23 replies to this topic

[crashdrive]

Looks like Clive Owen will probably not play James Bond. He'll star in the new Jerry Bruckheimer blockbuster;

'The Hollywood Report'; Owen will star as the titlecharacter in 'King Arthur', being eyed for a spring start with Training Day helmer Antoine Fuqua set to direct, is described as a demystified take on the tale of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table and promises a more realistic portrayal of Arthur than has ever been presented onscreen.

The film will focus on the history and politics of the period during which Arthur ruled -- when the Roman empire collapsed and skirmishes over power broke out in outlying countries -- as opposed to the mystical elements of the tale on which past Arthur films have focused.

This movie will do for Clive Owen what 'Gladiator' did for Russell Crowe. 'King Arthur' will probably make sure that Owen will not agree to sign a multi picture deal.

[kevrichardson]

CrashDrive , I have some sad late breaking new ! Clive Owens was never inthe running to become James Bond . It as all the usual media hype .

[ChandlerBing]

Did you get this late breaking news from the Carver News Group?

[Truman-Lodge]

There is no "official" running, Kevin Richardson. Brosnan hasn't even left yet.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

thats right, owens was never in the game to start with

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by BONDFINESSE 007
thats right, owens was never in the game to start with

The fact that Owen auditioned, is considered by many fans and journalist to be the most likely choice to replace Brosnan, has said in interviews he'd definately be interested AND the fact that BMW cast him as a Bond-like character in 'The Hire' proves he was definately in the game. But not anymore by the looks of it.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by crashdrive

This movie will do for Clive Owen what 'Gladiator' did for Russell Crowe. 'King Arthur' will probably make sure that Owen will not agree to sign a multi picture deal.  

On the other hand, it could sink without trace at the box office. Where's the guarantee that KING ARTHUR will turn Owen into the next Russell Crowe?

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Loomis
Where's the guarantee that KING ARTHUR will turn Owen into the next Russell Crowe?

The fact that it's the new film by the director of 'Training Day' and the new film by Jerry Bruckheimer who always knows how to deliver a hit, I think the numbers are on Owens side. Also, even if the film will not be a hit, Owen will still be a Hollywood leading man. Look at Colin Farrell, the guy is earning $10 million and his only hit movie was 'Minority Report'.

[RITZ]

I'm sulking as I write this:(

My BMW Films man seems to be out of the game. I'll have to dream on......

[Loomis]

Originally posted by crashdrive

The fact that it's the new film by the director of 'Training Day' and the new film by Jerry Bruckheimer who always knows how to deliver a hit, I think the numbers are on Owens side. Also, even if the film will not be a hit, Owen will still be a Hollywood leading man. Look at Colin Farrell, the guy is earning $10 million and his only hit movie was 'Minority Report'.

I suppose so. It'll raise Owen's profile at the very least, and no doubt swell his usual asking price, but I don't see that KING ARTHUR will automatically put Owen out of the running for Bond (unless, of course, it's a monster smash, but it would be absurd at this stage to suggest that it's any kind of surefire hit - even Bruckheimer has had his share of flops), any more than SWORDFISH and the X-MEN movies have scotched the chances of Hugh Jackman donning the tux.

I've noticed, crashdrive, that you seem to think that only virtual unknowns (Jeremy Northam, Dominic West, etc.) are likely candidates for Bond, although you make an exception in Jackman's case.

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Loomis
I don't see that KING ARTHUR will automatically put Owen out of the running for Bond, any more than SWORDFISH and the X-MEN movies have scotched the chances of Hugh Jackman donning the tux.

Well there is an obvious difference. Owen plays the titlecharacter of a multi-million dollar blockbuster by one of the hottest new directors and the most succesfull producer in Hollywood. 'Swordfish' & 'X Men' were two ensemble pieces. The star of 'Swordfish' was John Travolta. He was the reason people went to go and see that movie.

Originally posted by Loomis
you seem to think that only virtual unknowns (Jeremy Northam, Dominic West, etc.) are likely candidates for Bond, although you make an exception in Jackman's case.

Although I agree Dominic West is an unknown, I do think Northam is as famous as Brosnan was in the late eighties to early nineties. I had never heard of Brosnan before he was cast. Timothy Dalton was exactly like Northam and actors like Connery & Lazenby were probably as unknown as West. Roger Moore is the only well known actor who has ever played the part. It's obvious EON tend to go with established actors who are not a household name yet. The name Bond sells more tickets than 'a Brosnan', 'a Dalton' or 'a Moore' ever could.

