253 replies to this topic

[K1Bond007]

I'm surprised that Campbell was happy to confirm that Cavill, Craig, Visnjic and Worthington have been tested. Okay, that information was already in the public domain, but I still find it odd that he was willing to name names.

But perhaps not ALL the names.

Maybe Campbell let those names be known to get some kind of feedback, whether through message board forums such as this or through other sources.

More like because every tabloid, website, blog, newspaper, etc has reported them. At that point, why not? "Sure they were screentested." It doesn't mean anything though. He didn't say they were the only ones screentested and he didn't say any of them really had any greater of a shot than the others. He didn't let anything go there, so theres no harm in confirming... what has really already been confirmed.

[dinovelvet]

Maybe Campbell let those names be known to get some kind of feedback, whether through message board forums such as this or through other sources.

I see. In that case, I present the following:

Dear Martin Campbell, Barbara Broccoli, Michael G. Wilson, and anyone else to whom this may concern :
Please do not cast Goran Visnjic as James Bond in 'Casino Royale'. He is not British, does not look British, and does not sound British. The idea that such a man could portray the most consistently popular and recognizable British pop culture icon for over 50 years is unconscionable, especially if rumors are to be believed that Casino Royale is a 'Bond Begins' style film. Also, remember the late Cubby Broccoli's credo that Bond should not be played by an actor who tv audiences can see for free every week (plus, let's face it, he's about as exciting onscreen as a sack of potatoes). Everybody's gut reaction across the globe will be "But he isn't British", and you'll be saddled with negative buzz (especially in Britain) before a single frame of the movie has been shot, plus you'll be constantly having to defend your casting choice throughout, and after, the entire production. Surely I need not remind anyone what happened the last time a non-Brit played James Bond.
Might I suggest that you go with Daniel Craig instead. He is a credible British actor with a dynamic screen presence, and is poised for movie stardom with his upcoming projects MUNICH and THE VISITING. Of course, you know all this already! Sure, he isn't everyone's idea of what a conventional James Bond should look like, but neither was Sean Connery. He'll bring something fresh and different to the role, which surely is the idea behind the 'reboot' of Casino Royale?
As for the other choices, Henry Cavill I fear will get slapped with a "Baby Bond" tag. Perhaps he should be reconsidered a few years down the line? Sam Worthington will probably cause a bit of a negative stir because he's Australian (though certainly not as much negativity as the casting of Visnjic). So really Daniel Craig is the only option. Britain will rally round him, and the rest of the world will get to see what he's made of in December when Munich is released; there's already Oscar buzz surrounding that film, wouldn't it be a spectacular coup if your new James Bond got an Oscar nomination? Just something to think about. Thanks for your time.

Signed, someone who may or may not pay $9 to see Casino Royale in November 2006.

[Bondian]

att. dinovelvet
c/o Commanderbond.net

Dear Sir.

BOLLOCKS!!!.

Regards,


M. G. Wilson
Eon Productions Ltd
Eon House
138 Piccadilly
London
W1J 7NR
UK

Maybe Campbell let those names be known to get some kind of feedback, whether through message board forums such as this or through other sources.

I see. In that case, I present the following:

Dear Martin Campbell, Barbara Broccoli, Michael G. Wilson, and anyone else to whom this may concern :
Please do not cast Goran Visnjic as James Bond in 'Casino Royale'. He is not British, does not look British, and does not sound British. The idea that such a man could portray the most consistently popular and recognizable British pop culture icon for over 50 years is unconscionable, especially if rumors are to be believed that Casino Royale is a 'Bond Begins' style film. Also, remember the late Cubby Broccoli's credo that Bond should not be played by an actor who tv audiences can see for free every week (plus, let's face it, he's about as exciting onscreen as a sack of potatoes). Everybody's gut reaction across the globe will be "But he isn't British", and you'll be saddled with negative buzz (especially in Britain) before a single frame of the movie has been shot, plus you'll be constantly having to defend your casting choice throughout, and after, the entire production. Surely I need not remind anyone what happened the last time a non-Brit played James Bond.
Might I suggest that you go with Daniel Craig instead. He is a credible British actor with a dynamic screen presence, and is poised for movie stardom with his upcoming projects MUNICH and THE VISITING. Of course, you know all this already! Sure, he isn't everyone's idea of what a conventional James Bond should look like, but neither was Sean Connery. He'll bring something fresh and different to the role, which surely is the idea behind the 'reboot' of Casino Royale?
As for the other choices, Henry Cavill I fear will get slapped with a "Baby Bond" tag. Perhaps he should be reconsidered a few years down the line? Sam Worthington will probably cause a bit of a negative stir because he's Australian (though certainly not as much negativity as the casting of Visnjic). So really Daniel Craig is the only option. Britain will rally round him, and the rest of the world will get to see what he's made of in December when Munich is released; there's already Oscar buzz surrounding that film, wouldn't it be a spectacular coup if your new James Bond got an Oscar nomination? Just something to think about. Thanks for your time.

