Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Clive Owen as 006- Terrible.....no really that Bad!


60 replies to this topic

#31 Dr. Noah

Dr. Noah

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1405 posts

Posted 27 March 2006 - 01:32 AM

Jackman would have been (and possibly may be) an excellent Bond--and charisma and power, he's got a ton of it. Owen never had it as Bond for me and Pink Panther verified that--a very funny movie IMO. Don't buy he wasn't trying enough in the cameo either--a lot of cameos have through the years been powerful and impactful.


I can't get excited about Jackman, either. And since B. Broccoli called him "too fey" in her memo, I don't think he'll be Bond any time soon.

#32 Seannery

Seannery

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts

Posted 27 March 2006 - 01:41 AM


Jackman would have been (and possibly may be) an excellent Bond--and charisma and power, he's got a ton of it. Owen never had it as Bond for me and Pink Panther verified that--a very funny movie IMO. Don't buy he wasn't trying enough in the cameo either--a lot of cameos have through the years been powerful and impactful.


I can't get excited about Jackman, either. And since B. Broccoli called him "too fey" in her memo, I don't think he'll be Bond any time soon.




Yeah you may be right that he may never become Bond but if they need a more sure box office guy and were willing to pay for it.....you never know. And he can play tough with ease on the screen along with the charisma IMO. Check out X-Men and Van Helsing which despite being a shaky movie Jackman plays tough and rough with no problem. There's a reason he's a highly in demand actor for all the hot films and directors. If anything that's why he may never be Bond.

#33 Dr. Noah

Dr. Noah

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1405 posts

Posted 27 March 2006 - 03:46 AM

Yeah you may be right that he may never become Bond but if they need a more sure box office guy and were willing to pay for it.....you never know. And he can play tough with ease on the screen along with the charisma IMO. Check out X-Men and Van Helsing which despite being a shaky movie Jackman plays tough and rough with no problem. There's a reason he's a highly in demand actor for all the hot films and directors. If anything that's why he may never be Bond.


How is he sure boxoffice? The only films he's made that have lived up to expectations were the X-Men films. And I don't think anybody went to those because Hugh Jackman was in the cast.

#34 Seannery

Seannery

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts

Posted 27 March 2006 - 03:52 AM


Yeah you may be right that he may never become Bond but if they need a more sure box office guy and were willing to pay for it.....you never know. And he can play tough with ease on the screen along with the charisma IMO. Check out X-Men and Van Helsing which despite being a shaky movie Jackman plays tough and rough with no problem. There's a reason he's a highly in demand actor for all the hot films and directors. If anything that's why he may never be Bond.


How is he sure boxoffice? The only films he's made that have lived up to expectations were the X-Men films. And I don't think anybody went to those because Hugh Jackman was in the cast.




He's a named star because of X-Men and in combination with the Bond franchise next to Pierce IMO he would have been the safest box office choice.

#35 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 27 March 2006 - 04:12 AM

It's pretty obvious that with Casino Royale they're not going "safe" And I applaud them for that.

#36 Dr. Noah

Dr. Noah

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1405 posts

Posted 27 March 2006 - 05:44 AM

He's a named star because of X-Men and in combination with the Bond franchise next to Pierce IMO he would have been the safest box office choice.


Why? "Van Helsing" disappointed, "Kate & Leopold" tanked, "Someone Like You" bombed. I know they're making a Wolverine movie, but I never hear of anybody going to a movie because Hugh Jackman's in it. Not anymore than Daniel Craig, anyway.

#37 Seannery

Seannery

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts

Posted 27 March 2006 - 05:55 AM


He's a named star because of X-Men and in combination with the Bond franchise next to Pierce IMO he would have been the safest box office choice.


Why? "Van Helsing" disappointed, "Kate & Leopold" tanked, "Someone Like You" bombed. I know they're making a Wolverine movie, but I never hear of anybody going to a movie because Hugh Jackman's in it. Not anymore than Daniel Craig, anyway.




He's getting a ton of leading man offers becuase he's a name and hot and is thought of as very talented. He's a name--it's a fact. He's much bigger at this point than Craig. Maybe Bond will change that for Craig. Connect Jackman to an established franchise where he's so obviously IMO well cast and it's a virtual slam dunk. Much safer for the box office than Craig--not to say Craig won't work(just that he is riskier).

