310 replies to this topic

[bryonalston]

I think that it's best that people get the complaining about a Croat getting the role now, because if he does, it's not going to make much of a difference later. People might threaten to not see/boycott CR if the actor they like isn't cast, which you know isn't the case. Almost everyone on this site (and every self-respecting Bond fan) will see CR multiple times, despite the actor (the only times the actor has been a problem, albeit a small one in OHMSS, was in DAD, so if CR is a bad film, chances are that it won't be the actor's fault.)

[Seannery]

I think that it's best that people get the complaining about a Croat getting the role now, because if he does, it's not going to make much of a difference later. People might threaten to not see/boycott CR if the actor they like isn't cast, which you know isn't the case. Almost everyone on this site (and every self-respecting Bond fan) will see CR multiple times, despite the actor (the only times the actor has been a problem, albeit a small one in OHMSS, was in DAD, so if CR is a bad film, chances are that it won't be the actor's fault.)

Of course it's not just an actor that makes a movie BUT it is a vital cog. And Lazenby definitely hurt OHMSS with his lack of acting and vocal skills. Pierce was what kept DAD working and afloat. It is important who Eon picks to star in CR--that decision will either make everything else look better or worse.

[Seannery]

Yes, Cavill would be too risky at 22 (and, anyway, is he really the best candidate? I for one find it difficult to believe that he is). Visnjic, I'd guess, has run a very good race but won't end up as Bond. The other two of this "final four" don't even come close to being realistic choices.

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the next 007 ought to be in his late 20s. Any younger and you have a Cavill/verging on "SilverFin" situation; 30s or 40s and you dilute the contrast with Brosnan, and there must, in my opinion, be a massive contrast with the Broz, a lot of clear blue water between Bonds 5 and 6, for CASINO ROYALE to succeed with a new guy in the tux.

Loomis I don't buy the premise of this post. Firstly I don't see the pressing need to have a massive contrast with Pierce. As long as you don't duplicate him it should be fine. And the fact is there is no one close enough to him in style and looks regardless of the age for this to be a problem. Even Purefoy who may be closer to him than most is different enough to cause no problems. So we don't need to go to an early age for a contrast. It will come naturally enough without worrying about a specific age. And we just don't have enough info to know what age Eon will ultimately go to--this supposed final four list is at best faulty so it would be shaky to divine from it what age bond we will get. And as Julian McMahon recently said in an interview, Eon isn't sure what age Bond they want.

[Loomis]

Yes, Cavill would be too risky at 22 (and, anyway, is he really the best candidate? I for one find it difficult to believe that he is). Visnjic, I'd guess, has run a very good race but won't end up as Bond. The other two of this "final four" don't even come close to being realistic choices.

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the next 007 ought to be in his late 20s. Any younger and you have a Cavill/verging on "SilverFin" situation; 30s or 40s and you dilute the contrast with Brosnan, and there must, in my opinion, be a massive contrast with the Broz, a lot of clear blue water between Bonds 5 and 6, for CASINO ROYALE to succeed with a new guy in the tux.

Loomis I don't buy the premise of this post. Firstly I don't see the pressing need to have a massive contrast with Pierce. As long as you don't duplicate him it should be fine. And the fact is there is no one close enough to him in style and looks regardless of the age for this to be a problem. Even Purefoy who may be closer to him than most is different enough to cause no problems. So we don't need to go to an early age for a contrast. It will come naturally enough without worrying about a specific age. And we just don't have enough info to know what age Eon will ultimately go to--this supposed final four list is at best faulty so it would be shaky to divine from it what age bond we will get. And as Julian McMahon recently said in an interview, Eon isn't sure what age Bond they want.

All I'm saying is that I think they ought to steer clear of actors who may be perceived (rightly or wrongly) as Brosnan clones, or poor men's Brosnans, and so on. You seem to feel the same, judging by your observation: "As long as you don't duplicate him it should be fine."

Obviously, it's all in the eye of the beholder. For me, people like Jackman and even Visnjic seem a little too similar to Brosnan for comfort; others would disagree, seeing no similarities with Broz whatsoever.

