85 replies to this topic

[hrabb04]

spynovelfan, there's some things I just will not do...and posting pics for you to remark about his dick size...no can do!

You sound like Hale and Pace, only not as funny.

See how easy that is?

No, Spynovelfan, please enlighten me.

[spynovelfan]

Sorry - can't be bothered.

[Loomis]

Anyone reckon we'll either have Brosnan back for CASINO ROYALE or CASINO ROYALE delayed until 2007 or later?

[hrabb04]

My bet is on them buying Ireland or another nation or island for Pierce so he can come back. I think they are stumped about what to do for a new Bond, and they have egg on their faces. I think they will go to Brosnan, hat in hand, and ask him to come back. I would love to be a fly on the wall when that happens.

[H.M.Servant]

And please.. NO, DON'T EVEN MENTION COLIN FIRTH AS BOND!!
I find it outrageous enough that they chose HIM to portray the HUNKIEST man in NOVEL HISTORY, MARK DARCY... and besides one of my two favourite novels of all times.. that was outrageous.. LET ALONE him playing BOND!!
NO NO and NO!

I think Colin Firth would make an excelent James Bond. I think he's a good actor and good looking enough to play Bond. But he's almost never mentioned as a contender.

Also I thought he was great as Mr. Darcy in Pride&Predjudice (and as Mark Darcy as well in Bridget Jones Diary). And I find it strange that you would refer to Bridget Jones's Diary as one of your favourite 'novels' of all time. What's the other?

[fatima]

And please.. NO, DON'T EVEN MENTION COLIN FIRTH AS BOND!!
I find it outrageous enough that they chose HIM to portray the HUNKIEST man in NOVEL HISTORY, MARK DARCY... and besides one of my two favourite novels of all times.. that was outrageous.. LET ALONE him playing BOND!!
NO NO and NO!

I think Colin Firth would make an excelent James Bond. I think he's a good actor and good looking enough to play Bond. But he's almost never mentioned as a contender.

Also I thought he was great as Mr. Darcy in Pride&Predjudice (and as Mark Darcy as well in Bridget Jones Diary). And I find it strange that you would refer to Bridget Jones's Diary as one of your favourite 'novels' of all time. What's the other?

I agree, I think Colin Firth could have been very good as Bond. He's a little old now, but 10 years ago he would have been great.

[Seannery]

Well, I disagree. I think he'd be far less risky than, for example, Cavill or O'Lachlan or Visjnic. I can't *prove* it, obviously, but here's my reasoning. All of those three have obvious problems with them: one is very young, one doesn't speak English as his first language and one isn't British. Of the three, obviously O'Lachlan is the least problematic from that point of view. But I think Dancy would be far less risky, simply because he is British and upper-class. Sure, lots of people in the States wouldn't have heard of him. But what's risky about a young, British actor like Dancy? Where's the weak point where someone says 'I won't go to see Casino Royale because he's in it'? He's too pretty? I don't think so - I think casting Daniel Craig would be riskier. We can't have it all ways. Dancy would be too young, too pretty, not known. So a risk. But Daniel Craig would be too old, too ugly, and not known. Etc. The audience suddenly changes their mind depending on which actor we favour. I think *in the real world*, the safest bet is someone who is

1. Indisputably good-looking
2. Between 27 and 35
3. British
4. Upper-middle-class
5. Has some kind of a profile in the US, even if quite small and Seannery never saw KING ARTHUR, but is not an A-list star or looking like they are about to be A-list (and so don't need Bond).

Those would be my ideal criteria. Atterton, Davenport and Penry-Jones all fit - so do several others. I happen to like Dancy for it. 1 rules out Craig, McMahon, Morrissey, Stewart, many others. 2 rules out Cavill, Adrian Paul, Jason Isaacs, Jeremy Northam, several others. 3 rules out Visjnic, O'Lachlan, Ledger, Brad Pitt, several others. 4 rules out Clive Owen, Craig once more, several others. 5 rules out O'Lachlan, Jude Law, Ewan McGregor, Jackman, Owen and probably Butler. Etc.

That's my reasoning. Whether or not you happen to have heard of Hugh Dancy doesn't change the fact that he's currently in every issue of GQ and ESQUIRE in the US in ads with Kate Moss and *about* to be in BASIC INSTINCT 2, does it?

