366 replies to this topic

[Agent 76]

Eon will chose a pretty baby face to appeall to more audiences.

Oh, you mean Jackman?

Exactly...

[Qwerty]

Eon will chose a pretty baby face to appeall to more audiences.

Oh, you mean Jackman?

Exactly...

Jackman could pull off a strong face for James Bond.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Adrian Paul???? He's 45 years old! Jackman or Brosnan for '21 and Jackman for '22,'23,....

[Moomoo]

Seannery,

Hugh Jackman was the only guy in contention. No other actor was seriously considered.

MGM see Jackman as the most profitable of all the wannabe Bonds. Sony won't see it any different.

Brosnan has shown his true colours with his refusal to downsize his fee for Bond 21. I am a fan of Brosnan's Bond, but the fact is Brosnan has no major box office career outside of Bond. Go check out the BO stats for Law of Attraction for proof of that. His remarks about paralysis were cheap, back-stabbing in the extreme and insensitive. Add the fact Barbara Broccoli's mother had just passed away, and Brosnan dug himself so big a hole, no shovel would get him out of it. There is little reason to keep with Brosnan when Jackman has everything MGM want in a modern 21st century Bond.

1) He has the looks (I have played back my copy of Swordfish and the more I see of the short haired Jackman, the more I see of Bond.) He does possess a Connery-type nose. Brosnan has a classic Bond face, but Jackman's is more earthy, more gritty - and paradoxically more suited if Bond#6 is to be closer to Connery. If Jackman plays Bond with a genuine hard edge, then his looks are perfect. Brosnan never truly convinced as a hard Bond, so his looks helped him in the other departments - charm, sense of humour etc. Jackman's features are closer to the more gritty Fleming ideal of Bond.

2) Jackman is the rising actor in Hollywood. He also has box office clout. The press love Jackman. No-one has a bad word to say about the guy. He is Mr Nice. He is extremely personable in interviews, and has admitted on several occasions he wants to play Bond.

3) He is not laying down demands or conditions. I was told it was a two picture deal he had signed. My guess is whatever he was asking or was told he would get, it's much less than what Brosnan was asking for DAD. That's what consigned Brosnan to history.

4) Jackman is the right age to play Bond.

5) Jackman has range. He plays comic book characters, romantic leads, gay men, dances, sings. So this indicates he possesses the talent to play Bond

6) Jackman has a core fanbase who will see the movie. I have trawled the net and trust me, some women adore Jackman. They adore him in the same way that some women love Pitt, Depp, Cruise etc. It's the same sort of fan adoration. MGM couldn't in their wildest dreams ask for a better foundation than that. The new Bond with a loyal fanbase. No other Bond actor has had that prior to taking the role. So this means MGM can risk more capital because they know a certain section of the audience will go to see Jackman. I reckon they've already got $15 million dollars from the opening weekend in the bag. MGM and their investors can spend more on the budget knowing the opening weekend gross will be big.

When you consider these six points you see there's nobody else in contention. *No-one*. Jackman has been the only choice for a couple of years. Clive Owen is the runner up. He runs a good race but it's only the silver medal for him.

Once Jackman finishes completion of The Fountain the cogs will move, the Bond machine will step up a gear and filming will start on the new Bond film. Probably summer 2005. 12 months later we get the new film.

If Jackman can imbue his Bond with a sense of danger and charm, then his Bond will be a huge success. I have no doubt about that. His Bond will be as big as Brosnan's. And the franchise will endure into the second decade of this new century.

Moomoo

Edited by Moomoo, 01 June 2004 - 09:37 PM.

[Loomis]

One last thing I forgot to mention Loomis from a good source was that Paul with a handful of candidates were shortly considered for Bond pre-World Is Not Enough when there was a small time period when negotiations with Pierce was going badly. Hugh Jackman was also on that short list and I think Colin Firth too, but with him I may be mistaken about.

I doubt that Jackman would have been on a shortlist in 1998. His most recent acting credit (according to the IMDb) was for something called "Halifax f.p: Afraid of the Dark", an Australian TV production. His feature debut came in 1999, with PAPERBACK HERO, and it wasn't until 2000 that he hit screens as Wolverine. So, unless The Powers That Be keep an exceptionally keen eye on obscure Australian TV actors who might one day make it big (in which case they'd have taken note of, say, Guy Pearce in his "Neighbours" days), it's highly doubtful that Jackman would have made it onto a pre-TWINE shortlist.

