98 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

I didn't know that Walliams was in "Attachments". Hmmm.... "serious acting" credentials.

When I said Walliams was "a terrific actor", I was going purely by "Little Britain", the only thing I knew him from. Obviously, LB is "just" comedy, but his work shows he has quite a bit of acting skill.

[Seannery]

[quote name='Loomis' date='9 January 2006 - 14:11']
Sorry, I know your remark was tongue-in-cheek (as, to an extent, was my support for Walliams). I think I was being a bit too literal-minded back there.

A couple of things that, IMO, count against McMahon, though:

- Appearance. Count me among those who view him as not quite perfect on a visual level. As I remember someone or another pointing out here on CBn a while back, McMahon looks smug and oily. And I don't see any menace or toughness to him (no coolness, either - and these are areas where Craig scores highly), although that said I've not actually seen him in anything.

- Audience demand. I don't believe McMahon is in the same position as Brosnan was in the late '80s and early '90s from the point of view of being an audience favourite to take the Bond role. Even in hardcore Bond fandom, I see very little call for McMahon. Still, it's early days, and perhaps demand for him will grow.

At which point let me say that I personally would not wish to see him as Bond.

Yes Loomis i'm not saying McMahon has a huge push for Bond from the public like Pierce BUT only he's impressed Eon GREATLY and he's a known actor who has a good looking suave rep which fits into Bond. His looks may not be dead on but I believe do fit in the conventional Bond mode--much more than Craig I know you will admit. And seeing him act I definitely see the menace, coolness and charm needed for Bond.

And Spy I see both of those actors you posted having Bondian looks.

[marktmurphy]

I didn't know that Walliams was in "Attachments". Hmmm.... "serious acting" credentials.

Aah yes, I remember seeing him in HMV around the time of Attachments and thinking 'ooh, there's that David Walliams bloke'. No-one else recognised him; which is something I very doubt would happen now!

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]McMahon was the only

[Diabolik]

McMahon as Bond? NO! I can't really believe they were seriously considering him.

For one, he's not even British. (Yeah, I know, American John Gavin was originally cast for DAF before Connery came back). While a "real" actor can put on accents convincingly (i.e. Christian Bale's American accent in Batman Begins), McMahon's a one-note performer. Which leads to the next reason:

He can't act. He totally ruined Fantastic Four (which needed all the help it could get). If he'd pulled off Dr. Doom I'd be singing a different tune, but he's a one note actor. Nip/Tuck and Charmed were the same role (the way he played it). Not dynamic enough for Bond.

Third, what "real" man waxes his eyebrows? Bond wouldn't.

At least Craig is rugged looking and not a "girly man." I think it was all PR hype about him being seriously considered.

[spynovelfan]

McMahon as Bond?  NO!  I can't really believe they were seriously considering him. 

For one, he's not even British.  (Yeah, I know, American John Gavin was originally cast for DAF before Connery came back).  While a "real" actor can put on accents convincingly (i.e. Christian Bale's American accent in Batman Begins), McMahon's a one-note performer.  Which leads to the next reason:

He can't act.  He totally ruined Fantastic Four (which needed all the help it could get).  If he'd pulled off Dr. Doom I'd be singing a different tune, but he's a one note actor.  Nip/Tuck and Charmed were the same role (the way he played it).  Not dynamic enough for Bond.

Third, what "real" man waxes his eyebrows?  Bond wouldn't.  

At least Craig is rugged looking and not a "girly man." I think it was all PR hype about him being seriously considered.

Strange post. While I agree that McMahon is unsuitable for Bond, you seem to have forgotten than an Australian has previously played the part - and that Brosnan is about as girly man as it gets.

Welcome to CBN, by the way.

[Mister Asterix]

Third, what "real" man waxes his eyebrows?... 

[Loomis]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='9 January 2006 - 14:47'][mra]McMahon was the only

[Seannery]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='9 January 2006 - 17:00'][quote name='Diabolik' date='9 January 2006 - 09:46']Third, what "real" man waxes his eyebrows?...

[Mister Asterix]

[quote name='Loomis' date='9 January 2006 - 10:02'][quote name='Mister Asterix' date='9 January 2006 - 14:47'][mra]McMahon was the only

[Seannery]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='9 January 2006 - 17:24'][quote name='Loomis' date='9 January 2006 - 10:02'][quote name='Mister Asterix' date='9 January 2006 - 14:47'][mra]McMahon was the only

[Loomis]

In quick defense of the poor bugger--nothing wrong with an Australian Bond....