I make an exception in Jackman's case for reasons I've stated above and also because he expressed interest in the role. Still, after 'Van Helsing', I think Jackman could be too expensive for EON.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by crashdrive

Well there is an obvious difference. Owen plays the titlecharacter of a multi-million dollar blockbuster by one of the hottest new directors and the most succesfull producer in Hollywood.  

With all due respect, crashdrive, here you are again taking it for granted that the film will be a "blockbuster". That's something that remains to be seen. Regardless of how famous or talented a producer or director is, the misfortune of having a flop visits everyone in Hollywood at some point. What if I'd said to you ten years ago: "Hey, there's this movie coming out called LAST ACTION HERO, the director's a guy called John McTiernan, who's done PREDATOR, DIE HARD and THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER and is one of the hottest directors in the business, and the star is none other than Arnie!"?

So I still maintain that KING ARTHUR might not be make a huge splash and put Owen out of the running for Bond. Certainly, it might, but then again it might not.

Originally posted by crashdrive

I make an exception in Jackman's case for reasons I've stated above and also because he expressed interest in the role.  

Do you know what Owen's views are on taking the role of Bond? Do you think he'd be likely to want to play 007?

Has he done a Dougray Scott and publicly dismissed suggestions of his playing Bond, or has he done a Hugh Jackman and hinted heavily that he'd be interested?

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Loomis
here you are again taking it for granted that the film will be a "blockbuster".

When I say 'blockbuster' I mean a movie designed to be a blockbuster. That's the way Bruckheimer makes movies. He knows how to market a film. If you make a list of his last ten films, you'd come to the conclusion that every one of those films was a hit. Of course the film may not be a big splash, but there is no denying that Owen has arrived. If Hollywood trust him enough for him to carry a film like 'King Arthur' (which will definately cost more than $100 million), I think it's save to say Owen can be considered a Hollywood leading man. And that will mean he's out of EON's pricerange. It's not like 'Last Action Hero' hurt Arnie's career. He went on to make 'True Lies', one of his biggest hits.

Originally posted by Loomis
Has he done a Dougray Scott or a Hugh Jackman

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.

[Loomis]

crashdrive, I've just searched for info on this King Arthur project, and you may be right. It seems to be a collaboration between Bruckheimer and Disney. Some sources suggest that it might be an ensemble-cast affair, though, in which case Owen may not be carrying it singlehandedly. But I'm sure it will do good things for his career, raise his profile and move him up in the acting world. However, it remains to be seen whether it'll do for him what GLADIATOR did for Crowe.

I think both of us are talking sense and making valid points here, though.

As for Owen's comments, they seem to suggest a man keeping his options open, and a man who might be interested if offered the Bond role, which surely wouldn't preclude him from remaining based in the UK (Brosnan may be spending more time in Hollywood than ever, but doesn't he live partly in the UK? Weren't Moore and Dalton based in Britain?)

I think you might enjoy this AICN Talkback on Owen from 2001 that I came across while hunting for KING ARTHUR information: http://www.aintitcoo...lay.cgi?id=9181

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Loomis
Some sources suggest that it might be an ensemble-cast affair, though, in which case Owen may not be carrying it singlehandedly. I think both of us are talking sense and making valid points here, though.

I think we see eye to eye on this matter. Although Owen will probably have a great ensemble cast of actors to assist him, I still think that the fact he's playing a titlecharacter suggests he has to carry a lot of weight on his shoulders, just like Crowe playing the titlecharacter in 'Gladiator' or Mel Gibson in 'Braveheart'.

Originally posted by Loomis
As for Owen's comments, they seem to suggest a man keeping his options open, and a man who might be interested if offered the Bond role, which surely wouldn't preclude him from remaining based in the UK

I think the main point Owen was trying to make is that he hasn't moved to the states, because he didn't feel the parts that were offered to him were good enough. Fast foward two years. Times have changed. He IS getting great parts offered to him ('Arthur' is a terrific role). It's obvious Owen prefers great roles over money or fame. Would the character James Bond be interesting enough for him? If he's getting great parts offered to him after 'Arthur', I'm sure he would prefer those over Bond. Actors like Jude Law, Guy Pearce and Christian Bale are perfect examples. Brosnan's career needed a boost and Bond was perfect for this. Owen kept his options open because he wanted to know whether or not he would need Bond to help his career. Now we know he doesn't.