Spynovelfan. Firstly I saw King Arthur in its first week of release--Dancy went almost unnoticed among the strong cast IMO. He did not come across as Bondian at all or for that matter he hardly registered to me without any leading man star charisma. He was pleasant but nothing special at all. Ioan Gruffudd clearly outshined him and gave out promising Bond vibes. As you know i'm no Clive for Bond fan but I thought he was more Bondian than Hugh also. And I agree with you that the "tall guy" in King Arthur(the one you pictured in the pink shirt) also had great presence and had Bond vibes. But alas Dancy would be far behind them all. He would be better than Goran but i'd take Cavill slightly over him and O'Lachlan easily.

And I have to say he is very much unknown despite being in Ads or small parts with the vest majority of moviegoers--so he in no way would be a clear box office winner. He doesn't have a profile in the USA(at least not one that would make any difference)--so he wouldn't fit one of your criteria. And an early mission Bond would have to LOOK 31 to 35 or so on film AND not necessarily be that age(an younger or older actor can fit and play that)--hence the Daniel Craig screen test and maybe other older actors. An Australian OR someone from the British Isles would be fine while an actor need not be upper middle class but like most(really all of them I think) of the Bonds only have to act it. Yes Bond should be good looking but someone with offbeat looks and great charisma like Craig may be able to pull it off also. So really the criteria is much looser or at least possibly so and therefore doesn't lead ultimately and inevitably to Dancy. I'll bet you it doesn't.

[spynovelfan]

Well, of course it doesn't, and of course the criteria are flexible. I was talking about the safest possible commercial choice, the smoothest transition with the fewest possibilities for a backlash, *if they make the film we have had several pieces of evidence they are planning to*. Sure an Australian could do it, a guy who's working class could do it, a 22-year-old could do it, and they could all be box office gold. I'm not Nostradamus, so I can't tell if they will be. But it just makes sense to me that it's a lot safer to go for someone who's British, upper-class, suave, has some frame of reference in the States, who nobody will think is too ugly to play the part, and is his late 30s or early 40s. This isn't a particularly radical idea - that's the ideal criteria for a safe choice to play Bond. If you twist that - ie casting a 53-year-old, or a guy who isn't suave (Dalton), or an Australian, you are taking a risk. The *template* is surely the above, and that's the safe commercial choice. I'm not saying it's my personal choice. I'm saying it's the safe choice. I think with the apparent change of direction of CR, it would make sense to consider safe choices to play the lead. I've looked at people who are in their late 20s or early 30s rather than a decade older because that has been the avowed direction of CR. My argument is entirely (and has been, quite clearly) conditional on that. Sure, if they don't change the tone and ditch the idea of an earlier mission, they can be riskier with the actor and still be safe commercially. Or they could cast James Purefoy or someone. But you're changing the frame of reference of my argument. *If* CR is an early mission, darker story, then a *commercially safe* choice would be someone like Dancy - not Craig.

That's my last word on the Dancy thing. I can't make it much clearer.

[Seannery]

Well, of course it doesn't, and of course the criteria are flexible. I was talking abotu the safest possible commercial choice, the smoothest transition with the fewest possibilities for a backlash. Sure an Australian could do it, a guy who's working class could do it, a 22-year-old could do it, and they could all be box office gold. I'm not Nostradamus, so I can't tell if they will be. But it just makes sense to me that it's a lot safer to go for someone who's British, upper-class, suave, has some frame of reference in the States, who nobody will think is too ugly to play the part, and is his late 30s or early 40s. This isn't a particularly radical idea - that's the ideal criteria for a safe choice to play Bond. If you twist that - ie casting a 53-year-old, or a guy who isn't suave (Dalton), or an Australian, you are taking a risk. The *template* is surely the above, and that's the safe commercial choice. I'm not saying it's my personal choice. I'm saying it's the safe choice. I think with the apparent change of direction of CR, it would make sense to consider safe choices to play the lead. I've looked at people who are in their late 20s or early 30s rather than a decade older because that has been the avowed direction of CR. My argument is entirely  (and has been, quite clearly) conditional on that. Sure, if they don't change the tone and ditch the idea of an earlier mission, they can be riskier with the actor and still be safe commercially. Or they could cast James Purefoy or someone. But you're changing the frame of reference of my argument. *If* CR is an early mission, darker story, then a *commercially safe* choice would be Dancy - not Craig.

