134 replies to this topic

[Athena007]

Who's going to own up to being that one person who voted YES?

I'm guessing it was Bond Bug...

Bloom or Jackman would be my choice, as I want James Bond movies to be as popular as they used to be (ie: more popular than Harry potter!)

...but I could be wrong.

[Johnboy007]

I think the poll numbers speak for themselves.

[Bond Bug]

I voted yes! Not my first choice, but I'd be happy. Like Jackman he's heading for major stardom and in my view the Bond series needs that.

As for being too young looking, well that's not an issue as long as their is good acting and direction and they can always use make up to create an older more rugged look.

[JackChase007]

Bloom should NEVER be Bond. He is a horrible, hammy actor who only serves as the requisite "pretty male face" in his movies. No way. Gimme Ledger over him any day.

If he was chosen as Bond, I'm not sure what I'd do - if I'd see his first one or not. I'm just really, really, REALLY hoping that it never happens, so I don't have to worry about it. I sincerely think that choosing him just to make the series popular and appeal to "young" audiences is sheer idoicy. Bond is Bond - there's ALWAYS an audience for these movies. People grew up on the movies, and in turn take their kids to see the newer ones - THAT'S how you get the younger audience. It's nothing that Eon or MGM could do just by picking a lousy actor simply because he has "box office draw".

[Bond Bug]

Disagree, although there is some sponsorship from placement advertising, the Bond movies have become very expensive movies to make.

The budgets are so big that if the box office gross falls like with Dalton, the series could be in trouble. That could happen with Heath Ledger who nobody has heard of.

I would always favour actors that I think will make the most money and bottom line is the producers would too.

[Athena007]

I believe that if MGM/EON go with a younger Bond. The point of that won't to be appeal to the younger audiences who are already Bond fans, or the younger audiences who will be introduced to Bond by their parents. If they do go with a younger Bond, then they've chosen not to listen to the current fans and to go with the more commercial approach, to appeal to those young people who are not Bond fans - to gain new fans commercially.

Horrible idea if you ask me.

[JackChase007]

Regarding Bondbug's post:

Um...to my knowledge, Heath Ledger is WELL known of. And it's stupid to say that "They should pick a huge film star - that's the only way that the series can survive."

Back in 1962, Eon Productions gambled on this little-known Scottish actor named Sean Connery playing James Bond. The world immediately took to Connery, and he was seen throughout the world, for DECADES as JAMES BOND. Now, you can't tell me that people went to go see the first few Bonds because Sean Connery had "massive box office appeal".

In the 1990s, not too many people my age knew who Pierce Brosnan was. Hell, we didn't even know his name. In fact, I remember a friend of mine asking "What's that guy's name?" when we first saw a poster for GoldenEye. All we knew him as was "that British guy from Mrs. Doubtfire (yes, I know now that he isn't British, but damned if I knew back then). Look at him now.

[Athena007]

In the 1990s, not too many people my age knew who Pierce Brosnan was. Hell, we didn't even know his name. In fact, I remember a friend of mine asking "What's that guy's name?" when we first saw a poster for GoldenEye. All we knew him as was "that British guy from Mrs. Doubtfire (yes, I know now that he isn't British, but damned if I knew back then). Look at him now.

Well, I certainly knew who he was. Remington Steele. But my knowing who he was could be attributed to the fact that I met him while he was filming "The Lawnmower Man"... but I don't think so.

None the less, you're right, Pierce wasn't a big star... a minor star. Kinda like Jackman is now; and like Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton were then... that's how I see it. And MGM/EON should stick with the Bond formula that works. I mean there art many franchises ("sequels") that have lasted this long and been this huge. MGM/EON will be making a huge mistake, which I fear could possibly end the series as far as hardcore Bond fans are concerned.

[zencat]

I believe that if MGM/EON go with a younger Bond. The point of that won't to be appeal to the younger audiences who are already Bond fans, or the younger audiences who will be introduced to Bond by their parents. If they do go with a younger Bond, then they've chosen not to listen to the current fans and to go with the more commercial approach, to appeal to those young people who are not Bond fans - to gain new fans commercially.

Horrible idea if you ask me.