Signed, someone who may or may not pay $9 to see Casino Royale in November 2006.

[The Dove]

Hey dinovelvet,

Maybe you should check out the "Negativity check" thread.

[dinovelvet]

Hey dinovelvet,

Maybe you should check out the "Negativity check" thread.

Yes I've seen it, and posted in it. My letter was sort of in jest though (but I still really, really don't want to see Visjnic as Bond)

[zencat]

You know, could it be these four names are the "media safe" names to mention (hence the Variety article as well). Why am I starting to get the feeling that Bond #6 will be a complete surprise, someone we've never heard of, or someone that has only been mentioned in the forums in passing as a "maybe"?

[Michigansoftball#1]

As far as I am concerned Visjnic is the only actor I want to see cast as Bond.

Edited by Michigansoftball#1, 04 October 2005 - 09:09 PM.

[The Dove]

Ahh okay.. Yeah that was a cute letter dinovelvet! I wasn't trying to be rude or anything like that.. Well I'm excited at the prospect of ANY news on the new Bond. No matter who is chosen, there are going to be many fans who won't be happy with the selection.. We'll have to see what Casino turns out like.

[Marquis]

Every time a piece of info has surfaced to suggest Pierce might be back, it's immediately been followed by a new piece of info to contradict it.....every single time. The "Brosnan stunt double" story was out what, 1 hour and 40 minutes? Foolishly i got my hopes up yet again that Pierce might be back and then whaddya know, a new piece of info is released stating he's definately not in the running. Amazing...how many times is that now? 5,6...7? I really should have known better!

I'm trying to be as positive as possible...but my head really hurts. I don't care who they cast now - the new man will get my full support.As much as i like Pierce, i'm a fan of Bond first and foremost. I'll just be glad when this bloody swing-o-meter stops swinging once and for all!

[H.M.Servant]

I find it strange that Campbell would confirm the names of four candidates as beeing in the running for Casino Royale.

Even the 'final four' list was never confirmd or denied was it?

[TaoMike]

You know, could it be these four names are the "media safe" names to mention (hence the Variety article as well). Why am I starting to get the feeling that Bond #6 will be a complete surprise, someone we've never heard of, or someone that has only been mentioned in the forums in passing as a "maybe"?

I get the same feeling... Campbell did not have to mention any names at all; I think the only reason he felt free to toss out these names is because they were not ultimately selected. I just can't believe that he would mention the actual candidate by name (even in a list of others), before the official announcement/press-conference.

Edited by TaoMike, 04 October 2005 - 09:44 PM.

[Pussycat]

You know, could it be these four names are the "media safe" names to mention (hence the Variety article as well). Why am I starting to get the feeling that Bond #6 will be a complete surprise, someone we've never heard of, or someone that has only been mentioned in the forums in passing as a "maybe"?

You're not the only "cat" on the forum who thinks that.
I think the recycling of these names is exactly that...safe because they have already been "outed." And perhaps they are further "out" than we think!

[Bon-san]

You know, could it be these four names are the "media safe" names to mention (hence the Variety article as well). Why am I starting to get the feeling that Bond #6 will be a complete surprise, someone we've never heard of, or someone that has only been mentioned in the forums in passing as a "maybe"?

I've never let go of the feeling that the man who ultimately is cast, has been kept quite secret. There're a few that would make for a whopper of an announcement!

Of course, it also wouldn't surprise me if one of the Final Final Four is chosen. The names Craig, Cavill and Visnjic have continued to thrive, whilst many others have been laid to wayside.

[Pussfeller]

You know, could it be these four names are the "media safe" names to mention (hence the Variety article as well). Why am I starting to get the feeling that Bond #6 will be a complete surprise, someone we've never heard of, or someone that has only been mentioned in the forums in passing as a "maybe"?

That's an interesting idea, and I think it fits in with the "Bond is 28" rumor. It's possible that Campbell chose to mention four actors who had already been eliminated.

I'm still hoping for O'Lachlan, and I think there's a good chance he's the one.

[Alex Zamudio]

Wow!! Great! The next 3 weeks are going to be crazy, I

Edited by Alex Zamudio, 04 October 2005 - 10:16 PM.

[killkenny kid]

[Agent 76]

You know, could it be these four names are the "media safe" names to mention (hence the Variety article as well). Why am I starting to get the feeling that Bond #6 will be a complete surprise, someone we've never heard of, or someone that has only been mentioned in the forums in passing as a "maybe"?

