Classic Bond Forum

Would anyone choose this person as James Bond back in the 70s or 80s?

I like Hogan myself, but I'm not sure as Bond. He's blond for one, which is already part of Craig's problem. He also has made a career out of being a bit of a larrikin. Mind you, Lazenby was a larrikin too, but Lazenby had more of a classic 'look' as Bond. I also don't know how Hogan would look in action scenes. There were plenty of action scenes in the Crocodile Dundee movies, but they weren't the sorts of action scenes one finds in a Bond film. How would Hogan look in a fist fight? Who knows? Mind you, his delivery of wise-cracks would be hilarious, but that's just not enough.

So no. If I were Cubby, I wouldn't have chosen Hogan to play as Bond. It is an intriguing idea though, like Jeremy Brett as Bond. I don't think either would have worked, but both are fun to try to visualize.

A Crag-like face wrote:I like Hogan myself, but I'm not sure as Bond. He's blond for one, which is already part of Craig's problem. He also has made a career out of being a bit of a larrikin. Mind you, Lazenby was a larrikin too, but Lazenby had more of a classic 'look' as Bond. I also don't know how Hogan would look in action scenes. There were plenty of action scenes in the Crocodile Dundee movies, but they weren't the sorts of action scenes one finds in a Bond film. How would Hogan look in a fist fight? Who knows? Mind you, his delivery of wise-cracks would be hilarious, but that's just not enough.

So no. If I were Cubby, I wouldn't have chosen Hogan to play as Bond. It is an intriguing idea though, like Jeremy Brett as Bond. I don't think either would have worked, but both are fun to try to visualize.

Speaking of Hogan, here's a very good laugh.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZaWd0tkhc8[/video]
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X9RvuSu ... re=related[/video]

If Paul Hogan had been Bond, Leo Wanker could have done the stunts

[video]http://youtu.be/Mpmyw2ZDRfo[/video]

Welcome Crag like!

Why not get Danny Deveto instead.

Nothing to do with Bond, but should Hogan make another Dundee?

FormerBondFan wrote:Nothing to do with Bond, but should Hogan make another Dundee?

Wouldn't he be rather old for that? He's George Lazenby's age!

A Crag-like face wrote:

FormerBondFan wrote:Nothing to do with Bond, but should Hogan make another Dundee?

Wouldn't he be rather old for that? He's George Lazenby's age!

We got good comebacks like Rocky Balboa, Rambo, and Live Free or Die Hard.

FormerBondFan wrote:Nothing to do with Bond, but should Hogan make another Dundee?

Given that three people and a dog went to see Crocodile Dundee in LA...no,

Kristatos wrote:

FormerBondFan wrote:Nothing to do with Bond, but should Hogan make another Dundee?

Given that three people and a dog went to see Crocodile Dundee in LA...no,

I'm sure Paul Hogan has been trying to make Crocodile Dundee for years and has a script ready. He is the only one who wants to see it. Maybe someone will remake Crocodile Dundee with a new actor in future.

Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry wrote:

Kristatos wrote:

FormerBondFan wrote:Nothing to do with Bond, but should Hogan make another Dundee?

Given that three people and a dog went to see Crocodile Dundee in LA...no,

I'm sure Paul Hogan has been trying to make Crocodile Dundee for years and has a script ready. He is the only one who wants to see it. Maybe someone will remake Crocodile Dundee with a new actor in future.

Oh please, no! There are enough reboots in Hollywood already. The original Crocodile Dundee movies were fine. I don't need a new batch of movies with a new actor and a new origin story to go with it. Between Batman, Bond, Star Trek and heaven knows what else, I wish that the reboot had never been invented. Mind you, Crocodile Dundee with a different actor but none of the reboot pretense I could take, but you know it'd become a big production, not at all the low-key and wonderful movie the first Croc film was.

A Crag-like face wrote:Between Batman, Bond, Star Trek and heaven knows what else, I wish that the reboot had never been invented.

Bat, Supie, Hulk, and Trek are reasonable.

FormerBondFan wrote:

A Crag-like face wrote:Between Batman, Bond, Star Trek and heaven knows what else, I wish that the reboot had never been invented.

Bat, Supie, Hulk, and Trek are reasonable.

The first three are ok, since comic books are constantly rebooting anyway and messing around with their timelines (Crisis on Infinite Earths anyone?). However, creating an "alternate timeline" for Trek where Vulcan got blown up and where nothing from any of the Star Trek series or movies other than Star Trek: Enterprise ever happened was just spitting in the face of loyal Trek fans. I view the Star Trek reboot as being as much of an abomination as the Bond reboot.

A Crag-like face wrote:I view the Star Trek reboot as being as much of an abomination as the Bond reboot.

Trek reboot may upset some fans, but the franchise was almost forgotten after Nemesis' failure and ENT's cancellation. During the Berman era, it was out of gas after First Contact. Unlike Bond, Trek reboot got the casting right.

FormerBondFan wrote:

A Crag-like face wrote:I view the Star Trek reboot as being as much of an abomination as the Bond reboot.

Trek reboot may upset some fans, but it was almost forgotten after Nemesis' failure and ENT's cancellation. During the Berman era, it was out of gas after First Contact. Unlike Bond, Trek reboot got the casting right.

Oh you're definately right that Trek was (unlike Bond during the Brosnan era) out of gas circa 2005 and in definite need of some help. I also have no problems with the casting of the Trek reboot, as I do with Craig. However, the plot of the reboot is not only a deliberate middle finger to fans with its "alternate timeline" crap, it turns Trek into just another action movie franchise, which isn't at all what Gene Rodenberry intended.

A Crag-like face wrote:However, the plot of the reboot is not only a deliberate middle finger to fans with its "alternate timeline" crap, it turns Trek into just another action movie franchise, which isn't at all what Gene Rodenberry intended.

As much as I love the Abrams Trek, I say the next 2 films are enough as far as the younger TOS cast are concerned. The cast would be too old after Trek XIII (or 3, whatever you want to refer to) since the reboot deals with the early days of TOS.

FormerBondFan wrote:

A Crag-like face wrote:However, the plot of the reboot is not only a deliberate middle finger to fans with its "alternate timeline" crap, it turns Trek into just another action movie franchise, which isn't at all what Gene Rodenberry intended.

As much as I love the Abrams Trek, I say the next 2 films are enough as far as the younger TOS cast are concerned. The cast would be too old after Trek XIII (or 3, whatever you want to refer to) since the reboot deals with the early days of TOS.

I suppose I'd feel better about the whole Abrams Trek experiment if there were some actual thought-provoking sci-fi going on. The TNG movies were too actiony as well, but they at least grappled with deeper issues than just getting from one 'plosion filled scene to the next. And the stupidity of the time-travel plot they added into the 2009 movie is beyond comment in terms of its awfulness.

Maybe they'll use the next film to deal with some of the more complicated moral issues the Trek show used to face, and have a bit less action in the next film, though I won't hold my breath.