165 replies to this topic

[SeanValen00V]

Who wants Bond to be remembered as the guy that Burped on a children's show?

Connery was virtually unknown
Lazemby was known as being good looking
Moore was reasonably known as having played a spy like character on TV(the saint)
Dalton was known as being a classical actor
Brosnan was best known as having played a spy like character on TV.

Jackman is associated with other roles which are counter to his James Bond peronsa. Owen is 'liitle known', yet good actor, mostly famous for being in quality productions where he might have even been confused with James Bond (i.e. a guy in a tux in a casino [croupier], a spy with a mission to kill [Bourne Identity], a suit wearing hero with sports care [The Driver].

This is what I want to associate with the guy who plays Bond - not burping at a childrens party.

OWEN!

So Jackmen burps at a children's party, what does that have to do with his acting?





Jackmen hasn't done a role that nears James Bond, Owen has played a spy, Bourne etc, it would new terriotory for Jackmen, and in terms of likability, I generally think the whole world would take to Hugh Jackmen much better, Wolverine has made him established, yet he's not commanding huge fees yet, maybe Val Helsing may change that or maybe not, in terms of women audience, and I'm not a women, I generally know, Jackmen is more of a ladies man, and have that Connery type influence in the audiences, while having the likability of the male audience, hey's thats Wolverine as Bond etc etc, cool!!

Jackmen can be dark and amusing at the same time, I say a mix between Connery and Dalton's intensity, a bit of Roger Moore, but the darker Roger Moore in For Your Eyes only, killing in cold blood, knocking the guy off the cliff, yeah!!

[SeanValen00V]

And anybody who wants Owen on the basis he will bring a darker Bond and don't care about if he doesn't put more people in the seats, watch what you wish for. Remember the actor who was Bond for two films in the late '80s and was later forced out due to the suits?

So what? Dalton still gave us two excellent films (or, if you're a member of the anti-LTK brigade, at least one excellent film).

The Problem is, even with Dalton on board, it took alot of hassle and bickering for Dalton to be Bond's harder edge, even if Owen was on board, it wouldn't gurantee him being written for like Dalton was, , perhaps the BEST WAY TO CHOOSE THE BOND, IS RECONISE THAT EON WON'T TAKE HUGE RISKS WITH THE FORMULA, AND TAKE SOMEONE WHO IS WILLING TO BE THE EVERY MAN-JACKMEN-DARK, FUNNY, HANDSOME, LADIES MAN, He'll fit their formula well, Clive Owen could be bad if he's not written well, Jackmen can always hide the actor in him behind his good looks, Owen isn't as great looking, thus he has nowhere to hide if he's not written well, if you look at Brosnan, with the material he has been given, he's done a great job, put Owen in TND/TWINE/DAD, he could end up looking very silly, The producers haven't written for Bond that well, they've done too much comprising to either add more action or unnessary characters like Jinx and Christmas Jones, the thing is we don't have a gurantee they will service and use Owen well, I could see Jackmen being there, doing well whatever they give him and come out looking decent and if they want him to act, he'll do it, but he has the looks to back it up if EON start comprimising their film with unnessarry actors or action scenes, something about Brosnan I'm appreciating, even from DAD, when the scenes are not written much in depth, he's in the background looking like Bond, I just don't think Owen looks like Bond if you didn't give him any lines, Jackmen is more powerful when silent.

Edited by SeanValen00V, 27 April 2004 - 04:55 PM.

[Loomis]

I see what you're saying, Sean (your views seem very similar to crashdrive's on this issue), but I personally would far rather have a Daltonesque "specıalıst" (Owen) than a Brosnanesque "allrounder" (Jackman). Better a guy who can do one thing really well (being funny, being menacing, being sexy, etc.) than a jack of all trades and master of none.

I do see Jackman's appeal, though, and I realise he's a much more "commercial", "audience-friendly" choice than Owen. I'll be surprised if Owen gets it over Jackman.