[Moomoo]

This isn't meant to be a confrontational post, but Seannery, could you tell us who is your inside source? I told people mine. What you claim could be made up. Would help if you named this inside source. Make us more likely to believe you.

Moomoo

[Seannery]

Moomoo I am content to let time show what my source has laid will be proven correct--I have no doubt it will be so. Let time show who is correct. From my estimation you have an one to six chance of being correct.

If it is all decided, why no announcent now? Because it is still up in the air.

Also go over to comingsoon.net, they have just posted that Hugh Jackman is up for a movie called "Clancy of the Overflow"--a western about a famous Austrailian cowboy. The rights are held by Jackman's production company and he is one of the favorites to do it. Get this--it is due to be filmed during the second half of 2005! If he does the role along with the "Fountain" he would not have the time to do Bond for either 2005 or 2006! So if Bond goes to one of the other five actors, it might be because this shows for whatever reason Jackman and the producers have gone their separate ways. So if he accepts the cowboy role it will indicate he won't be Bond. And don't sat they will delay it even farther--not very likely. So check out comingsoon.net if you don't believe me.

[Moomoo]

No way one in six. I was told Jackman had signed the contract. Brosnan was out. He wanted too much and he was shown the door. MGM wanted Jackman.

Also go over to comingsoon.net, they have just posted that Hugh Jackman is up for a movie called "Clancy of the Overflow"--a western about a famous Austrailian cowboy. The rights are held by Jackman's production company and he is one of the favorites to do it. Get this--it is due to be filmed during the second half of 2005! If he does the role along with the "Fountain" he would not have the time to do Bond for either 2005 or 2006! So if Bond goes to one of the other five actors, it might be because this shows for whatever reason Jackman and the producers have gone their separate ways. So if he accepts the cowboy role it will indicate he won't be Bond. And don't sat they will delay it even farther--not very likely. So check out comingsoon.net if you don't believe me.

If you believe Jackman will give up a once-in-a-lifetime chance to play Bond so he can make this cowboy movie, then, with respect, you're not living in the real world.

Forget that for one moment, if you are genuine, will you deny what I was told about Bond 21 scheduled for summer 2006. I was told that.

Simple question: Bond 21 for summer 2006 - true or false?

Moomoo

Edited by Moomoo, 01 June 2004 - 10:09 PM.

[Loomis]

[quote name='Loomis' date='1 June 2004 - 21:45'] [quote name='Seannery' date='1 June 2004 - 20:20'] One last thing I forgot to mention Loomis from a good source was that Paul with a handful of candidates were shortly considered for Bond pre-World Is Not Enough when there was a small time period when negotiations with Pierce was going badly.

[Seannery]

Sorry Loomis I mixed up Jackman and Firth in that post. My bad!


No problem Moomoo I take no offense. It's a reasonable question, but I not allowed to say. I could easily say a number of higher ups at MGM, but that would be meaningless. I could say the ex-marketing director or whatever, but saying it proves nothing. If you arrange a personal meeting in real life, well that is different! I am content to let time show its hand.

[Seannery]

You got it Loomis, I really mucked that one up! If i remember correctly it happened around 2001.

Moomoo you say 2006, we will see. I wasn't told anything about it. And don't be so sure about him not taking that Cowboy picture--he might not be chosen or he may as a quirk of nature want to play a home country hero. Stranger things have happened--he is hot and really doesn't need Bond. His name is up for everything.

[Moomoo]

Loomis, no way will is Adrian Paul in contention. Nor all the others.

MGM or Sony are going to invest in the region of $150 million dollars in the new Bond film. If you were the CEO at MGM, would you risk investing all that money in someone like Adrian Paul? I got nothing against Adrian Paul, but let's look at this from a business perspective.

MGM are not going to risk hiring Paul, Firth, Gruffudd when they have Hugh Jackman waiting in the wings. Seannery is not living in the real world by stating there's some shortlist. Jackman has box office appeal. Do the others? Pehaps Owen will hit the big time with King Arthur, but even so, Jackman is the safer bet.

