142 replies to this topic

[SeanValen00V]

Anyone up for Hugh Jackman as Bond in 2012, he'll be 44, Roger Moore started Bond at 45. I think Jackman will age just right to get 3 films out of him. He did say he would prefer to play Bond in his 40s, he's 40 next year when Craig's 2nd film comes out. He looks younger then Craig, and physically he's a strong man. By then Jackman would of done or finished with his Wolverine character, as he's planning one soon.



I think Jackman will be just right in 2012.

[Jim]

Probably too expensive by then.

I expect another surprise.

[dinovelvet]

Jackman as Bond ain't happening, Babs already vetoed him.

[MarcAngeDraco]

Anyone up for Hugh Jackman as Bond in 2012

No thanks...

[Double-Oh-Zero]

It won't happen. To most people (including myself), he's Wolverine, and always will be.

[SeanValen00V]

It won't happen. To most people (including myself), he's Wolverine, and always will be.

Cubby Brocolli almost signed Adam West-tv's Batman as Bond, but Adam turned it down.


I don't think Jackman is typecast as Wolverine, Stallone has Rocky and Rambo, it's possible to at least play 2 characters your known for. There's no rule out there to say otherwise.

Jackman as Bond ain't happening, Babs already vetoed him.

Babs can go to hell, I don't trust that woman and her views and choices. Bond belongs to the public, if it was up to me, there would of been a vote for a new James Bond candidate, Jackman was leading the votes on popular websites by a large margin in 2005. Babs is ego, she wants control, hopefully Sony or public perceptions will change by 2012, alot can happen between now and then. I can dream.

[Jim]

Babs can go to hell, I don't trust that woman and her views and choices.

And yet she speaks so highly of you.

[Loomis]

Babs can go to hell? Well, here's the thing: she's not the armed wing of the Hugh Jackman fanbase; she's a filmmaker who does things her way, and it appears that this approach has paid off big time with CASINO ROYALE. I caught a bit of ENDURING LOVE (awful, pretentious, chest-beating dreck) on TV the other day, and found myself thinking that virtually no one on earth would have watched it on release and thought: that Daniel Craig, what a perfect choice to replace Brosnan as Bond. Most people would have thought: this shambling Sid James lookalike - no wonder the British film industry can't seem to produce A-list superstars like Brangelina. And the Bond fans among them would have continued to wonder who'd make the best "new Brosnan" - Hugh Jackman? Clive Owen? Julian McMahon?

But Broccoli saw Craig's potential and persisted with her vision, against not inconsiderable opposition from many quarters (many of them highly informed and important quarters, too). Because she wasn't looking, as so many were, for the slick, audience-friendly Brosnan Mark II. She was looking for James Bond.

It appears that she was pretty much singlehandedly responsible for making Craig Bond. And he's now widely regarded as the best Bond ever, or at worst as the only serious rival to Connery. So I'd predict more of Broccoli's own way in the future, since she's on an incredible winning streak.

[supernova]

Saw a photograph of Jackman taken on the beach last week and he didn't look so good - and this is 2007 - can he weather another 5 years?

In 2012 Daniel Craig will be 42 - so if Eon/Sony are very, very nice and offer BIG money, maybe Daniel Craig will make a Bond movie every two years for an indeterminate (but long) future.

[Santa]

Jackman as Bond ain't happening, Babs already vetoed him.

Babs can go to hell, I don't trust that woman and her views and choices. Bond belongs to the public

Ah but unfortunately for you her views and choices are what really matters on the subject of the next Bond. And no, Bond doesn't belong to the public and, thank God, I'm 99% certain there will never be a public vote for the next Bond. What a dreadful idea.

[iexpectu2die]

Babs can go to hell? Well, here's the thing: she's not the armed wing of the Hugh Jackman fanbase; she's a filmmaker who does things her way, and it appears that this approach has paid off big time with CASINO ROYALE. I caught a bit of ENDURING LOVE (awful, pretentious, chest-beating dreck) on TV the other day, and found myself thinking that virtually no one on earth would have watched it on release and thought: that Daniel Craig, what a perfect choice to replace Brosnan as Bond. Most people would have thought: this shambling Sid James lookalike - no wonder the British film industry can't seem to produce A-list superstars like Brangelina. And the Bond fans among them would have continued to wonder who'd make the best "new Brosnan" - Hugh Jackman? Clive Owen? Julian McMahon?

