388 replies to this topic

[Athena007]

Sarcasm dear Athena.

Sometimes I have a hard time telling coming from you.

[spynovelfan]

"It was actually between him and Pierce Brosnan last time round, but Pierce beat him to it. Gary'll be gutted if Brosnan scoops him again."

First I've heard of this. Stretch was 26 or 27 around the time of the GOLDENEYE screentests, incidentally.

[Yo Jimbo]

Agreed. This question is not whether a 22 year old can play Bond. Of course they can. We can all imagine that the character we have seen in the last 20 films was at some point 22 years old - and was doing exciting stuff at that time which we might be interested to watch. If a film of our James Bond at age 22 was made, in a classy style, following the basic approach traditions of Goldfinger, FRWL and OHMSS. Then OK.

However - would Eon do this? The worry is that No - they would not.

The worry is that if they are going for a 22 year old then they are going for the youth dollar - which means the hi-tech action/date movie/MTV/DVD market. Not the traditional Flemmingesque espionage fan market. An overtly emotional (remember this is before he became cold) 'Young James Bond Super Spy'.

Very much like Bourne, SpiderMan and Anakin Skywalker, he's a young man with extraordinary abilities struggling to find his identity as he copes with a new role in life, and a new love. (OK doesn't sound tooo bad - but still in the present market it is a tad trite).

Further, in order to hook the youth market, like Bourne, SpiderMan and Star Wars - we could easily get 'innovative' visuals, over-the top action,

Edited by Yo Jimbo, 26 May 2005 - 08:56 AM.

[spynovelfan]

The worry is that if they are going for a 22 year old then they are going for the youth dollar - which means the hi-tech action/date movie/MTV/DVD market.  Not the traditional Flemmingesque espionage fan market.

What Flemingesque espionage fan market? I don't think they've ever done that. Very few people who saw the early Connery films would have been Fleming fans - the Fleming fans largely came as a result of the films' success. And from the get-go, EON's adaptations were lighter, sparkier fare than Fleming. Whose work wasn't really espionage fiction anyway - they were adventure novels with an espionage veneer. I agree with you to a large extent, but I think the stable door was broken many many years ago. Bond films are all about the youth market - they are aimed at primarily teenage boys and early twenty-something males, and beyond that men of all ages and then women. But teenage boys have been the market for a very long time. When did you watch your first Bond film? I think many people here would say when they were in their early teens. So even if they were to cast a twenty-something actor as Bond, I don't think that would mean they were 'going for the youth dollar'. They already are.

[spynovelfan]

Now that you've heard some news you're excited about are you still sticking with your theory that it is irrelevant who is chosen as Bond?

Oh it is irrelevent....but this is news that shows that EON are willing to take risks and shake up the franchise. Thats what I am excited about.

How much of a shake-up would it take for you not to be excited about it? Ie if the news had been that a 21-year-old was under consideration, presumably you'd still be excited, for the same reasons. But how young would they have to go before you weren't excited anymore. Nineteen? Seventeen? If there was news that they were considering casting a 16-year-old as Bond, would you still be excited they were willing to take some risks and shake up the franchise?

[Daltonfan]

I think the benefits of hiring a twentysomething actor to play Bond could outweigh the disadvantages. It's the chance to catch a star on the rise before he's closely associated with another role and whilst he's cheap. The young actors that I thought of (like Hugh Dancy, Matthew Goode), all seemed to be around 28 or 29 and so would be thirtyish by the time they film CR with lots of years ahead of them.

By the time an actor gets to thirty-five, he should be either well on his way to being a star in his own right and runs the risk of being "too big" for Bond. If he's still an "also ran", he's probably not suitable for the role.

I recommend Edward Jay Epstein's "The Big Picture" for an explanation of the business aspects of the movie business including marketing and target audiences. It's quite an eyeopener.

[Loomis]

"It was actually between him and Pierce Brosnan last time round, but Pierce beat him to it. Gary'll be gutted if Brosnan scoops him again."

First I've heard of this.

Yeah, surprising to say the least. But I doubt it's true. If Stretch had very nearly landed the role of 007 in GOLDENEYE, I'm sure it would have been an established part of Bond fan lore long before now.

Not sure why I even bothered to point that out, though. I'm sure you know BS when you read it.

