100 replies to this topic

[Pussfeller]

Oh, get real. Brosnan has been drastically overrated. After DAD, I doubt the general public is dying to see a washed up 53 year-old sleepwalk through another film. Anyway, EON obviously can't use the same "You were expecting someone else?" tactic, but that doesn't mean it's now impossible to introduce another actor! They just have to market him differently.

[Seannery]

Oh, get real. Brosnan has been drastically overrated. After DAD, I doubt the general public is dying to see a washed up 53 year-old sleepwalk through another film. Anyway, EON obviously can't use the same "You were expecting someone else?" tactic, but that doesn't mean it's now impossible to introduce another actor! They just have to market him differently.

I never said it was impossible to introduce another actor--only that despite your personal opinion Brosnan like Moore and Connery was a popular and successful Bond and that it is not easy to follow them. Hence they need to cast the next Bond very well or it will be a short term--not impossible just not easy. And for example Goran would be bad not necessarilty because he's brooding BUT because he's not Bondian, has a weak presence and isn't that impressive as an actor--he lacks the dash of Bond.

[zencat]

Oh, get real. Brosnan has been drastically overrated. After DAD, I doubt the general public is dying to see a washed up 53 year-old sleepwalk through another film. Anyway, EON obviously can't use the same "You were expecting someone else?" tactic, but that doesn't mean it's now impossible to introduce another actor! They just have to market him differently.

I'm not debating the merits of Pierce and DAD so please don't turn it into that. I'm just laying out the current marketing issue. Obviously you're one of those fans that won't have trouble with a new Bond right now. But I'm not talking about fans. Most fans loved Dalton. I'm talking about the general audience. I know there is already a marketing problem. Whenever I get into a conversation with a general movie goer about how Eon is looking for a new Bond, the question that always comes first is, "What happened to Pierce?" So before you can even talk about the new, you have to first explain why something that seemed to work fine was taken away. That's not a great way to start a sales pitch.

So Eon has to sell a new Bond. Key to this is the audience has to feel they're getting what they want (or asked for). But without there being a obvious NEED for a new Bond, there isn't a perceived WANT that's being satisfied here. This makes selling a new Bond right now much harder.

The best way to do it is to replace him with a model the audience has told us they want and the Pierce issue will vanish. I love my BMW...but if you offering me a Bentley! Clive Owen is about the only guy I can think of tat would accomplish this. But if Goran unknown steps forward the audience will feel they don't have the Bond they liked and accepted (Pierce) nor the Bond they want (Owen or Jackman). They ain't gonna buy.

Then it's up to how he comes off in the film. He could be a Sean Connery and blow everyone away and suddenly he IS James Bond and this is moot. But I do not see a Sean Connery in the current batch of candidates.

(And I didn't mean they would literally re-use the GE teaser. I was just using that as a means to compare how easy it was to sell "a natural successor" in 95 compared to now.)

[Seannery]

Absolutely the marketing would be so difficult--Zencat is so right most people say what happened to Pierce. They expect him. That is why the casting of Bond is crucial--you need someone clearly very Bondian. Unlike Zen I see a number of actors who can excel at that beyond Owen and Jackman BUT not a great number. It would be easy to flub this with a Goran like pick. I hope Eon is really on the ball. Will they be? I'm not sure.

[zencat]

And I'm not even talking about performance. I'm looking at this as pure marketing problem. Who's the guy we can put on a poster and people say, "Cool"? Who's the guy that can step forward in a teaser for CR and say, "You were expecting someone else," and get away with it?

Bond fans will go see the movie and judge on performance. But the general public and press with make a much quicker judgment based on gut instinct. Pierce Brosnan IS James Bond...okay, we know we like that. Clive Owen IS James Bond. Hey, that sounds cool. Joe Unknown IS James Bond. Hmmm...could be another Lazenby or Dalton. Let's wait for the DVD. What else is playing?

