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

Alternating hit Bonds vs. struggling Bonds. Is the next great Bond simply to follow Craig?


Sean Connery
George Lazenby
Roger Moore
Timothy Dalton
Pierce Brosnan
...Daniel Craig?

Technically, it's:

Sean Connery
George Lazenby
Sean Connery
Roger Moore
Timothy Dalton
Pierce Brosnan
Daniel Craig

Make of that what you will.

Ah... you're applying the odd/even star Trek Theory to Bond.

They're going to have to get themselves an extremely good cinematographer to get rid of Craig's scraggly features. Looking through his pics on the IMDb, the guy just looks...

BAD!

He's so bad, he's good!

Recent years? Bond has been a "big money making machine" since Goldfinger.

And I wouldn't be so quick to assume such a change in tone. I know that Campbell has expressed a desire for it but Sony and Eon are going to be sweating bullets to get the public to accept the new Bond. And I'm guessing they are going to go all out on the stunts and spectacle in an effort to do that.

I've always thought that "Casino Royale" stood the best chance to be a bit more grounded only if Brosnan was Bond. Brosnan is established enough as the character that the producers could afford to take some chances with the rest of the formula. It's risky enough bringing in an unknown so I expect any futher deviations to be minor.

He looks too old...yes, too old to begin the training.

He looks like a 006 that ends up getting killed or tuns into a bad guy rather than Bond.

Actually, let me rephrase that. Turning Bond into a blockbuster type film franchise has ruined things. Bond films of the past were pretty moderatly priced (about $30-40 million) until Brosnan came on. Now, the budgets of these films are out of control. $142m for DAD? Is that really needed? It hasn't really made Bond all that much better, has it?



Nor am I, with Barbera Broccoli still in control of things, but I at least have some hope with some of the names involved. Naming someone like Craig certainly has balls, unlike some of the other names out there.

Jason

Gheez the guy looks ill in most of the shots...they couldn't do better then that?

Again, I think you're off base. $30-40 million wasn't really moderately priced pre-Brosnan. IIRC, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" and "Batman", both of which came out the same summer as "License to Kill," were in the $40 million dollar budget range. That's how much the big blockbusters of the time cost and Bond was no different.

Brosnan's first film, "Goldeneye," had a budget of $80 million which was hardly exhorbitant for 1995. $142 millin for DAD? Not outlandish for big budget spectacles in 2002.

I don't know the numbers but I would expect "Thunderball" was quite pricey by 1965 standards.

I share your concerns about the recent trends in Bond pictures but at least since "Goldfinger" they have always been big budget spectacles.

So has everyone seen the promo pics with Craig as Bond? I didn't see any mention of it on here. The gun he's holding looks like the same P99 from the last three Bonds.

I don't know about Craig, regardless of how good an actor he is, blah blah blah. He still doesn't look the part. I thought Brosnan looked the part, but I had my doubts until I saw the trailer for Goldeneye, which sold me. Maybe this will be the same case.

Fair points. Certainly Thunderball (IMDB reports 9 million dollar budget) was a big budget affair in 1965. However, inflation has average about 4.4 percent for the last 50 years so that makes for a 50 million dollar budget 40 years later a far cry from DAD's numbers.

My guess is that promotion/marketing spend has reached a different level too from the sort of things they would do in the 60's.

Couldn't agree more. Absolutely horrible choice for the role and they will realize this when the Craig era causes a HUGE downturn in B.O. for the franchise.

Well, whenever there's been talk of any new Bond, everyone freaks out and then says how great the "last" guy was! I don't know anything about Craig except what I see in the pics, and he looks great to me as a new and slightly different Bond, hopefully with the series now on a fresh track. For the record, I've always loved Pierce Brosnan in the part from the very beginning, but after DIE ANOTHER DAY I've felt this franchise is in serious need of re-vamping (maybe like what BATMAN BEGINS did for the BATMAN series). Pierce was great, but I think it was time for him to leave the series after DAD (and we don't want another aged Roger Moore straight out of A VIEW TO A KILL).

It's just amazing how many people NOW are embracing Brosnan! Seems to me it was a very different story once upon a time!

Very ill. I was afraid to say this but I was thinking it all along.

