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

My votes would be for Ewan McGreggor if he'll take it, Jude Law if the audience will accept it (Jude would have to bulk up some, maybe 10-15 pounds of workout), or Hugh Jackson.

I'd be delighted with any of these choices.

While it could work out, it ultimately just scares me if they pick a nobody. Not the least of which is they'd only pick a nobody to avoid having to pay the lad what he'd be worth if he could carry Bond off.

Ewan, Jude, Hugh. They'd rock in the role (waka waka).

My personal favorite pick would be Colin Farrel, but he's probably a few years too young. He'd be great though.

But, IMO, he doesn't have the most important quality in a Bond: coolness. James Bond should always be the coolest guy in the room. I don't think Jackman can do that. Or Ewan MacGregor. Definitely not Orlando Bloom. (I'd sooner take Orlando Jones.)

I never cared for Brosnan and everytime he's interviewed he seems to have a bit of an ego.

Bring on Clive Owen.

After buckling under the strain to sell King Arthur to American audiences, I dunno where Clive Owen's stock is. But I think it would be risky for MGM to put the Bond franchise on his shoulders.

Then again Van Helsing was also a dissapointment, but far from a complete flop. Hugh Jackman would probably be the guy at the top of their lists.

I think MGM should've just trusted the audience a bit more and let Brosnan have his R-rated Bond. I'd be very interested in seeing it. I don't believe Pierce just made this decision out of the blue, he'd been talking for months now about the next Bond and where he wanted to go with it.

I bet they go younger with Jackman and also get Britney Spears to be one of the Bond girls. My thinking is though, this strategy ultimately might bite EON in the ass, because part of Bond's appeal is that he's an older, sophisticated character (even to teenagers).

Unless Brosnan's indulging in a little Moore-ish brinkmanship with EON, I think he's right to hand in his notice. It'll either get them to sign him up and pull their fingers out on getting Bond 21 rolling, or it'll free him up from turning down acting jobs waiting for EON to get their act together. If they want to have a Bond ready for release in 2005, they'll have to get a script and pre-production in place within the next two months (given their usual track record). I think maybe they're now aiming at a 2007 date for the next movie and doing something bigger and more brainless than Die Another Day - after all, Barbara B wants to top the last one.

My money's on Clive Owen having an agreement on playing Bond, as when reporters ask him about the gig, he doth complain too much.

And Britney as a Bond girl?? Even with Orlando Bloom playing Jimbo they'd have to call her character Jayle Bait.

Orlando Bloom is the new young James Bond

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/a...how/793805.cms

Bullpucky. I don't buy it yet.

Maguire...Toby Maguire.


Hehehe. Couldn't resist. Bring on Jackman!! You're worried about him being cool? Shit. All he has to do is stand there and look good. That's cool enough.

And with the difference in grooming, I don't think he'll be confused with Wolverine. Unless we get James "Caruso" Bond worked into the next film again.

Getting back to height, I believe in the original books Bond was always 6'2" (what my father told me.) So what if the British secret service doesn't use anybody that big? I'd rather go for the character that was written. Certainly lots of other things in the films aren't out of the MI6 handbook.

How about Colin Salmon (who plays Robinson in the past few Bond films)?

The article says he's been cast in "Young James Bond," a Miramax production. Nothing to do with the Brosnan/UA franchise (if the India Times is to be believed).

Have you seen "Kate and Leopold?" He was definitely suave and cool in that. Jackman is an immensely talented actor and he could absolutely pull off the role of Bond.

I'm calling it now, but I think EON and Barbara and company will be unpleasantly surprised when the next few Bond films aren't as well recieved as the past few.

No doubt they're gonna look at Die Another Day and try to one up that, but it'll only get sillier. I bet they also make the mistake of trying to purposely pander to the MTV crowd and then end up having that same audience getting tired of it (Charlie's Angels 2 anyone?).

If the Orlando Bloom-Britney Spears direction is the one they want to go in, I can't blame Pierce for wanting out.

The thing about Pierce is he just brings a bit of dignity and class to keep the audience in it, even in the most absurd situations. I really feel like he covered up a lot of the holes in the prior Bond films and set the right tone. A new actor could totally throw that off.

My ranking of Brosnan films (best to worst):

* Tomorrow Never Dies - Classic Bond villain. Best Bond girl ever. Great musical score. Yes, kind of a rip-off of You Only Live Twice and Spy Who Loved Me, but in a way that's also what I like most about it. It's the most "Bond" of Brosnan's films.

* Goldeneye - Fantastic pre-title sequence. Good choices for Bond girls. Suffers from weak villains and horrible music score.

