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 14

post #391 of 680
9/17/05 at 7:12pm
Didn't see this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...lm/4256024.stm
Quote:
Paul Haggis, who is working on the script for Casino Royale, said: "It's going to be good.

"We're trying to reinvent Bond. He's 28 - no Q, no gadgets."

How could Brosnan be back?
Reply
post #392 of 680
9/18/05 at 6:23am
Brosnan can't go on forever and they'll need a new Bond eventually. I'd say Dougray Scott is not a bad suggestion. Clive Owen is a bit too cockney for the role. I didn't mind Die Another Die - but it was certainly a step down from Tommorow Never Dies and The World is not Enough (which was still pretty uneven).

I don't think any of the Brosnan films have been as good as the two Dalton titles - Licence to Kill is a real series highlight in my opinion. And for all the Lazenby slagging, On Her Majesty's Secret Service is the best Bond film full stop. Maybe they should just do the books in order now and adapt them properly?
Reply
post #393 of 680
9/18/05 at 11:34am
No gadgets! And I thought this was gonna be a Bond film!
Reply
post #394 of 680
9/18/05 at 12:26pm
I don't know why they try to get away with leaving the gadgets out every few years or so. Historically, it's proven very unpopular. The lack of a Q appearance in "Live and Let Die" is a frequent criticism (and an admitted mistakee) and "Tomorrow Never Dies" was very gadget-heavy because people were disappointed in the general lack of gadgets in "Goldeneye". When people go to see a Bond movie they want to see Bond flirting with Moneypenny, getting chewed out by M and getting his gadgets from Q.
Reply
post #395 of 680
9/18/05 at 12:53pm
A few rumours that have been coming out of the MI6 site that doesn't make sense. As someone already mentioned, this sounds like B&B of the Star Trek world. If the Casino Royale script really has a 28 year old Bond, then yes, Brosnan cannot be in it. But also, if Dame Judi Dench is already signed or at least set to play "M". Then that can't be, as we know, "M" was a man in the earlier films. Assuming continuity is being followed here.
Reply
post #396 of 680
9/18/05 at 3:25pm
Quote:
Assuming continuity is being followed here


If that were the case, Bond would be 70-something. Maybe they could get Connery back.

Paul "Flavor of the Month" Haggis was hired to do a re-write over 2 or 3 weeks. Whatever changes he makes (at least as far as Bond being young) could easily be yanked out if Brosnan returns.
Reply
post #397 of 680
9/28/05 at 4:27pm
Is a decision imminent?

According to

http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2005-09-28/#2

it is...

I bet Brosnan comes back. I just hope we only have to wait 2 years for the next one instead of 3 or 4 (regardless of who gets the part).
Reply
post #398 of 680
9/28/05 at 10:07pm
Quote:
Is a decision imminent?


I won't believe anything until the movie is actually released...and how much will the script be affected if Brosnan returns? It won't be Bond's first mission anymore. I'm also a bit annoyed at the idea of cutting out Q - From Russia With Love is easily the most "realistic" of the Bond films, but still featured some nice gadgets.
Reply
post #399 of 680
9/29/05 at 5:30am
Here is the complete IMDB story:
Quote:
Rumors spread over James Bond-related Internet fan sites Tuesday that a final decision on who will star in Casino Royale, the next 007 film, will be made next week. The CommanderBond.net site claimed that Sony executives will be meeting with Eon Productions execs next week in London, where the decision will be made. It said that while Pierce Brosnan had been removed from the running months ago, he now not only is being considered to star in the 21st Bond film, but that he is regarded as the frontrunner. "A senior Sony executive has told a member of the Casino Royale production team that the new Bond will 'probably' be Pierce Brosnan," the website said. However, it also indicated that actor Daniel Craig remains the "preferred" choice of Eon, the Bond movies' producers. Today's (Wednesday) Daily Variety said that Sony and Eon are completing screen tests for the movie this week and that the frontrunners are Craig, Henry Cavill, Sam Worthington and Goran Visnjic.

It mentions some guy by the name of Henry Cavill to be among the frontrunners. This guy is only 21 years old! How the hell can he even be considered for the role?