[Turn]

And anybody who wants Owen on the basis he will bring a darker Bond and don't care about if he doesn't put more people in the seats, watch what you wish for. Remember the actor who was Bond for two films in the late '80s and was later forced out due to the suits?

So what? Dalton still gave us two excellent films (or, if you're a member of the anti-LTK brigade, at least one excellent film).

Please check what else I wrote. I'm a huge Dalton fan and love both those films. I'm not anti-Owen. What I've been trying to say in these posts is Jackman is a safer bet all-around. Owen would likely be fine, but may suffer in this modern era from being unknown ala Dalton, while Jackman is known and is not exactly a weak choice like Ledger or Blooms. Do we really want another period where the series suffers and they do turn to those young punks in a radical move?

It seems to me to a lot of people who are seriously pro-Owen want these dark brooding stories and characterizations. I'm tired of this after six films and want something that entertains me the way the Connery/Lazenby/Moore films did.

[crashdrive]

Come on, Eon, show some cojones, and give us the next Dalton, not the next Brosnan! (Sorry, crashdrive, we'll have to agree to disagree on the theory that Owen = Dalton 2. )

Huh? Haven't you just contradicted yourself?

It's funny though how Jackman made a comment recently where he thinks the shooting of both 'The X-Men' and the 'Van Helsing' sequel could present a problem. And of course there's 'The Fountain'. Clive Owen's schedule has a little more room for Bond. Still, after reading all the negative buzz about 'Van Helsing' I doubt there is going to be a sequel. I have a feeling EON is waiting to see whether or not the film will be a success, before they sign him on. If it turns out to be a failure, they might get him cheaper and longer.

[SeanValen00V]

I see what you're saying, Sean (your views seem very similar to crashdrive's on this issue), but I personally would far rather have a Daltonesque "specıalıst" (Owen) than a Brosnanesque "allrounder" (Jackman). Better a guy who can do one thing really well (being funny, being menacing, being sexy, etc.) than a jack of all trades and master of none.

I do see Jackman's appeal, though, and I realise he's a much more "commercial", "audience-friendly" choice than Owen. I'll be surprised if Owen gets it over Jackman.

Hugh Jackmen is Timothy Dalton's approach if EON wanted it, Wolverine gone mad in X2, intensity, or a lighter touch like Swordfish if EON wanted it, he's more of a guranteee and less of a risk, he has more range then Owen, Owen is a Dalton pretender, and the thing is, if we all want Dalton, then we got to stop thinking about Dalton, because what Licence to Kill did was give Dalton free air for his approach, I am very confident EON won't do that, perhaps if your lucky they'll do The Living Daylights type balance, a balance they have not found.

I would actually prefer Timothy Dalton playing Bond, looking younger then Roger did, playing a older Bond with enemies out to get him, but won't happen of cource.

[Loomis]

Come on, Eon, show some cojones, and give us the next Dalton, not the next Brosnan! (Sorry, crashdrive, we'll have to agree to disagree on the theory that Owen = Dalton 2. )

Huh? Haven't you just contradicted yourself?

Nope. We've always disagreed on the theory that Owen = Dalton 2, and we'll most likely continue to do so. In other words, I still believe Owen would be the next Dalton.

ETA: Whoops, I can see where the confusion arises, though. It's just one of those things about colloquial English - sometimes it just doesn't make much sense and is best not taken literally!

[SeanValen00V]

Come on, Eon, show some cojones, and give us the next Dalton, not the next Brosnan! (Sorry, crashdrive, we'll have to agree to disagree on the theory that Owen = Dalton 2. )

Huh? Haven't you just contradicted yourself?

It's funny though how Jackman made a comment recently where he thinks the shooting of both 'The X-Men' and the 'Van Helsing' sequel could present a problem. And of course there's 'The Fountain'. Clive Owen's schedule has a little more room for Bond. Still, after reading all the negative buzz about 'Van Helsing' I doubt there is going to be a sequel. I have a feeling EON is waiting to see whether or not the film will be a success, before they sign him on. If it turns out to be a failure, they might get him cheaper and longer.

