Pierce Brosnan out as Bond? (UPDATE: Daniel Craig confirmed) - Page 2

what if the audience rejects the new james bond?

JACOB

I enjoyed Brosnan as Bond. I thought he was right up there with Connery and Moore. I really enjoyed Goldeneye and it is a shame that his first movie as Bond was the best, it went down hill from there.

I remember leaving the theater after Die Another Day in complete silence...I really thought they were going to turn things around...I was soo disappointed...especially after the first 10 mins were very promising. I was baffled that the sold out audience LOVED the movie and cheered like wildmen at the end of it. I felt sorry for the kid sitting next to me, he was about 10, it was his first Bond and his dad was telling him all about Bond trying to get him to like it. I wanted to tell his dad to take him home and get the Connery and Moore DVDs to start him off with something good.

My choice would be Hugh Jackman, he is the only one who I think could fill the shoes very well.

I'm in the camp that thinks Clive Owen is the one and only choice to replace Pierce as Bond, James Bond.

After seeing him in Croupier and the BMW series, there is no alternative.

I know Clive is against doing Bond because he thinks that the character is boring, but I bet if they wrote a Bond movie that was darker and edgier, he would do it.

Chuck, when did you change your sig and why? Just curious. I was so used to seeing your Matrix one, I was surprised to see it changed to the LOTR one.

Pierce Brosnan deserves one more Bond film. Goldeneye was a fantastic debut but the other three haven't been in the same ballpark (though still very entertaining.)

There is no evidence to suggest Bond doesn't appeal to younger audiences. I'm only 21 myself and have all 20 films on DVD. I grew up with Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton as Bond but in 1995 I too thought "Wow, Pierce Brosnan is cool as Bond". I worked in a cinema during the release of "Die Another Day" and 60% of the audience for most shows were between the ages of 12-25. How much younger do the producers want? Brosnan should do one more film and then they should look at Christian Bale or Clive Owen. Keep the character british. Thats what Cubby Broccoli always wanted. Hugh Jackman is NOT James Bond. Orlando Bloom is a joke. Jude Law is overrated. Colin Farrell is great but hes not James Bond. As for Ewan McGregor... Don't make me laugh, hes ginger!

PS- The character of James Bond is supposed to be Scottish not English. His dad was scottish and his mother swedish. Thats another one the limeys have stole off us!

This is why I'm so shocked that its the producers doing this. Even if the next film doesn't outgross DaD, it's a surefire hit with Brosnan there. Replacing him is risking another Dalton (I think he was a good Bond but he was box office poison). Why not wait until Brosnan actually requests to leave the series?

As for making it darker and edgier, as much as I would like to see that I don't think that's where the producers want to go. They are looking to make more money than the previous entries. A darker film with more emphasis on the character and less on outrageous stunts is likely to please critics and fans but limit its mass appeal. Still a decent hit, to be sure, but doubtful such a film will outgross DaD's $160 million.

Timothy Dalton box office poison eh? You actually check the worldwide grosses for "The living Daylights"? One of the best takes of all the films. Licence to Kill was opened at the wrong time. Nothing to do with Dalton.

I'm not sure about the worldwide gross, but the domestic for Living Daylights was only $50 million. Considering the gross for the previous, and one of the worst, Bond film, A View to a Kill, was also $50 million that's not too impressive considering Living Daylights garnered a lot of initial interest for having a new Bond.

I tend to agree that License to Kill opened at the wrong time. The summer of '89 was packed with high profile movies. Still, the current Bond movies open during the lucrative Christmas season and don't have to dodge the other competition. For better or worse, with Goldenye, the Broccolis did a good job at reigniting public interest in a series that had grown stale to many.

Remember I'm not talking quality of the movies. I enjoyed both Dalton films and think License to Kill is the closest to the darker, edgier Bond that so many seem to want. This discussion is from the perspective of the producers deciding they can bring in more money by casting a different Bond than Brosnan, not necessarily improving the quality of the films. Unfortunately I think they are mutually exclusive.

The US box office takes for Bond films have always been up and down though since Dr No in 1962. Worldwide however they always do very well. The Living Daylights broke house records in many parts of the world and took over $191 million dollars in 1987. It is also a big seller on home video and DVD and is one of the more popular films when it is shown here on UK TV. Clearly a big success in everyway. Licence To Kill took $156 million worldwide in 1989. Had it been opened with a better advertising campaign in the US it would most likely have taken a lot more. The critics liked it and it has since became a very popular film among DVD and TV audiences. Timothy Dalton was a big success as James Bond. The public liked him, the producers liked him and the critics liked him. The legal problem that stopped a Bond film being made for 5 years was one of the biggest upsets in the series history. Dalton was ready to take Bond into the 1990's and Cubby was very happy to let him continue. It would have been great had Dalton made a Bond film in 1991 and 1993 and then Brosnan take over. Its a damn shame the series was put on hold because of the legal troubles. Who knows how good further Dalton Bond flicks could have been? Oh well...

