Esquire UK November 2005

[RebelMan]

[BlackWolf]

those are intersting scans, thanks Rebel

Holy!!! The Dr. No pic is hotttttt [img]graemlins/goofy.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/yummy.gif[/img] . Gotta love that tiny booty shorts.

Definitely cool shots in this one. May have to purchase that mag.

The Dr. No shot brings up the question: who's going to be the stars in the next Bond movie? Wonder if she could work her way into a Bond girl role, although usually I prefer the Bond women to be a little older sexy no to dis Jess or anything. Heard they were looking at some unknown (to me anyway) British guy for the role which sounds like a stinker move (anybody remember Timothy Dalton?) to begin with.

[rh71]

ooooooooh

ahhhhhhhh

someone stop me.

:D :D :D :D :D :D
Jessica u can be my bond girl ;)

[lock67ca]

I would have loved to have seen her as Barbarella and Wonder Woman too. :D

These are fantastic. [img]graemlins/faint.gif[/img]

[Jessica Alba's Lover]

i was like :eek: when i saw the pics. my eyes almost popped out of my head. there gorgeous

[Bill5461]

That 9 1/2 weeks shot is just too hot for words

Originally posted by C_Zman:
Definitely cool shots in this one. May have to purchase that mag.

The Dr. No shot brings up the question: who's going to be the stars in the next Bond movie? Wonder if she could work her way into a Bond girl role, although usually I prefer the Bond women to be a little older sexy no to dis Jess or anything. Heard they were looking at some unknown (to me anyway) British guy for the role which sounds like a stinker move (anybody remember Timothy Dalton?) to begin with.

Why's it a stinker move? Cos you havent heard of him? Watch Layer Cake. Proper film.

It's a stinker move because for the Bond films to succeed they need to connect to the masses audience, including Americans which are a huge chunk of the incoming ticket prices for films. When you add in an unknown (I'm assuming he'd be unknown to a lot of moviegoers here, that's why I asked if anyone knows what movies this guy's been in to judge that) to a blockbuster like the Bond films, you could be risking a lot on a big franchise like that. For examples, see Timothy Dalton and the guy that did the "On her Majesty's..." Bond movies. They didn't last long solely for that reason. Just because it's Bond doesn't mean you can stick a totally unknown in the lead. If Christian Bale wasn't tied to Batman forever or Hugh Jackman to the X-men films, I'd see them being great choices.

Originally posted by C_Zman:
It's a stinker move because for the Bond films to succeed they need to connect to the masses audience, including Americans which are a huge chunk of the incoming ticket prices for films. When you add in an unknown (I'm assuming he'd be unknown to a lot of moviegoers here, that's why I asked if anyone knows what movies this guy's been in to judge that) to a blockbuster like the Bond films, you could be risking a lot on a big franchise like that. For examples, see Timothy Dalton and the guy that did the "On her Majesty's..." Bond movies. They didn't last long solely for that reason. Just because it's Bond doesn't mean you can stick a totally unknown in the lead. If Christian Bale wasn't tied to Batman forever or Hugh Jackman to the X-men films, I'd see them being great choices.

thats a load of rubbish. "they have to connect with the mass audience, including americans? "
dont you mean mainly americans? theyre connecting with a good name in britain (origin and heritage of Bond) who is a good actor. why do you have to have an american known person already? thats ridiculous. how do you start out then? slowly? for the american mind to adjust to a familiar face? here i was thinking that a good plot and good acting were main ingredients. the name bond is the main thing that sells. there's a million reasons why the 80's ones didnt do as well.
what matters is if he is good for the role or not. maybe you should start watching films that arent hollywood blockbusters, complete rubbish.

[superboy]

awesome!

Wow, the cover is unreal.

