I thought that too at first, but I would be willing to see if Jackman could alter himself to be more accustomed to the role, must give him the chance perhaps.Jackman's roles so far have been directly contradictory to the Bond character - scruffy, scrappy, uncouth - this is how we associate with the actor. This is what we think when we think Jackman. We think - this is NOT Bond!
Jackman prefers Van Helsing and Wolverine to Bond
Started by
Civilian_007 Samurai_*
, May 04 2004 12:33 AM
45 replies to this topic
#31
Qwerty
-
- Commanding Officers
-
- 85605 posts
Commander RNVR
- Location:New York / Pennsylvania
Posted 04 May 2004 - 11:23 PM
#32
SeanValen00V
-
- Veterans
-
- 1518 posts
Lt. Commander
Posted 04 May 2004 - 11:23 PM
Excellent, the most lacking thing anyone has is the beneft of hindsight, Jackman is a actor, unless you see him as a Spy or something similar, you never really know, so it's 50/50, those who think he doesn't have the chops for it, are 50/50 in being right, we only knew a Bond film was great after we watched it etc ETChe will get a bond-like role like Pierce did and then people will make the connection.
Film making and casting is always a risk, somethings feel sure, alot are sure for Jackman, alot are sure for Brosnan for one more, somethings feel sure for sure
#33
1q2w3e4r
-
- Veterans
-
- 1336 posts
Lt. Commander
Posted 05 May 2004 - 05:19 AM
Stallone, yeah. Totally agree with the Rambo and Rocky connection being TWO iconic characters. Disagree with this "perception" of Stallone. Rocky won the '77 Best picture award. Which Stallone starred in and wrote. Hmm...
Jackman IS an actor, if anything EON is better off going with an actor other people know outside of Bond. The X-men crowd, or the Van Helsing crowd would be likely to check it out if Jackman was in it more $$$ which MGM seem pretty keen on at the moment.
I seriously doubt EON are looking another "20 films and 40 years" ahead. I'm pretty sure you'll find they make them ONE FILM at a time. Not along the guidelines of some world film domination scheme.
Jackman IS an actor, if anything EON is better off going with an actor other people know outside of Bond. The X-men crowd, or the Van Helsing crowd would be likely to check it out if Jackman was in it more $$$ which MGM seem pretty keen on at the moment.
I seriously doubt EON are looking another "20 films and 40 years" ahead. I'm pretty sure you'll find they make them ONE FILM at a time. Not along the guidelines of some world film domination scheme.
#34
Civilian_007 Samurai_*
Civilian_007 Samurai_*
-
- Guests
Posted 06 May 2004 - 11:47 AM
I would be VERY surprised if Eon don't consider Bond an on-going venture.
Any business that doesn't have some form of long-term startegy is in trouble.
These people are not stupid, they know where their pay-cheques come from, and that is releasing a new fim ever few years - they want the series to continue and do think about things such as this.
I wasn't comparing them, I was showing that there is no comparison.
Rocky and Rambo are compatable characters. Rocky and Rambo both never made it innto double figures. Rocky and Rambo both used the name of the character in the name of the film [aiding recognition]. Neither Rocky nor Rambo were iconic when Stallone took the role, and therefore he did not have anything to live up to and was able to play each role the way he wanted. Who ever takes on Bond next does not have carte blanche in this respect - therefore it is harder for them to make the role their own - especially if they are better known for something else. - etc.
Further, when people see Stallone maybe they do think Rocky, maybe they think Rambo, most probably think Stallone. All in all this dilutes the impact of each character. When people see a Bond actor, I pretty sure they think Bond [even Connery]- and this is the way Eon like it.
And, yes Stallone is far more inteligent than the characters he plays - but in the mind of the typical cinemagoer, character-association is strong. People do believe what they see on the big screen to be true. Stallone is a dumb-
action guy, Jackman is an unsophisticated comic book characature. Brosnan, Moore, Connery, etc are suave, debonaire iconic heroes.
Further, if Rocky and Rambo are the best example of where the same actor has played the lead in two iconic (but not really very) long-running film series', then perhaps this is what is called the exception that proves the rule.
