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 17

post #481 of 680
10/13/05 at 3:38pm
Quote:
In New York, you might add.
Why? It's on every one of my posts. Besides, the fact that I like Daniel Craig as an actor and think he'll make a good James Bond has nothing to do with where I live or what kind of market I'm in. It's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

As with all such matters, YMMV.

M.
Reply
post #482 of 680
10/13/05 at 5:41pm
The MI6 website reports a story from an English paper where Craig's Mum has spilled the beans to the press a day ahead of Eon's scheduled announcement that Daniel Craig is actor number 6 to play Blond, James Bond.

Well, if his turn isn't successful, Brosnan could come back when he's 54 or 55 years old. Not likely though.
Reply
post #483 of 680
10/13/05 at 11:41pm
If this rumor turns out to be true today, it will turn Casino Royale from a must see to a wait and see for me. Pierce Brosnan *is* James Bond (TWINE is my favorite bond film) and I think Eon is making a huge mistake with Craig.
Reply
post #484 of 680
10/14/05 at 4:05am
Has now been confirmed that Craig is the next Bond.
Reply
post #485 of 680
10/14/05 at 4:49am
"We've been expecting you, Mister Bond."

Reply
post #486 of 680
10/14/05 at 5:32am
My wife has already said that if Craig was picked she didn't even want to bother seeing the next Bond. Oh well.
Reply
post #487 of 680
10/14/05 at 5:41am
I'd love to see a Bond boycott. That would make an impression on EON and the Broccolis. Two points to support it, dropping Brosnan and also the "young Bond reboot" not to mention their "young Bond" ain't all that young.
Reply
post #488 of 680
10/14/05 at 5:53am
Nothing like giving the new guy a chance, is there?


Anyone who saw Archangel will know he is a superb choice.
Reply
post #489 of 680
10/14/05 at 5:57am
It's official. Daniel Craig is the new 007.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movi...tor/index.html
Reply
post #490 of 680
10/14/05 at 6:07am
I must say this choice seems rather strange to me. He doesn't fit my personal profile as to how James Bond should look like. It should be interesting as to how well the media and public accepts him in that role.





Crawdaddy
Reply
post #491 of 680
10/14/05 at 6:54am
Anyone who saw Archangel will know he is a superb choice.


Absolutely. Craig's going to be a brilliant James Bond. And, apart from his hair, he looks a lot closer to Ian Fleming's "Hoagy Carmichael" description of Bond than any of the previous actors.
Reply
post #492 of 680
10/14/05 at 6:57am
I have nothing against Craig and, while I have some concerns, I'm sure I'll be there opening weekend.

However, my gut feeling is that we are looking at Timothy Dalton all over again in terms of public acceptance. I'm going to go ahead and predict that "Casino Royale" will be the lowest grossing Bond film since "License to Kill."
Reply
post #493 of 680
10/14/05 at 7:04am
And, apart from his hair, he looks a lot closer to Ian Fleming's "Hoagy Carmichael" description of Bond than any of the previous actors.

Unfortunately, his acceptance in that role is not going to be judged by Fleming's description, but by the general public's perception of James Bond which has been established from over 40 years of films.

The people making this film, really have their work cutout for them.





Crawdaddy
Reply
post #494 of 680
10/14/05 at 7:06am
They do indeed.


Found this on the MI6 Bond website forum:

http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/c...craig_bond.jpg

Well?
Reply
post #495 of 680
10/14/05 at 7:19am
Quote:
Well?


Nope. Still doesn't look like James Bond.
Reply
post #496 of 680
10/14/05 at 7:20am
Daniel Craig is an excellent actor and I believe he is going to be a splendid addition to the list of actors who've portrayed James Bond. He will be able to handle the lighter material and still project a sense of danger and menace which was mostly missing, at least for me, from Brosnan's Bond.

(I enjoyed Brosnan in the role, but I never felt that he was able to project the iron hand in the velvet glove quality embodied by Connery's Bond; something that I believe will be rectified by Craig.)