[spynovelfan]

I think the benefits of hiring a twentysomething actor to play Bond could outweigh the disadvantages. It's the chance to catch a star on the rise before he's closely associated with another role and whilst he's cheap. The young actors that I thought of (like Hugh Dancy, Matthew Goode), all seemed to be around 28 or 29 and so would be thirtyish by the time they film CR with lots of years ahead of them.

I agree. I think 22 might be a stretch, but 29 or 30 when the film came out could work very well. I think Hugh Dancy would be a very good choice, in fact. He's had quite a lot of exposure already, from DAVID COPPERFIELD on TV in the US in2000 to his role as Galahad in KING ARTHUR. He's also the current face of Burberry. He looks quite a bit like a younger Hugh Jackman, is British and is a very good actor. The only thing I'd be worried about is whether or not he'd take the part. I know that sounds crazy. Most people have never even heard of the guy, he's British, part of him must have dreamed about playing Bond. But I think Mr Dancy's going places fast - his next film, out later this year, is a leading role opposite John Hurt. The guy's going to be around for a while, and he's got the potential to star in massive films a la Orlando Bloom. He has a very good chance of becoming a massive film star without limiting himself at this early stage to always being thought of as James Bond. Perhaps I'm being silly - but much as it would be excellent to have an actor who might stick around for a few films, I really think that this time round Eon has more chance of signing someone like Adrian Paul than Hugh Dancy. Apart from complete unknowns, any actor in their mid-to-late 20s who could convince as Bond would also have a very good shot of convincing the world they were Robin Hood, St George or Wilfred Owen in a lavish epic directed by Anthony Minghella or Ridley Scott.

[David Schofield]

I think the benefits of hiring a twentysomething actor to play Bond could outweigh the disadvantages. It's the chance to catch a star on the rise before he's closely associated with another role and whilst he's cheap. The young actors that I thought of (like Hugh Dancy, Matthew Goode), all seemed to be around 28 or 29 and so would be thirtyish by the time they film CR with lots of years ahead of them.

By the time an actor gets to thirty-five, he should be either well on his way to being a star in his own right and runs the risk of being "too big" for Bond. If he's still an "also ran", he's probably not suitable for the role.

I recommend Edward Jay Epstein's "The Big Picture" for an explanation of the business aspects of the movie business including marketing and target audiences. It's quite an eyeopener.

Personnally, I think the days of a long-term Bond are over. The idea that anyone will get close to Sean and Roger's 7 is nonsense. I'm sure many felt Brozza would be Bond for life and get close to that and look what's happened.

I think we should all get used to the idea that once you've gone with Owen he'll do two or three films at most and then move on. Then you cast another star of similar calibre until - I suppose - the franchise loses its current mega appeal and you have to go back to Johnny-Nobody, model straight to video TV actor.

I think the type of reign of Dalton - mature actor, interested in many varied roles and not wed to Bond - will hold sway for a while now.

Edited by David Schofield, 26 May 2005 - 11:41 AM.

[Loomis]

Perhaps I'm being silly - but much as it would be excellent to have an actor who might stick around for a few films, I really think that this time round Eon has more chance of signing someone like Adrian Paul than Hugh Dancy.

I think you're probably right. Young stars seem more hyped these days, with their careers taking off much more quickly. You need only start hyping "23-year-old British actor Luther Billingshurst (fictitious guy, obviously)", who's "wowed audiences in the BBC series Fops", and the next thing you know he's been cast in a supporting role in the next Spielberg flick, and it isn't as much of a surprise as it might have been in the past (when everyone knew their place and laboured hard to work their way up the ranks, paying their dues, grumble grumble).

I guess that if they do go for a 22-year-old (or thereabouts) Bond, then the guy will by definition be an unknown, or as near to an unknown as you can get. It'll be the Lazenby situation all over again (i.e. casting an unknown - not saying he'll necessarily be received by audiences in the same way as Lazenby), but younger. Which is the one thing many of us thought they'd never do again.

Hey, didn't Moomoo often say that they should hire a young unknown?

