"If they made another Bridget Jones- like Darcy vs. Cleaver - The Final Battle, would you play Tom in it?"
I always wished he'd say NO. But now that there will be a sequel, I have mixed feelings about this.
Luckily, it seems like BJD III won't really be about Darcy vs. Cleaver (I hope), but rather about Bridget looking to get pregnant in her forties. It's likely James will be approached for the role of Tom. On the other hand, since the films have barely even showed the friends anyway, they might just drop them altogether.
I've got to give BJD some credit. It made James a bit more well known, and apparently many people still recognize him as Tom, not as Gaius Baltar. He made Tom charming and was funny in the role. It's not the worst movie ever, there was nothing directly offensive about it, and even if his role was a bit token, he did it respectfully.
But but but. He was barely in it! Tom was an awesome character in the books, and so much more could have been done with him. But that's also true of Bridget and everyone else in the film. As far as romantic comedies go, they (or mainly the first movie) weren't all that bad. As far as adaptations go, however, absolute BS.
To quote James himself (from a message he wrote while making the first BJD in 2001):
I've been BJDing for quite some time but in effect am not so seminal to main story line, there is of course another storyline that is whipped up every day, impromptu like, by myself and the other delightful lesser mortals whom malign fate has called upon to be B's "friends", as we sit in the spooky caravans and dream of one day getting onto the set, and perhaps (and I know this is crazy) that someone might make a mistake and we might actually end up in the film after all, but at the moment the caravan storyline isn't being shot.Bwah! (Did he just use "spooky" again?) This is so self-ironic and delicious, it might as well be James Callis Quote of the Week.
Do we really want him to go thru that all over again? Do we?
On the other hand, what if they don't ask him at all? Wouldn't that be more offensive?
It would mean James on the big screen... Hmmmm.... Ah, James... *dreams* Mmmm.
*slaps self* OK. I'm giving it a thumbs up AND a thumbs down. It's below his level at both acting and stardom. If he does it, I hope they at least pay him well. But like Nicole Anell suggested, maybe he's doing it for the children?
After all, he's got to make a living too. (And at least it's vastly less embarrassing than the Audi commercial.)