Pierce Brosnan out as Bond? (UPDATE: Daniel Craig confirmed) (1 Viewer)

[Beau]

That was in From Russia With Love.

 

[Jeff(R)]

http://latinoreview.com/films_2005/s...interview.html


Well, we wouldn't want to ruin everything for the kids... If anyone still thinks this film is going to actually be "gritty" (the same word Pierce Brosnan used to describe Die Another Day too btw) I think you're going to be disappointed.

Jeff

 

[Mark Hawley]

So Bond won't be tied to a chair without a seat and have his repeatedly smaked with a carpet beater?

 

[Yee-Ming]

More to do with the fact they financed the movie in the first place.

I vaguely recall that Danjaq owns the various Bond trademarks (iris logo, gun logo with "007" etc, possibly the name as well), and presumably the copyright to the Bond theme as well. Licence to use all these would be necessary to make a true "Bond" film, hence they were noticeably absent in the rogue production Never Say Never Again.

When a movie is produced, who owns the final copyright is really a matter of negotiation and contract, e.g. Lucas personally (or rather, through Lucasfilm) retains copyright for his Star Wars movies, mainly because he paid for it himself, ANH used to belong to Fox since they paid for it, but as part of the distribution deal for the PT, Fox sold the copyright back to Lucas to keep him happy. Hence, I don't doubt that UA does indeed own part of the copyright on each particular movie, presumably shared with Danjaq in some proportion.

This complicates matters going forward, since UA could claim that a subsequent movie featuring Bond would infringe their (part)copyright in the earlier movie. This concept was part of the entire Kevin McClory mess, when he claimed he had some right to the Bond concept on film by virtue of having co-written a screenplay way back when (this is presumably avoided today by having commissioned screenwriters assign copyright in the final screenplay to Danjaq and/or UA right at the outset).

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Campbell sums up everything that has made him a pedestrian filmmaker in the last two films I've seen by him.

 

[RickER]

I thought i read somewhere that smoking gets a movie an R rating now? I could be wrong, dont remember where i heard that from. But it was recent. Anyway, seems Bond needs a rest, just like Trek.

 

[Mike Graham]

The film was somewhat gritty up until Bond travelled to the Artic. If the film had of stayed out of there and instead spent more time being like its taunt first half, it would have been more highly regarded.

 

[David Williams]

Let's see... No Moneypenny, No Q, Daniel Craig, No Gadgets, For the kiddies... Yessiree I think we've got the makings of a train wreck of epic proportions here. Die Another Day is gonna seem like Shakespeare next to this film.

 

[RichardCrowther]

Firstly, we don't know for sure that neither Moneypenny nor Q are appearing, merely that that would appear to be the case at present. Over the past few weeks everyone from Campbell to Wilson have said that there will/won't be gadgets (does it really matter if there aren't? - the best films in the series were alomst devoid of gadgets) and that the regular cast will/won't be returning. We'll find out soon enough.

Secondly, if a film is said to be a failure just because a couple of minor characters don't appear, then the premise behind the whole franchise must be seen to be too weak to support itself in any case. The James Bond series is bigger than any one character or actor. For the record Q didn't appear in Live and Let Die, and no-one missed him, and Moneypenny can barely be said to be in many of the films, and hardly got a line in Licence To Kill - again, people didn't seem to mind.

Thirdly, since no-one has any clue as to how good or bad Daniel craig is going to be in the role until they have actually seen him in that role (basing one's opinions on other work an actor might have done is dubious at best), which none of us will get a chance to do until Summer next year at the earliest, it might be best to wait until evidence for or against his casting (i.e. actual footage of him in action) is in circulation before the whole film is written off merely at the mention of his name.

Fourthly, the film is not "for the kiddies" so far as we know (and, again, we don't know anything until we see it); it has, instead, been stated that the film is being aimed at a PG-13/12 certificate audience. given the level of violence and language in Terminator 3, which also got an uncut 12 in UK cinemas, not to mention the amount of sex and violence in the last four Bond films, all of which got a PG-13/12 (indeed, the sex scene in D.A.D., which was cut for American audiences, was deemed perfectly acceptible in the UK uncut, despite the amount of thrusting), I think we can safely assume that the film is going to be aimed at a very wide audience indeed. Cutting out positive images of smoking is not pandering the the kids (or parents), it's a matter of health. It's a matter of common sense.

Finally, I've seen turds that have more in common with Shakespeare than Die Another Day - I shouldn't think there is any chance of Casino Royale being as bad as, or worse than, that film.

 

[Brian_Pete]

I thought Q was already replaced by R in the last film (retirement). So wouldn't we already expect that Q won't be in the new film?

Maybe they decided against a Q-type character since the original won't be there.

 

[ThomasC]

"R" was a joke. John Cleese's character is Q.

 

[Grant H]

I think one of the problems with doing the Bond films today is that there are TV series like Alias which (at least in its first season or so) could run circles around the recent films.

Apart from Tom Cruise's involvement I'm curious to see what JJ Abrams can bring to the fold of MI-3.

 

[rich_d]

Agreed. A promising opening scene, interesting through through the cool reception for Bond's return.

Then it was as if a 4th grader did the rest of the script. 'say, we'll have a Korean turned into an on top-of-the-world fair-haired white guy. And throw in some ... what I like to call "lasers" ...

[url=http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/1240/spywhoshaggedmelaserquote0vs.th.jpg] [/url]

For me, the visit to see Q or from Q is not much to worry about. However, I would contend that the flirting with Moneypenny is de rigueur.

 

[David Williams]

That's my problem right there. No one was 'aiming' for a kid-friendly crowd in the other films, they did their Bond film and they got a PG-13 rating... they didn't pander. Martin Campbell has said upfront that they want to bring in a new, younger audience with this film and that really bothers me. I enjoyed xXx, but it wasn't the cash cow that they wanted. This movie may turn out to be another xXx for Sony.

It doesn't really matter to me if Daniel Craig is the next Sir Laurence Olivier, he's still "third slavic sailor from the right" as rich_d so accurately pegged him. To me, he won't ever be James Bond.

 

[GuruAskew]

That sucks about Moneypenny, this will be the first film not to feature her and Bond will now be the only character to make it through the entire series. Q has been absent once before in "Live and Let Die" (and M was absent in "For Your Eyes Only") but they realized it was a mistake and they brought him back.

 

[RichardCrowther]

All I suggest is that we give him a chance.

 

[Steve Christou]

Bond Composer David Arnold defends Daniel Craig...


Bond composer stands up for Craig

 

[RichardCrowther]

As long as David Arnold goes back to his earlier, more melodic work with this film, and doesn't comtinue to pile on the drum machines and heavy brass, it'll be a step in right direction. He should also be allowed to write the theme song once more, otherwise, he will have nothing to work with for the rest of the score, and we'll get yet another endless parade of quotes from the Bond theme shoehorned in all over the place, in place of a proper score.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

What if the decide to dump the traditional James Bond theme? I doubt they'll do this as it's as much of a character as bond is, but if they really want to start fresh....

 

[RichardCrowther]

Given its overuse in the later Brosnan Bonds, this might not be a bad thing. Remember, John Barry tried to limit its use as much as possible (and he made sure it didn't appear at all on the Moonraker soundtrack album), preferring to create his own themes, presumably because he got screwed over it, and Arnold himself has always tried to only quote the bits that Barry wrote as far as possible.