That's my last word on the Dancy thing. I can't make it much clearer.

Okay. I'll add my last thoughts also. Dancy still has virtually no USA presence so he wouldn't be safer than any other late 20's, early 30's actor. Davenport is more well known because of Coupling and Gruffudd way more so. And an early mission Bond since 007 is a seasoned commander would more likely be someone 31 to 35 or so--actors younger and older than that age can play that age on FILM easily. And since Daniel Craig is being tested it only illustrates that Eon/Sony are looking at older actors to play an early mission Bond. So even with your early mission criteria an older actor than Dancy could be picked and be the same or even less risky than he. So with your frame of reference IMHO Dancy or a Dancy clone would not be the safest commercial move necessarily.

[H.M.Servant]

[quote name='Seannery' date='12 September 2005 - 15:15']Yes Bond should be good looking but someone with offbeat looks and great charisma like Craig may be able to pull it off also.

Edited by H.M.Servant, 12 September 2005 - 03:40 PM.

[Slaezenger]

Some interesting info here. I'm surprised that Karl Urban hasn't been discussed a lot more as a potential Bond (especially by those of us who support the likes of Owen and Craig).

...Look everyone has a right to their preferences. But come on people -- Craig and Urban? Wrong wrong wrong for 007.

[Loomis]

And an early mission Bond would have to LOOK 31 to 35 or so on film....

Where do you get this 31-35 age range from? Surely "an early mission Bond" could just as easily be 22-year-old Henry Cavill? Wouldn't 22-30 (and a young-looking 30) be the appropriate range for the rookie 007 on his first major mission, rather than 31-35 "or so"?

....hence the Daniel Craig screen test and maybe other older actors.

But Craig would be unconvincing even as a 31-35-year-old. The man looks as old as the hills in some photos. In certain pics he even looks older than Brosnan.

Yes Bond should be good looking but someone with offbeat looks and great charisma like Craig may be able to pull it off also. 

How, exactly? That's a bit like saying: yes, Bond should be athletic and in tip-top condition, but someone like Robbie Coltrane may be able to pull it off also. Either someone's good-looking enough for Bond or he isn't, and Craig isn't. You know he isn't. I know he isn't. He just isn't.

(Wouldn't mind seeing him as Bond, though.)

[Bond_Bishop]

I totally agree with ACE on Jack Davenport. Excellent actor and absolutely looks the part. But Karl Urban? I only see the hairy Eomer from The Lord of the Rings.

[Seannery]

[quote name='Loomis' date='12 September 2005 - 16:43'][quote name='Seannery' date='12 September 2005 - 15:15']And an early mission Bond would have to LOOK 31 to 35 or so on film....

[/quote]

Where do you get this 31-35 age range from? Surely "an early mission Bond" could just as easily be 22-year-old Henry Cavill? Wouldn't 22-30 (and a young-looking 30) be the appropriate range for the rookie 007 on his first major mission, rather than 31-35 "or so"?

[quote name='Seannery' date='12 September 2005 - 15:15']....hence the Daniel Craig screen test and maybe other older actors.

[/quote]

But Craig would be unconvincing even as a 31-35-year-old. The man looks as old as the hills in some photos. In certain pics he even looks older than Brosnan.

[quote name='Seannery' date='12 September 2005 - 15:15']Yes Bond should be good looking but someone with offbeat looks and great charisma like Craig may be able to pull it off also.

[spynovelfan]

Aaargh!!

Not last thoughts, I expect:

'Dancy still has virtually no USA presence so he wouldn't be safer than any other late 20's, early 30's actor.'

1. I don't think the exact level of known-ness is that important - he has something of a profile. Whether you noticed him in KING ARTHUR or not, he was in the damn thing. He's starring in SHOOTING DOGS, opposite John Hurt. He'll be in BASIC INSTINCT 2. He's the international fricking face of Burberry. It's more than enough for there not to be articles about 'Bond bets on an unknown for Casino Royale' which is what will happen if some people are cast - O'Lachlan, Cavill, Rikki Lee Travolta. That won't happen with Dancy - hence he's safer.

