88 replies to this topic

[Seannery]

Recent reports show Eon/Sony in flux and not sure what exact direction to go in with CR and finding a new Bond. It seems Michael and Babs along with Sony can't all seem to agree with what actor to take as Bond. The script is being polished and at least tweaked to some degree. New screen tests are due in September with some fresh "finalists" and according to the Times there may be a Bond summit this week to try to decide on what to do and what actor to take as Bond.

So to help our friends in Eon, lets give them the benefit of our Bond "wisdom" and passion in the form of advice. What should they do? Who should they test? Who should they pick? I'll start:



1.) Give us the cool, confident, suave Bond and NOT another psychobabble "this time its personal" story. Please forget the pyschological angst.

2.) Don't give us a dour Bourne clone. Make it more serious if you will BUT don't lose the traditions, charm and special aspects of a Bond film that distinguish Bond from all other films and series.

3.) If you insist on going for an early mission Bond--don't make Bond too young. He's a seasoned Commander coming to Mi6. Make him from 31 to 36 or so.

4.) Hire an actor as 007 who ON FILM can convincingly portray an agent aged 31 to 36. This would include someone younger pehaps who can play older OR someone older who can play younger. BE FLEXIBLE TO FIND THE BEST BOND POSSIBLE.

5.) Don't lose the cheek and humor elements of Bond.

6.) Please don't insist on an early mission Bond. If you make a smart clever "regular" Bond then people of all ages will flock to see it. FOCUS ON THE SCRIPT AND IDEAS--Haggis is a good step!

7.) If you are looking for a Bond who isn't too big and costly and you want a Bond who has the looks, talent and toughness then pick ADRIAN PAUL, GERARD BUTLER or JAMES PUREFOY. Adrian Paul and James Purefoy can pass easily in CR as a 33, 34, 35 year old. ADRIAN PAUL even looks a little younger than Purefoy and is so truly and naturally Bondian. He is the natural Bond of this time and an underrated talent.

8.) Also consider as a good Bond--Daniel Craig, Dougray Scott, Jason Isaacs, Jeremy Northam, Hugh Grant, Julian McMahon, Ioan Gruffudd.

9.) If you want to really spend money then pay big time to lure Pierce back OR convince Hugh Jackman to take the role.

10.) Good luck!



Well that's mine. What is yours?

[spynovelfan]

I'm with you up to point 6, Seannery.

1. Seannery's first six are a good start.

2. Do not cast Adrian Paul. He may look like Connery, but he can't act to save himself. You may as well hire Clive Robertson.

3. Don't hire Clive Robertson. Or James Purefoy. They're terribly lame candidates. But you already know this.

4. Stop even thinking Hugh Jackman would take this role. If Owen doesn't want it, get Craig, and get some Aramis moisturiser and a fitness trainer and a Savile Row tailor and do it.

5. Don't imitate Bourne - apart from the car chases. I want to feel Bond might actually be killed.

6. Cut back on the crappy double entendres and one-liners. Yes, you need a few. But go back and watch some of the older films - Bond is laconic. He's not a schoolboy.

7. Stop reading internet sites and get this film out.

[tdalton]

8.) Also consider as a good Bond--Daniel Craig, Dougray Scott, Jason Isaacs, Jeremy Northam, Hugh Grant, Julian McMahon, Ioan Gruffudd.

With the exception of Hugh Grant, I'm definitely with you on point #8. If Owen doesn't want to do it, then they should go ahead and get Daniel Craig. And, if Craig doesn't get it, I would really like the idea of Jason Isaacs in the role. I actually thought that he was Timothy Dalton when he first came up on screen in The Patriot, they have that much of a resemblance of eachother.

[Seannery]

I'm with you up to point 6, Seannery.

1. Seannery's first six are a good start.

2. Do not cast Adrian Paul. He may look like Connery, but he can't act to save himself. You may as well hire Clive Robertson.

3. Don't hire Clive Robertson. Or James Purefoy. They're terribly lame candidates. But you already know this.

4. Stop even thinking Hugh Jackman would take this role. If Owen doesn't want it, get Craig, and get some Aramis moisturiser and a fitness trainer and a Savile Row tailor and do it.