Any business that doesn't have some form of long-term startegy is in trouble.
These people are not stupid, they know where their pay-cheques come from, and that is releasing a new fim ever few years - they want the series to continue and do think about things such as this.
THIS ISN'T ABOUT COMPARING THE FILMS SERIES TO ROCKY OR RAMBO
I wasn't comparing them, I was showing that there is no comparison.
Rocky and Rambo are compatable characters. Rocky and Rambo both never made it innto double figures. Rocky and Rambo both used the name of the character in the name of the film [aiding recognition]. Neither Rocky nor Rambo were iconic when Stallone took the role, and therefore he did not have anything to live up to and was able to play each role the way he wanted. Who ever takes on Bond next does not have carte blanche in this respect - therefore it is harder for them to make the role their own - especially if they are better known for something else. - etc.
Further, when people see Stallone maybe they do think Rocky, maybe they think Rambo, most probably think Stallone. All in all this dilutes the impact of each character. When people see a Bond actor, I pretty sure they think Bond [even Connery]- and this is the way Eon like it.
And, yes Stallone is far more inteligent than the characters he plays - but in the mind of the typical cinemagoer, character-association is strong. People do believe what they see on the big screen to be true. Stallone is a dumb-
action guy, Jackman is an unsophisticated comic book characature. Brosnan, Moore, Connery, etc are suave, debonaire iconic heroes. Further, if Rocky and Rambo are the best example of where the same actor has played the lead in two iconic (but not really very) long-running film series', then perhaps this is what is called the exception that proves the rule.
#35
Turn
-
- Veterans
-
- 6837 posts
Commander
- Location:Ohio
Posted 06 May 2004 - 02:05 PM
I think you are partly right, but it is not a complete given. An successful example of somebody taking a radically different career turn was Michael Keaton being selected as Batman. He was known for his comedies like Beetlejuice and Mr. Mom. The early Batman movies were massive blockbusters. Although less successful, the sequels starring Val Kilmer and George Clooney still made money.I wasn't comparing them, I was showing that there is no comparison.
Rocky and Rambo are compatable characters. Rocky and Rambo both never made it innto double figures. Rocky and Rambo both used the name of the character in the name of the film [aiding recognition]. Neither Rocky nor Rambo were iconic when Stallone took the role, and therefore he did not have anything to live up to and was able to play each role the way he wanted. Who ever takes on Bond next does not have carte blanche in this respect - therefore it is harder for them to make the role their own - especially if they are better known for something else. - etc.
Further, when people see Stallone maybe they do think Rocky, maybe they think Rambo, most probably think Stallone. All in all this dilutes the impact of each character. When people see a Bond actor, I pretty sure they think Bond [even Connery]- and this is the way Eon like it.
And, yes Stallone is far more inteligent than the characters he plays - but in the mind of the typical cinemagoer, character-association is strong. People do believe what they see on the big screen to be true. Stallone is a dumb-
Further, if Rocky and Rambo are the best example of where the same actor has played the lead in two iconic (but not really very) long-running film series', then perhaps this is what is called the exception that proves the rule.
What do you get when you put stock into what the people think -- Paris Hilton, Bennifer, Ashton Kutcher and the Friends cast plastered everywhere. As long as the next Bond gives us the character we have known and loved for over 40 years that's what counts.
#36
Civilian_007 Samurai_*
Civilian_007 Samurai_*
-
- Guests
Posted 06 May 2004 - 02:20 PM
I am not bothered by what people think. Indeed I would rather not see Jackman as Bond, although it seems that a great deal of CommanderBond.Net users would.
Eon do care what people think. If people are talking about their actor, but not talking about Bond, then I suspect they will question the value in still promoting that actor. Especially if the other films starring by that actor (as talked about by the people) are in direct competition to the Bond series (most notably in competition on the DVD shelves), or the characters played by him detract from the sophisticated image of James Bond - which is proven to be a long-term money spinner for Eon.
