Pierce Brosnan out as Bond? (UPDATE: Daniel Craig confirmed) - Page 13

It could be in the cards:


Full report here.

That's very reassuring. As long as Brosnan hasn't completely ruled it out, I have to believe that SOMEONE will come to their senses somewhere along the line, even if it means Sony going over Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson's heads.

If they get one or two good ones out of him before he's finally retired as Bond, I'd atleast feel comfortable with him having a legacy like Connery and Moore. Say what you will about the movies themselves, but Brosnan really came into his own as Bond in WINE and DAD.

Aaron & Adam, I agree, I really like Brosnan as Bond more than any of the others. Even Connery, who I really like a lot, but I still like Brosnan's Bond better overall.

Why don't they just get it over with and cast Keanu Reeves?

I wonder--do the people who gripe about bad DVD cover art hate Brosnan? He is a real-life floating head over a little boy's suit.

I just watched Goldeneye recently, and I was amazed you could see they were trying to cover the gray in his temples even then. There were times he looked okay then, but already his boyish good looks were fading. I can't decide if he was more or less fit then. He actually had some fat on his skinny body in DAD, but skinny as he was in Goldeneye you'd be hard-pressed to find a muscle in his arms. I have a tough time believing someone would stay down after he punches them. Where does the power come from? Is he magical? It's not like he's Bruce Lee under that loose tuxedo.

I still can't figure out why the filmmakers let him seem so asthmatic in Goldeneye, and to a lesser extent in his other films. Isn't James Bond an athlete? If he whipped out an inhaler with a fully-focused brand name on it, I might understand. Why is it the unsuspecting women who get caught up in his adventures recover quickly while he is still huffing, puffing and sweating? Sorry, but it's that kind of thing that has always made him totally unconvincing as James Bond in his supposedly "realistic" portrayal. If that's what I wanted, I'd cast Jim Belushi. I wish they could have kept Dalton. I understand not making him a superhero, but the guy does this stuff EVERY DAY. Conditioning? I guess that's why I never found Moore quite as hammy as so many people do. He just took everything in stride. Wouldn't it all become another day at the office over time? An occasional moment of intensity is warranted, but I'd think Bond would be desensitized to most things kind of like a surgeon. If things keep going as they are, we might as well sit in on Bond's therapy sessions and see him pill-up on blood pressure medication and anti-ulcer treatments.

Campbell has put together great casts for the Zorro movies; ashame HE can't pick someone new for his second go helming a Bond film. He just worked with Sewell; ask him to direct him as Bond.

I want to believe.

Before Goldeneye I wanted to believe in the idea of Brosnan as Bond, but it never quite worked for me. I did think DAD was his best attempt. Brosnan started out already looking a little ragged, but like Moore before him, they got him like 10 years later than when they initially wanted him. Damn those TV shows. Do you think if he'D started when he was younger Brosnan could have worked out and built up some muscle?

Mi6.co.uk is proclaiming that Brosnan will return. The article features some very promising quotes from Brosnan. Turns out he only wanted a half-million dollar raise from "Die Another Day" (he wanted $17 million US vs. the $16.5 mil he got for "DAD"). Sony wants him back, he's willing to come back, it's just Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson that are messing everything up. Cubby must be rolling over in his grave.

Good. This will be the right thing to do.

Hopefully the screenwriter, Paul Haggis, brought in to polish the Casino Royale script by Neal Pervis and Robert Wade will create the kind of Bond film that is in the mold of From Russia with Love. More thriller then gadget fest.

And if Martin Campbell has no issue with Pierce being back, then it fitting this be the last with Pierce, if it is the last. (Martin made the first with Pierce, GoldenEye)

I would hope that their decision to hire an Academy Award-nominated writer would indicate that they're trying to go in a different direction than the last few 007 flicks. It wouldn't be the first time. Look at the movies they made after "You Only Live Twice" and "Moonraker".

Brosnan says Bond sex scenes are too tame (middle of the article)

I knew Campbell directed Goldeneye, but it still amazes me since I loved Mask of Zorro and still shrug at Goldeneye.

Could Brosnan LOOK more ancient in those Die Another Day publicity grabs on the MI6 site? He used to just be wimpy. Now, he's a wimpy old man. And THAT'S Bond?

I know a lot of people are happy at this "news", but he will never be Bond to me. It just means I'll have to wait another 2-5 years to see someone else come in and hopefully do the character justice. I'm starting to think Julian McMahon may end up in the role eventually because he's becoming incredibly popular. That, or they'll wait until Clive Owen looks really old and get him then.

Hell, maybe I'll move somewhere, acquire an accent and play the bloody part myself.

And please, no "bloody nipples" in the next Bond film. That would be gross.