#38 jaguar007

jaguar007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5608 posts
  • Location:Portland OR

Posted 27 March 2006 - 07:15 AM



He's a named star because of X-Men and in combination with the Bond franchise next to Pierce IMO he would have been the safest box office choice.


Why? "Van Helsing" disappointed, "Kate & Leopold" tanked, "Someone Like You" bombed. I know they're making a Wolverine movie, but I never hear of anybody going to a movie because Hugh Jackman's in it. Not anymore than Daniel Craig, anyway.




He's getting a ton of leading man offers becuase he's a name and hot and is thought of as very talented. He's a name--it's a fact. He's much bigger at this point than Craig. Maybe Bond will change that for Craig. Connect Jackman to an established franchise where he's so obviously IMO well cast and it's a virtual slam dunk. Much safer for the box office than Craig--not to say Craig won't work(just that he is riskier).


True, Jackman is a more well known name because of the X men series. It is also that other franchise that could be one of the reasons Jackman did not become Bond.

Originally, Jackman(always thought Owen was to boorish)was my top pick to become Bond (I did not know who Craig was), but right now I'm pretty excited about Craig).

#39 Dr. Noah

Dr. Noah

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1405 posts

Posted 27 March 2006 - 09:16 AM

He's getting a ton of leading man offers becuase he's a name and hot and is thought of as very talented. He's a name--it's a fact. He's much bigger at this point than Craig. Maybe Bond will change that for Craig. Connect Jackman to an established franchise where he's so obviously IMO well cast and it's a virtual slam dunk. Much safer for the box office than Craig--not to say Craig won't work(just that he is riskier).


As far as being a name, if you say "Hugh Jackman" on the street nobody's going to kmow who he is, any more than Craig or Owen, unless they're big fans of the Tony broadcasts. So throwing that out, you're just left with artistic reputation. Craig has all the industry heat in that respect after working with Spielberg, Sam Mendes, and co-starring with Nicole Kidman -- just about the ultimate for actors in the strata that we're talking about. I really don't think co-starring in X-Men movies help actors in getting other roles. Nobody has really come out of that series any hotter than they were going in. Jackman was in that horrible Ashley Judd movie, and Van Helsing was supposed to become a series but nobody cared. Bond would've been a big step up for him.

Edited by Dr. Noah, 27 March 2006 - 09:18 AM.


#40 Seannery

Seannery

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts

Posted 27 March 2006 - 09:30 AM


He's getting a ton of leading man offers becuase he's a name and hot and is thought of as very talented. He's a name--it's a fact. He's much bigger at this point than Craig. Maybe Bond will change that for Craig. Connect Jackman to an established franchise where he's so obviously IMO well cast and it's a virtual slam dunk. Much safer for the box office than Craig--not to say Craig won't work(just that he is riskier).


As far as being a name, if you say "Hugh Jackman" on the street nobody's going to kmow who he is, any more than Craig or Owen, unless they're big fans of the Tony broadcasts. So throwing that out, you're just left with artistic reputation. Craig has all the industry heat in that respect after working with Spielberg, Sam Mendes, and co-starring with Nicole Kidman -- just about the ultimate for actors in the strata that we're talking about. I really don't think co-starring in X-Men movies help actors in getting other roles. Nobody has really come out of that series any hotter than they were going in. Jackman was in that horrible Ashley Judd movie, and Van Helsing was supposed to become a series but nobody cared. Bond would've been a big step up for him.




If you are from the UK then maybe Craig(especially pre-Bond) is close to Jackman in fame--MAYBE(though I still doubt it). A lot of general movie fans know who Jackman is and he's so busy with leading man roles that he doesn't need Bond at all. He just doesn't. Craig before Bond hardly anyone knew outside the UK though granted he was getting nice roles--though they were ensemble and supporting roles(even with Nicole he is second to her). I'm not denigrating him--not just putting him on an artificially high level. Other than that I don't know what to say--we'll have to agree to disagree here.

#41 bogard

bogard

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 98 posts

Posted 27 March 2006 - 11:17 AM

What's with all the negativity toward Jackman and Owen all of the sudden. Would they have created a CliveOwennotBond or JackmannotBond website? No they wouldn't. Craig still has everyting to prove.

#42 Dr. Noah

Dr. Noah

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1405 posts

Posted 27 March 2006 - 04:10 PM

What's with all the negativity toward Jackman and Owen all of the sudden. Would they have created a CliveOwennotBond or JackmannotBond website? No they wouldn't. Craig still has everyting to prove.