Again, although hopefully soon to be resurected in fine form, the 90's BATMAN series lived only a short life. It seems that the audience did not want to see a different actor playing Batman each time around. If Jackman is brought on board, it would seem to me that we would soon jump ship if given a more interesting character to play, or if he thought that playing Bond would limit the scope of characters he could play - such is as happened with Keaton after two goes. Again I do believe that Eon think long(ish)-term. they do not want to harm the series. After the short stints of Lazemby and Dalton, audiences were turned off, and it took something special to get them back into the Bond vibe. Bond works better (for Eon - and for me) when there is long-term continuity in the character. I doubt Jackman, given his profile and other characters, would provide this.
Also, Keaton was hardly a household name when he did BATMAN. Beetlejuice was a hit, but not on the scale of X-2 [also he was hardly recognisable in the film]. I saw Van Helsing, sorry I mean Jackman being interviewd this morning on BBC Breakfast News, I see his face on the front of every Film magazine in the shops (and on the back of all the computer game magazines as well). Jackman is increasingly recognised as being a character who is NOT James Bond - and therefore carries an increased potential to be rejected by fans and casual observers.
In fact, co-incidentaly I used to be a huge Batman comic fan (major stylee). I had followed the production of BATMAN, as best you could in those days. I was never more disapointed, largely due to Keaton just not looking the part. These days I enjoy it for being a great Tim Burton 'Comic Book' movie - but it still aint 'Batman' to me {in fact as the film series got progressivly worse I became increasingly embarassed by my fandom, and it slipt away from me - only recently to retun with a new UK Batman comic coming out last year - so there you go!}
Eon do care what people think. If people are talking about their actor, but not talking about Bond, then I suspect they will question the value in still promoting that actor. Especially if the other films starring by that actor (as talked about by the people) are in direct competition to the Bond series (most notably in competition on the DVD shelves), or the characters played by him detract from the sophisticated image of James Bond - which is proven to be a long-term money spinner for Eon.
Again, although hopefully soon to be resurected in fine form, the 90's BATMAN series lived only a short life. It seems that the audience did not want to see a different actor playing Batman each time around. If Jackman is brought on board, it would seem to me that we would soon jump ship if given a more interesting character to play, or if he thought that playing Bond would limit the scope of characters he could play - such is as happened with Keaton after two goes. Again I do believe that Eon think long(ish)-term. they do not want to harm the series. After the short stints of Lazemby and Dalton, audiences were turned off, and it took something special to get them back into the Bond vibe. Bond works better (for Eon - and for me) when there is long-term continuity in the character. I doubt Jackman, given his profile and other characters, would provide this.
Also, Keaton was hardly a household name when he did BATMAN. Beetlejuice was a hit, but not on the scale of X-2 [also he was hardly recognisable in the film]. I saw Van Helsing, sorry I mean Jackman being interviewd this morning on BBC Breakfast News, I see his face on the front of every Film magazine in the shops (and on the back of all the computer game magazines as well). Jackman is increasingly recognised as being a character who is NOT James Bond - and therefore carries an increased potential to be rejected by fans and casual observers.
In fact, co-incidentaly I used to be a huge Batman comic fan (major stylee). I had followed the production of BATMAN, as best you could in those days. I was never more disapointed, largely due to Keaton just not looking the part. These days I enjoy it for being a great Tim Burton 'Comic Book' movie - but it still aint 'Batman' to me {in fact as the film series got progressivly worse I became increasingly embarassed by my fandom, and it slipt away from me - only recently to retun with a new UK Batman comic coming out last year - so there you go!}
Edited by 007 Samurai, 06 May 2004 - 02:35 PM.