[Seannery]

And I'm not even talking about performance. I'm looking at this as pure marketing problem. Who's the guy we can put on a poster and people say, "Cool"? Who's the guy that can step forward in a teaser for CR and say, "You were expecting someone else," and get away with it?

Bond fans will go see the movie and judge on performance. But the general public and press with make a much quicker judgment based on gut instinct. Pierce Brosnan IS James Bond...okay, we know we like that. Clive Owen IS James Bond. Hey, that sounds cool. Joe Unknown IS James Bond. Hmmm...could be another Lazenby or Dalton. Let's wait for the DVD. What else is playing?

Absolutely the marketing problem is tough which is why it is crucial to cast a Bond who will ignite the screen and overcome that. I submit there are a handful of candidates who can do that BUT if Eon doesn't pick one of them then they will not overcome the marketing problem with the magic and buzz the right choice would create.

[icy_calm]

[QUOTE]I don't think who is cast is going to neccasarily going to disappoint everyone, Jackman (ideal candidate!) Owen, Craig etc. Alot of people are going to know exactly who each of those actors are, the younger actors, Hugh Dancy (?) Orlando Bloom(!) Jack Davenport(:0),Gerard Butler (:-() all may be fine actors(?), but none of them display the swagger and poise of Bond, Gruffudd,he lacks the qualities that would make Bond. Bale, ideal candidate but now forever linked with the shadow of the bat.

I think the drastic change (& it will be drastic) in the style of the film itself will be what disappoints. DAD was one of the most profitable of all the films, (the first half rocked), and that wasn't really what I would expect from a Bond film, but it was what the consensus did, I rate 2 Bond films above all others, Goldfinger and Goldeneye, one because it was really the introduction to the Bond genre, and the other because it invigorated it.

Who should be the next Bond? There are names of British and Irish actors that seem to not get mentioned at all - Cillian Murphy, a surprisingly good actor (once again back to Batman), who may be able to play a fledgling Bond and evolve the characer as his acting too evolves, or Paddy Consandine, another fine actor. Once people start getting past and stop bandying about names like Jude Law and Ewan Mcgregor the closer we will be to the next Bond.

[zencat]

I think the drastic change (& it will be drastic) in the style of the film itself will be what disappoints.

I agree with you on this, icy_calm. Again, putting all aesthetic judgments aside (because sometimes these tonal shift movies are very good), Bond box-office history have shown a down shift into realism always shaves $$$ off the gross. OHMSS made less that YOLT. FYEO made less than MR. TMWTGG made less than LALD (less of a downshift, but still a downshift). Did TLD make less than AVTAK? That I'm not sure of. But LTK, the biggest downshift of them all, tanked.

So a new unfamiliar Bond and a downshift into what could be a new unfamiliar tone (even an unfamiliar universe) in CR? VERY risky stuff.

My feeling is you should never experiment with a new Bond and a new tone at the same time. Do one or the other. Roger in FYEO was great because he was the familiar anchor that allowed us to accept the sudden downshift in tone. Pierce (new Bond) in very familiar Bondian toned GE worked out just as well.

Dalton in LTK, Laz in OHMSS...both movies that offered new Bonds in new tones...not as well.

"The past predicts the future."

[Pussfeller]

I guess I just don't share this perception that the public really loves Pierce Brosnan. I think he could be replaced fairly easily. Even if there is resistance, it would all collapse after the first outing of a new Bond (even if he is mediocre). Once people get used to the idea that Pierce is not Bond (and this will happen when someone new is officially cast), I don't think there will be much regret. If there is, then it's because Brosnan has been built up too much.