I think Eon and Sony said they AREN'T Bond.

#43 deth

deth

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2651 posts
  • Location:Berlin, Germany

Posted 28 March 2006 - 12:49 AM

INSIDE MAN

anybody seen INSIDE MAN? After Owen so disapointed me in the Pink Panther, damn..... after seeing Inside Man I could really see him play James Bond.

Craig's fine though

#44 Pussfeller

Pussfeller

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4089 posts
  • Location:Washington, D.C.

Posted 28 March 2006 - 01:13 AM

What's with all the negativity toward Jackman and Owen all of the sudden. Would they have created a CliveOwennotBond or JackmannotBond website? No they wouldn't. Craig still has everyting to prove.


If the Internet had been around in 1961, would they have created GrantNotBond or NivenNotBond? I don't think so. Would they have created ConneryNotBond? You bet your :tup:.

Of course Craig has something to prove, but that's a good thing!

#45 crheath

crheath

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 704 posts

Posted 28 March 2006 - 01:27 AM

INSIDE MAN

anybody seen INSIDE MAN? After Owen so disapointed me in the Pink Panther, damn..... after seeing Inside Man I could really see him play James Bond.

Craig's fine though


I just saw Inside Man. I agree 100%. He is really good in this film. Though I'm still happy with Craig.

#46 SeanSean

SeanSean

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 100 posts
  • Location:NY, NY

Posted 28 March 2006 - 02:05 AM


INSIDE MAN

anybody seen INSIDE MAN? After Owen so disapointed me in the Pink Panther, damn..... after seeing Inside Man I could really see him play James Bond.

Craig's fine though


I just saw Inside Man. I agree 100%. He is really good in this film. Though I'm still happy with Craig.


Owen was very good in this movie. I could definitely see him playing a dark, brooding, bastard of a Bond after seeing this. Too bad he didn't want the role, but I'm happy with Craig.

#47 Dr. Noah

Dr. Noah

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1405 posts

Posted 28 March 2006 - 02:19 AM

Owen NEVER turned down the role.

#48 deth

deth

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2651 posts
  • Location:Berlin, Germany

Posted 28 March 2006 - 03:13 AM

so then... we see that the Pink Panther role was played the way it was on purpose.... he could have done better had it called for it.

#49 SeanSean

SeanSean

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 100 posts
  • Location:NY, NY

Posted 28 March 2006 - 03:54 AM

Owen NEVER turned down the role.


I never said he turned it down. I said he didn't want it. Totally different things.

I don't think he was ever a serious candidate. After Closer when the offers started pouring in, Eon had a snowball's chance in hell to sign him. He made this very clear by agreeing to do all of these films, and by his various comments. He wasn't playing around, he wasn't interested in the role.

It's a shame, but he just never wanted to play James Bond. If he had showed some interest in the role, I think beyond the shadow of doubt he would have been cast.

#50 Dr. Noah

Dr. Noah

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1405 posts

Posted 28 March 2006 - 04:06 AM

How can you tell? He spends the whole movie with his face covered.

#51 smartz

smartz

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 99 posts

Posted 28 March 2006 - 10:20 AM

Wow my intial post went crazy....lol

First off let it be known that I like both Jackman and Owen, but i dont think either of them was likely candidates. Owen has become a Hollywood leading man but i find him very dull, I also dont understand why Jackmans agent keeps on posting on this site ( joke ) I could never have seen him in the role to be quite honest and he is not a leading man, but an ensamble actor like pointed out before. Van Helsing bombed and the focus groupd 9 yes i hate them too) got it right that time that he cannot carry a film on his name alone....

As by coincidence ( I blame my son again for this one) I was watching Wallace and Gromit and the curse of the Ware-Rabbit and on there is a trailor for an in the works Dreamworks production with both Kate Winslet and Jackman who offer thier voices....One of the interview pieces has Jackman strangly in a full tux....and he looks very uncomfortable in it....has anyone else seen this???? Perhaps he was rushingback from a Pinewood audition....?

#52 Daltonfan

Daltonfan

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 292 posts

Posted 28 March 2006 - 02:35 PM

What's with all the bashing of actors?

Clive Owen is making his way in Hollywood and is getting decent reviews Inside Man, a film that's getting good box office for this type of movie.

Hugh Jackman is considered to be a leading man by many people with influence. On stage, his status is undisputed but we're still waiting to see how well it will translate to screen. By the end of this year, we should know.