The Foundtain is ready to film, filming was delayed because of Cate Blanchet's pregnacy, I'm sure it will get rolling this spring or summer, leaving Jackmen free in Jan 2005 for Bond.

Van Helsing sequel isn't a sure thing, Jackmen is confident of a sequel, but so have many other films that didn't do well for a followup. And that sequel wouldn't be ready for 2005, 2006 at the earliest, 2006 summer is when X3 is coming out, so I say they'll need to start filming in the fall of 2005, Bond 21 Jan will film to about april or may/june at the latest, he'll be able to fit it in.

[Bond Bug]

Although I've consistently said I want a more character driven and realitic Bond, the thing that matters most is the continuation of the series, so for me a new actor must first and foremost be about getting bums on seats. I think Jackman is the man to do that over Owen.

Jackman seems much more extrovert. We need a Bond actor that will get his face in all the magazines will do a gruelling publicity tour, will go out and sell the movie. We need a Bond that will be able to compete at the level of Mission Impossible. That has to be Jackman over Owen.

I can see Owen could be great in the role, but IMO Jackman has that popular touch and is on the verge of being a huge star.

[Loomis]

I'm assuming Owen wouldn't be nearly as expensive as Jackman, which may work in his favour if MGM has (as is rumoured) pulled its horns in for BOND 21.

[crashdrive]

We've always disagreed on the theory that Owen = Dalton 2, and we'll most likely continue to do so.

Well, to a certain extent I agree Owen could be Dalton 2, but that's not a positive thing. Owen could have Dalton's intensity, depth and complexity. But I'm afraid he'll also be just as 'audience-friendly' as Dalton (in other words, not a crowd pleaser). What Owen lacks is Dalton's matinee good looks. And that's just my problem with Owen. He's not a convincing ladykiller. And I believe the part (and audience members) demand(s) this.

[SeanValen00V]

Who wants Bond to be remembered as the guy that Burped on a children's show?

Connery was virtually unknown
Lazemby was known as being good looking
Moore was reasonably known as having played a spy like character on TV(the saint)
Dalton was known as being a classical actor
Brosnan was best known as having played a spy like character on TV.

Jackman is associated with other roles which are counter to his James Bond peronsa.  Owen is 'liitle known', yet good actor, mostly famous for being in quality productions where he might have even been confused with James Bond (i.e. a guy in a tux in a casino [croupier], a spy with a mission to kill [Bourne Identity], a suit wearing hero with sports care [The Driver].

LISTEN HERE:


What's this about unknowns? Have the fans just BEEN VERY LUCKY?

ALMOST BONDS IF THEY SAID YES:

BIG STAR MEL GIBSON 1994, PROBABLEY THE BIGGEST STAR OFFERED BOND, TURNS DOWN HUGE PAYCHECK "BOND WOULD BE BORING, UNLESS THEY DID SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT." HE SAID

ADAM WEST HUGELY POPULAR AS BATMAN IN THE TV SHOW, OFFERED BOND BY CUBBY , HE DECLINES, "BOND SHOULD BE BRITISH."

IF THESE ACTORS WENT FOR THE MONEY AND FAME, THEY'LL BE BOND.

WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT CHOICES MADE BY CUBBY AND BARBARA BROCOLLI ESPECIALLY TO MEL GIBSON? She said Bond shouldn't be a mega star, I think Mel Gibsion was definately a mega star after the Lethal Weapon films, this was after Lethal Weapon 3.


THEY ARE WILLING TO MAKE COMPRIMISES EVEN FOR BIG STARS IF IT GURANTEES IN A WAY THE SUCCESS. WE HAVE JUST BEEN LUCKY AT TIMES ACTORS HAVE SAID NO!!