'Davenport is more well known because of Coupling and Gruffudd way more so.'

But I've mentioned Davenport 3,927 times in this thread, Seannery - the argument applies to people *like* Dancy. I've already said there are several people who could fit this role, but that I happen to favour Dancy. I also don't think Davenport *is* better known, but why argue about it - they're about as well known as each other, they're both safe choices. My point is *why go for someone like Craig, or Morrissey, or Visjnic*, when these people are available?

Gruffidd is attached to another franchise, is Welsh, is too short, and is too big for the part. All mildly. He'd be a safe choice.

Not as safe as Hugh Dancy, in my opinion.

It is my opinion, and it will remain so.

'And since Daniel Craig is being tested it only illustrates that Eon/Sony are looking at older actors to play an early mission Bond.'

It doesn't make the least bit of difference that EON may be looking at Craig, or other older actors. My argument is that if you want to cast someone as an early mission Bond and have the best chance of great box office return, get someone who's around the 30 mark, not too well known but not an unknown, British, good-looking, debonair, and sign them for four films. They may well be looking at Craig, and I quite like Craig - but that clearly, to me, is not nearly as commercially safe an idea.

Are you deliberately being obtuse, or do you just like doing the devils' advocate thing? It's really not a particularly controversial point. If you want, I could change the example to Jack Davenport. Casting him in CR would clearly be more commercially viable - how is it, then, that Eon doesn't appear to be considering him, but we keep hearing about people who area lot riskier - ie Visjnic, who *works for the KGB*?

My personal preferences be damned - this is a business, Bond is at a critical juncture, and I'm arguing (fairly sensibly, I reckon) for some sanity in the casting of James Bond. Go safe. Cast a young British actor who's very good looking and has a bit of name recognition in the US.

Shoot me down with another few bullets for the sacrilege. It was a pretty simple point.

[Loomis]

[quote name='Seannery' date='12 September 2005 - 15:57']With regards to Craig and Bond you seem to be of two minds--you think he's too ugly but think he'd be a great Bond.

[spynovelfan]

Well Loomis you know your Fleming

Something any of the actors wanting to play Bond should be able to say. Go in there with the right suit and the right attitude. He says, eerily presciently, in a way nobody could quite figure out later.

[Loomis]

With regards to Craig and Bond you seem to be of two minds--you think he's too ugly but think he'd be a great Bond. 

LAYER CAKE convinced me that he could act Bond superbly (but the fact that people can't act good looks convinces me that he won't get the chance). He has tremendous screen presence. But, ultimately, casting Craig as Bond would be like getting Wong Kar-Wai to direct a Bond film: undoubtedly a very interesting choice, because he's enormously talented, and so on and so forth, but nonetheless an awkward fit for the fun-for-all-the-family 007 franchise.

I guess I want Craig to be Bond because I'd just like to see them - for once - take a real risk. I want to see if they've got the bottle.

[Seannery]

[quote name='spynovelfan' date='12 September 2005 - 17:00']Aaargh!!

Not last thoughts, I expect:

'Dancy still has virtually no USA presence so he wouldn't be safer than any other late 20's, early 30's actor.'

1. I don't think the exact level of known-ness is that important - he has something of a profile. Whether you noticed him in KING ARTHUR or not, he was in the damn thing. He's starring in SHOOTING DOGS, opposite John Hurt. He'll be in BASIC INSTINCT 2. He's the international fricking face of Burberry. It's more than enough for there not to be articles about 'Bond bets on an unknown for Casino Royale' which is what will happen if some people are cast - O'Lachlan, Cavill, Rikki Lee Travolta. That won't happen with Dancy - hence he's safer.

'Davenport is more well known because of Coupling and Gruffudd way more so.'

But I've mentioned Davenport 3,927 times in this thread, Seannery - the argument applies to people *like* Dancy. I've already said there are several people who could fit this role, but that I happen to favour Dancy. I also don't think Davenport *is* better known, but why argue about it - they're about as well known as each other, they're both safe choices. My point is *why go for someone like Craig, or Morrissey, or Visjnic*, when these people are available?