True, but that doesn't mean that an Australian Bond wouldn't be controversial (and as soon as they announced one, journalists would be falling over themselves to be the first to "cleverly" compare him to Lazenby). Similarly, nothing wrong with a blonde, Croatian, gay, etc. actor for Bond, but it wouldn't necessarily be the easiest sell in the world.

....he's got conventional Bondian looks....

Has he? I disagree. He's dark and (presumably) tall, but that's about it as far as "conventional Bondian looks" are concerned. Like I say, I think he looks like Matt LeBlanc crossed with Kevin Spacey. His forehead and hairline have been mentioned to death. Perhaps he's not a million miles away from "looking like Bond", but at the same time I don't think he's exactly a shoe-in visually.

Neither would I agree that McMahon "has a name to make him a safer choice should Craig slip". I realise that he's far from an unknown, and I'm sure he has many fans thanks to his TV work, but what's he done on the big screen? I doubt that he contributed all that much to the box office of FANTASTIC FOUR. Whereas with Craig (and, yes, before anyone goes on about how Craig's next to an unknown in the US, I do understand that he's not a megastar), there's at least MUNICH, LAYER CAKE and this new Nicole Kidman flick to give him some recognition factor among moviegoers before he appears in the gunbarrel this November.

I see McMahon as neither a better choice nor a safer commercial bet than Craig.

[Seannery]

In quick defense of the poor bugger--nothing wrong with an Australian Bond....

True, but that doesn't mean that an Australian Bond wouldn't be controversial (and as soon as they announced one, journalists would be falling over themselves to be the first to "cleverly" compare him to Lazenby). Similarly, nothing wrong with a blonde, Croatian, gay, etc. actor for Bond, but it wouldn't necessarily be the easiest sell in the world.

....he's got conventional Bondian looks....

Has he? I disagree. He's dark and (presumably) tall, but that's about it as far as "conventional Bondian looks" are concerned. Like I say, I think he looks like Matt LeBlanc crossed with Kevin Spacey. His forehead and hairline have been mentioned to death. Perhaps he's not a million miles away from "looking like Bond", but at the same time I don't think he's exactly a shoe-in visually.

Neither would I agree that McMahon "has a name to make him a safer choice should Craig slip". I realise that he's far from an unknown, and I'm sure he has many fans thanks to his TV work, but what's he done on the big screen? I doubt that he contributed all that much to the box office of FANTASTIC FOUR. Whereas with Craig (and, yes, before anyone goes on about how Craig's next to an unknown in the US, I do understand that he's not a megastar), there's at least MUNICH, LAYER CAKE and this new Nicole Kidman flick to give him some recognition factor among moviegoers before he appears in the gunbarrel this November.

I see McMahon as neither a better choice nor a safer commercial bet than Craig.

Well do have different takes on this one Loomis--firstly I never said he'd be a better choice(i'd have to see Craig as Bond first) BUT safer yes. And Loomis who was it who said Craig would be an extremely risky choice--I believe that was Loomis. Shorter, slighter, blonder than the usual Bond and to quote Loomis old and ugly. Remember I always thought you too harsh on Craig in this respect BUT you do indicate trouble and risky areas. So take all this in consideration and McMahon couldn't NOT be a safer choice. Our old argument how nice TV fame beats fairly obscure movie work with only Munich breaking any threshold AND he's part of an ensemble. McMahon has the Moore, Brosnan TV fame playing suave good looking guy making him connected to the Bond persona which Craig was not before he was picked. And Australian, I see as no bother to anyone except with some quarters in the UK frankly. With Bondian looks, well he's not Pierce BUT I just don't see your view there.

I emphasize i'm not knocking Craig just pointing out risk factors that you may have pointed out more strongly than anyone. He may work splendidly--I hope so. I'm just far from sure if he will click with general audiences.

As always only time will tell with this. I'd be most sure about my McMahon prediction IF you predicted he won't be Bond--as I remember your prediction that Pierce will be back and Craig would never be Bond.

So how about it Loomis--will you predict McMahon will never become Bond?

[luciusgore]

Happy belated New Year everyone-i'm back from my long vacation of all things Bond.  I needed a rest after that endless Bond search.   Catching up on my CBn reading with "The Men Who Could Have Been Bond" article gave me the idea for this thread and how JULIAN McMAHON could very well be BOND #7 if Daniel Craig fails to ignite which is at least possible.