Making movies on such a big scale as Bond requires investors to take as little risk as possible. They have to get the money, shoot the film, then market it. It all costs big money. Why risk, Gruffudd, Paul, Firth, - ALL UNPROVEN AT THE BOX OFFICE - when they have *man of the moment* Hugh Jackman?

Come on, what I say makes complete sense. Making movies is a business. You try to limit the risk, not actively seek to increase it.

There's nobody else but Jackman. Seannery knows it, Eon know it, MGM know it, Sony know it, Brosnan knows it (he's admitted Jackman is ideal), and Jackman knows it. This farce has gone on long enough. I came here to cut through the , to tell you what I was told, and this was from a bona fide real person, a real source at MGM, the marketing director. It wasn't some tabloid going on about Heath Ledger or Orlando Bloom. I wouldn't lie to you, or muck you about. It's makes no difference to me if Jackman is the new Bond. I don't profit from it.

Jackman is the new Bond and Eon/MGM will announce it soon.

Moomoo

[JackChase007]

Your rant does nothing but show that Jackman might be "ideal" for Bond, but that isn't EVIDENCE. Why should we take your word over anyone else's?

[Moomoo]

Moomoo you say 2006, we will see. I wasn't told anything about it. And don't be so sure about him not taking that Cowboy picture--he might not be chosen or he may as a quirk of nature want to play a home country hero. Stranger things have happened--he is hot and really doesn't need Bond. His name is up for everything.

Sorry, but I cannot agree with that. Jackman has said he would love to play Bond. He said something like it's every guy's dream to be Bond. So I don't believe he would ignore the chance to play Bond. Given the choice between a cowboy picture and Bond, I'm 99.9% convinced Jackman would choose Bond. It's too tempting to turn down.

Moomoo

[Seannery]

Well this back and forth is useless. More of "no i'm right" between us, doesn't edify anyone Moomoo. More words on this back and forth between us is cheap. I have no doubts on being correct. I respectfully say let the truth come out in time.

[Moomoo]

The fact you cannot deny Bond 21 will be out in summer 2006 suggests there's validity to what I claim. That, or you're making this whole thing up.

I don't have an inside source. I was told the information by someone who knows people at MGM. I don't even live in America. I don't have an inside source. Just want to clear that up!

Nothing personal, but I don't believe you are genuine. I think you took a list of possible Bond candidates and claimed it was the final shortlist.There's nothing you have claimed which would indicate you have an inside source.

Moomoo

[ChandlerBing]

Well, Yoda told me that Brosnan will be back as Bond in the next one. Said something about his being the chosen one, the one who brought balance back to Bond. See? I have a source, too!

[Moomoo]

Look, I am gonna give this board a rest for a few days, but bear this thought in mind:

Do you honestly think I would spend months coming to this website and insisting Jackman is the new Bond if I didn't have some genuine source to back me up?

I am not that desperate for attention!

Brosnan admitted just a few days ago that no-one at Eon has contacted him. NO-ONE. He spoke on a UK radio station and confirmed this. As of May, no-one has contacted him about doing Bond 21. I claimed back in February he was out and people wouldn't accept it. Everything is leading up to proving me correct. I don't want a medal for that, but at least consider the possibility I am telling the truth. Because as sure as night follows day, it looks like I'm going to be right.

Moomoo

[JackChase007]

Moomoo, I don't understand how your word is any more authentic than Seannery's. In fact, I'd take his word over yours because you're being an arrogant, smug a**.

[Moomoo]

I have gone. Na na na na na.

And you, stop with the tongue.

Rude smilies, the lot of you.



See ya.

Moomoo

[JackChase007]

Then go already.

[kovit123]

I agreed with you Moomoo, Jackman will be James Bond. I read that Pierce Brosnan was endorsing Hugh Jackman mostly as the next James Bond. Jackman will be the big star as James Bond like Pierce Brosnan did many years ago. Jackman was joking about starting to play Bond in his 40s, but at nearly 36 he's the right age to play Bond. Moomoo let's pray that Hugh Jackman will be James Bond.

