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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

"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".

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.

Agreed. The John Glen years were certainly some of the dark days of the Bond franchise.

The thing with Bond fans is that many cling to the Bond films that were being made during their formative years as how they define and view Bond films.

While I'd be happy with Brosnan or Owen, I can understand Owen not wanting Bond.

The dude is on the rise and Sin City will only make him a hotter commodity. Why would he want Bond? For the ability to do fewer films per year and to be typecast as Bond? After all, what Bond actor had real success in other films or getting other great film roles while being Bond? And Connery was the only one to have real success after being Bond. Does Clive Owen really need this?

I wouldn't blame Owen a bit for turning down Bond. He might have jumped at the chance a year back, but that is on the producers, not him. You snooze, you lose.

My expectations from the Broccoli's are almost non-existent. After all, it was Cubby that hired and signed an American to be the next Bond before the studios twisted his arm to resign Connery for Diamonds are Forever. So exactly what knowledge to we expect him to pass on to his kids (except perhaps knowledge for making vegetables ).

Never mind.

Come of it I'll take any of the John Glen Bonds over the instantly forgettable action crap Hollywood churns out every year, The Living Daylights being a particular favorite.

Just because Hollywood makes worse movies doesn't make The Living Daylights any better - that's really just the 'it could be worse' approach.

The Living Daylights most remembered scene is unfortunately a negative. That being of Bond slipping down the snow in a cello case. Talk about a cringe/squirm in your seat moment.

We want Bond to get the girl, not be the girl.

The story line itself wasn't terrible. However, if you are not going to have the one master villain chosing instead to have multiple bad guys/gals then these parts need to be quite memorable. The Living Daylights didn't. FRWL with Klebb and Grant did.

Though I like your signature photo. Nice.

I'm a big fan of "For Your Eyes Only". It has several terrific action sequences. I appreciated the continuity with "On Her Majesty's Secret Service"(which the dreadful "Diamonds Are Forever" all but ignored). And it was easily the most realistic and down-to-earth(literally after "Moonraker" ) Bond adventure since "From Russia With Love". Plus, Carole Bocquet was one of the more independent, tough-minded Bond chicks.

My only real issues with FYEO are the crappy score by Bill Conti and Julian Glover's dull Kristatos.

I thought the score wasn't bad and the "ski chase" had radio airplay, not to mention being used in several sports montages & recaps to this day.

The Brosnan movies written by Neal Purvis and Robert Wade are IMO the nadir of the franchise. I was never sold on Brosnan (who has always struck me as a supporting lead on television, and a fairly synthetic one at that), but at least with "Goldeneye" and "Tomorrow Never Dies" we were served with enough action (albeit overkill in many places) to gloss over the lack of gravitas in Brosnan, whose professed zeal ("It's a hoot!") at playing his childhood hero makes for a performance nowhere as compelling as the wariness sincerely conveyed by Connery and even by Lazenby and sometimes by Moore.

John Glen's movies were a mixed bag, true, but all of them had Ian Fleming source material, and script genius Dick Maibaum had a hand in the adaptations. And say what you will about Glen, but he was far more effective as an action director than the people who've been choreographing Brosnan's action scenes.

"The Living Daylights" was a breath of fresh air for the franchise after Moore's departure, with Dalton delivering as a hired killer wary and weary of his job, a plethora of inventive and exciting action sequences, and a cap put on the gratuitous sex (always been my least favorite aspect of the Bond films) and the idiotic sex quips and faux-sophisticated double-entendres, which have reached the summit of blatant cringeworthiness in the Purvis/Wade scripts.

And I'll not go with a single bad word said about
"Moonraker", my first ever Bond film experience, boasting one of the most lavish and realistic space stations ever designed. Throughout, it's escapism from an innocent time. And even the quips (e.g. attempting re-entry) aren't quite as gut-wrechningly awful as those in "Die Another Day" (e.g. ornothologist, huh?). Actually, Brosnan has never been able to deliver a quip without making me wince. Even in his first two Bond films.

a well written post Kevin, and i agree with just about everything you've said.
Maibaum was a solid scribe and he is sorely missed.

and i think Moonraker still has a lot of virtues (although i do understand where some of the hatred comes from, i think its a little over the top given most of the entries in this series suffer consistently from the same sins).

IMHO the problem is that this particular score is very dated, being instantly recognisable and characteristic of its era, much like a lot of music from TV shows of the same period.