The producers of the Bond series have always aimed for blockbuster business. Already in 1965, THUNDERBALL was a very expensive movie with a huge advertising budget. I think if the individual movies have changed in tone here and there, it wasn't because anyone was trying to be less commercial or more true to the novels or any such noble cause, but to try to conquer bigger markets and stay in business.

I don't know what to make of this one??

He certainly does look too old already!!

I think there are some things that are essential for the Bond character: toughness, charisma, intelligence, physicality, suave and a lady killer.

Now just reflecting back on Brosnan I think he had most of these features. There is no doubt that Brosnan brought back the "lady killer" type of attitude to Bond that Dalton lacked (and i'll admit Dalton to being my favorite Bond).

The most important thing is can Daniel Craig be the kinda guy that women are attracted to and men want to be like??

A rather tall order and one i'm not confident about!! Still and all i'll be there opening weekend 2006!!

So would this be a James Bond Begins type of film? Would this be a rookie James Bond in his first few years? Have they confirmed it as such?

Personally, I think the casting of Craig puts an end to that. He's too old and craggy to play a young James Bond.

Martin Campbell, the director of Casino Royale has said this is not a redo, this is not re-invention, but this will be a new take, going places they have not gone before with the character. As in the novel, it will be a mission that forms his character we now know. I've read the novel last summer and I don't remember reading it as his first mission as a double O. Perhaps it was there. But that's the take this film will take. So it's sort of Bond Begins. The book is rather good by the way.

I am dissapointed that we have Craig now, I agree he dosen't look the part. I saw him at the official announcment on the news this morning. There were some shots where he just looked awkward. I'll give him that he was likely nervous or still feeling ill from that speed boat ride entrance he made. In comparison, when they did the same announcement for Pierce, and you can see this on the GoldenEye DVD, Pierce walks in very smoothly and just looks the part. I guess that's where some call him a poser. I never understood that till recently. I read a editorial that Pierce fit exactly where the public perception of what James Bond was, looked like and acted. And that made him boring, because he was what you expected him to be. I don't fully agree as I felt he had the weight to play the part, but he was held back by the producers choke hold on what Bond can and cannot do. (The editorial even says he's more like Bond in The Tailor of Panama and Thomas Crown Affair) There were brief bits of brilliance I felt, when he kills Elektra King in TWINE, his debut in GoldenEye. So if Casino Royale is the kind of harder edge film he wanted to make, I feel bad for him. But this is good for Craig. I've never seen his work. I did see The Road to Perdition, but don't remember him.

CR could feel like and be the debut that Lazenby had in OHMSS which was a great film. I always thought Connery could have been great in that, but it's hard to say, they would have tailored the script to him. So as for CR, it could be the same, a good movie but an actor the audience may not accept, damn shame Pierce couldn't have done it. The bits with Vesper could have been good stuff for him to show his range. So could CR be the OHMSS of the series, and or the TLD and fail to excite the audience?

Another concern is Martin Campbell. He says this will not have all the Bond exesses, gadget and stuff. Which is good, but I think I heard him say it will have all the explosions and car chase things you expect. There is one car chase in the book and one bomb.

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I sure hope they drop the "It's Bond's First Mission" thing. It sounds like such a stupid idea. Maybe if it were a period piece taking place during the Cold War, then okay and I'll be somewhat intrigued.

However, given the recent press release, Campbell seems to maintain that it will be about Bond's first mission despite Craig's age.

Knowing the writers all it will amount to is probably Bond saying every now and then "this may be my first mission but..." or the odd person calling him "son" and that will be that.

Which brings me to my next point: I don't understand why the filmmakers are bragging that this one will be different. They've been doing that for at least the last five Bond films. The last films have this "This time Bond is out for revenge!" or "This time Bond cries", or "This time Bond gets hurt at the end of an opening sequence" or "This time Bond gets captured at the end of the opening" or "This time Bond actually falls in love!".

Now it's "This time Bond will be gritty or edgier and there will be no gadgets".

All of which are superficial and rather basic efforts from the writers that give them a sense of self-satisfaction that they've done something different.

Just because there's no gadgets or the Bond girl is Bond's equal or he actually falls in love (though this worked well back in OHMSS, but Maibaum wasn't a hack) or he gets tortured or whatever doesn't make it a better film.