But Broccoli saw Craig's potential and persisted with her vision, against not inconsiderable opposition from many quarters (many of them highly informed and important quarters, too). Because she wasn't looking, as so many were, for the slick, audience-friendly Brosnan Mark II. She was looking for James Bond.

It appears that she was pretty much singlehandedly responsible for making Craig Bond. And he's now widely regarded as the best Bond ever, or at worst as the only serious rival to Connery. So I'd predict more of Broccoli's own way in the future, since she's on an incredible winning streak.

100% Precisely.

[SeanValen00V]

Babs can go to hell? Well, here's the thing: she's not the armed wing of the Hugh Jackman fanbase; she's a filmmaker who does things her way, and it appears that this approach has paid off big time with CASINO ROYALE. I caught a bit of ENDURING LOVE (awful, pretentious, chest-beating dreck) on TV the other day, and found myself thinking that virtually no one on earth would have watched it on release and thought: that Daniel Craig, what a perfect choice to replace Brosnan as Bond. Most people would have thought: this shambling Sid James lookalike - no wonder the British film industry can't seem to produce A-list superstars like Brangelina. And the Bond fans among them would have continued to wonder who'd make the best "new Brosnan" - Hugh Jackman? Clive Owen? Julian McMahon?

But Broccoli saw Craig's potential and persisted with her vision, against not inconsiderable opposition from many quarters (many of them highly informed and important quarters, too). Because she wasn't looking, as so many were, for the slick, audience-friendly Brosnan Mark II. She was looking for James Bond.

It appears that she was pretty much singlehandedly responsible for making Craig Bond. And he's now widely regarded as the best Bond ever, or at worst as the only serious rival to Connery. So I'd predict more of Broccoli's own way in the future, since she's on an incredible winning streak.

There's army of people who would disagree with you. Many actors could of played Bond in Casino Royale, and the star would of been the script


I don't like Babs's choices, so she didn't do her job properly. Should of chosen Jackman.

[Qwerty]

if it was up to me, there would of been a vote for a new James Bond candidate, Jackman was leading the votes on popular websites by a large margin in 2005.

Seems like that could get really complicated and end up in some very messy results. What if the public voted for someone that you (as the person in charge in this example) dreaded working with and thought would be horrific in the role?

[K1Bond007]

There's army of people who would disagree with you. Many actors could of played Bond in Casino Royale, and the star would of been the script

I don't like Babs's choices, so she didn't do her job properly. Should of chosen Jackman.

lol, an army. Pretty sure you're in the minority now.

And a popular vote would be an absolutely terrible idea. God knows who we would have gotten (I'm serious. As soon as the general audience jumps into the ring on that one Owen and Jackman would have fallen by the wayside. Hello Ben Affleck or somebody completely unfit for the role, yet popular for whatever reason) and even then that actor might not accept thus putting a strain on negotiations because they know they're "favored" by the general audience. Jackman towards the end said he didn't even want to do it. Besides if you did that same poll now I'd bet Craig would come out on top.

[mister-white]

I think Daniel Craig will definitly do more than the three he's already signed up for. Heck, I would be surprised if he didn't break Roger Moore's record of seven films. I don't really think anyone wants to change Bonds after Bond 23, since a change of actors usually mean a bit longer wait between films, and the gap between 23 and 24 has to be shorter than usual. It looks like Bond 23 will open November 2010 (lets say November 19) and if anyone at Sony had a brain cell than Bond 24 will open on Friday, October 5, 2012 (50 years to the day of Dr. No's premiere).

As for Jackman, I still don't really see it. I was wanting Clive Owen back during CR, but I've really grown to liking Daniel Craig. As I said I think and hope that he'll stay on for more than three, personally I'm think he'll have at least 5 or 6 films as Bond.