[spynovelfan]

I fear we may already be back to the Johnny Nobody phase. They are apparently considering unknowns, and I can understand why. You're Hugh Dancy and you get offered Bond. Sure, it's a bucketload of money and you'll be world-famous, but there's a serious risk that it typecasts you and limits the rest of your career. Wait two years and you get offered a KINGDOM OF HEAVEN-type part. Bucketloads of money, world-famous, and you can then very easily do three films that are completely different and more 'artistic' but are still big budget, and then a romantic comedy, and so on. Do Bond and you have to get rid of the baggage somehow - hard to do when for several years you're grinning inanely in front of sports cars wearing chunky watches and holding a fake gun. I doubt they could sign a young actor who is interested in many varied roles and not wed to Bond, let alone a mature one.

[Spynovelfan excuses himself to call Ladbrokes and ask what the odds on Rikki Lee Travolta and Jaaasoon Simmons are at the moment.]

[Loomis]

Look at this little ****. Boy lands plum role for top Italian director. Of course he does. Probably on a tenner a day and I know what for: two pound ten a tit and a fiver for his ****.

Sorry, "bit rude", I know, but WITHNAIL & I sprang to mind while I was reading this thread.

[David Schofield]

I fear we may already be back to the Johnny Nobody phase. They are apparently considering unknowns, and I can understand why. You're Hugh Dancy and you get offered Bond. Sure, it's a bucketload of money and you'll be world-famous, but there's a serious risk that it typecasts you and limits the rest of your career. Wait two years and you get offered a KINGDOM OF HEAVEN-type part. Bucketloads of money, world-famous, and you can then very easily do three films that are completely different and more 'artistic' but are still big budget, and then a romantic comedy, and so on. Do Bond and you have to get rid of the baggage somehow - hard to do when for several years you're grinning inanely in front of sports cars wearing chunky watches and holding a fake gun. I doubt they could sign a young actor who is interested in many varied roles and not wed to Bond, let alone a mature one.

I'm always fascinated by the notion of "baggage" that comes with Bond and the idea that first of all it restricts the kind of actor who might take the role and then the image they might get and parts they might miss.

I assume Christian Bale had to think carefully about being cast as a guy in a rubber suit who drives a silly car from what is essentially a comic strip (despite it pretentions). Ditto Clooney, Kilmer and Keaton. Certainly Clooney and Kilmer have had varied careers, despite their images being made ito kids toys.

And, of course, Ewen MacGregor did the extemely comercial, childish Star Wars movies. Will fighting against a blue screen with a broom handle, speaking clunky diaologue bugger up his career? I think not.

[spynovelfan]

I think you're probably right. Young stars seem more hyped these days, with their careers taking off much more quickly. You need only start hyping "23-year-old British actor Luther Billingshurst (fictitious guy, obviously)", who's "wowed audiences in the BBC series Fops", and the next thing you know he's been cast in a supporting role in the next Spielberg flick, and it isn't as much of a surprise as it might have been in the past (when everyone knew their place and laboured hard to work their way up the ranks, paying their dues, grumble grumble).

Indeed. The guy who plays about the fourth string in the BBC series MONARCH OF THE GLEN had this to say:

Question from Yellow: Any hopes of becoming the next Scottish-born James Bond!?
Hamish: I hadn't thought. No, I don't want to be James Bond - it kind of ends your career! I am flattered though. I would like to be a Bond baddie though!

From here. If they go with a young actor, it's going to have to be someone who doesn't think they have a shot at becoming a major movie star without first being Bond. Take someone like Matthew MacFadyen from the BBC series SPOOKS/MI5, who some have tipped (though I don't think he's suitable). I reckon even someone at his level - TV star in Britain, some recognition in the US, no film work to speak of - would turn down Bond, thinking 'There's more to me than Spooks. I've got a chance at some seriously meaty parts in the next couple of years. I'm a decent actor. Bond would limit my chances, and I reckon I can make it even bigger than Bond on my own. Maybe get taken seriously.'

I think it will either be an unknown or someone like Adrian Paul. Or Brosnan, of course (but then - he is someone like Adrian Paul).

[spynovelfan]

Potentially libellous allegations about Franco Zeffirelli removed.

[Loomis]

The guy who plays about the fourth string in the BBC series MONARCH OF THE GLEN had this to say:

Question from Yellow: Any hopes of becoming the next Scottish-born James Bond!?
Hamish: I hadn't thought. No, I don't want to be James Bond - it kind of ends your career! I am flattered though. I would like to be a Bond baddie though!