* The World is Not Enough - This one really pisses me off. It really should be number one. Best script. Best score. Best pre-title sequence. Best title song. Why is it third? Two words: Denise Richards. Yes, there have been Bond girls before who couldn't act their way out of a paper bag, but they were never given the job of playing a nuclear scientist, having to support the second half of the film, and having to appear to be Bond's equal. Every scene she is in she manages to totally destroy. I;ve never seen a performance doom a film quite like that before.

* Die Another Day - Just awful. Brosnan's "Moonraker". Halle Berry was horribly miscast. Crappy "let's make this look Hong Kong-style" directing. Implausable even for a Bond film. And Madonna. Let me just say that again. [rant]MADONNA![/rant]

As for who would be the best new Bond? Adrian Paul. There can be only one!

-Lyle J.P.

I agree that Denise Richards was pretty horrible in TWINE however the story for me and Sophie Marceau and the pre-title sequence rate it as the best of the Brosnan BONDS.

2. I'd have to go with GOLDENEYE. I thought Sean Bean was great as Alex. He wasn't the classic BOND villian but understandably his villiany had to be revealed later in the film in order for it to work. I will say that GOLDENEYE is the only of the Brosnan BONDS to have 2 good women characters! Onatopp was a great henchwoman/bad girl and Natalia was no push over for Bond. Actually she's a key element in the plot. As for the music score I actually liked Eric Serra's take on the score though I prefer the Arnold scores.

3. Classic BOND villian in Carver and the best BOND girl in Michelle Yeoh. The worst love interest ever in Teri Hatcher who was almost as bad as Denise Richards. I do find some of the action in the movie as kinda dull but the basic plotline was alright and I liked the German henchman. Great score by Arnold too!

4. DIE ANOTHER DAY is by far the worst of the Brosnan BONDS. Sadly as the first half of the movie is absolutely one of the best BONDS ever but that shows how badly the movie failed in the second half. A great find in Rosamund Pike for the villianess and honestly the main redeeming factor in the movie. Halle? Well she was HOT but even though I like her I was unconvinced of her as an NSA operative or being anywhere an equal to BOND.

Let's hope that whoever replaces Bond doesn't bring back the baffoonery of the Moore era.

Hey, hey... Let's leave Moonraker out of this. Space & Laser Guns are always cool! Not to mention what a great Bond villain Michael Lonsdale was. And who could forget the worst named Bond girl of all time: Dr. Holly Goodhead!!!


Now there's the ticket!

Suave, mostly unknown to the general public. But can he do the proper Brit accent? I've seen him do a few accents, but I don't think I've heard him do that one.

Brosnan's comments about being done, I interpret as he's finished talking about it now, he's spoken enough about his position. If they want him they know where to find him. He has to do one more, they had invited him already after the last one completed.

I thought Die Another Day actually had the potential to be the best Bond of the modern era based on the first half of the movie too, but the second half just gets a bit too ridiculous.

I enjoyed it in theaters, but when I watched it on DVD it came off as pretty cheesy.

Pierce has done a serviceable job in his four movies but he has yet to win me over. I always found his suave manner to be 'forced' and he seemed to be guilty of 'posing' too much. People rip Rog for being too jokey, but people underestimate his acting range. Rog could be serious when he needed to be and he was a heck of a lot more convincing than Pierce (though his turn in TWINE was superb).

Brosnan just seemed to cruise through his other movies and I just think he was the best choice for Bond at the time. He was quite handsome in Remington Steele IIRC but but the time he was finally given the gig he just didn't fit the part. Bond doesn't need to be a pretty boy; All of the other actors to have played Bond were charismatic but also had a nasty streak.

If Clive Owen wants the role, give it to him I say.

Totally agree!

Yes, they invited him back then but obviously they had betrayed him.

Speaking in May 2003, Brosnan said:
"I think we're good for a fifth. Barbara and Michael [producers] say they're happy to have me on board until I say no."

"It's like asking a bride as she's going up the aisle who her next husband is going to be," producer Barbara Broccoli said answering rumours of who will play Bond in early 2003, "I mean, he is James Bond. He's our guy. And until he's no longer James Bond, we ain't looking anywhere."

Adrian Paul could probably do the accent. He is in fact British.

Yeah, Adrian Paul would be awesome too, but he's not a big enough name for the studio to go for.

Jackman just won a freakin' Tony.

They could save some money with Paul though.

I know DAD ain't any great movie, but it's really the only Brosnan Bond flick that doesn't bore the shit out of me. It entertainmed me at least. The others didn't. Bond has to be somebody I enjoy watching. Either Adrian Paul or Hugh Jackman fill the bill.

I did think Clive Owen was cool in King Arthur, however. That was the first thing I'd seen him in except for his bit in Bourne Identity and I didn't know that was him at the time I saw it.

I'd go with Adrian Paul as well. Not only does he bear a resemblance to Sean Connery (in his prime) he has that 'menacing' physical presence as well. He'd be an excellent Bond. He's enough of a 'name' as well with Highlander behind him. Clive Owen is a close second IMO.