Anyway, I personally don't see any chance of the next Bond being rejected by the public. It seems like the kind of vague, alarmist prediction only a hardcore "Broz or bust" kind of fan would subscribe to. Whoever is chosen will be marketed to the public and hyped up for a several months. By the time of CR's release, he'll be James Bond, as far as Joe Blow is concerned. Given the weird circumstances of this selection process, the unveiling will probably be weird as well. We won't have a Brosnanesque "you knew it was me all along" situation. And Zencat, I didn't mean to imply that you were saying it would be a total redux of the "Were you expecting someone else?" ad campaign! Personally, I think it'll be fun to see how they choose to reveal the next Bond to the public.

But since a lot of fans are apparently nervous, let's try looking at this in perspective: If they could move on from Connery, they'll get over Brosnan. Public opinion is very flexible, especially among younger viewers. Among older viewers, Brosnan was never James Bond anyway (my dad refuses to watch anything without Connery, and I know he's not the only one). It's already been nearly three years since DAD. A year from now, Brosnan's era will be a distant memory in the minds of casual movie-goers. In another ten or fifteen years, when we're going through this nightmare again, we'll hear the same song and dance: "The sky is falling! Without Goran Visnjic, they might as well just stop the franchise!"

As long as movie-goers are interested in the character of Bond, the films will be successful. It doesn't matter how attached people get to a particular actor. They'll forget about him as soon as someone new comes along. That's my prediction, anyway.

[Xenia_Onatopp]

Anyone new taking on the role will most likely have to grow on people, not necessarily disappoint them. It took me a while to get used to Roger Moore, then Dalton, then Brosnan. Of course, it was easier to do so when I thought he was gorgeous (i.e. Dalton).

BTW it's GeraRd Butler. Correctly spoken the Scottish way, it sounds like "Gerald" with rolling "r's," accent on the first syllable.

[Seannery]

I guess I just don't share this perception that the public really loves Pierce Brosnan. I think he could be replaced fairly easily. Even if there is resistance, it would all collapse after the first outing of a new Bond (even if he is mediocre). Once people get used to the idea that Pierce is not Bond (and this will happen when someone new is officially cast), I don't think there will be much regret. If there is, then it's because Brosnan has been built up too much.

Anyway, I personally don't see any chance of the next Bond being rejected by the public. It seems like the kind of vague, alarmist prediction only a hardcore "Broz or bust" kind of fan would subscribe to. Whoever is chosen will be marketed to the public and hyped up for a several months. By the time of CR's release, he'll be James Bond, as far as Joe Blow is concerned. Given the weird circumstances of this selection process, the unveiling will probably be weird as well. We won't have a Brosnanesque "you knew it was me all along" situation. And Zencat, I didn't mean to imply that you were saying it would be a total redux of the "Were you expecting someone else?" ad campaign! Personally, I think it'll be fun to see how they choose to reveal the next Bond to the public.

But since a lot of fans are apparently nervous, let's try looking at this in perspective: If they could move on from Connery, they'll get over Brosnan. Public opinion is very flexible, especially among younger viewers. Among older viewers, Brosnan was never James Bond anyway (my dad refuses to watch anything without Connery, and I know he's not the only one). It's already been nearly three years since DAD. A year from now, Brosnan's era will be a distant memory in the minds of casual movie-goers. In another ten or fifteen years, when we're going through this nightmare again, we'll hear the same song and dance: "The sky is falling! Without Goran Visnjic, they might as well just stop the franchise!"

As long as movie-goers are interested in the character of Bond, the films will be successful. It doesn't matter how attached people get to a particular actor. They'll forget about him as soon as someone new comes along. That's my prediction, anyway.

This is where you go wrong IMO. Regardless what you think of Brosnan he was popular and like Moore and Connery hard to replace fully--paging Lazenby and Dalton regardless what one thinks of their performances. They just weren't fully accepted as Bond and it is completely false that you can just throw any mediocre actor out there with an english accent and you will have a successful Bond. The actor has to have strong Bondian traits which not many fully or close to fully have or can at least act like they have effectively.