#37
Turn
-
- Veterans
-
- 6837 posts
Commander
- Location:Ohio
Posted 06 May 2004 - 03:08 PM
I gather you are from Britain, Samurai, but Keaton was a huge name in the lstates during the late 1980s. I still don't know I'd say the same for Jackman. Ask the average person on the street who he is I'd wager most would not be able to answer. The X-Men films are huge, but they are ensemble films. He is only a part of those films. Argueably the most memorable character, but not the focal point.Also, Keaton was hardly a household name when he did BATMAN. Beetlejuice was a hit, but not on the scale of X-2 [also he was hardly recognisable in the film]. I saw Van Helsing, sorry I mean Jackman being interviewd this morning on BBC Breakfast News, I see his face on the front of every Film magazine in the shops (and on the back of all the computer game magazines as well). Jackman is increasingly recognised as being a character who is NOT James Bond - and therefore carries an increased potential to be rejected by fans and casual observers.
In fact, co-incidentaly I used to be a huge Batman comic fan (major stylee). I had followed the production of BATMAN, as best you could in those days. I was never more disapointed, largely due to Keaton just not looking the part. These days I enjoy it for being a great Tim Burton 'Comic Book' movie - but it still aint 'Batman' to me {in fact as the film series got progressivly worse I became increasingly embarassed by my fandom, and it slipt away from me - only recently to retun with a new UK Batman comic coming out last year - so there you go!}
You are arguing two sides of the same coin here. You think Jackman will be too high profile for the part because of other big films. I always thought familiarity was an asset. Brosnan was Remington Steele and it only helped him as Bond. Would anybody have accepted him had he not had this similar success in front of him?
By the same token, if you argue for Clive Owen, he is as unknown as Lazenby and Dalton were. Maybe a couple people would know him, but I have a feeling his Arthur film is going to bomb. I could argue audiences don't want some out-of-nowhere guy to take over the role. So there's your choice - high profile or completely unknown. And if you go by the general audience, it's likely they are more comfortable with a known brand (Jackman) than some guy who nobody knows outside of art houses.
#38
Civilian_007 Samurai_*
Civilian_007 Samurai_*
-
- Guests
Posted 06 May 2004 - 03:47 PM
Familiarity is great - over familiarity is not so good.
If you are over familiar with somebody then it is hard to imagine them as being anybody else. As I have said before Tom Cruise is not Ethan Hunt, Ethan Hunt is played by Tom Cruise. However, each of the Bond actors is James Bond - first and foremost. This doesn't damage the films box-office, but does effect the series longevity.
If you were to say the name of any of the past Bonds (Connery, Moore, Dalton, etc), in a game of word association, then I'm pretty sure that most people [who regularly visit the cinema] would fire back James Bond straight away. For years after he got the job only a fraction would fire back James Bond for Jackman - some would more closly associate him with Van Helsing and some with Wolverine - and this will be forever. Because these characters have an in-built 'clut' fan base - due to the history of Universal films, the monster/vampire genre and decades of Marvel comic books. The Saint and Remington steele have never had this level of character recognition.
Yes, we recognised Moore from the saint, and Brosnan from Remington Steele, but both of these roles were directly compatable with James Bond (smaller scale TV versions even). We were not 'over-familiar' with the actors as being anything other than James Bond-types. And Remington Steele was how many years before Bond? I know he got the part earlier, but had to drop it - the reason ' as Cubby said "Remington Steele is not James Bond" - they could have filmed in between the series you know! Cubby saw no value in having the same actor actually being both roles at the same time - why should he promote some TV series? Now in the age of DVD, all of Jackman's films are in direct competition to the Bond series - why would Eon promote his back catalogue when it will only dig into sales of say the Brosnan DVDs?
Of course an actor will have to have proved himself capable before being given the role, but to earn a name for yourself as being the star of CGI laden no-brainer action flicks - well I guess it depends on the direction Eon want to take. And to carve a (pretty big) niche audience of fantasy - comic fans does not seem to be the right choice for me. To choose an actor who's very face will promote a rival film series, an actor who many will refuse to associate with James Bond - becuase to them he is Wolverine, an actor who is likley to persue more and more action roles - making Bond look like 'just one in a list', just doesn't seem to smell right.
Owen, maybe he is not the right man, but I see him as being a name star - just not tooooo big. The Driver series has won critical acclaim - as he has teamed up with most every notable director doing the action thing, cult status, but not incompatable with Bond. King Arthur sees him headlining a major action production, but not one which is going to spawn a franchise, or one which will overly associate him as being 'King Arthur' (and evern if it did, well that only likens him to Sean Connery - and again appears Bond compatable). Then he is playing the man in a suit in Derailed.
