1519 replies to this topic

[BONDFINESSE 007]

Originally posted by Tarl_Cabot
Can we please just hire him now and dump Pierce "I wanna take an extra year off "Brosnan now? Brosnan is too old for further films anyway. He said he would do only 4 and I wish he'd stick to his guns. I think Jackman will blow him away, providing he gets a decent script, something EON hasn't been able to produce for  over a decade.

jackman is not worthy to carry brosnan shoes, he might do ok but he will never shine like brozzie

[Rayliottaasbond]

I'm all for seeing what Jackman can do as Bond! Whether i think he will is a different matter. In the early 90's Mel Gibson was rumored to play Bond if you remember, but then it was revealed to be bogus and that Pierce Brosnan was going to be signed. When this happened most of you were like "Who?!" weren't you? Let's face it, alot of you didn't have a clue who pierce was. It really annoyed me at the Goldeneye premiere when the guests were saying "i always thought Pierce would make a good Bond"

I think this will happen for Bond 22, instead of getting a star to play Bond, they'll get an unknown to make a star out of through Bond.

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by BONDFINESSE 007
butler just feels right, you know what i mean crashdrive...the way you feel about west, thats how i feel about butler

Well, you know. Hugh Jackman is actually my first choice. I like West a lot, but I've come to realise that he may not be Bond material. Especially after I saw him in the 'Mona Lisa Smile' trailer. I really like Butler (I've covered all three actors in my 'Next Bond'-series together with Jack Davenport), but every time I see an interview or see him onscreen he just doesn't feel right. He fits the profile and sometimes look great in images I've seen of him, but the reason why Jackman is so popular is that he's almost too good to be true. As much as I like Butler, West and Davenport, they don't even come close to Jackman. That's why I feel so strongly about his potential. I'd be very surprised if someone other than Jackman will end up with the role.

[SeanValen00V]

Hugh Jackmen:
Most popular actor of all choices known world wide,
still in his 30s,
Bankable star, he's famous, no doubt about it, he would sell Bond films as much as Brosnan does,
Aussie actor George done a Bond film, so I don't think fans would mind another Aussie actor,
And Jackmen likes James Bond and would play him

say what you want, but EON will definately consider Jackmen, he's seems the right person to follow Pierce.

[SeanValen00V]

Originally posted by Rayliottaasbond
I'm all for seeing what Jackman can do as Bond! Whether i think he will is a different matter. In the early 90's Mel Gibson was rumored to play Bond if you remember, but then it was revealed to be bogus and that Pierce Brosnan was going to be signed. When this happened most of you were like "Who?!" weren't you? Let's face it, alot of you didn't have a clue who pierce was. It really annoyed me at the Goldeneye premiere when the guests were saying "i always thought Pierce would make a good Bond"

I think this will happen for Bond 22, instead of getting a star to play Bond, they'll get an unknown to make a star out of through Bond.

If Mel Gibson wanted to play Bond, he would have, but he didn't, as a actor it didn't appeal to him.

Where as Jackman actually would play James Bond as if he's a fan, and say yeah I'm Bond, you get that from him, he's tall, popular, and bankable, a favorite for Bond 22.

[taxman2001]

Jackman won't play Bond.

He said all the same things he has about Bond to Clive Cussler (about his creation Dirk Pitt) when it began to take shape that the film version of Sahara was to be made.

He backed out of that after stringing the Cusssler & co. along.

If it does happen then I will be suprised.

Frankly Jack Davenport would make a more convincing Bond.

[Qwerty]

I'm really not quite sure yet. If I had to choose, my votes would probably go to Owen or Jackman, but it's WAY TOO EARLY TO BE ABLE TO TELL.

[Alpha Dog]

Daniel Day Lewis- because a convincing Bond needs to be a bit world weary. Any of the above actors who could also play a partying frat boy should be disqualified.

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by taxman2001
Jackman won't play Bond. He said all the same things he has about Bond to Clive Cussler (about his creation Dirk Pitt) when it began to take shape that the film version of Sahara was to be made. He backed out of that after stringing the Cusssler & co. along.

