Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: And the next James Bond is... Wolverine?!?

This is topic And the next James Bond is... Wolverine?!? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002640

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 10-27-2003, 06:00 PM:

Hugh Jackman as the new James Bond?

Clive Owen is now stating that he will not be the new James Bond, but rumors have it that Hugh Jackman could be the man to replace Pierce Brosnan.

World Entertainment News Network reports that Jackman is the top contender for the role. It should be noted that Brosnan still plans to do the next Bond movie before possibly stepping down from the spot.

Other rumored contenders include Ioan Gruffudd, Jeremy Northam, and Paul Bettany.

and in other Bond Related News...

Halle Berry's Jinx Gets Canned

So much for the Bond spin-off...

The much talked about James Bond spin-off starring Halle Berry, titled Jinx, has been canned. MGM has pulled the plug on the movie for unknown reasons. Focus is now going to the 21st James Bond film which will start shooting in 2005.

Credit: Variety

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-27-2003, 06:16 PM:

I think they should make a jamesBond film with him retred with Connery and Maxwell retired to there country estate (living in Sin of course) with Odd Job as there butler and a furry white cat that hangs around:)

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 10-27-2003, 07:24 PM:

Gordon - Odd Job died in Fort Know a long time ago.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-27-2003, 07:38 PM:

Yah but one must remember in movies people get either resurected, clonned, or the identical twin surfaces [Smile]

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 10-27-2003, 07:57 PM:

It'd have to be a clone as the guy who payed OddJob is dead, IIRC. For real dead.

Ron Yost

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-27-2003, 09:34 PM:

Why do they want to replace Pierce Brosnan or did he quit (after waiting so long to get to play the part)? Isn't a Bond generally good for at least 10 years?

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 10-28-2003, 12:12 AM:

By the time the next bond comes out it will be close to ten years. Last I read Brosnan will be back for one more Bond but has stated that He is growing tired of the physical work it takes to play the character.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-28-2003, 12:48 AM:

The whole Bond franchise is getting pretty boring to me. If they want to spice things up, they should really get Chris Elliott for the role. That would be entertaining!

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 10-28-2003, 07:36 AM:

It would be great to hand over one film to a good suspense director and actually film a Fleming story. In the hands of the right person, the book "The Spy Who Loved Me" could make a taught thriller. Kind of return to its origins.

Unfortunately, the problem is that it isn't wide in scope and wouldn't fit into the formula people now expect from the series, as evidenced by what Eon did to the story in 1977.

Posted by John Scott (Member # 520) on 10-28-2003, 11:10 PM:

The only problem with that Hillary is that when Fleming sold the rights to the books to Broccoli and Saltzman, one of the stipulations was that if they were to use "Spy Who Loved Me", they were only allowed to use the title. Fleming didn't like how the story in the book turned out and said it could never be adapted into a Bond movie in any form.

Having read all of the books, I see where Fleming was coming from there, but I really did appreciate the effort that Fleming made to try and escape from the format he had gotten himself locked into, even though it wasn't 100% successful.

Remember, Fleming had gotten bored with the Bond character after the 5th book, "From Russia With Love" and intended the kick that Rosa Kleb gave him in the hotel room to be a fatal blow. He was convinced to bring Bond back by his publisher in Dr. No, because the books had become so successful due to Kennedy listing it as one of his favorite books.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 10-29-2003, 08:17 AM:

Yeah, I read that at some point, the producers were only allowed to use the titles, although after that point, many story elements from the books were used in the films, most notably "For Your Eyes Only," which combines two short stories from the FYEO collection, plus the paravane/shark scene from the book "Live and Let Die." Was it just on specific titles like TSWLM? I still think that would make a decent little indy film if done properly. I think it was John Huston who once said that he'd rather try to film a bad book than a good one, so he could improve the story rather than be criticized for not following it properly (very much paraphrased, there).

And didn't Fleming end the series AGAIN at the end of "You Only Live Twice" with Bond blissfully unaware of his past, living the rest of his life in Japan? And then brought back one more time in "The Man With The Golden Gun"..?

The gadgets are getting very silly (invisible Aston Martin), and it's time again to bring Bond back down to earth, but apparently a small motel in the woods is not quite the answer. [Big Grin]

These days, it seems like Jack Bauer from 24 has more in common with Ian Fleming's character than the movie Bond.