OK, perhaps audiences will prefer a bigger named star, but then it didn't seem a requisit for a certain film about a sinking ship, or one about a bunch of Hobbits, a boy magician, a bunch of dinosaurs, or the Star Wars films. Seven of the films in the top ten money making films of all time (rings, potter, Jurassic Park, Star Wars) are part of a franchise that did not require the main character to be a recognised name in the action film stakes [there is also Titanic, Finding Nemo and Idependence Day] - number 11 is Spiderman - I don't recall Tobey Maguire having a significant fan base prior to release. It is maybe the easy way to make a bit of fast cash (which the Bond films can do by name alone), but for long standing critical acclaim (and really big cash), then something a little be special, and a bit more unique is required. Not just another action film on the list of any particular action film star. The general audience is perhaps more savvy than you might think!
If you are over familiar with somebody then it is hard to imagine them as being anybody else. As I have said before Tom Cruise is not Ethan Hunt, Ethan Hunt is played by Tom Cruise. However, each of the Bond actors is James Bond - first and foremost. This doesn't damage the films box-office, but does effect the series longevity.
If you were to say the name of any of the past Bonds (Connery, Moore, Dalton, etc), in a game of word association, then I'm pretty sure that most people [who regularly visit the cinema] would fire back James Bond straight away. For years after he got the job only a fraction would fire back James Bond for Jackman - some would more closly associate him with Van Helsing and some with Wolverine - and this will be forever. Because these characters have an in-built 'clut' fan base - due to the history of Universal films, the monster/vampire genre and decades of Marvel comic books. The Saint and Remington steele have never had this level of character recognition.
Yes, we recognised Moore from the saint, and Brosnan from Remington Steele, but both of these roles were directly compatable with James Bond (smaller scale TV versions even). We were not 'over-familiar' with the actors as being anything other than James Bond-types. And Remington Steele was how many years before Bond? I know he got the part earlier, but had to drop it - the reason ' as Cubby said "Remington Steele is not James Bond" - they could have filmed in between the series you know! Cubby saw no value in having the same actor actually being both roles at the same time - why should he promote some TV series? Now in the age of DVD, all of Jackman's films are in direct competition to the Bond series - why would Eon promote his back catalogue when it will only dig into sales of say the Brosnan DVDs?
Of course an actor will have to have proved himself capable before being given the role, but to earn a name for yourself as being the star of CGI laden no-brainer action flicks - well I guess it depends on the direction Eon want to take. And to carve a (pretty big) niche audience of fantasy - comic fans does not seem to be the right choice for me. To choose an actor who's very face will promote a rival film series, an actor who many will refuse to associate with James Bond - becuase to them he is Wolverine, an actor who is likley to persue more and more action roles - making Bond look like 'just one in a list', just doesn't seem to smell right.
Owen, maybe he is not the right man, but I see him as being a name star - just not tooooo big. The Driver series has won critical acclaim - as he has teamed up with most every notable director doing the action thing, cult status, but not incompatable with Bond. King Arthur sees him headlining a major action production, but not one which is going to spawn a franchise, or one which will overly associate him as being 'King Arthur' (and evern if it did, well that only likens him to Sean Connery - and again appears Bond compatable). Then he is playing the man in a suit in Derailed.
OK, perhaps audiences will prefer a bigger named star, but then it didn't seem a requisit for a certain film about a sinking ship, or one about a bunch of Hobbits, a boy magician, a bunch of dinosaurs, or the Star Wars films. Seven of the films in the top ten money making films of all time (rings, potter, Jurassic Park, Star Wars) are part of a franchise that did not require the main character to be a recognised name in the action film stakes [there is also Titanic, Finding Nemo and Idependence Day] - number 11 is Spiderman - I don't recall Tobey Maguire having a significant fan base prior to release. It is maybe the easy way to make a bit of fast cash (which the Bond films can do by name alone), but for long standing critical acclaim (and really big cash), then something a little be special, and a bit more unique is required. Not just another action film on the list of any particular action film star. The general audience is perhaps more savvy than you might think!