Why play Pitt if you can play Bond? My guess is that Jackman realized that by playing Pitt, he could forget about Bond, so he made the decision to play a totally different character in 'Van Helsing'. Jackman is a fan and Barbara Broccoli was impressed after seeing him onstage. He's the fans number one choice and he's famous enough to replace Pierce Brosnan. He's a shoe-in (in my humble opinion of course). Jack Davenport doesn't seem tough enough to play Bond.

Originally posted by Alpha Dog
Daniel Day Lewis- because a convincing Bond needs to be a bit world weary. Any of the above actors who could also play a partying frat boy should be disqualified.

Day Lewis would never agree to play Bond unfortunately. I guess we have to make due with candidates like Hugh Jackman, Gerard Butler & Clive Owen.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by crashdrive

Jackman is a fan and Barbara Broccoli was impressed after seeing him onstage. He's the fans number one choice and he's famous enough to replace Pierce Brosnan. He's a shoe-in (in my humble opinion of course). Jack Davenport doesn't seem tough enough to play Bond.

I see you've cooled on Davenport, crashdrive.

As for Jackman, to be honest I now see him as the only choice. Butler's probably the guy to play Bond if Jackman doesn't play him, but he comes a very, very poor second to Jackman. Northam would probably follow Butler, while Christian Bale I view as somewhat in the Daniel Day-Lewis league - I reckon he sees himself as a serious actor who'd be a little too good for Bond (and would be unlikely to sign a three-picture contract). Owen? I'd love him to play Bond, but I doubt he'll ever get the opportunity. McGregor? Scott? Unsuitable. James Purefoy? Dominic West? Too unknown. Davenport? Too young-looking and not tough-looking enough. Russell Crowe? Colin Firth? Ralph Fiennes? Mel Gibson? Hugh Grant? Too famous/old/unsuitable-looking.

Nope, it's Jackman, Jackman or Jackman, as far as I can see.

[crashdrive]

Perhaps Davenport will be more Bondian when he's in his fourties, but at the moment, he's still too posh and not tough enough to play Bond. I wish I could find a better candidate than Hugh Jackman (who isn't my picture perfect choice), but at the moment he seems like the only acceptable choice. I'm still having doubt about Gerard Butler, but he does look good though. He could be perfect by the time Brosnan steps down.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

Originally posted by crashdrive
Perhaps Davenport will be more Bondian when he's in his fourties, but at the moment, he's still too posh and not tough enough to play Bond. I wish I could find a better candidate than Hugh Jackman (who isn't my picture perfect choice), but at the moment he seems like the only acceptable choice. I'm still having doubt about Gerard Butler, but he does look good though. He could be perfect by the time Brosnan steps down.

....amen crash drive, amen brother, butler is my horse to win in the bond race....i hope

[bryonalston]

Hugh Jackman is the perfect candidate for James Bond. Bond requires two roots, action, and emotion (romance, feelings, etc...) Hugh Jackman has both of these qualities. He's done some pretty big action films, and has done several love stories. This might produce a new kind of Bond character, unlike Connery-Lazenby (the debonair, suave man) Moore (simply comedy) Dalton (too hard-edged?) Brosnan (mixture of all three) If Jackman was like one of the previous Bonds, it would have to be Dalton, who had a similar acting Background. Jackman seems like he'd bring more of a hard-edged action thriller, but still use the Brosnan formula of keeping it above "regular" action thrillers.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

i hope what ever we do we dont get close to another dalton style actor, one dalton was more then enough

[Jaelle]

Wow, this thread is HUGE!!!

Just some points:

I'm one of the people who likes the idea of Clive Owen for Bond simply because he's a brooding, dark, convincingly menacing actor. I strongly disagree that Owen in The Bourne Identity is a "pussycat" (or in any of his films). I think he's pretty scary in that film. I've seen him in the delightful Greenfingers, Bourne, Croupier and Gosford Park. Owen is a little Daltonesque in that he has a very dangerous, compelling presence, with a great hint of mystery and intrigue. Granted, he's not terribly handsome, tho I found him to be quite attractive in Greenfingers and Croupier. I find Owen more compellingly attractive than Jackman (who's very pretty) because he has a presence and masculinity that I find lacking in Jackman. Lots of men are not necessarily handsome but they have a charm, style, power and masculine presence that makes them very attractive. I think Owen's like that. I don't see that in Jackman.

