Sony Pictures executives will reportedly hold an emergency summit this week to address the problem of finding a suitable replacement for Pierce Brosnan as James Bond in the venerable spy movie franchise. Speculation as to who will play Agent 007 in Casino Royale, the Bond movie in development for release next year, has been ongoing for what seems like decades, ever since rumors first surfaced that Brosnan would not be taking the role again.
Brosnan, who played Bond in four films starting with 1995's GoldenEye, finally confirmed his exit from the franchise only a few weeks ago, after as many rumors had him returning to the role as leaving it. In the meantime, names of virtually every British actor between the ages of 30 and 40, as well as plenty of non-Brits, older and younger, have been put forth as candidates for the role. There's almost no way to tell who the leading candidate is at the moment, but both Clive Owen and Hugh Jackman have officially turned down the role, each citing the desire to seek other, more varied roles as the reason.
Even Brosnan doesn't seem that keen on what's looking more and more like a tuxedo-as-straitjacket. "It never felt real to me," he told Entertainment Weekly. "Because you'd have these stupid one-liners—which I loathed—and I always felt phony doing them." If even the man whose entire movie career is indebted to this role finds it phony and outdated, what hope do producers—who are adamant about casting a known actor—have of enticing someone like Owen or Jackman to sign away years of their lives to playing a character over whom they have little to no control?
Although Bond is the most high-profile and longest-running franchise to have this problem, it's something that's likely to become increasingly prevalent as studios learn that getting actors to commit to sequels in advance is the only way to guarantee they won't hold out for more money or jump ship once their careers have taken off. The three main kids in the Harry Potter series have now spent nearly five years of their lives doing nothing but playing Harry, Ron and Hermione, and it's standard operating procedure to sign stars of potential franchise films to multiple sequels before the first film has even started shooting.
Even putting aside the question of whether there's any reason at all to continue the seemingly endless Bond franchise, it's no surprise that stars with healthy careers don't want to tether themselves to iconic characters for the better part of a decade. There may be a satisfying continuity in seeing Tobey Maguire in red and blue tights in all of the Spider-Man films, or Elijah Wood as Frodo for the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy, but there's no doubt these actors will be saddled with those characters for the rest of their careers. Even Sean Connery, one of the foremost actors of his generation, still has James Bond as the most memorable role on his résumé.
The drives to continue franchises like Bond and create new ones are part of Hollywood's pathological fear of new ideas, where nothing is as desirable as something that has already worked once already, or in the case of the Bond franchise, 20 times. Actors, writers and directors have little choice but to sign on to these endless parades of sequels because they are generally the movies that provide the highest profiles and the biggest paychecks. And, James Bond aside, audiences have gotten used to seeing the same actors in the same roles throughout entire series.
As Sylvester Stallone pushes for new installments of Rocky and Rambo, Harrison Ford prepares for the fourth Indiana Jones film and Mel Gibson contemplates returning to Mad Max, hoping for the death of the creatively stifling franchise is a bit optimistic. But as long as the likes of Clive Owen and Hugh Jackman hold out for a little integrity, it's safe to dream that the latest bland Bond may never make it to the big screen.
Josh Bell denies all rumors that he will be the next James Bond. Read more of his takes on pop culture at
http://signalbleed.blogspot.com.