#39
Turn
-
- Veterans
-
- 6837 posts
Commander
- Location:Ohio
Posted 06 May 2004 - 04:10 PM
Your points are well made, Samurai. I still think you are reaching on some, but they are well though out. The thing about Van Helsing in particular is a stretch. Cult monster fans would know him, but beyond that the name means little. In a similar vein, they even now call Frankenstein's monster Frankenstein in the film since so few people recognize it's actually the doctor's name. Lazy mainstream thinking thinking at its worst.
I just try to look at what has developed lately and the current market place and going from there. It just seems this is a new EON. DAD gives ample evidence by hiring Halle Berry and Madonna in wanting to bring in name-recognizeable talent as opposed to the previous films.
Do Jackman's other films really compete with the series? I always thought EON welcomed competition, saying it only enhances people's enjoyment of their product. If people watch X-Men or Van Helsing and like him, doesn't that lead to Bond rather than take away from it? And in turn, wouldn't one Bond film lead some new fans to the others? How many people on this site have said GoldenEye was their first Bond film, then took the time to find the others in the series?
As far as The Driver series being critically acclaimed, I'm not aware of where this is. I was led to believe it was a series promoting BMW products. Again, maybe it's a regional thing, but it seems to mean little here in the states. As far as audiences being savvy, well, when movies starring The Rock lead the newest DVD releases it doesn't give me a lot of faith.
I just try to look at what has developed lately and the current market place and going from there. It just seems this is a new EON. DAD gives ample evidence by hiring Halle Berry and Madonna in wanting to bring in name-recognizeable talent as opposed to the previous films.
Do Jackman's other films really compete with the series? I always thought EON welcomed competition, saying it only enhances people's enjoyment of their product. If people watch X-Men or Van Helsing and like him, doesn't that lead to Bond rather than take away from it? And in turn, wouldn't one Bond film lead some new fans to the others? How many people on this site have said GoldenEye was their first Bond film, then took the time to find the others in the series?
As far as The Driver series being critically acclaimed, I'm not aware of where this is. I was led to believe it was a series promoting BMW products. Again, maybe it's a regional thing, but it seems to mean little here in the states. As far as audiences being savvy, well, when movies starring The Rock lead the newest DVD releases it doesn't give me a lot of faith.
#40
Civilian_007 Samurai_*
Civilian_007 Samurai_*
-
- Guests
Posted 06 May 2004 - 04:53 PM
Maybe you're right about the regional thing, Van Helsing is quite a known name over here. The Peter Cushing Hammer Horror films (He played Van Helsing in 5 films) have a sort of cult following. I believe it is a different Van Helsing in the new film - but the name is recognised. Dracula is quite a popular character over here - in film and book form. I would have though Dracula appearing in LXG, Blade III, probably Buffy, Angel, Bram Stokers Dracula, the re-released on DVD Universal films and now this that perhaps Van Helsing has also gained some recognition [certainly vampire slayers were in vougue not so very long ago]? Personally I can't stand Goths - but there are plenty of them around [and pseudo goths - Buffy goths that is]. Anyway, if there is a second film, then both this character's and Jackman's recognition, I would imagine will, go sky high.
Welcoming competition is one thing - but actively promoting an actor only for him to use his stature to promote the competition is something else. Remember they don't let Brosnan wear a tux in anyother film - they like to keep a tight reign over their empire - and the image of their Bond. I do see them looking at Jackman - with a series of 'Die Another Day' like films in mind (which is a prospect I would dread anyway). But I think that, at the end of the day, he just comes with too much bagage for them to sign him up.