BUT JACKMEN IS AUSTRALIAN LIKE GIBSON, PERHAPS NOT NEAR HIS MEGA STAR STATUS, BUT HE'S WILLING TO SAY YES MORE THEN GIBSON,


SO, LESSON HERE IS, HISTORY HAS SHOWN WE'VE BEEN LUCKY THAT THE PRODUCERS DIDN'T GET TOO GREEDY IN SOME INSTANCES, AND ACTORS SAYING NO.


JACKMEN IS A BOND CONTENDER
BLESSED BY PREIST PIERCE BROSNAN FOR BOND
JACKMEN GREW UP ON THE FILMS AND WOULD LOVE TO PLAY IT

THERE YOU GO.


But will he be Bond, who knows, scedule, will the producers stick with Brosnan in the end and use Jackmen in 2007 after he's done, maybe, maybe not, but I just wanted to make it clear, Jackmen is far more approachable for Bond then Mel Gibsion was and Gibson was offered Bond, so why not Jackmen etc Remember history people.

Edited by SeanValen00V, 27 April 2004 - 05:22 PM.

[Turn]

What Owen lacks is Dalton's matinee good looks. And that's just my problem with Owen. He's not a convincing ladykiller. And I believe the part (and audience members) demand(s) this.

I watched The Bourne Identity recently and pointed out to my wife that Owen was a candidate as the next Bond and she seemed surprised and thought he wasn't attractive at all. True he wasn't supposed to be a glamorous character, but I too don't think he has the classic looks to be Bond. He reminds me a lot of Dylan McDermott, the guy who used to star in The Practice.

[SeanValen00V]

We've always disagreed on the theory that Owen = Dalton 2, and we'll most likely continue to do so.

Well, to a certain extent I agree Owen could be Dalton 2, but that's not a positive thing. Owen could have Dalton's intensity, depth and complexity. But I'm afraid he'll also be just as 'audience-friendly' as Dalton (in other words, not a crowd pleaser). What Owen lacks is Dalton's matinee good looks. And that's just my problem with Owen. He's not a convincing ladykiller. And I believe the part (and audience members) demand(s) this.

I totally agree, Clive Owen isn't a match for Dalton in the looks department and some people and women didn't like the looks of Dalton even, because people still use Connery as benchmark, so how will they handle Owen, and Dalton was a better actor, Dalton beats Owen in both departments, so why have a toned down Dalton approach with Owen, plus were not gurantee they'll write for Owen like they did for Dalton, that's 3 negatives that could happen for Owen.


Clive Owen would make for a good villian, not Bond.


Casting James Bond is the toughest casting job period.



LINE UP SEAN CONNERY, ROGER MOORE, TIMOTHY DALTON AND PIERCE BROSNAN, THEN PUT CLIVE OWEN THERE, HE LOOKS OUT OF PLACE, HUGH JACKMEN DOESN'T, TRUST YOUR BOND WATCHING INSTINCTS.


I say Jackmen as Bond, and Clive Owen as Bond villian, not a 00 agent, but some other character, Owen would be good in a Bond film in another part, he won't get typecast, plus he's get a interesting role that would suit him as a actor better, he'll be more pleased with that, he's already commented in the past his negatives about playing Bond, Jackmen on the otherhand would welcome it, you don't want a disinterested actor being there, anyone really thing Owen is pumped up for being Bond, he isn't and said so, Jackmen would though and said he'll enjoy it.

Edited by SeanValen00V, 27 April 2004 - 05:33 PM.

[Loomis]

Owen could have Dalton's intensity, depth and complexity. But I'm afraid he'll also be just as 'audience-friendly' as Dalton (in other words, not a crowd pleaser).