The producers are just playing it forumula-safe as always. They couldn't settle on a new guy, so by default Brosnan is back. WTF? If they can't improve on anything else, why improve the lead right? No creativity in filmmaking anymore; that's for sure. As long as it makes money. I don't even like Pierce's accent. He's SO Irish. Of course Connery was SOO Scottish you couldn't understand him half the time, and everyone loved him too. I guess I'm just different. Just because a guy sounds like he's from one of those islands doesn't make him a suave super-agent for me. He has to be able to back it up with something more than a smirk and a geeky strut. Seriously, did he pick that up from Ace Ventura?

I think I'll start work on a parody film "Casino Royale with Cheese" You think that robot from "Friends" is available?

I watched License to Kill recently, and although I enjoyed it more than I did before, it really doesn't feel like a Bond film, and that's what killed the franchise for a while, not Dalton. The story wasn't big enough, not enough globe-trotting. It was like one of those "road-trip" episodes on ER or something. Putting something personal in a Bond film can work; it did in OHMSS and to a lesser extent in DAD, but it can't be the whole film or you lose the audience who wants a Bond film. Artistically, it's kind of nice to have that entry in there, but it really de-railed the series. I'm not sure it would be as damaging if released today, but times were different then. When it was released it felt very dark, and today you see a lot rougher stuff in primetime TV.

I don't know what to expect from CR. Another Goldeneye won't do it for me. All the overblown stuff in DAD actually made it entertaining, at least for the first viewing or so. It distracted from Brosnan who WAS marginally better that time even if I was waiting for him to have a heart attack during the sword fight.

Man, if Hugh Jackman isn't masculine enough, how can that dude stand Pierce Brosnan?

Is there anyone else who was all excited the Bond series might have new life with a new Bond only to be let down after all the hype that we're getting the same old ho-hum thing again? For me, this is like if all the guessing before Batman Begins had revealed that George Clooney or Michael Keaton would be donning the cowl again.

I hope the talk about Brosnan coming back is true. I never had higher hopes for the series and the next movie when it was suggested he would star in Casino Royale as directed by Quentin Tarantino. I know Campbell is directing, but still, two out of three isn't bad.

I just hope we don't see a retread of Goldeneye, of which I was not a huge fan. I liked it fine, but thought the action overkill was ultimately distracting from the story. Nearly every scene in Goldeneye ends with an explosion of some sort, which I think gets tiresome and unremarkable.

I'd like to see CR be the serious spy movie we know 007 films should be.

Ugh... you want 007/Brosnan to look like some 'roid rage WWF wrassler?

Gimme a break.

He needs to come back for the last one unless they fire the rest of the supporting cast and by all reports Dench, etc. are signed long ago.

No, when did I ever suggest such a thing?

I want him to look like a man capable of the spectacular feats he pulls off, not like someone my 60+ yr old father could take when he's in class-reunion shape.

Someone who's lean and athletic, like Christian Bale and doesn't look older than his early 40's. Hence if you want to keep him for 10 years, cast someone who looks mature, but is in their 30's.

re: the supporting cast are signed on; Samantha Bond who plays Moneypenny has stated she would not comeback if they announce a new actor to play Bond as she felt too old to play against a younger actor. But if Brosnan is back, then hopefully she'll come back to reaasemble the ensemble.

re: Bronsnan looking old: I think he's pretty lean and meaner as he ages. He's got a harder edge look now, but he doesn't look old. Not like Moore did in A View to A Kill. That's my opinion.

I think Brosnan will have the quality needed for Casino Royale. I read that book last year and I could see him doing it well, especially the gritty bits towards the end. Assuming they have not veered too for away from the source.

This could be very cool, a modern day Bond film using a Fleming book as the basis rather then the recent films. And this book is not over the top.

I just looked at som epics of Brosnan on IMDB taken earlier this year. I dont see how someon can think he looks "old". Christopher Lee, Michael Gambon or Ian McKellen look old, just to name a few. Brosnan looks young enough on his own. Add in the magic of the right makeup and I'm sure he looks young enough to play a convincing Bond still.

I doubt very much that Pierce Brosnan will be playing James Bond again. Casino Royale is supposed to be a series reboot, and Brosnan's far too old to play the younger Bond character that's in the script.

But Bond's age is never addressed in the movies and the chronology is very loose. I can't imagine that there is anything in the script that explicitly says that Bond has to be young or that it's a prequel, the writers most likely just wrote him differently. The "de-aging Bond" thing wasn't an issue until Timothy Dalton took over the role. The Bond from "A View To A Kill" was roughtly the age that Bond from "Dr. No" would have been 23 years later. When the obviously-younger Dalton took over they slightly rewrote the "Living Daylights" script that was originally written for Moore and didn't address his impossible age at all. Sony wants Brosnan back, the public wants Brosnan back, Brosnan is willing to come back and Broccoli and Wilson have to realize that they look foolish in the eyes of most Bond fans. All signs point to Brosnan returning, a few lines in a script aren't going to change that.