I tried clicking on those GQ photos but nothing came up.

Jackman is ok. I've seen him in X men and Kate & Leopold. He's been here in NYC rehearsing for Oz on Broadway (a musical). I just don't find him as convincingly dangerous and ruthless as Owen.

But by the time Pierce goes, Owen might be too old. And they wouldn't pick Owen anyway. Jackman is prettier, so I'm sure they'll go with that.

I've seen Dominic West in Chicago. He was pretty good but I'd have to see more to form an opinion. I can't recall who Dougray Scott is. I love Jeremy Northam (as well as Colin Firth) but he's getting on in years. He'd be very suave, I just don't know if he'd be convincingly ruthless.

One thing I've noticed among all the names put forth, however: few if any of them are very familiar to the US audience. Given that one of Dalton's major crimes was that he wasn't familiar to US audiences, I would think this would be a very important criteria for the next actor to play Bond. I also like Ioan Gruffud and Ewan McGregor but, again, I just don't see them as Bond.

But then again, actors can surprise you. Many times I've heard of a particular actor being cast in a famous role and thought "No way!" And then the guy surprises me. As for Colin Farrell, I think this guy is way overrated. He's very boring to me, he has no presence at all on screen. I like Sean Bean very much, too bad they'd never hire him.

And my daughter and I lust after Oded Fehr, so I wouldn't mind at all seeing him do an ethnic version of Bond!! (He's the only reason I watch the Mummy movies). Just fantasizing, mind you!

Pierce's suggestion of Paul Bettany is fascinating. I just saw him in a small BBC theatrical film here in NYC, co-starring Helena Bonham-Carter. You know, I might consider him... I do love Ralph Fiennes. He'd bring a great brooding quality to the character, but he's getting too old too.

*sigh* It's too bad Viggo Mortenson isn't British and taller. None of these choices bowls me over, tho. Altho I send kudos to the person who mentioned Daniel Day-Lewis! But again, too old and he definitely would not be interested in the role.

One thing, tho: I seriously think that the series needs some fresh intake of change after Brosnan. The series is just getting very, very tired. Something new has to be injected, an actor sufficiently different from Brosnan, something. They can't go for a copy of Brosnan.

From Tarl:
"Can we please just hire him now and dump Pierce 'I wanna take an extra year off' Brosnan now?"

Didn't Roger and Sean wind up play these games too, always hemming and hawing about leaving, waiting for more money, etc.

As for Hugh Grant, NO WAY!!

[Tarl_Cabot]

Yeah But Pierce SUCCEDED!! Arrrggg!!! An extra year to wait and we get a lousy Bond film.

[crashdrive]

Hey Jaelle, I'd like to comment on your remarks.

I myself have been a strong supporter of Jackman and have never understood why Clive Owen had so many fans amongst Bond purist. My problems with Owen are exactly the points you mentioned in your message. First of all, his appearance. Bond actors have always been conventionally handsome. Clive Owen is a long way from being ugly, but he just doesn't have those conventionally leading man looks. My stance on Owen has softed ever since I saw him in the trailer for Martin Campbell's 'Beyond Borders', but I still think he leaves a lot to be desired about. Click here for his GQ photoshoot.

Hugh Jackman on the other hand seems like a perfect choice. Unlike Owen, I think Jackman can be menacing. I never bought Owen as a contract killer in 'The Bourne Identity'. He's believable in the BMW films, but I doubt he could be a ladykiller like Connery or Brosnan. He strikes me more as someone who has one Bond girl throughout the whole film (see 'The Living Daylights'). Now, that was interesting for a couple of movies, but I believe Bond should stay the same. Especially now that audiences have really embraced the way Brosnan has played the part. I think Jackman could handle Brosnan's Bond and insert his own strengths into the part: his physicallity, his toughness and his menace.

I do agree with the rest of your comments though.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Jackman has a good sense of humor and is charming. He's an all terrain Bond if needby and he'll pack em in.I just prefer Bond to have black hair like 4 of the 5 men who played him.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

well i aint in any hurry to say goodbye to pierce, i will wait and enjoy him to the full, be it one more or two more or 3 more, and i cant see anyone more menacing then him....did yall see the look he gave the camera in lachaise's office in the world is not enough?....fabulous...just fabulous

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by BONDFINESSE 007
did yall see the look he gave the camera in lachaise's office in the world is not enough?

