Pierce Brosnan out as Bond? (UPDATE: Daniel Craig confirmed) - Page 20

Well, to be fair, alcohol in moderation is perfectly harmless, and children cannot really be expected to get hold of a gun and start shooting enemy agents. They can, however, get the idea that smoking is "cool" and go on to kill themselves and everyone around them. I think he's taking the correct stance, given the complaints he'd get if he did anything else.

Besides the one cigar in Die Another Day, has any of the other Brosnan movies had him smoking? I don't feel this is anything new. They even had that part in TND when he punches someone in the face who's smoking saying "filthy habbit".

This source says that Sony does have an interest in Danjaq originating from Salzman's stake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EON_Productions

So, if you have more accurate information please share the source or let's move on.

I cringed when I saw that.

My source is renowned Bond author John Cork, who was told this information first hand.

Well we all know how credible a film producer's word is ... right?

Wikipedia has this to say on the subject:

"In 1975, Harry Salzman sold UA his 50% stake in Danjaq, L.L.C., the holding-company for the Bond films. UA was to remain a silent partner, putting up money, while Albert Broccoli took producer credit. John Cork, producer of dozens of documentaries for the Bond films on DVD, claims that UA sold this 50% stake back to Broccoli in the mid-1980s. Despite that, the copyright for the movie-related Bond trademarks and properties continues to be "Danjaq LLC and United Artists Corporation" to this day."

So it doesn't appear that Mr. Cork's claim has been substantiated.

You would think it would be as in the U.S., sales of assets in publicly traded company (unless at that point in time, MGM was not publicly traded) would have to be publicly disclosed. Further, you would think the legal eagles at Danjaq would not be misrepresenting copyright ownership. So why is United Artists listed as copyright owners?

Even to your own point, you mention that Sony seems to have some control over Eon's decision (at least to some point).

So if they don't own the production company (EON) and (allegedly) don't own shares in Danjaq what is this control exactly? Fairie Dust? After all, distributors are important as is their advice and cooperation ... but you state that it went further than that.

Something is not adding up.

Perhaps Mr. Cork (or anothe poster) would like to share more light on the subject.

On the subject of the press briefing ...

Listening to Michael Wilson at the news briefing is not one of major credibility either. He refutes allegations that other actors were offered the part of Bond before Craig by saying none were.

Of course none would be offered the part only to turn down the part ... that's not how it works. If someone is to be hired, the producer calls the agent up and says something like 'if he is going to say yes, we take it to the next level. Ask him.'

Thus the producer can say that he never offered the part and be technically correct while worming away from the real issue ... that they wanted someone that didn't want them. This tactic is used all the time for big roles with huge public interest.

That way the series doesn't look like it got egg on its face. Meanwhile, at some point, the agent leaks the news that his client wasn't interest in being Bond (thus getting a ton of free publicity for his client). And life goes on.

So, what we really learn from Wilson's refute is a big fat nothing.

I was disappointed they had Brosnan smoke even a cigar because smoking to project an image of "cool" seems so dated. It was one thing back in the days when people didn't know how bad it was for them.

It's laughable to me to watch Connery talking with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth, as if he wasn't hard enough to understand, and it just makes Bond the opposite of cool to me in this day and age.

I liked Dalton, but when I watched TLD recently, it surprised me that he smoked in a couple scenes. I think Moore only smoked a little in the earliest of his films, probably when they were trying to make him more like Connery. He smoked like a fiend on the Saint, so I wonder if he quit at some point and that's why it stopped in the films. I can see Bond having a pack of cigarettes for gadget purposes, but there's no need to have him chain-smoke to be cool.

Face it, cigars, cigarettes...stinky. Bond no need.

Who freakin cares if he smokes. I dont care if he doesnt, but I just hope they dont purposely draw attention to the fact that he doesnt anymore.

Sorry to rant, but it drives me crazy that for some reason with all the vices out there that are terrible for you, smoking is the one hollywood has to protect us from by pretending it doesnt exist.

Also, Bond is supposed to be European, and although the habit is declining there too, it is still more common then in the US, so it shouldnt be shocking if a modern Bond does enjoy a cigarrete.

While I favor a non-smoking Bond, it could be funny to have him go into a restaurant or a bar and light up, only to be made aware that smoking is no longer allowed inside!

Isn't smoking kind of essential for Casino Royale?

Unless I have the wrong book...

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Or am I wrong and was that in another Fleming book?