I never said Brosnan looked like he was 70-80!

Just old for a vital super-agent. He LOOKS 50-60 which he is, and James Bond just shouldn't be that old.

I don't know; maybe I suffer from the SW fanboy-like "Pierce Brosnan raped my childhood" syndrome.

Funny how as a kid, Moore didn't seem that old to me; today he does look a lot older to me, but I think part of that is the fact I recently watched the Saint series when he was much younger. If he'd been able to do Bond THEN, and trimmed down a little, he'd have been perfect. Still, he was suave enough and at least a barrel-chested enough guy that his films still work for me. I think if you take those films as a product of their time he's still good.

The fighting is rather stiff by today's standards, but that's the way it was in TV and film then. Things are different now. If they want Bond to be grittier and more realistic, I need someone who can be totally convincing physically, yet retain an ease and suave sophistication. It IS a tall order.

The fact that he gets injured, sweaty, and winded isn't enough to sell him to me as realistic or as the Bond character. Face it; James Bond can be beaten to a pulp, sleep with six women in one night, and save the world the next day on no sleep.(I believe my mother once stated this in just about the same words) He is NOT a normal guy. SELL me the illusion that it's him even if it's a stunt double or CGI double at times. And let him be someone I can actually imagine a young gorgeous woman would want to jump in bed with after five minutes of conversation without it being a pity F***. Even when Moore was old he had the "distinguished English gentleman" thing going for him, and Pierce can't quite get there. He's kind of stuck since he looks too grim these days to be a cavalier playboy. In his Remington Steele days, he could have at least pulled THAT off, but he would have been playing Bond with a lighter touch at that age I believe--before he became "a serious actor."

I think the next Bond film has to take a "Batman Begins" approach to the casting and script, and I don't mean make it an origin story. I mean work towards believability, even if it's believing in the extraordinary. Bruce Wayne has no superpowers, but he is not NORMAL. Neither is James Bond.

p.s. I'm sure Brosnan wore make-up in Die Another Day and the publicity photos. The stuff helps, but doesn't work miracles. Obviously, he's only getting older. What's the solution? MORE make-up? If you cake it on too thick it actually makes things worse. Haven't you seen those commercials talking about it settling into facial lines and accentuating them? If you want an old Bond, maybe a Brosnan film should be kind of a coming-back-from-retirement film like that gem of a film, Never Say Never Again. They could set it "in the near future."

Until now. According to Martin Campbell and Paul Haggis, James Bond in the new film is 28 years old, and on his first assignment.



They are, if those few lines are what the whole film is built around.

Whoah; I didn't know they were going to really go through with the "young James Bond" thing. They really are going BB on us.

I hope this doesn't bring Orlando Bloom back into the picture.

I may think PB is too old, but I don't know how well a greenhorn Bond will work either.

No, Bond films are built around huge setpieces and rewriting for a particular actor is common. If the script says Bond is 28 and on his first assignment, that will be changed when Brosnan is cast in the part again. This is clearly a franchise where the writing accomodates the casting and not the other way around.

You're not his agent are you, Bill?

I wish, but then again his agent probably isn't very good if he couldn't get him a $500,000 raise after four consecutive movies that ougrossed their predecessors.

I've read interviews with Neal Pervis and Robert Wade on the MI6 site and they wrote the script to Casino Royale right before all the trouble occurred with who would play Bond. So they wrote it with Pierce Brosnan as Bond. He is the Bond as far as they are concerned.

I don't think Brosnan looks 60 at all. Not even close.

Late 40s is more like it.

I think the whole "young" James Bond thing would be a disaster.

I wouldn't mind a young, late-twenties Bonds. After all, Lazenby was in his late twenties when he played Bond and Connery was only in his early thirties when he started playing Bond.

I'd just hate if the film constantly drew attention to it, like constantly having something saying "look! It's young Bond and he's not as seasoned or experienced as you've always known him!"

That's similar to one thing I disliked about Goldeneye. The film couldn't go by a minute without drawing attention to the fact that this was Bond in the nineties.

Drove me nuts as well. I was glad when they (sort of) put Moneypenny back in her place in DAD (the parts where she was fantasizing about Bond with the virtual reality goggles).

I think Brosnan will be back. Somebody mentioned somewhere that Ian "about-to-get-fucked-over-at-the-Emmy's" McShane as Le Chiffre (sp?). to that.