- Walter.
Reply
post #497 of 680
10/14/05 at 7:25am
Unfortunately, his acceptance in that role is not going to be judged by Fleming's description, but by the general public's perception of James Bond which has been established from over 40 years of films.


True enough. But, quite honestly, I couldn't care less whether or not the general public accepts him as Bond. Or how much money the film itself makes. I just want to see Casino Royale turned into a first class Bond film, starring a damn good actor. And, thankfully, it looks like that's exactly what we're going to get.

If it turns out to be a total flop, so be it.
Reply
post #498 of 680
10/14/05 at 8:00am
I doubt it will be a flop - no Bond movie has lost money (though I understand that The World Is Not Enough didn't go into profit until DVD sales and the like were taken into account, but I suspect that was probably down to the film's budget, rather than lack of takings at the box office). It's certainly true it might not do as well as hoped, however. But then, not a single frame of footage has been shot yet, and next Autumn is a long time away. I think people will be just as accepting of Daniel as they were of Pierce come 2006.
Reply
post #499 of 680
10/14/05 at 8:54am
Quote:
I think people will be just as accepting of Daniel as they were of Pierce come 2006.

Not a chance in hell. The Blonde Bond? The difference is that Brosnan already was a well-known actor and (why judgements about him differ) everyone will give him that he can do 'suave.' Further, he already was well known for doing intrigue, lady's man stuff from Remington Steele. At the time, some even knew that the only reason he couldn't do Bond (the first time) was that he couldn't get out of his Remington Steele contract. Big difference.

Look, do I hope the best for the franchise? Yes.

Will I give Craig (I swear I just had to think what his name was) a chance? Absolutely.

But comparing his going in position to Brosnan's? That just crazy talk.
Reply
post #500 of 680
10/14/05 at 9:12am
Quote:
Not a chance in hell. The Blonde Bond?


I don't see why not. We've already had The Scottish Bond (Connery), The Bald Bond (Connery), and the The He's-Too-Old-Now Bond (Connery).




Quote:
The difference is that Brosnan already was a well-known actor


Not In the UK he wasn't. Sure, Remington Steele was broadcast over here, but it didn't exactly break ratings records. In fact, probably the most high-profile thing Pierce had done up to that point for UK viewers was Mrs. Doubtfire (I think). And that was hardly a measure of whether or not he could pull off Bond. Connery was also an unknown at the start.

Quote:
At the time, some even knew that the only reason he couldn't do Bond (the first time) was that he couldn't get out of his Remington Steele contract.


But, the amount of people who knew that wouldn't be enough to make any kind of difference at the box office - a few thousand at most. I believe Timothy Dalton was looked at around the time Connery left, and the only thing that stopped him getting the role was that it was decided, on reflection, he was still too young. Again, a lot of people probably knew that, but that didn't prompt them to give him a warmer reception at the box office.

Quote:
But comparing his going in position to Brosnan's? That just crazy talk.


Probably. I still think, once he's got a coupl eof hit films under his belt this summer, he'll be accepted a little better by the public.

Or not.:b
Reply
post #501 of 680
10/14/05 at 9:15am
At the time, some even knew that the only reason he couldn't do Bond (the first time) was that he couldn't get out of his Remington Steele contract.


Which wasn't, strictly speaking, true, anyway.
Reply
post #502 of 680
10/14/05 at 9:21am
I'm going to be a heretic on this and say that I don't think it really matters who the guy playing Bond is. Try this test for yourselves. Read the following list of titles and introspect on what your first reaction was:

1. Goldfinger
2. Man With the Golden Gun
3. The Spy Who Loved Me
4. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
5. The Living Daylights
6. Live and Let Die
7. Tomorrow Never Dies

My first reaction in each is something about the film itself (FWIW, my reactions are: Shirley Eaton covered in gold and Oddjob; clunker of a script only partly redeemed by the corkscrew car jump; the parachute jump; too miserable an ending; totally unconvincing; a bit dull; okay stunts). It's not 'oh that was a Roger Moore one' or 'that was a Timothy Dalton one'. I think that's the same for most people. If you ask most people 'what do you remember about [insert Bond film title here]?' they are far more likely to say something about the plot than the actor.