That was in From Russia With Love.

http://latinoreview.com/films_2005/s...interview.html


Well, we wouldn't want to ruin everything for the kids... If anyone still thinks this film is going to actually be "gritty" (the same word Pierce Brosnan used to describe Die Another Day too btw) I think you're going to be disappointed.

Jeff

So Bond won't be tied to a chair without a seat and have his repeatedly smaked with a carpet beater?

More to do with the fact they financed the movie in the first place.

I vaguely recall that Danjaq owns the various Bond trademarks (iris logo, gun logo with "007" etc, possibly the name as well), and presumably the copyright to the Bond theme as well. Licence to use all these would be necessary to make a true "Bond" film, hence they were noticeably absent in the rogue production Never Say Never Again.

When a movie is produced, who owns the final copyright is really a matter of negotiation and contract, e.g. Lucas personally (or rather, through Lucasfilm) retains copyright for his Star Wars movies, mainly because he paid for it himself, ANH used to belong to Fox since they paid for it, but as part of the distribution deal for the PT, Fox sold the copyright back to Lucas to keep him happy. Hence, I don't doubt that UA does indeed own part of the copyright on each particular movie, presumably shared with Danjaq in some proportion.

This complicates matters going forward, since UA could claim that a subsequent movie featuring Bond would infringe their (part)copyright in the earlier movie. This concept was part of the entire Kevin McClory mess, when he claimed he had some right to the Bond concept on film by virtue of having co-written a screenplay way back when (this is presumably avoided today by having commissioned screenwriters assign copyright in the final screenplay to Danjaq and/or UA right at the outset).

Campbell sums up everything that has made him a pedestrian filmmaker in the last two films I've seen by him.

I thought i read somewhere that smoking gets a movie an R rating now? I could be wrong, dont remember where i heard that from. But it was recent. Anyway, seems Bond needs a rest, just like Trek.

The film was somewhat gritty up until Bond travelled to the Artic. If the film had of stayed out of there and instead spent more time being like its taunt first half, it would have been more highly regarded.

Let's see... No Moneypenny, No Q, Daniel Craig, No Gadgets, For the kiddies... Yessiree I think we've got the makings of a train wreck of epic proportions here. Die Another Day is gonna seem like Shakespeare next to this film.

Firstly, we don't know for sure that neither Moneypenny nor Q are appearing, merely that that would appear to be the case at present. Over the past few weeks everyone from Campbell to Wilson have said that there will/won't be gadgets (does it really matter if there aren't? - the best films in the series were alomst devoid of gadgets) and that the regular cast will/won't be returning. We'll find out soon enough.

Secondly, if a film is said to be a failure just because a couple of minor characters don't appear, then the premise behind the whole franchise must be seen to be too weak to support itself in any case. The James Bond series is bigger than any one character or actor. For the record Q didn't appear in Live and Let Die, and no-one missed him, and Moneypenny can barely be said to be in many of the films, and hardly got a line in Licence To Kill - again, people didn't seem to mind.

Thirdly, since no-one has any clue as to how good or bad Daniel craig is going to be in the role until they have actually seen him in that role (basing one's opinions on other work an actor might have done is dubious at best), which none of us will get a chance to do until Summer next year at the earliest, it might be best to wait until evidence for or against his casting (i.e. actual footage of him in action) is in circulation before the whole film is written off merely at the mention of his name.

Fourthly, the film is not "for the kiddies" so far as we know (and, again, we don't know anything until we see it); it has, instead, been stated that the film is being aimed at a PG-13/12 certificate audience. given the level of violence and language in Terminator 3, which also got an uncut 12 in UK cinemas, not to mention the amount of sex and violence in the last four Bond films, all of which got a PG-13/12 (indeed, the sex scene in D.A.D., which was cut for American audiences, was deemed perfectly acceptible in the UK uncut, despite the amount of thrusting), I think we can safely assume that the film is going to be aimed at a very wide audience indeed. Cutting out positive images of smoking is not pandering the the kids (or parents), it's a matter of health. It's a matter of common sense.

Finally, I've seen turds that have more in common with Shakespeare than Die Another Day - I shouldn't think there is any chance of Casino Royale being as bad as, or worse than, that film.

I thought Q was already replaced by R in the last film (retirement). So wouldn't we already expect that Q won't be in the new film?

Maybe they decided against a Q-type character since the original won't be there.

"R" was a joke. John Cleese's character is Q.

