too old to do the "Bond Begins" thing.

[Stephenson]

1. The majority of this "young Bond" talk has been pure speculation. The only official word is that Bond will be younger and starting out his career (GE PTS?) and will change by film's end. In other words they are going to need an actor that can pull off that tough, experienced Bond because when the credits role that is who he will be playing. Not to mention the next film. With the exception of the "humanising" comment, I like the direction Eon wants to take with CR, esp. P&W's comments. Reports of a twenty-something or innocent and naive Bond are totally unsubstantiated.

2. IMO, Eon has played this very smart. They have waited long enough so that names like Owen, Jackman and Brosnan have pulled themselves out of the running with their own comments and schedules. The name game has really died down and I think Eon will give it a bit more time (until late September?) before announcing to completely cleanse the public's palatte. The news will be about who is the new Bond, not who could have been and wasn't.

3. The vast majority of the general audience couldn't really care less if it's not Owen or Jackman. Brosnan not returning may disappoint some, but I think they'll wait for the advertising campaign before making a judgement. They mainly just want to see a Bond film. Of course, fan opinion can sway this (ie Bale and Batman), but I really don't think Eon is going to choose someone completely unacceptable as to create a massive fan uprising.

4. I really don't believe there is a shortage of Bond-like actors out there. In the eyes of the general public Dalton was not an obvious choice. They didn't even know who he was until he took the role.

5. "An untested probably youngish actor who will be compared to a lot of either popular and/or obviously Bondian actors that had varying degrees of support saying yeah he should be Bond. And that doesn't even include being compared to a very Bondish and popular Brosnan. The way things seem to be going the youngish actor chosen as Bond will have had hardly anyone or no one saying beforehand yeah he should be Bond." Hmmm,, sounds like Connery....

6. No disresepct to Cubby, but he also was at least partly responsible for losing Lazenby, bringing a fat and bored Connery back, sending Bond into space, keeping Roger around two films too many and misjudging public appetites with LTK. I know each of those films has its fans, but I am looking at it from the perspective of the general public. Babs and co. have managed to revitalize the franchise and once again make it a serious contender at the box office. They really haven't done that badly.

[Seannery]

I understand what you're saying, but on the other hand, I think that once a Bond is chosen, there will be a "rally around the flag" effect.  Since most people do ultimately want the Bond series to continue to succeed, I feel that most fans will be willing to give whoever is chosen a chance... and probably even get actively excited about him once the film is about to come out.  Of course there will be some people who will feel that since their favorite actor wasn't chosen, they're writing off the film.  I don't think there are all that many people like that though.  I guarantee you this, there are a lot more people who will threaten to do that than who will actually follow through on it.

I don't see why you rule out Gruffudd in the original post BTW; I'm not a supporter of his or anything, but, I definitely don't think he is too big an actor for the part.  (Fantastic Four commitments may be an issue depending on the success of that film.)  I also don't feel that the 35-year-olds (e.g. Butler, McMahon) are too old to do the "Bond Begins" thing.

Well if they go for a youngish mostly unknown who hardly anyone supports as a natural Bond such as spynovelfan's Hugh Dancy I feel that almost everyone WILL be disappointed it wasn't Pierce, Jackman, Owen, Paul, Butler, Purefoy, Craig, Gruffudd, McMahon, etc. Yes there will be some rallying around the flag BUT unless they somehow find that great young Bond somewhere, somehow--that will be rather muted and shortlived. There is no natural young popular Bond like Batman had with Bale. Gruffudd may be possible BUT to me doesn't seem very likely with FF and with no Eon Bond buzz on him. Butler 35 maybe BUT they seem to be going even younger and again no buzz plus Eon seems to not cotton to him since his old statement of i'm the next Bond years ago. McMahon is 37 not 35 and even more out of the age range they seem to be going plus he's beginning to have Dalton hair issues.

[Seannery]

[quote name='Stephenson' date='30 June 2005 - 18:17']1. The majority of this "young Bond" talk has been pure speculation. The only official word is that Bond will be younger and starting out his career (GE PTS?) and will change by film's end. In other words they are going to need an actor that can pull off that tough, experienced Bond because when the credits role that is who he will be playing. Not to mention the next film. With the exception of the "humanising" comment, I like the direction Eon wants to take with CR, esp. P&W's comments. Reports of a twenty-something or innocent and naive Bond are totally unsubstantiated.

2. IMO, Eon has played this very smart. They have waited long enough so that names like Owen, Jackman and Brosnan have pulled themselves out of the running with their own comments and schedules. The name game has really died down and I think Eon will give it a bit more time (until late September?) before announcing to completely cleanse the public's palatte. The news will be about who is the new Bond, not who could have been and wasn't.