I think you may be right, but if this is their logic, it is completely flawed. I don't think young people (young boys especially) want to see a young James Bond, and certainly not Orlando Bloom (or Heath Ledger) whose current appeal comes from the female end of fandom. Bloom is the guy on the cover of your little sister's Teen Beat magazine, he's not Spiderman, he not Batman, and he's certainly not James Bond! And what is this madness that young people only relate to young actors? I fell in love with Bond watching Sean Connery in DAF for crying out loud. Bond was a MAN to look up to, something to shoot for. His cool and his "super powers" came from his experience, not from teenage testosterone. Yes, Spiderman is young -- but he's supossed to be! It's completely WRONG HEADED and will not pull in new fans as they think -- except maybe for those teenage girls (and go look at the box office of Prince & Me to see how deep that goes -- sorry Katherine) and it WILL push away true Bond fans, and these are the guys going on opening weekend and talking it up (or down) online, MGM. They will lose more than they will gain, they will screw up the entire mythos of James Bond, and the franchise will die off in two films. In other words, they will do what Hollywood does with all their franchises. Fine a half-assed way to do it wrong. Casting Bloom or Heath would be a great first step in this direction.

Unless it's a very well done origin story. But that's another topic.

[Bond Bug]

Regarding Bondbug's post:

Um...to my knowledge, Heath Ledger is WELL known of. And it's stupid to say that "They should pick a huge film star - that's the only way that the series can survive."

Back in 1962, Eon Productions gambled on this little-known Scottish actor named Sean Connery playing James Bond. The world immediately took to Connery, and he was seen throughout the world, for DECADES as JAMES BOND. Now, you can't tell me that people went to go see the first few Bonds because Sean Connery had "massive box office appeal".

In the 1990s, not too many people my age knew who Pierce Brosnan was. Hell, we didn't even know his name. In fact, I remember a friend of mine asking "What's that guy's name?" when we first saw a poster for GoldenEye. All we knew him as was "that British guy from Mrs. Doubtfire (yes, I know now that he isn't British, but damned if I knew back then). Look at him now.

Connery became Bond, partly due to the size of the movie's budget. The Bond novels were already a phenomenen and the movies became the blueprint for a thousand other movies.

The first movies were cutting edge for their time. There had never been anything like them to compare. Now the comparison is always with other Bond movies and all the competition. Now we have the Harry Potters, the Star Wars, the X men, the Lords of the Rings, etc, all outgrossing Bond that was once the biggest.

Yes Brosnan kept Bond afloat, but why was he less of a success commercially than Mission Impossible? Because Cruise was a bigger star than Brosnan and if you were taking a major star who had appeal to both males and females and putting him in that genre you have a huge hit.

That is what Bond needs. The more money future Bond movies make, the more willing they will be to take risks. Brosnan did a good job, but the last 4 movies were hardly taking any risks. They were made for a safe buck, because they never reached the heights of some of the competition. I want to see a risker Bond movie, a better Bond movie, a different Bond movie, a more daring Bond movie.

I believe Hugh Jackman or Orlando Bloom have the right sort of appeal to do that.

[JackChase007]

If you want star power, then go to your Mission: Impossible films, or whatever Bond-wannabees. People should go to see a Bond movie to see JAMES BOND, not some underage punk simply because he's the flavor of the month.

[Athena007]

I want to see a risker Bond movie, a better Bond movie, a different Bond movie, a more daring Bond movie.

But, honestly, isn't that something that up to the producers, writers, and directors to produce? Not the actor.

And if we're talking too different like xXx... then... ...NOoooooooo! Leave that to the copycats. I say, don't mess with Bond. Don't mess with a franchise that's been working for 40+ years.

[Martin Aston]

Nicely put, Zencat, but, as I posted a week or two agao, it is going to be Orlando Bloom.

The corporate executives at MGM have been telling agents this for several weeks.

The decision was made by Eon, not MGM.

The reasoning was Bosnans age, but not in the way you would expect.

The problem was the women co-stars. The kind of women he would need to play against to bring in the young movie going audience were all in their twenties or early thirties, which is the same age as Brosnan's son. The producers felt there was something creepy about this 50 year old man with 30 year old women. And it would only get worse in the next film. The alternative would be to cast older women, like Julianne Moore, or Renee Russo, but they also don't excite or bring in the friday-night-date-night younger audience.

I think you are right that Orlando Bloom will harm the series.

[Athena007]

Nicely put, Zencat, but, as I posted a week or two agao, it is going to be Orlando Bloom.

There is a reason I started this thread

/spoiler.gif

nothing's final yet... and dear gawd I hope it never is.

/gen_line.gif

[Bond Bug]

But, honestly, isn't that something that up to the producers, writers, and directors to produce? Not the actor.

