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

007 reasons Hugh Jackman should be the next Bond.


36 replies to this topic

#31 ChandlerBing

ChandlerBing

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4010 posts
  • Location:Manhattan, KS

Posted 09 September 2002 - 12:47 AM

I still say that MGM is going to be sweating bullets when their billion dollar Bond finally retires. Now what are we going to do? We can't keep remaking old Norman Jewison movies! Pierce will probably turn down a jillion dollar paycheck for another Bond in 2007 and let Hugh Jackman do it. MGM will insist upon a known star to play Bond. Just as in 1973, UA was spooked by the Lazenby thing, MGM will not want to repeat the Timothy Dalton thing.

#32 Tedley King

Tedley King

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 508 posts

Posted 09 September 2002 - 03:19 PM

The more and more I think about it I begin to realise that Jackman is probably the best candidate to take over from Brosnan (quite possibly for Bond 22 - approx 2007), for most of the reasons above really. However, there is something that tells me he wont be. Not to do with the wage demand but something else. I think I've mentioned something along these lines before in another thread similar to this.

#33 White Tuxedo

White Tuxedo

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 513 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 10 September 2002 - 05:55 AM

It's really hard to explain why I don't care as much for Hugh Jackman. I mean, it's basically he just doesn't feel right to me. I'm sure he could pull it off the more I think about it. I've only (that I know of) seen him in X-Men, so maybe he could do it. I personally like Clive Owen, but that's just my preference. I like a dark Bond, and I don't really see Hugh Jackman doing that.

So Jackman could probably do it well, but he wouldn't be my choice. And he just lacks something as Bond. I can't put my finger on it, but something.

Sorry for more vagueness. :)

#34 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

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

Posted 10 September 2002 - 12:18 PM

Do me a favor, see Swordfish, and then see Kate and Leopold. You will see his dark side (in Swordfish) and his suave side (in K&L). If that doesnt at least change your mind a bit, then thats fine, but at least youll get a better look at his acting talents.

#35 White Tuxedo

White Tuxedo

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 513 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 10 September 2002 - 10:13 PM

If I get the time I may, I'm about to start college.

Plus, I have a strong dislike for Meg Ryan and John Travolta (post Saturday Night Fever and Welcome Back Kotter).

But I am hoping to try and write my Bond script 'Shadow Of The Gun', so I may see him out. Thanks. :)

#36 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

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

Posted 10 September 2002 - 11:36 PM

Just so ya know, I'm not trying to force you to like Jackman (I'm not that sneaky :)) Its just you say he's wrong for the role, well, if I only saw him in X-Men, I might feel the same way.

BTW, College is a pain eh? I barely have enough time to watch a Bond film a day.

#37 WC

WC

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1415 posts

Posted 21 September 2002 - 10:01 PM

If Hugh Jackman did play Bond, would he play it with an English accent or with his Australian accent? If he did an English one, that would mean for the whole number of films he played Bond for, he'd never get to use his real voice. However, I suppose he does the same thing for X-Men and that isn't a problem.

The reason I'm not so sure about Jackman as Bond is that he has often been compared to a young Clint Eastwood, rather than Sean Connery. There have even been comparisons between him and Mel Gibson, for obvious reasons.

I certainly can see something of Clint Eastwood in him and his presence on screen. In that sense, therefore, it makes me think that Jackman would veer too much towards that type than a James Bond type character. However, I do admit he is certainly much less wooden than Eastwood and has a greater acting range so he could vary his personality.