But does that matter to you as a Bond fan? It certainly doesn't matter to me. I'd rather see the series produce (say) two or three more good but commercially unsuccessful films and then end than churn out a whole string of commercially successful but mediocre films and "prosper". I don't call for the survival of the Bond series at any cost - I just want the Bonds to keep on being good, and for The Powers That Be to shut it all down when things start to really suck. Mind you, I'm aware that nowhere is it written in stone that a Jackman Bond film would be bad (or that an Owen one would be good).

It all depends what you want from your Bond. Me, I like variety. I'm equally fond of DR. NO, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, MOONRAKER, THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and DIE ANOTHER DAY. I'm not saying I like all Bond films - I don't; but what I am saying is that, for me, variety is the spice of Bond. You, crash, seem to have a much more firmly fixed idea than I have of what a Bond actor should be and what a Bond film should be. Which is fair enough - different strokes for different folks, after all. We've discussed this many times.

If Jackman is the ideal cinematic Bond made flesh (and I believe he may very well be), then Owen is Fleming's Bond. If Jackman is Brosnan II/Moore II, then Owen is Dalton II/Connery II. Like I say, it depends on what you're after. Personally, I think it's time for Fleming's Bond to rear his (admittedly often rather ugly) head again on the big screen. Let's have another Dalton, at least for a couple of pictures.

[Xenia's Ferrari]

i vote for hugh jackman. i do not see that clive owen has a face for bond.

[luciusgore]

Jackman would be a fine Bond. Thank God it looks like Heath Ledger isn't going to be it. But, in an ideal world, the producers would make a last Brosnan film with Quentin Tarantino directing, then turn to Jackman for Bond 22:

BTW, the Tarantino-Brosnan petition has picked up a little steam again, with over 500 signatures now:

http://www.petitiono...8/petition.html

[The Dove]

In my own opinion, I think that either Jackman or Owen would be fine as Bond. I've only seen Owen in Gosford Park and Hugh Jackman in Swordfish (I'm not an X-men person). So I'd be okay with either one as 007. However, I'm still clinging on to my fading hopes that Pierce will be back one last time. I would love to see him do Casino Royale, but definitely not have Quentin Tarentino direct it! Why cant we get John Glen back for one last run??

[SeanValen00V]

Owen could have Dalton's intensity, depth and complexity. But I'm afraid he'll also be just as 'audience-friendly' as Dalton (in other words, not a crowd pleaser).

But does that matter to you as a Bond fan? It certainly doesn't matter to me. I'd rather see the series produce (say) two or three more good but commercially unsuccessful films and then end than churn out a whole string of commercially successful but mediocre films and "prosper". I don't call for the survival of the Bond series at any cost - I just want the Bonds to keep on being good, and for The Powers That Be to shut it all down when things start to really suck. Mind you, I'm aware that nowhere is it written in stone that a Jackman Bond film would be bad (or that an Owen one would be good).

It all depends what you want from your Bond. Me, I like variety. I'm equally fond of DR. NO, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, MOONRAKER, THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and DIE ANOTHER DAY. I'm not saying I like all Bond films - I don't; but what I am saying is that, for me, variety is the spice of Bond. You, crash, seem to have a much more firmly fixed idea than I have of what a Bond actor should be and what a Bond film should be. Which is fair enough - different strokes for different folks, after all. We've discussed this many times.

If Jackman is the ideal cinematic Bond made flesh (and I believe he may very well be), then Owen is Fleming's Bond. Like I say, it depends on what you're after. Personally, I think it's time for Fleming's Bond to rear his (admittedly often rather ugly) head again on the big screen. Let's have another Dalton, at least for a couple of pictures.

If EON want to make a great Bond film, they would of hired Brosnan and Tarantino already, they are scared, Michael G Wilson has said audiences expect action and effects and stuff, they don't look changing, I'll like to be surprised, but it's not been excellent stuff since Goldeneye, but rather good job, next one will be better, we pray and get disappoininted in the end overall.


Clive Owen IS NOT ANOTHER TIMOTHY DALTON, The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill type Dalton films are not guranteed.