Hmm, how original.

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by crashdrive
Hey Jaelle, I'd like to comment on your remarks.
I myself have been a strong supporter of Jackman and have never understood why Clive Owen had so many fans amongst Bond purist. My problems with Owen are exactly the points you mentioned in your message. First of all, his appearance. Bond actors have always been conventionally handsome. Clive Owen is a long way from being ugly, but he just doesn't have those conventionally leading man looks. My stance on Owen has softed ever since I saw him in the trailer for Martin Campbell's 'Beyond Borders', but I still think he leaves a lot to be desired about. Click here for his GQ photoshoot.
Hugh Jackman on the other hand seems like a perfect choice. Unlike Owen, I think Jackman can be menacing. I never bought Owen as a contract killer in 'The Bourne Identity'. He's believable in the BMW films, but I doubt he could be a ladykiller like Connery or Brosnan. He strikes me more as someone who has one Bond girl throughout the whole film (see 'The Living Daylights'). Now, that was interesting for a couple of movies, but I believe Bond should stay the same. Especially now that audiences have really embraced the way Brosnan has played the part. I think Jackman could handle Brosnan's Bond and insert his own strengths into the part: his physicallity, his toughness and his menace.
I do agree with the rest of your comments though.

Hi crashdrive (interesting name, that).

I agree with you that not only isn't Owen as good-looking as Jackman but also not as good-looking as any of the other 5 Bond actors. So for that reason alone, I don't believe he'd be chosen even if he wanted the role. I also think that your point about character actors on another thread is quite relevant to this. Owen would be less interested in doing the same leading man role for so many films. For that reason, I believe that even if Dalton had proven highly successful with audiences and with MGM/UA, he would not have gone on for too many films either. Dalton has always been happier doing character parts, he gets bored very easily.

Now *I* personally find Owen compellingly attractive in a way that I don't find Jackman. There's a mystery and intrigue about Owen that attracts me. (We'll agree to disagree about him in Bourne). My best friend feels the same way too, for whatever it's worth. But we're just a couple of middle-aged broads with a taste for dark, brooding, intense, mysterious men so our opinions don't count for much.

As for Jackman, I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised by him. But I do have doubts. After all, I'm in the minority around here in that I've never been entirely convinced of Brosnan's level of ruthlessness or level of menacing danger. For me, Pierce's Bond is terribly likeable, very well-adjusted. That would be a JackmanBond too. Very much a crowd-pleaser which is, after all, the whole point. I just wish they'd find an actor who could be both a crowd pleaser AND have that element of dark, scary ruthlessness that I'm personally looking for in the next James Bond.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Jaelle

I also think that your point about character actors on another thread is quite relevant to this.  Owen would be less interested in doing the same leading man role for so many films.  For that reason, I believe that even if Dalton had proven highly successful with audiences and with MGM/UA, he would not have gone on for too many films either.  Dalton has always been happier doing character parts, he gets bored very easily.

If you'll forgive me, I think it's just an assumption that Owen (as a so-called character actor) would be likely to tire of the Bond role more rapidly than someone like Brosnan or Jackman. Like Brosnan, Owen would be able to do other films outside the Bond role. It's interesting that you feel that Dalton "would not have gone on for too many films either". You know Dalton and his work much better than I do, Jaelle, so I'm not saying you're wrong, but I never got the impression that Dalton would have wanted to walk away perhaps a little earlier than others would have liked him to.

If all had gone well with audiences and MGM/UA, I reckon Dalton would have left the Bond role round about 1997, but only because of his age. I'm sure he'd have been quite happy to do five or six films in total.

But going back to Owen, does it matter if Brosnan's replacement(s) "only" do four or five films, max? Does it matter if the next guy does fewer films than that, say one or two? As long as the performances and films are of a decent standard, and as long as there are always replacements to be had, I don't see that it does matter. In fact, a more rapid turnover of Bond actors might even be good for the series. I think it's pretty obvious that no one will ever again come close to Moore's record of seven films.