Posted by John Scott (Member # 520) on 10-29-2003, 08:55 AM:

That is correct. Bond was only brought back in the posthumously published "The Man With The Golden Gun", which was taken from a first draft found in Fleming's notes. Its clear it was a working draft though, the book is terrible.

And yes, the movie "Bond" has gotten very far from the Bond of the books. Unfortunately time and again, moviegoers have voted with their pocketbooks and have said they don't want a Bond like the books (On Her Majesty's Secret Service, License to Kill)

As for the movies like For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, and A View From A Kill, those three books were short story compilations (or the actual short story titles) and as such, they merged a couple of the short stories into these films.

I think the only (or one of the few) actual Fleming Bond titles still available for use is "Risco" "Quantum of Solace" and "The Hildebrand Rarity", titles that probably wouldn't be conducive to a film.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 10-29-2003, 07:37 PM:

I love discussing Bond!

I agree, they ran out of good titles a while ago. LIVING DAYLIGHTS was the last actual Fleming title used if I remember correctly.

My biggest beef with the series is that other producers used to copy the Bond films. Now the Bond films copy other movies (increasingly others within the series). No longer the gold standard in the action genre. While it would be nice to see something more along the lines of OHMSS, I'll still see new ones as long as they keep making them.

As for Hugh Jackman, how many more X-MEN films are planned, and would his appearance in those affect his eligibility as Bond?

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-29-2003, 08:23 PM:

To me James Bond movies ment gorgeous girls fast cars gentelmanly violence and special effects that were reel not digital lets show off

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 10-29-2003, 10:14 PM:

Exactly what Gordon said. Bond movies don't have the greatest stories.

Posted by Bill Mantz (Member # 754) on 10-30-2003, 01:43 AM:

I think it is time to retire the Bond movies they don't seem to be appealing anymore as the older movies were.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 10-30-2003, 07:21 AM:

I think Sam Neill would be a good Bond. Maybe not the most action one, a little aged, but quiet, cynical and deadly.
Bond cannot be played by an American actor. He has to be British, or at least Australian.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 10-30-2003, 09:19 AM:

"He has to be British, or at least Australian."

Or Scots (Connery), or Irish (Brosnan).

Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 10-30-2003, 11:31 PM:

Sam Neil is a Kiwi , not Aussie although they will claim him as one of their own , like they did with Pavlova [Big Grin]

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 10-30-2003, 11:42 PM:

How about Ahnold?

"AHNOLD SWAZZENENGER is......."

"JAMES BOND in....."

"The governor who loved me, grabbed my ass, then terminated me."

Dave

Posted by John Scott (Member # 520) on 10-31-2003, 09:03 AM:

Sam Neil tested for the Bond role in the 80's when Moore stepped down after "A View To A Kill".

This was the first time that Pierce was offered the role but had to turn it down because NBC decided to renew "Remington Steele" at the last moment.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 10-31-2003, 11:37 AM:

I'm with Steve. What's wrong with Brosnan?

A big appeal of the Bond movies to me is the travel to exotic lands and the (often) lush scores.

(Leaving wide open for Phil.)

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 10-31-2003, 07:30 PM:

I think James Bond is a product of the 1950s and 1960s, and his character does not stand up very well to "being updated" all the time.

Although I liked the Roger Moore Bond films a lot, they just moved the Bond series towards the standard razzle-dazzle action movie standard.
IMHO, they should put back the James Bond character into the early 1960s, the Cold War was a much better stage for that type of cynicism and cool style. Less big action, more character and better villains, that should make for better new Bond films.

BTW, the Modesty Blaise thrillers by Peter O`Donnell are so much superior to Ian Fleming`s novels that I wonder why nobody brought that great character back to the silver screen (the over-stylish, lame Joseph Losey version made in 1966 doesn`t really count). What a role for Angelina Jolie or another beautiful lady, an action and acting job at the same time!

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 11-03-2003, 02:08 AM:

I agree with Christian. The Bond movies tried to evolve, but they really are 60s movies. Folks who are such Connery-only-is-Bond fascists may not realize that they are just still locked into the first-run era of the movies when they worked best. Personally, I liked Moore best of the UA movies, & thought he did a great job with something that was sliding fast out the door. In retrospect, the Connery movies become more & more strange & antique. Brosnan seemed to be just a cardboard cutout, & the worst; I'm glad he's gone! Lazenby was even more of a real character & did a better job making the movies work. Jackman's a better actor, & figures out how to make things work. Could be good!