-Mike

Having seen Clive Owen in CROUPIER, plus his bit as an assassin in THE BOURNE IDENTITY, I'd much prefer him as the next Bond, over the other usual candidates, if he wants the role. He'd be a Bond more in the Connery/Lazenby/Dalton mold. A force to be reckoned with. Though often dour, I imagine Owen capable of displaying some sly wit, if the script supplies some.

I also think Eon could get Clive Owen (relatively) cheaper than Jackman, since Owen really hasn't yet had a "breakout" role, as Jackman has had with the X-MEN films. Owen is likely still a relative unknown to the majority of the moviegoing public (in the USA, at least), which could be considered an advantage when playing 007 for the first time.

Of course, even if an ideal actor is chosen, there's no guarantee that the movie surrounding him will be up to snuff.

IMHO, we need more:

* real stuntwork
* interesting supporting characters (that is, the one-shot characters unique to each adventure; not so much a slam at M, Q, Moneypenny, Felix Leiter, etc)
* actual espionage
* danger
* formidable villains
* classy "Bond girls" (both good and evil)
* twisty plots & novel variations on the central "007 saves the world" template
* truly clever/witty dialogue
* local flavor to the featured exotic locales (this particular quality seemed to largely disappear during the Brosnan era, apart from some of GOLDENEYE)
* half-way believable gadgets
* sophistication (to a certain extent)
* action scenes that make sense
* dark humor
* John Barry scores!

And we need less:

* obvious CGI fakery
* bimbos
* space-based ray weapons (cool, but over-used lately)
* gimmicky pop star cameos
* bad puns/one-liners
* overt attempts to be topical (hurts this type of film in the long run)
* over-reliance on gadgetry to get 007 out of trouble (gadgets are cool, true, but better if used in moderation)
* silly gags done purely for their own sake
* name stars playing villains and "Bond girls" (sure, there are a few name stars I'd like to see take a crack at these parts, but I'd hate to see this become a de facto element of the series)
* performers of the theme songs who can't sing worth a damn (why not try another instrumental theme tune? It worked fine for OHMSS, and the opening credits for FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE)

Excellent list of "needs" and "don't needs", IMHO. Now if only somebody from Eon was an HTF member...

I'm not exactly a huge Bond fan. Heck, I honestly can't tell some of them apart but I'd just really like them to make a more mature Bond flick and I agree with points that have been made.

i dont like any of the proposed replacements as bond. I realluy think the producers have their heads of their asses if they think that a younger bond is necessary or even preferable.

What they need is better writing, less action, more spying.

I wonder how EON and MGM are viewing the success of the Bourne series of films. I saw Supremacy and thought it was great, in spite of the messy camera shaking.

I figure they look at it 2 ways, Damon playing a spy with extraordinary skills and doing cool spy work with minimal special effects and gadgets that are found.

Or they see it's got a youngish guy doing action and spying stuff and they need to have a youngish guy to attract an audience.

I think it could go both ways, but I really think that it has nothing to do with the age of the actor and replacing Brosnan is not going to help the Bond series. The audience I saw Supremacy with consisted of alot, and I mean alot of older people, from 20's to 50's.

It tells me that there is still an audience for these films that are not just young and they can enjoy a spy film with spying and action and little to no special effects or CGI.

This film sort of felt like a modern From Russia With Love in terms of a grittiness and atmospheric sense. I never felt Brosnan was a poser. He looks good yes and wears the clothes very well. But his performance in Goldeneye and The World is Not Enough are some of his best turns as the character. And some of his early scenes in Die Another Day were quite good. So I could see him doing very well in the kind of setting that Supremacy had. And of course, the Bond series of films has the legacy of Terance Young's fingerprints of a glossy elegant world with refined living. But I can't see why a Bond film couldn't take part in some of that gritty world.

I'm actually reading some very old copies of all of the Ian Fleming paperback Bond novels, 3rd to 4th printings I found at a used book store. I read Casino Royale and Live and Let Die and I'll start Moonraker tonight and they feel very rough and tumble. LaLD was better then the movie!

I can picture Brosnan doing very well in film adaptations of these.

I hope that it makes them realize, "this is how good a spy movie can be when you try." Rather than making a movie by going down a checklist (Bond girl #1 - check, Bond girl #2 - check, cool car - check, villian who wants to take over the world - check, etc.) the Bourne movies are actually trying to be interesting and creative. The Bond formula may be crowd-pleasing, but it seems that adhering to the formula has become more important to the Bond producers than making good movies.

Hm...well the current rumor in the Bond world, is that Bond 21 will be in fact an adaptation of Casino Royale.

Directed by Tarantino? He's the one who proposed doing CR as the next film, and said he'd like to place it in the 60s. He also has said he talked to Brosnan, who wanted to do it. FWIW.