Originally posted by Jaelle

As for Jackman, I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised by him.  But I do have doubts.  After all, I'm in the minority around here in that I've never been entirely convinced of Brosnan's level of ruthlessness or level of menacing danger.  For me, Pierce's Bond is terribly likeable, very well-adjusted.  That would be a JackmanBond too.  Very much a crowd-pleaser....

I agree with you 100%, Jaelle. Those are also my reservations about Jackman. "Bland" is the word that springs to mind.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

its to jaring to the audience to keep replacing bonds after just 2-3 movies, if it ever comes to that, u need someone in the role like roger and brosnan so that u can care about the character, if you keep turning them out you will never build up continuity. thats why roger was so great to have, he had been around 12 years and people liked him as well as bond

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Loomis
If you'll forgive me, I think it's just an assumption that Owen (as a so-called character actor) would be likely to tire of the Bond role more rapidly than someone like Brosnan or Jackman. Does it matter if Brosnan's replacement(s) "only" do four or five films, max? Does it matter if the next guy does fewer films than that, say one or two?

It's more than just an assumption. And he doesn't seem very keen to play the lead in a series like Bond. Here is his answer to the question whether or not Bond would be a possibilty. The quote is from Newsday (dated: Thursday, July 26, 2001);
"It's very flattering to be talked about in that way, and if someone's considering it, that would be fine," he said. "But years ago, I made a decision to stay in the U.K. as opposed to putting together a career here (America) because the stuff that was coming my way in this country were smallish parts in not very well written movies.
"I see a lot of big-budget movies here that are made in such a way that they'll put [high-profile] people in [to generate publicity or to justify the budget]. But it's hard for an actor to be good in them. I think to be very good in a small film is more important than being part of a big film just for the sake of being in it."
In other interviews he only said he was never offered the part. Make of this what you will. My interpretation is that Bond probably is a little too lightweight for Owen.

As for Dalton, don't forget EON wanted him to stick around. Sure his second film was a let down, but no more so than Roger Moore's second film. "GoldenEye" was written with Dalton in mind. It was Dalton's decision to step down. Why? "The public", he said, "had associated me with the role for eight years, and that was long enough." He was eager to move on to new challenges. I'm sure he would have left the series even if 'Licence to Kill' was a huge smash (which it was outside of the U.S.). I see the same thing happening with Owen.

No, I don't think it would be good for the series if we get a new guy every two years. People want to know what to expect. The reason why the Brosnan films do so well is because audiences know they can trust Brosnan. A new Bond is a huge risk. We need a little consistency. If you change the Bond actor every two to three films, people will tune out.

As for Jackman, well, you could say all the previous Bond actors were "bland" before they took on the role. But that's the beauty of Bond. It's like espionage; there's always more than meets the eye. Jackman has the skill to surprise you. I think he'd be absolutely perfect. I'm really interested how he would tackle the role.

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Loomis
If you'll forgive me, I think it's just an assumption that Owen (as a so-called character actor) would be likely to tire of the Bond role more rapidly than someone like Brosnan or Jackman. Like Brosnan, Owen would be able to do other films outside the Bond role. It's interesting that you feel that Dalton "would not have gone on for too many films either". You know Dalton and his work much better than I do, Jaelle, so I'm not saying you're wrong, but I never got the impression that Dalton would have wanted to walk away perhaps a little earlier than others would have liked him to.  
If all had gone well with audiences and MGM/UA, I reckon Dalton would have left the Bond role round about 1997, but only because of his age. I'm sure he'd have been quite happy to do five or six films in total.

Of course you're absolutely right when you say that it's just an assumption that Owen as a character actor would tire of the Bond role more easily than Brosnan or Jackman. It's really just speculation on my part. After all, Cary Grant was hardly a character actor yet he said he would do a Bond film, but only *one.* While many character actors have reappeared on TV and films to reprise famous roles more than once.

As to Dalton, I am quite certain that Tim wanted to do at least a third film, possibly a fourth. But I honestly can't see him *wanting* to do more than that, except of course for financial reasons. After all, this is the guy who chose to resurrect Rhett Butler for purely financial reasons (he made a ton of money on that but *really,* Tim!!). As a stage actor, he was known for wanting fairly limited runs on all his plays because he felt his performances were getting tired and repetitive after a certain point. If he did choose to go on to do as many as 6, I personally wouldn't have liked the idea but that's me.