[JackChase007]

Wow, you're basing this on the fact that Brosnan said that Jackman is a good choice. Well, in that case, I'll say that Clive Owen is signed for Bond, since Brosnan approved of him too.

[[dark]]

I doubt that Jackman would have been on a shortlist in 1998. His most recent acting credit (according to the IMDb) was for something called "Halifax f.p: Afraid of the Dark", an Australian TV production.

For the curious, Halifax f.p. is a series of popular Australian crime-based telemovies starring Rebecca Gibney, if that name rings a bell, at all.

[SeanValen00V]

Loomis, no way will is Adrian Paul in contention. Nor all the others.

MGM or Sony are going to invest in the region of $150 million dollars in the new Bond film. If you were the CEO at MGM, would you risk investing all that money in someone like Adrian Paul? I got nothing against Adrian Paul, but let's look at this from a business perspective.

MGM are not going to risk hiring Paul, Firth, Gruffudd when they have Hugh Jackman waiting in the wings. Seannery is not living in the real world by stating there's some shortlist. Jackman has box office appeal. Do the others? Pehaps Owen will hit the big time with King Arthur, but even so, Jackman is the safer bet.

Making movies on such a big scale as Bond requires investors to take as little risk as possible. They have to get the money, shoot the film, then market it. It all costs big money. Why risk, Gruffudd, Paul, Firth, - ALL UNPROVEN AT THE BOX OFFICE - when they have *man of the moment* Hugh Jackman?

Come on, what I say makes complete sense. Making movies is a business. You try to limit the risk, not actively seek to increase it.

There's nobody else but Jackman. Seannery knows it, Eon know it, MGM know it, Sony know it, Brosnan knows it (he's admitted Jackman is ideal), and Jackman knows it. This farce has gone on long enough. I came here to cut through the , to tell you what I was told, and this was from a bona fide real person, a real source at MGM, the marketing director. It wasn't some tabloid going on about Heath Ledger or Orlando Bloom. I wouldn't lie to you, or muck you about. It's makes no difference to me if Jackman is the new Bond. I don't profit from it.

Jackman is the new Bond and Eon/MGM will announce it soon.

Moomoo

I'm with MooMoo, he has a passion that he's right, I can't see him wasting his time, there'a intelligence in his posts, your not crazy.

I believe you, Brosnan menstioned Jackman, Brosnan still says no phone calls for him, the only official things we know are Brosnan has said no phone calls for him, and he's said MGM have talked to Owen and Jackman, and last time he just talked about Jackman.

Jackman must be kept hush hush, he will deny being approached until it's a done deal.



I'm convinced.

Then again Vick Armstrong was convinced Brosnan will sign again.

So my safe bet is Jackman for Bond 22, but Moomoo, I can't discount him, because Brosnan isn't signed on bond 21 yet, and it's been left pretty late hasn't it?

Your so sure of Jackman mooomooo, I can't speak of others, but if Jackman is in Bond 21, remember I didn't doubt you completely.

Later.

Still would like Brosnan for one more, as Jackman said 40 would be the ideal age, and he's 35, so 2007 makes more sense for him, but we'll see, I'm not counting out anyone.

Edited by SeanValen00V, 02 June 2004 - 04:38 AM.

[Loomis]

MGM or Sony are going to invest in the region of $150 million dollars in the new Bond film. If you were the CEO at MGM, would you risk investing all that money in someone like Adrian Paul?

No. Not even sure I'd risk investing all that money in someone like Clive Owen, actually.

I believe you, Moomoo. Always have done, always will.

[Daltonfan]

One last thing I forgot to mention Loomis from a good source was that Paul with a handful of candidates were shortly considered for Bond pre-World Is Not Enough when there was a small time period when negotiations with Pierce was going badly.  Hugh Jackman was also on that short list and I think Colin Firth too, but with him I may be mistaken about.

I doubt that Jackman would have been on a shortlist in 1998. His most recent acting credit (according to the IMDb) was for something called "Halifax f.p: Afraid of the Dark", an Australian TV production. His feature debut came in 1999, with PAPERBACK HERO, and it wasn't until 2000 that he hit screens as Wolverine. So, unless The Powers That Be keep an exceptionally keen eye on obscure Australian TV actors who might one day make it big (in which case they'd have taken note of, say, Guy Pearce in his "Neighbours" days), it's highly doubtful that Jackman would have made it onto a pre-TWINE shortlist.

