181 replies to this topic

[tdalton]

I'll try to look at this from as objective a perspective as possible, as that seems to be what is needed in this thread.

All of the people that we have been discussing for the past year or so have been using Bond to up their profile and promote their own films:

1. Pierce Brosnan has done it. By claiming that he had been fired from the role and that things were "opaque", he was drawing more attention to himself and the After the Sunset film. Not saying it's a bad thing, but that's what happened, and there's no denying it.

2. Clive Owen has done it. The whole "I'm going to be busy" response to a question about Bond was deliberately aimed to get the public in a frenzy about him and Bond. He is constantly asked about it, and uses different variations on a denial to help him promote his films.

3. Daniel Craig has used Bond to up the profile for Layer Cake in the US, which nobody would have gone to see had he not been a Bond candidate.

4. Julian McMahon has done it, as he said that he was in negotiations for the part.


Daniel Craig and Julian McMahon can be ruled out of contention because they revealed that they have had talks with EON about signing on as Bond #6. Clive Owen and Pierce Brosnan, on the other hand, have been very secretive and evasive about their relationship with EON, and Clive has said that he has not been contacted, which leaves him still in the running.

[Bon-san]

I do find it amusing that when different actors use the same tactics, perceptions change:

1. Owen is as vague as possible for as long as possible, so "he must have it",

Who are you quoting? Nobody's ever said anything like that. Presumably you think I've said something like it in this thread. What I have actually said, though, is 'One theory might be...', 'I'm not confident it will be Owen' and 'It may well not be Owen'. Hardly 'he must have it', really, is it?

But back in this thread you had a field day!

[Bon-san]

I do find it amusing that when different actors use the same tactics, perceptions change:

1. Owen is as vague as possible for as long as possible, so "he must have it", until he says he's never been contacted but would like to do it, which means he definitely (maybe) has it. The fact that he would be using the connection to Bond for publiciity is debated, since he is already a "big" star.

2. Craig says he's been in talks and it is taken as a serious indication that he is in the running, possibly even a finalist. Much is made of the "coincidental" nature of his timing, seeing as "Layer Cake" is coming out in the States, but he is not really criticized for it.

3. Both Jackman and Butler come out and say they would like to do it, but have not been contacted, and while their suitability for the role is often discussed, the implications of their comments are pretty much ignored.

4. McMahon responds to a question that is no doubt asked at a press junket for Fantastic Four, and responds with "I've been in talks". It is decided that he is a self-promoting and his admission that he has been part of the process immediately excludes him from canidacy.

Not naming names, but it is an interesting phenomena to watch

Nice post.

Not to speak for others (so here I go anyway), but we're all probably guilty of some degree of selective interpretation. There seem to be more diehard fans of Owen on this board who are vocal than same for Jackman, Craig, McMahon, Butler, et. al. And there's more Jackman fans than McMahon fans, etc., etc. So, to me, it is completely understandable that there are inconsistencies in the interpretation of "news", rumour and gossip. It's just human nature.

[Stephenson]

Thanks Bon-san, that was what I was trying to convey.

[Phenix]

Former Summer Bay Resident turned Superhero scoundrel Julian McMahon returned to Australia this week to plug the bejesus out of "The Fantastic Four". Naturally, he dropped the 007 numerals in most conversations.

It's been reported that McMahon's out of the race for Bond, but according to the actor, he's still in talks with EON about donning the Tux.

"I have been in talks but I don't know what's going to happen," he told The Australian yesterday.

As The Daily Telegraph added, Speculation about the new Bond is a perennial publicity stunt.

"But it works to my advantage too," McMahon says. "Even if I hadn't spoken to them, the press that I've got has been enormous. But I have spoken to them."

Had a chat to an insider about McMahon and his Bond dream and although they say he's still in with a chance - someone else's name is gaining more steam.

"Rumor circling round here - and what ive been told to put a bet on - is James Purefoy left 'V' to be Bond. I was also told McMahon is next in line if Purefoy declines. Purefoy did screentest for 'Golden Eye' back in 95 and McMahon did last Summer".