[k13oharts]

Anyway, I personally don't see any chance of the next Bond being rejected by the public. It seems like the kind of vague, alarmist prediction only a hardcore "Broz or bust" kind of fan would subscribe to. Whoever is chosen will be marketed to the public and hyped up for a several months. By the time of CR's release, he'll be James Bond, as far as Joe Blow is concerned. Given the weird circumstances of this selection process, the unveiling will probably be weird as well. We won't have a Brosnanesque "you knew it was me all along" situation. And Zencat, I didn't mean to imply that you were saying it would be a total redux of the "Were you expecting someone else?" ad campaign! Personally, I think it'll be fun to see how they choose to reveal the next Bond to the public.

But since a lot of fans are apparently nervous, let's try looking at this in perspective: If they could move on from Connery, they'll get over Brosnan. Public opinion is very flexible, especially among younger viewers. Among older viewers, Brosnan was never James Bond anyway (my dad refuses to watch anything without Connery, and I know he's not the only one). It's already been nearly three years since DAD. A year from now, Brosnan's era will be a distant memory in the minds of casual movie-goers. In another ten or fifteen years, when we're going through this nightmare again, we'll hear the same song and dance: "The sky is falling! Without Goran Visnjic, they might as well just stop the franchise!"

As long as movie-goers are interested in the character of Bond, the films will be successful. It doesn't matter how attached people get to a particular actor. They'll forget about him as soon as someone new comes along. That's my prediction, anyway.

Didn't the late Broccoli say not to screw up the formula?

Bond fans are Bond fans. The problem here right now is that most of the audience are divided into who they would like to see as Bond versus what EON/Sony may choose and also those who prefer the veterans as they were the Bonds they grew up with.
As far as I can see, Bond currently has an image crisis and that can be fixed with good PR which btw is not really that great right now.
I declare myself a Bond fan. Not a fanatic. Some of us wouldn't mind who or even what does Bond as long as the formula is not hacked, the actor does his bit, the screenwriters give us a good story and the director gives us a good show.

[Pussfeller]

I guess I just don't share this perception that the public really loves Pierce Brosnan. I think he could be replaced fairly easily. Even if there is resistance, it would all collapse after the first outing of a new Bond (even if he is mediocre). Once people get used to the idea that Pierce is not Bond (and this will happen when someone new is officially cast), I don't think there will be much regret. If there is, then it's because Brosnan has been built up too much.

Anyway, I personally don't see any chance of the next Bond being rejected by the public. It seems like the kind of vague, alarmist prediction only a hardcore "Broz or bust" kind of fan would subscribe to. Whoever is chosen will be marketed to the public and hyped up for a several months. By the time of CR's release, he'll be James Bond, as far as Joe Blow is concerned. Given the weird circumstances of this selection process, the unveiling will probably be weird as well. We won't have a Brosnanesque "you knew it was me all along" situation. And Zencat, I didn't mean to imply that you were saying it would be a total redux of the "Were you expecting someone else?" ad campaign! Personally, I think it'll be fun to see how they choose to reveal the next Bond to the public.

But since a lot of fans are apparently nervous, let's try looking at this in perspective: If they could move on from Connery, they'll get over Brosnan. Public opinion is very flexible, especially among younger viewers. Among older viewers, Brosnan was never James Bond anyway (my dad refuses to watch anything without Connery, and I know he's not the only one). It's already been nearly three years since DAD. A year from now, Brosnan's era will be a distant memory in the minds of casual movie-goers. In another ten or fifteen years, when we're going through this nightmare again, we'll hear the same song and dance: "The sky is falling! Without Goran Visnjic, they might as well just stop the franchise!"

As long as movie-goers are interested in the character of Bond, the films will be successful. It doesn't matter how attached people get to a particular actor. They'll forget about him as soon as someone new comes along. That's my prediction, anyway.