I really like your idea, that we'll have a surprise for Bond #6. It's kind of exciting to think about it.

[SeanValen00V]

Remember MGM said the script was being written with a generic Bond in mind earlier in the year. Well they'll have tools to bring Brosnan in.

[JCH]

You know, could it be these four names are the "media safe" names to mention (hence the Variety article as well). Why am I starting to get the feeling that Bond #6 will be a complete surprise, someone we've never heard of, or someone that has only been mentioned in the forums in passing as a "maybe"?

I really like your idea, that we'll have a surprise for Bond #6. It's kind of exciting to think about it.

I always look for any posts that zencat puts on here. It looks like we'll be getting some sort of actual announcement very soon - which will be good. It's been too long of a wait. Having said that, I tend to think it's going to be a surprise too. After all, if the Superman franchise can be restarted with a relative unknown like Brandon Routh, it's not unimaginable that Bond can also be "reset" with a relative unknown as well.

[Pal]

My gut tells me that of any of the names mentioned for a 28-32 year old, O'Lachlan is the man to be announced in the near future. My reasoning for that being that of the original final 4 as well as the "final" final 4, O'Lachlan has had the lowest profile of all the actors. He really only spoke up when he confirmed that he had his hair cut, fitted in a suit, and screen tested. Since then, not a peep from him or anything about him. I'd say that he is the best choice out there for an unknown or for what Martin Campbell wants to do.

[Loomis]

You know, could it be these four names are the "media safe" names to mention (hence the Variety article as well). Why am I starting to get the feeling that Bond #6 will be a complete surprise, someone we've never heard of, or someone that has only been mentioned in the forums in passing as a "maybe"?

You may be right. But in that case,

Drat! Just when I was getting my hopes up about Craig, thinking Visnjic would be an acceptable alternative, and gearing up to accept Cavill or Worthington in the event of it not being Craig or Visnjic....

[bondphan]

If he confirms a 28-32 year old Bond but considered Craig and Cavill who are not in that range, one can assume that Bond will look/be 28-32 but the actor playing him will need to look like 28-32 but not necessarly BE 28-32. So that lets other mentioned candidates a possibility. The reporter could have actually mentioned those names and he just agreed yes they have been tested. It is open to interpretation but we should know soon! I too think maybe we will all be surprised. Hopefully, pleasantly surprised.

[killkenny kid]

What happened to announecment for this week?

[Loomis]

What happened to announecment for this week?

I think it was only going to be a decision by Sony and Eon this week, not an announcement (with an "all bets are off" situation in the event of failure to reach an agreement, including the possibility of CASINO ROYALE being postponed). However, there was talk of CBn's "sources" possibly letting us know the identity of the Bond actor this week.

So we may - may - know the guy's name this week.

[killkenny kid]

What happened to announecment for this week?

I think it was only going to be a decision by Sony and Eon this week, not an announcement (with an "all bets are off" situation in the event of failure to reach an agreement, including the possibility of CASINO ROYALE being postponed). However, there was talk of CBn's "sources" possibly letting us know the identity of the Bond actor this week.

So we may - may - know the guy's name this week.

[dinovelvet]

What happened to announecment for this week?

It's only Tuesday...the week is still young!

[zencat]

What happened to announecment for this week?

I think it was only going to be a decision by Sony and Eon this week, not an announcement (with an "all bets are off" situation in the event of failure to reach an agreement, including the possibility of CASINO ROYALE being postponed). However, there was talk of CBn's "sources" possibly letting us know the identity of the Bond actor this week.

So we may - may - know the guy's name this week.

Exactly. From our story:

If Eon and Sony do make their decision next week, this does not necessarily guarantee that the announcement will come next week as well. Unless contracts have been negotiated in advance, it still may be some time before fans finally learn the name of the man in silhouette.

In regards to CBn sources letting us know early. I think your remembering this thread which was just a speculative poll thread asking what would you like us to do IF we did find out early. I have no idea if we'd find out before the rest of the world, and even if we did, not sure I'd trust it enough to say anything.

[Forever007]

Take it all with a grain of salt. I'll be ready to debate once they choose a new 007. The clock is ticking...

[killkenny kid]

Do you think Eon was online today at 606pm, to check the buzz on this thread?

[Forever007]

I doubt they care all that much about die hard Bond fans opinion on the next 007. They mass audience of moviegoers do not have the history of Bond in their mindset when they go to see a new Bond film. That's waht worries me about their next selection of 007. They may be more concerned with the bottom dollar from the general audience than the die hard fans here.