But going back to Owen, does it matter if Brosnan's replacement(s) "only" do four or five films, max? Does it matter if the next guy does fewer films than that, say one or two? As long as the performances and films are of a decent standard, and as long as there are always replacements to be had, I don't see that it does matter. In fact, a more rapid turnover of Bond actors might even be good for the series. I think it's pretty obvious that no one will ever again come close to Moore's record of seven films.[/B]

Ah, there you hit the nail on the head! Thank you for making what I think is the all-important point in this discussion: the same actor playing Bond for as long as Moore played him is NOT an advantage to the films or the character, imo. Not by any means. I think it would speak very well of Brosnan if he limited his run to 4 or 5 films. Audiences get bored very easily---people already know what to expect of Pierce as Bond. I see nothing wrong with an actor playing Bond for two or three films. It would invigorate the series, I think.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by crashdrive

It's more than just an assumption.

Well, no, it is just an assumption. We can't possibly know how long Owen would want to remain in the Bond role if he landed it.

Originally posted by crashdrive

It was Dalton's decision to step down.  

Really? Wasn't it the case that MGM refused to finance any more Dalton Bond flicks after LICENCE TO KILL and basically put pressure on Broccoli to give Dalton his marching orders? I remember reading an interview with Dalton in August 1990 (I remember the date very clearly because of where I was when reading that interview) in which he said he was greatly looking forward to playing Bond again, but with a new director.

Originally posted by crashdrive

If you change the Bond actor every two to three films, people will tune out.

Between 1967 and 1973 there were no fewer than three changes of Bond (Connery to Lazenby, Lazenby to Connery, Connery to Moore), yet audiences did not tune out (other than, arguably, for ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE). And you could just as easily point to A VIEW TO A KILL and argue that keeping the same guy around for too long results in audiences getting bored.

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by crashdrive
It's more than just an assumption. And he doesn't seem very keen to play the lead in a series like Bond. Here is his answer to the question whether or not Bond would be a possibilty. The quote is from Newsday (dated: Thursday, July 26, 2001);
"It's very flattering to be talked about in that way, and if someone's considering it, that would be fine," he said. "But years ago, I made a decision to stay in the U.K. as opposed to putting together a career here (America) because the stuff that was coming my way in this country were smallish parts in not very well written movies.  
"I see a lot of big-budget movies here that are made in such a way that they'll put [high-profile] people in [to generate publicity or to justify the budget]. But it's hard for an actor to be good in them. I think to be very good in a small film is more important than being part of a big film just for the sake of being in it."

Interesting, Dalton said a very similar thing (using many of the same words) in a 1997 radio talk show interview in St. Louis while promoting The Informant. When I first heard this interview, I wanted to scream at him "So why the hell didn't you STAY in the UK where you have so many more choices for good roles instead of sticking in LA where you get offered ****???" Owen's right. It's extremely difficult for a non-US actor to flourish in Hollywood films. Anthony Hopkins is a rare exception, and even he had to do **** for so many years on TV before his success.

As for Dalton, don't forget EON wanted him to stick around. Sure his second film was a let down, but no more so than Roger Moore's second film. "GoldenEye" was written with Dalton in mind. It was Dalton's decision to step down. Why? "The public", he said, "had associated me with the role for eight years, and that was long enough." He was eager to move on to new challenges. I'm sure he would have left the series even if 'Licence to Kill' was a huge smash (which it was outside of the U.S.). I see the same thing happening with Owen.[/B]

Well it was more MGM/UA's decision to boot him out that was really behind that. Yes, EON and the Broccolis wanted him (and Cubby fought hard for him). That EON press release saying that they never thought of anyone but him as Bond for the next film is absolutely true. And even tho his contract had run out in 1990, Tim continued to work with EON on the new script, consulting on decisions for casting and directors, etc. He fully intended to do a third film. He was quite involved in the early stages of preparations for GOLDENEYE. As late as September 1993, he's quoted in TV Guide as saying he's preparing for the next Bond film and denies any rumours that he's stepping down. Much later in a radio interview from 1996, Tim said "I was of two minds about it for 18 months." That I can believe, because Tim's feelings about being Bond were always ambivalent anyway. But had MGM/UA not forced the decision, Tim would have done Goldeneye at least.