If McMahon does get the gig - and personally, I hope he doesn't, nice guy, but no JB - he'll be headlining "Casino Royale".

McMahon still in the running for 007

[Stephenson]

Well ... doesn't that just muddy the waters!

[spynovelfan]

I do find it amusing that when different actors use the same tactics, perceptions change:

1. Owen is as vague as possible for as long as possible, so "he must have it",

Who are you quoting? Nobody's ever said anything like that. Presumably you think I've said something like it in this thread. What I have actually said, though, is 'One theory might be...', 'I'm not confident it will be Owen' and 'It may well not be Owen'. Hardly 'he must have it', really, is it?

But back in this thread you had a field day!

True, but that was three months ago. And one of the reasons I've said in this thread about, hmmm, five times now that I'm not at all sure Owen's going to be the next Bond is precisely because that bit of interpretation seems, three months down the line, to have been wrong. I think, as you've posted and as Stephenson has agreed with, there's plenty of speculation all over the place. I just thought it was a bit odd to characterise it as 'Owen's very vague and so he must be Bond' because that's not what I was saying in this thread at all, and it seemed pretty clearly a response to what I was saying. But most of all, I think Stephenson's post implied - or I inferred! - that different posters simply make up their minds about what an actor's motives are based on whether or not they like that actor, ie If you like Owen, if he says he has been considered he must have the part. If you dislike Craig and he says the same, well he's just promoting his film. If you loathe McMahon then you claim he's promoting his film and and throw in an outrageously cruel and viciously insensitive comment about his forehead that threatens to tear down the good reputation of this forum. (Did I get that right?) But that doesn't really work because 1. Owen's the only one of that lot who has, for the past couple of years, refused to say whether or not he has been approached. And 2. I think some people here are intelligent enough to try to look at stuff reasonably objectively. I'm an Owen fan, but I don't think that his attitude *proves* that he will be the next Bond. I just think it's been the kind of attitude one would expect from someone who would be, as opposed to Craig and McMahon. Someone disagreed - I explained why. Stephenson decided to typecast the lot of us. I became Moomoo for a post. He ruffled my fevered brow. We all got along again. The forum plunged into new levels of nastiness somewhere along the way but I missed it...

I might, if pushed, admit that this conversation now redefines the word anal, and that I may have contributed in some way. But you'd have to tread very carefully.

[Seannery]

Hmmmmmmm.......another insider? If this has ANY validity i'm not too excited about Purefoy BUT at least he is an okay improvement on McMahon. BUT I can't see how McMahon would even be a candidate at all with his blabbing about Bond which throws doubt on this whole rumor including the Purefoy part.

[Bon-san]

Former Summer Bay Resident turned Superhero scoundrel Julian McMahon returned to Australia this week to plug the bejesus out of "The Fantastic Four". Naturally, he dropped the 007 numerals in most conversations.

It's been reported that McMahon's out of the race for Bond, but according to the actor, he's still in talks with EON about donning the Tux.

"I have been in talks but I don't know what's going to happen," he told The Australian yesterday.

As The Daily Telegraph added, Speculation about the new Bond is a perennial publicity stunt.

"But it works to my advantage too," McMahon says. "Even if I hadn't spoken to them, the press that I've got has been enormous. But I have spoken to them."

Had a chat to an insider about McMahon and his Bond dream and although they say he's still in with a chance - someone else's name is gaining more steam.

"Rumor circling round here - and what ive been told to put a bet on - is James Purefoy left 'V' to be Bond. I was also told McMahon is next in line if Purefoy declines. Purefoy did screentest for 'Golden Eye' back in 95 and McMahon did last Summer".

If McMahon does get the gig - and personally, I hope he doesn't, nice guy, but no JB - he'll be headlining "Casino Royale".

McMahon still in the running for 007

That link indicates Purefoy is in the #1 position right now. Not my first choice, nor even my fifth.