PS- Yes I am a Timothy Dalton fan!

Wasn't that the whole idea behind xXx? A Bond-type character that would appeal to a younger audience? So what the Broccoli's are saying is they really want to make a xXx sequel? Plus, they already know the benchmark for that sort of film, around $140M domestic. They'd be better off sticking to the tried-and-true.


Me too. He was the best portrayal of Bond by far. His are the only Bond films I've bothered to purchase on DVD. It's a shame he was never allowed to make more films.

"He's never been phsysical enough. He looks like he'd break if you hit him once. So puny. He may be fairly tall, but he's physiqueless."

Connery,Moore and Dalton - none were physically imposing.I always saw Moore as the most physically pathetic.

"I never found him believable for action, nor as a womanizer"

Im sure any woman would say Brosnan is great looking and women would probally throw themselves at him.

Brosnan is probably my second favorite Bond (right behind Connery). I believe that Dalton is closest to the novel's description...and though I liked Moore, I feel his characterization was more bent on humor than action.

Who should replace Brosnan? I don't know. I haven't seen Clive Owen, and I don't like the one's listed on the short list as Bond. Someone mentioned Adrian Paul...I think he would be pretty good. He's definitely in shape...and he's always reminded me of a young Sean Connery.

But I personally hope that this is all a ploy, and that Brosnan will make one more film.

JonZ,

Have you never seen "The Spy Who Loved Me"?

Moore was actually body-slamming guys as he took on several thugs at once without breaking a sweat. I don't see Brosnan pulling that off.

Moore tended to have the biggest, baddest villains come out of the woodwork to fight him (i.e. Jaws). He almost always had to take on one guy who was "abnormal" to make it a challenge. Moore was pretty great considering he was the same age starting the series that Connery was when he initially left it.


Connery, Moore, and Dalton were all much more muscular and physical than Brosnan even if none of them were in tip-top shape by today's standards. Dalton probably was, but was extrmely lean in LTK if I recall.

Lazenby was probably the most physical of all.

Brosnan has a HUGE head, a wispy body, a craggy face, and crooked, yellow teeth. He also practically whispers and tends to have the wrong inflection on his one-liners. Sorry, Bond he ain't. As much promise as he showed back in the day when he was cool and kind of nice-looking on Remington Steele, it was too late for him when it started. Took him 4 films to relax into the role. I think he always tried too hard because he knew he really wasn't up to it. I don't know if they changed Bond to machine guns to "update it" or just to make up for the fact they'd lost the character and the actor to portray it.

Bring on a new Bond!!

Although not as dark as Dalton (who could have been the best Bond if given a chance) I liked Brosnans more serious portrayal.

Looking at his films now, Moore was too comedic in the part.

Somehow, I think this is all BS and Brosnan will still do at least one more.

If they do replace him, for the love of God, I hope they don't use the idea of having a young 007 just starting out. I love the current M/Q/Moneypenny lineup and would hate to see that tampered with.

If he is gone, then bring on Hugh Jackman. I could handle Jude Law as well, but NOT Clive Owen or Ewan McGregor.

I find this really disturbing, Pierce Brosnan IS James Bond and only second behind Sean Connery. If Pierce wanted to leave im fine with it, his decision. If EON and MGM want him replace to appeal a younger audience, do something like xXx then. Brosnan reivied the Bond franchise from the rut it was in the 80's.

I do like Daulton as Bond and also feel he is the most book Bond of them all, but audicenes didnt seem to like the darker,edger bond sans the stupid release date of License to Kill. Pierce also has said he doesnt want to be Roger Moore in View To A Kill...ala too old to be Bond he will know when to walk away.

Possible replacements...Im sorry I love Hugh Jackman as Wolverine and looks great in Van Helsing, but Bond he aint. I havnt seen Clive Owen enough to pass judement.

Chris

I'd even go so far as to say I put Brosnan slightly ahead of Connery. Don't get me wrong, I really like Connery, but more his work when he was older than younger. Like First Knight, Entrapment, Hunt for Red October, Last Crusade, etc.