[dinovelvet]

And a popular vote would be an absolutely terrible idea. God knows who we would have gotten (I'm serious. As soon as the general audience jumps into the ring on that one Owen and Jackman would have fallen by the wayside. Hello Ben Affleck or somebody completely unfit for the role, yet popular for whatever reason) and even then that actor might not accept thus putting a strain on negotiations because they know they're "favored" by the general audience. Jackman towards the end said he didn't even want to do it. Besides if you did that same poll now I'd bet Craig would come out on top.

A public vote poll on who should play the next James Bond would have Will Smith, Johnny Depp, and a 76 year old Sean Connery as the top three choices.

[Johnboy007]

Jackman as Bond in 2012?

Quite simply: No.

[Tarl_Cabot]

The Hugh Jackman debate is sooo 2004! He really doesn't do it for me as Bond. Sorry, he's good looking and charming but we don't need a cookie cutter Bond. I'd like to see an unknown or...Gerard Butler is about 1000 times cooler than any established star with 007 potential.Of course, I wish I could access that parallel universe where Clive Owen is Bond...

[plankattack]

The Hugh Jackman debate is sooo 2004! He really doesn't do it for me as Bond. Sorry, he's good looking and charming but we don't need a cookie cutter Bond. I'd like to see an unknown or...Gerard Butler is about 1000 times cooler than any established star with 007 potential.Of course, I wish I could access that parallel universe where Clive Owen is Bond...

Here here! DC's casting and a good script has shown how thinking just a little outside the box can reenergise a franchise. Who would have thought Christian Bale for Batman, or Toby McGuire for Spiderman (I know he was the first to play the character but he was still a "different choice.")?

The obvious choice (and Jackman would fall into that category and I think he's a fine actor but other than being fashion model handsome what are his qualifications over anyone else?) isn't necessarily the inspired/best choice? Remember Connery? Not exactly the first name on everyone's lips back in the day. Grant, Niven, Mason, were all great actors but we'll never know if the series would have been as successful if they had been in the lead.

To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go with the Bond you have, not the Bond you wish you had. And even the biggest cynic would have to admit that DC had, at worst, a solid debut as Bond, I'm not sure I want to think about the whoever's next. (Look how exhausting it was this time around...... )

[Cody]

In 2004, Jackman was definitely one of my top choices. In 2012? Not so into that thought.

Anyone other than Craig right now? As said in You Only Live Twice, "To hell with that idea." I'm in no hurry to see his era come to an end.

[SeanValen00V]

The strange thing is, every Bond actor has his fans. But without the benefit of hindsight, until a actor does that role, you'll never know for sure. It's easy to rate Craig now as he's done Bond, and it's just as easy to slam Jackman knowing there's a small chance of him ever doing Bond, put the ball in the other park, lets say Jackman did do Casino Royale, I'm sure the film would of done just as well or even better, and he would of had his fans, then some guy like me does a post about Craig being Bond in 2012, he'll get the same flack lol.


It's easy to put down Jackman, as it was easy for many to put down Craig before he shot Casino.

Hand paint James Bond title to many actors, and put them in a Bond film, and they are immortalised, hey even George Lazemby wasn't doing his best acting in OHMSS, as he needed more experience, yet he has his fans, since the story was so good. Script is the star as much as the actor. Had Brosnan been given a solid script, we'll have a Bond classic on our hands, too bad his era ended with Die Another Day, he was getting better while the producers were giving him less to do. The whole casting of Casino is about Barbs ego, Bond will sell no matter how much you mess it up, true for Die Another Day, true for Casino, easy to look better once you hire a oscar winning writer finally to polish the script, what was she waiting for? Just dicking about with the fanchise, when she should of been working on giving Pierce decent material, not oking invisable cars and getting Halle Berry spin offs or close to it, and adding characters DAD didn't need. It's very easy to look good after correcting your mistakes, but she must answer for her decisions sometime, lazy film making.

If she ended the Brosnan era with some class, she would of gotten alot more respect.

[Johnboy007]

The strange thing is, every Bond actor has his fans. But without the benefit of hindsight, until a actor does that role, you'll never know for sure. It's easy to rate Craig now as he's done Bond, and it's just as easy to slam Jackman knowing there's a small chance of him ever doing Bond, put the ball in the other park, lets say Jackman did do Casino Royale, I'm sure the film would of done just as well or even better, and he would of had his fans, then some guy like me does a post about Craig being Bond in 2012, he'll get the same flack lol.

