The first four actors have been mentioned in various articles as contenders for the role, and Pierce Brosnan recommended Farrell for the role a few days ago. Feel free to elaborate on your choice, and if you choose "none of the above," then let us know what actor you'd prefer.

I'd prefer Alexander Siddig.

Adrian Paul

Dominic Keating.

I really like Clive Owen - he was amazing in King Arthur.

I think he has what it takes to make a great Bond...too bad Pierce isnt sticking around...he was born to be Bond!

I don't think Pierce had much choice in the matter. According to what I've read, he was fired.

Please God not Clive Owen. So wooden you could make him into a bedside cabinet. And both him and Bana have the wingnut problem.

I think the character of James Bond should be retired until he becomes interesting again.



Oh, wait a second, that's wrong, I'm sorry. Not "again."

-Comp

Somebody ban Comp, please.

I just wish they'd bring SPECTRE back.

They can't do that. Kevin McClory owns the film rights to SPECTRE and Blofeld.

I'm sure they can be bought. What else are they going to do with it?

Frank - Im intrigued - do you have more details/info on Pierce being fired..???

Darin - I totally agree - Id love for SPECTRE to make a return.

Here you go, John.

http://www.universalexports.net/Movies/ ... ired.shtml

Why nobody want Hulk to play Bond? Hulk is a good actor! Hulk smash Jaws! Hulk bash Oddjob! Hulk does not understand Octopussy, though... why she look at Hulk like that...

Thanks Frank - its too bad I think that Pierce really carried the last few Bond flics...the next guy has his work cut out for him!

I think Brosnan's problem (and the last few movies' problem as well) is trying to turn Bond into a character, a personality, when he is more of a function of the story. All you need is someone properly proportioned to fill the tux, someone with the right jaw and arched eyebrow for reaction shots, someone with the right accent, and a plot that let's him run through his paces without the encumbrance of actual character development. Let him be a symbol, an icon and down weigh him down with humanity.

I disagree. Being a fan of the novels, I was glad to see Brosnan inject some humanity into Bond and give him some depth. During the Moore years, Bond was virtually a caricature, and I was pleased to see them get away from that.

I'm afraid I don't know the novels at all. I suppose those who enjoyed them would like seeing them line up more closely with the movies. But I grew up with the caricature and enjoyed it for what it was, so someone trying to paste a character on top of the cartoon (as it seemed from my perspective) was not very interesting. Forget about whether or not Bond is an empty shell incapable of real feeling and all that malarkey -- just get on with saving the world.

But I know where you're coming from. I had that reaction to the Lord of the Rings, where people enjoyed the dumbed down versions of the characters that I thought were pale imitations of the guys from the books.

That's probably a good comparison. I enjoyed the LOTR movies very much, but the only one of Tolkien's novels I've read is THE HOBBIT.

I think there are some characters that work better as functions. I don't want to know Miss Marple's life story, I just want her to catch the murderer.

I think Farrell's career is on such a tear right now that accepting the Bond role makes no sense for him. It might even be considered a step down. Same goes for Jude Law and, to a lesser extent, Eric Bana.