5. Don't imitate Bourne - apart from the car chases. I want to feel Bond might actually be killed.

6. Cut back on the crappy double entendres and one-liners. Yes, you need a few. But go back and watch some of the older films - Bond is laconic. He's not a schoolboy.

7. Stop reading internet sites and get this film out.

Good stuff spynovelfan--though we disagree on Adrian Paul and James Purefoy. So i'll add this to Eon/Sony if you haven't already tested Adrian Paul and James Purefoy then do that and you will see they are talented and extremely Bondian. Spynovelfan disagrees.

[spynovelfan]

I like Isaacs as an actor, but really - why cast a 42-year-old Dalton doppleganger who is losing his hair?



I think Adrian Paul, Cary Elwes, Nathaniel Parker, Jason Isaacs, Clive Roberston have to be out. That's just stunt casting, and all that will happen is they're unfavourably compared to the guys they look (almost exactly) like. Isaacs is probably the best actor of the lot, but they'd be better off bringing Dalton back.



Photo taken a few months ago.

[tdalton]

Isaacs is probably the best actor of the lot, but they'd be better off bringing Dalton back.



Photo taken a few months ago.

I could go for that.

Seriously, though, IMO, Daniel Craig is the best choice for the role, although I'm fairly certain that he won't land the part.

[Seannery]

I like Isaacs as an actor, but really - why cast a 42-year-old Dalton doppleganger who is losing his hair?



I think Adrian Paul, Cary Elwes, Nathaniel Parker, Jason Isaacs, Clive Roberston have to be out. That's just stunt casting, and all that will happen is they're unfavourably compared to the guys they look (almost exactly) like. Isaacs is probably the best actor of the lot, but they'd be better off bringing Dalton back.



Photo taken a few months ago.

Actually though I don't like all of them as Bond--I don't see them as duplicates. They all have their own persona and though may have some similiar looks it's not that much so IMO--only enough to make them look very Bondian which would be vital in helping sell them as Bond(Craig's biggest hurdle i'm afraid as Loomis would tell you). With Adrian Paul you have an underrated actor who just simply looks and naturally acts as a Bond--rather rare(Purefoy also has that.) With Isaacs and his hair you may have a point but he could pull a Sean--as Captain Hook in Peter Pan he was great and did look rather younger with the piece. Of course as Bond he wouldn't have such an extravagant wig.

[Spoon]

Casting considerations aside...

(Well, first let me say that I do like Isaacs. Horrendous performance in the horrendous The Tuxedo aside, I totally think he could do it, and although he does look like Dalton, I certainly don't think he would be a clone on screen, or be dismissed by the public on that basis. There's no chance in hell of the whole thing happening, though.)

Okay. Now. Casting considerations aside, the things I would emphasize from Seannery's message are #1, 2 and 5...

1.) Give us the cool, confident, suave Bond and NOT another psychobabble "this time its personal" story. Please forget the pyschological angst.

2.) Don't give us a dour Bourne clone. Make it more serious if you will BUT don't lose the traditions, charm and special aspects of a Bond film that distinguish Bond from all other films and series.

5.) Don't lose the cheek and humor elements of Bond.

Basically, what's needed for this film IMO is much the same as was needed in GoldenEye. Introduce the new Bond. "Prove" to us that he is Bond -- give us the tux, the casino, the Aston Martin, bickering with Q, all the highlights. I'm not a stickler for Seannery's point #1 there... I don't mind a bit of personal intrigue, as GoldenEye had. It can be necessary in order to make the film feel like it's more than a series of explosions. But exploring Bond's psychology shouldn't be the focus. Leave it mostly to subtext, with the only direct mentions of Bond's angst in the script being very short conversations or one-liners. Bond, although he absolutely should feel fear or pain in extraordinary circumstances, should be charming, likeable, unflappable and supremely confident in normal ones. His character shouldn't be in flux (which strongly implies Seannery's points #3 and 6).

