Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Pierce Brosnan out as Bond? (UPDATE: Daniel Craig confirmed)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pierce Brosnan out as Bond? (UPDATE: Daniel Craig confirmed) - Page 12

post #331 of 680
8/31/05 at 5:01am
One bit of good news from the article:
Quote:
The new film's director Martin Campbell, who also directed Brosnan's Bond debut "GoldenEye," has his own ideas about reinventing the franchise. He was involved in the recent hiring of Paul Haggis ("Million Dollar Baby," "Crash") to rewrite old Bond hands Neal Purvis and Robert Wade ("The World Is Not Enough" "Die Another Day").
After the awfulness of TWINE and DAD, it's nice to know that a real writer like Haggis is now involved. Hopefully he'll improve on whatever hack-work Purvis and Wade have done.

I did love this passage:
Quote:
One source close to the movie reported that Broccoli liked "Layer Cake" star Daniel Craig, 37, but Wilson didn't. Broccoli also thought Australian Hugh Jackman, 36, who in addition to playing Wolverine in "X-Men" has appeared in Broadway musicals, wasn't masculine enough. Colin Farrell, 29, was judged too much of a bad boy. Eric Bana, 37, star of "Troy" and the upcoming "Munich," wasn't good-looking enough. Ewan McGregor, 34, was too short.


And:
Quote:
In deciding to adapt Ian Fleming's first Bond tale, the 1953 novel "Casino Royale," they can reintroduce Bond as a young 28-year-old. "They were looking young," the agent of one Bond wannabe said. "They said they wanted the next generation's James Bond. Someone the younger audience could relate to."
I really don't care how young you make James Bond - you're never going to get audiences to actually relate to him.
Reply
post #332 of 680
8/31/05 at 9:25am
Quote:
Colin Farrell, 29, was judged too much of a bad boy.
Too much of a bad boy to play James Bond? Is it even possible?

I fear that skewing the character younger will be the end of the franchise as we know it. If you are going for the youth market, you might as well make "XXX" movies (of the Vin Diesel/Ice Cube variety, not porn ) James Bond requires a level of sophistication that I don't think a younger actor can bring off.
Reply
post #333 of 680
8/31/05 at 10:13am
Quote:
Eric Bana, 37, star of "Troy" and the upcoming "Munich," wasn't good-looking enough.


Oh, you've gotta be kidding me. My wife thought he was the best thing about "Troy".

Quote:
I really don't care how young you make James Bond - you're never going to get audiences to actually relate to him.


That's what I'm currently dealing with with my wife. Since AMC has been running the Bond films lately, she's been sitting in on some of them. Her reaction is, "How can you like him? He's such a jerk." This is mostly with the Roger Moore films, which I agree he comes off as a cad sometimes.

I'm thinking going with Casino Royale is ultimitly a good idea. My favorite Bond films seem to be the smaller scale movies that don't involve giant weapons to threaten the world or massive lairs for masterminds. I'm hoping films like the Borne films are a wakeup call that the overly glossy crap they have done is ultimatly empty.

Jason
Reply
post #334 of 680
8/31/05 at 12:22pm
They really are idiots. Ewan McGregor is actually slightly taller than Farrell, who if cast, would guarantee I NEVER EVER EVER watched one of his Bond films. Farrell is SOOOOOOOOO wrong on so many levels. Too damn small for one thing. I have trouble believing he's even 5'10" like IMDB says.

Hugh Jackman not masculine enough??????

Why? Just because he's played a gay man in a musical?

I can't think of anyone more masculine looking than him.

Rufus Sewell is an interesting choice. I've always liked him in everything he's done.

The producers are right about one thing: Brosnan ain't worth 30 million. If the trend continues, the actor playing Bond won't even have to show up most of the time between stuntmen and CGI doubles. Maybe they should just make Bond entirely CGI. Problem solved!

Haggis as writer is an exciting prospect. Can't go wrong with the man who created "Due South." Hey, what's Paul Gross up to these days? "I first came to play Bond while on the trail of the killer of my father."
Reply
post #335 of 680
8/31/05 at 12:23pm
Quote:
Broccoli also thought Australian Hugh Jackman, 36, who in addition to playing Wolverine in "X-Men" has appeared in Broadway musicals, wasn't masculine enough.
I guess we can put those Orlando Bloom rumors to rest then!
Reply
post #336 of 680
8/31/05 at 1:12pm
Maybe M waw right. James Bond is a relic leftover from the Cold War.
Reply
post #337 of 680
8/31/05 at 1:14pm
Quote:
They need to get down on their hands and knees, offer Pierce what he wants and beg him to come back.

