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

sigh.

or Rosie O'Donnell?

I don't think he'll be horrible. So far I've only seen him as an uptight do-gooder type guy. If he can be smooth and suave then I'm sure he'll grow into the role nicely.

I heard someone say Clive Owen would be a good choice. What do you think?

I’m going to jump into the camp that Clive Owen would be the best choice. But it does not look like that is going to happen. Of the names floating around now Hugh Jackman I think would be the best fit. Then in ten years hand it over to Jude Law. By that time he might have manly good looks rather than boyish good looks and he would fit the part. Even though he is only four years younger than Hugh Jackman.


I’m not a big comic book fan but isn’t Peter Parker supposed to be kind of wimpy/nerdish? Unlike Bruce Wayne who is tough but reclusive.



Here we go Frankie Muniz as bond in 2030.

Parker's no obvious jock, but when he puts his tights on he's amazingly ripped albeit lean. Even though Maguire worked out for it they had to pad the chest and shoulders of his outfit and they CG enhanced him in a few places too.

Plus, those who grew up (or adults even) who read the comic STRIP rather than the first edition comic books were accustomed to a better looking, taller Parker. For the purists, perhaps Maguire was an okay choice, but I think it's one place where they went TOO CLOSE to the very old, original material. Amazing since they felt compelled to mess up his powers and origin. Kind of like if they'd made Superman and used the original costume instead of what it evolved into. I wouldn't have expected someone quite as big and bulky as what Parker was in the Fox Spider-Man series(He actually looked bulkier in normal clothes than as Spider-Man), but certainly not Maguire. It would be one thing if he could be a little more macho when he's Spider-Man, but he sounds all whiny and wimpy ALL THE TIME. His one-liner ability blows. He just wasn't the cool-headed cocky webslinger I've always known. SM may be nerdy and mopey in private, but not in the heat of battle.

I'd have cast Casper Van Dien.

EDIT:

What's funny is a friend of mine also picked Van Dien for the role and emailed Sony about it. Get this: He actually got a reply telling him he was right and Van Dien would be an excellent choice, but unfortunately the role had been cast.

BOT,

MGM, if you don't want the Bond character, don't do any more Bond movies.

Orlando made a cool elf, but Bond? Anyone know how tall he is? He might be tall enough. Hard to say; I don't remember if he's taller than Aragorn (who isn't that tall). He's a lot bigger than Johnny Depp, but who the hell isn't? He'd need to fill out a little more.

He certainly played Legolas cool enough. Sounds like he'd have to fight the studio to keep the "new Bond" closer to the original character.

I'd sooner watch him than Brosnan, but I may be in the minority there.

i think you're bang-on with this; i hadn't really thought about it before, but this perfectly identifies one of those niggling little annoyances i have with the movie.

nice.

Thanks, John. My problem with the widely accepted "He's supposed to be a nerd", hence all the (self-perceived) nerds really like him, is that I (and if you listen to Stan Lee he seems to concur) always thought Peter Parker was supposed to be an Everyman.

He has real problems like everybody else that he's constantly dealing with even though he has these special powers (and brains--once seemingly enhanced by the spider-bite) that allow him to be a super hero. So, we all should identify with him, not just the nerdiest of nerds. The original cartoons anyway went way overboard with the "I'm Spider-Man!!" machismo. It had become nicely refined over the years, yet we got pretty much none of it in the movie. SM is Parker's chance to be someone cooler than he is. We all like to think we have this really cool person in us waiting to show his stuff and when Maguire failed to bring that to the role it really hurt the franchise in my eyes. They should have made him watch a little Chrisopher Reeve to learn some duality if Parker was going to be a total dweeb.

I get bashed a lot for my criticisms of SM and Maguire (mostly way back when on Superherohype in the SM movie thread, man that was intense), but I feel like I speak from the right place since I was considered the "smart kid" in high school, and thus a nerd, but I never looked particularly nerdy. I was lousy at most sports, but not altogether unfit. Spider-Man had been my favorite super-hero my whole life probably because I identified with him so well (and maybe because they started drawing the character closer and closer to a cartoon of me--I honestly look quite a bit like the Fox version). Hence, when I saw Maguire in it, it put a bad taste in my mouth. I just told someone yesterday. "You know how the prequels ruined Star Wars for some people. Well, the Spider-Man movie pretty much did that to Spider-Man for me." Don't even get me started on MJ.

James Bond on the other hand was never an Everyman character, and it seems to have slanted more that way in recent years and it sounds like he'll be retrofitted altogether soon.

