67 replies to this topic

[Simon]

Originally posted by crashdrive

What do you mean with 'too fluffy'?

1. I said Owen looks too fluffy.

2. I said I couldn't remember what Jackman looked like.

Two separate points

But I appreciate the pictures.

Ref the charming, handsome aspect etc etc. I thought Bale had all that, no? It's up to the director how psychotic to make it. I'm just looking at the potential to make something different enough from his predecessor to negate the all too obvious comparisons.

Moore to media when asked how his Bond was going to be different, "whiter teeth". Those were the days.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by crashdrive

Don't you think the actor who plays Bond has a very important influence on the film? The writers always write the screenplay with the lead actor in mind and tailor it to his strenghts.

I suppose so. But remember that THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS was written for Moore (or so they say). Now, I imagine that the script would have been retooled slightly after Dalton was cast, but I'm not sure that the actor playing Bond has all that much significance when it comes to writing and preparing a film. I don't say that whoever's playing Bond is always totally unimportant, but for me the film is what's overwhelmingly important. And don't forget that they have to allow for the possibility of needing a last-minute replacement for the lead actor, so you can't really talk of Bond films as "vehicles" for particular stars.

And, BTW, just because you yourself didn't buy Moore as Bond, crashdrive, it doesn't mean that millions of others didn't too.

Originally posted by crashdrive

I think it's very interesting to see how the tone will change if Jackman will get the part. But I guess the tone will not change as much since Jackman is very much like Brosnan.

That's what I'm thinking. Could be a selling point for Jackman if the filmmakers think they've found their groove and want continuity. On the other hand, they may welcome the chance to ring the changes as with Dalton and THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, which would devalue a Brosnan clone. But then again, I think Bond scripts are basically "one size fits all" affairs.

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Simon
1.  I said Owen looks too fluffy. 2.  I said I couldn't remember what Jackman looked like. Two separate points But I appreciate the pictures.

Ref the charming, handsome aspect etc etc.  I thought Bale had all that, no?  It's up to the director how psychotic to make it.  I'm just looking at the potential to make something different enough from his predecessor to negate the all too obvious comparisons.

I know you meant Owen. Still I'm curious what do you mean when you say Owen is too fluffy?

As for Bale, I don't think he's very likeable. I've seen him in a lot films, but he's best playing unlikeable characters. He's definately handsome, but I just don't get a Bond-vibe off Bale. Of course, this is only my humble opinion. I'm also afraid Bale has hurt his chances when making negative comments about EON. Still I like the fact that you are looking at the potential tom make something different enough. That's the problem right now. The only good and realisitic candidate is too much like his predecesor.

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Loomis
But remember that THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS was written for Moore (or so they say). Now, I imagine that the script would have been retooled slightly after Dalton was cast, but I'm not sure that the actor playing Bond has all that much significance when it comes to writing and preparing a film.

In the 'Inside The Living Daylights' documentary, Wilson said they wrote the script fairly middleground. However 'Licence to Kill' was tailored to Dalton's strenghs. The Brosnans Bonds (especially 'TWINE' & 'DAD') are also very distinctly tailored to his acting style and Moore's Bonds were a lot lighter in tone than Connery's. You'll always have the stunts, the women, the gadgets, the locations and the villains (which of course will be the films biggest attraction), but I definately think that EON will tailor their scripts to fit the leading man.

Originally posted by Loomis
And, BTW, just because you yourself didn't buy Moore as Bond, crashdrive, it doesn't mean that millions of others didn't too.

Granted, but did you ask me about my personal opinion.

[Simon]

Fluffy - erm, I guess I'm saying, could I see Owen meaning business as Bond and carrying the conviction.

It would appear as though the public opinion is the desire for more realism - all taken in context when looking at the Bond canon - but I don't see myself being interested in Owen's portrayal or what he could bring to the role. Having said that, I'm more than happy to be proved disastrously wrong.

Bale could bring an energy that commands respect and as for his previous roles in unlikeable characters, for me that is enough to bring him on and let him have a crack.

Moore was likeable, Dalton less so, Brosnan is everyone's best friend, ergo the time is right for a (maybe psychotic is the wrong word) truly dangerous and unaccountable character.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by crashdrive

In the 'Inside The Living Daylights' documentary, Wilson said they wrote the script fairly middleground. However 'Licence to Kill' was tailored to Dalton's strenghs. The Brosnans Bonds (especially 'TWINE' & 'DAD') are also very distinctly tailored to his acting style and Moore's Bonds were a lot lighter in tone than Connery's. You'll always have the stunts, the women, the gadgets, the locations and the villains (which of course will be the films biggest attraction), but I definately think that EON will tailor their scripts to fit the leading man.