The only I can see Pierce Brosnan coming back is if Sony goes over the heads of Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli and offers him the money he deservedly asked for. Sony can't be happy about the current group of actors EON seems to be considering, and I'm sure they'd rather maintain the success of MGM's Brosnan era rather than start anew with an unproven 007, especially when, based on the history of the franchise, the next actor will most likely suffer the fate of Lazenby and Dalton. I just hope that common sense will prevail. How much did Brosnan want this time around? Wasn't it something like $25 million? I'd imagine that even the most obscure of the current contenders could probably score at least $5 million based on the high-profile nature of the part itself. Is that $20 mil worth it when you're making a film that will NEVER be favorably regarded by the general public unless the star reaches the status of Connery, Moore and Brosnan? "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", "The Living Daylights" and "License to Kill" all have their fans and supporters among the 007 fanbase but your average joe just writes them off completely. In terms of success in this series, it's not about the quality of the movies themselves, it's about the star, history has definitively proven this.
Reply
post #338 of 680
8/31/05 at 1:32pm
Quote:
How much did Brosnan want this time around? Wasn't it something like $25 million? I'd imagine that even the most obscure of the current contenders could probably score at least $5 million based on the high-profile nature of the part itself. Is that $20 mil worth it when you're making a film that will NEVER be favorably regarded by the general public unless the star reaches the status of Connery, Moore and Brosnan?


Depends on the film, tho. If you give Brosnan $25 million, then all of a sudden the budget goes up elsewhere, since now you need to make sure you can cover him in your budget and now you need to go "big" to have some guarantees that you will make your money back.

As I said earlier, I prefer the smaller Bond films that are a bit less cartoony and a bit more down-to-earth. I'd rather have that with a relative unknown, than another DAD with Brosnan.

Jason
Reply
post #339 of 680
8/31/05 at 4:17pm
I think Brosnan is definitely worth the $25 million. His track record as Bond is as good as most A list actors who warrant that fee.
Reply
post #340 of 680
8/31/05 at 4:20pm
As I said earlier, I prefer the smaller Bond films that are a bit less cartoony and a bit more down-to-earth. I'd rather have that with a relative unknown, than another DAD with Brosnan.


See, I think it's the reverse. With Brosnan attached you can afford to go smaller because he'll get people in the theater no matter what the content is.

With a new Bond they won't also risk trying a smaller film too because then you dealing with too many changes to the formula for the studio to feel comfortable. With an unproven Bond you can rest assured that the studio will be pushing for the action and stunts to be as big as ever.
Reply
post #341 of 680
8/31/05 at 5:37pm
A got a laugh out of a few of the actor comments (none of which I believe).

Ewan too short...did they see the Moore films? He's shorter than most of the (admittedly tall) women!

Hugh not masculine enough? Besides the fact that most women would gut their husbands for one night with Hugh, the guy played Wolverine, a 100% testosterone machine.

Younger is a bad idea.

Take care,
Chuck
Reply
post #342 of 680
8/31/05 at 6:43pm
Quote:
Ewan too short...did they see the Moore films? He's shorter than most of the (admittedly tall) women!

Are you sure? I thought Moore was at least 6' 1"? Sure, he had some really tall leading ladies (Maud Adams for one), but I don't ever remember seeing him look shorter than any of them, even Grace Jones.

Having said that, although I am a fan of McGregor, IMHO he's not right for Bond. Farrell is even worse. My choice would be Hugh Jackman, whilst Eric Bana wouldn't be too bad either, but looks like neither is going to get the role.

The producers are in a bit of a bind: sooner or later they're going to have to replace Brosnan anyway, and although I think he just about has one more Bond left in him, I guess the producers are trying hard to avoid the View To A Kill problem, where Bond just looked too hold -- Brosnan was starting to look a little worn in DAD, and no doubt looks even older today. Since it's going to be a not insignificant gap between DAD and CR, might as well also introduce a new Bond, yes?
Reply
post #343 of 680
8/31/05 at 8:59pm
Roger Moore is 6'1" according to IMDB.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000549/bio
Reply
post #344 of 680
8/31/05 at 9:10pm
Clive Owen is the logical choice.
Reply
post #345 of 680
8/31/05 at 10:32pm
Quote:
Clive Owen is the logical choice.


Unfortunatly, he doesn't want the job.

Jason
Reply
post #346 of 680
9/1/05 at 7:37am
I still think they should keep Brosnan on, (I don't really think he looks too old, and with the magic they can do with makeup, that isn't even an issue). But if they insist on changing Bond actors, I would think either Ralph Fiennes or Gabriel Bryne would be good. (Although Brynes is around the same age as Brosnan).
Reply
post #347 of 680
9/1/05 at 8:14am
Quote:
I would think either Ralph Fiennes or Gabriel Bryne would be good.


Never heard of Gabriel Bryne unless you're referring to Gabriel Byrne, who I see more as an excellent future Bond villain rather than as 007 himself.

Looks like some people have already decided who they want...