With a new lead actor in the pipeline (hopefully), the filmmakers should take the golden opportunity that's before them to give audiences something new, to extend the screen life of James Bond by adding a few fresh things to the familiar mix, some facets of the guy we haven't seen before. I'm not calling for a radical reinterpretation of the character, since at the end of the day Eon must choose someone whom the general public will have no trouble accepting as Bond; just calling for a little bit of freshness.

Of course, casting a very young actor isn't the only way to provide contrast and change. It's simply one way among several. Casting Craig, for instance, would guarantee against Brosnan II.

[Seannery]

Yes, Cavill would be too risky at 22 (and, anyway, is he really the best candidate? I for one find it difficult to believe that he is). Visnjic, I'd guess, has run a very good race but won't end up as Bond. The other two of this "final four" don't even come close to being realistic choices.

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the next 007 ought to be in his late 20s. Any younger and you have a Cavill/verging on "SilverFin" situation; 30s or 40s and you dilute the contrast with Brosnan, and there must, in my opinion, be a massive contrast with the Broz, a lot of clear blue water between Bonds 5 and 6, for CASINO ROYALE to succeed with a new guy in the tux.

Loomis I don't buy the premise of this post. Firstly I don't see the pressing need to have a massive contrast with Pierce. As long as you don't duplicate him it should be fine. And the fact is there is no one close enough to him in style and looks regardless of the age for this to be a problem. Even Purefoy who may be closer to him than most is different enough to cause no problems. So we don't need to go to an early age for a contrast. It will come naturally enough without worrying about a specific age. And we just don't have enough info to know what age Eon will ultimately go to--this supposed final four list is at best faulty so it would be shaky to divine from it what age bond we will get. And as Julian McMahon recently said in an interview, Eon isn't sure what age Bond they want.

All I'm saying is that I think they ought to steer clear of actors who may be perceived (rightly or wrongly) as Brosnan clones, or poor men's Brosnans, and so on. You seem to feel the same, judging by your observation: "As long as you don't duplicate him it should be fine."

Obviously, it's all in the eye of the beholder. For me, people like Jackman and even Visnjic seem a little too similar to Brosnan for comfort; others would disagree, seeing no similarities with Broz whatsoever.

With a new lead actor in the pipeline (hopefully), the filmmakers should take the golden opportunity that's before them to give audiences something new, to extend the screen life of James Bond by adding a few fresh things to the familiar mix, some facets of the guy we haven't seen before. I'm not calling for a radical reinterpretation of the character, since at the end of the day Eon must choose someone whom the general public will have no trouble accepting as Bond; just calling for a little bit of freshness.

Of course, casting a very young actor isn't the only way to provide contrast and change. It's simply one way among several. Casting Craig, for instance, would guarantee against Brosnan II.

Well yes I guess the difference is I think it's rather easy to provide contrast(especially since I don't believe it needs to be massive) since there are not many Pierce-like actors out there. Even Purefoy would give sufficient contrast IMO.

[Loomis]

Yes, Cavill would be too risky at 22 (and, anyway, is he really the best candidate? I for one find it difficult to believe that he is). Visnjic, I'd guess, has run a very good race but won't end up as Bond. The other two of this "final four" don't even come close to being realistic choices.

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the next 007 ought to be in his late 20s. Any younger and you have a Cavill/verging on "SilverFin" situation; 30s or 40s and you dilute the contrast with Brosnan, and there must, in my opinion, be a massive contrast with the Broz, a lot of clear blue water between Bonds 5 and 6, for CASINO ROYALE to succeed with a new guy in the tux.

Loomis I don't buy the premise of this post. Firstly I don't see the pressing need to have a massive contrast with Pierce. As long as you don't duplicate him it should be fine. And the fact is there is no one close enough to him in style and looks regardless of the age for this to be a problem. Even Purefoy who may be closer to him than most is different enough to cause no problems. So we don't need to go to an early age for a contrast. It will come naturally enough without worrying about a specific age. And we just don't have enough info to know what age Eon will ultimately go to--this supposed final four list is at best faulty so it would be shaky to divine from it what age bond we will get. And as Julian McMahon recently said in an interview, Eon isn't sure what age Bond they want.

All I'm saying is that I think they ought to steer clear of actors who may be perceived (rightly or wrongly) as Brosnan clones, or poor men's Brosnans, and so on. You seem to feel the same, judging by your observation: "As long as you don't duplicate him it should be fine."