They're growing up too young, becoming too streetwise too early.

If the likes of Owen are too successful, and the kids all want to be the next Owen, I guess someone like Gary Stretch may have a good chance after all.

[Skudor]

I'm mellowing a bit on going for a younger guy. I could probably live with a 27 year old, if the guy is right for the part (i.e. looks like he's in his early 30s).

It's funny that Ioan Gruffudd, whom I've always considered too young looking, is actually 32...

Edited by Skudor, 26 May 2005 - 03:39 PM.

[DLibrasnow]

I fear we may already be back to the Johnny Nobody phase. They are apparently considering unknowns, and I can understand why.

Worked with Sean Connery.

[DLibrasnow]

Sarcasm dear Athena.

Sometimes I have a hard time telling coming from you.

If in doubt....it's probably sarcasm....I have a very dry sense of humor.

[luciusgore]

Sarcasm dear Athena.

Everyone is talking doom and gloom about a 20-something actor playing 007, yet On Her Majesty’s Secret Service starred a 20-something actor.

People need to get a grip...Deal with it and if you hate the idea so much then nobody is going to force you to see the movie. The fans are only a very small minority of the people that go to 007 movies anyway.

Everyone is talking gloom and doom because this is an incredibly bad idea. Richard Maibaum wrote OHMSS, John Barry did the score, and the film succeeded despite having George Lazenby in the lead role. Had Connery been in the part, it would have been the greatest Bond masterpiece of all time. With Lazenby, it's a cult fave.
Today, Eon has Purvis and Wade writing the script, David Arnold doing the score and the director of "Vertical Limit" behind the camera. No, this is not a time to "reinvent" the series unless absolutely necessary. It isn't necessary. There's a reason there are so many doomsayers around "Casino Royale": It's an ill-conceived project. With the wrong Bond in the lead role, it will flop, and deservedly so.

[Stephenson]

I'm going to remain optimistic for a few reasons:

1. Now matter how reliable the sources, this a rumour about the beginning of the casting process that will probably go on for a couple months yet. If info starts leaking out here and there, there is finally going to be something "real" to talk about.

2. The article makes it clear that "some" actors are in their twenties, not all of them. Only one actor is 22, and as "hot" as he may be I can't see Eon throwing 40 years of tradition out the window in an effort to capture a youth market they already had with a 50 year old Brosnan.

3. The road to finding Bond has always seemed pretty winding (Burt Reynolds or Tom Cruise anyone?), but it has ultimately turned out alright. Can you name one Bond that you hate? And I am aware that that was Cubby's Eon, and now we have "Mike and Bab's" Eon, but these are hardly people that want to deal the franchise its death blow by completely distorting the fans' (both hardcore and general) perception of who the character is. I don't think Bond will be that different.

4. Like DLibrasnow, I actually like the fact that Eon is "casting a wider net" (sorry, I don't know who to credit that to); at least they're willing to think about experimentation, and I think some risks would be worth if it brought some excitement back to the franchise.

5. IMO, Bond and Eon are still strong enough to attract quality actors. I agree with Schofield's points and would just like to add that I don't really buy into this whole Bond curse that people hint at. Bond didn't ruin the careers of Connery, Moore, Lazenby or Brosnan: it created them or saved them from oblivion (I would say Dalton is the exception: I don't think his career was hurt, but it wasn't done any real favors). Without Bond where would they be? People know Bond is a starmaker if the actor plays his cards right. This is multi-million dollar world-wide enterprise that has yet to produce a serious flop in 40 years, with serious product endorsement deals on the sideline. Most people are going to want a piece of that.

Edited by Stephenson, 26 May 2005 - 03:34 PM.

[zencat]

Bravo, Stephenson.

[Pussycat]

I agree.

And I'm a bit tired of hearing all these "possible contenders" saying "I'm not sure I'd want Bond." line....

Let's look at the actors who are being up front with us.

Adrian Paul "Yeah, I want Bond. I've always wanted to do Bond."

I think Hugh Jackman said it best when he was quoted as saying "If any actor says he doesn't want Bond; he's lying."

