Pierce Brosnan out as Bond? (UPDATE: Daniel Craig confirmed) - Page 10

TheLongshot · 04-07-2005, 03:17 PM

Quote:

I don't think some no-name crotchety Scottish soap star will be handed the franchise. The franchise might as well put the new Walther to its head and pull the trigger.

Well, Timothy Dalton wasn't exactly a household name, and I think he made a pretty good Bond.

I'd be happy if they went with a guy like Craig or Owen, because then I'd think that they'd be going in the right direction - a tough Bond rather than Playboy Bond.

Jason

Ray H · 04-07-2005, 08:58 PM

Not sure about Craig. He seems more villainous to me though I'm probably just type-casting him.

Paul_Scott · 04-07-2005, 11:47 PM

i don't know about this Craig guy, because all i've seen is one crappy pic of him (and based on that pic i have a hard time believing this story is accurate)- but i think casting someone who primarily plays the heavy is the way they should always go.
both Dalton and Connery were playing 'heavies' before they were cast as Bond.

gives the character an edge which he needs.
both Brosnan and Moore were more commonly cast previously as the 'leading man'.
and i've always said, for all the positive comparisions that people like to make of Brosnan to Connery, he actually had more in common with Moore.
he may have had the darker hair, and was arguably more handsome like Connery, but both PB & RM played a Bond who was more charming than threatening.

Benson R · 04-08-2005, 01:27 AM

I agree that this rumor of Daniel Craig being cast is probably bogus, but he is certainly not a no name, at least not in the UK.

His breakthrough movie, Layer Cake has not been released here yet, but I suggest everyone check it out when it does.

Sam Favate · 04-08-2005, 07:54 AM

Clive Owen certainly had the right look in Sin City, very rugged with intelligence in his eyes. But I get the sense that he'd be even more intense than Timothy Dalton and would lack the humor of Connery, Moore and Brosnan. Now, I have no problem with Dalton - I think Living Daylights was one of the best entrys in the series, but the producers aren't likely to repeat the tone of the Dalton films since they weren't big hits. I'd love to see Owen in Casino Royale in a gritty, realistic take on the novel, but I don't see it happening.

Jason Hughes · 04-08-2005, 10:26 AM

I think Brosnan will be back. I don't care what this rumor or that rumor says, or what Brosnan's camp alledgedly says, he is a proven winner and Sony is not stupid. 007 is a farily substantial part of why they bought MGM (granted the biggest reason is MGM's catalogue). They are going to blow it by hiring Daniel Craig.

I think they will give in to what Brosnan wanted and maybe even then some to get him to do 1 or 2 more. He's 51 now, if he did one for next year and one for 2 (NOT 3!!!!) years after he would not look too old for the part.

Plus, After the Sunset did not exactly light up the box office, so he needs Bond as much (if not more) than Bond needs him.

Bill GrandPre · 04-08-2005, 12:32 PM

Quote:

I think they will give in to what Brosnan wanted and maybe even then some to get him to do 1 or 2 more. He's 51 now, if he did one for next year and one for 2 (NOT 3!!!!) years after he would not look too old for the part.

Roger Moore was 007 until the age of 56 or 57, and he looked a lot older at 50-51 than Pierce Brosnan (he'd be around the same age during "The Spy Who Loved Me" as Brosnan is now, and that was arguably Moore's best 007 film) so I think Pierce is definitely the way to go. Of course, all of Moore's post "SWLM" 007 films were pretty crappy, but who knows what effect Moore's age would have had on GOOD 007 movies? Put Brosnan in a good 007 movie and the age shouldn't be too much of an issue. For the record, I think Sony/MGM is making a big mistake by not using Pierce Brosnan as long as possible. Quentin Tarantino is correct when he says that Brosnan is this generation's 007. I'm 23. The first EON 007 film released during my lifetime was "Octopussy". You can watch the 007 films directed by John Glen (the last three Moore films and the two Daltons) and tell that the franchise was struggling. The six-year gap between "License to Kill" and "Goldeneye" occured during a time when one of the main demographics of the 007 franchise is at it's most impressionable. For me, no Bond film was released between the ages of 7 and 13. The franchise was practically dead, and the only attempt made during that time to revive it was the terrible "James Bond Jr." animated series. From my point of view, Brosnan took a property that, to people my age, was nothing more than a washed-up series that was running on fumes and put it back on top again. I don't know if I ever would have gotten interested in all 20 Bond films if not for the 4 that Brosnan made. He's certainly more Connery or Moore than he is Lazenby or Dalton, and someone needs to realize that. However, I do believe that the one actor that could beat the "New 007 After Classic 007" curse is Clive Owen. Anyone else is gonna be the next Lazenby or Dalton.

Richard_D_Ramirez · 04-08-2005, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Of course, all of Moore's post "SWLM" 007 films were pretty crappy

All of Moore's Post The Spy Who Loved Me films are crappy?!? Oh, Bill, bite yer tongue! For Your Eyes Only had they best espionage storyline since From Russia With Love!

Bill GrandPre · 04-08-2005, 01:41 PM

Quote:

For Your Eyes Only had they best espionage storyline since From Russia With Love!

"For Your Eyes Only" could have been right up there with "From Russia With Love" but John Glen's pedestrian direction makes it look like a cheap 007-knockoff. In the hands of a more capable director, who knows how the franchise would have fared in the 80's? Spielberg wanted the FYEO gig but Broccoli wouldn't hire him so he did "Raiders" instead. I think the 5 Bond films John Glen directed are the 5 worst films in the franchise, with the possible exception of "Moonraker".

Seth Paxton · 04-08-2005, 01:47 PM

Man if this is it I will really be disappointed, barring Craig doing something great to change my mind.

How could you not throw lots of money at either Pierce or Clive Owen to get them to be Bond? If Pierce is done I couldn't think of a guy more ready to play charmingly hardnosed than Owen. Just his work in Closer shows how he can be dashing, but with the intensity of a professional killer.

Sin City not only adds to that, but shows his ability to work with camp humor while doing it. IMO he was born to reenergize the Bond franchise.

Instead they bring in a guy who could be the 2nd in command villain for most of these flicks.