1519 replies to this topic

[Stephenson]

Before moving to Latin America, football was played by guys wearing pads and helmets and soccer was ... well, soccer. After moving here, a friend of mine asked a very simple question: Why do people from the States insist on calling it football when everyone on the team carries the damn ball everywhere and only one guy kicks it? From that moment on, soccer has become football, what was formerly just football has become "U.S. football" (although it remains as boring as watching paint dry), and hockey still rules (when it's actually played )!

[KB 007]

Football is probably boring to you because you don't understand it. Don't worry I know a lot of other girls that feel the same way.

[Pussfeller]

How about we stick to the topic at hand?

Edited by Pussfeller, 04 May 2005 - 09:23 PM.

[Stephenson]

How about we stick to the topic at hand?

Please can I respond? Please, please, please?

I understand U.S. football just fine. But are you actually going to tell me it's a tougher sport than either hockey or rugby? As for football (soccer), in Latin America the toughest place is in the stands .

[rogermoore007]

I understand U.S. football just fine. But are you actually going to tell me it's a tougher sport than either hockey or rugby? As for football (soccer), in Latin America the toughest place is in the stands .

Yes its tougher and fans can be quite rowdy. I played football (offensive line) in high school and I am now playing in college--it is definitely a tougher sport. I played soccer for one year and hockey for three in high school--in my humble opinion and experience, football requires as much if not more endurance than the other two sports and I take more of a beating every day than I ever did in hockey or soccer.

(Sorry that was so long, not really staying on topic, oh well )

Edited by rogermoore007, 05 May 2005 - 01:15 AM.

[Stephenson]

I'll bow out to your experiences.

Now, where were we? Oh right ... we still don't know anything.

[Blofeld's Cat]

"None of the Above" is still rating better than "Clive Owen." Only just though.

[KB 007]

My website is back up...

The poll doesn't work, I'm working on that right now. And the news is still from where I left off.

[trumanlodge89]

watched the layer ckae trailor. i really think craig could make a great bond if given a better hairstyle. lets give him a try. lazenby got to try...... if he doesnt work we'll find someone else...

[tdalton]

watched the layer ckae trailor. i really think craig could make a great bond if given a better hairstyle. lets give him a try. lazenby got to try...... if he doesnt work we'll find someone else...

I agree. Craig looked very good in the Layer Cake trailer, and there were a couple of clips in there that I thought that he carried himself very much the same way that Dalton did during his tenure as Bond. I know it's a trailer, and that you can't take a lot away from that, but it's one of the few things that I've actually been able to see Daniel Craig in, so I have to base a lot of my opinion of him off of that as well as the fact that I've heard from numerous people that he is a very good actor.

If it's not going to be Clive Owen, then I don't see why EON and Sony shouldn't give Daniel Craig a chance. Taking a chance like this could be just what the Bond franchise needs to reinvigorate itself and it could turn out to be one of the best things that could ever happen for the franchise, or it might not, but it's definitely worth the risk, IMO.

[Hawkeye]

This guy isn't listed in your poll but how about Paul Blackthorne. He played Steven Saunders in series 3 of '24'. follow this link to see a picture;
http://www.imdb.com/.....kthorne, Paul

[Forever007]

Good actor but not Bond material. Blackthorne would need a major Conneryesque rug to cover that kind of baldness and with todays's cameras it's too hard to hide. CGI is for the stunts not the hairline!

Edited by Forever007, 07 May 2005 - 01:41 AM.

[Skudor]

This guy isn't listed in your poll but how about Paul Blackthorne. He played Steven Saunders in series 3 of '24'. follow this link to see a picture;
http://www.imdb.com/.....kthorne, Paul

Plausible enough as a candidate.

I saw Gerard Butler in The Phantom of the Opera last night. Enough for me to put him in the 'I won't cry if he's Bond' category.

[Bondesque]

I watched Nip/Tuck last night and saw McMahon. He wouldn't kill the series but I don't think he has the dramatic weight to be Bond (and it doesn't take that much) found him too slick and a bit too dandy. I wish Craig was 3 inches taller and had some major facial work done.

Jackman, Owen or Butler! Looks/sex appeal...who could kick serious butt and give the performance respect.

Face it folks...Bond needs to get the respect that Jason Bourne has and take itself as seriously!

[spynovelfan]

I wish Craig was 3 inches taller and had some major facial work done.

Perhaps McMahon could do it. I don't think it's implausible he could have *something* done. Affleck had his teeth capped and everything for ARMAGEDDON. I agree that Craig would fill a lot of people with dread, but I reckon if he pulled it off and was cool, by the next film people would have reimagined him. The same way we have done with Steve McQueen:



Objectively speaking, he wasn't much of a looker, was he? But because we know how cool he was, he becomes better looking. Admittedly, Daniel Craig currently looks like he's lived through some kind of apocalyptic windstorm, before having his face dragged across a dustbowl and then left to mature in a cellar marked 'Scary Looking Actors Who Should Only Ever Play Nazi War Criminals'. But still - he *could* do it.

[Mr. Somerset]

My website is back up...

The poll doesn't work, I'm working on that right now. And the news is still from where I left off.