As for the Driver films (adverts), I would certainly say are accalimed by those who have seen them - I've seen only one, and it was very good (Powder Keg). Yes they are promotional for BMW, but the directors involved include, Ang (Hulk) Lee, Wong (Chunking Express)Kar Wai, Guy (Lock Stock) Ritchie, Alejandro (21 Grams) Gonz
Welcoming competition is one thing - but actively promoting an actor only for him to use his stature to promote the competition is something else. Remember they don't let Brosnan wear a tux in anyother film - they like to keep a tight reign over their empire - and the image of their Bond. I do see them looking at Jackman - with a series of 'Die Another Day' like films in mind (which is a prospect I would dread anyway). But I think that, at the end of the day, he just comes with too much bagage for them to sign him up.
As for the Driver films (adverts), I would certainly say are accalimed by those who have seen them - I've seen only one, and it was very good (Powder Keg). Yes they are promotional for BMW, but the directors involved include, Ang (Hulk) Lee, Wong (Chunking Express)Kar Wai, Guy (Lock Stock) Ritchie, Alejandro (21 Grams) Gonz
#41
Bond Bug
-
- Crew
-
- 879 posts
Lieutenant
Posted 06 May 2004 - 06:35 PM
After Van Helsing opens HUGE everyone will know who Van Helsing is!
And a lot more people will know who Hugh Jackman is.
Hugh Jackman will have a following and a fan base far bigger than Pierce Brosnan.
They will come out to see Jackman as Bond.
Having other big movie roles is a good thing, not bad.
And a lot more people will know who Hugh Jackman is.
Hugh Jackman will have a following and a fan base far bigger than Pierce Brosnan.
They will come out to see Jackman as Bond.
Having other big movie roles is a good thing, not bad.
#42
Slaezenger
-
- Crew
-
- 402 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 06 May 2004 - 07:28 PM
Yippee-ki-yay Clive all the Way!
...Neither Owen nor Jackman are right for Bond. Owen's looks aren't quite chisled enough, and Jackman lacks the necessary machismo to be convincing.
#43
Civilian_007 Samurai_*
Civilian_007 Samurai_*
-
- Guests
Posted 06 May 2004 - 07:50 PM
Jackman also talks sort of out of one side of his mouth - I hate that.
Owen might not be ideal, but unfortunatly Connery is no longer in his late thirties/early forties. Brosnan does no look like he wants to do it forever. Moore isn't quite as atheletic as once he was, so I'm not sure who else we're left with.
I personally think Owen wouldn't be a bad choice, he seems more of a mans-man than a ladies-man, but I'd rather have that than a lady-boy - which so many actors seem to be these days.
Owen might not be ideal, but unfortunatly Connery is no longer in his late thirties/early forties. Brosnan does no look like he wants to do it forever. Moore isn't quite as atheletic as once he was, so I'm not sure who else we're left with.
I personally think Owen wouldn't be a bad choice, he seems more of a mans-man than a ladies-man, but I'd rather have that than a lady-boy - which so many actors seem to be these days.
Edited by 007 Samurai, 06 May 2004 - 07:51 PM.
#44
Slaezenger
-
- Crew
-
- 402 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 07 May 2004 - 06:49 PM
[quote name='007 Samurai' date='6 May 2004 - 19:50'] Jackman also talks sort of out of one side of his mouth - I hate that.
Owen might not be ideal, but unfortunatly Connery is no longer in his late thirties/early forties.
Owen might not be ideal, but unfortunatly Connery is no longer in his late thirties/early forties.
Edited by Slaezenger, 07 May 2004 - 06:59 PM.
#45
Johnboy007
-
- Veterans
-
- 6990 posts
Commander CMG
- Location:Washington, D.C.
Posted 08 May 2004 - 01:34 PM
Philadelphia Inquirer gave Van Helsing 1.5 stars, so I'm probably not going to see it now.
They gave Die Another Day two, so this movie must suck.
They gave Die Another Day two, so this movie must suck.
#46
CommanderBond
-
- Veterans
-
- 3135 posts
Commander
Posted 08 May 2004 - 01:39 PM
hahahah ..yeah i heard it kinda sucked. I heard ti had tooooo many special effects. Im going to be happy if it doesnt do well because thatn they wont make a sequel and the he can do bond 22 or 21 