Originally posted by wacov:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by C_Zman:
It's a stinker move because for the Bond films to succeed they need to connect to the masses audience, including Americans which are a huge chunk of the incoming ticket prices for films. When you add in an unknown (I'm assuming he'd be unknown to a lot of moviegoers here, that's why I asked if anyone knows what movies this guy's been in to judge that) to a blockbuster like the Bond films, you could be risking a lot on a big franchise like that. For examples, see Timothy Dalton and the guy that did the "On her Majesty's..." Bond movies. They didn't last long solely for that reason. Just because it's Bond doesn't mean you can stick a totally unknown in the lead. If Christian Bale wasn't tied to Batman forever or Hugh Jackman to the X-men films, I'd see them being great choices.

thats a load of rubbish. "they have to connect with the mass audience, including americans? "
dont you mean mainly americans? theyre connecting with a good name in britain (origin and heritage of Bond) who is a good actor. why do you have to have an american known person already? thats ridiculous. how do you start out then? slowly? for the american mind to adjust to a familiar face? here i was thinking that a good plot and good acting were main ingredients. the name bond is the main thing that sells. there's a million reasons why the 80's ones didnt do as well.
what matters is if he is good for the role or not. maybe you should start watching films that arent hollywood blockbusters, complete rubbish. </font>[/QUOTE]As I said before, explain the Dalton films and "On her Majesty's..." then. You don't mess w/a blockbuster series by sticking someone half the audience doesn't have a clue about in. The risk of putting Brandon Routh in the upcoming Superman flick is comparable but people will flock to it just because Supes hasn't been around for a while and has a lot larger audience than Bond. Bond audiences are a bit more limited (I dare say women don't flock to Bond flicks compared to a Superman film) in their scope. Bond films are NOT known for the Oscar scripts but a formula. The bottom line is do they make money and, considering Hollywood's box #'s have been dropping annually and blockbusters have been risky in that climate alone lately, taking a risk on an actor that half the audience doesn't really know could either pay off big or tank the series. I'm just saying it's risky. Incidentally, I do watch movies other than blockbusters but I also know how Hollywood makes the bulk of their dough, and it's not on Indie movies.

Originally posted by C_Zman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by wacov:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by C_Zman:
It's a stinker move because for the Bond films to succeed they need to connect to the masses audience, including Americans which are a huge chunk of the incoming ticket prices for films. When you add in an unknown (I'm assuming he'd be unknown to a lot of moviegoers here, that's why I asked if anyone knows what movies this guy's been in to judge that) to a blockbuster like the Bond films, you could be risking a lot on a big franchise like that. For examples, see Timothy Dalton and the guy that did the "On her Majesty's..." Bond movies. They didn't last long solely for that reason. Just because it's Bond doesn't mean you can stick a totally unknown in the lead. If Christian Bale wasn't tied to Batman forever or Hugh Jackman to the X-men films, I'd see them being great choices.

thats a load of rubbish. "they have to connect with the mass audience, including americans? "
dont you mean mainly americans? theyre connecting with a good name in britain (origin and heritage of Bond) who is a good actor. why do you have to have an american known person already? thats ridiculous. how do you start out then? slowly? for the american mind to adjust to a familiar face? here i was thinking that a good plot and good acting were main ingredients. the name bond is the main thing that sells. there's a million reasons why the 80's ones didnt do as well.
what matters is if he is good for the role or not. maybe you should start watching films that arent hollywood blockbusters, complete rubbish. </font>[/QUOTE]As I said before, explain the Dalton films and "On her Majesty's..." then. You don't mess w/a blockbuster series by sticking someone half the audience doesn't have a clue about in. The risk of putting Brandon Routh in the upcoming Superman flick is comparable but people will flock to it just because Supes hasn't been around for a while and has a lot larger audience than Bond. Bond audiences are a bit more limited (I dare say women don't flock to Bond flicks compared to a Superman film) in their scope. Bond films are NOT known for the Oscar scripts but a formula. The bottom line is do they make money and, considering Hollywood's box #'s have been dropping annually and blockbusters have been risky in that climate alone lately, taking a risk on an actor that half the audience doesn't really know could either pay off big or tank the series. I'm just saying it's risky. Incidentally, I do watch movies other than blockbusters but I also know how Hollywood makes the bulk of their dough, and it's not on Indie movies. </font>[/QUOTE]Complete tosh. Fact is, he's a good actor. Hiring an Aussie or anyone else just cos the thick kids know them is ridiculous. Maybe this is an angle to introduce new stars, broaden horizons etc. I think hiring someone that is well known and known to be good (albeit not in americaland) is better than getting some run of the mill name that some will flock to, and some avoid, as they might not like them.
If i was an actor, id be damn thankful youre not in charge of hiring.
Anyway, as I said, watch Layer Cake.