3. The vast majority of the general audience couldn't really care less if it's not Owen or Jackman. Brosnan not returning may disappoint some, but I think they'll wait for the advertising campaign before making a judgement. They mainly just want to see a Bond film. Of course, fan opinion can sway this (ie Bale and Batman), but I really don't think Eon is going to choose someone completely unacceptable as to create a massive fan uprising.

4. I really don't believe there is a shortage of Bond-like actors out there.

[H.M.Servant]

I think the problem lies with the (speculated)idea that CR will feature a young(er)Bond,rather than a young(er)actor playing Bond.
I think if they would cast a younger actor in the part (early 30's) that it wouldn't be a problem. (depending on the actor of course)

I think the other problem that is considered is popular/unpopular
which depends on the route they want to take (and who they can get)

[licensetostudy]

I think in this day in the business, an established star is most likely going to get the role cause money is far too important to be taking any big risks. I believe Owen, Bloom and Jackman would be very popular with general audiences who make up the bigger portion of film goers than Bond fanatics, and the general crowd are the ones to consider when making choices as to whom will be Bond. However, when one looks at the history of the franchise we see the popular Bonds like Connery, Moore and Brosnan being the "every other guy." You get someone very popular, then comes an actor the gerneral crowd don't give a darn about like Lazenby and Dalton, and then someone popular again. Since Brosnan was popular with general audiences, the next guy might be another Dalton or Lazenby, but I believe such a risk could no longer happen in the film business. Giving Bond to an unknown would be like giving a gazillion dollars to some average Joe Blow, or someone unknown winning the lottery; it's just not entirely realistic today as film executives will put lots of pressure on Eon to give them an established and popular star.

[SecretAgentFan]

The thing is - an established and popular star won

[spynovelfan]

Here's my take:

No big film star like Hugh Jackman or Orlando Bloom is going to take this role - that is not how the Bond series works, just look at the history. But even if they were, there would be widespread disappointment, because they have already transcended film roles and become known as their own characters in people's minds. People think they know what these people are like. So a lot of people would say 'Bond is ruined! Orlando &*^%$ Bloom?'

If any medium-sized actor - your Gruffudds and McMahons and Purefoys - is cast, there will be widespread disappointment. some will say 'They didn't pick Owen/Butler/Paul!'. Others will say 'Boring! So they went with Purefoy, Christ, we could have seen that coming three years ago, if only they'd had some balls.' Others still will say 'Daniel who?'

If they pick an unknown or close to unknown actor, like Hugh Dancy or, well, someone who's totally unknown, there will be widespread disappointment. Some people will say 'Who the &^%( is this guy? He had one part on a TV series and now he's Bond?'. Others will say 'I don't know - he doesn't look like Bond to me, the series is dead, I'm off to read some more Fleming, wake me up when Eon get a clue.' And so on.

The key is whether or not they're any good in the part. I also think the latter option's the better of the two (the first really isn't likely, in my view), because it will at least be surprising. We've all talked Owen and Purefoy etc to death - it won't be a thrill. An unknown or close to it would be greeted with initial disappointment, but then I think there would be a lot of magazine interviews and articles (most of them mentioning OHMSS and predicting boc office failure, I suspect) and people would start to get interested. Routh and SUPERMAN is a good example - does anyone really think that film won't be a hit? BATMAN BEGINS is also relevant. Yes, Bale was cast. But there were others on the shortlist that were unknowns. One of them was Hugh Dancy. Think on it for a moment. Had Dancy got the role, and the rest of it was precisely the same cast, script, etc - does anyone really believe it would have been less critically acclaimed or successful at the box office? I don't. I haven't seen it, and I'm sure Bale's great in it. But I think it would have been just as much a success with Dancy or some other 'unknown' like him. Lots of people would have been 'Who?' And then they'd have seen the trailer, and seen the posters with him in the suit, and thought 'This looks like a very cool film.' I think the same applies with Bond. And you can replace Dancy's name with any other actor around the 30 mark with his kind of profile - Jack Davenport, for instance. He's just an easier way to make the point.

[dinovelvet]

I think in this day in the business, an established star is most likely going to get the role cause money is far too important to be taking any big risks. I believe Owen, Bloom and Jackman would be very popular with general audiences who make up the bigger portion of film goers than Bond fanatics, and the general crowd are the ones to consider when making choices as to whom will be Bond.

