I think i know who could play bond next
#1
Posted 11 October 2002 - 04:25 PM
#2
Posted 13 October 2002 - 03:04 AM
Don't know if he will still be a serious candidate when Pierce leaves, though. He's either in his late, late 30s now or 40. Pierce had the Bond reputation already going for him despite being in his 40s when he got the role. Adrian Paul won't have that working for him, though. The concencus around here seems to favor somebody in his early or mid 30s.
#3
Posted 13 October 2002 - 03:19 AM
The problem is...Adrian Paul is already linked to one huge franchise and people like that don't usually like being linked to another.
-- Xenobia
#4
Posted 13 October 2002 - 03:37 AM
MBE
#5
Posted 13 October 2002 - 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Mourning Becomes Electra
Moreover, he can't act, he constantly sounds like his mouth is full of marbles as he mumbles in monotone.
Too much like the current guy then?
#6
Posted 13 October 2002 - 01:05 PM
#7
Posted 13 October 2002 - 08:08 PM
Loomis, yes he was in the entire 1994 bin of contenders along with Hugh Grant, Ralph Fiennes, and any other male between 25-45 with a British accent or anything approximating one.
#8
Posted 13 October 2002 - 08:39 PM
Originally posted by Mourning Becomes Electra
Roebuck, tsk tsk, that bait was left for Jim, no fair jumping his claim. So can I take that as no to Mr. Paul?
Actually, killkenny kid suggested Adrian Paul only last week and at the time I said the biggest thing against him was age. A good actor does not necessarily make a great Bond, and vice versa. I think we've seen enough proof of that during the last forty years.
PS. Yes, I should have left that one for Jim. He would have replied with something much wittier.
#9
Posted 13 October 2002 - 09:05 PM
#10
Posted 13 October 2002 - 09:26 PM
Roebuck, I don't think we have seen that though. Yes it's just my opinion, but I think two very good actors, Connery & Brosnan made two excellent Bonds. I think a good actor made a good Bond, Moore, and I think a non-actor made a piss poor Bond, Lazenby. Only Dalton a very good actor didn't live up to his talent as regards Bond IMO (and others think he was the best) and that's b/c he had a certain view about the role and how it should be played that didn't appeal to me (or much of the general audience). But as a performance his Bond is still more interesting and entertaining for me to watch than say Lazenby's.
I think Bond is a role that does require acting skill, more than it seems on the surface, but even the requisite amount of skill doesn't mean one's approach or persona fit the role. Some actors as great as they are can also be mis-cast, can you imagine Marlon Brando playing Lawrence Of Arabia instead of Peter O'Toole? And he was the first choice!
#11
Posted 14 October 2002 - 12:46 AM
Originally posted by Mourning Becomes Electra
I think Bond is a role that does require acting skill, more than it seems on the surface, but even the requisite amount of skill doesn't mean one's approach or persona fit the role. Some actors as great as they are can also be mis-cast, can you imagine Marlon Brando playing Lawrence Of Arabia instead of Peter O'Toole? And he was the first choice!
And I understand that James Caan was originally the first choice to play the title role in "Superman: the Movie" and Mickey Rourke was to originally play Maverick in "Top Gun." Lest we forget Sylvester Stallone as Axel Foley for "Beverly Hills Cop."
BTW, don't forget that Roger Moore had emerged from two successful TV series to play Bond.
What many of y'all are gonna have to understand is that the next actor to play Bond'll won't please everyone. There'll be those in the Clive Owen camp, the Dougray Scott alliance, the Adrian Paul cabal and the "let Pierce do it until we fall into AVTAK" organization. No one'll ever be satisfied.
I find that an actor who's in their late 30's early 40's is the right age for Bond- simply because they aren't "pretty" anymore. Dalton was right @ 41 when he did TLD as opposed to 22-23 when he was approached to do OHMSS. Pierce was right @ 41 when he did GE. Folks may have been clamoring for him to assume the mantle back in '87 but the years following did wonders for him.
Y'all may be looking too far down the line as far as Pierce's successor's concerned. Think about what that actor'll bring to the role of Bond his FIRST time out. Great writing and direction'll insure a "down the line" once that first hurdle is cleared.
#12
Posted 14 October 2002 - 03:43 PM
#13
Posted 14 October 2002 - 03:52 PM
#14
Posted 16 October 2002 - 03:03 AM
I think you should know who I am.
I trust this time you will be more civilized.
#15
Posted 16 October 2002 - 01:35 PM
#16
Posted 16 October 2002 - 01:42 PM
#17
Posted 16 October 2002 - 05:21 PM
#18
Posted 17 October 2002 - 01:06 AM