Bond movies have often been influenced by trends taking place elsewhere in the cinema (LALD -> blaxploitation, TMWTGG -> kung fu, MR -> sci-fi, LTK -> Miami Vice/Lethal Weapon, TND -> John Woo, etc.) That's fine, and if there's to be a Bourne-influenced Bond film, I can deal with that. But if the whole thing is going to work, it must REMAIN A BOND FILM. Die Another Day was very financially successful. The only tricky bit here is trying to replace an actor whom the average moviegoer did not want to see leave. There is no crisis for the series at large; there's no reason to overhaul everything. People love Bond movies. They want to see the dapper British spy who gets into outrageous situations with voluptuous babes and freakshow villains. They have other movies to fulfill their other cinematic needs. They know what to expect from Bond, and they like it. Tweaking the formula, with a bit of Bourne influence or anything else, is fine; in fact, it's absolutely necessary to tweak constantly if things are to stay fresh. But bend it; don't break it.

Given that I'd like another GoldenEye type film, I was thrilled when they hired Campbell to direct -- I figured they saw the situation as I did. But it now seems apparent that, if they are doing a Casino Royale adaptation, and especially if they're casting (or even seriously considering!) folks like Dougray Scott or Daniel Craig... they're probably going in the total opposite direction. And I don't think it'll work, although that won't show up at the box office until Bond 22.

Edited by Spoon, 06 September 2005 - 03:43 PM.

[spynovelfan]

A decade ago, Isaacs was viable. No longer. He'd be good for a Lark ad, though:

[Bond_Bishop]

I hope EON gets a real blaze of ingenious and consider Jack Davenport in the role of Bond. Or else I would definately want to see James Purefoy

[Bon-san]

1. Cast Gerard Butler as Bond. He will deliver the cool, the -kicking, the athleticism, the sexiness, the sardonic wit, and the charismatic machismo that will put both male and female bums in seats. He will be the best Bond since Connery. Don't wait. Do it. Hire him. Now.

2. Use the Bond films of the 60's as blueprints. Study their essence--the cool, the effortless style, the elan. Note that their use of action is intended to excite and advance the plot. Adhere to the "Bumps Formula" if you must, but don't shoehorn in superfluous action sequences that drag the pace of the film down.

3. Inject a measured dose of "the element of the bizarre".

4. Be brave, be ballsy, and go for it. Don't compromise for fear of upsetting some demographic. And don't apologize for the excesses of Bond-dom.

[XXX]

I have only one request:

DON'T cast any of the whimsical "fan-choices" like Butler or Purfoy who look terrible and can't act for squat.
Seriously, just WHAT is so good about them? Male + right age + not terrible looks doesn't make Bond!

[Bon-san]

OK, I'll bite.

What DOES make for a good Bond?

[And btw, saying Butler "can't act for squat" is an assertion with which I would vehemently disagree.]

[Shrublands]

I would suggest they:-

Show Bond as the ultimate winner not some loser who screws things up all the time or is constantly being duped because he puts his trust in the wrong woman, again! (May not be that easy with Casino Royale, granted).

This Bond as a winner approach should be evident from the pre-title on. Think Goldfinger, TSWLM, Goldeneye, its function is to put you in the mood, make you want to be Bond. Few people find the idea of making a pig

[Loomis]

My advice:

Go back to Owen and make him a really attractive offer. The kind of offer he can't refuse. Offer him at least $20 million, plus a percentage of the gross and other perks. Yep, that's a lot of money, but you can afford it, and you get what you pay for. And don't try to tie him to a three-picture deal. Just promise him all that for just CASINO ROYALE. He might say no, of course, but I'm sure he'd have to think pretty hard before refusing such an amazing offer. Negotiate for BOND 22 with him once CR is over and done with. If the film's a success and Owen's Bond given a good reception, it would seem more than likely that he'd want another bite at that $20 million plus apple.