MOONRAKER is the most absurdly overblown Bond of all time, lacking the subtleties, class and wit of any of its predecessors (with the exception of DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, which was also pretty sledgehammerish). I remember how hopeful I was going in to see MOONRAKER after having been thoroughly enthralled by THE SPY WHO LOVED ME and thinking, "What da...?" It was the first Bond movie where I almost left half way through it.

For me, the series re-stabilized a bit with FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, but never quite regained its footing until GOLDENEYE when Pierce Brosnan brought back the character's coolness, style and sophistication. He is, in my opinion, the best Bond yet. And this from someone who hated him as Remington Steele, but loves him as Bond.

SONY, BRING BACK PIERCE BROSNAN!

for me, that would be You Only Live Twice.
i used to like Diamonds are Forever, but the last time i watched it i couldn't stand it, and promptly sold it off.

FYEO is mostly great, but Lynn Holly Johnsons absurd (and useless) character drags it down a notch.

i thought Daltons movies were great- both of them.


Moonraker contains one of my favorite John Barry scores, has a cold, stand offish female lead (which i find refreshingly realistic opposite 50ish Moore) and a villian who is operating from an perverse asthetic desire (which is something else i also find refreshingly off beat).
when i was 12 i didn't have a big problem with the double taking pigeons, or the inane Jaws scenes, or the fact that he goes to absolutely no trouble whatsoever in coming across the right clues at the right time- and frankly these still don't bother me a great deal because i don't look at the film the same way i do Bourne Identity (or even Licence to Kill).

it doesn't really bother me that Moonraker doesn't share the same sensibilites as FRWL or LTK- in some ways i think thats the beauty of a series that has lasted 20+ films- there is a film there with its own tone for everyone.
i don't feel an anal need to 'collect 'em all' so i'm not greatly bothered by not owning a few of them- and if the future entries suck...so be it.

I'm not saying that You Only Live Twice is the gem of the Bond years but it does have its moments. Certainly the first of the Bond films to aggressively go the sci-fi and absurd world domination route which I'm not a big fan of either. Also, Bond pretending to be 6+ foot Japanese male was a wince moment too. However, the score is one of Barry's best (always ranking in the top four Bond score polls and for good reason). I also thought the casting was (if not strong) at least pleasant.

However, I have to agree that Diamonds Are Forever which has one of my all-time favorite title tracks has to take it on the chin as the worst Connery Bond film.

To go on and on about how poorly conceived and presented this film serves no real point. However, I know that fashions were pretty bad in the early 70's, but putting Felix Leiter in a bad jacket and tie is one thing, putting Bond in a pink tie that would better fit an 8 year old ... what were they thinking?



Still, it's hard to hate a Bond film that has lines like:

Plenty O'Toole: Hi, I'm Plenty.
James Bond: But of course you are.
Plenty O'Toole: Plenty O'Toole.
James Bond: Named after your father perhaps?

DAF is really frustrating for me, because i like a lot of the material there, and other things just infuriate and insult me.
i'm not bothered by the gay hitmen for instance- what does bug me is that a British SS agent is deffered to on American soil on a cia op by cia agents.

No doubt, but I still think it is a fun film, even if it is ungodly silly. Plus, Jill St. John makes for an attractive Bond girl. (Hey, I have a thing for redheads.) :b

Course, it didn't help Die Another Day that they basically stole the weapon from Diamonds Are Forever.

Jason

Totally agree. It's like he tries WAY TOO HARD, and even manages to use the wrong inflection 95% of the time.

Moore worked because everything was like a walk in the park for him. And Lazenby was seriously underrated. He was young, a model not an actor, and did great his first time out, especially considering the tremendous pressure on him after everyone had been sold on Connery as Bond. It's ashame they gave him the boot, because as big a Moore fan as I am, he probably had the legs to be the best Bond ever.

What's amazing is it took two films before they re-wrote the character to better coincide with Moore (less smacking women around and such), but Lazenby managed to make the role his own with one film.

This article should help clarify the current 007 casting situation, I think.

Is that article fake? “Everyone knows Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan, but when I tell people that I played the same role, they laugh at me. I now carry a briefcase with DVDs of ‘License to Kill.’ It solves a lot of arguments.” LOL! That would be hilarious if that is true.

Best part of the article is the final couple of paragraphs:

Pierce officially inked to stay on as Bond.

http://www.thisislondon.com/showbiz/...rce=Metro&ct=5

Judi Dench lets the cat out of the bag.