What was interesting in that article was CBn's reporting that BOTH Eon and Martin Campbell were GREATLY impressed with Julian McMahon as they looked at him up close in consideration to be the next 007--BUT he didn't make the finals for reasons unknown.  All of this is verified and not rumors according to CBn's personal reporting.

This is odd that he wasn't picked with GREATLY(not just impressing but "greatly impressing") impressing Eon and Campbell.  Think on this--Daniel Craig was liked by Babs only and certainly not by Campbell, McMahon was easily more well known than Craig with his TV fame, McMahon is 6'3" and conventionally good looking while being the same age as Craig(and almost certainly looks younger).

So why Craig and not McMahon?  I'll submit that being tied to Nip/Tuck ultimately held Julian up.  That an agreement couldn't be made between Sony, Eon and Paramont(Nip/Tuck's studio). 

Remember that Julian McMahon unlike Daniel Craig was seen by many as a natural Bond even before his named popped up in Eon rumors and was always showing well in Bond polls even though not quite as well as Jackman and Owen.  But with his TV fame Julian was definitely ahead of Craig and most of the others who were being considered.  Add to that he GREATLY impressed Eon and Campbell(and no I don't think Sony would object with someone who had the look and name recognition along with acclaimed TV work) would make him the natural choice as the next James Bond.

Also remember that earlier in the search process McMahon was prominently seen as a serious candidate which CBn also verified at the time.  So something seemed to nudge him out of the way which lead ultimately to the more unlikely Daniel Craig to the front of the 007 race.

I'm thinking strongly it's the TV show ala Remington that stopped him.  There were rumors that he wasn't considered or Eon didn't like his tactics in getting attention BUT CBn's reporting shows that false--he didn't need to grab attention since he already was being considered and GREATLY impressed. 

So now we have the "Daniel Craig Experiment"--as Craig says we basically have Bond Begins.  It will be more gritty and serious without the conventionally handsome Bond.  This is risky(like it or not)--it may or may not work.

IF it doesn't work and Daniel Craig onlys lasts one or two Bonds then i'll be THE FIRST TO PREDICT(even before CR starts filming) that JULIAN McMAHON will be the NEXT BOND.  That by 3 to 6 years in the future McMahon will be out of Nip/Tuck and free to work with Eon who he already GREATLY impressed.

That if Craig FAILS it would be the safest for Eon and Sony to go for someone who is seen as a NATURAL Bond and who is tall and conventionally good looking in the CLASSIC Bond sense.  And at the same age as Craig(while looking younger)he can easily slip into the tux after one or two Craig Bonds since the beginning Bond of Craig is no younger than McMahon.  McMahon fits the bill and Eon already likes him.  And opposed to Owen and Jackman he isn't and most likely won't be too big for Bond. 

And personally McMahon has grown on me as a potential Bond--he has the looks and height while Nip/Tuck(critically lauded) shows he can act impressively.  I saw him on Charmed and it does indeed show he has the charm.  So he can do the light and dark aspects of Bond.  I'm not sure yet if Daniel Craig can do the light side(you do need both).  Maybe Craig can and the experiment will work BUT if it doesn't then McMahon is primed to bring back CLASSIC Bond as the natural successor.

If(and I mean IF) Daniel Craig goes short term and turns into the next Timothy Dalton then I predict Julian McMahon will have a successful run as the NEW Pierce Brosnan!

Actually, most of us hated the idea of McMahon

[Loomis]

In quick defense of the poor bugger--nothing wrong with an Australian Bond....

True, but that doesn't mean that an Australian Bond wouldn't be controversial (and as soon as they announced one, journalists would be falling over themselves to be the first to "cleverly" compare him to Lazenby). Similarly, nothing wrong with a blonde, Croatian, gay, etc. actor for Bond, but it wouldn't necessarily be the easiest sell in the world.

....he's got conventional Bondian looks....

Has he? I disagree. He's dark and (presumably) tall, but that's about it as far as "conventional Bondian looks" are concerned. Like I say, I think he looks like Matt LeBlanc crossed with Kevin Spacey. His forehead and hairline have been mentioned to death. Perhaps he's not a million miles away from "looking like Bond", but at the same time I don't think he's exactly a shoe-in visually.