But the last few years have seen a shift away from the traditional "star system". Many of the top grossing films do not feature marquee names - i.e. Lord of the rings had Elijah Wood and Sean Astin in the lead roles, Spider-Man had Tobey Maguire, X-Men had a then unknown Hugh Jackman, Harry Potter had...whoever is in those, etc. Bond is a big enough draw to not require a name actor to back it up. Over the last few months there have been flop movies from supposed can't-miss stars like Russell Crowe & Tom Hanks, ultimately having a star doesn't guarantee anything (The only exception seems to be Tom Cruise who remains consistently bulletproof at the box office) If they pick the right actor for Bond, the audience will accept it. At the time of Goldeneye, Pierce was pretty much a washed-up tv actor who had no box office value, but he proved himself popular in the role, as each subsequent Bond movie he did out-earned the previous one. I mean no matter how good a guy looks on paper for playing Bond, there's no guarantee that it'll translate to the screen, you might just take one look at him doing the gunbarrel and he just won't feel like James Bond, for whatever reason.
Sooo what I'm trying to say is, have faith in EON. Unless they pick Orlando Bloom.

[Seannery]

If I had more time i'd answer in more detail BUT for now let me add this. On the Batman point Bale was the internet favorite and had all the buzz and as you said spynovelfan most importantly he was extremely well cast. He had it al going for him. And a young beginning Batman and for that matter Superman is natural in the mythologies whereas Bond was always focused as a full blown agent on screen.

And yes if Dancy or many others got Batman instead of Bale I submit that BB would not have been nearly as successful creatively or financially. Bale was a home run and I find it hard to see any young Bond even below the radar who would be even close to that casting wise, along with no buzz. With Superman the new guy does scream Superman--we will see how he acts. No young Bond candidate comes close to screaming Bond(doubtful that there is this shining candidate hidden somewhere)and that would be essential to overcome no beforehand buzz and the shadows of others.

[Bon-san]

I think that once a Bond is chosen, there will be a "rally around the flag" effect.  Since most people do ultimately want the Bond series to continue to succeed, I feel that most fans will be willing to give whoever is chosen a chance... and probably even get actively excited about him once the film is about to come out.  Of course there will be some people who will feel that since their favorite actor wasn't chosen, they're writing off the film.  I don't think there are all that many people like that though.  I guarantee you this, there are a lot more people who will threaten to do that than who will actually follow through on it.

Yes.

[JackLordIsFelix]

I think EON could solve its problems in one of two ways:

1.) Make the Bond role challenging enough that it will attract Hollywood's rising stars. Beef up the stories, stop trying to throw 10 action scenes into one movie.

2.) Maintain the current course and find an action film genre star who is not worried about the Bond role being "challenging enough." From the Sixties to the Eighties, there were tons of actors who specialized in the action/adventure genre (Eastwood, Schwarzenneger, Stallone, Bronson, McQueen, Wayne -- heck, Sean Connery and Roger Moore themselves). These guys were less method actors as they were movie stars who carried their films with their own unique charism. Is there no longer anyone new in Hollywood ready to step up to that plate?

Personally, I prefer Option Two. I would like to see the stories beefed up a bit, but I don't want Bond turned into a new-age sensitive man in order for the role to be "serious enough."

Edited by JackLordIsFelix, 01 July 2005 - 10:01 PM.

[Rogue Agent]

I think it's a catch 22 when it comes to casting Bond. Established actors don't need Bond. Sure, they say they'd love to play the part (who wouldn't!) but do they want to take a pay cut for their first Bond role? Nope.

Do they want to be typecast as Bond for the rest of their careers? Nope.

Look at Brosnan. Hugely popular as Bond, not so when in other films. He will be forever remembered as Bond.

An unknown wouldn't look at the part like that. He would take it because he'd have nothing to lose. But if he pulled a Lazenby "one film then I'm quitting" stunt, he might!

[MrDraco]

lol, this search for a new bond is causing alot of us stress out the tux...i'm thinking Brosnan will some how come out of the water and say 'Hey, tensons are over i'm back' lol that or Clive Owen admits to being the 'in man' the whole time...lol i dont know i'm a bit scared for what were facing in 2006

[bryonalston]

EoN could easily solve their problem by picking two Bond actors: One young, and one old (preferably in his mid-30's.)
Now, imagine the first third of the movie as being an extended pre-credit sequence (essentially what occurs in the novel up until the hospital scene.) This is where we would see the young Bond (Orlando Bloom or whoever) in action. Years later, James Bond decides to go after the organization that Le Chiffre worked for (in South Africa.) This is where we would see the current James Bond actor take helm for the role. The advantage of having two different actors is that it will draw in the fanbases of both. Say that Orlando Bloom is cast as the rookie, twenty-something Bond (why not?) and he is on his first official mission. If it is leaked to the public that Bloom would appear partially nude during the torture scene, it might draw in a more female audience (especially pre-teen fans,) thus generating more buzz about the movie and bringing is more box-office revenue.