Face it...BOND is one cool guy. He is the legendary cool guy. He gets to seduce the women, play with gadgets, drive cool cars and save the world for everybody, including Queen and Country. He is a film legend and any actor who is truly being honest would love the chance to be one of the elite who gets to play him. If they go on about how it isn't right for them...I think they aren't being looked at in the least or they're too scared to take on the legendary role, afraid they couldn't do it justice! IMHO of course.

[tdalton]

4. Like DLibrasnow, I actually like the fact that Eon is "casting a wider net" (sorry, I don't know who to credit that to); at least they're willing to think about experimentation, and I think some risks would be worth if it brought some excitement back to the franchise.

I agree with everything else, so I'm not going to bother quoting all of it, but as far as looking at extremely young actors as a way of "experimenting", I don't think that's the way to go about it. Belive me, I want them to experiment with the Bond franchise, but it should be done by giving Bond different types of assignments ans situations that are extremely different than what we've seen before or making the films more serious and more realistic than we've seen before. If all they can think up as a way to experiment is to cast a Mickey Mouse Club actor as Bond, then that's pretty sad.

Like I said, though, I agree with everything else you said, though. Good post.

[Stephenson]

tdalton, I'm not crazy about the idea of a 22 year old Bond either, but if it looks like a fun movie, there's no use denying that I'll be in the line-up to see it. But I was trying to say that I don't think that will happen. I like Eon's casting policy (if this in fact what it really is like) because it is indicative that they may be more open-minded than in the past and are willing to at least look at changing the things that we agree need to be changed to improve the franchise: plot, pacing, overall tone.

[Bondian]

It could be worse...

by Jenny Snogrove

BOND 22 - A Dogs Best Friend Is His Man!.

"My names Hound, James Hound. Doggy-07"!.

EON Productions have just announced that Bond 22 (which has a release date of November 2007) will be somewhat different from any of the previous Bond's, particularly Bond 21 which is to be called 'Death Is In The Eye of The Beholder'.

Michael G. Wilson spoke to one of our Reporters last evening had this to say, "Barbara and I, for some years now have contemplated James Bond being cast as a Dog, and making the whole of the cast Dogs"!. He continued, "we feel that we have done to death this 'Human' Hero' thing, and it was now about time for a 'Doggy Hero'. We are also going back to the Ian Fleming Books to give our new Bond 'Jiles' the breakdown of how a Dog Secret Agent would act.

'Jiles' the English Terrier will have to learn 'karate', 'judo', 'intercourse', 'knife throwing', 'wrestling', boxing and will have to learn how to use several machine guns and knives.

Speaking (with aid of doggy interpreter ) from his East London Home in Barking, 'Jiles' had this to report!. JILES "woof-woof", INTERPRETER "Jiles is very excited to be part of the long history of the Bond Films". JILES "woof-woof-woofy", INTERPRETER "Jiles would like to thank Pierce Brosnan for recommending him to EON"!. When asked was 'Jiles' physically fit to play James Hound, Jiles answered "woof-woof-woof-woo-woofy-woofy"!. INTERPRETER "yes"!.

Ernst Stavro Blofeld will make a welcome return in the form of a 'Labrador' named 'Gary' (Gary-Baldy), Miss Moneypenny will be played by a 'poodle' named 'Doris', M will be played this time by a male 'Bulldog' named 'Sebastian', Q will be played by a 'Great Dane' named 'Derek' and Felix Leiter will be played by an 'American Sheepdog' named 'Harry'!.

Making a debute will be a sexy 'Wippet' named 'Maria', Hound's love interest, 'Leo' the 'Dachshund' will play the Evil Henchman ''Adolf'.

Michael G. Wilson has also anounced that the Directors Chair will go to 'Kevin Razzell' the 'Border-Collie', Director of Photography will be by 'Hanz Peterson' the 'German Sheepdog', and the Musical Score will be by 'Thomas Kingston' the 'Yorkshire Terrier'.

EON Stunt Arranger Vic Strongunderarm said "this new way forward will be a challenge to me and all of my crew. Never (even with the Roger Moore reign ) will there be so many 'poop scoops' Gaffers be required. Also, as non of our 'stunt doubles' look like dogs, we're really going to have to go back to the 'text book'"!.