As much as I liked DAD over the previous Brosnan Bond entries I had some problems right away (though the surprise did make the film have impact and edge it otherwise wouldn't have.) Right off the bat, Bond gets caught. WTF?! Bond doesn't get caught in the beginning of the film on a routine mission. At least nothing he can't get out of. I had a bit of trouble believing the ultimate super-spy spent 2 years in a prison. 2 years?! The guy's gotten out of more impossible scenarios in how many movies and he couldn't escape from that place? Because there was a tratior? Gee, like he never ran into that before. He shouldn't have been caught in the first place. All he had to do was jump off the waterfall. Bond tends to have all his escape routes covered. No parchute in his jacket this time? He's not going to just take a chance and jump like many have in films before? (Hell, the villain lived.) Oh, I get it; he can get caught, tortured and imprisoned just like everybody else. Somehow, the first reel or so of the film was more like Alias, and then it went back to the super-unbelievable stuff of yesteryear. I guess the writers figured it all averaged out. Too bad it doesn't work that way. I imagine a lot of it is trying not to repeat what's already been done, but when that's the character what are you going to do? If I wrote a Superman comic and decided, "Hey, this week Superman's not going to care if someone falls off a building, and regular bullets will hurt him because that's the way I perceive the character this week, not because of any plot device, but just because that's how I think he should be today." that wouldn't fly very well.

That actually reminds me of the first time Lois and Clark really turned me off, but I won't go into that since I've gone OT enough.

I like Dark Horizon's reasoning as to why Bloom doesn't work. http://www.darkhorizons.com/news04/040319b.php

It's not believable. Doesn't MGM remember Sum of All Fears when Harrison Ford was replaced with a younger, more popular actor, Ben Affleck? It didn't work with the movie.

I like Clive Owens, but he's not interested.

I wonder how successful the Brosnan Bond films are when you adjust the grosses. Tickets cost a lot more these days.

How old was Lazenby when he played Bond? He was much younger than anyone else. He may have not have yet been 30 if I recall.

Ironically, the picture Dark Horizons has of Bloom actually has him looking about right for a young Bond.

As far as, Sum of All Fears goes, that movie sucked, but I wouldn't blame it on Affleck. I'd say it sucked because of the film's total lack of suspense thanks to it showing us everything on both sides all the time.

Lazenby was born in 39 and the movie was realesed in 69. So he would have been 29-30...still a bit young.

I agree with the above poster, stop making Bond after Brosnan's 5th one. If they're going to remake him as a younger hipper guy to attract a youger audience, why bother, they tried with xXx.

What made Bond unique was what Ian Fleming, Terance Young and Sean Connery did in creating the film versions of Bond. Sadly the studios want to cater to what they think today's audiences want. Which is mindless explosive action for teens without the flair of what makes Bond, Bond.

I read Brosnan felt that they should just go back to basics and make a good thriller with characterization. But then that might be too adult! The Bourne Identity had a feeling of what a modern Bond film could be. Just add a few little bits of traditional Bond flair.

Maybe we read the same article? I read an article where Brosnan was asked what he would like to do on a Bond movie if he was given creative control. He basically threw random ideas, but they were pretty wild. He wanted nudity in a Bond film, somehow show that Bond never uses a condom and that if it was his last Bond film, that Bond would die. These were pretty old comments(I think prior to World is not Enough) and I think from a Maxim mag.

I really really hope they do something like this, with some good suspense and cloak and dagger elements. However, I seriously doubt it will happen given the current direction of the series. My hope is that the coming of a new Bond (Clive Owen is my favorite option by far) can bring about a change for the better.

Huh? Sum of All Fears made $118 million domestic. Like the movie or not but I think the gross tells Paramount they made a pretty good choice.

I dont really mind the idea of a younger Bond, James Bond. I do hope though that by trying to go with a younger Bond, James Bond to attract a young audience they don't forget about their already established audience. They shouldn't be spending $100 million to make $150 million in the US to make the movie a huge blockbuster. How about they make the movie with $40 million, and make it a spy thriller. So what if they dont reach $100 million. Its a huge profit and a better movie.

Right now I think we all agree, it doesnt matter who plays Bond, James Bond if they continue with the quality of the last 3 storylines.

I'd love a more classic style spy thriller but I'm at a loss on why anyone thinks this a remote possibility. Each of the Brosnan bonds has been doing better than the one before it and are the chief cash cows keeping MGM alive. From MGM's perspective there is no need to change the formula. Their concern is lining up a new Bond so that they can build on the Brosnan bond movies, not take it into a new direction.

I think Brosnan should stay on for one more Bond film at least.

There's really no gauruntee how the audience will respond to another actor as many of the "newer" Bond fans have been brought up with Brosnan as the face of Bond -- not only in the movies, but also in the video games and various other merchandising tie-ins.

