James Bond Down to Two?

According to Moriarty, the role of James Bond is down to two, Julian McMahon and Daniel Craig. He says that the decision is ultimately up to Amy Pascal at Sony, and this gives me a lot of hope. If the stories are to be believed, she supported all the "Spider-Man" casting, going with good actors over stars, and maybe the move to Sony will be good for Bond. Some of the names put out terified me, but I think these two are actually pretty good.

Julian McMahon is the more Pierce Brosnan, dashing type Bond. He has a little more of a pervy, asshole quality to him which would be welcome, but still the same basic type. Its an obvious choice, and he's British, and could probably do a good job.

But I want Daniel Craig, because he's not a name you'd pick, it's daring, and I like it. He's much more the Timothy Dalton badass Bond type, and that's what I want, especially for a "prequel" if the rumors are true. Martin Campbell knows Bond and how to introduce him, and this guy could be perfect. He did the action thing in "Tomb Raider" and was good despite the overall shit quality of the movie. "Road to Perdition" was just a great performance period.

I want him to be Bond, especially if its down to two. Craig is the type of Bond that women fuck because he's a man, the type who crashes from the sky onto your yacht and bangs the girl because he's got the time. Not the type they do because he talks nice and has good taste in wine.

Yeah, I think the move to Sony is accounting for the new power over the Broccolis. MGM was a troubled studio who depended on Bond, thusly, rather than not have one, they let the Broccolis do what they wanted and screw them up. MGM just needed the money to stay afloat. But now Sony owns MGM and was huge already. They hopefully want good Bond movies, knowing that in the long run, quality is what's going to keep it a viable franchise. I'm no insider of course, but the Broccolis need a studio to make a Bond movie right? So I would say that studio has some say in who the new Bond is.

I'm actually excited about the idea of Craig. Watch us get McMahon, but really either are pretty good. James Purefoy doesn't do it for me. He's British, that's about it. There's nothing behind his eyes to me, he's just filler. Sadly, that's what Brosnan became. When I picture the cold blue eyes of Daniel Craig and "Bond, James Bond", I get new hope for the series.

After seeing the "Layer Cake" trailer, I very much hope not. I really want Daniel Craig as the new Bond.

Apparently John Cleese as Q is gone which is good, the last remnants of "Die Another Day" being swept away. Martin Campbell is the best director they've had in ages, and "Goldeneye" is the last great Bond film. I have high hopes again, foolish as that might be.

Good riddance. Sorry, but John Cleese really irritated me as R (stupid) and was still irritating as Q. He played it way too broad and over-the-top. I quickly longed for Llewelyn's dry subtlety. Samantha Bond was actually pretty good as Moneypenny the first two times around, but after "Die Another Day" they destroyed here. Using Moneypenny as one ridiculously stupid gimmick was just wrong. The epitome of just how low the series has gotten.

Start fresh. I like the Dalton Moneypenny, a girl who is attractive but slightly nerdy. I liked that approach. Just get rid of the James Bond hitting on his Grandma dynamic that's been happening in some of the films.

Let's have a new Q, but not too crazy. My pick is Jason Isaacs. Someone who conceivably have been Bond, now "retired" and working in the labs. He's a terrific actor, capable of comedy, and could be really good.

These Clive Owen rumors do keep popping up. He said for so long he didn't want it, but I could see him changing his mind after the recent developments. Yeah, "Die Another Day" was horrible, but then they went to Sony, are going back to the novels, hired Martin Campbell who he worked with on "Beyond Borders", and are "starting fresh".

They are saying all the things I think a Clive Owen would want to hear if he had possibly dreamed of playing Bond but worried that the series was in the tank. Yeah, its not as inspired as it would have been more around "Croupier" time, but the guy is still amazing. He gives great performances in everything, and is extremely compelling. He's got the right mixture of decency and callousness that I think Bond needs.

Besides him, let's get Daniel Craig.

I am really excited if Craig indeed for the part. I think he's absolutely perfect. Brosnan had two great films and two bad ones for my money, but they needed a change. Craig is a handsome dude, but definitely more of the Dalton variety, more rugged and worn down than Brosnan's matinee idol, Ken Doll good looks. The icey blue eyes could be used really well, and the "Layer Cake" trailer had me pretty jazzed at the thought of him as the new Bond. He's a lot more daring a choice than I figured they'd make, so let's hope it translates into other areas as well.

That said, if Purvis and Wade are on this then all bets are off. These guys are terrible. Period. Forget the terrible dialogue, lame villains, lame plotting, and virtually terrible scripts. What irks me most is how they came up with two pretty promising concepts for the Bond character (an injury and imprisonment) used them as gimmicks, and then completely ignored them.

Imagine a TWINE where Bond's injury actually effects him the entire film. He has to change tactic because he can't do the things he did before. He gets his ass kicked often because he's already wounded. He has to use his brain a bit more, and every fight leaves him in horrible pain, popping pain killers and lying awake. Or a DAD where months of torture and imprisonment actually effects him at all! Flashbacks, nightmares, fear, an inability to perform sexually. These guys suck and need to get the boot. Its not rocket science writing a Bond movie, I'm sure Hollywood has a few other possibilities.

I think there's a lot behind the scenes that we definitely won't know till years later. As for the dollar amount he supposedly demanded, it does seem pretty odd. But it doesn't seem necessarily out of character. He just got handed the worst Bond script in history and still turned it into the highest earner, which he did with all four of his films. I think perhaps he was done with the role, a bit disillusioned with the whole thing (he tried to get QT and various other directors but was rebuffed), and just figured "fuck it, I'll ask for a ton of money, if they give it to me awesome, if not, I'm tired of it all anyway".

It seems like they passed, though its almost sad that after all those years of Brosnan pushing for edgier, more intelligent script, and ultimately the use of "Casino Royale", they're going to do it all with a new actor.

And on that point, that is the worst picture of Daniel Craig I think you could ever hope to find. Watch the "Layer Cake" if you haven't already seen that film. He screams James Bond in every way. And I agree with Geoff, I sort of can't imagine them taking this many risky steps and then screwing the pooch again with the script. I really hope the Broccoli people are getting pushed to the side by the more powerful studio Sony. They actually got it very right with "Spider-Man", here's hoping they can do the same for Bond.