This is where you go wrong IMO. Regardless what you think of Brosnan he was popular and like Moore and Connery hard to replace fully--paging Lazenby and Dalton regardless what one thinks of their performances. They just weren't fully accepted as Bond and it is completely false that you can just throw any mediocre actor out there with an english accent and you will have a successful Bond. The actor has to have strong Bondian traits which not many fully or close to fully have or can at least act like they have effectively.

Well, obviously if they pick a lousy actor they're going to have problems. That's always going to be the case. No, I don't think Brosnan was the greatest actor, but at least he had confidence and screen presence. The next guy needs the same.

It seems like the producers are putting a lot of consideration into this process, trying to find someone who can handle the role as opposed to just hiring a bargain-basement cheapo actor. I find it encouraging that McMahon appears to have been passed over. If they manage to find a good actor and give him good material, I can't imagine him being rejected by the public, or by fans for that matter. My point is that I don't see any inherent problem in replacing Brosnan, if it's done right. I don't think the new guy is doomed from the start.

Edited by Pussfeller, 23 July 2005 - 12:08 AM.

[Rogue Agent]

Just like to say Dalton and Lazenby weren't rejected as such. Lazenby left Bond of his own accord after one film so we never found out what he would have been like had he stuck around - imagine Connery leaving after Dr No and you see my point. The public never accepted Lazenby because he left too early. OHMSS was a success - perhaps less so than other Bond films but still successful.

Dalton was a successful Bond everywhere except America. TLD and LTK were big hits outside America. Guess Americans don't like a serious Bond. But Dalton's films still made profit - I believe his two films made more of a profit margin than DAD. Cost vs takings.

And of course, no Bond film has ever flopped or made a small amount of money to justify ending the franchise. So history is favouring the next Bond but the discussion comes back to an ideal candidate to replace Brosnan. There doesn't appear to be one. Clive Owen has just as many critics as he has fans. Just mention King Arthur to anyone that doesn't want Owen as Bond and you see that Owen is far from the natural successor to Brosnan. We all know there isn't a natural successor, or if we do have a candidate we consider a natural successor, we know there aren't enough people out there championing him. So Eon does have a significant problem in finding someone the public will accept.

I believe another problem facing Eon and Sony is the fact Brosnan was a particularly handsome/pretty man and movies are often about the power of the images we see. Had Daniel Craig been Bond instead of Brosnan, and then been removed, I doubt people would worry too much about his replacement. But Brosnan had a classic Bond look so his replacement should have comparable looks. If he doesn't some fans could say, "you replaced Brosnan, who looked so right for Bond, for this guy?" This is why I believe Eon and Sony are facing serious problems finding the right man. "Let's cast Daniel Craig," Eon and Sony say. Then they look on net forums and fans say Craig looks all wrong for Bond and Eon and Sony have a reality check.

I can't see Goran Visnjic or Julian McMahon being accepted the way Brosnan was. If it's economically possible, Eon should delay the film till 2007 and find Brosnan mark 2. Not a clone but someone that seems a natural replacement, someone with a similar look or style. It makes the transition far easier if the new guy is similar to the last Bond.

Edited by Rogue Agent, 23 July 2005 - 12:47 AM.

[Pussfeller]

Who knows who EON has lined up? For all we know, they may have found the perfect replacement for Brosnan, only it's someone we've never heard of. I wouldn't suggest postponing the film unless we know for sure that they don't have any prospects, and we don't know enough to say that. When the announcement is made--then we can really debate whether the new actor will be a success.

[1q2w3e4r]

I guess the fact the franchise has been going 40+ years should offer some sense of optimism.

In that time they haven't really dropped the ball too many times. Sure they could have scrapped TMWTGG and sticking Roger in a clown suit is a bit of a joke. But so were all of Moore's films.

I think they have a pretty good idea of what it takes to cast a OO7.

[1q2w3e4r]

I think the drastic change (& it will be drastic) in the style of the film itself will be what disappoints.

