Who should/could be a Bond actor?

168697173741229

Comments

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited August 2015 Posts: 8,195
    The only time I saw Owen as Bond was in his BMW short films. Here he looks the part.


  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    As for Clive Owen, back in 2005 he was the only actor I could see as Bond and I was very, very disappointed when it was reported that the deal went bust because BB didn't want to pay a percentage of the revenue additionally to the fixed amount Owen would have been paid.

    Clive Owen was not approached and didn't screen test.


    So they say...

    Funny that little details from the contract negotiations went through the media....
    Did they just dream everything up then??
  • Posts: 15,105
    You are building a conspiracy theory here. They say he was not approached, was not screen tested... Any evidence that he was?

    Clive Owen was rumored back then and some of the public thought he would make a great Bond. I for one can't see it at all. Decent actor, sure, maybe even great with the right material, but the tuxedo does not make Bond.

    Oh, and had he been an actor instead of a baritone, I think Simon Keenlyside could have made a great Bond, when he was younger.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Clive Owen is so boring on screen. Charisma free zone.
  • Posts: 15,105
    Getafix wrote: »
    Clive Owen is so boring on screen. Charisma free zone.

    He looks like a haggard boxer who drinks too much. Okay, so Bond drinks too much, but not to the point of being constantly haggard.
  • edited August 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Clive Owen is so boring on screen. Charisma free zone.

    He looks like a haggard boxer who drinks too much. Okay, so Bond drinks too much, but not to the point of being constantly haggard.

    He might have suited SF. That would have been great. A one off a la OHMSS then DC back to continue where QoS left off.

    I quite like the idea of one off Bond movies with one actor - for one time only.

    I also want to see them start doing period Bonds. Go back to the 1950s, 60s and 70s. Why not have Bond in the Royal Navy during WW2. There's so much fun to be had. Young Bond. Old Bond. The timeline is blown (not that I care) so why not just go with it. Let Tarantino do a one off 50s period piece. Remake some of the previous title.
  • Posts: 709

    So they say...

    Funny that little details from the contract negotiations went through the media....
    Did they just dream everything up then??

    Yes. Spoiler alert - Entertainment media makes up stories and rumors to sell papers/get clicks. Do a search, Owen has repeatedly said he was never offered the role. He was rumored/discussed on the internet but this is meaningless in reality (It is likely that his publicist/management encouraged these rumors to keep 'buzz' about him going strong. Not a coincidence that he did several Bond-lite roles at around this time - Shoot em up, The International, Duplicity etc).

    And really, think about the "points" thing for a moment. Gross percentage points are only given to an elite group of major stars who have a proven track record of hits and whose presence guarantees an audience will turn up - Cruise, Smith, Hanks, DiCaprio. How on Earth was box office dud Owen, who had just appeared in the studio flop King Arthur, in any position to demand points? That's the most laughable part of that story.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Clive oWen has been in some real rubbish. What's that stupid one with Robert DeNiro?
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    It's beyond laughably shocking how some people seem to believe the media only reports factual truths. Crikey.

    As for Owen, how does this guy get any work? He's beyond boring and has no charisma whatsoever. There's more life in the old, "mind the gap" London Underground annoucements" even when his character in the Bourne identity died, it was bored-inducingly dreary. We really dodged a nuke with him not being cast as Bond.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Totally agree. Craig is infinitely better
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    While I agree on Owen being boring he has made some really good movies like:
    Children Of Men
    and especially Shoot Em Up is great. I also enjoyed him in Sin City.

    "It's beyond laughably shocking how some people seem to NOT believe anything the media reports" - this could be my reply, but I'm more balanced than this...

    Most rumours have some truth behind it, everything the media tells us has to be taken with common sense and good judgement.

    I wonder why this bashing of Clive Owen, maybe it's too much for some to imagine someone else could actually have been Bond than Craig.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Clive Owen is Jason Statham with hair.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I don't mind Jason Statham. He has no pretensions to be being a great actor. He's an action hero and does good fight scenes. He knows his strengths and sticks to them.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Jason Statham has delivered so many great action movies I almost lost track of them, there are so many.

    Transporter, The Bank Job and Safe are my Top 3 in no particular order.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    I'm another statham fan here
    He is not a great thespian dramatic actor but he is a great action star with a very nice personality and charisma.
    He is very attractive as well I most add
  • edited August 2015 Posts: 1,661
    It seems unbelievable to think Eon didn't consider Clive Owen. That's what doesn't appear to add up. Owen claims he was never approached but there's online webpages claiming he was offered the part but wanted a percentage deal. Same was alleged about Hugh Jackman.

    http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_5710.html
    According to a report by entertainment trade Variety correspondent Michael Fleming, producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson lost the chance to have Academy Award-nominated actor Clive Owen (41) assume the title role in the James Bond film empire when they refused to include gross profit points for the actor’s contract. Gross profit point sharing is a common consideration given to marquee actors.