I really really hope they bring Brosnan back.
Reply
post #400 of 680
9/29/05 at 6:14am
I do have to say having seen Layer Cake that Craig does have the "Killer" look about him, something missing in all bonds except Connery and Dalton
Reply
post #401 of 680
9/29/05 at 8:44am
Quote:
The protracted process of choosing a new James Bond is coming to an end, according to Hollywood paper Variety.
Screen tests will end this week and four relatively unknown actors are in the running, Variety has reported.

The contenders are Layer Cake actor Daniel Craig, 22-year-old Henry Cavill, ER star Goran Visnjic and Australian Sam Worthington, Variety said.

The 21st James Bond film, Casino Royale, will be based on Ian Fleming's first novel and released next year.

Producers are thought to be looking for someone younger than the 52-year-old incumbent Pierce Brosnan.

Bond race 'entering final stages'
Reply
post #402 of 680
9/29/05 at 12:00pm
STOP the Madness!
Reply
post #403 of 680
9/29/05 at 2:52pm
Is this Daniel Craig, the same who played in Road to Perdition? I don’t understand how he could even be considered. He has no charm at all. He’s perfect to play the bad guys.
Reply
post #404 of 680
9/30/05 at 4:59am
Does this mean Brosnan is out and the new bond will be one of these four?

Sam, yes... Daniel Craig was in Road to Perdition. He doesn't have the Bond look at all IMO.
Reply
post #405 of 680
9/30/05 at 6:04am
If Brosnan winds up not doing it, after all this BS, I will pass on this title at the theater, as well as a DVD purchase. I may rent the DVD some day, just for curiosity sake. Why do people with the power to make these kinds of decisions always make the stupid moves? It like some kind of fate, they can't leave well enough alone, even with minor tweaking to resolve a few problems that some fans see. No, they have to go off in some totally different direction.
Reply
post #406 of 680
9/30/05 at 11:24am
The Bond franchise really needs a whole new administration, though.

Even for those who love Brosnan, not many will say his run of films has been great. With him getting up in years, they might as well go with a complete overhaul. Unfortunately, the producers will not be going anywhere. What's needed is a director who can gain creative control prior to making the film. That won't happen most likely. If that person could make a great Bond film, we'd want them to stick to that new formula. Again, it would help to have a fresh Bond.

Batman Begins was a great success, but people wouldn't be so hyped about a sequel if they'd started the new franchise with an actor who was too craggy to return for the sequels.
Reply
post #407 of 680
9/30/05 at 11:41am
I don't know if this was discussed already, but it was reported that the rather important Baccarat game from the book has been changed to no-limit Texas Hold'em poker. Reading what I just wrote, you may think I'm joking. I assure you I'm not. Texas Hold'em. At this point I don't see it mattering who plays Bond.
Reply
post #408 of 680
9/30/05 at 2:05pm
Quote:
it was reported that the rather important Baccarat game from the book has been changed to no-limit Texas Hold'em poker. Reading what I just wrote, you may think I'm joking. I assure you I'm not. Texas Hold'em.


Oh, terrific. The triumphant return of "Card Sense Jimmy Bond". I'm going to go retch now. If anyone needs me, I'll be in the back.

-Lyle J.P.
Reply
post #409 of 680
9/30/05 at 2:42pm
No-limit Texas hold'em poker?

Oh, wonderful.

I can just imagine Howard Stern getting on the phone and demanding that his ditzy blonde girlfriend on Spike TV be the new Bond Girl.

Considering how moronic the film industry is these days, I'm surprised they're not going with Adam Sandler as Bond.
Reply
post #410 of 680
10/5/05 at 3:16pm
http://commanderbond.net/Public/Stories/2945-1.shtml

Don't know how legit this "interview" is or if it even happened, but according to Campbell, it will NOT be Brosnan.

Yikes. Goran Visnic? I think I'll pass. If they must be thick-headed about this and replace Brosnan, at least go with Daniel Craig. Cubby Broccoli must be turning over in his grave,
Reply
post #411 of 680
10/5/05 at 6:47pm
Quote:
As to the James Bond series regulars, Campbell confirmed Judi Dench is back as 'M' and John Cleese as 'Q', but Samantha Bond will not be returning as Miss Moneypenny. Bond told reporters last year that she would not return without co-star Pierce Brosnan.