Gruffidd is attached to another franchise, is Welsh, is too short, and is too big for the part. All mildly. He'd be a safe choice.

Not as safe as Hugh Dancy, in my opinion.

It is my opinion, and it will remain so.

'And since Daniel Craig is being tested it only illustrates that Eon/Sony are looking at older actors to play an early mission Bond.'

It doesn't make the least bit of difference that EON may be looking at Craig, or other older actors. My argument is that if you want to cast someone as an early mission Bond and have the best chance of great box office return, get someone who's around the 30 mark, not too well known but not an unknown, British, good-looking, debonair, and sign them for four films. They may well be looking at Craig, and I quite like Craig - but that clearly, to me, is not nearly as commercially safe an idea.

Are you deliberately being obtuse, or do you just like doing the devils' advocate thing? It's really not a particularly controversial point. If you want, I could change the example to Jack Davenport. Casting him in CR would clearly be more commercially viable - how is it, then, that Eon doesn't appear to be considering him, but we keep hearing about people

[Seannery]

[quote name='Loomis' date='12 September 2005 - 17:03'][quote name='Seannery' date='12 September 2005 - 15:57']With regards to Craig and Bond you seem to be of two minds--you think he's too ugly but think he'd be a great Bond.

[MarJil]

Why is everyone so caught up in having the safest choice possible? To me, safe is just another word for bland. Brosnan was the ultimate in safe, but it doesn't mean that he could make Bond interesting. If they were going for a safe choice for Dr. No, they would have just done what it took to cast Cary Grant or David Niven and then the whole character of Bond probably would be movie history (ala The Guns of Navarone or Charade)rather than still be a vibrant franchise. Connery was not a safe choice, but he was the right one. People are so hung up on whether a guy looks just the right way that they overlook so many people who have had a slightly different look in various films who obviously could be very interesting as Bond. Craig and Urban both fall into this category. To dismiss someone as unsuitable because their most prominant role required them to wear a long blonde wig is not looking at the big picture. I truly believe they should forget about the safe choices and take a risk on someone who can change our perceptions of Bond (yet stay true to the basic character) and make the role their own rather than pick out some cookie cutter guy who fits the description of the last guy to play Bond who doesn't add anything new to the role. Bond should not be safe; he is a guy who was kicked out of his boarding school (not the Etonian drop out that is he is often confused with). He is an outsider and a rebel, not an establishment drone. I don't know how many ways to put it, but the gist of it is that Bond is not someone who should be played by someone who is "safe," quite the contrary in fact.

[Forever007]

Urban is a very menacing looking actor and far better suited for a villan than Bond. After appearing as the main villan in the Bourne Supremacy I doubt he would be on EON's radar.

[MarJil]

Urban was the main physical antagonist in Bourne Supremacy, but wasn't that true of Clive in Bourne Identity as well, and he was supposedly offered Bond? Brosnan was the main heavy of Fourth Protocol (or whatever that Michael Caine movie was named), and he got the job. I remember when Dalton got the job, a friend of mine told me he had seen the trailer for TLD, and thought that he looked more like a villain. Urban has a menacing look when he wants to, but I say that's better than having a guy who looks silly when they try to be the tough guy, ala Brosnan.

[Forever007]

OK maybe not menacing. Polite way of saying down right ugly. makes Daniel Craig look like a super model.

[zencat]

This "Stax" fellow, who apperas to really be on top of CR/Bond news and knows his stuff, today has a denial from McMahon that he agents messed up the deal for him.

http://filmforce.ign...0/650166p1.html

[marktmurphy]

Bond should not be safe;  he is a guy who was kicked out of his boarding school (not the Etonian drop out that is he is often confused with).  He is an outsider and a rebel, not an establishment drone.  I don't know how many ways to put it, but the gist of it is that Bond is not someone who should be played by someone who is "safe," quite the contrary in fact.

Nah- he's that cool, good looking, well dressed guy with the gadgets and the quips. Bond needs a big personality- he doesn't need to be dangerous.
As for being an outsider and a rebel- he works for the Government and wears a suit everyday. If that's being an outsider, I'm a German.