"The name is Bond. Moneygrubbing Bond."

[Signe]

Oh God.  I can't believe I asked that.  I just realised what he meant.  I thought there was some actor named Jason Bourne but couldn't find him when I googled.

D'oh!

[Shockeye]

Isn't Jason Bourne a fictional character?

Aren't you?

[Signe]

I might be a fig newton of your imagination...  I seem to have crunchy bits that get stuck between your teeth, though so chances are, I'm the real deal.

[stray]

I'm sorry, the Bourne Identity is cool and all, but a character named "Jason" is not going to be the new Bond.

[schild]

I'm sorry, the Bourne Identity is cool and all, but a character named "Jason" is not going to be the new Bond.

James and Jason.

Bourne and Bond.

Hey, guess what, I think they've already done it.

[stray]

I'm sorry, the Bourne Identity is cool and all, but a character named "Jason" is not going to be the new Bond.

James and Jason.

Bourne and Bond.

Hey, guess what, I think they've already done it.

Wait...I thought this guy was the replacement Bond, *if anything*?








Wait a second, I mean this guy:




As for Jason Bourne...Yeah, he's a spy (or something like that), and definitely an asskicker. I'm sure he could even kick the shit out of James Bond as well. But is that enough to replace Bond? No.

Why?

No sense of cool. On one hand, you have Bourne, who doesn't even know his identity, let alone how to be cool. He just knows how to kill. On the other hand, you have Bond, who not only knows his own identity -- he's even impressed by the sound of his own name. And not only can he kill -- he does it wearing a goddamn tuxedo. Flak jackets just aren't that cool.

Secondly, Bond Girls. Bourne has had what? One pasty Russian damsel in distress?

[schild]

Val Kilmer would be an interesting Bond. Seriously though, I wish the Saint had become a series [of movies].

[SirBruce]

Val would be interesting, but I think he'd be too old.  He's 45; only 6 years younger than Brosnan.  Jude Law is only 32.

Bruce

[schild]

Val would be interesting, but I think he'd be too old.  He's 45; only 6 years younger than Brosnan.

Six years is 3-4 movies.

Jude Law wouldn't make a good Bond. Too many facial blemishes. His head isn't the right shape. And he has too much wonky english charm. Like Hugh Grant. Stop suggesting him.

[SirBruce]

Stop shooting him down.

Bruce

[schild]

Not a chance. You'd be terrible at casting in Hollywood.

[stray]

I'm almost positive I could find a quote of Jude saying "Huh? No fucking way!"

That's how bad the idea is.

Or maybe you know a friend of a friend of a friend that knows him, Bruce? Care to send the question to him?

[SirBruce]

Or maybe you know a friend of a friend of a friend that knows him, Bruce? Care to send the question to him?

No, but I did ask Val Kilmer, and he told me Schild was artsty fartsy.

Bruce

[Stephen Zepp]

I'm almost positive I could find a quote of Jude saying "Huh? No fucking way!"

That's how bad the idea is.

Or maybe you know a friend of a friend of a friend that knows him, Bruce? Care to send the question to him?

Hmm...I thought that baiting members wasn't allowed?

[Murgos]

Hmm...I thought that baiting members wasn't allowed?

Let Bruce take care of himself, hes a big boy now.

Baiting, otoh, is perfectly acceptible as long as you're not baiting Bruce, which you should be ashamed to do anyway because there is no skill in it and it's utterly predictable.

[Big Gulp]

No sense of cool. On one hand, you have Bourne, who doesn't even know his identity, let alone how to be cool. He just knows how to kill. On the other hand, you have Bond, who not only knows his own identity -- he's even impressed by the sound of his own name. And not only can he kill -- he does it wearing a goddamn tuxedo. Flak jackets just aren't that cool.

See, that's my problem with the Bond series as it currently stands.  It's gotten too debonair and wussified.  When Connery had the role he brought to it a certain sense of rough and tumbleness; Bond wasn't afraid to get his hands dirty.  That really changed when Roger Moore got ahold of the role, and changed it quite a bit for the worse in my opinion, Bond being suave and using gadgetry became the sole focus of the movies, and consequently they lost a lot of their soul.

Now, you watch something like Day of the Jackal and it works on a different level.  Sure it's still an "espionage" thriller, but the hero (villain?) works in the realm of reality.  He doesn't stay ahead of his opponents through superhuman feats or gadgets, but through methodically working his way around problems and sheer ingenuity.  He isn't a superman, just an extremely capable person who exhibits a level of ruthless efficiency to achieve his goals.  That's sort of the zeitgeist that the Bourne series taps into (although not quite as well, IMO).

Both types of movies are sheer escapism, I just prefer the latter to the former.

[Murgos]

  He doesn't stay ahead of his opponents through superhuman feats or gadgets, but through methodically working his way around problems and sheer ingenuity.  He isn't a superman, just an extremely capable person who exhibits a level of ruthless efficiency to achieve his goals.  That's sort of the zeitgeist that the Bourne series taps into (although not quite as well, IMO).

Interestingly thats almost exactly the James Bond from the books.  Red headed, boxer type who looks like a palooka (He's decribed as thick fingered and even with a cauliflower ear, I seem to recall)  but continuously destroys these fiendish plots through ruthlessness and ingenuity.

Sean Connery was probably the closest Bond to the books and so it's not really a surprise that the stories 'fit' him better.

[stray]

Red headed, boxer type who looks like a palooka (He's decribed as thick fingered and even with a cauliflower ear, I seem to recall) but continuously destroys these fiendish plots through ruthlessness and ingenuity.

