Pierce Brosnan out as Bond? (UPDATE: Daniel Craig confirmed) - Page 22

Aw come on...you know better to trust IMDB so early into a production! I highly doubt that EON would hire him.

NOTE: GEOFF LEONARD IS CONSIDERED THE WORLD' LEADING EXPERT ON JOHN BARRY'S MUSIC. HE IS THE AUTHOR OF THE BIOGRAPHY: JOHN BARRY A LIFE IN MUSIC. HE IS THE LINER NOTE AUTHOR OF A GREAT MANY BARRY CD RELEASES. GEOFF WAS PRESENT IN THE COURT ROOM DURING THE ENTIRE TRIAL SITTING NEXT TO LAURIE BARRY HOLDING HER HAND. HE WRITES:
IMDB







That's correct - it was a libel suit brought by Norman on the basis that
they wrote that he didn't compose the Bond theme *&* he wasn't much of a
composer.







Well, it's what Barry said. It's as much hearsay as what Norman
maintains!!




But it's what Vic Flick says, too - he *was* there!!






When he says he "sold" it he means that in return for the 200 pounds (or
whatever he got) he accepted that he would get no composing royalties,
merely this fee for arranging and orchestrating it. No one has been
able to produce the contract he signed at the time.




He doesn't want to sue - he was a reluctant witness in the Sunday Times
case. What he doesn't like is Norman's constant references to *his*
theme. He should have sat back and taken the money and kept quiet. I
suspect this will all blow up again next month when Norman releases his
new CD.

Bugger off, Monty!!

geoff@imdb.com

Here's a bit of a Casino Royale plot spoiler:

http://commanderbond.net/Public/Stories/2967-1.shtml

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

And a question...Should this thread should be renamed, or a new one started for Casino Royale?

I like the idea. Bond was Cold War fun and they have been struggling with the franchise since the end of the cold war. A new core enemy group for the franchise could make things interesting.

Yet the central focus of the Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) is altered.

It is but as a film it needed more. A direct port of the novel to a film would be very action free and probably bore the people unlike us who know the story of Casion Royale and what to expect.

Question for those that know the book: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

The thing about Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) is besides the appeal of the game to the Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) and Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) is that traditionally, Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) from Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) are more important than the game itself.

So it's more a case of style and what "feels" more like Bond that concerns people. OK, I can see that.

Jeremy - 5 spoiler boxes in one sentence! Impressive effort.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Daniel Craig? I thought Bond was supposed to be handsome.

Reply to Beau and anyone else who's interested:

Sorry, but it's too late for the Broccoli camp to change their minds about anything regarding Bond. Their greatest success was Goldfinger--that's where the formula jelled and they've spent the last 40 years trying to top it while remaining within its confines. I've no objection to Craig as Bond, though I would've preferred Owen (The former was great in Layer Cake and the latter looked and acted like Bond in Croupier).

But what both of these films had that so many Bonds of late haven't had is a decent, coherent script. I hold no hope for Casino Royale. An earlier post said that the substitution of poker for baccarat was nothing more than an attempt to cash in on the Texas Hold'em craze. True enough, but only the latest in the stream of dilutions of Bond by less than imaginative powers-that-be. Let's do a nod to Maggie Thatcher. Henceforth, M will be a woman. Bond has a license to kill, but such personal involvement (Remember "That's a Smith and Wesson and you've had your six" from Dr. No) is too violent. So we'll have Bond villains die by falls from great heights or in generic explosions. Smoking is bad, so first let's tone it down by having Roger wave his cigars around ad infinitum. Then, we'll put a Broccoli surgeon's general's warning in the closing credits (I forget which film this was in). Now Bond won't smoke at all and this single action will doubtless crush the tobacco industry and make a lasting impression on the "kids" who'll be watching this movie.

If it seems I'm upset by all this, I'm not really. It's just that Bond is becoming indistinguishable from Triple X or John McClane or Riggs and Murtaugh. We have Rocky VI and maybe Rambo IV and the best Bond movies I've seen recently have been the Bourne flicks and, yes, The Incredibles. I greatly fear that what we see in Casino Royale will be Bond in name only and that's a sad thing.

But let me assure you that I'll be there to see Casino Royale. But these efforts to make Bond keep up with the times only take us further from what Bond was. And the people that own the franchise are determined in this effort. There're even a couple of Young Adult Bond adventures either planned or published in an effort to tap the Harry Potter audience! God Save the Queen.

PatH

Pat,

I agree with many of your points but it never is too late to revitalize the series. All it takes is guts, vision, and a good story.

The poker thing does bother me, perhaps more than it should. Baccarat is still the big money game everywhere. Often it is played behind closed doors so it doesn't get the attention that a craps table would. I also would doubt that too many people would decide to go to a Bond film because they are playing poker in it. But then again, I wouldn't cast Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist so what do I know.

I agree that a bullet to the chest seems to be seen as uncreative in the Bond world, but that is nothing new. Just before the scene with 'you've had your six' a hearse goes down the canyon to a flaming grave. And who is to forget OHMSS snow blood scene? To your point, there should be more a balanced mix between the sensational and the efficient.