The first Jackman as Bond rumour I can find is from March 1999 after Barbara Broccolli was in the audience for "Oklahoma!". Over time it's become clear that a lot of producers and talent scouts were checking him out at this time. The show opened in June 1998. I don't know if this is early enough for the TWINE shortlist.

[Xenia]

Originally by Moomoo:
Seannery,

Hugh Jackman was the only guy in contention. No other actor was seriously considered.

Moomoo, don't get me wrong but you're just expressing your opinion. Until there's official word by Eon or MGM then it ain't true. No matter how much you say it is. That's the way it is.

MGM see Jackman as the most profitable of all the wannabe Bonds. Sony won't see it any different.

Sony, MGM, and many other studios all see Hugh as profitable. Even Hugh's own Production company would think so too. Saying that a studio would find an actor profitable is a given, but this isn't the point is it?

Brosnan has shown his true colours with his refusal to downsize his fee for Bond 21. I am a fan of Brosnan's Bond, but the fact is Brosnan has no major box office career outside of Bond. Go check out the BO stats for Law of Attraction for proof of that. His remarks about paralysis were cheap, back-stabbing in the extreme and insensitive. Add the fact Barbara Broccoli's mother had just passed away, and Brosnan dug himself so big a hole, no shovel would get him out of it. There is little reason to keep with Brosnan when Jackman has everything MGM want in a modern 21st century Bond.

Moomoo, you're just voicing your own opinion of what's happening. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. BO isn't what makes a movie successful, nor does what a star say either. Personally, I think what Pierce has said is blown out of proportion. What you see as cheap shots, another can say it was done in tongue in cheek humor, it's how each of us percieve things that form our opinions. Oh and by all means, keep dissing Pierce, if anything it lowers your credibility.

1) He has the looks (I have played back my copy of Swordfish and the more I see of the short haired Jackman, the more I see of Bond.)  He does possess a Connery-type nose. Brosnan has a classic Bond face, but Jackman's is more earthy, more gritty - and paradoxically more suited if Bond#6 is to be closer to Connery. If Jackman plays Bond with a genuine hard edge, then his looks are perfect. Brosnan never truly convinced as a hard Bond, so his looks helped him in the other departments - charm, sense of humour etc. Jackman's features are closer to the more gritty Fleming ideal of Bond.

If Jackman plays Bond? Nice to see the if. I'm a Hugh supporter, his chances are good but starting to look slimmer with X3 filming starting next June (2005) for a May 2006 release. And he is starring in the "The Fountain" which starts filming this November. Plus he's rumored to possibly be in the "The DaVinci Code" and maybe "Clancy of the Overflow" but it's starting to look like Russell Crowe will be the lead but Hugh is a producer still. He may even be a lead in "Romulus, my Father", as he was asked to be, no word yet if he's accepted. Plus his name is being attached to any movie Musical that's being named in Hollywood. As for his looks, that I can't argue with. He's a handsome man.

2) Jackman is the rising actor in Hollywood. He also has box office clout. The press love Jackman. No-one has a bad word to say about the guy. He is Mr Nice. He is extremely personable in interviews, and has admitted on several occasions he wants to play Bond.

Well, I hate to burst your bubble, I did see an article in the May 17, 2004 National Enquirer! (What can I say? Was bored and wanted to laugh at a rag mag. ) And it wasn't a nice one about him either.

3) He is not laying down demands or conditions. I was told it was a two picture deal he had signed. My guess is whatever he was asking or was told he would get, it's much less than what Brosnan was asking for DAD. That's what consigned Brosnan to history.

No conditions? All contracts have conditions and/or demands. This is Hollywood we're talking about. No star will sign a yes/no contract without some specifications on working conditions or even how much nudity will be on screen.

4) Jackman is the right age to play Bond.

And so are the other gentlemen in this thread. IMO Adrian and Colin are almost above the age of being acceptable but they could.

5) Jackman has range. He plays comic book characters, romantic leads, gay men, dances, sings. So this indicates he possesses the talent to play Bond

And so do many of the other possible candidates, they wouldn't be considered if they didn't show the potential of being a great Bond.