[tdalton]

That link indicates Purefoy is in the #1 position right now.  Not my first choice, nor even my fifth.

EON, please, anybody but Purefoy. I'd rather have the return of Pierce Brosnan that Purefoy as Bond!!

[spynovelfan]

Knock-out quote from McMahon there, but can it be real? He's a right novice if he says that kind of thing on the record. And I just can't see Purefoy leaving a Wachowski brothers film - one they've been wanting to make for years, and proably the only one Alan Moore would now let his name back onto - for Bond. V FOR VENDETTA would clearly be his shot at moving into the A-list. It's almost guaranteed to be a massive worldwide blockbuster and he was the star. And it's one film, so he could have gone onto the next thing without being held down or typecast. Then is says McMahon would be next in line 'if Purefoy declines'. But surely Purefoy wouldn't leave V FOR VENDETTA because there was a chance he might be offered Bond - and promptly reject the offer! That just makes no sense. Purefoy leaving V to be Bond was a wishful thread here, and I suspect that is the source of the story.

[sidney reilly]

Knock-out quote from McMahon there, but can it be real? He's a right novice if he says that kind of thing on the record. And I just can't see Purefoy leaving a Wachowski brothers film - one they've been wanting to make for years, and proably the only one Alan Moore would now let his name back onto - for Bond. V FOR VENDETTA would clearly be his shot at moving into the A-list. It's almost guaranteed to be a massive worldwide blockbuster and he was the star. And it's one film, so he could have gone onto the next thing without being held down or typecast. Then is says McMahon would be next in line 'if Purefoy declines'. But surely Purefoy wouldn't leave V FOR VENDETTA because there was a chance he might be offered Bond - and promptly reject the offer! That just makes no sense. Purefoy leaving V to be Bond was a wishful thread here, and I suspect that is the source of the story.

The leaving Vendetta for Bond theory is nonsense for the reasons you state and because V began filming in March '05 and should wrap well before CR starts. In any case, the Wachowskis are not going to let him walk to be in his pick of other projects. That would be breaking contract and Purefoy would be sued into his dotage. Either they weren't happy with his work and he was fired, or was let go for undisclosed personal reasons (and they would have to be substantial for them to give him a pass).

Edited by sidney reilly, 09 June 2005 - 07:37 PM.

[Stephenson]

I think, as you've posted and as Stephenson has agreed with, there's plenty of speculation all over the place. I just thought it was a bit odd to characterise it as 'Owen's very vague and so he must be Bond' because that's not what I was saying in this thread at all, and it seemed pretty clearly a response to what I was saying.

As I've already stated, the post had nothing to do with anything that you said, but rather a general trend that I've noticed. You can take a rest from "hinting" that I was trying to attack you, the intent wasn't there.

There is certainly a pattern to our perception of a given actor's behavior based on our feelings about him: aside from it being a recognized bias in psychology, I think we can find plenty of evidence here if we started to look (Bon-san's particular links would be a start )

But most of all, I think Stephenson's post implied - or I inferred! - that different posters simply make up their minds about what an actor's motives are based on whether or not they like that actor, ie If you like Owen, if he says he has been considered he must have the part. If you dislike Craig and he says the same, well he's just promoting his film. If you loathe McMahon then you claim he's promoting his film and and throw in an outrageously cruel and viciously insensitive comment about his forehead that threatens to tear down the good reputation of this forum. (Did I get that right?)

Yep, that's right, only that I'm not suggesting that it is intentional. Rather it is something that we all do unintentionally, to one degree or another. 

But that doesn't really work because 1. Owen's the only one of that lot who has, for the past couple of years, refused to say whether or not he has been approached. And 2. I think some people here are intelligent enough to try to look at stuff reasonably objectively.

Well,
1. Here is in excellent example of what I am talking about: it only your opinion that Owen is the "only" one that has been so vague about his contact with Eon, and this position is somewhat contradictory seeing as you quoted him saying he had been appraoched in your response to my original post. One could easily say that Butler, or Jackman or Brosnan have been equally "forthcoming" about whether they have been approached.