I can see Colin Farrell as Bond, if they clean him up a bit.

Sorry, I'd have to disagree. As someone earlier pointed out, he's way too short to be Bond, likewise Ewan McGregor, who simply doesn't look the part anyway.

I haven't seen enough of Clive Owen's work to comment constructively, but otherwise of all the names thrown up so far, I'd go with Hugh Jackman (also if they "clean him up a bit" -- TM BrianW ). He's got just about the right look and physique.

But I can't see him getting involved in yet another franchise, plus no doubt the producers will feel that he brings too much "baggage", i.e. the Wolverine persona -- into it.

I'll second the nomination of Jackman. He's very versatile and his work has shown that he can handle the suave parts of the role - like in Kate and Leopold - and get tough as necessary, ala Wolverine. Probably won't happen, but I'd be curious to see him do Bond...

Just read on ianfleming.org that a British paper confirmed that EON Productions who make the Bond films has declined to take on Pierce's license to kill.

And there's another funny news story there from a former Bond girl who was speaking out that this was a very bad idea. I hope it's all rubbish, Pierce should have one last film.

By the way, I saw Hugh Jackman once on a daytime talk show a few months back promoting his Broadway musical show and they asked him about Bond. He jokingly looked at the camera and did a very gay, "Bond, James Bond". I don't think he's interested and I don't think he's right, not British. Seeing Clive Owen in The Bourne Identity convinced me he's not right either. He doesn't have the right upper crust accent for the cinematic Bond. And as been said, he feels the part is not very interesting to him. Obo Wan Kanobi, er, Ewan McGregor isn't right either, too short.

who cares what audiences like or don't like.
this isn't a democracy.
this is about art, damnit.

I think that Clive Owen would be a great James Bond. He's capable of playing a gritty, dark Bond and, at the same time, injecting a little humor into the role.

For those of you who have not seen his work, you can download all of the BMW movies/commercials at: BMWfilms.

My favorite commercials were Star (for its humor) and Ambush (tense and riveting).

I have to agree Dalton was a great Bond. I thought License to Kill kind of sucked; no fault of his though. I was really hoping the stories were true a few years back that he was doing a competing Bond at the same time Brosnan was doing Bond. Alas, that didn't happen. Couldn't have been worse than NSNA.

Some of the Moore films were a bit campy, but if you focus on the good ones (and not the early ones where they were trying to make him be Connery by smacking around women and the like) he was excellent. (i.e. The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only.) Some of the goofiness was the fault of the writers and the fact the filmmakers kept going back and forth on how serious vs campy they should be. "Oh, let's put him in space, because Star Wars is big; now, let's be serious and more gritty because we were so silly before; now, let's be silly again" and so on.

Brosnan's super-serious portrayal (particularly GoldenEye) made it hard for me to believe he'd be able to hold up in that line of work for a long time. Like he'd have to take a lot of trips to mental institutions or break down and cry a few times every other mission. Moore took everything in stride and didn't take everything so seriously while still remaining focused on the mission. Kind of like a doctor distancing himself from his patients so he doesn't suffer so much each time he loses a patient. Yet, amazingly Moore could also pull off actually caring about all the women who got killed around him even if he only showed it a second or two. Connery was always like "Well, no more pussy from her." Or from Connery it might be "pushhy".

Brosnan was a great Bond - I am one of those who would put him slightly behind Connery. The problem with Brosnan was that none of his films were that great. They were watchable and fun, but they weren't great the way that Connery film's were. But, if Brosnan had made a great Bond film, he might have even overtaken Connery.

And I'm in the camp who think Dalton was pretty good as well.

Moore was a bit better than Lazenby, but not by much. I don't really like either of their portayals.

According to the Latino Review website, MGM have officially denied any rumour that Brosnan will not be Bond for a fifth time.

So it looks like this WAS another wage dispute being fought in public ; though given the strength of some of the comments, it sounds like it got pretty acrimonious.

I just gotta laugh...


http://www.comingsoon.net/news.php?id=3434

:-) Sorry, but this is all a bunch of crapola, and I don't believe it for a minute. Brosnan will be back as Bond, I am 100% sure. He is one of the most popular Bond EVER, with old and new fans. He has also become the face of all of the Bond videogames, he will even be voicing the next one.

Brosan has the Bond role for as long as he wants it.

Sounds good to me!

I just whoever does eventually replace him does not demand a three year wait in between movies. That is the one and only thing I hate about Pierce.

Brosnan is ok but Roger Moore is my favorite