Neither would I agree that McMahon "has a name to make him a safer choice should Craig slip". I realise that he's far from an unknown, and I'm sure he has many fans thanks to his TV work, but what's he done on the big screen? I doubt that he contributed all that much to the box office of FANTASTIC FOUR. Whereas with Craig (and, yes, before anyone goes on about how Craig's next to an unknown in the US, I do understand that he's not a megastar), there's at least MUNICH, LAYER CAKE and this new Nicole Kidman flick to give him some recognition factor among moviegoers before he appears in the gunbarrel this November.

I see McMahon as neither a better choice nor a safer commercial bet than Craig.

Well do have different takes on this one Loomis--firstly I never said he'd be a better choice(i'd have to see Craig as Bond first) BUT safer yes. And Loomis who was it who said Craig would be an extremely risky choice--I believe that was Loomis. Shorter, slighter, blonder than the usual Bond and to quote Loomis old and ugly. Remember I always thought you too harsh on Craig in this respect BUT you do indicate trouble and risky areas. So take all this in consideration and McMahon couldn't NOT be a safer choice. Our old argument how nice TV fame beats fairly obscure movie work with only Munich breaking any threshold AND he's part of an ensemble. McMahon has the Moore, Brosnan TV fame playing suave good looking guy making him connected to the Bond persona which Craig was not before he was picked. And Australian, I see as no bother to anyone except with some quarters in the UK frankly. With Bondian looks, well he's not Pierce BUT I just don't see your view there.

I emphasize i'm not knocking Craig just pointing out risk factors that you may have pointed out more strongly than anyone. He may work splendidly--I hope so. I'm just far from sure if he will click with general audiences.

As always only time will tell with this. I'd be most sure about my McMahon prediction IF you predicted he won't be Bond--as I remember your prediction that Pierce will be back and Craig would never be Bond.

So how about it Loomis--will you predict McMahon will never become Bond?

No, although I think he's unlikely to be Bond.

[Seannery]

[quote name='luciusgore' date='9 January 2006 - 18:19'][quote name='Seannery' date='9 January 2006 - 07:08']Happy belated New Year everyone-i'm back from my long vacation of all things Bond.

[Stratus]

Normally the Bond people could easily rebound if Craig flops, but since this is a reboot.,. recovering from it could take a decade or more (to re-reboot). Once you reboot, you start over completely. Could you imagine making Batman Begins and than a sequel to Batman & Robin? It doesn't work like that. Otherwise no one will take it seriously anymore.

If Craig flops McMahon won't be Bond because they will be trying to recover from the mess over a prolong period of time. A real contender would probably be Cavill in his mid 30s.

So lets sure as hell hope they reboot it properly; moreover they shouldn't have rebooted in the goddamn first place and just made a good movie. Idiotic decision if you ask me.

[Leon]

I understand disslike of Craig, I dissliked him as a candidate before I saw more of him in films and at the conference. But I'm afraid McMahon who I've seen a lot of in Nip/Tuck would make a really boring Bond, like a Brosnan clone with less presence IMHO.

Daniel Craig is controvercial at the moment on his looks, but I have no doubt that he will play a superb Bond and give the character a lot of depth, darker and more interesting qualities and a really fresh look with a lot more of what Fleming's 007 had of the tough yet refined style (a touch of the Connerys with more ontop).

As for david Williams, I don't know if you've seen him act but he has nothing of the talent or style to be James Bond, and his looks may resemble Pierce Brosnan but to me have nothing of James Bond I'm afraid.

In retrospect at the other candidates who were available, Daniel Craig outshines them all and will be really original and interesting.

[zencat]

The word "greatly" might have been an overstatement. If I had to guess who might have a shot at being Bond #7 on this list, it would be Cavill who was, by all accounts, the runner-up.

[Gobi-1]

I think McMahon would be a good choice but agree with zencat that Cavill has the first shot at being Bond #7.

Here's a teaser poster I did with McMahon as Bond back last year.
http://img226.echo.c...ondfinal8da.jpg

[Peter Franks]

Here's a teaser poster I did with McMahon as Bond back last year.
http://img226.echo.c...ondfinal8da.jpg

Gayer than back mounting cowboy.

[Jim]

Here's a teaser poster I did with McMahon as Bond back last year.
http://img226.echo.c...ondfinal8da.jpg

Gayer than back mounting cowboy.