I'll ask again: how can this make any sense with Dench and Cleese returning?
Reply
post #412 of 680
10/5/05 at 8:38pm
Quote:
Even for those who love Brosnan, not many will say his run of films has been great


Any problems that the last four Bond films had should be blamed on the writers and directors and not on Brosnan, who did a good job and fit comfortably into the role every time.
Reply
post #413 of 680
10/5/05 at 8:45pm
I can't read those rumuors and news bits anymore. Even though the MI6 site likely has good information, it feels like it's all rumours and speculation or a smoke screen to get people and press talking. With the start date shifted to February, they could very well be scrambling still for an actor. And it could still be Brosnan.
Reply
post #414 of 680
10/6/05 at 1:19am
Quote:
Any problems that the last four Bond films had should be blamed on the writers and directors and not on Brosnan, who did a good job and fit comfortably into the role every time.


Ditto. I think Brosnan was great as Bond. I think back to Remington Steele and thinking back then he'd be a great Bond. Any problems fans have with his portrayal were caused by writers, directors, or "execs" pushing for certain "direction" for the films to take.
Reply
post #415 of 680
10/6/05 at 3:00am
Brosnan should play bond at least one more time.

Eon may produce the films, but if Sony are stumping up most of the budget they are going to want who they deem will give them the best return on their investment.

So given that each new Brosnan Bond movie outgrosses it`s predecessor(at least at the North American box office)it makes sense to keep him onboard.
Reply
post #416 of 680
10/6/05 at 8:15am
Quote:
I'll ask again: how can this make any sense with Dench and Cleese returning?


What do you mean? Bernard Lee and Desmond Llewelyn came along when they switched Bonds before. They've only made changes when the actor had died.

Jason
Reply
post #417 of 680
10/6/05 at 8:46am
Quote:
What do you mean? Bernard Lee and Desmond Llewelyn came along when they switched Bonds before. They've only made changes when the actor had died.


The movie is supposed to be a prequel, so how could these actors play their roles with Bond 10, 15 years before he's apparently met them (it was always my understanding Bond just meets Judi Dench's M in Goldeneye, and John Cleese in The World Is Not Enough).
Reply
post #418 of 680
10/6/05 at 9:47am
Quote:
The movie is supposed to be a prequel, so how could these actors play their roles with Bond 10, 15 years before he's apparently met them (it was always my understanding Bond just meets Judi Dench's M in Goldeneye, and John Cleese in The World Is Not Enough).
Continuity has never been the Bond series' strong suit. Moneypenny suddenly got a long younger while Q got older and no one blinked.
Reply
post #419 of 680
10/7/05 at 12:46pm
I'll ask again: how can this make any sense with Dench and Cleese returning?

I wouldn't really call it a prequel; it's just a series re-boot with Bond portrayed at a younger age (much closer to his age in the books.) Start with someone 28 or 30 and he'll still be a good age for Bond in 10 years, 5 films what have you. Just like Batman Begins. I wouldn't call that a prequel either. It's a fresh start.

If they worried about continuity Bond would be in his 70's now! It's like a comic book. The character stays the same age even it's been in publication for 50-60 years. Bond's been a little too old most of the time. Moore kind of set that tone, though he was good for the role. They did want him in the very beginning. Lazenby and Dalton got him fresher for a few goes. Then it was Brosnan who they had been considering in his younger, Remington Steele days.

Maybe to make a fresh go, they should re-cast M and Q, but it must have been decided they work for the series. I'd certainly hate to lose John Cleese as Q. Moneypenny needs to be the right age to flirt with Bond; her being re-cast is a given.

I'd have no problem with Goran; I think he'd clean up pretty well as Bond, but has that dark edge to him which would be great for the character. He's not a big name, but the ladies like him, and he'd be easy to accept over someone who's on every tabloid. Daniel Craig looks like an old man even if he isn't all that old.
Reply
post #420 of 680
10/7/05 at 9:03pm
I don't have a problem with a Bond Begins change to re-boot. For some reason though, it just feels too soon to do that. In other words, shouldn't there be a period, as it was between Dalton and Brosnan, a 6 year hiatus where it allowed the audience to want to see it again. As they seem to be doing with Star Trek. Doing a film this soon after DAD feels like it ought to still have Brosnan in it. The news coming out these days (that I try to ignore) from Martin Campbell, sounds just like the kind of film Brosnan has been trying to have EON do.

Two interesting articles in the San Francisco Chronicle:

SFGate Mill Valley Film Festival

SFGate MIll Valley Film Festival 2
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)