Do you want the guy whom everyone thinks (well, nearly everyone - a little amendment for Seannery ) is the perfect "natural successor" to Brosnan, the actor Martin Campbell reckons would make a terrific Bond in the Connery vein, one of the most fashionable names in cinema at this moment, the guy who'd boost the coolness factor of the Bond franchise immeasurably as soon as you announced him (and the franchise seems to have become a bit of a joke to many - just check out an AICN Talkback)?

Or do you want to be stuck with trying to mould a Cavill or a Stewart or a Visnjic or (superb choice for "Fleming's Bond" though he is) a Craig into Bond? Square pegs into round holes, anyone?

Do you want to do things the expensive but easy way, and secure yourself the pefect choice (and probably the least commercially risky choice next to Brosnan)?

Or do you want to do things the relatively cheap but monumentally difficult way, and present to the world an actor who'd be greeted by many with stunned disbelief ("This guy's the new Bond?")?

Go back to Owen.

Failing that, hire anyone - as a Bond fan, I'll pay to see CR regardless of who's starring in it.

[fatima]

Don't read fan forums and definitely don't let what you read influence the film, that would be the lunatics taking over the asylum

If the stories are true that names are being leaked simply to get the reaction of the internet fanboys then it's absolutely crazy

Hire good writers and directors, spend money and cast carefully, listen to people who know how to make good films not us obsessive fanboys

[Lady Rose]

I have only one request:

DON'T cast any of the whimsical "fan-choices" like Butler or Purfoy who look terrible and can't act for squat.
Seriously, just WHAT is so good about them? Male + right age + not terrible looks doesn't make Bond!

So who do you suggest then? Thats not really being very helpful to Eon/Sony is it!

Butler is hardly a whimsical fan choice.I happen to think he is a good actor, who happens to ooze charisma and a certain je ne sais pas.That is what ultimately what makes a good Bond.The fact that Butler is 6'2", British and 35 just happens to make him perfect.

Very interesting photos of Isaacs and Dalton.Always liked Isaacs.Now I know why! Bearing in mind they are 17 years apart in age though, either Tim is holding out pretty well or Isaccs should be taking more vitamins! Isaacs would also be a good choice but I dont think he stands any chance of landing Bond.

On the whole, I concur with most of the points above.Keep it Bond!

[Seannery]

Don't read fan forums and definitely don't let what you read influence the film, that would be the lunatics taking over the asylum

If the stories are true that names are being leaked simply to get the reaction of the internet fanboys then it's absolutely crazy

Hire good writers and directors, spend money and cast carefully, listen to people who know how to make good films not us obsessive fanboys

Why obviously they should take in our wise council--where else will you get such a concentrated dose of Bond "wisdom".

[ACE]

1.) Give us the cool, confident, suave Bond and NOT another psychobabble "this time its personal" story.  Please forget the pyschological angst.

2.) Don't give us a dour Bourne clone.  Make it more serious if you will BUT don't lose the traditions, charm and special aspects of a Bond film that distinguish Bond from all other films and series.

3.) If you insist on going for an early mission Bond--don't make Bond too young.  He's a seasoned Commander coming to Mi6.  Make him from 31 to 36 or so.

4.) Hire an actor as 007 who ON FILM can convincingly portray an agent aged 31 to 36. 

5.) Don't lose the cheek and humor elements of Bond.

6.) Please don't insist on an early mission Bond.  If you make a smart clever "regular" Bond then people of all ages will flock to see it.  FOCUS ON THE SCRIPT AND IDEAS--Haggis is a good step!

10.) Good luck!

2. Do not cast Adrian Paul. He may look like Connery, but he can't act to save himself. You may as well hire Clive Robertson.

3. Don't hire Clive Robertson. Or James Purefoy. They're terribly lame candidates. But you already know this.

5. Don't imitate Bourne - apart from the car chases. I want to feel Bond might actually be killed.

6. Cut back on the crappy double entendres and one-liners. Yes, you need a few. But go back and watch some of the older films - Bond is laconic. He's not a schoolboy.

7. Stop reading internet sites and get this film out.

3. Inject a measured dose of "the element of the bizarre".

4. Be brave, be ballsy, and go for it.  Don't compromise for fear of upsetting some demographic.  And don't apologize for the excesses of Bond-dom.

