It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I think this is correct. There was never any accurate reporting that he was considered for the role. Neither was Huge Jackman who has touted himself as turning down the role because he was already doing Wolfman. Oh sure! Owen and Butler both claimed they were offered the role in some interviews but then walked back on their claims and said they were just joking. These guys are all just using Bond at the PR self promotion game.
So they say...
Funny that little details from the contract negotiations went through the media....
Did they just dream everything up then??
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Transporter, The Bank Job and Safe are my Top 3 in no particular order.
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
http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_5710.html
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.
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.
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.
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.