62 replies to this topic

[Bondpurist]

Should Clive Owen, the handsome and suave British actor, play 007 in Bond 22 and beyond?

[Carver]

I think he would be good, but by the way things are looking, EON will probably go with Hugh Jackman. Most of us on these forums want him, so I think that they will sign him.

[M_Balje]

This is a picture of Clive Owen


He is born in 1965 he now 36 or 37 years old.

[rafterman]

I like Clive, but I don't think he's Bond...I'd rather see him create a new character than just be the next guy playing Bond...

[Blue Eyes]

Not having seen him in anything, I Can't really say. But I can say his face does scream 'Bond' to me. But it could be just that hair cut etc...

[Bondpurist]

You think Hugh Jackman is better? Well just have a look at this pic of Clive then! James Bond or what?

[Bondpurist]

Hugh Jackman hasn't got anything on Clive Owen! Clive is so much closer to Bond; tall, dark, cruel, rugged, mean, BRITISH. Jackman is an Aussie for christsakes! Look what happened last time when they chose an Aussie! LAZENBY! God help us if we get suck with that sissy Jackman.

[License To Kill]

Neither of them I care for. I think the Bond franchise is in trouble after Pierce.



~LTK~

[Bondpurist]

No need to be so negative LTK! There are plenty of actors who could play Bond very well, especially Clive Owen

[mrmoon]

Neither of them could play Bond for my money. In the pics there of Clive Owen he only vaguely looks like Bond because he is wearing a tux and bow tie and he has dark hair. Could you imagine Clive Owen in a bedroom scene with Halle or Rosamund because I can't. Jackman - yes I could, but then I dont think Jackman qualifies for Bond anyway. I really have no idea what they will do. I personally believe the next Bond will be someone we haven't discussed thus far. However one man I give my vote to as the Bond of the future (ie next but one) is Jude Law. Now that's one guy with style:cool:, Clive Owen has about as much style as Alan Partrudge.

[Bondpurist]

Owen is Mr stylish supreme and has the acting ability to carry it off. He will be the best Bond since Dalton (But no one can match him! :-)!

[Carver]

Oh geez, here we go, another arguement:rolleyes:. I didn't say I wanted Jackman, although I think he would be good, I really want Owen to play Bond. I have always thought he would be better, and I saw a pic of him in a tux and casino a while pack, that was screaming Bond at me. I hope we do have Owen, becuase I think he would be good, although I haven't seen him on screen yet.

[Blue Eyes]

Originally posted by Bondpurist
Hugh Jackman hasn't got anything on Clive Owen! Clive is so much closer to Bond; tall, dark, cruel, rugged, mean, BRITISH. Jackman is an Aussie for christsakes! Look what happened last time when they chose an Aussie! LAZENBY! God help us if we get suck with that sissy Jackman.

Yes, look what happened last time they chose an Aussie, they made the best film of the series.

To come out and say that Jackman couldn't play Bond because he's Australian is just pure ignorance on your part.

[Dmitri Mishkin]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes


Yes, look what happened last time they chose an Aussie, they made the best film of the series.  

To come out and say that Jackman couldn't play Bond because he's Australian is just pure ignorance on your part.

Would agree. That IS a fairly offensive comment to make, Bondpurist. Being Australian has nothing to do with an actor's ability to play Bond.

[Tedley King]

Originally posted by mrmoon
However one man I give my vote to as the Bond of the future (ie next but one) is Jude Law. Now that's one guy with style:cool

I agree, he is a potential Bond. If anyone has seen 'Enemy At The Gate' (with Ed Harris [The Rock etc], Rachel Weiss [The Mummy etc]) then you'll know what I am on about!

[Bryce (003)]

Does anyone know Owen's thoughts on picking up the PPK? I know Hugh's on record of having some interest.

[Bondpurist]

All I'm saying is that the actor playing Bond should be British.

Yes, look what happened last time they chose an Aussie, they made the best film of the series.

OHMSS was good IN SPITE of Lazenby, not because of him. James Bond is British and should stay that way. An Australian won't of been exposed as much to the literary Bond and will have to force the accent. (Listen to Lazenby's!)

[Blue Eyes]

Sorry but you're completely wrong. I'm Australian and I've read plenty of the Bond novels and I know plenty of Australians too. And I also know plenty of Australians who can do a British accent quite well. Lazenby's accent is hardly proof of panning 18 million people in one mass generalisation.

[Bondpurist]

Look, I haven't got anything in particular against the Australians but I just think James Bond should be British. James Bond is one of the few decent British creations in world literature, and should stay so cinematically. OK?

[mrmoon]

Originally posted by Bondpurist
James Bond is one of the few decent British creations in world literature, and should stay so cinematically. OK?

I think your getting your wires crossed here. Literature and Cinema are two different entities. The cinematic Bond and the Literary Bond are completely seperate. Having an aussie actor as Bond will not mean it is an aussie creation.

Obviously it would be ideal to a british actor who could play the role well, but lets say it came to picking between a Brit who couldn't act or an aussie who could, your not telling me you would go for the Brit. If someone has a very convincing British accent and can act then - who cares.

