62 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

Granted this is assuming he will be picked, and that Brosnan is done. So, if Hugh Jackman is announced as Bond #6 within the next few months, and that he's gearing up to film the 21st Bond film due out November '05. How will you react?

This is'nt a poll by any means, I'm just curious what will go through your mind when you find out he is Bond. Will you be happy, disappointed, or just glad that a Bond has finally been announced?

Those are just a few ideas, I'd certainly like to hear something more than just a one word reply. Myself, I'll be really happy if Jackman is cast, not only because I'm a huge fan of Jackman, but I'd feel he would do the role justice. Nothing against Pierce, but Jackman looks like he can be a bastard, he just looks much rougher than Brosnan, and I hope if he is cast he plays the role that way.

[Qwerty]

I'll be happy to see a Bond film released in 2005 with Hugh Jackman in the role, and more importantly, to see a Bond film once more.

No complaints here.

[Harmsway]

No complaints, but I'm beginning to lean more and more to Owen. Just because he'd be different than what we've seen before (and I, for one, love new interpretations on a theme).

[Willie Garvin]

I'd be very happy to see Hugh Jackman announced as James Bond#6.If he isn't then James Purefoy would be a good choice.I suspect Jackman's playing 007 is really only a matter of time--if not now then perhaps as James Bond#7.

[Qwerty]

but Jackman looks like he can be a bastard, he just looks much rougher than Brosnan, and I hope if he is cast he plays the role that way.

As do I. I don't want to see a Brosnan replica in the role. A common complaint of Brosnan was that he was too much of a mish mesh of the past actors.

[Harmsway]

but Jackman looks like he can be a bastard, he just looks much rougher than Brosnan, and I hope if he is cast he plays the role that way.

As do I. I don't want to see a Brosnan replica in the role. A common complaint of Brosnan was that he was too much of a mish mesh of the past actors.

I think Jackman would play it very Connery-like in terms of machismo and probably wouldn't be as into the personal, character stretching storylines. That's great, IMO, because I love a tough guy, and the personal thing is really dead tired.

Edited by Harmsway, 10 August 2004 - 03:42 AM.

[Qwerty]

but Jackman looks like he can be a bastard, he just looks much rougher than Brosnan, and I hope if he is cast he plays the role that way.

As do I. I don't want to see a Brosnan replica in the role. A common complaint of Brosnan was that he was too much of a mish mesh of the past actors.

I think Jackman would play it very Connery-like in terms of machismo and probably wouldn't be as into the personal, character stretching storylines. That's why I think he'd be good for the part, because I love a tough guy, and the personal thing is really tired.

Definitely. Would be absolutely fantastic in my opinion.

The personal element pretty much always was tired, depending on how often it was used.

[JimmyBond]

I don't think the personal element was really that bad until TWINE. Granted it worked for the most part, but by that film it was getting old, especially since we had it in every film since LTK.

I can actually see Jackman sticking around for a long haul, I dont know why. Like my signature says, I just have a feeling, I think he'll treat the role differently than Brosnan did, for the better.

[00Twelve]

I think Hugh Jackman would be an excellent choice. His experience as a stage actor would probably lead him toward really trying to become the character the way Fleming saw him, while still being able to pull off the charm and dry witticism of our contemporary Bond.

I see him being very earnest in his portrayal, not trying to be too 'personal' just for the sake of being 'personal', but just being a more realistic person. I forsee a lot more character development in these stories if he is chosen. I just don't think he'd be satisfied any other way. ('Cause I know him SOOO well... )

We've already seen and shown that Bond needs to go back to being about the people, and not stock charicatures. I think Jackman would be great in such stories.

[Qwerty]

I don't think the personal element was really that bad until TWINE. Granted it worked for the most part, but by that film it was getting old, especially since we had it in every film since LTK.

I can actually see Jackman sticking around for a long haul, I dont know why. Like my signature says, I just have a feeling, I think he'll treat the role differently than Brosnan did, for the better.

Quite, that's when it was used too much. (The World Is Not Enough)

[JimmyBond]

I forsee a lot more character development in these stories if he is chosen. I just don't think he'd be satisfied any other way. ('Cause I know him SOOO well... )

.

In Brosnan's defense, he felt this way too. The only problem for him (or the writers, not sure who's fault it was). Character development meant having it be personal.

I can see Jackman giving his two cents on the character, and encouraging the producers to go a certain way (and since he is a big draw already, he may actually have some pull).

[Qwerty]

We've already seen and shown that Bond needs to go back to being about the people, and not stock charicatures. I think Jackman would be great in such stories.

If they don't make him a copy of Brosnan, then he'd work perfectly.

They could make it Brosnan part 2.

[JimmyBond]

If they don't make him a copy of Brosnan, then he'd work perfectly.

They could make it Brosnan part 2.

I worry about this at times too. But to be quite honest I doubt it will happen, I mean the only time it did happen was with Lazenby. But that was because they were worried people wouldnt except anyone else. If anything they'll do what they did when Moore took over, have the next Bond be different from Brozzie's Bond.

Also, the simple fact that it's not Brosnan in the role will make it different. Even if Jackman is told to emulate Brosnan for the most part. I doubt he'll come off as "Brosnan 2." And I doubt Jackman would want to be thought of as Brosnan 2 anyways.

[00Twelve]

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I really, really enjoyed Pierce's Bond characterization, almost as much as early Sean, and I think the only weakness for him was his writers. Absolutely right on that.