That is quite a small chance indeed. Would the film have done as well? I cannot answer that and neither can you.

Hand paint James Bond title to many actors, and put them in a Bond film, and they are immortalised, hey even George Lazemby wasn't doing his best acting in OHMSS, as he needed more experience, yet he has his fans, since the story was so good. Script is the star as much as the actor. Had Brosnan been given a solid script, we'll have a Bond classic on our hands, too bad his era ended with Die Another Day, he was getting better while the producers were giving him less to do. The whole casting of Casino is about Barbs ego, Bond will sell no matter how much you mess it up, true for Die Another Day, true for Casino, easy to look better once you hire a oscar winning writer finally to polish the script, what was she waiting for? Just dicking about with the fanchise, when she should of been working on giving Pierce decent material, not oking invisable cars and getting Halle Berry spin offs or close to it, and adding characters DAD didn't need. It's very easy to look good after correcting your mistakes, but she must answer for her decisions sometime, lazy film making.

Our problem with Brosnan was he never did anything with what he did have. He was painfully bored from The World is not Enough on and just seemed to be there to pick up a pay check (quite an undeservedly hefty paycheck). They gave Roger Moore tons and tons of groaner lines and terrible scripts, but he had the ability to pull it off with some sort of charm. Most people agree that a lot of Die Another Day's problems are the result of Lee Tamahori.

How exactly is Barbara Broccoli's ego responsible for the casting of Casino Royale? Because she just produced three fetid turds with Brosnan in the lead role and wanted to break the cycle? Why are you leaving out Michael G. Wilson?

She did in fact answer to that "lazy film-making". It was called Casino Royale, which made nearly $600 million and was the highest rated movie of 2006 on RottenTomatoes.

(Wouldn't correcting those mistakes in fact be the answer to her previously questionable decisions?)

If she ended the Brosnan era with some class, she would of gotten alot more respect.

Brosnan certainly didn't do himself any favors on the way out either.

And whose respect does she need?

[jaguar007]

I was originally in support of Jackman being the next Bond (before CR). At that time I felt the James Bond movies would continue to be formulastic fun Bond movies and the days of really good groundbreaking Bond movies were certainly a thing of the past. Casino Royale surpurised me and for the first time in decades, made a movie that stands up to the classic Bond films of the 60s. I did not see that when I envisioned Jackman as Bond.

To answer your question, no. Not Jackman after Craig.

[Santa]

The strange thing is, every Bond actor has his fans. But without the benefit of hindsight, until a actor does that role, you'll never know for sure. It's easy to rate Craig now as he's done Bond, and it's just as easy to slam Jackman knowing there's a small chance of him ever doing Bond, put the ball in the other park, lets say Jackman did do Casino Royale, I'm sure the film would of done just as well or even better, and he would of had his fans, then some guy like me does a post about Craig being Bond in 2012, he'll get the same flack lol.

That is quite a small chance indeed. Would the film have done as well? I cannot answer that and neither can you.

Hand paint James Bond title to many actors, and put them in a Bond film, and they are immortalised, hey even George Lazemby wasn't doing his best acting in OHMSS, as he needed more experience, yet he has his fans, since the story was so good. Script is the star as much as the actor. Had Brosnan been given a solid script, we'll have a Bond classic on our hands, too bad his era ended with Die Another Day, he was getting better while the producers were giving him less to do. The whole casting of Casino is about Barbs ego, Bond will sell no matter how much you mess it up, true for Die Another Day, true for Casino, easy to look better once you hire a oscar winning writer finally to polish the script, what was she waiting for? Just dicking about with the fanchise, when she should of been working on giving Pierce decent material, not oking invisable cars and getting Halle Berry spin offs or close to it, and adding characters DAD didn't need. It's very easy to look good after correcting your mistakes, but she must answer for her decisions sometime, lazy film making.

Our problem with Brosnan was he never did anything with what he did have. He was painfully bored from The World is not Enough on and just seemed to be there to pick up a pay check (quite an undeservedly hefty paycheck). They gave Roger Moore tons and tons of groaner lines and terrible scripts, but he had the ability to pull it off with some sort of charm. Most people agree that a lot of Die Another Day's problems are the result of Lee Tamahori.