Changing the nationality of the actor does not change the nationality of the character - if the actor can do his job well he can pull it off. Its not like trying to get a chinese speaking actor to play Bond, I find the australian accent closer to the British even more so than with the US.

[Bondpurist]

Well, the cinematic Bond should be the literary Bond on camera. So I don't think I have my wires crossed. The cinematic Bond should be as close as possible to the Bond of (Fleming's) novels. As far as I'm concerned an American Bond would be sacrilege whatever you say.

[IrishCrown]

Eh, go for Hugh Jackman. He's the guy for the part as far as I am concerned. If MGM still wants to wring some more bucks out of it, go for Hugh.

[Bondpurist]

James Bond was a fierce killing machine. Hugh Jackman looks like he should be modelling perfume for Calvin Klein. Picking him to play 007 would be like picking Arnold Schwarznegger to play Mr Darcy in Pride and Prejudice, except the other way round. MGM, save us all from another awful Bond - we've already had Moore and Lazenby.

[mrmoon]

Originally posted by Bondpurist
Well, the cinematic Bond should be the literary Bond on camera.  

Out of interest would you call yourself a Bond fan? That is possibly one of the most narrow-minded comments I've seen about Bond. If the producers had taken that ideology there would be no Bond around today.

[Bondpurist]

I don't think that's narrow minded. I think that's faithfulness to the books. And yes I am a Bond fan, Thankyou very much.

[Dmitri Mishkin]

Originally posted by mrmoon


Out of interest would you call yourself a Bond fan? That is possibly one of the most narrow-minded comments I've seen about Bond. If the producers had taken that ideology there would be no Bond around today.

I don't think this is a narrow-minded comment to make. It's perfectly fine to want the literary Bond reflected in the cinematic Bond. In fact, many fans of The Living Daylights would probably agree.

[Bondpurist]

Thankyou Dmitri - being a big fan of TLD (and Dalton generally) I certainly agree

[mrmoon]

Originally posted by Dmitri Mishkin
I don't think this is a narrow-minded comment to make.  It's perfectly fine to want the literary Bond reflected in the cinematic Bond.

I never said that the literary Bond shouldn't be reflected in the cinematic Bond, that is something that is inevitable and necessary at times.

If you'd read more carefully you'd have seen that Bondpurist's comment said

the cinematic Bond should be the literary Bond on camera

To me personally that IS narrow-minded. How can you expect to have a 50's literary character simply dropped onto a 21st century cinema screen. It doesn't happen.

If the cinematic Bond was the literary Bond but on screen, what would be the point in reading the books , moving a character between two mediums inevitably brings evolution.

Connery's Bond is different to Lazenby's, as is Moore's Bond to Dalton's or Brosnan's.

The same applies to the books, Flemings Bond is different to gardner's or Amis's or Benson's - u get the point.

That is why I believe that Bondpurist's comment was narrow-minded and baseless.

[Carver]

Hey, Bondpurist verses the world!
I have always thought that actors who play Bond should be British, but if an Aussie can do a good British accent, then so be it. Australia are/was in the Commonwealth, and I don't mind an Aussie playing Bond. Anyways, we have Blue Eyes here, who will play Bond in the future!

[Dmitri Mishkin]

Originally posted by mrmoon


I never said that the literary Bond shouldn't be reflected in the cinematic Bond, that is something that is inevitable and necessary at times.

If you'd read more carefully you'd have seen that Bondpurist's comment said  

the cinematic Bond should be the literary Bond on camera

To me personally that IS narrow-minded. How can you expect to have a 50's literary character simply dropped onto a 21st century cinema screen. It doesn't happen.  

If the cinematic Bond was the literary Bond but on screen, what would be the point in reading the books , moving a character between two mediums inevitably brings evolution.  

Connery's Bond is different to Lazenby's, as is Moore's Bond to Dalton's or Brosnan's.  

The same applies to the books, Flemings Bond is different to gardner's or Amis's or Benson's - u get the point.  

That is why I believe that Bondpurist's comment was narrow-minded and baseless.

With all respect I did read the posts carefully before making my view known. Let's see if we can untangle some of our wires here.

I think you read Bondpurist's post differently than I saw it. You took his comment, "the cinematic Bond should be the literary Bond on camera" as meaning that a literary novel should be completely, in every which way, transported to the cinematic medium. Including context (the 50's). But you and I know that's impossible (as do Michael Wilson and B. Broccoli). You can't transport EVERY thing from a novel written in the 50's to a movie created for the 21st century. But you can carry over some elements - specifically, those involving personality, which is what I think he is referring to.

Take for example Bond's image as a fierce assassin. Bondpurist used that as an example in one of his posts to illustrate his point that the literary Bond should be reflected in the cinematic Bond. That is timeless. THAT is a personality trait, the will and subconscious ability to kill without remorse, that CAN be transported from literature to cinema. Other traits, like a serious demeanour, are part of personality and can be recreated in the character of today's cinema.

Of course, you can't re-create London from the 50's but you can certainly retain elements of the character of James Bond. And THAT is what I think BP is arguing.

But to be fair, BP's statement can be interpreted in many many ways.