Obviously, it's all in the eye of the beholder. For me, people like Jackman and even Visnjic seem a little too similar to Brosnan for comfort; others would disagree, seeing no similarities with Broz whatsoever.

With a new lead actor in the pipeline (hopefully), the filmmakers should take the golden opportunity that's before them to give audiences something new, to extend the screen life of James Bond by adding a few fresh things to the familiar mix, some facets of the guy we haven't seen before. I'm not calling for a radical reinterpretation of the character, since at the end of the day Eon must choose someone whom the general public will have no trouble accepting as Bond; just calling for a little bit of freshness.

Of course, casting a very young actor isn't the only way to provide contrast and change. It's simply one way among several. Casting Craig, for instance, would guarantee against Brosnan II.

Well yes I guess the difference is I think it's rather easy to provide contrast(especially since I don't believe it needs to be massive) since there are not many Pierce-like actors out there. Even Purefoy would give sufficient contrast IMO.

But I think it would take more than merely a new actor in the Bond role. Obviously, there's only one Brosnan, just as there's only one of everyone - in that sense, yes, providing contrast would indeed be easy: just hire anyone other than Brosnan and bingo! There's your contrast with Brosnan.

What I'm driving at, though, is that the public must be persuaded, if only on a subconscious level, that Eon was right in saying goodbye to Brosnan and getting a new Bond. Otherwise, why ditch Broz? Audiences may resent a new actor if they think he's little more than a less expensive stand-in for a guy who, all things being equal, may as well still be in the role.

What we need, then, is not just a new Bond but a new approach, too. Cavill or Dancy as the rookie 007 on his first major mission. Or Craig as a "seasoned pro" Bond, taking the series in a highly "gritty" and "realistic" direction, making Dalton in THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS look like Moore in OCTOPUSSY. Or Hugh Grant, playing the part almost entirely for laughs. Something fresh.

[Seannery]

Well I always fall back to pick a well cast Bond in CR regardless of how similiar to Pierce(or any other factor one might want to consider) and all problems will fall away including any contrast to Pierce since then the new actor will create the magic and buzz on the screen and then the people will come firstly with the buzz of a new Bond and then in addition word of mouth will bring success.

[Qwerty]

None of those four seem to really jump out at me.

[cvheady007]

None of those four seem to really jump out at me.

Ewan Stewart jumps out at me in my nightmares.

Seriously, I don't feel any heat from any of these names, except Goran. I am slowly warming up to the idea of him playing 007 and would not be disappointed if he is casted. The other 3? God help us all.

[Loomis]

There is another early twentysomething that we know of...one who isn't named here and has never been named anywhere...who I weirdly kind of like (but would make Bond fans freak). Truth be told, I was a bit let down to see Cavill's name here instead of this other "kid." We'll name him when all this is said and done.

zencat, I remembered your talking about this mysterious guy, and was wondering whether everything is sufficiently said and done for him to be named. Can't be Worthington, since he's 29, I think.

So?

Or could you at least tell us why he'd make Bond fans "freak"? Would he make us freak more than such, um, unconventional candidates as a Croatian actor, Ewan Stewart, a 22-year-old, Daniel "Ugliest Man in the World" (or so many people seem to believe) Craig, a little-known 29-year-old Australian, and Pierce "Oldest Man in the World" (again, as some seem to feel) Brosnan?

As far as you know, could he still be "in the mix"?

[zencat]

When all is said and done, I'll name him. I don't think he's in the mix, no.

[Loomis]

When all is said and done, I'll name him. I don't think he's in the mix, no.

Cheers. Actually, more than a name (heaven knows we have enough of those), I'm curious as to why he'd make people freak, although perhaps I'm laying too much emphasis on that word. Exactly what's so shocking about him? After all, many of the so-called candidates we've been discussing for months, and indeed all of the apparent final "final four", are so "unusual" that, at this point, I reckon fans wouldn't go nuts (well, not too much, anyway) if Christopher Eccleston or, heck, Steve Buscemi were revealed as a serious contender.

So I'm guessing that, to be someone who'd cause the mother of all storms of controversy among fans, this guy must be of black or Asian origin (Wentworth Miller? Nah, he's in his early 30s), or openly gay, or something along those lines.

Or is it simply that he's (whisper it) American?

But I'll wait for all to be revealed in due course.