I disagree. If Bond scripts are tailored to the actor of the day, then they are done so to a degree that is almost imperceptible. There is no such thing as a typical Connery script, a typical Moore script, a typical Brosnan script.... Connery could have done THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, Lazenby could have done THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, Moore could have done DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, Dalton could have done GOLDENEYE, and Brosnan could have done LICENCE TO KILL, all as scripted. It's the distinctive mannerisms and dialogue delivery of each actor that makes you THINK the script was specifically tailored to him.

[Trueman Lodge]

As has been mentoned previously, I think there will be a change of direction in the films after Pierce Brosnan leaves and I hope they go to a more realistic and darker tone. I don't think that Hugh Jackman could pull this off that well (although I have only seen him in X Men). Somebody like Christian Bale or Dougray Scott could. This change of direction may start with Bond 21, especially after the excesses of Die Another Day.

[rubixcub]

Yeah, I think Jackman is the front-runner at this point (although it seems the press is pretty clueless about it at this point).

Depending on when Brosnan steps down, the next guy will get the part in 2007 or 2009/10. Owen was born in 1965, so in 2007 he'll be about the right age (42) but in 2009/10 he'll be 44/45, which may be a little too old to go on for the long term. For that matter, Jackman would be a better choice for longevity.

Dave

[kevrichardson]

Originally posted by crashdrive

But since there is a chance Bond 21 will be Brosnans last, EON should at least have a replacement ready. The search is on.

WHit about the recent poll conducted with list Ralph Fiennes as the front runner . Just where does this leave threads like this . Since many have written that it's the causal Bond fan who matters .

[Loomis]

WHAT poll with Ralph Fiennes as the frontrunner? Where and when was it published? What authority does it have? Ralph Fiennes is a much unlikelier suggestion than anyone mentioned so far on this thread.

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Loomis
I disagree. If Bond scripts are tailored to the actor of the day, then they are done so to a degree that is almost imperceptible.

Although I agree a lot of films are inexchangable between the Bond actors, I do think the writers write with the lead actor in mind. Consequently, they write specific dialogue best suited for that specific actor. But maybe you are right the actors make you think through distinctive mannerisms and dialogue delivery that the script wasn't specifically tailored. One thing is for sure, the casting of a Bond actor doesn't affect the set pieces or locations.

[kevrichardson]

Originally posted by Loomis
WHAT poll with Ralph Fiennes as the frontrunner? Where and when was it published? What authority does it have? Ralph Fiennes is a much unlikelier suggestion than anyone mentioned so far on this thread.

Since most of you have been falling on your swords over the end of the Raymond Benson era. www.mi6.co.uk reported the result of a poll conducted by "Radio Times" . Ralph Fiennes beat the likes of Ewan McGregor and Russell Crowe. No Dominmic West , Hugh Jackman , Gerald Butler mentioned.

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Trueman Lodge
I think there will be a change of direction in the films and I hope they go to a more realistic and darker tone. I don't think that Hugh Jackman could pull this off. Somebody like Christian Bale or Dougray Scott could.

Dougray Scott is already out of the running. He declined an offer from EON. Why do so many fans think the franchise is going to be darker and more realistic? Personally I don't see this happening, although I would like a step down from the excesses of 'DAD'. Still, I think Hugh Jackman would be an excellent choice. He fits the tone of the current Bond perfectly.

Originally posted by rubixcub
Yeah, I think Jackman is the front-runner at this point (although it seems the press is pretty clueless about it at this point).

Odd isn't it that the media haven't figured this out. Goes to show EON's talent for keeping things under wraps. I don't think the fact that Jackman is a little younger helps him get the part. I just think he's a much more suitable choice compared to Owen

Originally posted by kevrichardson
WHit about the recent poll conducted with list Ralph Fiennes as the front runner . Just where does this leave threads like this . Since many have written that it's the causal Bond fan who matters .

Haha, I'm sure after 'Red Dragon' the casual fans will forget about the idea of casting Fiennes as Bond. After 'Van Helsing' though, I'm sure the people would demand Jackman to play Bond.

[Loomis]

I wouldn't give the time of day to a stupid Mickey Mouse poll conducted by the Radio Times! Robbie Williams gets 13% of the vote, which says it all.

[kevrichardson]

Originally posted by crashdrive
Haha, I'm sure after 'Red Dragon' the casual fans will forget about the idea of casting Fiennes as Bond. After 'Van Helsing' though, I'm sure the people would demand Jackman to play Bond.

I would not get too cocky over Hugh Jackman . I will EON take a chance on him with both "X-Men2" and this "VanHelsing" film . He will look like a super-hero specıalıst , as oppose to a actor . even Brosnan makes non-action films like "Evelyn" .