Please don't use that as a term of abuse.

[Publius]

I hope to God McMahon doesn't become Bond #7. Simply put, he's too much of a pretty boy without an equal or greater amount of acting ability. He's not horrible, but far too mediocre, meaning his metrosexual male model looks (which are not even that great at that) would likely outweigh whatever dull performance he gave. Just imagine a fluffier version of Lazenby or weak acting Brosnan. I don't really see what his hook is. Then again, I'm basing this just on what I've seen of him in Nip/Tuck (and once upon a time, Charmed).

If we're going just on looks, I'd much prefer either Gerard Butler or Dominic West from the List of 16. Having never seen either of their work (beyond small, forgettable roles), I at least like their respective looks, both of which are relatively dark, but not overly so, and distinctive, while not being so unique that they cannot blend into a crowd if need be. Our boy Danny has some of this, but is probably the least conventionally good-looking of all the contenders, which could very well work for the role, and may not be as relevant given his acting abilities.

But I will agree that a Craig flop or short tenure could conceivably lead to an eventual McMahon entry, if his television show is retired by such time. Hoping that never comes to be, though.

[Bon-san]

Here's a teaser poster I did with McMahon as Bond back last year.
http://img226.echo.c...ondfinal8da.jpg

Gayer than back mounting cowboy.

Hmm, you must have a lot of experience to be able to develop such subtle gradations.

[WC]

Has he? I disagree. He's dark and (presumably) tall, but that's about it as far as "conventional Bondian looks" are concerned. Like I say, I think he looks like Matt LeBlanc crossed with Kevin Spacey. His forehead and hairline have been mentioned to death. Perhaps he's not a million miles away from "looking like Bond", but at the same time I don't think he's exactly a shoe-in visually.

I disagree with you. He does not look at all like Matt LeBlanc crossed with Kevin Spacey. McMahon looks like Kerr Smith's long lost older brother:

[Stax]

Julian McMahon isn't Bond for a very well known reason. He did a photo shoot for Angeleno magazine touting himself as 007 (http://cgi.ebay.com/...bayphotohosting) and it backfired completely. He ended up firing his reps over it. From the moment that magazine spread and interview appeared, you will notice that McMahon was no longer mentioned as a serious Bond contender.

[Stratus]

Julian McMahon isn't Bond for a very well known reason. He did a photo shoot for Angeleno magazine touting himself as 007 (http://cgi.ebay.com/...bayphotohosting) and it backfired completely. He ended up firing his reps over it. From the moment that magazine spread and interview appeared, you will notice that McMahon was no longer mentioned as a serious Bond contender.

Did the magazine tout or did the magazine quote him?

[spynovelfan]

Julian McMahon isn't Bond for a very well known reason. He did a photo shoot for Angeleno magazine touting himself as 007 (http://cgi.ebay.com/...bayphotohosting) and it backfired completely. He ended up firing his reps over it. From the moment that magazine spread and interview appeared, you will notice that McMahon was no longer mentioned as a serious Bond contender.

Did the magazine tout or did the magazine quote him?

The cover says 'Julian McMahon - meet the next James Bond'. If he didn't know they were going to print that, he's pretty incompetent. Either way, though, I agree with Stax: that stunt looks like it was one step too far for his Bond campaign.

Incidentally, if he does become Bond 7, that magazine will be worth a fair bit of money, I'd have thought.

[License To Kill]

These forums have been increasingly growing with moronic posts from new users, mainly the reason I haven't been posting much is because the intelligence of posters has diminished greatly.

For all of the posters who claim McMahon is a "pretty boy", we seem to have lived the past 10 years with a "pretty boy" as Bond. And pretty boy? Hell, there was nothing more "pretty boy" than Sean Connery. Yes, he had a hard-edged attitude about him, but when he was thriving as Bond in the 60's, there was no one as "metro" as Sir Sean.

Yeah, McMahon may be a bad choice, but many of these new users need to check their facts and make sound and substantiated posts before getting into arguments and swearing matches with fellow posters.

[Onlooker]

Neither would I agree that McMahon "has a name to make him a safer choice should Craig slip". I realise that he's far from an unknown, and I'm sure he has many fans thanks to his TV work, but what's he done on the big screen?

His big screen presence is about to get a big boost. While Craig is making Casino Royale, he'll be making Premonition, a thriller co-starring Sandra Bullock.