I think one of the problems with doing the Bond films today is that there are TV series like Alias which (at least in its first season or so) could run circles around the recent films.

Apart from Tom Cruise's involvement I'm curious to see what JJ Abrams can bring to the fold of MI-3.

Agreed. A promising opening scene, interesting through through the cool reception for Bond's return.

Then it was as if a 4th grader did the rest of the script. 'say, we'll have a Korean turned into an on top-of-the-world fair-haired white guy. And throw in some ... what I like to call "lasers" ...



For me, the visit to see Q or from Q is not much to worry about. However, I would contend that the flirting with Moneypenny is de rigueur.

The question becomes how much do they change before it ceases to be the James Bond that everyone loves? The latest interview, which has been heavily quoted from on this page says "no gadgets" and "no moneypenny & Q".


That's my problem right there. No one was 'aiming' for a kid-friendly crowd in the other films, they did their Bond film and they got a PG-13 rating... they didn't pander. Martin Campbell has said upfront that they want to bring in a new, younger audience with this film and that really bothers me. I enjoyed xXx, but it wasn't the cash cow that they wanted. This movie may turn out to be another xXx for Sony.

It doesn't really matter to me if Daniel Craig is the next Sir Laurence Olivier, he's still "third slavic sailor from the right" as rich_d so accurately pegged him. To me, he won't ever be James Bond.

That sucks about Moneypenny, this will be the first film not to feature her and Bond will now be the only character to make it through the entire series. Q has been absent once before in "Live and Let Die" (and M was absent in "For Your Eyes Only") but they realized it was a mistake and they brought him back.

The trouble is, there are so many people being interviewed about so many things, information is getting tangled and contradicted left, right and centre. As I say, Martin Campbell was interviewed only a few weeks ago and states quite clearly that there will indeed be gadgets in the new film, because "the audience expects it". His quotes can be read over on the mi6 website. Things may have since changed, but I doubt anything is set in stone as yet. Who knows how many drafts the script will go through before it is finalised (assuming it is ever finalised - Tomorrow Never Dies went into production without a completed script, and look at what happened there ), so I think we'll just have to wait and see.



Actually, they were aiming for a family audience. Martin Campbell states amny times in the commentary for Goldeneye that they constantly shot and edited, then re-edited again, to comply with and pander to, BBFC wishes, to get a 12 certificate, (and, therefore, likely get a PG-13 with the same cut of the film), which is why there is very little actual bloodshed in the last four films, so there was quite a lot of pnadering to make the films family orientated. However, even with this caution, Goleneye was still cut by the BBFC to get a 12 certificate, Tomorrow Never Dies was heavily edited upon its release on video and DVD in the UK, and Die Another Day was cut in the USA to get a PG-13. They only got the certificate they wanted after much pandering and give-and-take. The only film that didn't pander to the censors whilst being shot was Licence To Kill, and even then, it got cut down by both the MPAA and the BBFC to get a PG-13/15 certificate. It's still the most-hardhitting Bond to date. However, if the filmmakers had really wanted to release the last five films the way they wanted to, they could have accepted higher certifiactes in each case, but they chose not to. I suspect the same will be said for Casino Royale, but rather that than a large section of the very audience you're trying to reach not being able to see the film at all.


All that making it "kiddie orientated" might mean is that there is no point in shooting footage that you know won't make it to cinemas anyway, once the censors have done their usual damage.



I suspect that that's nothing more than marketting hyperbole, to make the franchise seem more "current". But, we shall see.







All I suggest is that we give him a chance.

Bond Composer David Arnold defends Daniel Craig...


Bond composer stands up for Craig

As long as David Arnold goes back to his earlier, more melodic work with this film, and doesn't comtinue to pile on the drum machines and heavy brass, it'll be a step in right direction. He should also be allowed to write the theme song once more, otherwise, he will have nothing to work with for the rest of the score, and we'll get yet another endless parade of quotes from the Bond theme shoehorned in all over the place, in place of a proper score.

What if the decide to dump the traditional James Bond theme? I doubt they'll do this as it's as much of a character as bond is, but if they really want to start fresh....

Given its overuse in the later Brosnan Bonds, this might not be a bad thing. Remember, John Barry tried to limit its use as much as possible (and he made sure it didn't appear at all on the Moonraker soundtrack album), preferring to create his own themes, presumably because he got screwed over it, and Arnold himself has always tried to only quote the bits that Barry wrote as far as possible.