[kevrichardson]

Yes Brosnan's career needed a boost . Still he has all ways be the Chief pretender to the throne . So his becoming Bond was a natural fit . Especially since losing the role in 1986. Plus EON had nothing too lose with him. The franchise was in limbo (6 years of no Bond) . So it was a match made in heaven . The reviving of the franchise with GoldenEye serve it purpose . Martin Campbell was firmly established a A-list director . Brosnan became the Bond of the 90's .And they was life left in the old boy (Bond) still. I don't see Owen, like in never saw Mel Gibson in the role. Forget Russell Crowe , god only knows how he is mention as a future Bond. The other you list don't have it either . At this point if all according to the post for Bond 21 is true . and pre-production will begin this year . We will be spared this since Brosnan will commit to Bond 22 in 2006/7 . Then end it . So the search for a new Bond will not begin until 2009 .

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by kevrichardson
So the search for a new Bond will not begin until 2009 .

Correction: the search for a new Bond should be over in 2009 or else EON won't have a new Bond. That means the clock is ticking. If West ages gracefully, I think he would be fantastic. He'll be 39 that year. Perfect age to be the new Bond. If Jackman isn't a big star, I think he has the best shot. Other candidates like Jeremy Northam will be too old by then.

[kevrichardson]

Originally posted by crashdrive

Correction: the search for a new Bond should be over in 2009 or else EON won't have a new Bond. That means the clock is ticking. If West ages gracefully, I think he would be fantastic. He'll be 39 that year. Perfect age to be the new Bond. If Jackman isn't a big star, I think he has the best shot. Other candidates like Jeremy Northam will be too old by then.

Okay the announcement should happen just before filming like with Dalton in 1986 and Brosnan in 1994 . That's still 6 years away . By that time a new candidate may appear . Perhaps even you!

[crashdrive]

Eventhough Dalton wasn't officially the next Bond till 86 and Brosnan till 94, EON approached them long before they ever got the gig (18 and 8 years respectively). Six years may sounds like we've got all the time in the world, for EON however, time is running out.

Six years from now, I'll be 28. Not a bad age to play Bond. Check my picture, what do you think

[kevrichardson]

Originally posted by crashdrive

Six years from now, I'll be 28. Not a bad age to play Bond. Check my picture, what do you think  

You should forward your information to EON . Especially Barbara Broccoli , remember she "discovered" Michael Billington .

[crashdrive]

Kev, I was only kidding. I wouldn't want to see myself as Bond. Besides, I don't have any acting experience, am not tall enough and I'm not from the Commonwealth.

I like Dominic West better.

[kevrichardson]

Originally posted by crashdrive
Kev, I was only kidding. I wouldn't want to see myself as Bond. Besides, I don't have any acting experience, am not tall enough and I'm not from the Commonwealth.
I like Dominic West better.

I understand your passion for Dominic West . Still Bonds have a long history of Dubbing Actors . You never know time may have come for a different type of Bond.

[SeanValen00V]

Originally posted by crashdrive



I make an exception in Jackman's case for reasons I've stated above and also because he expressed interest in the role. Still, after 'Van Helsing', I think Jackman could be too expensive for EON.

I don't think so, remember the huge paychecks EON was offering Mel Gibson at Goldeneye time, I think they'll have too, there will be pressure not to risk a film of a actor who's a step down from popularity of Brosnan.

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by kevrichardson
Bonds have a long history of Dubbing Actors.

In this day and age audiences will not accept a dubbed actor in the lead. Not when there are so many talented Commonwealth actors who could do the part justice, like West.

Originally posted by SeanValen00V
There will be pressure not to risk a film of a actor who's a step down from popularity of Brosnan.

Every time EON hires a new actor to play Bond, there is pressure. After Connery, many thought there couldn't exist a Bond without Sean. After Moore, people were worried audiences would find Bond to be out-dated. After Dalton, a lot of people were sure Bond was dead in the water.
Now we have a very healthy franchise. The last thing EON is going to do is hire an expensive actor to save the franchise. Eventhough Jackman could be getting more and more expensive, he'll not reach the popularity of Gibson for at least five to ten years (if ever). But after films like 'Van Helsing' and possible 'X Men' sequels, it could be that he's just too busy and not interested in yet another franchise. It all depends on how 'Van Helsing' will do at the boxoffice.