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by kevrichardson
I would not get too cocky over Hugh Jackman . I will EON take a chance on him with both "X-Men2" and this "VanHelsing" film . He will look like a super-hero specıalıst , as oppose to a actor . even Brosnan makes non-action films like "Evelyn" .

Jackman has starred in a wide variety of genres. In Australia he made a name with the romantic comedy 'Paperback Hero' and the gritty drama 'Erskineville Kings'. He was a musical star and his big break was the Oscar Hammerstein II musical 'Oklahoma' where Jackman played the lead Curly McLain. In the States, he has made two romantic comedies 'Someone Like You' co-starring Ashley Judd and 'Kate & Leopold' co-starring Meg Ryan. His last acting effort was 'Standing Room Only' a drama co-starring Alan Rickman.

[Turn]

Hugh Jackman's chances as Bond stand on how big he gets in the intervening years between now and Bros's retirement from the role. He's on the cusp of becoming a major star, sort of how Mel Gibson was in the mid 1980s. Since X-Men is an ensemble film, he isn't carrying the load by himself there, so there is no typecasting, but more big action roles and hit romantic comedies and that could be it.

EON will never be willing to meet his asking price. And he likely wouldn't want to commit to a role that takes five or more months to film and longer to promote.

[kevrichardson]

Originally posted by Turn
Hugh Jackman's chances as Bond stand on how big he gets in the intervening years between now and Bros's retirement from the role. He's on the cusp of becoming a major star, sort of how Mel Gibson was in the mid 1980s. Since X-Men is an ensemble film, he isn't carrying the load by himself there, so there is no typecasting, but more big action roles and hit romantic comedies and that could be it.
EON will never be willing to meet his asking price. And he likely wouldn't want to commit to a role that takes five or more months to film and longer to promote.

A "Wolverine" spin -off or X-Men 3 , "VanHelsing" series will take Jackman out of the running . EON does not like it Bond too be overexposed . Connery and Moore now Brosnan made picture in between runs as Bond . Jackman now stand a good possiblity of becoming just that. Does not work will for a Bond box-office.

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Turn
Hugh Jackman's chances as Bond stand on how big he gets in the intervening years between now and Bros's retirement from the role.

Although Jackman already confirmed he'd agree to play Bond in this interview, I still think you have a point. I don't think Jackman is as hot as Gibson was back then, but he's still the biggest and probably most expensive actor who would play James Bond. So far, he's not a big star yet. If you were to ask someone who Hugh Jackman is, I doubt they could answer the question. Yet, he's a star in waiting. 'Van Helsing' could make him a name actor. I guess it all depends on how well 'Van Helsing' will do at the box-office. If it will be a modest succes, I don't think he'll be too expensive, but if it will be as huge as 'The Mummy'-films, I think we can cross him off the list. If that happens, *sigh, who is left??

[Double-Oh-Zero]

I actually don't think that Jackman would or should get the Bond role. I know it's against the title of this thread, but that's what I think. I just don't believe he has the commanding presence that Brosnan, Sean, and the others have. If I were to see him on the screen as Bond, I'd immediately think "Look, it's Wolverine playing Bond," and I wouldn't be able to take him seriously in the role. Jackman has got the look and physical ability to play Bond, but has too many films and fame behind him, it would take the attention off his Bond role. I reeeeally feel that Owen should be considered, because he looks the part, has the action experience, looks right in a tux, and most of all, is a relative unknown. Most of the previous actors were the same, and because of this, focused their attention to the role of Bond and not a few other roles (which Jackman may ultimately have with Van Helsing and X-Men).

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Double-Oh-Zero
Jackman has got the look and physical ability to play Bond, but has too many films and fame behind him, it would take the attention off his Bond role.

Is Jackman really that more famous than Brosnan in 95? Or Moore in the early seventies for that matter? The way I see it, EON wants an actor they can trust. Someone they know can carry the franchise. It's just like with the casting of Moore. After Connery, EON needed a star, because they were afraid of a backlash after Connery's departure. I know many of you guys have only seen him in 'X-Men', but he's so different in that movie compared with how he normally looks in his films, I doubt people would make the connection. Can you honestly say to me that you watched 'Swordfish' and were thinking 'Look, it's Wolverine'? I think he has both 'the commanding presence' and the talent to continue the legacy.

As for Owen, he may have the 'commanding presence' and the talent, but he seriously lacks in the looks department. If he were to be cast, I think a lot of the casual fans will tune out after Brosnan's winning streak.