Wacov, you're reading way too much into what I'm saying here. I've never said anything about not giving unknowns a chance and I've never said it wouldn't work for sure. Yes, I personally don't think it would work but it could happen, I don't dismiss that. I believe unknown actors should get shots, I don't believe in blacklisting them as you're implying by the hiring comment (I hired a guy for my lab almost a year ago fresh out of college that had no experience who's now my best technician but I saw the same drive in him I had when I started in the lab so it was less of a risk to me), but I also believe you have to pay your dues to get to where you want to go in the world and, for an actor to do that, they have to put together at least a small resume of accomplishments in films before jumping big time like anyone else in jobs does. You can't go from front line worker to Manager in one day, you know.

For those reasons, I'm just saying that it's a huge risk to put someone a large part of the audience, Americans or not, would not recognize and pay their $10 to see, Bond or not. American audiences are heavily fueled by younger viewers and, if you're not all over TV, MTV, mags, or something, they aren't going to put their McDonald's-earned $10 to going to see you. They'll go see Jessica who's all over the place first. With a franchise like the Bond films that's an incredible risk for a production company to take. I'm just saying they should be a bit more selective before settling on a guy who's relatively unknown, especially given the box office numbers drops I mentioned before is all.

Originally posted by C_Zman:
Wacov, you're reading way too much into what I'm saying here. I've never said anything about not giving unknowns a chance and I've never said it wouldn't work for sure. Yes, I personally don't think it would work but it could happen, I don't dismiss that. I believe unknown actors should get shots, I don't believe in blacklisting them as you're implying by the hiring comment (I hired a guy for my lab almost a year ago fresh out of college that had no experience who's now my best technician but I saw the same drive in him I had when I started in the lab so it was less of a risk to me), but I also believe you have to pay your dues to get to where you want to go in the world and, for an actor to do that, they have to put together at least a small resume of accomplishments in films before jumping big time like anyone else in jobs does. You can't go from front line worker to Manager in one day, you know.

For those reasons, I'm just saying that it's a huge risk to put someone a large part of the audience, Americans or not, would not recognize and pay their $10 to see, Bond or not. American audiences are heavily fueled by younger viewers and, if you're not all over TV, MTV, mags, or something, they aren't going to put their McDonald's-earned $10 to going to see you. They'll go see Jessica who's all over the place first. With a franchise like the Bond films that's an incredible risk for a production company to take. I'm just saying they should be a bit more selective before settling on a guy who's relatively unknown, especially given the box office numbers drops I mentioned before is all.

I dont see it as some uncommon risk. Plenty films have used unknowns, based on ability.
They will spend their 10 bucks on the name bond, and if a 'big name/lame actor in reality' is absent, then producers owe it more to have a quality film that critics will acclaim to get the word out to them to try it, not to mention their friends with more prestigious jobs (such as subway [img]graemlins/woah.gif[/img] )

anyway, he gets my vote of confidence, over bale and jackman, easy. and it should be a brit anyway.

As long as they cast the women correctly they may be able to survive any unknown lead actor backlash. That's where MY $10 goes to. If Jess were to go up for it, I'd be there in a second but, like I said, I'm more partial to more older women for those roles. Not that she couldn't do it, she'd be REALLY sexy.

Originally posted by C_Zman:
As long as they cast the women correctly they may be able to survive any unknown lead actor backlash. That's where MY $10 goes to. If Jess were to go up for it, I'd be there in a second but, like I said, I'm more partial to more older women for those roles. Not that she couldn't do it, she'd be REALLY sexy.

Yes she'd be good, but too young, agreed.