Hugh Jackmen can be TIMOTHY DALTON AND SEAN CONNERY, and is more popular, why have OWEN, Dalton is Dalton.


IF PEOPLE HAVE TO LOOK TO OWEN TO REMIND THEMSELFS OF DALTON, THEN YOUR BEING BLINDED TO WHAT EON DO WITH BOND FILMS THESE DAYS, YOU WON'T GET THE TYPE OF FILMS DALTON DID FOR BOND 21, EON HAVE LOST THE PLOT IF THEY ARE IGNORING TARANTINO, MICHAEL G WILSON TALKS OF USING THE CASINO ROYALE TITLE BUT NOT THINGS IN THE BOOK, LIKE BROSNAN SAID, SHARE LUNECY.


AT BEST, WE'LL GET GET A TOMORROW NEVER DIES, BUT HOPEFULLY MORE IMPROVED WITH A NEW BOND LIKE JACKMEN DOING THE BOND STUFF, THEY WILL NOT TAKE RISKS, LICENCE TO KILL WAS A RISK, PERHAPS THE RISKS HAVE STOPPED, DR NO AND LICENCE TO KILL ARE 2 RISKS, 2 HOLYGRAILS WE MAY NEVER SEE FOR SAY ANOTHER 10 YEARS.

BOND IS MORE ACTION SPECTACLE, OWEN WON'T SUIT IT, JACKMEN WILL, PERHAPS WE'LL GET SOME WELL CRAFTED IMPROVEMENTS THAT BEAT TOMORROW NEVER DIES, AT BEST.

[Turn]

Who wants Bond to be remembered as the guy that Burped on a children's show?

Connery was virtually unknown
Lazemby was known as being good looking
Moore was reasonably known as having played a spy like character on TV(the saint)
Dalton was known as being a classical actor
Brosnan was best known as having played a spy like character on TV.

Jackman is associated with other roles which are counter to his James Bond peronsa. Owen is 'liitle known', yet good actor, mostly famous for being in quality productions where he might have even been confused with James Bond (i.e. a guy in a tux in a casino [croupier], a spy with a mission to kill [Bourne Identity], a suit wearing hero with sports care [The Driver].

This is what I want to associate with the guy who plays Bond - not burping at a childrens party.

OWEN!

Your opinion and all, but in what way do Jackman's previous roles act as counterproductive to his being Bond? Comic book hero, computer hacker, nobleman transported to the modern day, vampire hunter? Just because he hasn't gone around wearing tuxedos in films doesn't make it counter-productive.

So if you go by this way of thinking, if you were new to the series and were going by the actors' resumes, none would be suitable. Consider these examples:

Connery should have acting alongside leprachauns in Darby O'Gill and the Little People against him, as well as wearing a dress in Zardoz and appearing in The Avengers, Metor and Highlander II, considered some of the worst films ever.
Moore, who doesn't worry about image anyway, was in Boat Trip and Spice World.
Lazenby was in several soft-core Emmanuel films.
Dalton was in an episode of Charlie's Angels before Bond and went on to star in such productions as Brenda Starr, The Beautifican and the Beast, Salt Water Moose, Time Share on ABC Family Channel and Looney Tunes Back in Action.
Brosnan was in a string of cheap action films prior to his becoming Bond.

I think Jackman has a good pedigree, and so does Owen. Except for Flash Gordon, I didn't have any knowledge of Dalton, but something felt right about him from the beginning as Bond. That's the way I prefer to think.

[Loomis]

BOND IS MORE ACTION SPECTACLE

Not in my book. Not always, anyway. Not even mostly. If we're in it only for the big explosions, I'm outta here.

[SeanValen00V]

BOND IS MORE ACTION SPECTACLE

Not in my book. Not always, anyway. Not even mostly. If we're in it only for the big explosions, I'm outta here.