2. This was never a question of an individual's intelligence, it was about certain factors that affect our decision-making. Not all the time and not in all cases, but those factors do exist.

I'm an Owen fan, but I don't think that his attitude *proves* that he will be the next Bond.

This is exactly what you thought in March Haven't we all been there?

Stephenson decided to typecast the lot of us. I became Moomoo for a post. He ruffled my fevered brow. We all got along again. The forum plunged into new levels of nastiness somewhere along the way but I missed it...

When one is taking about a trend, one is hardly "typecasting". But I am glad I manage to promote some discussion beyone the typical "is he or isn't he" that we have been getting lately

But you'd have to tread very carefully.

Thanks for the warning

[spynovelfan]

Well, I think you misinterpreted the tone and intent of my post there, Stephenson, but I fear if I go any further we'll get in a tangle again. So please take this as the non-agressive clearing things up post it's meant to be (as was the last one).

I don't agree with your hypothesis. I think I've already shown a couple of times, very specifically, why the trend or phenomenon you think you've spotted is actually just you exaggerating certain things so they'll fit into that trend. And you've done it again. I've already stated, for example, that Owen hasn't said that he has been approached for Bond *in the last couple of years*, and has in fact said the opposite. So there's been a contradiction from him, but not one from me - my point was that if you say you've been approached in 2000, but in 2004 you say Nope, never happened, it *might* imply you're in the running. Because that is how you would react if you were, and didn't want to ruin the announcement.

I haven't suggested that Butler and Jackman have sat on the fence and been very vague about whether or not they want to be Bond, true. But that's not because I like Owen, honest - it's because they haven't sat on the fence and been vague about it. Both have gone on the record that they would like to play the part, but haven't been approached. Yes, in the thread three months ago I was convinced Owen was about to be announced as Bond. By your reckoning, though, I should have been saying the same thing here. But *because* I was wrong three months ago, and it didn't happen, I'm now not at all sure Owen's going to be Bond. But I still like Owen. When I first posted on this forum, I was convinced he wouldn't be Bond for other reasons. If you like, you could attribute any opinion anyone has about an actor's chances on the fact that they like or dislike them, but when that opinion changes, doesn't it become a little harder? People's opinions have changed *a lot*, so I don't think the trend you think you've witnessed holds any water. I could hate Owen and you could still post that my hatred of him affected what I thought of his chances. But that wouldn't make it true.

I know you were talking of a general trend, but all of the specifics you've used have more craters in them than... well, I was going to say than Clive Owen's face, but I can't because I like him and I wouldn't want to scupper his chances of being Bond by badmouthing him on the internet, would I?

[Stephenson]

Honestly, spynovelfan, I don't think we tangled in the first place

I don't call this an argument, or even a disagreement. I call it discussion and it is one of the reasons I like it here, as opposed to other sites, because here we try to treat each other's opinions with a respect. If you feel I haven't done so, misinterpreted your words or intent, or personally attacked you, I really don't know what to say. I tried to be general at first, and ended up facing some not so nice accusations in return. I've used so many damn smiley faces my own face is beginning to hurt , so I guess fate has decided that this would be the day when we were unable to communicate with each other. It happens ....

As for you disagreeing with my hypothesis, by all means it is certainly within your rights. I think your wrong about my lack of evidence, or my use of examples, and even my interpretation of there being a trend. It's what I see and I think it is a viable observation.

Of course, in the end, this will all end up being what we do to kill time until some REAL news comes our way .... I'm just trying to enjoy it for what it is

[Daltonfan]

I'm confused about who's approached who. I think Craig said he'd been offered the role by Sony but not by Eon. Hugh Jackman talked about getting a call only to find a lot of other actors had had a similar call and that he's never been approached by anyone with the power to make the decision. Clive Owen may or may not have had talks with someone. Julian McMahon says he's had talks, but with whom? Perhaps the actors are as confused as we are.