Great website, by the way!
I'm still hoping for Owen, though it's not looking like he's getting it. I also think Purefoy might be interesting these days.

[KB 007]

Thanks.

Oh and by the way, the poll works now.

[Bondesque]

Craig could be in the MQueen mode however it would take a HUGE full fledged campaign to sell him as "cool" to the public. Why go through all of that extra effort with easier candidates like Butler available for the role? He would require the normal publicity campaign not a drastic image change. Or even better hire Owen or Jackman and marry thier current celebrity status with the Bond PR machine (and for goodness sakes EON do the PR right this time!)

[Forever007]

The more I look at Jack Davenport's work the more I see Bond. At 32 he is a t the right age for Casino Royale's proposed plot and could age very well into the role for many years to come. Damn good actor to boot.

Edited by Forever007, 09 May 2005 - 06:01 PM.

[H.M.Servant]

Face it folks...Bond needs to get the respect that Jason Bourne has and take itself as seriously!

I don't agree. The Bond series has a cinimatic history that the Bourne series will never have. It doesn't have to compete with these (or other) films. People go to Bond movies expecting to see a Bond movie. Their expectation is based on 40 years of Bond films. They have never been serious spy movies, but action filled adventure films.

Brosnan was a great Bond and he made the series even more popular. When the next Bond is cast it will continue in popularity. But Bond is the star of the films, not the actor.

[Stephenson]

If that is the case, then why such concern over who will be Bond?

[Bondesque]

"They have never been serious spy movies, but action filled adventure films."

You dont think that From Russian With Love was considered a serious spy movie back in 1963? Of course it was. I am not saying that Bond has to become Bourne but that Bond has to take itself seriously as a film. EON needs to decide what direction they want to go. If they want a dark edgey spy thriller then go balls out and make a great one. IF they want to go with the lighter comedic fare then by all means make it the best ever in that genre. My problem is that they try to be all things to all audiences and as a result Bond has lost a bit of his identity and the quality of story has suffered.

[Monsieur B]

I don't quite understand how Bond would become of comedic fare, the only hint of comedy in the films has only come from the few scenes at Q Branch and those scenes aren't long, they're only 3-5 minutes at most, also those scenes can be quite humurous; a slight change from the seriousness of the overall film. Almost a relaxing temporary transition, I think. And concerning the Bond buzz, everyone is wondering who Bond will be is because, IMHO, Brosnan will be a tough act to follow up, but I agree that people go to the cinema to see Bond. The actor's name behind it only adds a hint to the popularity plus gives the actor more recognition. When Brosnan became Bond, 007 became popular again. Everyone liked Brosnan because he's suave, he has sex appeal, he was bad-. Heck, wasn't he voted Sexiest Man Alive or something to that vein? But I don't think that Bond is deteriorating and hitting a downward spiral into a clich

[Skudor]

Apparently Julian McMahon will return for the third series of Nip/Tuck (see here for the only comment on this I could find; scroll down to the end). Sounds like this might clash too much with Bond - although it's inconclusive as to whether they film this in advance or not (I'm guessing not). The season would at any rate finish before Casino Royale premieres.

Edited by Skudor, 10 May 2005 - 12:48 PM.

[Forever007]

That's probably a good thing. McMahon simply doesn't have it and has a nasty case of male pattern baldness building. I like Nip & Tuck a lot and McMahon's character but he's not James Bond. Bond is more than just pure looks.

[SecretAgentFan]

Although I think that McMahon is an underrated and real good actor (like Brosnan), I consider him out of the race because Nip/Tuck won

[Johnboy007]

I try to wait until I can see these actors in films before I can make judgements. Today I saw Dominic West as Lysander in "A Midsummer's Night Dream", while not an action flick; it gives a good idea about who can wear a tux and act sophisticated. This is not Dominic West. He's not a ladykiller, he's not particularly tall and doesn't look like he could hold his own in a fight, and his voice is not one suited for a Bond.

Definite no for West.

[Forever007]

The more I think about Casino Royale the more I think that the next James Bond will defintely not be Pierce Brosnan. It would seem to make more sense to entice a younger better actor, that EON is after, having a Fleming title and story to work with. It would be different if it was a script made up from nothing based on nothing titled Never Die Tomorrow or something typical of the latest Bond films. EON can have Pierce back any time the want and they know it. He loves the role and it broke his heart to lose it and that's a nice thing for EON to have in their back pocket. Casino Royale gives EON a Fleming classic that would be a great way to introduce a new actor in the role of James Bond. Plus it would be more appealing to a new actor to work with a Fleming title and story something Pierce Brosnan never had. As much as I liked Pierce I'm all for a new fresher Bond and no better way to introduce him than in the Flemingeque way. If Pierce makes a final Bond film then they should shelve Casino Royale for the next guy and let Pierce Never Die Tomorrow.

[KB 007]

What about this guy? He's from England, has dark hair, and he's 37 so I thought I would see if anyone has seen him in anything.

Dominic Mafham:

[Herchu]

Hello,

I just read an article on the Web page of a well-known Argentine daily that according to Judi Dench, Pierce Brosnan will be again Bond in Casino Royale.

Is it truth?

Here is the link, it

Edited by Herchu, 16 May 2005 - 03:33 AM.