I agree, remember you talking to a Dalton fan who thinks TLD AND LTK are the best of the series, I will no longer put FAITH AND HOPE with the current producers of the BOND films until they actually deliver a BOND GEM.

They can have their action like Brosnan said, their cake, they can have plot and character and still eat their cake, it's not hard to do another TLD, A GOOD BALANCE, WILL THEY? I HOPE SO, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO WORRY ABOUT IT, WAITING 3 YEARS FOR DIE ANOTHER DAY IS ENOUGH PUNISHMENT AND PAIN, UNDERSTAND ME!!

[Loomis]

Here's my final word on all this: Jackman and Owen are BOTH outstanding candidates, and it's a great pity that we'll only be able to see one or the other as James Bond. That's it. I've nothing more to say about 'em. I'm looking forward to finding out which one of them will star in BOND 21.

[mattbowyer]

Here is, as I see it the logic behind the two :

Clive Owen
Looks like Bond, in a harder edged way.
Was brilliant in the BMW films where he proved himself to have admirable range within a James Bond mould.
Isn't too busy.

Hugh Jackman
Rising Hollywood star with a tight schedule.
Looks like Bond, in a niceguy kind of way.
Has played Wolverine and a Gay Australian Singer on Broadway.


Why anyone would prefer the latter is utterly beyond me.

[mattbowyer]

One more advantage to Hugh though, the whole Aussie-Double-Up when Kylie does the title song.

[crashdrive]

I'd rather see the series produce (say) two or three more good but commercially unsuccessful films and then end than churn out a whole string of commercially successful but mediocre films and "prosper".

Of course not (but I'm sure it matters to EON & MGM). 'Die Another Day' was one (if not the) most successful Bond films, yet I didn't like it. I'm longing for Bond to go 'The Tailor of Panama' route with real intrigue, emotion and locations. But this doesn't have anything to do with the actor playing Bond. Brosnan could have easily starred in 'The Living Daylights' (he almost did) as could Dalton have easily been the star of 'GoldenEye' (he almost was). The actor playing Bond has nothing to do with the script. Sure the writers tailor to the actors strengths to a certain extent, but I believe Bond actors should be exchangeable. The casting of the actor playing Bond has nothing to do with the quality of the film, unless you get an actor who is not very talented. But since Jackman and Owen are both gifted actors, this isn't an issue.

Side note: If you must compare Jackman with previous Bond actors: he reminds me most of Connery. The same intensity, the same machoism, the same build, the same physicality, the same sex appeal and the same sense of humour. I see Owen more as a mix between Dalton and Lazenby.

[Xenobia]

Jackman -- he has depth, he can do just about anything, and he is a really cool guy.

That being said....I want Pierce for Bond 21.

-- Xenobia

[crashdrive]

Why anyone would prefer the latter is utterly beyond me.

Well maybe because unlike Owen, Jackman does have conventional leading man looks, the right statistics (since his parents were English, the fact he's Aussie doesn't matter) & a lot of physical action experience. Let's not forget, unlike Owen, he is recognizable enough to bring attention to the series without Brosnan, is very enthusiastic about playing Bond & is willing to sign on to a franchise.

Jackman is an experienced, hardworking & versatile actor (going from Wolverine to Peter Allen. Owen wished he had the same range as Jackman)

What's not to like?

Attached Files

•  JackmanisBond.jpg   35.6KB   109 downloads

[Genrewriter]

The action experience is also what pushes me towards Jackman. You can have the best look for Bond in the world but if you can't pull off an action scene, you're screwed.

[CommanderBond]

to me jackman has a edge and incredible good looks which is a must for the role of James Bond.....notice that the people that say Connery is the Best and Pierce is the second is because they had those characteristics that made bond believable when it came to the ladies. I just dont think Owen has enough experiance as an on screen actor to take over a role like this. His looks are average and I just cant stand his voice. To me Jackman is suited for the role waaaaaay more than Owen.