Reply
post #348 of 680
9/1/05 at 8:30am
Brosnan fans find it was all a bad dream, coming in 2006...



Christophe Gains? Eh?

aaaah! Well it might still happen, maybe this was all a huge publicity stunt for the next one, see the headlines next week Brosnan Back as Bond! Or... worse case scenario, Orlando Bloom takes over as Bond in Casino Royale... brrr.

More Bond suggestions here... Future Bonds
Reply
post #349 of 680
9/1/05 at 9:58am
Steve, sorry typo. Excuse me!

You are right, Byrnes.
Reply
post #350 of 680
9/1/05 at 11:30am
Quote:
More Bond suggestions here... Future Bonds
Excluding Clive Owen, I think Gerard Butler would be the best choice as far as looks go. The only movie I've seen him in is The Phantom of the Opera, and, well, he didn't exactly look or act the part then.
Reply
post #351 of 680
9/1/05 at 7:03pm
For some reason, I find myself really interested in who's gonna be the next Bond despite the fact that I've only seen a handful of films from the series!
Reply
post #352 of 680
9/2/05 at 1:15am
Thanks for the link; gotta agree with most of the comments there. Although I've enjoyed the few Clive Owen movies I've seen, I do think there's just "something wrong" with his face (which I can't really identify, just a feeling) that precludes him from playing Bond, i.e. he just doesn't look like a Bond. On the other hand, I think Owen would ironically make a great Bond villain. Likewise, as the site comments, Dougray Scott.

I've never seen anything James Purefoy has been in, but just that photo leads me to think they might have a point, he just about looks right.

As for Julian McMahon, I watch Nip/Tuck, and for some reason he doesn't "feel" right -- don't get me wrong, I enjoy his potrayal of Christian Troy, but for some reason he doesn't seem like a Bond.
Reply
post #353 of 680
9/2/05 at 5:12am
Who's that woman in the fan poster for Brosnan's Casino Royale?
Reply
post #354 of 680
9/2/05 at 5:36am
Quote:
Who's that woman in the fan poster for Brosnan's Casino Royale?

Based on the credits of the poster, it would seem to be Virginie Ledoyen.

Reply
post #355 of 680
9/2/05 at 6:21am
Quote:
Based on the credits of the poster
*slaps head*
Reply
post #356 of 680
9/2/05 at 11:22am
Quote:
he just doesn't look like a Bond. On the other hand, I think Owen would ironically make a great Bond villain.


People said the same thing about Dalton, and I think he was possibly the most Bond-like as far as comparison to the literary character.

To be honest, I think Julian McMahon, would make a better Bond villian than as Bond.

Jason
Reply
post #357 of 680
9/2/05 at 10:52pm
There's been a lot of press recently about Goran Visnjic's screen test as Bond. I can't see him getting role for the reasons I've mentioned before. It will be interesting if the increased notoriety is due to his possibly getting the role.

Ultimately, I would think it was Sony who would likely be placing a lot of pressure on EON to make sure who ever has the role will be able to carry the franchise the way Brosnan did.

One of the articles mentions a casting director who felt, as I do, that it's a mistake to let Brosnan go at this stage. It's too risky for Sony to go with a new actor, and I'm sure they know this. If the Brosnan fans want him back, Sony should hear from them.

I can understand some of the comments Brosnan has made about his relief to be free of the image, but grateful for the success the role allows him to have now. If the EON producers are so fixated to reinvogorate the series by getting a new actor and changing things, it seems to go against what Brosnan has said. They are afraid to go away from the tried and true formula and it frustrated Brosnan. I would bet a smaller Bond at the scale of Casino Royale that took chances would do well with the same main cast of the Brosnan era.

With all the constant news from the 007 sites that this actor or that actor rejected the role or screen tested, I too cannot help but think it's a smoke screen and hope they will get Brosnan back. Of course, he has to agree to do it.
Reply
post #358 of 680
9/5/05 at 6:34am
Rumors that it might get postponed (which I've predicted):

http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=2769

http://www.ianfleming.org/mt_content/000259.html


What a bunch of idiots. Assuming this happens and they new movie comes out in 2007, that will be five years without a Bond movie. Just in terms of dollars and cents (sense?????), that is a lot of time to go without an big influx of cash from a new movie. They should have paid Brosnan what he wanted, they would have a new movie out this November (last November if they would have gotten one done in 2 years instead of 3).
Reply
post #359 of 680
9/5/05 at 9:10am
You know the more and more I think of it. Goran does have the right look. Now if he could do a passable English accent I could actually see it working!
Reply
post #360 of 680
9/5/05 at 3:42pm
I'd love for Brosnan to return but it may not be in the cards.

I don't see the harm in taking a break. Waiting a few more years will only add to the anticipation.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Pierce Brosnan out as Bond? (UPDATE: Daniel Craig confirmed)