Agree with all of the above. Why hasn't Eon hired you guys: Seannery, SpyNovelFan, Bon-San?

Go back to Owen and make him a really attractive offer. The kind of offer he can't refuse. Offer him at least $20 million, plus a percentage of the gross and other perks. Yep, that's a lot of money, but you can afford it, and you get what you pay for.

If you're doing this, why not offer it to Pierce? Owen isn't worth $20mil. Let him gross over $1 billion in unwavering revenue before you offer him that. You wouldn't make a good producer, Loomis!

My tuppence worth:

i) Put some class back into it. Have a non-espionage PTS milieu - the wine auction on the Eurostar in Michael France's 1st draft of GE where Bond rumbles the fake sommelier because he serves champagne to the host, a banker, before the ladies.

ii) Vary the action. Suspense (Gumbold safe break, Meteora climb, Octopussy 90 seconds) and spectacle (a big, battle ending in an oversize imaginative and memorable set) have been missing. Bring back the quirky, bizarre, surreal imagery to the films that makes the Bond lore so memorable. Get experts back to do their specıalıst action: Remy Julienne for motor stunts, Willy Bogner for ski, B J Worth et al for aerial stunts. Ditch Vic.

iii) Less but more appropriate gadgets. No more watches and belts with improbable functions. Let the gadgets have a throwaway, multifunctional capacity like the cigarette case/lighter combo in SWLM.

iv) Give the villain an airtight caper but explain motivation, consequence and effect of said caper on the world at the end of the second act so that we know what the finale is all about. We know what's at stake. Let there be a really smart, good, tight "Mint-Julep-Moment"!

v) Give more time to dialogue and character and location. Let's see the locations and give them some character. If you have a single location, let it shine, be memorable. Infuse the film with local colour. This goes for characters too. Goldfinger is the shortest Bond film (108 minutes) and has approximately 8 minutes of action throughout. Bond films are romantic, mystery, international, action, adventure thrillers.

vi) Allow Bond to be sexy (a PTS, 1st act conquest) AND romantic (the lead girl). The leading lady should be a Hitchcock innocent, strong intelligent and capable but not always a fellow agent working with Bond.

vii) Get a new composer or back the composer you choose. David Arnold has written some magnificent Bond songs. His scores when he is allowed to use his songs, are stronger. But invite David Arnold to the same Eon gathering that James Horner attends - that'll put some lead in David's pencil.

viii) Do what you do best.

Sony, if you really want to milk Bond, you can but please do none of the following:

1 Cast an American as Bond
2 Set the Bond movie entirely in the US
3 Give Bond a young sidekick (think of the demographic spread and merchandising avenues)
4 Fill up the soundtrack with rock songs by artists who just submit songs with no reference to the films
5 Delete title sequence (a la Die Hards, Lethal Weapons, action movies du jour)
6 Cast really big, hackneyed stars as villains to play it over the top (Batman, Dick Tracy)
7 Have direct to video sequels

Now, chop, chop, go to it....

ACE

Edited by ACE, 06 September 2005 - 05:05 PM.

[Loomis]

Go back to Owen and make him a really attractive offer. The kind of offer he can't refuse. Offer him at least $20 million, plus a percentage of the gross and other perks. Yep, that's a lot of money, but you can afford it, and you get what you pay for.

If you're doing this, why not offer it to Pierce? Owen isn't worth $20mil. Let him gross over $1 billion in unwavering revenue before you offer him that. You wouldn't make a good producer, Loomis!

Why not offer it to Pierce? Because Pierce is yesterday's man. Early 50s, and good for just one more Bond, at best. And did Brosnan gross over $1 billion in unwavering revenue, or did James Bond?

No, Owen is not worth $20 million.... for any other role. But he's worth it for Bond, just as Schwarzenegger is worth a fortune as The Terminator and Willis worth a fortune as John McClane. Why? Because he's the best candidate for Bond at this moment, by miles, the "natural successor". Just as Brosnan was the "natural successor" a decade ago. "But they didn't pay Brosnan $20 million for GOLDENEYE!" I hear you cry. No, they didn't, because Brosnan didn't have to have his arm twisted into doing Bond. Frankly, his career wasn't anything like as glittering as Owen's. He didn't really have any particularly attractive options apart from Bond. Owen does.