The last few, even the 'character-driven' TWINE (Not *exactly*...) featured too much back-and-forth remarks, rather than actual conversational dialogue. It just felt like we got the bare minimum of dialogue needed to push the story along. Like how they would write half of Bond's dialogue as finishing someone else's sentences, and with short, direct (and kind of obvious) statements meant to divulge the direction of the plot straight to the audience. I don't think Pierce liked having to do that, and I think he worked exceptionally well with it. Also, I think the writers responded to his wishes to return to early Bond by writing his dialogue to be more like what Connery would have *actually* said (minus the now-shameless innuendos).

Still, I don't think Jackman would fall into a rut of being too much like Brosnan, or any other past Bond. I'd think he'd bring new depth to Bond. I don't think he'd settle with the bloated film image, or try to emulate anyone else, but start from scratch with the original. I just think he's a really fine actor who has a lot of respect for his roles. Plus, he'd just be a KILLER Bond.

[Qwerty]

If they don't make him a copy of Brosnan, then he'd work perfectly.

They could make it Brosnan part 2.

I worry about this at times too. But to be quite honest I doubt it will happen, I mean the only time it did happen was with Lazenby. But that was because they were worried people wouldnt except anyone else. If anything they'll do what they did when Moore took over, have the next Bond be different from Brozzie's Bond.

Also, the simple fact that it's not Brosnan in the role will make it different. Even if Jackman is told to emulate Brosnan for the most part. I doubt he'll come off as "Brosnan 2." And I doubt Jackman would want to be thought of as Brosnan 2 anyways.

I strongly doubt it will happen as well, all for the better too.

Still just a possibility.

[00Twelve]

There will always be comparisons to Brosnan from now on, but I think Jackman will distance himself well without it being an obvious goal.

[JimmyBond]

There will always be comparisons to Brosnan from now on, but I think Jackman will distance himself well without it being an obvious goal.

You think so? No one compared Moore to Lazenby, no one compared Dalton to Moore. Hell no one compared Brosnan to Dalton. The one person it comes back to is Connery, and that's how it should be. He is the original after all. Comparing someone to Brosnan would be like comparing a xerox to a xerox (no offense to Brosnan of course).

[00Twelve]

Yeah, true, most of us will always revert back to the Connery standard. Lord bless him.

But I'll bet the casual newbies will be all about comparing Jackman to Brosnan, nonetheless.

[JimmyBond]

But I'll bet the casual newbies will be all about comparing Jackman to Brosnan, nonetheless.

Casual newbie eh? You mean the kind that insisnt Brosnans's films are the best Bond films ever and the old ones suck because they are "to slow" ?

Who needs them

[Pussycat]

Okay, on behalf of casual newbies ( I'm one, I'm sure) I would like to state that Sean has always been my favorite and the "too slow" ones are still drawing my attention to the television screen over Die Another Day. ON that note, I do like Brosnan though, but I think the writers haven't done some of the films the justice they deserve. ( I know this is a common thought.) I absolutely loved the film Bourne Supremacy as well as the first one and the reason why was it was a well-written, well-scripted, well-acted spy movie.

Bond could do the same with the "humor" of Bond left in place and I'd be a very enthusiastic viewer.

[Bond_Bishop]

I will scream out in happiness

[00Twelve]

"...and what was up with that fat Oriental dude who didn't even talk? That made no sense AT ALL..."

"Eww, why is he smoking?"

"Oh, that is SO blue screen!"

Ah, we were all casual newbies once...

[BONDFINESSE 007]

i will be sick to my stomach and very mad....i am not a jackman fan

[Agent 76]

my reaction will be........ and then....... ........after some minutes.... and when I contemplate the decision...

I don't want him as 007 , but who am I to decide , they know what's best.

[Loomis]

So, if Hugh Jackman is announced as Bond #6 within the next few months, and that he's gearing up to film the 21st Bond film due out November '05. How will you react?

My first reaction: deep disappointment that Clive Owen didn't get the role.

My second: elation that Brosnan is really and truly gone.

My third: keen anticipation of what Jackman will bring to Bond.

[Cabainus]

I would be disappointed if Jackman got the role.

The problem is, that he is an actor who has already established himself in Hollywood, and I do wonder how many
Bond films he would make before getting itchy feet.

Also, due to the fact he is an actor in demand, we could still have this business of 3 to 4 year intervals between films.

Owen is perfect for the role, and I really do hope that the producers see sense and offer him the part.

[Qwerty]

i will be sick to my stomach and very mad....i am not a jackman fan

Who is your choice for Bond 21 besides Brosnan?

[crashdrive]

If Hugh Jackman is signed for three films (with an option for a fourth one) I would very curious how EON would use him. I really hope they have learned from the Brosnan era and decide to start fresh. They were on to something in 'GoldenEye' and I want a little more realism and a gritty Dalton-esque flavor for the next couple of ones. I think EON would be smart to look at films like 'The Bourne Identity' without forgetting what makes Bond Bond. I want the sex back, the locations, the casino's, the luxury, the charismatic supporting characters, the smart writing, Bond girls who are caught in the crossfire instead of working side by side with Bond, the politically incorrectness, misogyny, real mission without Bond getting personal, a terrific villain with a intelligent masterplan. Basically, I want to see another 'Goldfinger', but with a new age twist. And let Jackman be the sexist, misogynist, relic of the Cold War with boyish charms we all know and love. Point taken?

[Qwerty]

Also, due to the fact he is an actor in demand, we could still have this business of 3 to 4 year intervals between films.

Do you think that time interval would go down with another actor?