But anyway, as to Jackman, if it turns out that he gets the part, I'll certainly go into the theater with an open mind and give him a chance.

[crashdrive]

Well, of course I can't predict the future, but I do believe there is enough proof that would back up my "assumption" that an actor like Jackman would me be more willing to stick around for the long run than an actor like Owen. Jackman doesn't have a problem signing onto a franchise (proof: 'The X-Men' & 'Van Helsing'), whereas Owen likes to play a wide range of interesting characters. For an actor like Owen, the character of Bond may get a little boring after a couple of films. I can't imagine he'd want to play him for a ten year period even if he has the chance to make non-Bond films. He doesn't need Bond the way Brosnan needed Bond back in 95. After 'GoldenEye', Brosnan was able to work with interesting directors like John Boorman and Richard Attenborough. Clive Owen however has already worked with filmmakers like Robert Altman, Mike Hodges and Jerry Bruckheimer (not to mention John Woo, Tony Scott, John Frankenheimer, Guy Ritchie, Ang Lee and all of the other BMW directors). He doesn't need a platform for bigger films since he will star in 'King Arthur' produced by one of the biggest moviemakers in the industry: Jerry Bruckheimer. Now, of course the same could be said about Jackman, but I didn't consider him to be a realistic candidate after I read comments that he indeed would be interested in playing Bond (he even said that he would do a screentest if neccesary). It's obvious that Jackman is more than eager to play Bond whereas Owen has only made comments that he "would consider an offer". Hence, I think it's save to say an actor like Jackman is less likely to tire rapidly than Owen.

I'm sure Dalton was still enthusiastic back in 1990, but if you flash forward four years, I'm sure Dalton was sick of journalists asking him again and again when they can expect a new Bond film. He was associated for 8 years with the role, he said, so I'm sure he would have walked out earlier than 1997.

As for your last comment; there is a difference between three new actors and going from Lazenby to Connery to Moore. Connery was already established as Bond. Audiences loved him and if he hadn't stepped in, I think there is a good chance the series would indeed have died. 'Live and Let Die' didn't do as good at the boxoffice than 'Diamonds Are Forever' and 'The Man With The Golden Gun' performed even worse. If there wasn't a gap of three years between 'Golden Gun' and 'The Spy Who Loved Me', I think 'Spy' wouldn't have been the hit it turned out to be. Now, if you cast a new actor every two to three movies, I think a lot of casual fans wouldn't know what to expect from a new Bond film. I'm sure this sounds exciting in your ears, but some people don't like the idea of taking a risk when they hand over their 8 bucks to go see a movie. I want an actor who will establish himself as Bond and make the role his own.

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by crashdrive
I'm sure Dalton was still enthusiastic back in 1990, but if you flash forward four years, I'm sure Dalton was sick of journalists asking him again and again when they can expect a new Bond film. He was associated for 8 years with the role, he said, so I'm sure he would have walked out earlier than 1997.

He *was* sick of journalists constantly asking him about the next Bond, tho he never showed it publicly. He was the public face of James Bond during the drought years and it fell to him to answer all those repetitive questions about what's going on with the Bond franchise, while the media (financial as well as entertainment press) was dissing the Bond franchise for being in such a financial, legal mess. While he was trying to promote his own work he always had to answer those questions. So when he says that a part of him was relieved to have left Bond, I believe him.

You make a good point about Owen already doing work with directors of that caliber, by the way. And as to a 2-year change in Bonds, well, ok. Perhaps that's too little. But I also think that *seven* films is too much.

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Jaelle
But I also think that *seven* films is too much.

Oh absolutely. I totally agree with Loomis that it's simply not possible or wise to let one actor star in seven Bond films. But I don't think four or five is too much to ask. In that time, an actor can establish himself as Bond. Here's a quote from the 'Die Another Day' review by Roger Ebert: "I realized with a smile, 15 minutes into the new James Bond movie, that I had unconsciously accepted Pierce Brosnan as Bond without thinking about Sean Connery, Roger Moore or anyone else. He has become the landlord, not the tenant." I don't know about you, but I want new landlords, not new tenants.