How exactly is Barbara Broccoli's ego responsible for the casting of Casino Royale? Because she just produced three fetid turds with Brosnan in the lead role and wanted to break the cycle? Why are you leaving out Michael G. Wilson?

She did in fact answer to that "lazy film-making". It was called Casino Royale, which made nearly $600 million and was the highest rated movie of 2006 on RottenTomatoes.

(Wouldn't correcting those mistakes in fact be the answer to her previously questionable decisions?)

If she ended the Brosnan era with some class, she would of gotten alot more respect.

Brosnan certainly didn't do himself any favors on the way out either.

And whose respect does she need?

What he said.

[codywan24]

I have to admit, as most members here would probably come clean on as well, I was hugely disappointed by the announcement of Craig as Bond. I wanted Jackman too (actually, I wanted one more dose of Brosnan, and I never really saw the fascination with Clive Owen, but I digress). I now have far more trust in the Bond producers than ever before, as Casino Royale and Daniel Craig both were undeniably fantastic (again, not looking for originality points in this post). The bottom line for me is that I like Craig very much and am looking forward to his tenure as 007! If he does more than three, great! If not, then whatever, because if both the Connery and Moore eras proved anything, it is that quality is always more important than quantity. If the writers and Craig can pull off 6-7 plus films that are as good or better than CR, well then my hats are off. But this sort of talk should at least be reserved for a later time, if and when the series starts to feel stale again. I think all of us former doubters owe DC that much. To keep to the topic specifically though, I'm afraid poor Hugh Jackman could never follow Daniel Craig with any amount of credible success. Brosnan maybe, but they've taken it too far away from all of that to bring it straight back after one actor. If I had to replace Daniel with anyone right now, the only person that I can even fathom giving Craig a run for his money in films keeping with CR's tone would be Gerard Butler. I certainly wouldn't protest that announcement in 2012, but as trying as it's been on both Craig and Bond fans all over the world until complete vindication was reached with Casino, let's give this man our support in full, and save any replacement talks or wishes for another day (pun intended).

[RazorBlade]

Babs is entitled to her ego as it's her prodco and her franchise. It appears though that more than ego was involved- some careful attention to filmmaking craft was involved as well.

No one's putting Jackman down. I'm sure he would have been a fine Bond but I do recall his stating that he didn't want to do it. If my, and other's, memory is accurate then he took himself out of the running. What to do? Start a www.jackmannotbondbyhisdecisionagainstmywishes.com?

Voting would have produced an ungodly mess. So would allowing the usual suspects in Hollywood to cast the film. I like Matt Damon as an actor and writer but he is too short (looking in case he's 6'3") to be an action star. And he's a product of Hollywood pop casting for the Broune role.

[TheREAL008]

I may be the only man in the world to admit this but:

I'd like to see Jackman in another Van Helsing movie \m/

[Zorin Industries]

No. He's completely wrong for Bond.

A Bond actor needs to be more than a dark haired guy in his forties. Why do so many fans think that is enough? (eg. Clive Owen...who would murder Bond on-screen)

[plankattack]

A Bond actor needs to be more than a dark haired guy in his forties. Why do so many fans think that is enough?

Well put Zorin! The reason that some Bond films are better than others (and however much we all are fans of different films, there are a couple that we could all list as weaker) is that Bond the character doesnt get his due in the script. Too often he is nothing more than a prop, left completely in the hands of the actor playing him. But in a way, we the fans get what we deserve if we demand nothing of the actor other than "he looks right."

DC didn't "look right" and yet it works. Why? Because producers, directors, writers etc, created a script that featured Bond the character, paying attention to the central character, rather than just a story with Bond in it. Think of your favourite Brozza film. He "looks right", doesn't he? But then think of your least fave Brozza outing. He still "looks right" and yet you like one film more than another. There's more to Bond than "looking right."

Did I wake up and it's 2005? Am I lost in a Twilight Zone episode...?

[Santa]

A Bond actor needs to be more than a dark haired guy in his forties. Why do so many fans think that is enough?

I pointed this out once and got a right bollocking.