And there is one thing about Casino Royale - let's hope it wipes away memories of that excrescence of a David Niven movie. I love a lot of David Niven's work, but not that film.
Reply
post #503 of 680
10/14/05 at 9:24am
Quote:
... (though I understand that The World Is Not Enough didn't go into profit until DVD sales and the like were taken into account, but I suspect that was probably down to the film's budget, rather than lack of takings at the box office).

You could be right about "The World Is Not Enough: since Production Budget = $135 million and Domestic BoxOffice Gross = $126,943,684!!!

But add in the Overseas BoxOffice = $234,888,716, ... and you get Worldwide BoxOffice Gross = $361,832,400. It seems to me that the DVD's profit's was just icing on the cake!!!

Here's the overall Bond Movie BoxOffice Gross w/Pierce Brosnan as Bond (from BoxOfficeMojo):

Quote:
GOLDENEYE
Release Date: November 17, 1995
Production Budget: N/A
Est. Marketing Costs: N/A
----
Domestic:........$106,429,941
+ Overseas:.....$242,465,680
-----------------------------------------
= Worldwide:...$348,895,621

TOMORROW NEVER DIES
Release Date: December 19, 1997
Production Budget: N/A
Est. Marketing Costs: N/A
----
Domestic:........$125,304,276
+ Overseas:.....$214,035,826
----------------------------------------
= Worldwide:...$339,340,102

THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH
Release Date: November 19, 1999
Production Budget: $135 million
Est. Marketing Costs: N/A
----
Domestic:.........$126,943,684
+ Overseas:......$234,888,716
-----------------------------------------
= Worldwide:...$361,832,400

DIE ANOTHER DAY
Release Date: November 22, 2002
Production Budget: $142 million
Est. Marketing Costs: $38 million
----
Domestic:........$160,942,139
+ Overseas:.....$271,028,977
-------------------------------------------------
= Worldwide:...$431,971,116

Shall we say that, ... Pierce Brosnan as Bond, ... kept the franchise afloat!!!


Daniel Craig???

Time will tell!

Phil
Reply
post #504 of 680
10/14/05 at 9:42am
The thing is, the fact that it is a remake (do we need ANOTHER remake, let alone a Bond remake) will make me think more than twice about seeing this one in the theaters. Sure, the Niven edition may not be "true" Bond, but have they really so run out of originality as to have to go back to it? What next? Dr. No Redux?
Reply
post #505 of 680
10/14/05 at 9:46am
It will take some getting used to, but I will definitely be in the theater next fall.

BTW, who decided that Bond couldn't be blonde?

--
H
Reply
post #506 of 680
10/14/05 at 9:51am
Quote:
(do we need ANOTHER remake, let alone a Bond remake)
The existing movie called Casino Royale bear so little resemblance to the novel that this almost doesn't qualify as a "remake", no matter what the plot. The two films should certainly have a lot less in common than Thunderball and Never Say Never Again.

M.
Reply
post #507 of 680
10/14/05 at 9:53am
The Original Casino Royale was so differnt I don't consider this a remake at all. I'm Looking forward to Craig. If this movie is Kept serious and they throw out some of the established Bond Plot Formula's it could be great
Reply
post #508 of 680
10/14/05 at 10:05am
Onto the bigger question now, what hotties will be featured in the movie?

--
H - a topic far more deserving of conversation
Reply
post #509 of 680
10/14/05 at 10:14am
Sienna Miller was mentioned as a possible Bond girl today on a piece on the radio about the Craig decision. She's apparently also personally linked to Craig, after she and Jude Law split.

-Christian
Reply
post #510 of 680
10/14/05 at 10:37am
Quote:
However, my gut feeling is that we are looking at Timothy Dalton all over again in terms of public acceptance.


Personally, if the movies turn out like Dalton's, I'll be a happy man. Those are probably some of the better Bond films out there.

As for acceptance, turning this francise into a big money making machine in recent years has mostly ruined the franchise for me, so if it does go lower profile, I won't be unhappy with that.

Jason
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)