I heard this on the radio coming in on my way to work this morning: the announcers were talking about how Daniel Craig was just recently interviewed for his selection as the newest 007, and he stated that he was afraid of guns. A James Bond afraid of guns? The announcers then joked, "What are they going to do, have Mr. Bond taser the bad guys?"

To even think of 007 without his signature Walther PPK just doesn't connect in my mind. Mind you, I'm not a gun advocate, but there's just some things you don't mess with, and one of them is the classic image of James Bond and his Walther PPK. Sean Connery made it look dang fantastic in his first couple of outings 40 years ago, so it's something that should be continued even with this latest actor. Just my two cents' worth.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion of Daniel Craig as 007 in "Casino Royale". May I remind you that the hospital is open 24 hours for your dining and dancing pleasure.

I've heard this too but I recall an interview with Sigourney Weaver way back when Aliens came out. She hates/fears guns as well but you sure can't tell watching that movie! We all have to remember these people are, after all, actors. I don't have any fear of Bond being gun shy.

I also remember the actor who played the Scorpio Killer in "Dirty Harry" was terrified of guns and had to take basic training in how to use them properly.

This was reported on the MI6 site. As has been said, these are actors playing a part and their personal feelings should not be involved in the job. The MI6 article went on to say that Roger Moore also hated guns. When he retired from the role, he was happy to no longer have that iconic image of him holding the PPK and aiming off camera. Then of course he went on to be a part of Unicef.

LOL!

Of course, they’ve been determined in this effort for decades. Instead of Bond wearing a classic Rolex, we got blatant product promotion for a flavor-of-the- month digital watch in Moonraker. Instead of Bond driving a British car, a promotional deal is made to have him drive a German car in Golden Eye and Tomorrow Never Dies.

The only real evil in today’s world comparable to what the literary Bond had to deal with (the Soviet Empire and the terrorist SPECTRE) is the Islamic terrorists. But I very much doubt that these candy-ass filmmakers would ever touch the subject, even though that would make Bond as relevant to the current times as the literary Bond was to the Cold War.

I love it. Filming has yet to begin and people are already doing their Ebert and Roeper impersonations.

And I love this..a Time magazine poll for who should be Bond following the Craig news. From a link on the MI6 website:

Time Magazine poll

Of course polls like this are a bit unfair as Craig has not had a chance to prove himself. I'm with the majority of the voters for Pierce though.

Well I voted Pierce Brosnan on that poll, nice to see he's still number one favorite.

Clive Owen no.2. But like you said it's unfair that Time is doing this, as if Daniel Craig can't possibly be the new Bond, give the man a chance! If it doesn't work out, and we end up with a Lazenby MkII, than a 57-58 year old Pierce might turn up for the next one, Oldfinger.

I can't wait to see everyone missing Craig three or four films down the line when they want to go with the next new Bond!

I liked that.

Then again not everyone ages the same. Take a look at buddies Jack Nicholson and Warren Beatty. Seeing the two of them together who could possibly think that Beatty is the same age (month older).

Many thought Connery was too old to play Bond when he did DAF. But keep in mind that (this time) he was replaced by Roger Moore who is 3 years older than Connery and thus he starts playing Bond five years after Connery last appeared in the role.

haven't seen Layer Cake and can't remember him from Tomb Raider (thankfully any memeories of that film are dim now).
so for me, Craig, like Dalton to an extent will only be Bond in my imagination. in other words it won't be "wow, its ____ from the tv show ___ playing Bond!"

i honestly don't know waht to think about the choice. when i first heard he was in the running and then saw a (very unflattering) picture of him, i thought "he must have cooked this up with his agent to increase his profile because i can't believe any one would seriously look at this guy as following in the mold of some of the GQ fashion plates they've had in the role before.

but seeing the publicity shot they released (Gun Barrel in the foreground) i have a much more positive vibe- shallow as it may be.
i'm intrigued that Bond will once again be essayed as a real man and not just a male cover model playing (with a little too much noticeable effort) at being tough.
(and i could have sworn from the books he wasn't depicted as being lady killer handsome- although i may be confusing him with Mike Hammer)

and as far as his attractivness goes- many women find power and a projection of authority attractive. if Craig can effortlessly portray that, you may find more people commenting on his 'attractivness' than anyone might have expected.

unlike the last 3 films, i'm very much looking forward to seeing a really new James Bond movie...again

As I recall, Fleming described him as having "dark, rather cruel good looks", wih a faint scar.

No, Craig is replacing a Bond that has been overwhelmingly accepted by the public so he'll suffer the same fate as George Lazenby and Timothy Dalton.

He looks the part for this kind of Bond Film:

"James Bond faces his toughest challenge ever...a rare terminal illness. In his sickly condition, can Bond uncover the cure being housed by a megolomaniac and restore himself to health? Will he survive when his morbid appearance prevents him from laying every beautiful woman he sees? Oh, and there's something bigger at stake too!! Catch 007 in 2007!!"

Ouch...you people are cruel.

Damn, give him a chance already.