[Seannery]

Go back to Owen and make him a really attractive offer. The kind of offer he can't refuse. Offer him at least $20 million, plus a percentage of the gross and other perks. Yep, that's a lot of money, but you can afford it, and you get what you pay for.

If you're doing this, why not offer it to Pierce? Owen isn't worth $20mil. Let him gross over $1 billion in unwavering revenue before you offer him that. You wouldn't make a good producer, Loomis!

Why not offer it to Pierce? Because Pierce is yesterday's man. Early 50s, and good for just one more Bond, at best. And did Brosnan gross over $1 billion in unwavering revenue, or did James Bond?

No, Owen is not worth $20 million.... for any other role. But he's worth it for Bond, just as Schwarzenegger is worth a fortune as The Terminator and Willis worth a fortune as John McClane. Why? Because he's the best candidate for Bond at this moment, by miles, the "natural successor". Just as Brosnan was the "natural successor" a decade ago. "But they didn't pay Brosnan $20 million for GOLDENEYE!" I hear you cry. No, they didn't, because Brosnan didn't have to have his arm twisted into doing Bond. Frankly, his career wasn't anything like as glittering as Owen's. He didn't really have any particularly attractive options apart from Bond. Owen does.

Well I will only add this Loomis--i'm not the only one who doesn't believe Owen is the natural Bond. There is a rather strong debate over him. Though I will give you this--he's miles above Goran at least.

[fatima]

Don't read fan forums and definitely don't let what you read influence the film, that would be the lunatics taking over the asylum

If the stories are true that names are being leaked simply to get the reaction of the internet fanboys then it's absolutely crazy

Hire good writers and directors, spend money and cast carefully, listen to people who know how to make good films not us obsessive fanboys

Why obviously they should take in our wise council--where else will you get such a concentrated dose of Bond "wisdom".

Yeah, I thought that, then I woke up and realised why Martin Campbell was directing and not me

Seriously though, can you imagine if the previous Bonds had been cast during the internet age: Connery(great snorting Scotts lorry driver), Lazenby(too Australian), Moore (too camp), Dalton(who???), Brosnan(too wimpy). If they are reading these forums (and I suspect they do)and are looking for a consensus of opinion on a potential Bond then they are never going to find one and that could be stopping them from making a bold casting decision. It could explain, at least in part, the apparent paralysis and indecision.

[Loomis]

Well I will only add this Loomis--i'm not the only one who doesn't believe Owen is the natural Bond.  

True. There's maybe a handful of you scattered around the world.

$20 million is a figure plucked out of thin air, and with no knowledge of how these deals work, obviously, but I do wonder whether Owen might have been more receptive to a much more generous offer.

Given that CASINO ROYALE is being directed by Martin Campbell (Owen's BEYOND BORDERS director), is apparently going to be a much grittier and more realistic affair than the last few films, carries the kudos of being an adaptation of the Fleming novel that started it all, is being rewritten by the highly respected Paul Haggis, etc., I can't help feeling that Owen might have been interested for the right price. I mean, he did those BMW ads, KING ARTHUR and so on (and is apparently going to be seen as 006 in the remake of THE PINK PANTHER, although I'm not entirely sure I believe that one), so it's hardly as though he's purely into highly serious, highly artistic work.

[doublenoughtspy]

I concur with Loomis. Owen is worth every bit of money they can find.

People WANT him to be Bond very badly, and have said so for the past 5 years.

I can just picture him sauntering in to an EON meeting, standing in the doorway and saying "I believe you're looking for James Bond?"

None of the other candidates bring Clive's sense of menace. As another CBn member said a few years ago "give me Clive Owen getting medieval on the bad guys in the next film."

I totally buy Clive Owen as the most dangerous man alive. No one else mentioned for the part conveys that to me.