[Double-Oh-Zero]

Originally posted by crashdrive

Can you honestly say to me that you watched 'Swordfish' and were thinking 'Look, it's Wolverine'?

Yes. Numerous times.

As for Owen, he may have the 'commanding presence' and the talent, but he seriously lacks in the looks department.

Alright, I can agree with you on that one (sort of). He sure doesn't look like Brosnan, but I'd like to see a more Flemigesque Bond in the next actor. I don't think Fleming wrote Bond as the "Sexiest Man Alive" from People magazine (Bros did get that, right?), and I don't think a Bond actor has to be staggeringly handsome to play the role. Anyway, the real point I'm trying to make is that Brosnan did not have very many huge box-office smashes when he played Bond, and neither did the others. Moore had The Saint, Sean had a few small films before, and Pierce had Remington, Mrs. Doubtfire and Lawnmower Man. Essentially, if one has too many roles and series on the go when they do Bond, they won't really be seen as Bond or taken seriously by Bond fans. Not from me, anyway.

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Double-Oh-Zero
Anyway, the real point I'm trying to make is that Brosnan did not have very many huge box-office smashes when he played Bond, and neither did the others.

Although Jackman played in two box-office smashes ('X-Men' & 'Swordfish'), like you said, these films were ensemble features. 'Van Helsing' will be the big test. I think audiences had more problem believing Simon Templar and Remington Steele as James Bond than Wolverine as Bond for the simple reason Wolverine is nothing like Bond, whereas Templar and Steele are very much like Bond. I'm surprised you were reminded during 'Swordfish' this is the same guy who played Wolverine. I never had that problem.

[Loomis]

I don't believe Jackman is too famous to play Bond, but what I would say is that I think he's probably about as famous it would be possible for an actor to get while still remaining a potential candidate for Bond. If his career really takes off from here on in, then there'll be a big question mark as to whether he'll ever don the tux.

I'm keeping an open mind, and I'm not particularly pushing for Jackman, but right now I feel he's the likeliest suggestion for the next Bond.

[Simon]

Originally posted by Double-Oh-Zero

I don't think Fleming wrote Bond as the "Sexiest Man Alive" from People magazine (Bros did get that, right?), and I don't think a Bond actor has to be staggeringly handsome to play the role.  

Yeah, I think he wrote him, at least from the women's point of view, as dangerous and cruel......which would bring us back to not necessarily a likeable character........which would fit in with Bale and his angle.

[Double-Oh-Zero]

Originally posted by crashdrive
I'm surprised you were reminded during 'Swordfish' this is the same guy who played Wolverine. I never had that problem.

It was actually more prominent in his first scenes in Swordfish, but I think it was more the fact that he was with Berry again in this one, and it reminded me of X-Men, and thus Wolverine.

[kevrichardson]

Originally posted by Double-Oh-Zero

It was actually more prominent in his first scenes in Swordfish, but I think it was more the fact that he was with Berry again in this one, and it reminded me of X-Men, and thus Wolverine.

EON will not bank it's future on some like Hugh Jackman . The one thing that all of them Connery , Moore , Dalton , Brosnan had in common was that they were not over exposed to the public. Yes all made films out side Bond , yet it was not like yet a Jackman has done . Too many films does not work in favor of a person playing Bond.

[Simon]

I think you'll find that Moore was super exposed to the public as the Saint, world wide recognition.

Exemplified in that he was supposed to be the first actor to have become a millionaire through TV.

[kevrichardson]

Originally posted by Simon
I think you'll find that Moore was super exposed to the public as the Saint, world wide recognition.
Exemplified in that he was supposed to be the first actor to have become a millionaire through TV.

Roger Moore became Bond after his Television career more or less had "ended" . The Saint had finished it's run on international TV ( America /Europe) . And it was just in re-runs here in America . The TV sereis "The Pesuaders" with Tony Curtis was over . So he was free to concentrate on James Bond . EON llike for it Bond to work primarily on Bond with limited outside work during the 2 year (now 3 year ) break. Plus all of the gentlemen starred in smaller scale films . Not action series like "X-Men" or this "VanHelsing" film . The whole thing behind the long term contract is to be Bond.

[Simon]

Originally posted by kevrichardson
EON llike for it Bond to work primarily on Bond with limited outside work during the 2 year (now 3 year ) break.  

Ahh, I see now.

I'd love to see an example of one of the "handcuff" contracts that stipulates the above.

"Well, we'd like to have you on board son. All we need you to do now is to flick through this here contract. Take note of paras six and seven. We'd like you to be limited until we get the next show on the road. Don't worry about the six year break before Brosnan came on board - if we see something like that happening again, we'll let you know, and then you can become more, erm, prominent. How's that?"