Now, if this kind of scenario were to take place, the current actor that they pick (30's) could start filming Bond 22 (assuming that a script is prepared sometime in 2006.) That way, the shooting schedules can overlap, and Bond 22 could be released in 2007. However, by releasing two Bond films within a year of eachother, there should be some kind of continuity between the two movies (perhaps a new trilogy with the organization that Le Chiffre works for.) Also, by releasing the movie in 2007, Bond 22 could be hot off the publicity of a (hopefully) successful CR, as well as the DVD release, and, of course, the year of 2-007-

[SeanValen00V]

lol, this search for a new bond is causing alot of us stress out the tux...i'm thinking Brosnan will some how come out of the water and say 'Hey, tensons are over i'm back' lol that or Clive Owen admits to being the 'in man' the whole time...lol i dont know i'm a bit scared for what were facing in 2006

I'm scared now as well, it's getting closer to decision time. I just wonder if EON/SONY are fully realising this is a world wide casting importance.

[spynovelfan]

Say that Orlando Bloom is cast as the rookie, twenty-something Bond (why not?) and he is on his first official mission. If it is leaked to the public that Bloom would appear partially nude during the torture scene, it might draw in a more female audience (especially pre-teen fans,) thus generating more buzz about the movie and bringing is more box-office revenue.

I can just see Bloom, his agent, and the marketing men reasoning that him being tortured 'partially nude' would get pre-teen girls to see a Bond movie - and that he'd then not be Bond after the titles. That would be some very expensive casting and, well, a huge mistake. Because pre-teen girls aren't interested in seeing anyone tortured, even if it's Orlando Bloom and his body's all buff and oiled as his nuts get squeezed. I love the idea, though.

[JCH]

I tend to agree with the people that say that the new Bond will most likely be a known actor, but not necessarily an A-list one. Even today, the Bond franchise is huge and makes more stars than the stars make the franchise. So if EON decides to go with a younger, unknown Bond, I think we will see a similar effect to what has been mentioned with the new Superman movie. Once all of the commercials, promotional materials, etc. get out that so-and-so is the new James Bond, he will become a well-known name. I still believe that this role carries that much clout. Someone like Ioan Guffud, known here in the US because of King Arthur and the Fantastic Four is an emerging star who could easily be promted as the new Bond. The public would buy him in a heartbeat. Same goes for Gerard Butler. He has already been in Tomb Raider and The Phantom of the Opera. Both are known names, but not exactly as A-list as Hugh Jackman or some of the other names that have been thrown around. Even if they went with a complete unknown, you'd have to imagine that the ad campaigns would do everything in their power to establish that actor as James Bond.

[Pussfeller]

I doubt that anyone will be disappointed, even if they make a questionable choice. For one thing, the announcement will be sudden, and most likely a shock, and the first thing we'll do is forget about our own favorites. The general public won't care who it is, as long as he has the right looks and is properly hyped. As for us hardcore fans, we'll force ourselves to keep an open mind. Nobody goes into a movie trying to be disappointed. If he really does turn out to be a dud, we won't talk about it until well after CR has opened. Just wait. We'll all be saying "Give him a chance", etc. Inevitably, a crowd of critics will emerge shortly after CR has closed. I bet lots of hardcore Brosnan fans will dislike him. But hopefully he will be good enough that the average fan will like him. It will be interesting to watch it all unfold, to see everyone's reactions, etc.

[zencat]

I keep thinking of the first GoldenEye teaser when Brosnan steps forward and says, 'You were expecting someone else?" The audience just smiles. It sooooooo worked.

That trailer is a marketing microcosm for the selection of Bond #6. They need to ask themselves who could step into that trailer and pull off in 2006? Who would the audience accept above Pierce? Clive Owen maybe. But anyone else...

Can you image that same trailer with Goran what's-his-name or some unknown stepping forward? It just plain wouldn't work. In fact, I think the audience would answer back, "Yes, as a matter of fact, we were expecting someone else. Who the are you?"

The general audience knew it needed a new Bond after AVTAK. The general audience wanted a new Bond after LTK. I don't think the general audience feels it needs nor wants a new Bond now. They like Pierce. He's still the Bond of this generation. So...

Let's just say Sony is going to have a real marketing challenge on their hands next year.

[Seannery]

[quote name='zencat' date='22 July 2005 - 22:34']I keep thinking of the first GoldenEye teaser when Brosnan steps forward and says, 'You were expecting someone else?" The audience just smiles. It sooooooo worked.

That trailer is a marketing microcosm for the selection of Bond #6. They need to ask themselves who could step into that trailer and pull off in 2006?

[zencat]

[quote name='Seannery' date='22 July 2005 - 14:37'][quote name='zencat' date='22 July 2005 - 22:34']I keep thinking of the first GoldenEye teaser when Brosnan steps forward and says, 'You were expecting someone else?" The audience just smiles. It sooooooo worked.

That trailer is a marketing microcosm for the selection of Bond #6. They need to ask themselves who could step into that trailer and pull off in 2006?