I just think it'd be a silly risk to take at this juncture. And Pierce deserves a better send off than Die Another Day. The next one will probably make more money than the previous ones, why fix something when it isn't broke?

I think Mr. T should be the next James Bond.

EVIL MANIACAL VILLAIN
I am Dr. Maki Velli. I don't believe we have ever met, Mr...

MR. T
Grr! Bond! James Bond! Grrr! I pity the fool that tries to take over the world! Shake my martini, fool, before I show you some pain! Grrr!

I'd pay to see Mr T as James Bond. As long as Orlando fuckin Bloom dosen't get his hands on the role I'll be happy.

I don't recall any indications that Peter Parker gained anything intellectual from the bite, unless you count spider-sense. But he was already incredibly bright - the bite didn't make him smarter. Last time I looked, there weren't too many spiders who displayed super-intelligence - why would he get smarter via the bite?



I think you ignore the fact that the movie only shows the very early stages of his adaptation to being Spider-Man. He's not going to change overnight, and that's literally what would have to happen for you to get what you want. The truth is that he DOES mature during the movie, and in a fairly realistic fashion.

I grew up with the comic BOOKS - the newspaper strip is atrocious - and I think the movie is as close to perfect an adaptation of a comic book source as I've ever seen. Yes, I disliked a few small alterations, but overall, I thought it truly captured the spirit and tone and also was true enough to the source to keep me happy. I was absolutely delighted with the flick and can't wait for the sequel!

Hilarious

Ironic. MI5 (the British counter-intelligence service; Bond is MI6) recently posted its requirements, and one of them is that an agent should not be more than 5'11" tall: too tall and you're too obvious, you can't blend in. So the actors playing Bond are all too tall, e.g. Connery and Moore are both 6'2" or thereabouts. Funny, considering we've been complaining in this thread that some potential actors for Bond are too short, being less than 6'...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...people_brosnan

Looks like he is out again.

time to let Tarantino do a "throwback" bond as they revamp the 007 franchise back from the likes of the Rambo it has become.

For bond fans, It will be scary to see the young/popular and miscast "bond" actor they shove in the face of audiences

"We went out on a high," Brosnan said,

I think he's deluded or in denial. Does anyone actually agree with that? I thought the last James Bond movie was terrible.

I wouldn't say it was terrible, but it in no way was it as good as the other 3. IMHO, The World Is Not Enough was the best, followed by Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies and as a distant fourth, Die Another Day.

I think Clive Owen is too scary/lacking the smooth-talking charisma to play Bond. That was the great thing about Pierce Brosnan is that he combined the silk smooth Connery Bond and the deadly viper Dalton Bond into the best Bond.

Ioan Gruffud is not scary enough, Hugh Grant is too charming... Gerard Butler might be able to pull it off. Ewan just doesn't seem right. Jackman could do it, but that would be movie series overkill. Maybe they need to go with a relatively unknown actor?

The "high" Brosnan is referring to is the $432 million that "Die Another Day" made worldwide at the box office. That, and it's domestic mark of $161 million, both represent the highest marks achieved in the 42 year old franchise. "Die Another Day" is the only Bond movie to earn over $150 million domestically, and is also the only one to earn over $400 million worldwide.

Brosnan's Bond movies represent the only four films of the franchise to earn over $100 million domestically. Adjusted for inflation, 1965's "Thunderball" remains the most successful entry of the series. It's $141.2 million worldwide mark ($63.6 million domestically) translates to well over $850 million in today's market.

Rumors suggest that the producers are really high on Hugh Jackman taking over the role, but a final decision should be made very soon. The next movie is already set for a November 2005 release.

Must say that IMHO Jackman would make a fine Bond, of all the suggestions in that article he's the only one that combines the suaveness of Bond in a tuxedo, yet is physical enough to be convincing in a fist-fight, and has the inner streak of aggressiveness necessary to be a ruthless killer as appropriate. Bana might as well, although we haven't seen anything to show he can pull off the suave ladykiller part of the role.

Agree with David's critique of the other nominees; and also the possibility that Jackman might not get it due to his association with other franchises, although with Van Helsing less than stellar results that one might not continue any further.

But can you just imagine the confused kiddies? "Mom, why is Wolverine carrying a gun? What happened to his claws?"

They can save money by getting Orlando Bloom. He can play Bond and one of the Bond girls.

I really wanted Pierce to do one more, but I don't think he was interested in doing another Bond unless EON/MGM went a different route with it (R-rated, Tarantino style), and it doesn't seem like they were willing to go there.

If this is it, though, it has been in terms of popularity a remarkable run for the Bond franchise that has rejunvenated the character to a whole new generation of fans.