Gadgets in the new movie will include a bone that explodes when chewed for more than 3 seconds, a flea collar that puffs a deadly smoke into a protagonists face. A tree when urinated on sends a 2000v pulse back up the animal. Hound's new car will be a cross between a motor driven skate board and a DB7. A box of fake distemper lotion doubles as liquid cianide.

'Jiles' already has a following of hundreds. He recently found homes for all the dogs in Battersea Dogs Home and was awarded 'A Good Home Samaritan'.

'Jiles' is expected to earn $30,000.000.00 per film with half-yearly films, instead of the 3 yearly releases that we're seeing now. 'Jiles' has been promised an unlimited supply of Doggy Biscuits for the rest of his life, and also for good measure Mr Wilson will translate all of the Bond Novels so 'Jiles' can get to grips with the part ready for 2007.

Locations in "A Dog's Best Friend is His Man" will be 'a basket in a London Home', London, Australia, New York, South Africa, Hawaii and at Pinewood Studios
( annex ).

Just thought I'd make a semi-comical interlude.

[Loomis]

IMO, Bond and Eon are still strong enough to attract quality actors.

Possibly, although I'm not really sure where the evidence of that is. But if their attitude towards Owen is "He's too old, forget it" (he's what? 40?), then my view is that they wouldn't know a quality Bond actor if one jumped up behind them on a red carpet at a premiere and started shouting "I'm very busy!".

And plenty of people would say that considering Brosnan too old to cut the mustard as 007 would also be a case of very poor judgement on Eon's part. Haven't they seen OCTOPUSSY, in which an ancient and wizened Moore still succeeded in drawing huge crowds and entertaining people? Haven't they seen NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, in which a getting-on-a-bit Connery played Bond to tears of joy around the world?

All of which said, I'm not against the idea of a very young actor as Bond. But if people think you can pull youthful viewers only with youthful protagonists, they're wrong.

[Stephenson]

Bondian, what the hell is Eon thinking? Making Bond a Fox Terrier? Based on the novels alone, he has to be the whippet; a grey whippet who is at least 5-6 years old. The femme fatale is the poodle and everyone knows Ms. Moneypenny is a collie. And machine guns? Everyone knows dogs don't have hands!

I won't even get started on the blatent typecasting of a Dachshund as Adolf.

[DLibrasnow]

The scary thing is that some journalist will read the lead to Bondians post and it'll soon start appearing everywhere around the world as the latest Bond news.

[Stephenson]

IMO, Bond and Eon are still strong enough to attract quality actors.

Possibly, although I'm not really sure where the evidence of that is. But if their attitude towards Owen is "He's too old, forget it" (he's what? 40?), then my view is that they wouldn't know a quality Bond actor if one jumped up behind them on a red carpet at a premiere and started shouting "I'm very busy!".

And plenty of people would say that considering Brosnan too old to cut the mustard as 007 would also be a case of very poor judgement on Eon's part. Haven't they seen OCTOPUSSY, in which an ancient and wizened Moore still succeeded in drawing huge crowds and entertaining people? Haven't they seen NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, in which a getting-on-a-bit Connery played Bond to tears of joy around the world?

All of which said, I'm not against the idea of a very young actor as Bond. But if people think you can pull youthful viewers only with youthful protagonists, they're wrong.

The evidence, which is only evidence IMO, is as I stated: this is a hugely successful 40 year old franchise coming off a hit movie, that has a lot of fringe benefits (financial and otherwise) attached to it for the star, not least of which is almost immediate fame. That's alot for starters. Regarding Owen and Brosnan, only Eon and the actors know what really happened (or didn't happen) between them. We are all of different opinions when it comes to their suitability for the role today. I for one don't mind Owen, but hardly think he is god's gift to Bond as some people think he is; there are other, and in some ways better, choices out there IMO. Brosnan was great, I thoroughly enjoyed him in his time, but I think we need some new blood. Whatever my opinion, Eon couldn't care one bit, they're going to choose who they want, and their choices have been pretty good in the past.

Regarding one of their choices, I don't think you and I are going to see eye to eye on Eon's decision to stick with Roger Moore as long as they did. Besides our personal preferences, it was a different time with a very different type of audience and very different movie market, so IMO the comparison doesn't hold water. I certainly believe that certain movies from the past could be released today and still be hits, that they are timeless, but OP ain't one of them.