The true James Bond is, of course, David Niven.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-03-2003, 02:12 AM:

Although I wouldn't consider myself to be a fascist, Connery is my favourite bond. It's not that he was first... I like anything he does.

I heard that fascists don't send in member pictures.

Posted by Hugh McCullough (Member # 1542) on 11-03-2003, 04:26 AM:

Hillary said

quote:
"He has to be British, or at least Australian."
Or Scots (Connery), or Irish (Brosnan).

British - Pertaining to Great Britain, or it's inhabitants.
Britain - England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland considered as a unit. The name is also often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom.
Wales was politically incorporated with England in the 16th century, and the Act of Union formally united Scotland with England in 1707.
In 1801, Great Britain was united with Ireland (from 1921, only Northern Ireland, Ulster,) as the United Kingdom.
Therefore any person who is English, Welsh, Scottish, or Northern Irish can be considered to be British.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 11-03-2003, 08:11 AM:

Thanks for the clarification, Hugh. When everyone in the USA is a hyphenate (African-, Italian-, Irish- Asian-, etc. -American), we tend to be a little more geographically specific, rather than all-encompassing.

And I really liked George Lazenby as Bond. [thumbsup]

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 03-03-2005, 11:58 PM:

It has been 486 days since the last post.

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 03-03-2005, 11:58 PM:

P F'ING DIDDY as the new Bond????

http://www.moviehole.net/news/5162.html

You can pull Clive Owen out of the 007 frontrunner stakes. The Oscar nominee has apparently nixed the idea of him donning Brosnan's worn tux for good, and instead donated all his future free-time to Wolfgang Peterson. He'll be taking on the remake of " The Poseidon Adventure" and the role of Rev Frank Scott, originally played by Gene Hackman in the 1972 original.

Insiders are predicting that whether it's Julian McMahon or Hugh Jackman, it's going to be an Australian behind the new-improved Aston Martin for "Casino Royale". Whilst other sources say Daniel Craig ["Tomb Raider"] is in deep discussions, and that P Diddy may be very well in with a chance to be the first black Bond.

Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 03-05-2005, 04:53 AM:

I thought I would make a great Bond ,

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 03-05-2005, 10:32 AM:

This was posted at Comingsoon.net

While he previously was believed to have passed on the role due to his Nip/Tuck schedule, UK's The Mirror now says Julian McMahon is one of two frontrunners for James Bond in the upcoming Casino Royale.

The 36-year-old Australian reportedly said: "I'm a big James Bond fan. I met the producers for a final audition. They told me to expect a decision in a couple of months and they said it was between me and one other person. It's going to be a very nervous wait."

The other person in the frame is believed to be British actor Clive Owen.

McMahon will next be seen on the big screen as Dr. Doom in 20th Century Fox's Fantastic Four.

I personaly think that McMahon would make a great bond...This was also posted at Comingsoon.net. From Director Martin Campell

Martin Campbell, who directed Pierce Brosnan's first turn as James Bond in Goldeneye, is returning for the 21st film Casino Royale, based on the first Bond adventure written by Ian Fleming in 1953. MGM is targeting for a November, 2006 release.

The director talked to the New York Daily News about the movie, which will feature a new actor as 007. "There are things that will have to be changed from the original novel," says Campbell. "The Cold War elements will have to be reconfigured, for example, but 'Casino Royale' will be a grittier, tougher and more realistic Bond movie.

"We'll be getting away from the huge visual effects kind of films," he added. "In the new film, Bond is essentially starting out in his career, and has just recently become part of the double-0 section."

"The idea is to put a bit of the dash back in Bond. By the end of the movie, the character will have been forged into the wiser, harder Bond we know."

But my personal vote for the New Bond has to be the G-Man [gord]

"McLeod....Gordon McLeod!" [Wink]

[ 03-06-2005, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Kurt Zupin ]

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 11-13-2005, 10:13 PM:

It's interesting how these things play out ... Daniel Craig was only mentioned briefly. [Smile]

quote: Michael Gonzalez
Whilst other sources say Daniel Craig ["Tomb Raider"] is in deep discussions