    As a result of the snub, the producers not only find themselves without a leading man with production on the next James Bond film "Casino Royale" scheduled to begin in January, but their Bond heir-apparent Owen has added insult to injury by agreeing to parody the 007 James Bond character by playing a spoof version named 006 in the comedy remake "The Pink Panther" starring Steve Martin as bumbling Inspector Clouseau.

    Even if that's made-up reporting, it's hard to imagine Broccoli and Wilson not asking Owen to do a screentest or to come in for a chat about the part. An informal meeting just to get an impression of the guy. I'm pretty sure Owen said he was never approached nor was he ever interested in the part and that does seem somewhat hard to believe. He turned down Bond or rather, wasn't interested in the role at all, but was happy to play a spoof spy in a Pink Panther reboot? I can't believe he would do that. Bond would be better than a spoof spy in a comedy, surely?

  • zebrafishzebrafish <°)))< in Octopussy's garden in the shade
    Posts: 4,341
    Broccoli and Wilson knew what they wanted, and Owen did not make the cut. Simple as that.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    It seems unbelievable to think Eon didn't consider Clive Owen. That's what doesn't appear to add up. Owen claims he was never approached but there's online webpages claiming he was offered the part but wanted a percentage deal. Same was alleged about Hugh Jackman.

    http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_5710.html
    According to a report by entertainment trade Variety correspondent Michael Fleming, producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson lost the chance to have Academy Award-nominated actor Clive Owen (41) assume the title role in the James Bond film empire when they refused to include gross profit points for the actor’s contract. Gross profit point sharing is a common consideration given to marquee actors.

    As a result of the snub, the producers not only find themselves without a leading man with production on the next James Bond film "Casino Royale" scheduled to begin in January, but their Bond heir-apparent Owen has added insult to injury by agreeing to parody the 007 James Bond character by playing a spoof version named 006 in the comedy remake "The Pink Panther" starring Steve Martin as bumbling Inspector Clouseau.

    Even if that's made-up reporting, it's hard to imagine Broccoli and Wilson not asking Owen to do a screentest or to come in for a chat about the part. An informal meeting just to get an impression of the guy. I'm pretty sure Owen said he was never approached nor was he ever interested in the part and that does seem somewhat hard to believe. He turned down Bond or rather, wasn't interested in the role at all, but was happy to play a spoof spy in a Pink Panther reboot? I can't believe he would do that. Bond would be better than a spoof spy in a comedy, surely?

    The evidence suggests Owen was indeed approached and they were in negotiations.
    That this was always denied by the parties involved is not surprising. That's very common in Hollywood, the agents that represent actors act in confidentiality.
    It is even possible, that EON forces an agreement of strict confidentiality even if there is no contract in the end.
    But as I said, for some people it is hard to believe someone else than Craig could have been the first choice for EON.
  • Posts: 15,105
    For the record, Craig was not my first choice and I was skeptical about him at first. But I never understood what some people found in Clive Owen and still can't. So I have little difficulties accepting he was not considered.
  • edited August 2015 Posts: 1,661
    Just my gut feeling - I reckon Jackman and Owen would have been EON's number 1 candidates after the news broke that Brosnan wasn't to come back for a fifth film.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3988029.stm

    Dated Saturday, 6 November, 2004

    If you look at the films Jackman/Owen were making in 2004/2005:

    Owen: King Arthur, Closer, Sin City - all high profile US films,

    Jackman - Van Helsing - big budget action film,

    .... you get the impression EON would regard those two actors as established at the top level in Hollywood and suitable for Bond. Jackman had already played Wolverine in two X-Men films so there could have been some conflict of interest between the actor taking Bond or wanting to make more X-Men films - but Owen was in the perfect spot career-wise to take James Bond.

    King Arthur hadn't been a big success but he continued to get big roles in 2005/2006. He starred with Denzel Washington in Inside Man in 2006. He was in demand by studios.

    When you look at 2004 - 2006 time period, the period when Brosnan was not asked back and the release of Casino Royale with Daniel Craig - Owen and Jackman were in a great position to become Bond. Owen had nothing to lose and Jackman could have thought "two X-Men films is enough, I want to be James Bond."

    I can't think of many other candidates that were in such a strong position. Cavill was not getting big roles, Daniel Craig was in Munich but Eric Bana was the star of that. Craig's Invasion film (remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers) was made before Casino Royale but released after and had bad reviews.

    Ioan Gruffudd could have been the other serious candidate given that Fantastic Four was released in summer 2005 and was a hit. In terms of timing, Grufford was in the ideal position. He has got the lead in a big comic book film, his star was rising.

    Based on all of the above my gut feeling is

    Jackman
    Owen
    Gruffudd

    would have been offered the part or given serious consideration. Their position within the industry and their profile - Jackman and Owen's profile was very high at the time - would make them top priority for EON? I would think so.


