|
|
Post by DarthToad on Mar 22, 2004 21:24:19 GMT -5
I think they should try getting someone totally new for Bond, but someone who would keep to the suave Sean Connery style of Bond. It would be interesting to just have someone no one has heard of. Well, as long as they don't get Vin Diesel as Bond, I'm okay.
|
|
Landatauron
Ghostbuster
Shop Smart. Shop S-Mart.
Posts: 363
|
Post by Landatauron on Mar 23, 2004 0:22:02 GMT -5
DarthToad, you are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute.
Vin Diesel and Bond should never be used in a sentence unless it includes the words "No F**ing way". Now while you are saying that he should NOT be Bond. You don't sound nearly as disgusted at the idea as you should be.
|
|
deusdragonexx
Boomstick Coordinator
Truly...a careless whisper...
Posts: 239
|
Post by deusdragonexx on Mar 23, 2004 0:34:07 GMT -5
As an upstanding citizen of MRFH Forums, I officially revoke your fine to DarthToad. Seeing as how he opposes the idea of Vin as Bond, I see no reason to fine him, only let him off with a warning never to use those two in a sentence unless clearly stating said opposition to the idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by FiveMileSmile on Mar 23, 2004 5:21:18 GMT -5
I think either Guy Pearce or Christian Bale would make an acceptable new Bond if they wanted to 'rejuvinate' the character a little; not that I'd actually want to see either of them tied down to that role either, as I like them both; but were I looking for a new Bond, they're probably the guys I would consider.
In all honesty though, and I say this in the sure knowledge that I have an ocean between me and Kyle, I don't really see the need for a new Bond at all. There are no more Ian Fleming novels to be adapted (I think the last 3 films have all been original scripts) and to be honest, as a character he has lost a lot of the mystique that gave his films such a following in the 70's and 80's. So far I would say that Bond's legacy remains untainted through the actors who have protrayed him and the stories they have told - why not have him go out on top, instead of allowing a new actor a chance to ruin the legacy of the films totally by being awful?
Just a thought.
- Rich
|
|
|
|
Post by Magill on Mar 23, 2004 10:31:52 GMT -5
So far I would say that Bond's legacy remains untainted through the actors who have protrayed him and the stories they have told - why not have him go out on top, instead of allowing a new actor a chance to ruin the legacy of the films totally by being awful? As long as Bond sequels keep drawing in box office, there's no way studio execs would retire such a reliable cash cow. |
|
|
|
Post by FiveMileSmile on Mar 23, 2004 10:46:58 GMT -5
As long as Bond sequels keep drawing in box office, there's no way studio execs would retire such a reliable cash cow. You think I don't know that?  My point was more of an aesthetic one than any belief that it might occur in my lifetime. The sad thing is that, by that principal, Bond can only ever end on a down note - when Bond 32 tanks and the box office and the character is retired, the last memory people will have of him will be whatever terrible film was released last. And thats just not right. - Rich |
|
|
|
Post by PoolMan on Mar 23, 2004 11:57:41 GMT -5
I officially revoke your fine to DarthToad. Seeing as how he opposes the idea of Vin as Bond, I see no reason to fine him Maybe so, but that was still a sly little Demolition Man reference he pulled out. Bra vo, I say. |
|
Vorlina
Boomstick Coordinator
I'm perfectly happy with my medication levels, thank you
Posts: 139
|
Post by Vorlina on Mar 23, 2004 14:29:47 GMT -5
Christian Bale is not permitted to play Bond because he is apparently doing Batman instead, and I don't want to get those too confused in my head. Due to my under-150 IQ, the little brain won't stretch that far. I think that Pierce Brosman must have just _screamed_ Bond at people post Remington Steele, a role he pretty much reprised in Thomas Crown Affair. I've heard the name Robbie Williams mooted before as a Bond... waits for the bombs...  |
|
|
|
Post by PoolMan on Mar 23, 2004 14:37:20 GMT -5
I've said it before, I'll say it again:
Make Robbie Williams the next Bond. Set it in the 60's, and make it as politically incorrect as possible. It would sell like hotcakes.
|
|
|
|
Post by DarthToad on Mar 23, 2004 22:04:47 GMT -5
DarthToad, you are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute. Vin Diesel and Bond should never be used in a sentence unless it includes the words "No F**ing way". Now while you are saying that he should NOT be Bond. You don't sound nearly as disgusted at the idea as you should be. Well, I will say it now. Vin Diesel, Bond, no F**ing way, but the studios might be that stupid. Maybe... |
|
|
|
Post by Magill on Mar 29, 2004 17:22:11 GMT -5
Make Robbie Williams the next Bond. Set it in the 60's, and make it as politically incorrect as possible. It would sell like hotcakes. I would go to that. C'mon, it's not like the Connery Bond movies (or any Bond movie, for that matter) are very PC. They'd have to do massive body makeup to cover all his tattoos--those don't seem very 60ish to me. I like Williams's smirkiness and self-mocking, but I've read that's why some people think he's not popular in the US. |
|
|
|
Post by DarthToad on Mar 29, 2004 19:20:23 GMT -5
Make Robbie Williams the next Bond. Set it in the 60's, and make it as politically incorrect as possible. It would sell like hotcakes. Ya know, I haven't noticed it, but since you're reccomending Robbie Williams, what about Robbin Williams. I mean, at least it would be funny. |
|
|
|
Post by PoolMan on Mar 29, 2004 22:48:14 GMT -5
what about Robbin Williams. I mean, at least it would be funny. Never work. You can't shoot the bedroom scenes... all that back hair throws the focus off. |
|
|
|
Post by DocD83 on Mar 29, 2004 22:58:32 GMT -5
It could still work. Make your money on bear fetishists.
|
|
.jpg)