I agree with you on this, icy_calm. Again, putting all aesthetic judgments aside (because sometimes these tonal shift movies are very good), Bond box-office history have shown a down shift into realism always shaves $$$ off the gross. OHMSS made less that YOLT. FYEO made less than MR. TMWTGG made less than LALD (less of a downshift, but still a downshift). Did TLD make less than AVTAK? That I'm not sure of. But LTK, the biggest downshift of them all, tanked.

So a new unfamiliar Bond and a downshift into what could be a new unfamiliar tone (even an unfamiliar universe) in CR? VERY risky stuff.

My feeling is you should never experiment with a new Bond and a new tone at the same time. Do one or the other. Roger in FYEO was great because he was the familiar anchor that allowed us to accept the sudden downshift in tone. Pierce (new Bond) in very familiar Bondian toned GE worked out just as well.

Dalton in LTK, Laz in OHMSS...both movies that offered new Bonds in new tones...not as well.

"The past predicts the future."

This is a fairly big statement. Let's take into account now that Bond films aren't the biggest things to hit the screen when they come out.

CGI has stepped Bond back from the forefront of action sequences. It's not like SPY or MR or YOLT where the set pieces and stunts are something that you can only see in Bond films. Which is part of their huge appeal.

Most movie going audiences are past the point of really sitting there and digging OTT action pieces in "spy" or action type films. That kind of thing should now be left to franchises like Star Wars or Batman/Spiderman.

Mr & Mrs Smith was a great romp. But who didn't groan at the pair of them killing 50+ people when they were trapped. Or some of the action being totally unbelievable. Sure, in the context of the film that's the tone and style they were going for so you accept it.

In Bond films now I don't believe the OTT action like in DAD is needed, nor wanted. Who didn't groan at the surf sequence or invisible Aston (this isn't an opening to argue the "merits" or the technolog )

The trend seems to be thanks largely in part to the Bourne series to step back and tone things down. Bourne's profit margin's have been considerably larger than DAD's or the last three OO7 films.

It makes sense from a production point of view, in that it allows for a lower budget.

Tomb Raider 2, Charlies Angels II and xXx II all fail because they tried too much to push how far the first films took things in terms of action.

I guess in closing my point is this. It seems as though things have taken a reversal now. And that realism is the money maker, not OTT stuff. That's my 2c. We'll have to wait until CR open's to have any real idea!

[Bondian]

OK. This is my take on the casting of James Bond #6.

Inhumane and occasional humouresque views ahead.

As far as I can tell, EON took the 'traditional' Bond ( IE the Bond we know ) into a kind of new 'realm' in Try Another Day. Bond was a down-and-out, thrown out by his own employers, became an orangutan for a bit, but then suddenly throw his super hero jock-strap into play by skiing and negotiating 150 tidal wave, killing all the baddies and ending up porking a beautiful Oscar winner.

Is this what Bond should all be about, or will we ever see what was originally written by Ian Spitfire Fleming?. ( after all, he was the chap who started it all, but so far he might as well not of bothered ).

OK. I have seen ( oi mate ) Clive Owen being interviewed. Clive is a rugged good looking man who could play Bond in the Connery 'mould'. But, he's soo suitable to be able to play many other parts, why would he want to take on a role that would put him into such a large spotlight that he would kill any chances of doing what he want to do...act. Like Oscar winners, he would have to command mucho $$$ because of the heavy weight he would carry on his shoulders. Also, it could kill a somewhat potpourri career, but instead be dogged down to play nonchalant numb nuts parts.

Enter Goran Vishhhhnic ( yeah him ). A good looking chap who WOULD BE ABLE to do a 'Queens English' ( oi mate ) accent. He has the chops, legs and thighs ( so he tells me ) to portray a James Bond that we've never seen. A chap who's unfamiliar, very different to all the other actors and a complete transformation to who we're so used to seeing on the big screen.