Neither of them is Bond.

I'm excited about the choice of Daniel Craig as Bond. I want to be surprised and I think he'll do that. I didn't get that picturing Owen or Jackman in the role.

PS
If you watched the Flushed Away preview, you'll know that "Roddy" wears a tux.

Edited by Daltonfan, 28 March 2006 - 02:39 PM.


#53 deth

deth

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2651 posts
  • Location:Berlin, Germany

Posted 28 March 2006 - 03:36 PM

How can you tell? He spends the whole movie with his face covered.

'

quite right. It's incredible then, that he STILL managed to bring off such an intese performance. Also, the times when his face was uncovered (particularly the end), he did exude a Bondian cool.

#54 Dr. Noah

Dr. Noah

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1405 posts

Posted 28 March 2006 - 03:54 PM

quite right. It's incredible then, that he STILL managed to bring off such an intese performance. Also, the times when his face was uncovered (particularly the end), he did exude a Bondian cool.


LOL

If only they had gagged him, too. Nice accent!

#55 deth

deth

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2651 posts
  • Location:Berlin, Germany

Posted 29 March 2006 - 01:29 AM


quite right. It's incredible then, that he STILL managed to bring off such an intese performance. Also, the times when his face was uncovered (particularly the end), he did exude a Bondian cool.


LOL

If only they had gagged him, too. Nice accent!



that WAS a bit odd wasn't it.....

#56 Gabriel

Gabriel

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 574 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 29 March 2006 - 01:49 AM

The problem with casting Owen or Jackman is that they are predictable choices. They are bringing an inbuilt public perception of who they are before Bond even appears on the screen. Brosnan's problem was similar, even though people hadn't seen much of him in the UK, he was known for playing a Bond-ish role: the only thing blocking his 'coronation' in the role was that troublesome Mr Dalton!

As a consequence, we got a predictable, stereotypical Bond: promoted as being based on Connery, actually behaving like a curious hybrid of Dalton and Moore with a dash of Lazenby. He was an identikit Bond who could never grow beyond the sum of his parts, because Brosnan's Bond had no personality. Brosnan's Bond was (and indeed the films themseslves were) a greatest hits collection, picking choice bits from other actors' performances and other films' screenplays.

Had Owen or Jackman been set up for a 'coronation', they would have been the same. Another photocopy Bond, only even more faded and indistinct! Daniel Craig represents a bold choice: as bold a choice as it was to hire a Glaswegian ex-milkman/stuntman to play Fleming's anti-hero in Dr No.

#57 DanMan

DanMan

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2009 posts
  • Location:The City That Never Sleeps

Posted 29 March 2006 - 01:53 AM

I can't understand how he didn't want Bond but was willing to play 006 in a Pink Panther remake. He's a bland actor if you ask me. Craig has a lot more charisma and range.

#58 crheath

crheath

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 704 posts

Posted 29 March 2006 - 02:47 AM

I can't understand how he didn't want Bond but was willing to play 006 in a Pink Panther remake. He's a bland actor if you ask me. Craig has a lot more charisma and range.


Same reason why Tom Cruise popped up in Austin Powers III. It was just a cameo.

#59 Dr. Noah

Dr. Noah

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1405 posts

Posted 29 March 2006 - 04:14 AM


I can't understand how he didn't want Bond but was willing to play 006 in a Pink Panther remake. He's a bland actor if you ask me. Craig has a lot more charisma and range.


Same reason why Tom Cruise popped up in Austin Powers III. It was just a cameo.


Because if he admits he wasn't asked to play Bond it's bad publicity.

#60 Dr. Noah

Dr. Noah

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1405 posts

Posted 02 April 2006 - 11:12 PM

Here's Owen's take on the Bond job, FYI:

A Golden Globe winner and Oscar nominee for Closer last year, Clive, 41, says he was never tempted to slip on the James Bond tuxedo.

"The whole James Bond thing is totally irrelevant," he said.

"I've always chosen roles for quality. It's not the pay-check but the quality of your work that's important."

Yet rumours that the handsome actor might strap on a Walther PPK dogged him throughout last year.

Even his Sin City director Robert Rodriguez publicly teased Clive about his bond with Bond back in May.

In the end, the role went to Daniel Craig, amid rumours that Clive had priced himself out of the market. It was said he had asked for a percentage of the profits, estimated at