[spynovelfan]

Stephenson, fair dos. Didn't think you attacked me - just thought your idea was wrong! But yes, let's not get ourselves tied into any more knots. There's some fluff in my navel warrants more attention, but then, as you say, we are just killing time until EON do the inevitable...

And announce that Clive Owen is the next Bond.

[spynovelfan]

I'm confused about who's approached who.

McMahon approached EON.

[Pussfeller]

I'm confused about who's approached who.

McMahon approached EON.

...which basically guarantees that he doesn't have a chance.

[Phenix]

Australian actor JULIAN McMAHON is refusing to give up the fight to play the next JAMES BOND, even though director MARTIN CAMPBELL seems to favour ER doctor GORAN VISNJIC.

The NIP/TUCK star has been among the names mentioned in relation to the vacant 007 role for CASINO ROYALE, and he admits the fuss surrounding the race for Bond has been great for his career.

And he insists he's still in talks with Bond producers at EON Films about the role.

He tells Australia's the DAILY TELEGRAPH, "It works to my advantage. Even if I hadn't spoken to them (producers), the press that I've got has been enormous. But I have spoken to them."

Meanwhile, Australian movie website MOVIEHOLE.NET have added a new name to the Bond mix - British actor JAMES PUREFOY.

Site editor CLINT MORRIS says, "The rumour circling round here - and what I've been told to put a bet on - is James Purefoy left V FOR VENDETTA (new NATALIE PORTMAN movie) to be Bond.

"I was also told by an insider that McMahon is next in line if Purefoy declines. Purefoy did screen test for GOLDENEYE back in 1995."

McMAHON INSISTS HE'S STILL IN THE RACE FOR 007

[DLibrasnow]

I'm confused about who's approached who.

McMahon approached EON.

Source needed please.

[ACE]

Firstly, fellow Bondophiles: all you need is love!

Secondly, here's what I understand:

1) Brosnan will probably return in Casino Royale. The buzz around Pinewood is such. However, major negotiations are still taking place to finesse the deal - probably the largest in movie history and certainly in Bond history. But nothing is for certain until people sign on the line which is dotted.

2) Owen has NEVER wanted to play James Bond, even if he had needed it for his career, which he now does not. He discussed this with Martin Campbell on the set of Beyond Borders a few years back. But faced with a constant barage of the same questions by reporters, he answers in the way he feels appropriate. I don't think he looks here to see the man hours spent on his every utterance.

3) The next Bond after that (say 2008?) will have to be the right age to sign to series. A possible and, in my mind, probable candidate is Jack Davenport. The only thing holding Davenport back is the fact he has virtually no profile on in the US. However, by that time,he will have completed 2 more Pirates of the Caribbean movies, aged well, beefed up and appeared in a few women's magazines globally. Does Jack Davenport have a chance? Well, John Cleese put him in the frame ages ago, and despite what the press say, a lot of the real contenders have probably not been cited yet. After all, who knew about Dalton?

4) Whoever it is, Eon have never put a foot wrong in the casting of a Bond, certainly not recently. I do have faith in their sensibilities. They do have a deeper understanding of the character.

ACE

[Pussfeller]

The "buzz around Pinewood"? Does this have anything to do with the hallowed halls of MGM?

[Stephenson]

Firstly, fellow Bondophiles: all you need is love!

Secondly, here's what I understand:

1) Brosnan will probably return in Casino Royale. The buzz around Pinewood is such. However, major negotiations are still taking place to finesse the deal - probably the largest in movie history and certainly in Bond history.  But nothing is for certain until people sign on the line which is dotted.

2) Owen has NEVER wanted to play James Bond, even if he had needed it for his career, which he now does not. He discussed this with Martin Campbell on the set of Beyond Borders a few years back. But faced with a constant barage of the same questions by reporters, he answers in the way he feels appropriate. I don't think he looks here to see the man hours spent on his every utterance.