    Edited update - not sure the precise year when Brosnan was told he wasn't coming back. 2004 might be the wrong year. Pardon if I got that wrong. Need to check.






  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    Getafix wrote: »
    Clive Owen is so boring on screen. Charisma free zone.

    So is Craig, imo. Owen could have been good, or not. Despite taking on some Bond-ish roles, I never got the feeling that Owen was interested in actually being Bond.
  • Posts: 15,105
    @fanbond123-Owen, Jackman and Gruffud playing in big blockbusters would have played against them actually, especially for Jackman, already associated to Wolverine. Craig's relatively low profile at the time was actually an asset.
  • Posts: 709
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    It seems unbelievable to think Eon didn't consider Clive Owen. That's what doesn't appear to add up. Owen claims he was never approached but there's online webpages claiming he was offered the part but wanted a percentage deal. Same was alleged about Hugh Jackman.

    http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_5710.html
    According to a report by entertainment trade Variety correspondent Michael Fleming, producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson lost the chance to have Academy Award-nominated actor Clive Owen (41) assume the title role in the James Bond film empire when they refused to include gross profit points for the actor’s contract. Gross profit point sharing is a common consideration given to marquee actors.

    This is the point I made earlier. "Marquee actors". The notion of Clive Owen being a marquee actor is laughable. Let's entertain the fantasy notion that this is true. An actor with no blockbuster hits to his name is demanding a percentage of profits? This clearly shows he isn't really interested in Bond, but he's saying to EON alright, if you pay me a really, really big amount of money, I'll show up, and phone it in. No commitment or genuine interest in the role, so good riddance to bad rubbish.

    Anyway, back in reality, let's recall that EON originally envisioned the Bond of CR as being 27 years old, which would have ruled out Owen. Actors CONFIRMED to have screentested were Matthew Goode, Luke Mably, Rupert Friend, Henry Cavill, Sam Worthington, Alex O'Loughlin. Obviously they expanded the age range a bit later on, as I recall DC entered the conversation right around Layer Cake opening in the US. Let's look at the archives:

    https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond_21_report_november04.php3?t=bond21

    and this one (on the other site!) seems more definitive:
    http://commanderbond.net/2995/the-men-who-could-have-been-bond.html

    I didn't know Antony Starr (Banshee) tested. Don't get me wrong, EON hired the right man, but I'd still be interested in seeing that alternate universe CR.
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    What about Simon Baker, Australian actor from the Mentalist. Sorry couldn't work out how to post a picture, I'm a tech genious!
  • edited August 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote: »
    Clive Owen is so boring on screen. Charisma free zone.

    So is Craig, imo. Owen could have been good, or not. Despite taking on some Bond-ish roles, I never got the feeling that Owen was interested in actually being Bond.

    I don't totally disagree with you. He's been overhyped by a lot of people as this amazing actor. He's not. But there is a consistency and plausibility to his performance which is nice after what came before. Also, I can't really think of anyone who'd be doing a better job right now.

    Of those alleged contenders listed above I only think Jackman might potentially have been better, but I have no idea what his accent is like.

    Of others out there I think Fassbender could have been a good Bond.

    Right now I'm okay with Craig. Neither he nor his films blow me away, but we could be in a much worse situation so I am grateful for what we have. I worry that Mendes took a step backwards with SF though and I am really hoping that SP addresses what I see as the failings of the previous film.

    There was a nostalgic stodginess to SF that stuck in the throat after the freshness of DC's first two. I don't want that taste of reflux again.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    In what way? The structure and themes to SF had not been addressed before to that degree.

    Many fans still long for a lot if the iconic elements back.

  • Posts: 11,425
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    In what way? The structure and themes to SF had not been addressed before to that degree.

    Many fans still long for a lot if the iconic elements back.

    I thought SF did bring back a lot of the 'iconic' (tired/lazy IMO) elements back though. That would be my point.

    CR and QoS wiped the slate clean. There was this sense of freshness and possibility. And then Mendes comes along and it feels like in one movie all the tired old tropes are back in place suddenly. It's a real waste of a fantastic opportunity.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited August 2015 Posts: 4,116
    I guess Bond did wipe the Slate clean in QS ..ha haHA hhaaa...ummm nevermind
  • edited August 2015 Posts: 11,425
    That's a bad joke... I-)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    In what way? The structure and themes to SF had not been addressed before to that degree.

    Many fans still long for a lot if the iconic elements back.

    I thought SF did bring back a lot of the 'iconic' (tired/lazy IMO) elements back though. That would be my point.

    CR and QoS wiped the slate clean. There was this sense of freshness and possibility. And then Mendes comes along and it feels like in one movie all the tired old tropes are back in place suddenly. It's a real waste of a fantastic opportunity.

    This.
Sign In or Register to comment.