And even From Russia With Love had its share of gadgets (the briefcase)and one liners ("she should've kept her mouth shut!") and two of the most beloved films (Goldfinger and Spy Who Loved Me) were among the most extravagant and gadget-laden. Also, Living Daylights is renowned by afficiandos as being a return to Fleming-ish spy stories and even that had an Aston Martin setpiece with many one liners. Therefore, I'm really wary of this "this time there'll be less gadgets and one liners and will be more serious" approach. One liners and gadgets are part of what make Bond Bond and as long as the lines are funny (think the opposite of every line said in Die Another Day) and the gadgets aren't too ridiculous (ala the car with a cloaking device or the holodeck - why do I think if the writers continued in that vein, there would be a scene with Q in the upcoming film explaining how he developed the means of breaking down a person's molecular structure, transporting it and reforming it thus allowing Bond to get out of any stick situation?) then things will be fine.

As with Casino Royale, I don't see how they could actually make a faithful adaptation. It's a very short novel and not much actually happens.
Warning Spoiler! Click to show Nothing too elaborate that won't be able to be able to made into a 2 hour feature film without some major expansion (which will probably include adding an ice palace or two).

And I'm wary of Paul Haggis being added as a writer. Though I liked Million Dollar Baby. I attribute its success to Eastwood, Freeman and Swank. My issues with the film (and there were a fair share) had mostly to do with the script). So I don't know. Will he just be another hack?

I don't really like all this "blonde Bond" stuff the media is using. I always assumed they would dye his hair. Why wouldn't they?

Do you mean this one?


Personally, I get a good vibe from him as Bond. As far as his looks go, I think some of the pictures of him that have been used online haven't been the best choices. As for these polls, of course they are going to be low for Craig simply because Americans don't know who he is yet. The key for them is to deliver a quality, exciting film.

What I would love to see(which will never happen) is Terence Stamp as an aged, bitter, lonely Bond reluctantly called back into service on a case spawned by a dark mistake in his past.

Personally, I think he looks more Bond-esque in the Wireimage photos from the press conference. He looks like a Bond villian in that shot. Maybe that's what they're going for, though; seen from the other point of view Bond certainly doesn't villainous things.

Unfortunately, whether or not the new film is one of the best ever, with great characterization and plot, if it doesn't come up with the right ticket sales it'll be considered a huge flop.

P.S. Hope those rumours that the game in the casino was going to be changed to Texas Hold'em aren't true...

I'm afraid you will be proven correct when we see the film (I hope it turns out well though.) And isn't much of the announced direction a watered down version of what Quentin Tarantino suggested be done if he directed - from the title and story to be used, to the obviously darker and "gritty" themes he would have brought?

I just found some of the old news stories:

"Quentin Tarantino May Direct 'James Bond 21'" - April 5, 2004
http://www.killermovies.com/j/jamesb...cles/3848.html


"Tarantino would 'bring Bond to life'" - May 3, 2004
http://www.thejamesbondfanclub.com/News56.asp

I didn't care for the music in the Brosnan era. I'd suggest that they bring back John Barry to score Casino Royale.

I would have preferred Pierce Brosnan given one last go at 007 but better Daniel Craig than some of the other contenders. Hopefully he'll give a more tougher, vicious, cold-blooded slant to the worlds most famous secret agent.

Not so fast Mr Bond ....

Meanwhile...

Bitter Brosnan in a rage

In my opinion, no Bond film since RUSSIA captured the world of Bond like the the first 25 minutes of 'The Living Daylights' did. I just hope they capture the essence of who Bond and the dirty, sleazy world he lives in.

It's difficult to base my opinion all on the looks of this guy, but he doesn't "look" the part.

Not being familiar with his work, the biggest fault I have with the casting of Daniel Craig is something that's not even his fault--he is not Pierce Brosnan. Pierce is my second favorite Bond (right after Connery). I realize he couldn't have gone on in the Bond role forever, but Pierce is still youthful looking enough to have been in another two Bond films.

Overall I think Brosnan had one or two movies left in him but I like the look of Craig, he reminds me of Dalton, which for me at least is a good thing.

I hope they scale the film down, cut out the CGI because unless it's Lucasfilm or Weta or some other BIG company doing the effects then it doesn't look all to good IMO.

All in all, a grittier, tougher Bond sounds cool to me.