3) The next Bond after that (say 2008?) will have to be the right age to sign to series. A possible and, in my mind, probable candidate is Jack Davenport. The only thing holding Davenport back is the fact he has virtually no profile on in the US. However, by that time,he will have completed 2 more Pirates of the Caribbean movies, aged well, beefed up and appeared in a few women's magazines globally. Does Jack Davenport have a chance? Well, John Cleese put him in the frame ages ago, and despite what the press say, a lot of the real contenders have probably not been cited yet. After all, who knew about Dalton?

4) Whoever it is, Eon have never put a foot wrong in the casting of a Bond, certainly not recently. I do have faith in their sensibilities. They do have a deeper understanding of the character.

ACE

Sorry, but I gotta ask ACE: where did all this info come from?

I sincerely hope that all of Davenport's working out helps him find his chin.

My understanding is that if forums like this had existed in '87, Dalton's name would not have been that big of a surprise. It's all about access to information, and I don't think that Dalton was really that big of a shock after Brosnan's contract problems became public knowledge. Given the same situation today, I'm sure he would have already been a top three choice.

Agree (with certain reservations) on point 4!
Eon may not have the character's best interests close to their hearts, but they certainly understand on which side their bread is buttered, which is why I don't think they'll distort the character tooooooooo much.

[Sam Fisher]

I'm confused about who's approached who.

McMahon approached EON.

...which basically guarantees that he doesn't have a chance.

I second that. Maybe Eon will blacklist him???

[DLibrasnow]

I'm still waiting to hear spynovelfan's source!

[Sam Fisher]

I'm still waiting to hear spynovelfan's source!

In the meantime PM me and tell me how Ms. Mars is doing.

Have any ideas on the new series?

[spynovelfan]

I'm cutting back on my irony quotas for now. Darren, I was joking. Someone was asking who approached who, and my joke was that, rather than Eon approachign McMahon to ask him to be Bond, he approached them.

Well, I thought it was vaguely amusing, anyway.

ACE, I fear what you say about Owen never having wanted Bond rings true. And I can see how Jack Davenport fits the profile in some ways, and know you favour him. I don't think it will be him, just because he seems a little typecast as the weak-spined upper-class twit at the moment, and traditionally they seem to go for someone who's typecast as a more Bond-ish character, cf Messrs Moore and Brosnan. Cleese has pegged him because he worked with his mother in A FISH CALLED WANDA, and because he gave Davenport his first break as a favour to her, on the follow-up to that in the zoo, whatever it was called. I don't think it means any more than Brosnan tipping Colin Salmon. Could happen, though.

But my money is on Hugh Dancy. He absolutely fits the profile. Right age, British, TV exposure in the US (he played David Copperfield in a star-studded HBO film) and the UK (Daniel Derronda), some film work - he was Galahad in KING ARTHUR and is about to release a film with John Hurt and he in the main roles - massive international exposure as the face of Burberry and, the clincher, he looks like a younger version of Jackman.

[Skudor]

I do find it amusing that when different actors use the same tactics, perceptions change:
4. McMahon responds to a question that is no doubt asked at a press junket for Fantastic Four, and responds with "I've been in talks". It is decided that he is a self-promoting and his admission that he has been part of the process immediately excludes him from canidacy.

Not naming names, but it is an interesting phenomena to watch

Right, some people in this thread should keep their opinions to themselves. I am pretty much disgusted and disappointed with some of the viscious anti-McMahon comments by some of the people who should know better in this thread.

I guess CBn is trying to compete with Mi6 in the nasty comments, totalitarian and unpleasant atmosphere stakes.

Thanks for being a sane voice DLibra. You've actually reminded me that some of my recent comments on some of the other candidates have been verging on the nasty, something I have always tried to avoid.

[spynovelfan]

What nasty comments were made about McMahon, really? Surely not the one about his forehead. Come on. And I find it ironic that someone complains about an atmosphere being in danger of becoming totalitarian a couple of sentences after they've written 'Some people in this thread should keep their opinions to themselves'!

Or have I missed something?