Pay the man a good wage, allow him flexibility with other roles - and watch the sparks fly.

[Loomis]

[quote name='doublenoughtspy' date='6 September 2005 - 17:19']I concur with Loomis.

[Seannery]

Don't read fan forums and definitely don't let what you read influence the film, that would be the lunatics taking over the asylum

If the stories are true that names are being leaked simply to get the reaction of the internet fanboys then it's absolutely crazy

Hire good writers and directors, spend money and cast carefully, listen to people who know how to make good films not us obsessive fanboys

Why obviously they should take in our wise council--where else will you get such a concentrated dose of Bond "wisdom".

Yeah, I thought that, then I woke up and realised why Martin Campbell was directing and not me

Seriously though, can you imagine if the previous Bonds had been cast during the internet age: Connery(great snorting Scotts lorry driver), Lazenby(too Australian), Moore (too camp), Dalton(who???), Brosnan(too wimpy). If they are reading these forums (and I suspect they do)and are looking for a consensus of opinion on a potential Bond then they are never going to find one and that could be stopping them from making a bold casting decision. It could explain, at least in part, the apparent paralysis and indecision.

No there won't be consensus but Brosnan WAS the Bond favorite of fans and a lot thought Moore was a natural for Bond with his suave Saint. So in those cases the fan connection brought two popular Bonds. Not that they should listen to all or even a minority of what we say BUT we may give them leads and hints if they have some sense. Just like the fan forums that were all for Bale and Batman. I read an article of how traditional TV Ads for movies have been falling flat and how smart companies are starting to target the internet and those with a strong interest in their subject. They then feed them with things and creates a connection they can cultivate therefore creating a cadre to help push the enthusiasm for their films. Build a relationship and they will come--a feedback loop can't hurt. It doesn't mean they just listen to everything but perhaps take some things into account.

[ACE]

I concur with Loomis.  Owen is worth every bit of money they can find.

People WANT him to be Bond very badly, and have said so for the past 5 years.

I can just picture him sauntering in to an EON meeting, standing in the doorway and saying "I believe you're looking for James Bond?"

None of the other candidates bring Clive's sense of menace.  As another CBn member said a few years ago "give me Clive Owen getting medieval on the bad guys in the next film."

I totally buy Clive Owen as the most dangerous man alive.  No one else mentioned for the part conveys that to me.

Pay the man a good wage, allow him flexibility with other roles - and watch the sparks fly.

Bloody well right, as Bryce would say.

I've been hearing "Clive Owen's the man to take over from Brosnan" from people (yep, normal people, not just hardcore Bond fans ) for years, from way before anyone even suspected that Broz might not be in BOND 21.

If Owen doesn't play Bond (not that there's much doubt about it at this point ), it'll be - as I think I read on another Bond forum at one point - one of the greatest missed opportunities in film history, right up there with Connery not getting the chance to be 007.

Steady on, old bean! Imagine when people said that in 1986 when Brosnan missed it. Who knew we'd get Dalton?

I'm not a froggy, you're not a bunny so let's not jump ahead of ourselves. Owen, far back as Beyond Borders, does not WANT to do James Bond. It is not just a question of money. He has only concentrated on an American film career quite recently. He's just as happy to do Joe Orton at the Royal Court.

I think Owen would make a fantastic Bond, certainly beats the list of candidates (prefer him over Jackman).

But we don't know who or what Eon will serve up to us.
I think we will agree with their decision, especially after having seen the movie.

BTW, I agree with fatima. God help previous casting rounds had they been done in the internet age.

ACE

[Seannery]

[quote name='Loomis' date='6 September 2005 - 18:24'][quote name='doublenoughtspy' date='6 September 2005 - 17:19']I concur with Loomis.

[Loomis]

[quote name='Seannery' date='6 September 2005 - 17:37']Of the old Jackman v. Owen debate I was always on Hugh's side.

[Loomis]

Owen, far back as Beyond Borders, does not WANT to do James Bond.

True, very true. But perhaps he might be, how you say? Persuaded. With 20 million bucks or so!