So in the books, he's just a smarter version of this guy?



Anyways...Whatever the case, I'm not defending the Moore or Brosnan Bond over Bourne. Brosnan wears the Tux because he's metrosexual. While the Connery Bond just likes to have some class. There's a difference there. Just because I'm saying the character has to be smooth doesn't mean I'm trying to wussify it. Not at all. It's possible to be both -- It's just that few actors can pull that off.

And that's where I'd have to agree with schild about Clive Owen. Owen's got some of the same traits Connery has -- a little rough around the edges, and can be convincing as an asskicker...But he can also play it smooth as well . If you want to see the Bond flicks recover what they lost in the past -- Owen would be the man for the job, I think.

If you want to see the G.I. Joe version of the espionage flick, then yeah, Bourne's got that covered. But I find it hard to believe that particular take on the genre can replace James Bond, or that something similar was the original intent of the Fleming books. Was the whole "smooth alpha male international spy" thing just made up for the movies or what?

[Trippy]

  He doesn't stay ahead of his opponents through superhuman feats or gadgets, but through methodically working his way around problems and sheer ingenuity.  He isn't a superman, just an extremely capable person who exhibits a level of ruthless efficiency to achieve his goals.  That's sort of the zeitgeist that the Bourne series taps into (although not quite as well, IMO).

Interestingly thats almost exactly the James Bond from the books.  Red headed, boxer type who looks like a palooka (He's decribed as thick fingered and even with a cauliflower ear, I seem to recall)  but continuously destroys these fiendish plots through ruthlessness and ingenuity.

Sean Connery was probably the closest Bond to the books and so it's not really a surprise that the stories 'fit' him better.

I read a few of Ian Fleming's Bond books when I was young and I agree the Bond portrayed there was much more hard edged than what he's become in the movies. I seem to recall Fleming describing Bond as being "cruel" multiple times in each book. That's one of the reasons why I liked Timothy Dalton in License to Kill -- I thought his portrayal was as close to the book Bond as anyone. Connery had that hard edge as well but he had a bit too much "cool" for my tastes. I thought Brosnan also did a reasonable job of portraying a rough and tumble Bond but his problem is that he just looks too much like a pretty boy so it's hard to take his tough guy act seriously.

[SirBruce]

LOL, just my luck, Chris Rock goes off on Jude Law at the Oscar's tonight.

Bruce

[HaemishM]

Dalton was closer to the book Bond than any of the others. Owen would be the best out there, although I think it'd be brilliant to see Vinnie Jones in that role. "Look 'ere, mate, you wanna tell me wat SMERSH is up to, or do I gotta break your fuckin' fingers right bloody off? You don't wanna be messin' wif me there, boy."

[SnotBag]

I miss George.

Jason Statham



Why stick another pretty boy in there, switch up the franchise... Statham would be better at the action than Clive. At least Clive got to do soft-core porn with Natalie Portman.

[Strazos]

soft-core porn with Natalie Portman.

Whobadawha!?

[schild]

soft-core porn with Natalie Portman.

Whobadawha!?

Closer. Terrible fucking movie. Try to find an .avi of the scene or something. They don't deserve your money.

[Strazos]

Any got a link? My Google-Fu is weak today it seems.

[schild]

Any got a link? My Google-Fu is weak today it seems.

It's this scene. I'm not hunting a video down for you.

[Strazos]

Everything I came up with was either a still, in Russian, or some kinda pay-to-download deal.

Oh well.

[SirBruce]

Mmmm, pink hair....

Bruce

[Arnold]

Sean Connery would be worth 42 million...or more.  It would be the BIGGEST BOND MOVIE EVER.

Except his Bond vehicle would be a Lincoln Towncar, and he'd chase villans with the left turn blinker on the whole way.

You think he's a bit old?  Hehe, I'm still chuckling about that.  I still think he could do it.

That guy from the Highlander TV show looks like a young Connery.  They should have him do it.

[Shockeye]

Vince Vaughn is unhappy with the level of professionalism in Hollywood.

The 35-year-old actor, who has starred in such classics as “Starsky and Hutch” and “Thumbsucker” and who is rumored to be the top choice as the new James Bond — bemoaned how today’s stars just don’t take the time to study their craft.

“When I got to LA, I took more classes. I always wanted new information,” the “Be Cool” star tells the April/May issue of Complex magazine. “That was what we all tried to do back then. It’s different now. There’s a real focus on trying to be really famous or coming off really cool and, in Hollywood, it’s not cool to try at something.  It’s much cooler to have never taken acting classes, to act like you don’t care, to not try.”

Vince Vaughn is up for Bond? Excuse me? WTF?

[Paelos]

This Vodka martini is so fucking money and it doesn't even know it!

[HaemishM]

Should Vaughn actually get the role, Ian Fleming's zombie corpse will rise from the grave and anally rape every executive involved. Not that Vaughn wouldn't do well, it just seems like some kind of unholy sacrilege not to at least get a native of the UK (or Australia) to do the job.

[Paelos]

You shouldn't have to feign the accent to do Bond. That's my take.

[Strazos]

soft-core porn with Natalie Portman.

Whobadawha!?

Closer. Terrible fucking movie. Try to find an .avi of the scene or something. They don't deserve your money.

Apparently my mother had picked up the DVD at some point. Horrible scene, not even "softcore pr0n". I'd stab myself before watching this the whole way through, just like AI.

[Shockeye]

Has anyone mentioned Rufus Sewell as a possible Bond? He might be able to pull it off.