Yes of course they do, if they were confident of a hit. If they had made a James Bond movie that took 600m dollars worldwide, they might be a lot more confident of playing with the format more and making the sort of Bond many fans want to see.

[zencat]

Nicely put, Zencat, but, as I posted a week or two agao, it is going to be Orlando Bloom. 

The corporate executives at MGM have been telling agents this for several weeks.

The decision was made by Eon, not MGM.

The reasoning was Bosnans age, but not in the way you would expect.

The problem was the women co-stars.  The kind of women he would need to play against to bring in the young movie going audience were all in their twenties or early thirties, which is the same age as Brosnan's son.  The producers felt there was something creepy about this 50 year old man with 30 year old women.  And it would only get worse in the next film.  The alternative would be to cast older women, like Julianne Moore, or Renee Russo, but they also don't excite or bring in the friday-night-date-night younger audience. 

I think you are right that Orlando Bloom will harm the series.

Interesting stuff. Thank you for the insights, Martin Aston.

Now excuse me while I go kill myself.

[Qwerty]

Bloom as Bond? He'd most certainly not better be Bond. What a depressing thought that is.

[zencat]

97% running against Bloom as 007.

You know, I don't think in the history of CBn there has never been such universal agreement on a topic as there has been in this thread.

[ChandlerBing]

He's a [censored]ing goofball! Why don't they just get the guy who played Klaus Hergesheimer to play Bond. It'd be the same [censored]ing thing!

[JackChase007]

Nicely put, Zencat, but, as I posted a week or two agao, it is going to be Orlando Bloom.

Great, now this is REALLY ING HILARIOUS. Not too long ago, we had some reject in here posting how it was DEFINATELY Hugh Jackman who was going to be James Bond in Bond 21 now we have someone else, saying that it's DEFINATELY Orlando Bloom.

What, is James Bond TOO MUCH FOR ONE PERSON? Has he become such a big character that he can no longer maintain ONE, INDIVIDUAL BODY?

[zencat]

Nicely put, Zencat, but, as I posted a week or two agao, it is going to be Orlando Bloom.

Great, now this is REALLY ING HILARIOUS. Not too long ago, we had some reject in here posting how it was DEFINATELY Hugh Jackman who was going to be James Bond in Bond 21 now we have someone else, saying that it's DEFINATELY Orlando Bloom.

What, is James Bond TOO MUCH FOR ONE PERSON? Has he become such a big character that he can no longer maintain ONE, INDIVIDUAL BODY?

Perhaps Bloom is playing the "young James Bond" in the pretitles, then it switches to Jackman. Then MGM gets all the Jackman fans AND Bloom's teenage girl crowd. Genius!

[JackChase007]

Perhaps Bloom is playing the "young James Bond" in the pretitles, then it switches to Jackman. Then MGM gets all the Jackman fans AND Bloom's teenage girl crowd. Genius!

What's scary, Zencat, is that I was about to make a very, VERY similar joke...

Only I was thinking more along the lines of probably Bond (Jackman) is killed in action, or goes missing, so they call in his very similar-looking and -acting nephew, James Bond Jr. (Bloom) to hunt down his missing uncle.

Either way...let's just hope that Eon and MGM don't read our posts and get ideas...

[Bond Bug]

97% running against Bloom as 007.

You know, I don't think in the history of CBn there has never been such universal agreement on a topic as there has been in this thread.

I know when I'm in a minority! But as I said, he's not my fiirst choice.

[Athena007]

I know when I'm in a minority! But as I said, he's not my fiirst choice.

It's ok Bond Bug, we'll let you stay... for now

[Qwerty]

97% running against Bloom as 007.

You know, I don't think in the history of CBn there has never been such universal agreement on a topic as there has been in this thread.

It's not surprising at all to me. I'd intensely hate him as Bond.

[ChandlerBing]

Orlando can play Bond of the past as an 8 yr old, Pierce can play him now, and Roger Moore can play him in a retirement community

[JackChase007]

It's not surprising at all to me. I'd intensely hate him as Bond.

I second that. And I think that it's pretty safe to say that many people agree.

[Qwerty]

I saw a preview for him to be star in a new action film with Brad Pitt I believe, he should just stick with those roles.

[Athena007]

I saw a preview for him to be star in a new action film with Brad Pitt I believe, he should just stick with those roles.

Oh gawd, I think they ruined "TROY" ...I kinda get the feeling that the tv version that came out last year is going to end up being better then the movie version. We'll see.

[Qwerty]

LOL! Didn't see the TV version, but I guess we'll find out.