Pierce Brosnan out as Bond? (UPDATE: Daniel Craig confirmed) - Page 9

Nelson Au · 03-30-2005, 10:09 AM

Clive Owen to be announced

Well, if this rumour is to be believed, then there you have it.

Qui-Gon John · 03-30-2005, 02:43 PM

Definitely will not see this one, unless maybe when it makes it to HBO, I might catch it then. Still think they should have stayed with Brosnan.

rich_d · 03-30-2005, 02:48 PM

I'd love to have Pierce back for one more but Clive Owen is a lot of people's favorite pick for the next Bond (gets my vote as well).

If so, a touch of the cap to Brosnan who brought fan excitment and interest back to the Bond franchise.

Clive Owen isn't really known by a lot of film fans even though he has been around since the late 80's. I think many people know him from the BMW series of shorts than any feature film that he has been in. That has its benefits as people can go to see Bond 21 without preconceived notions as to how he will play James Bond. He is British, tall, dark and handsome ... not a bad start.

Paul_Scott · 03-30-2005, 03:08 PM

the main quality i got from Owen in the brief times i've seen him is that he projects a certain masculine charisma that seems natural and not just posing.
Brosnan was a likable guy, and tall dark and handsome, but (to me) he distinctly lacked an innate aura of masculine power.
whenever he would squint his eyes or grit his teeth or flex his jaw muscles, it just came across as posing to me.

who knows, Clive (if thats who it is) may suck, but i think he has a major plus already in his seeming ruggedness.
Brosnan made a great GQ coverboy in a tux, but rugged is not an adjective that springs to mind whe i think about him.

Ted Todorov · 03-30-2005, 03:26 PM

I hope it's true: Clive Owen has all the potential of being the best Bond since Connery.

Ted

Dave Scarpa · 03-31-2005, 10:55 AM

Yeah I think Owen is the best choice than they could make and much better than doing a series reboot and making it his younger years ala Sum of All Fears. Owen looks alot like the Guy from On Her Majesty's whose names esapes me at the moment....

Alex Prosak · 03-31-2005, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Owen looks alot like the Guy from On Her Majesty's whose names esapes me at the moment....

George Lazenby

I really hope this turns out to be true. I'm not remotely excited about any of the other names that have been mentioned. I'm not a fan of doing a young Bond either.

Grant H · 03-31-2005, 04:15 PM

From what I've heard, Owen is still denying it, saying he knows nothing more than we do.

But, he could just be playing it close to the vest if there's an official announcement coming and he's been sworn to secrecy.

Maybe it's a kind of an audition--can the would-be super spy keep a secret?

I think he has potential to bring greatness back to the role. Sorry to all the Brosnan supporters, but I heartily agree in what Paul said about him. He actually worded it a lot better and more politely than I would have (and have in the past.)

I have to find the actor truly believable as Bond; here, I think Owen could deliver me something Brosnan could not. For me, you might as well have put a cartoon character or the CGI Brosnan from the games in those movies. There's so much unbelievablity in the Bond films anyway, Bond has to sell it for me. If he can't, it all falls apart.

I'd still be happy if Hugh Jackman got the role, though.

Nelson Au · 04-05-2005, 01:31 AM

More intrique from EON and Sony. Here's a cool story from this British Bond website: http://www.mi6.co.uk/mi6.php3

Again, if true, I think it makes perfect sense:

Quote:

An apparent MGM insider named 'Artists United' contacted Dark Horizons at the weekend to offer an alternative future to the Clive Owen rumours. Could Pierce Brosnan be brought back?

"So - the next Bond. The buzz is that, ultimately, the filmmakers would like Pierce Brosnan back. All the stuff we heard about Brosnan being out is just a ploy from both camps. The negotiations between Brosnan and Eon came to an end because, in the last year, things were up in the air, thanks to all the organizational changes taking place. Many things have been affected by the Sony takeover, and I must say that there are days when it feels like doom and gloom as I walk along the hallowed halls of MGM - there are all sorts of reorganizations in the works and, well, the bleakness of uncertainty surrounding our jobs. Moreover, with the delay of the Bond film and many organizational matters still being worked out, there wasn't really any reason for Eon to continue with the negotiations. And with Eon still immersed in some business matters with Sony, as well as lacking a director (at that time) and a solid script, and an initial salary request from Brosnan that they balked at, it was suddenly premature to proceed with the negotiations. Brosnan's apparent bitterness in some of the interviews (according to our sources at the publicity side) is essentially the reaction of an actor who was chumped from the first stirrings of a good deal in the making: last year, things began to look hopeful, not just in terms of salary, but in the area of story development and an agreement to move away from an excessive action-oriented/special effects kind of Bond film.

"So where does this leave us? Well, what we're sensing is that the Brosnan/Eon camps are still going through the motions of bluffing each other: an echo of the old poker game that Cubby Broccoli went through with Roger Moore. Moore frequently announced that he wouldn't be back. (Geez, if he had a web site back then, he'd be plastering it with farewell messages.) It's a typical tactic of PR handlers--make your star seem aloof and distant to make the filmmakers worry and chase him--and it worked for Moore. In fact, during the days of "For Your Eyes Only," Moore wasn't even signed until about a month before shooting began. It took Cubby Broccoli's personal intervention along with top studio brass to secure a deal with Moore. Whether it will work for Brosnan remains to be seen, but the mood around here (at least for now) is that he'll be back. Hence, the reluctance of the filmmakers to come right out and announce that they have parted ways with Brosnan. If anything, they've kept the door open by not making any casting announcements in the recent press release.

"So much money is at stake and the word is, SONY are not in a gambling mood. They could lose more with an unknown actor, or with an experienced but unpopular actor. They're well aware that you just can't place any actor in this role; and with Brosnan's star power and successful track record ($1 billion from four films), he's currently the strong money-maker for the Bond films. The phrase we've started to hear recently is "The Dalton Problem." Although a fine actor, Timothy Dalton just didn't appeal to the public. They are keen to avoid the same happening with Owen and the other 'candidates' who are supposedly on a short list for the role."

"So, providing Brosnan and Sony/Eon can iron out various political and financial issues - our money's on Brosnan coming back for Casino Royale and possibly even Bond 22!"

Yee-Ming · 04-05-2005, 02:43 AM

Quote:

our money's on Brosnan coming back for Casino Royale and possibly even Bond 22!

One more's fine, but if Brosnan does Bond 22 in, say, 2007, it'll be shades of A View To A Kill...

Ironically, one more might work out nicely, in that Hugh Jackman would've aged just a bit more to better fit the Bond expectation, and if X3 doesn't happen, he'd have put a little more time past his Wolverine appearance.

rich_d · 04-05-2005, 11:12 AM

It does make sense. This is the first one with $ony. Plus they obviously will be trying to promote the Blu-Ray HD stuff with the Bond franchise films as bait for early adopters ... so they have a lot at stake. N