I have to say that I'm done with actors trying to imitate previous actors. I want someone to walk onto that screen and BE James Bond. Ya' know, that person that we've never seen yet. That opulent and strange man that the novels often spoke about. The only 'name' we need is Bond, James Bond not another actor who's going to portray an actor from the past.

We need authenticity and I believe Goran can do it.

Cheers,


Ian

[Pussfeller]

Interesting view, Bondian. I wouldn't mind seeing a drastically new kind of actor either. I suppose we'll know their decision soon.

[MrDraco]

If its anyone from Fantastic Four (Hint Hint) its gonna suck

[k13oharts]

If its anyone from Fantastic Four (Hint Hint) its gonna suck

Well, whoever it is let's all wait for EON/Sony's *official* announcement(s) before passing judgement.
Then ultimately we'd have to wait for the movie itself to really judge its worth. For all we know we might as well be debating for no reason and this would be forgotten later.

[licensetostudy]

In that time they haven't really dropped the ball too many times.  Sure they could have scrapped TMWTGG and sticking Roger in a clown suit is a bit of a joke.  But so were all of Moore's films.

Do we really need Moore bashing in an interesting discussion as this? Put a sock in it, will ya?

I can't see the new guy being a failure. Since Brosnan took the role we have seen the information age and a huge increase in the corporatization of society not to mention globalization. These things may work to the new guy's advantage no matter what kind of an actor he is. The general public around the world will get one huge dose of this guy before they see Casino Royale.

[SecretAgentFan]

The problem right now is: We think Bond has an image crisis. Actually, he doesn

[Moore Not Less]

[quote name='SecretAgentFan' date='23 July 2005 - 13:05']Right now, we assume that Sony and Eon don

[Pussfeller]

Well, we'll know for sure once they announce him.

[Agent 76]

they'll announce Adrian Paul, at least I hope so..

[Pussycat]

they'll announce Adrian Paul, at least I hope so..

Keeping fingers crossed you are right! There are a lot of people in the "mainstream" public hoping so too.

[MarJil]

they'll announce Adrian Paul, at least I hope so..

Well, that would fulfill the title of this particular thread more than any other candidate.

[Pussycat]

they'll announce Adrian Paul, at least I hope so..

Well, that would fulfill the title of this particular thread more than any other candidate.

Only for you, I'm afraid. The general public wouldn't have a problem with Adrian being Bond. They already see him as an excellent candidate for the role, verified by various polls in numerous countries ( and I'm not talking about internet polls where voters can vote more than once, although...I must say those do illustrate determined fans who would most likely buy multiple tickets.)

[Seannery]

[quote name='Bondian' date='23 July 2005 - 05:07']OK. This is my take on the casting of James Bond #6.

Inhumane and occasional humouresque views ahead.

As far as I can tell, EON took the 'traditional' Bond ( IE the Bond we know ) into a kind of new 'realm' in Try Another Day. Bond was a down-and-out, thrown out by his own employers, became an orangutan for a bit, but then suddenly throw his super hero jock-strap into play by skiing and negotiating 150 tidal wave, killing all the baddies and ending up porking a beautiful Oscar winner.

Is this what Bond should all be about, or will we ever see what was originally written by Ian Spitfire Fleming?. ( after all, he was the chap who started it all, but so far he might as well not of bothered ).

OK. I have seen ( oi mate ) Clive Owen being interviewed. Clive is a rugged good looking man who could play Bond in the Connery 'mould'. But, he's soo suitable to be able to play many other parts, why would he want to take on a role that would put him into such a large spotlight that he would kill any chances of doing what he want to do...act. Like Oscar winners, he would have to command mucho $$$ because of the heavy weight he would carry on his shoulders. Also, it could kill a somewhat potpourri career, but instead be dogged down to play nonchalant numb nuts parts.

Enter Goran Vishhhhnic ( yeah him ). A good looking chap who WOULD BE ABLE to do a 'Queens English' ( oi mate ) accent. He has the chops, legs and thighs ( so he tells me