6) Jackman has a core fanbase who will see the movie. I have trawled the net and trust me, some women adore Jackman. They adore him in the same way that some women love Pitt, Depp, Cruise etc. It's the same sort of fan adoration. MGM couldn't in their wildest dreams ask for a better foundation than that. The new Bond with a loyal fanbase. No other Bond actor has had that prior to taking the role. So this means MGM can risk more capital because they know a certain section of the audience will go to see Jackman. I reckon they've already got $15 million dollars from the opening weekend in the bag. MGM and their investors can spend more on the budget knowing the opening weekend gross will be big.

Oh please, what male actor doesn't have a female fanbase? Does it really mean anything? I mean, what demographic group is Bond for? Is it only for female? What of teen? Or Young Adult? Or Males 25-90? The Bond franchise has a target group of what type of people are attracted to it. Oh and btw, 15M for an opening weekend? Yeesh, even I think that's undernumbered, the lowest BO opening for the last 4 movies was 25M. Not that it matters. :-/ As for spending more money on the budget, it isn't how large the budget is that makes a good film, but the quality of the filming that makes it successful.

When you consider these six points you see there's nobody else in contention. *No-one*. Jackman has been the only choice for a couple of years. Clive Owen is the runner up. He runs a good race but it's only the silver medal for him.

Yes, please consider my points I've made. I'm not saying Hugh will be in Bond 21 anyways. Eon said Pierce is Bond. Until they make an official announcement, he STILL is Bond. Any one else mentioned are contenders, as always.

Once Jackman finishes completion of The Fountain the cogs will move, the Bond machine will step up a gear and filming will start on the new Bond film. Probably summer 2005. 12 months later we get the new film.

Did I mention that X3 starts filming in Vancouver June 2005?

If Jackman can imbue his Bond with a sense of danger and charm, then his Bond will be a huge success. I have no doubt about that. His Bond will be as big as Brosnan's. And the franchise will endure into the second decade of this new century.

Bond will thrive, in the scheme of things, does it really matter who the successor will be? James Bond is what I watch the movies for, actors just change from time to time but he's practically eternal.

Moomoo

~ Xenia ~

[H.M.Servant]

I don't think that in the end there are that many candidates for the part.
There might alot of possible contenders that they considered, but I think in the end the list will consist of two (maybe three) actors.
I mean up to this point who's been approached? who's done a screentest? I don't think anybody. So I think that means Brosnan is still Bond.

[SeanValen00V]

[quote name='Xenia' date='2 June 2004 - 11:44'] [quote]Originally by Moomoo:
Seannery,

Hugh Jackman was the only guy in contention. No other actor was seriously considered.[/quote]

Moomoo, don't get me wrong but you're just expressing your opinion. Until there's official word by Eon or MGM then it ain't true. No matter how much you say it is. That's the way it is.

[quote]
MGM see Jackman as the most profitable of all the wannabe Bonds. Sony won't see it any different.[/quote]

Sony, MGM, and many other studios all see Hugh as profitable. Even Hugh's own Production company would think so too. Saying that a studio would find an actor profitable is a given, but this isn't the point is it?

[quote]
Brosnan has shown his true colours with his refusal to downsize his fee for Bond 21. I am a fan of Brosnan's Bond, but the fact is Brosnan has no major box office career outside of Bond. Go check out the BO stats for Law of Attraction for proof of that. His remarks about paralysis were cheap, back-stabbing in the extreme and insensitive. Add the fact Barbara Broccoli's mother had just passed away, and Brosnan dug himself so big a hole, no shovel would get him out of it. There is little reason to keep with Brosnan when Jackman has everything MGM want in a modern 21st century Bond.
[/quote]

Moomoo, you're just voicing your own opinion of what's happening. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. BO isn't what makes a movie successful, nor does what a star say either. Personally, I think what Pierce has said is blown out of proportion. What you see as cheap shots, another can say it was done in tongue in cheek humor, it's how each of us percieve things that form our opinions. Oh and by all means, keep dissing Pierce, if anything it lowers your credibility.

[quote]
1) He has the looks (I have played back my copy of Swordfish and the more I see of the short haired Jackman, the more I see of Bond.)